Anarchy In Arkansas/A Case for Terra

Day 1,676, 22:31 • Published in USA USA • by Civil Anarchy

Good Evening America,
Your resident friendly Anarchist speaking, with some information that might be a bit out of character, and arguably contradictory of some of my previously stated opinions. Today I come before you, presenting what might resemble a political platform. You know, one of those things I previously said only uncool people write. However, I’ve lost the last...two or three elections, so I thought it might be a good idea to put one of these bloody things out there. Can’t hurt, right?

I’ll be running in Arkansas, under the United States Workers Party this month, if you were unable to discern that from the title of the article.
Anyway, for those of you who are so unfortunately unaware of my existence, allow me to provide a bit of a resume.

Resume
Current: Secretary of the Media
eNPR Host
WHPR Writer
EZCO Captain of the 1st Regiment

Former
- Chief of Staff x1
- Secretary of the Interior x3
- Secretary of the Media x5
- White House Intern Director x3
- eNPR Original Executive Producer
- Federalist PP
- USWP and Federalist Leadership
- Congress x12
- eNASA Director


[edit] *As I was writing this, I realized that yesterday I turned 3 years old in eRep.*
I’m no new player. I’ve been through multiple years and multiple accounts in my eRep career, and I’ve seen a lot of things in our country. The majority of my stances on issues are based on those experiences. There was a time in my eLife where everything that I did was based on idealism and over the years I’ve realized that listening and watching is a significantly better policy than asserting your beliefs about things without merit, or without the knowledge to back it up. That doesn’t mean you should always sit back and let other people take the lead on things, it just means that you should always ask yourself something before you begin arguing over something. “How confident about this issue am I?” Generally speaking, if you think you’re 100% on anything, you should sit back and listen, or research. Nothing is ever black and white in life, and eLife is no exception to that fact.

With that said, allow me to elaborate on my stance on some of the issues relevant to congressional powers:

The TERRA Crisis
As you should definitely know by now, Brazil left Terra, citing multiple unresolved problems with the leadership, and the inability for them to tolerate them anymore. Seeing as Brazil was a major founder of Terra, this event marks a defining ultimatum to the structure of the alliance. It sends a message, and that message is, “Fix your problems, or fade into history.”
Honestly, this message is vital. It’s no secret that Terra has had it’s issues in the past, and that they’ve plagued the structure for some time. This event forces us to make a choice.
We can either save Terra, or let it die. And as the United States, our decision has the potential to push Terra forward, or leave it in the dust.

It is entirely possible that our congress will have to deal with this discussion in the next term, seeing as many of the incoming congressmen share the sentiment that Terra is dead, and that we need to leave it to look for new options. However, I’m not one of those congressmen. It’s not because I’m loyal to Terra, or because I’m 100% that it can be fixed at all, but because I’ve thought the situation through, in a way that I don’t believe many of the people advocating our departure from the alliance have.

Those that argue in favor of the United States leaving Terra generally advocate it so that the United States would be in a better position to negotiate with neutral, Eden, and ONE countries for the creation of a New Alliance, one that would have a more stable leadership, a less damaged public image, and would be more open to new countries. Here’s why the creation of a new Alliance is not the most prudent move for us:

Point #1: ONE nations in the current Status Quo would be less inclined to defect than previously thought.

1) eRepublik wars between the alliances are cyclical; We are constantly pivoting from one alliance/side dominating to the other;
2) ONE has more people; Eden has always compensated for this difference by a stronger top tier of fighters;
3) The New Division based military module favors more people over heavier tanks;
4) Due to these changes and natural progression, the sides are beginning to tip in ONE’s favor.

So, with this in mind, logically speaking, ONE nations would be more inclined to put aside petty alliance conflicts, in favor defeating TEDEN nations. This means they would be significantly less likely to change sides if the United States were to potentially attempt to create a new Alliance.

Point #2: Eden nations in the current Status Quo would be less inclined to join whatever new alliance we would create.

1) The dissolution of Terra will force countries to make a leap of faith decision to join a new alliance alongside us, instead of one towards an established structure, albeit weaker than originally thought.
2) An alliance transitional period will result in the United States having to rely on the goodwill of former alliance members and current allies for military support, instead of guaranteed Alliance cooperation.
3) Many Eden nations are on the direct front lines of the ONE conflict, like Croatia, Romania, Ukraine, Italy, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, or Turkey.
4) Potential Eden prospects will not risk bad relations with Eden Command, and in turn deal with potential invasions, occupations, and wipes.

Point #3: Neutral nations will not be encouraged to join a potential alliance as opposed to an existing one.
1) An alliance transitional period will result in the United States having to rely on the goodwill of former alliance members and current allies for military support, instead of guaranteed Alliance cooperation.
2) The vast majority of neutral or non-aligned countries in the game are smaller, less powerful nations with defensive intentions.
3) The most common historical stipulation of alliances consisting primarily of smaller, or non-aligned countries is defending the integrity of member nations, in liu of offensive operations.
a. EPIC “In these times, main goal of the alliance is quite simple: secure congress for member countries.”
b. CoT - “By default the defence of the core regions of the member states is to have priority over other military operations unless the circumstances imply more optimal alternative actions.”
c. SoI - “To develop friendly relations among member nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and tolerance of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen regional peace”

The United States will have a higher capacity to defend these countries with Terran support than if we were operating on our own.


Overall, it is possible in the future to look at re-evaluating our position in Terra, or restructuring the alliance in a way that is more beneficial. However, it cannot be argued that leaving Terra is the optimal move for the United States, when it is obvious that we will not attain more allies, will not be able to create a more effective alliance, and will not be able to defend ourselves more effectively against the incoming ONE invasion.

We need to fix the problems with Terra’s HQ, and begin recruiting new nations to the alliance and increase cooperation between the member nations. That is the best course of action available to us, in our current military situation. Terra has already taken steps towards integrating new countries into the alliance, and evaluating the problems that led to members being dissatisfied with it’s operations.
If elected to Congress, I’ll defend the United States’ involvement in Terra, and I hope I’ve given you some insight into why I genuinely believe our continued leadership in Terra is vital, not only to us, but to the global conflict of Terra and Eden vs ONE. If I had to liken leaving Terra to anything, I’d say it would be about as effective as shooting ourselves in the foot.


I’m going to spare you the long, drawn out methodologies to my other policies, but feel free to raise concerns in the comments or send me a message with questions about them. I’d be happy to oblige.

Immigration: Strict. First, we always need citizenship passes to displaced allied citizens, so we cannot be wasting them without a second thought. Second, we’re currently dealing with issues over PTO’er congressmen being elected, and we cannot be too careful about allowing such citizens that will support them into congress, considering they can delay monetary donations, approve other PTO’ers, mess with impeachment, ect.

Taxes/Monetary Issues: I fully trust and support the Economic Council.

That should actually be about it. Congress’ capacity for power has changed a lot, so I think that covers the majority of the legitimate issues that they could potentially deal with. So yea, in short.

If you want someone who’ll think things through, has a history of media transparency, and has put in the time to truly understand the workings of this game...
Vote Civil Anarchy on the 25th



Civilized Anarchism,
At your service