The Rational Actor: In Defense of the Treaty

Day 2,609, 11:27 • Published in Netherlands Belgium • by Konrad Neumann


It is always easy to say no. It is always easy to be the opposition. It is always hard to govern. Governance is never easy. It is hard and requires a lot of time and problem solving. Therefore, I do not envy people being a Country President (CP). I was CP for 3 terms and while I did enjoy my terms, I am to a point where I do not want to seek such a position. For the ask of being a CP requires a strong ability to micro-manage the country. The CP also needs to have a strong ability to conduct a cost benefit analysis. Being the CP is not being the boss. The CP is not a king nor a queen. The CP is not a dictator, but that of a manager who is rational. Therefore, a good CP needs analyze the many different variables before s/he makes a decision/ policy recommendation. The main premise of this article will argue my support for the Garmr administration in regards to the recent Dutch treaty with Hungary.

Please refer to the following for additional information.
Official Treaty.
Garmr's Article to the Country.

It has come to my attention that some members in eNL is against this treaty. While it is never possible to satisfy everyone, but from my perspective, Garmr's policy is not only great, but shows evidence of a wise and good president. This approach is logical and rational. He analyze the existing variables advocated the best possible option.



eNL is a weak and pathetic country in regards to power and strength. Do not let blind nationalism/ patriotism hinders your sight. For those who disagree, does not understand the basic game and eNL's global position in the world. eNL is not a military/ strength base state. eNL is a political state where it focus on good relations with other countries. In other words, we are a country of soft power and NOT hard power. eNL does not have any real options in this current political and military predicament. It is fortunate that the Hungarians are willing to offer something back. It may be a face saving move but it is also a pragmatic move on their part as they do not have to worry about instability on their flanks. It is also a pragmatic move for us as something is better than nothing. In a totally powerless situation, to have a single region and the tax revenue of the regions lost is much more useful and better than no regions with no income.

I highly recommend the eDutch to look at their own history. I consider the van Spjick administration as the dark times in eNL history. His quest for war and possibility revenge against the Poles was disastrous for eNL. He was against any peace treaties and deals. He views any deals with the Poles as cowardice and selling the country out. He acted not on the rational actor model nor did he conducted any cost benefit analysis. In my opinion, he took it personal. As a result, eNL was wiped for many months with no income or land of any kind.

A country should strive to be on the map unless there is a Political Takeover (PTO) against the country. In the case of eNL, there was no PTO's. The van Spjick administration was a blight to eNL as it provided no benefit to eNL as a whole. He wasted a lot of our treasure on pointless and unwinnable resistance war. He did not put eNL on the map. The country did not receive tax income and the most important thing is, it restricted the growth of the country. A wipe only benefits a country in anti PTO operations as land is the only real means of emigration. With eNL off the map, people cannot apply for Dutch citizenship. Many expats in a foreign country at the time cannot come back. People who wanted to be eDutch cannot be as there was no means to apply for citizenship. This is why van Spjick can hold on to his power for so long. The results did not favor the growth of the country but that of the van Spjick administration as he can hold on to power for many terms.

Reflecting on history, The Garmr administration made the correct decision with this treaty. This treaty secures us an income. It secures are existence on the map. This means we will have a means for people to emigrate to our country. Relating to emigration, this also means we will have a congress. We will not waste our treasure on futile resistance. So my question, what is the problem here? What other realistic options do we have that would benefit the country? Did you not look at history or conduct a cost benefit analysis here? For I see no benefit to resist. eGermany signed a similar treaty and overall, it was not a huge controversy.

This is the difference between governance and the opposition. Presidents need to govern. In the end, he/she is responsible for the well being of the country. The opposition has no responsibility. They can claim that they represent the interest of their party/ constituencies but in the end, they are not responsible of the state and government. They can shout no all they want but in the end, they are not being rated or held responsible. Therefore, it is always easy to be the opposition. No to the treaty! This will be the end of our country, bla bla bla, but what are your ideas? What is your policy? To resist? To waste money? What are your realistic policies besides shouting no? For success here is to choose the option that cost our nation the least. What other options do we have? I highly recommend all people to do a realistic and comprehensive cost benefit analysis before they resort to rhetoric and blind patriotism in their discussion of the eNL-eHun treaty.