Meritocratic Isles
November 20, 2018, 03:08:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: All citizens are encouraged to sign up to join the military.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: The Republic of Astroclair applies for Citizenship  (Read 108237 times)
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« on: August 19, 2008, 04:02:25 PM »

I, Myron Mason Supreme Consul of the nation of Astroclair, pledge to act as a responsible citizen of the Meritocratic Isles, to uphold its laws, and to contribute to the governance of the region.
Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2008, 04:10:27 PM »

Thank you for submitting your application. The current members of the Politeia will question you, lightly hopefully, to asses your merit.

Please describe your nation to us.
Logged
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2008, 04:54:26 PM »

My nation is still very small, but it has potential to grow. My nation believes strongly in democracy and that all citizens have to right to participate in the government and have social freedoms and rights. But my nation puts the well being of the collective above the individual, therefore my nation is a Socialist as well. So My nation would be best describe as a Democratic Socialist. Me and my nation will continue to strive for more opportunities to make not only our lives better, but the world as well.
Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2008, 08:59:39 PM »

Sounds meritorious to me.

How would you help the Meritocratic Isles?
Logged
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2008, 09:58:19 PM »

I am extremely sorry for this but is there way I can suspend my application? my friend is about to start a region and wants me to join it. I really like the principles of your region and will return if my friends region does not work out too well for me. Thank you all for your time to view me and my nation.
Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2008, 07:06:53 AM »

This application has been suspended.

The Meritocratic Isles community wishes you the best of luck in your new region.
Logged
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2008, 01:13:11 PM »

Hello, I have returned. I would like to reapply for citizenship please.
Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2008, 01:39:05 PM »

Welcome Back!   Smiley

There are a number of debates taking place in the Thomasian Plaza, with some topics of political importance.  WE should like to ask you about the political topic (currently suspended, but there has been talk of re-instating) called, "The Fairness Doctrine", in the U.S.A.

The main sources of opinion and information are the Press and the Broadcast Media.  Should the Government insert itself into radio and television programing for the purpose of regulating Free Speech? 

WE believe that such an imposition would stifle free speech and remove a forum of public discussion.  Some have said that radio, especially, needs to be regulated, with equal time given to opposing views.  There have been liberal-based talk shows and conservative based talk shows, and the conservative shows make money while the liberal shows fail dismally.

Should the Fairness Doctrine be re-instated, or not, and why?

HRH Chester,
Lord of House Worden,
Steward of God,
King, Reigning over You-Gi-Owe.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 04:55:39 PM by King Chester » Logged
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2008, 01:09:00 PM »

I think the Doctrine should be passed. It is true that the freedom of speech must be valued, but we cannot have true freedom of speech if all cannot voice there opinion. The Fairness Doctrine act will allow all equal time to have a say on all broadcast stations. In order for our society to choose virtuous and wise officials, we must be able to listen to all views equally and choose them based on their abilities and views.
Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
Robinho
Ephor
Neodamode
*

Merit: 6
Posts: 44


« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2008, 08:02:48 PM »

So do you believe that it is ok for someone like hitler to have as much free speech as  say Ghandhi or Martin Luther King?

Or for that matter somebody who is currently serving time for something as brutal as say child murder to be allowed the time to preach their twisted rhetoric as say a prominent member of a leading charity such as unicef? Should there be no policing of what is broadcasted on the media?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 08:09:54 PM by Robinho » Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2008, 12:01:05 AM »

Isn't it dangerous to have a government decide what counts as an appropriate view and what an opposing equal appropriate view ought to be?

Won't you be depriving enthusiastic radio listeners of the type of program that they enjoy?

If you water down a successful show with unsuccessful elements, won't radio broadcasters search for less problematic formats, possibly causing successful people to lose their jobs?

Is it not fair that if someone wishes to listen to a liberal viewpoint that they can listen to Air America or Public Radio, and if they wish to listen to a conservative viewpoint then they can listen to their favorite shows on the AM dial?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 12:33:45 AM by King Chester » Logged
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2008, 10:27:23 AM »

Again as I stated the freedom of speech is important, but when you deny everyone the right to voice their opinion it cannot be considerd free speech at all. Consideration must be taken into account on who the candidate is, but the government is not to say what can and cannot be listened to. What the government must do, is make sure everyone can voice there opinion. As a Meritocracy we must allow all to show their abilites and opinions and those that are considerd  worthy by all will go forward. If you prevent one side from showing there abilities, then we cannot be considerd a Meritocracy, but a Dictatorship.
Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2008, 11:23:40 PM »

You, sir, are not paying attention.  Currently, no one is being denied their free speech rights

There are liberal based talk shows on PBS and Air America stations.  Everyone interested in listening to those shows can tune into them.  Their ratings stink.  Only a very small percentage of citizens want to listen to those shows.  They can't sell advertising.

There are conservative talk shows, mostly on the AM bands.  People who are interested in listening to those shows can tune them in.  Their ratings are generally good.  A greater percentage of persons want to listen to these shows rather the liberal based talk shows.  Even liberals listen to these shows and call in, in their attempts to debate the show hosts and the other callers.  These shows are successful, they make money, they provide jobs.

WE believe that the Fairness Doctrine, in name, is a lie.  It is a doctrine to stifle free speech.  Tell US, if the government were controlled by extreme right wing fascists (rather than the current moderate types) and political correctness meant being conservative, would you be in favor of having all of the radio and television programming that you enjoy watered down with views that you didn't necessarily agree with?  Would you wish that those persons that you enjoyed listening to would be allowed to make a full statement without continually being interupted by a government policy?  WE know that WE should like to have someone like Bill Maher engage in a conversation with intelligent people that disagreed with him, but if ONE such person is on his show, he allows his other guests to rudely interupt and belittle the person that challenges his views.

The Fairness Doctrine is a Totalitarian and Fascist plot designed to dupe the people and eliminate free speech rights.

Are you a fascist and totalitarian?  From the position of a Monarchy, WE do understand the need for the suppression of some radicals.  But at least WE acknowledge the truth about OURSELVES.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 11:28:19 PM by King Chester » Logged
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2008, 07:58:56 PM »

My good man,  that is a sign of immaturity. That question has no relevance to this topic. Do not start to question my personal beliefs or attack them. Always attack and Question the views and NOT the person. But to answer, NO I am not. Now then, the fairness doctrine seems alright to me. I see nothing wrong with a broadcasting station presenting balanced views. It is true that freedom of speech is important, but there are always some limits to the freedom of speech.  But, I do not think the government should make all stations follow this doctrine. Maybe, government owned stations should follow this doctrine? The main thing the fairness doctrine should do is make sure braodcasting stations should present all points of views and NOT be biased but BALANCED. The government again as I said, should make sure all views are presented. The stations can still say what they wish, and I do not see this as infringing upon stations rights to freedom of speech, even the Supreme Court agreed it did not in a unanimous decision. So in my opinion I do not think it is a big violation of freedom of speech. Again, all views can be presented and therefore I do not see it as an attack on the freedom of speech. Although I do not see anything inherently wrong with it, I personally would not enact such a law unless I think that it was necessary for whatever reasons.

« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 08:40:09 PM by Starcomet » Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2008, 08:13:33 PM »

Lets say a group of "Facist" decide to make their own braodcasting station. They are indeed entitled to speak their mind, but if we stop them from making this station are we not intruding on their rights to political freedom? What if the fairness doctrine applied to them? They would have to present not only their views but others in a balanced, fair, and equal way. They can still talk about facisim but, also others as wells. Lets say the same thing about a Ultra right wing Religious group, or a Ultra Left wing Communist group. Which is better and does not infringe on the freedom of speech, to not allow these "EXTREME" groups to form a broadcasting station? To allow them to form a station, but must present other views as well? Or to allow them to form and present only their views?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 08:17:17 PM by Starcomet » Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2008, 09:02:15 PM »

From the wikipedia entry regarding the last case regarding the Fairness Doctrine:
Quote
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by the Appeals court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.  The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of the broadcast journalists," and suggested that , due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
While this was not a Supreme Court ruling, it has not been heard by the Supreme Court.  At this time, even the FCC did not believe the doctrine to be constitutional.

Sir, WE are sorry that you were offended by the boldfaced questions regarding the possibility of your entertaining fascist views, but it did seem to be the most direct method and WE were tired of you not directly answering OUR questions.

WE shall attempt to answer your question and hope that you shall review OUR previous questions, answering US as plainly as you can.

If a fascist-based group acquired the monetary capital and gained a radio station, as long as they are not inciting treason, violence, or the breaking of law, then WE believe that they should be free to conduct programming in the manner that they see fit.  The public has the freedom of choice to listen, listen to another station that broadcasts something else that they do want to listen to, or just turn their radio off.  It would be OUR personal hope that such ideas would not resonate with the general public and that the fascist station would not be able to earn enough revenues to support continuing broadcasting.

Isn't it dangerous to have a government decide what counts as an appropriate view and what an opposing equal appropriate view ought to be?

Won't you be depriving enthusiastic radio listeners of the type of program that they enjoy?

If you water down a successful show with unsuccessful elements, won't radio broadcasters search for less problematic formats, possibly causing successful people to lose their jobs?

Is it not fair that if someone wishes to listen to a liberal viewpoint that they can listen to Air America or Public Radio, and if they wish to listen to a conservative viewpoint then they can listen to their favorite shows on the AM dial?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 09:51:13 PM by King Chester » Logged
Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2008, 06:29:35 AM »

It is quite alright my friend. To answer your question, no I do not think it is dangerous for a government to make all broadcasting stations present opposing views as it is fair and equal.

I do not think it is depriving citizens of their ability to listen to who they wish. They can still listen to the candidate they wish.

This third question is unclear, but I will try to answer. I think that if a conservative show was to have a balanced liberal views, it would not make the show unsuccesful. A conservative can still watch it and not care about the liberals point of views. The show can still go one in my opinion. Not to mention when this doctrine still existed stations got along well with it.

Again, I think if we should reinstate this doctrine it should be only a few broadcasting stations. I personally would be fine with listening a liberal station that presented the other side in a unbiased way. It is still fair to me as I can still listen to whatever station I want and still choose what view point I think is best. What we must remember is that this doctrine does not force us to believe something we do not want to believe. If all positions are presented in a balanced way then I can still choose what I think is best.

An example, if I am a Christian and I have a child, I will teach them of all of the religions and spiritual beliefs (including those that lack ones) in the world in a balanced and non biased way and let them decide which is best. Presenting all views in a balanced way makes my child knowledgeable and not narrowminded. If all can watch a station that present their own views but others in a balanced way then they too will be knowledgeable and not narrowminded. It will reduce the polarization and hatred in society between party members.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 06:33:27 AM by Starcomet » Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2008, 06:56:02 AM »

Sir,

WE, personally, find your view in this matter chilling and Orwellian (reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth, in the book, "1984").

Thank you for your polite consideration through this process.  WE feel that WE have done OUR part in this inquiry of your political character.

WE yield the floor to any who wish to continue this interview, on whatever topics.  Alternately, it may be moved to bring this citizenship question to a vote.

HRH, Chester,
Lord of House Worden,
Steward of God,
King, Reigning over You-Gi-Owe.
Logged
Shieldelf
Citizen
Perioikos
*
*

Merit: 8
Posts: 182


Commander, Isles Militia


« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2008, 06:38:56 PM »

Your application is now being voted on. Please keep checking back here, because people may still question you.
Logged

Starcomet
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 1
Posts: 17



« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2008, 12:14:58 PM »

Forgive me if my views are too leftist and utopian for you my friends, but I believe in helping the people. I will wait for your decision, although I might have an idea where the decision will rest.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2008, 12:22:49 PM by Starcomet » Logged

Your brother in Elohim,
Myron Mason
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!