NE3: Scott Doctrine Repeal (Law)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I urge the Assembly to kill this measure.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Be my guest then. If the Scott Doctrine is useless, then we should repeal it.

Just because it's unlikely the region will ever have to deal with the secession of one of its states doesn't mean the law is useless.  The law, if my memory serves, was introduced shortly after the IDS had to deal with a secession-related situation of its own.

The game may not be as spontaneous as it used to be, however unexpected things have happened before.  The policy itself has had no negative impact on the Northeast since it was enacted, and unless the supporters of repeal can prove otherwise, I see no reason not to keep it on the books.  Stop repealing good laws that don't need to be repealed.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Be my guest then. If the Scott Doctrine is useless, then we should repeal it.

Just because it's unlikely the region will ever have to deal with the secession of one of its states doesn't mean the law is useless.  The law, if my memory serves, was introduced shortly after the IDS had to deal with a secession-related situation of its own.

The game may not be as spontaneous as it used to be, however unexpected things have happened before.  The policy itself has had no negative impact on the Northeast since it was enacted, and unless the supporters of repeal can prove otherwise, I see no reason not to keep it on the books.  Stop repealing good laws that don't need to be repealed.

This law has had no negative effect (in fact, it's had no effect at all) because no secession scenario has come up since its passage. Saying we should keep it for that reason is like saying that it would make sense for us to keep a hypothetical law mandating that the Northeast surrender immediately in the case of a foreign invasion. Neither scenario is likely to occur, but that doesn't mean that the response prescribed by the law is a good one.

Also, if you're going to assert that the Scott Doctrine is a good law, you need to justify that assertion. I have given reasons for why it is a bad law.

There is nothing unusual about policies that establish how a governing entity will respond to events that directly impact it.  Your suggestion that keeping this policy is akin to passing a law mandating some kind of 'automatic surrender' in the event of foreign invasion is completely ridiculous and not even worth responding to.  You haven't done anything but bring up a bunch of off-the-wall hypotheticals that are not only highly unlikely to occur (Racial segregation?  Give me a break), but that need not be protested by means of secession.

You cannot say that this is "bad law" and admit that it's had no impact since it was put on the books.  Stop trying to have it both ways.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Be my guest then. If the Scott Doctrine is useless, then we should repeal it.

Just because it's unlikely the region will ever have to deal with the secession of one of its states doesn't mean the law is useless.  The law, if my memory serves, was introduced shortly after the IDS had to deal with a secession-related situation of its own.

The game may not be as spontaneous as it used to be, however unexpected things have happened before.  The policy itself has had no negative impact on the Northeast since it was enacted, and unless the supporters of repeal can prove otherwise, I see no reason not to keep it on the books.  Stop repealing good laws that don't need to be repealed.

This law has had no negative effect (in fact, it's had no effect at all) because no secession scenario has come up since its passage. Saying we should keep it for that reason is like saying that it would make sense for us to keep a hypothetical law mandating that the Northeast surrender immediately in the case of a foreign invasion. Neither scenario is likely to occur, but that doesn't mean that the response prescribed by the law is a good one.

Also, if you're going to assert that the Scott Doctrine is a good law, you need to justify that assertion. I have given reasons for why it is a bad law.

There is nothing unusual about policies that establish how a governing entity will respond to events that directly impact it.  Your suggestion that keeping this policy is akin to passing a law mandating some kind of 'automatic surrender' in the event of foreign invasion is completely ridiculous and not even worth responding to.  You haven't done anything but bring up a bunch of off-the-wall hypotheticals that are not only highly unlikely to occur (Racial segregation?  Give me a break), but that need not be protested by means of secession.

You cannot say that this is "bad law" and admit that it's had no impact since it was put on the books.  Stop trying to have it both ways.

You're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not comparing this law to a law mandating automatic surrender. You basically claimed that, "This law had had no negative effect therefore we shouldn't repeal it." My hypothetical automatic surrender example was intended as an example of another that that in all likelihood would have had no actual negative impact (because the situation it addresses would likely never occur) but should still be repealed nonetheless. I'm not trying to suggest that a law mandating automatic surrender would have any similarities to this one in terms of actual content, I'm just trying to explain to you how a law can have no actual effect but still be bad.

Except that a law which does mandate automatic surrender would be bad in the event that the region is attacked.  You wouldn't enact something like that whether the region was a likely target for foreign offenders or not and just having such a policy on the books would send a signal to foreign entities that the region will not be defended in the event of an attack.  So yes, it would absolutely have an effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Secession has been an issue in the past.  And this has no bearing on what the Founders did.  All the Scott Doctrine does is enforce current law on secession by requiring the Northeast to oppose efforts to dissolve the union, to not recognize offending states diplomatically, and to hold the region together.  It is not a blanket moral pronouncement on when rebellion is justified.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, all the current law does is establish Northeast policy on secession - that being, of course, to maintain unity among the states, which I'd argue is one of the most basic responsibilities of any government.  You continue to call for the law's repeal, yet you have raised no valid argument as to why its place on the books is detrimental either to the game or to the nature of the region.  I have already proven why the Northeast is better off keeping the law in place than repealing it.