Rationale

The Westphalian excesses that 2.0 ended with are creating a world in 3.0 that is insular, locking out development by potential industrialists who can get the job done, and that is ultimately forcing Civcraft as a whole to forgo wealth in favour of meaningless platitudes over "sovereignty".

While sovereignty is important, the premise of much of the sovereignty on Civcraft is not focused on what makes much of what we deem the real world wealthy.

In the real world, much of the wealthy nations on this planet use sovereignty to create clear rules for businesses, and embellish economic freedoms into their charters. This is why we have much of our material wealth in the developed world.

Scarcity is a whole lot more pronounced on Civcraft 3.0, and the in-game protectionism kool-aid is a recipe for collective suicide of the Jonestown variety.

It's entirely possible to lock down Tjikko and ban all non-Shard citizens from conducting economic activities here, but what purpose would it ultimately serve? It would lock Concordian merchants out of doing business in foreign states who would respond in kind.

I would argue that it's important to make it clear what Concordia's intents are with its claims. We claimed the land we did so that we can potentially open it up for business to the world and so that they don't have to worry about multiple jurisdictions in the shard, each with their own rules and regulations pertaining to the economy.

Finally, it's imperative we focus on free trade, free movement, and co-homesteading. This would allow us to align Concordia's interests with the wealth of all nations. Only when Civcrafters are unbounded by frivolous lines on a map will the server as a whole make considerable economic gains.

Imagine a collection of states – examples, but not limited to: Mount Augusta, Concordia, Etherium, and/or Iria – where citizens from each state are able to freely move between one another to set up farms, to mine, and to build homes or districts, all without asking for permission first, and without worry that partner states in the agreement are trying to encroach on the sovereignty of one another. For one thing, we would all be wealthier for it!

Motion

Whereas,

• scarcity is incredibly pronounced in this iteration of civcraft,

• protectionist policies only lead to deeper scarcity issues

• property rights on a consistent basis has shown itself as the primary driver of wealth creation

• the ability to move freely between sovereign lands with varying resource distributions, and the ability to extract those resources without much red tape, are the easiest methods to mutual prosperity

• merchants facing far less regulations and red tape across multiple jurisdictions would be able to sell their goods at a much lower price, allowing for more affordable prices in the marketplace for all people

• states still wish to be the primary enforcer of economic rules and regulations, and therefore their own sovereignty, in order to maintain key interests

Therefore be it resolved that,

• Concordia, working with allies, prospective allies, and states with whom we hold mutual interests, focus on creating and ratifying multilateral free trade, mutual homesteading, free trade zones, and free movement agreements that benefit all signing parties

Be it further resolved that,

• Concordia entrenches certain economic rights pertaining to mining, farming, and homesteading for foreign nationals and stateless peoples making an honest living in Federal Lands. A committee of no more than 5 Concordians, with at least 2 sitting MPs, will be formed to draft this bill.

• We separate the individual from the state that they are from. For example, a Mt. Augustan owning land in Concordia does not make that land Mt. Augustan jurisdiction. Conversely, a Concordian owning land in Mt. Augusta does not make that land the jurisdiction of Concordia. For a state-backed entity to own land in either's claims and have it be part of their jurisdiction, there should be a process in place with parliamentary approval to define embassy lands.

• We outline etiquette guidelines in a document for Concordian nationals conducting business outside of our borders, in order to minimize any uncouth behaviour in foreign nations by our citizenry.

• Foreign nationals from states who regulate in bad faith the economic activity of all or most Concordians on their claims would – subject to Parliamentary discretion and approval – have their economic rights regulated in Concordian claims.