by Marcus Brown, Patin Oil Oligarch, Kurgan
When it comes to the structure of your regime I have questions around how competition between states will be handled. How will you ensure that one state doesn’t dominate over another state in a specific resource that would put the competing state at economic risk? If these issues do arise would these instances be handled and reviewed by the High court of Carvan? Nonetheless, as our country Kurgan is an Oligarchy, I do feel that the separation of power does weaken the economy and reduces your control a bit. What if a state selfishly exhausted their resources and began to dig in the pockets of other states or seek national assistance. This risk due to the separation and lack of control could have negative economic consequences that follow.
Another concern around your regime structure is the possible biases of those who can and can’t join the government. How do you ensure those who join are qualified to do so. Within Kurgan only those who have proven economic success and contributed to the economic development of our country are able to make decisions that impact our political position and direction. Most importantly, how do you keep consistency as it regards the longevity of your country with the constant rotation of power which essentially brings in new ideas every 6 years? Do you see this sustainable?
----------------------------------------------------------------
by Marina Aukon-Page, Head Diplomat of Amuria
As Head Diplomat of Amuria, the brief on the structure of your regime, Cavan, gives great insight into your practices and the organization of your government. As a Federalist Constitutional Libertarian Regime, you outline the division of federal and regional responsibilities and powers. You note that two parties often dominate the political landscape of Cavan and I foresee an issue of partisan polarization that could occur, where as a libertarian society wanting little government influence in daily life, opposition to the elected executive by certain regions could leave the federal government unwilling, or unfit to remedy problems which may arise in these regions. Furthermore, as the federal branch of government may only levy taxes on corporations, and it seems the regions are not able to levy any taxes, or it is not outlined, how are regions able to pay for developments or to address issues within them?
Next, as is outlined in your constitution, the President-Executive has no defined term limit, according to Cato’s Letter No. 61, written in warning of governments infringing upon personal liberties, a central idea of libertarianism, “the possession of power soon alters and vitiates [politicians] hearts, which are at the same time sure to have leavened and puffed up to an unnatural size” and follows by arguing “A rotation, therefore, in power and magistracy, is essentially necessary to a free government.” The lack of term limit could be seen as the ability of the people to choose to keep the executive they support for as long as they like, but those underrepresented, those who do not support the leader, lose the ability to choose a different one, especially in a predominately two-party dominated political system. The ability for the executive to stay in control makes more available the opportunity for corruption and ultimately would impair freedom.
John Trenchard, Cato's Letters, no. 61 https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s7.html
-----------------------------------------------
by [enter name of person writing 3rd commentary]
[insert Commentary3 text]
by Elijah Domine
Marcus Brown:
The vaguity of the hypothetical scenario provided renders me largely unable to provide you with a decisive outcome. If your concern is that another state may try to take advantage of the free market and dominate Cavanian industry while the government is assumed powerless to respond, I assure you that the Federation government distinctly retains sovereign authority over international matters - including trade - to a significantly higher degree than other aspects of Cavanian society. The Cavanian government retains full power to levy additional import and export tariffs if it deems appropriate. Just as any other nation, our country has before it the task of utilizing its full range of specified tools to gain access to the resources it seeks.
The free market doesn't run foreign policy, the free market flourishes in Cavan and the government runs foreign policy while strategically utilizing economic forces to further all interests, particularly through economic partnerships that keep the government from abridging its limits while allowing the market to more efficiently achieve certain ends that the government simply isn't as good at as entrepreneurs or innovators - for the benefit of the nation. Ultimately, handling competition between states will involve another tool in the warchest of the Cavanian government (its ability to participate in joint ventures and invest in companies), but the actual task of doing so forces this government to do what so few actually accomplish: think strategically and execute intelligently.
If the concern is that Cavan's glorious economic authority may dominate the markets of other nations to a problematic degree without any sort of leash imposed by the government, then I would agree - perhaps you should worry. Cavan's government is designed to let laissez-faire do what it does best, while limiting the government's scope and objectives to those that place an appropriate amount of restraint (from a libertarian perspective) upon economic forces, when appropriate. The aforementioned point of the government retaining sovereign authority to deal with foreign governments and companies applies here and addresses most similar scenarios provided. If there were some sort of contractual dispute between companies, they would be heard by the High Court of Cavan should they decide to pursue litigation and successfully appeal their way to the highest court in the country, but that's unlikely. Any sovereign disputes are foreign policy issues and not litigative ones.
In response to your question of government eligibility, the requirements for serving in federal office are outlined, with the President-Executive requiring birthright citizenship among the minimum criteria, while Senators and Publicans have other age & residency requirements. Outside of those specifications, anyone without some sort of disqualifying criminal sentence is permitted to make a bid for office. You mentioned a lack of consistency, to which I'd make two points. First, the ideological core of Cavan is that the consistency desired is not that of persisting government, but consistency of personal liberty. The most fundamental identity of the country lay not with the particular officials in office, but the existence of a nation that cherishes and preserves freedoms as the default in the social contract, not when convenient. Second, I am glad you posed this question because Cavan's presidential terms were modeled after a 4-year term executive, which was extended to 6 years (on top of having no term limits). So in reality, a smart, charismatic Cavanian President-Executive could maybe serve 6, 12, 18, 24 years in office which is a lot more consistent than most democratic 4-year elections capped at 2 terms by default, and has infinite potential with the absence of term limits. The beauty is that the people (influences aside) decide what kind of consistency they want from public servants. If they approve, then they vote for more consistency from said individual. If they don't, then they will vote them out without needing to build a revolution or orchestrate an assassination. In the contrast, I'm not too sure how long absolute government consistency without consent can persist, particularly if acting against the interests of the people.
--------------------------------------
Marina Aukon-Page:
Quickly responding to the anecdote about political polarization, it is important to understand that political polarization does not exist in a vacuum. If you put two sane people who disagree in a room with one another, they don't automatically start calling for the imprisonment of the other. Polarization requires two things: external forces (whether intentional or unintentional) fanning the flames of polarization, and a lack of better options which forces individuals to tribally identify with either of the polar (implying 2) opposites. On the first point, the Cavanian concept of liberty does not perceive hypothetical social polarizations as an issue that warrants preemptive government interference, unless it hinders a duty the government is obligated to complete as per the social contract. Nor does this social contract warrant government involvement on the second point, unless forces exerting influence on individuals are infringing upon their liberty in some form or committing a codified crime. In contrast to political bi-polarization, the availability and significance of multiple party options (while they may not be dominant) actually serve as bulwarks against political polarization. Don't like how toxic your party is? Leave it, go start another one, join an existing one. No one cares, because it's your life, your freedom, your vote, and your choice. At the end of the day, this system is more likely to defuse polarization by preventing the empowerment of bad partisan actors who glean power from the paralysis of the masses in regards to which political faction people identify with and thus both consciously and subconsciously lean towards.
In response to your projection of a government potentially unfit or unwilling to remedy problems occurring in the daily lives of Cavanians, I preclude my fundamental argument with the recognition that some problems are of a magnitude unsolvable by the individual. And in most of these situations, no one deserves to lose liberty or life to problems which span larger than the individual. It would be fair to say, as per the notion of social contracts themselves, governments rightfully and foremost exist to protect mankind from some of the worldly problems which reside outside of our individual power to fix, whether for reasons of scope, complexity, or other. However, governments in general (man ruling over fellow man) pose an equal risk of causing just as many of them; at the core, you incorrectly assume that the government is or should be the default guardian of aspects of life. The government certainly has a duty to be (more than) fit to address its spectrum of prescribed duties both consented to as per the social contract - and more specifically outlined into common laws, written laws, and constitutions - but without context, I cannot tell you whether the government being unwilling to do something is a bad thing. In fact, the government being unwilling by default to get involved in individual affairs is not only ideal for our libertarian ideology, but arguably ideal for yours as well, because that would mean it is abiding by a system of limited government when in doubt. Our strict (even if perceived as excessive) delineation between what is appropriate for the government to do and not do is what separates our libertarian democracy from other democracies more at risk to mob rule - the absolutism in limiting government power by default (meaning there are necessary areas of government involvement that separate liberty from anarchy) is exactly what we stand for, and I am glad you brought it up. Understanding, that, in this and all pursuits, complexity often brings the risk of subverting clear-cut rules; will the government have to solve complicated crises? Absolutely. The government being averse to interference is largely by ideological design, and while I've done my best to conjure the most coherent counter-argument tailored specifically to your points, you will probably disagree for reasons equally morally justifiable at their absolute core because ideology is not just expressing a sequence of inferior and superior ideas and rationally deducing our way up the logic ladder until we select the best one; ideology is rather a reflection of the unique priorities, personalities, and souls that occupy each of us and how we perceive others and the world around us.
On term limits, I reiterate our view that the personal liberty of the individual is the utmost priority. Despite repetition, do not read into that too much. Who is Cato to tell you, or I, what the possession of power does, and why my range of voting options should be limited because of it? Hang in there for a second - the point I am making with that reach is that it doesn't matter what Cato's opinion is on the corruption of power, because in our interpretation of libertarianism, members of society are bestowed with the agency and personal liberty to make that decision for themselves. Why does the government need to handicap the decision-making ability of the people with a term-limiting regulation which raises serious doubts of even accomplishing its prime objective? After all, those hungry for power are not satiated by laws barring them from it. I cannot objectively decide for you whether term limits are a beneficial policy, but I can objectively assert that removing them provides for greater direct flexibility, empowerment, and freedom for the people to exercise their democratic right. Whether the way it is used is appropriate is another discussion, but bestowing individuals with personal liberty also comes with the understanding that some will use their liberties to make incorrect decisions, and in most circumstances, we have to live with that. I still am not convinced that removing term limits significantly alters degrees of freedom or democratic integrity when in the context of a society (Cavanian society) pursuing democratic values and utilizes appropriate checks and balances catered to society's specific values.
Continuing, you cited Cato again, “A rotation, therefore, in power and magistracy, is essentially necessary to a free government.” Cato's idea isn't necessarily bad, but it rests upon the idea that individuals who hold power longer usually become susceptible to corruption and disregard for the welfare of others.
This view is seemingly reinforced by reviewing centuries of power consolidation throughout history and the centuries fought for freedom, but it rests upon the Hobbesian view of human nature. It also assumes that the world is static, with society and human nature failing to progress as we roll out objectively advanced systems and technologies that make the world an irreversibly different place from what it was previously. Consider the drastic reduction of violence and poverty in the world in modern history. Humans are imperfect and often commit atrocities which negatively affect history, leaving many stains, but analyses which factor for outliers will witness an exponential surge in an array of measures of quality of life. It is against humans' general social and physiological (and arguably chemical) tendencies to pursue less than what we have, and this reason-centered view is one form of optimism which propels free libertarianism. Hobbes' version of libertarianism is anarchy and subsequently is incompatible with ours.
With that being said, I'll even concede for argument's sake that Cato's assumption that society and human nature possess the capability to exist in a static condition - which inherently (and relative to evolving society) is a state more susceptible to the predation by corrupt and power hungry individuals - is a fair bet, and certainly a fair and immensely accurate bet in Cato's time. There is another problematic assumption made. Cato assumes that government falls to the whims of autocracy, etc., when power is not rotated (or challenged, I would paraphrase/interpret for him). Power becomes corrupted when isolated, reinforced in absolute, or unchallenged. Power in the hands of someone already corrupt is going to empower someone who would've been corrupt regardless. However, power corrupts good people as well, which is what I mean by corruption in isolation, absolutist reinforcement, or by lack of detraction. Elections are meant for preventing power from falling into a corrupt person's hands. Term limits are meant to serve as safeguard against honorable people who have been corrupted by power. In a society where power is only ostensibly or symbolically challenged, yes, rotation of power is necessary, because no mechanism exists to ensure the challenging, limiting, or questioning of authority. In our society where personal liberties epitomize the foundation of government, the challenging of power is a central component. So while a lack of term limits may potentially allow for indefinite exercise of power in 6 year intervals, it is important to remember that the power held by the president already exists in conjunction with checks and balances from other branches (and regional governments), and that those elections, particularly in a party system that allows multiple platforms, are designed to force the cream of the crop out of Cavan's political system. With great power comes great responsibility, and in this case, yes - you're right - there is a great deal (or rather, longevity) of potential power in play, but you forgot about the responsibility of earning your democracy by voting for the future of it. Cavanian libertarianism trusts its citizens enough to decide for themselves on Election Day whether someone's exercise of power warrants another 6 years of office - it is their civic duty.
A government that doesn't trust the people can never be anything more than it's enemy.
by Jacob Wingett, Security Chief, Orissa
As a member of the state of Orissa, I have questions/concerns regarding the foundational ideology of Cavan. Cavan declares liberty as their top priority; however, how is liberty to be used as the ideal upon society is sprouted? Russell Kirk stated, “In any society, order is the first need of all. Liberty and justice may be established only after order is tolerably secure.” It is with this position in mind that I find your attempt to hold liberty above all to be misguided. Orissa believes in a wide range of freedoms and personal liberties, but our core beliefs include the idea that individuals enjoy freedoms because they are a member of a state. Orissians have created a society that places an emphasis on the responsibility of citizens to uphold our pure democratic values to ensure our civil order, security, and stability.
Another question I have regarding your ideology is your form of taxation. You state, “Cavan is a nation where people are free to follow their dreams without needing to engage in an existential battle between government bureaucracy and happiness.” However, a key component of your tax system is from corporations and businesses; are people only allowed to pursue their dreams of owning a business if they are forced, by government bureaucrats, to pay for that right, in the form of a tax? Murray Rothbard (1982) once stated, “Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as "taxation". I question the nation that proclaims liberty and freedom, yet individuals owning a business are forced to pay for their right to make a living.
Respectfully,
Jacob Wingett
Security Chief, Orissa
Rothbard, M. (1982). Ethics of Liberty.
Kirk, R. (1981) Libertarians: The Chirping Sectaries.
-------------------------------------------------------------
by RSF Commander Max Sullivan
The Redentorian Security Force has historically seen Cavan as an ally to our cause, but sections of the new foreign policy ideology are cause for concern within the RSF. To quote the conerning line, Cavan's Mr. Rowan Bittner, Comptroller of Federal Revenue states, "Rather than distancing itself from other nations, Cavan aims to remove any possibiltiy of unnecessary conflict..." which is concerningly vague. The RSF respectfully requests clarification if "removal" is a threat to remove Redento, especially considering the wording of this section appears to only recognize state actors as "global citizenry."
The liberty spoken of in this briefing is not one of freedom as the freedom-fighting people of Redento seek, but in my opinion, it is a liberty of individualistic indulgence, potentially at the cost of the Cavanian government's stability. If liberty is valued so highly, why would Cavan's govenrment seemingly vanish and be replaced with "corporate partnerships" despite its apparent hatred of beareaucracy? I would like to remind Cavanian representatives, the Dacca oppressor has not vanished, but rather, you choose to do business with them. Your nation seeks international support and turns to its former enemies at the dismay of its former allies.
Regards,
Commander Max Sullivan, Redentorian Security Force
---------------------------------------------------
by [enter name of person writing 3rd commentary]
[insert Commentary3 text]
by Rowan Bittner
Dear Jacob Wingett of Orissa,
You raise a number of great questions I am would be happy to elaborate on the topics to you. Cavan was founded after breaking away from Dacca and Donethal so we already had our fundamentals set out and out of those prioritized the individual freedoms of the people. We believe that we have an established enough government to properly support a free rights at an individual level. Your question about taxes on businesses and its relation to our tax system. Cavan prides itself on eliminating involuntary taxes on our citizens. There is no income tax on our people however there are still other taxes as our State as it still needs funds to properly function. Our state raises funds through as little taxes as possible, one of these being corporate taxes. These taxes are not violating individual freedoms as they are on a corporation as an entity itself. These taxes are also completely voluntary in the sense that the individual is not forced to create a firm. You have raised great questions Mr. Jacob Wingett of Orissa, if you have anything further to ask or elaborate on please do not hesitated.
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Max Sullivan of Redento,
We like to welcome any questions from our friends over at Redento. Cavan expresses its friendships with many nations however we do not seek to fight in any wars that are not ours to fight. We strive for peace, prosperity, and unity with all nations however to do that we do not wish to escalate conflicts that our not ours be being involved with them. With regards to the past enemies and friends, we are willing to let the past be the past in favor of the advancement of individual liberties. Corporations exist in Cavan not as like in an Oligarchy, as in creating the rules and regulations for the government, but instead be governed indirectly by the people by however they see fit, through boycotts or any other means. The people have the power to prevent potential predatory practices and an equilibrium will be reached by what is commonly referred to as the Invisible Hand. Mr. Max Sullivan if there is anything else I can elaborate or answer to you on behalf of the state of Cavan please let me know, I look forward to our communications.
by [enter name of person writing 1st commentary]
[insert Commentary1 text]
--------------------------------------------------------------
by [enter name of person writing 2nd commentary]
[insert Commentary2 text]
by [author of Energy Policy]
by [Guy Kinder (Amuria)]
[The advancement of technology in Cavans society is truthfully something to behold and of course has granted you independence and made you a sovereign nation. Amuria celebrates this independence but has deep concerns that since you simply rely on one private company with one plant to provide energy for the entire country; it could potentially make you lose that hard fought independence as well. Amuria respects the idea of not infringing on a private companies rights however, when it is a matter of independence a private company must be moved to act for the country even if this means subsidizing energy through a government run program. This is the path you are choosing to go down currently with the Small nuclear reactors which is a phenomenal technological advancement. The question does arise how you will fuel them and where will you get this fuel from logistically, if you are getting that supply from a single location this could also become a vulnerability. Lastly, Solarcorp has all of the market in energy will they not be enthralled that the government has chosen to "interfere" with energy by providing these reactors? We have seen energy dependence on separate countries have devastating impacts across entire continents. What will Cavans response be if Solarcorp decides to start selling this energy to other countries that will be more likely to play ball? Amuria looks forward to hearing your response.
https://institute.global/policy/cutting-cord-ending-europes-energy-dependency-russia]
--------------------------------------------------------------
by [Caden Waterstradt]
Cavan has done a spectacular job at finding alternative energy sources to power the nation rather than just relying upon one single entity. Solarcorp has done a great job powering Cavan thus far but reliance upon one single entity can create of unfavorable conditions for the state. Which leads me to my concern in that Solarcorp being a private entity serves its own private interests rather than that of the state. Especially because as it is stated in the energy policies of Cavan that the state will not regulate Solarcorp because “we believe in free enterprise.” Which becomes concerning when one considers the possibility of what would happen when Solarcorp begins exporting all its energy to neighboring nations because Cavan has cut its margins substantially with the implementation of Small Modular Reactors (SMR). Now the simple act of exporting power implicates no wrongdoing but if we include nations that are considered to be a threat to Cavan such as Dacca things start to become murkier. The Cavan government must take into consideration the private interests that a company as large as SolarCorp may have. It simple to foresee the government of Cavans’ interests in that would be economy, efficacy, effectiveness, and social equality especially with that of Indigenous people. Now they may be up for inteprutation to an extent, but it is fairly transparent. In terms of SolarCorp, as a private organization the end all be all is profits which must be taken into consideration of the domestic economy of Dacca. SolarCorp may be on Cavan soil, but it holds not loyalty other than cash flow especially without any legislative restrictions or imposed sanctions. Just as we’ve seen with the current conflict in Ukraine many companies have stood by the sanctions imposed by the west because they see the bigger picture. While others demonstrate they have no loyalty to any state for they are their own organization doing what they think is best for them as for the same with countries imposing or not imposing sanctions. It must be stressed to the great nation of Cavan that SolarCorp although having done no wrong thus far they owe the nation of Cavan nothing and may seek shady expenditures as a counterweight to the newly implemented SMR.
Jeremy Tanner, N. M. W. (2022, March 19). List reveals businesses still operating in Russia. Fox 59. Retrieved April 11, 2022, from https://fox59.com/news/list-reveals-businesses-still-operating-in-russia/
Cavan thanks Representatives Kinder and Waterstradt for your thoughtful responses. Both commentaries brought into light concerns about SolarCorps possible retaliation, if Cavan encourages the use of small module reactors (SMRs). However, Cavan does not view a surplus of energy as a bad thing. Just like in the simulation, energy is a commodity that can be bought and sold. If the citizens of Cavan choose to install SMR, and SolarCorps has a surplus of energy, they will have the opportunity to sell or store their surplus. If they do choose to sell to other nations this additional energy will bolster Cavan’s portfolio for international trade opportunities. Additionally, there is no reason that SolarCorps cannot be involved in the process of the installation and management of SMRs and their grids. As Cavan’s sole energy producer, Solarcorps has the most experienced personnel for grid management and installation. SolarCorps could be contracted to do many of the services and trainings required to pivot to install the SMR. I also agree that access to energy is always a vulnerability for a nation’s security, that is exactly why diversifying Cavan’s energy capabilities is essential for long-term security. Robust energy supplies from multiple sources, such as SMRs and solar energy only strengthen Cavan’s national security prowess by bringing energy capabilities to even the most rural of locations, and bolsters its economic portfolio. Additionally, there were concerns about where to get nuclear material from. It is unclear if Cavan has the ability to mine its own nuclear material, however Khulna and Kurgan both already have access to nuclear power. Cavan could either enter in a trade agreement with countries with pre-existing nuclear capabilities or it could work to come up with a new source of radioactive material. Again, SMRs only have to be charged approximately once every 30 years and the fuel cycle can be reused later on as well.
By Ally Lakis
by [Reem Elsaad, Head of State of Amuria]
[Cavan sounds like a wonderful place to live as it includes all people and relies on the consent of its people through its libertarian ideals. I love that the state of Cavan includes the ideals and beliefs of its citizens through various freedoms, while also supporting and preserving the ideals, beliefs, and cultures of other nations and peoples. I think it is very interesting that the right to property allows for people from other nations in Zemia to immigrate to Cavan, but that since there is a lack of taxes within the state, there will not be many social benefits available to them.
A couple of questions that arose while I was reading through Cavan’s Immigration policy is: are there specific grounds for expulsion from Cavan for immigrants, or even citizens, after they have already been granted entrance into Cavan? Does this then have a significant impact on the amount of housing available to the people who do immigrate, and if so, is there temporary housing available for them until they may find a place to live? I would like to know what would be considered for expulsion, if that is an option for the people residing within the country.
A similar example is that of Svalbard, which is a part of the Kingdom of Norway. Svalbard is what is known as an open-border country, meaning that people do not need any kind of permits or visas to enter the region. However, Svalbard does have specific grounds for expulsion, of which apply to both immigrants and citizens. These grounds include expelling those who do not have means to take care of themselves and those convicted of violating the laws of Svalbard may be expelled, depending on the conditions. These are some ideas for possibly expelling people, immigrants or otherwise, from Cavan, should the need arise.
Entry and residence. Governor of Svalbard. (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://www.sysselmesteren.no/en/entry-and-residence/#:~:text=Foreigners%20do%20not%20need%20a,from%20Svalbard%20via%20mainland%20Norway.
Ministry of Justice and Public Security. (n.d.). Meld. St. 32 (2015–2016). Government.no. Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/meld.-st.-32-20152016/id2499962/?ch=5#:~:text=The%20Governor%20of%20Svalbard%20may,or%20expelled%20under%20certain%20conditions.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
by John Flores, Anointed Leader of Donethal
Cavan has an idealized immigration policy that welcomes immigrants from all backgrounds. This policy also attempts to expedite the granting of short-term visas to asylum seekers and individuals displaced by environmental disasters. Immigrants entering Cavan will supposedly find gainful employment and, in theory, their needs are met through participation in the free market since Cavan provides limited social benefits. While Cavan’s immigration policy is perhaps the least restrictive compared to many state regimes, how will Cavan avoid rising unemployment in instances of mass immigration, whether due to war or environmental disasters, that outpaces the number of job openings available?
Immigration policies throughout history have a direct effect on local economies. Essentially, immigration policies are labor market policies in the sense that they regulate the number of potential workers and directly affect the employed positions these migrants will have (Kononen, 2019, p. 779). Since immigration is an economic policy, it possesses centrality in how labor will ultimately be shaped and distributed across the state. If the free market is the primary source of future job openings, how will Cavan avoid a humanitarian crisis when immigrants are unable to obtain gainful employment?
Another point that needs to be addressed is the pathway to citizenship. Do immigrants need to be employed or reach a specific income level to attain citizenship? Employment as a precondition for residency implies neoliberal selective logic is at work (Kononen, 2019, p. 790). Attitudes between immigrants and native citizens are driven by social class, especially toward low skilled and low-income immigrants who are sometimes viewed as a source of competition for jobs (Ypi, 2018). Sponsoring educated, highly skilled workers and programs for international students cause the least issues in developed societies while the poor and working-class immigrants are often at the center of immigration debates. Cavan minimizes the role of government which simply makes it easier to politically shift blame away from Cavan’s regime in the event of a major crisis.
References
Kononen, J. (2019). Becoming a “Labour Migrant”: Immigration Regulations as a Frame of Reference for Migrant Employment. Work, Employment and Society, 33(5), 777–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019835133
Ypi, L. (2018). Borders of Class: Migration and Citizenship in the Capitalist State. Ethics & International Affairs, 32(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679418000278
by Stevie Vega
Cavan's motto is "In Liberty, We Trust" limiting one's ability to freely move is in our belief a violation of that. An open border and allowing persons to immigrate easily and freely is what we believe every person is entitled to. Being Cavan has a coastline we understand with climate changes the more dramatic impacts the environmental hazards are becoming could cause a reason for large populations to seek safety. In Cavan's ideology, we acknowledge every person's right to life, liberty, and property. Allowing a person to migrate whether short or long term to be in a safe place would align with that, having access to dryland and basic niceties is necessary to sustain life. Cavan believes in creating and maintaining a harmonious environment and relies on its citizen's consent to provide such. For citizens, consent is simply abiding by laws that protect citizens from harm we believe people can behave freely to their choice but as long as it does not interrupt another without their consent.
The economy of Cavan is mainly a free market and self-regulated, this means there are very limited social resources. Business and private property are kept by their owners, and a sense of pride comes and they want to take good care of what is there. Understanding this comes from one's pocketbook citizens are more respectful of the property. Persons who choose to migrate to Cavan are expected to find a pathway to employment. We have serval programs and joint efforts from private businesses to help facilitate that. Migrants to Cavan are expected to obtain employment and follow the laws one or both could be means for deportation. Cavan has privately run prison institutions that seek to rehabilitate not simply imprison again we are very much against limiting one's freedoms. Forcing working Cavan Citizens to pay taxes for another is also against our ideology, this is why such limited resources in times of crisis out regime outline when additional taxes can go into place to support such. This is why persons who migrate must have annual evaluations and check-ins with the courts to ensure they meet employment goals and abide by Cavans Legal standards. Cavan natural born Citizens are not subject to deportation which would mean forcing them into another foreign country and forcing them to support them.
Cavan has many neighbors that have different opportunities for employment and Cavan's employment pathways may lead to arranging migration to a better-suited area for a migrant. In recent and past times of migration, no one country has been able to successfully facilitate the need of every migrant. The reasons people choose to leave home is another considering reason, resources, labor, and a sense of community are the major reason a person migrate to where they do. Not everyone that applies will be granted full or permanent status to remain and Cavan and that we a plan B begin to be drawn up. It mentioned that flooding usually causes short-term migration but the drought is the reason for the long term also times of conflict can be short-term migration so it depends on the reason and migrant. Cavan did not say it will take anyone and everyone and the path to long-term or permanent status is very different than short or emergency status. Cavan is very clear in its citizens having to participate in the labor market to be successful and facilitate many opeturnites. If one is not willing to participate in the free market they must rely on some that does and that person must aknliege and consent to provide for that person to remain as an immigrant in Cavan.