[State-News from The Republic of Oluwa]

Today the majority of the National Assembly has voted in favor of establishing the following section into the Constitution, dealing with religion, which has four articles.

Section X: Religion

Article I. The state of The Republic of Oluwa is secular, therefore neutral between all religions, not supporting one over another.

Article II. Secular is defined as a prohibition on the state to attach a religious affiliation or officialdom to the state or any of its institutions, and maintaining separation of church and state.

Article III. The state of The Republic of Oluwa is prohibited from using public monies for the promotion of any religion. Religion is defined as a personal individual right, and the use of public monies indicates the use of the money of those who are not of that particular religion.

Article IV: The state of The Republic of Oluwa protects freedom of religion of its citizens as a fundamental human right.

Previously only the last article was included in the Constitution, which protected religious freedom, but did not not specifically prohibit government support of a particular religion. In the wake of the passage the Constitutional Court has placed on order to abolish several minor government departments active in promoting various Christian missions and organizations. The most important of which was the ironically named 'Foundation for Religious Freedom', a Christian thinktank which is on record as defending Oluwa's colonial past in relation to Christianity. The Foundation had received thousands of dollars in public money.

The Constitutional Court has also ordered the confiscation of budget papers from up to 45 churches, who must give up all movable property which were wholly purchased with public money, as well as the freezing of church bank accounts and the confiscation of all public money in those accounts.

Christian groups have marked the Assembly's decision with protests against the establishment of a secular state.

[For the love of Cyber Nations]

I think they are more than just texts. More people

will fear others based on who is signing

a treaty with them. Of course there are some who will

be unloyal and not keep up to the terms of their treaties

but most will. Unless of course I read wrong.

They may serve as gaining a 'moral high ground', but more often than not treaties just serve to justify what the alliance was going to do anyway, and if they don't then they are ignored or revoked.

[For the love of Cyber Nations]

You mean lots of treaties and pacts means less chance of a large scale war.

/me looks at the number of people left in his alliance and the massive beating they just took and the harsh terms they've just come out of.

Nope, no war there, no wars happen at all when people sign a load of treaties

Treaties are bits of text, nothing more, do you honestly think any alliance will hesitate if it thinks it can get away with waging a war?

[For the love of Cyber Nations]

A war will occur when a sizable bulk of the lower-tier nations stop tech selling and start buying, when that happens the established top-heavy alliances will beat down those nations, destroy their infrastructure, and force them to start selling tech to them again.

No one here looks to the economic causes for war.

[What real nations would look like..........]

No it wouldn't, the USA is a Republic.

Or a Federal Government, plus in real-life most nations would have 'None' as their religion, as most RL nations have no state-religion.

[Transitional Gov't description]

I know it's really not of great importance. but in the description for when a nation wants to have a transitional government there isn't a space after the first sentence.

Anyway, I randomly noticed that and figured I'd post it here.

Lol, can you get that wonder and make a transitional government your permanent government? (doesn't that defeat the purpose?)

[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

What exactly is a 'Pacifcan style of government' anyways, from the NPO charter it just seems like a mix between a republican form of government and a monarchy.

[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

What can I say? It's a beautiful world we live in.

Oh, I was just making an analysis is all.

[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

There are 8,481 nations at 3,999 infra or above. There are 27,959 nations in CN. There are plenty of sellers for the buyers, they are simply not properly organized.

I didn't say that their wasn't enough sellers for buyers, and you are correct about organizing them, I was talking comparatively, as in if the top alliance/s were threatened by another alliance/s for the top spot, the logic would be that they decimate their infrastructure and put them into tech deals as reparation. While those tech deals may on the surface look like they are boosting the growth of that alliance, comparatively (as in compared to the alliance/s that beat them) they are lower.

[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

Except in the case of tech deals, small nations benefit a lot more than large nations for it. It would be a lot harder for small nations to catch up some power with big nations without tech dealing. They aren't really keeping themselves in power with it.

ETA: especially because in NPO's case, they are in a better position to maintain their relative power in the tech department if there is a shortage of sellers because they have more diplomatic power than most to be able to get them.

I guess if I were to call this my 'theory', that is where war would come into it. The 'big' 'ruling class' alliances would need to 'cull' alliances every now and again, just to destroy their infrastructure and tech and get them down to tech selling level, so I guess you could call it creating a artificial imbalance through war. So once a rival alliance started to vie for the top spot with the ruling alliance/s, you'd have an inter-imperialist war between the competing capitalist alliances, with the result that one side is beaten down and forced to sell tech to the winner. A rl historical example could be WWI, which was a clash between the imperial ambitions of the established capitalist powers, France, America, Russia, Belgium, and Britain, the those of Germany etc.

I am not denying that tech money is beneficial to lower nations, but the mere fact that they will only have 50 tech for a prolonged period of time means comparatively they are weak in comparison to the those they sell to.

(btw, I am not trying to troll NPO or anything, just offering thoughts)

[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

Never thought about that but you're right. It certainly is profitable to keep the little man little.

Only difference is that in Cybernations you can build your nation out of this situation by building up to 6k infrastructure and then your nation can join the 'ruling class' nations, while in reality nations can be forever indebted and kept in permanent backwardness to imperialist foreign powers.

That however doesn't change the fact that even if your nation can 'join the rich club', it doesn't change fundamental balance between sellers and buyers which needs to exist, a class system of lower nations and high nations.

(yeah I am probably going to be told off by VE in a sec, but I just find these things interesting)

[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

Diplomacy/Recruitment is a lot easier way to get tech deals if that's what they are after, especially with NPO's diplomatic position and comparative advantage. Wars are fought to have wars.

Considering tech deals themselves are entirely mutually beneficial, it doesn't really fit into a Marxist world view.

I didn't say it was exact, I was just pointing out parallels. Anyways, the basic Marxist view is that a small ruling class stays rich and in power by extracting product from workers, the Marxist view goes beyond individuals in a country though, you also have 'rich countries' which have an interest in keeping the 'poor countries' producing stuff for the rich nations to consume.

[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

Just take a look at GATO. Attacked them for multiple months, then when they gave them peace, forced them to exclusively sell tech to the NPO.

Plus, as a tech seller myself, I can say that once you get 5 permanent buyers, your pretty much stuck in it, your nation is useless militarily because going above 50 tech tends to get unprofitable, so your only use is selling your tech at a comparative advantage to the big nations.

Reminds me of Lenin's work on imperialism.

[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

Not to sound well... uh, but as the OP admitted, the NPO is a top-heavy alliance, meaning because it has a disproportion of high-ranked members, it doesn't have enough of it's own smaller nations to fulfill the tech demand of it's higher members, it is dependent on foreign tech deals with alliances with smaller member-nations.

By that logic alone, wouldn't that dictate that the NPO has an interest in making war upon other alliances, destroying their infrastructure, and then as terms putting them into tech deal so these smaller poor nations must continually be indebted to the rich high-level NPO nations, or at the least the NPO would have an interest in keeping the small nations small to serve as tech production for their high-tier nations.

Don't mean to be offensive, just applying the Marxist analysis that Francoism seems to be about. Wouldn't that classify the NPO as the bourgeoisie of CN?