Blacklisting a micronation, that is, the act of banning membership of a micronation, is a mechanism that is used rarely in Talossa. It is a blunt instrument that characterises the micronation in question as being particularly dangerous to Talossa. How exactly we can qualify what counts as dangerous to Talossa is, in my opinion, quite a tricky one.
Can a micronation that uses the name ‘Talossa’ without our consent be considered a danger to Talossa? It could well confuse things a little, but I doubt it would actually pose a serious threat or indeed a serious problem for us. Folks who immigrate to a pretender-nation will quickly realise that it’s not the real deal, and will likely act on that unless they’re not particularly interested in Talossa in the first place. Rather, the people who stick around in a pretender-nation are interested in micronationalism, not Talossa. Usurping our name in such a way as was done in the case of the Grand Duchy of Talossa is not dangerous, and neither is it a threat. It’s just plain stupid. We don’t need to be afraid of stupid.
Regardless, consider this: if we ban our own citizens from holding dual citizenship in Talossa and other micronations that we have deemed ‘dangerous’ (sorry, I can’t help but laugh every time I write that) then we aren’t going to stop pretender-nations or ‘dangerous’ nations from springing up or continuing to exist. It just means we won’t have to look at the people perpetrating the identity theft or ‘dangerous micronationalism’, and that’s hardly going to solve anything. It’ll make some of us feel a little better inside, but so what? Are we going to start unnecessarily posing restrictions on people’s freedom just because it makes us feel good inside? Well, you might think so, but I certainly don’t.
No, we should resist the tempting urge to take the easy way out when there is no tangible benefit for us taking the easy way out. We shouldn’t try and hide away the problems for the sake of peace and quiet, because peace and quiet solves nothing. We shouldn’t shed prised values such as liberty for the sake of some petty imitation of counter-terrorism. We should, however, endeavour to respond to emergencies proportionately and in such a way that is in fact effective. Blacklisting, as I have argued, is not one such method.
By all means come up with some law against using the Kingdom’s name or something along those lines. That, in my mind, is a legitimate concern and it is important for us to take punitive action against those who do so. It’s a route more complicated and more arduous than blacklisting, but in taking that route we do at least remain safe from heavy-handed reactionary illiberalism. We should not trade away our freedom so easily, not when it feeds the creative spirit of Talossa that I have come to admire more than anything during my time in the Kingdom.
Home » a liberal perspective » Issue #15 » Xheraltescù » "Blacklist Blacklisting," by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù