|
Post by rareearth on Oct 27, 2010 14:33:08 GMT 10
Someone on another forum found my thinking that "Obama should legalise micronations" strange. He said, "Legalise them [micronations]? When did they become illegal?" My answer to that remark shows that the petition I started, "Obama should legalise micronations", is hardly disingenious. Yes, one can say that the "legalisation" of micronations is actually imperative.MY RESPONSE:Well, I'm sure the Church of Scientology isn't illegal in the United Kingdom either, but without the assistance of councils (in US English they are normally called municipalities), it would have absolutely no tax breaks. In 1999, the British Charity Commission ruled that the Church of Scientology did not pass the "public benefit" test required for advancing religion as a charitable purpose ( source). So the Church of Scientology is not a registered charity. Even though it is clear that Scientology must provide some benefit to its followers, otherwise it would not grow, the Charity Commission has ruled that it does not provide a public benefit, and its premises are not recognised as places of worship. This clearly puts Scientology at a disadvantage compared with Christianity, regardless of what one thinks about the two religions. This is also highly discriminatory. Micronations also provide public benefits, and are also run for largely non-profit purposes (some micronations are little more than 'exalted charities' in disguise), yet US law (IRS tax code) grants them none of the benefits enjoyed by US government agencies and foreign government missions. Please also understand that while political parties conduct political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office, micronations are also usually uninvolved, or usually disinterested, in local political races. They are also not any more involved in lobbying as public charities are. In these respects, micronations do not behave any differently than any US tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporations, community chests, funds, cooperating associations or foundations, organised and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Surely micronations provide at least similar benefits as all the aforementioned organisations do, if not even more benefits, since micronations often include sports, educational, and even research activities of their own. Micronations also often provide social welfare benefits to their nationals, and so they also function like US 501(c)(4) civic leagues and other corporations. It should be noted that while donations to 501(c)(4) organisations are not tax-deductable, tax exemption does however apply to most of their operations. Moreover, micronations in the UK would be at a disadvantage even with respect to churches like Scientology which are not recognised as charities, since they perform many of the same functions as councils ( municipalities), and so even the UK councils would be unlikely to award them any charitable relief. And if the UK Government doesn't see any benefit in the religion of Scientology, which clearly is not in competition with the UK as a government or country, imagine how much more "charitable" they would be towards successful micronations! It is clear then that laws must change to also accommodate the national rights premises built-in to the Montevideo Convention. Right now, the disparity between government that is not necessarily of our choice, and government that is (thus it definitely provides a " benefit"), is too great if human welfare is an authentic government concern.
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Oct 27, 2010 22:35:37 GMT 10
Even though it is clear that Scientology must provide some benefit to its followers, otherwise it would not grow, the Charity Commission has ruled that it does not provide a public benefit... If providing some benefits to its followers would be enough for being officially recognized as charity, the Mafia would be a charity, too. Providing some benefits to one's followers is not public benefit.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Oct 28, 2010 1:36:06 GMT 10
Even though it is clear that Scientology must provide some benefit to its followers, otherwise it would not grow, the Charity Commission has ruled that it does not provide a public benefit... If providing some benefits to its followers would be enough for being officially recognized as charity, the Mafia would be a charity, too. Providing some benefits to one's followers is not public benefit. Yes, that is correct. However, you can't treat the individual benefits of belonging to a particular micronation like a zero-sum game. A benefit of followers of a micronation doesn't always or necessarily translate into a loss for everybody else, as in the case of the Mafia as a micro-society. For example, it is true that insects lose their lives to free range chickens that eat them. However, the benefit doesn't just convert into a simple 0 to 1 loss in favour of the chickens, even though there may be an immediate benefit for them. The chickens, in the long run, are eventually eaten by humans as super-quality organic meats. The chickens also produce chicks, which will continue to flourish long after the parents are dead. Also, human beings, through families, raise other human beings. And as the Bible states, "For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19) Human beings, who consume the chickens, that in turn consumed the insects, that in turn consumed green vegetation, will eventually die, and the molecules that make them up will also eventually return to the soil, where everything started to begin with. You have to look at things holistically, not the way a banker looks at your bank account. Most micronations are not as dangerous as the Mafia and al-Qaeda, that is a fact, and in fact micronations are more beneficial to both humans and the environment than most businesses, and even most Official World governments. Ignoring these real benefits, the social benefits, professional benefits, educational benefits, and the entertainment that successful micronations provide to their members, can deprive many of the potential benefits, and all of this while the local Official World governments continue to extract benefits from their citizenry, and often there are no benefits for the citizenry itself, just as the Mafia doesn't provide any benefits to those who are not part of the Cosa Nostra, the "Our Thingy".
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Oct 28, 2010 6:38:38 GMT 10
We're a non-profit association under France's 1901 legislation.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Oct 28, 2010 13:59:48 GMT 10
We're a non-profit association under France's 1901 legislation. The Italic Institute of America is also a non-profit, and in better times they have even received grants from both Italy and New York State. There is nothing controversial about the Institute, even when they are polemical towards Hollywood and what could be mildly described as ethnic Italian hazing, or more realistically described as unlicensed racism, the only kind of racism any ethnic group in America is still overtly subjected too. But we must also consider that America was discovered by a person of Italian ancestry (or you can say that an Italian, possibly of Jewish ancestry, established the first frequent travellers program to the Americas); Italy does not claim parts of the US; nor is Mussolini or any other Hitler friend in charge in Italy anymore. I'm sure if you are willing to limit the objectives of your organisation to the strictly cultural or educational, you would be able to do quite a few things, especially as a US 510(c)(3) non-profit, and of course, you would also enjoy significant fiscal advantages as a non-profit organisation. I doubt, however, that you can create an Independent Long Island (ILI) or United Micronations Multi-Oceanic Archipelago (UMMOA) non-profit, as both entities claim parts of US territory. You would also have your hands tied behind your back, since you wouldn't be able to do all the things that might interest you as a micronation, rather than simply a mild-mannered cultural organisation. Also, while most registered nationals to both ILI and the UMMOA may actually be foreigners, or at least non-Long Island residents, any savings on postage for US non-profits applies to US domestic mail only, so perhaps there would be no actual economic advantages, and only additional bureaucratic headaches.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Nov 4, 2010 16:15:57 GMT 10
I may be splitting hairs here, but shouldn't it be the Italic Institute?
;D
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Nov 4, 2010 18:24:51 GMT 10
nor is Mussolini (...) in charge in Italy anymore. Take a second look at Berlusconi and his allies and re-open your books on Fascism. It can be scary sometimes to see at which fringe of acceptable policies he is positioned!
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Nov 4, 2010 18:36:24 GMT 10
In my humble opinion, Berlusconi is a wolf in buffoon's clothing.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Nov 5, 2010 0:53:05 GMT 10
I may be splitting hairs here, but shouldn't it be the Italic Institute? ;D Originally, it was known as the Italic Studies Institute. There is some evidence of this if you search for that name on this old web page: qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/calandra/community/commkidclass.htmlNow it is known as the Italic Institute of America: www.italic.org/support/aboutUs.phpSame institute, just a small name change. One thing is certain: I doubt there will ever be an Ummoan Institute of America, even if the UMMOA is extremely successful.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Nov 5, 2010 1:05:08 GMT 10
nor is Mussolini (...) in charge in Italy anymore. Take a second look at Berlusconi and his allies and re-open your books on Fascism. It can be scary sometimes to see at which fringe of acceptable policies he is positioned! Well, I said "Mussolini", not "Berlusconi", although you may be right on the part of it being a minestrone by a different name only. The whole thing kind of reminds me of that commercial that was very popular in the US years ago. It showed an egg, and you hear the line, "This is your brain." Then the egg is cracked and placed into a frying pan where it quickly begins to fry. Then you hear the words, "And this is your brain on drugs." I could say the same thing, but with a different kind of drug. "This egg is your brain..." [Crraack!] (The egg goes into a frying pan where it begins to quickly fry...) "And this is your brain on Romanism..." "Any questions?"
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Nov 5, 2010 6:22:02 GMT 10
Bacon anyone ?
|
|
|
Post by Lykos Packleader on Nov 9, 2010 1:57:22 GMT 10
In my humble opinion, Berlusconi is a wolf in buffoon's clothing. _That_ is not a wolf, but a hyena pretending to be a wolf! [Of course, you know I couldn't _not_ respond....]
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Nov 10, 2010 6:13:45 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on Nov 16, 2010 5:59:42 GMT 10
By using this reasoning slavery could also be justified.
The issue also seems to be contradictory since, first the issue of tax status IS about community benefit as a whole and has nothing to do with the freedom of such religion. Those are two entirely seperate issues and many religious organizations do NOT want such tax status because that means the government will be interferring in how you run your church,temple,etc.
I would think that micronations would be the same way, either we want to be seen as independent from the larger entity or to be included in it but you can not really have both.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Nov 19, 2010 5:50:37 GMT 10
By using this reasoning slavery could also be justified. The issue also seems to be contradictory since, first the issue of tax status IS about community benefit as a whole and has nothing to do with the freedom of such religion. Those are two entirely seperate issues and many religious organizations do NOT want such tax status because that means the government will be interferring in how you run your church,temple,etc. I would think that micronations would be the same way, either we want to be seen as independent from the larger entity or to be included in it but you can not really have both. If African-Americans had been viewed as full human beings in the times of Thomas Jefferson & Co., the words "All men are created equal" would have included also people of African ancestry, and would have not been viewed with great favour by those of wealth and power. However, African-Americans were not considered men. It later took the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution to make the transition. It states that all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside. A person does not mean a natural 'Child of God' here, but a non-natural entity which is entirely the creature of a State (even corporations are legal persons), and thus entirely separate from God's creation. In other words, it took something as drastic as an amendment to the US Constitution to end slavery, and even the Fourteenth Amendment did not cause an immediate end of the actual circumstances of slavery. You may be able to rationalise slavery with the argument I use above, but you cannot really justify it that easily, and especially in light of things like the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. I'm basically pushing to turn at least some macronations and micronations (the ones that would qualify as some kind of community benefit, quite unlike mafia organisations or terrorist organisations) into qualified organisations. Here is a list of current qualified organisations: www.irs.gov/publications/p526/ar02.html#en_US_publink1000229641Please understand that part of the reason I am seeking this is because governments are also qualified organisations, and I believe this is a good way to legally recognise the rights of good macronations and micronations without necessarily recognising their territorial claims. Either macronations and micronations should automatically be recognised as churches are, or they should be recognised after fulfiling certain requirements established by the US Department of State, as other kinds of non-profit organisations are required to fulfil certain requirements by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). You may feel that you would prefer to pay taxes, rather than have the US government interfere in how you run your nation, and I'm sure a lot of churches and non-profit organisations feel that way. However, what you fail to realise is that the taxation of your nation already is government interference, and through taxation they are even stating that "all governments are created equal" if, and only if, the government is a qualified organisation, and micronations would never qualify for this status, so UN members, and UN members only (the ultimate cabal), are considered qualified organisations. Well, just as you can show abundant evidence that blacks are persons as well as whites, there is today also a lot of evidence that at least some micronations are qualified organisations, and should be treated accordingly. Even non-profits like churches can legally engage in political favoritism if such activities are only spurious or insignificant compared with the organisation's mission statement, and I hardly view that as a limitation. Micronations, being ultimately miniature governments, would have even greater freedom of movement, and this could, in turn, also force other nations to adopt the same standards at least towards the US-recognised micronations. I hope these thoughts will cause you, and/or others here, to support the petition I initiated: vote.5world.net
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Nov 19, 2010 6:21:28 GMT 10
The simple facts of the matter are as follows:
1. Micronations are self-declared statelike entities. They are - by definition - not sovereign states.
2. Were any micronation to ever attain the situation of enjoying formal bilateral relations as the legal equal of one or more sovereign states it would - by definition - no longer be a micronation; it would itself have become a sovereign state.
The latter has never yet occurred in the history of the universe, and the likelihood of it ever happening is (barring some planet-wide catastrophe which would, in any case wipe out most of the Earth's human population, and thus render micronations a moot point) so infinitessimally small as to approach statistical zero.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Nov 19, 2010 9:55:06 GMT 10
The simple facts of the matter are as follows: 1. Micronations are self-declared statelike entities. They are - by definition - not sovereign states. 2. Were any micronation to ever attain the situation of enjoying formal bilateral relations as the legal equal of one or more sovereign states it would - by definition - no longer be a micronation; it would itself have become a sovereign state. The latter has never yet occurred in the history of the universe, and the likelihood of it ever happening is (barring some planet-wide catastrophe which would, in any case wipe out most of the Earth's human population, and thus render micronations a moot point) so infinitessimally small as to approach statistical zero. An even simpler fact which you refuse to see George, is this: the National Geographic Society is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organisation ( source). While its research almost inevitably mentions a lot of sovereign states, it is not a sovereign state, but like any sovereign state to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), it is a qualified organisation. The Roman Catholic Church is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organisation ( source). The Church has 1.121 billion followers around the world, and would comprise the third most populated country on the Earth after China and India if looked at as single country ( source). However, the Church is not a country, although its executive offices are located in Vatican City, a small independent state, but like any other country to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), it is, nonetheless, a qualified organisation. All I'm asking is not special treatment for macronations and micronations, but that a law is written that allows these to also become qualified organisations if they meet certain stringent criteria to be established by the US Department of State. This would be beneficial, and not just for the fortunate micronation which would begin to be treated with the dignity it only apparently deserves under the Montevideo Convention. This would be beneficial also because it would allow the US Department of State, which has greater expertise over this issue than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to determine the tax status of a micronation with reasonable and non-discriminatory criteria. Moreover, I believe this would also have consequences with organisations and people who now believe that the only way to acquire any degree of sovereignty is through violence and violence only.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Nov 20, 2010 8:58:26 GMT 10
Any micronation can easily set themselves up as a for-profit corporation or a not-for-profit co-operative.
Some - such as the Formori Community - already have.
Some - such as the Republic of Lavalon - are actively considering it.
Of course, this means that the micronation is then subject to whatever real-world corporations laws apply in the relevant jurisdiction.
There's nothing earth-shatteringly original about these concepts - and no changes to any existing laws are required to implement them.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Nov 21, 2010 1:07:52 GMT 10
Any micronation can easily set themselves up as a for-profit corporation or a not-for-profit co-operative. Some - such as the Formori Community - already have. Some - such as the Republic of Lavalon - are actively considering it. Of course, this means that the micronation is then subject to whatever real-world corporations laws apply in the relevant jurisdiction. There's nothing earth-shatteringly original about these concepts - and no changes to any existing laws are required to implement them. Lets assume, as a diplomatic courtesy, that you are right, although in reality I know of no US-based micronation that was successfully setup as a 501(c)(3) corporation, and I can even understand why that is not very likely to happen, especially if the micronation has claims to US territory. Even if you are right about that, and all the efforts I've seen in the US have failed, there is still this issue: why should foreign micronations need the opinion of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) — originally created as a privately-owned collection agency that the bankers created to collect taxes from Federal government employees, and Federal government employees only — for this matter, when it is really a "foreign affair", and thus more under the jurisdiction of the US Department of State? Even if it were possible to create a 501(c)(3) for the UMMOA, and that is not completely certain in the US, and only US non-profits (and a few other foreign organisations through international treaties) enjoy full benefits, the non-profit would enjoy non-profit status through the IRS, not through the US Department of State, so its status as a non-profit would be completely meaningless in state-to-state terms. Actually, since there is no amendment in the US constitution protecting any 'native' culture that isn't a Federally-approved Native American culture, an IRS-based non-profit status would actually be quite discriminatory, both with respect to the status of other UN member states, and even with respect to Native American tribes recognised by the US Federal government.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Nov 21, 2010 6:52:40 GMT 10
I know of no US-based micronation that was successfully setup as a 501(c)(3) corporation Dean Kamen's micronation in New York Harbour is one example with which you should be familiar. The reason most micronationalists never achieve a similar level of success is because they're either run by (a) minors with no assets, (b) unemployed adults with no assets and/or prospects of living at more than a subsistence level, or (c) certifiable lunatics. No money = no success.
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Nov 22, 2010 22:14:23 GMT 10
Sad but true.
|
|
Dagostinia
Full Member
Monarchy of Dagostinia
Posts: 114
|
Post by Dagostinia on Apr 14, 2011 1:14:07 GMT 10
But we must also consider that America was discovered by a person of Italian ancestry (or you can say that an Italian, possibly of Jewish ancestry, established the first frequent travellers program to the Americas); Were the Vikings Italian? C'mon, I'm of Italian ancestry but even I'm not arrogant enough to claim the Vikings came from Italy! Monarch of Dagostinia
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Apr 14, 2011 2:40:38 GMT 10
Actually, some Vikings went to Italy, mostly Sicily, but of course they were not the same than those Icelanders who sailed to Vinland.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Apr 14, 2011 6:29:09 GMT 10
...and of course we mustn't forget the people who *really* discovered the Americas - by walking across the Bering Strait before the end of the last Ice Age :-)
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on Apr 14, 2011 7:19:30 GMT 10
Actually, the Jewish people were in the "states" before the fall of the Temple, possiblly earlier.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Apr 14, 2011 8:36:32 GMT 10
...only if you hold to the Mormon view of history.
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on Apr 14, 2011 10:44:13 GMT 10
I do believe that the Los Lunas Stone makes it pretty clear that this is a historical fact.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Apr 14, 2011 12:05:26 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Apr 14, 2011 14:00:20 GMT 10
But we must also consider that America was discovered by a person of Italian ancestry (or you can say that an Italian, possibly of Jewish ancestry, established the first frequent travellers program to the Americas); Were the Vikings Italian? C'mon, I'm of Italian ancestry but even I'm not arrogant enough to claim the Vikings came from Italy! Monarch of Dagostinia I only said, to split hairs, that Colombus established the first frequent travellers program to the Americas. Certainly those Vikings didn't tell Italians like Amerigo Vespucci, or great explorers like Ferdinand Magellan, about the new continent across the Atlantic. Besides that, two Venetian explorers, along with a Scottish nobleman named Henry I Sinclair, almost 100 years before Christopher Columbus had already reached the New World. ( source) I am also fully aware of the many theories about Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contactHowever, if we really wish to split hairs, there is some evidence of the Native American discovery of Europe, although the Native American pioneer, like the Vikings, did not tell anybody back home in Vinland about it: "Around 80 Icelanders today have a genetic marking of an Amerindian woman who may have settled in Iceland in the 11th century. It is hypothesized this may have been a woman taken back to Europe by early Norse explorers of the Americas." (source) Europeans, not just Italians, are so full of themselves! ;D I also know of a person of Italian-American ancestry that didn't just discover a New World, but is actually responsible for the building of the Newest World, so new that only few know about it, and despite things like the Internet. So people of Italic extraction have had a lot to do with the discovery of new worlds, even the building of new worlds with their own hands!
|
|