Intergalactic Summit

Oh, is this the level of conversation we're at? Very well, I'll play along.

Possibly, he feels that rearranging the face of your mother is of greater immediate concern.

So are you trying to prove my point that he champions causes doomed to failure?

Um, well. I wasn't making any assertions, sir. You said that "One who is willing to sacrifice their autonomy for peace of mind deserves neither." I wanted to know why you thought this to be so. It seems a cruel thing to say.

I'd happily meet you to discuss this in person, but you're right, that might be difficult and perhaps inappropriate given our organizations. Unfortunate!

I hate pictures. I look better in person.

I think the State will first need to make a credible effort to retake it. So far they aren't doing so well.

Well, I'm certainly not for everyone, but I don't claim to be.

What I find most disturbing is the prevalence of 'Situational Democracy' in the Federation. A great deal of Intaki have been pandering for independence for quite some time now. Why, if the Federation believes in liberty and democracy do they simply not allow the Intaki self-determination? If the Intaki don't want your help, why do you keep moving in and 'restoring order'. Lets even pretend that the ludicrous accusations about ILP being Caldari puppets was true, if the majority of Intaki were behind joining with the State, if the people wanted that, isn't the Federations Democratic duty to ablidge?

Last I checked the news reports, it wasn't a "great deal". It was a minority, albeit a vocal one.

Of course, if you've anything to contradict such claims.

Actually, I'm not a "rabid" Federalist, and I often criticise elements of the Federation I find to be lacking. The fact that you would instantly assume such a thing about me simply because I dared to correct you on some aspects of your argument which were factually incorrect suggests that my inferences regarding your lack of understanding were entirely justified.



And right off the bat, you prove that I was right. The entire point of a "vocal minority" is that their tendency to be vocal causes them to receive a disproportionately large amount of attention, whereas the majority - and it might be relevant at this point to introduce you to the term "silent majority" - receive a disproportionately small amount of attention because they do nothing to attract it. In terms you may be able to more clearly grasp - they don't have a problem, and so they aren't complaining. You don't need to lobby or protest for a continuance of the status quo - that's why it's a status quo.



The Federation's founding charter requires that it give the Intaki Assembly and its child colonies a fairly vast degree of autonomy and self-determination in terms of military presence and political oversight. The Assembly has never petitioned the Federal government to have the charter revised to increase Intaki's security. As for your characterisation of pirates "ravaging" Intaki, that's simply laughable - the pirate presence in Intaki space is no more significant than the pirate presence in any other low-sec system, and it was one of the best-defended during the initial Sansha invasions, such that there were no confirmed abductions during either of the incursions. In terms of baseliner commerce (which, to the baseliners, matters a lot more than capsuleer commerce), Intaki is one of the most prosperous systems in the Federation, and probably one of the most prosperous low-security systems in New Eden period.

I should note that for all their cynical attempts to foment discontent among Federal citizens, the State hasn't made the system safer and neither has Mordu's Legion, whose sole purpose for being in Intaki is to protect it.

If certain people understood how demographics worked, we wouldn't need to have this argument at all.

That said, if the Intaki system really wanted to go, I say let them. There's a homeworld that isn't pulling it's weight, I'll say that much.