Archive:Stenbach-Rice Debate December 2014

On December 15, 2014, two days before the Major Executive election for 2015-I, incumbent Edward Stenbach and challenger Lanclot Rice hold this debate. Each candidate sent two questions to the moderator (Theodore Crown), and the moderator chose six questions of their own which were not known to the candidates before hand.

## Debate Rules

Keep this debate clean and civil, I will ask all questions at once. The questions will alternate on who must answer them first. You are permitted to an answer and a second answer after you hear your opponent (each of you get two chances to talk during each question). The questions should look like this when finished:

### Example Question

What is your favorite color?

* Stenbach: I would have to say blue, blue is a great symbol of freedom.
* Rice: Probably red, it symbolizes strength.
* Stenbach: My opponent is wrong to say red, blue is a far superior color!
* Rice: My opponent is only diverting towards me to take focus off the fact that blue is not a good color.

## Debate

### 1: This Trimester

**Has this trimester been a failure, a success, a bit of both, and what do you attribute that to?**

**Stenbach:** A bit of both. People have been underscoring the amazing accomplishments we had at the onset of the trimester such as historical certification, judicial and legal modernization, the CORE Act, strengthening of the Constitution, and free market government employment, big policies I was behind, which is unfortunate as we have actually done a great deal this trimester. Around the middle of the trimester, we experienced a more severe than usual lack of activity, which I attribute to the (aside from the usual circumstances - activity usually falls short in the middle of the trimester anyway) loss of a Head of Naturalization, something I believe we need to make a priority in fixing by finding a capable person (such as Mr. Rice) to become Head of Naturalization. I also believe that we need to be responsible and respective, looking at what went wrong and remembering what went right.

**Rice:** I'd have to agree with Mr. Stenbach on this one. This trimester for me has been a bit of both worlds, as in the beginning we were implementing the FARMING Act, getting new recruits, and looking good for the future. Eventually things got worse near the end, with the complete drop in activity on all fronts, and now Victor Martel implementing me falsely in a scandal. I suppose it is what it is, but next Trimester things have to get better, for all of us. I believe we need a new Head of Naturalization, which I would gladly take if I lost this election. I know that things have to get better, because when you hit rock bottom, there's nowhere to go but up.

**Stenbach:** It seems we are at a consensus here then, with the right approach we can go far in the next trimester, as long as we recall our successes and realize our failures.

**Rice:** Agreed. Cooperation and the right mechanics should help us out.

### 2: The Economic and Social Climate

**How do you plan to solve this recent depression both economically and socially?**

**Rice:** We have to provide incentives for the people to cooperate with us. Talking to more than a few members of our Union, most of them play games like Sins of a Solar Empire, Space Engineers, and other PC titles. The use of gaming would highly benefit us, as it brings people who would otherwise never talk together. It promotes a atmosphere of social interaction, and that's what we need to get this ball rolling. Economically, however, I think it would be best if we gave business' more room to operate. A tax rate at around 5% flat, coupled with no tariff's on foreign goods, would drastically improve the lackluster GDP of 2014-III. Being a business owner once myself, I can confirm that if no tariff's and lower taxes were implemented, I would be spending a lot more. Business' would create new products, and start to give us things that we would buy in a heart-beat. It's just that simple.

**Stenbach:** My opponent appears to have flipped sides on the tax policy and taken on my own, which is nice to hear considering he was pushing for a 0% tax rate earlier. His stance on tariffs is a little unreasonable, calling for foreign entities to be taxed less than our own domestic businesses, which is unfair. I am crafting a policy for a 5% tax rate, as planned, but we have to realize that lower taxes won't fix the problem, the problem being that a market fails to exist. We need to find methods and devices that we can use to perpetrate our market with new goods, which would work amazingly in combination with various other online communities or games or systems, which is what I believe the focus needs to be on. We have a fantastic environment for business, that's not the problem, it's that we need the products and the market in the first place.

**Rice:** The 0% tax rate was metaphorical. It was showing that I would go to any length, no matter what, in order to give this Union the medicine it deserves to survive the crisis we are in. Import and Export taxes should be 0%, however, because it gives us the opportunity to expand our market values into other economies we may encounter. It also increases our foreign relations, which in turn could produce members for us and give us a boost we need. A 0% tariff is not a bad idea at all, you need to think of it in the broad spectrum.

**Stenbach:** You advocated for a 0% tax rate several times, including publicly in campaign addresses, but it's not practical and it would not solve the problem. Tax cuts are but a bandage on a more serious overarching problem. The way I see it, tariffs should be equal to our domestic taxes unless we have a particular reason to punish a particular foreign group with higher tariffs, otherwise it means foreign entities get an immediate advantage over our domestic businesses. I believe in free markets as much as anyone, but even I realize that no tax on foreign goods but a tax on domestic goods is unreasonable. Some, like my opponent and many in the Union and Cosmopolitan parties, argue that no tariffs (compared to our own domestic taxes) is beneficial because it encourages foreign trade and interaction, which they view as more important than domestic production and economic success, but I see no reason why two businesses, each making identical goods, should receive different tax rates based simply on whether they are domestic or foreign. What's even more ridiculous is that, in that scenario, the foreign business gets better treatment than a domestic business; why pursue a policy that gives outsiders an advantage when we can pursue a policy that treats all equally?

### 3: Website and Wiki Improvements

**How would you work to improve the central forum and the Wiki if you were Major Executive?**

**Stenbach:** Things are more or less all right on that end, though there are two big things I want to see. One: more community involvement on the Wiki (which is important, it is a Wiki after all) so that we can fill out more information and make our history and information more clear and complete. Two: looking into putting the courts on the central forum, which, though it would simplify things, is a complex issue. I am confident some kind of middle ground is plausible that keeps our judiciary separate while making it easier to tie into the Triumvirate.

**Rice:** I would create sub forums for members who have similar interests. For example, the off-topic section of our forum is something that needs to be expanded on. We need to create sections that won't be muddled with other conversations, such as gaming sections and TV shows, even down to sporting. On our wiki, I agree with Stenbach. We need more people to edit and fill our wiki.

**Stenbach:** I don't believe there's much debate here, though I'd be interested to hear how you feel about the judiciary being implemented on the central forums as it's an issue that is fairly controversial and I'm fairly conflicted on.

**Rice:** Esteemi should hold most of the say here, he is the one running the Judiciary Branch. My opinion, though? Why do we not archive the discussions on the site, and then make it into a museum? We could open it to the public, let them see how our legal system works and how our court process works, and maybe cause a spur in Judiciary interests. Plus, with it being on the central forum, we can all see it, not just us who are lucky enough to have an account on the court site.

### 4: Executive-Administrative Relations

**Despite being led by opposing parties, Executive-Administrative relations are fairly positive, how would you work to sustain this and improve it?**

**Rice:** Luke Cannon, whom I assume will be the Speaker of the Administration again, is in my own party. I don't think there is any better connection than that, and we could work together more easily to improve the government. We would finally have a government that is on the same page moving forward, but won't abuse the power in such a delicate situation such as the one we are in now.

**Stenbach:** Speaker Cannon and I have the same vision in mind and have a good working relationship, I find communication to be an effective tool to make sure we are all on the same page. We may disagree on some issues, but due to my own vision for my role in the government as one who is less political and more removed from legislating and public action, we have a good dynamic. In a way, it is beneficial that we have two opposing parties each at the head of each branch in that only that which is desired by all is passed rather that that desired by one exclusive group, so I look forward to continuing to work with Speaker Cannon.

**Rice:** Speaker Cannon and I could converse on a more consistent basis, which is something that would be invaluable. The two opposing parties may be a good dynamic to make sure that no controversial things are forced through the system, but taking advantage of the situation to increase liberal policy is something I'm not personally interested in. I'm here to offer reform and get us back to the ways that we know work the best.

**Stenbach:** Speaking more frequently is not something I think would differ between Lanclot or myself, Speaker Cannon is always willing to speak with me and we speak regularly. We've been able to enact lasting and powerful policy despite our political differences and Cannon's strong views of his branch and my strong views for my branch put us in a great position to bring the branches closer while maintaining the critical separation of power we need.

### 5: Power of the Majorate

**What are the benefits of a more powerful Majorate vs. a weaker one?**

**Stenbach:** I strive to be the least powerful Major Executive that I can be because I believe the collective Executive Branch, the collective experts, are better at making decisions than myself, a singular individual who is not the expert in everything. You'll note I have never issued a Major Order, created a Major Task Force, made any emergency action, or done anything outside a strict interpretation of the text of the Constitution and its intent with regards to my office. I've neglected to take up a Chief of Staff as well, or any staff for that matter. To complement this general silence and reserved actions from my office, I'm pursuing a policy of Executive individualism so that Executives step up to take more actions as themselves rather than expecting myself and my office to carry them all out.

**Rice:** Powerful leaders create powerful nations by default. Nathan Maine has proved this, Arnold Ogamon has proved this, and so has Elliot Neil and dare I say Zerouh (because of the respect he was held to). Weaker ones such as those under Stavrok and Bleitze have had less success, because of the infighting and the lack of cooperation to get anything done. When we have a leader who has a goal to set for the rest of us, I know where I'm going. I know how I want to get there, and I can plan for it. When I don't have orders, I take my own path and become less successful. The streamlining of important choices under the Major Executive is no coincidence, because they elected you on the notion that you would act as an expert in most things.

**Stenbach:** Like I said, I aim to be less powerful than any of my six predecessors, who all sought and received (whether they intended to or not - especially in the cases of Zerouh or Stavrok who both advocated a weak Majorate but failed to do so themselves) undue power due to their position. I believe we can function better as a government when we do have intelligent and powerful leaders, provided the Major Executive is not the only one. We are in a position where enterprising Executives like McDearny, Rice, Hester, and Sessions can take up their own agendas and become leaders of their own right, not leaders under myself. The Major Executive does not lead the Executive Branch, it manages it and performs administrative functions. Between the enterprising Executives and the enterprising Speaker Cannon, the powerful Majorate we have seen under those like Ogamon, Neil, and Maine (and that we have seen fail under Bleitze) is no longer necessary. For perhaps the first time in our history, we can achieve that which was originally intended: an Executive Branch of equals in power and in agenda, politically and in presence.

**Rice:** Why do we want something if it's proven to be ineffective? Under a strong leader, we can have someone to go to on multiple topics, and expect clear and concise orders. If we have a Department of State who has a different agenda than the Major Executive, for example, that would completely and totally mess up the synergy there. The Major Executive has to sign treaties, and usually is deemed the leader by foreign entities. If the Major Executive, per say, wanted an alliance, but the Chief Ambassador wouldn't initiate it, that would be very bad. The whole design of the Major Executive was to manage the sites, and act as Commander-in-Chief of our strategic defense forces. But, with the power and the public image it comes with, it always makes a person more powerful. We need to accept the fact that there will always be a powerful Major Executive, and turn it to our advantage instead of ignoring the benefits. A leader inspires greatness in others, and pushes them to work harder and gives them a prod if they need it. We've seen that especially under Elliot Neil, of your own party. If someone wasn't performing, she sent in Theodore. What did we see that Trimester? The greatest leap in government and private sector tools and agendas we have ever seen. If elected, I would implement the "Executive Points Policy", in which they have a chart of around 15 items to choose from worth various points. They choose a number of items that total no less than 15 points, and have to complete it by Trimesters end. With that set agenda, we can see who the hardest workers are, and who are not. Then we can reasonably pursue replacements for those who do not perform to expectations, and create a more efficient government. We owe it to the people to have a leader to look up to, and one that can put in motion a government that will function to its highest capacity.

### 6: Education

**What is your plan to improve education, enforce education, and create a society of intellectuals?**

**Rice:** Education is Stenbach's prerogative, he's been the mastermind behind the new Historical Certification, as well as the reform of the Legal Certification. As far as I can tell, he's doing a good job with it thus far, and is giving us solid results. But, if I was forced to create an education system... Let us imagine Degrees. Say Bob, a new recruit and ardent scholar, wants to be certified in something here. Instead of taking one test, in which the balance of everything lays, why do we not create a system of learning over the course of 4 weeks that requires you obtaining knowledge from a teacher, rather than testing your copy and paste skills? My idea would be something like that. We need to be a smart and informed people going forward, because that's how we can best combat against radical ideas.

**Stenbach:** Myself, Aaron Ehtya, and Theodore Crown have been working for months to design Universal Academy, a quazi-public institution (by the current plan) that would provide classes, degrees, studies, and scholarly information to students. Privatizing things like certification services would take a load off of the government while simultaneously improving the market as new services are offered. Rice probably has a similar plan in mind, but as education is something I am very passionate about and have experience in, I'd like to make it my big goal for the trimester going forward, hopefully having Universal Academy open on May 1, 2015.

**Rice:** Privatization isn't the solution for Education, but due to the fact that we have the same common agreement on the degree system, I have nothing more to argue.

**Stenbach:** Like I said, the plan we have now is a quazi-public institution that has private elements and public ones, which would hopefully spur competition and other private academies to try to corner the market as well and compete to produce better product for cheaper price. Offering private alternatives to government education will not hurt us, it can only help us out.

### 7: Stimulating Business

**What would you do specifically to stimulate business creation and success?**

**Stenbach:** As I was saying earlier, dropping the tax rate to 5% is one fix, but not one that is good enough. The market environment is fine, that's not the problem, the problem is that we need to create a better market in the first place. Businesses will grow and crop up if there are products. There are not products. Using other online communities or games in combination with a market for education, boosting imagery, and diversifying what products businesses can sell are the big things we can accomplish if we put our minds to it.

**Rice:** I think that creating less restrictions to creating a business would make them more plentiful. We need to encourage more competition in the private sector, because it dissuades monopolies and makes people perform at peak efficiency. We also need to expand our products abroad, and give foreign entities something to think about buying. We have the FAST Act, which allows them to gain access to our forums. Couple that with us moving into gaming, and getting better products and new products from business', we would have one of the best trimesters economically we've ever seen.

**Stenbach:** I'm all for deregulation, I hope that we can work together to find new market opportunities for businesses. I feel that Lanclot's expertise in external things like games and other communities and my own in devising scenarios, data, and political mechanisms could bring us great success in the private sector.

**Rice:** We're in agreement here.

### 8: Political Changes

**What change in powers would you want to pursue, be it in terms of increasing Administrative power, Executive power, judicial power, giving the government new powers, etc.?**

**Rice:** I think that Administrative power is something we need to see. As the Administration grows in size every day, they represent the people of this government more than anyone. We need to see reforms such as Major Executive Impeachment, and giving access of the Executive Branch to the Speaker. If we have the means, why not do it? You're taking a 40 mile detour to the camping site, but if you traveled straight, it only takes 5. The Major Executive is the de facto leader of the Triumvirate, and thus the rights to be impeached by the Administration is logical. The Major Executive has a say in most, if not all, matters. To let him go unchecked would be a drastic mistake, and one that could lead to something tyrannical. Didn't our founder once say that impeachments were encouraged in order to keep people on their feet, and test their resolve?

**Stenbach:** See now I resent that, I find the Speaker of the Administration to be a more politically prominent position with far more political power than the Major Executive, but the idea of giving the Executive Branch any say over their impeachment is absurd. It's separation of powers, simple as that, you don't give the president the power to choose the Speaker or the Speaker the power to come into the White House whenever he pleases. Compared to the United States, our Speaker is far more powerful than their own and our Major Executive is far less powerful than the president. Administrative power is where it needs to stay. The Administration should not have additional say in the Executive Branch, nor in the legislative process, nor in the political system. The Speaker already is able to control legislation in their body as they generally deem fit, the Major Executive is not.

**Rice:** Oops, forgot about this one on the second go-around. You're right about one thing, this isn't the United States Government. We are totally different, with different methods and policies we use to go about making our future. The Speaker of the Administration has no say in defense, or anything remotely more important than the Major Executive when it comes to national security. The Speaker has the power to set an agenda for the Administrative Branch, and that's just about as far as it goes. When it comes to the matter of national security, and who we want as the figurehead of the Triumvirate, I want the people I elect to represent me to have some say in who he is. I'm not asking for anything crazy, such as the Administration being able to solely impeach the Major Executive. I just want the power to initiate it, which them would still have to be confirmed by the Executive Branch. If we are still using the more complicated liaison system when it comes to communication between branches, then why can we not complicate the impeachment process a little bit and make it go both ways?

**Stenbach:** The Speaker has access to confidential files and I am permitted to nominate Administrators to the JCC as well. The Major Executive and the Executive Branch are those who manage defense, not the people, which is why it makes sense that a certain degree of separation is kept when it comes to Administrative role in defense (it's the same reason the President of the United States is the commander-in-chief and not the Speaker). The Speaker can control legislation more so than any Executive or Administrator and I would state that they are the most important person in the process of passing legislation. The Speaker has power, the Administration has power, the Major Executive has power, the Executive Branch has power, but they must have clearly defined powers, not ambiguous ones that transcend branches and involve intrusive mechanisms that implement some powers where they should not be.

### 9: Foreign Affairs

**How would you handle foreign affairs as Major Executive?**

**Stenbach:** My primary goal would be to work with the Chief Ambassador to bring more foreign discussion onto our forum embassy section where foreign leaders and representatives can talk with our leaders and discuss joint projects, goals, and cooperation of politics and markets. It will improve activity and the economy to have more people present from different walks of life and it will improve our diplomatic relations while keeping our domestic affairs separate.

**Rice:** The FAST Act would be something I'd like to remind everyone of. We need to bring more foreigners into our forum in order to make us the society everyone looks up to. We also need to distance ourselves from La France, the whole situation there is soured and the government actions they have taken are not responsible. We want allies, but we do not want the wrong kind.

**Stenbach:** Once again, it appears that Lanclot and I are aligned here. Bringing foreigners onto the forum in a way that we can involve and educate them while maintaining our respective independence and cultures could benefit us in unforeseen ways that I would enjoy seeing.

**Rice:** We've agreed on more things than we've disagreed on, it seems like.

### 10: Fiscal Sustainability

**How would you encourage fiscal sustainability and responsible spending while acting to use the government as a force to do heavy-lifting in the economy?**

**Rice:** Recruitment incentives are something that fall along these lines. We need to increase them, it's that simple. Without high incentives like before, people are discouraged to recruit, and we aren't getting new members. This leads back to the social issue, but not the one at hand. Now, to avoid government shutdown and bankrupt, when we see that the Ehtya Curve statistic of recruitment without incentives has been reached, we will lower them. If we just got 2 good members, just 2, for every one that left, how many would we have today? If all of us took the time in order to produce two active and lively recruits, this crisis would be over in under a month. But how can we expect them to do that without incentives? We need to be smart with how we apply the funds in order to avoid a problem with finances, but giving enough in order to make people work toward goals.

**Stenbach:** That's not exactly answering the question, but I'll respond to it anyway by saying that we need to be responsible with incentives while also finding a skilled, active, and qualified Head of Naturalization (once more I strongly vouch for and recommend Mr. Rice, he is active, informed, and enterprising). To answer the question of fiscal sustainability, in office I've already cut government spending by 15% in a way that does not hurt the core functions of the government while simultaneously improving our fiscal situation without having to go into any debt. Privatization of some aspects of work the government does will help further by reducing spending and improving the economy, as will directing the Treasury to sell off any shares it currently owns.

**Rice:** We also need to make sure we have flexibility in the future, but give us the tools we need to work right now. We need to increase the amount of funding into TDN for when we do acquire a Head of Naturalization, and make sure the government stocks up on supplies that will increase our fiscal abilities down the road, for years to come. Bonds, and shares are all ways that we can profit in the long term and short term without going into much debt. Debt in small doses isn't a bad thing either, I've learned. It lets you know that people believe in the current value of your currency, and your government's ability to pay it back. I've no doubt that with increased incentives, but smart investing such as bonds and shares, we can balance out the short and long term fiscal wellness.

**Stenbach:** The Department of Naturalization already receives 150 tri per trimester, combined with its current stockpile of around 250 tri and they should be sustained for a fair amount of time, so I do not think we need to increase funding there. If we do not have to go into debt, that is always preferable, but we should absolutely pursue policies that make government responsible fiscally, including cutting unnecessary spending and removing undue influence from the economy. I do not believe that the government should be in the market for shares, which is why I advocate for the Treasury to sell back any shares it currently holds. As for bonds, I would recommend the government only invest in secure foreign bonds if truly necessary. Liability is not desirable, so we have to be responsible and effective with how we use government. As Major Executive Maine taught us, government has the power to do good if policies are implemented effectively and responsibly; but we must also remember the failures of Major Executive Bleitze, who taught us that government has the power to do great bad if policies are without thought and are implemented poorly. The central motif I want to stress in this debate is that the Triumvirate is where it is, we have to accept that, but we can build it to be extraordinary in 2015 if we consider where we failed in the past and where we have succeeded.