Essay No. 1
Essay No. 1 is an essay by Matias Gustierrez, which became the first of a collection of essays named Essays on Liberty. It was published on 08.XIII.1685 AN, under the pseudonym Defensor. This paper provides the outline for the rest and argues the support of the Proclamation of Punta Santiago which had been under siege by critics.
Background
The Committee for Alduro-Wechu Integration had been working for some weeks now to create a founding document for the creation of Alduria-Wechua. Talks were scheduled to start in Punta Santiago, but some pre-drafts had already been circulating following the Alvarez-Campos Summit. Critics, in particular Aldurian Nationalist Ricardo Villegas, had been opposing the forthcoming Proclamation and writing about it in The Aldurian. Gustierrez, attached to the Committee as an ethics expert, wanted to address these critiques and started an effort in support of the Proclamation.
The first Essay did not cover any topic by detail, but was rather meant as a General Introduction to the series. It is however one of the longer ones because it covers at length the motivations and opinions of the authors, and explains the structure of the series.
Content
Response to anti-Proclamation Critics
The essay started off in opposition to the critics of the Proclamation. However, in doing so, the essay takes a biased view in support of the Proclamation as the proponent of a New Federation. Gustierrez addressed this bias as well:
"I find myself in knowledge that the ideas of this work come from a source friendly and cooperative to the Proclamation. You may grant me, my fellow citizens, the fact that after careful consideration and contemplation, I am indeed of the opinion that its adoption is in the benefit of us all."
Gustierrez did not only address his own bias, or by extension that of his fellow co-writers, but also of others. He proposed that bias exists mainly in those who prepare and plan the new Proclamation, but also that bias is unavoidable in such important affairs. He wrote:
"Perhaps it would be a grand thing that we all may look upon our choices in this matter unbiased, unclouded, and non-prejudged. But perhaps it is the human condition that such things are better wished for than reasonably expected."
He also addresses that his bias towards support is met equally by those in opposition, and that they also have bias. He wrote thereon:
"Undoubted is it that those who have made opposition and those who have made appearance to the contrary of my words, come from sources - perhaps unforeseen at first, and at all times respectable - who have been led by preconceived judgement, fears, and jealousies. Such is also the nature of two sides who stand opposed, and yet both sides are with merit."
The reason why Gustierrez spent a lot of his early paragraphs speaking of bias is perhaps best explained by the philosophical intentions that he and his co-writers sought to instill into the Essays. Motive and Reason in Politics was their main relation to their own philosophy, supported by their knowledge of ethics, logic, and epistemology. Gustierrez argued that political motives are secondary only to the truths of the arguments given and the knowledge of reasons that gave rise to them. The choice to remain impartial and let the truths of their arguments lead the Essays was the reason the authors chose to use a psuedonym.
Political discord
Gustierrez predicted that anti-Proclamation response would continue, and that the Proclamation had a polarizing effect. He indicated the opponents of the Proclamation to come from Nationalist and Religious centers, but also that much more would come if he did not use this series to inform the people of the importance of it. He said on this:
"The zeal of Nationalism and energy of demagogues are only aided by the relative unknowing of the people. Such shall give rise to an effort to oppose these efforts that are being made, in derelict effect to the liberty and prosperity of the people."
He however also input an important disclaimer about his own motivations to persuade the people, in imitation of the populist argument the Anti-Proclamation critics used. He claimed that he would ask only the duty of the people, in using their own wisdom and opinions in deciding the best course of action:
"I perceive not herein that I have any power to influence you in your own pursuit of your own welfare, and that all I can is to guard you against any attempts, from whichever side, to decide for you in this important moment."
Supporting the Proclamation
As a consequence of opposing the critics of the Proclamation, Gustierrez defended it at all costs. He even proposed that the alternatives were a complete dissolution of Alduro-Wechua Integration efforts, or the ratification of the Proclamation. He referred to the anti-Proclamation critics who purported that the Federation would be an unwieldy system. 4 members of it, all Wechua Nationalists, opposed any kind of cooperation with Alduria. Gustierrez propagated the folly of this.
A series of concepts
Gustierrez outlines nine key concepts discussed in the Essays on Liberty:
- "The influence of foreign powers and diplomatic operations on the Proclamation"
- "The need for a Federal Government under a Constitutional Monarch"
- "The unification of our two Economies and the impact of a Maritime Empire"
- "The importance of Civil, Human, and Social Rights to the Welfare of our Collective People"
- "The proper layout of our Apparatus of Government and the checks and balances between branches of government"
- "A Case for the Judiciary Branch"
- "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Proclamation Considered and Answered"
- "The Analogy of the Proclamation to predecessor Constitutional Law"
- "The Additional Benefits of the Proclamation in Relation to the security and prosperity of the New Federation"
