With the Regent taking the democratically-correct option of not exercising his veto, the Ranked-Choice Referendum on Talossa's Constitutional Future will take place at the time of the 3rd Clark, i.e. January (unless we go for a month of recess, which I don't think we will).
Neither the Free Democrats nor the Government will be taking an official "side" in this referendum, since there are supporters of all four options within those bodies (taken together). It is therefore appropriate to launch a stand-alone campaign for supporters of the option "the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State.".
Note that the details of this option will be fleshed out (by Cabinet) only if it wins. It might mean a "New Talossan Republic", at one end of the scale; at the other end, it might mean a minimalist solution, that Talossa remains a Kingdom a permanently-empty Throne and a periodically-elected Regent. But this is the campaign for you if you think Talossans should choose their Head of State - for a shorter or longer term of office, renewable or not, via popular vote, legislature or Electoral College, with sizeable powers or none, whatever their title.
This is a thread for you to post your vision of an Elected Head of State, and to make suggestions for the campaign. Thank you.
Monarch: symbol, standard-bearer, and rallying point for the nation - term: 10 Cosas - cannot be Consul or a member of Cosa or Senats. Cannot be a UCort justice or Secretary of State. Cannot become Monarch more than once in a period of 20 consecutive Cosas. Doles out honours.
Consul: Takes up the current royal powers of nominating UCort justices, giving assent to bills, etc. - term: 4 terms of Cosâ - Cannot become Consul more than once in a period covered by the end-dates of voting in seven consecutive Cosâ elections.
In the event of the premature end of the term of a Consul, the Vice-Consul shall immediately become Consul. The new Consul shall nominate (not the previous Consul) to be the new Vice-Consul. This nomination shall be confirmed by majorities of each of Cosa and Senats in votes held independently of any Clark. If there is no new Vice-Consul chosen within 21 days of the end of the previous consular tenure, the Speaker of the Cosa shall become Vice-Consul.
A consular veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of Cosâ only or by majorities in both Cosâ and Senäts.
Elections for Monarch and Consul shall take place concurrently with an election for Cosâ.
We could call the Consul 'Chancellor', but I didn't want so much 'Ein! Zwei! Drei!'.
I will be voting PER on option 4; For an elected Head of State.
My vision for the future of that would go something like this:
1. There shall be a Talossan Monarchy, but in a state of perennial interregnum. There shall never be another Royal Family, nor another King, nor another Queen. Talossan citizens shall never be forced to make oaths of allegiance to another Talossan person ever again, but instead shall pledge their oaths to the Symbols of the Nation.
2. The role of the Talossan Monarchy shall exist in line with Bagehot's arguments: that it shall represent the "dignified branch" of the national fabric by symbolising the state through pomp and ceremony, and that the Head of State shall have "the rights to be Consulted, to Encourage and to Warn". It shall have no real nor effective political power and any powers it does have must be ceremonial only.
3. The Head of State shall be elected. The Head of State shall act as a temporary steward of the Crown and, ideally, the role will be styled as "The First Citizen".
4. I have no preference on consecutive term limits. If the First Citizen ends up being re-elected 20 times in a row then so be it. As long as democracy has had its day and the people have had their say and that the temperature of the nation can be regularly checked then I'm okay with that. But, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on, so if a greater majority prefer the idea of term limits then that's fine too. I don't see a real need for term limits if the First Citizen has no political power, but if political power does end up part of the role then perhaps term limits would be desirable.
5. I'm not sure what the ideal term length between elections should be. It should not be as short as a single Cosa term, but should not be anything more than ~5 years. I think somewhere around ~3 years might be the sweet spot.
6. When a term is due to expire, if there are no challengers to the incumbent, then the election shall be be replaced by a national referendum on re-confirmation.
Any thoughts on how a Regent/First Citizen should be elected? Free popular vote? Irish-style popular vote (where candidates need to be nominated by legislators or local government)? German-style electoral college? Supermajority of the Ziu?
A Ziu vetting process similar to the ones we have been doing for the UC appointments. Candidates can self-nominate, but must pass a Ziu vote to appear on the ballot, followed by a universal popular vote.
What would be the better translation, by the way; Prairugadour or Prum Citaxhien?
Prüm Citaxhien was the title we used for the President of the Talossan Republic, so of course I'd like that, though it might set others' teeth on edge.
What's the point of keeping the Throne around if it's supposed to stay empty for all eternity? If Talossa does want an elected Head of State, either be thorough and abolish the Throne (either with or without replacement; Botswana does fine with combining the posts of President and Prime Minister into one thing), or turn Kingship into the elected office in question.
Impose a term length on the King, like 5 Cosa terms or so, and limit consecutive terms to 2 or 3.
I have no preference for the voting method, as long as its not one round of FPTP of course.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on November 30, 2020, 06:44:52 AM
What's the point of keeping the Throne around if it's supposed to stay empty for all eternity? If Talossa does want an elected Head of State, either be thorough and abolish the Throne (either with or without replacement; Botswana does fine with combining the posts of President and Prime Minister into one thing), or turn Kingship into the elected office in question.
Impose a term length on the King, like 5 Cosa terms or so, and limit consecutive terms to 2 or 3.
I have no preference for the voting method, as long as its not one round of FPTP of course.
Because many still believe that the appeal of Talossa as a Kingdom with all the pomp and ceremony that comes with that is still greater than outright abolishing it, and that the symbols of Monarchy provide some kind of historical glue. However, at the same time, swearing fealty to a Monarch or a Royal Family is falling out of fashion. A perpetually empty throne would allow for the symbolic/ historical/ traditional while having the Head of State be a Steward of the Throne rather than be an actual Monarch eliminates the requirement for Talossan citizens to swear fealty and oaths of allegiance to some person; instead making those oaths to the symbols of Talossa and its laws. That's my thinking on the issue anyway. On top of all that we also need to consider the powers of the Head of State. Do we still think it is right for an unelected Monarch or Regent to be wielding a legislative veto or to even be wading around in the Hopper?
I think I understand the question you are asking. You are seeing this is a simple choice between Monarchy vs Republic, or King vs President, right? My position is more nuanced than that. I'm saying keep Talossa as a Kingdom with all its traditions and ceremony and whatnot, but go for a permanent interregnum. Then use popular election as the method of selecting who acts
in tutelam over the Throne, and that person being "first among equals" meaning we don't swear allegiance to that person, rather that person swears allegiance to protect the nation, its symbols and laws, and its peoples.
Also, by having the position be an electable one we cool down the hotness of the Head of State playing around with a veto.
Sorry to butt in, but if swearing an oath of allegiance to the King is such a problem, you could just change the oath rather than change the entire government structure.
I can also say that leaving the throne perpetually empty will probably not do much to satisfy people who enjoy the traditions of the Monarchy. Speaking for myself, one of my chief complaints with King John is his low activity; a problem which will not be solved by deposing him and never replacing him.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on November 30, 2020, 08:02:44 PM
However, at the same time, swearing fealty to a Monarch or a Royal Family is falling out of fashion. A perpetually empty throne would allow for the symbolic/ historical/ traditional while having the Head of State be a Steward of the Throne rather than be an actual Monarch eliminates the requirement for Talossan citizens to swear fealty and oaths of allegiance to some person; instead making those oaths to the symbols of Talossa and its laws. That's my thinking on the issue anyway.
I believe this is a false dichotomy. Nothing prevents us from having a Monarch and also redirecting oaths towards the State. I know you know this because you advocate for an empty throne -- de jure keeping the Monarchy -- and redirecting oaths towards the State, so we're in agreement!
QuoteOn top of all that we also need to consider the powers of the Head of State. Do we still think it is right for an unelected Monarch or Regent to be wielding a legislative veto or to even be wading around in the Hopper?
Of course, if the Monarch was elected and term-limited they wouldnt be unelected anymore, so that point would be moot immediately.
QuoteI think I understand the question you are asking. You are seeing this is a simple choice between Monarchy vs Republic, or King vs President, right? My position is more nuanced than that. I'm saying keep Talossa as a Kingdom with all its traditions and ceremony and whatnot, but go for a permanent interregnum. Then use popular election as the method of selecting who acts in tutelam over the Throne, and that person being "first among equals" meaning we don't swear allegiance to that person, rather that person swears allegiance to protect the nation, its symbols and laws, and its peoples.
Also, by having the position be an electable one we cool down the hotness of the Head of State playing around with a veto.
This too would be moot immediately if the King was elected and term-limited. I think the main thing you and I disagree on is what to call the future elected Head of State. While you want them to be the Steward watching over a perpetually empty Throne, I think that new Head of State should still be called the King. Elective monarchies are nothing new, in fact Talossa has always been one de facto, the only change that I am proposing is limiting how long the King can reign thus forcing them to abdicate once their time is up, which as far as I can see would already solve most if not all the problems that Republicans have with the current Status Quo. Let me know if I missed something.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on November 30, 2020, 08:02:44 PM
Do we still think it is right for an unelected Monarch or Regent to be wielding a legislative veto or to even be wading around in the Hopper?
Er, to butt in here: the Hopper is free to all citizens. And I would honestly prefer that - as long as the Regent wields a legislative veto - he informs us of any issues he has with legislation in plenty of time.
In any case: if we're agreed that a Head of State elected to a defined term, rather than for life, can still be called a "King", we're still within the realms of Option 4. We are only debating titles.
Yeah. It seems it's all just a matter of semantics and convention at this point.
I've just talked to the SoS who confirms that they'll send out 50 word statements for this referendum. Here is my draft. Comments?
QuoteTalossa's history shows lifelong monarchy doesn't work - unaccountable Kings get corrupt, or apathetic. We need a head of State accountable to the nation, even if they're still called "King". Title, length of term and means of election are up for debate. Vote Option 1 for the people's right to choose!
I'd be curious to know why a Third Republic would turn out better than the previous two, if anyone would be interested in addressing that. It seems like a pretty important question that hasn't been addressed yet.
Well, if we had a new Republic we could fire you. That would be a start.
Seriously, "unaccountable Temporary Bogus Head of State thinks the system which gave him his job is excellent" is not news.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 10, 2020, 03:12:34 PM
Well, if we had a new Republic we could fire you. That would be a start.
Seriously, "unaccountable Temporary Bogus Head of State thinks the system which gave him his job is excellent" is not news.
I mean... didn't you queue up a bill to fire me almost immediately after I was appointed? You evocatively named it the "Sword of Damocles Act" to signify that it was being held dangerously over my head and could drop at any moment, right? I don't feel very much job security, let me tell you ;) Org.II.5 allows for a regent to be removed at any time by the Ziu. You must know this, since you wrote the bill.
I'm not sure this is a great explanation, either, even if it was true, since it doesn't really make sense on the face of it. Obviously there wouldn't be a regency in a republic! Really, this argument amounts to "a republic would turn out differently this time because it would be a republic."
But the last Republic shrank until it was just a small group of like-minded people. I think a serious reply might point to more liberal immigration laws in the Kingdom or something like that, but your answer here seems -- to be generous about it -- to be a bit of a tangent from the real question: why would it make sense to try the same thing again and expect a different result? You owe it to the people to engage in good faith about this, I think.
Sometimes I think that an interesting twist on the "Sword of Damocles" would be to make the individual themselves almost impossible to remove from the seat... but make the seat itself relatively easy to abolish. It might focus the sitter's attention away from their personal ambition toward devotion to the institution itself.
In effect: "If this King screws it up... we won't have any more of them and he/she will be responsible."
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 10, 2020, 04:27:32 PM
But the last Republic shrank until it was just a small group of like-minded people. I think a serious reply might point to more liberal immigration laws in the Kingdom or something like that, but your answer here seems -- to be generous about it -- to be a bit of a tangent from the real question: why would it make sense to try the same thing again and expect a different result? You owe it to the people to engage in good faith about this, I think.
A bad-faith trolling question deserves a snarky answer. Your question is a masterpiece of
begging the question (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning), in that it assumes what must be proved - that there is some link between the longevity/health of a Talossan regime and whether it is a Kingdom or a Republic. I assumed you knew that, because you are smart and a skilled rhetorician; but perhaps you honestly didn't understand what was wrong with it, in which case, I am now enlightening you.
You have to argue now why you think there is any conceivable link between monarchy and Talossa being healthy. Please note that "I don't know why, there just is" will be rejected out of hand as superstitious at best. Please also note that the very worst time in Talossan history - 1997-2005 - was under a King. Worst in that it was an increasingly abusive totalitarian cult, but at least it was an
active one?
You are also (deliberately?) avoiding the point of the breadth of Option 1.
An elected Head of State could still be a King of the Kingdom of Talossa. A totally minimalist solution under Option 1, should it win, would be to simply amend the current OrgLaw to make it clear that the King serves for 7 years and then must resubmit himself to the nation to continue his reign, or not. You have to argue
specifically against the principle of "no life term for the head of state". As you rightly point out yourself, during the National Schism the Kingdom was much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens than the Republic, but that was nothing to do with its constitution. You might also point out that Reunision also happened because the Kingdom had shrunk to a "small group of like-minded people" because of its 1-party-dominant politics. You needed us to spice things up, lol.
Anyway, yes, we can sack you, but we can't replace you. Until the OrgLaw is changed.
your problems and rothschildt's money, that's what i miss of all right now, is what we use to say here when seeing someone to solve interesting pseudo-problem :)
within entities like talossa, it hardly matters that much if they have king or president, monarchy or republic. you always need some extent of likemindedness of its members to keep it alive, but the formal ones, which attract 90 % of new members who then simply vanish with the wind, those are really pointless (i made a typo "pintless" which i somehow like). i like the idea of having fun doing things together with friends which allow me to take some new social roles i did not (and mostly do not want to) try in real world. it has to be a process, vivid thing, otherwise it fades into inexistence. remember penguinea-pangea-polyphony? ;) we have to admit we grow older, things funny once are not that much today. do you see a new generation of agile and clever talossans, 25-30 yrs, trying to kick (y)our ol'butt of (y)our comfort chairs? i do not. that has to be here. king or dwayne elizondo mountain dew herbert camacho, not important. good feeling, important. no good feeling now.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 11, 2020, 01:19:30 AM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 10, 2020, 04:27:32 PM
But the last Republic shrank until it was just a small group of like-minded people. I think a serious reply might point to more liberal immigration laws in the Kingdom or something like that, but your answer here seems -- to be generous about it -- to be a bit of a tangent from the real question: why would it make sense to try the same thing again and expect a different result? You owe it to the people to engage in good faith about this, I think.
A bad-faith trolling question deserves a snarky answer. Your question is a masterpiece of begging the question (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning), in that it assumes what must be proved - that there is some link between the longevity/health of a Talossan regime and whether it is a Kingdom or a Republic. I assumed you knew that, because you are smart and a skilled rhetorician; but perhaps you honestly didn't understand what was wrong with it, in which case, I am now enlightening you.
You have to argue now why you think there is any conceivable link between monarchy and Talossa being healthy. Please note that "I don't know why, there just is" will be rejected out of hand as superstitious at best. Please also note that the very worst time in Talossan history - 1997-2005 - was under a King. Worst in that it was an increasingly abusive totalitarian cult, but at least it was an active one?
You are also (deliberately?) avoiding the point of the breadth of Option 1. An elected Head of State could still be a King of the Kingdom of Talossa. A totally minimalist solution under Option 1, should it win, would be to simply amend the current OrgLaw to make it clear that the King serves for 7 years and then must resubmit himself to the nation to continue his reign, or not. You have to argue specifically against the principle of "no life term for the head of state". As you rightly point out yourself, during the National Schism the Kingdom was much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens than the Republic, but that was nothing to do with its constitution. You might also point out that Reunision also happened because the Kingdom had shrunk to a "small group of like-minded people" because of its 1-party-dominant politics. You needed us to spice things up, lol.
Anyway, yes, we can sack you, but we can't replace you. Until the OrgLaw is changed.
Respectfully, I know that this is an awkward issue, and so I appreciate that makes it seem like "trolling" to bring it up. But our past -- not even that long ago! -- is usually one of the best guides to what might happen in the future.
For years, there was a Republic of Talossa and a Kingdom of Talossa. The former got smaller until it was a small group of die-hard, dedicated, and talented citizens, at which point its last Seneschal reached out to the much larger Kingdom to broach the subject of a merger of equals. (A happy day as we joined together!) The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self. If the Kingdom ended up "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens," by your own admission and despite the advantages of the Republic, then I'd think that it's pretty pertinent! We should look at the big obvious difference between the two groups.
Naturally, I can't "prove" that the problem with the Republic was that it was a republic. But if we're proposing a Third Republic of Talossa, then I think it's disingenuous to pretend that it's "superstitious" to consider the Second. (Even if we call the new President of Talossa a "king.")
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on November 28, 2020, 09:54:47 PM
Any thoughts on how a Regent/First Citizen should be elected? Free popular vote? Irish-style popular vote (where candidates need to be nominated by legislators or local government)? German-style electoral college? Supermajority of the Ziu?
Right now, I have to agree with Ziu vetting and then a ranked-choice ballot with provision for a runoff, if necessary, though in theory, there should never be a runoff.
Also, how long should a transition period be from one 'consul' to the next?
QuoteBut the last Republic shrank until it was just a small group of like-minded people.
True, though this whole line of thought, even if you didn't meant it to be trolly was trolly. Ever and anon, you pine for the halcyon days of 2005-2011 when SCA-Talossa ruled supreme.
We took over the disco board and domains out of genuine duress, Alexander. Our methods were draconian, to be sure, and did not take into account those many Kingdom-people caught in the middle, but had we not done so, Ben would have gotten away completely with falsely accusing Kane of domestic violence not once, but four times without a shred of remorse.
The whole spat between you and Daph over the years has its roots in that we in the Republic were always a threat to the way you wanted to do Talossa. This is why you did your part to make sure Kingdom society did not look kindly on our return for many years, if ever.
'Betrayed. Stolen. Kept.' Of our genuine mistakes with talossa.com and Witt X, you and the RUMP took full advantage.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 01, 2020, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on November 30, 2020, 08:02:44 PM
Do we still think it is right for an unelected Monarch or Regent to be wielding a legislative veto or to even be wading around in the Hopper?
Er, to butt in here: the Hopper is free to all citizens. And I would honestly prefer that - as long as the Regent wields a legislative veto - he informs us of any issues he has with legislation in plenty of time.
In any case: if we're agreed that a Head of State elected to a defined term, rather than for life, can still be called a "King", we're still within the realms of Option 4. We are only debating titles.
Albeit their monarch is selected from small monarchs, if Malaysia can can an elected monarch, so can we.
Quote from: GV on December 25, 2020, 09:07:24 AM
True, though this whole line of thought, even if you didn't meant it to be trolly was trolly. Ever and anon, you pine for the halcyon days of 2005-2011 when SCA-Talossa ruled supreme.
I think it's pretty hard to argue that the discussion over whether to establish a new republic of Talossa should ignore the last Republic of Talossa. It might be uncomfortable to reckon with, but that doesn't make it "trolly."
None of the rest of your post seems to be pertinent. I didn't bring up any of those things and didn't criticize the Republic even slightly. Please reread my post and see for yourself. Surely that's not news to you, because I have been saying the same thing for literally a decade (as in this official declaration (https://talossa.proboards.com/post/51467) I made as Seneschal
to you in 2010). But I'll say it as many times as you wish: the people who left for the Republic were justified in doing so; the great schism was abhorrent and Reunision was an amazing and good thing that I vocally supported; I am glad you are here. In
2006, just after I immigrated, we had a conversation where I told you that I "wish that the wisdom of the Kingdom would rejoin with the fire of the Republic."
All of that is still true, as it was sixteen years ago and ten years ago. And not a whit of it matters here, except as a distraction.
Some folks want to create a new republic of Talossa, so we should look at what happened to the old one. The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self. But the Kingdom ended up, in the reckoning of our current Seneschal, "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens." So let's figure out why. At the last, if we do end up going back down that path, we might be able to steer a bit better.
Sorry that I am responding so late.
To give hope to all those skeptics out there, I wanted to share an idea. We could amend the Organic Law such that Talossa remains a kingdom nominally, but the throne is permanently vacated and its functions exercised by a Regent / Consul / First Citizen / whatever title we want who just so happens to be elected nationally every 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 years.
Something like...
Quote
1. The nation of Talossa is a Kingdom.
2. The King of Talossa does [insert functions here].
3. The Throne of the King of Talossa is permanently vacant.
4. While the Throne may be vacant, its Powers and Duties shall be exercised pro tempore by a Regent.
5. The Regent of Talossa shall be elected nationally by all citizens for a term of two years.
6. No person shall be elected consecutively as the Regent of Talossa.
Win-win scenario for everyone. We stay a Kingdom on paper while in practice we have an elected head of state.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on January 02, 2021, 02:38:52 PM
Sorry that I am responding so late.
To give hope to all those skeptics out there, I wanted to share an idea. We could amend the Organic Law such that Talossa remains a kingdom nominally, but the throne is permanently vacated and its functions exercised by a Regent / Consul / First Citizen / whatever title we want who just so happens to be elected nationally every 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 years.
Something like...
Quote
1. The nation of Talossa is a Kingdom.
2. The King of Talossa does [insert functions here].
3. The Throne of the King of Talossa is permanently vacant.
4. While the Throne may be vacant, its Powers and Duties shall be exercised pro tempore by a Regent.
5. The Regent of Talossa shall be elected nationally by all citizens for a term of two years.
6. No person shall be elected consecutively as the Regent of Talossa.
Win-win scenario for everyone. We stay a Kingdom on paper while in practice we have an elected head of state.
This seems to be identical to Eðo's proposal. Leaving the Thone permanently empty is a cop-out (see page one of this thread).
If an elective monarchy, or indeed a republic, be the will of the people, it must be valid. But a permanently empty throne seems to me—though inspired and interesting in a Game of Thrones kind of way—slightly absurd. The throne itself is just a piece of (digital) furniture. Without a person sitting it, it doesn't retain much symbolic meaning. It's comparable to having a permanently empty parliament. It sounds ghostly, like a memorial for an institution with no life left in it. If that's the case—as the more iconoclastic republicans among us would have us believe—then they should go the full distance and advocate for its full abolition. All these semantic compromises strike me as the staging grounds for a later move against the entire monarchy and its vestiges, such as the peerage. We're in the process of cobbling together some kind of new monarchical system in the wake of our Bastille. If and when the supporters of our monarchy attempt to flee to Varennes, as it were, there won't be any further need for compromise.
(Apologies in advance if this is a slippery slope fallacy. Indeed, sometimes history abides by very illogical and fallacious rules. Cf. Tolstoy, War and Peace, Epilogue. Also, for a biblical perspective on our current troubles, see 1 Samuel 8, especially verse 18: 'And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day.' I would prefer a true monarchy, or no monarchy at all.)
Quote from: Éovart Andrinescù on January 02, 2021, 10:00:14 PMAll these semantic compromises strike me as the staging grounds for a later move against the entire monarchy and its vestiges, such as the peerage.
The "peerage" is miéidă da toro. There were no Lords or Dukes or Counts or all that nonsense in KR1's Talossa 1997-2005. That was all made up in the "RUMP-led National Schism Kingdom" of 2005-11. One of the things that always gets my goat is that Woolleys, Hands, Cannons etc. became Talossans
years after the founders of the Republic had become Talossan, made up all this nonsense, and then fooled future citizens into thinking it was "Talossan tradition".
There is justification for a Talossan Monarchy, if it has popular support and a qualified claimant can be found. There is no justification for a "peerage". Knighthoods are different.
Anyway, I'd like to put this up to the leader of the Opposition. The fact remains that - even if Option One wins the election - nothing will happen without an OrgLaw amendment, which will need 2/3 of the Coså (3/4 with a veto override) to happen.
So,
@Senator Plätschisch or other members of the LCC or other Monarchists, please answer.
Would you be any less likely to oppose an Elected Head of State if we continued to call them "King"? Or "Regent" for a permanently empty throne? If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.
Quote from: Éovart Andrinescù on January 02, 2021, 10:00:14 PM
If an elective monarchy, or indeed a republic, be the will of the people, it must be valid. But a permanently empty throne seems to me—though inspired and interesting in a Game of Thrones kind of way—slightly absurd. The throne itself is just a piece of (digital) furniture. Without a person sitting it, it doesn't retain much symbolic meaning. It's comparable to having a permanently empty parliament. It sounds ghostly, like a memorial for an institution with no life left in it.
I agree in a very real and practical sense.
A monarchy has real value in terms of stability in a small country which lacks very many physical anchors and symbols of continuity. If the constitution changes every few years, major institutions change their workings dramatically or simply fall into disuse, and new political parties rise and fall, then what remains to tie Talossa together with any sort of continuity? Only a handful of people are interested in our language or other aspects of our culture, after all. Having some important elements of our country that remain continuous means that there's a weight of history behind Talossa -- doing big things has deeper meaning because they help build up something that's going to last into the future, just as it's lasted from the past.
You can build a sandcastle down in the waves, but the constant tide will pull it right down and leave you disinterested. If you want it to last, you build it on a rock.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 02, 2021, 10:24:14 PM
The "peerage" is miéidă da toro. There were no Lords or Dukes or Counts or all that nonsense in KR1's Talossa 1997-2005. That was all made up in the "RUMP-led National Schism Kingdom" of 2005-11. One of the things that always gets my goat is that Woolleys, Hands, Cannons etc. became Talossans years after the founders of the Republic had become Talossan, made up all this nonsense, and then fooled future citizens into thinking it was "Talossan tradition".
Why do you get to decide what's fun for people? Why do you get to decide which Talossan traditions are valid, and which aren't?
Heraldry stuff is fun for people! Peerages are fascinating! Do we really have to grind it out of existence because it doesn't meet with your personal approval or because King Ben did it a different way?
I mean, honestly, 2005 was sixteen years ago! "Oh, well, you've been doing this thing in Talossa for sixteen years, but it doesn't count as a traditional, real Talossan thing. Only valid King Ben cosplay is really doing Talossa."
Peerages are so fascinating that no-one has given any out since Reunision, lol. (cue: the Regent declares some superannuated reactionary the Duke of Earl or the Count de Monet or some such, just to annoy me :D)
There's a reason why, after Reunision, Talossan culture has more or less reverted to the older traditions (preserved by the Republic during the national schism), while RUMPish innovations have died out. This, the cultural tradition, is the continuity, which is far older than the current Absentee monarchy. The exception to this is heraldry, which meh. I have a coat of arms and I don't regret it. Why would I wipe it out? Açafat dal Vàl, a firebreathing Republican, is in the College of Arms.
Of course Talossans can do whatever they want as a subculture. If a heavily Royalist province declared its own feudal chieftain and thanes or whatever, I would consider it silly but harmless as long as it didn't affect the actual political system. But the fact that the RUMP didn't stick around "do their culture" when they no longer had an absolute majority and force it down everyone's throat... says it all really. If you don't want to participate in Talossa as a minority, then your interest was never in Talossa, just in being the boss. Precisely because it relies on edicts from central government and cannot survive without it, he bogus peerage belongs on the same scrapheap of dead-ends in Talossan cultural evolution as consonant mutations.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 03:37:36 AM
Peerages are so fascinating that no-one has given any out since Reunision, lol. (cue: the Regent declares some superannuated reactionary the Duke of Earl or the Count de Monet or some such, just to annoy me :D)
In Talossan history, there have only been a handful of peerages. The Earl of Kenwood in 1987, the Viscount of Vuode in 1999, five grants in 2005-2006, and only two since. Of the recent grants, one was done for purely governmental reasons (to ensure continuity of government) and one was done by right of blood (elevating the Prince of Prospect). Peerages are uncommonly rare.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 03:37:36 AMThere's a reason why, after Reunision, Talossan culture has more or less reverted to the older traditions (preserved by the Republic during the national schism), while RUMPish innovations have died out. This, the cultural tradition, is the continuity, which is far older than the current Absentee monarchy. The exception to this is heraldry, which meh. I have a coat of arms and I don't regret it. Why would I wipe it out? Açafat dal Vàl, a firebreathing Republican, is in the College of Arms.
I'm glad that you tolerate heraldry and one of your allies enjoys it, but maybe those aren't the best yardsticks for whether or not you should "wipe it out."
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 03:37:36 AMPrecisely because it relies on edicts from central government and cannot survive without it, he bogus peerage belongs on the same scrapheap of dead-ends in Talossan cultural evolution as consonant mutations.
Didn't an edict from central government eliminate consonant mutations? Not sure you've thought out this metaphor.
Listen, if we are going to start wiping out things, then we should think it through. If you want to create a new republic of Talossa, we should look at what happened to the old one. The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self. But the Kingdom ended up, in the reckoning of our current Seneschal, "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens." So let's figure out why... before we jettison even more of that cultural richness.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 02, 2021, 07:35:53 PM
This seems to be identical to Eðo's proposal. Leaving the Thone permanently empty is a cop-out (see page one of this thread).
Cop-out, compromise. Tomato, tomato.
Yeah, the Monarchy should be abolished. Shame on me (us?) for trying to reach a middle ground.
Quote from: Éovart Andrinescù on January 02, 2021, 10:00:14 PM
If an elective monarchy, or indeed a republic, be the will of the people, it must be valid. But a permanently empty throne seems to me—though inspired and interesting in a Game of Thrones kind of way—slightly absurd. The throne itself is just a piece of (digital) furniture. Without a person sitting it, it doesn't retain much symbolic meaning. It's comparable to having a permanently empty parliament. It sounds ghostly, like a memorial for an institution with no life left in it. If that's the case—as the more iconoclastic republicans among us would have us believe—then they should go the full distance and advocate for its full abolition. All these semantic compromises strike me as the staging grounds for a later move against the entire monarchy and its vestiges, such as the peerage. We're in the process of cobbling together some kind of new monarchical system in the wake of our Bastille. If and when the supporters of our monarchy attempt to flee to Varennes, as it were, there won't be any further need for compromise.
(Apologies in advance if this is a slippery slope fallacy. Indeed, sometimes history abides by very illogical and fallacious rules. Cf. Tolstoy, War and Peace, Epilogue. Also, for a biblical perspective on our current troubles, see 1 Samuel 8, especially verse 18: 'And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day.' I would prefer a true monarchy, or no monarchy at all.)
The throne is not just a literal piece of furniture; it is a legal entity through which all power is exercised. See the British Crown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown) or the Catholic Holy See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_Holy_See).
Are these things
legal fictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction)? Yes, they are.
Just like the Queen of the Commonwealth, right? Does anyone think anymore for a serious second that either she or the rest of the Royal Family have any
actual power? Is it not a well-understood open secret at this point that, even if the Crown is the source of all unilateral sovereignty under an unwritten constitution, she would be deposed immediately upon any attempt to exercise that power?
This is to point out to you that the "absurdity" of the suggestion is perfectly grounded "in the real world". Legal fictions exist everywhere if you look under the rugs.
I hear over and over how the Monarchy of Talossa
as a concept is so vital to the very spirit of Talossa, as if to suggest that without a king we would be all doomed, while then the same people make this false choice that we have to be 100% Republican or 100% Monarchist.
Look all around the world. The Emperor of Japan is constitutionally the embodiment of all that is right with Japan... yet even constitutionally lacks any right to exercise any powers. Does that make the Emperor any less important to Japan?
You all want a Monarchy. Cool. Let's have an empty throne and have it be "guarded" by a steward.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 02, 2021, 10:31:36 PM
If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.
Truly.
Edo and I offer a compromise but are bitten for daring to meet in the middle, yet then we get criticized elsewhere for not including more feedback or for carrying the banners without asking permission.
Childish rubbish. You lot want compromise or you don't. Stick to a consistent talking point, please.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 03, 2021, 12:18:30 AM
Quote from: Éovart Andrinescù on January 02, 2021, 10:00:14 PM
...
I agree in a very real and practical sense.
A monarchy has real value in terms of stability in a small country which lacks very many physical anchors and symbols of continuity. If the constitution changes every few years, major institutions change their workings dramatically or simply fall into disuse, and new political parties rise and fall, then what remains to tie Talossa together with any sort of continuity? Only a handful of people are interested in our language or other aspects of our culture, after all. Having some important elements of our country that remain continuous means that there's a weight of history behind Talossa -- doing big things has deeper meaning because they help build up something that's going to last into the future, just as it's lasted from the past.
You can build a sandcastle down in the waves, but the constant tide will pull it right down and leave you disinterested. If you want it to last, you build it on a rock.
Honestly, this argument is very persuasive and I am nearly onboard with you. The one point of disagreement is that you insinuate that a
King is the only way to achieve the stability. Poppycock.
Why does a Monarchy have to be the bedrock? Just because it's been around for 40 years? There is no reason that our other institutions cannot withstand the tides.
I for one do not support the abolishment of the civil service, the peerage, or the other hallmarks of "monarchical life". These things can exist, however, without a king.
I also do not see anyone saying that the very foundations of the United States are crumbling
because they do not have a king. No, they are crumbling because the institutions around the presidency have been and are abdicating their own responsibilities to resist the executive branch (cough cough, Congress).
Talossa does not suddenly lose its personality because we lack a King. The current King has grown increasingly absent in recent years, and yet there is still a Talossa.
Talossa carries onward on the work of everyone else than the King. Stability? Yeah, important. But the source of stability is everyone else: the Seneschalsqab, the Chancery, the College of Arms, the Uppermost Cort, and more.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 03, 2021, 12:18:30 AM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 02, 2021, 10:24:14 PM
...
Why do you get to decide what's fun for people? Why do you get to decide which Talossan traditions are valid, and which aren't?
Heraldry stuff is fun for people! Peerages are fascinating! Do we really have to grind it out of existence because it doesn't meet with your personal approval or because King Ben did it a different way?
I mean, honestly, 2005 was sixteen years ago! "Oh, well, you've been doing this thing in Talossa for sixteen years, but it doesn't count as a traditional, real Talossan thing. Only valid King Ben cosplay is really doing Talossa."
We can keep these things at the same time as abolishing the Monarchy. They are not mutually exclusive. See France, Portugal, South Africa, and Australia.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 03, 2021, 09:10:27 AM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 03:37:36 AM
...
In Talossan history, there have only been a handful of peerages. The Earl of Kenwood in 1987, the Viscount of Vuode in 1999, five grants in 2005-2006, and only two since. Of the recent grants, one was done for purely governmental reasons (to ensure continuity of government) and one was done by right of blood (elevating the Prince of Prospect). Peerages are uncommonly rare.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 03:37:36 AMThere's a reason why, after Reunision, Talossan culture has more or less reverted to the older traditions (preserved by the Republic during the national schism), while RUMPish innovations have died out. This, the cultural tradition, is the continuity, which is far older than the current Absentee monarchy. The exception to this is heraldry, which meh. I have a coat of arms and I don't regret it. Why would I wipe it out? Açafat dal Vàl, a firebreathing Republican, is in the College of Arms.
I'm glad that you tolerate heraldry and one of your allies enjoys it, but maybe those aren't the best yardsticks for whether or not you should "wipe it out."
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 03:37:36 AMPrecisely because it relies on edicts from central government and cannot survive without it, he bogus peerage belongs on the same scrapheap of dead-ends in Talossan cultural evolution as consonant mutations.
Didn't an edict from central government eliminate consonant mutations? Not sure you've thought out this metaphor.
Listen, if we are going to start wiping out things, then we should think it through. If you want to create a new republic of Talossa, we should look at what happened to the old one. The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self. But the Kingdom ended up, in the reckoning of our current Seneschal, "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens." So let's figure out why... before we jettison even more of that cultural richness.
The issue here is that a single unelected person should not have - does not deserve - control or influence on the political directions of our nation. King John has no more right to veto my clarked bills than a dandelion.
We're not "wiping out" the Monarchy. We're asking that it be an elected office, and be elected more often than an unpredictable abdication every 15 or 20 years. Total strawman / red herring poppycock.
Elected heads of state may exercise the exact same powers as the King does now (including a veto!); the difference is that the former is held accountable every 2-5 years.
I'm sick of having this argument again and again, but the Regent cannot simply be allowed to rewrite history with his continued assertions that the Talossan Republic was a failure and the Kingdom "WON" the National Schism. The Kingdom being so gloriously successful in 2011 that they had to open the door to a despised group of "splitters" whom they had been insulting for years, because the RUMP's unchallengeable rule had become a boring dead end, just like the KR1's PC Party. Turns out it took
both wings to make the Talossan bird fly.
Further, the Regent's citation of the titles of Earl of Kenwood or Viscount of Vuode is dishonest, in that neither of them are "peerages" in the way the modern law describes it (titles of nobility granted by the the King), as they were both created by the Ziu. The first was bestowed upon the republican Bob Murphy for trolling purposes; the second was a title which had always applied to the monarchy, which was legislatively "separated" from the Monarchy but re-bestowed on KR1.
The peerage as we know it was created by the National Schism Kingdom.
But just to stamp on any misinterpretations: I have no interest in abolishing the peerage. What would that mean, declaring that Mà la Mhà isn't allowed to call himself Lord Hooligan any more? Waste of time. And I couldn't anyway. The law gives the Monarchy power to hand out titles of nobility, and specifies that nobles get to sit up front in the Order of Precedence with the orders of chivalry. That's it. I just think it's embarrassing - what GV calls "SCA Talossa".
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 03, 2021, 09:10:27 AM
The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self. But the Kingdom ended up, in the reckoning of our current Seneschal, "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens." So let's figure out why... before we jettison even more of that cultural richness.
Back on topic!
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 02, 2021, 10:31:36 PM
Anyway, I'd like to put this up to the leader of the Opposition. The fact remains that - even if Option One wins the election - nothing will happen without an OrgLaw amendment, which will need 2/3 of the Coså (3/4 with a veto override) to happen.
So, @Senator Plätschisch or other members of the LCC or other Monarchists, please answer. Would you be any less likely to oppose an Elected Head of State if we continued to call them "King"? Or "Regent" for a permanently empty throne? If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on January 03, 2021, 01:55:42 PMI also do not see anyone saying that the very foundations of the United States are crumbling because they do not have a king. No, they are crumbling because the institutions around the presidency have been and are abdicating their own responsibilities to resist the executive branch (cough cough, Congress).
This seems like a really inapt metaphor. If the United States government ceased to exist tomorrow, all of its citizens would still reside in a physical country with fifty state governments, physical proximity, centuries of history, etc. Indeed, your metaphor actually serves to illustrate my point. There's a new Seneschal with some regularity (I mean, obviously not for a couple of years, of course, but usually there's pretty regular changeover), for example. And at this moment the government that you represent has put forth a bill to dramatically change the Cosa, too, for that matter.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on January 03, 2021, 01:55:42 PMThe issue here is that a single unelected person should not have - does not deserve - control or influence on the political directions of our nation. King John has no more right to veto my clarked bills than a dandelion.
He was elected, and his role was confirmed specifically by referendum just a couple of years ago, and then again when the OrgLaw was revised, and then again when Article I was revised again. The citizens of Talossa have affirmed over and over again that they like it this way, and they're the ones who confer that power.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 02:02:07 PM
I'm sick of having this argument again and again, but the Regent cannot simply be allowed to rewrite history with his continued assertions that the Talossan Republic was a failure and the Kingdom "WON" the National Schism.
I didn't say that, of course. Indeed, I said much the opposite -- everyone was a winner with Reunision. But you yourself admitted that the Kingdom was "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens" when you were explaining why the Republic shrank in numbers year over year. I think a big part of that was perceived continuity: immigrating to the Kingdom of Talossa felt like you were joining something that was more real and connected to history. It made it feel like things you could do in Talossa would matter and might last. I think that was important and it merits address.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 02:42:36 PM
Back on topic!
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 02, 2021, 10:31:36 PM
Anyway, I'd like to put this up to the leader of the Opposition. The fact remains that - even if Option One wins the election - nothing will happen without an OrgLaw amendment, which will need 2/3 of the Coså (3/4 with a veto override) to happen.
So, @Senator Plätschisch or other members of the LCC or other Monarchists, please answer. Would you be any less likely to oppose an Elected Head of State if we continued to call them "King"? Or "Regent" for a permanently empty throne? If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.
My order of preference, after keeping the Monarchy the way it is, looks about like this:
1. Some version of the NPW's "co-prince" proposal
2. A periodically elected King (with quite long terms)
3. Anything having to do with a "permanently empty throne"; this strikes me much more as a lose-lose than a win-win.
4. Full-out Republicanism
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on January 04, 2021, 09:36:50 AM
2. A periodically elected King (with quite long terms)
That would be perfectly acceptable to me as a "historic compromise" - something like 7 years.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 04, 2021, 02:51:23 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on January 04, 2021, 09:36:50 AM
2. A periodically elected King (with quite long terms)
That would be perfectly acceptable to me as a "historic compromise" - something like 7 years.
Even as a staunch republican I could support this also. Perhaps if the referendum results are pretty unclear we could meet in this middleground?