Azul,
In response to various other campaigns being launched in recent days, it is now a fine time to launch The Campaign For Keeping The Monarchy The Way It Is.
Remember that The Way It Is already severely limits the power of the King, compared to the powers he enjoyed five years ago. Over this period, the King lost his absolute veto over Organic Law amendments, his veto over other legislation became much weaker, and the hereditary aspect of the Monarchy was removed.
Contrary to what you might think at first, the people who are now part of the Campaign for an Elected Head of State were not the ones who principally pushed the above reforms. The main sponsor of all three amendments (48RZ14, 50RZ19, and 54RZ28) was in fact me, the very person who stands before you now leading the campaign to protect the remaining powers of the Monarch. It does not take a crusted-on reactionary to believe that the needed reforms have been made and that making further changes would do more harm than good.
Below is part of an article I wrote for La S'chinteia in September outlining why I support the Monarchy and you should as well.
_______________________________________________________________
1. For Talossa, Democracy is Not the End-All-Be-All
For good reason, powerful Monarchies in "real" nations are largely a thing of the past. When citizens do not really have a choice but to the be subject to the laws of their home country, it is only fair that the People have the ultimate sovereignty over those laws, which clearly rules out the possibility of a Monarchy. Talossa is in a different situation though. To start, citizenship is completely voluntary; no one would become stateless if they were no longer Talossan. Also, let's be honest, being subject to Talossan law has basically no relevance to a Talossan's everyday life, which is lived almost exclusively outside Talossa. Because of this, options for government which would not be palatable to other nations are open to us.
Talossa is a country, sure, but it is also a voluntary association with the goal of letting everyone have a good time (Article I, Section 1 of the Organic Law). Therefore, if we decide that a Monarchy is the form of government best suited to having a good time (and I will later argue that it is), calling the Monarchy undemocratic misses the point. As I said earlier, the typical reasons why a Monarchy with power would be bad don't apply to us, and we have much more to gain from an "enjoyable" government than other countries.
2. It's Unique and Fun
As I pointed out above, non-figurehead Monarchies are not particularly common anymore. However, the idea of Monarchy still clearly captures the public imagination (I still can't believe how closely Americans follow the drama with the British royal family, for example, and they have almost no power). It is just different from what most people experience in their regular lives, and Talossa is well-positioned to deliver the benefits of a Monarchy (coats of arms, knighthoods, other accoutrements, and overall pomposity) without the obvious downsides that usually accompany it. I thus find it very likely that many immigrants are attracted to the Monarchy, and Talossa would be wasting an opportunity to provide a unique experience to new and existing citizens if it dispensed with that institution.
It is often claimed that a figurehead Monarchy is more than capable of providing the desired pomposity, but there is just something hollow about being awarded a coat of arms from someone whose only job is to award coats of arms. It works better if the Monarch is also responsible, in some small capacity, for the governance of the Kingdom.
3. Talossa Needs Someone for the Long Term
Talossa currently has only 181 citizens, all of whom must balance Talossa with all of the other things they do in their life, and all of whom can lose interest for various reasons. They drift in and out of activity (but recently, usually just out), and Talossa itself has undeniable semi-comatose periods. This is a problem no "real" country ever faces (that wouldn't even make sense), so we cannot look to other countries for solutions.
The institution of the Monarchy, however, is a Talossan solution to a Talossan problem. If we are searching for the best form of government to ensure Talossa's continued existence, we should give some power to a position whose incentives are long-term rather than short-term. This is what the King is; he can withstand short-term changes in sentiment, but the value of his domain will deteriorate significantly if he does not act properly over the long term. The Cosa, on the other hand, is elected every six months. Its strength is its quick response to the people, but it can be susceptible to enacting politically convenient policies that, rather than fix problems, simply mask them until they are someone else's problems. The King cannot dodge responsibility this way because the problems will always be his problems.
Yes, hello, question here.
If your option wins, do you consider that John I of the House of Woolley, our absentee monarch, is still a fit and proper person to hold this august position?
Followup. Aren't there even MORE unique and fun options? Just about everywhere has/had a king/queen/emperor, etc.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 08, 2020, 08:19:10 PM
Yes, hello, question here.
If your option wins, do you consider that John I of the House of Woolley, our absentee monarch, is still a fit and proper person to hold this august position?
This is a different question to whether the Talossan Monarchy should in principle retain the powers it currently has. Therefore I would not necessarily expect all supporters of this campaign to have the same answer.
Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on December 09, 2020, 09:10:04 AM
Followup. Aren't there even MORE unique and fun options? Just about everywhere has/had a king/queen/emperor, etc.
I don't see how the dual head of state plan would actually be more fun. I guess it would add another elected position, which could be fun for some people, but it would also make the Monarchy even less meaningful than it is now. As I said earlier though, it's still better than the other two options.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 09, 2020, 09:29:46 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 08, 2020, 08:19:10 PM
Yes, hello, question here.
If your option wins, do you consider that John I of the House of Woolley, our absentee monarch, is still a fit and proper person to hold this august position?
This is a different question to whether the Talossan Monarchy should in principle retain the powers it currently has. Therefore I would not necessarily expect all supporters of this campaign to have the same answer.
Understood. I'm asking for
your personal answer here. If Option 3, the Status Quo, wins, that becomes a live issue. (Actually it's an issue in options 2 and 4 as well.)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 09, 2020, 10:03:32 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 09, 2020, 09:29:46 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 08, 2020, 08:19:10 PM
Yes, hello, question here.
If your option wins, do you consider that John I of the House of Woolley, our absentee monarch, is still a fit and proper person to hold this august position?
This is a different question to whether the Talossan Monarchy should in principle retain the powers it currently has. Therefore I would not necessarily expect all supporters of this campaign to have the same answer.
Understood. I'm asking for your personal answer here. If Option 3, the Status Quo, wins, that becomes a live issue. (Actually it's an issue in options 2 and 4 as well.)
I can see both sides of the issue. One one hand, I have a long record of criticizing the King, and do believe that (if he cannot increase his own activity), if he could step down in favor of someone who could make better use of the Throne, that would probably be an improvement. On the other hand, selecting someone else will be very challenging.
"For good reason, powerful Monarchies in "real" nations are largely a thing of the past."
Hmm... Our monarchy still holds the power of legislative veto. How is it not powerful, then?
You assume the inherent goodness of every single monarch Talossa will ever have. Ben went bad. Dobberpuhl was not fit for purpose. Florence was not the right personality, though she was much-loved.
How we govern ourselves and how we elect our leaders is a skeletal framework in which society can function. Of course, the undergirding of any society is adherence to common human decency, but we must put together a system of governance that will make it as difficult as possible for bad actors to flourish.
Keeping the Talossan monarchy the way it is is asking for trouble and playing with fire.
Quote from: GV on December 20, 2020, 04:31:10 PM
"For good reason, powerful Monarchies in "real" nations are largely a thing of the past."
Hmm... Our monarchy still holds the power of legislative veto. How is it not powerful, then?
It is an very weak veto indeed.
Quote
You assume the inherent goodness of every single monarch Talossa will ever have.
No I do not. The veto is easily circumvented and the Monarch is not so hard to remove.
Quote from: GV on December 20, 2020, 04:31:10 PM
You assume the inherent goodness of every single monarch Talossa will ever have. Ben went bad. Dobberpuhl was not fit for purpose. Florence was not the right personality, though she was much-loved.
And your saying that goodness can only come from elected officials? Ever heard of the USA, land of the free, home of the brave? Ever heard of Donald trump who has presideded over the worse Pandemic in modern times and has killed thousands upon thousands. Nixon was corrupt and rasict and put in place mass incarceration of people of colour, hoover presided over the wall Street crash, James Buchanan basically started the civil war. And that's just the USA. Need I go on?
You cannot claim that elected heads of state are inherently more vertious when history is littered with horrendous ones
And we can get rid of bad elected leaders without an armed uprising.
Talossa was weighed down for years by a King who just stopped caring about Talossa once his political allies ceased to be in power. And now we have a Regent whom no-one voted for but the King, because the King just couldn't GAF about Talossa any more but he didn't have the moral courage to abdicate.
I have to say: even if the status quo wins this election, we will need a new King, and I think we have a majority (between reformists and responsible monarchists) to get one. The thing is that a lot of Talossan monarchism is in bad faith because it's conservatives who like having a conservative King/Regent vetoing the progressive majority's decisions. If we had a radical, even a communist, for King, who shot down a conservative majority's proposals, those guys would switch to being Republicans overnight. The essential failure of imagination is that a King will always be conservative.
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on December 20, 2020, 07:31:35 PM
And your saying that goodness can only come from elected officials? Ever heard of the USA, land of the free, home of the brave? Ever heard of Donald trump who has presideded over the worse Pandemic in modern times and has killed thousands upon thousands. Nixon was corrupt and rasict and put in place mass incarceration of people of colour, hoover presided over the wall Street crash, James Buchanan basically started the civil war. And that's just the USA. Need I go on?
You cannot claim that elected heads of state are inherently more vertious when history is littered with horrendous ones
Democracy really is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried, isnt it? Obviously no system is absolutely fool- or tyrant-proof, and you'll never be able to guarantee that only virtuous people will get into office no matter which system you use,
but,
could you imagine what wouldve happened if any of these people you listed had been monarchs for life instead? Four years under a horrible president are, well, horrible, but infinitely better than decades upon decades under a horrible monarch.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 20, 2020, 07:59:38 PM
If we had a radical, even a communist, for King, who shot down a conservative majority's proposals, those guys would switch to being Republicans overnight. The essential failure of imagination is that a King will always be conservative.
Being conservative in Talossa essentially means being a Monarchist. Therefore it is unavoidable that any King who believes himself to be legitimate would be a conservative by Talossan standards. Of course other conservatives would then support the King, but its not clear to me what else you think they are gaining besides being able to keep the Monarchy itself. Seriously, what distinctly "conservative" policies would there be for a radical King to shoot down?
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 21, 2020, 08:54:25 AM
Being conservative in Talossa essentially means being a Monarchist. Therefore it is unavoidable that any King who believes himself to be legitimate would be a conservative by Talossan standards.
If the purpose of the Monarchy is only to preserve the Monarchy, then... that's a logical ourobouros.
QuoteSeriously, what distinctly "conservative" policies would there be for a radical King to shoot down?
Okay, I'm imagining myself as King of Talossa, and a neo-RUMP party with a Cosa majority. The first thing I'd do would be to formally abolish the recognition of the aristocracy (no more Dukes or Counts). The second thing I would do would be to issue proclamation after proclamation full of fire-breathing statements on foreign politics - supporting the self-determination of Palestine, cheering on legal and political victories for Trans Rights, giving royal medals of honour to Joe Biden or Reality Winner or whoever else is a hate figure for the US right at the moment. And they couldn't do anything about it, except try to overthrow me.
Past that, I would just "rain on the parade" of every Government initiative or bill passed by the Ziu which annoyed me for whatever reason. The purpose of such dog-in-the-manger tactics would not necessary be to "win" in the sense of stopping anything. The purpose would be to annoy, harass, make Talossa less fun for people I didn't like; to suck up all the attention in the room from the elected Government. In such situations, I doubt that anyone would be saying "God Save the King" except sarcastically. The only way out of this is if you argue that a conservative-traditionalist Ziu majority wouldn't actually want to do anything or pass any laws - because that's the ultimate in conservatism - but then that would make the Monarchy the only political actor in Talossa. They wouldn't want that.
Well, Talossa is a monarchy, and so wanting to conserve established institutions will tend to favor the monarchy. It's not an ironclad rule, but it's a pretty reasonable line of thought. It's also not circular, except inasmuch as it's true by definition: if you support existing institutions and the monarchy is an existing institution, then you will probably support the monarchy.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 21, 2020, 02:44:59 PM
would just "rain on the parade" of every Government initiative or bill passed by the Ziu which annoyed me for whatever reason. The purpose of such dog-in-the-manger tactics would not necessary be to "win" in the sense of stopping anything. The purpose would be to annoy, harass, make Talossa less fun for people I didn't like
Not quite sure I see this point. I mean, yes, you could try to relentlessly grind everything down that didn't personally please you, until people either got tired or gave up resisting, but you'd probably also drive a ton of people away and you'd have a hard time maintaining any diversity of thought in the country. Why would you do this? Not much of that is really "radical" in a Talossan sense, after all, except inasmuch as it corresponds with the word's use in other countries a lot. Really, only trying to abolish the nobility would fit the bill of all of that. Unless maybe you're suggesting that a radical monarch would try to destroy the monarchy itself, by doing such a bad job that they reshape the country, even if it ended up driving most people away? I guess maybe that's true -- a radical monarch could try to do a terrible job on purpose! I think they would get removed, though.
I don't think anyone's arguing that someone nihilistically focused on their own goals to the exclusion of the good of the country isn't a very real possibility, but there's not really anything that could change that. That possibility already exists with any office with power, after all.
I wish we weren't having this debate right now, by the way. It seems myopic. Obviously I'm a monarchist and the serving regent, so my opinion is hardly surprising, but anything that takes the focus away from our real and pressing problems seems unbelievably foolhardy right now. We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right. If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good. (That's part of why I support the monarchy, of course. It has historically attracted a ton of our citizens, who think it's interesting and fun in one way or another.)
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 03:55:05 PM
We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right. If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good.
You're not reckoning right. We've had 16 applications for citizenship in the last month alone.
See, this is the thing. You say things like "why can't we be greater friends"? Because your main occupation is to pop up in Talossa and tell me that everything I and my allies do is ruining Talossa and we should be ashamed and resign and become inactive, that's why.
I guess I have showed that the only reason people support monarchy is they think monarchy will keep Talossa just the way they like it - i.e. for purely selfish, partisan reasons. If the monarch was not of their political persuasion, they would become republicans overnight.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 03:55:05 PM
...
We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right. If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good.
Utter nonsense.
2020 to date has seen 8 grants of citizenship. There is currently 9 active prospective cases. Immigration rates have been steady month to month.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 21, 2020, 04:03:46 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 03:55:05 PM
We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right. If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good.
You're not reckoning right. We've had 16 applications for citizenship in the last month alone.
See, this is the thing. You say things like "why can't we be greater friends"? Because your main occupation is to pop up in Talossa and tell me that everything I and my allies do is ruining Talossa and we should be ashamed and resign and become inactive, that's why.
I guess I have showed that the only reason people support monarchy is they think monarchy will keep Talossa just the way they like it - i.e. for purely selfish, partisan reasons. If the monarch was not of their political persuasion, they would become republicans overnight.
I apologize if I counted immigration petitions wrong. My count looking back just over the last few pages of Witt was that there had only been one successful immigrant in the last 6 months. Who did I miss?
I admit I'm also a little confused about the tone of your post, otherwise. There was a discussion here about what it means to be conservative in our shared country... am I to take it that you're upset that I spoke up with my opinion, and that I'm not allowed to partake in such discussions because my position must be "selfish?"
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on December 21, 2020, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 03:55:05 PM
...
We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right. If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good.
Utter nonsense.
2020 to date has seen 8 grants of citizenship. There is currently 9 active prospective cases. Immigration rates have been steady month to month.
That's great! I must have just miscounted. I had thought that Nick was the only immigrant in the last 6 months, but I probably just overlooked the others. Who are they? Maybe they want to play D&D too!
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 04:50:19 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on December 21, 2020, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 03:55:05 PM
...
We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right. If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good.
Utter nonsense.
2020 to date has seen 8 grants of citizenship. There is currently 9 active prospective cases. Immigration rates have been steady month to month.
That's great! I must have just miscounted. I had thought that Nick was the only immigrant in the last 6 months, but I probably just overlooked the others. Who are they? Maybe they want to play D&D too!
I was embarrassed by my mistake and so I went back a few more pages on this board, and still couldn't find anyone else who had been naturalized since your last immigration report in July. Are petitions being lodged or granted on other boards? As you know, I've been really worried about this, and I feel really silly if I was just looking in the wrong place.
4 grants since July (6 months). They all have a [G] in the titles.
8 for the year to date, so 4 grants for each six month period.
I know immigration has been one of your political hobby horses for a couple of years, but you can start to let it go. Immigration has been working fine since late 2019. Of course, you could argue that 8 new grants within a year isn't enough. If that's your argument then fair enough, but as we have said many times, I would rather we got just 1 fairly active new citizen rather than 20 inactive citizenship roster padders. Quality over quantity.
Edit.. Are you only checking Wittenberg main board? I don't think the Chancery always posts them here. Immigration sub-board is more accurate.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on December 21, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
4 grants since July (6 months). They all have a [G] in the titles.
8 for the year to date, so 4 grants for each six month period.
I know immigration has been one of your political hobby horses for a couple of years, but you can start to let it go. Immigration has been working fine since late 2019. Of course, you could argue that 8 new grants within a year isn't enough. If that's your argument then fair enough, but as we have said many times, I would rather we got just 1 fairly active new citizen rather than 20 inactive citizenship roster padders. Quality over quantity.
Edit.. Are you only checking Wittenberg main board? I don't think the Chancery always posts them here. Immigration sub-board is more accurate.
Sigh... Yes, I was checking the main board because that's where petitions had always been lodged. I honestly had no idea that they were now routinely done in the immigration threats themselves. Embarrassing! Thank you for explaining. I'm also glad to hear that things have leveled out and stayed that way.
Kudos to the Regent for admitting when he got it wrong. May we all have that level of integrity. I'm not satisfied myself with how much new citizens are stepping up and getting involved; but that's the next issue on the pipeline.
Anyway, back on topic. A line which the Regent and others bring up is always that raising the constitutional question "ruins Talossa" for conservatives and drives down activity. That has never been the case. I can't remember whether it was KR1 or another old Growther who said it, but "Talossa is never more active than when we're debating what Talossa is" is stil true, for me. (In the old days it was more Derivative vs. Peculiar than Monarchy v. Republic, but I think it's an existential question either way.)
What really strikes me is that last week, the Ministry of STUFF brought about the talossa.net social media network, the biggest and most exciting endeavour IMHO in Talossan history since Wittenberg itself - and it's criminally underused. And yet this thread, on the age old constitutional question, gets a whole bunch of input. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 05:09:35 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on December 21, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
4 grants since July (6 months). They all have a [G] in the titles.
8 for the year to date, so 4 grants for each six month period.
I know immigration has been one of your political hobby horses for a couple of years, but you can start to let it go. Immigration has been working fine since late 2019. Of course, you could argue that 8 new grants within a year isn't enough. If that's your argument then fair enough, but as we have said many times, I would rather we got just 1 fairly active new citizen rather than 20 inactive citizenship roster padders. Quality over quantity.
Edit.. Are you only checking Wittenberg main board? I don't think the Chancery always posts them here. Immigration sub-board is more accurate.
Sigh... Yes, I was checking the main board because that's where petitions had always been lodged. I honestly had no idea that they were now routinely done in the immigration threats themselves. Embarrassing! Thank you for explaining. I'm also glad to hear that things have leveled out and stayed that way.
No worries. Glad we could clear that up. Apologies for initially snapping at you. I get overly defensive over the immigration portfolio because I put in a lot of hard work to repair the system.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on December 21, 2020, 05:17:33 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 05:09:35 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on December 21, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
4 grants since July (6 months). They all have a [G] in the titles.
8 for the year to date, so 4 grants for each six month period.
I know immigration has been one of your political hobby horses for a couple of years, but you can start to let it go. Immigration has been working fine since late 2019. Of course, you could argue that 8 new grants within a year isn't enough. If that's your argument then fair enough, but as we have said many times, I would rather we got just 1 fairly active new citizen rather than 20 inactive citizenship roster padders. Quality over quantity.
Edit.. Are you only checking Wittenberg main board? I don't think the Chancery always posts them here. Immigration sub-board is more accurate.
Sigh... Yes, I was checking the main board because that's where petitions had always been lodged. I honestly had no idea that they were now routinely done in the immigration threats themselves. Embarrassing! Thank you for explaining. I'm also glad to hear that things have leveled out and stayed that way.
No worries. Glad we could clear that up. Apologies for initially snapping at you. I get overly defensive over the immigration portfolio because I put in a lot of hard work to repair the system.
Not at all. I appreciate the work you've done. Question: is there a chart or way to monitor things like this? Over the years, I've kept spreadsheets of total citizens and active citizens at any one time, but it seems like the sort of thing we should be keeping track of more formally. It also seems like it would actually not be hard with existing data.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 21, 2020, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 21, 2020, 08:54:25 AM
Being conservative in Talossa essentially means being a Monarchist. Therefore it is unavoidable that any King who believes himself to be legitimate would be a conservative by Talossan standards.
If the purpose of the Monarchy is only to preserve the Monarchy, then... that's a logical ourobouros.
Not exactly; preserving the Monarchy comes with the many benefits I described in my article.
Quote
QuoteSeriously, what distinctly "conservative" policies would there be for a radical King to shoot down?
Okay, I'm imagining myself as King of Talossa, and a neo-RUMP party with a Cosa majority. The first thing I'd do would be to formally abolish the recognition of the aristocracy (no more Dukes or Counts). The second thing I would do would be to issue proclamation after proclamation full of fire-breathing statements on foreign politics - supporting the self-determination of Palestine, cheering on legal and political victories for Trans Rights, giving royal medals of honour to Joe Biden or Reality Winner or whoever else is a hate figure for the US right at the moment. And they couldn't do anything about it, except try to overthrow me.
Past that, I would just "rain on the parade" of every Government initiative or bill passed by the Ziu which annoyed me for whatever reason. The purpose of such dog-in-the-manger tactics would not necessary be to "win" in the sense of stopping anything. The purpose would be to annoy, harass, make Talossa less fun for people I didn't like; to suck up all the attention in the room from the elected Government. In such situations, I doubt that anyone would be saying "God Save the King" except sarcastically. The only way out of this is if you argue that a conservative-traditionalist Ziu majority wouldn't actually want to do anything or pass any laws - because that's the ultimate in conservatism - but then that would make the Monarchy the only political actor in Talossa. They wouldn't want that.
1) Foreign political spectra have little correspondence to the Talossan political spectrum; I know that many Talossan conservatives would probably be OK with progressive statements about foreign politics, and that those same statements may not sit well with some members of the FreeDems.
2) Even if your only purpose was to rain on the Government's parade, you could not do so very effectively given that you would only have a fairly weak veto and that you would be subject to removal. Also, with the exception of getting rid of the nobility, it would be pretty clear to everyone that your sole objective was to be a stick in the mud rather than voice any kind of principled objection.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 22, 2020, 09:28:27 AM
1) Foreign political spectra have little correspondence to the Talossan political spectrum;
You are very wrong about this both in contemporary and historical terms. When an anonymous citizen in the National Survey bemoaned "intolerance of opinions that are not far left", what do you think that was referring to?
Quote
2) Even if your only purpose was to rain on the Government's parade, you could not do so very effectively given that you would only have a fairly weak veto and that you would be subject to removal. Also, with the exception of getting rid of the nobility, it would be pretty clear to everyone that your sole objective was to be a stick in the mud rather than voice any kind of principled objection.
No different than Absentee John, in other words, and we couldn't get rid of him, and we still might not be able to do so. I specified in my hypothetical that I would be facing a conservative majority, not a supermajority.
The new talossa.net social-networking site is one of the best digital things I've ever seen in Talossa.
Hearty agreement with Miestrâ - criminally-underused, indeed.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 22, 2020, 12:36:06 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 22, 2020, 09:28:27 AM
1) Foreign political spectra have little correspondence to the Talossan political spectrum;
You are very wrong about this both in contemporary and historical terms. When an anonymous citizen in the National Survey bemoaned "intolerance of opinions that are not far left", what do you think that was referring to?
I honestly think he is referring to Talossan far-left opinions, ie Republicanism, given that extra-Talossan politics aren't discussed very much here, and this opinion fits with the overall negative feelings these respondents voiced toward the Talossan left.
QuoteQuote
2) Even if your only purpose was to rain on the Government's parade, you could not do so very effectively given that you would only have a fairly weak veto and that you would be subject to removal. Also, with the exception of getting rid of the nobility, it would be pretty clear to everyone that your sole objective was to be a stick in the mud rather than voice any kind of principled objection.
No different than Absentee John, in other words, and we couldn't get rid of him, and we still might not be able to do so.
Every time the King has vetoed a bill, no matter how frustrating his timing, he has always provided some sensible (if unconvincing) argument on the merits. On the topic of the King's absence, it is not really excusable, but I highly doubt the cause of it is to intentionally needle the government. There are plenty of other explanations.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 23, 2020, 09:55:03 AM
I honestly think he is referring to Talossan far-left opinions, ie Republicanism, given that extra-Talossan politics aren't discussed very much here, and this opinion fits with the overall negative feelings these respondents voiced toward the Talossan left.
Do you remember when I. Canún was revealed as doing time for child rape, and the King himself went off on a rant about how sexual abuse convictions were not to be trusted because (to paraphrase) bitches and libruls be lyin' to throw sturdy, noble men in jail? The same guy who switched churches because the Catholics were too liberal these days?
With the prominent exception of the current Regent, the old RUMP membership was and is overwhelmingly American-style conservative (i.e., by global standards, frothing reactionaries). It is possible that you just didn't notice this, or, for example, what the Senator for Maricopa has to say on the legal status of homosexuality under Indian law, etc. There are a LOT of US-style culture warriors in Talossa. You might not remember that it wasn't just King Robert I who used transphobic abuse as a prime weapon of attack against the Republic, but many of the RUMP leadership as well. I remember, for obvious reasons.
The Talossan tradition of having a King is not working, does not work, and will not work again. The incumbent King has abdicated his office in practical terms, and there would be no true consensus for a replacement.
What is the purpose of a King in Talossa? Truly.
An elected head of state can grant coats of arms, knighthoods, awards, or other things just as well as an unelected king. The true difference is that an elected head of state is accountable and more easily replaced. People keep saying that it is easy to replace our King, but if it were so easy we would have done it already.
Holding on to the monarchy is a hypocritical effort. Are we not all equal before the law? Are we not all held to the same standards as each other? Why should one of us get to hold a office for life, enjoy public and political powers without countersignature, and be so important as to rule unilaterally?
It is not enough to have "checks and balances". I did not choose King John! Why should he get to veto any bills which I may hopper on the Clark?
Down with the Monarcy, and in with the Equality.
QuoteI did not choose King John!
It is often said in defence of the current Monarch that John Woolley was elected, but you make a great point: That particular election was so long ago that hardly anybody (if anybody at all?) that is currently active in Talossa took part in that election.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on December 28, 2020, 01:28:54 PM
there would be no true consensus for a replacement.
How do you know?
QuoteWhat is the purpose of a King in Talossa? Truly.
I explained that at the very beginning of this thread.
QuotePeople keep saying that it is easy to replace our King, but if it were so easy we would have done it already.
So, anything that you cannot do unilaterally (or, to be more fair, with only simple majorities in the Ziu) is too difficult?
QuoteHolding on to the monarchy is a hypocritical effort. Are we not all equal before the law? Are we not all held to the same standards as each other? Why should one of us get to hold a office for life, enjoy public and political powers without countersignature, and be so important as to rule unilaterally?
It is not enough to have "checks and balances". I did not choose King John! Why should he get to veto any bills which I may hopper on the Clark?
Down with the Monarcy, and in with the Equality.
As I have been saying for a while now, voluntary associations should not be held to the same standard of democracy as "real" countries, if an alternative provides more enjoyment. I totally get the argument that having a Monarchy is in fact not enjoyable to some people, and I find that a much more compelling argument than handwringing about democracy.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on January 04, 2021, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: Açafat del Val on December 28, 2020, 01:28:54 PM
there would be no true consensus for a replacement.
How do you know?
I'm imagining a situation where we decide to keep the Monarchy as is but force-retire the absentee incumbent. Some people will say "oh God, no surrender, no King", and they have every right to; but others might think "if we are to persist with the monarchy, let's have someone who's universally respected and doesn't give anyone of any political persuasion the heebie-jeebies."
The practical problem arises that I could name a short list of such people. But all of them are either inactive, or "winding down their inactivity". To be blunt, it would be far easier for me to accept politically noxious but competent person as term-limited Head of State than someone genial, inoffensive, respected, and absent with a life term.
My personal belief is that no-one is qualified to be King of Talossa (someone who holds rights over the state by virtue of who he is, and these rights can't be revoked by the people or their representatives) except an Old Growther, someone who was Talossan back when it was a group of friends in East Side Milwaukee. If any of them were to show any interest in the job, then maybe you could talk me out of my firm stance on an elected Head of State.
CAN WE HAVE A 50-WORD STATEMENT FOR THIS OPTION WITHIN 24 HOURS, PLEASE?!?
Thanks to Senator Plätschisch for his quick response.
The Crown will also have its own statement to contribute. I'll get back to you with it tonight.
Took me a bit longer than that, but here it is before the end of 24 hours:
Monarchy has helped keep Talossa strong for decades, sustaining us in crises when other Talossan institutions failed. In addition to steadiness, monarchies are quirky and interesting to Talossans. The throne is also one of few restraints on the increasingly powerful office of the Seneschal. Defend the crown and the king!
Wait a second... why is the Seneschal soliciting 50-word statements and helping to coordinate the election at all?
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 11:37:59 AM
Wait a second... why is the Seneschal soliciting 50-word statements and helping to coordinate the election at all?
Take note folks. The Regent had no issue with it until the minute he discovered his own 50 word statement wasn't included on the ballot.
The cynical answer to your question is because someone needs to herd the cats. From what I've seen, the only thing the Seneschal has been doing is poking the various campaign leaders into action so that the Chancery has a statement from each of them.
The real question to be asking is why is the Crown wading hip deep in politics and positioning itself on any of these options?
Well, the demand for a statement was abrupt -- 24-hour-notice! -- and I hadn't given it any thought until I did indeed notice the choice.
But I'd like an answer, please. Is that the official answer of the Government: that it is acting on the Chancery's behalf?
As for your real question... um, is it really a mystery as to why the crown would concern itself with a referendum on the future of the crown?
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:05:49 PM
As for your real question... um, is it really a mystery as to why the crown would concern itself with a referendum on the future of the crown?
As a Brit? Yes. It is absolutely strange.
If a referendum on the Monarchy were to happen in the UK and the Royals got involved in any way at all it would cement the vote against them.