[Cantzelerïă/Chancery] Sixth Clark of the 58th Cosa

Started by Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB, August 02, 2023, 09:14:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB

Sincerest apologies. My brain apparently didn't accept that yesterday was August 1.

The August 2023 Clark is now here.


Or here: www.talossa.ca/files/print_clark.php (this is the printer friendly version)

In PDF Form (which was made from the print_clark.php page):


or can vote online here: www.talossa.ca/files/clark_vote.php

Or in this thread, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

Senators are allowed to create a single thread in the Senate chamber to post all of the Senate Votes that are not cast in this thread. Any votes not posted either using the form above, the current thread or the Senate thread might be ignored and void. Please do not vote by email or private messages.

When you vote, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Please do not vote by email: We've had problems with email votes being caught in the spam filter.

All nominated Cosa Members and Senators have been emailed 

Secretár d'Estat/Secretary of State
Sir Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, UrB, GST, O.SPM, SMM
Secretár d'Estat
Guaír del Sabor Talossan
The Squirrel Viceroy of Arms, The Rouge Elephant Herald, RTCoA
Cunstaval da Vuode
Justice Emeritus of the Uppermost Cort
Former Seneschal

Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

As to RZ24, "The Sentient Rights Act," I vote për.
As to RZ25, "The Cort Bookkeeping Act," I vote për.
As to RZ26, "The James 'Jimmy' Letherer Memorial Civil Rights Day," I vote për.

On the VoC, I proudly vote  uc.
Alexandreu Davinescu, Baron Davinescu del Vilatx Freiric del Vilatx Freiric es Guaír del Sabor Talossan

Bitter struggles deform their participants in subtle, complicated ways. ― Zadie Smith
Revolution is an art that I pursue rather than a goal I expect to achieve. ― Robert Heinlein

Ian Plätschisch


QuoteThe fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights [is] basic and far-reaching. For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.


That the concept of a species ethic is part of the nature of the world may be seen, moreover, by contemplating the activities of other species in nature. It is more than a jest to point out that animals, after all, don't respect the "rights" of other animals; it is the condition of the world, and of all natural species, that they live by eating other species. Inter-species survival is a matter of tooth and claw. It would surely be absurd to say that the wolf is "evil" because he exists by devouring and "aggressing against" lambs, chickens, etc. The wolf is not an evil being who "aggresses against" other species; he is simply following the natural law of his own survival. Similarly for man. It is just as absurd to say that men "aggress against" cows and wolves as to say that wolves "aggress against" sheep. If, furthermore, a wolf attacks a man and the man kills him, it would be absurd to say either that the wolf was an "evil aggressor" or that the wolf was being "punished" for his "crime." And yet such would be the implications of extending a natural-rights ethic to animals. Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings.


There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings.
-Murray Rothbard, from The Ethics of Liberty

I am open to the idea that a select few species (apes, dolphins, etc.) which have demonstrated an ability to reason and thus take true "action" (in the Misesian sense) should be afforded rights beyond the typical non-human animal. However, the preamble of the bill takes a rather more broad view:

QuoteWhereas, sentience is the characteristic of consciousness whereby an organism has a sufficient level of awareness to experience suffering,

However, this misses the important fact that even most "sentient" animals exist on sheer force of instinct and cannot be said to make meaningful decisions about their lives. While I agree that outright animal cruelty should be prohibited on the basis of their experience of suffering, the ability to suffer (which sentient animals have) is not the same as the ability to derive satisfaction from being alive or being free, which even most sentient animals do not have. I thus have no moral qualms with keeping most animals in captivity or slaughtering them (humanely), and in general it is nonsensical to speak of a broad class of "sentient rights" that most sentient beings have no capacity or desire to exercise.

That this bill dispenses with the notion of human rights altogether, as though there is no difference between human rights and "sentient rights" at all, is deeply concerning.

QuoteWhereas, it is therefore a fact that the restriction of the normative and legal discussion and codification of rights to humankind is an unacceptable case of anthropocentric speciesism.

I embrace anthropocentric speciesism as the morally and logically correct position.

RZ25 - PER
RZ26 - AUS

Tric'hard Lenxheir

Tric'hard Lenxheir (Senator-TNC)


Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP

A Mixed-Member Proportional Cosa is the future!
The Long Fellow, Royal Talossan College of Arms
Specialist, Els Zuávs da l'Altahál Rexhitál
Cäps Naziunal, Parti da Reformaziun

Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB

Results of the Sixth Clark

RZ24 failed 70-46-72 in the Cosa and 1-4-2 in the Senäts
RZ25 passed 160-5-23 in the Cosa and 5-1-1 in the Senäts
RZ26 passed 98-23-67 in the Cosa and 4-1-2 in the Senäts
The VoC passed 94-67-27

MC Açafat del Val did not vote.
Senator Ian Tamoran did not vote for a second consecutive time and loses his seat (however this is moot as his term expires with this Clark).

This concludes the 58th Cosa. I formally ask @King John to dissolve the Cosa.

Secretár d'Estat/Secretary of State
Sir Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, UrB, GST, O.SPM, SMM
Secretár d'Estat
Guaír del Sabor Talossan
The Squirrel Viceroy of Arms, The Rouge Elephant Herald, RTCoA
Cunstaval da Vuode
Justice Emeritus of the Uppermost Cort
Former Seneschal