Balançeu / Balance party supports retaining the current Monarchy

[xpb]

Also posted at https://talossa.net/members/xpb/activity/443/ (you will need a complimentary TalossaNET account to login)

You are invited to join the Balançeu / Balance party if you have interest in retaining the current monarchy for Talossa that changes only under occasional and extraordinary circumstances. The current system has worked for over 40 years. Balançeu / Balance believes there should not be a change to an elected office called "King" similar to a President (such as occurs in 12 other global countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Syria, and Tajikistan every 7 years).

Several other parties support 55RZ21 The Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment. Balançeu / Balance party does not support that legislation as Talossa already has a King, and in the future may have a different King or Queen through existing traditions.

In general, the Balançeu / Balance party supports the combination of an elected Ziu (Cosa and Senäts) balanced with a Monarchy which is not subject to the vagaries of periodic elections. A King or Queen who operates as a Chief Executive Officer, who may delegate tasks as he or she sees fit, and takes a long view of events and circumstances beyond that of ephemeral political arguement.

If you support Balançeu / Balance in the election, you are also invited to join the party LIST such that your voice can be heard directly within the Cosa. Just write your name in the thread https://talossa.net/members/xpb/activity/439/#acomment-440 such that one or more seats granted in the election may be yours to represent, depending upon the number of ballots cast for Balançeu / Balance. As per Lex B.2.3 The ballot must also include, for each party contesting the election, a list of citizens to whom the party intends to award Cosa seats.

Alternatively you can call or text message 414-253-3643 (41-HALF-DOGE) or you can send email to balanceubalance@gmail.com. As per rules posted for the current election cycle, you need to make your intention to join the party list known prior to 13 May 23:59 TST (-5 UTC) – and preferably much earlier to aid the administration of the election. This information becomes public knowledge as part of the ballot, but throughout the balloting process you as a matter of course retain the right to vote as you choose without regard to being listed.

[xpb]

[Ian Plätschisch]

I bought 14 dogecoin with 3 cents a while ago; alas, I sold before realizing a big return.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Also posted at https://talossa.net/members/xpb/activity/443/ (you will need a complimentary TalossaNET account to login)

Balançeu / Balance believes there should not be a change to an elected office called "King" similar to a President (such as occurs in 12 other global countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Syria, and Tajikistan every 7 years).

Good sir, doth thou ever hear of the holy roman empire? or the kingdom of Scotland? or even the Byzantium? Dutch Republic? Poland Lithuanian commonwealth? Ever heard of the pope? Andorra? Do you know what they all have in common?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Also posted at https://talossa.net/members/xpb/activity/443/ (you will need a complimentary TalossaNET account to login)

Balançeu / Balance believes there should not be a change to an elected office called "King" similar to a President (such as occurs in 12 other global countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Syria, and Tajikistan every 7 years).

Good sir, doth thou ever hear of the holy roman empire? or the kingdom of Scotland? or even the Byzantium? Dutch Republic? Poland Lithuanian commonwealth? Ever heard of the pope? Andorra? Do you know what they all have in common?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

As has been pointed out by a prominent Talossan, the term "king" has been applied to so many different sorts of positions that are selected in so many different ways that it's essentially meaningless in a technical way. But it's typically used in a colloquial manner to refer to an office that is, in general, as distanced as possible from partisan politics and which is invested with some certain amount of power. For example, if you were to tell an American citizen or a German citizen that their president was basically the same as a king, that would be taken as a comment implying that they had a lot of power outside of normal electoral politics.

Think of it like "food." In some places, they consume foodstuffs like cicadas or grubs as a matter of course. And that's absolutely fine. I'm going to hunt up some cicadas pretty soon myself. But if you invited someone to dinner and only served them grubs and cicadas, odds are pretty good most people would be upset if you hadn't explained beforehand! That's not because it's somehow wrong to eat cicadas and it's not because cicadas are "not food" by a technical definition, obviously. But there's a ton of things that qualify as food to someone at some time, that nonetheless don't come across as expected "food" to most people these days: mice, guinea pigs, dogs, rotting shark, etc.

So if someone says that the proposal would eliminate the monarchy and institute a presidency, I think it should be pretty clear that they don't mean it in a technical political science sense, right? Language is about communication, and they're trying to communicate that the idea of "king" means something more specific than "word we can use for just about any possible position in a government."

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

If the purpose of being a Monarchy and having a King is for the pageantry and symbolism - what Bagehot call the "dignified" rather than the "efficient" parts of the constitution - those should be what we're debating here. The Historic Compromise keeps all those things intact.

On the contrary, if the purpose of having a Monarchy is to vest ultimate responsibility for the State in the hands of one individual for life, there is no practical justification for this. Talossan history proves that Kings start getting lazy and egomaniacal after a decade in office, so they shouldn't get that as of right.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Also posted at https://talossa.net/members/xpb/activity/443/ (you will need a complimentary TalossaNET account to login)

Balançeu / Balance believes there should not be a change to an elected office called "King" similar to a President (such as occurs in 12 other global countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Syria, and Tajikistan every 7 years).

Good sir, doth thou ever hear of the holy roman empire? or the kingdom of Scotland? or even the Byzantium? Dutch Republic? Poland Lithuanian commonwealth? Ever heard of the pope? Andorra? Do you know what they all have in common?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

As has been pointed out by a prominent Talossan, the term "king" has been applied to so many different sorts of positions that are selected in so many different ways that it's essentially meaningless in a technical way. But it's typically used in a colloquial manner to refer to an office that is, in general, as distanced as possible from partisan politics and which is invested with some certain amount of power. For example, if you were to tell an American citizen or a German citizen that their president was basically the same as a king, that would be taken as a comment implying that they had a lot of power outside of normal electoral politics.

Think of it like "food." In some places, they consume foodstuffs like cicadas or grubs as a matter of course. And that's absolutely fine. I'm going to hunt up some cicadas pretty soon myself. But if you invited someone to dinner and only served them grubs and cicadas, odds are pretty good most people would be upset if you hadn't explained beforehand! That's not because it's somehow wrong to eat cicadas and it's not because cicadas are "not food" by a technical definition, obviously. But there's a ton of things that qualify as food to someone at some time, that nonetheless don't come across as expected "food" to most people these days: mice, guinea pigs, dogs, rotting shark, etc.

So if someone says that the proposal would eliminate the monarchy and institute a presidency, I think it should be pretty clear that they don't mean it in a technical political science sense, right? Language is about communication, and they're trying to communicate that the idea of "king" means something more specific than "word we can use for just about any possible position in a government."

I'm so sorry but I do not understand the point... cicadas.... food... Monarchy? 

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Also posted at https://talossa.net/members/xpb/activity/443/ (you will need a complimentary TalossaNET account to login)

Balançeu / Balance believes there should not be a change to an elected office called "King" similar to a President (such as occurs in 12 other global countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Syria, and Tajikistan every 7 years).

Good sir, doth thou ever hear of the holy roman empire? or the kingdom of Scotland? or even the Byzantium? Dutch Republic? Poland Lithuanian commonwealth? Ever heard of the pope? Andorra? Do you know what they all have in common?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

As has been pointed out by a prominent Talossan, the term "king" has been applied to so many different sorts of positions that are selected in so many different ways that it's essentially meaningless in a technical way. But it's typically used in a colloquial manner to refer to an office that is, in general, as distanced as possible from partisan politics and which is invested with some certain amount of power. For example, if you were to tell an American citizen or a German citizen that their president was basically the same as a king, that would be taken as a comment implying that they had a lot of power outside of normal electoral politics.

Think of it like "food." In some places, they consume foodstuffs like cicadas or grubs as a matter of course. And that's absolutely fine. I'm going to hunt up some cicadas pretty soon myself. But if you invited someone to dinner and only served them grubs and cicadas, odds are pretty good most people would be upset if you hadn't explained beforehand! That's not because it's somehow wrong to eat cicadas and it's not because cicadas are "not food" by a technical definition, obviously. But there's a ton of things that qualify as food to someone at some time, that nonetheless don't come across as expected "food" to most people these days: mice, guinea pigs, dogs, rotting shark, etc.

So if someone says that the proposal would eliminate the monarchy and institute a presidency, I think it should be pretty clear that they don't mean it in a technical political science sense, right? Language is about communication, and they're trying to communicate that the idea of "king" means something more specific than "word we can use for just about any possible position in a government."

I'm so sorry but I do not understand the point... cicadas.... food... Monarchy?

lol yeah, fair enough, that was a weird analogy.  Let me try to make my point a bit better.

If I invited you to dinner, Txosue, then I like to think you would accept if it were convenient.  But you would probably be dismayed (and hungry) if I only served rotten shark and mice.  Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe you're one of the small number of people who routinely and comfortably eat those foods?  But odds are pretty good that you wouldn't have a nice meal, considering where you live.

Now, that doesn't mean that people don't eat those things, right?  There are many people who do, but it's just very uncommon in most culture of the world today.  Technically, rotten shark and mice are "food" -- but they're not anything like what you'd usually consider to be food!

The label of "king" is the same way.  Tafial recently explained to me that the term doesn't actually have much meaning in political science, since it's been used so many different ways over history, and in a technical sense it's practically interchangeable with "president."

But just like the word "food," there are still a lot of expectations around the term for most people!  If you tell someone you're going to invite them over for dinner, they expect to be served something that a majority of people would consider to be a common food.  If I served you rotten shark without warning you ahead of time or clarifying what I meant with my dinner invitation, then I would have been a pretty lousy host -- even if I told you that rotten shark was technically "food" or told you it was eaten in Scandinavia.

So when XPB says that the proposal would eliminate the monarchy and establish a presidency, he's drawing on the common understanding of those words -- not the technical definition.  Sort of like if you tell the president of your book club that they're behaving like they think they're the king of the book club: that has a meaning about the level of power they're asserting.

Yes, there have been officials labeled as "kings" who held zero power and were elected to office for short terms.  But that's not what "king" means to most people -- especially not in Talossa!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If the purpose of being a Monarchy and having a King is for the pageantry and symbolism - what Bagehot call the "dignified" rather than the "efficient" parts of the constitution - those should be what we're debating here. The Historic Compromise keeps all those things intact.

Your party leader made a formal speech about how one of his big priorities was taking away the honours system from the king's purview, so I don't really see your point.  If Republicans were serious about a Historic Compromise about the role of the monarchy in general, then I assume that they wouldn't already be publicly planning to break it!  No, you yourself have made it clear that this Historic Compromise only extends to the strict subject it addresses: whether or not the king will be regularly elected to terms of office.

This is the sort of Historic Compromise where Republicans get most of what they want, while monarchists get nothing -- and where Republicans say they're coming back for more, soon.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Your party leader made a formal speech about how one of his big priorities was taking away the honours system from the king's purview

We've prepared a formal statement explaining our position on that which dismantles the outrage-baiting "spin" you put on it. We were just waiting to see whether you would stop running that line, but apparently not; so we have to put it on record why, in particular, you getting a peerage stinks in our nostrils.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Also posted at https://talossa.net/members/xpb/activity/443/ (you will need a complimentary TalossaNET account to login)

Balançeu / Balance believes there should not be a change to an elected office called "King" similar to a President (such as occurs in 12 other global countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Syria, and Tajikistan every 7 years).

Good sir, doth thou ever hear of the holy roman empire? or the kingdom of Scotland? or even the Byzantium? Dutch Republic? Poland Lithuanian commonwealth? Ever heard of the pope? Andorra? Do you know what they all have in common?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

You do understand that except for Andorra in the modern era (and that as a side-effect of France abolishing its monarchy in favor of a fixed-term presidency), all of your examples of "elective monarchy" there are cases where the monarch was elected for life, not for a limited term? Much like, well, the current King of Talossa was elected?

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Also posted at https://talossa.net/members/xpb/activity/443/ (you will need a complimentary TalossaNET account to login)

Balançeu / Balance believes there should not be a change to an elected office called "King" similar to a President (such as occurs in 12 other global countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Syria, and Tajikistan every 7 years).

Good sir, doth thou ever hear of the holy roman empire? or the kingdom of Scotland? or even the Byzantium? Dutch Republic? Poland Lithuanian commonwealth? Ever heard of the pope? Andorra? Do you know what they all have in common?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

You do understand that except for Andorra in the modern era (and that as a side-effect of France abolishing its monarchy in favor of a fixed-term presidency), all of your examples of "elective monarchy" there are cases where the monarch was elected for life, not for a limited term? Much like, well, the current King of Talossa was elected?

You missed one, the pope, modern day, still a fully fledged nation.

I am aware that they are for life, I was just pointing out elected monarchs are a thing.

I also missed San Marinos captain regents who are 6 months terms.

Xpb lists nations who have presidents who are elected to there positions. I list nations who have had elected monarchs, both history and modern day.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

And that's just macro-nations, elected monarchs are very common in micronations.

Also leadership changes style all the time in our nation... It's a good job we are no longer a fascist dictatorship (yes I read our history)... We evolve.

[xpb]

It is all well and good that this statement to attract a party list has generated reasonable discussion from those not intending to join, much as the previous analogy of various fauna such as squirrels, wolves, hamsters, and chihuahuas stimulated comment. 

As opposed to the ad hominum attacks (mostly on TalossaNET with a few here on Witt) these comments have often been on the topic of specifics of these ongoing analogies with focus on the micro rather than the macro aspect. 

Let's cut to the chase (as I type on my phone as I am out and about at the moment - sorry about typos!)

A King and Kingdom is what we have now.  Perhaps not perfect in every aspect.  Some who pass judgement should examine their own long term commitment to the Kingdom (if not the King). Like the example of a parallel organization - not the mere suggestion of something of the like, but actual participation in such an enterprise.

If there is a desire for something other than a King and Kingdom of Talossa, there are thoughts expressed by other parties (which use a title called king for a position that is substantially different in an alternative system of government).  There have been extensive demonstrations of such forms of government previously.

Please consider joining the party list for Balançeu/Balance, or voting for the same, if you want to retain a Kingdom with a King (or perhaps Queen at some future date) for Talossa.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

As opposed to the ad hominum attacks

That's ad hominem, and like many others, you are misusing the term. No-one but no-one has attacked you personally; although the rhapsodic nature of your defence of the traditional monarchy is attracting some amount of mirth.