|
Post by Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu on Mar 17, 2012 17:08:42 GMT -6
Some Progressive parties in the Republican Traditions (The UTP... Union for Talossan Progress) viewed micronationalism as a chance to build the "city on a hill" scheme of politics as we would have them.
To a certain degree, I identify as a Peculiarist. However, throughout recent history, the Peculiarist ideology has been torqued and tortured to fit any number of personal perversions and pecadillos, hence my own party realignment. It has slowly but steadily become a meaningless term in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Mar 18, 2012 4:41:27 GMT -6
As for meaningless terms in politics, especially in micronationalism, there seems to be a trend.
Liberal is something that is evoking different associations in people, depending on where you are living in the real world. Progressive is a relative term in any way. Particularly meaningless in the internetbased micronational environment is everything with "social" in it, as it would be absurd to simulate a welfare state or to nationalise fictitious means of production. Etc, etc...
So if Peculiarism has become a meaningless term, as you seem to believe, it is at least the most honest way of wearing the emperor's new clothes. Because most of the political categories that I mentioned above seem to indicate that we're standing on solid, comprehensible political / philosophical ground while actually we are not.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 18, 2012 16:53:59 GMT -6
As I keep saying, the ZRT sees ourselves as progressive derivatists. And we still hold to the idea of "dirigism", that the Government should take responsibility for encouraging cultural development. Sounds to me that ZRT members should vote CSPP As I said to Glüc, please read the ZRT platform and tell me how much you agree with. If the answer is more than 80%, then we can definitely negotiate a merger.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Mar 18, 2012 17:32:26 GMT -6
Nationalism. We uphold the tradition that Talossa is a nation - defined by Perry Anderson as “an imagined community”. we see ourselves (or at least behave as if we do) as a nation of the world, but we cast no judgement on the validity of other non-sovereign entities' claims to nationhood. The Talossan nation includes all current citizens of Talossa, and some who are not currently citizens but have historically shown themselves to be Talossan. We support Talossa having the full panoply of institutions of a nation-state, insofar as they are useful or fun for a population of our size. 2. Traditionalism. Talossa is the Talossan traditions that have evolved more or less continuously since 1979. A Talossan is defined in part by being aware of the history of that tradition and continuing to work within it. This tradition is always open to change - however, too great a rupture with those traditions, and Talossa will cease to be Talossa. One vitally important tradition of the Talossan nation is el glhetg naziunál, and Defencism strives towards the goal of 'n naziun Ladîntsch- where all citizens would know and use at least a small amount of the Talossan language in their daily business. 3. Pretentiousness. Although the Talossan state possesses no sovereign power, behaving as if it does is an essential part of the fun of being Talossan. Pomp, rhetoric and boasting are an important part of the Talossan tradition. however, we also see all this with a touch of irony. We repudiate that part of the Talossan tradition which honoured historical dictatorships and oppressive regimes on the grounds that their uniforms were snazzy. In this, Defencism is a left-wing form of Talossan nationalism. 4. Democratic dirigism. This phrase attempts to define the particular way that Defencism sees the Talossan state: a) All citizens should be equal before the law. b) All government offices should derive their powers from a popular mandate and be regularly subject to democratic scrutiny, to the extent that this does not impede their ability to make decisions and take action. c) The state should have real power and responsibility for the collective life of the nation, including but not limited to cultural development, settlement of disputes between citizens and relations withother nations. d) Real power in the Talossan state should lie where the constitution and laws declare it to lie. We repudiate pre-Revolutionary Talossa's history of “name only” governments and committees, and a legislature which debated frivolous bills while real power lay elsewhere. 5. Diversity. We repudiate the historical tradition of “cultural monolithism” in Talossa. Every one of good will who pledges loyalty to the Constitution and Laws of Talossa should be welcome as a citizen. Although we defend Talossan cultural traditions as we understand them, we recognize that the democratic will of the people trumps tradition. Cultural distinctiveness should be encouraged in Talossa's provinces - in fact, that is the main reason why they should continue to exist. We particularly defend the Qatoritrìnistà culture (the culture of former citizens of the Republic) as a vital part of our national tapestry. 6. Focus outwards. At all those times when Talossa has become inward-looking and static, it has become a nasty place to live. Talossa is best when we are continually accepting new Talossans, and engaging in cultural exchanges with non-Talossans of good will. we are poorer for pretending that we exist in a vacuum. We support the demolition of the Semi-Permeable Wall and full friendly relations with other Talossa-like entities and their members. 7. Republicanism. We are proud of the history of the Talossan Republic, 2004-12, and the Revolution which it founded. We say "the Republic will never die". We seek to preserve the Republican tradition in the reunited Kingdom by pushing for the following democratic reforms: a) a secret ballot for all Federal and provincial elections; b) a system of voting for named candidates or lists of candidates, rather than "blank cheques" for party leaders; c) reducing the current baroque requirements for changing certain parts of the Organic Law; d) progressively reducing the political influence of the monarchy and nobility in Talossa, while recognizing that the majority of Talossans currently look to the monarchy as a symbol of national unity and cultural continuity. The ZRT is therefore a cultural movement as well as a political party, which seeks to actively build Talossan culture and deepen understanding of our history, while at the same time competing democratically for positions within the Kingdom of Talossa and seeking to improve our constitution and laws. We believe that our Seven Points above embody the positive side of the tradition which has kept Talossa alive for almost three decades. I would like to hear what Istefan and Flip think, but I agree with most of this. I am not sure on 7c but could be convinced if interesting alternatives were explained. 7d, I support removing the last of the King's legislative powers and removing his ex facto status from the Ziu (but thats me and I don't forcehaven't forced that personal view on my parties). Nobility has it's benefits: Arms have become a massive part of Kingdom culture and Lords and Sirs are awarded after great service to the nation.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 18, 2012 18:15:43 GMT -6
Knighthoods ("Sirs") are part of Talossan culture dating back decades, but the actual aristocracy is a post-2005 innovation that we Republicans look on with befuddlement.
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu on Mar 18, 2012 18:50:14 GMT -6
So if Peculiarism has become a meaningless term, as you seem to believe, it is at least the most honest way of wearing the emperor's new clothes. Because most of the political categories that I mentioned above seem to indicate that we're standing on solid, comprehensible political / philosophical ground while actually we are not. Peculiarism is an embrace of the small group dynamics that mark the workings of a healthy micronation. A potential distancing from the practices of our larger brethren if need be. As for the Peculiarism of the APT and its previous incarnation... I'm not sure what it means any more. S:reu Asmour chalks all of is erratic behavior up to Peculiarism. So what does it mean anymore?
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Mar 18, 2012 20:26:43 GMT -6
I am 99.99% in agreement here. My only question is 7c also. If we agree on an alternative I am also 100% on board for a merger.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 18, 2012 21:42:02 GMT -6
I am under the impression that amending the OrgLaw requires an affirmative vote twice in the Ziu, with a general election between the two. Is that the case or not?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 18, 2012 23:05:39 GMT -6
No. One vote in the Ziu, and then it goes to the people.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 19, 2012 2:23:18 GMT -6
Oh! Then I was misinformed. But I take it that it's a 75% majority in both houses? That's too far, I would push for a 67% majority in the Cosâ and a 51% majority in the Senäts.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 2:41:07 GMT -6
The 75% is only the senate. In theory for both houses 67% is needed but this means in reality with 8 provinces 75% is needed. I would support a very small reduction of the support needed in the senats, but I don't know yet what alexandreu thinks.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 19, 2012 9:43:00 GMT -6
Perhaps a contribution from the founder of the CSPP's historic forerunner - the Progressive Party - might be welcomed.
Progressivism as understood at the point of the foundation of the PP rested on a few key tenets:
1) Cultural advance: government encouragement of cultural activities, for instance the Poetry Contest and the proposal of the Order of the Bonacon.
2) Outward looking: we came up with the idea of a Talossan Aid Fund, and wanted to test the waters of what constituted a "nation" or "people" by examining, for instance, the UNPO guidelines.
3) Cultural unity with all Talossans: our understanding of Talossanity extended beyond the legal boundaries of the Kingdom, not just to the Republic (though closer friendship with the Republic was a big plank of ours) but to ex-citizens of particular merit.
Other measures were more pragmatic - for instance, our introduction of the Magistracy, so as to make Cort workings more efficient and less reliant on semi-active members.
So - as far as the original PP goes - there are some major points of difference with the ZRT:
1) Understanding of Talossa as a "nation". The PP took a "city on a hill" view, with some tongue-in-cheek. In this it was perfectly mainstream in Kingdom terms, and a little more solemn than the ZRT's position on the matter. I still hold to that view.
6) Insomuch as the PP's understanding of "nation" was more overreaching than the ZRT's, the Semi-Permeable Wall was not questioned; that is, communication between Talossa and micronations was considered appropriate in some respects, but no ideological equality was accepted. Talossa is, or aims to be, or should be, a nation - micronations do not, on the whole, claim that.
7) The PP was monarchist. If time were to collapse in on itself and the PP of 2009 were faced with the ZRT's current article 7, it would disagree more or less strongly with all items. There would be sympathy over the way the Ziu works as to legislation and amendments (esp. in terms of the Senate), but immense caution as to any change in that direction. Subsections (a) and (b) would be opposed sympathetically but firmly. Subsection (d) would simply be opposed (though it was not as if the PP had any thought of making the monarchy anything other than "constitutional", and would have vociferously opposed any attempt to politicize the Crown).
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Mar 19, 2012 10:42:26 GMT -6
Being a monarchist and supporting reforms like the secret ballot, listed candidates and moderately reducing the difficulty of amending the Organic Law are not mutually exclusive. As such, point 7 is only 25% republican in the sense of advocacy of forming a republic. Furthermore, that 25% of the point only advocates diminishing the power of the King and of the nobility and not removing it altogether.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 19, 2012 10:59:32 GMT -6
I did address the four subsections. To reiterate:
(a) We believed (as a party) in the open ballot, and I still do; (b) though as PP leader I published a list of people we intended to appoint MCs, I do not support making that a legal requirement; (c) whilst I am sympathetic about (say) Senate and amendment reform, I think extreme caution is required, given my point made elsewhere that the system has worked admirably so far, and I say that as one often defeated legislatively by it - unless it can be proven it hinders rather than helps careful reform, we would be taking a great risk to change it, and the PP didn't propose specific reforms addressing the issue, though it understood the issue; (d) the PP was monarchist.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2012 11:05:07 GMT -6
I'm a bit confused here, can someone please define Peculiarism from a Talossan lens for me? I keep seeing this word with it being used by different people for different things, I haven't been able to figure out its definition.
|
|