|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Nov 5, 2019 18:46:29 GMT -6
Most of our current and aspiring citizenry live in some form of actual/aspiring republic. A monarchy has more novelty and more charm. More novelty and charm than what? This is the same unfounded claim Ian was making. Back this up with something other than "Well, I think it's fun." That's when the mandatory soybean diets begin. Further instructions will be issued via the tinfoil hats. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 5, 2019 19:16:02 GMT -6
Most of our current and aspiring citizenry live in some form of actual/aspiring republic. A monarchy has more novelty and more charm. More novelty and charm than what? This is the same unfounded claim Ian was making. Back this up with something other than "Well, I think it's fun." More novelty and charm than a Talossa without those things? Because I think they're fun? I'm not sure what more you want from me to "found" my subjective claim. I'd be happy to list the aspects of those things that I specifically find fun... is that what you had in mind? That's when the mandatory soybean diets begin. Further instructions will be issued via the tinfoil hats. Yes yes, boy golly you're wacky. But really, are you proposing any positive changes to replace these things? I mean, if we get rid of provinces, do you propose simply no national political subdivisions at all? There's lots of good possible answers -- including simply saying that you have no idea and no plan, but you want to see what will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Nov 6, 2019 7:34:09 GMT -6
...including simply saying that you have no idea and no plan, but you want to see what will happen. #Brexit |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 6, 2019 7:45:32 GMT -6
The previous comment is gold.
|
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Nov 6, 2019 9:33:12 GMT -6
More novelty and charm than what? This is the same unfounded claim Ian was making. Back this up with something other than "Well, I think it's fun." More novelty and charm than a Talossa without those things? Because I think they're fun? I'm not sure what more you want from me to "found" my subjective claim. I'd be happy to list the aspects of those things that I specifically find fun... is that what you had in mind? What I am looking for is the root of this statement that has been made by you and other folks that Monarchy has more novelty. You're not the only one to make this seemingly objective claim. But it always seems to boil down to "Well, I prefer it that way" or a similar subjective statement. And that's fine, but lets then please stop pretending that this is a universal preference. If we wanted novelty, we could completely reinvent the governmental structure, or try something that has only been attempted rarely. We could organize ourselves like an Elks lodge... but upside down... if we were looking for novelty. In regards to the provincial issue, we have made a suggestion in the platform. Arrangement by seniority of citizenship into percentile groups. The amount of time you've been around seems to be very culturally important in the "More Talossan Than Thou" Olympics. So we might as well lean into it. Though, honestly, having no subdivisions at all wouldn't bother me in the least. Less deadwood.
As for the Monarchy. It has been floated in the Peculiarist caucus that we embrace the "Dennis" plan:
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Nov 6, 2019 10:16:10 GMT -6
Incidentally to the provincial issue, what is your party's opinion on the Senate and the Free Democratic proposal of exploring an unicameral Real Cosa with MMP? This got a bit drowned out. (Btw, just trying to talk policy here. No gotchas from me.) Also: What is your current opinion of the old NPW position of a new extra figure to act as Head of State alongside a now-strictly-ceremonial-only King? (Although I suppose that it sounds like one of Deet's ideas) |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 6, 2019 11:06:27 GMT -6
More novelty and charm than a Talossa without those things? Because I think they're fun? I'm not sure what more you want from me to "found" my subjective claim. I'd be happy to list the aspects of those things that I specifically find fun... is that what you had in mind? What I am looking for is the root of this statement that has been made by you and other folks that Monarchy has more novelty. You're not the only one to make this seemingly objective claim. But it always seems to boil down to "Well, I prefer it that way" or a similar subjective statement. And that's fine, but lets then please stop pretending that this is a universal preference. If we wanted novelty, we could completely reinvent the governmental structure, or try something that has only been attempted rarely. We could organize ourselves like an Elks lodge... but upside down... if we were looking for novelty. I again have to admit that I'm not sure what you mean. I don't agree that it's an objective statement that a monarchy is more novel and charming. It's pretty subjective. I guess the closest we'd come to empirical proof would be comparing the respective fates of the Republic and the Kingdom? On your latter point, of course we could be even more novel if we thought it would help our country. But the attraction of novelty isn't the only thing we value in our governmental structure. Your argument doesn't make any sense. I also think that some stability is important in government, but that doesn't mean that we should therefore do away with elections to achieve maximum stability. In regards to the provincial issue, we have made a suggestion in the platform. Arrangement by seniority of citizenship into percentile groups. The amount of time you've been around seems to be very culturally important in the "More Talossan Than Thou" Olympics. So we might as well lean into it. Though, honestly, having no subdivisions at all wouldn't bother me in the least. Less deadwood. As for the Monarchy. It has been floated in the Peculiarist caucus that we embrace the "Dennis" plan:
Your platform actually leads with the idea of just abolishing them without replacing them, but then says an alternative would be seniority-ranking. I'm trying to imagine how that would work... I'd start off as Fiova or something, and then over the years I'd gradually be moved into different provinces as I rose in seniority? Why? What's the point? You wouldn't even be able to build a community because you'd be moving to a different one, and we'd be deliberately stratifying these "provinces." It seems like your primary goals are indeed just negative: get rid off all of these things, and fin. That's surprising. I don't entirely understand the motivation here, though. There's a lot of people who like the idea of provinces and their provinces specifically (like me!)... it seems weird to want to just smash them up because you don't like them, unless you're arguing they are doing a greater amount of harm in other ways. |
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Nov 6, 2019 11:41:30 GMT -6
What I am looking for is the root of this statement that has been made by you and other folks that Monarchy has more novelty. You're not the only one to make this seemingly objective claim. But it always seems to boil down to "Well, I prefer it that way" or a similar subjective statement. And that's fine, but lets then please stop pretending that this is a universal preference. If we wanted novelty, we could completely reinvent the governmental structure, or try something that has only been attempted rarely. We could organize ourselves like an Elks lodge... but upside down... if we were looking for novelty. I again have to admit that I'm not sure what you mean. I don't agree that it's an objective statement that a monarchy is more novel and charming. It's pretty subjective. I guess the closest we'd come to empirical proof would be comparing the respective fates of the Republic and the Kingdom? On your latter point, of course we could be even more novel if we thought it would help our country. But the attraction of novelty isn't the only thing we value in our governmental structure. Your argument doesn't make any sense. I also think that some stability is important in government, but that doesn't mean that we should therefore do away with elections to achieve maximum stability. Just read it again. It's short, and you'll figure it out. But I'm proud of you for admitting you don't understand. We're all learning here. |
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Nov 6, 2019 11:47:13 GMT -6
Incidentally to the provincial issue, what is your party's opinion on the Senate and the Free Democratic proposal of exploring an unicameral Real Cosa with MMP? This got a bit drowned out. (Btw, just trying to talk policy here. No gotchas from me.) Also: What is your current opinion of the old NPW position of a new extra figure to act as Head of State alongside a now-strictly-ceremonial-only King? (Although I suppose that it sounds like one of Deet's ideas) In regards to MMP and a Real Cosa, I think that needs breaking down a bit. A Real Cosa is something I think it is fair to say we would support. The MMP portion, I would say that the NPW is, in corpore, agnostic on the idea. I find it an interesting prospect individually, however. But that's if political subdivisions are kept.
The older position, which I do believe was one of Deet's ideas, was based in the prospect of "If we absolutely must keep the monarchy... let it at least be this." The current NPW is a bit more radically Republican than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 6, 2019 12:46:06 GMT -6
I again have to admit that I'm not sure what you mean. I don't agree that it's an objective statement that a monarchy is more novel and charming. It's pretty subjective. I guess the closest we'd come to empirical proof would be comparing the respective fates of the Republic and the Kingdom? On your latter point, of course we could be even more novel if we thought it would help our country. But the attraction of novelty isn't the only thing we value in our governmental structure. Your argument doesn't make any sense. I also think that some stability is important in government, but that doesn't mean that we should therefore do away with elections to achieve maximum stability. Just read it again. It's short, and you'll figure it out. But I'm proud of you for admitting you don't understand. We're all learning here. Thanks  I'm slow, sometimes, making my way through this one life as best I can. I haven't had the benefit of being two dozen 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 Nov 6, 2019 13:24:57 GMT -6
HAHAHAHA! The Free Democrats have been running a sweepstake on " how long will this thread go before AD starts bringing up ESB's criminal history" and I just won  |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 6, 2019 13:32:21 GMT -6
I can't even decide if it's rude to bring up someone's crime spree.
|
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Nov 6, 2019 13:46:12 GMT -6
Rude or not it is indeed part of my record, and therefor at least worth mentioning. But what would you like to know about it? I don't plan on repeating it, if that's where your concern lies.
(Fun side note... I noticed the posting of the NPW party manifesto was my 666th post as me.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 6, 2019 13:56:22 GMT -6
No, I'd rather that we continue the actual conversation we were having, before you decided that my turn of phrase was an opportunity to condescendingly dismiss me. Why does my preference that we keep the monarchy and provinces, which I really like about the country, not count? In the absence of any positive vision of an alternative that might actually improve the country, why destroy these things?
|
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Nov 6, 2019 14:31:33 GMT -6
I'm not understanding you here. Are you suggesting a political party encompass everybody's preferences? We didn't take your preferences into account because you aren't a member of the party and did not speak up in re: the platform.
The Peculiarist argument against the monarchy looks like this: No one person should be able to corner the market on Talossanity. But that is precisely what a monarch does. That's why Kings and Queens would refer to "Our cousin France," etc. The Monarch is the nation embodied. The hereditary nature of this monarchy doubles down on it, investing the identity of the nation in the body and its products. This is true not only in Louis XIV-type regimes, but also in constitutional ones. Just watch "The Queen" with Helen Mirren, the same sentiment. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."
|
|
I'm slow, sometimes, making my way through this one life as best I can. I haven't had the benefit of being two dozen people.
