[NEW PECULIAR WAY]: Manifesto for the 54th Cosa

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

I don't think we need national political subdivisions. I don't think Talossa is big enough for that. Perhaps, if there were a thousand citizens, it would make sense. At this time, it doesn't make sense. It just allows for more offices.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Political parties that want to destroy institutions usually have some sort of positive vision in mind for their replacement, especially if they're advocating for the destruction of something that others like and enjoy. But this "get rid of it all and see what happens" seems to be a negative approach.

Day 2: Talossa no longer has any land claims, internal divisions, or monarchy. Everything you wanted destroyed is gone. So what's next?

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

I don't see how abandoning bogus land claims will change anything. Currently, those claims are more or less a footnote in the history of Talossa.

Eliminating the provinces will only change the political landscape, not Talossa itself. The provinces, despite what some will say, are dead.

Without monarchy, Talossa will continue just as it always has. It will just continue without a king. To be honest, I don't think we'd even notice that he was gone.

Talossa will survive without these things.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm not sure that "these changes don't matter because they wouldn't affect anyone" is a good case for making them.

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

I think that's fair. Please allow me to express a few opinions.

Yes, Talossa has survived in it's current form but I don't think it has thrived. Will these changes allow Talossa to grow into something more? That remains to be seen. It seems like Talossa in it's current state has grown stale.

I feel, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, that some Talossans are afraid of change. Change can be scary but it can also be dynamic. I think that's what Talossa needs. We need change, we need new perspectives and new ideas. It feels like our current approach is not working.

Will these changes lead to better things? We won't know unless we try.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Nov 6, 2019 17:59:01 GMT -6 Audrada Rôibeardét said:

I don't think we need national political subdivisions. I don't think Talossa is big enough for that. Perhaps, if there were a thousand citizens, it would make sense. At this time, it doesn't make sense. It just allows for more offices.

Historically provinces have allowed want-to-be-active persons who are out-of-power nationally an outlet for playing the "policy game" aspect of Talossa. See their various pre-Cybercit uses in the histories, or Fiova's initial role during RUMP rule.

And, as I think about that, perhaps the biggest problem of the Cybercits-to-Ben-Resigns era, with the multiple crises involved, is that Ben stopped using the provinces for that function, starting with the Pengopats shutdown. If Ben had allowed the historical pattern to be followed, with dissenters actively given provinces in which to grow their own gardens, things could have been much more bearable.

So, well, yes, the provinces don't currently get much use, because we don't have a large number of want-to-be-active people who are prevented from doing so by election results. But that lifeboats, fire sprinklers, and ejection seats ideally never get used doesn't mean it's a good idea to do away with them.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sure, there are lots of problems right now. But why would these specific changes fix any of them? Wouldn't your logic also justify making ESB into the new king, covering ourselves with peanut butter on Tuesdays, and instituting the worship of our Lord and Savior, the Holy Dunkin' Donuts Bagel of Justice?

[Eðo Grischun]

Nov 6, 2019 14:31:33 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

The Peculiarist argument against the monarchy...

Please rephrase. There are Peculiarists in the nation that think the Monarchy model works just fine. It's not a Peculiarist argument, rather it's an NPW argument.

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

Nov 6, 2019 19:56:48 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Sure, there are lots of problems right now. But why would these specific changes fix any of them? Wouldn't your logic also justify making ESB into the new king, covering ourselves with peanut butter on Tuesdays, and instituting the worship of our Lord and Savior, the Holy Dunkin' Donuts Bagel of Justice?

I do not want ESB to be king. If you choose to cover yourself in peanut butter, there is nothing I can do. If Talossa ever institues the worship of anything, I will renounce.

I cannot say that these changes will resolve any issues. Frankly, the issues we face will, in my opinion, never be resolved by any political action. I do not see the harm in moving forward.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Nov 6, 2019 20:07:02 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Nov 6, 2019 14:31:33 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

The Peculiarist argument against the monarchy...

Please rephrase. There are Peculiarists in the nation that think the Monarchy model works just fine. It's not a Peculiarist argument, rather it's an NPW argument.

So amended.

[Ian Plätschisch]

E.S. Bornatfiglheu

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.

I can't say I blame you for having missed the multiple times when I pointed out an objective standard (given how sprawling this thread has become), so I'll say again that most citizens comes from Republics and would therefore probably find more novelty in a Kingdom than a Republic.

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.

Going only for novelty results in wackiness for its own sake, which is not particularly appealing either. You have to strike a balance between what is just ho-hum and what is so weird that it doesn't make any sense.

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.

This is certainly not how it has to be. Far from cornering the market on Talossanity, the King is in a unique position to promote the Talossanity of others.

The NPW's arguments against both the Monarchy and the provinces both assume that because the system is not working now, there are no possible reforms which could ever make them work, so we should ditch them, because, who cares? 

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.

I will say you are acting quite blasé toward the preferences of others, even though obviously you shouldn't put them in your own platform. 

Do you have any actual input on the proposals to fix what is broken about these institutions, or will you just use the same line about how they are silly and dead and no one should care about them anymore?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 6, 2019 19:29:36 GMT -6 Audrada Rôibeardét said:

Will these changes allow Talossa to grow into something more? That remains to be seen. It seems like Talossa in it's current state has grown stale.

I feel, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, that some Talossans are afraid of change. Change can be scary but it can also be dynamic. I think that's what Talossa needs. We need change, we need new perspectives and new ideas. It feels like our current approach is not working.

Will these changes lead to better things? We won't know unless we try.

There are plenty of ways to reform these institutions without getting rid of them. 

Get ready for bright colors, because it's AMP Manifesto Time

5. Where is the King?

Talossa is a Kingdom. Even though the King does not have very much political power, he still wields a tremendous amount of ceremonial power and controls all the trappings people like to see in a Kingdom. Thus, the fact that the current King only rarely visits Wittenberg (or any other Talossan forum that we are aware of) is a big problem. There are so many ways the King could increase the prestige and interest of many aspects of the Kingdom, and insofar as people are attracted to Talossa because of the novelty of the Monarchial ascetic, he is not. Imagine if the King granted personal commissions to each new member of the Royal Civil Service? Imagine if he had a monthly bill-signing ceremony? Imagine if he talked directly to immigrants? Imagine if he did much of anything besides drop in occasionally to wield his political power without warning? We cannot express enough our gratitude to the King for his exquisite leadership in the past, but if he is no longer interested in his position, he should abdicate in favor of someone who will follow through on the awesome duties of the position.

During the previous Government, AMP took the lead in issuing several multi-partisan statements demanding the King increase his presence as a cultural figure. If he does not meet these demands, AMP is prepared to remove him from the throne. We already have developed “The We Mean Business Amendment,” an easy mechanism to do just that. To be clear, we would very much like to not have to move forward with this, but eventually we will not have a choice.

AMP also advocates removing the hereditary aspect of the Monarchy. Passion for Talossa is not hereditary, and we cannot afford to vest one of the most important institutions of the State in someone based solely on who their parents were.

7. [There Are] Still Too Many Provinces

Activity builds on itself; so long as there is some amount of activity in a province, other citizens will be attracted to it, resulting in more activity, and so on. However, because the citizens that are active at any given time are spread between eight difference provinces, it is nigh on impossible for any single province to ever reach this minimum level. AMP proposes that Talossa reduce to four provinces; few enough give each population a jump-start but still enough to allow provinces to have unique identities and an important role in Talossan life. Yes, all eight provinces currently have distinct histories, but that will be little consolation when their histories cease for lack of anything happening there.

Unfortunately, as we have seen from the rejection of the merger of Florencia and Fiôvâ, it will probably be difficult to get provinces to agree to merge. Even worse, unless all of the mergers happen at the same time, any provinces that merge will have their representation in the Senate reduced. To counteract this, and to incentivize mergers, we advocate an amendment which will allow two Senators to any province born out of a provincial merger.

I love change! AMP proposes loads of changes, and reform is still in my blood as a lowercase-m, lowercase-r moderate radical. But what I don't love is tossing out some institutions that I and many others value highly just because "something has to change and it might as well be x"

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Nov 6, 2019 22:13:29 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

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.

I will say you are acting quite blasé toward the preferences of others, even though obviously you shouldn't put them in your own platform. 

Do you have any actual input on the proposals to fix what is broken about these institutions, or will you just use the same line about how they are silly and dead and no one should care about them anymore?

Here's the issue with the provinces as they currently exist.

• Deadwood- Most of the provinces don't function.  This, at least, seems to be generally agreed upon.  One would intuitively think that a prospective citizen, upon seeing all that unfilled mandate, would be excited about the opportunity to get involved immediately.  But I think the intuition is wrong here.  There's Too Much unfilled mandate, so it looks like deadwood.  I think the overall health of Talossa would be improved by pruning.  Whether that be mergers or abolition.  However, I lean in favour of the more radical. 
  
• Pablum- The idea of a province is that of a distinct geographic entity.  But that's just not possible with Talossa.  No matter how tight you try to make the catchment areas, the very size of them renders them diffuse.  That's why we suggested the seniority percentile system.  The amount of time you've been around has a whole lot more impact on your perception of Talossanity than where you live.  Again, I don't think it's necessary, but if we must keep political subdivisions, lets at least make them resemble interests.  This is an idea echoed by Professor Bernardo De La Paz in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," lets not make geography the standard.

In terms of fixing them?  I mean, if I thought plans of repair were going to work, I'd have started with those.  But if the central government was heavily slimmed down, that MIGHT reflect activity down the ladder into the provinces, and that might be effective if the number of provinces were limited and reformed.

[Ian Plätschisch]

One would intuitively think that a prospective citizen, upon seeing all that unfilled mandate, would be excited about the opportunity to get involved immediately. But I think the intuition is wrong here. There's Too Much unfilled mandate, so it looks like deadwood.

This is pretty much right; a position of supposed authority doesn't mean much when there isn't anyone else around.

I think the overall health of Talossa would be improved by pruning. Whether that be mergers or abolition. However, I lean in favour of the more radical.

Mergers are radical enough for now, especially since anything more than that has very little change of happening. You may lean in favor of the "more radical," but in doing so you are casually tossing out something pretty serious.

No matter how tight you try to make the catchment areas, the very size of them renders them diffuse.

I've already given some counterexamples to this, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

But if the central government was heavily slimmed down, that MIGHT reflect activity down the ladder into the provinces, and that might be effective if the number of provinces were limited and reformed.

Sounds reasonable.

[Eðo Grischun]

Re. Grouping by order of seniority.

Vehemently opposed.

This will, without doubt, even if not intended, lead nowhere good. To hell with what the whipper snapper thinks, he's just in the door. Nah, nah, nah... you have no right telling ME how any of this works, don't you know I have years on YOU! This proposal sucks, come back when you've grown up.

We'll end up with gatekeeping by order of citizenship tenure. No bueno.

***

I'm quite saddened by the NPW's stances. I had high hopes when a new Peculiarist party was announced. I thought I would end up landing with and voting for this party. I just can't come anywhere close to supporting some of these ideas though.

Makes me realize that Peculiarism and Derivitism aren't two sides of one coin. Rather, Peculiarism and Derivitism are two different coins each with sides of their own.