|
|
Post by Andreas Lorentz on Jan 10, 2013 12:43:26 GMT -6
Iusti pointed that out to me, I stand corrected. Hooligan told me about Ireland. Didn't know about South Africa. It still ranks among the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. Also, I point out that those are both former parts of an empire who decided to boot the monarch but keep the heraldry because it was neat. But I suppose I can understand wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. On the other hand, most people in Ireland and South Africa are citizens thereof because they were born there, right? You're in Talossa voluntarily. I certainly don't have a gun to your head keeping you here, nor does anyone else. I'm here because I want to be, because I think monarchies and knights and counts and dukes and barons and coats of arms are cool, and I think the world would be a much cooler place with more monarchies (albeit constitutional ones like Talossa). There are probably only four currently reigning monarchs (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, and the Vatican) that, were it up to me, would no longer be monarchs. You immigrated, you swore an oath to the King and to the nation. So what I'm saying, I guess, is this: If you find the idea of a monarchy, and all the stuff that goes with it, so repulsive, so abhorrent, then... What the hell are you doing here? I'm here because I missed interacting with people I like to interact with, and because I'm a Talossan deep down. If you're here because you want to live in England in the 1400s, then that's fine with me, because I'm easygoing like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Jan 10, 2013 12:50:02 GMT -6
That's something that hasn't been adequately explained to me.
I can understand what's wrong with an absolute monarchy: too much power in the hands of one individual, tyranny, dictatorships, all that.
But what's wrong with having a king around who has almost zero actual power? King John signs bills into law and has a power of veto (which I can't presently recall him using, and which can be overruled). He grants arms and titles and awards, and appoints people to the Offices of the Royal Household. Other than that, he pretty much just sits there. In what way is this a threat to the foundations of our democracy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2013 13:06:46 GMT -6
That's because he's the current Secretary of State, and he's in charge of the Oath taking, and Renouncing of Citizenship procedures. Ah, thanks for cluing me in. So he gets to decide my fate, then? Single-handedly? I can't wait to see what official position is. I'm not renouncing, just to make that clear. I just want to take an oath that fits me better. If that's grounds for expulsion, then maybe I should be expelled for having such bad thoughts. I apologize for not knowing the current political line-up; I should have been paying closer attention. Things have been shifting around here, and my observation is imperfect. I just want to clarify something. Let's say that an SoS decided to interpret your statement as a renunciation. For starters, he would have to make a judgment call. If you disputed his judgment call, you would file suit against the chancery in court. I can say, in general, if a case came before me where a person disputed their own renunciation, I would issue an injunction to ensure the persons Witt account remained active during the proceedings. How it played out wold depend on the arguments presented by either side. However, if a person is hanging around, saying they didnt renounce and never publicly made a statement resembling "I renounce my citizenship" I can't imagine ruling against that person. It may seem like the ability to make such a judgment call seems odd on unbalanced. Let me offer some context: "You mean that police officer can just decide to arrest me based on his individual interpretation of the law? That's crazy." Yet, arrests made for a crime committed in the presence of a police officer do not go to a democratic committee before being made. If you can identify a country where every single arrest is voted on, I would be interested to study their methods. "You mean that sentencing judge gets to just send me to jail after being convicted by a jury of my peers? He can give me a light sentence or a heavy sentence at his discretion?" In some countries there are multiple judges, yet whether sentence is moored by one, three or five judges, it still comes down to a few people making a judgment call. I say this because, regardless of the course of national politics, civil servants have a scope of duties, some duties being quite expansive. This was true in democratic Athens as it is true today. Perhaps we should focus, not on stripping these powers from civil servants, but instead on punishing those who abuse them. That is a very big distinction. Judges have discretion to impose sentences. Yet, two judges in Northeastern Pennsylvania were sentenced to prison for sending kids to a privately owned correctional facility in exchange for money (kids for cash scandal). The judges were punished for their individual infractions. In Chicago some years ago, a detective was sentenced to federal prison for selling information gathered from police databases to a background check company. The laws didnt need to be redrawn to strip power from the judges or take away database access from police officers, they simply punished the few who tried to ruin it for the many. I say this because our law can be amended. In fact, I dare say, in some cases it needs to be amended. But I wonder if in the pursuit of some of these amendments, some people try to paint very narrow details with a very broad brush. Let the people decide. The majority will rule. But in the meantime, consider that if our entire body of law can be easily overturned and replaced with an allegedly more just body of laws, then it can just as easily be overturned and replaced with one more tyrannical. Laws only protect when we allow them to stabilize our society by holding individuals accountable for their actions. They impugn the rights of individuals when they try to keep them from acting. |
|
|
|
Post by M.T. Patritz da Biondeu on Jan 10, 2013 13:14:33 GMT -6
If you don't want to be in a monarchy... why not get involved with the government of the country you actually reside in? *itches head*
|
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 10, 2013 13:22:13 GMT -6
If you find the idea of a monarchy, and all the stuff that goes with it, so repulsive, so abhorrent, then... What the hell are you doing here? Because I'm Talossan. Not because I want to live some wish-fulfillment fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 10, 2013 13:22:44 GMT -6
Other than that, he pretty much just sits there. In what way is this a threat to the foundations of our democracy? In a democracy, you elect people. |
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 10, 2013 13:23:08 GMT -6
If you don't want to be in a monarchy... why not get involved with the government of the country you actually reside in? *itches head* How would that help? I sincerely don't understand you here. |
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jan 10, 2013 13:29:38 GMT -6
Other than that, he pretty much just sits there. In what way is this a threat to the foundations of our democracy? In a democracy, you elect people. I wish we did that here for the Senate... oh, wait. |
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 10, 2013 13:32:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by M.T. Patritz da Biondeu on Jan 10, 2013 13:34:07 GMT -6
As in, if you want to turn Talossa in to a republic... isn't that destroying the whole essence of Talossa? Why destroy that when you can very easily partake in a (real world) republic (for the most part) government?
|
|
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 Jan 10, 2013 13:37:49 GMT -6
I display my arms for Talossa and for all my countrymen, not just the king, although it is for him as well. You have arms because Talossa is a monarchy. No king = no coats of arms. Really? German nobles still have coats of arms even though the Second Reich and all the petty kingdoms are no more, right? I was considering taking a coat of arms as my right as a member of the Order of the Nation, but if it means that I buy into monarchy, then forget it. |
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 10, 2013 13:39:59 GMT -6
This is a silly and strange thread. I would say I think Andy's shown integrity, but surely the idea that you didn't mean the oath legally required to gain citizenship...well, Andy's the man who's pointed out that's an all or nothing thing. I don't see how you can rescind part of it. You've essentially signed a contract - I don't see a way of changing the conditions, as there's no legally mandated form of negotiation over the matter.
So for as long as Flip and Andy have not given up the benefit of their contractual arrangement (citizenship), they can (and generically are) required to abide by their side of the contract. The fact they have stated they don't intend to is not, in itself, a breach of contract; they can say they don't owe fealty to the King as much as they want, but it's a little like saying they don't owe rent for the apartment they signed a rent agreement for. If they end up not GIVING fealty to the King in some situation where the King's status requires it (I'm sure we could imagine potential situations like this - arms are probably such a situation, as the King's personal power is all that grants them), they should be seen in breach of contract and taken to court by the state, with their citizenship at stake (as the benefit they have received from the oath).
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 10, 2013 13:41:46 GMT -6
(I should note that someone taking the oath without intending to carry it out may be in a stickier situation - but I don't know Wisconsin's specific laws about entering a contract under a false flag.)
|
|
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 Jan 10, 2013 13:41:47 GMT -6
But what's wrong with having a king around who has almost zero actual power? The Talossan Republicans have been trying to explain this to you since 2005, and if you haven't been convinced by now, you never will be. I live under a constitutional monarch, Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand. To hell with her and her inbred family. She's been to this country about five times. I'm sure she's a nice person, but she's (a) a relic of when this country was a racist colony of the British Empire which systematically stole the land of the people who were here first and politically and economically marginalised them; (b) never submitted herself to a vote; (c) going to pass the throne on to her idiot son Big Ears (and from there to his idiot son Big Teeth), again without submitting it to a vote. So that's what's wrong. |
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jan 10, 2013 13:42:44 GMT -6
I think you are misreading the quote ? "There are probably only four currently reigning monarchs (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, and the Vatican) that, were it up to me, would no longer be monarchs." |
|
)
