Gotta undo the oath.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 10, 2013 13:06:46 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

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.

The traditional conservative argument against revolutionary change. Thank heavens that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn't listen to such counsel in 1776.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jan 10, 2013 13:34:07 GMT -6 M.T. Patritz da Biondeu said:

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?

First, I can't partake of governing a republic without moving to one. Ain't gonna happen soon, although, as a member of the Republikanska Föreningen, I am of course hoping I will die in one.

Second, no, monarchy is not essential to Talossa at all. Talossa, pre-split Talossa, used to be about politics and language, not about monarchy. It happened to be one, but believe me, it wasn't an important component or one that immigrants usually cared much about. It was a fun country with a fun language where you could be involved in small scale politics, that's why people immigrated to Talossa. There wasn't a nobility, and I cannot remember any heraldic arms.

What you think is traditionally Talossan is far from it.

[Óïn Ursüm]

In the act, like Miestrâ, I think it's sensible to view the offending phrase "the Kingdom of Talossa, to her sovereign King, and to His Majesty's government" as a kind of metonymy for the State, in that it's less an endorsement of the idea of monarchy and more of an acceptance of the present state of affairs.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 10, 2013 13:34:07 GMT -6 M.T. Patritz da Biondeu said:

As in, if you want to turn Talossa in to a republic... isn't that destroying the whole essence of Talossa?

This is amazing. Have you not noticed that there was a Talossan Republic for eight years; and that Republicans form the second biggest party in the current Talossa?

It's like certain monarchists are only just waking up to the fact that Reunision didn't settle the issue of the Monarchy, but instead made it an active matter for debate. And of course Reunision would never have happened otherwise. Did you really think we were all suddenly converted to the idea that John of Colorado is the rightful personification of Talossan sovereignty?

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2013 13:34:07 GMT -6 M.T. Patritz da Biondeu said:

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?

I'll play Miestra's advocate on this one (a phrase I hope will catch on as well as "micking" petitions)

Constitutional monarchies can be fun. But, I imagine a republic could also be fun. After all, the political arguments and such would be rather similar.

Nation building offers folks a chance to experiment with different forms of government. Prior to joining Talossa, I started a table micronation with a few friends which was led by a three person government (an executive, a head of government and a single justice), all directly elected by the populace. It was part of the fun. Likewise, I can see why any government exercise would be fun for folks, even if it closely resembles the system of their home country.

I, personally, enjoy our constitutional monarchy. The king's power is limited and we have a balance of power. We have mechanisms in place to stop a tyrant king in the future.

So, I don't fault people who want a republic for wanting a republic. I merely caution against sensationalist hypotheticals.

Situations that involve large segments of every part of the government working together to screw people is rather unlikely. And if the majority of the country is so corrupt so as to do that (or allow it to be done) there is no legislative remedy to prevent or curtail it. At a certain point, we need to trust that the legislature will do the right thing. If they don't, then he King will do the right thing. If he doesn't, then the courts will do the right thing. And if none of the above, then the people will elec a new government to change whichever part is malfunctioning.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

Jan 10, 2013 13:22:13 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

Jan 10, 2013 12:31:56 GMT -6 Iustì Carlüs Canun said:

Jan 10, 2013 12:05:24 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

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.

The whole point of the "Reunision" was that Talossa is more than but a romantic feudalism simulation or, on the other side, a steel-firm vanguard republic of some sort. Yeah. That's why we're under one common roof. Because we are Talossans, first and foremost.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2013 13:43:22 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jan 10, 2013 13:06:46 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

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.

The traditional conservative argument against revolutionary change. Thank heavens that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn't listen to such counsel in 1776.

Because it worked out so well for the USSR?

For the record, that isn't a conservative argument against revolution. It was a call to level headed thinking.

The courts are tasked with protecting ALL Talossans and guaranteeing them the rights and civil liberties afforded nder the Organic and Statutory Law. If you tear that down completely, you take away an advocate for the rights of individuals and say "don't worry children, big government will give you your rights back, we promise."

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I "mick" what Deet and Ián B-figlheu say above. Talossa is the language, the culture and the politics. It is not the monarchy and coats of arms, and never was before 2005. In general, the reviênsadéirs know this because they've been around longer, or because we made a point of remembering the past. Some current monarchists have a short historical memory and think that Talossan history began with KR1's abdication.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 10, 2013 13:48:41 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

Jan 10, 2013 13:43:22 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

The traditional conservative argument against revolutionary change.

Because it worked out so well for the USSR?

I would have liked to see you make this argument in Poland in 1989. Of course every Revolution is taking a chance. But every Revolution, even if it collapses or ends in tyranny, involves - even for a short time - the people in motion choosing their destiny. Which is why the English, French, Russian and Iranian revolutions were great things even though they ended in Cromwell, Napoleon, Stalin and Khomenei.

The Talossan Revolution of 2004 didn't end in tyranny, anyway.

The courts are tasked with protecting ALL Talossans and guaranteeing them the rights and civil liberties afforded nder the Organic and Statutory Law.

Legalistic nonsense. The OrgLaw was in place in 1997 but that didn't stop KR1 trampling all over the rights of his subjects. The USSR constitution of 1936 was, on paper, the most democratic in the world. (And where did "big government" come from, anyway? No-one was suggesting a totalitarian state. I think you're projecting US political debates into Talossa, where they have no place.)

The rights of Talossans are protected, not by law, but by the institution of Free Speech and by democratic accountability, including the rights of citizens to secede or even to raise revolt against tyranny, as the partisans of June 2004 and August 2005 did. The only "right" that is protected by our current OrgLaw that wouldn't be protected in a Revolution is the right of the Woolley family of Colorado to hold the role of Head of State as a family possession.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jan 10, 2013 13:44:11 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

I cannot remember any heraldic arms.

(Just for the record, the first set of Arms I can find were awarded on 26 Dec 2005, then another dozen or so in Feb and June of 2006)

[Óïn Ursüm]

King Robert's book Clashing Symbols is full of various Talossan iconography, some of it heraldic.

I found this shield for the Rouergue Dynasty a while ago on the Wayback Machine.

[Deleted]

. Which is why the English, French, Russian and Iranian revolutions were great things even though they ended in Cromwell, Napoleon, Stalin and Khomenei.

The Talossan Revolution of 2004 didn't end in tyranny, anyway.

So, better a revolutionary leader commit the genocide rather than a person with a crown?

I prefer to avoid tyrants altogether and protect the civil rights of the citizens.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Anyway, if you think the ZRT are nutty extremists... take a look at these fellows. Been waiting for an excuse to post this link for a while to make a few RUMPers choke on their breakfast.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jan 10, 2013 13:47:56 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

Constitutional monarchies can be fun. But, I imagine a republic could also be fun. After all, the political arguments and such would be rather similar.

I, personally, enjoy our constitutional monarchy. The king's power is limited and we have a balance of power. We have mechanisms in place to stop a tyrant king in the future.

So, I don't fault people who want a republic for wanting a republic. I merely caution against sensationalist hypotheticals.

And I'll be happy to chip in from the other side. I'm not unhappy about Talossa being a monarchy. There are fun things about that as well. It works, I'm not rescinding my oath.

But Talossa will be Talossa regardless of the system of government. France didn't stop being France after the emperor abdicated. Nor did Greece, Italy, Germany etc stop being Greece, Italy, Germany after they stopped being monarchies.

So let's leave all the "this is the very essence of" arguments where they belong, in the trashcan, OK? This is Talossa. If we want it to be a monarchy, it will be a monarchy, and wanting it to be a monarchy is a perfectly legitimate wish. It will still be Talossa. And if we want it to be a republic, it will be a republic, and wanting it to be a republic is a perfectly legitimate wish. It will still be Talossa. That's all.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 10, 2013 13:58:35 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

So, better a revolutionary leader commit the genocide rather than a person with a crown?

That's the question of whether it's better to try and fail than to never have tried.