*post deleted because it was defensive/combatative*
Zarove, may I ask that you not make sweeping generalizations about my nation, or point out (and keep coming back to) what you consider to be my own mistakes and flaws? None of this has anything to do with actual discussion of issues.
Pennsylvania Race Democrat 2008.
Moderator:Metacrock
-
KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
Re: Pennsylvania Race Democrat 2008.
I think your reading into my words mroe han I intended. As I said before, in a text medium its difficult at times to convey the sence that you mean, die to lack of vice inflection.
But Im not making generalisations about nayones nation. We do, however, liv ein a time when govenrments are larley homogenous and Ive encountered before the same problem when tryign to convey the idea behin Govenrment that I'd prefer, sicne people have no ability to conceptualise it because they have a very narrow set of optiosn in their own minds.
That becomes frustrating because you run into peopl tryign to implement a system of Govenmnt I propose in a hypthetical plain in their minds by having it operate ont he same basic prinsipels and asusmptiosn as modern-day Republics are, and of course they fail. IE, your critiissm of Hereditary Kingship asusmes that this ia a bad idea because Birth doesn't automaticllay render one a good leader.
Well, in adiiton tot he fact that the ability to convince enough poeplt o vote for you isn't really any better an indicator of actual leaderhsip skills, and leaders are often good but unpopular, the truth is that a King wo rules by Heredity isn't seen by his people nessisarily as a leader int he same sence.
A Monarhc is not a Public servant, rather we are his subjects.
The whole idea behind it is that the King exists to maintian continuity and to generate stability, not that he is nessisairly a good politicin, and thats also why the King has Ministers.
I'm not tryign to be offensive or Critical, but in order to unertsand the Government I endorse, you'd also have ot understand the underlyign mindset of said Government that doens't asusme the Officialsa are all Public srvants, doen't see power derived frothe people, doesn't have representation fo the peopel as th firts duty, and doesn't even see the HEad of State as nessesarily good at politics.
I am sorry if you are offended, but I brigup those errors as a form of repetition, to show not that oen fault,but a fault in the overall thinking that needs ot be addressed.
You cannot approahc a true Monarchy that hasn't the modenr Republican tent to it as if its roote din the same principles and expect anythign to make sence wihtin it.
Its like treatign the King as a peopels representative, it wuldn't work because thats not what a King is.
I mean no offence, but that is still an overall problem, and one I've encountered numrous times.
But Im not making generalisations about nayones nation. We do, however, liv ein a time when govenrments are larley homogenous and Ive encountered before the same problem when tryign to convey the idea behin Govenrment that I'd prefer, sicne people have no ability to conceptualise it because they have a very narrow set of optiosn in their own minds.
That becomes frustrating because you run into peopl tryign to implement a system of Govenmnt I propose in a hypthetical plain in their minds by having it operate ont he same basic prinsipels and asusmptiosn as modern-day Republics are, and of course they fail. IE, your critiissm of Hereditary Kingship asusmes that this ia a bad idea because Birth doesn't automaticllay render one a good leader.
Well, in adiiton tot he fact that the ability to convince enough poeplt o vote for you isn't really any better an indicator of actual leaderhsip skills, and leaders are often good but unpopular, the truth is that a King wo rules by Heredity isn't seen by his people nessisarily as a leader int he same sence.
A Monarhc is not a Public servant, rather we are his subjects.
The whole idea behind it is that the King exists to maintian continuity and to generate stability, not that he is nessisairly a good politicin, and thats also why the King has Ministers.
I'm not tryign to be offensive or Critical, but in order to unertsand the Government I endorse, you'd also have ot understand the underlyign mindset of said Government that doens't asusme the Officialsa are all Public srvants, doen't see power derived frothe people, doesn't have representation fo the peopel as th firts duty, and doesn't even see the HEad of State as nessesarily good at politics.
I am sorry if you are offended, but I brigup those errors as a form of repetition, to show not that oen fault,but a fault in the overall thinking that needs ot be addressed.
You cannot approahc a true Monarchy that hasn't the modenr Republican tent to it as if its roote din the same principles and expect anythign to make sence wihtin it.
Its like treatign the King as a peopels representative, it wuldn't work because thats not what a King is.
I mean no offence, but that is still an overall problem, and one I've encountered numrous times.
-
KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: Pennsylvania Race Democrat 2008.
If you don't want to be perceived as doing so, then don't make statements like this:="Zarove"]But Im not making generalisations about nayones nation.
The fact is, as you said in your last post, that this is pretty much true for humanity in general, and not just Americans. It's why the word "paradigm" has come into play. As I'm sure you know, a paradigm is a general philosophical framework within which theories and ideas are formulated, and it's pretty much accepted nowadays that that's the way we humans think. In order to not have to reinvent the wheel, we accept a framework of ideas in general, or specifically about a certain subject, to "take as read," and develop new thoughts and ideas from there. This is both a strength and a weakness. Paradigms keep us from having to start all over from point zero every time we think about something-- but it also makes it very difficult to conceive of or accept ideas outside that paradigm. In order to do so, we have to have a paradigm shift, which is very difficult and usually meets with resistance.it seems Americans have never given much thought to alternatives to the existing order of things, and presme a very limited number of options exist.
The switch to republican ideas of government was a paradigm shift that occurred several hundred years ago-- so if you want to talk about returning to an old paradigm, you're naturally going to find that people aren't used to thinking that way. It does no good to say this "shouldn't be natural." The fact remains that it is. You can see this as a fault with people today if you want to-- or you can just work within it.
So, having said all that-- you spent the last post telling me what the monarchy you conceive of isn't. I'm interested to hear you explain what it is.
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
Re: Pennsylvania Race Democrat 2008.
I am open to multiple forms of Monarchy, but monarchy s mor stable than Republicanism.
A sample, that can be easily undrstood but its not fixed in stone, is one thta woul work like this.
A King reigns as the cheif head of state, as it where, with a small privy counsil and a parliment, which is entrusted to the regulation of the general good, in charge of mutual defence, the mail, and cooperation between the different smaller governemnts.
Then, local autorities, who have pledged feilty to the King run their own regions, possibely wihtn sub-regions and possibely autonemously.
As with any federal system, region-and-federal law may come into contest, but thats no different form state/federal confluicts in the US and unavoidable in any system that allows feeedom of smaller units but conrole from a entral authority.
The Monarch ats as cheif legeslator and cheif executive, but is not the only cheif legeslator and not the only executive. The Kings decisions cnabe overriden as a legeslater by a simple majprity vote, whereas the Kings executive decisions and vetoes can be overridden by a two-thirds vote.
The King only interferes wiht local fiefdoms when abuses arise, suhc as when a local adminstrative Lord abuses his pwoer, or eies the peopel their rights. Otherwise they are free to run their own affairs.
The King could be selected by the Lords and parliment and a team of electors, as opposed to byt he people, and not based upon party affiliation, or hereditary. As much as you disliek this, its not exctly worse than elecing officials.
The Lords can be a mix of clergy, hereditary peers, and those who are made Lords by the house itself, but approve dby the King and his counsil.
The commons can still be elected but preferably without reference to party politics.
The Kings counsil does mst of the actual management of the govenrmnet, and is in the hifhest charge.
This is jut one modle ad is similar enogh to odern ones that it wont eet as much resistance.
A sample, that can be easily undrstood but its not fixed in stone, is one thta woul work like this.
A King reigns as the cheif head of state, as it where, with a small privy counsil and a parliment, which is entrusted to the regulation of the general good, in charge of mutual defence, the mail, and cooperation between the different smaller governemnts.
Then, local autorities, who have pledged feilty to the King run their own regions, possibely wihtn sub-regions and possibely autonemously.
As with any federal system, region-and-federal law may come into contest, but thats no different form state/federal confluicts in the US and unavoidable in any system that allows feeedom of smaller units but conrole from a entral authority.
The Monarch ats as cheif legeslator and cheif executive, but is not the only cheif legeslator and not the only executive. The Kings decisions cnabe overriden as a legeslater by a simple majprity vote, whereas the Kings executive decisions and vetoes can be overridden by a two-thirds vote.
The King only interferes wiht local fiefdoms when abuses arise, suhc as when a local adminstrative Lord abuses his pwoer, or eies the peopel their rights. Otherwise they are free to run their own affairs.
The King could be selected by the Lords and parliment and a team of electors, as opposed to byt he people, and not based upon party affiliation, or hereditary. As much as you disliek this, its not exctly worse than elecing officials.
The Lords can be a mix of clergy, hereditary peers, and those who are made Lords by the house itself, but approve dby the King and his counsil.
The commons can still be elected but preferably without reference to party politics.
The Kings counsil does mst of the actual management of the govenrmnet, and is in the hifhest charge.
This is jut one modle ad is similar enogh to odern ones that it wont eet as much resistance.
-
KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: Pennsylvania Race Democrat 2008.
The system you have outlined above seems workable to me, and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, Zarove, but I'm looking for something deeper. What I want to know is your philosophy of government.
You have said:
If officials are not to be considered public servants in your way of thinking, then how are they to be considered?
If power doesn't derive from the people (from the "consent of the governed," as the US Constitution puts it), then where does it derive its power from? Directly from God? How is freedom of religion handled in that case? Is there tolerance for those of other religions than the official one?
If representing the will of the people isn't government's duty, then what is?
You have said:
How do you perceive this difference? How does it affect the citzens? How does it affect the leader's responsibilities?A Monarhc is not a Public servant, rather we are his subjects.
That's what I'm trying to understand, and what I'd like you to clarify. I don't want to jump to conclusions about what you might mean; I want you to communicate it to me.you'd also have ot understand the underlyign mindset of said Government that doens't asusme the Officialsa are all Public srvants, doen't see power derived frothe people, doesn't have representation fo the peopel as th firts duty, and doesn't even see the HEad of State as nessesarily good at politics.
If officials are not to be considered public servants in your way of thinking, then how are they to be considered?
If power doesn't derive from the people (from the "consent of the governed," as the US Constitution puts it), then where does it derive its power from? Directly from God? How is freedom of religion handled in that case? Is there tolerance for those of other religions than the official one?
If representing the will of the people isn't government's duty, then what is?
What, then, are the principles that monarchy is rooted in? How would you define what a "King" is? You say I can't make sense of it without understanding these differences. Well then, help me understand; explain it to me. In order to continue a dialogue between two different paradigms, we each have to understand the fundamentals of the other.You cannot approahc a true Monarchy that hasn't the modenr Republican tent to it as if its roote din the same principles and expect anythign to make sence wihtin it.
Its like treatign the King as a peopels representative, it wuldn't work because thats not what a King is.
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
Re: Pennsylvania Race Democrat 2008.
The King and the Lords are nto Public servants, in that they do not represent the will of the people and do not represent their will.
They may abe acocutnable to the people, but more often they are accountabe to the law.
A King is seen as the ruler of a people or land, and if the Frown is tied to land ownership then his reign is based around the land-claims with his subjects beign those who co-own land with him inh his dominion, or else those who rent land from him. On the other hand, if the Kignds reign is base dupon sworn feitly as well as DOminionalclaims that arne't vested soley in property rights, then the Kings pwor is exherted over the peopel born as his subjects no matter where they where born, or those who become his SUbjects by choice.
But a King reings over the people, as a free agent, and not as a servant of the people. He regulates the people, and is not their as the servant of th epublic interest, or designed ot serve independant desires of the people. He is honour and dyty boudn to do what is in the best interest of his people, for this is the CHarge of any King, and only a bad king concerns not himself with the interest of the peple, but he is not liable and answerable tot he peopel on grounds of their whims and desires, and is thus not as subject to the swaying of his policies by special interest grups and blocs.
A King is Sovrign, not subject.
Lords also do not represent anyone, they retian their pwor base dupon whatever the title of Lord is deived form, which cna be anythign form Land Ownershipto crown appointment, but a Lord is a Ruler, not a servant.
If personal fielty is sworn to a Lord,you acknowledg ehim as your superior, in the same sence hat a Military agent recognises the officers of higher rank than they hold as their superiors. ( Not nessisarily as a superior sort of person but as holdign a posiion above you.)
Ideally, this shoudl be subject to God, yes, and th epwors of the vestment shoudl be seen in the end as God, then King, but, not all Monarhcies have seen it thus in hisotyr.
The people would also ideally have their rights protecte dby law, and the law divine shoudl be unalterable by anyone,e ven the King, and the peopel shoudl have a say in what concerns them and teir own affairs.
They also shodl have recourse to report abuses carire dout by their Lords,and the removal of those Lords, or even the Kings, by peaceful means sodl be also enshrined by law, to ensure that those who hold those posiitons do not abuse them. Abuse of such power did happen in the past, but wa snot as universal a some thing. Still, why toss the good out withthe bad when discarding the Revolutionary ideas?
Mechanisms for removign he King can rest in makign the Lords free to act indpndnlty of the King, and making osme Lords not reliant ont he King for hteir power,ven if they havesworn feitlyy to him on a nominal level.
IE, an order of Lords similar to he Church but Secular ( not ahteistic, just not clergy) who ar einternally appoined but not hereditary can eaisly select their own appointents of Lords to monitor the local Lords of regions and the Kign to ensure that they do nto step out of line.
thse Lords cna be montored by other orignisaitosn f Lords, ect...
Simialr to how we have govenrent agencies which monitor other govenrment agencies which monitor the Govenrment which monitors itself in different branches.
The independant peopelwdl eb free to lead any life they so chise within the budns of law with their rights protected,and to pursue their live as they see fit.
They may abe acocutnable to the people, but more often they are accountabe to the law.
A King is seen as the ruler of a people or land, and if the Frown is tied to land ownership then his reign is based around the land-claims with his subjects beign those who co-own land with him inh his dominion, or else those who rent land from him. On the other hand, if the Kignds reign is base dupon sworn feitly as well as DOminionalclaims that arne't vested soley in property rights, then the Kings pwor is exherted over the peopel born as his subjects no matter where they where born, or those who become his SUbjects by choice.
But a King reings over the people, as a free agent, and not as a servant of the people. He regulates the people, and is not their as the servant of th epublic interest, or designed ot serve independant desires of the people. He is honour and dyty boudn to do what is in the best interest of his people, for this is the CHarge of any King, and only a bad king concerns not himself with the interest of the peple, but he is not liable and answerable tot he peopel on grounds of their whims and desires, and is thus not as subject to the swaying of his policies by special interest grups and blocs.
A King is Sovrign, not subject.
Lords also do not represent anyone, they retian their pwor base dupon whatever the title of Lord is deived form, which cna be anythign form Land Ownershipto crown appointment, but a Lord is a Ruler, not a servant.
If personal fielty is sworn to a Lord,you acknowledg ehim as your superior, in the same sence hat a Military agent recognises the officers of higher rank than they hold as their superiors. ( Not nessisarily as a superior sort of person but as holdign a posiion above you.)
Ideally, this shoudl be subject to God, yes, and th epwors of the vestment shoudl be seen in the end as God, then King, but, not all Monarhcies have seen it thus in hisotyr.
The people would also ideally have their rights protecte dby law, and the law divine shoudl be unalterable by anyone,e ven the King, and the peopel shoudl have a say in what concerns them and teir own affairs.
They also shodl have recourse to report abuses carire dout by their Lords,and the removal of those Lords, or even the Kings, by peaceful means sodl be also enshrined by law, to ensure that those who hold those posiitons do not abuse them. Abuse of such power did happen in the past, but wa snot as universal a some thing. Still, why toss the good out withthe bad when discarding the Revolutionary ideas?
Mechanisms for removign he King can rest in makign the Lords free to act indpndnlty of the King, and making osme Lords not reliant ont he King for hteir power,ven if they havesworn feitlyy to him on a nominal level.
IE, an order of Lords similar to he Church but Secular ( not ahteistic, just not clergy) who ar einternally appoined but not hereditary can eaisly select their own appointents of Lords to monitor the local Lords of regions and the Kign to ensure that they do nto step out of line.
thse Lords cna be montored by other orignisaitosn f Lords, ect...
Simialr to how we have govenrent agencies which monitor other govenrment agencies which monitor the Govenrment which monitors itself in different branches.
The independant peopelwdl eb free to lead any life they so chise within the budns of law with their rights protected,and to pursue their live as they see fit.