|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 10, 2012 5:30:28 GMT -5
As a complete "reboot" of the party and its programme has been suggested, let's try to put some party planks together. Let's just collect them before we start a debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 10, 2012 5:41:23 GMT -5
I for one am for a "middle way" between Monarachy and a Republic.
Monarchy seems to sell fine, as do paraphernalia like coats of arms, fancy titles and what not. So lets not sacrifice this. Furthermore, John I seems to be a capable King when it come to the ceremonial aspects, so there is no need to call for a revolution against the Throne.
Whereas we might wish to have an elected, political head of the state, who is also our ceremonial top diplomat. Therefore, I'm for the introduction of the office of an elected President, or however we like to call this temporary head honcho. The President should be the one who signs laws into validity, after a careful examination of their constitutional impeccability.
That brings me to another point, a constitutional reform which is streamlining the OrgLaw in a fashion that "outsources" variable parts to the common law, thus these can be easily varied by changing governments.
While we're at it, a slightly more codified law might be an asset, bringing in more readability than the currently wild flowering garden of laws with phantasy headlines. But I won't die in the ditches for that plank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 10, 2012 8:20:47 GMT -5
Though I'm coming here from the ZRT, I am also coming around to the idea that the monarchy (and the fun stuff attached to it) is a good point. I would rather it not be hereditary, though. Traditionally, in the dim ages of Talossan history, it was not a hereditary position.
Legal codification is another good one. I don't think we need to go to the barricades for it, but t would certainly help make sense of the rigamarole.
A 1-person 1-seat Cosa would be nice. None of this people having multiple seats to swing behind them. If you cannot summon the butts to sit in the seats, then they're empty.
I'd like to see a secret ballot. Public balloting is a leave-over from assembly-based democracy, and no self-respecting nation uses it any longer.
Orglaw reform. Yes.
Essentially, lets make it a little easier to be an active Talossan. Right now, some things are so Byzantine that you can't really be a lawyer, or any number of other things, without continually consulting a little junta of people who set it all up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Dec 10, 2012 20:59:35 GMT -5
Though I'm coming here from the ZRT, I am also coming around to the idea that the monarchy (and the fun stuff attached to it) is a good point. I would rather it not be hereditary, though. Traditionally, in the dim ages of Talossan history, it was not a hereditary position. Legal codification is another good one. I don't think we need to go to the barricades for it, but t would certainly help make sense of the rigamarole. A 1-person 1-seat Cosa would be nice. None of this people having multiple seats to swing behind them. If you cannot summon the butts to sit in the seats, then they're empty. I'd like to see a secret ballot. Public balloting is a leave-over from assembly-based democracy, and no self-respecting nation uses it any longer. Orglaw reform. Yes. Essentially, lets make it a little easier to be an active Talossan. Right now, some things are so Byzantine that you can't really be a lawyer, or any number of other things, without continually consulting a little junta of people who set it all up. I completely agree on the hereditary issue. I like the idea of a king. I see him as a caretaker. Someone to watch the letter of the law while the legislators are concerning themselves with the spirit of the law. Someone not trying to pander to the majority for reelection. His powers should be limited, and I think we have that. There should be means (tough enough not to be used on a whim, but easy enough to use when needed) to remove a monarch from office (we have this, right? We should if we don't). But that monarch should always have been chosen by the people, not by biology. That said, I'm also not averse to D. N. Vercáriâ's Ceremonial King comments. Basically his whole ""middle way" between Monarachy and a Republic." sums up my feelings. Legal Codification is an excellent idea, I think everyone agrees, at least, everyone was agreeing during the last election. Not that anyone is doing anything about it, but everyone agrees. I agree on the 1-person 1-seat Cosa. I'm not personally vested in the ballot dilemma. I have strongly held convictions that come down on both sides of that one, and as such will never be too pleased or too upset about which is used. I am entirely not against it though, just not especially for it. My particular brand of peculiarity is a rather ingrained abhorence of political parties in general. I shudder at the thought that party affiliation is nearly mandatory for a political position. This is not just a Talossa thing, and not one I really expect anyone to care about, especially not the fledgling rebirth of a party, but since we're throwing out thoughts... |
|
|
|
Post by suorsch on Dec 11, 2012 1:40:20 GMT -5
the middle way, something between monarchy and republic is fine with me. legal codification - very good idea. 1-person 1-seat cosa - of course. secret ballot - necessity, public voting is unethical by many standards. orglaw reform - yes 2it2. well, the " little junta of people who set it all up" is a political establishment given by tradition and it would be difficult to remove with a high risk of establishing a new one. it might be good to somehow import skills of people from the outerworld and allow them according to those skills to keep positions. Though I'm coming here from the ZRT, I am also coming around to the idea that the monarchy (and the fun stuff attached to it) is a good point. I would rather it not be hereditary, though. Traditionally, in the dim ages of Talossan history, it was not a hereditary position. Legal codification is another good one. I don't think we need to go to the barricades for it, but t would certainly help make sense of the rigamarole. A 1-person 1-seat Cosa would be nice. None of this people having multiple seats to swing behind them. If you cannot summon the butts to sit in the seats, then they're empty. I'd like to see a secret ballot. Public balloting is a leave-over from assembly-based democracy, and no self-respecting nation uses it any longer. Orglaw reform. Yes. Essentially, lets make it a little easier to be an active Talossan. Right now, some things are so Byzantine that you can't really be a lawyer, or any number of other things, without continually consulting a little junta of people who set it all up. |
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 11, 2012 12:13:22 GMT -5
I know the "little junta" is a permanent. But lets see if we cannot find ways to streamline things so they are less necessary.
What about trying to deflect activity downward into the provinces and civil society?
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 11, 2012 12:46:03 GMT -5
I'm muchly for the "Real Cosâ", unless I'll see the evidence that the owners of more than one seat are voting their main ego down every other day, after fiery and longwinded debates with themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 11, 2012 13:20:23 GMT -5
My particular brand of peculiarity is a rather ingrained abhorence of political parties in general. I shudder at the thought that party affiliation is nearly mandatory for a political position. This is not just a Talossa thing, and not one I really expect anyone to care about, especially not the fledgling rebirth of a party, but since we're throwing out thoughts... Out in the real world I never could make up my mind to actually join a party. I would have felt obliged to promote ideas that are actually not mine and possibly even highly embarrassing. Maybe we can keep our Peculiarist Thang (r)(tm) afloat by not calling it party, but movement or alliance or whatever else instead - being likeminded free spirits in free association, if this makes sense. For instance, some of us may be Republican, others Monarchists, but the truly uniting idea / philosophy is the peculiarist approach that makes it possible that the lamb is lying with the lion (so to speak), when it comes to the propagation or implementation or application of said peculiarist approach. |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 11, 2012 14:03:42 GMT -5
Btw., what about more freedom of choice in provincial assignments? I for one would want to let assignees choose their province every once in a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 11, 2012 19:25:30 GMT -5
I'm in agreement with: 1 person, one seat (unless there are medical reasons) Orglaw reform (not like it's never been done before, after all) Secret ballot I don't care one way or the other, but will support whatever the majority position is on: Provincial self-assignment Monarchy (this because the current King has nothing like the power the former one did, nor the nastiness and petty hostilities) Language reform (I don't intend to learn it, myself) I'd like to add an educational plank. There are a lot of smart, creative, talented people here who have plenty to share and might even do so if there were an easy way to create a class. I'd be happy, for instance, to show how a Telecaster setup is done.  The university system needs improved. There should be some intangible reward-- professorship, maybe?-- for setting up a lesson in whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 11, 2012 19:26:26 GMT -5
Whereas we might wish to have an elected, political head of the state, who is also our ceremonial top diplomat. Therefore, I'm for the introduction of the office of an elected President, or however we like to call this temporary head honcho. The President should be the one who signs laws into validity, after a careful examination of their constitutional impeccability. Isn't that what the Prime Minister is? |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 12, 2012 4:31:51 GMT -5
The Prime Minister is the boss of the ruling government, but neither the ceremonial nor the political head of the nationette.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 12, 2012 8:16:18 GMT -5
I was actually thinking about provincial choice and provincial assignment, actually. Here's what I'm thinking: When you join Talossa, you are assigned a la the current system. But you can then choose to immigrate to another province. Each province can set it's own standards for immigration.
I see people getting assigned at first because 1, it keeps immigration simple, and 2, there's enough to think about when you're first becoming a Talossan. Limits on province-hopping can be made, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 15, 2012 1:24:18 GMT -5
I don't understand why choice of province is a big deal. I'm not against the idea of being able to choose one's location, but I don't see what difference it makes. Are there slums to avoid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 15, 2012 9:52:26 GMT -5
Not really. But 1, it seems to go with the personal autonomy thing and, 2, I can't help but think it might encourage the provinces to develop in unique ways. By putting them into competition with one another to draw citizens, we might find that a provincial culture springs up.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 15, 2012 10:56:50 GMT -5
I agree that the initial assignment may follow the current catchment area method.
But if citizens feel that they'd really badly prefer to join another province, then why do we have to insist that they have to stay where the current rules require them to stay, by all means?
After all, if people are feeling comfortable with their place in the Talossan society, they may be more active, productive and whatnot.
I'm not for a random and perpetual province-hopping, but there should be loopholes that allow for a free autonomous individual decision, if a citizen really wants to be assigned to a different place. The catchment areas are following a completely random design anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 15, 2012 11:28:52 GMT -5
Ahhh, these are good points. I grew up in Ohio, but chose to live in Arizona (not for the politics, to be sure), so I see what you're saying. Mark me down as being for freedom to relocate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Dec 15, 2012 12:30:33 GMT -5
The catchment areas are following a completely random design anyway. Yes. I might be more likely to be swayed by the "leave the catchments alone" arguments if there seemed any sensible logic to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 17, 2012 23:48:19 GMT -5
I think that the provinces should be allowed to govern the standards of their incoming citizens. "Residency requirements..." what have you.
Like direct democracy? try Fiova. Looking for a blank canvas? Try Ataturk. Etc.
Central government sets the guidelines. Provinces handle the details.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 21, 2012 19:40:08 GMT -5
We should also look at stripping down the position of SoS. There is WAY too much control of legislative agenda in that position.
|
|
The university system needs improved. There should be some intangible reward-- professorship, maybe?-- for setting up a lesson in whatever.