Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Malgrave]

What do you mean? We're a Republic.

Time for my favorite picture.

I'm saying that our national government has voted to become a Republic. I can't imagine why we should allowed provincial governments to trump national legislation and instil a Monarchy, even one that is elected.

[The Nihilistic view]

No because your argument is not specific to monarchy. You can't be bothered to take part in local government so your argument is to get rid of it, well tough it has been voted for.

You did not read my argument then, the two paragraphs above my little OOC note are what I refer to.

I don't consider logical fallacies worthy of a response.

[Belmaria]

Time for my favorite picture.

I'm saying that our national government has voted to become a Republic. I can't imagine why we should allowed provincial governments to trump national legislation and instil a Monarchy, even one that is elected.

Agreed

[Welsh Cowboy]

Time for my favorite picture.

I'm saying that our national government has voted to become a Republic. I can't imagine why we should allowed provincial governments to trump national legislation and instil a Monarchy, even one that is elected.

It is points like these that make the argument more complicated than: "let's let the people choose their own form of government".

[The Nihilistic view]

Time for my favorite picture.

I'm saying that our national government has voted to become a Republic. I can't imagine why we should allowed provincial governments to trump national legislation and instil a Monarchy, even one that is elected.

Because we are writing a Constitution, you know the highest form of law, it trumps anything else ever passed.

[Malgrave]

I'm saying that our national government has voted to become a Republic. I can't imagine why we should allowed provincial governments to trump national legislation and instil a Monarchy, even one that is elected.

Because we are writing a Constitution, you know the highest form of law, it trumps anything else ever passed.

So we should base these parts constitution on current legislation then, not overrule current law.

[Distruzio]

Let me phrase this a diferrent way, for the monarchists out there. You are essentially allowing each province to elect it's own Premier. Remember, Stalin only has thirty two percent of Russians labelling him as a negatively. If that was Aurentina, would you allow constituents to suffer eternally for the mistakes made by another generation, electing a psychopath locally?

The reason democracy works is the need for re-election. This is what stops abuse of the system and abuse of power. If a President was to command a majority enough to pass hugely unpopular or abusive laws, yet legal, then they would know they wouldn't be re-elected. A monarch, even a monarch-elect, does not have that problem and even if the politics of the constituency change.

(I also think that some of you guys would quite like to elect yourself as monarchs of your own provinces, though you're probably all gonna go "No! What, me?" now I've said that)

Those are quite poignant concerns that have already been considered and addressed, sir. We are not suggesting that the population have no recourse to hold an offending monarch to account for his transgressions. Quite the opposite, in actuality. Regardless of that, your reasons for disregarding monarchy in favor of democracy are irrelevant to 1/3 of the population of Aurentina. Both the CMP and the PMP represent the monarchist tradition in this nation and there is no reason beyond a tyranny of the majority and anti-democratism to reject the right to self-determination of the people represented in Senate. What we do here determines the executive representation of the people. The Senate only represents the legislative. You would seek to oppress an unpopular minority.

You should be ashamed to hold yourself in favor of a republic, sir. You shame me with your anti-democratic tendencies and I am anti-democratic. Not even I would go so far as you do now.

[Distruzio]

You're saying the unicorn doesn't exist while insisting that a chimera isn't dangerous. You want to avoid undermining the republic by advocating anti-democratic actions? That is quite telling, sir. Please, just how is it that the irony is lost on you? How can you insist on a democratic governance while insisting that a third of the population should have no say in their representative?

I'm sorry, how would a third of the population have no say in their representative with the current system? I was certain I was elected.

Once more, the issue being discussed in the constitution concerns executive representation. What you confuse is legislative representation. I am a Senator for my constituency, I am not the governor.

OOC: I failed to respond to your suspicions in my earlier response but I will here; you've got be kidding. You're accusing players in a political RP where everyone plays a Senator without an actual vote to cite as being interested in political authority? Thats your critique? You should really try arguing from a place of humility when you cast stones from a glass house.

[The Nihilistic view]

Because we are writing a Constitution, you know the highest form of law, it trumps anything else ever passed.

So we should base these parts constitution on current legislation then, not overrule current law.

There are no bills on local government composition/ election so there is nothing to overrule.

[Distruzio]

How many times do you have to be told that that bill only talks about the national level before it sinks in?

It just talks about the establishment of a democratic republic. I don't see anything about it sticking to the national level.

You're saying the unicorn doesn't exist while insisting that a chimera isn't dangerous. You want to avoid undermining the republic by advocating anti-democratic actions? That is quite telling, sir. Please, just how is it that the irony is lost on you? How can you insist on a democratic governance while insisting that a third of the population should have no say in their representative?

How am I pushing for undemocratic actions? Our senate is comprised of democratically elected representatives that voted on establishing this nation as a Republic and rejecting Monarchy. Provinces must still abide by legislature passed by the national government after all.

The legislation, yes. Absolutely. But in no way does legislation dictate executive offices. That's what a constitution does. Which is what we, here, discuss. No one favoring this subnational monarchy has once suggested an absolutist regime. You're tilting at windmills and pulling arguments out of your... well, I shan't go any further in that regard. You would deny a third of the population any say whatsoever in how they are represented before the national government. Only in that they can be represented. That, sir, is anti-democratic. It is revelatory that one so... dedicated to egalitarianism as you would adopt such a position.

You might as well say that a person has the freedom to eat any skittle they like so long as the skittle is either lemon or orange flavored and only on tuesday between 1 and 125 am. They can have as many as they like so long as their caloric intake does not exceed 100 and they must drink 15.3 oz of water for every third skittle consumed. After all, this is a free and democratic nation and the people should have the right to choose what skittles they prefer.

Also, we must emphasize their freedom of choice in the skittle but not their choice to eat skittles. They might prefer M&M's but that way lies heresy and anti-democratism and that will NOT be allowed, no sir.

[The Nihilistic view]

It just talks about the establishment of a democratic republic. I don't see anything about it sticking to the national level.



How am I pushing for undemocratic actions? Our senate is comprised of democratically elected representatives that voted on establishing this nation as a Republic and rejecting Monarchy. Provinces must still abide by legislature passed by the national government after all.

The legislation, yes. Absolutely. But in no way does legislation dictate executive offices. That's what a constitution does. Which is what we, here, discuss. No one favoring this subnational monarchy has once suggested an absolutist regime. You're tilting at windmills and pulling arguments out of your... well, I shan't go any further in that regard. You would deny a third of the population any say whatsoever in how they are represented before the national government. Only in that they can be represented. That, sir, is anti-democratic. It is revelatory that one so... dedicated to egalitarianism as you would adopt such a position.

You might as well say that a person has the freedom to eat any skittle they like so long as the skittle is either lemon or orange flavored and only on tuesday between 1 and 125 am. They can have as many as they like so long as their caloric intake does not exceed 100 and they must drink 15.3 oz of water for every third skittle consumed. After all, this is a free and democratic nation and the people should have the right to choose what skittles they prefer.

Also, we must emphasize their freedom of choice in the skittle but not their choice to eat skittles. They might prefer M&M's but that way lies heresy and anti-democratism and that will NOT be allowed, no sir.

Well he was in the Stalinist party.

[Distruzio]

I am opposed to any type of monarchy in our nation, be it national or provincial. Be it elected or not, monarchy gives government way too much power and I am staunchly opposed to such a system.

Then you, sir, have a narrow view of libertarianism. I would urge you to revisit your philosophy.

[Malgrave]

Well he was in the Stalinist party.

I take that as an insult and ask you to rescind it and apologise.

[Distruzio]

Is that not the same for the republicans? They wan't to be presidents and governors. Really I can't believe somebody would be naive enough think that this only cut one way.

Yeah, but our President is elected through RP process and no one wants to be a governer. I'm talking about people casually deciding that they were elected for life, as I can't think of a way to RP it and these elections are the kinda thing that needs to be RPed.

OOC: Another naive Battlion argument from you... interesting. Your rejection of our suggestion also takes into account your own ignorance, laziness, and lack of imagination for the expansion of the RP (in addition to your nonsensical fears of a monarchist threat to the republic national government in-character)? Could you get any more narrow minded? Why not allow the RP to grow. I was under the impression that, upon the initial success of the Senate, most of us wanted our own subforum. In order to attain that, in order to justify Moderator tolerance for our clear disrespect of other F7 users (by flooding the forum with Senate threads), we would need to show that the RP can grow. In order to do that, folks will have to accept that other people have other ideas on how to roleplay a roleplay. Your own lack of imagination is no vice for us.

You're being ridiculously naive here.

[Jetan]

I am opposed to any type of monarchy in our nation, be it national or provincial. Be it elected or not, monarchy gives government way too much power and I am staunchly opposed to such a system.

Please take your head out of your bucket of AnCap.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I am opposed to any type of monarchy in our nation, be it national or provincial. Be it elected or not, monarchy gives government way too much power and I am staunchly opposed to such a system.

Please take your head out of your bucket of AnCap.

I think we can be more respectful than this.

[The Nihilistic view]

Well he was in the Stalinist party.

I take that as an insult and ask you to rescind it and apologise.

Chill, have a cigar.

[Distruzio]

I am opposed to any type of monarchy in our nation, be it national or provincial. Be it elected or not, monarchy gives government way too much power and I am staunchly opposed to such a system.

Please take your head out of your bucket of AnCap.

Well, to be fair... we could make the same charge to the other parties here represented, could we not? That they take their ideology so seriously that they cannot see reason?

[Glasgia]

Let me phrase this a diferrent way, for the monarchists out there. You are essentially allowing each province to elect it's own Premier. Remember, Stalin only has thirty two percent of Russians labelling him as a negatively. If that was Aurentina, would you allow constituents to suffer eternally for the mistakes made by another generation, electing a psychopath locally?

The reason democracy works is the need for re-election. This is what stops abuse of the system and abuse of power. If a President was to command a majority enough to pass hugely unpopular or abusive laws, yet legal, then they would know they wouldn't be re-elected. A monarch, even a monarch-elect, does not have that problem and even if the politics of the constituency change.

(I also think that some of you guys would quite like to elect yourself as monarchs of your own provinces, though you're probably all gonna go "No! What, me?" now I've said that)

Those are quite poignant concerns that have already been considered and addressed, sir. We are not suggesting that the population have no recourse to hold an offending monarch to account for his transgressions. Quite the opposite, in actuality. Regardless of that, your reasons for disregarding monarchy in favor of democracy are irrelevant to 1/3 of the population of Aurentina. Both the CMP and the PMP represent the monarchist tradition in this nation and there is no reason beyond a tyranny of the majority and anti-democratism to reject the right to self-determination of the people represented in Senate. What we do here determines the executive representation of the people. The Senate only represents the legislative. You would seek to oppress an unpopular minority.

You should be ashamed to hold yourself in favor of a republic, sir. You shame me with your anti-democratic tendencies and I am anti-democratic. Not even I would go so far as you do now.

Tyranny of the majority was a phrase coined by John Adams, after his people had been an unrepresented minority in years. I do not advocate that we do not represent monarchists, I advocate that such monarchists should not be monarchs until they become a majority. We threw off the chains of monarchy and most of the people do not want themselves to be enslaved again.

You also conveniently avoid my point as to which I point out that political views in the province may change. The will needed to take a monarch off his throw outweighs the expression of a vote. You seek to label me anti-democratic, yet I am asking for regular elections

[Geilinor]

Let me phrase this a diferrent way, for the monarchists out there. You are essentially allowing each province to elect it's own Premier. Remember, Stalin only has thirty two percent of Russians labelling him as a negatively. If that was Aurentina, would you allow constituents to suffer eternally for the mistakes made by another generation, electing a psychopath locally?

The reason democracy works is the need for re-election. This is what stops abuse of the system and abuse of power. If a President was to command a majority enough to pass hugely unpopular or abusive laws, yet legal, then they would know they wouldn't be re-elected. A monarch, even a monarch-elect, does not have that problem and even if the politics of the constituency change.

(I also think that some of you guys would quite like to elect yourself as monarchs of your own provinces, though you're probably all gonna go "No! What, me?" now I've said that)

Those are quite poignant concerns that have already been considered and addressed, sir. We are not suggesting that the population have no recourse to hold an offending monarch to account for his transgressions. Quite the opposite, in actuality. Regardless of that, your reasons for disregarding monarchy in favor of democracy are irrelevant to 1/3 of the population of Aurentina. Both the CMP and the PMP represent the monarchist tradition in this nation and there is no reason beyond a tyranny of the majority and anti-democratism to reject the right to self-determination of the people represented in Senate. What we do here determines the executive representation of the people. The Senate only represents the legislative. You would seek to oppress an unpopular minority.

You should be ashamed to hold yourself in favor of a republic, sir. You shame me with your anti-democratic tendencies and I am anti-democratic. Not even I would go so far as you do now.

We have already voted on being a republic in this convention. You seem to be late to the discussion, Senator.

[Geilinor]

Please take your head out of your bucket of AnCap.

Well, to be fair... we could make the same charge to the other parties here represented, could we not? That they take their ideology so seriously that they cannot see reason?

You view the definition of reason as monarchy. You commented earlier that we are ignoring 1/3 of the population of Aurentina, but you are ignoring the will of the people. The representatives of the people have carried out their will, which is to have a republic.

[Distruzio]

Those are quite poignant concerns that have already been considered and addressed, sir. We are not suggesting that the population have no recourse to hold an offending monarch to account for his transgressions. Quite the opposite, in actuality. Regardless of that, your reasons for disregarding monarchy in favor of democracy are irrelevant to 1/3 of the population of Aurentina. Both the CMP and the PMP represent the monarchist tradition in this nation and there is no reason beyond a tyranny of the majority and anti-democratism to reject the right to self-determination of the people represented in Senate. What we do here determines the executive representation of the people. The Senate only represents the legislative. You would seek to oppress an unpopular minority.

You should be ashamed to hold yourself in favor of a republic, sir. You shame me with your anti-democratic tendencies and I am anti-democratic. Not even I would go so far as you do now.

We have already voted on being a republic in this convention. You seem to be late to the discussion, Senator.

Well, to be fair... we could make the same charge to the other parties here represented, could we not? That they take their ideology so seriously that they cannot see reason?

You view the definition of reason as monarchy. You commented earlier that we are ignoring 1/3 of the population of Aurentina, but you are ignoring the will of the people. The representatives of the people have carried out their will, which is to have a republic.

Sir... you aren't hearing me. At all. I've already addressed this concern time and again. Not one monarchist at this convention suggests an alternative to a republican national government. We seek to reinforce it.

[Distruzio]

Those are quite poignant concerns that have already been considered and addressed, sir. We are not suggesting that the population have no recourse to hold an offending monarch to account for his transgressions. Quite the opposite, in actuality. Regardless of that, your reasons for disregarding monarchy in favor of democracy are irrelevant to 1/3 of the population of Aurentina. Both the CMP and the PMP represent the monarchist tradition in this nation and there is no reason beyond a tyranny of the majority and anti-democratism to reject the right to self-determination of the people represented in Senate. What we do here determines the executive representation of the people. The Senate only represents the legislative. You would seek to oppress an unpopular minority.

You should be ashamed to hold yourself in favor of a republic, sir. You shame me with your anti-democratic tendencies and I am anti-democratic. Not even I would go so far as you do now.

Tyranny of the majority was a phrase coined by John Adams, after his people had been an unrepresented minority in years. I do not advocate that we do not represent monarchists, I advocate that such monarchists should not be monarchs until they become a majority. We threw off the chains of monarchy and most of the people do not want themselves to be enslaved again.

That's quite admirable of you. And no one is suggesting otherwise.

You also conveniently avoid my point as to which I point out that political views in the province may change. The will needed to take a monarch off his throw outweighs the expression of a vote. You seek to label me anti-democratic, yet I am asking for regular elections

I'm not, at all suggesting a lack of redress made available to the population over which a monarch would reign. I've already addressed this concern.

[Malgrave]

I take that as an insult and ask you to rescind it and apologise.

Chill, have a cigar.

So no apology?

[Jetan]

Chill, have a cigar.

So no apology?

For calling USLP Stalinist?