[DRAFT] Proper Inheritance of Monarchical Titles

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: You're probably right that "colossal stinker" is a bit too mild, yeah. As to WA membership, why should that be an issue? Non-members or those with "observer missions" have been commenting longer than many of the current crop of players have been alive. I've written many resolutions. It's just the lack of roleplay etiquette that kills my interest.

---

And with that, IA should probably have his thread back to discuss the second worst proposal we've seen in recent days...

OOC: Oh, then you must have written those resolutions on a different nation? Because I don't see the badge for passed resolutions on this nation. Which is entirely fine of course, as are observation missions. However, just because you find something bad doesn't make it objectively bad, and I recognise the same applies to my own opinion. Remember not to become despotic in dictating your opinion to others. The secession proposal had its flaws, but I vehemently disagree that it was as bad as you make it out to be.

Yet I agree, this discussion is immaterial to the subject at hand, which is IA's proposal, and thus I have said my piece on the previous subject.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Moral Decency: Mild

The World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. Upon the death of the monarch, who is the head of state of a member nation which practices a form of inheritance in which a child of the current monarch inherits that monarch's title or titles if such children were to exist, the inheritance thereof must be split evenly among that monarch's children without regard to sex, including but not limited to titles, lands, vassals, and moveable property. If no children are available, the inheritance shall instead be split evenly among the deceased monarch's direct relatives born after that monarch's date of birth.

2. This resolution does not apply to monarchies in member nations where the monarch refrains from actively participating in the rule or governance of that member nation as a whole.

3. This is the operative clause at the end which clarifies that this resolution does not apply to nations which choose to not be monarchies and that this resolution does not force nations to become monarchies.

Major changes have been made.

---

Daar: Hannasea is Gruenberg, who is one of the most respected GA authors. That said, I don't really believe you understand this proposal at all.

[Cretox State]

No no no you're doing it wrong. You have to have a clause at the end clarifying that this resolution does not apply to nations which choose to not be monarchies, and that this resolution does not force nations to become monarchies.

Ah yes, but Cretox is that not already implied?

That hasn't stopped every election regulation proposal in recent memory!

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Moral Decency: Mild

The World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. Upon the death of the monarch, who is the head of state of a member nation which practices a form of inheritance in which a child of the current monarch inherits that monarch's title or titles if such children were to exist, the inheritance thereof must be split evenly among that monarch's children without regard to sex, including but not limited to titles, lands, vassals, and moveable property. If no children are available, the inheritance shall instead be split evenly among the deceased monarch's direct relatives born after that monarch's date of birth.

2. This resolution does not apply to monarchies in member nations where the monarch refrains from actively participating in the rule or governance of that member nation as a whole.

3. This is the operative clause at the end which clarifies that this resolution does not apply to nations which choose to not be monarchies and that this resolution does not force nations to become monarchies.

Major changes have been made.

This still doesn’t explain why does it essentially bans elective monarchies and strips the royals of their rule to freely manage their inheritance...

[Imperium Anglorum]

It does not ban elective monarchies.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

It does not ban elective monarchies.

Can you exactly pinpoint what clauses of this resolution allow this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It does not ban elective monarchies.

Can you exactly pinpoint what clauses of this resolution allow this?

I can't. And I'll tell you why that's a bad standard. Imagine a law as follows:

No person may kill any individual with malice aforethought which is not excepted under the Crimes Against the Person Act 1877 sch 1.

And you said "This bans allergy medicine". And I said "No it doesn't". And you then said "But can you show me in the law where it allows people to have allergy medicine?". There is a difference between permission, silence, and prohibition. This proposal is silent on elective monarchies. That silence is why your claim is false and your retort is inapt.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Can you exactly pinpoint what clauses of this resolution allow this?

I can't. And I'll tell you why that's a bad standard. Imagine a law as follows:

No person may kill any individual with malice aforethought which is not excepted under the Crimes Against the Person Act 1877 sch 1.

And you said "This bans allergy medicine". And I said "No it doesn't". And you then said "But can you show me in the law where it allows people to have allergy medicine?". There is a difference between permission, silence, and prohibition. This proposal is silent on elective monarchies. That silence is why your claim is false and your retort is inapt.

Look, this proposal essentially makes all forms of inheretive monarchies other than those in which the inheritance is spread amongst the children of the ruling monarch. In Laka the monarch chooses himself who should be his inheritor- I believe that this would be made illegal under this legislation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can't. And I'll tell you why that's a bad standard. Imagine a law as follows:

No person may kill any individual with malice aforethought which is not excepted under the Crimes Against the Person Act 1877 sch 1.

And you said "This bans allergy medicine". And I said "No it doesn't". And you then said "But can you show me in the law where it allows people to have allergy medicine?". There is a difference between permission, silence, and prohibition. This proposal is silent on elective monarchies. That silence is why your claim is false and your retort is inapt.

Look, this proposal essentially makes all forms of inheretive monarchies other than those in which the inheritance is spread amongst the children of the ruling monarch. In Laka the monarch chooses himself who should be his inheritor- I believe that this would be made illegal under this legislation.

It would not have been, because there would have been no mechanism by law in which a child of the monarch in a hereditary monarchy necessarily inherits if that child exists. That has been changed and I have now included monarchies in which selection of an heir is directed by the prior monarch as an affected monarchy. That said, your argument does not seem to comprehend the nature of elective monarchy: the heir is not appointed by the prior monarch or determined only by birth.

Edit. That said, I also will happily bestow my beneficence on the heirs of monarchs who are deprived their rightful inheritances by the scheming machinations of some distant uncle who is able to induce the electorate to make him king. I say again "Ceterum censeo, Scarum esse delendam!"

[Wallenburg]

I can't. And I'll tell you why that's a bad standard. Imagine a law as follows:

No person may kill any individual with malice aforethought which is not excepted under the Crimes Against the Person Act 1877 sch 1.

And you said "This bans allergy medicine". And I said "No it doesn't". And you then said "But can you show me in the law where it allows people to have allergy medicine?". There is a difference between permission, silence, and prohibition. This proposal is silent on elective monarchies. That silence is why your claim is false and your retort is inapt.

Look, this proposal essentially makes all forms of inheretive monarchies other than those in which the inheritance is spread amongst the children of the ruling monarch. In Laka the monarch chooses himself who should be his inheritor- I believe that this would be made illegal under this legislation.

That specific inheritance practice would be prohibited, yes. Quite frankly, if it is such a concern, it is not so difficult to rely on a primary title--for instance, Queen of Uallenberm--as an indivisible title to which the sovereignty of a member state is attached. All the lesser titles and properties would likely divide rapidly to other descendants to compensate for the relative value of the primary title, but the monarchy itself is not divided.

[Daarwyrth]

Daar: Hannasea is Gruenberg, who is one of the most respected GA authors. That said, I don't really believe you understand this proposal at all.

OOC: Yes, I have been informed of such. And I already assumed that a person wouldn't make a claim about having written resolution proposals without being able to back it up. Yet even so, I still have the right to (partially) disagree with that person, no?

Also, no, I understand this proposal quite well. Dismissing my comments with a handwave like that doesn't make that any less true and nor does it make your case any stronger. I understand it may be convenient for you to simply dismiss a claim that doesn't agree with you, yet the text of this proposal is very clear in what it does. Clause 2 (the second 1) clearly states that one of the things that will be split up are lands, along with titles and others things. "Monarch of Kingsland" is a title, Kingsland is made up of land. As such, per your resolution that land will have to be split up between the children of the monarch in an even way. Say there is 4 children, well, then you get North Kingsland, South Kingsland, West Kingsland and East Kingsland.

That is splitting up a nation. That is dividing a united nation into 4 parts without even once considering what its inhabitants may want. They don't have a single say in the matter, and the absolute monarchy argument that those people don't have a say in things anyway doesn't go up. Why? Because your proposal targets semi-constitutional monarchies such as executive monarchies as well. After all, Clause 3 (the now 2) states that this resolution doesn't applies to nations where the monarch is not involved in the daily government of a nation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So your claim about understanding the proposal is about as accurate as claiming that Gruenberg actually wanted to repeal Napa back in 2016. It seems irregular to think that would in fact be accurate.

[Daarwyrth]

So your claim about understanding the proposal is about as accurate as claiming that Gruenberg actually wanted to repeal Napa back in 2016. It seems irregular to think that would in fact be accurate.

OOC: Then by all means, defend your case and tell my why I misunderstand this proposal. Because saying it is so is one thing, proving it another. Why am I and others, mind you, misunderstanding your whole proposal idea. Explain it to us.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What is the extent of the ideological ban rule? Talking about the policy, honestly, is almost irrelevant; I don't care about the policy or what impacts it has on RP'd member nations. If it is difficult to implement, I don't care. If it could cause various civil wars between rival claimants? I don't care. If it would do all the terrible things that you claim it does, I still don't care even if they might happen. That said, I would prefer that all member nations be democratic republics (ie not monarchies) and this would in fact produce strong incentives towards having such government. But those benefits are also mostly irrelevant; in other words, I don't care.

What I do care about is the question in the incipit of this post.

"Ah yes, but IA, is this mocking the Assembly?" and "Ah yes, but IA, this is totally not a serious proposal!". Well two remarks. The first is that I believe the ideological ban rule, frankly, to be a blight on the Assembly. It ought to be done away with or reduced in extent to actual ideological bans. Fighting against that rule is fulfilling the Assembly's mission of "Improving the world one resolution at a time", not mocking it. Plus, republics are just inherently better than monarchies and the latter should be done away with. Second, if one could imagine that a proposal entirely about Napa but then with a single clause "Acknowledging the existence of the Security Council" is a serious proposal and ought to be treated accordingly, per [2016] GAS 1, then that battle may already have been lost.

Thus, your claim about understanding the proposal is about as accurate as claiming that Gruenberg actually wanted to repeal Napa back in 2016.

[Hannasea]

OOC: Seeing as you bring up Repeal "Nuclear Arms"...

My intention was never to establish a precedent that rules had to be challenged through proposals. I did it that way because that's how the mods had required it to be done and I was worried EP was on the verge of submitting his proposal so wanted to get the rule clarified as quickly as possible. Longer term, I had hoped that, whether or not I personally think the Pink Power Rangers were a good idea, having them would at least allow these questions to be resolved without the need for creating a formal proposal and going through all the rigmarole. Can't we just ask the PPRs to change the ideological ban rule? And not worry about dressing it up in the language of a notional, non-serious proposal?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Seeing as you bring up Repeal "Nuclear Arms"...

My intention was never to establish a precedent that rules had to be challenged through proposals. I did it that way because that's how the mods had required it to be done and I was worried EP was on the verge of submitting his proposal so wanted to get the rule clarified as quickly as possible. Longer term, I had hoped that, whether or not I personally think the Pink Power Rangers were a good idea, having them would at least allow these questions to be resolved without the need for creating a formal proposal and going through all the rigmarole. Can't we just ask the PPRs to change the ideological ban rule? And not worry about dressing it up in the language of a notional, non-serious proposal?

Seeing that it took about two years to correct an actual grammatical error in the ruleset by that sort of traditional community agitation, I would imagine that is not a particularly effective path for fomenting revolution popularis agitation effecting change.

[Daarwyrth]

What is the extent of the ideological ban rule? Talking about the policy, honestly, is almost irrelevant; I don't care about the policy or what impacts it has on RP'd member nations. If it is difficult to implement, I don't care. If it could cause various civil wars between rival claimants? I don't care. If it would do all the terrible things that you claim it does, I still don't care even if they might happen. That said, I would prefer that all member nations be democratic republics (ie not monarchies) and this would in fact produce strong incentives towards having such government. But those benefits are also mostly irrelevant; in other words, I don't care.

What I do care about is the question in the incipit of this post.

"Ah yes, but IA, is this mocking the Assembly?" and "Ah yes, but IA, this is totally not a serious proposal!". Well two remarks. The first is that I believe the ideological ban rule, frankly, to be a blight on the Assembly. It ought to be done away with or reduced in extent to actual ideological bans. Fighting against that rule is fulfilling the Assembly's mission of "Improving the world one resolution at a time", not mocking it. Plus, republics are just inherently better than monarchies and the latter should be done away with. Second, one could imagine that a proposal entirely about Napa but then with a single clause "Acknowledging the existence of the Security Council" is a serious proposal and ought to be treated accordingly, per [2016] GAS 1, then that battle may already have been lost.

Thus, your claim about understanding the proposal is about as accurate as claiming that Gruenberg actually wanted to repeal Napa back in 2016.

OOC: First of all, I have no idea what happened with Gruenberg and the Napa back in 2016, as I don't think I was even around at that time to have witnessed it. I would love to learn about it, so if you can point me in the right direction I'll have a look at what it is that you're referencing.

Secondly, so you admit that this is basically your personal whim? A whim to see all monarchies gone in the World Assembly? In real life, I share your conviction. I'd even be in favour of seeing the Republic of the Netherlands instead of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Yet here people should be able to play as the nation that they want to play. If they want to play as a monarchy, let them. Why would everyone have to think the same way as you do? It's not very democratic to try to dictate your own vision onto everyone else, but that is another subject entirely.

I'm not the GenSec, nor do I claim to know how they think, but from my perspective your proposal is a violation of the ideological ban. Dura lex, sed lex. If you have a problem with the ideological ban, then by all means take it up with who is responsible for them to have it changed. Yet as long as the rule is in place, this proposal creates an ideological ban (in my opinion), whether you care about that or not. But I'll defer to the GenSec to rule on that. I realise that that is what you want to bring about, to have a shot at taking down the ideological ban rule. I have my doubts whether that endeavour will bear fruit.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: First of all, I have no idea what happened with Gruenberg and the Napa back in 2016, as I don't think I was even around at that time to have witnessed it. I would love to learn about it, so if you can point me in the right direction I'll have a look at what it is that you're referencing.

https://bit.ly/gensec-catalogue. See row 2.

Secondly, so you admit that this is basically your personal whim? A whim to see all monarchies gone in the World Assembly? In real life, I share your conviction. I'd even be in favour of seeing the Republic of the Netherlands instead of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Yet here people should be able to play as the nation that they want to play. If they want to play as a monarchy, let them. Why would everyone have to think the same way as you do? It's not very democratic to try to dictate your own vision onto everyone else, but that is another subject entirely.

Literally the opposite conclusion of what I spent two entire paragraphs attempting to explain.

I'm not the GenSec, nor do I claim to know how they think, but from my perspective your proposal is a violation of the ideological ban. Dura lex, sed lex. If you have a problem with the ideological ban, then by all means take it up with who is responsible for them to have it changed. Yet as long as the rule is in place, this proposal creates an ideological ban (in my opinion), whether you care about that or not. But I'll defer to the GenSec to rule on that.

So, ad rem, why does the ideological ban rule do these things? What are the warrants? Where does it say that? Why does the set of facts match fit into those warrants? actore non probante reus absolvitur. Restatement alone is just petitio principii.

[Hannasea]

OOC:

1. I don't speak Latinese.

Seeing that it took about two years to correct an actual grammatical error in the ruleset by that sort of traditional community agitation, I would imagine that is not a particularly effective path for fomenting revolution popularis agitation effecting change.

2. Then maybe if it's taking 2 years to solve these kinds of issues it's time to admit it wasn't a very good idea?

[Ardiveds]

OOC: From my extremely limited understanding of GA proposal rules, isn't the ideological ban rule mostly a meta thing similar to how resolutions can't madate currencies, since nations can start as monarchies in the game?

[Refuge Isle]

Why is this an international issue and why does this topic require intervention from the World Assembly?

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Fortunately, I had Latin in high school, and a bit during law school.

https://bit.ly/gensec-catalogue. See row 2.

Thank you for pointing this out to me, I'll gladly read it.

Literally the opposite conclusion of what I spent two entire paragraphs attempting to explain.

Well, I apologise, but that is how it came across to me in that moment.

So, ad rem, why does the ideological ban rule do these things? What are the warrants? Where does it say that? Why does the set of facts match fit into those warrants? actore non probante reus absolvitur. Restatement alone is just petitio principii.

Yes, evidence is necessary, I agree. The text of the ideological ban then:

"Ideological Ban: Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery."

In this particular instance the focus lies on "political... ideologies". Since absolute monarchies, semi-constitutional monarchies and executive monarchies are all forms of government and how a government functions, I'd say it's reasonable to suppose that these are in fact political ideologies. After all, the ideology in this case is the belief in a monarch having executive control over the government to a certain degree, or in the case of absolute monarchs, total control over the government. Now, the text of your proposal:

1. An affected monarchy is a monarchy in which a form of inheritance is practiced in which:

1. a child of the current monarch inherits that monarch's title or titles by if such children were to exist,
2. the monarch before death appoints specific persons to be heirs, or
3. a monarch is selected by an electorate from members of the previous monarch's family or clan.

This Clause specifies basically the concept of a monarchy. A quick search on Wikipedia gives us the following definition: "A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication... In most cases, the succession of monarchies is hereditary, often building dynastic periods". As such, via this Clause you have essentially targeted the most common forms of a monarchy. Now, Clause 2 (which should be Clause 3, btw):

This resolution does not apply to monarchies in member nations where the monarch refrains from actively participating in the rule or governance of that member nation as a whole.

Now, how can one describe a ceremonial monarchy? Wikipedia provides an answer: "By contrast, in ceremonial monarchies, the monarch holds little or no actual power or direct political influence, though they frequently have a great deal of social and cultural influence". That definition aligns perfectly with your definition in the text of Clause 2(3): "where the monarch refrains from actively participating in the rule or governance of that member nation as a whole".

So, what can be gathered from this? The text of your proposal targets the most common forms of monarchy yet exempts one form of monarchy, namely ceremonial ones. That means that absolute monarchies, semi-constitutional monarchies and executive monarchies are the ones that your proposal targets, because all of them have a monarch where, in varying degrees, he or she actively participates in the rule or governance of a member nation that has that form of government. Now, Clause 1 (which should be Clause 2), sounds as follows:

Upon the death of the monarch, who is the head of state of a member nation which has an affected monarchy, the inheritance thereof must be split evenly among that monarch's children without regard to sex, including but not limited to titles, lands, vassals, and moveable property. If no children are available, the inheritance shall instead be split evenly among the deceased monarch's direct relatives born after that monarch's date of birth.

I've already established that absolute monarchies, semi-constitutional monarchies and executive monarchies are under the definition of this proposal draft an "affected monarchy". This Clause says that after the passing of a monarch "the inheritance thereof must be split evenly among that monarch's children... including but not limited to titles, lands, vassals, and moveable property". "King of Kingsland" is a title. Kingsland is a land, or consists of lands. If there is a single child, then yes, that child will inherit both the title "King of Kingsland" and Kingsland in the form of its lands. Yet let us not pretend this resolution would only apply to brand new monarchies. There are many monarchies in the WA which have existed for a while now, and where the monarch has multiple children. I'm not even going to entertain the idea of all those children being removed until one remains, as that is simply ludicrous and wrong. Now, unless a nation becomes a ceremonial monarchy or elective monarchy, meaning a monarchy wherein in the monarch "refrains from actively participating in the rule or governance of that member nation as a whole", that nation will be split up. Why? Clause 1 (2) "the inheritance thereof must be split evenly among that monarch's children... including but not limited to titles, lands, vassals, and moveable property". Now, say a monarch only has the title "King of Kingsland" and has 4 children, that means this title, per the text of your resolution, will be split evenly. As it is the only title, all 4 children become "King of Kingsland". Now, as I said before, the monarch is the King of Kingsland, so he holds the lands that constitute Kingsland. Since there are four children, each of those four children receive 1/4th of Kingsland. In other words, the nation Kingsland is split evenly into four parts, and the state that was ceases to exist.

Now, to return to the ideological ban rule. Under your proposal, when a nation is an absolute, semi-constitutional or executive monarchy, that nation will cease to exist. Not immediately, no. Yet indirectly, the consequence of being one of those forms of government will lead to the dissolution of a state into a number of smaller parts. That will happen to any absolute, semi-constitutional or executive monarchy where a monarch currently has more than one child. I don't have to tell you how morally wrong it is to suggest one of those children kills the other ones. This is not an incentive anymore, yet this is a punishment. What are punishments applies to? Things that are outlawed. Therefore, your proposal doesn't create an incentive, as "incentive" means "something that encourages a person to do something". What happens to outlawed and illegal organisations as punishment for existing nonetheless? They are dissolved by the judiciary. What does your proposal do to nations that are an absolute, semi-constitutional or executive monarchy? It dissolves them.

As your proposal doesn't use incentives but punishments (namely the dissolution of a state for being an affected monarchy), it treats absolute, semi-constitutional or executive monarchies as something that is indirectly outlawed and illegal. What does the ideological ban rule say?

Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery.

Conclusion: by using the dissolution of states as an indirect punishment for being an "affected monarchy" (meaning absolute, semi-constitutional or executive) your proposal treats them as outlawed entities. As such, it indirectly outlaws those forms of government, which is why - in my personal opinion - your proposal violates the ideological ban rule. Because that rule specifies both direct and indirect language.

Hopefully, this will clarify my viewpoint and why I hold that viewpoint.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

OOC: damn that’s a duel of titans. If only aircraft engineering and field medicine was so exciting...

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: damn that’s a duel of titans. If only aircraft engineering and field medicine was so exciting...

OOC: IA clearly rises several heads above me in both experience and competence in debating, yet I think (hope) I am presenting a reasonable counter-argument, at least.

[Old Hope]

The first is that I believe the ideological ban rule, frankly, to be a blight on the Assembly. It ought to be done away with or reduced in extent to actual ideological bans.

OOC:
You ever considered that this rule exists because the WA would be boring if it didn't exist?
If you force every nation to be nearly exactly the same then all other nations will simply leave the WA as they can no longer roleplay in the WA properly.
You ever considered what you would do if a resolution forcing an absolute monarchy on every member state would actually pass, and repeals fail?
You ever considered what you would do if a resolution banning private property would pass, and repeals fail?