| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Neike Taika-Tessaro
Archon
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 126
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:23 am Post subject: Base Concepts |
 |
|
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | I'm going to reiterate the current concepts we have, along with my opinion on them - discussion appreciated!
1 . Dark Arcadia wouldn't be Dark Arcadia if it wasn't meritocratic, so I assume we're keeping that. A clear definition of the meritocracy is not needed - meritocracy is natural, we follow the people we admire the most, and those are those who work most - though useful. We do need a clear definition of who gets administration rights on this forum, though.
2 . Human rights is not something Dark Arcadia deemed much of until now. I like it that way. I never like the concept of "rights" anyway - it just makes people cocky and confrontational. The Dark Arcadian is not confrontational, but social on basis of egoism. Human rights - any RIGHTS, really, seem out of place.
3 . Citizen Application has always involved a psychophilosophical test. We'll need exact guidelines for this, which may never be published outside the individuals who will eventually make them. Accordingly, a "you die if you share" law should be instated, aswell as a good tactic to deal with what happens if it does leak out - how do we make sure Dark Arcadian key concepts aren't going to be globally known so people don't cheat the Application test? Is this even worth the bother? (I like to think so)
4 . Leeway. See Cotterthorn Alley in the Crimson Feather wiki. Is this relevant in an online, non-fictional representation of DA? The idea behind it is that people can choose to do what they want with their own property. That includes their body. If they want to deliberately put it at risk, then they should be permitted to. Thoughts? The idea behind it, I'd say, (the bold bit in the middle) should definitely hold. The particular incarnation seems moot at the moment - we have no territory, so we can't declare areas, can we?
5 . Flag and Coat of Arms - do we keep this one? If yes, do we keep the meaning behind the colours (see wiki)? If no, do we keep the colours and their meaning in another geometric version? Same for the coat of arms. I'm torn on this one.
6 . Constitution - do we keep it? (bar the Citizenship, Government & Property sections, which are seperate topics above for discussion) Especially the military part of it might be up for debate, though, having no territory defend makes this a lot easier on the mind in keeping it. Chosing a name and chosing the age of maturity for one's children seems a core concept to me, too. I would like to see those kept. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neike Taika-Tessaro
Archon
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 126
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | Summary of thoughts so far:
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | | 1 . Dark Arcadia wouldn't be Dark Arcadia if it wasn't meritocratic, so I assume we're keeping that. |
- Summary: No objections have been made.
- Decision: Dark Arcadia is politically meritocratic.
- Further discussion: What is meritocracy? What is meritocracy projected on a discrete hierarchic structure such as phpBB (admin, mod, user)?
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | | 2 . Human rights is not something Dark Arcadia deemed much of until now. |
- Summary: Surprisingly, no objections have been made.
- Decision: Dark Arcadia declines international human rights.
- Further discussion: None.
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | | 3 . Citizen Application has always involved a psychophilosophical test. We'll need exact guidelines for this, |
- Summary: Application creation and application analysis are two different things. Latter must be a well-kept secret, and the first analyser will be the one who, at the end of all other discussions hither, is accepted as the first potential Archon (I say "potential", because with no Citizens in Dark Arcadia, the title cannot be given just yet).
- Decision: See Summary.
- Further discussion: What do we do if analysis guidelines are eventually revealed? What laws will bind the analyser? What are the guidelines of application form creation - of what nature must the questions be?
- Summary: So far undiscussed.
- Decision: None.
- Further discussion: As above.
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | | 5 . Flag and Coat of Arms - do we keep this one? |
- Summary: No solid constructive criticism of flag and coat of arms just yet. Both Whit and Neike think it will be a good idea for this to be discussed last.
- Decision: None.
- Further discussion: All of it, really, except postponed until the very end.
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | | 6 . Constitution - do we keep it? (bar the Citizenship, Government & Property sections, which are seperate topics above for discussion) |
- Summary: Maturity and namechange aspects have not been objected to, other subjects, such as the (very unusual, psychological) definition of the individual, have yet to be touched on.
- Decision: The selective age of maturity and the changing (or keeping) of one's name on reaching this stage are kept.
- Further discussion: §1 Individuality, §3 Social Mentor and §8 Defence (see this discussion, too).
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neike Taika-Tessaro
Archon
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 126
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Further discussion since:
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | This subject hasn't been discussed yet:
- Summary: So far undiscussed.
- Decision: None.
- Further discussion: As above.
|
| BLusk wrote: | | Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | | 2 . Human rights is not something Dark Arcadia deemed much of until now. I like it that way. I never like the concept of "rights" anyway - it just makes people cocky and confrontational. The Dark Arcadian is not confrontational, but social on basis of egoism. Human rights - any RIGHTS, really, seem out of place. |
Fundamentally, to organize a government, you have to start with the individuals who band together and recognize said government. At the very least, you have to recognize this most basic right of individuals in order to actually form any government of authority. Even the most dictatorial rule starts with people voluntarily submitting themselves to said ruler, usually via the first few becoming loyal servants to the more powerful, then bringing in others until a united authority can be established that has sufficient strength to impose its will.
Therefore, even if you recognize no other right of the individual, the recognition of the right of the individual to form a government to rule over themselves is central to the concept of establishing a new government.
I would further contend that people have basic fundamental rights beyond this... the right to think freely without coersion, the right to express their opinion, the right to question the authority (this one is another quite central theme to meritocracy. If noone can speak or question the authority, how can one determine when merit is served by another's rule?), the right to personal religious beliefs without interference from the state.
IN ADDITION, considering the nature of the government you are proposing, I would submit that there should be a list of responsibilities for the individual. Specifically, that each individual has the responsibility to maintain an active role in government. And that each individual must endeavour to increase their utility and merit to the government through study and working towards the upholding of said government. And finally, that each person, if they deem themselves unwilling to continue in these responsibilities, should therefore voluntarily turn in their citizenship.
Brian
P.S. BTW, I'm not much of a supporter of so-called International Human Rights, mostly because they are anything BUT the rights I believe lie with each person. Mostly a mish-mash of newage babble that is meaningless except as a rallying cry for the misinformed. |
| Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote: | My issue is with the term "rights". There is no such thing. All those things are a priviledge granted to them by other people who think they deserve it. I certainly expect Dark Arcadian law to allow such things as free speech - but equally don't see it as basing it off any "core rights" of the individual.
| BLusk wrote: | | P.S. BTW, I'm not much of a supporter of so-called International Human Rights, mostly because they are anything BUT the rights I believe lie with each person. Mostly a mish-mash of newage babble that is meaningless except as a rallying cry for the misinformed. |
That's my issue with most rights - by declaring them as such, people lose all respect for them, and think it makes sense to demand them; where that's really not the point, especially with the so-called "human rights". As you put it, "rallying call". I detest behaviour like that, and I think it helps bunches if you forcibly make people aware that it is a priviledge, not a right. You enforce it all the same - à la "it is a priviledge you as a Citizen of Dark Arcadia can call your own" - but it's not and never a right.
Or, in short, my point is a psychological semantic one, and its implications.
Practically, from what is behind those so-called rights - I certainly can't imagine DA without free speech and the likes, myself.
Of course, the human right I personally have most issues with would clearly be "The right to dignity" and shit like that.
| BLusk wrote: | | IN ADDITION, considering the nature of the government you are proposing, I would submit that there should be a list of responsibilities for the individual. |
That sounds fabulously reasonable. I'll see if I can come up with anything specific. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Bluetab template design by FF8Jake of FFD
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
