Veinsormoot (Split from Luria Nova thread)

[Chenier]

I have no idea how to make those symbols appear, so I just copy/paste when I need to be formal.

Same here, actually. I try to find ways to reffer to it without naming it whenever possible, though, in cases where I want to be formal and avoid "'moot".

[Bedwyr]

...Does it make me a bad person if I want to destroy the organization just so I don't have to deal with the name?

>.>

<.<

...it does, doesn't it?

[Chenier]

...Does it make me a bad person if I want to destroy the organization just so I don't have to deal with the name?

>.>

<.<

...it does, doesn't it?

Nah, join the club!

[Vellos]

It's a better name than some bland "Maroccidental Alliance." Who would want that?

Veinsormoot is an acceptable spelling.

I just love it that this organization I started in an idle moment where I had too much gold on hand has done so well.

[Adriddae]

i. No realm shall be admitted to this agreement which has not adopted a republican style of governance.

Wait what? Thou wish to spread the abomination of republics?

[Vellos]

More or less, yeah.

Except not really. D'Hara is a monarchy.

We don't require republics, just republican governance. That could be some kind of constitutional monarchy. Heck, a very cleverly designed theocracy might even make the cut. On the other hand, a Madinan style of governance where the lords have such excessive power probably wouldn't be acceptable either.

But whatever the case, we won't be spreading it too far. The Moot cannot, within the terms of its treaty, spread indefinitely. There are geographic limits.

[Chenier]

More or less, yeah.

Except not really. D'Hara is a monarchy.

We don't require republics, just republican governance. That could be some kind of constitutional monarchy. Heck, a very cleverly designed theocracy might even make the cut. On the other hand, a Madinan style of governance where the lords have such excessive power probably wouldn't be acceptable either.

But whatever the case, we won't be spreading it too far. The Moot cannot, within the terms of its treaty, spread indefinitely. There are geographic limits.

I always saw it more as a mean to assure homogeneity among member states than the result of an ideology promoting the spread of this form of governance.

For the sake of RP, I like to say that D'Hara is a constitutional monarchy, where the king (Cenarious) stepped back from power to let the lords govern the land themselves. Those are reforms that were in the making, though, and that just happened to be convenient to put in place when the king auto-paused. All of our positions are elected quarterly.

[Carna]

Pah, democracy is the bane of all nobility. Let its roots dig in like weeds and the peasants will begin to think they deserve a say in matters. If they can't here and now OOCly, they certainly shouldn't IC.

Serious question though. While its no secret to me that the Moot only accepts republican style governance, where are the line's drawn before its not republic enough, or allows so much say that its practically a pitiful democracy?

I'm curious.

[Perth]

Pah, democracy is the bane of all nobility. Let its roots dig in like weeds and the peasants will begin to think they deserve a say in matters. If they can't here and now OOCly, they certainly shouldn't IC.

Serious question though. While its no secret to me that the Moot only accepts republican style governance, where are the line's drawn before its not republic enough, or allows so much say that its practically a pitiful democracy?

I'm curious.

We don't know, honestly. The terms of the treaty regarding it are pretty simple and could lead to a lot of interpretation. No one will know the "limits" until something happens and someone finally says "Hey, that's not acceptable!"

I always saw it more as a mean to assure homogeneity among member states than the result of an ideology promoting the spread of this form of governance.

Indeed, the Véinsørmoot operates primarily to preserve Maroccidens culture not solely the political ideas or agendas of anyone in particular. Republican style governance is a trend and part of the way of life of the Maroccidens, and thus one of the goals of the Véinsørmoot is to preserve and protect this way of life in the interests of its member states.

[Vellos]

Like Perth said... we don't know how to define it.

But we do know that Aurvandil does not make the cut.  Asylon probably isn't republican enough either, though their much closer. Madina is probably too wacky.

Pragmatically, having one republic in the federation means we need all republics. We need stability of lords and mid-level positions to promote the kind of regional cooperation, especially for food, that the Moot is built on. Simultaneously, we need to have stability of the upper tiers of power... but we don't want a hegemon. We don't want to have one ruler last forever while others cycle through, allowing one state to accumulate huge amounts of political power.

Democracies are too unstable, autocracies too likely to produce political hegemons. So republics, constitutional monarchies (Hireshmont refers to D'Hara as a "republican monarchy" in order to convince himself that they aren't violating the Treaty), limited democracies, liberal theocracies.... any of these might work.

Aurvandi autocracy would not work. Madinan decentralization would not work. Why? Because Aurvandi autocracy clearly leads to hegemonic behavior, while Madinan decentralization is infuriating to work with across realm boundaries.

[Phellan]

Aurvandi autocracy would not work. Madinan decentralization would not work. Why? Because Aurvandi autocracy clearly leads to hegemonic behavior, while Madinan decentralization is infuriating to work with across realm boundaries.

Lies!  You've chosen to work with individual Lords - rather than force the Lords to work through the Government.  (Though, really, if you got anything through Langfords opiate-clouded mind you were doing well )

If D'Hara comes to me with a food treaty offer I can present it to the Lords and get it approved.    Or they can bring it to the Banker for the same effect.

But to be fair, the last few Doges wouldn't have been able to tie their own shoes, much less get something done on the Grand Council so I can see why the prevailing "Madina is so damn decentralized" idea comes it.

[Chenier]

Democracies are too unstable, autocracies too likely to produce political hegemons. So republics, constitutional monarchies (Hireshmont refers to D'Hara as a "republican monarchy" in order to convince himself that they aren't violating the Treaty), limited democracies, liberal theocracies.... any of these might work.

That's fine, we came up with a ton of different terms to describe our government as well. I tend to favor "Feudal Republic".

Basically, imo, a "republic" stops being "republic enough" for the 'moot when the member states start to dislike how it works, for whatever reason, whether it be because an autocratic leader is creating an unpredictable state (the more power the ruler has, the greater the realm changes when a new ruler gets in place, as opposed to a realm ruled by the lords and especially the dukes who will maintain a similar set of policies regardless of who the person "in charge" is), or whether because it is a pain to work with and chaotic due to its overly decentralized system (like Madina is, or as overly-democratic realms who vote on everything tend to be).

The way I see it, because of how strong the links created by the treaty are, member states want first and foremost a stable government in the other member states, so that they can predict and understand what the other parties will do. In general, republics offer the most stability. "Rights of the lords" and other such things don't really factor in it as far as the treaty is concerned. It's a rule based on practicality, not ideology.

Lies!  You've chosen to work with individual Lords - rather than force the Lords to work through the Government.  (Though, really, if you got anything through Langfords opiate-clouded mind you were doing well )

If D'Hara comes to me with a food treaty offer I can present it to the Lords and get it approved.    Or they can bring it to the Banker for the same effect.

But to be fair, the last few Doges wouldn't have been able to tie their own shoes, much less get something done on the Grand Council so I can see why the prevailing "Madina is so damn decentralized" idea comes it.

The sovereignty of the lords over the government has been used ad nauseum in order for Madina to continue her war against us and in order to refuse to sign a treaty stating they won't do it again. Obviously, it's something many of us in the 'moot grew a little tired of hearing and annoyed with. 

[Vellos]

Basically, imo, a "republic" stops being "republic enough" for the 'moot when the member states start to dislike how it works, for whatever reason, whether it be because an autocratic leader is creating an unpredictable state (the more power the ruler has, the greater the realm changes when a new ruler gets in place, as opposed to a realm ruled by the lords and especially the dukes who will maintain a similar set of policies regardless of who the person "in charge" is), or whether because it is a pain to work with and chaotic due to its overly decentralized system (like Madina is, or as overly-democratic realms who vote on everything tend to be).

The way I see it, because of how strong the links created by the treaty are, member states want first and foremost a stable government in the other member states, so that they can predict and understand what the other parties will do. In general, republics offer the most stability. "Rights of the lords" and other such things don't really factor in it as far as the treaty is concerned. It's a rule based on practicality, not ideology.

Yep, sounds about right. We want a stable Maroccidens. Which will eventually allow us to have a more assertive foreign policy, hopefully.... someday.... maybe....

[Indirik]

In general, republics offer the most stability.

IME, republics and democracies prove to differ only in the titles they give the councilors.

When it comes to stability, the government style is irrelevant. All the treaties, constitutions, and all that other jazz aren't worth anything more than the paper they're written one. It's the attitude of the nobles in the realm that counts.

[Phellan]

The sovereignty of the lords over the government has been used ad nauseum in order for Madina to continue her war against us and in order to refuse to sign a treaty stating they won't do it again. Obviously, it's something many of us in the 'moot grew a little tired of hearing and annoyed with. 

I'ma have to go get the Prime Minister to retell that one.

We already abandoned the Paisly claim - twice.    Time for a formal letter to Hiroshmonte to make it official I guess.

Though to be fair - that was really cause we wanted to go raiding. . .which IS part of the constitution    Paisly was good fun, but now with Aurvandil we are more than happy to let you have Paisly and feed it for you