The Marrocidenian war

[Chenier]

"Financial violence" is not violence. Violence means, like, guns and bayonets and broken bottles and stuff.

Politicians speaking harshly about their opponents and publicly badmouthing protestors is not violence.

Police brutality is violence. But now we have to, again, recognize a slippery slope fallacy when we see one. Because democracies sometimes exercise violence, especially when other means are exhausted, in a generally constrained fashion does not make them categorically identical to, say, Syria's present regime, or Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya's former regimes. It just isn't the same. And to assert that those phenomena can even be discussed with the same words is to denigrate and demean the struggles of thousands of dead people fighting for rights, while inappropriately elevating the status of people who are already residents of some of the richest, most peaceful, most entitled, most powerful nations in the world.

I'm not saying, "Because there's someone worse off, you can't complain." I'm saying, "You can't complain with the same words."

Non-physical violence is a universally accepted concept. A quick search on the internet yields this as the most-cited definition: Violence is "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." If fines are used to intimidate and to financially cripple protesters (an anti-strike law was voted in, threatening tens of thousands of dollars in fines), I call it violence. If the police arbitrarily detain people for no motive whatsoever other than a political symbol that was worn, I call it unconstitutional political profiling and violence. If the police charges into a group of peaceful protesters in full armor to surround a group of protesters for hours without letting them leave, I call it violence.

I never mentioned Libya or Syria, nor Egypt and Tunesia. I never said our armies shoot into crowds to kill them. I'm just refusing to accept the dichotomy that it's either really really bad, or really really good. Our forces of order do shoot into peaceful crowds for political purposes. They just use less-lethal weapons, so the death rate is much lower. People still die, however, or lose their eyes, or get broken bones. It still happens. If it were the nutjobs attacking full-armored riot police with bricks, then I'd kinda understand. Usually, it's just people who were there in the wrong place at the wrong time. Often, they weren't even protesters. We cannot let our politicians use foreign tyrants as smoke guards to the problems of justice, legitimacy, and freedom in our own electoral systems. We must compare ourselves to the best, not the worst. And the way I see it, we have a LOT of work to do before we can call what we have a just and free government system. The existence of worse doesn't justify this, no matter its spread. "The systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" is not limited to the Arab countries. State terrorism is done by some western democracies as well. And I am seriously concerned as to what it will evolve into. There is no excuse for systematically causing fear as a weapon against a political movement. The fines were so systematic that I was afraid to exercise my constitutional rights and join the peaceful protests. Employees who showed their support for the cause were systematically threatened.

Maybe they weren't shot and buried in some mass grave somewhere. Sure. But our democracy is still sick. The government still terrorizes its own citizen and robs them to enrich their own political parties and the firms that finance them. Corruption is here too.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

To get this thread back on topic, before I askew it again by replying to people.

Aurvandil has launched it's attack.

[Indirik]

Woohoo! Can't wait to see those battle reports rolling in!

Even if my character is a priest and can't fight, I can still llive vicariously through the battles of others.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Since democracies exist?... if you want, we can call them democracies and non-democratic governments? ... A democracy is like a contract, you try respect it or you break it... some, but not too many greys in the middle.

That's nonsense, anything that isn't a Democracy isn't automatically a Dictatorship though a lot of people in the modern world could do with learning the difference.

A Dictatorship is a country where it is ruled in absolute power, or by a Dictator, a Dictator being defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force. " Evidently this isn't applicable to all instances of non democratic government.

mmm... yes? Obviously, the vote isn’t enough, but for sure (until reading minds are tested and approved) is a needed steep for a democratic government... 'freedom' is a wonderful word, but it mean something distinct for every person, so, in the end, it don't have any real meaning.

I'm curious, if elections aren't the best way to represent people... what it's? and how it works?

That depends on what sort of representation you want, and there are a myriad of different types of representative government democratic and non democratic.

And how would people "remove their consent"? Wouldn't someone else running and being elected equate to people removing their consent, and it being granted to someone else?

As the people exist in open dialogue with their Monarch, and their Monarch answers to them, they have simply to cease providing their consent and Mendicant will abdicate as his coronation oath and fealty to the Commonwealth demands of him.

Well, yes, I see that he said that. But the whole system doesn't make sense. IMO it does the exact opposite of what he claims. It creates an exclusive old guard that is the only one that can ever win elections. Denying anyone else the opportunity to even run in an election is the most blatant example of it. How do people "remove consent"? Do 10 people have to stand up and say "go away mendicant"? 20? 30?

How does that even work? For a  start you can see for a fact that anyone can win elections, and frequently do, and then you can look at other positions and titles in Aurvandil, where they are deliberately given to the new players. Which is the opposite of an Old Guard hoarding power and controlling elections.

We don't deny people the opportunity to run in elections per se, they instead step up and offer themselves for the position.

As for your question, well you have only to look to previous examples in history where King's have been dethroned by popular demand, as they would be accepted means of removing Mendicant I.C.

Other examples are the Noblesse could one day just turn around one day and lock Mendicant in his throne room till he starves to death, or drown him in a vat of wine, or Mendicant could attend a meeting of the Noblesse one day and they simply dismiss his presence. Mendicant could wake up one night to see his entire palace has been abandoned and he's forced to flee like Nero did. Hell, the Knight Hausos At Arms could walk into the Throne Room, hand Mendicant a sword and tell him to relieve us of his presence and save himself from being deposed. The Gentry could simply acclaim a new Monarch, or declare Mendicant's Monarchy invalid, the Gentry could dissolve the Commonwealth and that would strip Mendicant of his throne. The Noblesse could revoke Mendicant's rank as High Sovereign, keep him as King of the Orvandeax and declare a new High Sovereign.

Yes, these are deliberately roleplay heavy means of removing Mendicant, because the game doesn't really support many other forms (And I'll be a good sport about it and roleplay along, hell I'll help them write it, I went into this expecting Mendicant's deposition by roleplay). And when Mendicant is finally deposed, it'll be done through roleplay means most likely. A rebellion would be dreadfully boring and divisive after all. The Orvandeaux aren't like the Averothoi after all, who can only accept a new government through rebellion, we'd rather take exception to it (The royal "We" right there).

But to directly answer your question, the people have only to make it clear Mendicant is to pack his bags and he'll do so.

You say it maintains the old guard, but I just got elected as banker. As for the position of general if people WANTED to see allomere gone they would vote in a new general. Probably the marshal of the imperial guard, but allomere wins battles so they don't.

There is no one better for the position of Knight Hausos, so Allomere is maintained in that position by being the best, he's never lead us wrong yet.

Mmmm... banker. Can you *feel* the power in your hands?

No offense to you here, but NobleWhatsit (sorry, can't remember the spelling) already told us that you're just a faceless functionary who exists simply to carry out his orders.

And I still want to know how the nobility is supposed to remove consent from Mendicant so they can put someone else in place. Since you're the banker of Aurvandil, and thus one of the top four most powerful nobles in the realm (which is odd, because you're just a functionary), perhaps you could explain the procedure for removing your consent for him to rule? Surely you must be aware of the criteria and/or procedure...

Lanyon didn't run for banker to get "power", anyone who runs just for power won't last long in Aurvandil, we have ways of dealing with them... camps... mass sterilisations... exile to the Whaling Fleet.

People who "deserve" power get power in Aurvandil, through one means or another. Drage for example, doesn't find his power as Vice Marshal or Royal Purser, but through the influence and authority he has a proven loyal noble and valued asset of the Commonwealth, which in turn grants him... other titles and favour in the Noblesse.

Personally, I don't want Mendicant removed. Hireshmont want to compel his debasement and force gross indignities upon him. Then maybe force him to become a priest or something.

That's cute, but the Orvandeaux hold honour in high esteem, and they'd rather see their High Sovereign fall in battle than reduced or debased, and Mendicant is obliged to do so by his own chivalry. Mendicant will die before he allows such small men to impose themselves on him, so you needn't bother hoping on forcing surrender terms on Mendicant, the Orvandeaux stand and fight, never surrender and never flee.

I do not really understand a few things regarding the Aurvandil government.

Some positions are elected. These positions are limited to civil service. People can not campaign or any of that. Candidates should be voted for based on perceived performance. All makes sense so far. Here is the confusing part: Who is allowed to run for a position? At one point it sounded as if no one aside for the incumbent was allowed to run which breaks the whole system.

The ruler is elected once. They rule at the consent of the people and for the people. Or some such. Without a regular vote, I can imagine only two ways to withdraw consent. Refuse to follow the orders of the government or try to rebel against and overthrow the government. Both sound like they would be treasonous acts. As was asked before, how then, can the people remove consent and oust the ruler?

The ruler isn't elected, Mendicant just declared himself so.

Anyone is allowed to run for the position, so long as they are within the law. The laws state only a Cavalier may become High Sovereign (Anyone who runs and isn't a Cavalier has committed High Treason and an attempt to usurp the throne), and only a hero can become Knight Hausos (The Knight Hausos is expected, nay obligated to die and to do so in good time and fashion before their prolonged life becomes shameful to them, like Allomere) .

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Woohoo! Can't wait to see those battle reports rolling in!

Even if my character is a priest and can't fight, I can still llive vicariously through the battles of others.

Prepare to be disappointed, Terran are off wasting their time in Paisland with D'Hara, the rest of D'Hara appear to be losing to Luria Nova and Barca seem to have their army on the other side of their realm whilst leaving about 60 men to defend Rettleville (Genius, I know) which is just ridiculous when you consider that they recently attacked Gallaecia but then made no defences to prepare for an Aurvandilan retalation.

And as Barca actually dares to fight and attack Aurvandil, we shall honour their valour. As opposed to Terran and D'Hara who just... hide behind their walls and the time and never dare to attack Aurvandil (Which is immensely boring for us to deal with and amounts to little more than low gains attrition for us). Barca are thus the bravest and most honourable of the Veinsormoot, whilst being the smallest, poorest and weakest, and that is worthy of respect.

[Galvez]

Barca are thus the bravest and most honourable of the Veinsormoot, whilst being the smallest, poorest and weakest, and that is worthy of respect.

Thank you.  I always considered ourselves such, haha.

And the last time we were in Gallaecia, we had hoped to do a little more than sitting around.

[Lychaon]

Oh, did you arrive in Barca? I didn't even notice! 

That would explain those huge multicolour feather headdresses poking out among Rettlewood forests... and the cries of the people robbed and their possessions looted, of course.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Thank you.  I always considered ourselves such, haha.

And the last time we were in Gallaecia, we had hoped to do a little more than sitting around.

And Barca is such, your defiance is much greater than that of your allies.

I imagine you wanted to run a take over to give you access to Evanburg, realised you didn't have enough men and contented yourselves on the granaries of Gallaecia before just wandering off again, we wouldn't have known you had been there at all if it wasn't for the infiltrator getting caught.

Oh, did you arrive in Barca? I didn't even notice! 

That would explain those huge multicolour feather headdresses poking out among Rettlewood forests... and the cries of the people robbed and their possessions looted, of course.

We didn't loot their possessions, we set them on fire, as it turns out the people of Rettlewood have very little.

[Lychaon]

Was the Barcan noble you caught an infiltrator? So that's why she was tortured without a word from your butchers...

And Barca is such, your defiance is much greater than that of your allies.

I imagine you wanted to run a take over to give you access to Evanburg, realised you didn't have enough men and contented yourselves on the granaries of Gallaecia before just wandering off again, we wouldn't have known you had been there at all if it wasn't for the infiltrator getting caught.

We didn't loot their possessions, we set them on fire, as it turns out the people of Rettlewood have very little.

I would be appreciative of those words, but since you put them in the same topic that your triumphal vision setting peasants on fire, I think I'm not. And yes, the full Gallaecian attemp was as almost as you describe, but our troops carried lunch with them, so they didn't have to touch Aurvandilian grain.

I guess it's true our peasants haven't got much of worth, your comrades and you are dedicating intensively to find some souvenir to take to your wives. I wouldn't like to know what you do to the enemies whose valour you don't recognize... 

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Was the Barcan noble you caught an infiltrator? So that's why she was tortured without a word from your butchers...

I would be appreciative of those words, but since you put them in the same topic that your triumphal vision setting peasants on fire, I think I'm not. And yes, the full Gallaecian attemp was as almost as you describe, but our troops carried lunch with them, so they didn't have to touch Aurvandilian grain.

I guess it's true our peasants haven't got much of worth, your comrades and you are dedicating intensively to find some souvenir to take to your wives. I wouldn't like to know what you do to the enemies whose valour you don't recognize... 

We're not setting the peasants on fire, that would be distasteful. We are however burning down their homes and crops so as to cripple the Barcan economy once again, whilst we honour your valour, we disapprove of the distraction in a nigh endless war.  There is little value in killing peasants for peasants sake, but damaging the Barcan economy holds worth in this fight. We will most likely just knock you back out of the war for a few months again so we can focus on our other enemies, whilst they remain behind the walls of Paisly.

And what we do to enemies whose valour and honour we find lacking, we "Madina" them, so named after what we did to Madina City. It wasn't pretty.

[Lychaon]

And what we do to enemies whose valour and honour we find lacking, we "Madina" them, so named after what we did to Madina City. It wasn't pretty.

Hum. Said I wouldn't like to know, pal... But thanks for sharing... I guess...

Well, I hope next time we'll be able to give you a warmer welcome so you won't have to make fire of crops and homes. 

[Gustav Kuriga]

Non-physical violence is a universally accepted concept. A quick search on the internet yields this as the most-cited definition: Violence is "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." If fines are used to intimidate and to financially cripple protesters (an anti-strike law was voted in, threatening tens of thousands of dollars in fines), I call it violence. If the police arbitrarily detain people for no motive whatsoever other than a political symbol that was worn, I call it unconstitutional political profiling and violence. If the police charges into a group of peaceful protesters in full armor to surround a group of protesters for hours without letting them leave, I call it violence.

I never mentioned Libya or Syria, nor Egypt and Tunesia. I never said our armies shoot into crowds to kill them. I'm just refusing to accept the dichotomy that it's either really really bad, or really really good. Our forces of order do shoot into peaceful crowds for political purposes. They just use less-lethal weapons, so the death rate is much lower. People still die, however, or lose their eyes, or get broken bones. It still happens. If it were the nutjobs attacking full-armored riot police with bricks, then I'd kinda understand. Usually, it's just people who were there in the wrong place at the wrong time. Often, they weren't even protesters. We cannot let our politicians use foreign tyrants as smoke guards to the problems of justice, legitimacy, and freedom in our own electoral systems. We must compare ourselves to the best, not the worst. And the way I see it, we have a LOT of work to do before we can call what we have a just and free government system. The existence of worse doesn't justify this, no matter its spread. "The systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" is not limited to the Arab countries. State terrorism is done by some western democracies as well. And I am seriously concerned as to what it will evolve into. There is no excuse for systematically causing fear as a weapon against a political movement. The fines were so systematic that I was afraid to exercise my constitutional rights and join the peaceful protests. Employees who showed their support for the cause were systematically threatened.

Maybe they weren't shot and buried in some mass grave somewhere. Sure. But our democracy is still sick. The government still terrorizes its own citizen and robs them to enrich their own political parties and the firms that finance them. Corruption is here too.

There are people who argue the same thing in the U.S. You know what we do to them? Ignore them, because they tend to be the conspiracy theorist crackpots.

[Chenier]

There are people who argue the same thing in the U.S. You know what we do to them? Ignore them, because they tend to be the conspiracy theorist crackpots.

I don't care for most conspiracy theories.

But people ignoring marginal opinions are the core of the problem with electoral systems. Ignoring minority opinions is the first step to ignoring minority rights and constructing a tyranny of the majority.

But to be quite honest, I have no idea what the heck I said that you can compare to conspiracy theories. Everything I stated was documented and is generally acknowledged. Corruption? There's a public inquiry going on right now that keeps putting out names. And even before that, for years we've only had scandal after scandal of it. Political profiling? Even journalists from some of the top provincial newspaper tried it out, and got arrested and harassed as soon s they put the red square on (a bit of tissue representing opposition to tuition fee hikes). Fines, arbitrary arrests, police brutality... it's all plenty documented. Look up agent "728" for just an example, a female officer that took joy in beating up protesters, peppering them for nothing, and even invaded someone's home for no reason, strangled him for merely asking what he was being arrested for, and stealing their cell phones (which she accidentally turned on, allowing one of the guy's friend to record her conversation to her superior about how she beat up these "rats" with very colorful language).

Conspiracy... it's just "business". That's what they call it. You want your firm to win a contract and get a ton of "extras", better bribe an public servant for him to approve your overpriced submission, threaten competitors, and hold events to finance the minister's campaign. This is all public knowledge. This was all confirmed in the public inquiry (though we knew since long ago).

Call people who hold marginal opinions "conspiracy theorist crackpots" if you want. But then again, you are stuck with a two-party system in which the contenders have nothing but cosmetic differences between them. Great democracy there, am I ever so envious. Hard to pity those under a one-party system when regardless of your vote you end up with basically the same policies.

[Anaris]

I would like to gently but firmly urge that discussion of RL political systems, philosophies, and suchlike be moved to a more appropriate subforum.

[Chenier]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada

Great democracy there.

You obviously missed my non-ending rants about Canadian democracy.