Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Why is a "Republic" the most ultra-liberal form of government? Seriously, you'd think at least some form of liberal socialism would make its way in.


Also, your scheme there seems to imply that, for instance, every kingdom is more "conservative" than every Constitutional Monarchy, which is more "conservative" than any Republic, etc. This is rather naive. As far as MOST of the actual issues are concerned, most of them can be liberal to conservative. For instance, you can have a monarchy with a protected right to free speech, gay rights, gender equality, etc.

[Rezan]

My country is a constitutional monarchy, and it is more liberal than the US ever will be. The king has extremely little power, and is virtually a publicity figure. As far as I know, the Republic is by no means a liberal form of government.

In a kingdom, the king can say "L'etat, c'est moi", but this is rarely if ever the case in a constitutional monarchy. As far as I know, even Canada is a constitutional monarchy (though the English Queen has a lot more power there than the Norwegian king has over the Norwegian government). Hell, Sweden, arguably the most impressive socialist country of all, is a constitutional monarchy.

[Ampersand]

Meh, not meant to be a dig at England or Norway, or what have you. It's more meant to describe a method to provide for different phases. There are plenty of countries in which this, more or less, was the pattern of change over time. Certainly, there are outliers, special cases. The thing about most Costitutional Monarchies today is that they are, mostly, Monarchies in tradition only. The Parliament or whatever secondary system exists as a representative of the People holds the real authority.

In my described system, C+ was not intended to necessarily mean conservative in the sense of issues, but conservative in the sense of maintaining the Status Quo.

[Servant Corps]

Well, to explain, I think it would be interesting to have the game start off in a Consitutional Monarchy, around, say, 1300*. The Liberal endgame would see the establishment of a Republic, and the Conservative endgame would see the King declaring himself Emperor and disbanding Parliament.

Not meant to be a dig, but England did in fact overthrew their King and had a Republic, which is why I proposed the idea of the Liberal endgame being a Republic. Parliament did bring the monarchy back, but then later replaced one monarchial dynasty with another monarchial dynasty (the Duke of Orange) in a Glorious Revolution, and the monarchy in England slowly turned into a figurehead, not excerising any real power.

I think it would be possible to keep the Monarchy insitution and still win the game by having a L+ society, but it would be the same as if beating the game without having the Surpeme Court Amendment tossing out all non-L+ judges. The monarchy lags far behind popular opinion and could stop reform in its tracks, but I suppose a couple Glorious Revolutions could place a L+ King onto the throne, which would make the establishment of the Republic sorta meaningless. It all depends on how lucky the Serfs are.

*This all assumes that I can find a way to replace the American flag with the Union Jack. If I cannot, I have no choice but to have the game set in the "United Empire of America", 1960.

[G-Flex]

Not meant to be a dig, but England did in fact overthrew their King and had a Republic, which is why I proposed the idea of the Liberal endgame being a Republic.

So the "Liberal endgame" consists of something so liberal and revolutionary that it happened outside of living memory?

[Rezan]

China is a more modern version of a republic (1 October 1949). Except it's not really liberal, just oppressive and cruel. Strange how that works...

I suspect we could find a great deal of examples that show republics are overall less liberal than constitutional monarchies.

Although the idea was good, it's just not right.

Why not just call the most liberal form a democracy, or a socialist democracy?

[Servant Corps]

Because I'm not quite sure that the House of Commons would vote for forming a left-wing democracy?

It's the same reason I rejected the idea of an "autonomous collective", where the leadership get chosen randomly every week. While that would actually be the most left-wing, there is no way the House Of Commons would vote for that. A Republic, on the other hand, is something the House of Commons would likely support.

EDIT: To make this clearer, I was basing it off English history (since the game is set in England), so that's why I had the Republic be the most liberal form of government. Here was what I invisioned.
---Monarchy and House of Lords abolished.
---Elections for the House of Commons
---House of Commons Elect Presidente
---President pass decrees, and and the House of Commons votes on decrees (not needing the President to sign off on them).
---House of Common hears court cases and appoint supreme court justices instead of the House Lords.

[EuchreJack]

Here's how I see it...

Feudalism was founded to provide protection to the peasants.  These "protectors" decided not to do work, in exchange for defending the place.  Since these "protectors" had the weapons, and nothing better to do in times of peace, they took over the job of administrators, thus becoming the nobles in the feudal society.  Eventually, one of the nobles had so much authority among his peers, they appointed him/her the leader.  Thus, feudalism produces it's first king.

Here's how feudalism goes, in a moderate sense:

• Nobles are responsible to the Peasants (common folk).  If they abuse their power too badly, the Peasants will find some way to screw the noble over.
• The King is responsible to the nobles.  Again, should he/she abuse their power too badly, the Nobles will find some way to screw the King over.

Note I said "Some way".  Peasants usually can't afford to directly confront their Noble.  But, they usually have access to information and resources they can provide to the rivals of the Noble.  Same with the Nobles and the King.

Thus, the Peasants influence events to appoint Nobles who share their views.  In the meantime, Nobles influence events to insure the King they like is on the throne.

Here's how I'd suggest distinguishing between the various states of Liberalness:

• C+: The King rules absolutely.  Nobody has freedoms of any kind.
• C: The Nobles serve the King, with the Peasants serving the Nobles.
• M: The King is at odds with the Nobles, but has authority.  The Nobles are at odds with the Peasants, but rule all the same.
• L: The King serves the Nobles, and the Nobles serve the Peasants.
• L+: The "King" is just some random Peasant who changes weekly, with the "Nobles" simply being more Peasants who change weekly.

Let's not forget how this topic started....we wanted to see the Liberal vision of the Medieval Period found in Monty Python and the Holy Grail come true!

(Yes, I know there's some slight problems with my explanation of things, but it's basically right, in my opinion...)

EDIT: He he, actually perhaps the L+ and C+ states should be pushed into "Game End" conditions.  I forgot the most brilliant aspect of my idea, which was that we could replace the Executive Branch with the King, and the Legislative branch with the nobles.  Which is kinda obvious, now that I think of how constitutional monarchies work...

[jaked122]

China is a more modern version of a republic (1 October 1949). Except it's not really liberal, just oppressive and cruel. Strange how that works...

I suspect we could find a great deal of examples that show republics are overall less liberal than constitutional monarchies.

Although the idea was good, it's just not right.

Why not just call the most liberal form a democracy, or a socialist democracy?

Anarchy is more liberal than any of those.

[Yanlin]

Anarchy is another word for barbarism.

[Rezan]

Anarchy comes from the Greek anarkhia, which means without government. It is by no means another word for barbarism.

[Ampersand]

Anarchy is always a transitional phase. It can not be maintained. The second people collectively say that killing each other is a Bad Thing, a kind of government has been established.

[Rezan]

Incorrect. An anarchist society can have rules. The only requirement is that there is no government.

[Servant Corps]

Anarchy is a form of government. A rare and unpopular form of government (at least on this board), but it is there.

[Ampersand]

Rules ARE Government. By definition, rules Govern actions.

If there are rules with no enforcement, what is the point of having the rules? Are they merely there as guidelines? By what means are people held accountable for their bad behavior? The bad behavior of other people directed at them in kind?