Print

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

[scriver]

If we would remove the monarch system though i would much rather we still called the head of state king/queen though.

You just want to have your cake and eat it, you can't have it both ways as King/Queen only applies to monarchy when it comes to politics.

The role has actual functions, and historical implications colors their proper meanings.

Dont bandy about functional definitions and swap their names.

Kings were elective before they were heritual. There's really no reason we shouldn't call it king. It provides a bigger sense of continuity and linkage to our history.

[Loud Whispers]

Kings were elective before they were heritual. There's really no reason we shouldn't call it king. It provides a bigger sense of continuity and linkage to our history.

Reminds me of Burke remarking that at some point in history, by necessity all Kings had to have been selected or elected by their men before a dynasty was founded, moreover there have been elective monarchies already in history. The only reason I suppose not to call it King or Queen is that the title suggests a certain degree of tenure, whereas Ministers are considerably more replaceable

[Silverthrone]

Well, judging by the current state of nobility, I must confess that I am hesitant to elevate any of them to the throne. Neither would I want common folk, capable as they would be. Inheritance, where the only qualifier is being related to the previous monarch, simply seems best, since their task is mainly just to be, to hold the throne.

Common folk, however, can all theoretically become prime minister, holding actual power while answering to symbolic power. I rather like that arrangement. You can advance to the top of the tree, but you will still always be Mr. or Ms/Mrs. prime minister. That position ought to remain common yet influential. Not to mention, it is a healthy reminder that the position is always open for replacement.

Indeed, were I to write some work on rulership and statehood, the very first words would be 'All power ought to be limited by other sorts of power, and everyone ought to be kept little, so that they do not grow too big."

Unrelated: today is Norway Day. I had forgotten, until the parade rolled around. Congratulations, all Norwegians present!

EDIT: additional ramblings.

well, having a figure at the heart of  country, that stands as a prominent and permanent role model and as an extension of the people.

Being american, we all lack that.  We have hollywoods and drugs and nomnoms and derek overrated jeter.


I do long for the idea of having pride in such a figure.  Must be nice.  All the permanent heads hide in shadows.  Many do not have more than a couple of publicly available tidbits about them, and fewer have photos one could see.

Yes, that is one of the reassuring things about monarchy, that the king will be there for his people, and that while true power is in our hand by way of popular election, the crown will remain to support it. That said, king Carl XVI Gustav is not exactly an inspiring figure. He is a bit of a blundering, bumbeling fool, truth be told. He is not a clever man. He does, however, have a good heart and means his best, and is steadfast in his duties. I am proud of being a subject of his office, rather than of the man himself, if that makes sense.
Indeed, he is, in a way, family. A very distant family, but all citizens of the nation are part of it together. It is a remarkable feeling of reassurance and safety, once one stops to contemplate it.

[pisskop]

If there is one thing we can learn from marketing and capitalism is that how something is phrased goes a long way to determining how well it is received.

Indeed, were I to write some work on rulership and statehood, the very first words would be 'All power ought to be limited by other sorts of power, and everyone ought to be kept little, so that they do not grow too big.

Bureaucracy

[Silverthrone]

Bureaucracy

A greatly under-appreciated phenomenon, if there ever one were. Not particularly fascinating, quite suffocating when neglected and untended, but something that I would not very much to live without.

[pisskop]

I dont mean to imply it is something altogether bad.

It is organization
It is, at its best, efficiency amoungst complexity.
It is delegation.
It is accurate records, which can be pulled in a timely fashion to allow for growth.
It is the manifest will of the law, allowing for any notion of justice or comprehension.


 But ....

It tends to create more of itself.
It allows for loopholes.
It slows down as it grows, diminishing returns
It becomes an economy.
It works against the ignorant.
It is often impersonal.

[Lord Shonus]

Indeed, were I to write some work on rulership and statehood, the very first words would be 'All power ought to be limited by other sorts of power, and everyone ought to be kept little, so that they do not grow too big."

Such as a three-branch system where any one branch can shut down the actions of the other two in some way or another?

[TD1]

Ephors, Councils and Kings.

[martinuzz]

In november last year, three dutch ww2 shipwrecks / naval graves disappeared from the coast of Indonesia. At that time, The Indonesian government acted surprised, and did not know how that could happen.

Now they have stated that, unfortunatly, shipwrecks getting stolen from the ocean floor is a rising trend, and has been a problem for a while.
The made the statement after a Chinese ship was caught red-handed stealing shipwrecks from Indonesian waters. Before it could be apprehended it fled to Malaysian waters. Wrong move. The malaysians had it out for them too, as they had stolen 3 japanse ww2 wrecks from Malaysian waters as well.
The ship has been seized and the Chinese crew is awaiting trial.

But why, do you ask, would scrap metal hunters go through all the trouble of bulding giant crane ships to get some scrap metal from the ocean floor?

Well, apparently the answer to that is, they are looking for ships that were made from pre-1945 steel.
Steel made before that time has not been polluted with background radiation that has entered our atmosphere when we started testing nuclear weapons.

For some appliances, like medical research and space technology, pre-1945 steel is essential.

Heh, does that mean that all the steel we can make now is useless for those appliances? Will our medical research and space technology end when we run out of pre-1945 steel unless we move our steel production into radiation free underground bunkers?

[Helgoland]

Naah, you could just as well smelt ores under exclusion of potential sources of contamination. It'd be slightly more expensive is all.

[Loud Whispers]

For some appliances, like medical research and space technology, pre-1945 steel is essential.
Heh, does that mean that all the steel we can make now is useless for those appliances? Will our medical research and space technology end when we run out of pre-1945 steel unless we move our steel production into radiation free underground bunkers?

No
The main issue with post-1945 steel is cobalt, which has a relatively short half-life and so atmospheric cobalt has been consistently dropping after the ban on nuclear testing. Thus the issue is in cobalt already in steel getting into most steels through the recycling process, but low-background steel can be manufactured specially with no cobalt impurities, it's just a bit more expensive since you can't use regular air and you have to make sure there's fuck all cobalt anywhere in the whole production process
Still, possible [pdf]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pure iron, clean crucible, pure oxygen - this can produce research grade stainless steel. It's more difficult and cobalt can still end up in the steel but it's pretty reliable overall and worse case scenario you just start over again until you get low-background steel, obviously at greater cost than if you just melted down a scuttled german battleship

Smelting down 100 year old battleships is one difficult enough thing though, melting down 2000 year old Roman artifacts to use their low-background lead in scientific instruments is even spicier - there is currently no alternative to producing lead that has lost 100,000 times its radioactivity short of putting pure lead under the ocean for 2,000 years
It's controversial

[Ultimuh]

Spoiler: Well.. This is my opinion on the "melting down ancient stuff for research" topic. (click to show/hide)

[TD1]

Harrison Ford belongs in a museum.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Firstly, we will gather all unnecessary lead objects in the world. Then we will place them all within a smelter megacomplex, which shall produce 100m x 100m x 100m blocks, that shall be arranged in perfect rectangular rows on a flat salt plain. Forms filled out in triplicate will then begin to be processed, distributing as much lead is necessary to all scientific bodies throughout the world.

This perfectly rational system will permit science to proceed at maximum pace, and obliterate the influence of ignorant savagery over progress.

[hector13]

How do we define "unnecessary"?