501 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Dean. Anyways, we are going in circles and are repeating the same arguments. You believe that a merger with Orlais will not result in Ferelden's loss of self determination and would not be economically subserviant, and would not threaten her culture. You do not believe that Ferelden is better off with its independence and sovereignity. I completely disagree. And its' very likely that we could keep this discussion going forever. So if you want, maybe we could just leave it at that. Or continue for eternity, whatever you like, as we seem to be arguing about principles and paradigms more than facts.

[KnightofPhoenix]

About a constitution. Eh you do realise people that Britain has no constitution right? Just a bill of rights and a set of *unwritten* norms and conventions. That still doesn't prevent it from beign called a consitutional / limited monarchy. Same with Jordan.

Nice fact: the office of Prime Minister is not mentioned anywhere in the Canadian consitution and of course the office exists regardless, because it is an unwritten convention. A fact that apaprently 70% of Canadians didn't know, according to what the polls said.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:04 .

[OldMan91]

But there are a set of written down limitations to the powers of the King making it a limited monarchy, right? I honestly don't know anything about the English government.

Any legislation the parliament passes can be considered as constitutional reform. While there is no codified constitutional document in the UK, the statutes, treaties, laws, etc are the constitution of the UK and those are codified. It is not so in Ferelden, or at least no one has mentioned it. Teagan would have said something about the laws or statutes of Ferelden when he was in the landsmeet speaking to Loghain.

A constitution represents the legality of a government's moves. If
Fereldan had one someone would have mentioned it at some point during
the Landsmeet. I don't see how something that could potentially decide
the next ruler would be ignored.

Exactly. Someone would have mentioned it at some point. Especially Eamon!

Their description specifically states only a few commoners are
freeholders meaning the majority have no say in the going ons of the
country. Just like any other feudal system they are peasants at the
mercy of the local lord and his whims.

True, and there's also the fact that by "landowners", we're not talking about common farmers. We're talking about landed gentry, not tenant farmers.

Modifié par OldMan91, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:19 .

[Raiil]

MariSkep wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

About a constitution. Eh you do realise people that Britain has no constitution right? Just a bill of rights and a set of *unwritten* norms and conventions. That still doesn't prevent it from beign called a consitutional / limited monarchy. Same with Jordan.
 

But there are a set of written down limitations to the powers of the King making it a limited monarchy, right? I honestly don't know anything about the English government.

Great Britain (not just England) has an uncodified constitutional monarchy, meaning it's not written on paper. It doesn't have to be written in down. In fact, in theory the monarch has a metric tonne of power. Tradition and political reality constrains it. What the UK has is statues and legal (as in judicial) judgements and treaties. But is it not the same thing has having a constitution. It's more an evolving idea than a set of rules.

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

About a constitution. Eh you do realise people that Britain has no constitution right? Just a bill of rights and a set of *unwritten* norms and conventions. That still doesn't prevent it from beign called a consitutional / limited monarchy. Same with Jordan.
 

But there are a set of written down limitations to the powers of the King making it a limited monarchy, right? I honestly don't know anything about the English government.

There is the magna carta, but it changed accross time. The most obvious written document of English politics is the Bill of Rights. but much of its system is based on unwritten conventions and norms. Not all countries have a constitution like the USA and France. Israel doesn't have a constitution either.
And even befoe the Bill of Rights was written (1688), England was still a limited monarchy (became more so after the bill of rights) .

We don't know if Ferelden has any written documents. but we do know they have norms and conventions that might qualify it as a limtied monarchy.

[Estelindis]

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Maric is not an examplary father.

I completely agree.

As do I.  Probably the most I have agreed with KnightofPhoenix on any topic, in fact. 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KOP, your grasp of history and the evolution of politics makes me in desperate need of a cold shower.

If the cost of "peace", "prosperity" and "Security" is complete domination by foreign powers and the loss of your cultural and social values in exchange for ones that are offensive to you, then have you really gained anything at all?

[OldMan91]

If the cost of "peace", "prosperity" and "Security" is complete domination by foreign powers and the loss of your cultural and social values in exchange for ones that are offensive to you, then have you really gained anything at all?

I suppose it depends on the values. Would you be willing to embrace human sacrifices as a cultural value? I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd rather there not be a loss of culture or identity. Some values though, I argue, are completely unacceptable and contrary to democratic or moral practice.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KOP, your grasp of history and the evolution of politics makes me in desperate need of a cold shower.

If the cost of "peace", "prosperity" and "Security" is complete domination by foreign powers and the loss of your cultural and social values in exchange for ones that are offensive to you, then have you really gained anything at all?

Reminds me of the "burden of the great white man" idea. The West colonising half the world for "altruistic" reasons.

A people that sacrifice their independence for short term economic benefits and security deserve neither. And more often then not, get neither, as the Empire that was supposed to protect them eventually becomes their greatest threat.

[OldMan91]

A people that sacrifice their independence for short term economic benefits and security deserve neither. And more often then not, get neither, as the Empire that was supposed to protect them eventually becomes their greatest threat.

My famous American quotations senses are tingling!

Modifié par OldMan91, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

OldMan91 wrote...

A people that sacrifice their independence for short term economic benefits and security deserve neither. And more often then not, get neither, as the Empire that was supposed to protect them eventually becomes their greatest threat.

My famous American quotations senses are tingling!

Well I kind of cheated and applied it to an international level lol
 
In local politics? Sometimes appointing dictators was a good idea, as long as there was a mechanism to remove them after a crisis was ended. That can happen in a country, as there can be laws and insitutions. But the international scene is anarchic by nature, as in no overarching government or authority, or even an enforceable public law exist.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@Old Man

Sure, some cultural norms are pretty abiminable. However, no foreign power has the right to invade or force change on the offenders if they are a soverign nation. (Yes, we can draw some rather obvious and controversial paralells in real life modern times). And the people of the nation, if they are content with those offensive norms and values and have no desire to change, should not be forced from the outside to change. If a culture engages in offensive and disgusting practices, one can boycott and refuse to have trade/diplomatic relations with the offenders, and perhaps exercise this same sanction against other nations who do so.

@Meriskep

Yes, Fereldens value their individuality and independance/self sufficiency. Which they have every right to hold on to. Just because Orlais considers them uncivilized does not constitute Orlesian supremecy. On the contrary.

@KOP

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, the Native American conquest, assimilation, and near extermination was one of the things at the top of my mind.

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
A people that sacrifice their independence for short term economic benefits and security deserve neither.

And people who value their pride and 'heritage' above the safety, prosperity and well being of their people deserve to left to the wolves.

Those wolves often being the same people who want to "help" others by conquering them.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:53 .

[OldMan91]

In local politics? Sometimes appointing dictators was a good idea, as long as there was a mechanism to remove them after a crisis was ended. That can happen in a country, as there can be laws and insitutions. But the international scene is anarchic by nature, as in no overarching government or authority, or even an enforceable public law exist.

Ah, my friend, that's where I disagree. International relations are not anarchic, I assure you. There is a logic to international law that influences the behaviour of states and makes them much more predictable in their actions.
As for appointing dictators? I recall the example of Simón Bolivar, who wanted to become president-for-life of Greater Colombia. He wanted to drag South American to become more like the United States of America, but cultural, political and economic values and traditions did not allow for this to happen.

Sure, some cultural norms are pretty abiminable. However, no foreign
power has the right to invade or force change on the offenders if they
are a soverign nation. (Yes, we can draw some rather obvious and
controversial paralells in real life modern times). And the people of
the nation, if they are content with those offensive norms and values
and have no desire to change, should not be forced from the outside to
change. If a culture engages in offensive and disgusting practices, one
can boycott and refuse to have trade/diplomatic relations with the
offenders, and perhaps exercise this same sanction against other nations
who do so.

I agree. Nowadays imperialist practices are no longer the norm and are seen as unnecessary and oppresive. It may not be so easy however to sanction or boycott the "offenders". I'll just say a few words without going too much into it, as I don't want this thread to be locked because of politics and such: Saudi Arabia, Women's rights, Oil.

Modifié par OldMan91, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:56 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MariSkep wrote...

And people who value their pride and 'heritage' above the safety, prosperity and well being of their people deserve to left to the wolves.

QA people who value their pride and heritage above comprimised safety and security will more than likely be better equipped to fend off the wolves.

And if it's the people themselves who want these things, then why should they sacrifice them because others think differently?

[Raiil]

MariSkep wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
A people that sacrifice their independence for short term economic benefits and security deserve neither.

And people who value their pride and 'heritage' above the safety, prosperity and well being of their people deserve to left to the wolves.

Yes, but prosperity is relative. It doesn't matter if the Chevaliers are in your country, patrollin' your streets if you're being taxed half to death to pay for their shiny new mace and their privilege of sexually assaulting your sister.

The problem with having a foreign power as your lord and soveriegn is that ultimately, they're looking out for number one, which is their own country (this is why I didn't suggest that the Mary/Phillip dynamic was a good idea, only that it was feasible). When a little country is hitched- not just allied, but hitched- to a bigger one is that you're at the mercy of someone who doesn't respect your way of life and generally looks at you as a giant bag of gold, and not a people with a history and tradition. You may have short term safety, but ultimately someone is putting their boot to your neck, even if they're doing it legally and with nice words. 

This isn't like when Charles II married Catherine of Braganza, a woman with no real political power whose worth was basically her womb. Marrying two regnants creates a serious conflict of interest, particularly if they're co-reigning. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

OldMan91 wrote...
Ah, my friend, that's where I disagree. International relations are not anarchic, I assure you. There is a logic to international law that influences the behaviour of states and makes them much more predictable in their actions.

I did not say chaotic. Anarchic, as in there is no overarching authority. And there is no international public law, as it's not enforced.

But yes it is predicatble, because it is founded on balance of power dynamics and domestic variables. But to be fair, I am an ardent proponent of the Neo-classical Realist school of thought within international relations. There are other paradigms that have some validity in them. 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MariSkep wrote...

I suppose mentioning how it's not even remotely the same thing isn't going to get me anywhere?

It's very much a similarity. Not all tribes fought the invading whites. There were several tribes that signed agreements to allow white men to settle their lands, spread their religion, ect, thinking that such an alliance would make them more propserous and wealthy and advanced like the white man was. They would adopt the customs, religion, and dress of the whites because they thought it would make their lives better.

They were horribly wrong, and suffered, in many ways, far worse than those who fought off the invaders.

[thegreateski]

Cailan has succeeded in usurping the position of "Stupidest video game character that I'd like to kick in the balls". This is a rather amazing feat.

Lets all give him a round of applause.

I'm sorry Prince Rurik (a.k.a. Captain suicide), but you'll have to hand over that crown and bouquet.

Modifié par thegreateski, 06 septembre 2010 - 11:00 .

[OldMan91]

But yes it is predicatble, because it is founded on balance of power dynamics and domestic variables. But to be fair, I am an ardent proponent of the Neo-classical Realist school of thought within international relations. There are other paradigms that have some validity in them.

I thought as much. *Cough* Neofunctionalism is the way *Cough*