Right to LifeBoard

Horatius Cocles wrote:

If Israel is practicing apartheid, as those reports/lived experience of people indicate, then it is systemic legal discrimination.

The United States maintains a border with Canada and treats Canadians as non-citizens too. Does that make America an apartheid state as well, under that analysis?

Horatius Cocles wrote:

As the Haaretz article showed[. . .]

Unfortunately, that article is hidden behind a paywall.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

As for participating in democracy, the Arab parties have never joined a government coalition, since the other parties do not wish to join with them.

So if my preferred party is not in power, that means I live in an apartheid state?

La france bonapartiste

I'll try to reply shortly. Meanwhile, I don't believe you responded to the part in the spoiler. Your thoughts on that?

Horatius Cocles wrote:

Meanwhile, I don't believe you responded to the part in the spoiler. Your thoughts on that?

I don't know, it just didn't seem relevant to the core issue we were discussing. I'm not sure how that applies to now. The issue I was addressing was right to nationhood and the "apartheid" accusation.

La france bonapartiste wrote:



May I ask what your issue would be with monarchism?

In terms of exercise of power I'd say that a good monarch is the best type of government. A bad monarch is the worst type of government.

However in a monarchy all you need to do is exclude one person and possibly his family from being involved in politics in order to stop them from abusing power. In a democracy thousands of people could abuse their power and do, if you remove one person from office it doesn't matter. Not only that but if the people want to choose a horrible person (like what happened with Hitler) you can't do nothing about it.

I don't really care about what type of government it is, I care about the people who rule and hope they are good people of God who genuinely try to do their best and are competent enough to lead.

The difference between a monarchy and dictatorship is that with a monarchy the king or queen will pass their values to their children creating similar results as the first monarch for at least a few generations. Generally you also know who will be the next leader.

Another thing is that monarchs used to choose who they thought would be the best monarch from their family. This often meant that once more the passing on of good or bad values was even more ensured. This is compared to the lazy way of "the oldest child rules" which leads to a lot of internal royal family strife (and civil wars).

I am not saying monarchy is the best government. As stated above I don't care about the type of government but I will gladly go against the myth that democracy works perfectly all the time and that all monarchies are tyrannies.

American antartica wrote:

A bad monarch is the worst type of government.

I would argue a bad dictatorship is the worst. No monarchy has killed more people than communist dictatorships. A bad monarchy is usually just very greedy and occasionally jumps into disastrous wars.

American antartica wrote:

I don't really care about what type of government it is, I care about the people who rule and hope they are good people of God who genuinely try to do their best and are competent enough to lead.

I would argue the most faithful governments have historically been monarchies, and republics have been the governments of financiers and secularists.

American antartica wrote:

This is compared to the lazy way of "the oldest child rules" which leads to a lot of internal royal family strife (and civil wars).

I would argue the exact opposite! When the succession is unsettled and left to the whim of the preceding monarch, it always invites disaster. See the example of Henry II of England and the Ottoman Empire too, I believe. As Liu Bei says in The Three Kingdoms, "All experience proves that to set aside the elder for the younger is to take the way of confusion."

Primogeniture is not laziness, it is tradition. And traditions are built upon the cumulative experience of the generations.

La france bonapartiste wrote:

The monarchy I propose for this region would be confirmed by plebiscite, I don't know if that would change your opinion.

I can't break the roleplay of a slave nation for a party... I think I'm staying in the CSP... I hope we change our branding soon. My proposition would be "Life Freedoms", or "Life and Freedom". This suits our overall NS agenda centered around freedom of players within the region and within internal national politics and the WA.

Tagged: The Catholic State of Eire, United massachusetts,

Lagrodia wrote:

So, US intelligence seems to be poised to commit another murder this month.

Is this related to a news story that I haven't seen?

La france bonapartiste wrote:

Is it possible to run as an independent?

Yes.

Although, the Congress still needs to pass a new election law before July 15th!

La france bonapartiste wrote:

The monarchy I propose for this region would be confirmed by plebiscite

Please say more.

La france bonapartiste wrote:

I would argue a bad dictatorship is the worst. No monarchy has killed more people than communist dictatorships. A bad monarchy is usually just very greedy and occasionally jumps into disastrous wars.



I would argue the most faithful governments have historically been monarchies, and republics have been the governments of financiers and secularists.



I would argue the exact opposite! When the succession is unsettled and left to the whim of the preceding monarch, it always invites disaster. See the example of Henry II of England and the Ottoman Empire too, I believe. As Liu Bei says in The Three Kingdoms, "All experience proves that to set aside the elder for the younger is to take the way of confusion."

Primogeniture is not laziness, it is tradition. And traditions are built upon the cumulative experience of the generations.

Those are some good points on inheritance of the monarchy. I guess where my problem with that comes from is that, say the second of three children is the best, while the oldest is a complete tyrant and the third is also looking for power you will have a lot of tension and possibly a civil war. Then again if the second gets chosen they are seen as a thief to the throne since the first would be seen as the legitimate heir. I guess that's just the some of the problems of monarchy in general to be honest.

I guess a major problem with choosing a monarch instead of inheritance would also be that it's like a dictatorship where if you don't have a system to discern the inheritor, there will be strife each time a leader is chosen.

American antartica wrote:

Then again if the second gets chosen they are seen as a thief to the throne since the first would be seen as the legitimate heir. I guess that's just the some of the problems of monarchy in general to be honest.

To be honest, republics fall far more often into a cycle of coups and civil war than monarchies.

But one of the reasons the Roman Empire was so unstable throughout its history was because it had a standing army and an elective monarchy. Armies could be raised to support whomever you wanted as emperor, and voilà, a new civil war begins. And that cycle repeated itself around 14 times across 500 years. If it had followed primogeniture, it could have reduced the uncertainty surrounding the selection of each new emperor.

American antartica wrote:

Those are some good points on inheritance of the monarchy. I guess where my problem with that comes from is that, say the second of three children is the best, while the oldest is a complete tyrant and the third is also looking for power you will have a lot of tension and possibly a civil war. Then again if the second gets chosen they are seen as a thief to the throne since the first would be seen as the legitimate heir. I guess that's just the some of the problems of monarchy in general to be honest.

If you look back into actual instances where that happened it was usually the nobles who wanted the good guy on the throne and thus nobody would oppose him. Even current English monarch is a descendant of an old illegitibate heir and only a few historians complain that some random guy in Australia is more legitimate...

Believe me when I say that monarchy very often changed rules of inheritance including times when the youngest daughter inherited even though a King had sons and older daughters. The exact woman who happened to be that one was King Kinga of Poland, Hungary and Pomerenia (I hope I didn't forget some important title along the way).

First And Only Archive wrote:

So what's the appeal of night watchman states anyway? Would people really prefer to live in nations with no safety net for poverty, ill health and social injustice. Do folk really believe that people would be societally and environmentally responsible without government restriction?

On NationStates, it can make sense. Hence, my recommendation to another regional founder.

In the real world, a night-watchman state would be untenable for economic and diplomatic, not to mention social, reasons. There would be no public medium of exchange, infrastructure and utility costs would increase, and telecommunications would basically be impossible. For example, if the government didn't sell radio frequencies and regulate their use, rogue companies would start trying to use the same frequencies. Or without the regulation of phone numbers and domain names, multiple people could claim the same phone numbers and web addresses.

Under ledzia wrote:

Even current English monarch is a descendant of an old illegitibate heir and only a few historians complain that some random guy in Australia is more legitimate...

>_<

His Majesty Francis II is the legitimate king of England, Scotland, France, Ireland, and Bavaria . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria

#MakeBritainCatholicAgain

La france bonapartiste wrote:

My hypothetical party would:

1. distribute French titles of nobility,
2. possibly spruce up the regional flag,
3. submit a relatively unimportant constitutional referendum, barely even worth mentioning really 🙄:

Click to show...

Should La france bonapartiste be crowned "Emperor of the Right to Lifers"?
1) Yes
2) Abstain

Oh, a Bonapartist! Nice to have you with us- I think we might end up having some interesting conversations.

I would be very interested in a potential pan-monarchist party, but I'm ideologically opposed Bonapartist monarchism and enlightened despotism and absolute (in practice) monarchy, which would probably be a major bone of contention already. If I had to describe myself, I wouldn't describe myself as a monarchist universally (that is, that every single government should be a monarchy) I would use the term organacist (whatever government developed organically over time and not imposed by idealogy, which leaves room for aristocratic republics, free cities,and bishoprics) and legitimist in a broader sense (not just in terms of French succession), or a more decentralized and localized aristocratic monarchy. I would classify my political views as pre-Enlightenment and pre-French revolution.

In terms of French succession though, I'm a Legitimist. Which of titles of French nobility would you be trying to distribute?

More generally, I believer there's only one true Imperator and wielder of the Imperium, and that is the Imperator Romanorum, who is the temporal head of a unified Christendom and who is a universal monarch which transcends national borders #translatioimperiigang #holyromanempire

Also since I mentioned the HRE I want to wait and see how long before someone brings up that perfidious and idiotic Voltaire quote that everyone baselessly takes as gospel.