Jump to content

Metal Bunny

Member
  • Content Count

    1,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    Metal Bunny reacted to awiiya in Legal Basis of GG   
    Just wondering, I'm no GGan- when has a constitution this extensive been written for a group of... 10 or so active people?

    I would imagine that some form of organization really is helpful. But this? I question it. Does it really take this many words to organize such a small collection?

    I would, I think, form something far more loose and dynamic.

    Awi
  2. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Legal Basis of GG   
    Well, beyond the fact that this is about topic 2, and not 1 (constitution), I do believe it is debatable. (yay debating).
    In the netherlands the emphasis is on the house of representatives, the legislative branch. In the US it's more of an executive branch (president) and then senate, before house of representative.

    So.. really, you decide, how do you want to see the branches of gov work out? Emphasis on legislative or executive? or dare I say it, judicial? (or maybe a fourth power, scrutiny (press, checks and balances, independent civillian mechanics, etc).

    Also, thanks for moving the topic.
    Also, I will write down my suggestions for the constitution tomorrow. My argumentation will be lengthy (or handily sparsed with wiki links) and will thus be posted later
  3. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Legal Basis of GG   
    [b]*Edit* I realize that for a lot of people this is tl;dr and don't worry, I will make my legalese clear in seperate, handy posts with reasoning and examples.[/b]

    OMG, I pressed backspace and it went back and deleted all my text! AARGh!

    Anyway, could someone put this topic back in the golemus forum? It is useful and not offtopic. Constition.. important, no?

    Oh god, I have to rewrite all of this.

    I am going to write down the articles and put the argumentation in here later. If people want, we can divide the articles and vote for them, though we might need a hidden forum where only GG citizens may enter. (reasoning for that later).

    Article 1: The sovereignty of the individual is to be treated as equal before the law and the state. There is to be no discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics such as religion, race, species, RL nationality, age, gender, and others.

    Article 2: The power of the state is to be divided, to prevent tyranny and safeguard the sovereignty of the individual that has been entrusted to the state.
    2.a: The first branch is the executive, they hold the power of the people and must ensure the safety of the sovereignty of the individual.
    2.b: The second branch is the legislative, they hold the will of the people and must pave the way of the state and impose limits to safeguard the purpose of the state and the sovereignty of the individual. (this means I am promoting collectivism and order)
    2.c: The third branch is the judiciary, they hold the reasoning of the people and must arbitrate and deliberate upon what is right or wrong. They curb the other powers and must ensure order on the basis of reason. (so if the people democratically decide to impose a tyranny, the court must rule this as stupid and say no.)
    2.d: The fourth branch is the press, they hold the scrutiny of the people and must remain decentralized to ensure the prevention of the possibility of collusion or corruption of the other three powers. The state holds the obligation of protection, but not of regulation of this power.

    Article 3: The people may exercise their sovereignty through direct execution of their will by way of voting, or enter into one branch of government.

    Article 4: The sovereignty of the state and of the people, along with the execution of their sovereignty, is to be held as an execution of the subsidiarity principle and holds itself as dependent, contingent and continuous upon the rules of the world and its creator, [b]unless the judiciary and the press[/b], decide not to on the basis of popular will and reasoning.

    (this may spark some debate... want to join us Mur? )

    Article 5: The subsidiarity principle holds true to the case of already established and future to be established, entities of the state. This means that the sovereignty and the power of the state is to be divided into levels where they are best applied. This will not be on the basis of territory, but on the basis of official alliances and guilds.

    Article 6: The people hold right to have their sovereignty protected and as such have right to a fair trial. This also stands on the subsidiarity principle and as such holds true to article 4.

    Article 7: The people, as they gain protection from the state, are also to be expected to protect the state and hold a civic duty to its people.

    Article 8: As territory holds only sentimental value, the rights of the individual and the powers of the state extend upon the citizens of the state and not its sovereign territory. (this is already status quo, and really, the other lands have no legal basis, nor do we, as none of us have kings...)

    Article 9: The state and its branches will hold the difference in value of the sovereignty of territory and of individuals to be standard in practice and shall thusly only hold the rules of the land and territory itself, applicable only to the possibility of the enforcement of those rules in GG territory.

    *edit* (can't believe I forgot this one)
    Article 10: The state shall perform in duty only according to the people's will, based on their reasoning, not on their attributes nor personal attachments.
    (secularism)

    This is a really rough first draft.
  4. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Legal Basis of GG   
    I'll work like this: (I'm going to edit this constantly, because I don't want a repeat of the backspace incident.) If something is unclear, try wiki first

    1: The article
    2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
    3: Intended effect
    4: Examples
    5 Implications and consequences

    So...

    [b]1) [/b]Article 1: The sovereignty of the individual is to be treated as equal before the law and the state. There is to be no discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics such as religion, race, species, RL nationality, age, gender, and others.

    [b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
    [spoiler]While this may be an absolute truth to many of you and completely self-evident, I myself, do not find this to be naturally so.
    I will defend it, especially because if you do say that it is self-evident and say that all men are created equal, like a certain famous person, you might forget something because your reasoning has not been fully thought out. You might forget, for instance, slaves.

    Anyway, the creation of equality, on the basis of Moore's and his contemporary's reasoning, is a great way of reasoning to ensure cohesion in a fledgling state and make sure that protestants and catholics and anglicans don't go all happy tree friends on each other as they did in europe, and to make sure that no single Tyrant would rule alone, unaccountable. They were also believers, be it Deists or Theists, and believed that they were all made in God's image or some rational derivative thereof.

    I however, lay the foundation of equality on a different form of reasoning. Go and wiki "Veil of Ignorance". In essence, none of us got to choose the majority of attributes in life, nor the situations in life, including the parameters that decide which attributes are important.
    For example, we didn't get to choose to be born smart or strong, nor to be born into a world that values smart or strong people.
    Luck then starts to play a factor and luck does not play into our own sense of fair, nor justice.
    In essence, if luck would be allowed by the state to play a factor, then the law would uphold a 'might makes right' position and this would be detrimental to the order of society itself and against cohesion as men would turn upon men, feeling justified by happen stance. Tyranny would be imposed, almost on the basis that one would deserve one's lot in life and that the weak deserve oppression and the strong adoration.

    But this luck and might makes right, violates a couple of great ideals.
    Let us start with the sovereignty of the individual and how this is just awesome. The sovereignty of the individual is the person itself, along with his or her will. It is in a way, one's integrity; one's body and mind; one's power and will. To argue why this is and should remain awesome, we should try and see what happens if the right of the strong is allowed to supersede that of the weak.

    When this is the case, the weak are at a disadvantage. Not only are the strong to be pulled ahead, given advantage upon advantage (Only smart people should get education), whereupon you maintain the strong and impoverish the rest, this could lead to a different ruling of the law (he couldn't have been wrong, he's strong), or a situation whereupon the disenfranchisement of the weak allows the strong to manipulate society so that they could effectively be in such a position.
    (smart guy wins a court case wherein the smart guy says that the dumb guy broke a contract, but the dumb guy couldn't even read the contract, because there was no education to teach him to read, and the smart guy made sure that only smart people get to learn how to read).

    Once this situation sets in, the mindsets of people may change. Some may feel this is righteous and fair, others will disagree. But in essence, the people who feel this is righteous and fair, will feel vindicated by the fact that there are differences between people and that some simply are [i]better [/i]than others in some things. This predicates the belief that they are better in everything. If you wish to see the most entitled or arrogant people, look at the aristocracy of old, or the oligarchy of today.
    Men will believe that they are superior, when in reality, they were simply lucky enough to be born with an attribute that fits this world better.
    This, then, ultimately results into a process that is disturbing in itself, as the 'might' will believe itself so superior, that equal treatment will become unfair in their eyes.
    This results, in thanks to the already advantageous position of the strong, into the institutionalization of the impoverishment of those born unlucky.
    Slavery comes to mind.

    When this is the case, two objections come into mind. The sovereignty of the individual of a person born unlucky, is fated to be oppressed in a fastidious, structural way, day after day, year after year, with no chance of improvement, no end of suffering in sight, nothing to lose.
    When the sovereignty of the individual is to subject to a sense of 'nothing left to lose', nothing but outright violent rebellion is justified, as the individual itself, rationally speaking, simply has no other choice.
    To quote Captain America: "Rebellion becomes Self-Defense"... .

    This is an objection because
    1: This is deplorable in itself. The state is to facilitate the happiness of all its citizens, why else would they become citizens?

    (The citizenship of GG is a conscientious choice, but that happiness is the goal of all living beings is a given as it is the way one obtains happiness that is the point of contention amongst all of mankind. (Since this isn't necessary for me to explain in the realm of MD (because one is not born into the world of MD without choice), I won't explain further why happiness is the goal of all living beings (it depends on your definition of happiness though), but it essentially means that the state's objective remains the same because rather than choosing for citizenship if the state complies, you now actively renounce citizenship if the state doesn't, for more see social contract and veil of ignorance.)

    Such grievous unhappiness is not necessary and counters the purpose of the state.

    2: The state is to maintain order in order to maximize happiness opportunities. Rejecting the opportunity for happiness is deplorable and results in rebellion by the oppressed, creating chaos or even anarchy. Without such order, the state cannot function and it's citizens may as well have been, de facto, not in a state.
    Combining this, the state can only function successfully if it upholds to it's purpose and the demands of the individual, and mitigates factors such as luck, as no individual would [i]beforehand[/i] agree to a state in which the laws are made such that if you were unlucky enough to be 'weak', that you would continuously be oppressed.
    In reallife this means that no one would wish to be born, with such a grievous risk in being born weak, and in MD, this means that no player would choose to be a GG citizen, when the chance of oppression would be real and insurmountably high.
    [/spoiler]
    In summation: to not do this would be unnecessarily stupid and self-destruct the state.


    [b]3)[/b] Intended effect:
    That all branches of the government will use their own respective powers with equal will, pursuit and discretion for all its citizens and upon all its citizens.

    [b]4)[/b] Examples:
    ... really? No crap like; this court finds Metal Bunny guilty of being an awesome bunny, but the fairies and knights get to live peacefully. There is your example

    [b]5[/b][b])[/b] Intended effects and consequences:
    If circumstances are equal for all citizens, then all citizens are to be treated the same, without regard to their innate characteristics.
  5. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Dragual in Legal Basis of GG   
    [b]1) [/b]Article 2: The power of the state is to be divided, to prevent tyranny and safeguard the sovereignty of the individual that has been entrusted to the state.
    2.a: The first branch is the executive, they hold the power of the people and must ensure the safety of the sovereignty of the individual.
    2.b: The second branch is the legislative, they hold the will of the people and must pave the way of the state and impose limits to safeguard the purpose of the state and the sovereignty of the individual. (this means I am promoting collectivism and order)
    2.c: The third branch is the judiciary, they hold the reasoning of the people and must arbitrate and deliberate upon what is right or wrong. They curb the other powers and must ensure order on the basis of reason. (so if the people democratically decide to impose a tyranny, the court must rule this as stupid and say no.)
    2.d: The fourth branch is the press, they hold the scrutiny of the people and must remain decentralized to ensure the prevention of the possibility of collusion or corruption of the other three powers. The state holds the obligation of protection, but not of regulation of this power.

    [b]2) [/b]Argumentation:[spoiler]
    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is mostly due to the process I described earlier, in which the person with power will appropriate to him or herself that power and internalize it.
    Face it, we don’t like to lose or leave out on power, even if we know it is the right thing to do. For we are creatures to whom power is the ultimate tool of obtaining individual happiness, which is of utmost importance to us.
    As such, we have no real incentive to stop gathering more power and as we internalize this power more and more, we will have made power into its own goal, subjecting ourselves on a higher basis than others.

    As stated earlier, the goal of the state is to provide happiness, in the form of order and protection.

    But protection and order cannot come if an older generation has difficulty releasing power onto the next, for reasons described above. If that is the case, then unrest and eventually chaos may ensue.
    To prevent this, power must be limited in the sense that it is obvious and permanent. Once power is limited, it is far easier to remove that power and to transfer it onto another.

    As for the division of power, this is simply to prevent collusion and conflicts of interest. The division is made such that accountability remains an issue for all involved in the political factor. If there is no accountability, then there is no pressure or incentive to abide by the people’s will. Once you deviate from that unrest and chaos may ensue once more.



    Reasoning a:
    The executive is there, because someone has to do it. It’s an obvious branch, but it’s mainly a branch to ensure that it can and should be held accountable to the other branches in order to ensure maximum democratic mandate. It is this branch that has the greatest potential for abuse and should thus be isolated, in order for accountability to come to the fore.



    Reasoning b:
    The legislative is there, because it’s a direct way of showing the executive branch of what the people exactly want. By creating this branch and letting it direct, or limit, the executive branch, you will replace a lot of personal ambitions and motivations with the will of the public, which is what the state should do. If there were no legislative branch, the executive could simply do as it desired, without accountability to the people.



    Reasoning c:
    The judicial branch is there to arbitrate each case and each suspect by the law and test them with reasoning and keep the executive and legislative independent.
    If this branch were to not be independent of the executive, the executive could, as an example, steal from a citizen and then say that they didn’t actually break a law.
    If the judiciary was not independent of the legislative, then the legislative could vote for a silly rule and implement a law that says that all humans should be the property of the Bunny Empire, and then immediately call it constitutional and force the executive to abide by the law.
    Naturally, the branch is here to ensure that the two other branches don’t lord over each other.



    Reasoning d:
    In some cases it is possible that despite the division of the branches, they still work together in secret. Where instead of the above examples, where you would have one branch still being tyrannical, if there were no judiciary, there would now be two (Hungary) or even all three branches working together in order to remove accountability, so that they may pursue their own ideals and preferred policies.
    The press is the last stand, and is the last possibility of the people to show their will and desire.
    Some may say that de facto, not much changes if you put it in the constitution.

    I argue however, that the moment something is law, people will internalize it more and give it more respect. By enshrining it into the constitution, the entire state internalizes its importance and is thus more likely to respect its boundaries.
    But, by instating also that they should remain decentralized and protected only and not regulated, you ensure that each individual may protest peacefully in any way they so desire, whenever and however they so desire. To allow this ultimate expression of the sovereignty of the individual is paramount to the success of the state, for if there were none, then the opportunity for the individual to express their desire and thusly for the state to act upon it, would be smaller, which would mean less happiness and more unrest.
    (This article also implies freedom of speech btw... in case you didn’t understand my babbeling).[/spoiler]
    In summation; if we don't do this article, tyrants may become a reality and the people and the individual sovereignty of the people will be oppressed.

    [b]3)[/b] Intended effect:
    No more kings, no more dicatators, no more tyrants. Rule by the will of the people.

    [b]4)[/b] Examples:
    President Bunny wants to invade.. I dunno, the air or something, and the judiciary says it's stupid and removes him, the press applaud the action and the legislative pass a law that ensures that nutjobs don't get to be president.

    [b]5)[/b] Implications and consequences:
    It would mean a republic by popular will. A real consequence to this could be that for example:

    - Legislative passes a law that makes murder a criminal act.
    - A GG citizen is murdered
    - President (or General or whatever) collects evidence and testimony and pursues and prosecutes the suspect.
    - Judiciary then decides if the suspect is guilty or innocent.
    - if innocent, the executive pursues and prosecutes other suspects
    - if guilty, the judiciary sentences the criminal and the executive jails/fines the criminal.

    According to Mur's standard, this would still be a land rule and as such, the king, now replaced by the executive, has the [b]right[/b] to jail the criminal.
    No need for that non-transparant and unaccountable Council, no need for Mur, no need for anyone to [b]intervene[/b].
    We would have taken care of our own problem, in the way we think is best, this saves time on council and mur's side and makes us happier.

    What's not to love?
  6. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Legal Basis of GG   
    @ Falronn, ChildOfTheSoul... Why?

    I gave enough reasoning as to why you should disperse the powers that a king has, and you just dismiss it with 'I like it better'?
    Your opinion is valued, but your reasoning should decide. Remember that.

    @ Chengmingz
    This is in the Golemus forum for a reason.. I don't really care how the other lands form their governments

    @ Pip, no, you're absolutely right. Only internally. I planned on writing that later.
    Unless of course, the government of, for example, Loreroot and GG agree to a treaty and agree to 'extradite' the criminal.
    If no such thing happens, then diplomatic ties would sour, but it wouldn't be cause for war, so really, it's like how nations handle criminals in the real world.
    If the nations are allies, then why would there be a problem (US & EU) , if the nations are enemies, then it would be a cause for tension (US & Iran)

    But also, in the case of Eon, the legislative would naturally pass a law that says: A player may only become a citizen with his or her approval.
    In this case, you'd be the press, pressuring the executive and the legislative to not do such abusive things.
  7. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Esmaralda in Legal Basis of GG   
    @ Falronn, ChildOfTheSoul... Why?

    I gave enough reasoning as to why you should disperse the powers that a king has, and you just dismiss it with 'I like it better'?
    Your opinion is valued, but your reasoning should decide. Remember that.

    @ Chengmingz
    This is in the Golemus forum for a reason.. I don't really care how the other lands form their governments

    @ Pip, no, you're absolutely right. Only internally. I planned on writing that later.
    Unless of course, the government of, for example, Loreroot and GG agree to a treaty and agree to 'extradite' the criminal.
    If no such thing happens, then diplomatic ties would sour, but it wouldn't be cause for war, so really, it's like how nations handle criminals in the real world.
    If the nations are allies, then why would there be a problem (US & EU) , if the nations are enemies, then it would be a cause for tension (US & Iran)

    But also, in the case of Eon, the legislative would naturally pass a law that says: A player may only become a citizen with his or her approval.
    In this case, you'd be the press, pressuring the executive and the legislative to not do such abusive things.
  8. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from lashtal in Legal Basis of GG   
    @ Falronn, ChildOfTheSoul... Why?

    I gave enough reasoning as to why you should disperse the powers that a king has, and you just dismiss it with 'I like it better'?
    Your opinion is valued, but your reasoning should decide. Remember that.

    @ Chengmingz
    This is in the Golemus forum for a reason.. I don't really care how the other lands form their governments

    @ Pip, no, you're absolutely right. Only internally. I planned on writing that later.
    Unless of course, the government of, for example, Loreroot and GG agree to a treaty and agree to 'extradite' the criminal.
    If no such thing happens, then diplomatic ties would sour, but it wouldn't be cause for war, so really, it's like how nations handle criminals in the real world.
    If the nations are allies, then why would there be a problem (US & EU) , if the nations are enemies, then it would be a cause for tension (US & Iran)

    But also, in the case of Eon, the legislative would naturally pass a law that says: A player may only become a citizen with his or her approval.
    In this case, you'd be the press, pressuring the executive and the legislative to not do such abusive things.
  9. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from lashtal in Legal Basis of GG   
    Well, beyond the fact that this is about topic 2, and not 1 (constitution), I do believe it is debatable. (yay debating).
    In the netherlands the emphasis is on the house of representatives, the legislative branch. In the US it's more of an executive branch (president) and then senate, before house of representative.

    So.. really, you decide, how do you want to see the branches of gov work out? Emphasis on legislative or executive? or dare I say it, judicial? (or maybe a fourth power, scrutiny (press, checks and balances, independent civillian mechanics, etc).

    Also, thanks for moving the topic.
    Also, I will write down my suggestions for the constitution tomorrow. My argumentation will be lengthy (or handily sparsed with wiki links) and will thus be posted later
  10. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from lashtal in Legal Basis of GG   
    [b]*Edit* I realize that for a lot of people this is tl;dr and don't worry, I will make my legalese clear in seperate, handy posts with reasoning and examples.[/b]

    OMG, I pressed backspace and it went back and deleted all my text! AARGh!

    Anyway, could someone put this topic back in the golemus forum? It is useful and not offtopic. Constition.. important, no?

    Oh god, I have to rewrite all of this.

    I am going to write down the articles and put the argumentation in here later. If people want, we can divide the articles and vote for them, though we might need a hidden forum where only GG citizens may enter. (reasoning for that later).

    Article 1: The sovereignty of the individual is to be treated as equal before the law and the state. There is to be no discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics such as religion, race, species, RL nationality, age, gender, and others.

    Article 2: The power of the state is to be divided, to prevent tyranny and safeguard the sovereignty of the individual that has been entrusted to the state.
    2.a: The first branch is the executive, they hold the power of the people and must ensure the safety of the sovereignty of the individual.
    2.b: The second branch is the legislative, they hold the will of the people and must pave the way of the state and impose limits to safeguard the purpose of the state and the sovereignty of the individual. (this means I am promoting collectivism and order)
    2.c: The third branch is the judiciary, they hold the reasoning of the people and must arbitrate and deliberate upon what is right or wrong. They curb the other powers and must ensure order on the basis of reason. (so if the people democratically decide to impose a tyranny, the court must rule this as stupid and say no.)
    2.d: The fourth branch is the press, they hold the scrutiny of the people and must remain decentralized to ensure the prevention of the possibility of collusion or corruption of the other three powers. The state holds the obligation of protection, but not of regulation of this power.

    Article 3: The people may exercise their sovereignty through direct execution of their will by way of voting, or enter into one branch of government.

    Article 4: The sovereignty of the state and of the people, along with the execution of their sovereignty, is to be held as an execution of the subsidiarity principle and holds itself as dependent, contingent and continuous upon the rules of the world and its creator, [b]unless the judiciary and the press[/b], decide not to on the basis of popular will and reasoning.

    (this may spark some debate... want to join us Mur? )

    Article 5: The subsidiarity principle holds true to the case of already established and future to be established, entities of the state. This means that the sovereignty and the power of the state is to be divided into levels where they are best applied. This will not be on the basis of territory, but on the basis of official alliances and guilds.

    Article 6: The people hold right to have their sovereignty protected and as such have right to a fair trial. This also stands on the subsidiarity principle and as such holds true to article 4.

    Article 7: The people, as they gain protection from the state, are also to be expected to protect the state and hold a civic duty to its people.

    Article 8: As territory holds only sentimental value, the rights of the individual and the powers of the state extend upon the citizens of the state and not its sovereign territory. (this is already status quo, and really, the other lands have no legal basis, nor do we, as none of us have kings...)

    Article 9: The state and its branches will hold the difference in value of the sovereignty of territory and of individuals to be standard in practice and shall thusly only hold the rules of the land and territory itself, applicable only to the possibility of the enforcement of those rules in GG territory.

    *edit* (can't believe I forgot this one)
    Article 10: The state shall perform in duty only according to the people's will, based on their reasoning, not on their attributes nor personal attachments.
    (secularism)

    This is a really rough first draft.
  11. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from lashtal in Legal Basis of GG   
    I'll work like this: (I'm going to edit this constantly, because I don't want a repeat of the backspace incident.) If something is unclear, try wiki first

    1: The article
    2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
    3: Intended effect
    4: Examples
    5 Implications and consequences

    So...

    [b]1) [/b]Article 1: The sovereignty of the individual is to be treated as equal before the law and the state. There is to be no discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics such as religion, race, species, RL nationality, age, gender, and others.

    [b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
    [spoiler]While this may be an absolute truth to many of you and completely self-evident, I myself, do not find this to be naturally so.
    I will defend it, especially because if you do say that it is self-evident and say that all men are created equal, like a certain famous person, you might forget something because your reasoning has not been fully thought out. You might forget, for instance, slaves.

    Anyway, the creation of equality, on the basis of Moore's and his contemporary's reasoning, is a great way of reasoning to ensure cohesion in a fledgling state and make sure that protestants and catholics and anglicans don't go all happy tree friends on each other as they did in europe, and to make sure that no single Tyrant would rule alone, unaccountable. They were also believers, be it Deists or Theists, and believed that they were all made in God's image or some rational derivative thereof.

    I however, lay the foundation of equality on a different form of reasoning. Go and wiki "Veil of Ignorance". In essence, none of us got to choose the majority of attributes in life, nor the situations in life, including the parameters that decide which attributes are important.
    For example, we didn't get to choose to be born smart or strong, nor to be born into a world that values smart or strong people.
    Luck then starts to play a factor and luck does not play into our own sense of fair, nor justice.
    In essence, if luck would be allowed by the state to play a factor, then the law would uphold a 'might makes right' position and this would be detrimental to the order of society itself and against cohesion as men would turn upon men, feeling justified by happen stance. Tyranny would be imposed, almost on the basis that one would deserve one's lot in life and that the weak deserve oppression and the strong adoration.

    But this luck and might makes right, violates a couple of great ideals.
    Let us start with the sovereignty of the individual and how this is just awesome. The sovereignty of the individual is the person itself, along with his or her will. It is in a way, one's integrity; one's body and mind; one's power and will. To argue why this is and should remain awesome, we should try and see what happens if the right of the strong is allowed to supersede that of the weak.

    When this is the case, the weak are at a disadvantage. Not only are the strong to be pulled ahead, given advantage upon advantage (Only smart people should get education), whereupon you maintain the strong and impoverish the rest, this could lead to a different ruling of the law (he couldn't have been wrong, he's strong), or a situation whereupon the disenfranchisement of the weak allows the strong to manipulate society so that they could effectively be in such a position.
    (smart guy wins a court case wherein the smart guy says that the dumb guy broke a contract, but the dumb guy couldn't even read the contract, because there was no education to teach him to read, and the smart guy made sure that only smart people get to learn how to read).

    Once this situation sets in, the mindsets of people may change. Some may feel this is righteous and fair, others will disagree. But in essence, the people who feel this is righteous and fair, will feel vindicated by the fact that there are differences between people and that some simply are [i]better [/i]than others in some things. This predicates the belief that they are better in everything. If you wish to see the most entitled or arrogant people, look at the aristocracy of old, or the oligarchy of today.
    Men will believe that they are superior, when in reality, they were simply lucky enough to be born with an attribute that fits this world better.
    This, then, ultimately results into a process that is disturbing in itself, as the 'might' will believe itself so superior, that equal treatment will become unfair in their eyes.
    This results, in thanks to the already advantageous position of the strong, into the institutionalization of the impoverishment of those born unlucky.
    Slavery comes to mind.

    When this is the case, two objections come into mind. The sovereignty of the individual of a person born unlucky, is fated to be oppressed in a fastidious, structural way, day after day, year after year, with no chance of improvement, no end of suffering in sight, nothing to lose.
    When the sovereignty of the individual is to subject to a sense of 'nothing left to lose', nothing but outright violent rebellion is justified, as the individual itself, rationally speaking, simply has no other choice.
    To quote Captain America: "Rebellion becomes Self-Defense"... .

    This is an objection because
    1: This is deplorable in itself. The state is to facilitate the happiness of all its citizens, why else would they become citizens?

    (The citizenship of GG is a conscientious choice, but that happiness is the goal of all living beings is a given as it is the way one obtains happiness that is the point of contention amongst all of mankind. (Since this isn't necessary for me to explain in the realm of MD (because one is not born into the world of MD without choice), I won't explain further why happiness is the goal of all living beings (it depends on your definition of happiness though), but it essentially means that the state's objective remains the same because rather than choosing for citizenship if the state complies, you now actively renounce citizenship if the state doesn't, for more see social contract and veil of ignorance.)

    Such grievous unhappiness is not necessary and counters the purpose of the state.

    2: The state is to maintain order in order to maximize happiness opportunities. Rejecting the opportunity for happiness is deplorable and results in rebellion by the oppressed, creating chaos or even anarchy. Without such order, the state cannot function and it's citizens may as well have been, de facto, not in a state.
    Combining this, the state can only function successfully if it upholds to it's purpose and the demands of the individual, and mitigates factors such as luck, as no individual would [i]beforehand[/i] agree to a state in which the laws are made such that if you were unlucky enough to be 'weak', that you would continuously be oppressed.
    In reallife this means that no one would wish to be born, with such a grievous risk in being born weak, and in MD, this means that no player would choose to be a GG citizen, when the chance of oppression would be real and insurmountably high.
    [/spoiler]
    In summation: to not do this would be unnecessarily stupid and self-destruct the state.


    [b]3)[/b] Intended effect:
    That all branches of the government will use their own respective powers with equal will, pursuit and discretion for all its citizens and upon all its citizens.

    [b]4)[/b] Examples:
    ... really? No crap like; this court finds Metal Bunny guilty of being an awesome bunny, but the fairies and knights get to live peacefully. There is your example

    [b]5[/b][b])[/b] Intended effects and consequences:
    If circumstances are equal for all citizens, then all citizens are to be treated the same, without regard to their innate characteristics.
  12. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Legal Basis of GG   
    [b]1) [/b]Article 2: The power of the state is to be divided, to prevent tyranny and safeguard the sovereignty of the individual that has been entrusted to the state.
    2.a: The first branch is the executive, they hold the power of the people and must ensure the safety of the sovereignty of the individual.
    2.b: The second branch is the legislative, they hold the will of the people and must pave the way of the state and impose limits to safeguard the purpose of the state and the sovereignty of the individual. (this means I am promoting collectivism and order)
    2.c: The third branch is the judiciary, they hold the reasoning of the people and must arbitrate and deliberate upon what is right or wrong. They curb the other powers and must ensure order on the basis of reason. (so if the people democratically decide to impose a tyranny, the court must rule this as stupid and say no.)
    2.d: The fourth branch is the press, they hold the scrutiny of the people and must remain decentralized to ensure the prevention of the possibility of collusion or corruption of the other three powers. The state holds the obligation of protection, but not of regulation of this power.

    [b]2) [/b]Argumentation:[spoiler]
    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is mostly due to the process I described earlier, in which the person with power will appropriate to him or herself that power and internalize it.
    Face it, we don’t like to lose or leave out on power, even if we know it is the right thing to do. For we are creatures to whom power is the ultimate tool of obtaining individual happiness, which is of utmost importance to us.
    As such, we have no real incentive to stop gathering more power and as we internalize this power more and more, we will have made power into its own goal, subjecting ourselves on a higher basis than others.

    As stated earlier, the goal of the state is to provide happiness, in the form of order and protection.

    But protection and order cannot come if an older generation has difficulty releasing power onto the next, for reasons described above. If that is the case, then unrest and eventually chaos may ensue.
    To prevent this, power must be limited in the sense that it is obvious and permanent. Once power is limited, it is far easier to remove that power and to transfer it onto another.

    As for the division of power, this is simply to prevent collusion and conflicts of interest. The division is made such that accountability remains an issue for all involved in the political factor. If there is no accountability, then there is no pressure or incentive to abide by the people’s will. Once you deviate from that unrest and chaos may ensue once more.



    Reasoning a:
    The executive is there, because someone has to do it. It’s an obvious branch, but it’s mainly a branch to ensure that it can and should be held accountable to the other branches in order to ensure maximum democratic mandate. It is this branch that has the greatest potential for abuse and should thus be isolated, in order for accountability to come to the fore.



    Reasoning b:
    The legislative is there, because it’s a direct way of showing the executive branch of what the people exactly want. By creating this branch and letting it direct, or limit, the executive branch, you will replace a lot of personal ambitions and motivations with the will of the public, which is what the state should do. If there were no legislative branch, the executive could simply do as it desired, without accountability to the people.



    Reasoning c:
    The judicial branch is there to arbitrate each case and each suspect by the law and test them with reasoning and keep the executive and legislative independent.
    If this branch were to not be independent of the executive, the executive could, as an example, steal from a citizen and then say that they didn’t actually break a law.
    If the judiciary was not independent of the legislative, then the legislative could vote for a silly rule and implement a law that says that all humans should be the property of the Bunny Empire, and then immediately call it constitutional and force the executive to abide by the law.
    Naturally, the branch is here to ensure that the two other branches don’t lord over each other.



    Reasoning d:
    In some cases it is possible that despite the division of the branches, they still work together in secret. Where instead of the above examples, where you would have one branch still being tyrannical, if there were no judiciary, there would now be two (Hungary) or even all three branches working together in order to remove accountability, so that they may pursue their own ideals and preferred policies.
    The press is the last stand, and is the last possibility of the people to show their will and desire.
    Some may say that de facto, not much changes if you put it in the constitution.

    I argue however, that the moment something is law, people will internalize it more and give it more respect. By enshrining it into the constitution, the entire state internalizes its importance and is thus more likely to respect its boundaries.
    But, by instating also that they should remain decentralized and protected only and not regulated, you ensure that each individual may protest peacefully in any way they so desire, whenever and however they so desire. To allow this ultimate expression of the sovereignty of the individual is paramount to the success of the state, for if there were none, then the opportunity for the individual to express their desire and thusly for the state to act upon it, would be smaller, which would mean less happiness and more unrest.
    (This article also implies freedom of speech btw... in case you didn’t understand my babbeling).[/spoiler]
    In summation; if we don't do this article, tyrants may become a reality and the people and the individual sovereignty of the people will be oppressed.

    [b]3)[/b] Intended effect:
    No more kings, no more dicatators, no more tyrants. Rule by the will of the people.

    [b]4)[/b] Examples:
    President Bunny wants to invade.. I dunno, the air or something, and the judiciary says it's stupid and removes him, the press applaud the action and the legislative pass a law that ensures that nutjobs don't get to be president.

    [b]5)[/b] Implications and consequences:
    It would mean a republic by popular will. A real consequence to this could be that for example:

    - Legislative passes a law that makes murder a criminal act.
    - A GG citizen is murdered
    - President (or General or whatever) collects evidence and testimony and pursues and prosecutes the suspect.
    - Judiciary then decides if the suspect is guilty or innocent.
    - if innocent, the executive pursues and prosecutes other suspects
    - if guilty, the judiciary sentences the criminal and the executive jails/fines the criminal.

    According to Mur's standard, this would still be a land rule and as such, the king, now replaced by the executive, has the [b]right[/b] to jail the criminal.
    No need for that non-transparant and unaccountable Council, no need for Mur, no need for anyone to [b]intervene[/b].
    We would have taken care of our own problem, in the way we think is best, this saves time on council and mur's side and makes us happier.

    What's not to love?
  13. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in GC gathering season - balanced profile   
    15GC
  14. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from lashtal in Diposing Yrthilian As King Of Golemus Golemicarum   
    Well, the powerful backer is no longer anonymous. It’s me.

    I remained anonymous in the start because I wanted to get support first and a solid place to start from. I wanted to know what other people thought first.
    Now I do. If you think that doing this anonymous from the start was a mistake and it makes me a coward, then that’s your opinion.
    But the fact that I came forward this soon, should say enough. I have no intention of gaining power without the responsibilities. I do not shirk from them.





    I supported Yrthilian in the past, because I thought he would be a good leader, perhaps even, better than me. For those who don’t know, after Wodin left, savelfuser, yrthilian and I were the leaders. After savelfuser left I supported yrthilian because at that point, I had little ambition or enthusiasm to help govern the alliance. I was busy being mp6 and RPC back then.

    That was a long time ago and for a long time I noticed the GG alliance grow, bit by bit. But I also saw it stagnate. I waved them off, these things happen.
    Then, things suddenly started escalating.

    GG had fought in two wars in a short amount of time, causing much suffering, not just for the enemies, but for the inhabitants of GG as well. Tales of friendship, /regardless of ingame or irl/ that suffered.
    Yrthilian allowing KoB to take necrovion slaves. Despite what my really outdated and old description says, I am currently against slavery.
    I noticed the unjust treatment of Marvolo, son of a very good and legendary friend, Khalazdad.
    I also noticed that Wodin Ullr was a lifeless and silent husk of what he used to be. A good friend.
    I then heard from yrthilian himself about ripping the cube apart.
    I express extreme regret about not having stopped him nor making any attempt at doing so.
    I was not at the scene at the time, I missed the gate.
    But having Khalazdad as another lifeless slave cannot be condoned in my opinion.

    Yrthilian writes this off as a YIM war. You want roleplay?
    The reasons I gave are roleplay enough. In fact, I do not list as reason the YIM war, what I list as a reason is yrthilian casually dismissing his 2nd in command. What’s that about? Complete and total exile? If you are willing, as a roleplayer, to sacrifice a good man’s innocent soul, the soul of a good friend and father to many, the soul which was given to Wodin in /good trust/, just to reclaim power, then you are not a good and just king. Then you are not my king. Then you are nothing but a man hell bent for power.
    If you roleplay that, you roleplay a paranoid man.

    You know me and most of the other active RPC’s know me.
    I am objective and often neutral.
    But GG is my homeland and I will not stand by any longer to watch how GG suffers.

    I am not saying that I would be a good leader.
    What I am saying is that yrthillian in my eyes, has proven himself to be inadequate as a leader.


    What about me?
    I do not wish to be king. Regardless of whether or not I would become king or not, I will first and foremost be Emperor of Bunnies.
    But the bunnies are inhabitants of GG as well and if GG suffers, then they suffer as well.
    If I were allowed to lead the alliance, I would do what should have been done.
    Get peace, concentrate more on the interior, give Wodin his just respect and lay his weak body to rest.
    I would be far more inclined to call for diplomacy, instead of war.
    I would keep the foundations of the GG alliance true.
    Instead of researching many things in my lab somewhere hidden in GG, I would strive to make my alliance to look far more like the MR alliance, which in my opinion is a true fighter’s alliance, like Wodin would have wanted.
    Before yrthilian became king he was a researcher, a scientist. Tell me, how does a researcher lead a fighter’s alliance?

    But that is what I would do if I were to gain leadership.

    My main intent is to make sure that yrthilian does not gain leadership. If someone more suited to the task becomes the leader, then so be it, I do not mind.
  15. Upvote
    Metal Bunny reacted to Mya Celestia in Savelites Disbanded   
    [color="#8B0000"][font="Palatino Linotype"]I was told the 2 pictures were part of something that was not an official part of MD.

    If someone was willing to bring the Savelites back to what savelfuser had originally founded them to be, they'd have a real chance of getting the alliance. This is a must.

    Savlefuser founded the Savelites in Loreroot. To move them would deviate from what he wanted. I won't even begin to say I know or knew what he wanted, but this seems rather obvious.[/font][/color]
  16. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Tutorial   
    Can someone remind me again, why we don't have a forum tutorial for new players?

    It seems to me that while exploration is.. great, it is also simply awesome to have it in easy access somewhere, as it is getting more and more... and more...
    It would also help out the LHO process in the sense that LHO's could tell people to check the forum for spoiler-free info, in case they have questions and no LHO is online.

    Also, this way, you can moderate what is and is not considered a spoiler.



    Downside is what again?
  17. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Tutorial   
    More transparency about what spoilers are and what is not. Perhaps more info about spells and illusions (spoiler free).
    What the crap CTC/ATC/ITC's are, what items can do
    What are scenes or in scenes (tags, co_ords, clickables, custom clickables, basically, all the stuff in the announcements that Mur put in over the past months)
    But really, transparency about what constitutes a spoiler (with examples such as; the solution to the bersker's way puzzle is a spoiler, but saying... is not)
    And transparency about what constitutes an abuse and what doesn't and the conditions surrounding it (glitches, report them or not, with examples, etc)
  18. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Legal Basis of GG   
    Due to a slump in the world of university debating, and a thankful end to my internship, I have some free time left and I wish to sharpen my mind.

    I figured that my sense of philosphy, law, logic, ethics, economics, psychology, pragmatism, social interaction, the state, legitimacy, trias (or maybe four... mmmh) politica, etc... could use some practice.
    I also figured that because we have no king anymore who does not enforce rules, nor are his rules actually existent, as there is no legitimate basis for it.
    This leaves room for only the in-game rules and the in-game judiciary, executive and legislative branch of murness leave a lot of ambiguity and are based on an intuitive sense of fairness - of only a few people.
    Don't get me wrong, we do the same thing as well, as we superimposed the rules and the way we govern this alliance.
    Also, don't get me wrong, I don't think there is something fundamentally wrong so far, as with so few people, there is no pressing need for this thinking about things such as checks and balances, etc.

    It's just that I want to practice, breathe some life into this forum and basically create something new in MD which could also be handy for some weird emergency later on or something.

    So.. let's write/give thoughts about
    1) Constitution (and everything that implies)
    2) Branches of government
    3) Checks and balances (actually, this is in everything already, if we do it right.)


    A warning though, I do intend to use this as practice for my university debating career, so while you may give suggestions, improvements or questions, I myself will go very deep with my analysis and reasoning as well as possible implications and consequences, while treating both real world (because we still interact as humans) and MD issues. And when I say I'll go deep with my reasoning, I mean, I'll go deep as a prisoner who's getting desperate.

    Also, jokes

    So yeah.. let's try constitution first? If we got something nice, then I'll put it in a new forum without typo's and crap, just regard this as the notepad.
  19. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Liberty4life in Tutorial   
    Can someone remind me again, why we don't have a forum tutorial for new players?

    It seems to me that while exploration is.. great, it is also simply awesome to have it in easy access somewhere, as it is getting more and more... and more...
    It would also help out the LHO process in the sense that LHO's could tell people to check the forum for spoiler-free info, in case they have questions and no LHO is online.

    Also, this way, you can moderate what is and is not considered a spoiler.



    Downside is what again?
  20. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from lashtal in Legal Basis of GG   
    Due to a slump in the world of university debating, and a thankful end to my internship, I have some free time left and I wish to sharpen my mind.

    I figured that my sense of philosphy, law, logic, ethics, economics, psychology, pragmatism, social interaction, the state, legitimacy, trias (or maybe four... mmmh) politica, etc... could use some practice.
    I also figured that because we have no king anymore who does not enforce rules, nor are his rules actually existent, as there is no legitimate basis for it.
    This leaves room for only the in-game rules and the in-game judiciary, executive and legislative branch of murness leave a lot of ambiguity and are based on an intuitive sense of fairness - of only a few people.
    Don't get me wrong, we do the same thing as well, as we superimposed the rules and the way we govern this alliance.
    Also, don't get me wrong, I don't think there is something fundamentally wrong so far, as with so few people, there is no pressing need for this thinking about things such as checks and balances, etc.

    It's just that I want to practice, breathe some life into this forum and basically create something new in MD which could also be handy for some weird emergency later on or something.

    So.. let's write/give thoughts about
    1) Constitution (and everything that implies)
    2) Branches of government
    3) Checks and balances (actually, this is in everything already, if we do it right.)


    A warning though, I do intend to use this as practice for my university debating career, so while you may give suggestions, improvements or questions, I myself will go very deep with my analysis and reasoning as well as possible implications and consequences, while treating both real world (because we still interact as humans) and MD issues. And when I say I'll go deep with my reasoning, I mean, I'll go deep as a prisoner who's getting desperate.

    Also, jokes

    So yeah.. let's try constitution first? If we got something nice, then I'll put it in a new forum without typo's and crap, just regard this as the notepad.
  21. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Atrumist in Tutorial   
    More transparency about what spoilers are and what is not. Perhaps more info about spells and illusions (spoiler free).
    What the crap CTC/ATC/ITC's are, what items can do
    What are scenes or in scenes (tags, co_ords, clickables, custom clickables, basically, all the stuff in the announcements that Mur put in over the past months)
    But really, transparency about what constitutes a spoiler (with examples such as; the solution to the bersker's way puzzle is a spoiler, but saying... is not)
    And transparency about what constitutes an abuse and what doesn't and the conditions surrounding it (glitches, report them or not, with examples, etc)
  22. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Atrumist in Tutorial   
    Can someone remind me again, why we don't have a forum tutorial for new players?

    It seems to me that while exploration is.. great, it is also simply awesome to have it in easy access somewhere, as it is getting more and more... and more...
    It would also help out the LHO process in the sense that LHO's could tell people to check the forum for spoiler-free info, in case they have questions and no LHO is online.

    Also, this way, you can moderate what is and is not considered a spoiler.



    Downside is what again?
  23. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Chengmingz in Legal Basis of GG   
    Due to a slump in the world of university debating, and a thankful end to my internship, I have some free time left and I wish to sharpen my mind.

    I figured that my sense of philosphy, law, logic, ethics, economics, psychology, pragmatism, social interaction, the state, legitimacy, trias (or maybe four... mmmh) politica, etc... could use some practice.
    I also figured that because we have no king anymore who does not enforce rules, nor are his rules actually existent, as there is no legitimate basis for it.
    This leaves room for only the in-game rules and the in-game judiciary, executive and legislative branch of murness leave a lot of ambiguity and are based on an intuitive sense of fairness - of only a few people.
    Don't get me wrong, we do the same thing as well, as we superimposed the rules and the way we govern this alliance.
    Also, don't get me wrong, I don't think there is something fundamentally wrong so far, as with so few people, there is no pressing need for this thinking about things such as checks and balances, etc.

    It's just that I want to practice, breathe some life into this forum and basically create something new in MD which could also be handy for some weird emergency later on or something.

    So.. let's write/give thoughts about
    1) Constitution (and everything that implies)
    2) Branches of government
    3) Checks and balances (actually, this is in everything already, if we do it right.)


    A warning though, I do intend to use this as practice for my university debating career, so while you may give suggestions, improvements or questions, I myself will go very deep with my analysis and reasoning as well as possible implications and consequences, while treating both real world (because we still interact as humans) and MD issues. And when I say I'll go deep with my reasoning, I mean, I'll go deep as a prisoner who's getting desperate.

    Also, jokes

    So yeah.. let's try constitution first? If we got something nice, then I'll put it in a new forum without typo's and crap, just regard this as the notepad.
  24. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from ChildOfTheSoul in Legal Basis of GG   
    Due to a slump in the world of university debating, and a thankful end to my internship, I have some free time left and I wish to sharpen my mind.

    I figured that my sense of philosphy, law, logic, ethics, economics, psychology, pragmatism, social interaction, the state, legitimacy, trias (or maybe four... mmmh) politica, etc... could use some practice.
    I also figured that because we have no king anymore who does not enforce rules, nor are his rules actually existent, as there is no legitimate basis for it.
    This leaves room for only the in-game rules and the in-game judiciary, executive and legislative branch of murness leave a lot of ambiguity and are based on an intuitive sense of fairness - of only a few people.
    Don't get me wrong, we do the same thing as well, as we superimposed the rules and the way we govern this alliance.
    Also, don't get me wrong, I don't think there is something fundamentally wrong so far, as with so few people, there is no pressing need for this thinking about things such as checks and balances, etc.

    It's just that I want to practice, breathe some life into this forum and basically create something new in MD which could also be handy for some weird emergency later on or something.

    So.. let's write/give thoughts about
    1) Constitution (and everything that implies)
    2) Branches of government
    3) Checks and balances (actually, this is in everything already, if we do it right.)


    A warning though, I do intend to use this as practice for my university debating career, so while you may give suggestions, improvements or questions, I myself will go very deep with my analysis and reasoning as well as possible implications and consequences, while treating both real world (because we still interact as humans) and MD issues. And when I say I'll go deep with my reasoning, I mean, I'll go deep as a prisoner who's getting desperate.

    Also, jokes

    So yeah.. let's try constitution first? If we got something nice, then I'll put it in a new forum without typo's and crap, just regard this as the notepad.
  25. Upvote
    Metal Bunny reacted to Muratus del Mur in A "kingslayer" medal was awarded ?   
    MagicDuel, the game, [b]started as a forum[/b] with MY mind games. ..a FORUM..

    I could take you apart bit by bit and nullify each of your arguments but the thing is..why? You made up your mind and i have no intention to fight you in any way, i am just sad of this unexpected reaction. Even if you don't see it so, i value you as a player, you and all that passed a certain point in my mad invisible mind labyrinth.


    Your "rights" allow you to close the window and quit....how could an uneducated punk like me, without a diploma, possibly deny your precious rights. Anyway, if you want to stay and amaze yourself of my suspicious and evil experiments, remember i am not the type to hold grudges against anyone for speaking up their mind...i am just tired to fight your particular type of mentality.

    That was offending, in case i was to subtle.

    Blame it on the drinks i had today. OMG you realise that your fragile mind is probed by someone that drinks? its like performing brain surgery on someone after having some late saturday night fun..oomg, i am such a monster, please excuse me.or not.
×
×
  • Create New...