Zeku wrote:To those making comments about royalty as an abstract concept, I'm wondering if you understand the need for noble men in positions of great power. I also wonder if you realize that royalty always exists, regardless of what it is actually called, and regardless of whether the royals in question are virtuous.
You are both right and wrong. You are right in that yes, even in non-royalty based governmental forms there is a huge amount of unwarranted deference given to political leaders. i.e. "Mr. President", not at all far from the royal "Your Grace" or the theocratic "Your Excellence", or similar titles.
You are wrong in your insistence that there is a "need" for such positions of great power. On the contrary, much of human misery can be attributed to men in such "positions of great power." Enough so that there can be no debate that the harm caused by such outweighs any good they may have accidentally brought about.
Moreover, the "Almond-Lippmann consensus" you cite seems to be rather short sighted, it appears to ignore the fact that "the publics role in U.S public affairs" is voting, which balanced across the House and Senate and the executive, that the Senate was deliberately designed to be in a position to ignore "knee jerk" reactions from the populace, while any executive in their second term can and often do ignore their party and the polls in order to promote their agendas, since they cannot serve another term. (Whether any given person feels that this goal has been accomplished is an entirely different subject) Only in a system where there is no unchecked accumulation of power can there be any hope that this power will not be abused. And I used 'hope' intentionally, as there are plenty of examples of abuse even within systems which attempt to distribute and check power. And no, I'm not an anarchist, not by a long shot.
Chit Rule Railroad wrote:Regarding Slately's chances vs. Ossomer: they don't need to dust or incapacitate Ossomer, just knock him off the carpet.
Dusting him would be best, to deny GK his WL bonus.
hidufel wrote:This just occured to me... the casters there atop the tower dont know that ossomer isnt the chief warlord, right? the pacing of these events sure makes it seem that parsons arrival providing his chief warlord bonus in the hex might be quite a surprise for them, especially if theyve already commited to an attack and then suddenly, WHUMP, chief warlord bonus shows up!
Parson's bonus is a very modest 2, it won't be that much of a surprise and will probably only impact marginal combats in any event.
MarbitChow wrote:The anarchist solution to the problem ignores basic human nature in much the same way as the vegan solution to world hunger does: it requires that 100% of the world will behave the way 1% wishes it would.
Just to be a contrarian, because it's fun, vegans (or at least vegetarians) offer up a far better solution to world hunger, since you can get far more calories out of far less surface area devoted to growing plants for food than you can growing plants for food to feed animals to eat. And no, not either a vegetarian or a vegan. But the vegetarian lifestyle I could see myself living, if only I hadn't already tasted bacon.
Zeku wrote:You are responsible for making on topic and respectful posts, even if others are not doing that.
I must have missed the part where you were jumped up to forum Napoleon. Nice to make your acquaintance, little prince!
Masennus wrote:How does CW gain precedence in chain of command over the ruler? Is it because the situation is tactical rather than strategic?
That's a real good question. This "chain of command" doesn't seem to exist within GK. The scene where Stanley decided that if Parson and his casters hadn't just betrayed him, they had at least failed him, ordered Parson to STFU when he was looking to develop a strategy for the next turn, and ordered them all out of his sight seems to illustrate a very different command model.
Hiai wrote:"which political party has driven us to ruin/is going to save us"
That'd be a rather short debate, the answer is self evident: They both have.
BLANDCorporatio wrote:Put on the goggles, abb3w!
An awesome scene from an awesome movie.
ftl wrote:"royalty" tends to mean more than just "a leadership position" - it means a leadership position which is inherited by birth. I wouldn't argue that groups need leaders, but I am not at all convinced that said leadership needs to be hereditary.
Especially with all that in-breeding going on.
Sirrah, you cannot possibly suggest that one should stoop so low as to marry below their station!