[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

politics, northern principalities & etc. continued

Poster: "David H Ritterskamp" <dhritter@dpcmail.dukepower.com>

     Leifr wrote:
     [Programs!  Get your programs here!  Ya Can't Tell the Players Without 
     a Program!]
     Poster: Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>
     Lord Jonathan replies lengthily:
     Unless I'm mistaken, you've just defined "political question" as an 
     where people hold opposing views.  Or should I say, that politics cuts 
     away the agreement and consensus on an issue until only the difference
     of viewpoints remain.
     [That would grasp the essence of what I was trying to say quite 
     admirably.  My compliments on being able to wade through it.]
     I disagree.  Everyone in a group can answer the question the same way.
     That is what is meant by consensus.  
     [If everyone in a group answers the question the same way, who asked 
     the question?  If there was a question, then obviously there was a 
     difference of opinion, or at least an uninformed person.]
     [EPIPHANY from above - I'll continue commenting on this below.]
     The group may not need to appeal to 
     higher authority; that is often a method chosen to settle political 
     questions.  As for the third point, it makes one definition of bad, 
     versus good politics.
      The best one I
     >      can come up with is, unfortunately, what I said previously, 
     which is
     >      that an issue that is settled by consensus really wasn't ever 
     an issue
     >      to begin with.
     >      I would challenge anyone to come up with an issue that was 
     settled by
     >      consensus that didn't have SOME discussion involved.  I'd be
     >      interested in the results.]
     I can't much agree with your point.  Does a question only become an 
     if there is disagreement?  When the shire choses the next meeting 
     it is a question usually settled by consensus, but it was still a 
     [See EPIPHANY above - 
     I think you may have just answered the question.  If a question is 
     asked that you would call an apolitical question, what makes it so?  I 
     would say that if the question isn't a difference of opinion and 
     simply a request for information, like "where are we meeting next 
     month?"  It has the POTENTIAL to become a political question (i.e., "I 
     don't want to meet there because..." and "Well, we've always met 
     there..." and "Well, I'm not going to because..." etc.) but the 
     question itself isn't inherently political.
     A question becomes an issue when there is a difference of opinion.  
     It's that simple.  To continue that example, a question that becomes 
     an issue is inherently politically oriented.  
     How's that for an answer?]
     > Is all politics bad politics because we only think of bad politics 
     > politics at all ;-) ????????
     >      [It would seem so.  If you have an issue, it automatically has 
     >      sides; and those two sides aren't necessarily going to disagree
     >      politely, which leads to "bad" politics.
     Well, that I think is not a universal belief.  I know those who 
     all politics, no matter how well conducted, are bad.  Bad politics I 
     think are either badly conducted, or leave a bad taste in one's mouth.
     [In terms of "politics" as a whole, I would say that Good Politics (or 
     a Good Politician) is somebody that can get what he/she wants and 
     leave his/her opponents feeling good about it.  
     An Average Politician is somebody that can negotiate a settlement 
     between two or more parties (but not necessarily get everything the 
     Average Politician wants) and leave everybody feeling good about it.  
     A Below Average Politician may be able to get what he/she wants, but 
     can't get opponents to feel good about it.  
     A Bad Politician either a) can't get what he/she wants or b) has the 
     raw power/authority/force of personality to get what he/she wants but 
     doesn't give a damn whether his/her opponents feel good about it.  
     These are commonly called dictators.
     I LOVE keyboards...they don't expect a quick answer.  That took a 
     little work.
     >      Hmm...maybe there's an answer.  POLITICS isn't necessarily the
     >      discussion itself, but rather the BS surrounding the 
     discussion.  IMO,
     >      if an issue is handled properly in a political sense, that's 
     >      politics.  If it enters into backbiting, etc., that's bad 
     Actually, it is the BS brought into the discussion.  Or it is the 
     mechanism misused to solve one problem by disquising it as another.  
     That, from my reading, is one of the nails in the Northern 
     [Based strictly on my own observation of the NP question, I would have 
     to say that I'm not completely aware of the reasons for the 
     Northerners wanting to form their own principality.  I am aware of 
     some of the reasons that have been batted about for NOT forming a 
     northern principality.  They basically distill down to "Atlantia as a 
     unit is stronger than Southern Atlantia and Northern Principality 
     would be separately."  
     This argument encompasses several things, most notably where to divide 
     the South/North line.  I have heard it said that the reason groups 
     can't cross state lines is due to tax confusion.  I have also seen a 
     couple of instances (North Augusta, GA for one) where it was deemed 
     smarter to attach a city to a different kingdom simply because it was 
     nearer a population center in a different kingdom.  For instance:  
     IMO, Johnson City, TN belongs in Atlantia because it's closer to 
     Boone.  Either that, or Boone belongs in Meridies.  Hey, Border Wars!  
     Meridies fights Atlantia and the winner (loser? ;>) gets the Johnson 
     City/Boone area for the year.  Heh...
     The kingdom out west that was split lengthwise down the middle and 
     many people thought that was silly?  Well, it turned out that they 
     split it that way because the Rocky Mountains are a bitch to get over. 
      Makes sense, sort of...and sooner or later those two kingdoms will 
     split in half across the middle anyway.
     BTW:  I think Corpora sets the minimum for a principality at 200, not 
     100.  Either way, I find it fascinating that it doesn't set an UPPER 
     limit.  They probably didn't ever think they would have to worry about 
     And the only reasonable way I could see to set an upper limit would be 
     to base it on the population of the area in question.  For instance, 
     Wash. DC would have a larger limit than the entire state of North 
     Sorry this has gone on so long...but it's kind of interesting.  I'm 
     not going to comment any more on Northern Principalities in this vein; 
     having looked at it, there are too many issues that I'm not well 
     enough informed about to voice a coherent opinion.  Personal opinions 
     don't have to be coherent.  ;>
     Food for thought (enough to choke on!)
     Ld. Jonathan Blackbow
     House O'Shannon

List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org