Re: politics, northern principalities & etc. continued

[Tom Brady <tabrady@mindspring.com>]

Poster: Tom Brady <tabrady@mindspring.com>

Greetings to all from Duncan MacKinnon!
It is with some bemusment that I find myself in agreement with Lord Jonathan
(nothing personal, Jonathan - in the past, I have not always shared your
viewpoint, though).

In corresponding with Lord Leifr, Jonathan wrote (quoting Leifr):
>     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.]

As was pointed out earlier, consensus != unanimity. Also, sometimes
leadership by consensus requires you to ask a question to which you know
everyone's answer will be the same - if only as a courtesy.

>     [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.]

Granted. But I still refuse to believe that just because something is
political, it must shied away from.

>     Well, that I think is not a universal belief.  I know those who 
>     believe
>     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.  

The secret here is that "Good Politics" are not seen as politics at all - it
may not even have a name. Sometimes, it's just, "We sat down and talked it
over and everything's fine now."

Leifr said:
>     Actually, it is the BS brought into the discussion.  Or it is the 
>     mechanism misused to solve one problem by disquising it as another.  

Among other things. It is incivility, it is revenge, it is any number of
things. Perhaps it is the refusal to see the validity of another's point of
view, perhaps it is an utter refusal to be swayed from one's opinion. Any
way you put it, to my mind it's a personal problem, not necessarily a
problem with the process.

Then we get to the Principality stuff:
(Duncan's stated opinion - it might work, it might not. I have yet to be
swayed that the formation of a principality would be better than the status
quo. But I'll also admit that I would liek to know more.)

Back to Jonathan:
>     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...

Actually, I think Boone might be closer to Asheville than Johnson City
(unless there's a shire in the teeming metropolis of Erwin :-). But there
are other reasons for a group to stay/split with a kingdom - culture
differences and group history, for example.

>     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 
>     it...

Actually, it's 100. 
"V. A. 2. Principalities. A principality is a part of a kingdom which has
the right to select a reigning Prince and Princess by combat. A branch or
contiguous group of branches within a kingdom may petition for principality
status if the resulting entity would fulfill the requirements listed below.
a. At least 100 subscribing members..."
(from http://www.sca.org/laws/corpora.hbk.html)

>     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 
>     Carolina.

I would think that the split would be made more on cultural than population
lines. I also think setting an upper limit would be rather silly - as was
stated elsewhere, there are cantons with enough members to become a barony,
yet they don't for various reasons. The same would apply to principalities,
I should think.

Regards,
Duncan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady    tabrady@mindspring.com   SCA: Duncan MacKinnon of Tobermory
 See my web pages for links to the Society for Creative Anachronism and 
      gay and lesbian info: http://www.technomancer.com/~duncan/

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