Ián Txaglh
Group: citizens
(462 posts total)
(last post: March 24, 2008 - 14:06) | i would like to use this oportunity and ask our esteemed deputy a few questions. thanx for listening.
> > However, the Kingdom of Talossa which was founded on that date no longer exists. The two Talossan > States - the Republic of Talossa existing since 1 June 2004, and the Royalist regime styling itself "the > Kingdom of Talossa" existing since 15 August 2005 - are equally legitimate successor states to the old > Kingdom of Talossa.
>
> Wrong. *snip* Seriously, though, the Kingdom of today is in the direct political succession from the Kingdom of 1979. The Woolley regime is the legitimate successor to Ben's Kingdom, at least in a legal sense, if not in spirit. And I think in spirit in many ways. In 2005, Woolley was not that spirit-less presence in our eyes that many of us see him as now. While he was going after Ben Madison, he was gold.
first, was the deposition of louis I. legal and democratic? second, was the election of john I. legal and democratic? out of what stems "direct political succession from the Kingdom of 1979"?
> Where he and the rest of the Kingdom went wrong is the continuance of the kind of isolationist attitudes that ticked of the rest of the internet - the very attitudes that keep it from going into its rightful place in the LOSS, etc.
but wasn't this exactly point where wooley *directly* follows pre-June 2004 talossa? talossa was always so since 1997 (short after they entered internet)...
> > Given the above, political unification of all Talossans under one single state can never be
> > accomplished by one successor State imposing its legitimacy over that of the other State.
>
> Wrong. We should make a return to the Kingdom, being welcomed as nothing less than returning heroes and given the respect we deserve. Michael P. and Chris Gruber should be made Dukes or something like that for their leadership in standing up to Ben Madison. Chris' return and being honoured by John Woolley would be a direct slap in the face of Ben Madison who has maintained that Talossa is dead. Talossa, in one or two, is very much alive.
i am confused. is the deputy aware of at least two issues (micronationalism and royal subjection) which prevent for many talossans any kind of "return"?
> The idea of a new constitution I agree with wholeheartedly. Talossan constitutional tradition demands that in times of tumultuous change, a new document should be made simply because the present document is in no way equipped to deal with the new realities of whatever is going in Talossa. The 1985 Organic Law (I think that's the doc) came about upon the democratization of the country. The 1988 Constitution came about, I believe, as a result of increased immigration and a desire to more fully codify the vague principles upon which Talossa is based. The 1997 Organic Law was in direct reaction to the wave of immigration of the first cybercits as well as the fact that Talossa was online.
>
> The Constitution of 2008 (or 2009 or somesuch year) would be the signature of the return of those Talossans Ben drove off and a real sign of the final healing from the hellaciousness of Halloween.
is the deputy aware of the fact, that there is currently no or minor support for any change in orglaw in kingdom, not saying for a new constitution?
> This bill writes off the long legal continuity of the Kingdom of Talossa, and while a valid attempt at wiping the slate clean in many ways, it harms the legitimacy of the Talossan nation in the legal sense if not the spiritual sense, and in the future to come, we will need both.
i am puzzled here. can here the deputy discuss in a depth how creation of a new constitution for talossa (which he supports) and all other practical aspects of the doctrine (paragraph 5) would cut off the legitimacy of talossan nation?
once more, thank you for yr time, deputy ;)
_____________________________
Ián "Suôrsch Grültcätsfiglheu" Txaglh
el ministreu del glheþ és da cúlturâ
Lança!!
_____________________________
la viensità àl común
la liberançeu à l’underschidlëc’h
la tolerançeu àl toct |
