Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Assembly Laws

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Assembly Laws

    So I find myself working on an Assembly and as I went about it... I couldn't recall if they had a set means in which Assemblies usually write out their laws similar to the lex magica of the diamond orders, or if Assembly mages just tend to vote in whatever laws they deem appropriate. Do you think it would look like an entirely alien design compared to the gold/silver/iron laws? Maybe something that looks more like a Sleeper Judicial Paradigm?

  • #2
    The Assembly is a democracy, each member gets one vote. So if they're going to pass something it has to run up a majority. Note, they don't have any checks against persecution of minorities by the majority which I find to be a sneaky little way that Heirarchy gets in there and corrupts them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Obviously, it'll depend on the Assembly in question. However, from the FC perspective I could see them arguing that a law code has little purpose in a tiny society like the Awakened. Indeed, I could see them arguing that written rules of any kind militate against the spirit of the FC. A true FC member should be actively looking for other people's opinions, they shouldn't need written rules to force them to do so.

      Originally posted by Mrmdubois View Post
      Note, they don't have any checks against persecution of minorities by the majority which I find to be a sneaky little way that Heirarchy gets in there and corrupts them.
      There's the basic check that the minority are still Awakened. I mean, any mage system has to take into account that most magi are fairly heavily armed at all times.


      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah, but so is everyone voting against them. I mean I'm not saying that the majority is voting to support overt harassment, but it wouldn't be surprising if the unpopular mages rarely get a real say when they disagree with the majority, even if they're right.

        Comment


        • #5
          There's also the basic check that even a majority vote will likely be tossed out if it can be argued that it's against the founding tenets of the FC: establishing a lasting hierarchy within the Order, for example, or oppression of Sleepers.

          Comment


          • #6
            That really doesn't change the underlying problem of the potential abuse or neglect by the majority.

            Comment


            • #7
              Free Council, the secret project of Exarch of Democracy, tyranny of majority.

              Comment


              • #8
                Remember democracy can be two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. Democracy is just a system, a system is a tool, and tools don't have inherent morality. Via transitive properties, that mean democracy isn't inherently moral. (Of course any large scale alternatives are as bad or worse, I blame the monkey sphere)
                Last edited by Pale_Crusader; 03-14-2017, 02:04 PM.


                “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” ~ Aristophanes
                "Virescit Vulnere Virtus" ~ Stewart Clan Motto

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mrmdubois View Post
                  I mean I'm not saying that the majority is voting to support overt harassment, but it wouldn't be surprising if the unpopular mages rarely get a real say when they disagree with the majority, even if they're right.
                  That's true, but it's the entire point of a democracy. You're essentially saying that people who don't engage with the system, are going to be ignored by that system. What system would do otherwise?

                  There's also the basic check that even a majority vote will likely be tossed out if it can be argued that it's against the founding tenets of the FC: establishing a lasting hierarchy within the Order, for example, or oppression of Sleepers.
                  Who's going to throw it out? There's no supreme court to rule it as unconstituional.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michael View Post

                    That's true, but it's the entire point of a democracy. You're essentially saying that people who don't engage with the system, are going to be ignored by that system. What system would do otherwise?
                    I know that's a rhetorical question but the implied answer is incorrect. The implied answer is "They shouldn't act otherwise". A moral majority will care about all its citizens (including the welfare of its minorities, and even those that don't vote), assuming you have a moral majority. This is why it has been said about the US Constitution: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

                    Originally posted by Michael View Post
                    Who's going to throw it out? There's no supreme court to rule it as unconstituional.
                    The hypothetical person/group/arcane-procedure/ability-to-legally-challenge is there, assuming the local Free Council are students of freedom, history, and admirers of checks and balance systems, which given they are Free Council members isn't implausible, and have worked checks and balances into whatever democracy they build.

                    Again I point to my previous point.
                    Last edited by Pale_Crusader; 03-14-2017, 02:22 PM.


                    “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” ~ Aristophanes
                    "Virescit Vulnere Virtus" ~ Stewart Clan Motto

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If they aren't majority, they aren't right.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Michael View Post
                        That's true, but it's the entire point of a democracy. You're essentially saying that people who don't engage with the system, are going to be ignored by that system. What system would do otherwise?
                        Lack of popularity doesn't equate to lack of participation, so your argument doesn't really address my point.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jakondite View Post
                          So I find myself working on an Assembly and as I went about it... I couldn't recall if they had a set means in which Assemblies usually write out their laws similar to the lex magica of the diamond orders, or if Assembly mages just tend to vote in whatever laws they deem appropriate. Do you think it would look like an entirely alien design compared to the gold/silver/iron laws? Maybe something that looks more like a Sleeper Judicial Paradigm?

                          A lot of this depends on the Assembly in question, honestly. One [especially a smaller one] might be literally VOTE EVERYTHING, but I wouldn't be surprised by a larger Assembly that elected a Law-Expert [possibly even "our man" Silver Ladder] to design working laws. You could say that Assembly can take shape of any government, as long as the source of power is approval of the ruled.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pale_Crusader View Post
                            assuming the local Free Council are students of freedom, history, and admirers of checks and balance systems, which given they are Free Council members isn't implausible, and have worked checks and balances into whatever democracy they build.
                            Checks and balances are there for a representative democracy overseeing a massive state apparatus. The Assembly in contrast is a tiny direct democracy where most activities will be directly carried out by the membership itself.

                            Lack of popularity doesn't equate to lack of participation, so your argument doesn't really address my point.
                            You're failing to engage with the essential activity: persuading other people to your cause. I mean, again, we're discussing a small group here. Why is your hypthetical person so unpopular with the people they regularly interact with that no one will listen to them?
                            I mean, that could happen, but as I indicated that really is the point at which civil war breaks out. If your magi hate each other that much, then working together isn't really an option anymore.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michael View Post

                              Checks and balances are there for a representative democracy overseeing a massive state apparatus. The Assembly in contrast is a tiny direct democracy where most activities will be directly carried out by the membership itself.
                              Very good point. Counter Point: The democratic process is capable of being abused to the harm of those within it (a simple fact, which people have already been talking about in this thread) and those educated enough to rightly not assume people are inherently moral, even those with phenomenal supernatural abilities, and it'd be prudent to hedge your bets against that with checks and balances. Indeed it is arrogant hubris to presume such measures are wasteful in such a potential volatile environment. (Magic ups the stakes, making each person capable wielding might equal to a battalion of artillery)


                              “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” ~ Aristophanes
                              "Virescit Vulnere Virtus" ~ Stewart Clan Motto

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X