Awesome
When I am lost, I know I have traveled the farthest. Sayeth the guy jeff. 49F48A =FC
Well written. I think it is important to have an open discourse on the rights of not only the people but also the obligations of the leadership.
Often I see that nobility is more concerned with proving how important they are and not caring about the obligations they have to their people.
A leader is only as powerful as the people who give him that power. If you do nothing to raise up your people and empower them, you are nothing as a leader.
I like the write-up and in theory great idea/discussion topic.
Now that said in a MMO a leader or a noble is only interested in helping those who are part of their specific clique or in MMO terms their guild. Beyond those individuals who pvp with them and back them in crafting and server politics a leader regardless of station will screw over everyone else to help only their closest few. I truely hope I’m wrong but I see after a few months all nobility being those who are traditional guild leaders or who have managed to put together a group/alliance to back them. Real world concerns of the people and divine right taking a back seat to mmo pragmatism.
Malais, I do see your point in this regard. However, it is the ideal that a Lord cares for the people who live under him. Your concept of MMO pragmatism holds merit, however this is a difference between land based organizations, such as the county, duchy, or kingdom, and people based organizations, such as associations, schools, and guilds. If the Lord follows the ideas of a land based organization, then everyone who lives upon the land he holds and follows the rule of law would be in essence one of his guild members.
Fantastic to see this presented. From my prospective i see the quality and Virtue in such a Treatise, which though not religiously based, still exemplifies the strength of brotherhood between Mann and the virtue birthed by good will.
I was looking forward to seeing this Jax. It came out just a good as i hoped. Its a strong argument and the better i've seen, in combination with the Rights of Mann, for a conversation on how to strengthen the social contract between both nobility and citizen.
I look forward to the discussion among those far deeper into the Civil nobility side. But from my particular perch, i can only endorse this.
While that's all good and well, people will construe this post to mean anything they want. Just like any other law that protects others rights. People think they have obligations. Sure, obligations to do what you promised for one another. In other words, this is accomplished in many facets of how you decide to organize one's domain.
There is nothing, at least should, be nothing a noble can do that a gentry can't do. You wouldn't or shouldn't be able to murder anyone, just like the citizens shouldn't be able to murder anyone. You shouldn't be able to steal from anyone, just like citizens shouldn't be able to steal from anyone. You shouldn't be able to cage anyone, just like citizens shouldn't be able to cage anyone.
If you catch my drift here, nobility isn't afforded any right that the citizens themselves don't have. If the nobility has things that they are able to do that a citizen isn't able to do. Things will go south pretty fast.
Consequently, this is a game based on tribal feudalism. The people in power have the land to sell to the lower spectrum folks, but with that you only are obliged to protect peoples property, and enforce the property rights, and thereby the contract you've signed with each land owner. Same with rent if you are a mayor. And those people that sign that contract have obligation to what they promised the noble or aristocracy for the land.
Taxation in any form that it is derived should be voluntary. The lame idea that there is a such thing as a "social contract" is rather obtuse. It only means that the lords above you have rights that you otherwise don't have. Mechanically, that can be true. Honestly, I hope lords and aristocrats wouldn't be such persons that would over-reach their power and be over bearing with the laws they will seek to pass in their town, or domain.
People naturally will resist being controlled, coerced, and forced to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. The Cop-out that is a "social contract" only exists for those that like to be controlled and led by a governmental figure. You must want to work with people fairly, and treat your domain as a business when you implement policies that would or may become profitable for your domain, as well as the citizens within the domain.
The goal of nobility should be to protect those within the domain, in both economically, and physically. How that is achieved fairly is working with a system that people will agree with and those projects. You can do this by permits to use what ever service or land.
Your goal as nobility isn't and shouldn't be how to redistribute wealth to those you think needs it, or yourself as a figure of the state to implement things your people otherwise wouldn't want.
I'll leave it at this, work with each and every citizen, don't pick favorites. Most importantly, don't position yourself in such a way that would make others question what you are doing. Generating wealth unfairly, or giving other people wealth that they've not earned can only end in disaster of those with envious eyes. In contracts the obligations go both ways, and isn't one sided for the citizens or the nobility. The citizens want the service or use of the land that the noble offers, they have obligations themselves. To fill on their end of the bargain too.
Posted By Gunghoe at 09:18 AM - Sat Apr 07 2018
While that's all good and well, people will construe this post to mean anything they want. Just like any other law that protects others rights. People think they have obligations. Sure, obligations to do what you promised for one another. In other words, this is accomplished in many facets of how you decide to organize one's domain.
There is nothing, at least should, be nothing a noble can do that a gentry can't do. You wouldn't or shouldn't be able to murder anyone, just like the citizens shouldn't be able to murder anyone. You shouldn't be able to steal from anyone, just like citizens shouldn't be able to steal from anyone. You shouldn't be able to cage anyone, just like citizens shouldn't be able to cage anyone.
If you catch my drift here, nobility isn't afforded any right that the citizens themselves don't have. If the nobility has things that they are able to do that a citizen isn't able to do. Things will go south pretty fast.
Consequently, this is a game based on tribal feudalism. The people in power have the land to sell to the lower spectrum folks, but with that you only are obliged to protect peoples property, and enforce the property rights, and thereby the contract you've signed with each land owner. Same with rent if you are a mayor. And those people that sign that contract have obligation to what they promised the noble or aristocracy for the land.
Taxation in any form that it is derived should be voluntary. The lame idea that there is a such thing as a "social contract" is rather obtuse. It only means that the lords above you have rights that you otherwise don't have. Mechanically, that can be true. Honestly, I hope lords and aristocrats wouldn't be such persons that would over-reach their power and be over bearing with the laws they will seek to pass in their town, or domain.
People naturally will resist being controlled, coerced, and forced to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. The Cop-out that is a "social contract" only exists for those that like to be controlled and led by a governmental figure. You must want to work with people fairly, and treat your domain as a business when you implement policies that would or may become profitable for your domain, as well as the citizens within the domain.
The goal of nobility should be to protect those within the domain, in both economically, and physically. How that is achieved fairly is working with a system that people will agree with and those projects. You can do this by permits to use what ever service or land.
Your goal as nobility isn't and shouldn't be how to redistribute wealth to those you think needs it, or yourself as a figure of the state to implement things your people otherwise wouldn't want.
I'll leave it at this, work with each and every citizen, don't pick favorites. Most importantly, don't position yourself in such a way that would make others question what you are doing. Generating wealth unfairly, or giving other people wealth that they've not earned can only end in disaster of those with envious eyes. In contracts the obligations go both ways, and isn't one sided for the citizens or the nobility. The citizens want the service or use of the land that the noble offers, they have obligations themselves. To fill on their end of the bargain too.
Taxation isn't voluntary though, everyonewill pay taxes or they would be breaking the law in pretty much any kingdom.
Posted By Maulvorn at 08:51 AM - Sat Apr 07 2018
Posted By Gunghoe at 09:18 AM - Sat Apr 07 2018
While that's all good and well, people will construe this post to mean anything they want. Just like any other law that protects others rights. People think they have obligations. Sure, obligations to do what you promised for one another. In other words, this is accomplished in many facets of how you decide to organize one's domain.
There is nothing, at least should, be nothing a noble can do that a gentry can't do. You wouldn't or shouldn't be able to murder anyone, just like the citizens shouldn't be able to murder anyone. You shouldn't be able to steal from anyone, just like citizens shouldn't be able to steal from anyone. You shouldn't be able to cage anyone, just like citizens shouldn't be able to cage anyone.
If you catch my drift here, nobility isn't afforded any right that the citizens themselves don't have. If the nobility has things that they are able to do that a citizen isn't able to do. Things will go south pretty fast.
Consequently, this is a game based on tribal feudalism. The people in power have the land to sell to the lower spectrum folks, but with that you only are obliged to protect peoples property, and enforce the property rights, and thereby the contract you've signed with each land owner. Same with rent if you are a mayor. And those people that sign that contract have obligation to what they promised the noble or aristocracy for the land.
Taxation in any form that it is derived should be voluntary. The lame idea that there is a such thing as a "social contract" is rather obtuse. It only means that the lords above you have rights that you otherwise don't have. Mechanically, that can be true. Honestly, I hope lords and aristocrats wouldn't be such persons that would over-reach their power and be over bearing with the laws they will seek to pass in their town, or domain.
People naturally will resist being controlled, coerced, and forced to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. The Cop-out that is a "social contract" only exists for those that like to be controlled and led by a governmental figure. You must want to work with people fairly, and treat your domain as a business when you implement policies that would or may become profitable for your domain, as well as the citizens within the domain.
The goal of nobility should be to protect those within the domain, in both economically, and physically. How that is achieved fairly is working with a system that people will agree with and those projects. You can do this by permits to use what ever service or land.
Your goal as nobility isn't and shouldn't be how to redistribute wealth to those you think needs it, or yourself as a figure of the state to implement things your people otherwise wouldn't want.
I'll leave it at this, work with each and every citizen, don't pick favorites. Most importantly, don't position yourself in such a way that would make others question what you are doing. Generating wealth unfairly, or giving other people wealth that they've not earned can only end in disaster of those with envious eyes. In contracts the obligations go both ways, and isn't one sided for the citizens or the nobility. The citizens want the service or use of the land that the noble offers, they have obligations themselves. To fill on their end of the bargain too.
Taxation isn't voluntary though, everyonewill pay taxes or they would be breaking the law in pretty much any kingdom.
If you aren't creative enough, and have to make it not voluntary then well that's on you.
