Is it, though? Or is this merely a weak attempt at casting shade without having anything to back it up with?
2 Likes
What you can accept from this world, and what this world will give you, are not well aligned. Thatâs all. I suspect itâs pretty obvious to everyone who knows you to any meaningful degree, whether theyâre on your side or not.
The main person here who might not know it, is you. And Iâm not so invested in helping you as to be willing to bother proving such a thing.
2 Likes
Whether something is attainable enough is not a good metric for whether it should be the goal. What is right or wrong doesnât depend on whether or not itâs inconvenient or difficult. Accepting horrendous evil, simply because itâs firmly rooted in place remains a stance of moral and ethical bankruptcy.
⌠so of course, I shouldnât expect anything but weak protestation when pointing it out to those who surrendered to the status quo and now defends it furiously because to do otherwise would be to admit to the failure of principle and courage that led to such bankruptcy.
3 Likes
Well ⌠itâs a tactic in negotiation to set your aims unachievably high, so that youâll be more likely to come away with more of what you really wanted. But Iâm not at all sure thatâs what you do.
Maybe you try to come across manifestly unreasonable so weâll be more willing to deal with your more reasonable cohorts so that we donât have to deal with you? But rather than let us talk with them, you suck all the oxygen out of the room there, too.
Is there a strategy at work? There could be. Humans often hide their motives. ⌠But youâve forsworn trickery like that, right?
So whatâs left, other than you being unrealistic?
1 Like
I donât see what is wrong with letting people talk about peace since thatâs all it is: just talk.
It is after all one thing to make a wish list of all the things you could do and another to actually be able to put them into practice.
4 Likes
Morality can differ in different places. I myself donât like idea of keeping offspring enslaved. This is illogical. But in the Empire they have their own philosophy and customs about that, and they consider it okay.
Of course, I am not an Amarr to give full explanation of that, and I think Lt. Kernher did it somewhere already, but I can tell my thoughts how I imagine that happening and how it can be viewed in the positive light.
And for that we should consider the punishment to be not the slavery itself, but enslavement. In other words it means that you arenât sentenced to be a slave for some time for some crime, but you are sentenced with drop of your social status from being âslave to Godâ into âslave to Manâ.
If we look at the slavery from this point of view, then children, who were born in slavery - they arenât actually punished, they are just unlucky in being born in the lowest social class. All their life they will be just used to live as slaves and they wonât feel themselves being punished, as they wonât experience the drop of social status like their parents who were actually enslaved.
But again, it is just my attempt to rationalize it. Amarr explanation usually implies heavy religious background to their reasoning and probably we all lack that to understand them fully with our more secular education and upbringing.
I am beginning to get the impression that DelâThul is one of those anarchists.
2 Likes
With this enslaving our mutual enemies proposal as well as from the proposed gradual release proposal from earlier one question comes to mind. With the institution still in action, what exactly can be done as far as regulating such a system? I already know the response will be something to the effect of all aspects are governed by the scriptures or the theology council or what not. For the rest of the cluster, like myself and many more here who wouldnât know the first thing about such things, is it unreasonable to have some form of oversight with regards to the actual treatment of those enslaved?
I can understand the implications of such a thing, but it is not arguable that there are bad holders, there are those who donât follow your scriptures as stringently or devise their own interpretations of what is just. This isnât really a proposal per say but maybe some third party inspectors? Maybe centralizing the actual practice so private holders arenât left to their own devices?
I donât feel that Iâm alone in feeling a little uncertain in trusting a system that in its current state allows such atrocities to occur. Not a lack of trust in the party specifically, just in the partyâs actual implementation of it. Its been in practice for centuries yet, understandably I suppose, even many of you would have to admit doesnât follow your own standards. Nauplius and those like him exist after all, people are greedy whether theres a mystical being watching them or not. Its not mistrust or lack of faith, its simply being realistic.
Any thoughts?
2 Likes
Yeah - some thoughts. First of all is the idea that any form of lasting peace can come from granting others oversight of a sovereign nations laws and customs. Thatâs never going to fly, from what I can see, based purely on how Iâd feel if someone demanded we change the way the State operates to be more permissive of the culture requirements of foreigners.
Any solution, I feel, is going to be for the Empire to transfer control over a set number of people from themselves to the Republic and for the Republic to retreat from the idea that they have any claim over anyone else who isnât a Republic citizen.
Iâm not saying how many people that would involve over what kind of timeframe - but clearly itâs the idea that the Amarrian Empire is maintaining unlawful sovereignty over people who are Matari that is causing the issue. Removing that issue is the roadmap to peace.
2 Likes
My time in Star Fraction - Jericho Fraction, to be specific - was not one of ideological compatibility, shall we say? No, anarchy is absolute hogwash, much like pacifism and totalitarianism, theocracies and any other extreme in terms of governance, philosophy and religion.
Balance in all things, is the ideal. Justice tempered by rehabilitation. Guiding laws and regulations to enable freedom for all, as far it can go without stepping upon freedoms of others. Strength of arms limited by a philosophy and focus on peace.
Anarchy is the antithesis of freedom, as it pretty much guarantees the hegemony of the violent and ruthless.
3 Likes
Do laws and regulations not restrict âfreedomâ? Do you not have to submit to those in power - those who create and enforce these laws and regulations?
1 Like
The answer lies in the part of the sentence you left out.
They certainly can, if they over-reach or are out of balance. However, a good legal and governance system will only restrict freedoms if they unfairly infringe upon freedoms of others. Say⌠one religion getting to discriminate against others. Or a more direct example, my freedoms to go hunting ends where the freedom of others to not get shot begins. This is of course inane as an example, but it should demonstrate the principle of what is in reality an extremely complicated and fluid collection of laws and regulation.
Balance in law and governance thus allows the greatest amount of people to live in the greatest amount of freedom possible, right up against that limit where some gaining more freedoms necessitates others losing theirs.
Now, your question of submission⌠well thatâs an entirely different question. Do you have to submit to greater power or government? Well, of course not. No one has to submit to anything. The question is just if they can get away with it or not.
⌠perhaps an example of unrestricted freedom infringing upon the freedoms of others thatâd work for you would be the Sani Sabik. Itâs an inherent part of their beliefs, as I understand it. Extreme exercising of âfreedomâ and a focus on the personal responsibility of their victims to âexercise their ownâ in order to avoid it, etc etc. Theyâre not anarchists as such, but pretty much what unbalanced notions of freedom results in.
Dominance and submission⌠well, that too is a matter of freedom. You are always free to refuse to submit. Youâll just have to weigh the consequences of that. In some cases, itâd most certainly be worth it, but if that is the case, the government in question has utterly failed.
2 Likes
Just to touch on an aspect Miz didnât: The only way, over the long-term, to ensure the kind of balance sheâs talking about is for âthose in powerâ to actually be answerable to those they wield power over. Power dynamics become an exercise in sharing then, the classic âI divide up the spoils, you choose which pile you getâ scenario: One group is responsible for making the laws, another group enforces the laws, and if everyone else feels like either of those two group is abusing their power, they have the ability to replace them and get different people in to either make better laws, or enforce existing laws more equitably.
Think of it as symbiosis, not a simple dominance/submission dynamic.
2 Likes
This makes no sense. If one is âanswerableâ to someone they âwield power overâ, they truely do not hold power over that person.
1 Like
You are thinking of power in absolutes, rather than power as delegated responsibilities.
2 Likes
If Iâm not mistaken, you people believe were all slaves to god. You have slaves, does that make you god? Donât believe thats the case.
2 Likes
As I understand it, they see it as a hierarchy with God at the top, and each tier serving the one above. There are some measures in place to mitigate the obvious dangers of a purely top-down system. The Speakers of Truth are an example of that. Otherwise, each tier is mostly just answerable to its superiors.
5 Likes
Honestly I thought it was simply put everyone is subservient to your god, the true Amarr are just a higher plane or something, veteran slaves teaching newer slaves I guess would be a good way of putting it. I kinda get the feeling when I asked a long while ago (probably like 2 years ago) It was an attempt at overtly dumbing it down, that or it was just an attempt to shut up the stupid noisy tribal.
2 Likes
And you call us unsophisticated.
Think of it this way:
There is a corporation. That corporation is comprised of fifty people. Each of them owns 2% of the corporation, and they all have jobs within the corporation. One person is the CEO. Another person is the head of R&D. These two people make decisions that exert authority over the actions of othersâdeciding the companyâs direction, or the priority or methods for research. They have power over their respective staffs. If they say âweâre doing Xâ, then their underlings are required to do X. However, because their underlings are all shareholders in the corporation as well, if their decisions have detrimental results, their underlings can remove them from their positions, or have them removed.
They are all answerable to one another. Their job is to exercise authority on behalf of the whole, but that authority derives from the collective, not from some external arbiter of power.
2 Likes
So ⌠this gets a little complicated, Ms. Vess. For simplicityâs sake, Iâll be leaving out some stuff, but:
So, first off, thereâs of course, God. Then the sefrim, Godâs messengers, celestial servitor spirits, basically. Then you get down to mortals (actually Iâm not 100% on whether the Empress would outrank a sefrim, but, itâs kind of an academic question).
Empress. Pretty obvious, the Amarrian head of state and faith.
Great Houses. Amarrian high nobility/royalty, from whose ranks the Heirs are selected, one from each, for each generation. These blur somewhat intoâŚ
Holders. This is actually several tiers, nobility of variable standing, each owing fealty to a higher-ranking Holder and ultimately (possibly across multiple lieges) to a Great House. Among them, the Empress, Great Houses, and Holders own all the slaves and all the real estate in the Amarr Empire. Persons not of noble rank can own no land or slaves, though either can be leased. Lady Admiral Newelle was recently made a minor Holder, and Lord Consort Newelle was ennobled by extension.
Commoners. This is the class of the vast majority of Amarr, and the default class of people who join Amarrian society voluntarily, and also of freed slaves. Itâs pretty broad, ranging from deeply poor farmers, laborers, and beggars to famous Amarr with interstellar reputations. Directrix Daphiti and Utari Onzo are two examples.
Theyâre âfree,â but still owe duty to a liege-- though that duty might not be so different from the duty any subject of a governing power owes to whoeverâs in charge. Iâm a little fuzzy on whether commoners can switch liege lords, and under what circumstances; in a lot of cases it might even be as easy as picking up and moving. I should try to find out more about this, actually.
Oh! One notable thing that really says a lot about how this works is that it doesnât seem like commoners who wander into error (like, something criminal or even treasonous) are punished nearly as harshly as Holders-- if they were acting on a Holderâs orders. When in doubt, it seems commoners are supposed to be obedient (if maybe not quite so blindly obedient as slaves); Holders should know better.
Slaves. Persons added to the Empire by conquest, plus criminals and similarly-dishonored persons (including those condemned by the actions of a family member), and their descendants for several generations. Frequently discussed, so, Iâll leave it at that.
Slaves occupy the bottom rung of those who are considered actually part of the Imperial Rite, but there are a couple categories that arenât-- and a hierarchy of sorts, there, too.
Heathens. Those whose ancestors turned away from God. We carry that sin with us, in some combination of our blood and/or our continued disbelief. Subject to the Reclaiming, whatever its form, and its primary targets. If any of this is news to you, then, this is you, probably; and me, still (I can just hear the outrage in Senior Pilot Fierachâs voice: âUnbelievableâ). Also seems to effectively include non-heretical criminals.
(My positionâs actually a little more complicated, but this would be probably an accurate representation of where I seem to be thought to stand spiritually.)
Apostates. Ex-Amarr. Formally really disapproved of, but seem to get welcomed back a little more easily than Iâd expect. I guess maybe the feeling is that as long as they didnât slip into heresy, their loss of faith is between them and God.
Heretics. If heathens are those who are not of the Kingdom of God in This World, heretics are those who have in some way despoiled and corrupted that kingdom: Sani Sabik, Equilibrium of Mankind, and so on (functionally whoever the Theology Council designates, but it doesnât seem to be a label they throw around casually). Heathens can be Reclaimed, and itâs the duty of the Amarr to try. Heretics, on the other hand ⌠some Amarr still want to try, where possible. When in doubt, though, they tend to just try to remove them from this world.
How much ethnicity is a part of any of this depends a lot on who you ask. Orthodox Amarr tend to believe that those of True Amarr blood are basically humanityâs chosen leaders; others seem to feel itâs less important. The vast majority of Holders are True Amarr, though I guess theyâve interbred with the Udorians to the point where itâs hard to draw a line between. There are plenty of True Amarr commoners, and even some slaves (criminals and their immediate descendants). Also, we just recently saw Lady Admiral Newelle ennobled, so, apparently, Ni-Kunni can be Holders, too. Sheâs a Sarum vassal, even, so, pretty orthodox.
Basically, blood seems to be considered important by some (okay, a lot of) Amarr, but even in orthodox Holdings it actually isnât a particularly sure indicator of where any given individual stands.
4 Likes