Governments of Regnum

[DkySven]

We have a high overlord in Montsognir, who is the first man under our emperor Gash. Every other city has also an overlord to rule them, they are chosen by the people.

[Hylius]

Originally Posted by e30ernest

You just described a republic.

No, I vaguely described an anarchy.

Republics have a government in which the people play an actual role. They elect their authority. Anarchies on the other hand do not. Again, it's a complete and utter public disorder.

[e30G]

It was a joke. Besides, I live in a republic and its always at the edge of anarchy.

[Ertial]

I thought that after our beloved king died in a battle there hasn't been another king but a council, which resides in Eferias, the capital of our lands. But I don't know if there is a any kind of democracy, I think they were elected by the nobles, but I'm not sure.

BTW, good story about Ignis, I like roleplaying. Maybe we could think of that for Syrtis too. Or NGD should implement something to make roleplaying easier.

EDIT: The Netherlands aren't an anarchy, but they're sure bureaucratic. But if you see Wilders...(Look at his interview in HARDTalk and see his real, racist face!)

[-Edge-]

Originally Posted by asdfghs

Great story! I like it very much.

Thats no story child

[elendriel]

Originally Posted by Xephandor

No, believe me, a Republic without a propper division of powers is an anarchy or a dictatorship. Unfortunately, our "kingdom" is just "Syrtis"... A bunch of feudal groups (clans) struggling for the power while being wiped out by Alsius or Ignis.

I don't agree, anarchy is the maximum expression of democracy.

A republic is just a country without king/queen, where usually is represented by a parliament and a president.

And Syrtis is a chaotic republic, not try to lower the best organization of the citiziens that is the anarchy.

[NightTwix]

Originally Posted by seba_ktupe

I consider that you are right, I dread to think that they are such islamic, they believe in holy war

especially since our religious leader is called ALLAH(eh)

[ArcticWolf]

Originally Posted by elendriel

I don't agree, anarchy is the maximum expression of democracy.

Anarchy is the complete absence of any rule, so IMHO can't be cataloged as a f/actual government but as an utopia. I'd love to see it working smoothly & flawlessly, but human behaviour will never allow this until we reach a higher level on intellectual development. Internet on its first times was a perfect example of this, everybody could share the information the way they wanted, how they wanted and when they wanted. Nowadays, it's difficult to find a spot on any human society that hasn't been legislated.

In other words, I'm just stating that "a Republic without a proper division of powers" is anything but a republic by itself. It can be either a dictatorship (as it could centralize all the power on just a bunch of people) or an anarchy, as it would split the power among all the people (and hence there wouldn't be a proper division of power, since not everybody is able to make the right decisions).

In an anarchic state, "nothing stops me from killing your wife and raping you daughter", as a friend of mine said. Rules are just a way to prevent this things to happen, a kind of "master override" to power. Of course nothing is perfect, but I see the democracy and republics as the best attempt of mankind on society organization.

Again, this is just my opinion

Originally Posted by elendriel

A republic is just a country without king/queen, where usually is represented by a parliament and a president.

And Syrtis is a chaotic republic, not try to lower the best organization of the citiziens that is the anarchy.

It would be nonsense to provide the game with rules as most of the users won't agree on diminishing and grant their powers to a superior, virtual authority. That's why I say Syrtis is most close to anarchy than to a republic, because it lacks of a real headed government.

I won't discuss any further on which organizational scheme is the best, as it seems to be a futile effort because every society is different and changes over the time, so it doesn't exist a "universal" truth on this one. Though, I'm willing to state that Syrtis is nothing more than a bunch of chaotic people struggling for power, it is not a real republic... It is more of a feudal or tribal civil war than an established government.

PS: You're so cool, I didn't have a discussion like this in months... ^^

[aric_swartzell]

Actually I find a lot of people are confused about what anarchy really is. It's a lack of government, nothing more nothing less. I hear that quite a bit too, there's nothing stopping people from committing murder and theft and whatnot. First let me state that any form of government or lack thereof is unable to stop those things from happening. They merely add harsh consequences for doing such things. Anarchy also has such consequences. You kill someones wife and rape their daughter you may not go to prison, or go to trial, but you will be held accountable for your actions. Most likely by the remaining family members. The only reason anarchy isn't a viable option now is because like it or not, people are monsters. They need to be controlled for their own good.

[ArcticWolf]

Originally Posted by aric_swartzell

The only reason anarchy isn't a viable option now is because like it or not, people are monsters. They need to be controlled for their own good.

I fully agree with you on that one. People are monsters, and so if you don't set an equal punishment or rights to everyone, then you're going to end in chaos and disorder. Who sets the thin line of what you do / what you can't do on anarchy? Who's there to protect you in case you're being prosecuted?

Again, I sustain my opinion on republics being the most accurate attempt, at least they proved to be far more stable than anarchic societies. I hope someday we won't need rules, but for that mankind has to evolve.


PS: I still think than organizing a society is far more useful than leaving them as they are.