On Noble Houses

[Myroria]

Do you ever see these NationStates players wandering around our forums? Maybe they're dignitaries. Maybe they're just watching us. Maybe they eventually become citizens, like Cormac, and make up for the mistake of having not been a member of the greatest region in the game.

Oftentimes players, especially those from imperialist regions, will style themselves as "[Name] of House [Name]", say they are "members of House Anumia", or say they are "Cormac, of House Stark". I don't like this crap. This puts them above the perfect egalitarian society we have worked so hard to build. Thus, to further the cause of the Revolution, I propose the following:

A Resolution to Further the Cause of Egalitarianism and the Glorious Revolution by the Outlawing of Noble Houses

1. No citizen of Taijitu shall join, start, or take titles of nobility from a noble house, foreign or otherwise.
2. If a foreigner belonging to a noble house applies for citizenship, it shall be granted. However, the citizen will be referred to as "Citizen [name]", and no reference will be made to their counterrevolutionary pedigree.
3. If a foreigner belonging to a noble house is assigned here as a dignitary, or resides in Taijitu without acquiring citizenship, they shall be referred to by their name only, and no reference will be made to their counterrevolutionary pedigree.

[Bustos]

 

[Of The US]

i agree with this

[Eluvatar]

This doesn't go too far enough, but I'm for it!

[Gulliver]

I don't think this act goes far enough. It does not forbid accepting orders of merit from monarchist governments.

On a more serious note, would a law stating how people may refer to someone else violate the Bill of Right's guarantee of free speech?

[Wast]

I don't see the word guillotine mentioned anywhere in the act, an omission that I think should be addressed.

There is no valid claim to a violation of our principle of free speech. It defines a specific way to refer to citizens by the government [i.e. by the Ecclesia in its official capacity] in the same way that other positions carry specific titles. Presumably a private citizen could call someone by a title without violating the law - it just wouldn't be recognized.

If anything, the (rather tenuous) objection would be to the implicitly sarcastic use of the term Citizen when deliberately replacing one's title, but that's more on the basis of disrespect than free speech. This is not a legitimate claim so long as the term Citizen applies to all citizens of Taijitu, not just those who hold titles elsewhere.

[Delfos]

I have to agree with Wast. Any pretentious prick using a title disrespecting our utmost value of equality should be beheaded, granting that members of the militia can hold summary trial and execution when accompanied by another member of the militia that confirms the violation of equality.

The trial consists on inquiring the suspect to say "Vive l'equalité, Vive la Taijitu" in any way or form and renouncing to any title that he may hold on the spot. Failure to comply results in immediate termination.

Furthermore, an issue to all embassies requires corresponding dignitaries to renounce their titles upon entering service in Taijitu.

Citizen's Militia men are also entitled to acquire, wear or display in public any part or total of the executed body. This is to prevent any prosecution towards our Militia for parading through Taijitu's streets with the enemies' heads on their pikes.

As immortalized on these digital photos:

[Khem]

Damn. Now I want a noble title...

[Myroria]

I don't see the word guillotine mentioned anywhere in the act, an omission that I think should be addressed.

There is no valid claim to a violation of our principle of free speech. It defines a specific way to refer to citizens by the government [i.e. by the Ecclesia in its official capacity] in the same way that other positions carry specific titles. Presumably a private citizen could call someone by a title without violating the law - it just wouldn't be recognized.

Citizen Wast is correct, but if it would make it clearer for me to specify this in our law I would gladly do so.

[Dyr Nasad]

* Dyr Nasad approves. greatly.

No more people talking about "House Nasad" ... >____> NS families <____<

[Gulliver]

Damn. Now I want a noble title...

Boooooo hiiisss traitor baby!

I don't see the word guillotine mentioned anywhere in the act, an omission that I think should be addressed.

>||ō|~o

There is no valid claim to a violation of our principle of free speech. It defines a specific way to refer to citizens by the government [i.e. by the Ecclesia in its official capacity] in the same way that other positions carry specific titles. Presumably a private citizen could call someone by a title without violating the law - it just wouldn't be recognized.

If anything, the (rather tenuous) objection would be to the implicitly sarcastic use of the term Citizen when deliberately replacing one's title, but that's more on the basis of disrespect than free speech. This is not a legitimate claim so long as the term Citizen applies to all citizens of Taijitu, not just those who hold titles elsewhere.

I can buy that.

[Musitant]

I like the idea of the government not recognizing these titles, but I think with the language we're using in the bill we're altogether banning people from calling each other what they want like what Gulliver was saying. A private citizen asking to be called "Sir John of House Pretentious"  would be against the law in its current form because of the first clause. Asking to be called "Sir John of House Pretentious" can arguably be called "...join[ing], start[ing], or tak[ing] titles of nobility from a noble house..."

For that reason I say that we merely not acknowledge "houses of nobility" as opposed to banning citizens from joining them.

[Khem]

I like the idea of the government not recognizing these titles, but I think with the language we're using in the bill we're altogether banning people from calling each other what they want like what Gulliver was saying. A private citizen asking to be called "Sir John of House Pretentious"  would be against the law in its current form because of the first clause. Asking to be called "Sir John of House Pretentious" can arguably be called "...join[ing], start[ing], or tak[ing] titles of nobility from a noble house..."

For that reason I say that we merely not acknowledge "houses of nobility" as opposed to banning citizens from joining them.

If we limit free speech by such measures I vow to start calling myself and others by nothing but noble titles.

[Bustos]

But its counter-revolutionary!   +1

[Delfos]

arson sounds like a better idea.