Blood and Iron - An Interactive Prussian AAR

[Khalep]

I would preffer the American one. Let us have a high court. A Chancellor with his cabinet as the executive power. And thenparliament as the legaslative one.

Allthough that we only vote for the Parliament, which the Chancellor have to have his support from. Like it is today.

So yeah, it would be like today minus the President.

Germany almost certainly has some kind of high court.

It does not appear wise to me to unite the offices of president and chancellor in one person. Let the symbolic power of the head of state be rendered neutral by entrusting it to a monarch without any real power of his own. A font of stability, if you will.

 

[ThaHoward]

Germany almost certainly has some kind of high court.

It does not appear wise to me to unite the offices of president and chancellor in one person. Let the symbolic power of the head of state be rendered neutral by entrusting it to a monarch without any real power of his own. A font of stability, if you will.

But the Monarch will have a veto power, and the same with your dreaded upperhouse. The Chancellor and his cabinet are already the de-facto executive branch. Let us make it the de-jure too. And we can see how stable it is with a monarch, oh that didn't end well. And the overly powerful President may plunge us into a civil war. So much for stability.

 

[DensleyBlair]

Well the PM is an MP (I think)

Indeed he is.

and they have a Monarch and an Upper House made of nobles.

Indeed we do.

That said, at it's most basic level, it involves a Head of State (so a constitutional monarch,) a de facto xecutive branch made up of the PM and his Cabinet and a bicameral legislative branch – the Upper House being appointed. The there are other features to do with the civil service and parliamentary privilege and such, but they wouldn't really have an effect on the AAR.

 

[DensleyBlair]

Germany almost certainly has some kind of high court.

It does not appear wise to me to unite the offices of president and chancellor in one person. Let the symbolic power of the head of state be rendered neutral by entrusting it to a monarch without any real power of his own. A font of stability, if you will.

Would you support a Westminster style government in Germany, Herr Khalep?

 

[ThaHoward]

Indeed he is.



Indeed we do.

That said, at it's most basic level, it involves a Head of State (so a constitutional monarch,) a de facto xecutive branch made up of the PM and his Cabinet and a bicameral legislative branch – the Upper House being appointed. The there are other features to do with the civil service and parliamentary privilege and such, but they wouldn't really have an effect on the AAR.

Yup and that is what I'm opposed to. I'm opposed to having people in the government and as a head of state simply for being born. And I want the de-facto executive power to be the de-jure too. Like in USA: Legaslative, Executive and Juridical. Not an head of state and extra parliament that function as an additional juridical and executive branch, solely because their parents decided to make a baby.

 

[Khalep]

Would you support a Westminster style government in Germany, Herr Khalep?

I would, though I would also support Brüder Dadarian's call for reserving at least part of the seats of the Upper House for members of the clergy.
This seems the best way to ensure integrity in the nation's politics.

 

[DensleyBlair]

I would, though I would also support Brüder Dadarian's call for reserving at least part of the seats of the Upper House for members of the clergy.
This seems the best way to ensure integrity in the nation's politics.

The Lords Spiritual would naturally be given seats any Upper House.

 

[Khalep]

Yup and that is what I'm opposed to. I'm opposed to having people in the government and as a head of state simply for being born. And I want the de-facto executive power to be the de-jure too. Like in USA: Legaslative, Executive and Juridical. Not an head of state and extra parliament that function as an additional juridical and executive branch, solely because their parents decided to make a baby.

A foolish notion. Mortal man cannot be entrusted with full power. There is always a need for checks and balances and they are never better or more fitting than when they are formed by those who were not themselves elected. It leaves them free from the corrupting influence of elections, which wrongly stimulates all common politicians to surrender the good of the nation for electoral gain.

 

[Khalep]

The Lords Spiritual would naturally be given seats any Upper House.

Then such a form of government as you propose, Kapitän Blair, would be truly ideal for our fair nation. And I would support it whole-heartedly.

 

[ThaHoward]

A foolish notion. Mortal man cannot be entrusted with full power. There is always a need for checks and balances and they are never better or more fitting than when they are formed by those who were not themselves elected. It leaves them free from the corrupting influence of elections, which wrongly stimulates all common politicians to surrender the good of the nation for electoral gain.

Doesn't God have full power? And it is seperation of power; Juridical, executive and legalislative.

Oh thought you spoke of morals cannot be trusted when one have full power. Still they don't have full power It is de-facto the same as today, only that it is no President, Monarch or Upper House who might decide to intervene in the politcs.

 

[Khalep]

Doesn't God have full power? And it is seperation of power; Juridical, executive and legalislative.

Oh thought you spoke of morals cannot be trusted when one have full power. Still they don't have full power It is de-facto the same as today, only that it is no President, Monarch or Upper House who might decide to intervene in the politcs.

What I meant to say, Frau Howard, though this was apparently unclear, is that mortal man cannot be trusted with unchecked power even within one of these branches of power. Therefore, some checks must be built in at all stages.

 

[LordTempest]

they were only liberal in terms of economic policies and some political reforms.

Which, if over-zealous DDP rhetoric is to be believed, is the only valid school of liberalism.

 

[ThaHoward]

Which, if over-zealous DDP rhetoric is to be believed, is the only valid school of liberalism.

What no? I even contradicted that.. Liberalism is an ideology which focus on the individual over the collective. Where it is negative rights and not positive rights. In order to be a liberal party you need that. The FVP for example is a hybrid between liberalism and social-conservatism; social-liberalism. They have many elements of liberalism in them, but the whole package is not liberalism. Mainly because they are collectivists and focus on positive rights rather than negative rights. So please stop bashing Tanzhang, it is honestly starting to get annoying

 

[ThaHoward]

What I meant to say, Frau Howard, though this was apparently unclear, is that mortal man cannot be trusted with unchecked power even within one of these branches of power. Therefore, some checks must be built in at all stages.

Yes I agree. And we would a good check and balance system, without the upper house and a president or monarch who do not serve as check and balance, but is rather someone who do things because of their personal beliefs, and not because what the people want. The President however one might argue it's the will of the people.

 

[Khalep]

Yes I agree. And we would a good check and balance system, without the upper house and a president or monarch who do not serve as check and balance, but is rather someone who do things because of their personal beliefs, and not because what the people want. The President however one might argue it's the will of the people.

It is better to have the government serve for the good of the people, rather than what the people wants.
God knows (or for those of superior education: y rof i a Duw) that the masses can be manipulated.

 

[ThaHoward]

It is better to have the government serve for the good of the people, rather than what the people wants.
God knows (or for those of superior education: y rof i a Duw) that the masses can be manipulated.

Yes I agree. And the latest Kaiser didn't rule for what is good for the people, and especially not President Hindenburg. That is why liberals are opposed to positive rights, simply to check the politicians and protect the individuals.

 

[LordTempest]

What no? I even contradicted that..

You most certainly did.

 

[Khalep]

You most certainly did.

She tends to, doesn't she?

 

[LordTempest]

The President however one might argue it's the will of the people.

Given that the president is appointed by parliament, I wouldn't say this is the case in practice. The great thing about having a constitutional monarch is that he's impartial: if you have a president and a chancellor, or an elected upper and lower house, then the two individuals/bodies are in constant competition with one another over which of the two possesses greater democratic legitimacy, and therefore by extension, which has the greater authority. The Hindenburg incident is a good example of this.

 

[LordTempest]

She tends to, doesn't she?

Oh yes. In a century's time she'd make a fine Liberal Democrat spokesman.