A Royal Address for the week of September 1st, 2013

To the Citizens and Nobles of Edan and the Peoples of all the World, Greetings.

  As global tensions remain high we have been repeatedly asked for our position on the unrest within the Middle East. To repeat a phrase from an opinion issued during the revolt in Libya,

"We have watched the various rebellions in the Middle East with the sadness that comes from having predicted the events years ago and realizing that these revolts are in response to the natural desire for a proper, personal government based upon joint moral obligations and that successful rebellions may, in the long term, be worse than the status quo because the rebels only know what they do not want"

  It brings us no joy to see our predictions proven correct in Libya, Egypt, and other, similar, nations.  We are no champion of dictators, but the current chaos was too predictable to make the time, methods, and actors of change more palatable.
  Syria is slightly different. Assad does not embrace the core concepts of Edan, but the forces that have been fighting to overthrow him are, again, no more palatable. The recent apparent use of chemical weapons has attracted increased foreign scrutiny of this terrible conflict, but no more clarity and certainly no greater moral standing on any side.
  Before continuing, let us make clear a few points. Edan currently has no citizens within the borders of Syria unless they are currently travelling; Edan has no level of diplomatic exchange with Syria; Edan has no economic interests in or related to Syria or the Syrian government.
  The Assad regime is the recognized legitimate government of Syria by international treaty, diplomatic relations, and UN membership. According to the Montevideo Convention (to whom the United States is a signatory but Syria is not) which in article 3 states that,

“The state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.”

  and in article 8 states,

“No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”

  Together these show that the United States is bound to treat the Syrian government's defense of its own integrity against either internal rebellion or outside subversion as legal and internal and to not interfere in this conflict unless the Syrian government requests it.
  The United States being bound by this convention could be argued to not apply to Syria, which is not a signatory. However, the United States, France, and Syria are all members of the United Nations and signatories to the UN Charter, which has the legal power of a treaty. The UN Charter repeats the provisions of the Montevideo Convention in slightly different language including article 2, paragraph 4 which states,

"Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

  And in article 51 states,

 “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”

  Together, these clearly state that unless the United Nations Security Council authorizes such intervention no UN member can legally do the things being publicly debated by various members of the UN, including 'limited strikes' or 'regime change'.
  There are some claims that [paraphrase] 'the use of chemical weapons allows [some nation or group] to directly intervene in the absence of UN Security Council approval'.  We assume this is a reference the the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which permits slightly more broad action of its signatories.
  This is, bluntly, false. The CWC only permits assistance and cooperation between signatories, it does not allow various signatories to pursue unilateral international actions against other members who violate the treaty. Further, even if it did, it only permits actions by and between entities which are members of the CWC - and Syria is not a CWC signatory.

  Let us be clear; we are not so naive as to think that 'international law' is more than a vague hope for some and a thin screen for realpolitik for others. At the same time, however, treaties are meant to be as binding as internal laws upon their signatories. This is certainly the conceit of the United States as it attempts to use treaties to force internal change upon other nations in its pursuit of American tax revenue. If the United States demands that other signatories cleave to the letter and spirit of a tax treaty, should they not be expected by other nations to do the same regarding the UN Charter, the Montevideo Convention, etc?
  Certainly the United States is not alone. Great Britain was eager to likewise violate a variety of its treaties, as France remains.
  Thus, before we even grapple with the uncertainty of who is at fault for the origin of Syria's internal strife, who performed the chemical weapons attacks (and there have been at least 4), or the moral standing of any of the parties involved we must understand that this is, in the end, Syria's war to fight.

Choosing Illusions

  One of the most chilling concepts in theology is the idea that we choose Hell: the idea is that at the time of judgement everyone is presented with heaven, part of which is a clear, perfect view of reality, including the reality of ourselves. The damned are the ones who decide not to look, who reject reality for lies because reality is too much for them. The damned choose to be damned because, to them, eternal torment is preferable to the truth.
  Perhaps most people participating in modern politics are likewise rejecting reality for illusion.
  I have expressed my views on Communism elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that the various people and groups that still adhere to and promote Communism do so out of improper motives. They are, in the end, rejecting reality.
  Are the members of Democracies that much better at recognizing reality? The slide of Democracy to collapse is so well known and understood that some of America's founders opposed Democracy and, when they were overruled by the democratic process, warned the nation of the danger. The French First Republic was notable for the Reign of Terror, a bloodbath that presaged the horrors of the 20th Century, and for lasting barely over a decade before being transformed into an empire that started the first global war and transformed civilians and such into 'acceptable strategic targets' of war. The French Second Republic lasted only about three and a half years but was still riddled with riots, uprisings, and death and, again, collapsed into a bellicose empire. The French Third Republic fell to invasion and the French Fourth Republic collapsed under its own weight. The French are on their Fifth Republic, so far, and still cling to the idea that the concepts that created the Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, are important to France being a great nation....
  From France to Germany, the USA to the UK the rise of democracy has seen the decline of nations and, much more importantly, decline for the citizens of those nations. I am not discussing increases in material goods, I mean the legal rights and moral health of people. Considering the level or unrest visible in these nations, I do not think greater wealth replaces less freedom and degraded public morals. From the rise of nationalist parties in Europe to movements such as Occupy and the Tea Party in the USA people demonstrate that they know they are losing ground but continue to return to Democracy again and again.
  Why?
  Because, in the end, Democracy is a comforting illusion. The spectacle of 'the electoral process' catches the eye; the platitudes of politicians and pundits engage the ear; the ritual of voting lulls the mind; the continual, meaningless bickering between interchangeable empty suits numbs the spirit. The flashy pomp and weightless rhetoric of 'politics' is so ubiquitous that people become sick of 'hearing about politics' and tune it out without realizing that is the goal - apathy. Yet even those who want to change, want to make an impact stick to the same pattern, use the same formulas, try to 'engage voters' and 'frame the narrative' and 'create a grassroots movement' and on, and on, and on... just like the people they wish to replace for being ineffectual (at best) or corrosive (as usual). They don't realize that they are just slapping a new coat of paint on the same Potemkin village.
  The question that strikes at the core of modern Democracies isn't 'which party should I vote for?' it is 'why is it that, no matter who is in power, things never get better?'
  Sure, this constituency might get that tax increase/break they wanted, and that group might get the program increase/cut they spent sixty million euros lobbying for, but overall things still got worse; the economy is still booming and busting with each boom a little lower at apogee and each bust a little lower at perigee; the overall burden f taxes, fees, fines, and such still creeps up each year, somehow; the burden of laws and regulations makes it harder and harder to get anything really done and done well; but once the 'electoral process' parade begins most people get in line for the ritual of casting a vote.
  The Western culture really hammers us all with the idea that political systems boil down to "Democracy vs. various types of tyranny" and has done so for over a Century. The replacement of centuries-old, stable Monarchies with Democracies was of key importance to Western Democracies after WWI and WWII and we are still reaping the fruits of these changes in the Balkans and the Middle East. But the most stable nations in the Middle East are still monarchies; Lichtenstein is a beacon of success in Europe (and the citizens routinely vote down attempts to introduce more democracy to their nation), and it seems that as the Constitutional Monarchies of Europe degrade the powers of their monarchs their nation's see their own wealth and influence degrade as well. Yet, still, Democracy is idolized.
  Certainly, some few see the issues with Democracy and go too far, rejecting all government as inherently bad, but this is just another form of accepting the illusion that there is either Democracy or nothing worthwhile.
  So, what do we do?
  Start pointing at the 'electoral process' and laughing. Long and loud. Start asking the real questions, such as,
 'But what was the real meaning of the speech? Not the signals, not the opposition to another party - the real, inherent meaning?'
 'When did your life get better because of Democracy?'
  'If your duty conflicts with Democracy, what would win?"
  And be a proud monarchist!

How Edan Works: The Ministries and the Cabinet

  The various elements of executive power are divided into six ministries; State, Justice, Armed Forces, Finance, Foreign Affairs, and Information. The head of each ministry serves as a member of the Cabinet. The duties of each ministry are as follows.
The Ministry of State- Responsible for the internal affairs of the Kingdom, including: maintaining a census; running the Grand Census and Royal Census; social welfare efforts; utilities and infrastructure (including transportation); housing; and the environment.
Ministry of Justice- Responsible for law enforcement, search and rescue, prison supervision, and the training of justice personnel.
Ministery of the Armed Forces- Oversees all military forces and training standards of the same.
Ministery of Finance- Oversees the Royal Treasury, Royal Bank, coining of money, taxation, and financial regulation.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs- Oversees and manages all ambassadors, consuls, diplomats, etc.
Ministry of Information- Oversees the Royal Library, the Assembly Library, the Royal Archives, and all Royal Media including internet communications.

How Edan Works: Voting, Sessions, and the Government's Calendar

This 'nuts and bolts' discussion is a deeper dive into how elections work and the calendar of the government. 

  The Kingdom of Edan uses Greenwich Mean Time for all governmental purposes although local time is usually also included for ease of understanding.
  General elections for the Senate are held every two years and are overseen by the Ministry of State. Voting begins at 1 minutes after Midnight on the 1st of March and ends 1 minute before midnight on the 2nd of March, giving citizens just under 48 hours to cast their votes. In general it is believed that voting will be permitted by electronic communications as well as in person.
  In certain cases a special election will be needed. Special elections are scheduled and announced by the Ministry of State and the voting period lasts for 72 hours.
  All senate elections use the single transferable vote proportional representation system with voting groups decided by the Ministry of State as needed. It is expected that citizens will be divided into groups that select between 4 and 8 senators, probably based upon fiefdoms.
  All votes will be tallied and a complete count will be done at least twice. If more than 7 counts are required the Ministry of Justice shall assist with counts and in the unlikely event of a tie a run-off elections will be held until elections are complete.
  The Assembly (which is the Senate and the Council) has 1 session each year; a session is the period when the legislature is available to performs its duty. Each year's session lasts from March 8th and ends on October 31st unless one or both days fall upon a Sunday - if that happens the date is delayed until the following Monday.
  The session is divided into conclaves of eight weeks each with a recess of 2 weeks in between. The conclaves are periods of active legislation while the recesses are for discussion, time with citizens, relaxation, etc. The period of a session contains enough time for 3 conclaves plus an addition 4 weeks; the extra time is in case the budget process is delayed, to accommodate government holidays (which do not count as part of the time of a conclave!), or if there is a need for a special election.
  The First Senator may request a null conclave - this is, essentially, a conclave where no work is done. The First Senator may ask once per session and the King may refuse the request.
  The grand conclave is held each year on the 15th of November. On that day the tax schedule for the upcoming year is published and the King makes his address to the people on the state of the kingdom and the upcoming year.
  Members of the Council may assign a proxy to serve in their stead (usually due to illness or military service).A council member who fails in their duties to the legislature (not attending and not assigning a proxy) by lose their noble status.
  Senators must vote on each proposed law introduced during a conclave, Failure to vote in 3 consecutive conclaves means they are removed from the Senate. In an exception, once per term a senator may request a leave of absence of up to two conclaves.
  The High Tribunal meets in session from the first Monday in February until the first Monday in November. The High Tribunal may take two recesses per year, each lasting a month and each separated by at least 2 months.
  On to more direct information.
  In general the royal and noble governments do no non-essential business on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation. Emergency services will, of course, always be available.
  King Richard has created a list of days in which the government is restricted to essential work only;
  Fixed:
  January 1st - the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
  January 6th - the Epiphany
  March 19th - the Solemnity of St. Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary
  April 1st - Constitution Day
  June 29th - the Solemnity of the Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles
  August 15th - the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
  August 19th - the King's Birthday
  August 25th - the Feast of St. Louis IX
  September 22nd - the Feast of St. Maurice
  November 1st - All Saints' Day
  December 8th - the Feast of Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
  December 24th through December 31st - The Nativity of the Lord and the beginning of Christmastide

  Movable:
  Ash Wednesday
  Holy Week and Easter Monday
  The Ascension
  Whit Monday
  The Feast of Corpus Christi

  Local nobles may set their own holidays, of course.

A Brief Article from Prince Nicholas [age 10]

I look around me and find a great number of things have changed in the last couple of years. Perhaps most noticeable is the state of currency. Money matters more now;about a century ago,you could be completely out of money and still survive. Farmers needed no money, only barter and their own food. Some artists could have powerful patrons who paid for you while you created.,
Sadly, in the modern world if you have no cash or income you face greater pressures and working for a patron is seen as a bad thing.
  Now don't get me wrong; money is good and makes trade easier. However, it should not be the difference between life and death.
  This also shows the lack of charity these days; we expect government or employers to do things, not us.
  And now imagine if 99% of all money vanished over night - civilization as a whole would collapse, governments would fall, there would be riots and wars.
  After all,money means everything, right?
  Please think about this and how we can make a world where money is less important.
  Thank you

How Edan Works: Law and Justice

  While legislation is created through the Assembly, the enforcement and judgment of law is part of the executive function. Ultimately, enforcing the law and judging the law are manifestations of the King's sovereignty and authority. Nobles share in the king's sovereignty and are therefore also responsible for enforcing and judging the law. One of the duties of all nobles is to be available to pass judgement for his own citizens. The courts are divided into two major groups, Noble Courts and Royal Courts.
   Noble Courts-
   Noble courts are run by local or technocratic nobles. Unless otherwise specified within the Edict of Enfeofment only hereditary Barons and above and technocratic Earls and above have the authority of Low Justice grants them the duty of holding court. But all those of such rank or above have such duties and obligations unless specifically excluded by their enfeofment.
   Nobles must hold court in a time, place, and manner that it is accessible to citizens. The noble may preside himself or appoint a judge to decide in his authority.
   Noble courts deal with all legal matters from within their jurisdiction that are not limited to a higher court by law or edict. They will typically deal with such things as real estate and property disputes, family law, misdemeanors, etc.
  The party or parties that lose within a noble court may appeal to the next higher noble court. Any appeals beyond that go to the royal courts.
   Royal Courts-
   Royal courts are divided into three rather broad categories and three tiers. The categories are private law, public law, and penal law. The tiers are royal courts, appellate courts, and review courts. The parties which lose within a royal court may appeal to the appellate court. In case of conflicting decisions between various jurisdictions the various cases are reviewed by the review court as recommended by a royal judge.
  If a party loses within appellate court they may appeal to the High Tribunal. The High Tribunal may accept or reject an appeal as detailed in the constitution. At any time any party losing at any level may appeal to the King. However, it is highly unlikely the King's Court will intervene unless the appeal comes after being heard or dismissed by the High Tribunal.
  EXAMPLE: Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones have recently accepted citizenship and have been granted adjoining farms in Baron White's territories. About 2 years later Mr. Jones sharply prunes back an oak tree that was shading his garden. The oak tree' trunk, however, is well within Mr. Smith's land (by 3') and the tree dies over the next year. Shortly after Mr. Smith appears at baron White's manor and requests the Baron meet in court over Mr. Smith's demand for compensation for the lost tree. Both are directed to appear at the Baron's court the next Friday.
  They both appear and Mr. Smith explains that he was expecting to receive not just shade and weather protection from the tree but many board feet of mature hardwood in the future. Mr. Jones did not ask or speak about his actions beforehand, he simply acted on what was obviously Mr. Smith's property.
  Mr. Jones counters that while he had not mentioned his own actions, he had complained to Mr. Smith many times that the shade from the tree was blocking the only good plot of garden land on the lee of the Jone's home and that he would appreciate if Mr. Smith helped him with the issue; a request that was ignored.
  Baron White asks a few questions and concludes that while both are at fault, Mr. Jones is moreso and orders him to pay 80% of the estimated value of the board feet the Baron's forester estimates Mr. Smith could have expected in 10 more years. At this point both men accept the judgement and, working with the forester and the Baron's administrator Mr. Jones will supply a certain amount of eggs and milk to Mr. Smith each week for 9 months in lieu of cash.
  But let us suppose Mr. Jones was unhappy and appealed to Duke Gray, Baron White's lord. The Duke employs a judge, so his court has such things as filing fees and court costs, which are published. As soon as Mr. Jones pays the small filing fee his penalties from Baron White's court are suspended pending the appeal.
  Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith appear at Duke Gray's court in 4 more weeks and are before Judge Green. Judge Green listens to the arguments and decides that Mr. Smith will only receive 50% of the board feet value and the court fees will be evenly divided between the two men.
  Since both men are examples of how the system work rather than reasonable men, Mr. Smith is now ready to appeal, as well. The next appeal must go to the royal courts. Since this is between two men not related to one another but no real crime was committed it goes to Public Law court. This time Mr. Smith pays the (still reasonable) filing fee and they are directed to appear in 3 weeks.
  Three weeks later they appear before Judge Rivers. he listens to both men and then decides that while Mr. Smith will still just get 50% of the board feet value Mr. Jones will pay all court costs at all applicable levels. Being an unreasonable simulacra, Mr. Jones now pays the filing fee to appeal to the appellate public law court. There Judge Ocean, for the purpose of demonstration, sides with Mr. Jones and rules that Mr. Smith will only get 50% of the board feet value and pay all court costs at all levels.
  Finally Mr. Smith appeals to the High Tribunal, which never charges fees (but can have costs). This means Mr. Smith must wait for the High Tribunals next session. The High Tribunal agrees that the example must continue and review the case, concluding that Mr. Smith will, yes, get 80% of the values of the anticipated board feet and that each party will pay the court costs associated with their own appeals.
  At this point there is still the opportunity to appeal to the King, but even examples get tired, so they do not do so.

  All humor aside, the system should be fairly intuitive. And, despite the lack of attorneys in the example above, the King intends that the Edanian legal system shall follow the English Rule on attorney's fees. Also, fines should be compensatory only; fees and costs should not be a bar to justice; and the rights of Low and High Justice cannot be impeded by the courts.

  The accreditation of lawyers and judges are the jurisdiction of the crown. Since lawyers and judges are directly involved in the king's business of enforcing and judging the law they are considered to be agents of the king and, thus, ineligible to hold a seat in the senate. It would be theoretically possible for a lawyer or judge to reject their accreditation and status as a lawyer and judge in order to run for the senate, but this would both require the approval of the High Tribunal and the king and be an irrevocable step - such a person could never practice law or act as a judge ever again.

 Because of the nature and structure of Edan it is expected that the majority of laws will be the organic outgrowth of common law practices. In the above example (when all parties were reasonable and stopped at the baronial court) there are two main precedents; that 80% of reasonable value is just compensation in similar cases and that payments can be made in kind and over time. If a similar case were to happen in the same barony a few years later over, say, a blackberry bramble, the owner of the bramble could expect 80% of the value of the bramble and the person fined could expect to pay in kind over time. Changes in situation, though, can mean changes in decisions! If the bramble were beyond a boundary fence rather than overhanging an adjoining property then the compensation could well be 100%.

  So there you have a brief overview of how the Edanian court system works.

Authentic Social Justice: the Core of Edan

  ">Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority"

Thus begins the catechism's section on Social Justice. What does it really mean? Well, when society allows justice to be done, you have social Justice - obviously. Social justice is part and parcel of both the common man and of leaders.
  Notice what it does not  say, however - it does not say that leaders or the common man must give justice to people or groups. It says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due. 
  In other words Social Justice is not the giving of things to people by government, it is the conditions of society that allow justice to be gained.

  The Catechism goes on to say,

"Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. "

  More briefly 'human rights are granted by God, not society, and the moral legitimacy of any worldly authority or society is based upon recognizing and supporting these rights'.  Or, 'any society or authority that denies the inherent, God-given rights of Man is not legitimate'.
  So governments, whatever their nature, must support the inherent rights of its people or it will have no legitimacy and and society that flaunts these rights is also illegitimate. This is key because it means that a core contention of Democracy, that legitimacy of society and authority is derived from the will of the people, i.e., the opinions of a majority of voters, is false. If 50.1% of voters support the murder of innocents that does not make the murder of innocents acceptable, it makes the society that supports such voters illegitimate.
  
  Later the catechism states,

"Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity."

Or 'the inherent rights of all men are the same'. The peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal; the stable boy has as much right to justice as the prince.

  It continues,

"On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The "talents" are not distributed equally...  ...These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures"

  More shortly, 'equality of inherent rights does not mean equality in all ways; people are tall and short, smart and dumb, skilled speakers and reticent, leaders and followers. These differences are part of God's plan and are good for all involved'. So while the peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal, the cardinal has gifts and authority the peasant does not. Likewise, while the stable boy has the same right to justice as the prince, the prince has duties and obligations the stable boy never will. And this is not just acceptable, it is good.

  The Catechism then warns us that,

">There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women...."

  In this the Catechism is speaking of when societies and leaders have or implement systems that impose sinful inequalities upon people. It continues with,

"...Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions."

  Remember how beginning of this piece we pointed out that,

"t says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due."

  This portion tells us that when society actively prevents people or groups from obtaining what is their due it is sinful.

  The Catechism concludes its section on Social Justice with,

" Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this."

  Or, 'love of neighbor and charity among and between people is the solution to social injustice'.

  So the central ideas of Social Justice are quite clear; be just and allow others to obtain justice; love your neighbor and be charitable.

  But are their guidelines for rulers and leaders as to the nuts and bolts of implementing this?

  The Catechism focuses heavily on Solidarity. Solidarity has two meanings; the earning of a livelihood through work and the friendship and social charity between all people in a society. At its heart Solidarity is the rejection of class as a dividing force between people. The poor are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the poor. The rich are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the rich. Emploers, workers, farmers, artisans, men, women, etc. - all are part of society. By rejecting class as a dividing factor it is also inherently a rejection of individualism as a defining element of humanity. While we are all individuals and have individual needs, etc. no one is ever alone and just as society is an outgrowth of the family no one in a society is capable of being truly apart from that society just as no man can ever not have a mother.
  Solidarity is also much more spiritual and emotional rather than material. The goal of Solidarity isn't wealth, the goal is justice. Granted, justice often leads to increased wealth....
  Yet Solidarity is not collectivist! As we read above, justice is about the individual person; individuals have God-given natural rights, not societies or governments. In the end Solidarity is an explicit rejection of such Liberal concepts such as Communism and Libertarianism - both collectivism and material individualism are rejected as false and, thus, unjust.

  Another key element of a just society is Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the principle that,

""a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." 

  Or as the OED states,

"The principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate, local level."

   More simply, 'as local and personal as possible'. There are many reasons for thus ranging from simple efficiency (how can a distant administrator have a clearer idea?) and moral (rights are individual, not collective, so avoid the collective). Again, this is a direct rejection of collectivism and individualism; the collective is to be avoided as much as possible, but there are times when the collective is the only answer.

  The next core element is Private Property. The Catechism tells us that,

"In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men."

  Or, 'men have a right to private property'. Indeed, private property is an element of dignity and freedom and part of Solidarity. But the Catechism also warns us,

"The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
  In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself. The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor. "

  Another reminder that we are part of a family and that we owe all good to God and, thus, we owe solidarity to our neighbors. Note as well that yet again there is an explicit rejection of collectivism ('the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise') and individualism (' legitimate goods he... ... owns not... exclusive to himself but common to others...'). Indeed, we are morally obligated to make our property fruitful because fruitfulness helps others. If we are 'middlemen' then we must be as efficient as possible so that we do not waste what could be used charitably. The Catechism later states,

"Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good"

Tied with the obligation to respect the right to private property this means that governments have the right to regulate, say, workplace safety, waste disposal and pollution, etc. to ensure the common good. So while private property is a right, it is not an absolute right. Indeed,

"Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.
The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation."

  Note how this states that waste, excessive expense, and willfully damaging your own property is immoral.  Also, the inescapable conclusion is that to be moral we must reject not just collectivism and individualism but also Communism/Socialism and laissez-faire Capitalism. Communism rejects the idea of private property, denying people freedom, security, and the option for their own justice. Socialism rejects subsidiarity and demands central planning, dehumanizing the person. Laissez-faire Capitalism rejects Solidarity and focuses on profits instead of people. The inherent collectivism of Communism and Socialism (which rejects individual rights and justice) is matched by the inherent individualism of Capitalism (which rejects legitimate authority and the common good. Thus, Edan embraces Distributism, which is no more than the consolidation of Catholic social justice.

  

  Here are the core ideas of Edan:

1) All citizens have a right to private property, a right to just compensation for their goods and services, and a right to enter into contracts, including employment contracts, of their own free will

2) Ownership of private property and work are both inherently good for the individual and for society. 'Work' includes physical, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual work.

3) The government has the authority to regulate private property and business for the common good.

4) Decisions should be made as far 'down' the hierarchy of authority as possible.

5) Co-operatives and guilds are preferred to unions and corporations. 

6) Government is for leadership, not charity.

How Edan Works - Budget and Taxes

  In the most recent post we discussed how the Assembly passes laws. There is a mild exception to this, and that is the budget. There a specific rules about the budget that must be followed;

1) The budget is (almost) the first thing the Assembly does each year (after an election the first step is to elect a First Senator – then the budget).

2) The budget is for the following year, not the current year.

3) The budget can only be based on money already in the Treasury – no debt, no loans, no estimates of future income. If the money isn't already in the Treasury, it can't be in the budget.

4) The budget cannot create a deficit.

5) If the Kingdom has an existing debt (from an emergency or other non-standard event) the budget must reduce the principal each year.

6) The budget can include reasonable fees, but cannot include items that would require nobles or citizens to fund them; i.e, an annual fee for a vehicle operator's license is OK, a requirement that each baron maintain a specific computer system without allocating funds is not.

7) Any budget item that lasts for more than 1 year requires a separate vote and requires a 2/3 majority to pass.

8) No budget item can last more than 6 years.

9) Pay for Senators is a separate item (if Senators are paid) and any changes don't take force until after the next election.

10) Until a valid budget is passed the Assembly does no other business.

The process of passing a budget:

1) The King submits his budget to the First Senator as the first proposal of the first conclave.

2) Unless 2/3 of Senators vote against the King's budget, it is passed and sent to the Council

3) Unless 2/3 of the members of the Council vote against the King's budget, it is passed and goes into effect.

4) If the King's budget is rejected the King or any Senator may propose alternate budgets.

Note: in an exception, even the King's budget proposal are introduced into the Senate, never the Council.

5) These proposed budgets only need a simple majority approval to be sent to the Council and a simple majority to be approved by the Council.

6) If either the Council or the King rejects two proposed budgets a Special Assembly is held where all Senators and all members of the Council meet as a single body.

A) The combined Assembly has one week to propose and approve (by simple majority of the total Assembly) a budget, If the king rejects the proposed budget or they fail to meet the deadline they meet for an additional week.

B) If a 4th budget is rejected by the King or the second deadline is missed the King dissolves the Assembly and elections for new senators are held as soon as possible.

Taxes:

Once the budget for the upcoming year is finalized the tax schedule for that same year as the budget is developed by the Minister of Finance (consulting with the King and the Minister of State). The Finance Minister has one month from the final budget approval to get the proposed tax schedule tot he King; the King has until the Grand Conclave to announce the final tax schedule.

The Result:

While a balanced budget is not a requirement (the budget could expend less money than exists in the Treasury, after all) it does prevent deficit spending or the accumulation of government debt.

How Edan Works: The Assembly

 The Assembly is the legislative portion of the government and is made up of two sections, the Council and the Senate.

The Council:

The Council is made up of the 7 to 12 nobles of highest precedence in the Kingdom. The highest ranking within the Council is the President of the Council.

The Senate:

The Senate is made up of between 8 and 120 elected members (size of the Senate is based on total national population). Voting is 'at large' and is a single transferable vote proportional system. Senators are elected every 2 years. Once elections are complete the Senators elect one of their members to the position of First Senator.

What they do:

The Assembly mainly exists to create legislation. The process is:

1) A Senator, Council Member or the King introduces a proposed law (any proposal made by the King is entered into the Council).

2) If the proposal is approved by a simple majority of the portion of the Assembly where it was introduced it is sent to the other portion.

2) The other portion now votes on the proposal. If a simple majority votes in favor of it, it is sent to the King.

3) The King may approve the entire proposal, reject the entire proposal, or approve the proposal with select sections removed. If the bill is rejected in anyway it is sent back to the originating portion of the Assembly with an explanation for refusal.

A) If the originating portion votes to uphold the proposal with a ¾ majority, it is resent to the other portion.

B) If the other portion also upholds the rejected proposal with a ¾ or greater vote, the proposal becomes law over the King's refusal.

EXAMPLE: Senator Jones introduces a proposal that says;

“All adult citizens shall be required to have a national identification card. This card must be presented when any citizen;

1) votes for Senate

2) applies for professional credentials

3) enlists in the Royal Forces

All ID cards shall be issued at such time as a person becomes a full citizen. Citizens are responsible for applying for replacement or updated cards. The database for all such cards shall be maintained by the Ministry of State. Such cards shall be paid for with funds from the Treasury.”

After a short debate 9 of the 12 Senators vote to support the proposed law. It is then sent tot he Council. Two days later the Council holds a short debate and 10 of 12 members also vote for the proposal. It is now sent to the King.

A week later the king signs the following into law;

“All adult citizens shall be required to have a national identification card. This card must be presented when any citizen;

1) votes for Senate

2) applies for professional credentials

3) enlists in the Royal Forces

All ID cards shall be issued at such time as a person becomes a full citizen. Citizens are responsible for applying for replacement or updated cards. The database for all such cards shall be maintained by the Ministry of State.”

His note to the Senate and Council reads,

“Struck the element 'Such cards shall be paid for with funds from the Treasury' as this constitutes a budget item that is not contained within the budget and further violates Article 28 Section 3 of the constitution.”

Senator Jones decides to re-introduce the proposal in full but only has 2 of 12 Senators vote for the full version – the proposal as signed by the King is now law.

The Assembly also ratifies treaties and appointments made by the King.

How Edan Works – the Balance of Powers

  The goal of Edan is to have a just, ethical, and moral government that is also as stable as possible. In imitation of the perfection of Heaven Edan is ruled by a king. The king is the Head of State and the Head of Government, highest commander of military forces, and the enforcer of all laws. Indeed, the sovereignty of the Kingdom is an extension of the king's sovereignty and all laws are, in the end, the expression of his authority.

Since men are not perfect and it is possible for a weak or unjust king to harm a nation and its people the King limits his own power by swearing to obey the constitution; in effect, the constitution is the King's oath to his people as to how he will limit himself and his government.

Nobles are also part of and an extension of the king's authority. The king grants them a portion of his sovereignty and authority and, in return, they must justly and faithfully lead those of the kings subjects in their care. The nobles and their rights and privileges are also a bulwark against a bad king – while a good king can improve things overall nobles can shield themselves and their subjects from a bad king's actions.

The constitution also empowers the Assembly with primary legislative duties. The two branches of the Assembly, the Council and the Senate, debate and formulate the budgets and laws of the kingdom, subject tot he king's approval. The Council is made up of the senior nobles and is another method for them to aid a good king and hinder a bad king. The Senate is comprised of elected citizens and is the method in which the citizens have a voice in government. Again, the Senate can aid a good king and hinder a bad king.

Together, these elements represent a solid balance of power; the king limits himself and the nobles and citizens have a voice in government, all while maintaining a strong monarchy.

Motivation, Means, Ends, Propaganda,and Why Telling the Truth can be Evil

  Recently a topic came up where a person who makes their living as a blogger reposted a propaganda film supposedly issued by the North Korean government. He was pointing out that the (rather long, as such things go) film seemed accurate in its assessment of American culture, especially pop culture. I objected to this for two reasons: first, the vapidity of pop culture is no secret; and second, this is actually assisting North Korea's propaganda.
  At this point the writer, and others, disagreed stating (paraphrase) 'its true, so repeating it is OK,even good'. As I tried to explain why this is not the case the response was just a series of variations of 'but its true'. But does the fact that you are stating something that is true mean you are not performing or participating in an evil act?
  Of course not!
  Once more we must point out that just as you cannot separate means from ends you cannot separate motivation from means or ends. Robbing a bank to fund an orphanage is not a good act. Raising funds through charitable means for an orphanage is good, but doing so for the internal motivation of vanity is not. Quietly speaking to a friend about his gaffes during a speech and offering to coach him on public speaking is a good act; publicly mocking him and regaling others with tales of his failures is not a good act.
  But how can repeating well-known things be improper? After all,  'defamation' traditionally means 'to harm another by revealing facts not generally known', not 'commonly known things'. Again, we must look at motivation, ends, and means. Let's use an example.

  In the 1930's various journalists, religious leaders, and others warned of the rise of organized crime in America. They discussed the influence and power of these criminal groups and urged others to oppose their bribery and threats to weaken them and return control to proper civil authority. In these cases we know their motivations (they stated what their motivations were - improvement of civil society - and confirmed it with their actions), we know their means (public discussion of facts and the presentations of strategies to oppose crime), and we know their desired ends (reduction in crime and lawlessness). Their use of the facts was good because their demonstrable motivations, means, and desired ends were neutral or good.
At the same time the National Socialists of Germany were writing about how degenerate America was, pointing out that many of its urban areas were controlled by gangsters. They were speaking of the same facts as were the journalists and reformers in America - does this mean repeating the propaganda of the Nazis was good, or at worst neutral? After all, they were just telling the truth!
  But we know the motivations of the Nazis (they told us they wished to undermine American society and weaken it, which their actions confirmed), we know their means (public disclosure of the facts), and their desired ends (the political and military defeat of the United States). So we can conclude that the Nazi's use of the very same facts was evil because their demonstrable motivations, means, and dersired ends were evil or neutral. 

  Now we must speak of association and support. During the time period of the example people who repeated and spread the articles of journalists and activists about crime were seen as doing good by educating others while people who repeated the Nazi's articles about the same facts were seen as subversive and evil. Why? After all, even if the Nazis were enemies, they were right, weren't they? Members of the various National Socialist groups in the UK and USA weren't lying, were they? So why were they looked down on while others were winning civic awards for discussing the exact same facts?
  This is because of association and reputation. The journalists and such were doing good while the Nazis were doing evil. When you repeat the words of another in a direct manner you are associating your own reputation with their actions and words; you are basically giving your assent to not just the facts but also their motivations (if known), means and desired ends (if known). Whatever legitimacy, trust, or positive reputation you have is being imputed not just to the facts but also to the motivations (if known), means and desired ends (if known).
  Indeed, this is one of the primary goals of propaganda - to tell the truth in such a way that it defames the enemies of the propagandists while also adding to the credibility and positive reputation of the propagandists by having others repeat it. This is why propaganda posters have eye-catching art, why propaganda fliers include attractive, humorous drawings, why propaganda songs are as 'catchy' as possible, and why propaganda speeches come from the mouths of professional orators.
  And why propagandists engage in defamation as much as they do in slander and libel.
  Luckily, the vast majority of such information in the world is just information; an encyclopedia has no motivation other than to present data and no desired ends other than presenting data - repeating such information has no moral dimension other than what the person repeating it gives it. But we must still be careful of what we repeat and why.

Non-Territorial Nations - What is Edan Doing?!

  As explained with admirable efficiency by geographer Matt Rosenberg; 

     "While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference. A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country. A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State."

  This is a bit more precise than common usage, actually. While we tend to use 'nation-state' as a shorthand this can be incorrect. Take Canada - there are at least two distinct Nations in Canada (one with a Protestant English culture and another with a Catholic French culture) so Canada is a State with multiple Nations within it. Great Britain is very similar - although Great Britain is obviously a state we all know who and what a Scotsman is, correct? Scotland, which has had no territorial control of its own for quite some time (and is thus not a State) is certainly a Nation. So obviously nations can exist without control of the territory they are in. But can a nation exist without any defined territory?

  The Romani certainly think so. They announced a claim of being a Non-Territorial nation over a decade ago, a claim not just accepted by a number of academics, diplomats, and leaders but seen as a potential solution to a range of ethnic and minority issues. It can even be argued, as Elkins, Fischer, and a number of others have, that the Westphalian conceptualization of 'legitimate' States being strictly territorial has made ethnic and minority strife worse since land is a fixed asset - if you wish any sort of autonomy within the Westphalian model you must control and defend territory; all territory is already controlled and the closest to the oppressed group is most likely controlled by that group's oppressors; therefore the pressure towards violence is greatly increased. By rejecting the demand that 'legitimate' States control territory before they can engage in political, diplomatic, etc. activity you can reduce or even eliminate these pressures.

  In his works the scholar Hassner argues that the Westphalian paradigm of the nation-state is obsolete because it cannot account for the tremendous impact of everything from transnational corporations to NGOs to Violent Non-State Actors such as Al-Qaeda. He also points to the ethnic strife of Africa as distinct Nations resort to large-scale violence to control territory rather than seeking non-territorial autonomy. 

  So Non-Territorial Nations are an existing fact, long predating modern concepts of nation-states; Non-Territorial Nations as well as Non-State Actors, NGO's, Transnational Corporations, etc. are all recognized as a major factor in world events; so Edan's status as a (so far) non-territorial sovereign nation is neither shocking nor even very remarkable. Considering that the most notable, recognizable Non-Territorial Nation is the Catholic Church (does anyone really believe Vatican City is truly in compliance with the various ideas of Westphalian territorial control?) and that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is another key example of a Non-Territorial Nation with various forms of diplomatic recognition Edan's status as a Catholic Non-Territorial Nation is likewise unremarkable. Between the Roma, the Church, the SMOM, and dozens of other groups the idea of a sovereign non-territorial Catholic group is just not that shocking - except for a few things.

  Which we will get to.

  But why start with a non-territorial monarchy? Why not start Edan as an NGO, or a lobbying firm, or a credit union, or a charity? After all, the king is very clear that Edan needs all those things. Why not pick up the 'low-hanging fruit' and start as an incorporated not-for-profit charity and work your way up from there?

  There are many very good, very worthy NGO's in the world already. There are very good Catholic credit unions, charities, and lobbying firms. But there are two things you aren't going to find that readily.

  This goes back to the goals of Edan; our goals are not to build a better bank, nor to be an efficient charity; Edan was not founded to lobby the US for more aid to Mali nor to provide emergency relief after earthquakes. While all of those activities are a legitimate and even noble way to spend your energy, they are not what Edan is for.

  Edan exists to be truly just for both its own citizens and as an example to others of what a just nation is.

  One of the things that does distinguish Edan from the Church and from the SMOM is that it is new. Edan is not an anomaly from history, as some argue about the SMOM. It is not a unique situation as some argue about the Church. Edan is living proof that the desire of people to be free, to gather together, and to determine their own destiny can be met; it demonstrates that the Westphalian model and the violence it spawns are both failed artifacts of the Enlightenment; it shows the fatal flaws of Democracy and how to remove them; it exposes the false sichotomy in current economic thought with clear alternatives.

  Edan is also not a religious power but rather a secular power. The Church and the SMOM are often dismissed as being 'religious' as if this reduced their diplomatic or cultural relevance. Edan is a Nation, pure and simple, and cannot be dismissed similarly.

  And Edan is not based upon ethnic or racial criteria. One is born a Romani or, perhaps, marries into a Romani family; people who are not born Navajo cannot become Navajo. Edan is not organized like this; while it has its own culture and identity, these are not based upon genetic heritage, making Edan universal, not racial.

  We are, yes, building a better country both for ourselves and for others to see that it can be done.