Dear Irfidel,
there seem to be some sort of misunderstanding indeed, and there mayx well be some sort of misunderstanding on my side, as I feel like a fish out of water debating in a dialect not my own. Yet there are a few things I would like to point out to you, to clear up as I think the saying is.
You say: "Do not mix up the stateless with the Rangers, please." But I do, and I do deliberately, for that is one of the aspects of that treaty, Irfidel. For example, the treaty was signed "on behalf of Tenants" (which, as there is no other definition of that term mentioned in the treaty, I suspect are the stateless) by Orphie Dradius, Head of Atys Rangers. In the treaty itself it says, "The Emissary stateless and his deputy are elected by an assembly stateless and appointment confirmed by the leader of Atys Rangers." So I guess that every representative, while elected by the stateless homins, becomes a representative only by confirmation through the Atys Rangers. This also implies that if the Atys Rangers do not see that elected candidate fit for the position, they can decline confirmation and another representative has to be found. By all means, the fact that the stateless, according to that treaty, are represented by an elected and Ranger confirmed homin opposes in a way your belief that every stateless speaks for himself - and I am, of course, not referring to conscience as the highest instance, which is a philosophical term not the least addressed in the treaty praised above.
One remark I made, and which you felt most uncomfortable with, is my line ""the stateless will not rise to help a nation which is attacked by a madman on the loose, a war lord, or a colonialist" - which, of course, you suss out and in doing so loose the context, as well as the deeper meaning. I will give you another example*: Do you remember the tense situation between the Fyros and the Matis during the time of Dexton's illness, when the Fyros historian entered Matia unannounced and unguided and was arrested by the Border Guards? Do you remember that we were at the brink of War, and that Lykos already prepared soldiers to invade the Verdant Heights? If not the Chamber of Nobles, and our sorely missed Karan Yrkanis had been able to pour oil on troubled waters, if they had stayed passive, the fundamentalists in Fyros, and the hot-headed heir, who had both already added fuel to the flames, would have gone to war against us. Now, would you, would Daomei, would Rangers or stateless have fought on our side? The tready above commits every homin to help every nation to fight Kitins, invading Marauders, and Goo, and to perform first aid in the course of natural desasters. But it commits no-one to aid a nation in the course of an aggressive invasion from another nation. The line "Homins must act to prevent conflicts between nations", which is placed in the treaty, means all - and nothing at all.
Finally, I think this is neither the right time, nor the right place to discuss the philosophical concept of "true freedom". I would like to point out, though, that the Marauders, to my knowledge, claim that they live in true freedom, free from resposibilities, from laws, from scruples, but indeed reporting to their own conscience - following a moral pattern, a moral principle totally alien to you and me. This is, though, a debate we should pursue elsewhere.
Sincerely,
*[This referring to Leanon]
there seem to be some sort of misunderstanding indeed, and there mayx well be some sort of misunderstanding on my side, as I feel like a fish out of water debating in a dialect not my own. Yet there are a few things I would like to point out to you, to clear up as I think the saying is.
You say: "Do not mix up the stateless with the Rangers, please." But I do, and I do deliberately, for that is one of the aspects of that treaty, Irfidel. For example, the treaty was signed "on behalf of Tenants" (which, as there is no other definition of that term mentioned in the treaty, I suspect are the stateless) by Orphie Dradius, Head of Atys Rangers. In the treaty itself it says, "The Emissary stateless and his deputy are elected by an assembly stateless and appointment confirmed by the leader of Atys Rangers." So I guess that every representative, while elected by the stateless homins, becomes a representative only by confirmation through the Atys Rangers. This also implies that if the Atys Rangers do not see that elected candidate fit for the position, they can decline confirmation and another representative has to be found. By all means, the fact that the stateless, according to that treaty, are represented by an elected and Ranger confirmed homin opposes in a way your belief that every stateless speaks for himself - and I am, of course, not referring to conscience as the highest instance, which is a philosophical term not the least addressed in the treaty praised above.
One remark I made, and which you felt most uncomfortable with, is my line ""the stateless will not rise to help a nation which is attacked by a madman on the loose, a war lord, or a colonialist" - which, of course, you suss out and in doing so loose the context, as well as the deeper meaning. I will give you another example*: Do you remember the tense situation between the Fyros and the Matis during the time of Dexton's illness, when the Fyros historian entered Matia unannounced and unguided and was arrested by the Border Guards? Do you remember that we were at the brink of War, and that Lykos already prepared soldiers to invade the Verdant Heights? If not the Chamber of Nobles, and our sorely missed Karan Yrkanis had been able to pour oil on troubled waters, if they had stayed passive, the fundamentalists in Fyros, and the hot-headed heir, who had both already added fuel to the flames, would have gone to war against us. Now, would you, would Daomei, would Rangers or stateless have fought on our side? The tready above commits every homin to help every nation to fight Kitins, invading Marauders, and Goo, and to perform first aid in the course of natural desasters. But it commits no-one to aid a nation in the course of an aggressive invasion from another nation. The line "Homins must act to prevent conflicts between nations", which is placed in the treaty, means all - and nothing at all.
Finally, I think this is neither the right time, nor the right place to discuss the philosophical concept of "true freedom". I would like to point out, though, that the Marauders, to my knowledge, claim that they live in true freedom, free from resposibilities, from laws, from scruples, but indeed reporting to their own conscience - following a moral pattern, a moral principle totally alien to you and me. This is, though, a debate we should pursue elsewhere.
Sincerely,
*[This referring to Leanon]
---
Salazar CaradiniFilira Matia
Royal Historian
Member of the Royal Academy of Yrkanis
First Seraph of the Order of the Argo Navis