I'll concede your point on the idealism, now that I think about it, most people don't have in depth moral discussions in everyday conversation. I guess I just didn't notice because I do.
However, on the elections in the land, I'm afraid I still disagree (sorry). The farmer's livelihoods would certainly be affected by the charter, but its only the raising of beasts for slaughter which is under threat at that stage. Meat makes up a fraction of people's diets. Many farmer's livelihoods would be damaged, and quite a few might have them destroyed, but certainly not the majority of the population. Using horses and bullocks for farming, cows for milking etc, would still be allowed (and a large number of people also live in the cities), thus the majority of people would not be at risk of loosing their main source of income. Their complaint would be towards a change in their diet, which would be far less contentious.
Of greater concern to the people would be the prospect of the reintroduction of the old regime. During the days of the council, they might have been accused of sedition or of being misfits so that they would be burned or sent to prison whilst the council, hearders or relatives took their land. The rebels have given these people more security than they have ever had before and their biggest fear would be of losing it. If I was in that position, I would be making trust, fairness and general good governance my number one priority, because I would be terrified of losing the freedoms I'd gained.
Traditionally, the people who most often try for leadership, are power hungry. The others are ones who feel passionately about an issue. Darthnor has such a character, but in Darthnor their livelihoods have already been destroyed. Someone might put themselves forward to oppose the beast charter, but they would also have to take on all the other responsibilities which is unlikely to be attractive to a farmer, especially when it means leaving their land behind for a year and still suffering a blow to their livelihood.
Also...I have a real world example of people voting for a leader whose policy was generally attractive despite a single extreme, publicly announced policy.....but I'm not sure that I should mention it....it was a very extreme policy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-05-20 10:19 am (UTC)However, on the elections in the land, I'm afraid I still disagree (sorry). The farmer's livelihoods would certainly be affected by the charter, but its only the raising of beasts for slaughter which is under threat at that stage. Meat makes up a fraction of people's diets. Many farmer's livelihoods would be damaged, and quite a few might have them destroyed, but certainly not the majority of the population. Using horses and bullocks for farming, cows for milking etc, would still be allowed (and a large number of people also live in the cities), thus the majority of people would not be at risk of loosing their main source of income. Their complaint would be towards a change in their diet, which would be far less contentious.
Of greater concern to the people would be the prospect of the reintroduction of the old regime. During the days of the council, they might have been accused of sedition or of being misfits so that they would be burned or sent to prison whilst the council, hearders or relatives took their land. The rebels have given these people more security than they have ever had before and their biggest fear would be of losing it. If I was in that position, I would be making trust, fairness and general good governance my number one priority, because I would be terrified of losing the freedoms I'd gained.
Traditionally, the people who most often try for leadership, are power hungry. The others are ones who feel passionately about an issue. Darthnor has such a character, but in Darthnor their livelihoods have already been destroyed. Someone might put themselves forward to oppose the beast charter, but they would also have to take on all the other responsibilities which is unlikely to be attractive to a farmer, especially when it means leaving their land behind for a year and still suffering a blow to their livelihood.
Also...I have a real world example of people voting for a leader whose policy was generally attractive despite a single extreme, publicly announced policy.....but I'm not sure that I should mention it....it was a very extreme policy.