[X] Humanism

Okay, leaving aside moral considerations, Absolutism is just not a good idea. Do you want popular revolutions? 'cause this is how you get popular revolutions.

So the real question is between Humanism & Stewardship. On the one hand, Stewardship seems reasonable - if people fuck something up, show them how to fix it (on their dime) rather than just letting them get off with no consequences. On the other hand, "the Ymaryn know best, outsiders will be shown the Correct Ways under our firm guiding hand, for their own good of course" is a dangerous road to walk, and we've seen how that sort of thinking can backfire firsthand. So, while I'm amenable to arguments to the contrary, my initial inclination is for Humanism.

It's a road that the Ymaryn have been practical sprinting on for millennia, they know how to do this.
 
Part of me wants to suggest a fourth option. Some sort of cross between stewerd and humanitarian. Give the property to someone who will make use of it better and isn't of means. Create a steady crop of new lower nobility and merchants from those without means but show promise. Cull the stupid and corrupt and replace them with new idealistic hopefuls.

I can't think of what to call it.
"Economic Karma"?
 
The other two are pretty much right, but the idea behind this one is that the bank can basically take control of your finances to garner your wages until you pay them back, avoiding the complete stripping of property at the cost of major social inconvenience. It allows for the development of natural rights (to some degree stronger than the humanist position) but is somewhat more profitable that just allowing defaults or handing it off to unrelated third parties, while also being paternalistic as fuck.
Thanks for clearing that up.

[X] Humanism

We should try to avoid going down the "we know better than those filthy barbarians" line of thought, since we know what it did for us last time.
 
Well, that went weird....

Absolutism sounds like a good path towards common ownership of the land, but also towards revolution.

We can't make money with humanism. So sadly, that means going with:

[X] Stewardship
 
Part of me wants to suggest a fourth option. Some sort of cross between stewerd and humanitarian. Give the property to someone who will make use of it better and isn't of means. Create a steady crop of new lower nobility and merchants from those without means but show promise. Cull the stupid and corrupt and replace them with new idealistic hopefuls.

I can't think of what to call it.

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a Stewardship variant, it'd be an Absolutism variant - under Stewardship, the lands still belong to their original owners, they're just being managed by the bank until the loan is paid back. If you're taking the lands away and then giving them to other people, you're still taking them away from their original owners (rather than giving them back freely or managing them), which is the core of the issue AFAICT.
 
The other two are pretty much right, but the idea behind this one is that the bank can basically take control of your finances to garner your wages until you pay them back, avoiding the complete stripping of property at the cost of major social inconvenience. It allows for the development of natural rights (to some degree stronger than the humanist position) but is somewhat more profitable that just allowing defaults or handing it off to unrelated third parties, while also being paternalistic as fuck.
So we give them lip-service about ownership, but essentially hijack actual ownership in return for small rent? I love it.
With this setup we the Ymaryn can steer Gylruv development for our own benefit in a completely legal manner without "stealing" everything. Let's make some money.

[X] Stewardship

EDIT: Not to mention if we do a good job the Gylruv commoners will look kindly to Ymaryn taking over.
 
Last edited:
Stealing land without technically stealing it. I'm liking stewardship more and more.

The people of those lands we steward will see superior Ymaryn leadership and will flock to us!
 
Last edited:
[X] Stewardship
From what it sounds like Stewardship actually sounds similar to certain banking practices used in medieval europe in order to get around the prohibition against lending money at interest where the money lender would have the right to all income from a piece of property provided as collateral until the dept was repaid.
 
[X] Stewardship

Patronizing? Yes.

But some may realize that they get a competent administrator for their financial woes without having to do any work, and still more or less keep the same daily life as they previously had.
 
I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a Stewardship variant, it'd be an Absolutism variant - under Stewardship, the lands still belong to their original owners, they're just being managed by the bank until the loan is paid back. If you're taking the lands away and then giving them to other people, you're still taking them away from their original owners (rather than giving them back freely or managing them), which is the core of the issue AFAICT.

Technically humanism can also result in the bank going "Nope, the original owner was an idiot, we're gonna give this land over to the peasants actually working it," so it can still involve land being stripped from the owners, but with a better PR spin to try to encourage business because the bank is "fair" and isn't necessarily seeking to screw its customers or conquer foreign territory via predatory loans.
 
Technically humanism can also result in the bank going "Nope, the original owner was an idiot, we're gonna give this land over to the peasants actually working it," so it can still involve land being stripped from the owners, but with a better PR spin to try to encourage business because the bank is "fair" and isn't necessarily seeking to screw its customers or conquer foreign territory via predatory loans.
Wait, what? What's the chance of that happening over the giving it back to the previous irresponsible noble owners thing?
 
This is amazing. We accidentally striped our lower nobility of their land.

Like, nations have self destructed after putting in massive amounts of time, effort and resources to try to do the same, and still failed to do it.

And yet our bank just 'accidentally' the lower nobility.

As already said, 10/10, would establish national bank again.
 
[X] Stewardship

You know the thing where in some countries nobility went from outright owning land to more or less just collecting income from it? Let's do that. Once we have enough nobles whose lands are essentially being managed by the crown, we can finally reverse the failed experiment that started when we first voted to Distribute Land.
 
Back
Top