- Location
- U.S.A.
[X] Absolutism
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.
[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.
"Economic Karma"?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.
Thanks for clearing that up.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.
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.
So we give them lip-service about ownership, but essentially hijack actual ownership in return for small rent? I love it.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.
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.
Wait, what? What's the chance of that happening over the giving it back to the previous irresponsible noble owners thing?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.