Axiology of Nasphilitae:History of Legal and Political Philosophy

genericsequencealias · May 15, 2024, 6:41pm

“Records of the Assembly in Southern Haven”

– George Wroster (1744–1777)

Summary: Matthew Greene

Introduction:Authorship context

The “Records” contain both chronicle-historical sections, as well as Wresters’ authentic lamentations over the subject he has archived previously, separated by “comments” after each entry. George came from a family of workshop-Magnates, which provided for his representation in the Grand Council and subsequent Estate Assembly, as well as opportunity for pursuits in education and workforce experience. “Records” serve as: the primary source for Wresters’ own ideas, such as the conclusion of social contract thought experiment resulting in a “Lex mercatoriae” legal foundation and the ethical dilemma of who and how should limit contract law; secondary source for ideas which Wrester re-adapts, like the “Commercial revolution” or “social contract-as thought experiment”; and as a secondary source for historical events which occurred. As this makes “Records” very extensive, historical aspects will be summarised first, prior to summaries of ideas presented.

Introduction:Historical context

Written during the peak of domestic Enlightenment, which included an ideal type divide between the “Moderate” and the “Radical” Enlightenment. Wrester exhibits contemporary influences, most noticeably those of the Radical Enlightenment, in the form of cynical skepticism towards human natural intent and sovereignty. As a historical figure in the field of academics, he is co-credited for advocating in favour of Unniversity autonomy.
Social changes arising from Morganforts’ Ordinance, in the form of tenure-tied Nobility, created a period of transition from Allodial to the Socage system of tenure. Subsequent Enclosure and its’ urbanization consequences led to the period of “Buccaneer Wars”, the “Commercial Revolution” (transition from Putting-out system to the Proto-industrial system), and the creation of “Free Port Cities” which had primitive money exchange offices (Bourses), as well as Privateer Insurance Companies. These changes mutually influenced one another.
“The Assembly” refers to both the Grand Council, prior to 1747., as well as the Estate Assembly, after the enactment of “Act Establishing Dominions Assembly Estates”.

Historical:The Buccaneer Wars

Present-day Peer Houses trace their title prior to arrival on Nasphilitae, which is presumed to have been a land tenure granted upon knighting, a portion for which received this reward for prior participation in piracy. By the time Morganforts’ Ordinance had tied the nobility to their allode, which envisioned loss of land in case of forfeiture, the task of privateering was mostly delegated to their manors in lesser nobility. It is for this reason that inheritance of land by most lesser nobles would not be presumptive, among other. A distinguishing feature which Crown pirates (hereby “Privateers”) were accompanied with is Letters of Marquis from the (initially) royalty and (later) nobility. Contrast to them were the free pirates (hereby “Buccaneers”), which even Wrester, as an opponent of aristocracy; describes as having “No distinguishable difference than the rule-of-gold pirates in the Oceanic heartland (…) It is their choice to act in rejection of birth and country-men, thus they ought not to be bestowed with salvation.”
Others written records of “The Buccaneer Wars” confirm Wresters’ implicit notion. Morganforts’ Ordinance (and subsequent Enclosure) likely contributed to lesser nobles’ mutiny in favour of piracy. Given forfeiture sanctions in cases where nobility would leave their tenures; The Buccaneer Wars were a series of commerce conflicts between lesser nobles loyal to Nasphilitae and/or the Austral Empire (Privateers) and lesser nobles aligned with other free pirates (Buccaneers). They appear to have been a loosely connected series of conflicts and family rivalries, often mentioned between 1737 and 1766, before mentions become scarce, until they completely disappeared by 1771.
The Buccaneer Wars were a major, perhaps key, factor in the establishment of Free Port Cities. The Free Cities were exempt from most Noble and Imperial legislation, a per-requisite for the creation of Private Insurance Companies. The PICs gathered the new urban poor, whose growing number is also attributed to the Enclosures, providing the needed manpower advantage to the Privateers in return for profit. PIC commissions of ships were by in large funded by Joint Stock Ventures, which were secured by Bourse and Bank families of the growing Bourgh estate.
It’s for these reasons that The Buccaneer Wars are considered to have incepted the Military History of Nasphilitae in the form of Privateers and PICs. It should be noted that, until 1919., the term “Military” referred only to land-only troops. Given that free pirates (in particular Buccaneers) raided coastal towns usually by overland marches, Free Port Cities were structured in a manner more reminiscent of outposts than settlements, providing tactical defensive advantage to the Privateers and PICs.

Historical:Assembly of Grand Councils

Prior to the 1747. “Act Establishing Dominions Assembly Estates”, Grand Councils^{(Legislative council)} and the Citizens Assemblies^{(House of Assembly)} were often used interchangeably. Reason being is that Grand Councillors were delegates of Citizens Assemblies, the latter serving the function of local administrative or judicial channels. The Grand Council had four functions: petition, pacification through interest group representation, deliberation through Speaker of the Grand Council, and prosecution through the Court of Chancery. It consisted of lower nobles, bishops (until 1662), academics (from 1662), magnates of coin, militiamen, sailors, and magnates of trade; or their representatives. Unlike in other parts of the Empire, non-judicial bodies were limited in issuing contents of writs which extend beyond explicitly envisioned powers. As such, the Grand Council could issue the following writs: writ of scire facias (petition), writ of coram nobis (petition and pacification), writ of elegit (pacification),writ of fieri facias (pacification and deliberation), writ of attachment (deliberation), writ of exigent (deliberation), writ of capias (prosecution), writ of praeminure et mittimus (prosecution). The Speaker was a Privy Councillor nominated by the Peer-General, tasked with presiding over the Grand Councils and serving as a channel for communication between the Grand and Privy Councillors. Summaries of both the Grand and Privy Council meetings, and the still-used term for archives of executive and National Parliament seating, are called “Inscribes of Consultations”.
Wrester attributes as crucial to Konevenagels’ decision to enact the “Act Establishing Dominions Assembly Estates” to activities by Privy Councillor and Speaker-Ron Anthony, though the following speculations were never confirmed nor rejected. Supposedly, Ron Anthony convinced the Privy Council (and subsequent Nobility) into relinquishing its’ legislative and executive prerogatives. This conviction rested on the assertion that, due to the rise of autonomous institutions (such as attorneys, banks, and guardsmen), it would prove increasingly difficult for the Privy Council to maintain support among other interest groups. Therefore, Anthony supposedly suggested, as a feasible way of maintaining the position of sovereignty, relinquishing ones’ own potential for interference in favour of a passive approach would merit creating a new illusion of a state-embodied. If the following 250 years prestigious position of the Nobility are taken into account, this speculative events’ underlying elaboration is convincing.
Prior to Assembly Estates establishment, a series of reforms took place between 1741. and 1747. which relinquished the Grand-Peers’ prerogatives. Their contents were mostly that of executive-legislative writs, delegated largely to “The Peerage”, which included the Privy Council and other members of the High Nobility. A key prerogative delegated at this time was that of treasury procedure:whose targets were both “The Peerage” together with members of “the Grand Council”. Importantly, a remnant of writs which was kept only to the Grand-General was that of Ordinances.

Historical:Dominions Assembly Estates

The 1747. “Act Establishing Dominions Assembly Estates” was the first such legislation which came from the Grand Council and not the Privy Council. The original Act was modified four times (twice by the Grand Council and twice by the Privy Council). Grand-Peer General Konevenagel, acting as some sort of Consolidation Chamber, presented a final compromise on the Act in late 1747. to both Councils simultaneously; which both had to either accept fully or reject the enactment all-together. This activity is the first domestically known usage of both consolidation procedure in legislative enactment, as well as the first show-case of “Prisoners Dilemma” used in domestic politics.
The Act established “Dominions Five Assembly Estates” as a National Assembly, “Estates of the Realm” as a National Legislative Council, and the “Estates-General” as the Speaker. The Dominions Five Assembly Estates comprised of:

Estate of Nobility (members which were the lesser Nobles)
Estate of Spiritual (members which were the archbishops and dean academics)
Estates of Men-at-arms (members which were the Militia and the Privateers)
Estates of the Bourgh (members which were of the Bourse, Bank and PIC owners)
Estates of the Commoners (members which were merchants, PIC employees and tradesmen-craftsmen)
Members of the Estates would get elected in their proto-Localities (named “Boroughs”). However, each Estates’ electorate members had to have been employed in the respective field.
Further, “Estates of the Realm” were representatives of the Five Assembly Estates which comprised what was formerly the Privy Council. The composition of Estates of the Realm were three representatives of each Estate elected by the Estate which sat right-hand of that Estate. Instance, three representatives of the “Estate of Nobility” was elected by the “Estate of Spiritual”, while the “Estate of Nobility” representatives were elected by “Estates of the Commoners”.

The Speaker gained the title of the “Estates General”. Unlike in the past system, five candidates for the Speaker were nominated by the Estates of the Realm among members of the Dominions Five Assembly Estates. This list was sent to the General-Peer. The General-Peer would choose two of the five candidates for the Speaker, then pass the list back to the Dominions Five Assembly Estates for vote. The Speaker gained more prerogatives, which closely resemble that of current Head of Government.

Comments:“Primordial affairs” experiment (State of nature)

Wresters’ novelty is in introducing “state of nature” discussions as a hypothetical device in domestic theory. He attributes the idea as coming under outside-foreign influence. Manner in which it is introduced likely influenced developments of utopian fiction in Nasphilitae. “Records” insinuate the skeptical nature of Wrester and the Enlightenment in Nasphilitae by positing that such an event does not exist, and neither does its’ contract. The introducing follows the following:
“Presuppose an event in which all current humans were granted the imposed Primordial affair; taken from their ongoing surroundings into a Void, as to agree on rules which will govern one anothers’ interaction, in a reality which manifests from the Primordial beginning. Upon agreeing of the Primordial Codes contents, they are imposed into this Primordial beginning.”

Comments:“Primordial Code” four positions

As far as it’s known, this was a documented discourse among attendees on one of the Grand Councils in 1742-1749. Wrester notes four positions which are presented:

Divergence on the Code manifesting: One diverges from the rest in arguing that the Void would never cease, as an agreement on the Codes’ contents would never be concluded.
Divergence on the surroundings in Primordial beginning: One position assumed that resources are abundant in the Primordial affairs. Henceforth, the positions’ proponents assume that the Primordial Code isn’t pivotal, as attendees would quickly “re-develop” into the “previous-current affairs”.
Divergence on limits of human knowledge OR human nature: Last two positions negate the preceding one, but on different emphasis. One argues that the abundance or scarcity of resources is irrelevant, as humans would perceive them as scarce regardless. The other argues for scarcity because “our current affairs are scarce and it is the only reality that can or ought to be examined”.
Wrestler comments that he aligns with the third position, discarding the fourth to be recursive (?) This presumption would later be criticized. It’s concluded by him that “Greed is the primary motivator in all human action; Unbound and chronic in desire”.

Comments:Primordial Code of the “Insatiable human” (Limiting possibilities of desire and greed)

In this Void, humans aren’t opportune, according to Wrester. Because they are “more aware of consequences from anothers’ unbound desire than fulfilling their own”. This is succeeding by an explanation which should’ve been written first; “the first affect inn interaction is caution, guided by elaborating intricacies in the medium of conscience, mterialised as coded or uncoded norms”. Each human first desires to protect ones own: “vain dignity to oneself, convincingly, before other affects take precedence”.
This is “resolute of most norms prohibitive contents”, as it’s “resulting to Primordial Codes tonality-as-boundary”^{[spirit of the law]}. The Primordial Code further seeks not “what Fafyre references to be arbitration approaches” but to limit their necessary contingent events and precent their occurrences. In justifying this, the “Records” display that, because self-preservence is the first affect, it’s necessary that doubt in another’s competence or will^[intent] follows.
Lastly and seemingly strangely, Wrestler argues in favour of “what Fafyre calls pro-active approach in regulates, comprising mos of the Primordial Code.” In the closing remarks, Wrestler assumed that humans in he Void are ignorant of their title in the next reality, thus they will assume to be tradesmen (???) Which results in the Codes’ contents being concerned with “Lex mercatorie” contents.

Comments:Insatiable human and Lex mercatorie

These comments appear to be written in the latter years of 1760s to 1777., as the contents revolve around ending of The Buccaneer Wars. The last comments appear to be an ethical dilemma revolved around Contract Law. Namely, Wrestler limits any state interference in the area of Contract Law and Lex Mercatorie, as “ethics of man may not be ideal to Divinity, but relative to ethics of the State, they do possess ‘prudentia’.” This places him in a strange situation. Being a member of the Moderate Enlightenment, he holds himself to the standard in elaborating who is it and how and in what event, should interfere in Contract law where the other party is lying by omission to the other. Although this is never answered because he has died before completing the dilemma, Wrester is regarded as having laid groundwork for proto-liberal thought in private property. Namely, by rejecting the notions of “rights” all-together (with strong emphasis on criticizing inalienable, natural and human rights), he posits that “If a fundamental law or right must exist, it is the right to life.”

Comments:Limits of interference and the Contract Law hypothesis

Reasons for pivoting greed a the driving affect are also reasons for why humans enter and remain in “non-immediate organised human structures”. A “placeholder category” termed “bundled particulars” is the containment concept used for referring to the source of all possible reasons. Examples provided as: maximizing possibilities for creation-materialization, pro-active assurance against unpredictability and ambiguity, providing immediacies for deriving pleasure, compensation of compulsion into outward activities, extracting plausible determinants for goal achievement without the need for mundanes.
It’s argued that particulars are reliant on private paradigms and are accustomed to all of the mediums’ intricacies. As such, they’re over-saturated in number of instances. This abundance is limiting in personal interactions but becomes absolute as impossibility within personal-collective^{[public or state]} interaction.