Jimbo wrote:
Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
I wonder how the community would react if an Arbitrator said, I want to take a 6 month break but not give up my seat entirely; and would Jimbo appoint a replacement for that 6 month period.
That sounds entirely reasonable and possible to me. One of the reasons we retain our "constitutional monarchy" is to make possible just that sort of reasonable flexibility.
It sounds reasonable to me too, but I don't see how having a "constitutional monarchy" is necessary in order to make this sort of thing possible. Many corporations (which are not constitutional monarchies) have policies that enable employees to take leaves of absence. The U.S. government (which is also not a constitutional monarchy) also has policies that allow judges, members of Congress, or even the president to take a break from their duties (for example, under circumstances of illness).
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------
It sounds reasonable to me too, but I don't see how having a "constitutional monarchy" is necessary in order to make this sort of thing possible. Many corporations (which are not constitutional monarchies) have policies that enable employees to take leaves of absence. The U.S. government (which is also not a constitutional monarchy) also has policies that allow judges, members of Congress, or even the president to take a break from their duties (for example, under circumstances of illness).
They have explicit policies to enable them to do that. What Jimbo is saying is that we can do it without an explicit policy. We could make a policy, but it's not really worth it.
On 18/10/2007, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
It sounds reasonable to me too, but I don't see how having a "constitutional monarchy" is necessary in order to make this sort of thing possible. Many corporations (which are not constitutional monarchies) have policies that enable employees to take leaves of absence.
What's being referred to here isn't that only constitutional monarchies can do such things, but that our constitutional-monarchy style governance method - "we do things the way they've always been done, except when we need to make up a new approach" - allows us to make such regulations up as we go along, when needed, without worrying about existing rules and whether or not we've thought about it before :-)
(Bagehot would have loved us, I have to say.)