New Lunar Republic? Solar Empire?

[NovaArkwing]

I stand with Luna because the fact that she got banished was stupid, considering the first time the mane 6 saw Night Mare Moon, they destroyed her leaving luna in her place. SO WHY THE BUCK DIDN'T CELESTIA DO THAT?

...Really?...This has already been discussed refer to the previous pages about it.

[MidnightBlackhorn]

@Templar

Confederacy? Are you kidding me?

Look, I don't know if you meant rebellion here or what, but clearly you have no idea what a confederacy is. A confederacy is not a fancy word for rebellion or whatever the hay you were going for a confederacy is a form of government in which the regional governments have more power than that of the national government.

If you are going to talk down to someone else, learn what you are talking about first.

...Really?...This has already been discussed refer to the previous pages about it.

I did read the earlier posts, and not once did some clearly make an argument against this point.

[TemplarFrost]

Confederacy? Are you kidding me?

If you are going to talk down to someone else, learn what you are talking about first.

Okay, first of all, there are two factors that makes up a government. Power structure, and Power source. I admit, I might have been just a bit off in calling the NLR a Confederate power structure. But it really depends on how you see the NLR republic themselves.

By definition...

[colour=#000000]A [/colour]confederation[colour=#000000] is a group of [/colour]countries[colour=#000000] that, by [/colour]treaty[colour=#000000], have given some of their powers to a central government. They do this in order to coordinate their actions in a number of areas. This is like a [/colour]federation[colour=#000000], but without the association being a new country.[/colour]

I view the situation like this. Princess Luna rallied different cities and regions in Equestria, to oppose that of Celestia. (Considering states in the Northeast, because Canterlot is in more of the Southwest region). If Luna fleed to rally the Northeastern states of Equestria under a new banner, and cities in Equestria have their own basic form of government, then that would technically make the NLR a Confederacy.

I really do refer this theory to board canon, Stalliongrad, Germaney, and Itaily, are all confirmed regions in Equestrian board canon, but they have their own unique separate government, and military. (Stalliongrad especially). If Princess Luna was to unite at least two of them under one name, then it would become a Confederacy.

Take the American Confederacy for instance. A group of people is dissatisfied with the current Federal Government, so they unite separate states with their own unique Government, and they make their own nation. This goes the same for the 13 colonies, as that was too a confederacy, until the 13 colonies evolved into what is usually the next step from a Confederacy, a Federation.

Furthermore, a confederacy is usually temporary, and are formed for a particular motive, or goal. That would also refer to the New Lunar Republic.

EDIT* Also, The NLR vs ESE conflict is not a rebellion/revolution, or no longer is. Due to the fact that the aggressor, the New Lunar Republic is clearly a separate government of their own. (Confederal Republic) Making it a Civil War.

[DarkAI]

Out of the three major conflicts in Equestria, not one of them was an act of proper war.

• [colour=#282828]Chrysalis's minions were just a hive-mind populace, and are incapable of waging proper war[/colour]
  

[colour=#282828]​[/colour]

While I agree with you in regards to that The Changeling attack was the closest thing to War it technically was an Act of war it Was a Declared Attack On Equestria, in reguards to Chrysalis's minions What Better soldiers than ones that will blindly follow your instructions its really not the soldier's place to wage war but the Rulers place the soldiers just fight the battles

Now I just wanted to say this a house divided against itself cannot stand. Celestia And Luna are Co-Rulers of Equestria And they have been that way For many years before Luna became nightmare moon and had to be banished. once luna was back She offered her her place back as Ruler the night And everything Was back to the way it always was Now Why should we Debate who should ascend and who should be Cast out its petty politics and it keeps our Eyes Focused on the less important matters in fact I wouldn't be surprised is this kind of Ideology Brings Discord Back again

[MidnightBlackhorn]

Okay, first of all, there are two factors that makes up a government. Power structure, and Power source. I admit, I might have been just a bit off in calling the NLR a Confederate power structure. But it really depends on how you see the NLR republic themselves.

By definition...

[colour=#000000]A [/colour]confederation[colour=#000000] is a group of [/colour]countries[colour=#000000] that, by [/colour]treaty[colour=#000000], have given some of their powers to a central government. They do this in order to coordinate their actions in a number of areas. This is like a [/colour]federation[colour=#000000], but without the association being a new country.[/colour]

I view the situation like this. Princess Luna rallied different cities and regions in Equestria, to oppose that of Celestia. (Considering states in the Northeast, because Canterlot is in more of the Southwest region). If Luna fleed to rally the Northeastern states of Equestria under a new banner, and cities in Equestria have their own basic form of government, then that would technically make the NLR a Confederacy.

I really do refer this theory to board canon, Stalliongrad, Germaney, and Itaily, are all confirmed regions in Equestrian board canon, but they have their own unique separate government, and military. (Stalliongrad especially). If Princess Luna was to unite at least two of them under one name, then it would become a Confederacy.

Take the American Confederacy for instance. A group of people is dissatisfied with the current Federal Government, so they unite separate states with their own unique Government, and they make their own nation. This goes the same for the 13 colonies, as that was too a confederacy, until the 13 colonies evolved into what is usually the next step from a Confederacy, a Federation.

Furthermore, a confederacy is usually temporary, and are formed for a particular motive, or goal. That would also refer to the New Lunar Republic.

EDIT* Also, The NLR vs ESE conflict is not a rebellion/revolution, or no longer is. Due to the fact that the aggressor, the New Lunar Republic is clearly a separate government of their own. (Confederal Republic) Making it a Civil War.

A Confederation and a Confederacy are 2 different things -_-

[TemplarFrost]

A Confederation and a Confederacy are 2 different things -_-

No, not really bro.

No matter what you may call it, the root of both terms is "Confederal". With the words "Con", meaning together, and "Federate" meaning allied.

[MidnightBlackhorn]

A CONFEDERACY IS ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT! As in the Articles of Confederation. You know, America's first form of government as a free nation? The articles (pay close attention) stated that all STATE governments had more power than the FEDERAL government. Unless you are telling me the states were their own nations, which they weren't because they still had that Federal government there, Confederacy and Confederation are two different things

[TemplarFrost]

A CONFEDERACY IS ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT! As in the Articles of Confederation. You know, America's first form of government as a free nation? The articles (pay close attention) stated that all STATE governments had more power than the FEDERAL government. Unless you are telling me the states were their own nations, which they weren't because they still had that Federal government there, Confederacy and Confederation are two different things

Well, the United States of America really didn't invent the idea of a confederacy. Nor were they the first to do one. So comparing the early 13 colonies to define a Confederation or a Confederacy is incorrect.

Anyways, a Confederation and a Confederacy are one and the same. For instance, the Confederate states of America, were considered to be a Confederacy as well. In fact, a ton of Confederations in history were also referred to as a Confederacy. Such as...

• Sikh Confederacy
  
• Martha Confederacy
  
• Gaya Confederacy
  
• Powhatan Confederacy
  
• Old Swiss Confederacy
  
• Western Confederacy
  

[MidnightBlackhorn]

Well, the United States of America really didn't invent the idea of a confederacy. Nor were they the first to do one. So comparing the early 13 colonies to define a Confederation or a Confederacy is incorrect.

Anyways, a Confederation and a Confederacy are one and the same. For instance, the Confederate states of America, were considered to be a Confederacy as well. In fact, a ton of Confederations in history were also referred to as a Confederacy. Such as...

• Sikh Confederacy
  
• Martha Confederacy
  
• Gaya Confederacy
  
• Powhatan Confederacy
  
• Old Swiss Confederacy
  
• Western Confederacy
  

First off, when they became the Confederate States, they wern't Colonies anymore. So calling it the "Early 13 Colonies" is incorrect. Second, I bolded a contradiction here. You use them as an example of a Confederacy, but after saying doing so is incorrect. What?

Thirdly, you just proved my point, so thank you.

[TemplarFrost]

First off, when they became the Confederate States, they wern't Colonies anymore. So calling it the "Early 13 Colonies" is incorrect. Second, I bolded a contradiction here. You use them as an example of a Confederacy, but after saying doing so is incorrect. What?

Thirdly, you just proved my point, so thank you.

Okay, first of all, the early Confederate 13 Colonies, and the Confederate states of America are two totally different things, and I refer to them that way. Just look.

Well, the United States of America really didn't invent the idea of a confederacy. Nor were they the first to do one. So comparing the early 13 colonies to define a Confederation or a Confederacy is incorrect.

And pause. That was where I was talking about the early Confederation of the 13 Colonies of 1781. Below, I talk about the Confederate states of America, of 1861. These were two different topics.

Anyways, a Confederation and a Confederacy are one and the same. For instance, the Confederate states of America, were considered to be a Confederacy as well.

Pause again. I was saying how The Confederate States of America were largely known as a Confederacy, and a Confederation. I apologize if I made this unclear. I was trying to prove that there is really no difference between the two.

In fact, a ton of Confederations in history were also referred to as a Confederacy. Such as...

• Sikh Confederacy
  
• Martha Confederacy
  
• Gaya Confederacy
  
• Powhatan Confederacy
  
• Old Swiss Confederacy
  
• Western Confederacy
  

Furthermore, I did not prove your point, I was simply listing various Confederations from history, that was referred to as a Confederacy. The very point that you are trying to disprove, that they are not one and the same. Which they are. Let me explain it to you.

A Confederation is a group of separate, self governing states that are bound under one treaty. The only thing that separates this from a Federation, or a Hegenomy, is the fact that Confederations are not recognized as a separate country. And what I am trying to tell you, is that a Confederacy is basically a different way of saying a Confederation.

Like I said before, a Confederacy is the same thing as a Confederation. All of the world's Confederacy's were referred to as Confederations, and all of the world's Confederations are referred to as a Confederacy. Wikipedia, under it's "Confederation" page, has a number of Confederations from history. And some of them, in fact, are also called a Confederacy.

Not to mention Wikipedia's disambiguation page.

And since you insist that a Confederation and a Confederacy are two different things, why don't you tell me the separate definitions for both?

[MidnightBlackhorn]

You pretty much already covered that. A Confederacy is a system of government in which all states/territories have more power than the national government (in your words they run themselves) HOWEVER there isstill a federal government there. It's, for all intents and purposes, powerless, but it exists, which is what makes a Confederacy different from a Confederation: a Confederation is essentially the union of SEPERATE NATIONS (think the UN). Each nation has a totally seperate government from the others. They are just closely allied with each other.

[TemplarFrost]

You pretty much already covered that. A Confederacy is a system of government in which all states/territories have more power than the national government (in your words they run themselves) HOWEVER there isstill a federal government there. It's, for all intents and purposes, powerless, but it exists, which is what makes a Confederacy different from a Confederation: a Confederation is essentially the union of SEPERATE NATIONS (think the UN). Each nation has a totally seperate government from the others. They are just closely allied with each other.

Okay then. If you are so sure of this, why don't you give an example of both?

[MidnightBlackhorn]

Okay then. If you are so sure of this, why don't you give an example of both?

I already GAVE an example of a Confederacy, but, fine.

Confederation- The UN

Confederacy- The United States' first form of government as a free nation.

[DarkAI]

Hay guys Just going to say Here the word Confederacy is used to describe the south in the time of the civil war the Confederacy was a Confederation so frost is correct in saying there the same thing

[TemplarFrost]

I already GAVE an example of a Confederacy, but, fine.

Confederation- The UN

Confederacy- The United States' first form of government as a free nation.

First of all, the UN may be a technically a Confederation, but it's a not very strict one. It's more like a worldwide ceasefire/peacekeeping act.

And also, the United State's first form of Government was a Confederation. How do I know this? The document signed was called the Articles of Confederation. Not the Articles of Confederacy, Confederation. In fact, there was a ton of nations from history that were called Confederacies, but have the same exact government type and structure as a Confederation. Making the term "Confederacy" a simple Etymological branch, of the root word "Confederal". Such as...

Maratha Confederacy. Had several nation-states under it's one ruler, Madhavaro Peshwa. Even though it is widely known as a Confederacy, the structure type is that of what you define as an Confederation. Therefore a nation that is considered a Confederacy, with the definition of a proper Confederation, means that there is no difference between the two. Another, the Old Swiss Confederacy, had small states under one ruler. Making that "Confederacy" a "Confederation".

Confederacies and Confederations are exactly the same. A Confederal government.

[MidnightBlackhorn]

First of all, the UN may be a technically a Confederation, but it's a not very strict one. It's more like a worldwide ceasefire/peacekeeping act.

And also, the United State's first form of Government was a Confederation. How do I know this? The document signed was called the Articles of Confederation. Not the Articles of Confederacy, Confederation. In fact, there was a ton of nations from history that were called Confederacies, but have the same exact government type and structure as a Confederation. Making the term "Confederacy" a simple Etymological branch, of the root word "Confederal". Such as...

Maratha Confederacy. Had several nation-states under it's one ruler, Madhavaro Peshwa. Even though it is widely known as a Confederacy, the structure type is that of what you define as an Confederation. Therefore a nation that is considered a Confederacy, with the definition of a proper Confederation, means that there is no difference between the two. Another, the Old Swiss Confederacy, had small states under one ruler. Making that "Confederacy" a "Confederation".

Confederacies and Confederations are exactly the same. A Confederal government.

........................

I have finally met my intellectual match. I admit defeat. I do however fully support Luna, as zealotus (?) as it sounds, but I respect your opinion.

Long life to you friend

[TimeStop12]

Ah how the chaos reigns.

In spite of all this, if the split did actually occur, this would make do for another faction. Chaos lead by discord. Not saying anything to contradict anything said in this debate, but i would choose discord if he was freed from the chaos that ensues but if not i would go for the NLR. I rather not say my reasons as to why but from the fact presented for both sides i gravitate towards NLR

[allthingsgerman]

the solar empire

Long live the mareland and stallionland

WE ARE MARCHING FORTH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-d42Nq_tNI&feature=plcp

[allthingsgerman]

Ah how the chaos reigns.

In spite of all this, if the split did actually occur, this would make do for another faction. Chaos lead by discord. Not saying anything to contradict anything said in this debate, but i would choose discord if he was freed from the chaos that ensues but if not i would go for the NLR. I rather not say my reasons as to why but from the fact presented for both sides i gravitate towards NLR

your petty faction shall be crushed and added to the greater Mareland and Stallionland

LONG LIVE THE PRINCESS

LONG LIVE THE SOVIET EQUSTRTIA

LONG LIVE GERMANE

[allthingsgerman]

If you like the solar empire tell me why you love the solar empire. I love the solar empire because I love the communist countries because they love the way they control the money I know that the Solar Empire will win.

[TemplarFrost]

If you like the solar empire tell me why you love the solar empire. I love the solar empire because I love the communist countries because they love the way they control the money I know that the Solar Empire will win.

Well yeah, but Communism never works for the people.

[SteelEagle]

Which option seems superior:

1- Option A- Has reigned for many centuries, bringing peace and prosperity to her land and treats her subjects well. Has raised both the sun and moon and in the past wielded some of the elements to defeat Discord and all of the elements against Nightmare Moon.

2- Option B- Princess who let jealousy enrage her to the point of becoming the incarnate of night eternal, threatened the very existence of the kingdom, had to be banished to the moon for one thousand years.

The debate ends there. Celestia is the clearly superior choice; Luna has no real supporting argument besides, "Well, she is the better looking Princess!".

The implication in the series, what with the Elements of Harmony and Nightmare Moon/the events surrounding them considered to be total myths, is that Equestria has not faced a disaster in some time. The return of Nightmare Moon means the EoH must be used; their use probably cascades and the cycle of EoH use against the major threats of the land continues.

There is no need to change a government that the Ponies of Equestria seem to support whole-heartedly. New Lunar Republic is pointless. Constitutional Monarchy adds an unneeded bureaucratic edge to the nation. Why? Celestia has done fine on her own as a ruler. I have yet to hear, after reading this topic, a convincing argument that any changes are needed. .

[MidnightBlackhorn]

Which option seems superior:

1- Option A- Has reigned for many centuries, bringing peace and prosperity to her land and treats her subjects well. Has raised both the sun and moon and in the past wielded some of the elements to defeat Discord and all of the elements against Nightmare Moon.

2- Option B- Princess who let jealousy enrage her to the point of becoming the incarnate of night eternal, threatened the very existence of the kingdom, had to be banished to the moon for one thousand years.

The debate ends there. Celestia is the clearly superior choice; Luna has no real supporting argument besides, "Well, she is the better looking Princess!".

The implication in the series, what with the Elements of Harmony and Nightmare Moon/the events surrounding them considered to be total myths, is that Equestria has not faced a disaster in some time. The return of Nightmare Moon means the EoH must be used; their use probably cascades and the cycle of EoH use against the major threats of the land continues.

There is no need to change a government that the Ponies of Equestria seem to support whole-heartedly. New Lunar Republic is pointless. Constitutional Monarchy adds an unneeded bureaucratic edge to the nation. Why? Celestia has done fine on her own as a ruler. I have yet to hear, after reading this topic, a convincing argument that any changes are needed. .

False. As was stated either in this topic or a follow up one I made, Luna still controlled some of the elements, which is why Celestia had to banish her instead of destroying Nightmare Moon like Twilight and the rest of the Mane 6 did. I choose Luna over Celestia because (I'm going to get into an arguement about this I'm sure of it) I think she's a much more realistic character. I love her personallity, because it reminds me of me (or my mother, either way), mainly because of her sarcastic wit and charm. Celestia is just too good, too innocent in my opinion. While I'm not saying that Celestia is a bad ruler (Templar beat that out of me, metephorically of course), I think she and the rest of Equestria should let her try. What's the worst that could happen? Luna's not evil, so she wouldn't do anything to harm equestria. I realize the ideal is that they rule together, but the way I see it, when's the last time anypony looked up to Luna with an issue or problem? I'm betting all Luna wants is a chance to prove to her sister (and Equestria) she CAN do it, given the chance. So yes, i'm for the New Lunar Republic, but I don't dislike the Solar empire per say, just think Celestia needs to explore her options, should something happen to her. I know, I'm overanalyzing a kids show and whatnot, but that's what makes this topic fun.

Also, no change is needed, but eventually Celestia will need a replacement, if for no other reason than she's sick of being ruler. Again I say, what if something happened to her? Better to let Luna have a chance now, than to just throw her into it when Celestia is gone, right?

And the last point I shall make is the whole "Nightmare Moon" thing wasn't Luna's fault. Unless you are telling me Luna created a personification of evil inside her on purpose, that was just Human....er pony error. Luna was young. Blaming her for Nightmare Moon isn't fair to her.

Good day sir

[SteelEagle]

False. As was stated either in this topic or a follow up one I made, Luna still controlled some of the elements, which is why Celestia had to banish her instead of destroying Nightmare Moon like Twilight and the rest of the Mane 6 did. I choose Luna over Celestia because (I'm going to get into an arguement about this I'm sure of it) I think she's a much more realistic character. I love her personallity, because it reminds me of me (or my mother, either way), mainly because of her sarcastic wit and charm. Celestia is just too good, too innocent in my opinion. While I'm not saying that Celestia is a bad ruler (Templar beat that out of me, metephorically of course), I think she and the rest of Equestria should let her try. What's the worst that could happen? Luna's not evil, so she wouldn't do anything to harm equestria. I realize the ideal is that they rule together, but the way I see it, when's the last time anypony looked up to Luna with an issue or problem? I'm betting all Luna wants is a chance to prove to her sister (and Equestria) she CAN do it, given the chance. So yes, i'm for the New Lunar Republic, but I don't dislike the Solar empire per say, just think Celestia needs to explore her options, should something happen to her. I know, I'm overanalyzing a kids show and whatnot, but that's what makes this topic fun.

Also, no change is needed, but eventually Celestia will need a replacement, if for no other reason than she's sick of being ruler. Again I say, what if something happened to her? Better to let Luna have a chance now, than to just throw her into it when Celestia is gone, right?

And the last point I shall make is the whole "Nightmare Moon" thing wasn't Luna's fault. Unless you are telling me Luna created a personification of evil inside her on purpose, that was just Human....er pony error. Luna was young. Blaming her for Nightmare Moon isn't fair to her.

Good day sir

Conjuncture that goes against show canon, your points are utterly invalid.

In the end, Luna fell prey to a 'human' error- that could have doomed the land. Not seen the price of ice cream rise or inconvenience ponies for a few hours, but something that at the very best would have completely altered the very fabric of Equestria in a negative why and more liukely would have ended it. The fact you don't see this as a sign of weakness in a position of high stress and intense leadership shows blatant disregard for history and the safety of Equestria!

Siding with Luna because you like her character/find her more realistic/can relate is very much like voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because you could relate to him/likes his personally more. It was a huge reason that a large many voted for him both times, and it was a poor reason to do so. Side with who is a better leader, not who you'd want to crack a cold one with/stare at plotwise.

Let Luna rule to see how it works- why? No reason to.

"Because Celestia is getting sick of ruling!"- No evidence of this.

"She should explore her options!"- It's called grooming, not saying, "hai lololol you rule for a week and stuff i'mma just watch". No working, non-coup monarchy in history decided to just have a second in the line rule in place of the current ruler when there was nothing wrong with the current ruler, there was zero push for the second in line, and everything is dandy in the land.

Luna Fanatics have yet to come up with even a semi-competent argument in favour of Luna taking Celestia's position, or an equivalent in a new government style.

In order to do so, you have to overcome:

1- Nightmare Moon incidents. No matter how you try and shake it, what happened here is far worse than anything you could try to pin on Celestia.

2- Her inexperience with current affairs- which can be handled safely via grooming.

3- Her attitude, which based on Nightmare Night, is easy to set off.

4- The lack of any In-Universe push for it.

5- The lack of any In-Universe anti-Celestial push.

6- The fact that Celestia is beloved.

The problem with Luna Fanatics is that they can't overcome even one of these problems. Like any good conspiracy theorists, they block out parts of reality that they can't fight against and substitute realities they approve of, no matter how off-base they are.

[starswirlthebearded]

Steel, just to note... Nightmare moon was the result of darkness in Luna's heart, which the Elements of Harmony apparently destroyed. Luna confirmed this in Luna Eclipsed as I recall. Given that she is now totally pure hearted (at least apparently), I don't see how another incident like that would be possible.

Her attitude, which you saw in Luna Eclipsed was based off of memories of how things were 1000 years ago. She has room for character development. And honestly, how would you feel if a celebration was made IN FEAR of you? If the roles would had been switched, Celestia would have likely reacted the same way or at least in a similar way. Celestia's advantage is that she had the 1000 years to flow with the customs and understand the traditions, and grow with the times. Something, which she cannot be faulted for. She didn't understand the appeal of Nightmare Night, which is why by the end of the episode, after she understood, her demeanor changed completely. It is unfair to affix a previous character flaw that was worked out in episode to future affairs. She is beginning to understand how this new world works. This is personal conjecture, but I have a feeling that Celestia SENT Luna to Ponyville, knowing that Twilight would seek to help her understand the new world which she was recently thrown into. Imagine what would have happened if she had stayed in Canterlot for that celebration, with Celestia away and nopony to back Luna up...? Probably would have been a disaster. (or any other town, Ponyville had the advantage of having the Mane6 there who knew first hand that Luna had been purified by the EoH).

Now... on to the main thing... This whole debate is an exercise in ridiculousness. Why? Because really it isn't about governmental changes, or reasons why one princess is better at ruling than the other. It was originally (and in my opinion still is) a popularity contest. This is why Luna is winning. Is there a reason to usurp power from Celestia? Of course not! Celestia in all honesty has shown nothing other than being a fair and benevolent ruler, who has amazing foresight. The ONLY mistake she made was with the Changeling attack. Discord she was simply out classed, and since she was no longer the wielder along with her sister of the EoH, she couldn't have done anything other than wait for the Mane6 to make it to Canterlot, which allowed Discord the time to create a plan and learn everything he needed. So honestly, other than not being able to tell that your own relative has changed DRASTICALLY (seriously, how was Twilight the ONLY one who noticed, Celestia should have had the same suspicions as Twilight), she made no errors. Well I suppose also not looking into the suspicions of your prized pupil who hasn't made a wrong decision yet could also be a fault... but that is the choice of a ruler, to accept or deny the council of your subjects, and in that case she felt that Twilight was overreacting.

Now I had my fun playing devils advocate for Luna... But honestly... Does everyone think that the current system needs to be changed? Celestia ruling over the day, and Luna ruling over the night? The only benefit a constitutional monarchy would have is the inclusion of other races into the fold. However, you are correct that it would add in an additional level of bureaucracy that would be counterproductive. It is still not a bad idea, but it probably isn't the right idea either. This is a world that is, more or less, a utopia. Changing anything would be rather silly at this point.

As of right now, they are both ruling EQUALLY as it was originally intended.