Talk:Sovereign Press

Are we sure that the additions by jabowery are correct? For instance:

• A person who is not shielded is sovereign. A person is shielded by mutually revocable consent with a sovereign or by their mother (or mother's sovereign) until the age of procreation.

If that really is what is being proposed then that's fine. But it reads like parody to me. Can we source it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty nearly verbatim from their books. I don't have them handy and it's been years since I've seen them, but I do remember this. One problem about sourcing is there is very little published information on this group. See here, apparently written by a supporter. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK - I'm not sure that I understand it though, it reads like something from time-cube to me. But if it's what they say then it's cool.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to do some more tweaking. As now written it is pretty dense and incomprehensible. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand what some of it is going on about. In the above example - "shielded" from what?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea is there is no nation-state, and each "sovereign" is their own government. A "shielded" person is somebody who has some sort of contractual relationship with a "sovereign" acting as their agent for settling differences. Presumably this would include children, elderly and disabled. Sovereigns are expected to duel, shielded persons are not. You are right about this being time-cubey kind of stuff. It would also be a disaster if it were ever actually tried. Secret Squirrel (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There would be a lot fewer wars if the rulers were expected to engage in duels. Anna Livia (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)