Hmm I don’t remember saying anything bad but I also can’t remember what the redacted word was, haha. In other news, your government sounds scarily like ours.

1) That’s nice, dear. Now go play.

2) You’re absolutely right. Let me go use my lyre playing talent to go advance irrigation technology.

3) If I get into a fight with a dragon, I’m gonna lose. I can at least try to fight it; I might even get lucky and escape. But you can’t win against aging. Ever.

4) Well would you look at that.

5) I’d be devastated. If he ever did, I’d rather never find out.

6) No, because being a prick is subjective. The concept of evil is supposed to be cosmically defined.

7) I don’t recall getting “a very nice ask” in quite some time.

8) For the most part, it works fine for us. Massive societies work best when governed on individual district levels. The only reason there’s any issue is because changing laws regarding non-pony marriage falls under immigration/integration, which in a nation with open borders can only be regulated at the national level. And a law regarding name changing is a matter of security, which is also a national concern. We don’t have things like facial recognition software, so names are important for identification.

Changing either law, with proper process, wouldn’t cause any problems. It’s just that the kind of laws they are require national legislation. And that means the ponies with the money/influence can toss their weight around to sway others away from change that may have unforeseen side-effects.