Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    4
  • comments
    112
  • views
    9,748

Might Makes Right?

Ogaden

1,961 views

This phrase, "Might Makes Right" I have been seeing this a lot lately, used to criticize both coalitions. The Doom Squad coalition using the phrase to morally criticize the Disorder War, and the Polar coalition using the phrase to criticize the actions of alliances such as the Doombirds who attack people several times smaller than they are on a regular basis.

The problem is, might does make right. It is not a pithy phrase, we live in a brutal world where the law of the jungle reigns supreme. The only reason there is any peace or safety for anyone in this world is the various consequences that would be inflicted upon a nation that "went rogue" and attacked a protected nation.

Ultimately, the issue is sovereignty. Sovereignty is not an inherent value in an alliance, despite the fact that social norms would dictate that alliances should be viewed as sovereign entities. In my own view, an alliance is not sovereign unless it can defend itself (maybe not win, but defend itself) when attacked, has complete control over their own foreign policy and vigorously defends both when challenged. If an alliance fails to defend its members from attack or allows their foreign policy to be dictated by a third party, they cease to be sovereign as they have surrendered their sovereignty.

Too many alliances take their sovereignty for granted. They surrender their foreign policy to an ally or powerful blocmate, they do nothing when attacked by powerful rogues and cower in the corner. Take back your sovereignty, stop being so complacent and scared.



29 Comments


Recommended Comments



Quite the contrary, fear and boredom are both intergal motivators in the game's FA. :colbert:

Fear? Sure. Boredom? Not at all. Coupled are a terrible combination, tho.

Share this comment


Link to comment

CN after Westphalia, we live in a global world, where alliances are co-dependent on each other, this means that sometimes sovereignty is forsaken in order to protect themselves.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I don't think the question is whether might dictates who's on top and who gets rolled, but whether you think that being stronger gives you an actual justification for acting aggressively towards weaker parties. Might makes right glorifies the aggressor for their power and blames the victim for being weak. You could argue that it isn't even amoral per se, but actually a moral system based on the value of power. The line in CN between alliances that are amoral vs. those that actually endorse "might makes right" gets pretty hazy sometimes.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I don't think the question is whether might dictates who's on top and who gets rolled, but whether you think that being stronger gives you an actual justification for acting aggressively towards weaker parties. Might makes right glorifies the aggressor for their power and blames the victim for being weak. You could argue that it isn't even amoral per se, but actually a moral system based on the value of power. The line in CN between alliances that are amoral vs. those that actually endorse "might makes right" gets pretty hazy sometimes.

I'm not making value judgments or saying might makes moral, but if you go against the current of what is the consensus, you might get props on the OWF from a few bystanders, but in terms of ingame action, you are treated like a mad dog to be put down.

I'm also not saying that you should avoid doing so, I've certainly seen my share of attempts of various alliances looking to put RIA down once and for all.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm not making value judgments or saying might makes moral, but if you go against the current of what is the consensus, you might get props on the OWF from a few bystanders, but in terms of ingame action, you are treated like a mad dog to be put down.

I'm also not saying that you should avoid doing so, I've certainly seen my share of attempts of various alliances looking to put RIA down once and for all.

True. After reading a bit more on the use of the phrase, I should've just said it comes down to whether you use it descriptively or prescriptively. It sounds like you're pointing out that we all endorse it in the descriptive sense (e.g.,, "that's just how it is around here"), which I totally agree with. But there are alliances out there that use it in the prescriptive sense, as if the strong should abuse the weak because that's nature, or that the strong are entitled to take from the weak because of their superiority. I think that's one of the few fault lines that runs through this game in terms of ruler/alliance values, although people are so wishy washy in how they portray that that most of the time you can barely differentiate one alliance from another.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Part of DBDC's ideological goal is to break down the power and sovereignty of alliance governments and thus establish their own control over membership by directly attacking those who disagree with them publicly. They view alliance governments as unnecessary middlemen between themselves and alliance membership.

Needless to say, it is a ridiculous scheme, but it has gained traction among chaotic elements who would love to exloit the ensuing vacuum of power whether out of ambition or for the lulz. At most alliances would be administrative regions rather than sovereign entities in this plan.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Part of DBDC's ideological goal is to break down the power and sovereignty of alliance governments and thus establish their own control over membership by directly attacking those who disagree with them publicly. They view alliance governments as unnecessary middlemen between themselves and alliance membership.

Needless to say, it is a ridiculous scheme, but it has gained traction among chaotic elements who would love to exloit the ensuing vacuum of power whether out of ambition or for the lulz. At most alliances would be administrative regions rather than sovereign entities in this plan.

Has it ever occurred to you that if this were to happen, that nations outside of the top 500 wouldn't have to listen or even worry about DBDC at all. In fact, DBDC can never controle the world alone, the only way they could is if they had help from other alliances.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Wow... this stuff never gets old. I love this highly selective critique of other people's behavior. Clearly the OP has little use for a mirror.

I believe I've been called out :v

I have a big mirror right next to me, my hair is fabulous

Share this comment


Link to comment

No no no you got it wrong. Might only makes right when I have it.. otherwise the other guy is a sinner who needs less power and to burn for having it. :P They're obviously pixel hugging greedy bastards who have stripped the world of its wealth and enhanced the gap between the rich and poor.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...