Reparations or no reparations?
Entry posted by Ferrous
386 views
Before this entry takes off, let me clarify - this is a moral argument, not a strategic one. Obviously, regardless of who is the aggressor in a war, he who is the victor also has the most power in deciding how much reparations should be. There is not much to be said if we go strictly by the "might makes right" argument, so instead I will present an alternative view about what could be considered "right."
First, there are two assumptions that I must make:
1 - Power is relative. If we have two alliances, one that has a score of 10 and one that has a score of 5, the first alliance is twice as strong as the second. If after a war ensues and the second alliance has a score of 2.5 and the first alliance has a score of 7.5, then the first alliance is three times as strong. Relatively speaking, the first alliance is now better off when compared to the second alliance, since it now has more relative power than it previously had, despite losing absolute numbers.
2 - War is central to CN. As Xiphosis said recently in his blog, peace time is only the preparation for the next war. As discussed in both my previous blog entry and alluded to in Vladimir's most recent entry, warfare in Cybernations is typically a struggle to control power.
If we simply take a look at material wealth, it would seem that it is in the best interest of the victor to get as many reparations out of the defeated as possible. However, this is a fallacy because it ignores the other form of wealth in the Cyberverse, which may be termed, "political wealth." If we define political wealth as the political standing an alliance has with other alliances, then it is fair to say that should an alliance do something "negative" in the eyes of other alliances, they can lose their political wealth. As such, it would be unwise to demand reparations that are too high.
Recently, there was an article published in the World Affairs forum by Azaghul (link) about proportional reparations. Basically, the article argues that reparations should be proportional to the economy of the defeated, assuming that reparations should be demanded at all. It is a very reasonable piece, and I highly recommend it for anyone who wishes to demand reparations. However, both of these arguments (proportionality and demanding as much as the victor wants) leaves out the question, "should reparations be demanded at all?"
The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of our wealth and individual material power is generated by ourselves. Tech trades and trading can help boost that, but ultimately our nation strength comes from the tech we buy (on the market or by ourselves) and the infrastructure that we possess. It is also the power that backs up a lot of our political wealth. Therefore, taking away material wealth can undermine a nation, or an alliance's ability to maintain their political wealth. However, if a victor wanted to primarily affect an alliance's political wealth, the terms of the treaty would include clauses about canceling treaties, and an inability to sign new treaties for a set period of time.
Presumably, the goal of the Karma coalition was to topple the NPO from a position of power, and according to some, make it pay for deeds done in the past. Toppling the NPO from a position of power has already been accomplished, to a large extent. The relative material power of the NPO, compared with that of the Karma coalition, is now opposite of what it was before the war. Furthermore, as previously noted, this loss in material power already undermines their political wealth. On this argument alone, the Karma coalition has no need to press for reparations, as their goal is achieved and their own relative power has increased. Demanding reparations only widens this gap, and could be construed as theft. Karma already won this battle to take the NPO down. If the goal was also to cement their place in the "Amazing Sanction Race," then they should demand reparations (to a proportional degree), but that was not the express intent of Karma.
The second justification for reparations was to punish the NPO for crimes it had committed in the past. The allegations include asking for too many reparations at times, curbstomping past allies for trivial matters, and putting a stranglehold on Planet Bob politics. For the first two allegations, I think it is right for the affected parties to demand reparations. They could be holding a grudge, but they are essentially asking for goods that were taken from them from past conflicts by the NPO. Counting up the individuals would of course be an impossible task, but the names of whole alliances should suffice. It is only up to the individuals themselves to determine whether or not they deserve to get reparations, since no other oversight could possibly exist. Third parties who were not directly affected by the NPO's past actions have no legitimate right to ask for reparations for past crimes, as they were not the victims. By asking for reparations, they are simply profiteering from the war, which is no better than what the NPO did.
The final problem is the broad allegation that the NPO had strangled Planet Bob politics, and should pay for that. I have yet to hear what a reasonable amount of reparations should be for such a thing, or how that could be construed as a crime. The broad goal of the game (individual preferences aside) is to gain political and material power (individual strategies aside), and the NPO had succeeded at doing it quite well. People who are now demanding huge reparations from the NPO for having being successful at the game is simply poor sportsmanship. I would hope better from the CN community.
1 Comment
Recommended Comments