Byron Orpheus

I was not correcting your spelling, I was adding brackets to show how I changed your original quote to make it grammatically correct in the context in which I was using it. No offense was intended.

Yes, because clearly I invented autocracy, so it is just the idea that I am asserting over the will of the "tens of thousands". I also hate to tell you this, MO, but as it turns out "coup, disbandment, or stagna[tion]" are the possible fates for any alliance; in other words, all alliances end in such a way. You are still here? It is remarkable how much I must reiterate that I do not care what you say about my alliance; my alliance neither validates nor invalidates any of my beliefs, nor am I so emotionally connected to it that you can hurt me with the same tired old GGA barbs that you must have only recently discovered (or at least it would appear so, given your need to toss them around as if they were brand new). I felt that some progress had been made, since you finally gave up on representing yourself as a modern-day Oscar Wilde (at least realizing that you have neither the wit nor the fame to have anyone seriously give your words any attention, much less find them to be inspired), but it seems that you are unfortunately still under the impression that you are Admin's gift to Bob. Ultimately, I believe, it is my failure; my failure as your educator, trying so hard to teach you how utterly insignificant and tedious you truly are, to convince you of the truth. I apologize and promise to redouble my efforts, in the hopes that there is a way to save you from the mindless abyss of your own ego. First lesson: there is nothing you can do to me; you cannot taunt me enough to make me go away, you cannot pick apart my posts with aged insults and "witty" banter until I disappear; I do not care about infrastructure, economy, or anything numerical insofar as my own nation is concerned, so you'll have little luck driving me away through violence; you are, unfortunately enough for you, going to have accept the fact that I find you in no way, shape, or form intimidating, and that any time I address you it is more for my own personal amusement, the sort of amusement one gets from breaking old bottles, than to respond to any of your anorexic arguments. @Kzoppistant: It seems that you, like many of the others, are operating under the assumption that autocracy is synonymous with voiceless oppression; in addition, it is difficult for my government to be highly idealized, considering that I never laid out any plan for a government structure. My argument was and is that autocracy is more efficient than democracy, not that it is perfect or without problems. Insofar as my argument is concerned, as you said I have been somewhat overwhelmed by unfavorable response, and it would take much too much time to address everyone's points (though I have tried when possible); I will admit that I have been lacking in concrete data, mostly because I was focusing on the ideas themselves, and pointing out that the reasons democracy (or republics, for the nit-pickers) are utilized are irrelevant here on Planet Bob.

You are right that I should have been more specific in my definition, but I am quite pleased by the definition you provided; that is, a government that is primarily run by an electorate (whether that is the highly inefficient "communist" method of running an alliance or the more efficient representative rule) rather than through the actions of a few or one leader. Autocracy, too, can be a system of government that includes checks and balances; an alliance charter, for instance, with unamendable powers given to the autocrat can serve as a way of preventing the development of an oppressive dictatorship. Insofar as a leader such as Prodigal Chieftan is concerned, I will once again offer that, when an alliance is subject to the whims of a less-than-desirable leader, it is the duty of the members to act accordingly and make adjustments (the coup of PC and the subsequent implementation of a triumvirate comes to mind); the purpose of my post was not to suggest that autocracy is without problems, but rather that these problems can be fairly easily and swiftly addressed if there are sufficient grievances to warrant action, whereas an elected government's flaws can be much more readily buried than those of a non-elected government, simply because there will always be elements of a democracy working to undermine the overall success of the alliance that are not quite extreme enough to bring themselves to the attention of the people at large. Furthermore, the idea that democracies can benefit from the combined input of the members operates under the assumption that the common membership has a firm grasp of what is best for the alliance, rather than what is popular amongst the membership or what appeals to them through the rhetoric of the elected officials. While it is true that elections allow for a certain amount of accountability for the elected to their populace, in the end the elected official's number one priority is to remain in office, which ends up being a self-serving role rather than a role that (I agree, at least in theory) obstensibly is to serve the public. My "antagonistic" comments, then, are not so much concerned with the theory of democracy (which I believe I have established as basically losing any of the reasons for its existence when applied to Planet Bob), but rather its implementation.

Actually, it is quite better. As Bilrow himself pointed out, our nations are not usually forced into obedience, because as sovereign nations most alliances allow members to more or less freely come and go. Thus, the oppressed national leader is a product of his own willingness to be submissive, as opposed to the leader that submits to policies that her or she finds to be satisfactory. It is fallacious to assume that an alliance autocracy would be an oppressive dictatorship for that reason alone. If your definition of "hardship" is changing alliance affiliation, then I am quite envious of your life.

A good leader is his or her alliance personified.

But I do not. Your morality is not my morality, and the supposition that morality on Planet Bob is uniform across the nations is baseless. There.

Again (and as usual) your logic fails, because you assume that the shortcomings of my own alliance imply that my logic is unsound; clearly government type alone does not make or break an alliance, and your repeated attempts to twist my words only serve to expose yourself as the silly has-been that you are; a shrieking, albeit ineffective, harpy of inanities that flies around shrilly and impotently, waiting only for someone with enough sympathy to put it down. I listed off the GATO leaders because LordRune seemed deeply offended that I had not included a spreadsheet of democractic failings, and I felt it would be a pleasant consolation prize to provide him with examples with which he would be familiar, rather than spouting off a chain of names I could very well be making up.

I will address several concerns at once. Firstly, no one said that democracy is not a form of government; obviously democracy is capable of some level of competency, otherwise it would not exist (and would not be so passionately, albeit wrongly, defended by you all); what I said was that democracy was to accept mediocrity. Furthermore, to address the concerns of the autocratic ruler, someone has already pointed out that on this planet alliance members are for the most part able to leave their alliances readily if conditions become too unsuitable. Thus, it is nearly impossible for there to be a malevolent dictator that had any control over his or her members, for the members would either coup or leave. It is logical, then, to assume that members remaining in an autocratic government are pleased with that government type, and while they are there it seems as if it would be in their best interest to keep the alliance's best interest in mind. That is, if they are not actually seeking power rather than seeking the welfare of their fellow alliance members. Which brings me to my next point. It is a fallacy to assume that government members on Planet Bob are not after power. While I would concede the fact that Planet Bob is a small pond, it is a pond nevertheless, and there will always be people who take any measure of authority to the extreme, regardless of how much to which said authority amounts. And whereas Lusitan introduces several good points on the side of democracy, he also ignores that democracy brings with it its own faults as well (and everyone should realize that my argument was never that autocracy is perfect, just simply less imperfect than democracy). While autocracies may breed stagnation (which is only if the leader is foolish enough to deprive the members of any activity, while the wise leader would find a way to occupy his members' minds), all of the potential energy of a democracy is exhausted into internal strife. Lord Rune wanted examples, so let's go through the list of GATO members who have hurt the alliance more than they helped it (just off the top of my head and in no particular order): Grenval, Chris_Kaos, Vincent_Xander, BarbulaM1, Gonzoczar, Depraved, Yoda, Letum-- these are all people that, through whatever personal agenda they had, ultimately hurt your alliance. That is just as an outsider. I am sure that you as an insider could probably name unknowns or rising prima donnas whom of the rest of us are unaware.

I suppose that I am simply confused because your definition of a puppet state differs from its globally accepted denotation.

A puppet state would imply that there was an outside force pulling the strings; an sovereign state, however you may disagree with its methods, can hardly be said to be a puppet. Perhaps your alliance's own sovereignty should be brought into question, given your readiness to jump to conclusions on the subject.

And I will agree to disagree, but I do thank you for retaining the ability (lost in some of these others) to present your points clearly and with intellectual honesty.

To achieve success, the individual must be honest with him or herself and realize that no one is able to act as he or she pleases without consequence. The difference between an autocracy and a democracy is that the individual members in the former realize that they are stronger together than separately (much like a bundle of sticks), rather than the latter, in which the members move separately and thus are easily snapped.

The suppression of your own memberships less than admirable traits, not their free will. The same principle operates in other alliances, just on a less efficient scale. If you violate the social contract of a democracy, you are punished. The social contract of an autocracy just has more clearly defined goals and less red tape.

That is correct. I am pleased you are able to follow along. That one person would have unlimited authority, although it seems like it would be unnecessary to use such authority unless there were an issue that required it.

So far we are on the same page. Only because they operate under the assumption (mistakenly) that what they want and what is best are the same thing. You see it as subservience, yet I never said that free will would be eliminated. In the ideal government, the autocracy, obviously the members would remain in complete control of their nations and their decisions so long as their actions were not a detriment to the alliance as a whole.

I gave you a specific example. Your entire alliance's history.

I suppose I could link you to GATO's history wiki; other than your own alliance, one need only spend time on the OWF (as I have for some time now), reading without commenting and storing the information away for later analysis.

I find the only difference that exists is the presence of ego, which unfortunately is an unavoidable evil that must be dealt with as it arises. Only selfishness, rooted in the belief that the individual is somehow "special" or "different", causes strife in an alliance committed to the betterment of the whole.

In my repeated attempts to improve the lives of others, rather than the incessant bickering of some people.

Yes, it would be a far more efficient system, in much the same way that flying unicorns are a better system of transport than automobiles. Unfortunately, both of those things are rooted securely in the realm of fantasy, rather than reality.

I would request that you refrain from commenting if you are going to resort to being silly. Clearly unrestrained anarchy is as unwieldy as a democracy (since democracies are little more than anarchy), since there is no means by which to enforce what is best for the common good. I care because I am, at my core, one who seeks to improve the plight of those who thus far have been unable to help themselves. I come bearing gifts of thought to feed the starving masses.

To the replies citing examples such as TOP, you have unfortunately mistaken success for completion of the potentiality of success. TOP is successful, yes, but that does not inherently mean that TOP is as efficient as TOP has potential to be. TOP merely being numerically stronger (and tactically as well, depending on who does the opining) does not prove that democracy is better than autocracy; it only proves that TOP is superior to other alliances, but not that an autocratic TOP would not be superior to a democratic TOP.

I have friends in other alliances, and, as someone else pointed out, it does not require membership to speak upon. Furthermore, I am confused as to your reason for disliking my writing style. I am of the opinion that, since English has hundreds of thousands of words (over a million, actually), someone should be using them. If you are unable to follow, I would suggest buying more schools in your nation. @Bones Malone: Yes, it is possible to have a dictator that would run things into the ground, but, as Bilrow pointed out, we are free to leave an alliance (usually). The reason democracies are favored IRL is because people cannot choose where they live, for the most part. Here those restrictions do not apply. @Kaiser and avernite: It is fallacious to think that I am wrong simply because my personal alliance is not a continent-crushing behemoth. If anything, it would be more foolish to be in the number one alliance and talk about how wonderful it was than to be in a lower-ranked alliance and speak generally on the theory and mechanics that drive us. @President Kent: I understand what you are saying, but I feel that the entertainment could be derived from outside sources of conflict rather than from the internal. It is much more difficult for an alliance with a constant adversary to stagnate.

Bilrow is mistaken. [ooc] I know how a democracy works, I live in a democracy, there are reasons for democracy IRL. Here there are not.[/ooc]

Yes. See how a silly question gets answered?