Eamon Valda

Well, for the return to scale versus freedom argument, I think the problem is that I haven't defined my 'free entry and exit'. What I mean is this: if one can create an alliance or disband an alliance, then there is free entry and exit. I did not consider the additional factors which make such an action profitable or not, though you are correct to bring this point up. I think I can elaborate on it in a future article =]. I believe that spheres of influence are similar to cartels except that cartels have formal rules and, usually, written agreements to ratify their existence. I made an error on the substitution statement. What I should said is alliances are not perfect substitutes. All alliances are, basically, substitutes to some degree because of their inherently basic premise (the defensive organisation). Moreover, why does one choose, for example, to join NPO instead of MK? I believe that when people make these choices, the fact that they see differences between different alliances suggests they are not perfect (or even strong) substitutes. Personally, I would agree that the best alliance condition would be one in which on's powers in the state of nature were least infringed upon (you said, for example, 'liberty') but still offered a unified protection. In this sense, I am suggesting a sort minarchism (minimalist-anarchism) but that is my personal preference, not theory =]. And yes, I realise that this political preference is much akin to NSO. Regarding your third question, not necessarily. Individuals are self-interested. Although they detest the risks of the state of nature, they are not opposed to it for others but, often times, merely for themselves. Whether an individual decides that the state of nature must be eliminated is up to them (I believe it rests of further moral considerations one develops). Furthermore, some individuals will always be in the state of nature (i.e.) sovereign rulers of alliances) since some individual or group must assume these sovereign powers in every alliances (ranging from a dictator to total anarchism). Additionally, people may actually find it profitable to exploit those in the state of nature - again, they are only self-interested. They may not be concerned with others beyond any basic considerations of survival. Edit: Looks like I used 'perfect substitute'. Still, good point.

The problem with the 'stagnation theory' of the NPO era was that they did not consider what pre-conditions caused it. It was the existence of a bi-polar world, with a key enemy, and the constant threat of war that kept alliances out of conflict due to fear. Either you were in the ruling hegemon or not; the hegemony used its means to wipe out enemies. Moreover, with a defined enemy, the anger and desire for solution to this situation was obviously aimed: destroy the NPO and its main allies. The new era is multi-polar. No major hegemon is clearly defined. Fear should be even higher because there is no clear distinction of any enemy nor safety due to this fact. Alliances will play safer political strategies when they believe their livelihoods are at higher risk. Differences do exist and the calm now is due to the temporary acceptance of a new paradigm. However, I believe that conflict is inevitable once the major power groups begin to conflict over major power variables. This situation can be, therefore, much more stagnant, dangerous, and violent than the quasi-security of the NPO era.

Firstly, any individual or organisation is inherently self-interested, to some extent. This is because they both survive and provide utility to their time on the planet by actions which are, simply put, in their interest to achieve. Moreover, not all actions nor people are rational. Additionally, there is no objective standard of rationality when faced with the fact that each individual possesses a unique mind and, thus, a history of prior experience, development, and, therefore, methods of analysis. Ideologically, as we develop ourselves from a beginning state of nature, where all of our actions must be used for survival, to a state of being which, for the most part, is free from such restrictions, our motives likewise become more diverse. The most basic nation on the planet, from its birth, I believe, would most likely be concerned simply with learning how to run its own affairs and ensuring its existence. Moreover, in this example, once we have gained knowledge, material, and more freedom, we realise our interests and potentials (or those of others) lay beyond this sphere. Alliances, too, can expand their own horizons and objectives. Though I belive the primary objective of an alliance is to be a defensive organisation, this operation is not mutually exclusive. The ways we interpret and interact with the reality around us causes us to determine certain views about our current status. Even though we can make irrational choices, I feel we only make them because we believe them, in our minds, to be rational (that is, to maximise our own utility) and, therefore, we will be rational. Furthermore, when we have this expanded mindset, we may hold our ethical issues now of importance: caring for social connexions; justice; virtue and vice; rights or responsibilites; consequences and utility; pragmatism. I believe it is these ethical considerations - how reality is versus how it could be - that determines the methods by which we deduce to maximise our utility beyond survival itself. Essentially, once we know we can survive in our environment, our next influence is changing the environment to suit our needs itself. So, mass movements and individuals, whilst being driven by self-interested motives, interpret what exists around them, deriving input data from subjective experiences, and discern new, post-survival conclusions on changing the nature of their surroundings itself to improve their own utility. Moreover, as they do so, they will bring in new ethical concerns (concerns which are also utile) and thus these factor into their decisions. Therefore, their actions are a mix of basic selfishness and 'enlightened self-interest', as you put it.

The problem before the end of the NPO era was that the game was mostly stagnant. Alliances were banded into two major groups: the central power structure, eminating from the treaty web associations with WUT/1V/Continuum et al, and those outside that group. The atmosphere of paranoia was strong; to hold on to their power, the reigning hegemony stamped out opposition and used its threat to get many on its side. The general discontent and identification of 'the enemy' was heavy amongst many players and the end objective, thus, was clear: rise up and defeat the NPO and its allies. What did the idealists and dreamers expect after the war? I don't know but it seems like some kind of paradise. We have progressed from a hyper-power world to a multi-power world. Since the enemies are not defined, everyone is suspect. Because of this uncertainty, the need for security is even higher than before. If the alliances of the world are divided and more worried about their own safety, they will tend to play out safer strategies. The result of these four facts is that the system is more stagnant and potentially unstable than it has been the last two years. For those craving war, I imagine it will come in time. For now, the major political actors are satisfied with the new paradigm and its implications. However, I have seen some discontent and I suspect that are certain factors and variables that are still at odds and alliances at contention, though it is not obvious. The multi-polar world could become a very dangerous place.

Sometimes, when I see that the entire world is full of peace, love, hippies, and oppressed minorities, I can sleep soundly at night knowing that Fark is working round the clock to destroy all of that.

I laughed, I cried; it was the best thing since Cats.

Get thee to a punnery!

I think it deserves consideration. Firstly, although there exists a limited availability of political/economic power resources based on ideological and social differences, not all conflicts are the result directly of this. For example, take two alliances A & B. Let's say they hold similar political ideologies and are of equal size. We can determine, at this point, it is unlikely that a conflict will arise due to ideological differences or due to practical gain (since the costs of this war would be severely detrimental). Moreover, introduce an entire history of events, trangressions, and former power structures and we bring a new face to the social attitudes of both alliances. Additionally, the uncertainty of events is definitely a major problem - even if A & B are the same and are on peaceful terms, if information distribution is uneven or unknown at all, it is likely A & B will take a safer strategy in terms of their relations. Furthermore, consider if an outside event, no fault of A & B, influences their political decisions, ideologies, abilities, or fundamental views of the world. In this way, an outside occurrence could easily alter (if not directly lead to) a conflict between alliances.

Introduction This treatise offers a basic philosophical analysis of the political state of the planet and explains: 1) the state of nature and its problems; 2) the alternatives to the state of nature; 3) what, how, and why alliances constitute; 4) the nature of individual relations; 5) the nature of inter-alliance relations. I. The State of Nature The state of nature exists when an individual actor is not part of or defend by a formal political structure. In the state of nature, any given actor has the natural tendency to preserve his survival by any means. Unrestricted politcally, the individual is free to do as he pleases. Moreover, by existing singularly, any other individual or group will also possess the power of coercion over him - the threat of the use of force. Therefore, the state of nature is dangerous and uncertain. II. Options for Dealing with the State of Nature Individuals are, for the most part, rational. The rational individual seeks to maximise their benefit against their cost - maximise their utility. The state of nature is, in most situations, irrational: the costs of potential and constant war, combined with the opportunity costs of not joining any group, are significantly high to encourage alternative solutions. The only individual solution is to enter peace mode. However, peace mode imposes harsh economic costs on to the actor. Therefore, peace mode will tend to be undesirable because, even though its accounting costs are low, its economic costs - the loss of growth, specifically - are high. The second alternative is a group solution; individuals congregate to form political structures and protect their interests from outside interference and for mutual benefit. This is what an alliance is. III. The Alliance: A Defensive Organisation Alliances may possess many different constitutions and formats. Even so, they are united by a basic principle: the primary function of an alliance is to act as a defensive organisation. An alliance provides a more optimal solution to the problem of the state of nature. By combining the political powers and ambitions of a group of individuals, an alliance can: 1) provide basic protection for its unified membership; 2) forward an avenue for economic growth and stability; 3) hold an instrument of influence and coercion over those who exist outside of the alliance. These factors are the reason why an alliance creates a higher utility alternative to the state of nature. IV. Formation of Alliances and the Nature of Individual Relations Individual relations are tightly bound. Within a certain degree of economic restriction, any individual actor can interact with another instantaneously. Additionally, even though the alliance can provide positive incentives for its co-actors, an individual need not rely on an alliance for an effective military or economic satisfaction (e.g.) one can still achieve optimal trades, aid, or create one's own defenses which could be equivalent to any individual in an alliance). The consequences of these two properties: 1) alliances may be formed or disbanded nearly instantly; 2) individuals may join or leave nearly instantly; 3) alliances face a heavy issue of both recruiting, indoctrinating, and maintaining membership. Alliances may, again, have different groups, associations, or specific historical reasons for their formation. However, an almost universal pattern in their creation consists in the joining of a small group of individuals that forms a constitution - a basic contract outlining the principles, policies, and operation of any given alliance. To join an alliance, one must always agree to the basic principles of this contract; failure to adhere or attempts to impair the contract result in punishment. Punishment must occur from breaking a contract because all agreements between individuals, when an agreement consists of a current exchange for something in the future (i.e.) the surrender of individual sovereignty for future protection and economic aid), depend on the risk of uncertainty. If no alliances upheld their contracts, and failed their membership, not only would no one join them, but no one would create an alliance at all! Thus, a contract also constitutes a written assurance that the alliance will carry through on its promises. V. Why Alliances Contain Different Stratums of Power and Specialisation It also naturally occurs that alliances tend to have different members holding various responsibilites and authorities within its framework. In terms of a written contract, the most influencial party will usually be the ones who formed it (i.e.) the 'old guard' of the New Pacific Order). As contracts age and new actors infuse themselves into the defensive organisation, power is less and less about their ability to change these contracts to their maximal utility but, rather, to enjoy the security and success within that power. Essentially, power can perpetuate itself; even though not all members might agree with a given contract, the benefit they derive from it can more than accomodate their grievances. Different levels of experience, skill, social links, personality, and active participation in an alliance's structure will influence how power becomes distributed, regardless of the system in place. Although alliances may tend to emulate one another in their function or form, there are essential components to any basic group: 1) the responsibility of executive administration; 2) the responsibility of policy creation and change; 3) the responsibility of relations with foreign individuals and groups, diplomatically and militarly. Executive administration forms the basic neural network of the alliance and is charged with the implementation and enforcement of any policy and sends signals to membership; policy creation and change forms the basic mind of an alliance since it acts to organise, coordinate, and determine the principles, goals, and attitudes of an alliance; foreign affairs is the body of the alliance because it interacts with outside entities - including defense. In these three essential operations, the defensive organisation will be apt to choose the best it has by its own systems of determination. Because these systems have different methods and each of these operations contains a large array of sub-functions, a hierarchical institution is generally used; each level contains different levels of authority and responsibility. Their existence and the need for effective candidate selection is the main reason, beyond the original contract, of different power stratums and member specialisation. VI. Inter-Alliance Relations: Monopolistic Competition and the Creation of Cartels The relationship between alliances is a form of monopolistic competition in that it satifies two necessary conditions: 1) there is free entry and exit of alliances within the system; 2) that, due to their inherent historical, economic, political, and social differences, no two alliances are perfect substitutes for each other. Monopolistic competition, in inter-alliance relational terms, means that we exist in a system where many alliances offer analogous (similar in function) but not homologous (similar by exact features) services. Alliances have an incentive to make their product dissimilar: the more substitutable two alliances are, the more likely a person would choose to join either interchangeably. In this way, an alliance can maximise its own manpower profit through differentiation. Moreover, differentiation is more than acceptable when individuals will hold different beliefs and will design their political systems to emulate them. The state of monopolistic competition is not too unlike the state of nature because alliances will tend to act as a united whole in operation and these 'wholes' are entirely free to any action, including war. Since alliances are, foremost, defensive organisations, we will again see these individual alliances act in ways to preserve their own survival. Alliances will tend to co-operate with one-another when they feel such action is mutually profitable; alliances will tend to antagonise when they feel co-operation is costly to their objectives. This can occur for many different reasons: alliances may hold different morals, values, and beliefs; alliances may be politically, diplomatically, or militarily at odds; an alliance may pre-emptively strike perceived threats. Regardless, the struggle for power is a generally a greedy, bloody, and merciless affair. These associations of alliances are cartels: attempts to combine influence to hold control over some variable. Though the size and purpose of these treaties may differ, cartels are, like individual actors, mostly rational. Cartels attempt to control geo-political variables by force, economic prowess, ideologies and antagonisms, political means, or social associations. Cartels, unlike alliances, do not always require a written contract to formalise their rules but most do. Struggles between cartels (blocs, defensive partners, friends, et al) always hinge on maintenance of their power position. The ultimate goal of any defensive organisation and, indeed, any cartel would almost always be to monopolise their position and thus maximise their ability to self-defense. Such a monopoly was held, for example, by New Pacific Order in the red sphere for quite some time; their sovereignty over this area removed some political rights of their non-consenting constituents but also took them out of the state of nature by restricting technological raiding and the formation of other red alliances - a monopoly on power. VII. Cheating, Disunity, and General Problems With Cartels Alliances join cartels seeking to maximise their own benefit. Often, benefit is not optimised by obeying the rules or policies of the cartel or some of its members. 'Cheating' occurs when one alliance breaks the rules or the cartel agreement (i.e.) PIAT, MDP, NAP, etc.) for their own benefit. Cheating is the most significant detriment to the existence of cartels: when no one believes that one will carry through with their promises, then there is no incentive to associate. Thus, it makes sense that cartel agreements are most often created by means of some initial bond, friendship, or mutual need that existed prior to the agreement because then the cost of such cheating will become higher. Additionally, the possibility of cheating stresses an essential characteristic of our politics: the need for unity in cartels. The danger of disunity outlines potential destruction and vulnerability. Again, the primarily defensive organisation will survive at all costs; disunity is a hinderance and risk factor in this objective. Furthermore, survival for an alliance is not merely physical. Indeed, recall that alliances constitute their own principles and ideologies - unique purposes of their own existence. To some degree, alliances will be apt to rather destroy themselves physically than surrender this purpose: for it is much better to be destroyed than to never truly live at all. This is the main reason why many consider it paramount to uphold the integrity of written agreements and defend friends. Is such a decision rational? Yes - if the preservation of the individual is a goal of each nation, then to preserve not only its own body is decisive but so too the beliefs it holds for the 'good life'. Therefore, cartels can be threatened not only from benefit deriving from physical risks but also from ideological and moral conflict. Disunity will tread the path of destruction within these agreements. The best method, in this sense, to prevent such an outcome is to pick friends wisely and on the terms of real associations or ideological similarties. Conclusion This treatise has ventured to determine the basic nature of politics on the planet. Firstly, individuals exist in a problematic state of nature where the risks are tantamount. Alliances are the most stable alternative of individual existence. The basic form of an alliance is as a defensive organisation. Nearly all alliances are formed from contracts but the power of the contract itself is reserved to its creators; power structures are formed when the alliance seeks to fill its three main functions and uses a system of determination to complete this task. Like individuals, alliances will tend to associate as a means to preserve their livelihood from external interference through cartels, groups which attempt to use their influence to control some variable factor. Cartels will struggle with one another, clashing when their objectives, principles, or positions are in danger. However, cartels can be weak associations because cartel members can 'cheat' by breaking their rules or the agreement. If the members of a cartel are disunified, it is likely that its proper function - defense - will be compromised.

Warning: the following thread now contains a fervent, OOC pointless debate. CODE RED, CODE RED!!! ABANDON THREAD. All hope is lost. Oh, but seriously, congrats.

Some people like being victims. Even more people like being the defenders of those supposed victims. For everyone else, life goes on.

Disregarding your most zealous overgeneralisations and massive assumptions, I will be far crueler than arguing the moral correctness of this issue and put it to you in an ultimatum: will you do anything? Yes, yes, we've all heard the 'so do something' argument. Most disdain it simply because it destroys the little side issues they like to build-up into a weak shield, crumbling when the time comes to act. Unfortunately, I have a much simpler view of Bob politics - things that matter compared to things that do not. Words alone mean nothing without action; action is empty with direction of the mind. It is all very nice and cute to have 'higher moral ideals'. Let's see them do something.

You make it sound like tech-raiding being harmful to unaligned nations matters. It doesn't.

GOONS: the never-ending and noble quest to liberate the world from the clutches of seriousness, morality, noobness, and, generally, various types of breakfast cereal. [bad pun] Nasty and dangerous cereal killers! [/bad pun] I like it.

OH NO! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! THE CHILDREN!

Dude, do you know HOW MANY TERA BYTES that picture takes up?!?!?! It distorts the space-time data flow! Now everyone is going to see it and end up turning into giant, killer bugs. [/end Haruhi reference] Good luck. Not that you guys need it with God on your side.

Ethics is the study of how we should go about ourselves as we act in our lives. There is, in my mind, an existence of an ethical system on Planet Bob and its basis hinges on pragmatism. For the means of politics, pragmatism is all about being practical - albeit not practical simply by acting in a realistic manner. Being pragmatic involves a continuing and complex series of interaction within a system known as dramatic rehearsal, where, through current and past action, people determine the results of an action in order to understand the measure of its right or wrong. As a society grows, hypothetically, they take these actions and draw conclusions on how nations should act within our world. For example, we generally consider the purposeless destruction of an alliance as wrong; we hold that nations should not be punished with EZI or, at least, without due evidence; we hold that some types of actions made by alliances (i.e.) treaty-breaking, repeated threats, violent behaviour) are wrong. I can in no way surmise the total list, but my point is that we concluded these things from their practical application. Rules are not set in stone though, and there is not an objective truth in ethics by this theory; as we act out and evaluate the present and past, we may change how we regard or tolerate these or different actions. In this way, our moral system is very flexible. An example of a changing moral, in my mind, is that of whether we should or should not use nuclear weapons in war. At one point, it was criminal and dangerous to use them but, now, it is much more acceptable. This, I believe, was mostly the result of two things: the increase of size of nations (thus the falling real power of nukes) and their use becoming more commonplace in battle (i.e.) VietFAN). In response to this post, therefore, what I, personally, expect of a political philosophy - especially on this subject, ethics - is not a focus in on current political conditions nor their critique alone but a broader understanding and detail of what exactly your branch: 1) exists or finds its evidence from conditions in the world; 2) separates right from wrong; 3) applies its conception of right or wrong to real action. After you do that, please go ahead and analyse any situation you wish. The problem with this post is that it lacked a substantive formulation (not to mention that it was seemingly unrelated to Francoism as I know it). Once more, and this time with substance.

I hope the let down didn't hurt too badly.

I see you've gotten my 'finger pointing' comment pretty pat down. I never suggested FCO love us nor am I aware of these incidents you have quoted. All I am saying is that instead of being rude, especially as an outsider to these alliances (so says your AA), you should be quiet and let the parties work out their own solution and not troll.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks, especially ones having nothing to do with the matter at contention. Even if the government knew nothing of these rogue attacks, the conduct demonstrated in this thread shows a poor level of respect for a problem that should be engaged and not become a game of pointing fingers at one another. Edit: After reading Chiftelos' comment, I hope whatever is the issue here can be put behind us so we can be on good terms.

An alliance or individual can only be held morally responsible for an injury or a wrong if: 1) the person caused or helped cause it; or failed to prevent it and should have; and 2) the person did so knowing what he or she was doing; and 3) the person did so of his own free will.

Got sugar and pigs.

Sup. Got pigs/sugar. Willing to change colour to make circle. Message in game, please.

I see redemption through action, for it would be the action of the imposition of a viceroy which would have caused this problem. Moreover, such actions' outcomes are not only enough for redemption; I believe one's intent is equally important as its outcome. For, even if one acts in such a manner, in the future, to prevent the occurrence of viceroys, if he openly support viceroys then we know that his actions don't truly represent an intent to simply not impose that condition on an alliance. Therefore, one should be redeemable through their own work and thought, when it sufficiently proves that they have changed their attitude on the subject that the judge in question sees unfit.

For those who seem to think this doctrine has no purpose or merely composes the essential rights any alliance has on CN, I would like to present the following arguments. There are no natural rights on Planet Bob. Rights are created, assigned, and defended by elements of the social apparatus in the places they exist. By rights, what most of you mean is natural law. What I am saying is that, in a condition of each alliance for itself in an unorganised world (that is, in 'nature'), alliances will tend to act out certain patterns of actions to maintain their self-interested existence - the principles out-lined, essentially, in the new Moldavi Doctrine. In nature, an alliance would defend it self, attack whom it chooses, and at in principle of what it considers just, not just borrow his MDP partner's brain and thus loan off his responsibility as a sovereign alliance to someone else. The point of the doctrine, in my mind, is to undermine the current moral standards of cybernations (you may say now, 'no !@#$, Valda'). Many have stated that there are no objective values in this world. This cannot be true: there are certain values which a majority of players hold which form the relationships that exist and have existed before. For example, leaders held that to act in a vice-like nature, exhibiting decadence through lack of courage and honesty (and thus committing immoral acts), was wrong - this was part of the case for destroying the NPO. There are other moral standards of the cyberverse, and I believe they are completely relevant to this doctrine. The standard is to gather-up in groups, pass on sovereignty (and thus responsibility of war and peace) to others, when beneficial, and not war on principles so much as who your latest MDP partner is. I would like to point out, to all the e-lawyers, that laws and treaties are not always morally correct simply because they are contracts between (hypothetically) consenting parties; when groups or persons commit heinous or immoral acts, people in this game have sat back in the past (I.e.) NPO versus GATO) simply because they did not follow their own moral beliefs, sacrificing them to survival. Though not wrong, I would argue, it certainly highlights how principle can be ignored in favour of safety of social norm. What I see in the Moldavi Doctrine is simply everything that NSO has promised and, for that, I salute them in their actions and wish them never to rely on the false advice of others nor their threats in determining what they wish to do. If all alliancess held up this standard, we would see a much more ideologically-driven and freer world.