Jump to content

Alonois

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    102

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Alonois

  1. Alonois
    In its most basic form morality is a measurement of how much an action propagates a better society. Morality is an entirely social construct that exists for the betterment of all members of society. Were society not to exist morality would be entirely valueless as there would be nothing to make better. At the same time morality is one path to creating a society. Such a situation is interesting but unimportant as it ultimately does not exist. We exist within a society.
    Should morality and moral codes affect decisions? The honest answer is that is up to you. If you feel morality is important enough to base a decision off of then morality is important to you and should affect your decisions. If you are amoral then the morality of your decisions does not matter one way or the other. Is it wrong to be self interested? That depends to what extent you define the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective. That also depends on whether or not you define inactivity in regards to morality as inherently immoral.
    So what is the role of morality today? Minimal. It can affect the decisions of some alliances but ultimately has no power on the global level. If we presume tech raids immoral the presence of morality has not ended tech raids. If we presume reparations immoral the presence of morality has not ended those. Morality has not stopped wars and has not brought cohesion to the many spheres.
    This is because the current form of morality is a theoretical construct not followed. Morality has no power beyond debate, and even in debate lacks strength. The 'morality' of the great alliances is utterly meaningless because it changes nothing. Morality exists as a feel good notion but morality necessitates action. People TALK of morality. They do not ACT upon it. They wear the cloak of morality without themselves being moral people.
    The current state of affairs is an inherently amoral one. Morality may rule propaganda and rhetoric but it so rarely rules action. Do you believe tech raiding immoral? Fine. What have you done to end tech raiding? Not tech raided? Wonderful but what have you done to END tech raiding? It is not enough to abstain from immorality one must actively negate or remove it to be moral.
    Can the world become moral? Yes. Through the application of policies built to actively encourage a moral stance in the world. Either via positive reinforcement, giving aid to nations acting morally or under assault from immoral nations, or via negative reinforcements, sanctioning immoral nations or actively combating them. There are doctrines that proclaim to do such yet are not actively enforced. The only recent example I can personally think of is the response to Gramlins. They were seen as immoral and have been actively denied technology. Not enough has really been done, but some has been done and it makes for a good start. Better than nice words and good feelings.
    However even if you are actively moral you must consider the necessities of pragmatism. It is not enough to create a doctrine of morality, it must be tenable and it must be enforceable. Four nations decide they will defend other nations against tech raiders? Feels nice but it is meaningless. Unless they draw in support from much more powerful entities it is an empty statement and on par with being inactive. The creation of a moral society necessitates greater cohesion.
    So what's the point? Stop pretending to be moral nations and moral alliances if the extent of your morality is in your rhetoric. Do not beat your chest when your alliance claims superior morality. Without actions it is but smoke and mirrors. As long as your morality is inactive or unenforceable it is effectively nonexistent.
  2. Alonois

    On Sovereignty

    By Alonois,

    At its core sovereignty is both a state and the measurement of a nation's capacity to make decisions for itself. Sovereignty is a measure of the defensive value of power; power being the capacity to affect change for your benefit. A single nation is by the virtue of its weakness not sovereign. In the face of even a two or three man microalliance the lone nation is almost always incapable of properly defending itself against such an assault. If you were to pile on more then the lone nation will find itself crushed. It can not protect its interests and it can not enforce its desires. It is only sovereign for as long as it remains unchallenged militarily and diplomatically, but it is unlikely to remain unchallenged.
    Does that mean the microalliance in that example is sovereign? To some extent yes. They are better capable of defending themselves against attack. However a three man band might be able to stand up to four, five, even six nations, but nine nations? Unlikely. Twenty? Improbable. A hundred? Impossible. A microalliance is sovereign for as long as it can defend itself but when faced with a stronger foe it ceases to be sovereign. Its sovereignty exists for as long as it is unchallenged by superior force. But it is still more often sovereign than a single nation.
    However the individual nations of this microalliance are not sovereign. Unless a nation holds dictatorial control over an alliance of any kind, or is a member of their government capable of affecting change, a nation is no longer sovereign the moment it joins an alliance. For as long as it is part of the alliance it is not sovereign unless it can affect change on the scale of that alliance. This is the nature of the bargain between a single nation and an alliance. A nation gives up its capability for self determination for protection, to pool its power with other nations. Any self determination that does exist is crippled at best. The nation may be able to choose its trade circles or who it trades technology with but if the alliance were to make a demand it would have to follow or be ejected. If the alliance says no nuclear weaponry, there will be no more nukes. If the alliances says go to war with some one, they will get their guns and go to war. Until the member leaves the alliance its only measure of sovereignty, its only power to protect its interests, is the capacity to leave and to throw its lot in with an alliance of like minded individuals.
    The larger the alliance the more this rings true. A three man microalliance is likely a loose coalition of like minded individuals with few, if any, decrees or doctrines. A three hundred man dictatorial alliance is one wherein the individual nation is of little consequence. It has many decrees, many doctrines, much oversight, and is involved in many treaties that dictate the nature of wars. If the nation were to find itself in an alliance opposed to its own ideology then it only has three options. To leave, to give up its right to choose for membership, or to strive to become a government member and alter the policies in place. And if the nation agrees with the actions of the alliance? Is it sovereign then? No. It did not choose the actions of the alliance. Its only choice was to join an alliance with a like minded government.
    Obviously this does not hold entirely true for an alliance whom requires nothing of its members. But an alliance with no policies, with no decrees, and no oversight is nothing more than a shared flag. It is not an alliance capable of enforcing its interests as it has no shared interests. It effectively does not exist as an alliance, merely as a fondness between nations. However such 'alliances' are not the alliances with power and are of no concern.
    Does this mean an alliance is entirely a sovereign entity based on its size, and that the biggest alliance is the one that will always remain sovereign? No. There is a level of organization above the alliance, that of treaties. Akin to a member nation giving up control for the sake of pooling power, an alliance that signs a treaty such as a protectorate or an MDoAP gives up a measure of its own control to ensure the regularity of what control it has. This is not to the same extent that a member nation gives up control. In the case of a protectorate or an MDoAP the alliance gives up its right to remain neutral in certain conflicts for the guarantee that the other party will either join a fight or remain friendly. However this estimated loss ultimately provides greater sovereignty to the participants of the treaty. The power of these treaties creates a combined force that can protect the interests of all parties by sheer intimidation or manpower. Most of the time. This does not work so well against a similarly sized alliance with a similar number of allies. In such an event that those two entities would go to war it then the victory remains sovereign while the defeated loses their sovereignty. Even in a white peace this is true. The defeated entity has failed to defend its interests, it has lost soldiers, infrastructure, and technology. It has lost power and it has lost standing. All members of the defeated entity have lost sovereignty and all members of the victorious entity have retained sovereignty.
    What if an alliance would want to follow its treaty in the first place? Then it is more of a formality but it still restricts their capacity to act on their own whims. A willingly worn chain is still a chain.
    So then is the path to being sovereign making the biggest treaty bloc this side of the Hegemony? No. An entity must also consider diplomatic and societal pressures. If an entity buckles to outside pressure then it is in that regard not sovereign. An alliance that sacrifices a policy to appease outsiders is not completely sovereign.
    So what does all this mean? Sovereignty is a measure of the capacity to defend oneself and interests. It is not an entirely binary state but a gradient. Nor is it a stable thing. Sovereignty comes and goes. One day you are top dog calling all the shots, next you and your entire alliance are paying reparations for the damage you caused. An ideal sovereign entity controls all of its choices and can always defend those choices at all points in time and an ideal non-sovereign entity controls absolutely none of its actions and can not defend itself. More often than not an entity exists somewhere between these two extremes.
×
×
  • Create New...