Vladimir

You see it as inconsequential, yet you ask 'why are you still at war with FAN?', 'why do you practice PZI?', 'why do you follow an Emperor?', 'why don't you support international rights such as the right to free speech?' One could answer all of these questions with the single word: Francoism. The Order, after all, follows its analyses of various situations, and these analyses generally fall under this name. You may have little interest in the detailed premises and methodology that build Francoism, but it's a stretch to call it inconsequential as a result.

The forum is simply the political arena of the material world -- a means of communication. Whether or not this arena exists has important implications, yes, but I don't see how it changes the Francoist position other than to facilitate interaction between large groups -- thus aiding in the creation and growth of alliance memberships. We could go on to look at many more of these inbuilt collectives, but I don't see the point. They don't challenge any 'first principles' -- the state of nature still existed and continues (for some) to exist, and the implications of this are left unchanged. And your repeated attempts to paint Francoism as 'Hobbessian copypasta' only goes to show your ignorance of both theories. He is an important influence in Francoism's form, yes, but little more -- and not even the most important influence when taking the whole philosophy into consideration. And such attacks don't actually challenge (or even address) any of Francoism's points, they only cheapen debate with pseudo-intellectualised name calling.

The quote states that there is no morality inherent in the natural world, which in turn indicates that there is no universal morality. I can see why it might be confusing, and it could have been better worded for easier understanding, but it is nevertheless accurate. Individual interests can only be fulfilled in a collective -- their interest is to become part of a collective that removes them from the state of nature and provides them with the freedom of potential. I don't see any contradiction in this. So what do you say, can I sign you up? £2 monthly dues. We do a stall on Saturday mornings.

You can also see my edit for more on morality -- namely the link at the end. The existence of morality is undeniable, simply by the fact that some people espouse it. I agree that this morality doesn't come out of nowhere, and isn't standalone -- it is a reflection of the material position of the one holding it -- but it nevertheless exists. Morality is more or less just an agreement within an individual or group about what is right and wrong. Within the Order we agree that attacking another nation in the Order is wrong. This may be strategically determined, but it nevertheless forms the basis of a morality of mutual protection and aid. An group might not appeal to morality to justify its positions, but every group has an innate morality of this kind -- don't attack each other, don't steal aid, etc. -- or it wouldn't function. It is therefore, ultimately, a curtailment of immediate individual interest for group, and therefore long-term individual, interest. Now, I would say that in much of this the language of 'morality' has become somewhat obsolete (indeed, I have a half-written blog entry with a title along those lines), but to argue that it therefore doesn't exist is to become the child overly eager to tell people that there is no monster under his bed. The only statement on morality that I can think you may be referring to is this one in The Meaning of Freedom: "In this state there is no right or wrong, no universal morality, and no law; individual nations are free to do whatever they want and take whatever they desire." As you can see, it is indeed rather specific about there being no universal morality. The point of this is that one cannot sit in the state of nature and expect to avoid attack on the basis of it being 'immoral' to attack an innocent nation. This is obviously a direct attack on the basis of moralistic arguments, since the implication is that any claim to 'universal morality' (as occurs so often on this forum) is imagined and must therefore be put aside in international political debate/policy. Perhaps it's just my unwillingness to go back through line by line, but I'm not sure how your editing changed what you said, other than the addition of: "You see without your crude individualistic thesis, calculating the desirability of actions becomes less obviously calculable, self-interest gives way to group-interest - and you cannot construct francoism from the ground up." I touched on this earlier in the post, in that individual interest becomes group interest and vice versa -- the group is, after all, just a collection of individuals. The individual cannot achieve their freedom of potential without pooling their interest with others, and this process leads the two to be interdependent. A cosy synthesis that benefits all parties in the long-term.

Physical laws are not necessarily eternal, or even constant at all levels -- perhaps Bernardian scientists should look into the Big Bang and quantum physics. But they are nevertheless, at the moment and for the knowable future, physical laws. However, this is a matter of semantics. Whether you call them laws or something else really has little bearing on anything -- indeed, usually I do not, and instead make reference to 'material conditions', specifically noting that these may change and that our analysis must change with them. I think you misunderstand Francoist theory -- really misunderstand it. Really, really misunderstand it. Not only do I not argue against the importance of socialisation, in fact I put it right at the heart of Francoism and argue for it constantly against the idealists who seem to think that the individual is guided by a soul of some sort. Thus you will note that when I talk of materialism, I talk of people being shaped by their environment. That environment isn't just base physical laws, but the superstructure built on top of them -- alliances, institutions, ideologies, cultures, and all that they bring with them. This is what Francoism is all about. What Francoism aims to do is get past this superstructure and discover what is in our objective self-interests. So while one might be socialised into believing that walking off a cliff is fantastic and they should do it as soon as possible, Francoism would argue that this is objectively a bad idea, regardless of what they have come to believe. I would point you towards The Divided Self for a brief look at this subject. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You keep arguing against Francoism, but I am beginning to think that you might be a Francoist! Indeed, Francoism agrees with you that every world of different physical laws is different and must therefore be treated differently. How many thousand times have I had to spell out in this very forum that there are no feederites or userites or classes here because the material consideration for them do not exist? And how many times have I had to outline the thousands of implications for this? In fact I recently wrote a detailed (and as yet unpublished) article on this very subject. And it also agrees with you that there is no universal morality. I do not argue that 'survival=good' or 'tech rading=bad', I argue that survival is generally in the objective self-interests of every nation, just as protection from tech raiding is. You can find some of my musings on morality in The Great Abyss.

This makes no sense -- which is perhaps on purpose, but why still has to be explained for the less quick witted among us. Every world has unique physical laws. For our purposes how they got there is irrelevant (except insofar as the realisation that in some circumstances they may be able to change), it is the fact that they exist that matters. If gravity exists then it doesn't matter if it's the result of a bearded man or a natural phenomena -- either way I wouldn't advise walking off a cliff. We can then recognise that motivation depends on what exists. If walking off a cliff will kill me, then I will be motivated not to walk off a cliff. Likewise, if sitting allianceless will leave me powerless in front of opposition and tech raids, I will be motivated to join or create an alliance. This can be taken much further to develop a deeper understanding of the forces in our world and how individuals react to them, such as I did in The Outwards Spiral -- the individual doesn't exist in a vacuum, it reacts to the interests, incentives and deterrents around it.

I thought it was pretty good. Are you suggesting that the NPO-MK war did take place during the 'Unjust War'? Or are you just willing to agree with any statement, no matter how ridiculous, that seems opposed to the Order. I very much look forward to working with MK in future. Sorry if it doesn't fit into the Vox doomsday prophecies.

For specialised subjects, there may well be, and if you could get the entire industry to move elsewhere then there definitely would be. However, for an individual looking for general use, it would be self-defeating to set up outside of the bubble where the actors, technicians, directors, producers, and everyone else associated with the industry gravitates towards. And moreover, you have to consider the benefits of the infrastructure that has been built around this area as a result, allowing for equipment to be made/fixed, or events to be held, or finances to be dealt with properly, or whatever else is required -- this will obviously be more or less important depending on the type of industry. This is why in every nation on Bob you will find that certain industries gravitate towards certain areas, not due to any inherent natural benefit to that area, but due to the historic man-made benefits. But this extends far outside such examples. In Soviestan we use a type of keyboard known as the QWORTY keyboard. Is there a more efficient set up? I expect there is, but 99% of the keyboards made in Soviestan today remain QWORTY (100% if you don't count specialist areas). Why? Because early keyboards were QWORTY and everyone learned to use them, to try and change to something more efficient would require everyone to break with what they already know and invest resources into learning some other format. This leads me further down the path of my main disagreement. You say that "We believe that each world is remade with each successive generation." However, as the keyboard example demonstrates, this simply isn't the case. At all times all generations are living, side by side, and learning from each other the ways of life. One way of life that is passed down is the use of the QWORTY keyboard. Now, conceivably we could change our education system to teach another format, but even then every system would require two keyboards in two different formats in order to allow both the old and the young to use them, and all for a benefit that hardly seems worth it. So again we see the new locked in by the old, not completely unable to escape, but from any perspective challenging the old is wasteful and ultimately irrational -- not even to mention the problems of tradition and vested interests and such that one would have to contend with. Thus we begin to tease out my disagreement. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about history so long as we keep ourselves in the narrow confine of intellectual discourse about it; but not once we begin to move out into the deeper role of history as a living thing. One can be ignorant of history, but they cannot ignore it -- it is inherent in all that is around them, in who they are, and in who they will be. It shapes their lives in more ways than they could possibly comprehend. Some of these ways can be changed (though, as above, it may be irrational to do so), and some of them cannot -- here we begin to develop the idea that man himself is shaped by his environment, which is in turn shaped by history: history creates the man as he is. Or, to put it another way: you may not be interested in history, but history is interested in you.

Depends on the mood that strikes. Some work to tenderise the meat and a spot of pepper, and I reckon Dilber wouldn't be so bad. I had a nibble earlier. Tastes like chicken.

If you want genuine political discussion, perhaps you would prefer VIdiot the Great's thread. Admittedly it's not about how mean the NPO is, but it in terms of interesting debate it gets the job done.

What are you talking about? An "honest fight"? Where did that come from? I don't care about honest fights, I care about my alliance's security. This isn't the dark ages; we're not going to start jousting to defend our respective lady's honour. As far as the war goes, I don't expect them to fight, I expect them to die [waits for someone to take that out of context]. Whether or not they have spies is also ultimately irrelevant. I'll chip away the meat and move straight to the bone (don't say I never did nothin' for you): FAN will get peace when we are satisfied that their objective is no longer to threaten the security of our alliance. I have already explained that their size doesn't matter, and that we don't intend on letting them grow into a more significant threat just so the OWF moralists can feel all fuzzy inside. It's a relatively simple concept: we protect our members. The discussion is academic. FAN have already stated that they won't accept terms.

Not sure what planet you've been living on, Paradigm. Anti-Pacifican propaganda like this thread has made up half the forum for months.

Really, can't you just read the thread? Please? It's not that long. You can even go to my profile page and search for my posts if that's easier. Technology is a wonderful thing! Here I am on Page 2 explaining our position:

Linking to the essay wasn't to demonstrate my correctness (though it does), it was to save me from restating what I've already stated -- especially since it was slightly off topic. Here I am on Page 3 explaining how an irrelevancy can be a threat (keep in mind that it does assume the irrelevancy in question to be bent on your destruction): That is to say, whether or not something is a threat worthy of liquidation isn't judged by the size of the thing in question. Just as I shoot the tiger, I swat the mosquito. Different types of threat requiring different types of responses, certainly, but both are threats all the same.

Your point wasn't as original as you think. It had already been made, addressed and abandoned. If you will note Archon's post earlier, this simply isn't the way we operate. Fighting us once in the past doesn't make you a threat now, or we'd never declare peace with any alliance. Indeed, many of our members were once enemies of the Order, including our last three Emperors. I'm not sure how we would deal with a past threat with overwhelming force, since by definition it no longer exists -- sounds like it has already been amply dealt with! Once again you mistake 'maintaining our security' with 'shooting anything that moves'. On the face of it shooting anything that moves would seem to be the perfect security, but ultimately it is self-defeating, since you have limited resources that could be focussed on real threats rather than chasing shadows. If NAAC reformed and sought our destruction, then they would have set themselves on a collision course and the chances are that we would eventually come to blows. If they reformed and didn't overtly take this stance, then it would come down to an evaluation of the genuine intentions of the group, just as has occurred all throughout history with many different Order-unrelated groups. And rest easy that we don't attack those who oppose our "warped sense of the common good" (unless the 'common good' is 'security of the Order') because we don't believe in cramming our morality down the throat of the international community. A lesson that you could do with learning -- that's the real tyranny here.

I have answered that a number of times in the thread already, Vilien. Go for a quick hunt back and you will quickly find one. I also answered the mistaken conclusions you drew from your mistaken premise. Go for a quick hunt back ad you will quickly find those as well. Gotta catch them all!

The argument that 'Sponge knows! You're doomed!'? The argument he just said he has been using for a year and a half? I suppose if he waits about for eternity it might eventually happen and he can claim 'Sponge knew!', but until then my life will go on unaltered by the revelation.

The point was that everyone who finds themselves opposed to the Order says exactly what Electron Sponge said. They all claimed to have an amazing insight too (though admittedly not as comically as Electron Sponge does with his "total picture").

I find myself at once in admiring agreement with the central thrust of your work, and in staunch disagreement with a central premise. But overall it is an excellent work. I could not agree more with your assertion that becoming tied to tradition is dangerous, and that everything must always and constantly be re-evaluated for its utility, not just its history. Indeed, in Five Days That Shook the World I sketch out a concept called 'permanent revolution': "[A] genuine revolution born through changing material conditions never ends. In order to survive and hold onto its victory it must constantly develop and reinvent itself so as to adapt to the changing conditions around it." This is the only scientific way to do things. That said, it is important to point out that while things are not usually correct by virtue of being old, they may be old by virtue of being correct. It is important therefore not to fall into the trap of thinking that things are better because they are new -- obviously not something that your work advocates, but something that is easily done. The eagle-eyed will have noted the word 'usually' above, and this is due to a phenomena known as 'path dependency'. This is a difficult concept for me to explain in my own words, so you will forgive if I quote a source for ease of understanding: "Path-dependence explains how the set of decisions one faces for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant." An easy example of this would be Soviestan's film industry. When it first developed it was due to a studio appearing in a place known as Woodolly. Actors who sought to be on the big screen moved to Woodolly because that's where the studio was. So more studios opened up in Woodolly because that's where the actors were. So more actors moved to Woodolly, so more studios moved to Woodolly, so... and so on and so forth. We see from this example that a historical circumstance moulded the decisions of future generations. It is the rational option to create your studio in Woodolly not because it is necessarily the best location vis-a-vis environment, geography, transport, etc., but because the other studios that are already there have attracted the actors that you will want to hire. Thus due to the practice being old, it is also correct -- it is correct because it is old. Path dependency exists throughout the world, often unnoticed, and it takes a great deal to break it -- sometimes so much that it is impossible. In this way we must not underestimate the importance of history in shaping the way we are and will be. This ties in nicely to my staunch disagreement, but that will have to wait for another day, both due to my lack of time to properly elucidate it, and due to its potential to take VIdiot the Great's thread off on a slight tangent. But I do have time to disagree with eyriq's reading of the work. Questioning and re-evaluating can be an important aspect of identity, and isn't necessarily a work undermining it unless the identity is based on fallacies in the first place -- which undoubtedly many are. Indeed, my personal identity is largely based on my belief in science and in my appropriated motto: 'question everything'. That said, there is obviously a place for custom and tradition, and often these exist outside of scientific evaluation. The most famous custom of the Order, for example, is hailing. Some may like or dislike this custom, but it can neither be said to be 'right' nor 'wrong' -- it simply is.

As has every other enemy of the Order since 2006. Sponge was well behind the times when he joined the end of the NAAC/ODN/ICSN/ICP/LUE/GPA/GATO/GOONS/etc line a year and a half ago. Illustrious company he found himself in though. Tell Chris Kaos I said hi.

If they have a strategic mind and actually want to accomplish their goals (unless said goal is something silly like 'destroy the Order'), then they will indeed join the glorious utopia I call Rationality.

I should emphasis, before anyone gets the wrong idea about what I advocate, that the main disagreement I have with Ejrazz's assessment is that I think he only views strategy as considering the immediate and obvious benefits. Thus betraying an ally for immediate gain is always a good idea, and so forth. A good strategist goes far, far deeper than that. The example par excellence, in my opinion, is Philosopher's Two Theories of Morality.

I gave three reasons for this being a wise strategic move: attacking nations that aren't a threat is a waste of resources, hopefully it keeps us from creating new enemies, and more nations on Bob (all things being equal) is always beneficial. You pointed out that in a statement made only one of these was mentioned. Well, even if this was in fact the only consideration (and not mentioning the others doesn't imply that they weren't considered -- remember that I am a part of the conversations where these decisions are made), it was still a strategically sound consideration. The Order generally doesn't involve itself where its interests aren't endangered -- we're not the world police. So if Alliance A wants to attack alliance B, and neither alliance is linked to the Order, then it is left between Alliances A and B. But if we take the alliances to be linked to us, then it of course depends on the form of the links. if Enemy A attacks Ally A, then the chances are that we will respond. If Ally A attacks Enemy A, then the chances are (barring circumstances that would lead to damage to the Order) that we will 'let it slide'. The important point here is that friendship is not merely an emotional attachment, but a strategic link between two alliances. When an alliance starts acting against your interests, friendship is unlikely to strengthen as a result. On the next section: yes, alliances change. This is why I said that we would likely give FAN peace if the evidence suggested that they honestly had.

As Dilber has said in the past: it isn't for us to bring our B game, it's for you to up your A game.

Most of it was pointing out factual errors in history, NPO policy or what I said, or reiterating a point already made a dozen times previous. Doesn't require thousands of words to do.