Jump to content

Are Alliances Obsolete?


YOLO SWAG
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread needs more freedom (link is to an essay by Vladimir of the NPO)

 

http://cn-snx.co.uk/index.php?/topic/328-the-meaning-of-freedom-a-guide-to-cn-govt/

 

Excerpt:

 

The Terror of Freedom

Before the development of alliances there existed only the state of nature -- a state of absolute freedom for the individual nation. 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. However, the state of nature is not one of peace. Individual nations freely attempt to take what they want from others by force, whether the goal is the acquisition of some material good or of an emotional rush. Moreover, there is no protection for any individual nation, as the vitals of any nation are vulnerable to an attack from any other -- even the vitals of the strongest nation in the state of nature are vulnerable to those weaker than him, whether it come from the act of an individual or an ad hoc coalition. The state of nature can thus be seen as a constant war of every nation against every nation. While the individual nation has the absolute freedom to do whatever it wants, by the same token any other nation has the absolute freedom to do whatever it wants to the individual nation. It is a negative-sum game that gives conflict the central role in daily life. Consequently every nation exists in a state of perpetual terror.

It is due to this state of perpetual terror that we see no real industry developed by nations living in the state of nature. Their time is entirely consumed with the matter of survival; a concern which overwhelms the potential of nations to achieve greater things. Conflict and the potential for conflict are the enemies of the individual nation. We can thus see that absolute freedom is antithetical to progress and conducive to a destructive barbarism.

Sovereignty as Salvation

The self-interest of every nation is to remove itself from the state of nature: to give up its absolute freedom with the resulting removal of perpetual terror. It is in doing this that the individual nation will naturally come to sign a social contract and band together with other nations in an alliance, which allows them to concern themselves less with the matter of survival and instead concentrate on achieving their potential in other fields.

An immediate condition of any alliance is that there exists a sovereign institution or institutions. If there is no sovereign institution then the state of nature has not been brought to an end amongst the group's member-nations, but rather it has simply been tempered by a partial intervention. This will invariably prove inadequate to nurture the potential of those nations it purports to protect. As this type of alliance can be seen to have failed at its immediate task, it is not necessary to consider it any further.

The sovereign institution may take on the form of a democratic parliament, an autocratic emperor, a consensus-seeking oligarchy, or anything else that can be conceived of. The sovereign acts directly to resolve the conflicts and contradictions that appear in the alliance between member-nations, resolving problems swiftly to maintain order over conflict and terror, as per the terms of the social contract. If a sovereign institution consistently fails in this task then it has broken the contract signed with its member-nations and its replacement is necessary.

The sovereign thus becomes the centre that the rest of the alliance revolves around. It is a sovereign and only a sovereign that can have the strength and authority to provide stability in the face of the natural conflict that goes on all around it, both inside and outside of the alliance. An alliance stands and falls by the successes and failures of its sovereign. The weaker the sovereign institution, the closer to the state of nature the alliance becomes. For the member-nations of the alliance, the strength of the sovereign is a literal matter of life and death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

This thread needs more freedom (link is to an essay by Vladimir of the NPO)

 

http://cn-snx.co.uk/index.php?/topic/328-the-meaning-of-freedom-a-guide-to-cn-govt/

 

Excerpt:

 

The Terror of Freedom

Before the development of alliances there existed only the state of nature -- a state of absolute freedom for the individual nation. 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. However, the state of nature is not one of peace. Individual nations freely attempt to take what they want from others by force, whether the goal is the acquisition of some material good or of an emotional rush. Moreover, there is no protection for any individual nation, as the vitals of any nation are vulnerable to an attack from any other -- even the vitals of the strongest nation in the state of nature are vulnerable to those weaker than him, whether it come from the act of an individual or an ad hoc coalition. The state of nature can thus be seen as a constant war of every nation against every nation. While the individual nation has the absolute freedom to do whatever it wants, by the same token any other nation has the absolute freedom to do whatever it wants to the individual nation. It is a negative-sum game that gives conflict the central role in daily life. Consequently every nation exists in a state of perpetual terror.

It is due to this state of perpetual terror that we see no real industry developed by nations living in the state of nature. Their time is entirely consumed with the matter of survival; a concern which overwhelms the potential of nations to achieve greater things. Conflict and the potential for conflict are the enemies of the individual nation. We can thus see that absolute freedom is antithetical to progress and conducive to a destructive barbarism.

Sovereignty as Salvation

The self-interest of every nation is to remove itself from the state of nature: to give up its absolute freedom with the resulting removal of perpetual terror. It is in doing this that the individual nation will naturally come to sign a social contract and band together with other nations in an alliance, which allows them to concern themselves less with the matter of survival and instead concentrate on achieving their potential in other fields.

An immediate condition of any alliance is that there exists a sovereign institution or institutions. If there is no sovereign institution then the state of nature has not been brought to an end amongst the group's member-nations, but rather it has simply been tempered by a partial intervention. This will invariably prove inadequate to nurture the potential of those nations it purports to protect. As this type of alliance can be seen to have failed at its immediate task, it is not necessary to consider it any further.

The sovereign institution may take on the form of a democratic parliament, an autocratic emperor, a consensus-seeking oligarchy, or anything else that can be conceived of. The sovereign acts directly to resolve the conflicts and contradictions that appear in the alliance between member-nations, resolving problems swiftly to maintain order over conflict and terror, as per the terms of the social contract. If a sovereign institution consistently fails in this task then it has broken the contract signed with its member-nations and its replacement is necessary.

The sovereign thus becomes the centre that the rest of the alliance revolves around. It is a sovereign and only a sovereign that can have the strength and authority to provide stability in the face of the natural conflict that goes on all around it, both inside and outside of the alliance. An alliance stands and falls by the successes and failures of its sovereign. The weaker the sovereign institution, the closer to the state of nature the alliance becomes. For the member-nations of the alliance, the strength of the sovereign is a literal matter of life and death.

 

This excerpt was written in a different era, the challenges now are much different than the challenges then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

This excerpt was written in a different era, the challenges now are much different than the challenges then.

 

For your statement to be credible then you will need to be more specific as to what in the essay is obsolete. This essay is timeless and addresses the nature of conflict and civilization in CN, without getting into detail about specific material conditions.

 

However, you are right in that things are different today, which is why I developed Producerism, the Imperial Truth.

  • Vladimir's work addressed the fundamental metaphysics of this world.
  • Producerism addresses the material conditions of these metaphysics as they exist today, during the ongoing decline of civilization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

For your statement to be credible then you will need to be more specific as to what in the essay is obsolete. This essay is timeless and addresses the nature of conflict and civilization in CN, without getting into detail about specific material conditions.

 

However, you are right in that things are different today, which is why I developed Producerism, the Imperial Truth.

  • Vladimir's work addressed the fundamental metaphysics of this world.
  • Producerism addresses the material conditions of these metaphysics as they exist today, during the ongoing decline of civilization.

 

Okay, how about this for specifics:

 

You preach growth and 'soft neutral' (but yet, non-nuetral) alliance policies.

 

Congrats, you've just described TOP.

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

Okay, how about this for specifics:

 

You preach growth and 'soft neutral' alliance policies.

 

Congrats, you've just described TOP.


Terrible. Try again.

There are alliances with a similar operating procedure to TOP that are doing just fine. And ISX is one of the most active alliances in the game so it sure seems like what they're doing is working well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

Feel welcome to offer something constructive to both this thread and CN in general.

 

So different opinions are not constructive?

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

Why shouldn't new nations have a chance to grow and develop? You're basically saying that the desires of the majority of new nations should be sacrificed so that a handful of warmongers can have more "fun."

 

New nations won't be bothered by whatever nation ruler organization takes the place of alliances. The nation rulers that associate with each other (read: the leaders of alliances) don't concern themselves with the everyday dealings of what is often referred to as "low-tier" nations. When newer nations attempt to add their own brand of fun to Bob their efforts are labeled "micro drama" and dismissed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Canik said:


What's the difference? Alliances are just nations joining together, organizing, for mutual defense and advancement of mutual goals.
 

 

With what is currently referred to as the alliance comes the flotsam and jetsam of the treaty web, domination of an elite veteran caste, and the stifling of unique and new ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YOLO SWAG said:

 

New nations won't be bothered by whatever nation ruler organization takes the place of alliances. The nation rulers that associate with each other (read: the leaders of alliances) don't concern themselves with the everyday dealings of what is often referred to as "low-tier" nations. When newer nations attempt to add their own brand of fun to Bob their efforts are labeled "micro drama" and dismissed. 

 

This is because they feel like 'lower teir' nations can simply rebuild with a few aid bombs. It also leaves the smaller nation (who is still a ruler) basically feeling unimportant. Character development has been much more progressive in micro alliances than it has in major alliances who's leadership is old and not passing the torch. These alliances eventually just retire rather than training new blood to carry on the legacy in fear of whoever holds the baton making mistakes. (imagine junka ever letting go of snx... it's not going to happen)

 

Of course at the same time, the argument can be made that "well I'm 150k NS and I'm not letting a 40k NS made decisions based on my pixels" or I've spent years and years being friends with ABC sphere and I hate XYZ sphere and the new leader can't make his own decisions that conflicts with our past- and my absolute favorite, we can't enter on a war because we are allied to F and on the other side is G who is allied to F and if we enter we'd be on opposite side (at this point, just merge) and that's turned 90% of alliances into retirement homes or string pulled alliances.

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

This thread needs more freedom (link is to an essay by Vladimir of the NPO)

 

http://cn-snx.co.uk/index.php?/topic/328-the-meaning-of-freedom-a-guide-to-cn-govt/

 

Excerpt:

 

The Terror of Freedom

Before the development of alliances there existed only the state of nature -- a state of absolute freedom for the individual nation. 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. However, the state of nature is not one of peace. Individual nations freely attempt to take what they want from others by force, whether the goal is the acquisition of some material good or of an emotional rush. Moreover, there is no protection for any individual nation, as the vitals of any nation are vulnerable to an attack from any other -- even the vitals of the strongest nation in the state of nature are vulnerable to those weaker than him, whether it come from the act of an individual or an ad hoc coalition. The state of nature can thus be seen as a constant war of every nation against every nation. While the individual nation has the absolute freedom to do whatever it wants, by the same token any other nation has the absolute freedom to do whatever it wants to the individual nation. It is a negative-sum game that gives conflict the central role in daily life. Consequently every nation exists in a state of perpetual terror.

It is due to this state of perpetual terror that we see no real industry developed by nations living in the state of nature. Their time is entirely consumed with the matter of survival; a concern which overwhelms the potential of nations to achieve greater things. Conflict and the potential for conflict are the enemies of the individual nation. We can thus see that absolute freedom is antithetical to progress and conducive to a destructive barbarism.

Sovereignty as Salvation

The self-interest of every nation is to remove itself from the state of nature: to give up its absolute freedom with the resulting removal of perpetual terror. It is in doing this that the individual nation will naturally come to sign a social contract and band together with other nations in an alliance, which allows them to concern themselves less with the matter of survival and instead concentrate on achieving their potential in other fields.

An immediate condition of any alliance is that there exists a sovereign institution or institutions. If there is no sovereign institution then the state of nature has not been brought to an end amongst the group's member-nations, but rather it has simply been tempered by a partial intervention. This will invariably prove inadequate to nurture the potential of those nations it purports to protect. As this type of alliance can be seen to have failed at its immediate task, it is not necessary to consider it any further.

The sovereign institution may take on the form of a democratic parliament, an autocratic emperor, a consensus-seeking oligarchy, or anything else that can be conceived of. The sovereign acts directly to resolve the conflicts and contradictions that appear in the alliance between member-nations, resolving problems swiftly to maintain order over conflict and terror, as per the terms of the social contract. If a sovereign institution consistently fails in this task then it has broken the contract signed with its member-nations and its replacement is necessary.

The sovereign thus becomes the centre that the rest of the alliance revolves around. It is a sovereign and only a sovereign that can have the strength and authority to provide stability in the face of the natural conflict that goes on all around it, both inside and outside of the alliance. An alliance stands and falls by the successes and failures of its sovereign. The weaker the sovereign institution, the closer to the state of nature the alliance becomes. For the member-nations of the alliance, the strength of the sovereign is a literal matter of life and death.

 

A free existence can be as violent or as peaceful as one chooses. It's up to a nation ruler to make his own decisions, and deal with the consequences of those decisions. One doesn't need an alliance to achieve "civilization". One only needs common sense.

54 minutes ago, YOLO SWAG said:

 

New nations won't be bothered by whatever nation ruler organization takes the place of alliances. The nation rulers that associate with each other (read: the leaders of alliances) don't concern themselves with the everyday dealings of what is often referred to as "low-tier" nations. When newer nations attempt to add their own brand of fun to Bob their efforts are labeled "micro drama" and dismissed. 

 

Very well put

Edited by Archangel1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alliances were created organically: they existed before the ability to add one existed; instead, nations listed an alliance in their bio.  They will continue to exist for the same reason that they first appeared: nations seek to grow and prosper, and to do that they need both trading partners and protection.  Alliances provide both. 

A small number of nations never needed alliances, those that had grown so large that they were unassailable, and could deal with the small number of equals on their own.  I wish I could remember the name of one such nation, the destruction of which ended this independence in the god tier once the god tier had come to be crowded rather than extraordinary.  That he was unaligned was viewed as abjectly insane by people who were applying the logic of their hardscrabble lives to a nation whose reality separated it from theirs.  Ah well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While Alliances can easily as it were detain an important source of the world's enjoyment, they can also play an important part in giving it an organised and structured story-line. However, generally Alliance activities could seem most impressive when they are a development of things that people have experienced at lower levels, or this on a more 'epic' scale, while if there is no space for these things elsewhere they can seem labyrinthine and slow-paced. Nonetheless, this means that Alliances in this context who are not afraid to seem 'tyrannical' or monopolising, like the NPO, will generally be able to secure a decent place. Of course, this was earlier along with the New Polar Order, who had a very convincing name for an Alliance which might threaten to polarise this relation. The problem is that those with more striking concepts or agendas, like NSO and a fair few defunct Black alliances, will often be placed in behind this and regularised. 

 

Alliances can hence seem a bureaucratic limitation, when they are central to the sense of nations participating in an overall, unified history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Quick question, as I do not know your nation histories - anybody actually have experience of living outside an aa for an extended period of time? Philosophising about the pros and cons of alliances to an individual nation is very interesting, but on a practical level does the theory match reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 2017-01-08 at 1:02 AM, Lord Hitchcock said:

while the stats may have been bumped when you absorbed GG, I can't imagine it was with quality nations. As they literally surrendered and then conformed.

It's sort of weird what you get when you recruit surrenderees. But I remember rolling Illuminati in 2008. They were an amazingly horrible alliance, just 300 nations and no organization whatsoever, really a shambles. But some of them applied to alliances in the rolling coalition, and turned out to be pretty good fighters in the end.

 

The reason? They got into organized alliances and got told what they should be doing. Also, they knew from experience what happens when you're unprepared and you come up against the steamroller.

 

Jesusaurus was another example. He was a GPA surrenderer (from the Woodstock massacre) who got tricked into aiding a rogue we were fighting while on IRON POW. IRON authorized us to hit him, and when we attacked he apologized and then applied, saying that he was impressed by the lengths we would go to to protect our membership. We let him in; he had a big nation (I think he became our #2), but we didn't expect all that much from him. However, he turned out to be an absolute workhorse, did some really significant damage during Karma and was one of the reasons why Invicta's terms were so light. But he'd surrendered from GPA, and they considered him a traitor. So you can't really predict; I guess the difference is he saw a reason to be loyal to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alliances as a concept is not dead. Alliances without substance are dead. Alliances without sovereignty are delicious. Alliances that are inactive are also dead. Alliances that are without substance or inactive need to reorganize and consolidate in an attempt to bring life to the community. Leadership that gives half-hearted efforts to lead resulting in membership disenfranchisement need to be the focus of regime change.

 

In summary, devour the dead that are not able to be resssurected.

Purge the leadership that fails to lead.

Reorganize the players that need an active community.

Make alliances great again by eliminating insolvency.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...