The underlying meta-conflict, and it's parallels

[Earogema]

Alright, so let us move forward in the debate under the Francoist framework - for the sake of argument. Successful alliances, I will agree, are ones that resolve conflict, not necessarily remove it. For instance, debate is a form of conflict, and can be a healthy one if eventually resolved. However, a debate that turns into a heated argument can stir tensions within an alliance, and make the alliance itself weaker. I think you and I would both agree on that point, I simply prefer to think of it as "resolution" of conflict rather than "removal" of conflict. But I start with this because you have agreed that certain democratic alliances have the capacity to resolve conflict just as effectively as autocratic alliances, but have failed to illustrate how - both here, and in your previous works - and simply have given acknowledgment of their success without really going into the deeper reasons as to their success. This has always struck me as a "autocratic systems are generally better than democratic systems" argument without giving the latter side much credit. We both acknowledge that there are highly successful democratic alliances, but I continue to argue more pro-democratic side because it often seems that you ignore their benefits.

Generally, I maintain that a hybrid system - some elements of both autocratic and democratic systems are typically the ideal, depending on the alliance membership - but I refuse to believe that simply there is a correlation between the NPO's success and the fact that NPO is heavily autocratic necessarily dictates that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two.

I apologize that my wording comes off aggressively - I'm a little short on time right now and this seemed like the most straightforward response I could give. If there was anything I misunderstood in your arguments, forgive me and enlighten me with your response.

How would you answer to the fact that a Francoist world would be one with any conflict, thus no conflicts to "resolve?"

The only conflicts in a Perfect Francoist world would be something like a debate: Although there isn't any "real" conflict, it is simply created to curb boredom.

Edited March 13, 2009 by MegaAros

[KinKiac]

There are no guarantees of victory. Ever.

NPO help each other, this is true, and we look out for each other, but you have no idea how many nations fight us on a daily basis.

Thats kind of a silly statement dont you think? Im pretty sure all of us know exactly how many nations fight you on a regular basis, in fact it is public knowledge how many wars you guys are in and if anyone wanted they could get actual numbers.

[Ogaden]

Thats kind of a silly statement dont you think? Im pretty sure all of us know exactly how many nations fight you on a regular basis, in fact it is public knowledge how many wars you guys are in and if anyone wanted they could get actual numbers.

Well, today there are 8 pages of wars involving the NPO, and it's a relatively calm time right now.

[Calixo]

but you've yet to fight in a war where you didnt have back up or aid.

with NPO, victory is assured simply because NPO has the most treaties and ns attached to said treaties, until that changes NPO will always win, and I see alot more Agressive Wars than defensive, not to mention your opponents are quite small at that point and 15 million can rebuild more than you'd lose, you've experienced war, yes, but you've yet to experience the losing end of war.

It is alot less bloody and vicious, I've experienced both, when you're getting hit with a nuke and losing 200 million worth of infra, land and tech, it hurts alot worse than getting nuked in the 10-20k range and losing 20 or 30 million worth of infra/land/tech, not to mention as I stated before, you always have 2 other people attacking the same single target you're facing, as opposed to being on your own against 3 or more opponents.

quoted for truth

[Chancellor Bismarck]

The longer everyone bases the game around Pacifica's ideals, the longer they'll be the most important aspect of the game. It's the mental mindset that you all place yourselves in that makes them the game.

[Mogar]

Well, today there are 8 pages of wars involving the NPO, and it's a relatively calm time right now.

3 and a half, Expired wars dont count I dont think.

[Ferrous]

How would you answer to the fact that a Francoist world would be one with any conflict, thus no conflicts to "resolve?"

The only conflicts in a Perfect Francoist world would be something like a debate: Although there isn't any "real" conflict, it is simply created to curb boredom.

I'm not a Francoist, by any means, and I personally think that a perfect Francoist world is impossible to obtain for reasons that you're certainly hinting at, namely that there would always be conflict and no amount of rules and overbearing power would be able to get rid of that.

However, to get my immediate point across most effectively, I had to appeal to the Francoist in Vladimir, so I used the Francoist framework - nominally.

[StalinsRevenge]

While those fighting for law and order such as my alliance the NPO tend to be much better organized than our opponents

Really, your organized, and by organized do you mean blaming membership when things go wrong, accusing people who got ripped of on a deal set up by gov for it going wrong, or a trade circle because there is nobody on red to trade with. NPO as a francoist alliance could be more organized than "free" alliances but that would mean them having to be one.

[crushtania]

If an alliance has a charter and organizes itself, it's ordered. The FCC are a libertarian alliance, but they still have governmental structure. I would call NPO and similar dictatorships more "regimented" - by the virtue of collecting people under one name and social contract, I would believe implies an order to some extent.

[threefingeredguy]

Ahahahahahaha

edit for content:

Freedom gives those alliances much more flexibility. Order (that's the sugar-coated term you've been using for tyranny, right?) is always rejected by people eventually. An ordered alliance will need to maintain high turnover just to keep their membership count up because people get tired of it after a little while.

Edited March 16, 2009 by threefingeredguy

[oda]

It's interesting if the freedom side one someone would have to assume the mantel of #1 which will mean their will be an a power that would control the game. I'm sure there would be people that wouldn't agree with what the #1 alliance was doing so they would voice their opinion or use force. Even if NPO took a step back there will always be a struggle.

[StalinsRevenge]

It's interesting if the freedom side one someone would have to assume the mantel of #1 which will mean their will be an a power that would control the game. I'm sure there would be people that wouldn't agree with what the #1 alliance was doing so they would voice their opinion or use force. Even if NPO took a step back there will always be a struggle.

At heart we are all enemies, because there is only one #1.

[Vladimir]

Ahahahahahaha

edit for content:

Freedom gives those alliances much more flexibility. Order (that's the sugar-coated term you've been using for tyranny, right?) is always rejected by people eventually. An ordered alliance will need to maintain high turnover just to keep their membership count up because people get tired of it after a little while.

History would disagree, and indeed, it has often been the other way around -- the historic large electorally democratic alliances have had high turn over rates due to the frustrating inefficiency and constant power-plays within. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that Order is freedom.

Alright, so let us move forward in the debate under the Francoist framework - for the sake of argument. Successful alliances, I will agree, are ones that resolve conflict, not necessarily remove it. For instance, debate is a form of conflict, and can be a healthy one if eventually resolved. However, a debate that turns into a heated argument can stir tensions within an alliance, and make the alliance itself weaker. I think you and I would both agree on that point, I simply prefer to think of it as "resolution" of conflict rather than "removal" of conflict. But I start with this because you have agreed that certain democratic alliances have the capacity to resolve conflict just as effectively as autocratic alliances, but have failed to illustrate how - both here, and in your previous works - and simply have given acknowledgment of their success without really going into the deeper reasons as to their success. This has always struck me as a "autocratic systems are generally better than democratic systems" argument without giving the latter side much credit. We both acknowledge that there are highly successful democratic alliances, but I continue to argue more pro-democratic side because it often seems that you ignore their benefits.

Generally, I maintain that a hybrid system - some elements of both autocratic and democratic systems are typically the ideal, depending on the alliance membership - but I refuse to believe that simply there is a correlation between the NPO's success and the fact that NPO is heavily autocratic necessarily dictates that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two.

I apologize that my wording comes off aggressively - I'm a little short on time right now and this seemed like the most straightforward response I could give. If there was anything I misunderstood in your arguments, forgive me and enlighten me with your response.

When I speak of conflict I don't mean 'disagreement' in general, I mean conflict resulting from opposing interests -- the contradictions that arise as forces collide. So I will agree with your point -- if an argument is stirring tensions then it is eating away at opposing interests and must be resolved by the sovereign. Moreover, the idea of enforced homogeneity is in conflict with a number of core Francoist principles -- you can't have a meritocracy is everyone is of exactly the same opinion.

While I have never devoted a great deal of writing to the subject, I believe I have given enough details in the past to explain the relative success and failure of the various electoral democracies. If we look at the afore-linked essay, for example, we can see first of all:

"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."

Thus straight off we recognise that even a democratic sovereign reduces conflict and thus increases the success of the alliance to some degree. I then go on in the same essay to outline the failings of electoral democracy and the potential for that to be overcome in certain material circumstances:

"Attempts to implement an elected sovereign suffer from largely the same problems, only on a much grander scale. Not only do they pit institutions against one other, but they pit every single nation against every single nation, causing them to form in ad hoc coalitions based on petty self-interest and ill-informed short-termism. With the additional constraint of an electorate to pander to, the sovereign finds himself completely unable to properly carry out his tasks of peace and dispute settlement, causing the conflicts to constantly spiral out of control. Under these circumstances an alliance cannot thrive in the true sense unless the elected sovereign institution finds itself in a very specific set of circumstances -- a small, ready-made, stable, knowledgeable, united electorate, capable of encouraging and allowing the elected institution to act much like that of an unelected one."

Of course, this was written back in the days of the old League-style governments, and so we now may add further expanations of success and failure, such as the increasingly autocratic nature of the division of labour outside of the sovereign, which reduces some of the conflict outlined above (albeit still within a flawed framework).

I'm not trying to claim that since the NPO is autocratic and successful, autocracy equals success, and I have already outlined why this is the case -- not least the autocracy isn't the fundamental issue at hand. What I do say is that autocracy, so far as the autocrat(s) doesn't put herself in direct contradiction to the member-states, is generally a better vehicle for reducing conflict. Within this theoretical framework we can see the Order as the example par excellence -- it isn't proof in itself of the thesis, but rather a powerful support for it. Of course, as I have already outlined, I believe the entirity of history to be the given proof.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Vladimir

[Blacky]

Moreover, the idea of enforced heterogenity is in conflict with a number of core Francoist principles -- you can't have a meritocracy is everyone is of exactly the same opinion.

Meh, the concept of a meritocracy in itself is ludicrous. Since those already in a position of power have the ability to contribute most due to their position of power, the positions are not given to the most capable. Rather the positions are given based on a faulty concept of those "most deserving" which does come from heterogenity or rather something such as "loyalty to the party". It is a faux meritocracy, and this can be seen by the number of members which pass through the body republic of NPO and the fact that for the most part the same oligarchs have been running the show for the last few years. Don't delude yourself Vladimir you know this to be true.

[Cortath]

I would add to Comrade Vladimir's post this one addition about "democracy."

One of the problems of democracy is that some people seem to have a certain, shall we say, emotional attachment to the idea, whatever it may be or whatever form it may make itself manifest. Such an emotional and irrational attachment to a form of government hurts an alliance, because it forces members to cling to a form of government when that government may no longer serve them. Francoism demands that the old be discarded if it does not keep the chaos of nature and barbarism of man from encroaching on the isle of Order that is the successful alliance.

[Vladimir]

That should have read 'homogeneity', not 'heterogeneity'. Corrected.

Nonsense, Blacky. There is a degree of 'loyalty to the alliance' of course, but loyalty is an important merit that enters into any system. If person A isn't loyal to alliance B then alliance B isn't likely to put person A into a position of great authority or of great access to information. Indeed, this is true even if person A is the most capable in a certain area, because they lack an important aspect of merit necessary for them to do the job effectively. It all falls well inside the framework.

As far as those in power having 'greater ability to contribute', again this is true to an extent (as far as those in power having more information goes (which itself is only important in limited areas)), but your attempt to use it as a blanket answer to everything is absurd. The idea of a meritocracy is that you get into positions based on merit. Merit is not an innate quality that sees people placed into a position overnight due to a genetic superiority that is psychically detected, but a demonstrated ability in a specific area. This ability has to be demonstrated first at the lower levels, and once it has it can be demonstrated on higher and higher levels. This slow climb also demonstrates other necessary abilities beyond the immediate practical competence such as perseverance, loyalty and stability -- these are not dirty words as you seem to think. And moreover, the steady climb itself is important for the individual to learn and interact. Those who pass these tests will rise, those who don't won't.

It's a simply concept, and one that is well proven by the top ranks you sought to disparage. How many of the Order's Imperial Officers at one time fought against her? The numbers include the current Emperor, Dilber, Ivan Moldavi, and a multitude of others. Indeed, New Reverie joined the Order after a long and high profile campaign against her, and it wasn't too long before he headed up Military Intel. Or we can look at others such as Umbrae Noctum, who started on the ground floor of the Praetorian Guard and rose with astonishing speed to the rank of Imperial Officer due to the skill he had shown in all affairs. You will find such stories permeate the Order.

You imply that it is impossible to rise in the Order, but this simply isn't the case. The Order is designed in such a way that if you are good at what you do and you do it well, it isn't in anyone's interest to stop you from advancing -- to do so would only damage the Order and thus the individuals within it.

[Blacky]

Nonsense, Blacky. There is a degree of 'loyalty to the alliance' of course, but loyalty is an important merit that enters into any system. If person A isn't loyal to alliance B then alliance B isn't ulikely to put person A into a position of great authority or of great access to information. Indeed, this is true even if person A is the most capable in a certain area, because they lack an important aspect of merit necessary for them to do the job effectively. It all falls well inside the framework.

I don't see how what I said was at all nonsense. The idea that the meritocracy should reward those who show loyalty ie;(best portrayed through being homogenous to the IO's and oligarchy) goes against what you stated. You stated that 'enforced homogenity' goes against a primary principle of your allances ideology, meritocracy. I was merely pointing out that contradiction.

As far as those in power having 'greater ability to contribute', again this is true to an extent. The idea of a meritocracy is that you get into positions based on merit.

Those already in a position of power can best contribute, and therefore best demonstrate their ability, and therefore hold positions where they may no longer be the most capable for (this does take into account all the aforementioned neccessities).

This slow climb also demonstrates other necessary abilities beyond the immediate practical competence such as perseverance, loyalty and stability

First you say this.

Or we can look at others such as Umbrae Noctum, who started on the ground floor of the Praetorian Guard and rose with astonishing speed to the rank of Imperial Officer due to the skill he had shown in all affairs.

And then you say this.

You imply that it is impossible to rise in the Order.

Actually I was going for "you seem a little confused there, buddy"

[Vladimir]

Loyalty does not equal agreeing with everything someone says. I dare say you wouldn't hold such an opinion if you were present in top level discussions. Loyalty is more not running off to join Vox when the decision goes against you.

The times were relative. A slow rise indicates that you aren't jumping straight in. A rapid ascent indicates that you don't have to wait about for 5 years after you've already demonstrated your merit. Keep up.

I fail to see how someone at a lower level is at a disadvantage in demonstrating their merit in normal situations. All you have done is repeated the mantra 'those in power can best contribute', but you haven't backed this up anywhere. In fact the Order replaces positions quite frequently if it is felt that another could do a better job, so our practice proves your theory (or lack thereof) wrong.

[Cortath]

Blacky seems terribly confused as to what "loyalty" and "homogeneity" are.

All alliances demand loyalty, and all alliance demand homogeneity to the extent that you cannot be wishing the destruction of your alliance.

If homogeneity means that everyone has to have as their ultimate goal the betterment of the New Pacific Order, then yes, we are homogenous. What it does not mean is that everyone has to think that we get to that more perfect Order the same way. I have disagreements with my colleagues all the time on how to better the Order, but none of us are less loyal because of it. We disagree on the means to an end we all believe in: the Order.