On Order

[Delta1212]

I am equating ideology and morality as roughly the same arbitary things. Don't fault my arguments simply because you cannot follow them.

The point was to show you that unipolarity works and that the extremes are formed only through ideological (moral) difference, which ultimately is negligible.

First of all, ideology and morality are entirely different concepts. The first deals largely with the way one believes the world to actually work, and the latter deals with the way one believes the world should work. It is possible to base morality on ideology, accepting the functioning of the world as the way it is and the way it should be, but they are not the same thing.

Secondly, ideology, and morality, for that matter, determine how we believe that we should interact with the world. Competing contradictory views of the world have proven to be the single most divisive force in human history and to dismiss it as negligible is indicative of the type of thinking that creates such an unstable political structure as we are currently experiencing.

[Byron Orpheus]

Fair enough, just curious, who trained you Vladimir or Joesph Thorne ?

I do not know Joseph Thorne and I am only aware of Vladimir through his essays upon Francoism, an interesting philosophy in its own right.

[Ejayrazz]

A fine example can be found in the Grand Global Alliance, the sole entity which has managed to position itself outside the realm of defeat in every major war, and yet, or perhaps as a result, finds itself struggling on a fundamental level, whereas alliances like the Mushroom Kingdom have been pushed through constant trials since their inception, the survival of which can be said to have made them truly formidable.

I agree with this.

[Bakunin's Dream]

Periods of bi- or multipolarity generally lead to larger scale wars than periods of unipolarity. However, unipolar environments have proven far less forgiving of varied opinions. When there are a diverse array of power groupings, it is possible to associate with a group that most closely relates to your own ideals, or to set yourself up so that it becomes political untenable for any one grouping to attack you without incurring the wrath of another. In a unipolar world, there are only the options of aligning with the pole or straying from it. It is a world of extremes, and extremes are not conducive to survival. Aligning with a political power you fundamentally disagree with is simply surrendering sovereignty before the fight rather than after, which undermines the entire objective of obtaining security: protecting sovereignty. Similarly, remaining apart from the central power severely restricts any and all actions that can be taken without incurring risk of destruction.

It is also no coincidence that surrender terms and handling of wars has been on a trend toward the increase with the fall of competition among powers. The more unbalanced the respective levels of power, the more harshly the powerful can afford to treat those without power because they do not have to fear reprisal. Consistent abuse of power will lead to a strong desire for reprisals, and a lowering of tolerance for the offending party by others. In a world in which there is an observable possibility that you may be held accountable for actions taken, there is a significant increase in the amount of leniency doled out.

A multipolar world has a far greater potential for balance than the path of extremes down which the world has been flung during the past two years. Any stability that a unipolar world has is temporary and far more potentially explosive than anything a multipolar world can render.

Again you are making two mutually exclusive claims. One is that unipolar political structures, while they clearly decrease the frequency of great wars by a great deal, result in a larger number of smaller conflicts, which is bad because it results in harsher surrender terms and less justified wars. This is also inconsistent with history; the myth of the "good old days" when everyone was nice to each other and surrender terms were more lenient is one that comes up every now and then but is absolutely false. Some of the harshest surrender terms in history were present at the conclusion of some of CN's earliest wars, and it has not been the case that you are more likely to receive lenient terms in a great war than in a minor war. Often the opposite will occur, with harsh terms being imposed on the losing faction of a war out of concern that they will become resurgent and seek revenge. Moreover, I would dispute your claim that small-scale wars have been more justified than great wars; while you will find universal agreement on the validity of many smaller conflicts (after all, the powers-that-be have little incentive to instigate conflicts with random alliances), in all of the "great wars" to date there has been argument from both sides regarding the validity of the war, and many of the alliances participating in these wars have had little to do with the initial reason for war.

But you don't seem content to stick with this line of argument. No, what you assert is that a unipolar situation is more "explosive" than a multipolar one, which is clearly a false claim, and one that you even seem to concede yourself. Multipolar situations have historically been the cause of explosive, large-scale conflicts, and indeed once such a situation is established it is sometimes assumed that an explosive conflict is "inevitable." The reason for this is simple: minor conflicts don't just stop happening when factions are close to one another in power, and when there is relative parity between the existing political factions, alliances are more willing to go to war to protect their interests. This is why minor conflicts are usually quickly resolved under unipolar conditions, but in a multipolar world they have the potential to start a global war.

You can argue that periods of unipolarity correlate with an increase in the number of small wars, but that is only because in a multipolar situation small wars are more likely to become big wars. The claim that this demonstrates the "stability" of a multipolar world gets it exactly backwards.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Bakunin's Dream

[Byron Orpheus]

First of all, ideology and morality are entirely different concepts. The first deals largely with the way one believes the world to actually work, and the latter deals with the way one believes the world should work. It is possible to base morality on ideology, accepting the functioning of the world as the way it is and the way it should be, but they are not the same thing.

Secondly, ideology, and morality, for that matter, determine how we believe that we should interact with the world. Competing contradictory views of the world have proven to be the single most divisive force in human history and to dismiss it as negligible is indicative of the type of thinking that creates such an unstable political structure as we are currently experiencing.

Ideology is just the name given to the morality upon which the alliance operates. On our dear planet the terms are inseparable, at least in the sense in which I am using them. Since one is capable of being based upon the other they form a side of the same coin and can, for the purposes of our argument, considered to be one.

Competing contradictory views are only allowed to survive so long as they are not a threat to the world as a whole-- speaking of Planet Bob of course, I don't know what other planets there are.

They are negligible until it becomes in the best interest of the survival of the majority to side with an "extreme" ideology, which by its nature of extremity has difficulty gaining followers.

[Byron Orpheus]

You can argue that periods of unipolarity correlate with an increase in the number of small wars, but that is only because in a multipolar situation small wars are more likely to become big wars. The claim that this demonstrates the "stability" of a multipolar world gets it exactly backwards.

To expand on Bakunin's Dream's idea, those who present a threat to the unipolarity are cast out and destroyed by the remainder of the world, so no explosive situation is allowed to exist.

[mattski133]

It is my belief that NPO is the cornerstone for the alliance-web foundation that allows for the world to live in relative peace. Pax Pacifica is not a lie, it is the only truth.

It certainly allows them to live in relative peace. Anyone with a viewpoint of their own has a much more difficult time living in peace in this current global schematic.

There will be far more parity in a world with multiple factions of similar power but differing viewpoints than one faction with differing viewpoints and no way to vent them, for fear of destruction by the others that hunger for something, anything, to destroy. Those who argue Pax Pacifica have forgotten the piles of the dead left on the battlefields of this Great Peace.

EDIT:

To expand on Bakunin's Dream's idea, those who present a threat to the unipolarity are cast out and destroyed by the remainder of the world, so no explosive situation is allowed to exist.

And others remain silently waiting like a timebomb, slowly ticking away until there is a chance to grasp freedom. Very difficult to tell who those alliances might be when their private channels are not open to other governments.

Edited April 14, 2009 by mattski133

[Mandrivia_2]

Whew, made it before Vladimir did.

Enough dilly dallying, less Pax Pacifica pl0x

Edited April 14, 2009 by Mamaev II

[Byron Orpheus]

It certainly allows them to live in relative peace. Anyone with a viewpoint of their own has a much more difficult time living in peace in this current global schematic.

There will be far more parity in a world with multiple factions of similar power but differing viewpoints than one faction with differing viewpoints and no way to vent them, for fear of destruction by the others that hunger for something, anything, to destroy. Those who argue Pax Pacifica have forgotten the piles of the dead left on the battlefields of this Great Peace.

The NPO is the foundation because it is more willing than others to do what is necessary to remain in a position of dominance.

[Byron Orpheus]

And others remain silently waiting like a timebomb, slowly ticking away until there is a chance to grasp freedom. Very difficult to tell who those alliances might be when their private channels are not open to other governments.

It is irrelevant how they conduct themselves in private channels so long as they are aware that to stand against the majority is to meet their death.

[Delta1212]

It is irrelevant how they conduct themselves in private channels so long as they are aware that to stand against the majority is to meet their death.

You remind me of this ostrich I know.

[mattski133]

The NPO is the foundation because it is more willing than others to do what is necessary to remain in a position of dominance.

I'd say the hungry majority is more than willing to jump on an easy target. If the targets ever become less easy I think Pacifica could find it harder to find as many willing allies as before.

It is irrelevant how they conduct themselves in private channels so long as they are aware that to stand against the majority is to meet their death.

At that time. I think an extended peace offers a breeding ground for plotting and a chance for the more ambitious to build themselves into a position of power while maintaining a facade of trust and friendship.

[Byron Orpheus]

You remind me of this ostrich I know.

You remind me of many dead idealists.

[Byron Orpheus]

I'd say the hungry majority is more than willing to jump on an easy target. If the targets ever become less easy I think Pacifica could find it harder to find as many willing allies as before.

At that time. I think an extended peace offers a breeding ground for plotting and a chance for the more ambitious to build themselves into a position of power while maintaining a facade of trust and friendship.

History shows that Pacifica, again, is willing to do what is necessary to maintain its dominance. The opposition has neither the numbers nor the will to rise againts Pacifica and its allies, and so will never usurp her power.

[mattski133]

History shows that Pacifica, again, is willing to do what is necessary to maintain its dominance. The opposition has neither the numbers nor the will to rise againts Pacifica and its allies, and so will never usurp her power.

Delta is arguing that a prolonged peace degrades the quality of an alliance; that is clear when comparing GGA and MK as he mentioned. I will take the craftier, more battle seasoned soldiers over twice their number in lumbering masses given targets every six months when a curbstomp comes along.

If you think the opposition lacks the will of a group of alliances that are too afraid to face the consequences of thinking independently and if you believe that the numbers are so far skewed that no one would dare oppose the hegemony, you have not been paying attention to your surroundings.

As for usurping power; I do not believe the opposition ever will either. Delta argues for a world of powers, not one power.

[Byron Orpheus]

Delta is arguing that a prolonged peace degrades the quality of an alliance; that is clear when comparing GGA and MK as he mentioned. I will take the craftier, more battle seasoned soldiers over twice their number in lumbering masses given targets every six months when a curbstomp comes along.

If you think the opposition lacks the will of a group of alliances that are too afraid to face the consequences of thinking independently and if you believe that the numbers are so far skewed that no one would dare oppose the hegemony, you have not been paying attention to your surroundings.

As for usurping power; I do not believe the opposition ever will either. Delta argues for a world of powers, not one power.

A prolonged peace implies that there have been no targets for Pacifica inbetween the so-called Great Wars.

Furthermore, battle prowess is not the only strength of an alliance.

[WarriorConcept]

A prolonged peace implies that there have been no targets for Pacifica inbetween the so-called Great Wars.

Furthermore, battle prowess is not the only strength of an alliance.

NPO had a target in GWII and UJW?

edit: I meant that started the war

Edited April 14, 2009 by WarriorConcept

[Byron Orpheus]

NPO had a target in GWII and UJW?

edit: I meant that started the war

Do you believe they will in a future war?

[WarriorConcept]

Do you believe they will in a future war?

Anything is possible in the future.

[mattski133]

I'm not sure what the availability of targets and other strengths of an alliance have to do with alliances leaving the hegemony to regain their sovereignty and freedom of thought, but I do know that I don't have such a great surplus of time to waste arguing with someone who knows nothing of those things.

Only time can tell if you are correct when you say your enemies have no will and no numbers.

[Byron Orpheus]

I'm not sure what the availability of targets and other strengths of an alliance have to do with alliances leaving the hegemony to regain their sovereignty and freedom of thought, but I do know that I don't have such a great surplus of time to waste arguing with someone who knows nothing of those things.

Only time can tell if you are correct when you say your enemies have no will and no numbers.

Freedom of thought? What ally of the NPO isn't allowed freedom of thought? Enemies of the NPO are allowed freedom of thought, the number of rants against them is proof enough of this.

NPO ensures the tranquility of our world and only asks that the opposition respect its peace. It is the opposition who constitutes the real pawns of the political landscape, convincing themselves that they are somehow oppressed during a period of growth and prosperity.

Those who lose their freedom do so only due to their own irresponsiblity (i.e. GATO).

[Gork]

I would hardly define 'controllable security' as a trait of a new power balance. However, I think the changes to the establishment that you discuss in this essay might contribute to create a (OOC) more enjoyable environment, as your last paragraph describes a successful alliance in a game that thrives around them.

Fun is a relatively simple concept. When I first joined CN, I pictured it as a very 'personalized' gaming experience, not so much because you can pick Voodoo as a national religion, but because the game had a 'sandbox' feel to it, with all the apparent freedom you have when you first open the forums, or join an alliance.

[Coursca]

Disclaimer: These views are those of a bored (and retired) individual, not the government which I used to represent.

A quick skim of the OP reveals another attempt at e-realpolitik/CNeorealism.

But I will offer only one quick point, since I'm a retired old fart (OOC: a graduate student who is ear-deep in books) and all and I don't really want to drop a text wall in this thread if I can help it:

I wouldn't say that the current system is fracturing so much as it is attempting to return to a state of equilibrium. I think the last year of CN saw an unprecedented uni-polarity during which NPO et al basically ran the show while everyone else engaged in free-riding behavior a la Olson (not to be confused with "survivalist" behavior), letting the NPO be the guarantor of stability in the system.

Unless the alliances engaging in so-called equilibrium-seeking behaviors are doing so for a discernible purpose (e.g. to attempt a gang-bang on NPO -- hence "fracturing", which implies its being done purposely), I'd say this is just a natural progression of politics on an interstate level (e.g. Waltz's/Rousseau's "third image").

Also, do not be so quick to deride Pax Pacifica or Pacifica herself for doing what many of you and your alliances did for the better part of a year: tacitly consenting to NPO's management of the interstate system. Most of you were free-riders and a large majority of you benefited in some way materially from NPO's management of the system (see: extreme NS inflation over the last year as evidence in support of this claim).

Finally, if the forces-that-be are going to engage in the restoration of equilibrium to the system, I offer one recommendation: be very careful that you are doing so for the right reasons -- history has a way of catching up with the ingenuous.

[WarriorConcept]

Freedom of thought? What ally of the NPO isn't allowed freedom of thought? Enemies of the NPO are allowed freedom of thought, the number of rants against them is proof enough of this.

NPO ensures the tranquility of our world and only asks that the opposition respect its peace. It is the opposition who constitutes the real pawns of the political landscape, convincing themselves that they are somehow oppressed during a period of growth and prosperity.

Those who lose their freedom do so only due to their own irresponsiblity (i.e. GATO).

People want tranquility? Guess GPA did take over

[Byron Orpheus]

People want tranquility? Guess GPA did take over

No, people want assurances of survival.

People are entertained by war, but only if that war is a war that they can easily recover from, a possibility only if on the winning side.

This war is not war in the catastrophic sense, then, because what was undone can be easily fixed by large sums of alliance funds.