On Order

[Byron Orpheus]

You were horrible at those connect the dot pictures as a kid weren't you? How else did you manage to get from what Doitzel said to this?

Clearly if you had read the thread in context you would know that I was referring to Doitzel's reply to another individual who claimed that NPO had greatness thrust upon them.

Doitzel's reply to that opinion is that he knew that "Dominance" was always on the agenda of Pacifica, which prompted the question in my mind of why an alliance would choose not to be as successful as possible.

I guess I should have connected the dots with a thick marker so you could see the perfectly straight lines better.

[Ragashingo]

Clearly if you had read the thread in context you would know that I was referring to Doitzel's reply to another individual who claimed that NPO had greatness thrust upon them.

Doitzel's reply to that opinion is that he knew that "Dominance" was always on the agenda of Pacifica, which prompted the question in my mind of why an alliance would choose not to be as successful as possible.

I guess I should have connected the dots with a thick marker so you could see the perfectly straight lines better.

Your lines may have been perfectly straight, but they were nowhere near the page.

Dominance and success are not the same thing. Many alliances would not choose to be as successful as possible because being as successful as possible tends to involve throwing morals and fair play out the window. The STA for example wants to thrive and is in fact thriving but we're not going to do so at the expense of others if we can help it. I believe these same ideals of success are followed by the vast majority of alliances and only a handful truly wish for dominance.

[Gruthenia]

Clearly if you had read the thread in context you would know that I was referring to Doitzel's reply to another individual who claimed that NPO had greatness thrust upon them.

Doitzel's reply to that opinion is that he knew that "Dominance" was always on the agenda of Pacifica, which prompted the question in my mind of why an alliance would choose not to be as successful as possible.

I guess I should have connected the dots with a thick marker so you could see the perfectly straight lines better.

I think this is kind of obvious but in an environment where nobody tells you what your goals are, you're free to create your own, and as a result of many people not fancying themselves some sort of conquerors they're content to pursue less grand visions.

[Orkules]

An excellent read there Delta, I quite enjoyed it and agreed with much of what was said. Coursca and Ferrous both made excellent points for and against your thesis and I am glad I read them both. Byron on the other hand...he sounded like an idiot.

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.

This assumes that what NPO and co think is a threat to the world is truly a threat to the world. Many many people might disagree what is a threat to the world as a whole. Personally I would not see a threat of war against the NPO as a threat against the world, at least not my world. In this there can literally be no threat against the world EXCEPT by either A) hackers or whatever trying to destroy the site (which most of us can't fight) or B) Some force that somehow arises and desires to repress all of us (which I think would literally be impossible).

Also I have no idea how half of these curbstomps could EVER have become a threat to the damn world (Again, NPO=/=World).

Surely when you start barring free thought it stops being free? ...just a thought.

I agree with this statement. Free thought implies that there is absolutely no restriction to what you think.

As a corollary then other alliances do not strive to be the best? NPO is unique in wanting to be as strong as possible?

/me sighs

Success does not equal domination. Domination implies that you control everything in the world around you. You, either through your own might or the collective might of your allies (either joined to you by friendship or fear or both), rule the world. For example, TDSM8 never wished to rule the world. We wished to be successful, and personally I believe we were highly successful, but we never wished to dominate. Our success was a different kind than succeeding in forcing the world to bow to our views (though what a fun world that would be )

[Il Principe]

The Order has built a house of cards around itself, unable, itself, to truly move without risk of disrupting all that it has constructed and bringing it to ruin

That is some strong house of cards if it has survived for more as two years.

[Bob Janova]

It has not. Continuum is 16 months old.

This is an excellent thread. Both Delta and Bakunin make good points.

[Nintenderek]

What an easy answer. It is obvious that shaneprice's actions at the time were deemed as threatening to the allied relationship between the GGA and the NPO. It was not a condemnation of the viewpoint but rather the actions that were suggested as a result of that viewpoint, an exercise in irresponsibility. Clearly the relationship between GGA and NPO itself was being threatened rather than just a member speaking his mind on policy.

How were his actions threatening? He was government of the alliance and only suggested something new?

However, I will stop this now, for it shall go more off topic than it already is.

[Freelancer]

How were his actions threatening? He was government of the alliance and only suggested something new?

I know there out there. I can feel them now. I know that there afraid... There afraid of us. There afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell them how this is going to end. I came here to tell them how it's going to begin, I'm going to show these people what they don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without them, A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible.

OCC

Nintenderek, feel free to use my adapted classic Matrix Quote for Vox's personal use, when Sponge came aboard, it reminded me of this, I just couldn't figure a way to get it in a post, however this one seemed perfect.

However, I will stop this now, for it shall go more off topic than it already is.

So will I, as we both know where this will go

Edited April 14, 2009 by Freelancer

[mattski133]

That is some strong house of cards if it has survived for more as two years.

I don't consider the alignment of every major alliance under one banner for fear of being the next to be rolled for going their own way a definition of "strength". Someone said it is not survivalism but rather just an agreement to live in relative peace with NPO at the head of the movement guaranteeing the continuance of that environment; yeah maybe. But it is really the same in my eyes.

The moment the more forward-thinking alliances realized they coulc safely move on their own path without being singled out, they started to, one by one. NPO's dominance held them in place, and once that began to fade (see: global inflation of NS) the threat of total destruction began to fade also. We've already seen some major alliances leave The Continuum and they remain intact; something that would probably not have been allowed in previous eras.

I think this is because the world has shifted finally to a more bi-polar if not tri-polar environment where a full offensive could leave a flank totally exposed. I think there is a lot of uncertainty in the 'verse.

As far as the technological arguement; yes it brings alliances closer and conflict resolution becomes much easier. At the same time, it provides an environment in which movements can quickly start and thoughts can flow. I think IRC brings as much instability to the world as it does stability.

Free thought is not barred so long as the free thinkers do not threaten the safety and security of the alliances they differ from.

And stop at the bolded part. Freedom is not conditional.

[Petrovich4]

Excellent OP. Bak's post was concise but good as well.

I'm not sure if this is what Delta is alluding to, however, I favour and agree with his conclusion. A multi-polar world is not necessarily bad for the previous elite number one power, as long as in the multi polar world, the former power that was at the pinnacle of the unipolar world remains the dominant power in comparison to the other bloc powers.

However, many personalities in the NPO do not want a multipolar world because even though it will force them to sharpen their diplomatic skills, the potential of multiple powers uniting under a banner (presently in CN that is HIGHLY unlikely) to topple the dominant power in the multipolar world is too great of a threat for them.

Resistance is futile

[shahenshah]

A Very interesting topic, I like the strong refutements to the OPost.

[Vladimir]

Nice read. I'm now waiting for Vladimir to reply twice as long at least.

Should have sent out the Vlad-signal.

The Future

Delta, Delta, Delta. Where to start! So many unfounded assumptions were made, both on the current political system and on your vision of the future. As it happens I sketched out the structure for an article on the Walfordian idea of 'Balance' a month or so ago when I saw it being brought up again, but after the incident it disappeared and I abandoned it, thinking it was a one-off aberration, confined to the logically-impaired halls of Vox. So let's start there.

Bakunin already raised some of the important criticisms of the Balance Thesis, but for the sake of clarity I'll start at the bottom.

Let's take a look at your world. There are a number of independent 'factions' (aka. blocs) made up of numerous alliances that share common interests. These blocs are roughly the same size, or in some way balance each other, making 'wanton aggression' impossible. Sounds very pretty, I agree. But what assumptions underlie it?

Utopian Assumptions

There are many, but in the interests of keeping this at least somewhat concise (man I'm funny) we'll stick to the big two. The first is that these blocs will all be roughly of the same size and power. How do you magic up this situation, and indeed, what in history makes you think that it is even vaguely likely or sustainable? We have a multi-bloc world today with them numbering in the double figures, and the sizes of these blocs vary from minuscule to 'hegemonic'. These blocs developed freely around common interests (why else would a bloc form?), and yet they are not of roughly equal size or power. This is hardly a surprise if we think about the world in a logical rather than utopian fashion. And so it would be in your world. Different blocs would be different sizes, have different power, and be able to do different things. As alliances joined or left these blocs would change in size. Some blocs grow fast, some shrink: the balance is immediately and increasingly destroyed.

This ties us nicely into assumption two: that these blocs are static -- that you create them and they never move beyond the most minimal changes. So we have five blocs, named A, B, C, D and E, and, for the sake of argument, they are all somehow the same size and growth is zero. What now? Your thesis proposes that they all stay this way, try to advance their own interests, get blocked here or succeed there, and so forth. In reality, however, blocs A, B and C ally with each other to destroy their common enemy, D; bloc E signs up with bloc D because it sees its interests in a bloc D victory. Bloc's D and E are destroyed while Bloc's A, B and C create a unipolar world. The point to this is that the blocs will not be sitting on their thumbs congratulating themselves on this utopia, nor will they be pursuing their interests while handicapping themselves inside it: they will be trying to advance their interests through politics, treaties, and wars. That is to say, in advancing their interests, as you yourself propose them to do, it is inevitable that they will destroy your utopia. The two are incompatible. Oddly most people seem to recognise this (hello Petrovich4), but for some reason refuse to accept what this means -- multi-polarity is not multi-polar if it is uni-polar.

I'll cheat here and bring in an 'assumption two, part two': pursuit of interests. In writing about the current political system you claimed that it was unstable because interests constantly clashed and created a friction that would bring it down. In writing about your utopia you claimed that it was stable because no alliance would be capable of fully pursuing its own perceived interests. How does this make anything more stable? As an alliance finds other alliances to be a fetter upon pursuit of its own interests, the opposition alliance becomes an enemy, and the only answer is a resolution of the contradiction by removing the opposing force. This can be done in a number of manners, but when each alliance is in an equally powerful bloc, the answer is likely to be a stalemate. It is here that bloc A calls in its friends, blocs B and C, to help them in the resolution. By your own logic your utopia collapses 5 minutes in unless every alliance gives up on itself and becomes content to sit in a corner rocking back and forth.

As we can begin to recognise, multi-polarity tends inevitably towards bi-polarity, and bi-polarity tends inevitably towards uni-polarity (usually due to a great war). We could go further and suggest that uni-polarity tends inevitably back towards bi-polarity (however briefly because it is again destroyed in favour of uni-polarity), but that isn't of concern to us today.

We could now go back and look at your proposed utopia, but in truth it all rests on the one central assumption, that the world is static: that blocs don't advance or retract, that any war between blocs wouldn't change the world system, that alliances are either stupid or incapable, that all of hitherto history has just been bad luck, as such having nothing to teach us. It assumes far too much.

Your response to Comrade Bakunin creates even more confusion.

"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."

Here you begin to emphasise the idea that every bloc somehow got itself locked in a stalemate. You again assume that no bloc has the initiative to break the stalemate (again assuming stupidity and/or incompetence on the part of the whole world). And again your wording suggests a conflict of interests that would inevitably result in a great war of some fashion or another. But what about if the interests aren't so divergent? Well, we have a uni-polar world! Multiple blocs all sharing relatively common interests and working in cooperation? Sound familiar? That's what we had since the fall of the Unjust Path.

Now that we've dispelled your utopian future, let's go back to dispel your past.

The Current System

The first thing that must be cleared up is your understanding (or lack thereof) of the Order and the current world system. These are two things that you almost seem to treat interchangeably, with a belief that the Order somehow 'built' the world system against the interests of the rest of the world. What utter hogwash this is. Any world system evolves because it is in the interests of the major alliances within it. The Continuun developed because it was seen to be in the interests of its member alliances. Some alliances left when they felt it was no longer in their interests [contrary to the assertion that such is impossible], while others joined when they felt that it was. Thus in order to understand the specifics of a world system it is not enough to take the 'NPOdidit' reasoning that you do; its evolution must be looked at from start to finish in terms of all actors within it.

It is from this flawed perspective that you develop the idea that there is no unity of interest within the current world system. Of course, this is a gross oversimplification of the world system, since it is built not on one bloc, but on a multitude of cooperative blocs -- Continuum, One Vision, Citadel, Superfriends, etc. But let us accept this simplification for now and instead discuss your simplification of 'interests'. It is odd that for an essay so thoroughly based on the idea of competing alliance interests (which briefly gave me the false hope that you may have taken a materialist outlook away from your reading of Francoism, if nothing else), you never actually define what these interests are. Are they ideological? If so where does ideology come from. Are they material? If so, what material elements are important. Are they moral? If so, where does morality come from. And so forth. Fortunately I don't believe such specifics are necessary to tear down your simplification, since it seems to rest on the assumption that alliances must be almost homogeneous in order to create a good bloc. But this is incorrect. A bloc doesn't need to be pursuing Goal A in order to be of use to its member alliances. Five alliances can be pursuing five completely different goals, and so long as the bloc helps them to do so -- through its cooperative apparatus -- it will remain a successful bloc. Will there be conflict? Yes. Will that conflict necessarily destroy the bloc? No. This is lazy thinking of the highest (or lowest?) degree.

Taking a quick glance at the length of my writing here, and a quick glance at the notes I still have to cover, I think it's probably best that I take this coincidental opportunity to level one final criticism at your perspective. Perhaps I will return to cover the demonstratively ludicrous claims of oppression ['no one can speak out against the current system'... said in a thread doing exactly that? Seriously?], or the flawed logic in the GGA/MK example, or your misunderstanding of Francoism and Pacifican policy, or my obligatory disagreement with Ferrous, or any number of the other things I picked up along the way.

International Unity and Tyranny

But the coincidence brings me to an important point that I may expand on later. You attack the centralisation of the current system, while arguing that there is no common interest. You then argue that it should be decentralised by creating blocs that share a common interest and can be more unified. The current system is based on the idea that alliances should pursue their own interests, yes. Not the Order nor anyone else has said 'you must do this' or 'you must believe that', or even 'you must be in this bloc' or 'you must ally that alliance'. In this way we take not an oppressive view, but an extraordinarily libertarian one. If an alliance is doing something and it doesn't affect us, then carry on. This is the unofficial motto of evil hegemony [whoever or whatever you may perceive it to be] today. You suggest that this is a bad thing and go on to take the view that unified blocs are preferable. What is a unified bloc? One where you must share dogmatic opinion X and take counter-productive action Y or be cast out into the wilderness where you're easy pickings for that evil bloc D? Sounds mighty oppressive to me!

Despite what you may think, the libertarian attitude is the main strength of any bloc. As soon as you start trying to 'unify' alliances into one giant homogeneous ball the whole things falls apart. If they were homogeneous they'd be the same alliance; space is needed for alliances to pursue their own divergent ideas free of constraint. What you propose is not the freeing of alliances, but their enslavement.

I await Vladamir's 1000 word rebuttal.

1971. Aim high!

[Doitzel]

1971. Aim high!

Oh, you're kidding. Not only do I have to come up with $3 million, I have to send it to Moo?

[Vladimir]

And as usual the producing class gets nothing. Work: what a scam!

[pezstar]

Oh, you're kidding. Not only do I have to come up with $3 million, I have to send it to Moo?

I put in the 3M for you, so you could bet. So I have to send Moo 6M. Don't worry. I'll put your name on it.

[Il Principe]

It has not. Continuum is 16 months old.

I thought when Delta was talking about the Pax Pacifica he was talking about all the time since Great War III. Although I agree that The Continuum marks the heyday of the Pax Pacifica.

[Ferrous]

Crap, I was way off in estimating how long Vlad's answer would be.

EDIT: I just realized how appropriate parts of my signature are for this thread.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Ferrous

[Doitzel]

I put in the 3M for you, so you could bet. So I have to send Moo 6M. Don't worry. I'll put your name on it.

I'll pay you back, some day...

[Ejayrazz]

I was going to bet 1751, but would have lost.

Glad I was conservative. Would have been hilarious if Moo would to have aided Doitzel.

[Haflinger]

I'll pay you back, some day...

Consider it a realllllllly longterm tech deal?

[pezstar]

I was going to bet 1751, but would have lost.

Glad I was conservative. Would have been hilarious if Moo would to have aided Doitzel.

I was hoping doitzel would win so that Moo would have to answer 5,000 queries about why everyone was aiding doitzel.

[Bob Janova]

words

My Page Down key is getting tired.

[Ogaden]

Hmm.

Could you link me to that particular view of history? I seem to recall the first CN Emperor of the NPO being a bit of a megalomaniac that was always, from the very earliest stages, bent on world conquest. Nearly every plan he put into place and every statement he made in public was worded to portray the strength of the Order. His hubris knew no limits and his alliance at the time was damned proud of it.

Arrogance at its finest in my opinion.

He did not, technically, set out to rule "Planet Bob" because he thought that was a stupid name and always referred to this place as the Cyberverse.

Fair enough, however the Cyberverse cannot be ruled by strength alone, so such a goal is impossible for one who seeks to use strength alone to conquer this world. Without a broad coalition, your opponents will create their own broad coalition to prevent you from ever doing so, thus the First, Second and Third Great Wars.

Thus my original argument, the NPO did not set out to rule this world, as the circumstances necessary for that rulership to happen occurred very much as a circumstance of the end of the Third Great War.

The NPO had the right emperor for the right circumstances at the right time, thus, my argument that events created the situation more than the alliance. Had a different Emperor or a different set of circumstances been present, any number of alliances would have assumed the hegemonic role other than the NPO.

Indeed, as events may amply demonstrate in the coming months, hegemony is circumstantial and somewhat inevitable.

Edited April 14, 2009 by James Dahl

[Byron Orpheus]

Your lines may have been perfectly straight, but they were nowhere near the page.

Dominance and success are not the same thing. Many alliances would not choose to be as successful as possible because being as successful as possible tends to involve throwing morals and fair play out the window. The STA for example wants to thrive and is in fact thriving but we're not going to do so at the expense of others if we can help it. I believe these same ideals of success are followed by the vast majority of alliances and only a handful truly wish for dominance.

Dominance and success are not the same thing, but dominance comes about as a result of success if one is truly successful. Of course, the confusion might come from that I am talking about actual success and not third-place-but-you-still-get-a-ribbon feel-good success.

Even if you are right, though, what does it matter? The only way you could have a problem with NPO dominance is if you wanted to challenge it. If you and your alliance just wanted to thrive and grow in peace, then there is no problem whatsoever. Only those wishing to usurp NPO's position hate Pacifica.

[Byron Orpheus]

And stop at the bolded part. Freedom is not conditional.

Really? I assume you are free to speak your mind within your alliance.

Are you free to coup your alliance leaders? If the answer is no, then you have limited yourself to two options: 1) That freedom is, indeed, conditional, or 2) That your alliance is a police state and therefore the NPO is secondary on your list of worries.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Byron Orpheus