The Fallacy of Democracy

[Byron Orpheus]

Fellow denizens of Planet Bob,

Clearly we have seen the face of this world shift and change, subject to the undulations of history as they shape the fogs of memory. There is only one universal truth on our planet (that is, beyond the mechanisms that drive us, which is a different matter, as I speak of results rather than forces), and that truth is that the mighty prevail and the weak succumb. True, my friends, the mighty can be toppled; but ponder, if you will, on the nature of the mighty that falls victim to those that were once underneath his boot. Those in power who in turn are undermined by those whom they seek to rule cannot be called mighty, for surely they have grown soft and weak in their contentment, thinking to themselves that power can be accumulated by some sort of political perpetual motion machine, a weakness that their opponents will be sure to exploit at their soonest convenience.

But it would seem foolish to waste your time with concepts that I am sure I do not have to explain to you; you have witnessed enough on this planet to know what can and will happen given the right circumstances and the right motivations; the drive of the oppressed and the whip of the oppressor, if one can be permitted for momentarily lapsing into absolutism. Clearly the discussion of the ever-flowing rivers of power is not the topic that brings me here today, as you may have discerned from the topic's title. No, my good people, I am speaking to you today because of some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head for the last little bit, namely on the topic of government. There is much discussion on the subject of government, as by our planet's nature the storm of transforming alliances and blocs each spawn a plethora of constitutions and amendments, treaties and pacts, until the political savvy are practically dizzy from the interconnectedness of it all, as well as with the speed at which the whole mess can come tumbling down.

Which brings me to my point, to the issue that has been perplexing me this last little bit: the continued existence of democratic and republican alliances. It is, in my opinion, an uncontested fact that there is no means for an individual to meet with any success in this world without reliance upon others; the fact that alliances rather than single nations are the most common means of diplomatic expression gives testament to this fact. It stands to reason, then, that the most important structural level is the alliance, the State. Within the State are political complexities unable to be achieved on the national level, which is more or less tyrannical. All of our respective citizens are completely subject to our will without recourse. Yet, for some reason, this mentality does not always translate to the State level. It seems that since when an alliance benefits, the individual nations benefit; because of this, it also seems that it would more wise to have an efficient structure capable of rapid decisions (given the rapid nature of our world) and leadership that can move the independent nationalities that comprise an alliance in a solitary direction in which all stand to gain.

Democracies cloud this efficiency. They are filth-ridden breeding grounds for the politically greedy, for the manipulators, for the smooth-talking conmen that are determined to swindle the State out of its potential and squander its resources on their own petty power games. To invite democracy into an alliance is to invite in mediocrity, to invite in corruption, and ultimately allow for many hours of wasted time in making decisions that a solitary ruler or small group of rulers could easily make without all the tedium inherent in the democratic system. To invite democracy, further, is to invite factions within an alliance, and these factions (beyond causing division) also obscure progress; the corporeal problems that an alliance faces are buried deep within the political rhetoric as the factions cause the members to divide their attention from the gains of their alliance and instead focus on the various would-be cults of personality all vying for control of what is at that point essentially a wounded, desperate, dying animal.

The true enemy, my friends, is clearly those who claim to have all the solutions; the politicians. It does not take much searching to notice that the "peoples'" alliances and the democratic alliances are either swiftly disbanded due to their inefficiencies or left to stagnate in their own refuse, as they are unable of functioning at anywhere near a competitive level against more efficient entities. Therefore, I would implore those of you who are still trapped in this backwards means of governing to cast off the politicians and all their delusions, and instead embrace a life free of swindlers and opportunists, uniting for a common good that is achieved by homogeneous group effort rather than sinister backroom plotting.

Expectantly,

Byron Orpheus

[Sunstar]

I suppose I am the enemy then. How am I to cast off myself exactly?

[Byron Orpheus]

I suppose I am the enemy then. How am I to cast off myself exactly?

If you are truly interested in the well-being of the State rather than your own personal aspirations, use the power you currently hold to alter your alliance's constitution in a way that will reflect a new era of efficiency and brotherhood.

[Bilrow]

All alliances at their core are democratic since everyone votes with their feet and have a free choice to stay or to leave.

Edit: Except GGA where you have the Blood Oath

Edited November 19, 2009 by Bilrow

[Byron Orpheus]

All alliances at their core are democratic since everyone votes with their feet and have a free choice to stay or to leave.

Edit: Except GGA where you have the Blood Oath

All alliances are at their core tyrannical, as the citizens have no choice but to go along with the whims of the national ruler. Now, for some reason, at the alliance level members feel the need to cloud this clarity and introduce imperfection.

While it is true that members (largely) are able to freely leave, that is not "voting" so much as "moving".

[Bilrow]

All alliances are at their core tyrannical, as the citizens have no choice but to go along with the whims of the national ruler. Now, for some reason, at the alliance level members feel the need to cloud this clarity and introduce imperfection.

While it is true that members (largely) are able to freely leave, that is not "voting" so much as "moving".

If there are no members, then there is no purpose for a leader.

[Delta1212]

I see your grasp of the workings of politics is as sharp as ever.

[Byron Orpheus]

If there are no members, then there is no purpose for a leader.

Luckily Bilrow, no one is arguing that nations are necessary for the creation of an alliance. You are quite adept at politics, it seems, to have discerned this.

However, I am speaking to the practicality of such a social contract; if nations indeed see fit to bind with each other through a mutual contract en masse (an alliance), then it seems logical that such nations would want what is in their mutual best interests, rather than what is in the best interests of squabbling rhetoricians who exist simply to exploit the trust of the members nations in order to build up their own personal power, rather than honoring what is best for the survival and growth of the State.

[Sal Paradise]

Have you ever been in a democratic alliance?

[Byron Orpheus]

Have you ever been in a democratic alliance?

Sadly, I knew that when I put this into the public domain it would ruffle a few feathers. One can only hope, for the sake of the member nations, that this ruffling is the death rattle of the myth of democratic supremacy rather than the continued existence of such alliance structures.

Remember that on Planet Bob there are no civil rights to be violated, there is no voice that can be suppressed. Democracy here only serves to hinder, not assist.

[Sal Paradise]

Sadly, I knew that when I put this into the public domain it would ruffle a few feathers. One can only hope, for the sake of the member nations, that this ruffling is the death rattle of the myth of democratic supremacy rather than the continued existence of such alliance structures.

Remember that on Planet Bob there are no civil rights to be violated, there is no voice that can be suppressed. Democracy here only serves to hinder, not assist.

Have you ever been in a democratic alliance?

[janax]

I agree.

Bring back Ochocinco for King of GGA.

[Byron Orpheus]

Have you ever been in a democratic alliance?

I would rather ZIe.

My opinion is based off of my observations; I am fortunate enough to have been spared first hand experience.

[Bilrow]

If I recall, correctly, GGA (if that is your alliance) went to a system of democratically elected positions called Templars. So does that mean you are going "ZIe" [sic]?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Bilrow

[Sal Paradise]

My opinion is based off of my observations;

How have you been able to observe the inner workings of a democracy if you haven't been in one? Did you interview people in democracies?

[Byron Orpheus]

If I recall, correctly, GGA (if that is your alliance) went to a system of democratically elected positions called Templars. So does that mean you are going "ZIe" [sic]?

Though I have been admittedly absent for some time due to private reasons, the Charter of the Grand Global Alliance still rests the power in the hands of the Ministers and the Triumvirate, as of my reviewing it just now.

[Byron Orpheus]

How have you been able to observe the inner workings of a democracy if you haven't been in one? Did you interview people in democracies?

Yes. See how a silly question gets answered?

[Sal Paradise]

If I recall, correctly, GGA (if that is your alliance) went to a system of democratically elected positions called Templars. So does that mean you are going "ZIe" [sic]?

Oh I see, so he is in a democracy and doesn't even know it? Not the kind of person I'd just trust on the subject then.

Yes. See how a silly question gets answered?

Who did you interview?

[Byron Orpheus]

Oh I see, so he is in a democracy and doesn't even know it? Not the kind of person I'd just trust on the subject then.

Bilrow is mistaken.

Who did you interview?

[ooc] I know how a democracy works, I live in a democracy, there are reasons for democracy IRL. Here there are not.[/ooc]

[Sal Paradise]

[ooc] I know how a democracy works, I live in a democracy, there are reasons for democracy IRL. Here there are not.[/ooc]

Who did you interview?

[Ragashingo]

I usually find Sal Paradise's methods a bit grating, but so far he seems to be the prefect man to combat this silliness.

[Azaghul]

Edit: Except GGA where you have the Blood Oath

Or if they want to leave for unrelated reasons while their alliance is in any war, no matter how one-sided in their favor

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I'm sure Sal will do a fine job of handling this, but people have been bloviating about democratic inefficiency since the first Great War to make political hay. I'm sure this is no different nor any more relevant.

[Bones Malone]

Firstly, I see your points as I have gone over them myself at the founding of my alliance. You've articulated these points well and nothing you say is wrong. I never the less have to disagree with it. I love democracy even though it has many problems. You summed up the first part of my thoughts on the matter very well.

It is, in my opinion, an uncontested fact that there is no means for an individual to meet with any success in this world without reliance upon others

Shouldn't the ones that are relied upon as the core of the state then be allowed to participate fully in alliance decisions rather than one person or one group of people (that cannot be unseated or their influence taken away even if their decisions are not in the best interest of the group) imposing their will for benefit or detriment? Sure, it is slower my way, but I would not say that the other way is better. You can have a bad dictator (sorry, I can't think of a different term, not meant as an insult) that runs a state into the ground the same way that you can have a bad politician in a democracy. I prefer democracy because it is ultimately the members' choice as to how that goes (bad politicians can be deposed easier than a bad dictator, especially if it is written into the constitution).

I do agree with your assessment of the logistical problems, but I prefer those to a situation where a membership would be unable to have a voice in how things are run.

They are filth-ridden breeding grounds for the politically greedy, for the manipulators, for the smooth-talking conmen that are determined to swindle the State out of its potential and squander its resources on their own petty power games.

Oooh ooooh, which one am I? Can I be the smooth-talker? Please? Please?

Good read, I enjoyed it.

[Ellis]

tl;dr: Democracies in CN are lame. I know this, despite not ever having been part of one, or appearing to have talked to anyone who has.

Firstly, government IRL is very different to CN government, and don't really compare well. for example, in real life, there are many ways to excel and be succesful, e.g. Science, the Arts, business, that sort of thing. Here in CN, you're government, or you're just some guy. There are exceptions, but they are few.

Secondly, hostilities in all of the Great Wars have been started by non-democratic alliances. Take what you will from that.