The Fallacy of Democracy

[Byron Orpheus]

But an alliance in which everyone automatically acted in the interest of the common good without having to be told what to do would be far more efficient than a system that has to waste time and energy explaining and enforcing decisions.

Yes, it would be a far more efficient system, in much the same way that flying unicorns are a better system of transport than automobiles. Unfortunately, both of those things are rooted securely in the realm of fantasy, rather than reality.

[Vilien]

Yes, it would be a far more efficient system, in much the same way that flying unicorns are a better system of transport than automobiles. Unfortunately, both of those things are rooted securely in the realm of fantasy, rather than reality.

When have you ever been concerned with reality?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Vilien

[Byron Orpheus]

When have you ever been concerned with reality?

In my repeated attempts to improve the lives of others, rather than the incessant bickering of some people.

[Vilien]

In my repeated attempts to improve the lives of others, rather than the incessant bickering of some people.

My dear Orpheus, you've only subjected others to reading mounds of nonsense written in the style of false eloquence. Even the ridiculous bickering that fills these forums is better than that.

[Kzoppistan]

I care because I am, at my core, one who seeks to improve the plight of those who thus far have been unable to help themselves. I come bearing gifts of thought to feed the starving masses.

A commendable goal.

However, subtracting the rhetoric of your original post, the only point you put forth to support your opinion is to suggest that what works in regards to national governance should also be the guideline for an alliance structure.

In this case, to extrapolate a system that governs a smaller government structure onto a larger government structure ignores the inherent administrative differences between the national government and alliance government, to the detriment of the effort.

We can enumerate those differences, if you wish, but I believe my point stands now as a sufficient counter to yours.

As a chair needs more than one leg to hold up its host, you'll have to come up with more points to support your theory. In short, you'll need more entrées if you wish to feed the masses starved of intellectual nourishment.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Byron Orpheus]

A commendable goal.

However, subtracting the rhetoric of your original post, the only point you put forth to support your opinion is to suggest that what works in regards to national governence should also be the guideline for an alliance structure.

In this case, to extrapolate a system that governs a smaller government structure onto a larger government structure ignores the inherent differences between national government and alliance government, to the detriment of the effort.

We can enumerate those differences, if you wish, but I believe my point stands now as a sufficient counter to yours.

As a chair needs more than one leg to hold up its host, you'll have to come up with more points to support your theory. In short, you'll need more entrées if you wish to feed the masses starved of intellectual nourishment.

I find the only difference that exists is the presence of ego, which unfortunately is an unavoidable evil that must be dealt with as it arises. Only selfishness, rooted in the belief that the individual is somehow "special" or "different", causes strife in an alliance committed to the betterment of the whole.

[Lord Rune]

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.

What examples of this are you able to provide that could illuminate your argument? Or is it baseless conjecture?

[Byron Orpheus]

What examples of this are you able to provide that could illuminate your argument? Or is it baseless conjecture?

I suppose I could link you to GATO's history wiki; other than your own alliance, one need only spend time on the OWF (as I have for some time now), reading without commenting and storing the information away for later analysis.

[Lord Rune]

I suppose I could link you to GATO's history wiki; other than your own alliance, one need only spend time on the OWF (as I have for some time now), reading without commenting and storing the information away for later analysis.

You could, but I'd rather you gave specific examples, rather than me have to peruse the OWF. You made the statement, so the onus is upon you to provide the proof.

[Byron Orpheus]

You could, but I'd rather you gave specific examples, rather than me have to peruse the OWF. You made the statement, so the onus is upon you to provide the proof.

I gave you a specific example. Your entire alliance's history.

[Kzoppistan]

I find the only difference that exists is the presence of ego...

Then I suggest you look harder, for the differences are many. In my nation, my workers and soldiers execute my orders single-mindedly. They do not question, nor suggest improvements to the system. I do not have to pay too great of attention to their protests because I cannot be overthrown.

However, in an alliance of like minded leaders, I do have to attend to the wants of my comrades or our coalition will not survive. If I want my expertise and desires to be respected, I have to show the same quarter to others.

As a nation leader who is charged with the protection and betterment of the citizens on my nation, I cannot, in good faith, substitute all of my authority over their actions to anyone else. To do so invites disaster, for if the sole leader that I should bend to is not smarter or wiser than all those below him combined and does not head the direction implemented by consensus, backed by a vote, then it's very likely he will lead my people into disaster, a scenario I cannot abide by.

Perhaps being completely subservient and prostrating yourself at the feet of some great leader is your idea of a good system, but it certainly isn't my cup of tea.

You may call it ego, but I think of it as reserving the autonomy of my nation for the benefit of my people and preserving an environment of respect that allows all of our nation's leaders to provide their expertise by way of vote in the piloting of this great alliance.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Byron Orpheus]

Then I suggest you look harder, for the differences are many. In my nation, my workers and soldiers execute my orders single-mindedly. They do not question, nor suggest improvements to the system. I do not have to pay too great of attention to their protests because I cannot be overthrown.

So far we are on the same page.

However, in an alliance of like minded leaders, I do have to attend to the wants of my comrades or our coalition will not survive. If I want my expertise and desires to be respected, I have to show the same quarter to others.

Only because they operate under the assumption (mistakenly) that what they want and what is best are the same thing.

Perhaps being completely subservient and prostrating yourself at the feet of some great leader is your idea of a good system, but it certainly isn't my cup of tea.

You may call it ego, but I think of it as reserving the autonomy of my nation for the benefit of my people and preserving an environment of respect that allows all of our nation's leaders to provide their expertise by way of vote in the piloting of this great alliance.

You see it as subservience, yet I never said that free will would be eliminated. In the ideal government, the autocracy, obviously the members would remain in complete control of their nations and their decisions so long as their actions were not a detriment to the alliance as a whole.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Byron Orpheus

[Vilien]

You see it as subservience, yet I never said that free will would be eliminated. In the ideal government, the autocracy, obviously the members would remain in complete control of their nations and their decisions so long as their actions were not a detriment to the alliance as a whole.

autocracy, au⋅toc⋅ra⋅cy –noun: government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.

[Byron Orpheus]

autocracy, au⋅toc⋅ra⋅cy –noun: government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.

That is correct. I am pleased you are able to follow along. That one person would have unlimited authority, although it seems like it would be unnecessary to use such authority unless there were an issue that required it.

[Vilien]

That is correct. I am pleased you are able to follow along. That one person would have unlimited authority, although it seems like it would be unnecessary to use such authority unless there were an issue that required it.

What possible issue requires the use of absolute authority other than the suppression of your own membership?

[Byron Orpheus]

What possible issue requires the use of absolute authority other than the suppression of your own membership?

The suppression of your own memberships less than admirable traits, not their free will. The same principle operates in other alliances, just on a less efficient scale. If you violate the social contract of a democracy, you are punished. The social contract of an autocracy just has more clearly defined goals and less red tape.

[Vilien]

The suppression of your own memberships less than admirable traits, not their free will. The same principle operates in other alliances, just on a less efficient scale. If you violate the social contract of a democracy, you are punished. The social contract of an autocracy just has more clearly defined goals and less red tape.

Free will seems to be the most undesirable trait in an autocracy, and is often suppressed, as seen by your own alliance's frequent actions.

[Byron Orpheus]

Free will seems to be the most undesirable trait in an autocracy, and is often suppressed, as seen by your own alliance's frequent actions.

To achieve success, the individual must be honest with him or herself and realize that no one is able to act as he or she pleases without consequence. The difference between an autocracy and a democracy is that the individual members in the former realize that they are stronger together than separately (much like a bundle of sticks), rather than the latter, in which the members move separately and thus are easily snapped.

[avernite]

To the replies citing examples such as TOP, you have unfortunately mistaken success for completion of the potentiality of success. TOP is successful, yes, but that does not inherently mean that TOP is as efficient as TOP has potential to be. TOP merely being numerically stronger (and tactically as well, depending on who does the opining) does not prove that democracy is better than autocracy; it only proves that TOP is superior to other alliances, but not that an autocratic TOP would not be superior to a democratic TOP.

It is my sincere belief that the inefficiency you cite is a minor concern; the actual efficiency or inefficiency in an alliance is getting the right people in the right place, having them willing to do the work, having a pool of replacements when the need arises, and making said replacement happen.

The exact scenario of making decisions, being an emperor discussing the best course with his advisers, a council of 9 reaching a decision, or a 48 hour debate are not so extremely critical. I do agree that a complete democracy without an ability to act quicker than a full-membership vote is inefficient, but so is an autocracy where the autocrat can't be replaced even though he's often absent for 2 days in a row. Misimplementation of either system is bad.

That said, I feel TOP's democracy empowers the members, making them care more and actually try very hard to come up with the best ideas. In short, TOP's democracy is what keeps the current set of people in and what attracted all these talented individuals. Thus, I think an autocratic TOP would be worse than the current version.

[Byron Orpheus]

It is my sincere belief that the inefficiency you cite is a minor concern; the actual efficiency or inefficiency in an alliance is getting the right people in the right place, having them willing to do the work, having a pool of replacements when the need arises, and making said replacement happen.

The exact scenario of making decisions, being an emperor discussing the best course with his advisers, a council of 9 reaching a decision, or a 48 hour debate are not so extremely critical. I do agree that a complete democracy without an ability to act quicker than a full-membership vote is inefficient, but so is an autocracy where the autocrat can't be replaced even though he's often absent for 2 days in a row. Misimplementation of either system is bad.

That said, I feel TOP's democracy empowers the members, making them care more and actually try very hard to come up with the best ideas. In short, TOP's democracy is what keeps the current set of people in and what attracted all these talented individuals. Thus, I think an autocratic TOP would be worse than the current version.

And I will agree to disagree, but I do thank you for retaining the ability (lost in some of these others) to present your points clearly and with intellectual honesty.

[Vilien]

To achieve success, the individual must be honest with him or herself and realize that no one is able to act as he or she pleases without consequence. The difference between an autocracy and a democracy is that the individual members in the former realize that they are stronger together than separately (much like a bundle of sticks), rather than the latter, in which the members move separately and thus are easily snapped.

To achieve success, the individual must go along with groupthink in order to please one's allies. If the individual chooses to rail against the established order, he or she must be promptly removed in order to facilitate the continued existence of the puppet state.

[Kzoppistan]

So far we are on the same page.

Indeed, but if I wanted to follow the orders of a supreme authority, I would be a worker, not a leader. Likewise, I have to respect that same decision of those I associate with.

Only because they operate under the assumption (mistakenly) that what they want and what is best are the same thing.

Do you have so little faith in your peers?

You see it as subservience, yet I never said that free will would be eliminated. In the ideal government, the autocracy, obviously the members would remain in complete control of their nations and their decisions so long as their actions were not a detriment to the alliance as a whole.

The success of a democracy rests in the collective pooling of wants and the cohesion that comes from the satisfaction of those wants. Autocracy has shown no better at avoiding the pitfalls of alliance governments than democracy.

Only selfishness, rooted in the belief that the individual is somehow "special" or "different", causes strife in an alliance committed to the betterment of the whole.

If you think that the betterment of the whole is best accomplished by subjugating the individualities into uniformity, I suggest you examine how group inter-competitiveness enhances the strength of the whole more while avoiding the errors caused by group think.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Byron Orpheus]

To achieve success, the individual must go along with groupthink in order to please one's allies. If the individual chooses to rail against the established order, he or she must be promptly removed in order to facilitate the continued existence of the puppet state.

A puppet state would imply that there was an outside force pulling the strings; an sovereign state, however you may disagree with its methods, can hardly be said to be a puppet. Perhaps your alliance's own sovereignty should be brought into question, given your readiness to jump to conclusions on the subject.

[Vilien]

A puppet state would imply that there was an outside force pulling the strings; an sovereign state, however you may disagree with its methods, can hardly be said to be a puppet. Perhaps your alliance's own sovereignty should be brought into question, given your readiness to jump to conclusions on the subject.

How is my alliance's tendency to question authority at all tied to your alliance's tendency to kick out government members who resent being tied to an incompetent ally?

[Byron Orpheus]

How is my alliance's tendency to question authority at all tied to your alliance's tendency to kick out government members who resent being tied to an incompetent ally?

I suppose that I am simply confused because your definition of a puppet state differs from its globally accepted denotation.