The Fallacy of Democracy

[Ray Matveyev]

The inefficiency argument again? LSF and SWF must be the worst alliances in the game because of our democratic natures then.

[Kaiser]

What is the #1 alliance in the game?

What alliance are you in?

Point set and match.

[Sal Paradise]

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

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.

I'm not the best person to take this on. Caring about the content of the horrible essays people like to post here is not my department. I just like reading them and giving them a grade. Grades are usually low. I think Heggo got the highest ones though. This essay is nothing but the same simplistic anti-democracy argument we've all heard before: cults of personality and factions, which are seen in despotic alliances as well (something an astute observer should have noticed and any honest writer should have addressed). This alone makes it obvious that the OP has no familiarity with his subject. The existence of several powerful, vibrant successful democracies should have been enough to prevent this nonsense even from someone that has never been in a democracy. The OP has clearly not put any real thought into his theory and instead most of his energy has been spent on rewriting a tired old argument as verbosely as possible.

"subject to the undulations of history as they shape the fogs of memory."

[Valerius]

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

Then this little piece of yours, however masterfully written, is made void. You have no personal experiences to back up your vast generalizations of democratic alliances.

You also miss the fact that CyberNations is a game, and that as a game the most important virtue for an alliance to pursue is that of individual entertainment; that each member nation should be having a good time. This is far more likely to be achieved in an open, democratic alliance where leadership is held accountable for its actions effecting the membership, and the voices of individuals are not only heard, but respected and acted upon. The mere material efficiency (affectionately known as 'pixels') which you argue for is second to these ideals when pursuing the purpose of this game.

[Vassili Zaitsev]

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

The spoiler function should be used only for what it was originally intended--to mask posts discussing movie endings and other OOC topics for which the element of surprise is important. Abuse of the spoiler function will result in a warning.

Verbal warning for you and Bilrow.

[Doitzel]

This thread is now headquarters for the Sal Paradise fan club.

[Tomcat]

Like Bilrow said, even autocratic alliances are forced to bend to the whims of basic democracy.

Because if the dictator of the alliance does a bunch of stupid crap that the general membership does not like, then they will leave until he either starts listening to them, or else he will soon reside in an alliance of one.

[avernite]

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.

Wait... you're in the GGA and you're complaining about, among others, TOP's efficiency?

[Byron Orpheus]

Who did you interview?

I have friends in other alliances, and, as someone else pointed out, it does not require membership to speak upon. Furthermore, I am confused as to your reason for disliking my writing style. I am of the opinion that, since English has hundreds of thousands of words (over a million, actually), someone should be using them. If you are unable to follow, I would suggest buying more schools in your nation.

@Bones Malone: Yes, it is possible to have a dictator that would run things into the ground, but, as Bilrow pointed out, we are free to leave an alliance (usually). The reason democracies are favored IRL is because people cannot choose where they live, for the most part. Here those restrictions do not apply.

@Kaiser and avernite: It is fallacious to think that I am wrong simply because my personal alliance is not a continent-crushing behemoth. If anything, it would be more foolish to be in the number one alliance and talk about how wonderful it was than to be in a lower-ranked alliance and speak generally on the theory and mechanics that drive us.

@President Kent: I understand what you are saying, but I feel that the entertainment could be derived from outside sources of conflict rather than from the internal. It is much more difficult for an alliance with a constant adversary to stagnate.

[Voodoo Nova]

The inefficiency argument again? LSF and SWF must be the worst alliances in the game because of our democratic natures then.

Hey, don't forget TOP and ODN.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Voodoo Nova

[janax]

What country could you live in that is a democracy?

I don't remember too many of those existing in the world. For example, the US is a republic, not a democracy.

[shahenshah]

What is the #1 alliance in the game?

What alliance are you in?

Point set and match.

TOP speed

heh, IRON too is democratic within the Govt.

Democracies too have tyranny, alliances have been stagnated etc.

There is no standard form of democracy, thats the main fault of OP argument IMO, there are several forms of democracies with varying degrees, with each having +s/-s. Also Republic =/= Democracy as said "democratic and republican...".

Edited November 19, 2009 by shahenshah

[shilo]

I have friends in other alliances, and, as someone else pointed out, it does not require membership to speak upon. Furthermore, I am confused as to your reason for disliking my writing style. I am of the opinion that, since English has hundreds of thousands of words (over a million, actually), someone should be using them. If you are unable to follow, I would suggest buying more schools in your nation.

@Bones Malone: Yes, it is possible to have a dictator that would run things into the ground, but, as Bilrow pointed out, we are free to leave an alliance (usually). The reason democracies are favored IRL is because people cannot choose where they live, for the most part. Here those restrictions do not apply.

@Kaiser and avernite: It is fallacious to think that I am wrong simply because my personal alliance is not a continent-crushing behemoth. If anything, it would be more foolish to be in the number one alliance and talk about how wonderful it was than to be in a lower-ranked alliance and speak generally on the theory and mechanics that drive us.

@President Kent: I understand what you are saying, but I feel that the entertainment could be derived from outside sources of conflict rather than from the internal. It is much more difficult for an alliance with a constant adversary to stagnate.

To summarize your arguments so far:

You don't know anything about CN democracies as you have never been in one, you have not interviewed anyone who is/was a member in a democratic alliance, yet you claim you understand the concept of democratic alliance based on your (supposed) understanding of RL democracies (though the question here remains, as has been pointed out, whether in fact you do actually live in a democracy, rather than a republic for example, which in turn would not make your claim for knowledge of CN democracies based on your knowledge of RL democracies any better).

All I can see from you are some broad generalizations, without facts to back you up, without in fact knowledge about the subject at hand (opinions are not knowledge). Generally a good strategy to start a discussion, though your OP surely is not the post with the most substance in this thread. (cake goes to Sal Paradise)

Generally speaking, the biggest failure in any attempt of ingame reasoning is using RL facts and examples as only justification/explanation. It's mostly then when you know someone ran out of arguments, in your case it is rather sad as then you never had any.

If you cared to actually engage in a real discussion about this subject, you could start by explaining the inefficiencies of the current no. 1 alliance, the reasoning why despite their inefficiencies and fallacies, this alliance still made it to the top, why for example one sanctioned alliance with your favored, more efficient system of government is currently exporting away its technology to other alliances and only carries around 30 nuclear weapons, why of the 3 oldest alliance in this game, 2 are democratic and still exist, both quite well as a matter of fact.

You then could go into more detail, point out with specific examples where democratic decision-making led to worse results opposed to compatible autocratic decisions etc.

There is a broad pool of facts, examples and experiences laying around here, to add substance to your well written story, I recommend using some of these for your next essay.

[Ogaden]

So far my experiences with a totalitarian alliance, and a democratic alliance, I'll take democracy any day.

Gov is better and actually accountable for what they've done/achieved

Leadership positions are acquired through merit/campaigning rather than personal loyalty to 'the leader' or because of nepotism

No ensconced lifers who are all but impossible to remove from their fiefdoms

[defroster]

I agree.

Bring back Ochocinco for King of GGA.

I wholeheartedly agree. I bet he'd return to be King of GGA, so please PLEASE GGA.

Think of the children.

[Kzoppistan]

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.

That's pretty much why I'm here. That, and the free cake they promised me.

Besides, Mr. Orpheus, if you do not agree to the merits of a democratic alliance and also are not in a democratic alliance, why do you care?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Prime minister Johns]

A fully democratic alliance can collapse into indecision when danger threatens, with rounds of voting taking place to decide how to react whist the enemy begins their offensive.

It is better to be in a well run semi-democratic alliance that has the mechanisms to react quickly and appropriately to danger without having to wait for everyone to have their say in a situation that is time critical.

It is better to chose a strong semi-democratic alliance to be your protector and be loyal to them rather than choose a full democracy and have a intrinsicly weaker protector.

The dream of freedom needs to be tempered with the reality of needing security, and for an individual to have the maximum realistic amount of freedom, some freedom must be given up so that the individual does not lose all their freedom.

[Vilien]

I thought you were done with all of this Vladimir Lite™ crap.

[Hime Themis]

Gentle Persons

Since this debate was spurred on the basis of an opinion rather than an empirical scholarly study I should like to add my own humble view. I have had the pleasure of experiencing both Autocratic and Democratic forms of leadership in my alliance choices. Both have merit and both have fault. The style of Government is often a result of the community of an alliance. This, not efficiency or military ability nor swiftness of process is the underlying fundamental value of the banding together in an alliance. Community is that which prevails. Those alliances that have been struck down and survived have had both kinds of government style but those that survive have strength of community. What may be my preference determines my choice of alliance but that does not make it the best for all or even the best, just the best for me. Unlike the author I believe good people may find the ability to rise to positions of importance and influence in any type of alliance. One need not be government to add value and service to an alliance or to Digiterra as a whole. We have many wonderful examples that bear this point home.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

Edited November 19, 2009 by Hime Themis

[Byron Orpheus]

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.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Byron Orpheus

[Delta1212]

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.

Then the most efficient system is an anarchy in which everyone does exactly what needs to be done without requirement for discussion or relaying commands from high to low.

[Kzoppistan]

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.

I am looking forward to your reply to my question.

Besides, Mr. Orpheus, if you do not agree to the merits of a democratic alliance and also are not in a democratic alliance, why do you care?

[Byron Orpheus]

Then the most efficient system is an anarchy in which everyone does exactly what needs to be done without requirement for discussion or relaying commands from high to low.

I would request that you refrain from commenting if you are going to resort to being silly. Clearly unrestrained anarchy is as unwieldy as a democracy (since democracies are little more than anarchy), since there is no means by which to enforce what is best for the common good.

Besides, Mr. Orpheus, if you do not agree to the merits of a democratic alliance and also are not in a democratic alliance, why do you care?

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.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Byron Orpheus

[Vilien]

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.

!@#$%^&* is hardly considered edible.

[Delta1212]

I would request that you refrain from commenting if you are going to resort to being silly. Clearly unrestrained anarchy is as unwieldy as a democracy (since democracies are little more than anarchy), since there is no means by which to enforce what is best for the common good.

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.