The Fallacy of Democracy

[Vilien]

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

puppet state -noun: a government that is appointed by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority that may impose hardships on those governed

Dear Planet Bob,

I come to speak with an opinion on this here thread. Although many a bright mind have posted their own strong opinions about shaneprice's leaving of the Grand Global Alliance, and then the open trolling and dissing of said alliance, there are reasons that such a member left. Do not think that he was "kicked out" under "stupid reasons". He was let go for he committed a vile act. Shaneprice was convicted of speaking out against the New Pacific Order as well as IRON and also suggesting that the Grand Global Alliance "leave" OneVision. Now one may think that these reasons are "pathetic", but put your alliance in the shoes of the Grand Global Alliance. How would you take it if a member of leadership were to speak out against an ally who has stuck by your alliance since it's birth, or in this case "rebirth"? With that said, shaneprice was given the option to either leave with a partial good note, or be kicked. I, as Chancellor of the Grand Global Alliance, stand by the decisions of our leadership. Shaneprice nearly brought war to the Grand Global Alliance with his little "outburst". Think about it.

~Dephire, Chancellor of the Grand Global Alliance.

[Laserwolf]

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

With all due respect, GATO has survived more than most alliances in the history of CN. What holds us and continues to hold us together is our community. The issues in the past for GATO have not been a direct cause of our style of government but the decisions and actions of our leaders. All leaders make good and bad decisions/choices. It just so happens that GATO has had more of the latter than the former that have been the root of our troubles.

Which comes to my point of leadership. In all reality, the style government, be it democracy, quasi-democracy, meritocracy, dictatorship, etc., is not what makes an alliance effective and efficient. The weight of an alliance is on the shoulders of their respective leaders. How a leader acts, communicates, responds to issues, and interacts with other players and alliances is what determines an alliance's success or demise.

The point leadership of an alliance, be it a Triumv, Dual-Head (Spartaish), or in my case as the Assembly Chairman is a high responsibility and requires a high level of integrity, honesty, and transparency. Any leader or team of leaders can make a bad decision and take their alliance down a path that hurts the alliance. What separates leaders(ships) is how they handle those decisions and situations. The style of gov't does not influence a leader's actions. If anything, a democracy demands more accountability to their members than other forms of governments. (If I am off on this statement, my apologies. GATO is the only alliance I've ever been a member of and am not familiar of the workings of other styles of government).

Just because you don't like democracies or see their value, doesn't mean they don't work. GATO and ODN are two of the largest and oldest democracies in CN. While we both have our histories, we are still around and working our tales off to move beyond our respective pasts.

I'm not sure where your dislike for democracies stems from, but before bashing a style of government take an in-depth look at leadership is more important than style of government.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Laserwolf

[Kzoppistan]

Also, Orpheus, before we get too far, I'd like to remind you that the only practical point you put forth, that what works for the nation should be used for the alliance, I have refuted by mentioning one example, that nation leaders do not wish to be treated as workers or give up their autonomy, in which a difference in governance would be more beneficial to the whole.

If you wish to convince me, you'll have to bring more points to the table for consideration.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Schattenmann]

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

In the shower.

[Ghuxalia]

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.

What fun is brotherhood in a land of war?

[Style #386]

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.

I could name a host of democratic alliances that have neither disbanded (and won't soon) nor stagnated (and won't soon), my own included. In fact, three of the four oldest alliances in the game are democracies (well, one isn't anymore, but that doesn't appear to have been an improvement).

On another note, if I could somehow change my alliance, the ODN, into an authoritarian alliance today, people would leave. Lots of them. Many people play this game under the expectation that they will have some form of say in their alliance's direction.

[Satsukage]

All alliances are at their core tyrannical, as the citizens have no choice but to go along with the whims of the national ruler.

I beg to differ. The Lost World is in no way tyrannical as we always refer to our membership for any decision. Our system might not be efficient, however our membership gets a say in politics and who we should be making treaties with.

You point out that a democracy is made of mediocrity based on one or two cons. Democracy might be slow in the ways of decision making, however the decisions made are thoroughly investigated in debates. If you propose a Monarchy or a dictatorship, the decisions are made almost instantly with no regards to what might go wrong. Democracy is a fair system of government which incorporates everyone's opinion and takes into account everyone when making a decision. The process might be slower, but in the end, the results might turn out better.

I also would like to point out the fact that no government is perfect, that includes a democracy, however every alliance has a government that works best. It all depends on the members and whether they agree on who is governing them.

[Lusitan]

Jesus, not another anti-democracy enlightned guy.

Your piece, albeit wonderfully written, is a complete fallacy on itself. You seem very confused on the matters of leading an alliance, I would even risk saying you have no idea what you are talking about.

This statement:

. 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.

Makes absolutelly no sense. Political greed? For what purpose? The government in an alliance exists to serve the members, the position does not provide any special benefits, support or rewards - except the satisfaction of helping the alliance. Greed, manipulation and all you said only make sense when there's something to get from it. The truth is, most democratic governments do not reward in any way their political leaders - thus making your point invalid.

As a matter of fact, a TFD member asked this the other day:

What are the advantages of being senator ?

Senate is the legislative body of TFD. It appoints the Executive body (Ministers). And received this reply:

No advantage. It is just another way to help serve your fellow team mates here in TFD. There really is no advantage other than tons and tons of hard work and very high activity, and after your all done with your term your only going to get a thank you and maybe a good job. I personally feel that these are the most selfless members of TFD as they have to set aside there ideals and think about what is good for TFD, not them selves.

I believe this should address your delusion about what motivates leaders in democratic alliances. Let us move forward into the intra-alliance corruption.

Truth is, dictatorial alliances are much more subject to corruption than transparent democracies where the alliance members can observe what and why their leaders do and decide if they want them as leaders in the process. Democracies are the only type of government that allows the membership to decide if the government is doing a good job and in case not, replace it. Even when the process is based on the popularity of the candidates or apathy of the membership, it will be the membership's choice and therefore their responsibility. Dictatorships make the members accountable for things they don't have any control over.

Dictatorships are also the main reason for alliance stagnation. The perpetuating of the same people in the lead will result on the suffocation of potential new leaders and new ideas. It will close down the perspective of the alliance to the one of the leader. It will reduce the alliance spirit to the cult of the leader or the cult of the position of leader. In summary, the alliance overall will think less for itself.

Last, but not the least, Dictatorships are the ultimate breeding ground for corruption. Any situation where people who are responsible can remain in the lead without the membership having the power to realistically replace them. This allows leaders who were initially competent (or not) to become gradually incompetent to the point of jeopardizing the alliance's integrity and security - and the members cannot do anything to stop this, because they don't have the power or because they were "taught" to accept the leaders with those flaws and are too apathic to acknowledge they can have better.

Ironically, the most flagrat example of the demise of an alliance (that didn't end up in disbandment, there are several flagrant examples of that) caused by an incompetent dictatorial regime is the pre-Karma War GGA itself; its failure to grow, its complete absence of military preparation and the excessive reliance on the protection of other alliances is a classical example of alliance-wide mismanagement where the leaders could not do better and apparently the membership could not demand better - regardless of acknowledging there was anything better or not.

When reading your post and observing other alliances that are democracies, TOP or FOK for example, you will understand that what you wrote is not just wrong. It doesn't make sense.

[Delta1212]

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.

A fantasy realm that also contains a TOP that would consent to being run autocratically. If you want to deal with reality, then the members in TOP seem to have a very strong democratic leaning and the chances of getting them to function under an autocratic government are consequently rather poor. This makes an autocratic TOP less likely to have a higher efficiency potential than democratic TOP.

[Ragashingo]

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."

Nice post. And you claim you aren't a good fit for this job?

[ModusOperandi]

The diverse number of democracies result in a tribulatingly skewed vision of what democracy means to you in the Olde World; every alliance is unique in its own way, no one claims that the popular franchise is infallible.

All of NPO, Legion and GATO gained an advantage from some form of democracy in the old days.

The key is to balance representation with entertaining activity so one can take advantage of that edge.

At least, that's the way the New World operates.

[Kaiser]

You remind me of the someone who drank shots of truth and chased it with balls.

Are you sure you're not The Scholar?

[zimmerwald1915]

Nah, he's older than that, AFAIK.

Apropos of nothing, every one of these threads is the same.

[Doitzel]

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.

See also: the Great Uprising.

You know your argument sucks when I'm on the same side as Bilrow.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Elyat

[Lord Rune]

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

So you cannot cite any specific examples, from either GATO's history or any others. You're just making assumptions. Thank you.

[Byron Orpheus]

I will address several concerns at once. Firstly, no one said that democracy is not a form of government; obviously democracy is capable of some level of competency, otherwise it would not exist (and would not be so passionately, albeit wrongly, defended by you all); what I said was that democracy was to accept mediocrity.

Furthermore, to address the concerns of the autocratic ruler, someone has already pointed out that on this planet alliance members are for the most part able to leave their alliances readily if conditions become too unsuitable. Thus, it is nearly impossible for there to be a malevolent dictator that had any control over his or her members, for the members would either coup or leave. It is logical, then, to assume that members remaining in an autocratic government are pleased with that government type, and while they are there it seems as if it would be in their best interest to keep the alliance's best interest in mind. That is, if they are not actually seeking power rather than seeking the welfare of their fellow alliance members. Which brings me to my next point.

It is a fallacy to assume that government members on Planet Bob are not after power. While I would concede the fact that Planet Bob is a small pond, it is a pond nevertheless, and there will always be people who take any measure of authority to the extreme, regardless of how much to which said authority amounts.

And whereas Lusitan introduces several good points on the side of democracy, he also ignores that democracy brings with it its own faults as well (and everyone should realize that my argument was never that autocracy is perfect, just simply less imperfect than democracy). While autocracies may breed stagnation (which is only if the leader is foolish enough to deprive the members of any activity, while the wise leader would find a way to occupy his members' minds), all of the potential energy of a democracy is exhausted into internal strife. Lord Rune wanted examples, so let's go through the list of GATO members who have hurt the alliance more than they helped it (just off the top of my head and in no particular order): Grenval, Chris_Kaos, Vincent_Xander, BarbulaM1, Gonzoczar, Depraved, Yoda, Letum-- these are all people that, through whatever personal agenda they had, ultimately hurt your alliance. That is just as an outsider. I am sure that you as an insider could probably name unknowns or rising prima donnas whom of the rest of us are unaware.

[The Eye]

IC

[Doitzel]

I like how someone with their alliance affiliation set to "Grand Global Alliance" has the gall to rattle off a list of the failed leaders of GATO as support for his theory on the failures of democracy. It's no surprise from the Baghdad Bob of the Karma War, but still, the irony is enough to move billions of my neurons to exasperated tears.

[shilo]

Furthermore, to address the concerns of the autocratic ruler, someone has already pointed out that on this planet alliance members are for the most part able to leave their alliances readily if conditions become too unsuitable. Thus, it is nearly impossible for there to be a malevolent dictator that had any control over his or her members, for the members would either coup or leave. It is logical, then, to assume that members remaining in an autocratic government are pleased with that government type, and while they are there it seems as if it would be in their best interest to keep the alliance's best interest in mind. That is, if they are not actually seeking power rather than seeking the welfare of their fellow alliance members. Which brings me to my next point.

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".

So staying in an autocratic alliance isn't so much approving of the leader, the system or the decisions of the leader(s) but simply "not moving", if I understand you correctly?

Edited November 20, 2009 by shilo

[ModusOperandi]

I will address several concerns at once. Firstly, no one said that democracy is not a form of government; obviously democracy is capable of some level of competency, otherwise it would not exist (and would not be so passionately, albeit wrongly, defended by you all); what I said was that democracy was to accept mediocrity.

Furthermore, to address the concerns of the autocratic ruler, someone has already pointed out that on this planet alliance members are for the most part able to leave their alliances readily if conditions become too unsuitable. Thus, it is nearly impossible for there to be a malevolent dictator that had any control over his or her members, for the members would either coup or leave. It is logical, then, to assume that members remaining in an autocratic government are pleased with that government type, and while they are there it seems as if it would be in their best interest to keep the alliance's best interest in mind. That is, if they are not actually seeking power rather than seeking the welfare of their fellow alliance members. Which brings me to my next point.

It is a fallacy to assume that government members on Planet Bob are not after power. While I would concede the fact that Planet Bob is a small pond, it is a pond nevertheless, and there will always be people who take any measure of authority to the extreme, regardless of how much to which said authority amounts.

And whereas Lusitan introduces several good points on the side of democracy, he also ignores that democracy brings with it its own faults as well (and everyone should realize that my argument was never that autocracy is perfect, just simply less imperfect than democracy). While autocracies may breed stagnation (which is only if the leader is foolish enough to deprive the members of any activity, while the wise leader would find a way to occupy his members' minds), all of the potential energy of a democracy is exhausted into internal strife. Lord Rune wanted examples, so let's go through the list of GATO members who have hurt the alliance more than they helped it (just off the top of my head and in no particular order): Grenval, Chris_Kaos, Vincent_Xander, BarbulaM1, Gonzoczar, Depraved, Yoda, Letum-- these are all people that, through whatever personal agenda they had, ultimately hurt your alliance. That is just as an outsider. I am sure that you as an insider could probably name unknowns or rising prima donnas whom of the rest of us are unaware.

Friend, it is an accepted logic that a little bit of autocracy and a little bit of democracy are essential for the continuation of an alliance.

To resort to the idea that one is infallible while the other is perfect is.. well, I'm trying to put this politely without appearing to insult you (because I enjoy this convo and don't want you to think I'm attacking you).. but its ignorant imo.

No one is saying democracy is perfect.

What they are saying is that full-blown autocracy limits activity/entertainment and the state suffers for it.

I've been here over three years, Bil has been around forever, and other people who have criticized your manifesto have an equivalent level of experience; I haven't personally met anyone on Bob who has been around for a while and hasn't accepted that a little bit of both is necessary for success.

Its a difficult balance.

Most of us have been where you are right now, disgusted by the petty politics and backstabbing that democracy can create.. thinking "if only I had a little more control.. and everyone accepted my ideas"..

but that's the problem,

Members won't blindly accept your ideas and some will leave.

Thus forfeiting any benefit from having them contribute to the state.

In my opinion, although I'm certainly no expert, you should put this into practice by starting an alliance to find out for yourself; experience is the best mentor after all.

However, I guarantee you that you will mightily struggle because individuals won't find your alliance as entertaining.

Find the balance that works best for you, don't throw away an established and proven political process because of idealism; ideas get you nowhere, rationally putting them into action will.

[Earogema]

I would rather ZIe.

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

Oh Goodness.

I'm glad to see you're still around though.

[steodonn]

I will address several concerns at once. Firstly, no one said that democracy is not a form of government; obviously democracy is capable of some level of competency, otherwise it would not exist (and would not be so passionately, albeit wrongly, defended by you all); what I said was that democracy was to accept mediocrity.

Furthermore, to address the concerns of the autocratic ruler, someone has already pointed out that on this planet alliance members are for the most part able to leave their alliances readily if conditions become too unsuitable. Thus, it is nearly impossible for there to be a malevolent dictator that had any control over his or her members, for the members would either coup or leave. It is logical, then, to assume that members remaining in an autocratic government are pleased with that government type, and while they are there it seems as if it would be in their best interest to keep the alliance's best interest in mind. That is, if they are not actually seeking power rather than seeking the welfare of their fellow alliance members. Which brings me to my next point.

It is a fallacy to assume that government members on Planet Bob are not after power. While I would concede the fact that Planet Bob is a small pond, it is a pond nevertheless, and there will always be people who take any measure of authority to the extreme, regardless of how much to which said authority amounts.

And whereas Lusitan introduces several good points on the side of democracy, he also ignores that democracy brings with it its own faults as well (and everyone should realize that my argument was never that autocracy is perfect, just simply less imperfect than democracy). While autocracies may breed stagnation (which is only if the leader is foolish enough to deprive the members of any activity, while the wise leader would find a way to occupy his members' minds), all of the potential energy of a democracy is exhausted into internal strife. Lord Rune wanted examples, so let's go through the list of GATO members who have hurt the alliance more than they helped it (just off the top of my head and in no particular order): Grenval, Chris_Kaos, Vincent_Xander, BarbulaM1, Gonzoczar, Depraved, Yoda, Letum-- these are all people that, through whatever personal agenda they had, ultimately hurt your alliance. That is just as an outsider. I am sure that you as an insider could probably name unknowns or rising prima donnas whom of the rest of us are unaware.

And the GGA hasn't had internal strife

Mabey you should examine your own alliance beore going after democracy

[Lord Rune]

so let's go through the list of GATO members who have hurt the alliance more than they helped it (just off the top of my head and in no particular order): Grenval, Chris_Kaos, Vincent_Xander, BarbulaM1, Gonzoczar, Depraved, Yoda, Letum-- these are all people that, through whatever personal agenda they had, ultimately hurt your alliance. That is just as an outsider. I am sure that you as an insider could probably name unknowns or rising prima donnas whom of the rest of us are unaware.

I don't consider that any of those you've listed, as doing acts that could not have been carried out in a non-democratic alliance. Once their acts were seen they were dealt with. Which is the mark of a democracy-being responsible for your acts. Are you seriously suggesting that in a authoritarian alliance, everything is above board and visible?

You cite the fact that members do not leave authoritarian alliances as proof that members are happy with that alliance. Most members, especially those new to the alliance are happy in any alliance as long as their nation can grow and prosper. If a war happens, many leave, asking not to be attacked as they had no knowledge of what their leader was leading them into.

You mention internal strife. I see discussion and debate. I see members expressing their views. I see members being allowed to voice their opinions and not being ridiculed by some leader "who knows better." I don't see reports of members being ejected because their views may bring down the wrath of a treaty partner. I don't see reports from those members who have left saying they were just treated as cannon-fodder.

edit; proof reading doesn't work.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Lord Rune

[Lusitan]

And whereas Lusitan introduces several good points on the side of democracy, he also ignores that democracy brings with it its own faults as well (and everyone should realize that my argument was never that autocracy is perfect, just simply less imperfect than democracy). While autocracies may breed stagnation (which is only if the leader is foolish enough to deprive the members of any activity, while the wise leader would find a way to occupy his members' minds), all of the potential energy of a democracy is exhausted into internal strife. Lord Rune wanted examples, so let's go through the list of GATO members who have hurt the alliance more than they helped it (just off the top of my head and in no particular order): Grenval, Chris_Kaos, Vincent_Xander, BarbulaM1, Gonzoczar, Depraved, Yoda, Letum-- these are all people that, through whatever personal agenda they had, ultimately hurt your alliance. That is just as an outsider. I am sure that you as an insider could probably name unknowns or rising prima donnas whom of the rest of us are unaware.

What you point as democarcy weak point is actually its strong point. People who lead alliances with personal agendas that turn out to be a disaster happen everywhere - both in dictatorships and democracies. The examples are countless on both sides. However, only in a democracy the membership has the power to replace that leader and his agenda, dictatorships are ill fated to go down the drain. So yes, in the situation you presented, it's the democracy that comes on top, not the dictatorship.

[Byron Orpheus]

I like how someone with their alliance affiliation set to "Grand Global Alliance" has the gall to rattle off a list of the failed leaders of GATO as support for his theory on the failures of democracy. It's no surprise from the Baghdad Bob of the Karma War, but still, the irony is enough to move billions of my neurons to exasperated tears.

Again (and as usual) your logic fails, because you assume that the shortcomings of my own alliance imply that my logic is unsound; clearly government type alone does not make or break an alliance, and your repeated attempts to twist my words only serve to expose yourself as the silly has-been that you are; a shrieking, albeit ineffective, harpy of inanities that flies around shrilly and impotently, waiting only for someone with enough sympathy to put it down.

I listed off the GATO leaders because LordRune seemed deeply offended that I had not included a spreadsheet of democractic failings, and I felt it would be a pleasant consolation prize to provide him with examples with which he would be familiar, rather than spouting off a chain of names I could very well be making up.