The end of false morality

[ChairmanHal]

Clearly this "alliance" will succeed so long as it never leaves Peace Mode...

"Protected by Athens." Somehow I don't think that's true any longer. If they actually approve of this train wreck, then in reality this becomes an extension of Athens policy since they are tied to it.

[memoryproblems]

Very few people do something that they themselves believe to be immoral. In the end, wars boil down to two sides who believe that they are doing the right thing. The winning side is commonly accepted as the one who was "moral", the losers being "immoral", as history is written by the victors. Just as I thought that the actions of the NPO was immoral in GW1, 2 and 3, I equally felt that the "cleansing" that Karma seemed to believe was right was also immoral.

Morality is based so much off perception. Of what I've read in this thread, I see less of a declaration of fighting for morality, and more of an alliance being formed so that somebody can act on what they perceive as moral, free of the ruling bodies of an alliance already rooted in its moral convictions. This is not a crusade about morality, everybody fights for what they believe is moral, this is merely somebody founding an alliance so that they can decide what they feel is moral rather then fighting for what somebody else views as moral.

Whatever it is, its irrelavant, good luck, Inevitably many will view you as immoral, as those who are not with you are against you. (that doesn't make you any more right, it doesn't make them any less right, and vice versa, different views are different views, there is no such thing as a common morality)

[LiquidMercury]

Jack, I'm curious as to what your thoughts would be on an alliance holding no treaties what so ever, relying solely on friendships and no paper to prove it?

Let's say I love me some Kap Bambino and believe in their/your cause of intervening against interventionists yet hold no treaty with you. Would it be against your charter to take your side in a fight? Would you be forced to attack me? And no this is not me being sarcastic/hoity toity, simply curious.

[Uncle Stalin]

Godspeed Jack, Godspeed.

[Bob Janova]

I look forward to watching this new, more prettily dressed version of nuclear roguery.

[D34th]

We have an aspiring one.

Who?

[Bob Janova]

Oh, I missed this in my last post:

The winning side is commonly accepted as the one who was "moral", the losers being "immoral", as history is written by the victors.

That really isn't true. One of the main reasons for the support of Karma was the 'immoral' nature of several Hegemony wars, which it won. The Viridicide, War on Peace and VietFAN II are all widely publicised examples of wars where the winner is thought to be immoral. (Well, FAN claim they won, but they didn't really – they did minimal damage to their opponents and were kept at zero growth until their opponents lost a different war.)

[Corinan]

Jack, you were all about jumping on the morality bandwagon when it came to rolling NPO, so what's changed your mind since then?

[Infidel Israeli]

lol, that's all I have to say

[HellAngel]

Jack, you were all about jumping on the morality bandwagon when it came to rolling NPO, so what's changed your mind since then?

My best bet is convenience. Everybody was hailing morals when they were on their side. I love the hypocrisy in claiming the moralists only use their morals to drive their own agenda while the OP does exactly that. Morals against NPO? Yay here we come. Morals preventing us from crushing whomever we like? Boooo. Booooooo.

[Ch33kY]

In all these years of Cyber Nations this surely is the most self-righteous and self-important OP I have ever read.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Ch33kY

[astronaut jones]

Oh, I missed this in my last post:

That really isn't true. One of the main reasons for the support of Karma was the 'immoral' nature of several Hegemony wars, which it won. The Viridicide, War on Peace and VietFAN II are all widely publicised examples of wars where the winner is thought to be immoral. (Well, FAN claim they won, but they didn't really – they did minimal damage to their opponents and were kept at zero growth until their opponents lost a different war.)

I believe he was speaking more in the vein of "at the time" which, at the time they were considered to be the moral victors of those wars. It wasn't until later that all these pansy mother$%&@ers got the !@#$@#$ balls to do something about all this !@#$ that these mother$%&@ers were doing.

my idols.

And what the HELL is all this pacifist !@#$%^&*? When the $%&@ did that happen?

Edited November 30, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Augustus Autumn]

Jack, you were all about jumping on the morality bandwagon when it came to rolling NPO, so what's changed your mind since then?

Pacifica isn't playing his game anymore so he's hoping to find some other power with a set code which won't back down when threatened. I'm betting he'll be casting a fine eye at the folks over at Citadel or Frostbite sometime in the near future. Also, kudos to Chairmal Hal on the extension-of-policy point. I'm sure there's something lurking around the edges here on that vector.

[Thorgrum]

I believe he was speaking more in the vein of "at the time" which, at the time they were considered to be the moral victors of those wars. It wasn't until later that all these pansy mother$%&@ers got the !@#$@#$ balls to do something about all this !@#$ that these mother$%&@ers were doing.

my idols.

And what the HELL is all this pacifist !@#$%^&*? When the $%&@ did that happen?

This is truly beautiful, thank you AJ for transitioning back to that fearless finger pointer we all used to adore. The peanut gallery needs you, this pacifist deal just isnt you. The above summary is the kind of concise commentary that always allowed the world at large to get a good perspective of the event and move on to the next issue.

Brilliant!

Thanks again!

[Drostan]

I am pretty sure that you made this entire alliance just so that the flag you made months ago wouldn't go to waste. Nevertheless, best of luck with that. At least this is sure to mean a boom in Athens foreign relations

[Bob Janova]

I believe he was speaking more in the vein of "at the time" which, at the time they were considered to be the moral victors of those wars

If so, he's still wrong. Even the Hegemony didn't really try to say its wars were moral; their arguments tended to be more along the lines of 'it was the right thing to do for practical reasons' (along with 'do something about it' of course). The main alliances of the Hegemony never believed in morality in international politics anyway. Public opinion on these boards might have been suppressed, leading an uninformed person to think that the world thought of them as moral, but we have since seen that that was not true.

[shahenshah]

Morality is immoral, I get it

Morality is immortal.

[Ragashingo]

In Athens, in regards to our foreign affairs policies, our friends and allies come first. Always. Jack is our friend, always has been and always will be. He needed help, we gave it. I see no mistakes in making this type judgment. Are we enabling him in anyway? Possibly, but not officially.

Not officially? How much more official can you get than a protectorate?

We do not interfere in the internal and foreign affairs departments of our protectorates. They are pretty much allowed to do what they want while remaining cautious. This agreement between our two alliances sets out what we protect him from and what we don't protect him from. Any aggressive war he declares would instantly void this agreement and would not be supported by Athens. He knows this. He understands this. He accepts this. We put a lot of thought into this and I am happy with the final result.

No, I don't think ya'll put a lot of thought into this. If you had you wouldn't be protecting an alliance who's charter and goals clearly contradict themselves.

[Ferrous]

Irony of ironies. Vladimir beat you to the punch two and a half years ago.

The Slavery of International Rights

Published by Vladimir, March 11, 2007

A Polemic Against International Rights

Despite unprecedented theoretical and empirical evidence that has been gathered over the years, the concept of international rights continues to be a thorn in the side of rational political discourse. The constant use of these ‘rights’ in the justifications of nations, alliances and blocs alike means, unfortunately, that they cannot be avoided, and so it is my intention to examine the premises and logical end to international rights. As I will outline through the course of this essay, the proponents of international rights have fallen for a number of false assumptions, both about the nature of rights and where they come from. If one fully analyses the concept, as we will here, it is rapidly evident that they are neither existent in today’s world nor desirable in tomorrow’s.

What is a Right?

The idealistic conception that the Globalists – the supporters of international rights – have of the international arena is undoubtedly an attractive one at first glance, and it is easy to see why so many are sucked into its well-meaning simplicity. Indeed, on the face of it international rights are difficult to argue against; after all, who could possibly deny someone their freedom? However, this idealism is based on the mistaken premise that international rights are negative – that they only require others to refrain from interfering – but this is far from the case in reality. Rights have two prerequisites in order for them to exist: a law in support of them (whether by written legislation or precedent) and a body capable and willing to enforce that law. While we will go on to show exactly why these two stipulations are needed, it is obvious that if we accept them then all rights must be positive by their very nature – they require that others do something in order for them to exist. If this is true then, as will be shown, it turns the entire Globalist argument on its head

The Hegemonic Bloc

The basis of the anti-Globalist argument is the premise that an international body is required to enforce international rights if they are truly to exist. While it may seem obvious that a law does not truly exist without enforcement, it is nevertheless this key component that the Globalists continue to ignore. The reason an international enforcement body is a prerequisite for international rights is that a right can never exist unless it can be protected, and therefore if a right cannot be protected it cannot be claimed to be an existing right at all. Take, for example, the constant appeals to the right of free speech. At present there is absolutely nothing to prevent one from attacking another over something they said – they are not protected – and so the right of free speech cannot be said to exist. Likewise, if one creates an alliance, there is absolutely nothing to prevent another from immediately destroying it, and so no alliance can be said to have a right to existence. In these examples there would need to be a body capable of preventing anyone from attacking anyone else over matters of speech or over matters of alliance creation, and this requirement can be extended to any right. We can therefore see why such a body is necessary.

Furthermore, this body must be capable of preventing any opposition from opposing its enforcement of these rights, and so for international rights to exist they not only require a body of enforcement, but they require a hegemonic bloc capable and willing to defend them. The simplest way of envisaging this is to look at where such right-enforcing hegemonic blocs already exist among nations – alliances. Inside alliances rights can generally be said to exist because there are laws in place and a strict hegemonic hierarchy to protect them, and so if anyone, whether an individual or a group, seeks to violate a right protected by law, they can be prevented from doing so. From this example it is clear what is necessary for rights to exist, and so it is relatively easy to take that onto the global scale and recognise that for such a hierarchy to exist in the international arena it would require, just like inside alliances, a politically, and thus militarily, hegemonic bloc. However, since there has never been a hegemonic bloc either capable or willing to enforce international laws, it is correct to say that there are not, and have never been, international rights.

Rights as Undesirables

It is self-evident, then, that international rights do not exist and cannot exist without enforcement; however, it is further argued by the Globalists that where international rights do not exist they should, and this is again due to their misconception of rights as negative. As already shown, rights require a hegemonic bloc willing to enforce law in order to exist; but furthermore, it is neither a desirable nor sustainable situation in the international arena that such a bloc would exist. In order for international rights to exist, this hegemonic bloc would not only have to intervene in matters of its own affairs where a law was broken, but also in matters that do not involve it at all: between nations, alliances and blocs independent of the hegemonic bloc. As should become increasingly clear to the reader at this point, what international rights truly require, and therefore what they inherently symbolise, is an international military dictatorship. The hegemonic bloc would need to claim sovereignty over the world, forcing all nations, alliances and blocs under its domain; thus completely destroying their sovereignty. In effect the hegemonic bloc, under the pretence of international rights, would be declaring themselves as a world government, enforcing law by diktat over the rest of the globe. The only way to enforce international rights, therefore, is effectively global slavery to a self-righteous and self-appointed elite.

Conclusion

It is clear when going through the concrete logical motions that are required for international rights to exist that they are not the route to freedom and liberty on Planet Bob, as the idealistic Globalists would have us believe. Instead they are the basis of the slow, long walk to global slavery, where the international arena is overseen by a select few who, through military hegemony, have declared themselves legislative, police, judge, jury and executioner. Is this the world we seek to aspire to?

Retrieved from "http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Slavery_of_International_Rights"

Categories: New Pacific Order | Vladimir

NOTE: I did the formatting myself. Everything else is the same.

[memoryproblems]

BJ, I think that it could be said that public opinion changes over time. The main idea I was trying to say that in a moral debate, the side with more believers wins (because the views held by the majority are generally accepted), and the side with the most believers is usually the winner of a war, because they usually have more nations. Morality depends on the side you sit upon, and when a certian side wins, people think that they have the most supporters, and that they are therefore right, not always so.

[MCRABT]

Morality is illogical and logic is now dead. Basically we're all doomed.

[wickedj]

Only Jack could have a 7 page DoE

Also to Jgoods and Athens for keeping an eye on Jack

[Londo Mollari]

Just to clarify, the protection that Jgoods has posted here is only against tech raids. If someone declares on Kap Bambino by posting a declaration of war in this venue (no matter what CB is used), we will most expressly not be defending them, under any circumstances. This is by design. If someone has enough of a political problem with Kap Bambino to attack them as part of a formal declaration of war, then Athens will not interfere.

The only reason we are doing this much is because, as Jgoods said, Jack Diorno is a longtime member of Athens and a longtime friend of ours. Careful logical evaluation of all of his ideas has not been made, although we do find them to be interesting. He is on his own, to succeed or fail in his ambitions as the community sees fit.

But please, do not tech raid him.

[Ragashingo]

Just to clarify, the protection that Jgoods has posted here is only against tech raids. If someone declares on Kap Bambino by posting a declaration of war in this venue (no matter what CB is used), we will most expressly not be defending them, under any circumstances. This is by design. If someone has enough of a political problem with Kap Bambino to attack them as part of a formal declaration of war, then Athens will not interfere.

The only reason we are doing this much is because, as Jgoods said, Jack Diorno is a longtime member of Athens and a longtime friend of ours. Careful logical evaluation of all of his ideas has not been made, although we do find them to be interesting. He is on his own, to succeed or fail in his ambitions as the community sees fit.

But please, do not tech raid him.

Thanks for the clarification. I can certainly agree with protecting someone with independent ideas from tech raiders.

[astronaut jones]

Please, Jack Diorno, think about the ramifications of your actions here, and the effects they may have on peace and stability on Planet Bob. We are as close to obtaining an everlasting peace as we have ever been, so please choose your words and actions wisely, as peace is ultimately what we all are striving for.