Order versus Anarchy

[Dementual]

At heart, a very solid piece.

[iamthey]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1284749025' post='2456720']
MK and its allies generally don't post Francoist pieces.
[/quote]

Indeed, MK doesn't really post much e-philosophy if any. A more comparable situation would have been when Vox was pumping out the alternative philosophical pieces. TBH, I'm not sure what MK in general was saying about that though.

[Unko Kalaikz]

I believe the day MK fully develops ideologicaly they will be a true force to be reckoned with. Until then they are simply a well managed military.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284668476' post='2455969']
A thought that I was blaming the forces of Order for my own failings, my own shortcomings, and my subsequent poor decisions in selecting my alliances, and governing them. Projecting the Order as the enemy, when in reality, I was indeed my own worst enemy.
[/quote]

The above is correct. However, what you talk about after is not really Freedom (in the large sense of the word as it would apply to all leaders) but your own preference on what to do with your freedom.

Freedom is not something to be gained or lost. It just is. We have it from creation and maintain it until deletion. We exercise freedom by making choices.

Order is not freedom, neither is anarchy. Order is a group of leaders, all with their own freedom, agreeing to abide by a specific set of rules. Anarchy is those leaders choosing to use their freedom in their own way without any organization...very unlikely, however - in theory every single national leader of any (or every) alliance could all individually decide one day to remove their AA and do whatever they want. That would be anarchy.

Whether or not any decision is good or bad depends on what was intended in the first place. In general, my personal opinion is that growth is good. However, there may be situations where something is better or takes higher importance. I decide. No one else. That's freedom.

Edited September 17, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Unko Kalaikz]

Anarchy is not defined by what is in one's alliance affiliation. Anarchy is simply an alternate term I use for the state of nature, so the people i call anarchists are simply advocates of living closer to the state of nature, and forcing other nations to do so even against their will (such as innocent red nations). Anarchist sounds better than state of naturist

[ktarthan]

Well then, before this I did not really know about Francoism, but I just read the "Introduction to Francoism", and can see the OP for what it is: "I have seen the light and am a better person because [Francoism talking points]". When I had initially read through it, I thought there was something "hollow" feeling about the words, and now it makes sense. This isn't philosophy, this is propaganda.

[quote]
I suppose the way I phrased that was a little confusing. The state of nature is detrimental to national development. Consider ten nonaligned nations at war with one another, they are too busy battling one another to develop beyond a minimal level. Consider the same nations in an ordered environment. With the nations freed from warring one another they have an opportunity to grow. Perhaps one ruler has a talent as a writer and another is an artist, and another is a good leader. Being liberated from struggling simply to survive, the nations have the freedom of potential.

All nations have freedom of choice, but that is just one type of freedom. A ruler can choose between order and anarchy, to various degrees. The stronger the order, the freer the nation is and the closer it can reach to its full potential. Is it any surprise then that Pacifica and similar alliances tend to do so well consistently throughout history?
[/quote]
I am sorry for lacking tact here, but this is a load of crap.

You use of the words "free" and "freedom" is appalling. "Freed from warring", "freedom of potential", "freedom of choice"; these all use a different connotation of "free" or "freedom", yet you try to use them all indiscriminately to illustrate your own concept of "stronger the order, the freer the nation".
"Freedom of potential" is a nothing phrase. You're trying to say "opportunity of potential", but spin it to sound like the followers of Francoism are free. Even those who do not currently have "opportunity of potential" still have the [b]freedom[/b] to find such opportunity.

It all boils down to, though, freedom has nothing to do with potential.

Edited September 17, 2010 by ktarthan

[Unko Kalaikz]

Unfortunately due to war drills I am deep in a mountain bunker and must communicate with antiquated equipment (ooc cell phone) but will address as best I can. "opportunity of potential" as you choose to call it is freedom of the nation to escape the barbarism of the state of nature and "be all it can be." Prosperity and intellectual and even spiritual growth is possible. Choice is a freedom so obvious and inherent that it goes without mention for intellectuals, and it's rather silly to base it as the center of your philosophy. We all have that freedom to choose our actions but it seems some of our esteemed colleagues believe that there should never be consequences for poor decisions? That simply illustrates a lack of personal responsibility to me.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1284755760' post='2456760']
Well then, before this I did not really know about Francoism, but I just read the "Introduction to Francoism", and can see the OP for what it is: "I have seen the light and am a better person because [Francoism talking points]". When I had initially read through it, I thought there was something "hollow" feeling about the words, and now it makes sense. This isn't philosophy, this is propaganda.


I am sorry for lacking tact here, but this is a load of crap.

You use of the words "free" and "freedom" is appalling. "Freed from warring", "freedom of potential", "freedom of choice"; these all use a different connotation of "free" or "freedom", yet you try to use them all indiscriminately to illustrate your own concept of "stronger the order, the freer the nation".
"Freedom of potential" is a nothing phrase. You're trying to say "opportunity of potential", but spin it to sound like the followers of Francoism are free. Even those who do not currently have "opportunity of potential" still have the [b]freedom[/b] to find such opportunity.

It all boils down to, though, freedom has nothing to do with potential.
[/quote]
If you have money you are free to spend it, but first you need to earn money. Most people have the freedom to try earning money, although some might be more skilled or put more effort forward, thus they can spend more money. That's comparable to what he means by nations having the freedom to try reaching their full potential.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Excellent example my friend.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284756484' post='2456763']
Choice is a freedom so obvious and inherent that it goes without mention for intellectuals, and it's rather silly to base it as the center of your philosophy. We all have that freedom to choose our actions
[/quote]

One would think so perhaps, as I agree it's inherent. However plenty of people (myself included at times) write as if X or Y action of another nation (or alliance) causes the nation or alliance to respond in some other fashion, etc. when all the parties chose to act as they did.

I am also not yet convinced that there are any other freedoms that don't come down having to decide between two of more choices.

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284756484' post='2456763']but it seems some of our esteemed colleagues believe that there should never be consequences for poor decisions? That simply illustrates a lack of personal responsibility to me.
[/quote]

I have rarely heard anyone actually argue for there never to being any consequences to actions. The arguments tend to be about what is an appropriate within a number of possibilities.

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1284755760' post='2456760']
This isn't philosophy, this is propaganda.
[/quote]


Finally we get it!
You want to know why ever Pacifican says the same thing? Because they are spoon fed the answer by their "People's Government'. Ha! More like the "People's Ministry of Truth".

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284756484' post='2456763']
Unfortunately due to war drills I am deep in a mountain bunker and must communicate with antiquated equipment (ooc cell phone) but will address as best I can. "opportunity of potential" as you choose to call it is freedom of the nation to escape the barbarism of the state of nature and "be all it can be." Prosperity and intellectual and even spiritual growth is possible. Choice is a freedom so obvious and inherent that it goes without mention for intellectuals, and it's rather silly to base it as the center of your philosophy. We all have that freedom to choose our actions but it seems some of our esteemed colleagues believe that there should never be consequences for poor decisions? That simply illustrates a lack of personal responsibility to me.
[/quote]
This doesn't address the fact that you are incosistent with your use of the word "freedom", especially when you say things like "The stronger the order, the freer the nation is". This is almost a contradictory statement, as the stronger the order, the less freedoms a nation has. You are using a different defitinion of "free", among many others, without taking care to distinguish them.
"freedom of the nation to escape the barbarism of the state of nature" is not something exclusive to Francoism. All you're doing is espousing facets of what most alliances provide, while using a lot of fancy words and vague examples to try and convince us that Pacifica does it better.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284756664' post='2456766']
If you have money you are free to spend it, but first you need to earn money. Most people have the freedom to try earning money, although some might be more skilled or put more effort forward, thus they can spend more money. That's comparable to what he means by nations having the freedom to try reaching their full potential.
[/quote]
Okay so you managed to successfully (mostly) analogize the situation... but that doesn't address any of what I said. Adding the word "freedom" to an action doesn't mean that choosing to persue that action makes you more free.

"I just bought a transit pass. I now have freedom of transportation."
"I purchased a drink from a vending machine. I have freedom from thirst."
"I paid rent on an appartment for next month. I have freedom from the rain."

And so on, and so forth. None of these things actually provide me with any significant freedom, despite what the english language allows me to construct.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1284758621' post='2456779']
Finally we get it!
You want to know why ever Pacifican says the same thing? Because they are spoon fed the answer by their "People's Government'. Ha! More like the "People's Ministry of Truth".
[/quote]
He's been into this kind of stuff from before he joined Pacifica, so it really just gave him another outlet to express his ideas.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1284693342' post='2456288']
Perhaps the whole point is to not buy into the intellectual masturbation that is writing unnecessarily long and verbose posts about how smart one is? Responding to it on its own terms would involve buying into it regardless of whether I'm agreeing with it or not.
[/quote]


I, for one, enjoy intellectual masturbation. I like to do it in private as well as in public. As with most things, why do it solo when doing it in a group is so much better?

As to the OP, uniting the scattered, anarchy-wracked, masses under an ordered and strong banner sounds like a solid use of one's time to me.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1284759073' post='2456782']
As to the OP, uniting the scattered, anarchy-wracked, masses under an ordered and strong banner sounds like a solid use of one's time to me.
[/quote]

You'll change your tune very quick I think, when you discover that he views [u][i]you[/i][/u] as a scattered, anarchy-wracked mass as well.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1284758621' post='2456779']
Finally we get it!
You want to know why ever Pacifican says the same thing? Because they are spoon fed the answer by their "People's Government'. Ha! More like the "People's Ministry of Truth".
[/quote]



Every alliance has ideals that are shared by its members. E.g. ODN members are united in their belief of infra preservation and sucking the teat of the biggest kid on the block. That is your ideology if you will.

Now ontopic. Good read Unko Kalaikz o/

Edited September 18, 2010 by silentkiller

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1284755760' post='2456760']
Well then, before this I did not really know about Francoism, but I just read the "Introduction to Francoism", and can see the OP for what it is: "I have seen the light and am a better person because [Francoism talking points]". When I had initially read through it, I thought there was something "hollow" feeling about the words, and now it makes sense. This isn't philosophy, this is propaganda.
[/quote]


[color="#FF0000"]Congratulations You Have Won the Thread! (No seriously, this is spot on)[/color]

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1284755074' post='2456751']
The above is correct. However, what you talk about after is not really Freedom (in the large sense of the word as it would apply to all leaders) but your own preference on what to do with your freedom.

Freedom is not something to be gained or lost. It just is. We have it from creation and maintain it until deletion. We exercise freedom by making choices.

Order is not freedom, neither is anarchy. Order is a group of leaders, all with their own freedom, agreeing to abide by a specific set of rules. Anarchy is those leaders choosing to use their freedom in their own way without any organization...very unlikely, however - in theory every single national leader of any (or every) alliance could all individually decide one day to remove their AA and do whatever they want. That would be anarchy.

Whether or not any decision is good or bad depends on what was intended in the first place. In general, my personal opinion is that growth is good. However, there may be situations where something is better or takes higher importance. I decide. No one else. That's freedom.
[/quote]

Indeed. In this world, slavery is entirely self-inflicted. They can take your allies and your infrastructure. They can sanction you on every team and pressure others to keep you out of alliances. But you are free so long as you defy. Those that seek the comfort and certainty of totalitarian ideologies will never understand. They don't truly want, nor could they handle freedom. They're masochists and delight in their own persecution.



[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284755704' post='2456759']
Anarchy is not defined by what is in one's alliance affiliation. Anarchy is simply an alternate term I use for the state of nature, so the people i call anarchists are simply advocates of living closer to the state of nature, and forcing other nations to do so even against their will (such as innocent red nations). Anarchist sounds better than state of naturist
[/quote]

"The state of nature" is a meaningless academic term used to describe something that has never existed. It is at best a misnomer. Even the people who invented the term were likely well aware that it was merely a thought experiment. Our natural state is social. Not the barbarous anarchy of every man for himself you've regurgitated from Vladimir.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1284764921' post='2456834']
Every alliance has ideals that are shared by its members. E.g. ODN members are united in their belief of pixel preservation and sucking the teat of the biggest kid on the block. That is your ideology if you will.

Now ontopic. Good read Unko Kalaikz o/
[/quote]


my my, such anger. Why so defensive?

[silentkiller]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1284767591' post='2456864']
my my, such anger. Why so defensive?
[/quote]

Anger? You didn't hit your head with something now did you?

Edited September 18, 2010 by silentkiller

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1284768076' post='2456873']
Anger? You didn't hit your head with something now did you?
[/quote]

Haha its very possible. Personally this is quite entertaining.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1284758621' post='2456779']
Finally we get it!
You want to know why ever Pacifican says the same thing? Because they are spoon fed the answer by their "People's Government'. Ha! More like the "People's Ministry of Truth".
[/quote]
Nah, we Pacificans tend to have a minds of our own unlike the puppets in ODN.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Funny despite my time in vox and against the Order, Im now a mindless pacifican puppet ha. I'm gonna address all you guys when I get back to my Villa. Dont start poppin bottles yet.

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='BlkAK47_002' timestamp='1284770507' post='2456903']
Nah, we Pacificans tend to have a minds of our own unlike the puppets in ODN.
[/quote]

Oh I see, because total freedom of speech is considered being a mindless puppet, and being enslaved to your dictator means you have a mind of your own? Wow, your logic is messed up.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1284775868' post='2456952']
Oh I see, because total freedom of speech is considered being a mindless puppet, and being enslaved to your dictator means you have a mind of your own? Wow, your logic is messed up.
[/quote]

I forgot we were still living in 2008. My bad.

Comrade BlkAK47_002's words were however slightly inaccurate. I would call people like you clueless for talking about something you have no knowledge about.Keep trying though I am sure you will get something right.. someday.... Right? Right.

Edited September 18, 2010 by silentkiller