Order versus Anarchy

[Voytek]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284693536' post='2456290']
Sad and typical example of Dark Age philosophical discourse.
[/quote]
Ooga booga. *drools*

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284693536' post='2456290']Conjure up an ulterior motive and make that an excuse not to address the argument. Priceless [/quote]
That's a quality inferiority complex you've got there.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Voytek

[Bavaricar]

[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 did not find it unnecessarily long. You also should have more confidence in yourself and your abilities. I, for one, would like to hear what a shroom has to say about the state of liberty today, especially as it responds to the challenge offered by the OP. All I know of the shrooms is you very actively promote the spread of chaos and anarchy, yet you also support strict order in other areas of your foreign policy. Perhaps now you can see why I am so curious about more than a mocking response from you.

[Kalasin]

I worry for the mental health of those who willingly relinquish their sovereignty in the name of "freedom".

Freedom is the power to think and speak and act without fear of reprisal.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Bavaricar' timestamp='1284693841' post='2456296']I did not find it unnecessarily long. You also should have more confidence in yourself and your abilities. I, for one, would like to hear what a shroom has to say about the state of liberty today, especially as it responds to the challenge offered by the OP. All I know of the shrooms is you very actively promote the spread of chaos and anarchy, yet you also support strict order in other areas of your foreign policy. Perhaps now you can see why I am so curious about more than a mocking response from you.[/quote]
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1284693863' post='2456297']
I worry for the mental health of those who willingly relinquish their sovereignty in the name of "freedom".
[/quote]
What? Or should I have given you time to edit this to be comprehensible?

[quote]
Freedom is the power to think and speak and act without fear of reprisal.
[/quote]

How does this follow what I think it is you are trying to say in the first sentence?

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1284694252' post='2456307']
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
[/quote]

Ah, you're high and not as young as I was thinking. Carry on.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Bavaricar

[Kalasin]

It wasn't clear from the OP- were you ever a member of Vox Populi?

ooc: by the way, while Kalasin the character dislikes Pacifican writing, I have to admit this was very well written.

[deSouza]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1284692610' post='2456276']
Am I the only one who gets a bit nauseated when people make these attempts to discuss how ~*~seasoned and philosophical~*~ they are?
[/quote]

I personally get nausated when people try to be edgy, cheeky, lulzy and / or attempt to be accepted by a group of rulers with a very childish idea of fun.


[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1284693342' post='2456288']
Perhaps the whole point is to not buy into the intellectual masturbation that is writing unnecessarily [u][b]long and verbose[/b][/u] 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]

Verbose... Like the "Holier than thou" kind of posts we get every time someone attempts to do some serious theoricizing in this world? It would spare everyone's time if you kept it to a "no u".

[bzelger]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1284693342' post='2456288']intellectual masturbation[/quote]
That's the first phrase that came to mind for me when mucking through this too. I was a bit reluctant to post it though for fear that the adjective was too generous.

[Unko Kalaikz]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1284694470' post='2456311']
It wasn't clear from the OP- were you ever a member of Vox Populi?

ooc: by the way, while Kalasin the character dislikes Pacifican writing, I have to admit this was very well written.
[/quote]

Yes, as Mobius 1 I was a founding member of Vox Populi (although not one of the founding 11 or whatever it was on paper). Starfox101 and I originally planned Vox as a method of crushing Pacifica on another realm, but after inviting more people it eventually became a reactionary movement in our realm.

[ooc]Mahalo for the compliment. It hearkens back to my good ol college days, glad to hear I still have the touch [/ooc]

[quote=kalasin]I worry for the mental health of those who willingly relinquish their sovereignty in the name of "freedom". [/quote]

Upon joining any conventional alliance the ruler surrenders a measure of national sovereignty. In return he is given protection, aid and the chance to develop more fully towards his potential. How far he goes generally depends upon his alliance and the amount of sovereignty surrendered.

[quote= kalasin]Freedom is the power to think and speak and act without fear of reprisal.[/quote]

It sounds as if you refer to the concept of freedom of speech. For that to be possible you will need an Order to enforce it, and even then there will always be consequences to actions, whether they be verbal or otherwise.

[quote=deSouza]Verbose... Like the "Holier than thou" kind of posts we get every time someone attempts to do some serious theoricizing in this world? It would spare everyone's time if you kept it to a "no u". [/quote]

It is amusing to see the uncouth anarchists firing off ill-thought of insults and then congratulating and agreeing with one another for supposed rhetorical cleverness.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Unko Kalaikz

[Voytek]

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1284695711' post='2456334']
I personally get nausated when people try to be edgy, cheeky, lulzy and / or attempt to be accepted by a group of rulers with a very childish idea of fun.




Verbose... Like the "Holier than thou" kind of posts we get every time someone attempts to do some serious theoricizing in this world? It would spare everyone's time if you kept it to a "no u".
[/quote]
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Earogema]

Ah, I see you are back.

I wondered where you had gone.

[Unko Kalaikz]

In IAA I always respected and admired Mushroom Kingdom and the proficiency they have with national development and nuclear warfare. Militarily and economically, they were an inspiration, but the same cannot be said intellectually speaking and the reason why is showing in this discussion.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Unko Kalaikz

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284696246' post='2456344']
Yes, as Mobius 1 I was a founding member of Vox Populi (although not one of the founding 11 or whatever it was on paper). Starfox101 and I originally planned Vox as a method of crushing Pacifica on another realm, but after inviting more people it eventually became a reactionary movement in our realm.
[/quote]

Oh you're [i]Mobius[/i] lol. That explains a lot. [ooc] I thought I recognised the guy in your avatar from somewhere. [/ooc]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284696246' post='2456344']
Upon joining any conventional alliance the ruler surrenders a measure of national sovereignty.
[/quote]

But not to the extent required in Pacifica.

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284696246' post='2456344']
It sounds as if you refer to the concept of freedom of speech. For that to be possible you will need an Order to enforce it, and even then there will always be consequences to actions, whether they be verbal or otherwise.
[/quote]

Pacifica has never stood for freedom of speech or freedom of anything much else really.

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284696886' post='2456355']
In IAA I always respected and admired Mushroom Kingdom and the proficiency they have with national development and nuclear warfare. Militarily and economically, they were an inspiration, but the same cannot be said intellectually speaking and the reason why is showing in this discussion.
[/quote]

The MK has a few philosophers, but most are mere rhetoricians or even court jesters... Or perhaps they play those parts here for fear of being ostracized or banished from their obscurantist home? In the end, however, very little divides your alliance and theirs. Both the NPO and the MK, as well as most of our known alliances are mere survivalists that care not a wit for anything but themselves.

[Unko Kalaikz]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1284697101' post='2456356']
Oh you're [i]Mobius[/i] lol. That explains a lot. [ooc] I thought I recognised the guy in your avatar from somewhere. [/ooc]



But not to the extent required in Pacifica.



Pacifica has never stood for freedom of speech or freedom of anything much else really.
[/quote]

1. [ooc] I AM the guy in that avatar [/ooc]

2. Pacifica does require more than other alliances, but it is still a voluntary act by the nation, and the nation can leave if it so chooses. In Pacifica you can reach higher levels of potential than most other alliances, because of the meritocratic design of the Order, Francoist culture and authoritarian nature. And speaking for myself, I have not been inhibited at all from doing the things I want to do, and have never been reprimanded in the short time I have been a part of the Order.

3. Pacifica has stood for freedom of potential and nutures the best in all of us to advance the collective alliance; the freedom to be all you can be. It also stands for freedom from internal conflict, which makes total sense; less time fighting one another means more time building up ourselves and our alliance. It has stood for freedom from pillage and theft for innocent nations looking for refuge on the red team from the more uncivilized alliances out there. And you are free to criticize my article as you see fit and to debate me.

I'm not sure where the oppression is.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284697784' post='2456366']
1. [ooc] I AM the guy in that avatar [/ooc]
[/quote]

Ah lol.

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284697784' post='2456366']
2. Pacifica does require more than other alliances, but it is still a voluntary act by the nation, and the nation can leave if it so chooses. In Pacifica you can reach higher levels of potential than most other alliances, because of the meritocratic design of the Order, Francoist culture and authoritarian nature. And speaking for myself, I have not been inhibited at all from doing the things I want to do, and have never been reprimanded in the short time I have been a part of the Order.
[/quote]

I wouldn't describe Pacifica as meritocratic. It's an oligarchy.

And sure, you haven't been reprimanded for anything, but really it's a matter of time, particularly if you stand out from the crowd in any way.

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284697784' post='2456366']
3. Pacifica has stood for freedom of potential and nutures the best in all of us to advance the collective alliance; the freedom to be all you can be. It also stands for freedom from internal conflict, which makes total sense; less time fighting one another means more time building up ourselves and our alliance. It has stood for freedom from pillage and theft for innocent nations looking for refuge on the red team from the more uncivilized alliances out there. And you are free to criticize my article as you see fit and to debate me.

I'm not sure where the oppression is.
[/quote]

A theory must work both hypothetically and in practice. Hypothetically, yes, Pacifica is free of internal conflict (I would argue at what cost, but I'll take a different line for now.) However, I encourage you to read the Zhadum logs from some time ago, where he described the disputes between the IOs. Clearly Pacifica's leadership is not free of conflict, and the rest of Pacifica is too shut out of any sort of discussion to really matter.

[Unko Kalaikz]

[quote name='Bavaricar' timestamp='1284697751' post='2456365']
The MK has a few philosophers, but most are mere rhetoricians or even court jesters... Or perhaps they play those parts here for fear of being ostracized or banished from their obscurantist home? In the end, however, very little divides your alliance and theirs. Both the NPO and the MK, as well as most of our known alliances are mere survivalists that care not a wit for anything but themselves.
[/quote]

We must ask ourselves what is the purpose of an alliance? An alliance that thrives seeks to eliminate internal conflict and neutralize external conflict. Thus an alliance looks out for its, and its members self interests. There is nothing wrong with that.

But on the other hand, we can look at the effects of the opposite philosophies the two alliances hold on the world. On the one hand, Pacifican Francoist ideology has enriched intellectual debate and discussion, provided safety to countless red nations, stabilized world politics during the Age of Order, purged "lulz" and immature actors from the world stage, and provided the greatest world economy we have ever known.

Whereas Anarchist philosophy, which many of our esteemed colleagues espouse, has brought us the armageddon war, ushered in an age of darkness, a great depression of nation strength and active nations, a return of the lulz and rejection of reasoned argument, political instability, decreased average intelligence per debate, a cultural decline and the weakening of the safety of innocent red nations simply to score shots against NPO.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Unko Kalaikz

[Unko Kalaikz]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1284698321' post='2456367']And sure, you haven't been reprimanded for anything, but really it's a matter of time, particularly if you stand out from the crowd in any way.[/quote]

I will take that chance

[quote='kalasin']A theory must work both hypothetically and in practice. Hypothetically, yes, Pacifica is free of internal conflict (I would argue at what cost, but I'll take a different line for now.) However, I encourage you to read the Zhadum logs from some time ago, where he described the disputes between the IOs. Clearly Pacifica's leadership is not free of conflict, and the rest of Pacifica is too shut out of any sort of discussion to really matter.
[/quote]

No alliance is absolutely free of conflict. Individuals will always butt heads and disagree on things, which is why we have an Emperor with a final say. I think if you look at our growth and performance, and internal stability, you can see just how little conflict we suffer.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284698766' post='2456374']
I will take that chance
[/quote]

If you like. It's not really for me though.

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284698766' post='2456374']
No alliance is absolutely free of conflict. Individuals will always butt heads and disagree on things, which is why we have an Emperor with a final say. I think if you look at our growth and performance, and internal stability, you can see just how little conflict we suffer.
[/quote]

ODN's growth has been pretty good lately too, but we're not Francoist. I don't really see the point in Francoism if internal conflict exists to the same extent that it does in every other alliance.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1284675433' post='2456046']
One particular part of this caught my eye, especially as it seems to have been a very important revelation. I wish to clarify exactly what you mean by this:

Are you implying that a state in which national rulers may do as the please is, specifically, anarchy, and that rulers that do as they please will tend to do so to the detriment of their nations and other nations?

Are you further implying that, as the alternative to this situation, freedom is a situation in that nation rulers may [i]not[/i] do as they please, and that only in such a state may they be free to proper?
[/quote]

I believe our friend Ktarthan has touched upon a particularly salient point.

[quote]
Freedom, I was beginning to learn, is not the same as anarchy. Anarchy is the state of nature, a state of conflict [b]in which national rulers may do as they please, to the detriment of their nations[/b], and other nations. Freedom is [b]liberation[/b] from this anarchy, the opportunity to develop materially, intellectually and spiritually, to escape the state of nature and [b]reach one's full potential[/b].[/quote]

You guys have really nailed the concept of doublethink, complete with "revolutionary" terminology. So let me get this straight, freedom [u]does not[/u] mean having the ability to make one's own choices ("national rulers may do as they please") but instead, it means having the ability to follow a certain set of rules so that one can "grow" and "reach one's full potential".

So restricting oneself to a set dictum's, presumably handed out by some "authority", makes me prosper. I can be "liberated" from myself ("to the detriment of their nations), because I don't know whats best for me. No the only way to truly be free is submit to an authority which can stomp out this evil [s]freedom[/s] I mean anarchy.

ALL NATIONS ARE CREATED EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

[Kalasin]

Freedom is slavery!

[Unko Kalaikz]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1284698954' post='2456376']ODN's growth has been pretty good lately too, but we're not Francoist. I don't really see the point in Francoism if internal conflict exists to the same extent that it does in every other alliance.
[/quote]

Except that it does not occur to the same extent. I know this from experience; my first alliance FCC had (and probably has) a very weak sovereign government, and has suffered from multiple member exoduses and severe internal conflict, as a result it has not grown more than a few dozen members at a time and hung around a million or two NS. That's fine, as it's a libertarian alliance, but members cannot reach their full potential and the cream of the crop has generally left.

IAA was somewhere intermediate along the way, and although as Regent and later Emperor I was able to remove some internal conflict and restructure towards autocratic principles I could not neutralize external conflict (War with the Hegemony)

Vox Populi suffered from massive internal and external conflict.

NPO has the least internal conflict of all my alliances and the statistics tell the story.

So no, all alliances do not have the same amounts of conflict.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Unko Kalaikz

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1284699470' post='2456386']
Except that it does not occur to the same extent. I know this from experience; my first alliance FCC had (and probably has) a very weak sovereign government, and has suffered from multiple member exoduses and severe internal conflict, as a result it has not grown more than a few dozen members at a time and hung around a million or two NS. That's fine, as it's a libertarian alliance, but members cannot reach their full potential and the cream of the crop has generally left.

IAA was somewhere intermediate along the way, and although as Regent and later Emperor I was able to remove some internal conflict and restructure towards meritocratic principles I could not neutralize external conflict (War with the Hegemony)
hat
Vox Populi suffered from massive internal and external conflict.

NPO has the least internal conflict of all my alliances and the statistics tell the story.

So no, all alliances do not have the same amounts of conflict.
[/quote]

I didn't say all alliances suffered from the same amounts of conflict. According to Francoist philosophy (as espoused by Vladimir) Pacifica should have the least internal conflict in CN, but that's simply not the case. Again, to take my alliance as an example, ODN (which is a ~*dEmOcRaCy*~ and thus supposedly torn apart by internal conflict) is an extremely united alliance and our elections don't really cause much division between us at all.

[Unko Kalaikz]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1284699063' post='2456377']
I believe our friend Ktarthan has touched upon a particularly salient point.



You guys have really nailed the concept of doublethink, complete with "revolutionary" terminology. So let me get this straight, freedom [u]does not[/u] mean having the ability to make one's own choices ("national rulers may do as they please") but instead, it means having the ability to follow a certain set of rules so that one can "grow" and "reach one's full potential".

So restricting oneself to a set dictum's, presumably handed out by some "authority", makes me prosper. I can be "liberated" from myself ("to the detriment of their nations), because I don't know whats best for me. No the only way to truly be free is submit to an authority which can stomp out this evil [s]freedom[/s] I mean anarchy.

ALL NATIONS ARE CREATED EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
[/quote]

I remember rolling out the same 1984 spiel two years ago in Vox with my various propaganda videos.

Again, I will clarify. Freedom of choice is something all rulers have, including NPO members. Do I really have to explain that even as part of the Order I can choose whether to follow the rules, or to start tech raiding, going rogue and causing all sorts of trouble? However we all have to live by the consequences of our choices, don't we?

NPO members have excersised their freedom of choice by choosing to surrender sovereignty to the alliance sovereignty, and thuse made the choice to be all they can be.

Those who choose to remain in the state of nature, or closer to the state of nature, reject that choice to have freedom of potential and may never achieve their full potential.

[Zeta Defender]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1284699935' post='2456396']
I didn't say all alliances suffered from the same amounts of conflict. According to Francoist philosophy (as espoused by Vladimir) Pacifica should have the least internal conflict in CN, but that's simply not the case. Again, to take my alliance as an example, ODN (which is a ~*dEmOcRaCy*~ and thus supposedly torn apart by internal conflict) is an extremely united alliance and our elections don't really cause much division between us at all.
[/quote]

Well internal conflict and arguements in debate under the Meritocracy and Francoism principle of continued evolution are two different things.

Over time, democracies have been should to be easily taken over and turned the masses powerless due to campaigning of certain parties and individuals.