The Lazarene Gazette - First Broadsheet!

[Funkadelia]

The region was home to a variety of nations who had their peace cruelly shattered by invasion - invasion for no reason. Again, I ask, was your invasion for some reason about forum destruction? I guess not, given your answers so far. This tells the world, it was a brutal, destructive act, with no possible ethical justification.

Umm, what? I know you're inexperienced, but it pays to do research. Although, pay and research aren't really communist things I guess. So which invasion have I've been part of?

Don't make assumptions, especially when you are new and part of a region like Lazarus.

Obviously the "you" meant imperialists, not you directly. I thought you would have caught on to that already.

[Solorni]

I have read Animal Farm actually, an interesting piece of capitalist propoganda. I toil for everyone, for myself and fellow Comrades. It is classic false consciousness to see labour that is aimed at the general good, as being somehow "bad".

Well, you have the Western notion of labour and then the Communist labour camps. That sort of labour -is- bad. Can I speak to your bosses yet? xD

The "you" was aimed at Imperialists, whom you were defending. Again, I don't think that piece of deflection is going to fool anyone.

Lol, a communist saying others are going to be fooled is like fish teaching people how walk. You still haven't replied to anything with substance. Could I please speak to your bosses?

My nation is working towards the common endeavour of universal freedom and prosperity, more than can be said for Imperialists.

Free and equal funeral services for all? xD

Obviously the "you" meant imperialists, not you directly. I thought you would have caught on to that already.

Obviously. You wouldn't expect "you" to mean the person you're addressing like it would in the English language... It's not that hard Funk to discuss things with proper english so that people can understand you.

[Hobbesistan]

*insert blanket statement about forum destruction is bad mmhk here as I was too lazy to read up*

[V I Lenin]

So you have never used "you" in that context? Ever? I am a native English speaker, and people use it all the time. This is classic avoiding the argument.

Ultimately, if you want to argue about Lazarus' or my own nation's political system, I am happy to do so, and I welcome the chance to educate you on to merits of Socialism. But I assume that this is because you agree that the actions of Imperialists are inexcusable and so are avoiding the issue?

[Whiskum]

Your argument here is classic post-rationalisation. You were defeated, and now seek to cover it up by saying that you planned to leave anyway. Your occupation it seems, was nothing but a cruel act for no purpose whatsoever than your own egos.

On the contrary, we successfully invaded Alteran Empire and then occupied it for seven days. That is not a defeat, it is a victory.

The revival of the founder is no reflection on our military performance. Nothing we or any other occupying power could have done would have avoided it.

As for the claim that it was 'nothing but a cruel act for no purpose whatsoever than your own egos', maintaining a strong, active military force, as well as establishing superiority over the defender forces we have declared war on, are entirely reasonable objectives in pursuing a military operation. That the founder of this particular target is tainted by allegations of genuinely outrageous behaviour certainly made it more suitable than other targets.

Democracy can be oppressive as well - was the Athenian Direct Democracy also not oppressive because it enslaved? Your regions divide people in Kings and Subjects, Haves and Have Nots - it is run for the glory of a King or Emperor.

If you think all monarchies are oppressive and are only 'run for the glory of a King or Emperor', then I trust your next article will be on the New Pacific Order.

Our citizens are not enslaved, nor are they divided into 'Haves and Have Nots'. They have a high level of political freedom.

The policies of our regions are determined by our governments in the interests of our entire regions, which benefit all our members.

Whether people choose to go to your region is irrelevant. Is an individual not oppressed merely because he once made a decision to go there?

If you are condemning the regions solely for being monarchies rather than other attributes, people being aware of that before they joined is relevant.

Subsequently, they are not oppressed because there are free and fair political and legal systems in the LKE, TNI and Albion.

People also have the power to leave.

I assume you will deem individuals as empowered as FRA member-regions in this regard:

There was a point made about the FRA being dictatorial, I am not sure whether that is true, but given that is a multilateral alliance and not a region, thus meaning that any region can leave it at any time, I don't think that there is any real comparison.

Moreover, there are powerful forces of false consciousness at work in these feudalist systems where they seek to create an enemy (as in this case, "defenders") in order to justify their own power elites.

First, in what respect are our regions remotely 'feudalist'?

Secondly, our members are perfectly clever enough to understand precisely what our regions are about, thank you very much.

Finally, in no way are we using the LKE and TNI's on-going wars with the UDL and the FRA in order to justify the LKE and TNI monarchies. That is bizarre.

If you didn't attack others, people would focus at home and ask why are some given more authority than others due to the luck of having once founded a region?

First, people are already focused at home predominantly. You have no understanding of what people are thinking and doing in our regions.

Second, neither the monarch of the LKE (that is myself) nor the monarch of TNI (that is Cerebella) was the original founder of those regions.

Third, being a regional founder in a successful UCR, as well as the effort that a regional founder or someone with an equivalent role puts in, is not luck.

Finally, as emphasised already, our regions are democratic and decision-making authority rests with our democratically elected governments.

[Solorni]

So you have never used "you" in that context? Ever? I am a native English speaker, and people use it all the time. This is classic avoiding the argument.

Ultimately, if you want to argue about Lazarus' or my own nation's political system, I am happy to do so, and I welcome the chance to educate you on to merits of Socialism. But I assume that this is because you agree that the actions of Imperialists are inexcusable and so are avoiding the issue?

Nope. I tend to address things by their names and not finger point blindly. If I say you to you, I am referring to you. If I wanted to refer to defenders, I would call them defenders. How can you say "your" invasion to me when it is not my invasion. I am not a citizen of any UIAF region. I have not moved my WA nation for a year or more. I do not even consider myself an imperialist, my issue was with the congratulating of the return of a region whose founder and members were involved in forum destruction. My issue was with the ignorance on the region.

You and Funkadelia have made it clear that defending comes above such concerns about forum destruction. We have different morals.

On the issue of socialism, I highly doubt you can educate me on the topic. As well, the actions of the imperialists? Why are you deflecting the topic? My concern here has been the cheerleading by Lazarus on the return of an AC member. Instead of admitting that you've been ignorant on the issue, you instead claim that it doesn't matter.

[Benevolent Thomas]

I honestly would rather that the Imperials stayed occupying a NBE offshoot than allowing them to wreak havoc in countless innocent regions. That's just me though, the invader loathing defender utilitarian

[Solorni]

I honestly would rather that the Imperials stayed occupying a NBE offshoot than allowing them to wreak havoc in countless innocent regions. That's just me though, the invader loathing defender utilitarian

I wub 10KIers <3

[Funkadelia]

You and Funkadelia have made it clear that defending comes above such concerns about forum destruction. We have different morals.

On the issue of socialism, I highly doubt you can educate me on the topic. As well, the actions of the imperialists? Why are you deflecting the topic? My concern here has been the cheerleading by Lazarus on the return of an AC member. Instead of admitting that you've been ignorant on the issue, you instead claim that it doesn't matter.

Like we've said, the heart of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are an AC member. It has to do with the defeat of a group of imperialists at the hands of the native population. You're the only one making it about the specific group affiliation of the member. You seem to be implying that Lazarus condones the activity of forum destruction, which it does not.

[Solorni]

You and Funkadelia have made it clear that defending comes above such concerns about forum destruction. We have different morals.

On the issue of socialism, I highly doubt you can educate me on the topic. As well, the actions of the imperialists? Why are you deflecting the topic? My concern here has been the cheerleading by Lazarus on the return of an AC member. Instead of admitting that you've been ignorant on the issue, you instead claim that it doesn't matter.

Like we've said, the heart of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are an AC member. It has to do with the defeat of a group of imperialists at the hands of the native population. You're the only one making it about the specific group affiliation of the member. You seem to be implying that Lazarus condones the activity of forum destruction, which it does not.

You don't think the affiliation matters? Also, I'm not the only one who has brought it up....

[V I Lenin]

Your argument here is classic post-rationalisation. You were defeated, and now seek to cover it up by saying that you planned to leave anyway. Your occupation it seems, was nothing but a cruel act for no purpose whatsoever than your own egos.

On the contrary, we successfully invaded Alteran Empire and then occupied it for seven days. That is not a defeat, it is a victory.

The revival of the founder is no reflection on our military performance. Nothing we or any other occupying power could have done would have avoided it.

As for the claim that it was 'nothing but a cruel act for no purpose whatsoever than your own egos', maintaining a strong, active military force, as well as establishing superiority over the defender forces we have declared war on, are entirely reasonable objectives in pursuing a military operation. That the founder of this particular target is tainted by allegations of genuinely outrageous behaviour certainly made it more suitable than other targets.

Democracy can be oppressive as well - was the Athenian Direct Democracy also not oppressive because it enslaved? Your regions divide people in Kings and Subjects, Haves and Have Nots - it is run for the glory of a King or Emperor.

If you think all monarchies are oppressive and are only 'run for the glory of a King or Emperor', then I trust your next article will be on the New Pacific Order.

Our citizens are not enslaved, nor are they divided into 'Haves and Have Nots'. They have a high level of political freedom.

The policies of our regions are determined by our governments in the interests of our entire regions, which benefit all our members.

Whether people choose to go to your region is irrelevant. Is an individual not oppressed merely because he once made a decision to go there?

If you are condemning the regions solely for being monarchies rather than other attributes, people being aware of that before they joined is relevant.

Subsequently, they are not oppressed because there are free and fair political and legal systems in the LKE, TNI and Albion.

People also have the power to leave.

I assume you will deem individuals as empowered as FRA member-regions in this regard:

There was a point made about the FRA being dictatorial, I am not sure whether that is true, but given that is a multilateral alliance and not a region, thus meaning that any region can leave it at any time, I don't think that there is any real comparison.

Moreover, there are powerful forces of false consciousness at work in these feudalist systems where they seek to create an enemy (as in this case, "defenders") in order to justify their own power elites.

First, in what respect are our regions remotely 'feudalist'?

Secondly, our members are perfectly clever enough to understand precisely what our regions are about, thank you very much.

Finally, in no way are we using the LKE and TNI's on-going wars with the UDL and the FRA in order to justify the LKE and TNI monarchies. That is bizarre.

If you didn't attack others, people would focus at home and ask why are some given more authority than others due to the luck of having once founded a region?

First, people are already focused at home predominantly. You have no understanding of what people are thinking and doing in our regions.

Second, neither the monarch of the LKE (that is myself) nor the monarch of TNI (that is Cerebella) was the original founder of those regions.

Third, being a regional founder in a successful UCR, as well as the effort that a regional founder or someone with an equivalent role puts in, is not luck.

Finally, as emphasised already, our regions are democratic and decision-making authority rests with our democratically elected governments.

So you invaded a region to keep a strong military force to defend yourselves for defenders? Who don't invade regions...that makes sense.

Moreover, you could set up a region and test out military effectiveness without having to invade other places. This can only be about the glory hunger of a few individuals, because there is no ethical or rational reason to wish to attack someone else, particularly when you are in no way threatened by them.

In terms of future articles, I will write on subjects that I want to write on. But you cannot say that there is no division.What is a Monarch if not a division between one person and everyone else? I do not believe that it is a sustainable argument. In terms of political freedom, what you mean is that they have the right to support the Monarchy in any way that they like?

Whilst there is private property, rank and status, there can be no public interest. You cannot have true political freedom until the special privileges of your Monarch are removed and private interest is abolished.

How cna legal and political systems be free and fair when one person is lifted above others? I believe that Monarchy is a flawed system and I will state my case for Socialism repeatedly. However, it is telling that these acts of aggression have been carried out by those with reactionary political systems.

In terms of people having the power to leave does that make everyone alright? If someone was to conquer Lazarus and install a Monarchy would it be fine because I could go elsewhere? Fleeing political oppression is not the right move, tyranny should be confronted.

Your regions are feudalistic because you have a Monarchy. You have Lords and Ladies - a classic class hierachy. What more do you want?

It is not about being clever, it is about the information that individuals are subjected to. It is in the interests of your leaderships to prevent people questioning political systems at home by focusing them on military glory abroad. If you believe that your systems are so stable and do not need foreign distractions, why not renounce invading other regions and see how long your political systems last?

I understand your political systems enough to criticise them. In terms of Monarchs not being the founder, there is a chain of succession leading right back to the founders. Who gave these individuals special privileges? And who gives you special privileges today - merely because you happened to have a throne?

In terms of the works of founders, it seems to me that this misses a number of crucial points.

Firstly, does this mean that political power is to be denied to the people because someone self-appointedly decides that they deserve it more than others? Secondly, how do you measure their effort? How can you prove that this power is even deserved under your own metric? You don't have a meritocracy, it is just a smoke screen to cover oppression. If you wanted to have true fairness, you would abolish your rank and work hard on behalf of others in the public interest regardless of personal status.

Democractically elected governments, which still rule in the name of one person. That isn't democracy. That is just using elections as a coverup for private interest.

[Funkadelia]

Like we've said, the heart of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are an AC member. It has to do with the defeat of a group of imperialists at the hands of the native population. You're the only one making it about the specific group affiliation of the member. You seem to be implying that Lazarus condones the activity of forum destruction, which it does not.

You don't think the affiliation matters? Also, I'm not the only one who has brought it up....

In relation to the article, no. Obviously, like I said, no one is condoning the act of forum destruction, but the article is not about that particular affiliation.

[Whiskum]

So you invaded a region to keep a strong military force to defend yourselves for defenders? Who don't invade regions...that makes sense.

Nowhere did I say that is what to 'defend yourselves for defenders', although in fact defender aggression against us is far from unheard of.

Maintaining a strong and proactive military is to the advantage of our region in its ability to exert military power.

We are not solely seeking to defend ourselves against the FRA and the UDL; we have declared war on them for their acts against us.

Participating in occupations which we know the FRA and the UDL oppose, where are our forces are superior to their forces, advances that war.

Moreover, you could set up a region and test out military effectiveness without having to invade other places. This can only be about the glory hunger of a few individuals, because there is no ethical or rational reason to wish to attack someone else, particularly when you are in no way threatened by them.

Test regions are hardly a realistic environment, nor do they do have the advantage of defeating FRA and UDL forces.

We do not accept or acknowledge the existence of any ethical right for all regions to be free from invasion.

The claim that our military missions benefit only a few individuals rather than the glory and interests of our entire regions is bizarre and unfounded. Simply because our regions have monarchs does not mean that everything else that goes on involving the region accrues only to the monarch's benefit.

In terms of future articles, I will write on subjects that I want to write on.

Given your views, I assume you will be wanting to write about the oppressive nature of the New Pacific Order as a monarchy them.

Indeed, the Emperor of The Pacific is considerably more powerful in the NPO's political system than any of the UIAF's regions' monarchs are in their regions.

Go on, I am sure the Lazarene Gazette will be glad to distribute your attack on the tyranny and oppression of Krulltopia.

Otherwise, one might think that your crude attempts at Marxist rhetoric were being deployed only against the political enemies of Lazarus.

Really, to hear this nonsense coming from the Lazarane Gazette, the propaganda machine of a friend of the NPO, is the most appalling double standards.

But you cannot say that there is no division.What is a Monarch if not a division between one person and everyone else? I do not believe that it is a sustainable argument. In terms of political freedom, what you mean is that they have the right to support the Monarchy in any way that they like?

The fact that the monarch exists does not mean that the region is run solely for their benefit or that monarchy as an institution does not benefit the region, in particular giving the mechanics of NationStates being set up with UCRs as having a founder nation: that is something which inherently needs managing - even in regions without monarchs, the founder or their successor often has a 'Guardian' position or something along those lines.

In terms of political freedom, I mean they have the right to vote for the people who make decisions on a regular basis and the right to free speech.

They have the right to support the region in any way that they like. Theoretically, that includes calling for the monarchy's abolition if they so wished.

Whilst there is private property, rank and status, there can be no public interest. You cannot have true political freedom until the special privileges of your Monarch are removed and private interest is abolished.

Of course, there can be a public interest if a region has a monarch.

The interests of the entire region can still be aggregated and the government which they elect can still work to advance those interests.

How cna legal and political systems be free and fair when one person is lifted above others? I believe that Monarchy is a flawed system and I will state my case for Socialism repeatedly. However, it is telling that these acts of aggression have been carried out by those with reactionary political systems.

The existence of a constitutionally constrained monarchy (as in the UIAF regions) does not mean that the population has no political freedom.

There is an element of unfairness whenever any individual is elevated over another, which occurs in any region with any hierarchical system.

Constitutional monarchy is the political system of perfectly liberal real world countries that would not be described as reactionary, notably the UK and the Commonwealth Realms. Naturally, however, given your stated views, doubtless you regard them as also being the grip of tyranny and oppression.

In terms of people having the power to leave does that make everyone alright? If someone was to conquer Lazarus and install a Monarchy would it be fine because I could go elsewhere? Fleeing political oppression is not the right move, tyranny should be confronted.

We are talking about user-created regions, which in the case of the LKE and Albion indisputably were created for people who wanted to be in monarchies.

Our regions were not conquered to impose a monarchy.

Thee should be a range of regions offering a range of different political systems, which people can then choose from depending on what they prefer.

Regarding, the question of going elsewhere, presumably what you said about regions leaving the FRA works equally well for individuals in our regions:

There was a point made about the FRA being dictatorial, I am not sure whether that is true, but given that is a multilateral alliance and not a region, thus meaning that any region can leave it at any time, I don't think that there is any real comparison.

Or is this another one of the double standards which you are exercising?

Your regions are feudalistic because you have a Monarchy. You have Lords and Ladies - a classic class hierachy. What more do you want?

Feudalism does not equate to monarchism. Neither is the existence of a peerage equivalent to feudalism.

By the criterion of having a monarchy, we have a feudal societies in real life today in the highly developed economies of Japan, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc. I have to say, that is a very strange view indeed for a Marxist.

Feudalism is a specific social-military-customary system that prevailed in the Middle Ages (or a socioeconomic system which existed before the rise of capitalism if you are a Marxist).

You should read up on your namesake's understanding of the relationship between imperialism and capitalism.

It is not about being clever, it is about the information that individuals are subjected to. It is in the interests of your leaderships to prevent people questioning political systems at home by focusing them on military glory abroad. If you believe that your systems are so stable and do not need foreign distractions, why not renounce invading other regions and see how long your political systems last?

People in our regions are already focused on what they consider to be the real domestic issues, namely material improvements in regional life.

Our systems are perfectly stable and we do not use 'foreign distractions' in order to shore them up. You are simply assuming that we do from theory.

There have been lengthy periods in the past, actually, particularly before 2011, where our military activity was much lower than today. Needless to say, while our foreign affairs suffered for it, our regions did not collapse and no one questioned the basis of our constitutional system over it.

I understand your political systems enough to criticise them. In terms of Monarchs not being the founder, there is a chain of succession leading right back to the founders. Who gave these individuals special privileges? And who gives you special privileges today - merely because you happened to have a throne?

You have no specific understanding of our systems other than the fact that they are monarchies and your theoretical critique of monarchies.

There is a line of succession from the original monarchs in the LKE and TNI, but that line was not ascended by mere 'luck' as you put it earlier.

The democratically voted on and accepted constitutions of our regions establish and outline the powers and privileges of our monarchs.

In terms of the works of founders, it seems to me that this misses a number of crucial points.

Firstly, does this mean that political power is to be denied to the people because someone self-appointedly decides that they deserve it more than others?

Political power is largely vested in the government, which is democratically elected by the people.

The fact that a limited degree of power is vested in the monarchs does not mean that our regions are oppressive and have no political freedoms.

Having an unchanging figure with responsibility for overseeing the region is not tyranny, which suggests cruelty: you might argue it is unfair, but all systems have unfair aspects and if people would prefer to work in a different kind of system then no one made them join or stay in a monarchist region.

Secondly, how do you measure their effort? How can you prove that this power is even deserved under your own metric? You don't have a meritocracy, it is just a smoke screen to cover oppression. If you wanted to have true fairness, you would abolish your rank and work hard on behalf of others in the public interest regardless of personal status.

How do you know that we 'don't have meritocracy, it is just a smoke screen to cover oppression'? Have you done an analysis of one of our regions?

If by 'true fairness' you mean equality, then our regions are not about equality. Neither does the absence of equality mean that a region is oppressive.

Democractically elected governments, which still rule in the name of one person. That isn't democracy. That is just using elections as a coverup for private interest.

They rule on behalf of and for the entire region which can vote for or against them. That is in fact democracy.

[V I Lenin]

Nowhere did I say that is what to 'defend yourselves for defenders', although in fact defender aggression against us is far from unheard of.

Maintaining a strong and proactive military is to the advantage of our region in its ability to exert military power.

We are not solely seeking to defend ourselves against the FRA and the UDL; we have declared war on them for their acts against us.

Participating in occupations which we know the FRA and the UDL oppose, where are our forces are superior to their forces, advances that war.

Defender aggression that threatened to conquer your home region? If a region did that, they are probably not defenders...

Why do you need to exert military power? You are founded, you don't need to defend yourself against anyone and if you have regions you want to protect, then why not join the defender cause against unwanted aggression?

Test regions are hardly a realistic environment, nor do they do have the advantage of defeating FRA and UDL forces.

We do not accept or acknowledge the existence of any ethical right for all regions to be free from invasion.

The claim that our military missions benefit only a few individuals rather than the glory and interests of our entire regions is bizarre and unfounded. Simply because our regions have monarchs does not mean that everything else that goes on involving the region accrues only to the monarch's benefit.

Why do you need to defeat people? I do not see the FRA or UDL trying to invade your regions. You are fighting a war with no rational reason other than to benefit a few who want to achieve personal glory.

How does your region benefit from attacking others with no real benefit other than the destruction of someone else's home?

Given your views, I assume you will be wanting to write about the oppressive nature of the New Pacific Order as a monarchy them.

Indeed, the Emperor of The Pacific is considerably more powerful in the NPO's political system than any of the UIAF's regions' monarchs are in their regions.

Furthermore, as The Pacific is a GCR rather than UCR, it is not as if it is a category of region designed for people who want that approach.

Go on, I am sure the Lazarene Gazette will be glad to distribute your attack on the tyranny and oppression of Krulltopia.

Otherwise, one might think that your crude attempts at Marxist rhetoric were being deployed only against the political enemies of Lazarus.

Really, to hear this nonsense coming from the Lazarane Gazette, the propaganda machine of a friend of the NPO, is the most appalling double standards.

The Pacific has to defend itself from outside threats and this has created unique political challenges, none of which apply to LKE, for example.

The fact that the monarch exists does not mean that the region is run solely for their benefit or that monarchy as an institution does not benefit the region, in particular giving the mechanics of NationStates being set up with UCRs as having a founder nation: that is something which inherently needs managing - even in regions without monarchs, the founder or their successor often has a 'Guardian' position or something along those lines.

In terms of political freedom, I mean they have the right to vote for the people who make decisions on a regular basis and the right to free speech.

They have the right to support the region in any way that they like. Theoretically, that includes calling for the monarchy's abolition if they so wished.

But you admit that there is division? That you have divided people by rank and that some are less equal than others permanently as a consequence?

So if individuals were to say that you should be abolished, and they were to vote for you to be ejected from the region as a tyrant - you would allow that?

I doubt it somewhat, it is freedom that is controlled in the interests of an elite. And frankly, we'll never know as I imagine that you would never allow it to get to take stage, reasons would be found to get rid of your critics - all in the interests of "political freedom" of course...

Of course, there can be a public interest if a region has a monarch.

The interests of the entire region can still be aggregated and the government which they elect can still work to advance those interests.

The interests of the Monarch will always come before the interests of the people, after all, what is a Monarch unless their rank and status is maintained? As such any action that threatens their status will be opposed by the Monarch who holds power, and as such their private interest will trump the public interest. There cannot be true public interest, because it is not absolute, it is limited only to when a Monarch chooses to allow the public interest - and what is that, but public interest used as a proxy for private interest?

The existence of a constitutionally constrained monarchy (as in the UIAF regions) does not mean that the population has no political freedom.

There is an element of unfairness whenever any individual is elevated over another, which occurs in any region with any hierarchical system.

Constitutional monarchy is the political system of perfectly liberal real world countries that would not be described as reactionary, notably the UK and the Commonwealth Realms. Naturally, however, given your stated views, doubtless you regard them as also being the grip of tyranny and oppression.

Are you going to hide behind real world examples? Also, if you are, did you support the British Empire? Do you believe that the oppression of India or millions of Africans was right?

Or are you going to justify your region's political system based on argument in Nationstates - which I think would be preferable.

We are talking about user-created regions, which in the case of the LKE and Albion indisputably were created for people who wanted to be in monarchies.

Our regions were not conquered to impose a monarchy.

Thee should be a range of regions offering a range of different political systems, which people can then choose from depending on what they prefer.

Regarding, the question of going elsewhere, presumably what you said about regions leaving the FRA works equally well for individuals in our regions

Should their be a slave region in NS so that there is a range of political systems? Are you advocating slavery in the name of diversity? I doubt it. This argument doesn't bear up. Diversity for the sake of diversity is ridiculous. Diversity is only acceptable where it is right. If it is right, then the argument for diversity is not necessary.

Feudalism does not equate to monarchism. Neither is the existence of a peerage equivalent to feudalism.

By the criterion of having a monarchy, we have a feudal societies in real life today in the highly developed economies of Japan, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc. I have to say, that is a very strange view indeed for a Marxist.

Feudalism is a specific social-military-customary system that prevailed in the Middle Ages (or a socioeconomic system which existed before the rise of capitalism if you are a Marxist).

You should read up on your namesake's understanding of the relationship between imperialism and capitalism.

I understand Marx well enough, and I would respond that there is no "economy" in Nationstates - thus there is no development of the means of production, thus no economic or social progress to enable the transition through Mercantalism through to Capitalism. Effectively, you have virtual land, the UCR, which is used as "political rent" and you extract power from it. You perpetuate a political class on the back of the virtual labour of others, who swear loyalty to an unelected Monarch.

It is feudalism in my book. Socialism would be power exercised in the public interest without a political class structure - in NS terms.

Plus, even if you could prove you were not a feudal political system - how does that justify your invasions?

People in our regions are already focused on what they consider to be the real domestic issues, namely material improvements in regional life.

Our systems are perfectly stable and we do not use 'foreign distractions' in order to shore them up. You are simply assuming that we do from theory.

There have been lengthy periods in the past, actually, particularly before 2011, where our military activity was much lower than today. Needless to say, while our foreign affairs suffered for it, our regions did not collapse and no one questioned the basis of our constitutional system over it.

I do not need theory - I can look at practice. You invade other places for no reason and trumpet it around the world - how is that not foreign distraction? If you didn't need to distract people, why talk about it so much and waste your time here trying to self aggrandise?

You have no specific understanding of our systems other than the fact that they are monarchies and your theoretical critique of monarchies.

There is a line of succession from the original monarchs in the LKE and TNI, but that line was not ascended by mere 'luck' as you put it earlier.

The democratically voted on and accepted constitutions of our regions establish and outline the powers and privileges of our monarchs.

I wonder what would have happened if they had decided that they didn't want a Monarch...why do I feel that these constitutions would have been annulled for getting the wrong result...

Political power is largely vested in the government, which is democratically elected by the people.

The fact that a limited degree of power is vested in the monarchs does not mean that our regions are oppressive and have no political freedoms.

Having an unchanging figure with responsibility for overseeing the region is not tyranny, which suggests cruelty: you might argue it is unfair, but all systems have unfair aspects and if people would prefer to work in a different kind of system then no one made them join or stay in a monarchist region.

Elections can be used to accumulate private political power, particularly if it is used to gain access to a political class or elite, which it seems to be. The Monarch also has private political power.

The true test of a democratic region is whether decisions are made in the public interest, not private will. I see nothing from your action to suggest that is the case.

How do you know that we 'don't have meritocracy, it is just a smoke screen to cover oppression'? Have you done an analysis of one of our regions?

If by 'true fairness' you mean equality, then our regions are not about equality. Neither does the absence of equality mean that a region is oppressive.

How can you have a meritocracy when you have Monarchs that are not judged against any criteria of performance? Power without justification is what you have.

Maybe you work hard, maybe you deserve it. Maybe you don't though. If you don't deserve it, what happens? Nothing.

They rule on behalf of and for the entire region which can vote for or against them. That is in fact democracy.

Democracy is rule in the interests of the people. You are a Monarch of a Monarchy that exists to keep you in power. How can you claim to be a democrat?

[Whiskum]

Defender aggression that threatened to conquer your home region? If a region did that, they are probably not defenders...

Why do you need to exert military power? You are founded, you don't need to defend yourself against anyone and if you have regions you want to protect, then why not join the defender cause against unwanted aggression?

They have not attempted to invade our 'home region', but, for example, it was only a year or so ago when Mahaj of the UDL tried to invade Munster.

---

Whoever said that we needed to 'exert military power'?

As a political region, unlike military organisations (e.g. defender groups), we do not have any existential need to exert military power.

However, by having a capable military force and exerting military power, we benefit by expanding our region's collective position inter-regionally.

Why do you need to defeat people? I do not see the FRA or UDL trying to invade your regions. You are fighting a war with no rational reason other than to benefit a few who want to achieve personal glory.

How does your region benefit from attacking others with no real benefit other than the destruction of someone else's home?

The LKE declared war on the FRA for its invasion of the LKE colony of UKB and on the UDL for another, even earlier incident involving Mahaj and Munster.

We do not need to do so, but as they have to continually refused to respect our positions, we benefit by asserting them through the process of war.

It is nothing to do with 'a few who want to achieve personal glory'; I don't know where you get that from.

It has always been about expanding and exerting the power of our regions as a whole, not merely of the individual leaders.

The Pacific has to defend itself from outside threats and this has created unique political challenges, none of which apply to LKE, for example.

So it is okay in your view for The Pacific to be a monarchy and therefore, as you see it, tyrannous and oppressive, but not for the LKE to do so?

The Pacific has no more 'unique political challenges' than any of the other game-created regions, which cope without resorting to absolute monarchy.

---

You are just a mouthpiece for the defender-Francoist interests that control Lazarus.

That is why you defend The Pacific's highly authoritarian monarchy and attack LKE for having a monarchy at all.

---

You say this in spite of the fact that the LKE is a region designed around the principle of monarchy for those who want to exist in a monarchist region.

This game is wide enough to incorporate the desired political systems of its players and we should be tolerant of the political systems they establish.

But you admit that there is division? That you have divided people by rank and that some are less equal than others permanently as a consequence?

So if individuals were to say that you should be abolished, and they were to vote for you to be ejected from the region as a tyrant - you would allow that?

I doubt it somewhat, it is freedom that is controlled in the interests of an elite. And frankly, we'll never know as I imagine that you would never allow it to get to take stage, reasons would be found to get rid of your critics - all in the interests of "political freedom" of course...

Of course, the monarchy means that a division between the monarch and others is permanently embedded.

However, that does not mean that the region therefore is fundamentally oppressive and is run solely in the interest of the monarch.

That is a massive and unsustainable leap.

---

It is extremely unlikely that a group of people who joined a monarchist region because they wanted a monarchist region will seek to abolish the monarchy.

You are trying to use highly unlikely hypotheticals to pretend that this means that the region has no political freedom.

As I stated, unlike in Lazarus (where political opponents have been purged), the Government cannot just remove people without trials in the LKE.

The interests of the Monarch will always come before the interests of the people, after all, what is a Monarch unless their rank and status is maintained? As such any action that threatens their status will be opposed by the Monarch who holds power, and as such their private interest will trump the public interest. There cannot be true public interest, because it is not absolute, it is limited only to when a Monarch chooses to allow the public interest - and what is that, but public interest used as a proxy for private interest?

Why must the interests of the monarch always come before the interests of the people?

Given the people elect the Government, surely the Government is incentivised to follow what it believes to be in the people's interests foremost?

Furthermore, if we go beyond constitutional arguments about the role of the monarch, why must the interests of people and monarch be in conflict?

---

Any region with a founder and forum with a root administrator is theoretically only free to whatever extent that the founder/root admin decrees.

The benefit of constitutional monarchy is that it provides a way of integrating that person and regulating their role within defined limits.

The LKE's system in my reign for over three years now has always operated within those defined limits and political freedom has been maintained.

Are you going to hide behind real world examples? Also, if you are, did you support the British Empire? Do you believe that the oppression of India or millions of Africans was right?

Or are you going to justify your region's political system based on argument in Nationstates - which I think would be preferable.

I made no claims that the British Empire was not oppressive or tyrannous.

Rather, I referred to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms in the present day.

If you are claiming that monarchy is inseparable from oppression and tyranny, then the existence of any monarchy that is not negates your point.

You are the one who is appropriating ethics and theories designed for real life onto NationStates, so these examples are entirely legitimate.

Should their be a slave region in NS so that there is a range of political systems? Are you advocating slavery in the name of diversity? I doubt it. This argument doesn't bear up. Diversity for the sake of diversity is ridiculous. Diversity is only acceptable where it is right. If it is right, then the argument for diversity is not necessary.

There is a distinction between a monarchy, a system of government, and a slave region, which implies a much wider system of repugnant social relations.

Having a monarch is not in all circumstances so repugnant and you have accepted that by arguing that it is just fine for The Pacific to be a monarchy.

A constitutional monarchy is one of a range of common political systems. It is not offensive like slavery. It should be open to those who want it.

I understand Marx well enough, and I would respond that there is no "economy" in Nationstates - thus there is no development of the means of production, thus no economic or social progress to enable the transition through Mercantalism through to Capitalism. Effectively, you have virtual land, the UCR, which is used as "political rent" and you extract power from it. You perpetuate a political class on the back of the virtual labour of others, who swear loyalty to an unelected Monarch.

It is feudalism in my book. Socialism would be power exercised in the public interest without a political class structure - in NS terms.

Plus, even if you could prove you were not a feudal political system - how does that justify your invasions?

Apparently you do not understand Marx well enough if you believe that monarchy and feudalism are equivalent, as you were arguing earlier.

As for your newly concocted theory, having a monarchy does not mean that your citizens have to do service or swear loyalty to your monarch.

We have a democratic political and social system. People choose how much to participate. The Government decides how it should be organised.

I do not believe that I was invoking the fact that the UIAF regions are not feudal societies to justify our invasions.

Provided that we believe that the invasions are to our advantage in increasing our regions' power, they require no further justification.

I do not need theory - I can look at practice. You invade other places for no reason and trumpet it around the world - how is that not foreign distraction? If you didn't need to distract people, why talk about it so much and waste your time here trying to self aggrandise?

We invade regions as part of an approach to maintaining an active military increasing our geopolitical power and defeating UDL-FRA enemies.

Your argument is that our operations are designed for a domestic audience and that without them as a 'distraction' our political system would collapse.

How do you know that we are using the operations which we perform to distract that domestic audience?

How do you know how they respond to them? Most of our citizens see military missions with relative difference; as a helpful foreign affairs add-on.

You are strangely assuming that simply because we undertake military operations, they are necessarily designed to mislead our people.

I wonder what would have happened if they had decided that they didn't want a Monarch...why do I feel that these constitutions would have been annulled for getting the wrong result...

Fairly unlikely that people who join The Land of Kings and Emperors, or indeed the other monarchist regions in question, want to abolish monarchy.

If people genuinely wanted to abolish the monarchy, then that has been done in independent regions before (notably Europeia)

You are using this extremely unlikely scenario in order to make statements about our region which have no bearing on its day to day democratic reality.

Elections can be used to accumulate private political power, particularly if it is used to gain access to a political class or elite, which it seems to be. The Monarch also has private political power.

The true test of a democratic region is whether decisions are made in the public interest, not private will. I see nothing from your action to suggest that is the case.

How do you know that elections are used to gain access to a political class in the LKE, TNI and Albion? Have you done a study of our elections?

---

Basically, your idea of democracy is that it is not what the people choose through free and fair elections.

You equate democracy with the 'public interest', as defined by you.

There are different opinions as to what the 'public interest' constitutes and elections are the forum in which those opinions are freely debated.

For instance, the LKE's current view of its public interest is most definitely that raiding gives the region a greater degree of geopolitical significance.

How can you have a meritocracy when you have Monarchs that are not judged against any criteria of performance? Power without justification is what you have.

Maybe you work hard, maybe you deserve it. Maybe you don't though. If you don't deserve it, what happens? Nothing.

You were originally discussing the criteria via which monarchs obtained their position, which you equated to pure 'luck'.

Anyone who controls a founder nation/root admin has power without continuing effort theoretically. A monarchy establishes rules for that power.

In terms of your new argument, the existence of a defined, constitutional monarch does not mean that the whole society is somehow meritocratic.

Democracy is rule in the interests of the people. You are a Monarch of a Monarchy that exists to keep you in power. How can you claim to be a democrat?

The people are more than capable of deciding what their interests are through fair elections.

A government elected and accountable to the people will rule in their interests.

The fact that a region has a monarch does not mean that it exists 'to keep' the monarch 'in power'. That is unnecessary assumption.

The LKE exists to provide a political state for its members to participate in at a domestic level and direct at an inter-regional level, with a thriving social community co-incident with it. In no way does the existence of a monarchy prevent this process from happening in any of the UIAF regions.

[Solorni]

We need to come up with a term to describe Onder utterly destroying opponents.... that was really awesome.

[Consular]

I was just enjoying the irony of a communist lecturing us on democracy.

If you are so convinced Albion is a region of systemic oppression and blah blah insert propaganda bullshit here, perhaps you should come visit and find out for yourself. We actually have an incredibly welcoming community. Is demonizing your enemies really necessary to justify your own beliefs? Lazarus seems to go to great lengths to attack imperialist regions. Existence defined by opposition to another is a rather poor basis for a culture in my opinion.

[Through The Breach]

We need to come up with a term to describe Onder utterly destroying opponents.... that was really awesome.

It's called tl;dr

[Unibot III]

We need to come up with a term to describe Onder utterly destroying opponents....

"Impossible" or "Untranspired".

Or, perhaps simply "Evasiveness".

Naming your utterly non-contributive passive-aggressive peppering of every thread is, however, a much more difficult endeavor.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

We need to come up with a term to describe Onder utterly destroying opponents....

"Impossible" or "Untranspired".

Or, perhaps simply "Evasiveness".

Naming your utterly non-contributive passive-aggressive peppering of every thread is, however, a much more difficult endeavor.

"Commentary".

#rekt

[Common-Sense Politics]

You guys should have seen him go at it with Falconias back in the day. Between the two of them your eyes would bleed by the time you got to the end of the page.

[Sovreignry]

You guys should have seen him go at it with Falconias back in the day. Between the two of them your eyes would bleed by the time you got to the end of the page.

My eyes bleed already.

[V I Lenin]

They have not attempted to invade our 'home region', but, for example, it was only a year or so ago when Mahaj of the UDL tried to invade Munster.

And these are actions you have the power to stop by ceasing invasions and turning to peace. I don't see how you can criticise others for trying check your aggression when you are going around invading others.

You said it yourself that you were at war, and as the nature of defending is passive, if you were to become a defender, you would not have to worry.

Whoever said that we needed to 'exert military power'?

As a political region, unlike military organisations (e.g. defender groups), we do not have any existential need to exert military power.

However, by having a capable military force and exerting military power, we benefit by expanding our region's collective position inter-regionally.

Lazarus is not a military organisation, we are a political region - but we choose to defend the rights of others from aggression such as yours.

You do not expand your region's collective position, all you do is damage everyone else and then claim that you are playing a game. It is a bit like the bully in a school yard who picks fights with little kids and then, when a teacher confronts them, says that they are "playing".

If you want to have fights with people, why not do it in one of the Warzones with people who opt-in to such battle, rather than needlessly attacking others.

The LKE declared war on the FRA for its invasion of the LKE colony of UKB and on the UDL for another, even earlier incident involving Mahaj and Munster.

We do not need to do so, but as they have to continually refused to respect our positions, we benefit by asserting them through the process of war.

It is nothing to do with 'a few who want to achieve personal glory'; I don't know where you get that from.

It has always been about expanding and exerting the power of our regions as a whole, not merely of the individual leaders.

Actions provoked by your aggression. If you didn't attack others, there would be no need for your own aggression to be checked with military action. I long for the day that defenders are not required for regions, but until regions like yours are stopped, then how can that be possible?

This is "problem, reaction, solution". You, the LKE and others, have created a problem through your invasions other regions. Then there is a necessary reaction from those that respect the rights of others. So then you create your "solution" - continual wars of aggression that are justified by the reaction to your original attacks. Of course, you hope no one will ever trace the problem back to you, and that is why you are so keen to defend yourselves by mudding the waters.

But ultimately, the clue is in the name - defenders are seeking to protect the rights of regions from attack. That cannot cease until other stop attacking them. Moreover, it could only start as an mission when the first region was attacked. That was not done by defenders, it was done by people like you, you believe that there is glory and power to be had from the misery of others.

And who gains the glory and power for all this? Is it the individual soldier? No, they don't receive anything apart from a slap on the back and a few medals. It is people like you, who get to grand stand and get to fill their signatures with lots of long fancy titles.

So it is okay in your view for The Pacific to be a monarchy and therefore, as you see it, tyrannous and oppressive, but not for the LKE to do so?

The Pacific has no more 'unique political challenges' than any of the other game-created regions, which cope without resorting to absolute monarchy.

---

You are just a mouthpiece for the defender-Francoist interests that control Lazarus.

That is why you defend The Pacific's highly authoritarian monarchy and attack LKE for having a monarchy at all.

---

You say this in spite of the fact that the LKE is a region designed around the principle of monarchy for those who want to exist in a monarchist region.

This game is wide enough to incorporate the desired political systems of its players and we should be tolerant of the political systems they establish.

I am not commenting on the specifics of The Pacific, merely pointing out the foolishness of your comparison. It is you that are trying to bring them together, to muddy the waters and justify your actions.

Plus, lets take your argument (although I do not endorse it) - does the fact that someone else does it justify your own political system? It is a pretty pathetic line of argument. Again, borrowed from the school yard.

Of course, the monarchy means that a division between the monarch and others is permanently embedded.

However, that does not mean that the region therefore is fundamentally oppressive and is run solely in the interest of the monarch.

That is a massive and unsustainable leap.

---

It is extremely unlikely that a group of people who joined a monarchist region because they wanted a monarchist region will seek to abolish the monarchy.

You are trying to use highly unlikely hypotheticals to pretend that this means that the region has no political freedom.

As I stated, unlike in Lazarus (where political opponents have been purged), the Government cannot just remove people without trials in the LKE.[/quote]

You have division, you have some individual raised above all others and given special privileges and you say that isn't oppression?

Also you didn't answer my question, because you know the answer. If people tried to get rid of you, would you stop them and eject them - finding some "democratic", "legal" way of doing it. You would probably say that they were enemies of the region working with "defenders" or something, again, using foreign distractions to perpetuate your rule at home.

I think everyone should note the importance of this answer, it proves that the "democracy" that is ranted on for the rest of the answer is nothing more than an illusion - because the people do not have ultiamte power and private interest still trumps their will.

Why must the interests of the monarch always come before the interests of the people?

Given the people elect the Government, surely the Government is incentivised to follow what it believes to be in the people's interests foremost?

Furthermore, if we go beyond constitutional arguments about the role of the monarch, why must the interests of people and monarch be in conflict?

---

Any region with a founder and forum with a root administrator is theoretically only free to whatever extent that the founder/root admin decrees.

The benefit of constitutional monarchy is that it provides a way of integrating that person and regulating their role within defined limits.

The LKE's system in my reign for over three years now has always operated within those defined limits and political freedom has been maintained.

The Monarch's interest comes before the people, because as you just tacitly admitted, you would never allow them complete power to get rid of you.

Also, there is always conflict when one group of people has unjustified power and status over another.

There is no political freedom in LKE or Monarchies like yours - people are given a choice sure, between A and B, but if they wanted C (which the Monarch doesn't want), they don't get that option. Perhaps they throw in D to distract them. However ultimately the power resides in people like you, who have an interest in oppressing others and manipulating them to serve your ends. The march of history is clear, Monarchy fades away under scruntiny.

I made no claims that the British Empire was not oppressive or tyrannous.

Rather, I referred to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms in the present day.

If you are claiming that monarchy is inseparable from oppression and tyranny, then the existence of any monarchy that is not negates your point.

You are the one who is appropriating ethics and theories designed for real life onto NationStates, so these examples are entirely legitimate.

I never brought RL examples into this debate, you did. And I notice how you flee from them when you realise the road you are going down.

Your claim is that because there is an election every now and again and class systems, that somehow makes a place free and democratic. I disagree. However, as I said, this has nothing to do with your actions and even if you were to find a RL Monarchy that was not oppressive, that doesn't excuse your system.

There is a distinction between a monarchy, a system of government, and a slave region, which implies a much wider system of repugnant social relations.

Having a monarch is not in all circumstances so repugnant and you have accepted that by arguing that it is just fine for The Pacific to be a monarchy.

A constitutional monarchy is one of a range of common political systems. It is not offensive like slavery. It should be open to those who want it.

That is not the argument, the argument was that you said that Monarchy is justified by diversity. You have backed away from that, I am glad that you have done so.

Apparently you do not understand Marx well enough if you believe that monarchy and feudalism are equivalent, as you were arguing earlier.

As for your newly concocted theory, having a monarchy does not mean that your citizens have to do service or swear loyalty to your monarch.

We have a democratic political and social system. People choose how much to participate. The Government decides how it should be organised.

I do not believe that I was invoking the fact that the UIAF regions are not feudal societies to justify our invasions.

Provided that we believe that the invasions are to our advantage in increasing our regions' power, they require no further justification.

I never said that Monarchy and Feudalism in RL were equivalent. I said that your system was Feudalistic and you are in NS.

Newsflash: Marx never wrote about Nationstates. So all you are doing is taking a crude format of what you happen to think Marx said, and then trying to use that as a defence. A rather irrelevant one, to be honest, and classic "Oh look, I am going to create a strawman, so please ignore everything else that is going on! Look I am cleverer!". I don't think people are going to buy it.

However what I have done is take a Marxist line to interpret the power structures in Nationstates - it is an interpretation but a rational one I believe.

We invade regions as part of an approach to maintaining an active military increasing our geopolitical power and defeating UDL-FRA enemies.

Your argument is that our operations are designed for a domestic audience and that without them as a 'distraction' our political system would collapse.

How do you know that we are using the operations which we perform to distract that domestic audience?

How do you know how they respond to them? Most of our citizens see military missions with relative difference; as a helpful foreign affairs add-on.

You are strangely assuming that simply because we undertake military operations, they are necessarily designed to mislead our people.

Enemies that you created, ultimately. There is no escaping it or cutting it up, you choose to attack others.

Also your power isn't increased, only your own self importance.

You parade your victories here and at home with updates and medals - trying to buy the loyalty of the people by showing how strong you are. What is tagging after all, but a pathetic attempt to remind people that you are strong? It would be pitiful if it wasn't so destructive.

Fairly unlikely that people who join The Land of Kings and Emperors, or indeed the other monarchist regions in question, want to abolish monarchy.

If people genuinely wanted to abolish the monarchy, then that has been done in independent regions before (notably Europeia)

You are using this extremely unlikely scenario in order to make statements about our region which have no bearing on its day to day democratic reality.

Again, avoiding the issue. I notice you don't say that you would go. As such you are just proving my point.

How do you know that elections are used to gain access to a political class in the LKE, TNI and Albion? Have you done a study of our elections?

---

Basically, your idea of democracy is that it is not what the people choose through free and fair elections.

You equate democracy with the 'public interest', as defined by you.

There are different opinions as to what the 'public interest' constitutes and elections are the forum in which those opinions are freely debated.

For instance, the LKE's current view of its public interest is most definitely that raiding gives the region a greater degree of geopolitical significance.

All elections where there are private ranks and special privileges are going to be used for personal gain and interest.

The only definition of democracy is rule in the interests of the public, not on the basis of private interest. You have a political system where power is privatised. In the hands of the Monarch or individuals and they are encouraged to compete to win the favour of the Monarch or some narrow political elite. This elite is divided from the people through rank.

You then use your foreign adventures to try and distract people from their alienation at home. It is a classic tactic and it will stop working eventually.

You were originally discussing the criteria via which monarchs obtained their position, which you equated to pure 'luck'.

Anyone who controls a founder nation/root admin has power without continuing effort theoretically. A monarchy establishes rules for that power.

In terms of your new argument, the existence of a defined, constitutional monarch does not mean that the whole society is somehow meritocratic.

I am not trying to justify meritocracy, again, you were trying to use this argument as a smokescreen. But I notice that you admit that the existence of a defined, constitutional monarch means that your society cannot be meritocratic. So we can scrap that argument.

The people are more than capable of deciding what their interests are through fair elections.

A government elected and accountable to the people will rule in their interests.

The fact that a region has a monarch does not mean that it exists 'to keep' the monarch 'in power'. That is unnecessary assumption.

The LKE exists to provide a political state for its members to participate in at a domestic level and direct at an inter-regional level, with a thriving social community co-incident with it. In no way does the existence of a monarchy prevent this process from happening in any of the UIAF regions.

They can decide on issues that you let them. You have managed to give your two pennies worth for everything so far, except when we talk about abolishing your throne when you say that you don't wish to get into hypotheticals.

This reveals everything we need to know, the illusion of choice. You are more than happy to let people decide on trivial matters, but the superstructure itself cannot be changed. You want power and you intend to keep it. I expect nothing less of a Monarch.

[hr]

Also I notice you are trying to move away from your actions in Alteran, did you invade it because of past activities? It doesn't seem so.

You attacked it as another opportunity to grand stand, it all backfired when the founder returned and kicked you out.

The child like destructiveness of the Imperialists is personified in this type of activity.

[Whiskum]

And these are actions you have the power to stop by ceasing invasions and turning to peace. I don't see how you can criticise others for trying check your aggression when you are going around invading others.

You said it yourself that you were at war, and as the nature of defending is passive, if you were to become a defender, you would not have to worry.

We have the power to stop it already, not least because all our possessions have founders, and if that was not the case we have a stronger military.

It is very strange indeed that you think that we will should stop raiding in order to avoid Mahaj's failed attempt on Munster a year ago.

We are not going to be intimidated into ceasing to execute our foreign policy by pathetic, minuscule, unsuccessful acts of FRA-UDL aggression.

Neither do we wish to be passive. We wish to be able to assert power and influence in world affairs; having a strong, capable military is a way to do that.

Lazarus is not a military organisation, we are a political region - but we choose to defend the rights of others from aggression such as yours.

You do not expand your region's collective position, all you do is damage everyone else and then claim that you are playing a game. It is a bit like the bully in a school yard who picks fights with little kids and then, when a teacher confronts them, says that they are "playing".

If you want to have fights with people, why not do it in one of the Warzones with people who opt-in to such battle, rather than needlessly attacking others.

I did not specify that Lazarus was a military organisation, merely that defender organisations (e.g. the UDL and the FRA) have an existential need to exert themselves through military operations), whereas there is no such need for the LKE, Albion and TNI to exert themselves militarily. It is merely beneficial.

Of course we expand our regions' collective position through military activity.

For instance, we have been able to force concessions from other regions through military force. For examples, see Slavya and The True Rebirth.

We have invaded numerous FRA, RLA and ADN-DSA regions, as well as regions associated with UDL members, throughout our wars, harming them.

We have also accumulated many alliances, an key component to which has been our demonstrable capacity to undertake effective, large deployments.

You say we damage 'everyone else'? Actually, you will find we only damage those regions that we do not especially care about damaging or not.

By maintaining and using a strong military force, our regions are much more powerful in world affairs than those regions without a strong military.

Actions provoked by your aggression. If you didn't attack others, there would be no need for your own aggression to be checked with military action. I long for the day that defenders are not required for regions, but until regions like yours are stopped, then how can that be possible?

This is "problem, reaction, solution". You, the LKE and others, have created a problem through your invasions other regions. Then there is a necessary reaction from those that respect the rights of others. So then you create your "solution" - continual wars of aggression that are justified by the reaction to your original attacks. Of course, you hope no one will ever trace the problem back to you, and that is why you are so keen to defend yourselves by mudding the waters.

But ultimately, the clue is in the name - defenders are seeking to protect the rights of regions from attack. That cannot cease until other stop attacking them. Moreover, it could only start as an mission when the first region was attacked. That was not done by defenders, it was done by people like you, you believe that there is glory and power to be had from the misery of others.

And who gains the glory and power for all this? Is it the individual soldier? No, they don't receive anything apart from a slap on the back and a few medals. It is people like you, who get to grand stand and get to fill their signatures with lots of long fancy titles.

Neither the United Kingdom of Britain nor Munster were subject to a raid at the time when they were attacked by FRA and UDL members respectively.

There is precisely no problem with raiding other regions; we recognise no ethical concerns to it. On the other hand, if defenders wish to oppose our application of military force, then they become our enemies and naturally, having opposed us, must expect us to oppose them in return for doing so.

Our regions as a whole gain from it, because each become a more powerful entity in world affairs by virtue of having a strong military.

As for my signature, only two of my titles there refer to invasions (Munster and The Rejected Realms), one of which occurred in 2006 and one in 2012. It could be filled with many more titles completely unrelated to military activity of this or any other kind. The idea that we raid to fill my signature is absurd.

I am not commenting on the specifics of The Pacific, merely pointing out the foolishness of your comparison. It is you that are trying to bring them together, to muddy the waters and justify your actions.

Plus, lets take your argument (although I do not endorse it) - does the fact that someone else does it justify your own political system? It is a pretty pathetic line of argument. Again, borrowed from the school yard.

There is nothing foolish at all about comparing The Pacific and the LKE in this situation.

You claim that monarchies are inherently oppressive and tyrannous merely by virtue of being a monarchy.

The LKE is a liberal, constitutional monarchy. The Pacific is an authoritarian monarchy where the law gives the Emperor absolute power.

---

You condemn the LKE but refuse to do so for The Pacific because it has what you earlier called 'unique challenges' The Pacific faces.

Those are 'unique challenges' faced by every other GCR, which seem to be able to able to deal with them without establishing an absolute monarchy.

This illustrates that you are nothing more than the puppet of the defender-Francoist interests that control Lazarus and are allied to The Pacific.

You have no genuine belief in what you are saying; if you did you would criticise The Pacific at least as much as us, if not more. That is hypocritical.

You have division, you have some individual raised above all others and given special privileges and you say that isn't oppression?

Also you didn't answer my question, because you know the answer. If people tried to get rid of you, would you stop them and eject them - finding some "democratic", "legal" way of doing it. You would probably say that they were enemies of the region working with "defenders" or something, again, using foreign distractions to perpetuate your rule at home.

I think everyone should note the importance of this answer, it proves that the "democracy" that is ranted on for the rest of the answer is nothing more than an illusion - because the people do not have ultimate power and private interest still trumps their will.

Indeed, the mere the fact that one person has more power than others does not mean that our region is oppressive.

Oppression suggests cruel treatment. The fact that a region has a monarchy does not mean that it rules over its citizens in such a way.

Your question was whether I would permit the abolition of the monarchy in the LKE.

I think the point is that it is very unlikely that people who join the LKE, a region named for monarchy, want to abolish the existence of monarchy.

If they did, then independent regions have done that before, for instance when Europeia (founded by the LKE Crown Prince, HEM) became a republic.

In any case, the existence of a monarchy or otherwise does not mean that the region cannot take decisions democratically, which it patently does.

All regions only have liberty to the extent that their founder/root administrator permits. Monarchy is merely a set of rules surrounding that.

The Monarch's interest comes before the people, because as you just tacitly admitted, you would never allow them complete power to get rid of you.

Also, there is always conflict when one group of people has unjustified power and status over another.

There is no political freedom in LKE or Monarchies like yours - people are given a choice sure, between A and B, but if they wanted C (which the Monarch doesn't want), they don't get that option. Perhaps they throw in D to distract them. However ultimately the power resides in people like you, who have an interest in oppressing others and manipulating them to serve your ends. The march of history is clear, Monarchy fades away under scruntiny.

You are talking about one hypothetical scenario, that is extremely unlikely to ever happen, whereby the citizenry want to abolish the monarchy.

Why does that scenario mean that democracy is absent from all other scenarios?

There has been no conflict in the LKE between the Crown and the people, because I maintain the constitutional limits.

All founders and root administrators in this game have power and status over their populations; you are criticisms you are making apply to all regions.

---

Actually, I have no power to stop people standing for election, so if candidate C wanted to stand despite my dislike of them they could.

Of course there is political freedom in the LKE.

People have the right to vote, to stand for election and to speak their minds. What is more, all of those things determine political outcomes.

---

What 'march of history is clear' as to the fading of monarchy? Would these be the real life examples you have been condemning?

Or perhaps you mean Lazarus, in which case there are a number of other closer NationStates examples where the opposite has happened.

I never brought RL examples into this debate, you did. And I notice how you flee from them when you realise the road you are going down.

Your claim is that because there is an election every now and again and class systems, that somehow makes a place free and democratic. I disagree. However, as I said, this has nothing to do with your actions and even if you were to find a RL Monarchy that was not oppressive, that doesn't excuse your system.

You brought real life theories into this debate; real life examples are the natural corollary.

I have not fled from them. I stand by the fact that liberal, democratic monarchies exist in real life. I never invoked the British Empire as an example.

Your claim, without knowing anything else about us, is that the mere fact that the LKE is a monarchy makes the region an oppressive tyranny.

That is in spite of the fact that citizens have protected rights and we have democratic elections for the Government, which takes political decisions.

If any monarchy exists which is not oppressive and tyrannous, your claim that merely being a monarchy makes you an oppressive tyranny collapses.

---

Our elections are not some joke. The Constitution gives the Government all power over foreign and domestic policy. The elections decide the Government.

There is nothing tyrannous or oppressive about that.

That is not the argument, the argument was that you said that Monarchy is justified by diversity. You have backed away from that, I am glad that you have done so.

My original statement on this matter was:

There should be a range of regions offering a range of different political systems, which people can then choose from depending on what they prefer.

Your reply was:

Should their be a slave region in NS so that there is a range of political systems? Are you advocating slavery in the name of diversity? I doubt it. This argument doesn't bear up. Diversity for the sake of diversity is ridiculous. Diversity is only acceptable where it is right. If it is right, then the argument for diversity is not necessary.

In turn, my reply was:

There is a distinction between a monarchy, a system of government, and a slave region, which implies a much wider system of repugnant social relations.

Having a monarch is not in all circumstances so repugnant and you have accepted that by arguing that it is just fine for The Pacific to be a monarchy.

A constitutional monarchy is one of a range of common political systems. It is not offensive like slavery. It should be open to those who want it.

In no respect has my argument changed between my first statement on this matter and the one you are replying to. I have not backed away from anything.

You evidently would prefer it if NationStates consisted of nothing but socialist regions run in the "public interest" as you see it.

People should be able to run regions according to a range of common systems, including monarchy, which other members can then choose from.

I never said that Monarchy and Feudalism in RL were equivalent. I said that your system was Feudalistic and you are in NS.

Newsflash: Marx never wrote about Nationstates. So all you are doing is taking a crude format of what you happen to think Marx said, and then trying to use that as a defence. A rather irrelevant one, to be honest, and classic "Oh look, I am going to create a strawman, so please ignore everything else that is going on! Look I am cleverer!". I don't think people are going to buy it.

However what I have done is take a Marxist line to interpret the power structures in Nationstates - it is an interpretation but a rational one I believe.

If you are making unqualified use of words like feudalism while writing from a Marxist perspective, it is fair to assume what you mean by them.

This equation of feudalism with having a monarchy bears no relation with the system of social relations which 'feudalism' embodies.

As to your newly constructed theories, if they were intellectually honest, they would apply to all UCRs, all of which have founders and root administrators, all of which theoretically have absolute power if they choose to use it. Monarchy is merely an approach to managing such latent tensions.

Monarchs in hypothetical scenarios can be oppressive, but in our regions that simply is not the day to day reality of monarchy.

Enemies that you created, ultimately. There is no escaping it or cutting it up, you choose to attack others.

Also your power isn't increased, only your own self importance.

You parade your victories here and at home with updates and medals - trying to buy the loyalty of the people by showing how strong you are. What is tagging after all, but a pathetic attempt to remind people that you are strong? It would be pitiful if it wasn't so destructive.

The UDL and the FRA chose to become our enemies by opposing us; they gave cause for war in their activities in UKB and the Dominion of Munster.

Naturally, we are not afraid of having them as enemies, ultimately we gain much more from it than they do; we happily oppose and defeat them.

The power of our regions as a whole is increased by having a strong military which can be used to achieve the Government's foreign policy aims.

---

We announce our victories, but quite frankly only someone who has no understanding of our regions could think that they are used to 'buy loyalty'.

In the domestic context, they are relatively minor announcements, which citizens take relatively little notice of.

The idea our political system is based on the making of such announcements is rather bizarre.

---

The UIAF nowadays generally does not announce 'tagging' operations, unless there is something special about one, so that hardly fits your argument.

Alteran Empire was an occupation, not tagging.

Again, avoiding the issue. I notice you don't say that you would go. As such you are just proving my point.

Your insistence on using the most improbable of circumstances while ignoring how our regions actually work.

Unlike in Lazarus, where political opponents can be purged, people's rights are protected and you cannot be banned except through the courts.

The people elect the Government. The Government makes the decisions. That is democracy.

Our constitutional monachy is in stark contrast to The Pacific regime which you refuse to criticise.

If our citizens did not wish to live in a monarchy, they would not have joined The Land of Kings and Emperors.

Instead of accepting our people's political preferences, instead you construct hypothetical scenarios about what what you, not them, want.

All elections where there are private ranks and special privileges are going to be used for personal gain and interest.

The only definition of democracy is rule in the interests of the public, not on the basis of private interest. You have a political system where power is privatised. In the hands of the Monarch or individuals and they are encouraged to compete to win the favour of the Monarch or some narrow political elite. This elite is divided from the people through rank.

You then use your foreign adventures to try and distract people from their alienation at home. It is a classic tactic and it will stop working eventually.

In no way do I influence the electoral process in favour of any candidates; that is outrageous. If you have evidence of it, produce it.

The people do rule, by electing their representatives, who then make all policy decisions. That is democracy.

Our elections are free and fair.

People can tell what their own interests are. You are arguing that the people are too stupid to realise what their 'interest' is.

---

In no way do we use 'foreign adventures to try and distract people from their alienation at home'.

Where is the evidence?

By evidence, I do not mean the fact that we invade other regions. I mean something that shows we do so to bolster our domestic constitution.

Give me a specific, contextual example of how we have used foreign adventures to distract our people from domestic problems.

Raiding is a very small part of life in our regions. People are already focused on other things, like regional government, discussion and roleplay.

I am not trying to justify meritocracy, again, you were trying to use this argument as a smokescreen. But I notice that you admit that the existence of a defined, constitutional monarch means that your society cannot be meritocratic. So we can scrap that argument.

You claimed that we 'don't have a meritocracy, it is just a smoke screen to cover oppression'.

I was asking you what analysis of our society you had done on which to make a claim we use it as a 'smoke screen'.

When have we used it as a 'smoke screen'? What specific acts are you talking about?

As to the second point, evidently I mis-typed, when I said:

In terms of your new argument, the existence of a defined, constitutional monarch does not mean that the whole society is somehow meritocratic.

I intended to say:

In terms of your new argument, the existence of a defined, constitutional monarch does not mean that the whole society somehow cannot be meritocratic.

The fact that the monarch's selection is not necessarily meritocratic does not mean that the rest of society is oppressed or lacks meritocracy.

---

The fundamental issue, which you completely ignore, is that all founders and root administrators are not necessarily meritocratically decided.

Similarly, they all retain the potential to exercise power without having to continue to put effort in once their regions are successful.

Our constitutional monarchs are no different, except that within their regions' constitution they have a defined and limited role.

They can decide on issues that you let them. You have managed to give your two pennies worth for everything so far, except when we talk about abolishing your throne when you say that you don't wish to get into hypotheticals.

This reveals everything we need to know, the illusion of choice. You are more than happy to let people decide on trivial matters, but the superstructure itself cannot be changed. You want power and you intend to keep it. I expect nothing less of a Monarch.

On the contrary, they can propose laws on anything like. There are no restrictions on which they can propose.

Likewise, the Government makes executive decisions on all domestic and foreign policy issues.

As for abolishing the throne, quite why you are obsessed with this most extreme and unlikely of scenarios is beyond me.

You are effectively saying that the existence of a monarchy is all that matters and all other issues are 'trivial', when in fact it is really the other way round. How the region is actually run materially, in terms of its internal affairs and its foreign policy, is far more important than the constitutional position.

The bottom line is that all those with founder nations/root admin accounts potentially have absolute power over their regions and, in surrendering it to democratic systems, people have to trust them to abide by the rules of those systems. Your argument works equally well for non-monarchs in that position.

Precisely the same applies to monarchs. It really no different in this respect from non-monarchical UCRs. Theoretically, monarchs could do a lot of things, but they establish a constitution to decide the rules of the region, including what powers they have. Ultimately there is an element of trust as to whether they have uphold it. Where people respect these limits, as I have in the LKE, there is precisely no reason for monarch and people to come into conflict.

Also I notice you are trying to move away from your actions in Alteran, did you invade it because of past activities? It doesn't seem so.

You attacked it as another opportunity to grand stand, it all backfired when the founder returned and kicked you out.

The child like destructiveness of the Imperialists is personified in this type of activity.

On the contrary, I have merely engaged with the debate as it developed.

As I stated very clearly above if you read it, the alleged activities of the founder were a factor in our decision to target this region specifically.

It did not backfire. We invaded the region successfully and occupied it for seven days.

That occupation was unavoidably ended by a founder revival, but that is no reflection on our military performance - nothing could have stopped it.

The UDL and the FRA were unable to successfully oppose us in Alteran Empire, which would have been a genuine defeat.

[Anumia]

People are aware that Orwell was a socialist, right?