NationStates

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Novus America wrote:
We never went to war with the Soviets. Nuclear weapons and other deterrents are ultimately the great manager. I meant no matter what the financial cost (space exploration is expensive).
It should not be a strict ends justify the means competition.

And no, competition and conflict does not necessarily mean hate.

Also I am all good with condensing into fewer countries, as long as we have at least two.
Ideally three as that keeps a better balance.

Which is probably going to happen, the US, India and China being the dominant ones.

You mention that competition and conflict does not necessarily mean hate; if we are going to make an argument based upon "human nature", I've observed that when an "out-group" is designated, members of the "in-group" will hate the out-group with a passion. My countrymen hated the Soviet Union, and vice versa. Hate leads to strife, and strife will ultimately lead to destruction. The fact that we didn't wipe ourselves out is a stroke of random fortune, as there were plenty of instances where the Cold War could have turned hot. Had circumstances been even slightly different, a full-scale nuke fight could have erupted. Although, I am willing to settle for three supranational unions/"super-states" (The successors to the United States, India, and China, perhaps?) instead of a world-state, at least in the relatively short term.

Novus America wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
You mention that competition and conflict does not necessarily mean hate; if we are going to make an argument based upon "human nature", I've observed that when an "out-group" is designated, members of the "in-group" will hate the out-group with a passion. My countrymen hated the Soviet Union, and vice versa. Hate leads to strife, and strife will ultimately lead to destruction. The fact that we didn't wipe ourselves out is a stroke of random fortune, as there were plenty of instances where the Cold War could have turned hot. Had circumstances been even slightly different, a full-scale nuke fight could have erupted. Although, I am willing to settle for three supranational unions/"super-states" (The successors to the United States, India, and China, perhaps?) instead of a world-state, at least in the relatively short term.

The nuclear war scares were largely exaggerated.
Besides there are far fewer nuclear weapons now then there were then, and better communication and sensors.

We may have hated the Soviet Union but never hated its people.
Never tried the genocide Russians or anything.

But I am good with China, the US and India consolidating strength.

I would like the US to cover all North America and the Philippines. India can cover SAARC.
China can have Russia and most of the stans.

Besides a competition with China is less ideological, leading to less hate.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I figured that you thought as such, given that you literally have "Down With the Enlightenment!" in your sig.

I don't wish to be impolite, but I have to disagree with you on this one, tbh.

It certainly could have ended better. Napoleon shouldn't have been exiled.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:Anyway, I apologize if I was overly harsh in this discussion. Hopefully amends can be made, and all can be forgiven.

Novus America wrote:The nuclear war scares were largely exaggerated.

Joohan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:It certainly could have ended better. Napoleon shouldn't have been exiled.

By the time Napoleon had taken power it was already too late. Anti-clericalism ( anti Christian in general ), radical republicanism, blank slate theory, atheism, and anti-traditionalism, had already sweeped it's way across Europe. The French Revolution and the hubris it stood for had already seeped its poison into the heart of Christian Europe.

The ancien regime was corrupt and a great many problems - but the revolution offered no cures.

The New California Republic wrote:

Novus America wrote:The nuclear war scares were largely exaggerated.

I don't think that they were. The Cuban Missile Crisis came very close, as did Able Archer.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Joohan wrote:
By the time Napoleon had taken power it was already too late. Anti-clericalism ( anti Christian in general ), radical republicanism, blank slate theory, atheism, and anti-traditionalism, had already sweeped it's way across Europe. The French Revolution and the hubris it stood for had already seeped its poison into the heart of Christian Europe.

The ancien regime was corrupt and a great many problems - but the revolution offered no cures.

I mean I know you're traditionalist, but what exactly do you have against republicanism? I mean, I concur that the revolution was flawed, but the ancien regime needed to fall. I'm just mildly disappointed that the regime fell the way it did in our timeline.

Joohan wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:


I mean I know you're traditionalist, but what exactly do you have against republicanism? I mean, I concur that the revolution was flawed, but the ancien regime needed to fall. I'm just mildly disappointed that the regime fell the way it did in our timeline.

Radical republicanism, as in a disdainn for ones royalty. Not necessarily just its individual members, but to the concept of the monarchy in general. Most early revolutionaries just wanted a reformed monarchy, not to destroy it and everyone associated with it.

Novus America wrote:Vasili Arkhipov is probably full of BS. The other people on the submarine say he was.

Novus America wrote:Anyways during the crisis the Soviet nuclear forces were not in raised alert, the were not capable of launching a sudeem strike.

Novus America wrote:With Able Archer the Soviets actually thought it might be attack, but were paralyzed and did nothing.

Novus America wrote:They never had the mentality required to pull the trigger first.

Volkari wrote:

Fahran wrote:This is a meme, and not an especially insightful one either. It perverts the complexity and beauty of a multitude of institutions and traditions - and appears to fundamentally misconstrue the telos of the state/nation and the essential characteristics of religion.

In regard to the multiplicity of institutions, I've stated that the corporations are the bedrock for my concept of what the state should be, and in regard to traditions, they're little better than scraps of paper.

Volkari wrote:I've yet to see any of these mythical "Southern traditions." besides the glorification of a heinous slave-owning oligarchy which treated my ancestors like dirt while they raped their slaves' wives and sold their children into slavery.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Joohan wrote:
Radical republicanism, as in a disdainn for ones royalty. Not necessarily just its individual members, but to the concept of the monarchy in general. Most early revolutionaries just wanted a reformed monarchy, not to destroy it and everyone associated with it.

I mean, I'm opposed to the concept of hereditary monarchy as a matter of political theory; the technocratic directorial council of "philosopher-kings" within my ideal state would merely be the highest ranking scholar-bureaucrats ("scholar-technocrats", perhaps? "scholar-officials"?) in the civil service of the executive branch.

Joohan wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I mean, I'm opposed to the concept of hereditary monarchy as a matter of political theory; the technocratic directorial council of "philosopher-kings" within my ideal state would merely be the highest ranking scholar-bureaucrats ("scholar-technocrats", perhaps? "scholar-officials"?) in the civil service of the executive branch.

Well in my ideal government Jesus would lead everything. Be being practical and attached to the real world, there are a lot of benefits to having a monarchy ( constitutional ). France didn't gain anything from its revolutions - the monarchy of the past was never so tyrannical as the republicans.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Joohan wrote:
Well in my ideal government Jesus would lead everything. Be being practical and attached to the real world, there are a lot of benefits to having a monarchy ( constitutional ). France didn't gain anything from its revolutions - the monarchy of the past was never so tyrannical as the republicans.

I mean, if we’re going for “true” ideal, then we’d all be a quasi hive mind of perfectly moral automatons. But we all know that’s not going to happen.

In all seriousness, though, I take less issue with a constitutional monarchy; perhaps a compromise would be best in this case, with an indirectly elected constitutional monarch that serves until death, upon which the (vaguely corporatist, since hereditary aristocracy is absurd in my view) upper house of the legislature deliberates and selects a new ruler to be coronated. (or until kicked off the throne for failing to uphold the sacred duty of guardian of the state and the bringer of the common weal of the people)

The monarch would be granted much power, a “strong” executive branch, if you will. However, the monarch would ultimately be accountable to the collective will of the nation that they serve and champion (civic nation, that is; I’m not a particular fan of ethnic nationalism)

Any thoughts on this compromise?

Joohan wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I mean, if we’re going for “true” ideal, then we’d all be a quasi hive mind of perfectly moral automatons. But we all know that’s not going to happen.

In all seriousness, though, I take less issue with a constitutional monarchy; perhaps a compromise would be best in this case, with an indirectly elected constitutional monarch that serves until death, upon which the (vaguely corporatist, since hereditary aristocracy is absurd in my view) upper house of the legislature deliberates and selects a new ruler to be coronated. (or until kicked off the throne for failing to uphold the sacred duty of guardian of the state and the bringer of the common weal of the people)

The monarch would be granted much power, a “strong” executive branch, if you will. However, the monarch would ultimately be accountable to the collective will of the nation that they serve and champion (civic nation, that is; I’m not a particular fan of ethnic nationalism)

Any thoughts on this compromise?

... we're not actually forming a government here. Just saying the Republicans were way worse than the monarchy

Nea Byzantia wrote:
I'm not saying any of this to bash Poland, I'm just trying to defend the Russian point of view as best I can. As I said earlier, I'm somewhat biased in this direction, being Greek and Orthodox.

The Russians were always there to help Greece, both back in the Byzantine days (the Varangian Guard was mostly comprised of Rus warriors, at least initially), and in more modern times (many Greeks took shelter in Russia during the Dark Times of the Ottoman Occupation, and the Russians were very kind hosts; also plenty of Russian volunteers came in the 1820s to help the oppressed Greeks fight the Ottoman Empire for our Independent). Our peoples have a very long and storied history together; of helping each other out, and backing each other up.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Volkari wrote:
In regard to the multiplicity of institutions, I've stated that the corporations are the bedrock for my concept of what the state should be, and in regard to traditions, they're little better than scraps of paper.

Actually they're passed by word of mouth. And actions.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Volkari wrote:I've yet to see any of these mythical "Southern traditions." besides the glorification of a heinous slave-owning oligarchy which treated my ancestors like dirt while they raped their slaves' wives and sold their children into slavery.

You weren't raised in the south were you?

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Joohan wrote:
Radical republicanism, as in a disdainn for ones royalty. Not necessarily just its individual members, but to the concept of the monarchy in general. Most early revolutionaries just wanted a reformed monarchy, not to destroy it and everyone associated with it.

I mean, I'm opposed to the concept of hereditary monarchy as a matter of political theory; the technocratic directorial council of "philosopher-kings" within my ideal state would merely be the highest ranking scholar-bureaucrats ("scholar-technocrats", perhaps? "scholar-officials"?) in the civil service of the executive branch.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I mean, I'm opposed to the concept of hereditary monarchy as a matter of political theory; the technocratic directorial council of "philosopher-kings" within my ideal state would merely be the highest ranking scholar-bureaucrats ("scholar-technocrats", perhaps? "scholar-officials"?) in the civil service of the executive branch.

Good heavens that sounds Chinese. Neat.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Good heavens that sounds Chinese. Neat.

Is there a problem? I apologize if there is.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
Is there a problem? I apologize if there is.

Nah, I just admire Chinese aesthetic.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Nah, I just admire Chinese aesthetic.

I mean, I took rather blatant inspiration from the Confucian system of scholar-officials (In fact, I take a lot of inspiration from Confucian philosophy, tbh). I merely updated the system to better reflect the needs of a modern industrial civilization. The underlying principles were generally always sound, though.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I mean, I took rather blatant inspiration from the Confucian system of scholar-officials (In fact, I take a lot of inspiration from Confucian philosophy, tbh). I merely updated the system to better reflect the needs of a modern industrial civilization. The underlying principles were generally always sound, though.

Embrace Daoism, my friend.