Mabye...democracy isn't the way

[The British Stratocracy]

OOC: what is your opinion on the following? if you agree, please explain. If it outrages you, please explain. if it arouses you, get help. Thanks

Note: To those of you who will probebly message me and ask, yes this is what I belief should be in place in real life.

IS DEMOCRACY ACCEPTABLE?
Non Militarist Democracy in general (Termed by Militarists as "Unlimited democracy") is considered to be harmful to the strength and morality of national leadership, national economic, and public interests. Militarist theory holds that if anyone can be elected to public office as part of or sponsord by a political group, then the elected offical is far more likely to be loyal to that sociel-political-economic group.

For example, a Militarist would argue that a capitlist conservative christian offical would only act in the interests of his own personal values. He would then only be as loyal to his country as his political pary/church/business allowed him to be, thus making him very unfit for public office. The same argument is put forward for left-wingers who are more likely to bow to trade unions and populism. To a Militarist, dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a polished word for mob rule.

Miliatrists argue that the national leadership must think logically for whats best for the country. They also argue that just because something is populer with the public, does not mean it is a good idea. An example often used is the rise of Hitler, who used populism to stirr up public aggression and take absolute power for himself.

All of this therefore rules out representative or sociel democracy as means of selection public officals.

WHO SHOULD HAVE THE VOTE?

Another issue is who should be a voter. Miliatrists reject the idea that voting is somehow a "birth right" and argue it is something that must be earned through meritocracy. It is for this reason why a citizen must serve at least five years as either a full time or part time public servant if they wish to earn the right to take political action via voting.

Leftists and democrats have argued that this leads to political elitism and gives the Armed forces complete control over civilans and therefore the majority of the people.

However this is not directly true for two reasons:

One: In the Stratocracy, the Armed Forces ARE the public services, policemen are in the forces, firemen are in the forces, politicans are in the forces, doctors are in the forces. 50% of citizens from age 18 to 45 serves the state in some capacity, as anything from a infantry soldier to an public administrator, from a construction engineer to a sanitation worker, all of wich are in the Armed Forces. thus is why the ideology is labeled "militarism" and the state named a "Stratocracy" (Stratocracy:from the greek στρατός, stratos, "army" and κράτος, kratos, "dominion", "power") a form of government headed by military chiefs). This means that the greater amount of the population can vote in the more important elections.

Two: Citizans who have chosen not to enlist in the public forces do have some representation within the country's parliament. The third chamber of the Union parliament, the house of commons, is reserved for specifically those who do not wish to serve in such a way. This gives them some voice in affairs, though it is by far the least powerful . (NOTE: for more info on the leadership and parliament see the factbook entry called "The Militarist System")

[Eridu IV]

The Sibril Datanet Service published this statement from a high-level Company official who wished to remain anonymous:

'The Stratocracy...now, the first problem you have there, as you'll see in many collectivist nations, is the concept of service to the state. Service to whom? It's a clever piece of rhetoric, hiding within it the fact that for people to serve, there are those who must be served, and there is where the power lies. By contrast, on Eridu, one works for a company, under freely-chosen contract. One does not serve, and thus retains essential liberty. To convince a populace that service itself is not only acceptable, but desirable? That is the work of a charismatic and dangerous faction who are in fact the enemies of freedom.

Of course, we at Eridu maintain that acting in the interests of one's personal values is in fact the only rational action to take. To be expected to live for the sake of another, for their values? It is nothing short of tyranny.

The Stratocracy understands that voting rights must be earned, as do we. Eridu's shareholder voting system is a tried-and-tested, fair way of ensuring that those who contribute the most to our continuing growth and prosperity have the greatest say in the management of the colony. In addition, nobody who wants to take part is excluded, as any citizen, Corona employee or not, who wishes to purchase voting shares may do so. We demand no service, no test of loyalty - in fact, no ideological requirements are set at all. The Company is not threatened by those who think differently...'

[Statement truncated by the SDS for brevity. Full statement may be found on the datanet systems]

[The British Stratocracy]

The Sibril Datanet Service published this statement from a high-level Company official who wished to remain anonymous:

'The Stratocracy...now, the first problem you have there, as you'll see in many collectivist nation, is the concept of service to the state. Service to whom? It's a clever piece of rhetoric, hiding within it the fact that for people to serve, there are those who must be served, and there is where the power lies. By contrast, on Eridu, one works for a company, under freely-chosen contract. One does not serve, and thus retains essential liberty. To convince a populace that service itself is not only acceptable, but desirable? That is the work of a charismatic and dangerous faction who are in fact the enemies of freedom.

Of course, we at Eridu maintain that acting in the interests of one's personal values is in fact the only rational action to take. To be expected to live for the sake of another, for their values? It is nothing short of tyranny.

The Stratocracy understands that voting rights must be earned, as do we. Eridu's shareholder voting system is a tried-and-tested, fair way of ensuring that those who contribute the most to our continuing growth and prosperity have the greatest say in the management of the colony. In addition, nobody who wants to take part is excluded, as any citizen, Corona employee or not, who wishes to purchase voting shares may do so. We demand no service, no test of loyalty - in fact, no ideological requirements are set at all. The Company is not threatened by those who think differently...'

[Statement truncated by the SDS for brevity. Full statement may be found on the datanet systems]

OOC: A fair argument, though the Stratorcacy is not the elitist faction who are anti-freedom. In fact it has a bill of rights that can be read via factbook. I disagree that the needs of the few are being put first, the Stratorcacy has several checks and balances, term limits and as discribed in the starter post, elections (to those who have served, which is the majority). But a good argument non the less.

[Svalbar]

democratic technocracy is the solution

[The British Stratocracy]

democratic technocracy is the solution

I respectfully disagree, it allows for those who will not put their flag and country first to get into power. but to be fair it is a better system the Rep democracy

[Eridu IV]

OOC: A fair argument, though the Stratorcacy is not the elitist faction who are anti-freedom. In fact it has a bill of rights that can be read via factbook. I disagree that the needs of the few are being put first, the Stratorcacy has several checks and balances, term limits and as discribed in the starter post, elections (to those who have served, which is the majority). But a good argument non the less.

OOC: Eridu is libertarian enough that pretty much all big-government systems are seen as anti-freedom, regardless of any checks and balances that are in place. They're also pretty anti-militaristic. It's their opinion of your nation - your people would obviously disagree. Interesting system to read about, anyway, although I wouldn't like to see it implemented in RL.

[The British Stratocracy]

OOC: A fair argument, though the Stratorcacy is not the elitist faction who are anti-freedom. In fact it has a bill of rights that can be read via factbook. I disagree that the needs of the few are being put first, the Stratorcacy has several checks and balances, term limits and as discribed in the starter post, elections (to those who have served, which is the majority). But a good argument non the less.

OOC: Eridu is libertarian enough that pretty much all big-government systems are seen as anti-freedom, regardless of any checks and balances that are in place. They're also pretty anti-militaristic. It's their opinion of your nation - your people would obviously disagree. Interesting system to read about, anyway, although I wouldn't like to see it implemented in RL.

from your libertarian point of view that is a fair comment.

[Reloria]

~~~

Official Government Statement
Constitutional Matriarchy of Reloria
"For a brighter tomorrow."

Good day.

While the Relorian government respects the sovereign right of all nations to choose their own government and wouldn't normally comment, we were asked for our opinion, and thus I present the official position of this government on the subject.

For one thing, we are firmly of the opinion that the state exists to serve the people, rather than the other way around. None of us chose where we were born, after all, so we must do our utmost to ensure that the place people 'just happen to be born' into is the most ideal environment it can possibly be for them. The government is here to help them achieve, to keep them safe, and to promote progress. If not for people, governments would not exist at all.

As a result of that principle, we find compulsory civil or military service to run contrary to our beliefs. Should people wish to gain a position within the civil service, the military or any branch of the government of their own accord, we welcome their contributions of course, but we would never force people to do so, particularly not in order to gain citizenship. Contrary to the position of the Stratocracy, and further to our core belief that the state exists to serve the people, it naturally follows that all people should have a say in the decision-making process of that state. One should not have to earn the right to have a say in the running of one's own home.

We would even question the efficacy of such 'enforced service' - as soldiers are fond of saying, they'd rather have somebody covering their backs who wanted to be there, than someone who was put there against their will.

We admit that there are flaws in every political system, of course, and our system is no more 'perfect' than yours. Our opinion, however, is that the flaws of our system outweigh the inherent unfairness of some others such as your own. Reloria has several checks and balances in place to ensure as few of those flaws manifest as is humanly possible, and we are typically rated as well-above average on independent freedom from corruption and civil rights surveys.

Furthermore, we believe that the military, while an extremely effective tool for maintaining the security of one's borders and excellent at managing matters of martial import, are exceedingly ill-suited to governing issues pertaining to civilian life. Worse still, we feel that burdening the armed forces with the responsibility of governing an entire nation will dilute their resources and command structure, and may well impact their efficiency in the long run. In short, such a scheme is beneficial for neither the people nor the military themselves.

I hope you recognise that we intend no offence, and as mentioned would not normally comment on the internal affairs of others on subjects like this unless asked to do so. We claim superiority over none, and it is only through our diversity that progress can be made. And we recognise that neither government is going to diametrically change their positions based on a discussion of this nature.

If you have any other questions or need anything more of myself or the Relorian state, don't hesitate to contact me or my office.

Well wishes to you,


Ministeress Jenn Pichi
Ministeress for Foreign Affairs

[The British Stratocracy]

~~~

Official Government Statement
Constitutional Matriarchy of Reloria
"For a brighter tomorrow."

Good day.

While the Relorian government respects the sovereign right of all nations to choose their own government and wouldn't normally comment, we were asked for our opinion, and thus I present the official position of this government on the subject.

For one thing, we are firmly of the opinion that the state exists to serve the people, rather than the other way around. None of us chose where we were born, after all, so we must do our utmost to ensure that the place people 'just happen to be born' into is the most ideal environment it can possibly be for them. The government is here to help them achieve, to keep them safe, and to promote progress. If not for people, governments would not exist at all.

As a result of that principle, we find compulsory civil or military service to run contrary to our beliefs. Should people wish to gain a position within the civil service, the military or any branch of the government of their own accord, we welcome their contributions of course, but we would never force people to do so, particularly not in order to gain citizenship. Contrary to the position of the Stratocracy, and further to our core belief that the state exists to serve the people, it naturally follows that all people should have a say in the decision-making process of that state. One should not have to earn the right to have a say in the running of one's own home.

We would even question the efficacy of such 'enforced service' - as soldiers are fond of saying, they'd rather have somebody covering their backs who wanted to be there, than someone who was put there against their will.

We admit that there are flaws in every political system, of course, and our system is no more 'perfect' than yours. Our opinion, however, is that the flaws of our system outweigh the inherent unfairness of some others such as your own. Reloria has several checks and balances in place to ensure as few of those flaws manifest as is humanly possible, and we are typically rated as well-above average on independent freedom from corruption and civil rights surveys.

Furthermore, we believe that the military, while an extremely effective tool for maintaining the security of one's borders and excellent at managing matters of martial import, are exceedingly ill-suited to governing issues pertaining to civilian life. Worse still, we feel that burdening the armed forces with the responsibility of governing an entire nation will dilute their resources and command structure, and may well impact their efficiency in the long run. In short, such a scheme is beneficial for neither the people nor the military themselves.

I hope you recognise that we intend no offence, and as mentioned would not normally comment on the internal affairs of others on subjects like this. We claim superiority over none, and it is only through our diversity that progress can be made.

If you have any other questions or need anything more of myself or the Relorian state, don't hesitate to contact me or my office.

Well wishes to you,


Ministeress Jenn Pichi
Ministeress for Foreign Affairs

Thank you for your opinion

Before I write my response, I would like to return the respect you have shown for our nations sovereignty and assure you that we take no offense to your opinions, we are above such things.

Thr first thing I would like to say is that the Stratocracy does not inact "enforce service" within the Armed Forces. We do not wish for those who do not truly believe in the system to serve it. We want only those who want to serve, as they are motivated to do so without any force. There is only one compulsory institute within the country and that is the first year of Armed forces Cadet traning that our youth (12 year olds) must undertake. Dispite its name, it is not how it sounds. The first year of cadet training is of team building exerises and lessons on serving the community, nothing more. After that year they are free to quit and go for civilian education at any time.

Secondly, citizens enlisted into the public services are not serving the Gov, they are serving the public, the community and society. The government is no exception and it is deeply encoded into our leaders to reject the self and focus on flag and country, thus why they are high ranking members of the Armed forces, they have strong work ethics and hold duty to country and public dearly.

As for the Armed forces and its status within our society. The British Stratocracy's Armed forces are the centre of the Stratocratic society. It is not just a simple defence force, but an all-encompassing public works organization. The military police are also the civic police. The fire brigades serve the civilian population as well as military facilities. The British Army's corps of engineers builds and maintains airports, schools, water purification plants, and power stations as it IS the civic engineers for the country. If a boy wishes to become a police officer, he will join the army. if a girl wishes to become a city councilwoman, she joins the Armed forces officer corps.

We hope this has given you a new look at our way of life, thank you.



Admiral Andrew Gwyther,
Prime Senator, Head of the Senate

[Allinlia]

The esteemed Ministeress from Reloria has done me the favor of already stating much of what I wished to say, so I will simply add that I find representative democracy to be a useful tool which aides me in my duty of working to achieve what is in the best interest of the ultimate authority in our empire: the people of Allinlia.

It is a better course than for me to be forced to rely merely on my own hunches and guesses as to what the will of the people really is. Of course what one wants and what one needs are two entirely different things, and a person who is chosen to represent a group of people will be biased toward that group of people which elected them, the fear of a "tyranny of the majority" resulting is a legitimate concern.

This is part of why we are not a complete representative democracy, as its central executive authority (me!) is not elected and thus does not have to worry about campaigning, pandering, or the short term political consequences of decisions. If a minority group is being oppressed by the majority, I can step in and rectify the situation. However every leader is biased (many senators would argue strongly that I am certainly included in this statement) whether elected or not, though unelected authorities tend to simply choose for themselves where their biases will lie. By having elected representatives from different areas of the nation, they will have different biases to different groups and thus when taken together, you have a very nice picture of the will and desires of these various groups. For example, will representatives from the provinces around Golbrund be biased toward the interests of the automotive industry and its unions (I'd say that's a big fat yes!) but by having representatives from say the great plains of Dallint, it ensures that these different voices must be heard side by side.

Without representative democracy, the people will be unable to to send forth the champions of their core ideological beliefs to guarantee their voice is heard. We would only be able to hear one voice and one view, I will not be so presumptuous to claim that I do not lean toward a particular interest, and neither can any other authoritarian leader. I feel as though if completely unfettered, democracy can pose problems but my democratically elected friends in the senate (though many times are very irritating!) are vital for making me aware of the view of those majorities that each one represents, and to guarantee that I cannot make decisions that directly harm the people for my own benefit. We combine democratically and non democratically elected positions of power in our government in the hope that we have achieved the perfect balance to ensure that our government does what is best for the people as a whole, and not what is in the short term interest of either the majority or minority.

With all due respect your friend,
Tomni, Emperor of Allinlia

[Kubrath]

The Sibril Datanet Service published this statement from a high-level Company official who wished to remain anonymous:

'The Stratocracy...now, the first problem you have there, as you'll see in many collectivist nations, is the concept of service to the state. Service to whom? It's a clever piece of rhetoric, hiding within it the fact that for people to serve, there are those who must be served, and there is where the power lies. By contrast, on Eridu, one works for a company, under freely-chosen contract. One does not serve, and thus retains essential liberty. To convince a populace that service itself is not only acceptable, but desirable? That is the work of a charismatic and dangerous faction who are in fact the enemies of freedom.

Of course, we at Eridu maintain that acting in the interests of one's personal values is in fact the only rational action to take. To be expected to live for the sake of another, for their values? It is nothing short of tyranny.

The Stratocracy understands that voting rights must be earned, as do we. Eridu's shareholder voting system is a tried-and-tested, fair way of ensuring that those who contribute the most to our continuing growth and prosperity have the greatest say in the management of the colony. In addition, nobody who wants to take part is excluded, as any citizen, Corona employee or not, who wishes to purchase voting shares may do so. We demand no service, no test of loyalty - in fact, no ideological requirements are set at all. The Company is not threatened by those who think differently...'

[Statement truncated by the SDS for brevity. Full statement may be found on the datanet systems]

You must at least have an anti-trust system implemented, as well as a shareholder cap to limit the amount of voting rights one can get. Also, I do hope that there are a set of standard and objective moral values by which citizens should abide, otherwise you risk a failure of the social stratum.

[The British Stratocracy]

The esteemed Ministeress from Reloria has done me the favor of already stating much of what I wished to say, so I will simply add that I find representative democracy to be a useful tool which aides me in my duty of working to achieve what is in the best interest of the ultimate authority in our empire: the people of Allinlia.

It is a better course than for me to be forced to rely merely on my own hunches and guesses as to what the will of the people really is. Of course what one wants and what one needs are two entirely different things, and a person who is chosen to represent a group of people will be biased toward that group of people which elected them, the fear of a "tyranny of the majority" resulting is a legitimate concern.

This is part of why we are not a complete representative democracy, as its central executive authority (me!) is not elected and thus does not have to worry about campaigning, pandering, or the short term political consequences of decisions. If a minority group is being oppressed by the majority, I can step in and rectify the situation. However every leader is biased (many senators would argue strongly that I am certainly included in this statement) whether elected or not, though unelected authorities tend to simply choose for themselves where their biases will lie. By having elected representatives from different areas of the nation, they will have different biases to different groups and thus when taken together, you have a very nice picture of the will and desires of these various groups. For example, will representatives from the provinces around Golbrund be biased toward the interests of the automotive industry and its unions (I'd say that's a big fat yes!) but by having representative from say the great plains of Dallint, it ensures that these different voices must be heard side by side.

Without representative democracy, the people will be unable to to send forth the champions of their core ideological beliefs to guarantee their voice is heard. We would only be able to hear one voice and one view, I will not be so presumptuous to claim that I do not lean toward a particular interest, and neither can any other authoritarian leader. I feel as though if completely unfettered, democracy can pose problems but my democratically elected friends in the senate (though many times are very irritating!) are vital for making me aware of the view of those majorities that each one represents, and to guarantee that I cannot make decisions that directly harm the people for my own benefit. We combine democratically and non democratically elected positions of power in our government in the hope that we have achieved the perfect balance to ensure that our government does what is best for the people as a whole, and not what is in the short term interest of either the majority or minority.

With all due respect your friend,
Tomni, Emperor of Allinlia

With all due respect, your nation appears to have more in common with ours then Reloria. But your words were interesting non the least, thank you for your input

Admiral Andrew Gwyther,
Prime Senator, Head of the Senate

[Dracone]

I dont beleive in democracy. and heres why. As a general rule of thumb, whenever you get a large group ofpeople together, the average IQ tends to drop to that of the loudest member... who is invariably not particularly bright.... what I beleive in is a system that doesnt exist in real life (I heard about it as a theoretic political model) in which anyone can become a political leader... IF they can attain the nesseceary SELF MADE wealth (this prevents political dynasties from taking over) and giving up everything they own to the state, and never being able to own personal property again... this shows skill in that they got the money, integrity in that they will never be able to be bribed (what are you going to bribe them WITH if they cant own anything?) and willingness to serve for the greater good in that they gave up luxury to live the live of an average citizen in exchange for being able to make the world a better place.

[Kubrath]

Mob rule in different terminology. Why?

You have two strata - the Armed Forces and the civilians. Now, by your definition, the civilians do not get as much opinions on the public endeavors as the Armed Forces, so in order for a given group to strive for their beliefs and interests, they have to enlist in the Armed Forces, where they have to serve the public beliefs and interests - a paradox. Now ask yourself, what exactly is service to the public? Sure, building hospitals, schools, etc is one thing, but that's nothing different than what we have now. Who are you serving anyway? The public that wants a capitalistic economic system, the public that wants a socialist economic system,the libertarian public, the conservative public, which public? You can't serve them all, and I doubt you can root out all the different ideologies. That just doesn't happen in real life.

The fact of the matter is, "the public" is as vague as "God". You can't put a definition and expect it to fairly encompass all. What you will be serving is yet another major ideology, building all in the name of it and anyone opposed to it will not get the benefits that its supporters have.

In other words, dictatorship of the Armed Forces.

[Kubrath]

I dont beleive in democracy. and heres why. As a general rule of thumb, whenever you get a large group ofpeople together, the average IQ tends to drop to that of the loudest member... who is invariably not particularly bright.... what I beleive in is a system that doesnt exist in real life (I heard about it as a theoretic political model) in which anyone can become a political leader... IF they can attain the nesseceary SELF MADE wealth (this prevents political dynasties from taking over) and giving up everything they own to the state, and never being able to own personal property again... this shows skill in that they got the money, integrity in that they will never be able to be bribed (what are you going to bribe them WITH if they cant own anything?) and willingness to serve for the greater good in that they gave up luxury to live the live of an average citizen in exchange for being able to make the world a better place.

You still don't evade that rule of thumb, no matter the political ideology. What you are proposing is a variant of moderate anarchy.

[Dinahia]

OOC: what is your opinion on the following? if you agree, please explain. If it outrages you, please explain. if it arouses you, get help. Thanks

Note: To those of you who will probebly message me and ask, yes this is what I belief should be in place in real life.

IS DEMOCRACY ACCEPTABLE?
Non Militarist Democracy in general (Termed by Militarists as "Unlimited democracy") is considered to be harmful to the strength and morality of national leadership, national economic, and public interests. Militarist theory holds that if anyone can be elected to public office as part of or sponsord by a political group, then the elected offical is far more likely to be loyal to that sociel-political-economic group.

For example, a Militarist would argue that a capitlist conservative christian offical would only act in the interests of his own personal values. He would then only be as loyal to his country as his political pary/church/business allowed him to be, thus making him very unfit for public office. The same argument is put forward for left-wingers who are more likely to bow to trade unions and populism. To a Militarist, dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a polished word for mob rule.

Miliatrists argue that the national leadership must think logically for whats best for the country. They also argue that just because something is populer with the public, does not mean it is a good idea. An example often used is the rise of Hitler, who used populism to stirr up public aggression and take absolute power for himself.

All of this therefore rules out representative or sociel democracy as means of selection public officals.

WHO SHOULD HAVE THE VOTE?

Another issue is who should be a voter. Miliatrists reject the idea that voting is somehow a "birth right" and argue it is something that must be earned through meritocracy. It is for this reason why a citizen must serve at least five years as either a full time or part time public servant if they wish to earn the right to take political action via voting.

Leftists and democrats have argued that this leads to political elitism and gives the Armed forces complete control over civilans and therefore the majority of the people.

However this is not directly true for two reasons:

One: In the Stratocracy, the Armed Forces ARE the public services, policemen are in the forces, firemen are in the forces, politicans are in the forces, doctors are in the forces. 50% of citizens from age 18 to 45 serves the state in some capacity, as anything from a infantry soldier to an public administrator, from a construction engineer to a sanitation worker, all of wich are in the Armed Forces. thus is why the ideology is labeled "militarism" and the state named a "Stratocracy" (Stratocracy:from the greek στρατός, stratos, "army" and κράτος, kratos, "dominion", "power") a form of government headed by military chiefs). This means that the greater amount of the population can vote in the more important elections.

Two: Citizans who have chosen not to enlist in the public forces do have some representation within the country's parliament. The third chamber of the Union parliament, the house of commons, is reserved for specifically those who do not wish to serve in such a way. This gives them some voice in affairs, though it is by far the least powerful . (NOTE: for more info on the leadership and parliament see the factbook entry called "The Militarist System")

Militarism was already an establish ideology before you re-coined the term to name your new ideology.
I advise you rename your ideology, else Dinahia will have no choice but to ignore your ideology in favour of the pre-existing definition of militarism.

Militarism: The belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests

Stratocracy: Government by military forces

[The British Stratocracy]

OOC: what is your opinion on the following? if you agree, please explain. If it outrages you, please explain. if it arouses you, get help. Thanks

Note: To those of you who will probebly message me and ask, yes this is what I belief should be in place in real life.

IS DEMOCRACY ACCEPTABLE?
Non Militarist Democracy in general (Termed by Militarists as "Unlimited democracy") is considered to be harmful to the strength and morality of national leadership, national economic, and public interests. Militarist theory holds that if anyone can be elected to public office as part of or sponsord by a political group, then the elected offical is far more likely to be loyal to that sociel-political-economic group.

For example, a Militarist would argue that a capitlist conservative christian offical would only act in the interests of his own personal values. He would then only be as loyal to his country as his political pary/church/business allowed him to be, thus making him very unfit for public office. The same argument is put forward for left-wingers who are more likely to bow to trade unions and populism. To a Militarist, dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a polished word for mob rule.

Miliatrists argue that the national leadership must think logically for whats best for the country. They also argue that just because something is populer with the public, does not mean it is a good idea. An example often used is the rise of Hitler, who used populism to stirr up public aggression and take absolute power for himself.

All of this therefore rules out representative or sociel democracy as means of selection public officals.

WHO SHOULD HAVE THE VOTE?

Another issue is who should be a voter. Miliatrists reject the idea that voting is somehow a "birth right" and argue it is something that must be earned through meritocracy. It is for this reason why a citizen must serve at least five years as either a full time or part time public servant if they wish to earn the right to take political action via voting.

Leftists and democrats have argued that this leads to political elitism and gives the Armed forces complete control over civilans and therefore the majority of the people.

However this is not directly true for two reasons:

One: In the Stratocracy, the Armed Forces ARE the public services, policemen are in the forces, firemen are in the forces, politicans are in the forces, doctors are in the forces. 50% of citizens from age 18 to 45 serves the state in some capacity, as anything from a infantry soldier to an public administrator, from a construction engineer to a sanitation worker, all of wich are in the Armed Forces. thus is why the ideology is labeled "militarism" and the state named a "Stratocracy" (Stratocracy:from the greek στρατός, stratos, "army" and κράτος, kratos, "dominion", "power") a form of government headed by military chiefs). This means that the greater amount of the population can vote in the more important elections.

Two: Citizans who have chosen not to enlist in the public forces do have some representation within the country's parliament. The third chamber of the Union parliament, the house of commons, is reserved for specifically those who do not wish to serve in such a way. This gives them some voice in affairs, though it is by far the least powerful . (NOTE: for more info on the leadership and parliament see the factbook entry called "The Militarist System")

Militarism was already an establish ideology before you re-coined the term to name your new ideology.
I advise you rename your ideology, else Dinahia will have no choice but to ignore your ideology in favour of the pre-existing definition of militarism.

Militarism: The belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests

Stratocracy: Government by military forces

The state ideology combines both terms. In my opinion the correct term for it would be "sociel political Militarism". I feel that Stratocracy is very accurate.

[Dracone]

I dont beleive in democracy. and heres why. As a general rule of thumb, whenever you get a large group ofpeople together, the average IQ tends to drop to that of the loudest member... who is invariably not particularly bright.... what I beleive in is a system that doesnt exist in real life (I heard about it as a theoretic political model) in which anyone can become a political leader... IF they can attain the nesseceary SELF MADE wealth (this prevents political dynasties from taking over) and giving up everything they own to the state, and never being able to own personal property again... this shows skill in that they got the money, integrity in that they will never be able to be bribed (what are you going to bribe them WITH if they cant own anything?) and willingness to serve for the greater good in that they gave up luxury to live the live of an average citizen in exchange for being able to make the world a better place.

You still don't evade that rule of thumb, no matter the political ideology. What you are proposing is a variant of moderate anarchy.

your correct, I dont evade it entirely, but I make it much less of an issue... by greatly reducing the size of the group, the chances are you will weed out many of the less competent. and if the only way to vote have political power is to be a self made millionaire and give it up, you have to have been atleast reasonably competent in order to gain your power... so even if the loudest member of the group still makes everyone the same intelligence as him, chances are, the loudest member of *this* group will be considerably more intelligent. and yes it is a moderate form of anarchy. that doesnt make it any less valid. I dont see the problem with anarchy either but....

[The British Stratocracy]

Mob rule in different terminology. Why?

You have two strata - the Armed Forces and the civilians. Now, by your definition, the civilians do not get as much opinions on the public endeavors as the Armed Forces, so in order for a given group to strive for their beliefs and interests, they have to enlist in the Armed Forces, where they have to serve the public beliefs and interests - a paradox. Now ask yourself, what exactly is service to the public? Sure, building hospitals, schools, etc is one thing, but that's nothing different than what we have now. Who are you serving anyway? The public that wants a capitalistic economic system, the public that wants a socialist economic system,the libertarian public, the conservative public, which public? You can't serve them all, and I doubt you can root out all the different ideologies. That just doesn't happen in real life.

The fact of the matter is, "the public" is as vague as "God". You can't put a definition and expect it to fairly encompass all. What you will be serving is yet another major ideology, building all in the name of it and anyone opposed to it will not get the benefits that its supporters have.

In other words, dictatorship of the Armed Forces.

First: The Public is, by my way of thinking, the population of the nation. It is "other people". Civilians do have less rep in terms of political freedoms (Though I would like it on record that in terms of civil rights they are equal in everyway). As the Stratocracy has a set view on what is the public, it removes the problem of its broadness. Once a citizen has served in the public forces and left, they are not a civvy. In fact they will never be thought of as a civvy again and are now vets, able to vote for head of state and the middle house. They serve the interests of public yes, in the way of health care, defence, justice, engineering etc. but not the personal interests of the public.

secondly: The differant opinions are still there. Just because one as served and earned the vote doesn't mean he or she will be only right or left. Within the Stratocracy there are Officers in Gov that are right leaning/left leaning and the citizen who has earned their vote will vote for their prefered Officer. Read our factbook, it will answer many of the questions and arguments.

PS: A very good argument you put forward, I was impressed.

[Dinahia]

Militarism was already an establish ideology before you re-coined the term to name your new ideology.
I advise you rename your ideology, else Dinahia will have no choice but to ignore your ideology in favour of the pre-existing definition of militarism.

Militarism: The belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests

Stratocracy: Government by military forces

The state ideology combines both terms. In my opinion the correct term for it would be "sociel political Militarism". I feel that Stratocracy is very accurate.

Your definition of militarism is non-standard and incorrect.

The correct definition:
Militarism: The belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests

[The British Stratocracy]

The state ideology combines both terms. In my opinion the correct term for it would be "sociel political Militarism". I feel that Stratocracy is very accurate.

Your definition of militarism is non-standard and incorrect.

The correct definition:
Militarism: The belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests

I disagree. The definition I have is "Militarism/militaristic: 1. The presence of an armed forces or military like organization with another organization. 2. To be highly regimented and very organized, may or may not be aggressive towards others.

If I am indeed wrong on the definition, what other name do you suggest/

[Cruciland]

OOC: Hm, I always thought that militarism meant either having a giant military or having the military rule over the nation... Is this not true?

IC: It is good to see a nation finally dejecting the notions of democracy and realizing that they are no more corrupt than authoritarian regimes. We believe that meritocracy is much more appropriate. It is not a matter of the elite ruling- it is a matter of the experts in politics ruling. It brushes away petty opinions and populist bias in the name of facts, logic, and effective leadership. We heavily support your transition to a less impotent system, and support you as you travel down the same road we traveled upon...

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

democratic technocracy is the solution

Technocracy is retarded. Any government that focuses on one factor that has nothing to directly do with its role is. A military centered state and government makes more sense than a technocracy.

[Xekliv]

Of course it isn't. Have you seen the United Earth Alliance?

They slaughter their own citizens and have commited genocide on countless alien species, including ours.

And they do it all under the guise of 'peace' and 'freedom' and 'safety'

And people believe them! They're allowed to do whatever warcrimes and monstrosities they want and they can get away with it because they're a so called democracy!

[Kubrath]

your correct, I dont evade it entirely, but I make it much less of an issue... by greatly reducing the size of the group, the chances are you will weed out many of the less competent. and if the only way to vote have political power is to be a self made millionaire and give it up, you have to have been atleast reasonably competent in order to gain your power... so even if the loudest member of the group still makes everyone the same intelligence as him, chances are, the loudest member of *this* group will be considerably more intelligent. and yes it is a moderate form of anarchy. that doesnt make it any less valid. I dont see the problem with anarchy either but....

I never said anarchy was problematic. I am not one of those people who think anarchy = chaos. I wouldn't endorse it in current times, but in certain situations I would.

The problem with self-made millionaires is that those people can be any one variant of self-serving people - sly, manipulative, greedy, you name it. Sure, he won't be allowed to own anything, but practically he would find a way to do that. In real life, underestimating the prowess of human avarice is foolish.

Then there's the problem with good-to-honest people who just aren't cut to do business but have amazing visionary ideas for a truly better prospect for a given nation. Would you say these people are incompetent to run a country?