Mabye...democracy isn't the way

[Kubrath]

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.

OK, that clarified a few things.

[Dracone]

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?

oh sure self made millionaires have a tendency to be like that... but in this situation only people who became self made millionaires with the express intent of giving it up would be the ones that matter... the idea being that since they would live on the benfit of the state, they could have either luxury or make a difference but not both... and yes a greedy enough person could find a way around it... but those kinds of people would be happier in the private market anyways so theyd never be interested in becoming the power figures... these kinds of people tend to go after the easiest method to what they want and giving up everything and living off the benefit of the state would make it difficult for them...
as to the honest good citizens who arent very good at business... your right, theyre not incompetent to lead. but any method is going to exclude these people. why? because in a dicataorship, the dictator wont want them to change things, an oligarchy you have to be a member of an elite group thats impossible to get into, a monarchy you have to be born into and a democracy... whose going to pay for the campaign? even oif these good people got elected, theyd owe favors to whoever paid for the campaign and wouldnt be able to operate freely.

[Eridu IV]

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.

Eridu Outreach Response to our friends from Kubrath:

The statement published by the SDS earlier was intended for an Eridu audience. To clarify the matter for the datanet's wider readership, a few points of explanation:

Eridu was founded by the Corona Corporation, and as such, the colony is still run by the company. We operate under a free-market system and there are countless other individuals and companies trading independently within our borders, but Corona remains responsible for governance, Our voting system is as follows: Eridu citizens over the age of 14 holding voting Corona shares (as opposed to ordinary investment shares, which non-citizens may also purchase) will vote for the Corona employees they wish to see holding a position on the Board of Directors. Any employee of Corona-Eridu holding any position may nominate themselves for election. There is no shareholder cap. Currently our largest shareholder holds 7.8% of voting shares. Voters may place their entire vote proportion behind one candidate, or divide it between candidates as they see fit. After the Board is elected, they then vote for their leader, Corona's Executive Director, from among those directors who put themselves forward.

The Eridu courts do not currently uphold any form of anti-trust legislation. Producers and consumers alike are free to accept or reject the terms of contracts offered to them.

As for morality, we like to think that a rationalist stance gives our citizens an objective view on the matter, but it is not within Corona's remit to legislate or standardize morality or values. This would be seen as an affront to individual and intellectual liberty. Citizens should consider their own values carefully, and living authentically by one's own values is one of the main tenets of Eridu culture.

Before you mistake us for anarchists, let it also be said that the law does involve itself when one person's expression of values infringes on the rights of another to liberty or property. Those holding such anti-social values will need to consider the opportunity cost of a prison sentence before choosing to express them.

We hope this has furthered your understanding of the Corona Colony of Eridu! Further details may be found on our datanet site at outreach.er.cor

[Kubrath]

oh sure self made millionaires have a tendency to be like that... but in this situation only people who became self made millionaires with the express intent of giving it up would be the ones that matter... the idea being that since they would live on the benfit of the state, they could have either luxury or make a difference but not both... and yes a greedy enough person could find a way around it... but those kinds of people would be happier in the private market anyways so theyd never be interested in becoming the power figures... these kinds of people tend to go after the easiest method to what they want and giving up everything and living off the benefit of the state would make it difficult for them...
as to the honest good citizens who arent very good at business... your right, theyre not incompetent to lead. but any method is going to exclude these people. why? because in a dicataorship, the dictator wont want them to change things, an oligarchy you have to be a member of an elite group thats impossible to get into, a monarchy you have to be born into and a democracy... whose going to pay for the campaign? even oif these good people got elected, theyd owe favors to whoever paid for the campaign and wouldnt be able to operate freely.

What about Communism? There were good people without paid campaigns that managed to get elected by the people as their leaders, amongst which the best representative in my opinion is Che Guevara. Not good at building capital, no paid-for campaign but armed with charisma, ideals and guns (when necessary!). Also, good people have been chosen democratically. A good example of that would be Nelson Mandela. Another good example of counter-stereotypical thinking is elective monarchy, where the monarch is not an heir but an elective representative of "the public"(senates, councils, even the nation sometimes; See Rome, Poland, etc).

[Kubrath]

Eridu Outreach Response to our friends from Kubrath:

The statement published by the SDS earlier was intended for an Eridu audience. To clarify the matter for the datanet's wider readership, a few points of explanation:

Eridu was founded by the Corona Corporation, and as such, the colony is still run by the company. We operate under a free-market system and there are countless other individuals and companies trading independently within our borders, but Corona remains responsible for governance, Our voting system is as follows: Eridu citizens over the age of 14 holding voting Corona shares (as opposed to ordinary investment shares, which non-citizens may also purchase) will vote for the Corona employees they wish to see holding a position on the Board of Directors. Any employee of Corona-Eridu holding any position may nominate themselves for election. There is no shareholder cap. Currently our largest shareholder holds 7.8% of voting shares. Voters may place their entire vote proportion behind one candidate, or divide it between candidates as they see fit. After the Board is elected, they then vote for their leader, Corona's Executive Director, from among those directors who put themselves forward.

The Eridu courts do not currently uphold any form of anti-trust legislation. Producers and consumers alike are free to accept or reject the terms of contracts offered to them.

As for morality, we like to think that a rationalist stance gives our citizens an objective view on the matter, but it is not within Corona's remit to legislate or standardize morality or values. This would be seen as an affront to individual and intellectual liberty. Citizens should consider their own values carefully, and living authentically by one's own values is one of the main tenets of Eridu culture.

Before you mistake us for anarchists, let it also be said that the law does involve itself when one person's expression of values infringes on the rights of another to liberty or property. Those holding such anti-social values will need to consider the opportunity cost of a prison sentence before choosing to express them.

We hope this has furthered your understanding of the Corona Colony of Eridu! Further details may be found on our datanet site at outreach.er.cor

How would you handle the prospect of monopoly over voting shares?

[Eridu IV]

How would you handle the prospect of monopoly over voting shares?

We do not currently believe there is any entity with the financial backing to purchase an outright majority of shares. However, in a hypothetical scenario, the Company reserves the right to refuse to sell shares to such a buyer. Our current policy of selling to all prospective citizen buyers assures the legitimacy of our electoral system; however, this would be more severely compromised by a monopolist shareholder than by refusing to sign a contract of sale in this instance.

In the event that a prospective buyer did not approach us directly, but attempted a hostile takeover? Defensive strategies would be utilized, up to and including alterations to the system itself and/or the involvement of the leadership of the Corona Corporation itself, the parent company of Corona-Eridu. We cannot give specifics regarding an unknown scenario, but rest assured that allowing the colony to be effectively managed by one unelected individual runs counter to the freedoms guaranteed in our Colonists' Charter and would not be permitted.

OOC: Tricky question. Had to think about that one!

[Kubrath]

How would you handle the prospect of monopoly over voting shares?

We do not currently believe there is any entity with the financial backing to purchase an outright majority of shares. However, in a hypothetical scenario, the Company reserves the right to refuse to sell shares to such a buyer. Our current policy of selling to all prospective citizen buyers assures the legitimacy of our electoral system; however, this would be more severely compromised by a monopolist shareholder than by refusing to sign a contract of sale in this instance.

In the event that a prospective buyer did not approach us directly, but attempted a hostile takeover? Defensive strategies would be utilized, up to and including alterations to the system itself and/or the involvement of the leadership of the Corona Corporation itself, the parent company of Corona-Eridu. We cannot give specifics regarding an unknown scenario, but rest assured that allowing the colony to be effectively managed by one unelected individual runs counter to the freedoms guaranteed in our Colonists' Charter and would not be permitted.

OOC: Tricky question. Had to think about that one!

It's good that you have such a scenario resolved. I have no further questions.

[Dracone]

oh sure self made millionaires have a tendency to be like that... but in this situation only people who became self made millionaires with the express intent of giving it up would be the ones that matter... the idea being that since they would live on the benfit of the state, they could have either luxury or make a difference but not both... and yes a greedy enough person could find a way around it... but those kinds of people would be happier in the private market anyways so theyd never be interested in becoming the power figures... these kinds of people tend to go after the easiest method to what they want and giving up everything and living off the benefit of the state would make it difficult for them...
as to the honest good citizens who arent very good at business... your right, theyre not incompetent to lead. but any method is going to exclude these people. why? because in a dicataorship, the dictator wont want them to change things, an oligarchy you have to be a member of an elite group thats impossible to get into, a monarchy you have to be born into and a democracy... whose going to pay for the campaign? even oif these good people got elected, theyd owe favors to whoever paid for the campaign and wouldnt be able to operate freely.

What about Communism? There were good people without paid campaigns that managed to get elected by the people as their leaders, amongst which the best representative in my opinion is Che Guevara. Not good at building capital, no paid-for campaign but armed with charisma, ideals and guns (when necessary!). Also, good people have been chosen democratically. A good example of that would be Nelson Mandela. Another good example of counter-stereotypical thinking is elective monarchy, where the monarch is not an heir but an elective representative of "the public"(senates, councils, even the nation sometimes; See Rome, Poland, etc).

Well, communism... has its own problems which I feel outweigh the benefits... in fact its about as far opposite of what I feel is a good political system as its possible to get... for instance the lack of a free market. and a public sector that makes the private sector all but impossible...
and I didnt say it was impossible for good people to get elected democratically, just that it didnt happen often... but then your still running into the problem of the loudest member setting the iq...
an elective monarchy is very similar to what I was thinking of.... sort of like a monarchy without heirtage... although actually itd probably be closer to an oligarchy... but with any form of election your still getting a case of the crowd becoming as stupid as its loudest member... individually people know what they want... but in a crowd... its too easy for a slick politician to trick the masses...

[Anollasia]

Democracy is good. End of story.

[Dracone]

Democracy is good. End of story.

Im going to disagree with you there... freedom is good end of story, but I disagree on democracy being the best (or for that matter even a plausible for truly long term) way to protect freedom and liberty...

[Kubrath]

Well, communism... has its own problems which I feel outweigh the benefits... in fact its about as far opposite of what I feel is a good political system as its possible to get... for instance the lack of a free market. and a public sector that makes the private sector all but impossible...
and I didnt say it was impossible for good people to get elected democratically, just that it didnt happen often... but then your still running into the problem of the loudest member setting the iq...
an elective monarchy is very similar to what I was thinking of.... sort of like a monarchy without heirtage... although actually itd probably be closer to an oligarchy... but with any form of election your still getting a case of the crowd becoming as stupid as its loudest member... individually people know what they want... but in a crowd... its too easy for a slick politician to trick the masses...

I agree about communism when implemented on a large scale, but that wasn't my point. But I digress, yes, that rule truly is of thumb, but every so often you get a decent representative, and then you actually cherish them more after they get blown in the head or something.

Also, although a large percentage of group rallies don't really know what they want, a good number actually do and I would respectfully disagree on the notion that individuals know better what they want. We both know that's not the case, especially when it comes to women.

[Phocidaea]

Maybe democracy isn't the way?

Of course democracy is the way, dammit! There is no such thing as too much democracy!

Fuckin' dictatorships.

[Kubrath]

Maybe democracy isn't the way?

Of course democracy is the way, dammit! There is no such thing as too much democracy!

Fuckin' dictatorships.

I'm running out of "Awesome quotes" space, dangit!

[Dracone]

Well, communism... has its own problems which I feel outweigh the benefits... in fact its about as far opposite of what I feel is a good political system as its possible to get... for instance the lack of a free market. and a public sector that makes the private sector all but impossible...
and I didnt say it was impossible for good people to get elected democratically, just that it didnt happen often... but then your still running into the problem of the loudest member setting the iq...
an elective monarchy is very similar to what I was thinking of.... sort of like a monarchy without heirtage... although actually itd probably be closer to an oligarchy... but with any form of election your still getting a case of the crowd becoming as stupid as its loudest member... individually people know what they want... but in a crowd... its too easy for a slick politician to trick the masses...

I agree about communism when implemented on a large scale, but that wasn't my point. But I digress, yes, that rule truly is of thumb, but every so often you get a decent representative, and then you actually cherish them more after they get blown in the head or something.

Also, although a large percentage of group rallies don't really know what they want, a good number actually do and I would respectfully disagree on the notion that individuals know better what they want. We both know that's not the case, especially when it comes to women.

well yes... but what if every representative was like that? what if there was a system in place so that if they werent like that they wouldnt get any political power? thats what this is for... so that every politician is as good as the ones we think highly of right now.
and I wasnt talking about group rallies, yes they know what they want... I was talking about populations as a whole. as a whole, there are so many differen opinions that, as a whole a nation doesnt really know what the people want. so they can make seem like "everyone else wants this, why dont *you*"
and I didnt say that they individuals truly knew what they want, just that they know better what it is they want. even women

[Dracone]

Maybe democracy isn't the way?

Of course democracy is the way, dammit! There is no such thing as too much democracy!

Fuckin' dictatorships.

actually there *is* such a thing as too much democracy... and dictatorships arent bad based purely on there not being democracy, its what dictators have a tendency to *do* thats bad... because theyre trying to remain in power against the consent of the governed... but what if they werent? what if they had all the authority, and used it wisely, and the people loved them? but dictatorships arent the only alternative to democracy you know... for instance the political model me and Kub are discussing, the one I heard about where only a select few could have any political power, but those select few had to be self made millioniares and give up everything to do it... (this way they only would have power if they truly wanted to make the nation a better place, so thered be no oppression)

[Kubrath]

well yes... but what if every representative was like that? what if there was a system in place so that if they werent like that they wouldnt get any political power? thats what this is for... so that every politician is as good as the ones we think highly of right now.
and I wasnt talking about group rallies, yes they know what they want... I was talking about populations as a whole. as a whole, there are so many differen opinions that, as a whole a nation doesnt really know what the people want. so they can make seem like "everyone else wants this, why dont *you*"
and I didnt say that they individuals truly knew what they want, just that they know better what it is they want. even women

Actually, I'm pretty certain that nations do know what they want, for the most part at least. Otherwise, you would see mass chaos everywhere, as nation after nation fall into civil wars over decisions. That's exactly what happened in the USA when the nation as a hole couldn't decide whether or not the South needed more government assistance and subsidization and also to abolish slave work, although that wasn't the primary concern.

I still do not agree that individuals know better what they want, and the reason for that is because they have no template for moderation. They don't have a "Hey, maybe what I want is too much? Maybe what I want isn't what I need?" That's what a rational group is gathered for in principle - to unite people of common interest or belief and to moderate and compensate between differences. Still, contrary to rationalism, most group rallies I've observed show that they don't really know what they want, often fighting for a cause they hardly understand, just fighting for sake of fighting I guess.

Lastly, implementing and sustaining a system as utopic as that is a foolhardy endeavor in real life.

[Dracone]

well yes... but what if every representative was like that? what if there was a system in place so that if they werent like that they wouldnt get any political power? thats what this is for... so that every politician is as good as the ones we think highly of right now.
and I wasnt talking about group rallies, yes they know what they want... I was talking about populations as a whole. as a whole, there are so many differen opinions that, as a whole a nation doesnt really know what the people want. so they can make seem like "everyone else wants this, why dont *you*"
and I didnt say that they individuals truly knew what they want, just that they know better what it is they want. even women

Actually, I'm pretty certain that nations do know what they want, for the most part at least. Otherwise, you would see mass chaos everywhere, as nation after nation fall into civil wars over decisions. That's exactly what happened in the USA when the nation as a hole couldn't decide whether or not the South needed more government assistance and subsidization and also to abolish slave work, although that wasn't the primary concern.

I still do not agree that individuals know better what they want, and the reason for that is because they have no template for moderation. They don't have a "Hey, maybe what I want is too much? Maybe what I want isn't what I need?" That's what a rational group is gathered for in principle - to unite people of common interest or belief and to moderate and compensate between differences. Still, contrary to rationalism, most group rallies I've observed show that they don't really know what they want, often fighting for a cause they hardly understand, just fighting for sake of fighting I guess.

Lastly, implementing and sustaining a system as utopic as that is a foolhardy endeavor in real life.

Im going to politely disagree that if a nation doesnt know what it wants it will fall into civil war.. the way I see it it simply falls into a confused state of inaction... and that is relatively common. and I dont really think a moderation template is nesseceary, but then again I have rather extreme political views so... but it basically boils down to priorities I guess.


and yes I agree that a true utopic state is impossible. Im simply trying to argue for one I feel will come as close as possible.

[Kubrath]

I doubt the one you have in mind will even come close to realization. It's not in our nature.

Also, inaction would be a case of Belgium without a government, something really rare and unlikely in nations of the third world and those of more theocratic visions.

[Dracone]

I doubt the one you have in mind will even come close to realization. It's not in our nature.

Also, inaction would be a case of Belgium without a government, something really rare and unlikely in nations of the third world and those of more theocratic visions.

actually I suspect that given enough time it will come into being... if man ever starts colonizing space in any meaningful way, lots of goverments will pop up and since Im not the originator of the goverment idea and the person who is has it written in a book which has a significant cult following, someone will try it.

and I didnt mean a complete and total lack of action, I meant a lack of effective action.... as in were too busy squabling amongst ourselves to get anything actually done... which happens frequently in Congress...

[Kubrath]

Ah, well, there's still something done in parliament-ish governmental groups, despite the major disbelief that there is, more or less.

[Threlizdun]

Democracy is an ultimate necessity to ensure the stability of any society, but more importantly, is absolutely required to ensure the freedoms of each individual. Democracy's arrival in your nation is inevitable. Any attempts to halt its arrival will ultimately doom you to revolution against your tyranical acts. Allowing democracy to arrive immediately and doing nothing to restrict the freedom of the people is the only acceptable option available.

[Kubrath]

Democracy is an ultimate necessity to ensure the stability of any society, but more importantly, is absolutely required to ensure the freedoms of each individual. Democracy's arrival in your nation is inevitable. Any attempts to halt its arrival will ultimately doom you to revolution against your tyranical acts. Allowing democracy to arrive immediately and doing nothing to restrict the freedom of the people is the only acceptable option available.

Too much good is also bad.

[Dracone]

Democracy is an ultimate necessity to ensure the stability of any society, but more importantly, is absolutely required to ensure the freedoms of each individual. Democracy's arrival in your nation is inevitable. Any attempts to halt its arrival will ultimately doom you to revolution against your tyranical acts. Allowing democracy to arrive immediately and doing nothing to restrict the freedom of the people is the only acceptable option available.

once again someone who assumes that democracy protects freedom and all other goverments destroy it... how naive. democracy does not protect freedom. it makes it look as if it does by ensuring equal votes... but the power does not rest with the voters but with the politicians. and the people tricking the voters one way or the other. when you have a limited number of options, you go for the least bad, that doesnt make it good. and like wise, there is no reason a dictatorship couldnt protect the personal freedom of the people. it doesnt matter what form of goverment uses its power, it purely matter how it does so. a democracy can be free or enslaved, and a dictatorship can be enslaved or free.

[Nua Corda]

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")

This sounds an awful lot like Heinlein, amirite?

[Bojikami]

True comrade. Democracy is easily corrupted, and don't any of you try to bring up that "restrictions" thing because we all know that's BS.