Idea for a special category...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Hello,

I was wondering about the fact that if a nation had political and civil rights rating of "World Benchmark" and a world-class "Frightening" economy, it might be a bit silly to class that nation as an "Anarchy" because in my opinion, these ratings may give an impression of the best nation possible, not a country gone wild.

So, here is my idea for consideration: introduce a special government category that is a bit more appropriate for these kind of nations. My suggestions may be "Perfectopia" or something like that: maybe someone can come up with something more witty and respective of such rankings.

Open for comments.

[Ballotonia]

You're interpreting 'benchmark' as an inherently good trait. It could be a benchmark for how wack it is, al depending on how one believes ones country should be properly ruled.

As such, the problem I see with your suggestion is that 'perfectopia' as a name indicates something all should strive for, as if such a nation is somehow better than all others. This goes against the basic principles of the game as outlined in the game FAQ.

How do I win?

Ah, but what is "winning," grasshopper? There is no way to win as such. Which is better, a left-wing civil rights paradise with no money, or a right-wing economic powerhouse where the poor are left to fend for themselves? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Ballotonia

[Valipac]

I have to agree though - it seems rather biased that any state with strong civil and political freedoms and a high economy is classified as anarchy. To me it would be more apt to describe them as "Libertarian Paradise" or something like that, as opposed to anarchy. Calling it "Perfectopia" would be the same as calling it "Anarchy" - biased, but in the opposite direction.

[Sirocco]

Except that the government category isn't dependent on the state of your economy - it's based on your economic freedoms. It's possible to have an anarchy with a bad economy.

And there is no 'perfect' rating that all nations should strive for because the whole point of NationStates is that you can set your own goals. Sorry, but we're not doing this.

[Valipac]

Except that the government category isn't dependent on the state of your economy - it's based on your economic freedoms. It's possible to have an anarchy with a bad economy.

And there is no 'perfect' rating that all nations should strive for because the whole point of NationStates is that you can set your own goals. Sorry, but we're not doing this.

Yes, which is why I counter-proposed the category of say "Libertarians Paradise". I realize there is no "perfect" rating, which is why I proposed this. Economic freedoms in real life do not determine whether a national government can effectively assert control over its people. In real life, a nation with extremely high economic freedoms, extremely high political freedoms, and extremely high social freedoms would be seen as the basic libertarian nation, not an anarchy, which lacks central government altogether. Many of the nations in Haven, for example, are listed as anarchies, simply because they answered the issues in a method that would be conducive to a libertarian viewpoint.

[The Sedge]

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is going around killing each other, and burning stuff. That is one use of the word, but it can also just mean an absence of laws/government. The term doesn't have to have negative connotations.

[Valipac]

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is going around killing each other, and burning stuff. That is one use of the word, but it can also just mean an absence of laws/government. The term doesn't have to have negative connotations.

Which is exactly what I said. Absence of government. A lack of restrictions on economic activities does not mean absence of government, it just means true laissez faire economic policies - what libertarians want.