NS Government Philosophies

Well, according to MSWord, it's 9,968.

Though, that is about twice as long as the RL United States Constitution.

Feddiepants:
  Dammit, Heft, don't bring logic into this.
Click to expand...

:pinch: My bad

Edit: bah, tags
 
Poltsamaa:
Fulhead, don't waste your time trying to convince people of the realities of the game, NationStates!!

If the Delegate/Founder gets tired of the regional "government system" then they can remove it in seconds!!

All regions in NationStates are dictatorships by this very notion!! Democracy or any other government system based off-site exists only because the Delegate/Founder allows it to!!
Click to expand...
This argument is spurious, the offsite fora don't really have much to do with the game or game mechanics. Having a member in temporal control of a region makes things look less silly, but is in no way necessary for a group of people to come together, declare themselves the rightful power and having other regions recognizing that. Also the WFE is only the most prominent of many user-controlled text boxes on the main regional page.

Also, your discussions of game mechanics don't take the issue of Influence, which makes regions as large as feeders largely, but not completely, subject to the whims of the Delegate. How does this change your take on the game (as the above argument is the same as that from a year ago)?

Rooting further back to Upper Kirby's original post, I think your point that no one who doesn't want to be part of a dictatorship in NS actually has to be part of one. Your conclusion that dictatorships aren't viable doesn't follow from this, though: dictatorships are absolutely viable in this game if people are interested in playing as the supporters of a dictatorship.

A more likely conclusion is that since dictatorships don't force themselves on anyone, they wouldn't be objectionable in NS, morally or politically (so long as they aren't forcing themselves on anyone). Once a group starts overstepping regional boundaries, though, I suppose any retaliation against members would be appropriate, as all participants are complicit in the transgression.
 
Unterwasserseestaat:
This argument is spurious, the offsite fora don't really have much to do with the game or game mechanics. Having a member in temporal control of a region makes things look less silly, but is in no way necessary for a group of people to come together, declare themselves the rightful power and having other regions recognizing that. Also the WFE is only the most prominent of many user-controlled text boxes on the main regional page.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so any government on an off-site forum is only recognised if the Delegate says so!! The control the WFE so can advertise their government forum there!! Also the rules on spam mean those in the "underground" are limited in their advertising of the unofficial forum!!

Also, your discussions of game mechanics don't take the issue of Influence, which makes regions as large as feeders largely, but not completely, subject to the whims of the Delegate. How does this change your take on the game (as the above argument is the same as that from a year ago)?
Click to expand...

It doesn't change anything with respect to the Delegate controlling which "government" is the official government of the region!!
 
I think in most cases we live by the graces of our founders or delegates. It unfortunately the system that we have.

However Democracy is the most common form of Government in NS, because to have a great (in terms of power) region, you need a collective effort. Most people are unwilling to merely conform under one person and as such Democracy has occured.

I see it more as Constitutional Monarchy, we accept the Delegate or Founder as a Figurehead and nothing more.
 
Actually, it has been my experience that the greatest player created regions (as far as size and potential power goes) have not been democratic at all.

Look at Gatesville. It has grown to be one of the few consistently active and powerful regions in the game and it is not democratic.
 
A further example is The Meritocracy. While it carries the facade of democracy it has been proven in the past that the Founder can, and will when necessary, autocratically dictate terms to the region. (The dissolving of the old Senate.)
 
It's not so much the form of Government that makes or breaks a region, but who is in the Government, whether it be democratic or totalitarian. A democracy is only as strong as the voters, and a blatant dictatorship is only as strong as the dictator. People are more than willing to follow intelligent, competent and charismatic leaders, even if it means giving up some of their freedoms.
 
Well I would certainly consider the New Meritocracy a great region, bias or no bias, and we have a rule by majority there. Democracy in action.
 
Posul:
Well I would certainly consider the New Meritocracy a great region, bias or no bias, and we have a rule by majority there. Democracy in action.
Click to expand...
I believe I illustrated above that The Meritocracy is in fact not a democratic region. The Founder has acted unilaterally without consultation of the general populace and forced government change.
 
Only because people were willing to have a change however.

If they didn't agree people would just set up a new region.
 
Posul:
Only because people were willing to have a change however.

If they didn't agree people would just set up a new region.
Click to expand...
While that may be correct that still doesn't refute the action itself, which was despotic in nature and contrary to "democratic" ideals. No vote took place priorly, no polling of the Senate at the time. It was a unilateral (well, there was discussion with 2 or 3 other nations) decision by the Founder and host of the offsite forum.

While I may or may not agree with the action and have not posted an opinion either way the action still took place and illustrates that The Meritocracy is only democratic at the leisure of the Founder, which isn't actually what democracy is at all.
 
As I say, that is why I would say that perhaps a Constitutional Monarchy is more correct in most places.
 
I think the ability to adapt with the time is the best way, some regions may work great as a Democracy in its height of power, but faced with inactivity, it may be an utter failure. I belive a good strong leader and people who share the work with the leader is one of the better systems, even if the leader is elected, not elected, doesnt matter as long as the region can function.
 
I think that most people have accepted that they need to work with others and thus Democracy is the most popular system. Dictatorships can work, but again they rely on the Majority of people supporting them otherwise they will just be overthrown or people will leave.
 
Posul:
I think that most people have accepted that they need to work with others and thus Democracy is the most popular system. Dictatorships can work, but again they rely on the Majority of people supporting them otherwise they will just be overthrown or people will leave.
Click to expand...
I'd be more inclined to say that most people immediately think that Democracy is the best option because of their background (most, if not all of us, have been raised and live in western style democracies). Democracy is rarely the most effective form of Government in the NationStates world, in my experience.
 
Do you really think that? This region seems to be working pretty good with a democracy as are many other powerful regions. And look at what is going on with The Pacific with their dictatorship of sorts. Do you really think that there is any better system than democracy? I do agree that it is slow and is sometimes not very efficient, but it is without a doubt the best.
 
In NS, it isn't really the form of the government that matters, but its members. If The Pacific is no longer what it once was (and I truly have no idea as I haven't poked in lately - Pacific Orthodoxy didn't really tickle my fancy, sowwies), it would only be a result of a large population of them getting swallowed up in other activities. However, I do believe their militia has been pretty active recently, as I actually tagged along with them a few days ago.

In either case, whether a region is a democracy or a dictatorship is irrelevant. I do believe that democracy is not the most effective form (except for those "democracies" that are dominated by cliques and are essentially oligarchies, which is the general tendency, just given the nature of things).

It isn't so much a question of which is best, but which is best for you. Democracies and Dictatorships have very different cultures, and most players prefer one over the other. However, if you wish to be in a democratic region because you believe democracy is a better and more effective government for the NS world, than you are here for the wrong reasons, IMO.
 
Out of character morality aside (which seems to influence the thinking of more than a few players on this and other issues), the NS dictatorship vs. democracy debate isn't one of good and evil, but one of gameplay preference.

Dictatorships (provided the dictator has some skills) are more effective in getting things done. You want a new constitution? Zap - you get a new constitution. Change forums? Boom - new forum. No debate, no humming and hawing, no tortured compromises, just action.

However, if you're not the dictator (or a trusted advisor) and you don't like the actions, you're out of luck. You get on board or you get out.

Democracies are good for letting everyone have a say, to help shape the direction of the region. They are, however, terrible at actually getting anything done. The more people involved in the decision-making process tends to decrease the likelihood that any decision actually gets made.

So, for the average player, you get either action without input or inaction with input.

Neither is perfect and most long-term players embrace both philosophies at some point during their NS careers. We all have our preferences, but I don't think you can definitively say which system is universally 'best', just what is best for you.
 
Agreed. Dictatorships are more efficient than democracies in many aspects, but they are on the whole less pleasant to live in (if you don't happen to be the dictator).

Also, the point about the delegate tolerating the government stands. That is why the delegate elections are the most important ones in the region. The other positions hold their authority through the constitution. The delegate always has the option (and the temptation) to go rogue.

The constitution, laws and democracy are therefore an artificial construct that exists because we believe in it. Much like in real life, actually.
 
If the Dictator is actually competent and, well, a good Dictator, than it wouldn't be such a bad place to live in (the same with Oligarchies). If the Dictator simply, you know, dictates to people "Do this, do that, don't do that, stop doing that, you're banned, hah, you phail, I win" than no, it wouldn't be any fun.
 
There have been, imho, good absolute rulers in history. However, it seems that the only ways to get rid of an oppressive regime are by bloodshed or waiting until the oppressor dies. The latter is not working so well in Cuba...
 
Well, RL is a different story when it comes to authoritarian regimes.

In NS, however, <3 the competent dictator.
 
Competant...that's the key word IRL or URL.

As for RL, sometimes too many voices complicate things and then nothing gets done, but that's another topic entirely.
 
Yes, that is...

The problem with dictatorship in NS is that it does not encourage others to get involved. The dictator and his cronies usually run the show and everyone else is just like a hanger on. With democracy, everyone can get involved.
 
I've been part of a very large fake democracy where the people only get involved if the triumvirate (or however many top dogs there are/were) like you and then only as long as you don't rock the boat. Very cleverly disguised it was I must say.
 
Yes, a perfect example of an oligarchy. There are many in NS because the founding nations of the region, or the ones that rose to the most power when the region was founded dont ever want to give it up and just maintain control under the pretence of a democracy. You can usually avoid that situation by installing term limits, however you have to do it in the beginning or the top dogs wont let it pass.
 
That's one reason why I like TNP so much, even though the other feeders also have the same opportunity to be great in terms of government interaction. TNP has the most dedicated corps of people in NS who try to make sure that it stays democratic as much as possible.
 
The problem with dictatorship in NS is that it does not encourage others to get involved. The dictator and his cronies usually run the show and everyone else is just like a hanger on. With democracy, everyone can get involved.
Click to expand...

Once again, any dictator truly worthy of the position will encourage and nurture a dynamic culture that fosters involvement from most everyone that chooses to get involved (so long as they stay within boundaries, of course). In some cases, this can and is/has been done more effectively in a dictatorship than a democracy.

Yes, a perfect example of an oligarchy. There are many in NS because the founding nations of the region, or the ones that rose to the most power when the region was founded dont ever want to give it up and just maintain control under the pretence of a democracy. You can usually avoid that situation by installing term limits, however you have to do it in the beginning or the top dogs wont let it pass.
Click to expand...

In a fake democracy/oligarchy like what you've described, it wouldn't matter who has the shiny badge, as the same cadre would still be in charge regardless. The people elected would be those that the oligarchs want elected, the oligarchs would still pull all the strings and "heavily influence" the Shiny Badge Corp's decisions.
 
Just bewailing my thus far NS experience. Ironically, I keep getting picked by the oligarchy at first for my skills, then driven out when they finally find out that I don't dance to their timbre.

Long live TNP!
 
Ignore the Lexi's, they're just bitter.

Anyway, I wouldn't say any democracy is ever perfect. Once we start having that attitude, our democracy will begin to decline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top