New Kervoskia
TNPer
Why?
Doctrines of the Rebellion
- Thread starter Chairman Alexis
- Start date
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
I disagree.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
Evidently you have not been living in the same reality as the rest of us.
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
I support China's one-child policy for this reason. Ends justify means 
New Kervoskia
TNPer
But...they're so delicious!I support China's one-child policy for this reason. Ends justify means
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
It beats China's other option for population control: draft all the males into the army and launch a series of human wave attacks on the USA.
Io Way
TNPer
(Using standard Debate block)I support China's one-child policy for this reason. Ends justify means
But the ends are indetreminate so therefor your argument has no weight! Pownage!
I don't know how to argue against that, any Ideas?
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Let me clarify -
You want world peace. You then decide that in order to get world peace you must start a nuclear war and exterminate all human life on the planet because without humans there would be no war and therefore you end up with world peace because you have exterminated all human life on the planet.
Does that means justify the end result? Obviously not because there would be no point in world peace if no one was there to enjoy it.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely and totalitarian systems are absolutely corrupt even by their own warped standards.
If one's goal is to produce a system that results in absolute stability, the only way to do that is to produce a system that keeps everyone happy. You can't coerce people into being happy. If you know of a way to do it, please let me know and we can rule the world and everyone would be happy.
@ HC - Yes, I haven't been living in the same reality as 'the rest of us'. If that means I don't believe in being a power hungry mongrel that tramples everyone else for the sake of self-aggrandizement. Present company excluded.
Stability, by definition, would be counter-revolutionary mainly because in order for a revolution to be perpetual, it requires a constant state of instability - that is if stability is the real reason for a revolution (and a contradiction in terms).
Now, personally, if I wanted to create a genuinely stable, self governing system that could protect a feeder region (or user region for that matter, and that would serve to create a stable feeder region with immense power, it would be a very simple thing. And everyone partaking would have a democratic system to govern them, be free from coercion, and would offer incentives for people to cooperate and join the system.
Here's how it would work:
1. You take any sufficiently large region (feeder or user) and you establish a representative democratic government with a Delegate who has sufficient executive authority.
2. You then award, by merit, certain individuals, with the authority to establish their own self governing regions, each region being represented in a separate house of the legislature (one house representing the home region, the other representing 'colonies). Each 'prelate' of a given colony region recruits it's members exclusively from other regions (preferably feeders). These tier regions are protected by an active founder who can boot invaders, raider, etc.,,, so that the regions subservient by treaty are impervious to invasion.
3. Each 'colony' then continues the process by creating subservient regions who gain representation in the home-region's government.
4. Each region subservient to the home region must pledge military support to defend the founderless feeder or home region.
5. Encourage other regions (founderless or otherwise) to join the system and guarantee them protection.
6. Regions that attack subservient regions are immediately given the opportunity to either join the system or get militarily defeated - Pax Romana, but only against those who act as aggressors against any regions in the 'system'. You seek expansion but only by voluntary accession of member regions.
By distributing your 'state' amongst numerous totally protected (founder protected) colony regions, you create a pool of nations that can come to the aid of a home region (feeder or founderless user region) without having to worry about having to defend their own home regions in their absense.
7. If a sub-region wants independence, you let them go and even encourage them to go off on their own. If they remain friends, then all the better.
Yes, the system is imperialistic, but a voluntary system in which no region or nation is coerced but requires a democratic republic to govern collectively. You get increased power and numbers by cooperation and not by coercion resulting a very large numbers of nations and regions, thus maintaining the stability of the home region and all those involved.
It would take fewer than 10 nations/individuals dedicated to this cause, and it would result in the greatest stable arrangement NationStates has ever seen. It would be the ultimate perpetual 'revolution' driven by the goal of democratic cooperation. And even if little pieces fall off, the principle would perpetuate itself.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
Rom, it's all ready been tried. It was called Meritocratic Cultural Imperialism. Sorry, Ducky.
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
Speaking on an OOC level not about in-game politics: It really boils down to an argument of rights. Do they exist? If so, where do they come from? The founding fathers of the US were of the opinion that these rights came from a higher power and that it was the purpose of government - the ONLY purpose of government - to protect these rights.(Using standard Debate block)I support China's one-child policy for this reason. Ends justify means
But the ends are indetreminate so therefor your argument has no weight! Pownage!
I don't know how to argue against that, any Ideas?
Trouble with a one-child policy is that it tramples on the basic human right to family. Enforcing this policy involves forced sterilization, forced abortion, among others. But this argument still hinges on the idea that rights exist.
I myself do not believe in many things. Therefore I don't believe that rights exist, per se. But my opinion is that there are a lot of stupid people. I am not one of them. No matter what process is in place - democratic elections, "meritocratic" dictatorship, etc - some dumbass is going to get into power and screw up my life. Therefore, I believe that the only purpose of government is to protect me from stupid/evil people - criminals, primarily. The government has no business doing something because "it benefits the majority" in my opinion. History proves that it cannot.
Even in regards to a government function as simple as protecting us against violence, I trust myself more than the government. I own my own firearms, my own defense mechanisms. Why do we want to trust a bunch of dumbass twats controlling the state with our lives?
(if that didn't make any sense it's because I'm freezing my ass off at the moment)
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
Actually, here's a better argument:
People are, by nature, self-serving. Thus, a strong state will inherently seek to serve itself rather than its people. Hence my desire to castrate it as much as possible.
Considering that the entire justification for having a government is that people are self-serving and that the government needs to keep them in check, I find it amusing that these same people ON FAITH believe that someone not self-serving will gain control of the government.
People are, by nature, self-serving. Thus, a strong state will inherently seek to serve itself rather than its people. Hence my desire to castrate it as much as possible.
Considering that the entire justification for having a government is that people are self-serving and that the government needs to keep them in check, I find it amusing that these same people ON FAITH believe that someone not self-serving will gain control of the government.
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
Speaking from a background in Political Science, I think we should experiment with Anarcho-syndicalism.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Pierconium
TNPer
The Diaspora is already self sustaining, why would anyone push for more people to migrate away from the feeders?
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Good point, but there is an angle to that proposition. And I'm glad that someone asked a relevant question that is constructive! Thank you.
If people leave a feeder region at a uniform rate, why not encourage them to leave to 'colonies' that serve the security of the feeder region?
Simply put, if you have a number of user created regions that are led by loyal citizens of the given feeder region, and access to the RMB of that region is limited to that loyal citizen (as a reward for their service which includes a seat on a senate, etc.,,,) those subservient regions are impervious to invasion or attack. The subservient regions can then deploy their members to defend the home feeder without fear that their regions will fall prey to attack.
Of course, you deliberately set up regions in which the 'founder' is permitted to CTE so that one's enemies will be drawn to those 'founderless' member regions instead of the home feeder. That way, you can contain any aggression against the home feeder region.
The idea is essentially a deception against one's enemies - they think they are wittling away at the underpinnings of your organization, but in fact they are lead into 'fly-traps' where they waste their time and accomplish nothing. If the feeder region perchance falls to an invader or rogue, you have a large pool on UN nations that can simply leave their protected regions and move in to defend the feeder. That way, the government exists independently of the home-feeder because the feeder is just one of many regions that can be easily retaken, provided that there are enough 'colonists'. My primary reason for basing this type of organization in a feeder instead of a user region is that you can maintain a largely exclusive source for recruitment. If you can recruit people to found their own regions withing this organizational structure, you increase your feeder's military strength and satisfy the needs of others to create their own regions and to feel that they are an important part of a larger goal (which indeed they would be). I like the idea of organizing multiple regions through one forum and coordinating an overall strategy from that forum.
Pierconium
TNPer
Good times...
But, in response to the previous post, how do you regulate which regions have access to the RMB?
Aside from forced relocation of advertisers, which are easily replaced, there is no methodology in place by which you can keep the leech regions off the RMB.
If you refer to the WFE then I give you that point but it will still be sharing advertising time and space overall with the RMB spammers.
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
Uhu. And how comes that there are democracies?
Also, exactly because people are self-serving, government officials won't work together, they'd fear that their partner would get too powerful...but I'm getting off-topic. Let's take this to the RL discussions? JAL?
E
Eli
Guest
boy was that a stupid idea and poorly executed
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
Aah, memories.
LadyRebels's nation died today.
Aah, memories.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Very easy to 'regulate' which regions have access to the RMB.
You just hold an occasional PR 'game' on the RMB that shoves the undesirable crap off the board - or you put 'official' regional messages on the board on a regular basis. My idea is to shove a lot of region business onto the RMB. You just set up a communications program in which several individuals make regular 'informational posts' to keep shoving the undesirable posts off the board.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
That's also been done. It's been done to death. You should be lucky that none of this has been copyrighted or you would be sued into oblivion by now.
Pierconium
TNPer
No one (except possibly CG when she was active) monitors the RMBs 24/7.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
You can't copyright a process. It has to be patented. And you can't patent or copyright an 'idea'.
At any rate, something has to be done to change the whole paradigm or were all going to be in for the same old boring crap over and over again.
At any rate, something has to be done to change the whole paradigm or were all going to be in for the same old boring crap over and over again.
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
I have a few general thoughts on this region and the proposal, if I may.
The North Pacific has all but ceased to have an executive. There is no central leadership from the Prime Minister, no Minister of Communications, an inactive Minister of Defence who commands a non-existant NPA, a Minister of Arts & Entertainment with no job, a Minister of Culture & Education with much the same problem, a non-functioning University, and a legislature that has no real interest in the region.
This region has effectively fallen under the control of a benevolent few; Grosse and Flem keep the forums ticking along, while Great Bights Mum guards the region against any potential threats. It seems to be that there is no real difference because The North Pacific under its current government, and a TNP with no central government.
The lack of interest in the proposed constitutions only reinforces this, I think three of them were proposed back in July/August, and there has been one post in all three threads in six days. Basically no one really cares, there's a number of reasons for this but perhaps more interesting is that after the region went through months and months of arguing over the need for a new constitution, now that it is here it is ignored.
Which brings me (kinda) on to Roman's proposal, nice to see that something has sparked some interest, again it's pleasing to see these forums used. One of the main problems I see is why people would agree to be pawns so to speak in the quest for another region's activity. As shown in Taijitu, skilled newer players don't liked to be dictated too or used, and so founded their own successful region. I would imagine much the same would happen to these proposed regions, and once it happened to one region in the little empire, again the majority would likely follow suit.
Also, all the energy used to build-up these new regions, (although it could be done, it isn't honestly that hard) would be taking away the best players from TNP, thus decreasing the activity here.
The North Pacific has all but ceased to have an executive. There is no central leadership from the Prime Minister, no Minister of Communications, an inactive Minister of Defence who commands a non-existant NPA, a Minister of Arts & Entertainment with no job, a Minister of Culture & Education with much the same problem, a non-functioning University, and a legislature that has no real interest in the region.
This region has effectively fallen under the control of a benevolent few; Grosse and Flem keep the forums ticking along, while Great Bights Mum guards the region against any potential threats. It seems to be that there is no real difference because The North Pacific under its current government, and a TNP with no central government.
The lack of interest in the proposed constitutions only reinforces this, I think three of them were proposed back in July/August, and there has been one post in all three threads in six days. Basically no one really cares, there's a number of reasons for this but perhaps more interesting is that after the region went through months and months of arguing over the need for a new constitution, now that it is here it is ignored.
Which brings me (kinda) on to Roman's proposal, nice to see that something has sparked some interest, again it's pleasing to see these forums used. One of the main problems I see is why people would agree to be pawns so to speak in the quest for another region's activity. As shown in Taijitu, skilled newer players don't liked to be dictated too or used, and so founded their own successful region. I would imagine much the same would happen to these proposed regions, and once it happened to one region in the little empire, again the majority would likely follow suit.
Also, all the energy used to build-up these new regions, (although it could be done, it isn't honestly that hard) would be taking away the best players from TNP, thus decreasing the activity here.
Can't argue with that.
With a government full of empty seats, or inactive seats, the Constitution becomes hollow.
And while it's good that several Constitutional proposals are making their way towards a vote, the lack of interest reflects the ineffectiveness of those proposals. They don't go far enough to revive interest and activity. I personally have not commented further for two reasons: The only reply arguement will be Grosse telling me why I'm wrong and we need continued legalistic buearacracy, and I don't see the point in putting futher effort into them.
I still say, all options need to be brainstormed and on the table. The Constitution proposals, while all well intentioned, still are based on the existing bloated document.
It would be better to have a vote on what type of government we want and what theme and goals we want to have. Then we can think about a governing document based upon what really interests the region.
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
Maybe we should immediately have some sort of special elections to fill all empty seats?
Pierconium
TNPer
You should have embraced the NPD.
Pierconium
TNPer
Well, the system under the NPD would have worked if it wasn't under a corrupt Delegate.
Chairman Alexis
TNPer
The best thing to do is to have an adhocracy at first. Set up a bureau for job applications while the "benevolent few" appoints people to official positions quickly and efficiently. Those who are not accepted will be charged with maintaining culture.
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
I tend to agree with that assessment. I, for one, believe that the TNP needs a real executive authority that can act without delay within the confines of a constitution modified to meet that particular need - and there is no need compromise any checks and balances to empower the executive authority.
One of the major problems I see as to why we don't have a strong executive in TNP is that there is too much overlap between certain branches of government. The only effective means to an appropriate executive authority is to have total and complete separation of powers between the executive, judicial and legislative branches. If you don't have total separation of powers, you end up with each branch gain-saying the decisions of every other branch and you get unnecessarily bogged down in details.
If you have an executive authority acting in the capacity of Delegate, you don't run into the problem of the Delegate having to cut through a bunch of red tape in the event of an actual invasion or attempt to overthrow the delegacy. My opinion is that the Delegate should have the delegated authority to act, within constitutional rules, to immediately act to eliminate legitimate threats to the delegacy and do so without any delay. The Delegate should be charged with holding that position for the duration of the Delegate's elected term of office. It's that simple. A government for a region is meaningless if the Constitution of that government ties the hands of the Delegate with all manner of waiting periods in the event of a crisis.