The Marrocidenian war

[Norrel]

did he mention dictatorship in that quote? I don't think so. I think what he meant to say is that constituents can almost never be truely and fairly represented in a democracy.

As I understand it, he was literally saying that a monarchy better represents the people than a representative democracy.

I thought Aurvandil was interesting prior to this. Now knowing that their beliefs aren't just roleplayed, but like, are acted out in a delusional gratification of their perverse ideal real world... yeah not just a wee bit scary, closer to psychotic.

[BarticaBoat]

As I understand it, he was literally saying that a monarchy better represents the people than a representative democracy.

I thought Aurvandil was interesting prior to this. Now knowing that their beliefs aren't just roleplayed, but like, are acted out in a delusional gratification of their perverse ideal real world... yeah not just a wee bit scary, closer to psychotic.

more like noblesse chevalresque confirmed for 2edgy4u 20-something year old
stopped responding to my letters so karibash has to come stab him personally. damn shame!

[Chenier]

Rather my point.

Except he's advocating his position OOCly. Which has me simultaneously very amused and a wee bit concerned.

No, the problem is they fail. And they're morally wrong to begin with. It's fun in a game, just like playing god-mode is fun in a game. But leaving the game and talking like in-game systems make sense out-of-game is like turning off god-mode, walking outside, and trying to alter the weather. You've made two major errors: external validity bias and self-delusion.

Individuals are not by definition unable to be more just and moral than a group. The dictatorship of the majority isn't the most just way to go about, either.

I just think it tends to be easier to question the government when there are open elections. But then again, justice is not determined by the form by which a leader is chosen, but rather by the mechanics that protect justice and freedom in all levels of government, at all times.

I may favor democracy, but I also don't let myself be fooled that simply having a guy be elected makes him necessarily legitimate and just.

[Poliorketes]

Individuals are not by definition unable to be more just and moral than a group. The dictatorship of the majority isn't the most just way to go about, either.

I just think it tends to be easier to question the government when there are open elections. But then again, justice is not determined by the form by which a leader is chosen, but rather by the mechanics that protect justice and freedom in all levels of government, at all times.

I may favor democracy, but I also don't let myself be fooled that simply having a guy be elected makes him necessarily legitimate and just.

mmm... I think when you said just, you mean good? It's true Individuals are not by definition unable to be more just and moral than a group... but if you are trying to 'organize' the living of a group, it's only just they decide their own destiny... maybe not every time the better choice, but THEIR choice.

All democracies have problems, (as everything made by humans) but they can be solved by pacific ways. A dictator only can be 'solved' by his death... the fast way usually cost too much blood and the slow way too much sufferings and years.

In a democracy, people can be fooled to elect the 'wrong' guy? Give them education! The more educated the people are, the less able to be fooled, they will.
Someone can abuse of his position? Make efficient 'control' procedures. A good democratic government system is the one who every power is controlled by another.

In the democracies, the government election is not only the 'just way', It's the 'main' system of control. The people have the right and the duty to try to chose the better government possible for their country. If the people don't want (or can't) to do this, the democracy will crumble and an eager 'patriot/saviour' will take control.

But all of this is OOT... or we are discussing Aurvandill government?

[Chenier]

mmm... I think when you said just, you mean good? It's true Individuals are not by definition unable to be more just and moral than a group... but if you are trying to 'organize' the living of a group, it's only just they decide their own destiny... maybe not every time the better choice, but THEIR choice.

All democracies have problems, (as everything made by humans) but they can be solved by pacific ways. A dictator only can be 'solved' by his death... the fast way usually cost too much blood and the slow way too much sufferings and years.

In a democracy, people can be fooled to elect the 'wrong' guy? Give them education! The more educated the people are, the less able to be fooled, they will.
Someone can abuse of his position? Make efficient 'control' procedures. A good democratic government system is the one who every power is controlled by another.

In the democracies, the government election is not only the 'just way', It's the 'main' system of control. The people have the right and the duty to try to chose the better government possible for their country. If the people don't want (or can't) to do this, the democracy will crumble and an eager 'patriot/saviour' will take control.

But all of this is OOT... or we are discussing Aurvandill government?

OOT.

But still. Give them education? Who chooses to? And when the trend is to make higher education more and more expensive and inaccessible to the lower and middle classes? When the people who decide what is taught are the ones with the most interests in lowering standards? To claim that problems in democracies can always be solved by pacific means and that problems in dictatorships can only be solved in a leader's death is a false dichotomy. Disregarding the fact that what sets one aside from the other is usually pretty arbitrary, dictators have passed down power without dying and democratically-elected leaders have used their armies against their own citizen.

I do wish for a society where everyone is better educated and officials fully accountable. Sadly, all you need to do is follow the opinion polls, the political news, and follow election campaigns and it's pretty clear that marketing has long replaced political science and philosophy and that most peoples votes will remain the same no matter what.

[Kwanstein]

The only inherent advantage democracy has over monarchy is that it's less susceptible to political agitation. In this day and age political agitation has become a science, hence why democracies are so abundant while monarchies are few and relegated to retrograde areas or special cases. Monarchies in progressive countries were torn to bits for the fact that they were unable to contend with their up-in-coming political opponents.

One inherent disadvantage democracy comes with, however, is that it lacks long-term planning. The people who run democratic governments are only held responsible for things that happen during their terms, thus they tend to plan only for the short term often neglecting the long term.

[Vellos]

This is empirically nonsense.

Democratic states are MORE likely to engage in long-term projects than less democratic states. Please do not extrapolate to all non-democratic states based on media presentations of China, or extrapolate to all democratic states based on media presentations of the US congress. Empirically speaking, infrastructural and long-term investments, controlling for geographical and economic factors and opportunity costs, are more frequent in democracies than more authoritarian states. So that argument is bunk.

Collective rule IS more just: always and everywhere. Because any rule which is not collective is of its very nature unjust. We can pretend otherwise for a video game– but in the real world, this is obvious. Rule by a king, or a general, or a politburo, is unjust.

Now, a dictator may carry out more just actions than some democracy might– that may be true. Empirically, it is unlikely: authoritarian states tend to offer fewer freedoms and liberties and be more prone to use violence against their people. The possibility of benevolent dictators is defeated by the fact of their non-existence.

Democracies are flawed, yes. Duh. But seriously people, this is showing a shocking amount of historical blindness: do I really hear educated people questioning whether democracy is good for us, whether we might not be better off not as democracies? Please tell me this is some kind of strange devil's advocate situation. Because that's just gross ignorance. Democracy is not promoted abroad by nearly every democratic state because it is so strategically advantageous or something. It's promoted abroad because even the most realpolitiking democratic states have realized that this system is so obviously better than to not promote it would be such an obvious travesty and crime against humanity as to constitute a national embarrassment before all of history. It's like walking into Botswana and going, "Nah man, AIDS ain't a problem."

[Chenier]

This is empirically nonsense.

Democratic states are MORE likely to engage in long-term projects than less democratic states. Please do not extrapolate to all non-democratic states based on media presentations of China, or extrapolate to all democratic states based on media presentations of the US congress. Empirically speaking, infrastructural and long-term investments, controlling for geographical and economic factors and opportunity costs, are more frequent in democracies than more authoritarian states. So that argument is bunk.

Collective rule IS more just: always and everywhere. Because any rule which is not collective is of its very nature unjust. We can pretend otherwise for a video game– but in the real world, this is obvious. Rule by a king, or a general, or a politburo, is unjust.

Now, a dictator may carry out more just actions than some democracy might– that may be true. Empirically, it is unlikely: authoritarian states tend to offer fewer freedoms and liberties and be more prone to use violence against their people. The possibility of benevolent dictators is defeated by the fact of their non-existence.

Democracies are flawed, yes. Duh. But seriously people, this is showing a shocking amount of historical blindness: do I really hear educated people questioning whether democracy is good for us, whether we might not be better off not as democracies? Please tell me this is some kind of strange devil's advocate situation. Because that's just gross ignorance. Democracy is not promoted abroad by nearly every democratic state because it is so strategically advantageous or something. It's promoted abroad because even the most realpolitiking democratic states have realized that this system is so obviously better than to not promote it would be such an obvious travesty and crime against humanity as to constitute a national embarrassment before all of history. It's like walking into Botswana and going, "Nah man, AIDS ain't a problem."

I can't speak for others, but I do firmly believe that democracies are better, and that we should strive to make them as perfect as possible.

I'm just stating that I also don't buy the praises about how simply having elected officials is a safeguard for freedom or justice. Nor that imposing elections upon other states guarantees them greater freedom and justice.

[Kwanstein]

Democratic states are MORE likely to engage in long-term projects than less democratic states. Please do not extrapolate to all non-democratic states based on media presentations of China, or extrapolate to all democratic states based on media presentations of the US congress. Empirically speaking, infrastructural and long-term investments, controlling for geographical and economic factors and opportunity costs, are more frequent in democracies than more authoritarian states. So that argument is bunk.

I don't see how that's empirically true. Democracies do not consist entirely of Western democracies, they consist of the likes of Liberia and Sierra Leone as well. As far as Western democracies go, their relative inclination towards long term planning could be owed to cultural reasons rather than government.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Bull crap, every noble is a politician except in Aurvandil as claimed by Mendicant, which I wish I could participate in for a month, or a week, but my character at the moment would not join. I nearly said never but because of the way I role play my character in a long term, seen by few, manner it could perhaps happen eventually, but no time soon. OOC, not even talking about your military or gold maneuvering, Aurvandil is amazing due to its political system, which is that it does not exist.

The political system is rightfully outlawed, Mendicant is teh politics.. It's interesting that Aurvandil functions without it, whilst ensuring the nobles are heard and represented without need of one.

erm...

Okay, yeah, I'm just gonna' drop the mic now and claim victory. You actually just claimed that dictatorship is a better safeguard of liberty than democracy, on an OOC level, not ICly at all. Methinks you need a history lesson– especially French history. You could learn the language and some historical truth all at once.

No I didn't

And since when was the world split between only two government systems, democracy and dictatorships? It's not as black and white as that, and yet you would go so far as to say I am the one who needs educating, despite the gross ignorance you've just displayed.

And indeed I do need to learn French, but learn French history? I know it well enough and am still learning it, and I'm not exactly sure why a greater knowledge of French history is relevant, Aurvandil takes elements from it and are mostly influenced by it, but pursue a unique culture from it. Unless of course you were just making a needless, derisive comment.

The problem is finding a successor that's just as good, should you truly have found the perfectly benevolent dictator.

I, for one, would love to see something happen to Mendicant, such as capture in battle, to see what happens with the rulership elections.

Mendicant has already been captured in battle, Madina tried to execute him and luckily they failed. When Mendicant is captured, the throne remains vacant. Though, even if an election would be called, that'd be declared high treason and any who ran would be banished, I imagine. Mendicant can only be deposed through rebellion, protests, or the public removing their consent.

did he mention dictatorship in that quote? I don't think so. I think what he meant to say is that constituents can almost never be truely and fairly represented in a democracy.

What I said, were that elections are not the best means by which a people are represented (short of perhaps, direct democracy). Of course some people immediately associate anything like that with tyranny and dictatorship, 'cause obviously the only form of freedom in this world comes at the end of a vote.

As I understand it, he was literally saying that a monarchy better represents the people than a representative democracy.

I thought Aurvandil was interesting prior to this. Now knowing that their beliefs aren't just roleplayed, but like, are acted out in a delusional gratification of their perverse ideal real world... yeah not just a wee bit scary, closer to psychotic.

Well, it does.

And spare me the drama as everyone seems to be putting words in my mouth and freaking the !@#$ out that I doubted the efficacity of elections, it has nothing to do with my personal views, of which Aurvandil is greatly juxtaposed to. My ideal real world is nothing like Aurvandil, nor my ideal political system. Aurvandil of course, is some of those views taken to a deliberate roleplayed extreme. But psychotic? Oh come on get a grip man.

more like noblesse chevalresque confirmed for 2edgy4u 20-something year old
stopped responding to my letters so karibash has to come stab him personally. damn shame!

As Mendicant told Karibash, send him something worthy of reading or don't reply at all. All Karibash did in that last letter was wank over himself.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Also, I think this is the first thread I've posted on where I've managed to change the topic not to Aurvandil but something else entirely, the purpose built Aurvandil thread now talking about something entirely different whilst every other thread talks in regards to Aurvandil (Or did, anyway).

[Poliorketes]

OOT.

But still. Give them education? Who chooses to? And when the trend is to make higher education more and more expensive and inaccessible to the lower and middle classes? When the people who decide what is taught are the ones with the most interests in lowering standards? To claim that problems in democracies can always be solved by pacific means and that problems in dictatorships can only be solved in a leader's death is a false dichotomy. Disregarding the fact that what sets one aside from the other is usually pretty arbitrary, dictators have passed down power without dying and democratically-elected leaders have used their armies against their own citizen.

I do wish for a society where everyone is better educated and officials fully accountable. Sadly, all you need to do is follow the opinion polls, the political news, and follow election campaigns and it's pretty clear that marketing has long replaced political science and philosophy and that most peoples votes will remain the same no matter what.

Who chooses to? Nobody. Education is free and mandatory to all people. (at least until... 16 y.o.?) and then, it's only free (or almost free) to all people who wants get higher education. Of course you can try to destroy the people education... if you do it, the democracy will be destroyed in a few years.

 ??? How many democracies you know that solve government problems by violent means? (Hey! I don't like this law!... who did it?... not matter, kill him!) and dictators... well, they don't accept the criticism very well, usually they solve the criticism killing the critic.

And yes, dictators have passed down power without dying... and nothing has been solved. Still a dictatorship.
"democratically-elected leaders have used their armies against their own citizen"... A democratically-elected leader don't make a democracy. As I said, in a democracy ALL powers are controlled by others powers. If a leader can control the army, and can order it to attack his own people... then this is not a democracy. Of course, they can call themselves as they want. Many dictatorships call themselves democracies.

The last part... Yes, sadly, in this you are right. We must know no democracy is perfect, and no democracy is invulnerable. We must see the imperfections and must try to make it right... because, not matter the country, there will be some 'powers' who will want to use this imperfections to control the democracy, to destroy it, and only leave a controlled, void pantomime... or a dictatorship. And usually the first step to destroy a democracy is to put the people against it.

Honestly, I'm not very optimistic about the occidental democracies. Maybe we are living the begin of the end. If some things don't change (and fast), in 25-50 years probably they will be all void pantomimes... or worse.

[Poliorketes]

And since when was the world split between only two government systems, democracy and dictatorships? It's not as black and white as that, and yet you would go so far as to say I am the one who needs educating, despite the gross ignorance you've just displayed.

Since democracies exist?... if you want, we can call them democracies and non-democratic governments? ... A democracy is like a contract, you try respect it or you break it... some, but not too many greys in the middle.

What I said, were that elections are not the best means by which a people are represented (short of perhaps, direct democracy). Of course some people immediately associate anything like that with tyranny and dictatorship, 'cause obviously the only form of freedom in this world comes at the end of a vote.

mmm... yes? Obviously, the vote isn’t enough, but for sure (until reading minds are tested and approved) is a needed steep for a democratic government... 'freedom' is a wonderful word, but it mean something distinct for every person, so, in the end, it don't have any real meaning.

I'm curious, if elections aren't the best way to represent people... what it's? and how it works?

[Chenier]

In Canada, political profiling by police is pretty standard procedure. The Canadian intelligence agency grouped up with the CIA to infiltrate a political party and steal membership lists. The War Measures Act was decreed in times of peace to have the armed forces arbitrarily arrest thousands of innocent people due to their political allegiance. Recently, wearing a political symbol was enough to get you detained without cause in some places. People peacefully protesting were given multi-hundred dollar fines for obstructing unused public roads. The federal government keeps cutting down "bureaucracy" and "red tape", however a clear pattern immediately presents itself where the ministries most aligned with the party's interests get almost no cuts and those least aligned get almost all of them. Protected waterways get reduced from thousands to just a few dozens, almost all of which in ridings held by the party in power. The newer bills being proposed at the federal level are hundreds of pages long so that nobody can make any sense of them, hiding a ton of non-budgetary laws in what would otherwise be a budget vote.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Democracy are the ideal model to strive for. Obtaining elected officials is not even a fraction of the job towards having a just and free society, however.

And this is only using Canada as an example, a NATO founding member, up-to-recently on the UN's security council, part of the G8, etc. And that's only part of the crap going on.

Poliorketes, you ask how many democracies use violence? They all do. The armed forces and police forces have the monopoly of legitimate violence. I didn't say they went about shooting everyone. But that doesn't mean that the army is never used. Nor does it mean that there is no violence. Because there is PLENTY of violence in the streets by the forces of "order" against peaceful protesters. Physical violence, as well as moral and financial violence by the use of courts, injunctions, and fines against legitimate pacific protests. The latest in Québec were the students against the tuition fee hikes. Hikes they wouldn't even suffer themselves, the hikes being gradual and only truly affecting the students who will sign up in three years or so. They protest to safeguard accessible public higher education. A fundamental necessity to a healthy democracy (going to school until you are 16 doesn't make you a good citizen, it barely teaches you to count). And yet they are demonized by two of the bigger parties, including the last one in power.

[Indirik]

Mendicant can only be deposed through rebellion, protests, or the public removing their consent.

And how would people "remove their consent"? Wouldn't someone else running and being elected equate to people removing their consent, and it being granted to someone else?