Ya

Of course not the whole Empire was evil...but pendell: We all like an anarchy thing...we live in a democracy and we like WC for its ideals and the way of life how the future could be. But in my eyes, democracy means chaos...it means anarchy in some ways... and that's the statement SW made ...you have the choice between the ruled, well- organised brutal Emire where the Individual counts nothing or the little too idealistic rebels (the democracy with a senate etc.). You call it chaos. But in fact it is what we are living in, just a little bigger (different planets instead of different countries). It's also the same at WC.
 
We don't like WC for its way of life... in the whole of the main WC series, we're told very little about the way of life (G)
 
Originally posted by Manjana
Of course not the whole Empire was evil...but pendell: We all like an anarchy thing...we live in a democracy and we like WC for its ideals and the way of life how the future could be.

Manjana,

I think I mis-communicated. I was not trying to say that
despotism and anarchy are the only two alternatives in
governing. I thought of it more as a continuum, sort of like
this:

Order
0 Anarchy
1
2
3 Democracy
4
5 Republic
6
7
8 Monarchy
9
10 Despotism


To me, the area between 2 and 7 inclusive
is the golden mean,
where people can do pretty much what they want but not have
to worry about being murdered in their beds. It is the BEST possible situation. This is what
I would *prefer*.

That said, sometimes a country can be destabilized to a point where that simply isn't possible (Ex: Spain 1936,
England 1640, Rome 35 BC). When, as Tolwyn put it,
"Things fall apart, the center cannot hold. Mere
anarchy is loosed upon the world. The best
lack all conviction...". In which case, the choice can
devolve to a choice between 0 and 10, with no in-between.
I was saying that 10 is a better choice than 0, although
9,8,7,6,5,4,3, and 2 are progressively better choices than
either.
Why is 10 better than zero? Consider: Would
you rather have lived in the Yugoslavia of the 1960s or
the 80s? In Afghanistan in the early 80s (Soviet occupation) or the 90s (no government at all)? If you fly a Drayman, would you rather fly in Fariss or Potter (in
privateer)?

Totalitarian governments are very unpleasant, but at least one has food, electricity, heat, shelter, and a police force. That's quite a bit better than living in the middle of a ruin without any of those things where street gangs roam. Where the only thing standing between you and well-armed thugs is you and your AK-47.

Put bluntly: anarchy is BAD.

In sum: Free governments are better than dictatorships.
But ANY government is better than no government at all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Edited by pendell on 03-16-2001 at 12:24]
 
Consider: Would you rather have lived in the Yugoslavia of the 1960s or the 80s? In Afghanistan in the early 80s (Soviet occupation) or the 90s (no government at all)? If you fly a Drayman, would you rather fly in Fariss or Potter (in privateer)?
Admittedly, when it comes to Yugoslavia I would prefer the '60s (which undoubtedly weren't as dictatorial as you might think - communism isn't as evil as everybody makes it out to be). But when it comes to Afghanistan, I'd undoubtedly prefer the '90s. The Soviet occupation era is not a good example of a totalitarian system - indeed, the Soviet occupation was simply anarchy under a different name. To be fair, Afghanistan of the '90s is also a pretty lousy example of anarchy, since it does have government - several, in fact ;).
As for the Drayman, that would depend entirely on what cargo I'm carrying ;). Actually, I think one could feel pretty secure when flying a Drayman against pirates. I've seen Draymen defeat pirate attacks on several occasions. With a decent crew, a Drayman would indeed be a fearsome thing.

Finally, you misplaced monarchy.
 
This is my form of discussion that I truely love, because on the scale of 0-10 I am all for a 6-9 range. I am in favor of a system like the one I am about to explain, with a Senate as well as an Emporer. The senate acts as a democratic force and the emporer is around for several reasons, 1. to deal with the daily matters of preserving the state, feeding the people, protecting the boarders, enforcing the laws and providing quick reaction time to a crisis (unlike a pure representational democracy/republic where only a senate/congress whatever can make laws and has notoriously slow reaction time to matters of state). Then have for the senate, the senate would provide a stabalizing influence over the emporer if it could veto his/her laws by a majority vote (ie reversal of US system), also by being able to veto imperial laws the senate will be able to adequatly protect the people from any trampelling on their rights, while the senate could pass long term laws that would set up a path that the government should take in the future, and set up a basic outline of how it should happen, then the outline would be followed by the emporer. The emporer would be chosen by the previous emporer before he/she died and could not be a close family member to the previous emporer (ie son daughter spouse, first cousin, uncle aunt grandparent parent). If the previous emporer died without having a chosen successor the senate would vote for whomever among them they feel best suited (most cases i would assume the leader of the majority) to the position of emporer.

This is my ideal system of government, a cross between democracy and monarchy providing both strenght and stability while preserving the rights and freedoms of the people, you can all disagree with me if you feel like it but please do not use any derogatory names, vulgar words, or flaming in general when refering to my post
 
Well, you got something like that, its the Roman Empire, it does not work, The US system (that is a republic system) is very similar but it work better, a chosen by the guy before is bad because the can lead to a monarch system (like roman system eventaly lead) and if you read the story of the roman empire you will see how easy is the system to be perverted.
Imperial favor will make the senate to fail to limit the Emperor powers , the only way to stop that form happening is by limiting the time that the Emperor have in office (the US system).
 
Bandit, Mekt-Hakkikt: Okay, you like 'blowing up-things'. I also like it in some ways. But it is a nice extra for me at WC. Of course I like the military atmosphere etc., but for me it is except some little things...(if there weren't the Kilrathi and the Bugs for ex.) the future I'd like to live in. This is the main point why I am here. Not because I just want to blow things up. Then I could as well play Freespace, SW etc. I am SF-fan and WC is for me the best SF seen from the point of living.
And pendell: I think now I understand what you want to say...okay, a one-man-government is better than none, there I agree, but sometimes in that dictatorship, more people become killed than by street-gangs in anarchy. So they are in this case standing on one step for me (if the dictator is a bad one...). Then I'd prefer chaos! There I can say my opinion without being killed by a 'policeman'. But if the dictator is a 'good' one, who cares about his people, you're right! Then he's better than anarchy:
 
I don't think your idea would work all that well in practice, Napoleon. You would actually be relying on accidents to change the political elite. That is to say, if you've got two dominant parties - say, Republicans and Democrats, and somehow a Democrat gets to be the monarch, you will have Democrat monarchs until one of them finally dies without appointing a successor (highly unlikely - the successor would be selected immediately after the monarch's own succession to the throne). And even if that happens, there's a very high chance that the dead monarch's party is already dominant in the senate, and thus another Democrat gets elected.

Furthermore, how do you elect the first monarch, when you introduce the system in the first place? Well, you let the senate choose him/her. The senate - that of course means that the party which is dominant at the time of the introduction of the system will get the crown. The monarch thus has the majority of the senate behind him - there's no way to block his decisions. The senate majority and the monarch will work together to change the laws in order to make their dominance permanent - converting the system into a totalitarian one. In other words, this system ceases to exist the very moment that it's created.
 
Well I guess I gotta explain more: 1st off, the roman empire did work, it survived from bc44 to 1453 ad that is close to 1500 years, longer than any current government has been in existance. and while the roman empire had a senate it was only a rubberstamping committy and had no real power, unlike the senate in my system 2. For who is the first emporer, well thats me, so no election needed. 3. Yes I do admit that choosing an emporer who hasn't appointed a successor yet would be infrequent but less so than you say because if the emporer appoints a successor to early then he will have to worry about that person trying to have him killed, and if he doesn't appoint one then the senate gets to deside, which might be a good or a bad thing in his opinion. So he has to figure a balance, and that balance will be bound to be gotten wrong more times then right so there will be a larger number of emporers chosen. Also since the emporer does not have ultimate power (his decrees can be vetoed, but he can also veto senatorial laws) even if there was a "bad" emporer he wouldn't be able to do much, and if he was really bad I doubt he would live too long.
4. I never have claimed this system would be perfect because no system would be, and it would be able to be altered, say if in the future people decide that every emporer should be chosen by the senate, well so be it. ect. This is only a system that I think might be able to work with fewer faults than other systems
 
Originally posted by Quarto
As for the Drayman, that would depend entirely on what cargo I'm carrying ;). Actually, I think one could feel pretty secure when flying a Drayman against pirates. I've seen Draymen defeat pirate attacks on several occasions. With a decent crew, a Drayman would indeed be a fearsome thing.

Finally, you misplaced monarchy. [/B]

1. I misplaced monarchy? Oops... where should I
have placed it? I had tried to put it at about
the 7-9 range. Where do you think it should have
gone?

2. You've seen Drayman beat pirates? Cool! For some
reason when I fly I always see them get dusted.

3. Napolean's idea: the nit I would pick is that I would
prefer there to be some way for the Senate (or the People)
to depose the Emperor peacefully, if he turns out to be
a schnook or too far out of step with what the people
want (maybe 2/3rd majority to boot him out of office,
like a US impeachment). One of the great strengths of current democracies is that if we don't like a leader
we don't have to stab him to death on the senate floor :).

Would this be workable? Probably ... but lots of governments have been made to work, but that doesn't necessarily make them good. What would really be crucial
to me would be something like the US bill of rights (freedom of speech, no illegal search and seizure, innocent
until found guilty, etc.) together with an enforcement
mechanism to remove the emperor if he started to violate them. After all, a bill's just paper if the emperor can,
at any time, just say "I changed my mind! We're throwing
it out the window and there's nothing you can do about it!"
In other words, the emperor should be subject to the law of
the land, not above it.


Respectfully,

Brian P.


[Edited by pendell on 03-17-2001 at 10:57]
 
I wish you success, Silent Warrior.

And Quarto, what kind of Drayman do you saw killing pirates? Probably the Priv1, since there were not any pirates in WC1. But nevertheless, you a Drayman blasting a Talon? Because I , like pendell, see them only get blown up unless I save them :). Or did you see Talons ramming a Drayman? Then of course the Drayman would win!
 
A bill of rights, I don't have a problem with some form, and to peacefully depose the emporer, while that sorta removes the point don't it, the emporer is their so that he can do things that need to be done even if they are unpopular. By making him able to be impeached then he has to worry about popularity.
 
Originally posted by Napoleon
Well I guess I gotta explain more: 1st off, the roman empire did work, it survived from bc44 to 1453 ad that is close to 1500 years...

Didn't the western Roman Empire fall around the 6th century BC? Of course, there's the eastern Byzantine empire, which as you said stood till 1453 when the Ottoman Turks smashed their way in...
 
I will not go over something like the Roman Empire, I am sorry that I did, It does not work, Caligulas and similars are bound to show up, the only good emperor was Claudios that give back a lot of power to the Senate and fix many of previous errors.
People that stay in power no matter the way things are have lead to the french revolution and the russion revolution, we know what happens then.
A benevolent ditectorship is just a ditactorship, I can change and it will for worse, humans just work that way.
The US system have flaws, like all systems.
There is no perfect system of goverment, just the one that we have chosen for yourselfs.
Bob McDob is correct, it colapesed long before that, Portugal, Spain, France and England already existed at that time as a nations and they were part of the Roman Empire.
The roman empire colapsed about 526 d.C. were it was devided.


[Edited by Dragon on 03-17-2001 at 20:09]
 
Originally posted by Napoleon
A bill of rights, I don't have a problem with some form, and to peacefully depose the emporer, while that sorta removes the point don't it, the emporer is their so that he can do things that need to be done even if they are unpopular. By making him able to be impeached then he has to worry about popularity.

Hmm ... that works as long as the emperor is a good guy.
However, if the emperor ever goes bad (a la Caligula
or Nero) it takes a bloody civil war to remove him.

The English Civil War of the 1640s is instructive: The
English kings had, since Magna Carta, governed
'constitutionally', checked by custom and by first the
Barons, and later by Parliament. However, Charles I,
using the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, asserted
absolute, unchecked authority, and that he was responsible
only to God for his actions. His Protestant subjects
were unwilling to accept such rule from a Catholic King,
and the result was a 10-year civil war that devastated
the country. Had the English constitution explicitly
given Parliament the power to veto the King's decrees,
and to remove him if need be, it is possible things
never would have reached that pitch.

I think a 2/3rds majority for removal would work well
for your system -- the reason the US has that rule for
removing the President is that a 2/3rds majority is
nearly impossible to achieve under normal circumstances.
In the US Senate, for example, the split has been as high
as 60-40 and more usually is around 55-45. Currently, it
is literally 50-50.

A simple majority means the Emperor
is subject to the whim of the Senate's majority party.
A 2/3 majority means that both the ENTIRE majority
party AND a considerable portion (about half) of the
minority party have to agree that the man has to go. In
a >2 party system such as the UK or Isreal, a 2/3rd majority
becomes even harder to achieve. Thus: a 2/3rd majority
means that an OVERWHELMING proportion of the nation's
people, not only all the Emperor's opponents but most of
his (former) supporters as well, have to agree that he
has to go.

I suggest that if the Empire is THAT united and THAT firm
against him, then violent revolution is the inevitable
result unless he is peacefully removed. So: A 2/3rds majority will sustain the emperor in unpopular but
just actions , but provide a peaceful mechanism
for removing a Nero or a Caligula. He need not fear
removal ordinarily -- in American history a President has
been impeached only three times. Twice they have been
acquitted by votes of about 65-35 and 51-49, and the
3rd time he resigned to avoid removal. That 3rd
was President Nixon, whose guilt was clear-cut and
indisputable.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
Originally posted by Bob McDob
Originally posted by Napoleon
Well I guess I gotta explain more: 1st off, the roman empire did work, it survived from bc44 to 1453 ad that is close to 1500 years...

Didn't the western Roman Empire fall around the 6th century BC? Of course, there's the eastern Byzantine empire, which as you said stood till 1453 when the Ottoman Turks smashed their way in...

The Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century ad. Not 6th BC. Next to pendell, perhaps you are right maybe instead of 2/3 you make it 3/4 that way most people might wish to get rid of the emporer. As to the english civil war, that only happens when there is no clear written limit to the monarch's power, and the monarch can dissolve the senate or parlaiment, a power charles had. When the senate cannot be dissolved and more importantly the constitution of the empire has very stringent guidelines as to how things are done and who has what power, the problems with most previous monarchys disappear. I like to think of the govenment that we have been discussing as an "Imperial Republic" combining the best features of both types of government. Or at least what I see as the best features of said governments.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
I've seen Draymen defeat pirate attacks on several occasions. With a decent crew, a Drayman would indeed be a fearsome thing.
Indeed they can (ref: Brownhair's story). But I've seen Draymans taking out Talons too - the pirates continually go head to head with the Drayman. But I witnessed a bit overkill a few times - a varied convoy of Tarsus, Galaxies and Draymans takes out a lone pirate. (Sucked in!)
 
Well I guess I gotta explain more: 1st off, the roman empire did work, it survived from bc44 to 1453 ad that is close to 1500 years, longer than any current government has been in existance.
The Eastern Roman Empire doesn't apply here - they pretty much passed the crown down in the family, which isn't what you propose. The system you propose is only apparent in the main Roman Empire, from Augustus onwards. As I recall, this foolish system is exactly what caused the downfall of the Empire - for more than a few years, the Empire was wracked with constant civil wars, where there would often be more than several Emperors appointed and then killed in the space of one year. That's your system in action.

2. for who is the first emporer, well thats me, so no election needed.
Not applicable. You want to debate this seriously, then you've gotta consider that aspect. Fact is, unless the first Emperor *seizes* power (in which case, the system will either remain undefined and unstable - like Rome - or the Emperor will become a despot whose crown is passed in the family), he will have to be elected by the Senate.

3. Yes I do admit that choosing an emporer who hasn't appointed a successor yet would be infrequent but less so than you say because if the emporer appoints a successor to early then he will have to worry about that person trying to have him killed, and if he doesn't appoint one then the senate gets to deside, which might be a good or a bad thing in his opinion.
If the Emperor has to worry about assassination of himself or his heir, that's proof positive that the system is flawed.

Also since the emporer does not have ultimate power (his decrees can be vetoed, but he can also veto senatorial laws) even if there was a "bad" emporer he wouldn't be able to do much, and if he was really bad I doubt he would live too long.
The first Emperor does have ultimate power, because either he's powerful enough to single-handedly create this system, or he's been elected - and therefore his party is a majority in the Senate, and more than sufficient to change any law.

4. I never have claimed this system would be perfect because no system would be, and it would be able to be altered, say if in the future people decide that every emporer should be chosen by the senate, well so be it. ect. This is only a system that I think might be able to work with fewer faults than other systems
My dear Napoleon, this system of yours is as far from perfect as these things can possibly get - it's worse than just about any other system I've ever seen. It's unstable, and self-destructive. The American government system may not be perfect, but at least I don't see Americans worrying about the possibility of a dictator changing the system to suit his personal whims. In your system, there are absolutely no checks and balances. Once an Emperor, always an Emperor, and always an all-powerful despot.

Gotta go to class now, I'll reply to you later, Pendell.
 
Back
Top