The Lazarene Gazette

[Lenny]

Nationstates in shock after Raiders and Imperialists invade neutral roleplaying region Ixnay
24th July 2014



The community of Ixnay, photographed after the devestation wrecked upon it by raiders and Imperialists

IXNAY BORDER - The Nationstates world continues to reel from the invasion by Raiders and Imperialists of the region of Ixnay, one of the oldest roleplaying communities in the game. The region, which was in the midst of transferring its delegacy to The Federal Republic of Urcea, was seized by a Raider sleeper agent, Kikpar, who gave the password to invaders who then took the delegacy and sowed destruction throughout this once peaceful region.

Ignoring the widely accepted international norm that roleplaying regions should not be subject to their predatory attacks, raiders from "The Black Riders" led an invasion force which was supported by Sicarius, Lone Wolves United and the United Imperial Armed Forces (UIAF - an alliance of The New Inquisition, Albion and The Land of Kings and Emperors). This was while the region was in the process of trying to refound itself, to make it safe from external aggression.

Providing no acceptable rationale for their invasion, other than simply might equalling right, The Black Riders have refused to depart from the region.

"I think we're all as equally appalled at this action. Ixnay has been a cornerstone of the roleplaying community since its establishment in 2003", native resident Urcea told The Lazarus Gazette, "it's ebbed and flowed for sure, but it's existed for nearly the whole duration of the game. We've prided ourselves on being welcoming and friendly, because that's what Ixnay is about - a community, in the truest sense of the word."

"Since then, we've been pretty vocal on all channels, and yet the only thing we've heard from the raider community that this is essentially our fault. We've been told that we really ought to have changed the password (and yet the influence gameplay mechanics that are based on R/D gameplay did not allow us to do so) and that we really ought to have refounded (which they invaded us for attempting to do). It's an indictment of the roleplaying community as a whole by the raider community and the moderators that partake in it and give their support to it, either actively or passively. Haven was targeted, and next Ixnay fell. In short, no community, whether participating in the R/D style or not, is free from being targeted."

Messages from natives continue to be surpressed by the invaders and UIAF forces continue to garrison the region, propping up the Raider delegate. It is difficult to know how long it will take this historic part of the Nationstates world to recover from this brutal invasion, however, it is clear that every region will need to be on guard against this threat.

[Lenny]

A short explanation of the trolley problem, which offers a good example of how Uni and I diverge on this topic.

 

I recently found an old article by Unibot on the UDL forums on the morality of defending and why it is this way. In it, he argued that deontology provides the moral basis for defending. However, I state that quite the opposite is true: that deontology, as an ideology, leads to the conclusion that both raiding and defending are neither moral nor immoral and a decline in defender's power and numbers, while by contrast, moral utilitarianism leads to the conclusion that defending is a moral action and invading an immoral one the majority of the time, leaving utilitarians such as myself accepting the philosophy of soft defenderism, which accepts the morality of raids in limited circumstances.

 

Before beginning, I should give a brief definition of the two major branches of moral philosophy, also called ethics: consequentialism and deontology. Deontology, similar to the concept of moral absolutism, says that actions are either moral or immoral simply because of what they are, and that specific rules govern morality. The other major branch of moral philosophy, consequentialism, says that actions are either moral or immoral because of their outcomes. The most popular variant of consequentialism is moral utilitarianism, which states that an action's morality or immorality is judged by the amount of happiness it brings or takes away from people. A scenario that clearly illustrates the difference between these two systems, and why understanding the difference between the two and which one you accept is important, is the trolley problem, described in the image above. In it, the moral deontologist would accept the predetermined outcome: the deaths of five people. A deontologist would refuse to flip the switch, stating that it would be immoral because he would be causing the death of a man; on the other hand, a moral utilitarian would flip the switch, realizing that he would be saving a total of four lives in the process. In my opinion, this scenario clearly illustrates that the position of deontology is merely posturing and foolishness designed to make one appearing more moral, rather than being based on any sort of logic, genuine kindness, or feeling of altruism towards other humans.

 

Now that we've got that down, I'd like to begin saying by taking down Uni's first criticism of utilitarianism, one that is completely emotional, invoking gruesome imagery and situations designed to be morally reprehensible to the reader, rather than an attempt to logically justify his own position. In the first, Uni gives the example of three men stranded on a boat in the middle of the ocean. According to Uni, if a moral utilitarian were put into that situation, he would kill and eat the other two men, in order to be able to survive and make it back to land and survive. However, this is absolutely not the case. Firstly, a moral utilitarian would take many different other things into account, and having three people complicates this situation by adding one who is not relevant to the argument. Let's simplify this, and remove one of the other two bystanders simply because it will make explaining simpler. Now, would a moral utilitarian murder a man and eat him to survive in this situation? The answer is best described as possibly. It could be one of two actions that a utilitarian would take. Now, what's the other moral decision for a utilitarian in this situation? That would be to kill oneself and allow the other man to eat the body left behind. While initially appearing to be repugnant, this action, rather than being thought of as a horrible murder by a reasonable person, would be considered to be an incredible act of altruism, sacrificing one's own life in order to keep the other alive. This is not the action taken by a bad person, it is the action taken by someone who is nearly infinitely kind, willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for another. Meanwhile, deontologism, as Uni claims later in the article, applies equally and evenly to everyone; thus, a deontologist would refuse to take either course of action, as suicide is still murder, the intentional act of killing another. This would result in both men dying. Now, tell me, who does your conscience say is the more moral of the two men? The man who gives up his own life to save another, or the one who preferred to let both men die instead of do something, anything, that would help his comrade?

 

Uni makes another similar appeal to emotion, (a clear use of logical fallacy, by the way) in the same paragraph of the article as the preceding situation. Uni charges that should a mob be about to commit a public lynching, a moral utilitarian would refuse to do anything. Supposedly, this is because allowing the mob to kill the innocent man would cause them to get angry and burn down buildings or riot, causing property damage. A "moral" deontologist, on the other hand, would recognize that murder is wrong and try to stop the mob. This is a complete falsehood. If presented with the situation, a utilitarian would also stop the lynching, seeing as how a life is worth much more than property. If I had chosen, I could take this situation and turn it right around, saying that the utilitarian would act to save the life, while a deontologist would stand by because destruction of property is an immoral act and preventing it would be the right course of action. Of course, any rational human being, either deontologist or utilitarian, would attempt to stop the lynching, as it is not right to kill a human being.

 

Soon after this, Uni states that because utilitarianism allows for "Degrees" of right and wrong, it led to a decline in defenderist ideology and to the rise of a few so-called "Moral" raiderism, using minor activities such as tags to generate a challenge for themselves while at worst bringing a minor nuisance to most people. However, I say that while the first is false, the second is a good thing. Because some raiders began adopting tactics meant to cause little to no disruption in native communities, countless numbers of regions with intact communities, retaining their happiness and ability to stay together, still exist today. In fact, I would like to implore that all raiding regions follow in this example, and begin to design raiding tactics that will allow them to enjoy themselves while not bothering natives. These tactics do good, not evil; by taking a stand against this, Uni is taking a stand against an activity that will allow for a large amount of native communities to be spared any injury and is thus harming his own interests. Being against this is the equivalent of not flipping the switch in the trolley problem when a thousand men were tied to one rail and just a pet cat of someone to the other; these tactics are a good thing, and I'm glad that they are now the prevalent method of raiding for some militaries such as that of TEP.

 

By contrast, I would like to say that the advocation of deontologism by a notable few, especially you, Uni, has led to a great amount of harm being brought to the defenderist cause. The majority of people cannot understand or see how a tag raid on an inactive region which tried adspamming on your RMB is immoral, as you almost certainly would say it is. By not allowing minor exceptions when little to no harm has been done, defenders have alienated a good portion of the populace and caused more harm than good. Let me propose the following scenario: Two incredibly poor men are friends. One works in the house of a rich man as a servant, helping cooks in the kitchen. The other is unemployed and will literally starve to death if not given food. The servant creates a plan to steal a loaf of bread from his master's kitchen and repay his master later by buying another loaf when he has received his monthly payment and can afford to buy it. According to deontologism, stealing the loaf to allow your friend to live would be an immoral action, because theft is wrong. However, although most agree that theft is usually wrong, almost everybody is willing to accept that in this situation at least, it is the right course of action because it is a nearly worthless piece of bread that will be replaced and a life will be saved. This is similar to the situation posed by moral raids; if little to no bad is being done, and good is being derived from it (the raiders are not involved in another, more destructive raid at the same time) then why should it be considered wrong? This is the opinion of most people. However, when organizations such as the UDL lower themselves to cleaning up every last tiny tag raid, they begin to seem as if they are the ones acting immorally, ruining other people's fun when it does not come at significant expense of others. I propose that thus, deontologism and rigid adherence to the practice of condemning all raids, not just the vast majority which result in communities being destroyed, is actually hurting the defender cause.

 

Uni also charges that supposedly, the fact that raiding brings happiness to some raiders makes the moral calculus of the whole action significantly more confusing. This is not the case. Raiding causes significantly more harm than good, and the small amount of happiness gained from the situation is incomparable. The reason for this is that a raider usually needs to raid many regions to feel satisfied, meaning that in the total process, many times more people will be harmed by it. Raiding a single region brings pain to many people, and when this is multiplied by the fact that many regions are usually raided by raiders, rather than just a single in their entire lifespans, the happiness derived from it is significantly lower. Finally, it should be noted that a single roleplay usually brings much more enjoyment to a person than would a raid. This is because raiding literally involves nothing more than pressing buttons in an order which you are told to do so by your superiors; roleplaying involves the weaving of entire stories, the use of creativity, the bringing together of multiple people with no coordination to try to arrive at an end where all feel satisfied.

 

Next, Uni says that utilitarianism is an ideology which fails to provide a suitable degree of equality to people. I would offer three different counterarguments to this position:

1. Equality of outcomes is not always good. For example, giving someone a medicine which will save their life, but not giving it to another because you only have the funds to buy the medicine to save one, would still be the right and moral action to take. Thus, abandoning one system simply because it fails to do good

2. Utilitarianism does care about equality most of the time, although not all. The reason why we as humans usually value equality is because equality tends to generate happiness. Read The Spirit Level for evidence. However, if equality in some way, shape, or form ends up being a liability to humanity, reducing it is both logical and desirable; one good example is the preference of capitalism, mixed economies, or even socialist systems which do not mandate full equality, rather than communism, as the latter removes all incentive to do well or work hard from workers. Utilitarianism also says that all people's happiness is completely equal, something which deontologism refuses to accept, as it creates situations in which taking happiness from others, even if causing a much larger increase in other people's happiness, is not moral. A good example is the aforementioned trolley problem.

3. In addition, deontology does not care about equality in some situations as well, on the other hand. This is especially noticeable in real life, with the situation of income inequality. The adoption of a deontologist system would lead to the logical conclusion that no form of welfare state or mechanism for the redistribution of wealth should exist. Why? Because these would require coercion: pointing guns at people and threatening to punish them with a jail sentence. Most deontologists would agree that threatening to shoot somebody is a bad idea; however, utilitarianism would not have such qualms if it brings about the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

 

Finally, Uni uses the argument that utilitarianism as a philosophy is imperfect because it is highly susceptible to special bargaining. This, I will say, is a fairly accurate and reasonable objection to utilitarianism. However, it is rather simple to take the main strength in deontology, that it cannot be weakened by special bargaining because rules are absolute and cannot be reasoned around and add it to utilitarianism by using heuristics. A heuristic is like the hard and set rules of deontology, except it's not hard and set. A heuristic serves can be broken, but only when exceptional circumstances demand it. If you'd like to learn more about it, I recommend you read the article that I'm including in a link at the bottom of the page. I've definitely found heuristics to be very helpful in my life to make the decision between right and wrong when I can find that

 

I would like to now offer two last counterarguments against the use of deontology as a moral system in NS. The first is that deontology is an inherently illogical system, designed by the whims and expectations of the individual using it as his system, whereas utilitarianism can be derived in a method similar to mathematics. Mathematics begins with a small handful of axioms, or statements whose reality is self-evident. Mathematics, logic, and deductive reasoning use the minimum amount of postulates/axioms necessary, and then uses these to derive every other rule and conclusion from these. Moral utilitarianism can, similarly, be derived from two simple postulates: That an action's morality is determined by its effects on the real world, and that human happiness has worth. On the other hand, deontology is an attempt to declare everything you believe as a postulate. Killing is wrong. Theft is wrong. Rape is wrong. Assaulting/hitting someone is wrong, etc. However, what if you are forced into a position where someone is trying to kill you or another, and the only way to save your life or someone else's is to assault or attack them, you're backed into a corner. No matter how much good would come out of an action, you cannot break one of these axioms or rules defined by deontology.

 

Finally, I would like to posit that, deontology can only exist when you have a source for its set and unchangeable rules: An entity whose word gives the rules of deontology value. Now, who in NS would have the authority to do this? Max Barry, and the mods. By not outright banning invasions, the mods and MB have said that raiding is legal. Thus, the only possible source of a morality that cannot be overturned have said that raiding is a moral action. The only other possible alternative would be to receive these cosmic laws from a god or deity, which a majority of NSers don't believe in. (I have been told that you're an agnostic, [like me! agnostic buddies! ] so this argument would apply to you, as you obviously can't derive meaning from a god whose existence you're not even assured of.)

Of course, none of this really matters. It's some stupid philosophical bullcrap I wrote up because I thought it would be fun. For those of you who might want to read more on the topic, I recommend you try this. It's a pretty good, albeit long, read.

[Lenny]

Member Spotlight: Fantome

24 July, 2014

The Party Lounge- In the first Member Spotlight since February, the Lazarene Gazette is proud to publish this feature article on one of our most valued members- Fantome, former State Police Chief and current Governor of the Judicial District.

Fantome has one of the highest post counts in the history of the forums, with over 2,500 statements in various subforums. He was also the second Police Chief of the region, succeeding Leningrad Union who held the position for an extremely short period of 10 days. After a great term, he was appointed Governor of the Judicial District after a defeat in the elections for Chairman.

The player we know as Fantome first came to Lazarus on a very small and leaky boat containing him, former Cultural Governor Bodobol, and current Vice Chairman Llamas, as well as I, the current Governor of Information. The paddle was broken and we all took turns paddling until we reached a large rock in the ocean, later to be known as the Spectator Immigration Island. After filing papers and blowing our ship out of the water with missiles, we were gained admission into the PRL.

Fantome quickly became a rising star throughout the forums, posting frequently in what soon became Heronlord's Hole, aka the Spam subforum. He first served in the Diplomacy District as an ambassador to the Independent Order before then-Chairman Milograd created the State Security Forces. At first Leningrad Union was the State Police Chief, but he was removed in ten days due to inactivity.

Fantome became the Police Chief on March 10th, 2014, and served the region valiantly, giving weekly reports on suspicious individuals and voicing concerns about those who might have posed a threat to regional security.

When Chairman Kazmr announced his resignation, Fantome hopped to it, accepting a nomination by his peers and starting a campaign thread, titled simply “Fantome Campaigning Thread”, where he promised to fight Imperialist tendencies and create the great socialist state the PRL aims to become. He received 2 votes in the first two rounds before he was eliminated.

After Funkadelia won the election by a landslide, he appointed Fantome as Governor of the Judicial District, ending up where we are today. He has since vowed to end the inactivity of the previously comatose Province of Justice through mock trials and other shenanigans.

Fantome consented to an interview with the Lazarene Gazette, which you can find below:

LG: Hello Fantome, I'm glad you could join me today.

Fantome: Thank you for having me!

LG: Great! Let's skip the formalities and get straight to the interrog- I mean, questioning.

Fantome: I'm ready when you are.

LG: So, what brought you to Lazarus in the first place?

Fantome: Actually I probably would have never went to Lazarus if it wouldn't have been for Llamas, Ikania and Bodobol. Back then Khora split and these guys went to Lazarus. As we got along well during Khoran times, I followed them.

LG: Why did you join the Judicial District, an inactive cadre of Lazarus, to become Police Chief when you could have joined other, more active districts?

Fantome: I never joined the Judicial District, to be honest. My first district was the Diplomatic District, actually, where I soon became ambassador. When the State Security Forces were introduced by Milograd, I applied there, though. They were new, so nobody quite knew how (in)active they'd become.

LG: I see. Would you have preferred any other position outside of your current District?

Fantome: Governor of Diplomacy always seemed like a nice position to me, but I acknowledge that requires some GP contacts. Other than that, as proven during the elections for that position, I also had ambitions for the position of the Chairman.

LG: No doubt you would have made a great leader. Do you think there are any ways to spur activity in the Judicial District rather than traditional mock trials and things to do when bored?

Fantome: You're flattering me. tongue.png I don't have any doubts that our current Chairman is suited better for that position, though. Activity in the Judicial District always relies on the whole community. The first step will hopefully soon be taken with giving more responsibility to the Judicial District through updating the current Laws and Protocols. Other than that, we're simply far too innocent.

LG: Speaking of which, do you think the Judicial District should have a bit more authority on the matters of citizenship rather than the People's Congress?

Fantome: That's an interesting question. I don't think the People's Congress should lose any authority, not at all. Perhaps the Judicial District could be upgraded in future to check if laws are rightful.

LG: Alright, it seems we're on our last question. When the day comes that Church of Satan inevitably resigns from his position, do you have any potential picks for State Police Chief?

Fantome: We currently have one and from our talks I am sure he does his job quite well. As long as that's the case I don't want to start debating a new one.

LG: I see. By no means do I criticize our current chief, as CoS seems to be extremely dedicated and skilled at the tasks he is given.

Well, it seems that's all the time (and questions) we have today. Thanks for giving us this lovely interview!

Fantome: You're welcome. It was a pleasure.

Fantome has proven himself a loyal and dedicated member of the People's Republic of Lazarus. The Lazarene Gazette salutes him and wishes him well in all his endeavors.

[Lenny]

On The Futility of Imperialism by Comrade Lenny

Before seeking to comment on an ideology, one must first define it. Imperialism can take many shapes in Nationstates, but on reflection the base of Imperialism is the deliberate and consistent policy of a region in Nationstates to use military power as a means towards advancing its own power, through fear and coercion.

Breaking this down into its constituent parts - firstly, I believe that it is clear that an Imperialist region must be deliberate in its intention. If one is to be ideologically committed to something, then that requires premeditation and thought.One can invade other regions, without thorough thought as a region or one can be dragged into invasion through other diplomatic connections. However what marks an Imperialist region out from these other regions is that this is a deliberate policy, crafted by the leadership of the region after thought and consideration.

Secondly, I believe that a region practicising Imperialism must be consistent. Although Imperialists can be pragmatic in terms of their use of military power, to truly be an Imperialist region there must be an effort to consistently develop these resources with the aim for using them. Otherwise, the region is not practicising Imperialism, it merely thinks that it is practicising Imperialism. A region which gave up on the use of military power to achieve its ends, would not be an Imperialist region any longer.

Thirdly, I believe that Imperialism is the effort to use military power to advance a region's own power. Although Imperialist regions will use diplomatic means as well, infact every region that is interconnected into the Nationstates world will use diplomacy, the use of diplomatic power is not exclusive to Imperialists. However, non-ideological or defender regions are committed to not using military power to advance their own power. Defenders are seeking to uphold the principle that each region is entitled to be free from external aggression. Non-ideological regions, as above, are not practicisng a deliberate and consistent policy - although it can be argued that to not have a deliberate and consistent policy is in itself, a deliberate and consistent policy.

Imperialism is different because it is the deliberate and consistent use of military power specifically, to achieve its goals. This is the focus and is the primary method by which the region is seeking to affect change in the Nationstates world.

Fourthly, I believe that the Imperialism is about the use of military power to affect change through fear and coercion. Raiderism, which is not the subject of this essay, is about the happiness of the raiders or their glory. Fear is a by-product of their actions, but again, it is not a deliberate or consistent policy.

Imperialism, by contrast, uses fear and coercion to achieve its ends. Fear is the most important. It is fear of military power, that it iis hoped will deliver them political power, increasing it in relation toother, non-aggressive regions. Coercion is necessary in order to reinforce fear - this is why Imperialist regions must invade other regions, to demonstrate their power. Building up large militaries in and of themselves would achieve nothing for the Imperialist region without action.

With Imperialism thus defined, the next question is clear. Why would any region decide to embark upon a policy of Imperialism?

There must be some reasons, for there are a number of regions that practice Imperialism. However, taking the Socratic principle that one errs only from ignorance and never from a position of knowledge, it is the argument of this essay that Imperialism is self-contradictory and eventually collapses under the weight of its own contradictions - leaving bear the fact, that Imperialism is nothing more, or less, than the same mindless vandalism of Raiderism, dressed up in ideological purple.

Firstly, let us consider the first part of our definition. The thought that Imperialism is a deliberate and consistent policy. The formation of a deliberate and consistent policy is the mark of a political region. Raider regions are not political, because their activities is not based on the achievement of any particular power for themselves - it is only about personal enjoyment and glory. Raiderism is tribalistic in nature - and thus, not inherently political - although many Raider organisations take up the trappings of political organisation.

Imperialism, it is argued, is a political policy. It is pursued by the political leaderships of regions, whether that is Emperors, Prime Minister or Dictators and then put into action. However, once the policy has been decided upon and imbedded, the driver of Imperialism, the deliberate and consistent use of military power to enhance the region's power, the end of politics in the region is inevitable.

For, once it has been decided to pursue the use of military power there will be a growing accumulation of power into the hands of military commanders  - for once the raison d'etre of the region becomes the use of military force, there is a need for a powerful military leadership in order to realise the policy.

The creation of this powerful military leadership leads to the undermining of politicians, who are fickle and subject to external pressure. Politicians cannot be given too much authority because they may decide either to give up the policy of Imperialism or to select targets that are not preferred to military commanders. Therefore it is necessary for the military to take more control over the region, to ensure that those policies that best enhance the region's military power are pursued. Slowly and surely, therefore, power will be accumulated by military commanders to the point where no decision of real note, and certainly not the policy of Imperialism itself, will be permitted. The only aspects of a region that may be permitted to be freely decided by politicians will be areas such as culture or roleplaying, which have no direct bearing on Nationstates politics and leave the military free to decide important matters of state.

Thus we have our first contradiction - the use of Imperialism is a political policy, but its adoption necessarily leads to the end of politics in the region. Once the military has fully captured the region there is no escape from the use of military power - thus the element of policy choice, critical to a functioning political system is abolished. It is not surprising that Imperialism eventually leads to mindless Raider-like activity because political consideration has been disgarded and military power is and end in itself. Commanders are trapped, they cannot give up power because that would mean abandoning Imperialism, but equally, they cannot stop using military force because that would amount to the same thing. Thus they are pushed to carry out ever more invasions and taggings in order to perpetuate the system - a system that has already collapsed in reality.

In terms of futility, therefore, Imperialism is futile because it is a political policy that necessarily undermines itself. It is self-negation. A region, therefore, would be embarking on a pointless exercise in deciding upon an Imperialist course of action, a course of action that will lead only to its own political self-destruction.

The second contradiction, if one ignores the first which arguably undermines the policy of Imperialism from the very beginning, is the self-undermining nature of Imperialism it terms of its activity.
 
It self-undermining because it necessarily provokes one of two actions from other regions.

1) Balancing. Regions come together to form alliances against Imperialists in order to defend themselves and others from aggression. Eventually, this will balance against the Imperialist region, preventing it from achieving its objectives, thus undermining the use of military power as a means for enhancing its power.

2) Emulation. If Imperialism is 'successful' then other regions will adopt the system, however the logic of Imperialism is individualistic and emulation eventually leads to internal conflict. For if Imperialism is about enhancing a region's own power through military means, why not attack other Imperialists?

Taken in extremis - let us assume that Imperialists are successful and manage to conquer the whole of Nationstates through their activities. Eventually, the logic of Imperialism will force them to turn on eachother - either they will destroy themselves or they will be so perfectly balanced that there will no military action possible, as each move will be countered by the Imperialist powers.

Perhaps, one will eventually be supreme? In which case, there will be no more need for military power and the region will have to look internally to itself.

So the logic of Imperialism eventually leads to the undermining of the use of military power either through balancing, emulation or complete success - all roads of Imperialism lead to its own oblivion.

The third contradiction of Imperialism is the use of fear and coercion to advance a region's power. While Machiavelli famously said that it is better to be feared than loved, experience tells us that consistent use of fear will create one of two things. Either regions will pull up the draw bridge and not engage in Nationstates politics because they are afraid of attack, in which case, the region has not increased its power (only relatively, not absolutely, and the problem of Imperialism being essentially focused on relative gains over absolute gains is another weakness and ignoring the possibility of win-wn situatuons) or they will resist, in which case enemies will have been created - and the creation of enemies where previously there were none, is hardly the increase of power.

So Imperialism, which aims to enhance power, actually either achieves no increase in real power for the region (by chasing others way) or reduces real power (through the creation of enemies).

It is clear, on reflection, that if a region considers Imperialism in great detail they will see the following:

1) Imperialism will undermine the very political institutions that led to its creation - turning Imperialist regions, eventually, into mere Raiders.

2) Imperialism cannot be ultimately successful - it can only achieve temporary success - in the long run, all policies of Imperialism will lead to failure or else, abandonment in favour of internal politics

3) Imperialism does not create power, at best it can create no absolute change, or at worst, it actively create enemies which threaten the power of the region.

Its internal incoherence, a political policy that leads to the abolition of politics; its destiny to always be abandoned and its inability to create absolute power for the region pursuing it demonstrates that Imperialism is a futile policy.

Notes: I immediately sense a number of lines of attack from Imperialists. Firstly, that if an Imperialist region eventually conquers the world, it is not abandoned through failure, but through its own success. However, if the outcome of its own success is the end of the use of military power and internal focus on political and cultural life of the region, then why bother to go through all that military activity in and of itself?

The only answer can be that military activity is a good in itself, to be pursued for its own sake. However, that is exactly what Raiderism is - the sole pursuit of military activity and the abandonment of politics. Therefore, the Imperialist that believes that it is worth going through all that aggression to end with the same result as the peaceful defender, is in reality, merely a Raider dressed in different clothes.

Secondly, there could be an objection that the end of politics is not in itself, a contradiction of Imperialism. However, in order for a region to pursue Imperialism, it must have a policy to do so. To have a policy is to have a polity - i.e. an institution which adjudicates between competing views of what the community should seek to achieve and how it should organise itself. Imperialism necessitates shutting these things down, therefore ending politics and preventing the region from having a 'policy'. A policy implies choice, i.e. that there could be another path taken. Imperialism rejects all other parts except the use of military power. Military activity becomes an end in itself, as above. Therefore, Imperialism is not self-sustaining and this is the nature of the internal contradiction that I have identified.

Thirdly, an Imperialist could answer that relative power is all that counts. Power is not absolute, it can only be in relation to something else that we be said to have power. However, this would lead to the ridiculous path that a region could pursue a policy to make itself weaker, in order to be relatively stronger i.e. alienating allies and chasing other regions away, perhaps even its own citizens, in order to have more power to coerce weaker places than itself.

The Imperialist, may retort that military power is all that counts. However, if that path is taken, then it is the end of politics and the beginning of military fetishism. The path to Raiderism. It should be argued that military power is not the only form of power and if a region wishes to become more powerful, there are other paths - particularly a peace policy - which are likely to create more power in the long term and are not self-undermining.

[Lenny]

Liberate Capitalist Paradise: The Drama Continues in the SC
By Ainin; 26 July 2014


Following Afforess' re-introduction of the proposal to liberate the prominent roleplaying region of Haven earlier this month, sparking much outrage in the roleplaying community and prompting a chain of events that eventually led to his deletion for threatening to hack regional passwords, Nierr proposed a visibly not extremely serious Security Council resolution to liberate Afforess' region, Capitalist Paradise. Using similar arguments to the ones used by Afforess in his Liberate Haven re-draft, including reasoning that its residents are not "fulfilling the region's potential" and that it could be "put to better use", the resolution was submitted on 8 July and quickly reached quorum, aided by delegates looking for a laugh and by roleplayers organising a Security Council filibuster attempt.

"[A] clear trolling attempt designed to grab headlines" was how its author described it when asked by the Lazarene Gazette in an impromptu interview. As it can clearly be seen, this has clearly worked, grabbing mentions in many newspapers.



The Result

The resolution failed by over 5,500 votes, and only enjoyed the support of Detective Figs, delegate of Osiris, among the GCR delegates. It did however gain over a thousand non-delegate votes, which proportionally was an oddity compared to other WA votes. Just the fact that it managed to reach quorum has left many amused, others, notably the natives of Capitalist Paradise, less so, with many rude comments left for the proposal's author on their regional forums.