NationStates Jolt Archive


26-10-2003, 16:47
why should you as a nation leader give freedom to your people, all it does is make them ungreatful they just want more and more and if you dont give it to them they strike or moan so why bother? Why not just keep them in line with a swift hand and a IRON FIST
26-10-2003, 17:02
Actually, most of the people here in the UWS are grateful for their freedom, and those that aren't are kept in line by the Jack Booted Dissent Squashers(TM)! :twisted:

But this doesn't seem like the right forum to post this.
26-10-2003, 17:17
uh because if you limit the amount of freedom it makes them want to work harder. its like asking for a cookie and your mom says not until you clean your room. If they work hard for a while then reward them with a little extra something.
The Global Market
26-10-2003, 19:01
Because states have NO right whatsoever to tramp on individual rights without due process of LAW. Otherwise, they are CRIMINAL states.
26-10-2003, 19:02
Because states have NO right whatsoever to tramp on individual rights without due process of LAW. Otherwise, they are CRIMINAL states.

:shock: I concur.
26-10-2003, 19:54
i also concurr with Global Market!!! :shock:
27-10-2003, 03:20
Well one famous quote that Joseph Stalin made is:
"If you have freedom,then there is no state.If you have a state,then there is no freedom."

There is basically no freedom even when you think you give it to them.
27-10-2003, 10:41
Because ultimately, the ruler is subject to the ruled. Revolutions rarely happen against permissive governments. The leader is quite often the biggest sheep if to no other than the ideology s/he uses to control the masses. Leader and led are two ever struggling power structures. At first glance the struggle is zero sum in which one gains ground at the expense of the other. However, when one gives freely to the other, the expense seems to disappear. The zero sum comes from taking what was not offered.

I interpret the Stallin quote as being the idealized final product of communism, namely a cessation of the power of the state to the people, thus dissolving the state. A civil anarchy.
27-10-2003, 11:29
Actually I think stalin stated just what he had noticed.
One of the reasons capitalism doesn't like states, it seems to reduce economic freedom and they think that is bad. (to an extend they have a point :P), non the less it counts for states everywhere.
To be more precise, it is the effect of any law, or any ethical rule. Just try, you will notice I am right. Any falsifications I am more than intrested in. Do note that one of the most important restrictions laws give is "though shall as private individual not dominate others". This is clearly a restriction. You are not allowed to dominate. But on a way it results in more freedom than if people where allowed. And that is usually the goal of laws. That you will also notice to be true a lot, though harder to detect.

It has to be noted indeed that you are always free from the state if you want to. You always have the ability to revolt. And if enough people agree with you, unless the biggest sheep happens to be super man or have some other inhuman powers, you succeed.
The power of a leader is actually completely based on the support and the willingness of people to follow him. He is just human, and he will bleed when cut. :P. The only reason why he is in power is people listen to him. Whether is it through royal right, the fact that people voted for him
em, the fact god supports him (this is a touchy one to some people) or the fact that you threaten to shoot them. Do note that your power is then based on the fact that people are willing to shoot for you, and others prefere not to be shot. I mean, one person, human that is, cannot take on a population of 5 milion -1, and that is the minimum size of a nationstate :P.
This is a little detail leaders try to talk out of your mind as fast as is possible so you do not get funny idea's. However it remains true no matter what they say.
There for I like as leader to use the doctrine,"I am the leader because people believe I make there lives better. And the best way to make them believe it, is by actually doing it. Any other way as main attempt is a lie that will be discovered some time in the future. And results in a coup."
Do note that a little bit of trickery can help on the short term though :P

Also note that if a leader tries to remain in power with the use of force problems arise. For example by sharing there benifolence with a smaller group, which it can use to supress the other group. The problems will result in a later detronement of the leader, or economic, political, are religious system/person. However in return it is often more voilent. For example the french revolution which was delayed incredable through heavy supression from a system that clearly was not making the life better of the subjects resulted in a horrible voilent revolution, and the beheading of all the leaders.
I also like to add that democracy has used this funny effect. To stop people from having to revolt, it suggests a vote of confidence in the leader. If he doesn't have to he is asked politely to step down. This usually happens because when they don't get the vote of confidence (the opposition won) non of the burocrats or the army tends to listen anymore. :P Because the leader gives up his position so easily when he is no lonhrt considered benificial, democratic revolutions (basically each election) are almost completely voilentless.

The terms I use personally would be, focus on humans
In the beginning there there was chaos. Then people put restrictions on themselves which increased there chance for survival and made them stronger. This social constructs are kept voluntairly. But sometimes they also consists of the use of force and punishment to keep them intact.
The original use of it was that keeping them collectively increased the survival of the group, and therefor the individual. However a social construct is not a nature law and can be voilated any time you want. With consequences from possible punishment and the reduction the survival chance of the group. This often means als a reduction of survival rating of the individual. If the survival of the individual is increased more from breaking the social construct than a person suffers from a reduction of the survival rating of the group, the social construct will be broken.

ps. Translate the terms in your own language and things like crime, revolution, and obedience become clear to you. Well in my "opinion" then. Though eventually I will probably be able to make it scientificly stick.
It also touches things which effect behavoir as the group becomes larger.

For the intrested it draws a heavy basis on a scienticly discared explanation of altruism. Which was I think wrongly discarded and replaced by an infirior theory. It was discared because overseeing some of the consequences of not being alruistic.
Oppressed Possums
27-10-2003, 15:30
Because states have NO right whatsoever to tramp on individual rights without due process of LAW. Otherwise, they are CRIMINAL states.

What's wrong with a criminal states? Shouldn't it be up to the individual nations to do what they want?