NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations has a duty to protect the political freedoms of all peoples of earth. It should therefore act to deter dictatorships.
Political stability, freedom and democracy is therefore vital.
Although it is acknowledged that in times of national crisis short periods of dictatorship can be neccesary to avoid a slide into anarchy, long-term dictatorship is dangerous and malevolent.
The Pyrenees therefore moves this resolution- that any country that possesses the UN description 'Dictatorship' for more than two weeks- whether left or right, benevolent or malevolent, calm or psychotic- should be expelled from the United Nations, and lose all rights, priviledges and influence that go with it.
Such sanctions are immediately withdrawn when the states UN description reaches more democratic levels.


The Borderlands of The Pyrenees moves that this proposal should be supported by all democratic and peace loving nations- do other nations agree also?

Now, I would like you to describe the term dictatorship. Our benevolent and enlightened dictator Baron Porkonia does what he feels is best for the people and the country. However, it cannot be denied that the UN considers him a dictator. Does this mean that I must be expelled? Oftentimes, descisions will have unexpected turns of events, making the benevolent dictator suddenly seem oppresive. Does this mean that I should be expelled because of something that happened unexpectedly?

This government is against this proposal and feels that it does not take the unexpected into account.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Dictatorship (or absolute monarchy as those with taste call it) is the good form of government. Particularly in Gordopollis.
It sorts out alot of fundamental problems such as:
1. The majority are not always right - a dictator makes correct decisions not popular ones.
2. The large cost of government. This is reduced. Public money is not squandered on wasteful activities like elections. The people enjoy smaller and more cost efficient goverment. Now thats value for money.
3. Corruption. This is has also been reduced. Our King makes decisions nobody else does.
4. Vulgarity. Allowing the grasping lower orders to make decisions is very unseemly. This sort of thing does not look good to our neigbouring countries. A dictator or monarch looks better.

Dictatorship (or absolute monarchy as those with taste call it) is the good form of government. Particularly in Gordopollis.
It sorts out alot of fundamental problems such as:
1. The majority are not always right - a dictator makes correct decisions not popular ones.
2. The large cost of government. This is reduced. Public money is not squandered on wasteful activities like elections. The people enjoy smaller and more cost efficient goverment. Now thats value for money.
3. Corruption. This is has also been reduced. Our King makes decisions nobody else does.
4. Vulgarity. Allowing the grasping lower orders to make decisions is very unseemly. This sort of thing does not look good to our neigbouring countries. A dictator or monarch looks better.

The "Free" land of Threesomia agrees - mass rule is mob rule! We also make long sighted decisions that save millions of lives in the long run. I've got around 600,000,000 people- what do a few hundred thousand matter today? Also check the stats- most of the "biggest/best" countries are father knows best or some form of dictatorship. People have a freedom and need to eat in my country- they get that. Can all democracies say that. Oh, yeh the ones who slip through the net are sacrificed to some god or another so that keeps the problem down too

We of Jeff Land are also against Dictatorships. The very thought suggests there is a chance of an overthrow of the govenment of Jeff and caused our Most Benevolent Jeff to become sick to his stomach so he was unable to view more than three hours of the daily State executions. But back to the topic: Recently, on what had once been called Election Day in Jeff Land, the Govenment held a 100% manditory poll where Jeff Landians were asked if they felt oppressed in any way. Of course, since it has been seen on NS Satilite News how polling events in other nations are usually sites for danger, the Jeff Land Civil Guard were happy to report that at every polling place, there was never needed more than one example to insure only proper responses were given, leading to an over 99.44% afermation. The number "99.44%" pleased Jeff so much that, on a whim, he declared from this day forward, all Jeff Landians will use nothing but Ivory Soap and that spot-check bathroom inspections (conducted by the Jeff Youth) would begin at once, letting all have yet another opportunity to shout "Isn't Jeff Great!" when the Colors of Jeff suddenly adorn their door! So, yes, we are against dictatorships here in Jeff Land.

The United Nations has a duty to protect the political freedoms of all peoples of earth. It should therefore act to deter dictatorships.
Political stability, freedom and democracy is therefore vital.
Although it is acknowledged that in times of national crisis short periods of dictatorship can be neccesary to avoid a slide into anarchy, long-term dictatorship is dangerous and malevolent.
The Pyrenees therefore moves this resolution- that any country that possesses the UN description 'Dictatorship' for more than two weeks- whether left or right, benevolent or malevolent, calm or psychotic- should be expelled from the United Nations, and lose all rights, priviledges and influence that go with it.
Such sanctions are immediately withdrawn when the states UN description reaches more democratic levels.


The Borderlands of The Pyrenees moves that this proposal should be supported by all democratic and peace loving nations- do other nations agree also?

Such a change requires a change to Game Mechanics; UN resolutions do not currently eject anyone from the UN. Only Game Moderators can eject nations from the UN, and even then only for NationStates rule violations.

Consequently, such a proposal, if submitted to the UN, will be deleted.

If you want to discuss changes to game mechanics, please start a new topic in "Technical".

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Forum Moderator

The Drama Isles has a dictator running the country. True, our nation is very small (about 55 million), but our country, our economy, and our citiznes are all happy. Hell, even our Dictator is elected. In fact, he has term limits imposed upon him by the popular masses. But once in office, he is free to do as he pleases, as long as it will make the Dram Isles greater than it used to be.

Why should we get rid of Dictator who is popularly elected, especially when he does a good job?

What's wrong with a dictatorship? Are you going to come into my country and tell me how I should run it? What if I want to go into your country and say you should be a dictator?

The United Nations has a duty to protect the political freedoms of all peoples of earth. It should therefore act to deter dictatorships.
Political stability, freedom and democracy is therefore vital.
Although it is acknowledged that in times of national crisis short periods of dictatorship can be neccesary to avoid a slide into anarchy, long-term dictatorship is dangerous and malevolent.
The Pyrenees therefore moves this resolution- that any country that possesses the UN description 'Dictatorship' for more than two weeks- whether left or right, benevolent or malevolent, calm or psychotic- should be expelled from the United Nations, and lose all rights, priviledges and influence that go with it.
Such sanctions are immediately withdrawn when the states UN description reaches more democratic levels.


The Borderlands of The Pyrenees moves that this proposal should be supported by all democratic and peace loving nations- do other nations agree also?

Such a change requires a change to Game Mechanics; UN resolutions do not currently eject anyone from the UN. Only Game Moderators can eject nations from the UN, and even then only for NationStates rule violations.

Consequently, such a proposal, if submitted to the UN, will be deleted.

If you want to discuss changes to game mechanics, please start a new topic in "Technical".

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Forum Moderator

Besides, a new nation gets to choose "Dictatorship" as a title, or other titles that imply similar control of the reins of power. A newcomer could innocently choose such a title thinking it would have no adverse consequences and then realize he was banned from UN membership.

I believe that the United Nations would need dictatorships in it, to maintain it's stability and effectiveness because they may support and different view to the debate. Therefore, it is vital to the United Nations to accept this opposition by allowing Dictatorships to speak their thoughts as well.

How DARE you tell our nation how we should rule ourselves. We have seen how time and time again your 'wonderful' democracies vote themselves into poverty, or give away their rights at the drop of a hat if they feel threatened. Any government that is forced to debase itself before the people will almost always end up trapped in the decision to do the right thing, or do the thing that will let them retain their power. The Holy Empire of Illiyun has no such fear, we only need to remain true to our Goddess and follow the laws she set forth, laws that grant rights to ALL people but don't require us to count noses each time we wish to make a decision.

Secondly have you considered what such a resolution would do? Thousands of nations would leave or be removed from the UN if you got such a measure passed, making the body safe for democracies.... but empty of anything that is different, and removing a vital method of resloving conflict from nations with different backgrounds and heritages then your 'democratic' nations.



The Holy Empire of Illiyun
Thru Her Faith We Are Empowered

As Cogitation already said, this proposal violates game mechanics and is thus not even a valid resolution. Thus there seems little point in arguing for or against it as it a moot point.

Cursed! Cursed by that fatal dosage of my own ignorance, my own idealism and the arrogant, self-righteous cynicism of the internet. I'd withdraw the proposal if I could.

The UN is a dictatorship.

Pantocratoria is an Empire whose Emperor rules by divine right, as the direct descendent of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople, and the Kings of France.

Without a legitimate sovereign, there is no state. A government which doesn't have a crowned head at its head has no legitimate authority or right to rule. Democracy is a privilege the sovereign devolves to his subjects. If a sovereign doesn't deign to extend this privilege to his subjects, then his subjects have no legitimate recourse, and nor does the United Nations have legitimate cause to impune on his princely right.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

Pantocratoria is an Empire whose Emperor rules by divine right, as the direct descendent of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople, and the Kings of France.

Without a legitimate sovereign, there is no state. A government which doesn't have a crowned head at its head has no legitimate authority or right to rule. Democracy is a privilege the sovereign devolves to his subjects. If a sovereign doesn't deign to extend this privilege to his subjects, then his subjects have no legitimate recourse, and nor does the United Nations have legitimate cause to impune on his princely right.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

The legitimate recourse is that of revolution. The US Declaration of Independence says so. And "divine" sovereigns bleed when they are shot or beheaded just like normal people do. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants!

The Federated State of West Caesarea does not recognize the relevence of the US Declaration of Independance. I mean, why would we care what a piddly 300 million person state says?

The Federated State of West Caesarea does not recognize the relevence of the US Declaration of Independance. I mean, why would we care what a piddly 300 million person state says?

When that country is by far the strongest one on Earth, you should.

Besides, the Declaration is not just an American document. It's an ideal that has been reflected in similiar declarations the world over and an ideal that all nations should strive for.

Democracy demanded from within is worthy. Democracy imposed from without might as well be tyranny.

Democracy is something that should only arise if the people of a nation demand it. If not, then there is no legal or moral reason to require it to be instituted.

If the people of Pantocratoria want a Monarch then they are entitled to one. If they don't, they are equally entitled to revolt.

Seeing as that requires a game workings change, it won't happen.

Democracy demanded from within is worthy. Democracy imposed from without might as well be tyranny.

Democracy is something that should only arise if the people of a nation demand it. If not, then there is no legal or moral reason to require it to be instituted.

If the people of Pantocratoria want a Monarch then they are entitled to one. If they don't, they are equally entitled to revolt.

I disagree. If EVERYONE (non-criminal) in Pantocratoria wants a Monarch, then let them have one. Otherwise, you HAVE to establish a system of laws that protects EVERYONE's rights. Otherwise, it is slavery.

Though I agree that they do have the right to revolt.

We of Letila, decendents of the glorious nation of Terra Pvlchra, are strongly opposed to dictatorships.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Letila, may I ask why you oppose Dictatorships? I mean you just do not oppose something without reasons.

AB.IMP.CAES.GEKKO.MALLEVS.REX.ETVRIAE.IMP.LAT.SEMP.AVG

What then is a dictatorship, for a nation where the largest segment of the population prefers the dictatorship over a democratic government, but an expression of democracy? Supposing the dictator works, as he should, to the benefits and wishes of his people, more a servant than a ruler, or at least a benevolent father, so that the dictator's wishes are identical to those of the majority, then how shall the state be any different in effect than a democracy, where the direct opinion of the majority is affected? Indeed, if the dictator's wishes mirror those of the majority, yet he oppresses not the minority, the only difference between the dictatorship and the democracy is that the dictatorship is more efficient, with lengthy objections and troubles from undue special interest groups, which would not be heeded in a true democracy, ignored in favor of the will of the people. Also, while anyone may purchase an advertisement, for a product or political agenda, which would affect the votes of a great number of voters who would not logicaly consider the issue at hand, such base arguments and suggestions would have little effect on a wise and learned head of state, who We maintain should aspire to be the magnanimous and beneficient shepherd of his people.

May We laud New Clarkhall's summation, "Democracy demanded from within is worthy. Democracy imposed from without might as well be tyranny. "

And, similarly, let us not forget the primary civil right of any people, to revolt against a cruel, corrupt, and oppressive government, by any means necessary, in pursuit of life and freedom.

I posted this a long time ago. This describes my government, and partial my belief on Dictatorships. Just so that you have an idea at where I am coming from.


My personal beliefs are unique. For one thing I am a Dictatorship. You guess already where this is going.

I give my people freedom to do as they please in the sense that it is within limitations.

I feel that the more power you give to the people the more they take advantage of it to use against you. As a dictatorship you should not completely silence the voice of the people, but keep it within limitations. You must show the people that you hold supreme power over them and they must follow those limitations or suffer the consquences thereafter.

As you see though, it is all a choice on whether you want to oppress you people or let them be free. In my case, I mediate them both. I allow them the freedom as long as they understand that what I say goes and they must abide by it to live a happy life.

If they choose not to abide by it then a coup d'etat must be attempted and they must win, to overthrow me and establish their government.

The idea is sound, but it needs the wording changed. We are not discouraging dictators, but tyrants. A tyrant is someone who acquires their power by domination and force. A dictator is someone who exercises unlimitted power over a given population. They are often used interchangably because they are often one-in-the-same, but the words have very different meanings. There are people who believe that dictatorships are the most efficient and effective governments and would voluntarily live under them, we should not prevent that because we would be limitting their political freedoms ourselves.

I see. Well worded.

I hold complete power over my region, and what I say goes. However, I am lenient and allow people alot of free space. It was not until this past week that we banned our first person, after all the time on this game. I think that justifies about how lenient and tolerant I am, but do not get me wrong, I can have my moods.

Pantocratoria is an Empire whose Emperor rules by divine right, as the direct descendent of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople, and the Kings of France.

Without a legitimate sovereign, there is no state. A government which doesn't have a crowned head at its head has no legitimate authority or right to rule. Democracy is a privilege the sovereign devolves to his subjects. If a sovereign doesn't deign to extend this privilege to his subjects, then his subjects have no legitimate recourse, and nor does the United Nations have legitimate cause to impune on his princely right.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

The legitimate recourse is that of revolution. The US Declaration of Independence says so. And "divine" sovereigns bleed when they are shot or beheaded just like normal people do. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants!

A piece of paper written by wretched rebels seeking to justify their treason and disloyalty against their rightful liege does not make their rebellion in the slightest bit legitimate. The US Declaration of Independence makes the American War of Independence no more legitimate than a murderer writing a note saying "I didn't like my victim, so I shot him" would make a murder legitimate.

Furthermore, sovereigns are not divine. They rule by divine right, but are not divine themselves, even Emperors, who are God's vicegerents on Earth, the Equals of the Apostles, would never claim to be divine, at least not Christian Emperors. That they bleed and die like common folk, albeit with more dignity, is unsurprising.

Nations are not defined by their inhabitants but their sovereigns. Nations do not own their sovereigns - kingship is the personal perogative of princes, and nationhood follows from that perogative. Quite literally, to quote our ancestor Louis XIV: "L'état - c'est moi!"

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

The idea is sound, but it needs the wording changed. We are not discouraging dictators, but tyrants. A tyrant is someone who acquires their power by domination and force. A dictator is someone who exercises unlimitted power over a given population. They are often used interchangably because they are often one-in-the-same, but the words have very different meanings. There are people who believe that dictatorships are the most efficient and effective governments and would voluntarily live under them, we should not prevent that because we would be limitting their political freedoms ourselves.

Indeed, it hardly seems fair to ban a benevolent despot simply because his governmental structure is similar to that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That the United Nations would even consider painting all those who do not feel the need to be elected with the same brush is quite unacceptable! And this is to say nothing of monarchs!

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

Pantocratoria is an Empire whose Emperor rules by divine right, as the direct descendent of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople, and the Kings of France.

Without a legitimate sovereign, there is no state. A government which doesn't have a crowned head at its head has no legitimate authority or right to rule. Democracy is a privilege the sovereign devolves to his subjects. If a sovereign doesn't deign to extend this privilege to his subjects, then his subjects have no legitimate recourse, and nor does the United Nations have legitimate cause to impune on his princely right.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

The legitimate recourse is that of revolution. The US Declaration of Independence says so. And "divine" sovereigns bleed when they are shot or beheaded just like normal people do. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants!

A piece of paper written by wretched rebels seeking to justify their treason and disloyalty against their rightful liege does not make their rebellion in the slightest bit legitimate. The US Declaration of Independence makes the American War of Independence no more legitimate than a murderer writing a note saying "I didn't like my victim, so I shot him" would make a murder legitimate.

Furthermore, sovereigns are not divine. They rule by divine right, but are not divine themselves, even Emperors, who are God's vicegerents on Earth, the Equals of the Apostles, would never claim to be divine, at least not Christian Emperors. That they bleed and die like common folk, albeit with more dignity, is unsurprising.

Nations are not defined by their inhabitants but their sovereigns. Nations do not own their sovereigns - kingship is the personal perogative of princes, and nationhood follows from that perogative. Quite literally, to quote our ancestor Louis XIV: "L'état - c'est moi!"

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

And... what makes the "Divine Right" more legitimate than the Declaration? At least people actually WROTE the Declaration.

Pantocratoria is an Empire whose Emperor rules by divine right, as the direct descendent of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople, and the Kings of France.

Without a legitimate sovereign, there is no state. A government which doesn't have a crowned head at its head has no legitimate authority or right to rule. Democracy is a privilege the sovereign devolves to his subjects. If a sovereign doesn't deign to extend this privilege to his subjects, then his subjects have no legitimate recourse, and nor does the United Nations have legitimate cause to impune on his princely right.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

The legitimate recourse is that of revolution. The US Declaration of Independence says so. And "divine" sovereigns bleed when they are shot or beheaded just like normal people do. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants!

A piece of paper written by wretched rebels seeking to justify their treason and disloyalty against their rightful liege does not make their rebellion in the slightest bit legitimate. The US Declaration of Independence makes the American War of Independence no more legitimate than a murderer writing a note saying "I didn't like my victim, so I shot him" would make a murder legitimate.

Furthermore, sovereigns are not divine. They rule by divine right, but are not divine themselves, even Emperors, who are God's vicegerents on Earth, the Equals of the Apostles, would never claim to be divine, at least not Christian Emperors. That they bleed and die like common folk, albeit with more dignity, is unsurprising.

Nations are not defined by their inhabitants but their sovereigns. Nations do not own their sovereigns - kingship is the personal perogative of princes, and nationhood follows from that perogative. Quite literally, to quote our ancestor Louis XIV: "L'état - c'est moi!"

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

And... what makes the "Divine Right" more legitimate than the Declaration? At least people actually WROTE the Declaration.

And... what makes the "Divine Right" more legitimate than the Declaration? At least people actually WROTE the Declaration.

:shock: Erm... because it is divine right as opposed to an artificial construct?

In the Confederacy of Free Morons, it was decided that there is nothing particularly wrong with a dictatorship, but no one was really interested in pledging their undying allegiance to "that moron" (at one time or another, every citizen got to be "that moron."), or doing what "that freakin' moron" said just because he/she is the dictator.

A dictatorship can be a very effective form of government. It puts necessary limits on free will, which is obviously necessary from the point of view of the dictator...less so from the point of view of the oppressed.

The Ninth Speaker of the Confederacy of Free Morons.

And... what makes the "Divine Right" more legitimate than the Declaration? At least people actually WROTE the Declaration.

:shock: Erm... because it is divine right as opposed to an artificial construct?

How can you PROVE that it is divine right? Otherwise, it is STILL an artificial construct with a different name?

And... what makes the "Divine Right" more legitimate than the Declaration? At least people actually WROTE the Declaration.

:shock: Erm... because it is divine right as opposed to an artificial construct?

How can you PROVE that it is divine right? Otherwise, it is STILL an artificial construct with a different name?


Well... erm... erm... I get annointed with holy oil in a Cathedral by the Archbishop and they sing hymns and such.

But let's not turn the issue into one of divine right - if you recognise a form of government as legitimate to begin with (in the case of Great Britain, a constitutional monarchy governed by an elected parliament), that government does not simply become illegitimate when it makes laws which its subjects doesn't like.

The United States was founded on such a premise, and yet its own constitution maintains that its states cannot legitimately leave the US. Doesn't this then appear to contradict its declaration of independence from Great Britain? In both cases, a legitimate government is already in place, and yet somehow an insignificant piece of paper justifies rebellion against the legitimate government in one case, and another such piece of paper forbids rebellion against the legitimate government in the other. These respective pieces of paper then are clearly not generically applicable to all nations and all governments. Far from being universal, they must be limited in scope to the case of the United States alone.

My point in this is simple - for you to claim that the declaration of indepence gives the people of Pantocratoria or any other nation the right to rebel against a government they feel to be overly restrictive of their liberty is nonsense. This declaration is clearly not universal in nature; if it was, the US Constitution would directly contradict it. The declaration was clearly intended only to justify American colonists rebelling against British rule, not to justify all people everywhere rebelling against anybody's rule.

Here in Pantocratoria, where the US has a declaration made by rebels, we have the divine right of Emperors tracing back to the days of Rome. Where The Global Market has a government which "is best which governs least", Pantocratoria has a government which proactively protects that which it deems to be in the best interests of its subjects.

You insist that if "EVERYONE in Pantocratoria wants a Monarch, then let them have one. Otherwise, you HAVE to establish a system of laws that protects EVERYONE's rights. Otherwise, it is slavery.... Though I agree that they do have the right to revolt."

As a member of the United Nations, Pantocratoria abides by all UN resolutions, even the absurd ones. This includes extending all manners of rights to our subjects. But that doesn't change the fact that our subjects only have these rights because we choose to extend them to them in our infinite mercy. They most certainly do not have the inherent right to pick and choose their form of government. God has determined that they should have a monarch. They are our subjects - subjects do not dispense with their liege at a whim, nor do they have any right to do so. Our subjects have the right to vote in free elections to determine the Imperial Government - we have devolved this right to them as a sign of our confidence in their judgment. If we are dissatisfied with their judgment as expressed through these elections, we of course can ignore it or overturn it. In the 250 years since the Imperial Parliament was established, we have never had reason to overturn the results of any election. The point? Simply that just because all sovereignty and all power is concentrated in the person of the monarch doesn't mean that it is misused.

We shall conclude this rather lengthy diatribe simply - don't decide that the Pantocratorian system of government is somehow inherently wrong, as this proposed resolution suggests, without at least coming to visit the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria. Come and see what the United Nations classifies as a "Psychotic Dictatorship" before you write off all governments classified as such. We believe that you will be pleasantly surprised, and if you are not, we don't care.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

OOC: Sorry for the rant. :shock:

Because "God" or a god says so?

Because "God" or a god says so?

Indeed! A better reason as "we the people" saying so, one would venture.

Ausinantania does not agree with your proposal.

Our Colony of Makoronia is more or less a dictatorship as is our Ally Dandelonia. Why ban a form of government from the UN? To ban a form of government is to exclude a part of the world that could have much to offer.

To do this will only cause those nations to become angry with the organization, which could lead to possible war.

Because "God" or a god says so?

Indeed! A better reason as "we the people" saying so, one would venture.

Prove that "a god" or "God" exists in the first place.

I'm not an atheist personally, but I believe that laws should be based on empirically observable facts. "God exists" isn't one of them.

A government doesn't become illegitimate when it passes an unpopular law. But it DOES become illegitimate when it passes MANY tyrannical laws with the effect of reducing the people to bondage under arbitrary power. The Declaration of Independence says that [paraphrase] "prudence shall dictate that governments long established shall not be thrown off for light and transient reasons, but when a long chain of abuses and usurpations..." Ultimate sovereignity lies in the rights of the people. Government laws must derive from that.

Dictatorship, for whatever reason, has been bestowed a negative connotation. This is undeserved.
Our dictator, Supreme Chancellor Griffin, here in Griffindon, may be powerfull, but he his not a malevolent, vicious ruler. Nor does he make decisions based on his personal whims. Although he is not governed by anyone, Griffindon does have a congress of representatives which is vital to their government. These representatives work with the common man much closer than a single ruler can, keeping the Supreme Chancellor from micromanaging. These congressman are directly elected by the people of Griffindon. The Supreme Chancellor, meanwhile, is elected by the representatives. He serves a life term, which can end in one of three ways: 1) Death, 2) Resignation or 3) a 2/3 majority of the congress votes him out of office.
This system has worked fully. It keeps the Chancellor form asserting too much power, but allows him to work how he sees fit. If he makes mistakes, congress can see to it that he is overthrown.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, helps keep the congress and the Chancellor from conspiring. The nominees are selected by the Chancellor. The people then elect 7 individuals from the Chancellor's list to serve on the court, then congress can either approve or disapprove the Justices.
As you can see, our dictatorship does not infringe on "human rights." It merely keeps the common man who has not the credentials to run a country from getting his say.

Prove that "a god" or "God" exists in the first place.

I'm not an atheist personally, but I believe that laws should be based on empirically observable facts. "God exists" isn't one of them.

A government doesn't become illegitimate when it passes an unpopular law. But it DOES become illegitimate when it passes MANY tyrannical laws with the effect of reducing the people to bondage under arbitrary power. The Declaration of Independence says that [paraphrase] "prudence shall dictate that governments long established shall not be thrown off for light and transient reasons, but when a long chain of abuses and usurpations..." Ultimate sovereignity lies in the rights of the people. Government laws must derive from that.

We cannot prove that God exists without a leap of faith. But by the same measure, The Global Market cannot prove the absurd notion that sovereignity lies in the rights of the people, nor that government laws must derive from that. That concept is just as baseless an assertion as you claim the concept of rule by divine right to be.

Besides, we feel that we adequately refuted the Declaration of Independence as an acceptable justification for the labelling of any sort of government as illegitimate. It is even less universal in nature than the concept of the princely perogative and divine right to rule.

You have furnished us with nothing but your opinion about why our form of government is inherently illegitimate. All we are asking is that the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria shouldn't be exiled from the international community simply because your opinion and the opinion of the United Nations is offended by our system of government. To apply your personal opinion as to what a government "should be" to Pantocratoria is simply unacceptable.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

there are 1000's of various types of governments in this world and some of them are very oppressive, to say the least....


we have elections and have one of the better ran countries in the game... it takes a true balance of being a politician but thinking like a citizen to maintain a true acting government..

we will never be able to get rid of dictators...but if the oppression of people is there..they will leave those shores and seek saftey elsewhere,our borders are always open and our region will defend us till the end...

How do you decide that you are one of the better run countries in the game. What defines that?

And... what makes the "Divine Right" more legitimate than the Declaration? At least people actually WROTE the Declaration.

:shock: Erm... because it is divine right as opposed to an artificial construct?

How can you PROVE that it is divine right? Otherwise, it is STILL an artificial construct with a different name?

Reality flows from the barrel of a gun. I've got the power, I'm the king, that's just the way it works if that's the way I want it to work. Isn't tyranny wonderful?

Because "God" or a god says so?

Indeed! A better reason as "we the people" saying so, one would venture.

Prove that "a god" or "God" exists in the first place.

I'm not an atheist personally, but I believe that laws should be based on empirically observable facts. "God exists" isn't one of them.


Prove that you exist in the first place