NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest army in it's region, but the weakest economy.

OR

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest economy in it's region, but the weakest army?

Debate.

Tacos.

An Ideal nation must provide easy access to plentiful supplies of high quality tacos. *nod*

I agree, a nation can't be ideal without tacos! Good Work! ;)

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest army in it's region, but the weakest economy.

OR

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest economy in it's region, but the weakest army?

Debate.

The second one, because less people die by gunfire and more of obesity

A good balance of both. There is no point having a strong army if your people are starving. Likewise, there is no point having an almighty economy if you have no way to defend it from those around you.

Good Point, Less Gunfire is important, but wanting obesity? That's just insanity! :D

I think you have made a good point, nonetheless!

That is a very,very good point? Perhaps, you would like to be an honoury member of my new region - Middle Britannia?

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest army in it's region, but the weakest economy.

OR

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest economy in it's region, but the weakest army?

Debate.

Well, if it's simply an all or nothing proposition, I'd prefer my nation to have the strongest economy. A nation would be able to defend itself with a strong economy and weak military (through stabilizing surrounding nations and establishing friendly relations through aid and such), but a nation with a strong military and weak economy wouldn't be able to survive, through food shortages, lack of goods, etc. Of course, you could always force nations in your region to give you stuff, but it's hardly a sustainable arrangement, is it?

I agree, though- Tacos are essential.

Another fascinating point! Check your telegraphs (I'm that impressed!) :p

I prefer a nation built on the principles of nudity and brutally oppressing everything that moves :)

also the national animal and currency shall be something funny like my nations national treasure the native ass or citizens trading dreams for food and mortgages

Interesting that you want a nude, opressed nation! :rolleyes:

I appreciate your humour!

Another fascinating point! Check your telegraphs (I'm that impressed!) :p

If you're impressed by that, check out some the more veteran members on here. That statement wasn't really that fascinating.

I am impressed, I'm not saying it's the most impressive I've EVER seen, but I think it is a good point? Will you accept you invitation, Sir Costello Music? :confused:

the first priority of the ideal nation is neither the strength of its military nor that of its (symbolic value) economy, but rather the experiential quality of living in it for the maximum possible of all who do, and a similarly positive influence and bennificence to all life and awairness throughout the world it shares.

gross happiness product is far more meaningful then any twiddling of symbolic value, and certainly more rewarding then its capacity for bullying others.

=^^=
.../\...

the first priority of the ideal nation is neither the strength of its military nor that of its (symbolic value) economy, but rather the experiential quality of living in it for the maximum possible of all who do, and a similarly positive influence and bennificence to all life and awairness throughout the world it shares.

gross happiness product is far more meaningful then any twiddling of symbolic value, and certainly more rewarding then its capacity for bullying others.

=^^=
.../\...
I already mentioned tacos. *nod*

That is a very,very good point? Perhaps, you would like to be an honoury member of my new region - Middle Britannia?

Israeli England, please don't advertise your region in General.

I am impressed, I'm not saying it's the most impressive I've EVER seen, but I think it is a good point? Will you accept you invitation, Sir Costello Music? :confused:

Also, please don't invite people to your region in General.

And, just in case that TG you mentioned earlier was an invitation to your region, please don't do that, either.

If you want to recruit, advertise, spruik, solicit or anything else for a player-created region, do it in Gameplay.

General is for discussions, arguments and other forms of verbal brawl.

And tacos, of course.

Israeli England, please don't advertise your region in General.



Also, please don't invite people to your region in General.

And, just in case that TG you mentioned earlier was an invitation to your region, please don't do that, either.

If you want to recruit, advertise, spruik, solicit or anything else for a player-created region, do it in Gameplay.

*hands you a taco* :)

the first priority of the ideal nation is neither the strength of its military nor that of its (symbolic value) economy, but rather the experiential quality of living in it for the maximum possible of all who do, and a similarly positive influence and bennificence to all life and awairness throughout the world it shares.

"The first priority of a nation," confuses me. A nation has no priorities. Don't you mean Government? In which case you are not addressing the question.

gross happiness product is far more meaningful then any twiddling of symbolic value, and certainly more rewarding then its capacity for bullying others.

Gross happiness product certainly is more important than economic power, and obviously more important than military power. But you have to ask yourself, how is happiness achieved?

*hands you a taco* :)

*pokes taco suspiciously*

Please tell me there's no chocolate in this. I have barely recovered from my rabbit-related excesses.

But you have to ask yourself, how is happiness achieved?

http://z.about.com/d/portlandor/1/7/Q/0/-/-/la_sirenita_tacos.jpg

*pokes taco suspiciously*

Please tell me there's no chocolate in this. I have barely recovered from my rabbit-related excesses.

No chocolate. (Chocolate in a taco? O.o)

Edit: Well, there is the Choco Taco: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t183/pootspuller/CHOCOTACO.gif

http://z.about.com/d/portlandor/1/7/Q/0/-/-/la_sirenita_tacos.jpg

So...happiness comes from tacos.

IT ALL BECOMES CLEAR NOW.

No chocolate. (Chocolate in a taco? O.o)

http://www.bettycrocker.com/images/beautyshots/r38453fp.jpg

Google image search says yes. I approve of this foodstuff.

http://www.bettycrocker.com/images/beautyshots/r38453fp.jpg

Google image search says yes. I approve of this foodstuff.

Mmm... That looks tasty.

Have you no mercy? Moderate yourselves for the next few minutes, willyer, I have to go talk to Ralph on the Big White Telephone ... ohmigod ...

"The first priority of a nation," confuses me. A nation has no priorities. Don't you mean Government? In which case you are not addressing the question.

if a nation can have no priorities, how can anything be more or less important to it. if i'm not addressing the question, please explain the question.



Gross happiness product certainly is more important than economic power, and obviously more important than military power. But you have to ask yourself, how is happiness achieved?

lg's tacos are a good place to start, or perhapse symbolicly. happiness is a byproduct of being in the proccess of doing what you enjoy.

what a nation (what exactly DO you mean by a nation OTHER then a government? do you mean society/culture in the anthropological sense, rocks, trees, geography and little furry creatures? what?) or yes, whatever form of social organization claims soverignty over a territory or culture, can do about that, is in its policies, encourage or at least avoid discouraging, people to permit themselves to enjoy the exercise of whatever intellictual and creative capacities they may happen to have (OTHER then swinging their arms through spaces occupied by each other's noses, including that of nature's cycles of renewal all depend upon)

=^^=
.../\...

Have you no mercy? Moderate yourselves for the next few minutes, willyer, I have to go talk to Ralph on the Big White Telephone ... ohmigod ...

I'd like to show sympathy, but as I haven't had chocolate, caffeine or soda in 24 days, I have very little to spare.

if a nation can have no priorities, how can anything be more or less important to it. if i'm not addressing the question, please explain the question.

The question is strongest military/weakest economy or weakest military/strongest economy. If you don't think either is ideal (as I'm sure most of us do), then say which one you'd prefer. Don't just say "Oh happiness is more important." Think upon happiness as an independent variable in this hypothetical scenario.

what a nation (what exactly DO you mean by a nation OTHER then a government? do you mean society/culture in the anthropological sense, rocks, trees, geography and little furry creatures? what?) or yes, whatever form of social organization claims soverignty over a territory or culture, can do about that, is in its policies, encourage or at least avoid discouraging, people to permit themselves to enjoy the exercise of whatever intellictual and creative capacities they may happen to have (OTHER then swinging their arms through spaces occupied by each other's noses, including that of nature's cycles of renewal all depend upon)


I was asking you what you meant. As a "nation," (ie. a bunch of people and some trees) we have no priorities. It is as a Govt. or individual people where we have priorities. Happiness emanates from quality of life and enjoying what you do. Quality of life largely results from good economic
circumstances and Government spending to ensure good educational standards, high life expectancy, etc. The money that is used to power these things comes from where?

The economy.

Ergo a priority for the Gov. to ensure happiness is to keep the economy strong (if it had the power, which governments rarely do) and wise spending on social services.

If you don't think either is ideal (as I'm sure most of us do), then say which one you'd prefer.

this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. if i don't aggree then aggree? and if "most of us do" then "most of us" are idiots.


As a "nation," (ie. a bunch of people and some trees) we have no priorities.

this is also nonsense. even trees have priorities, even if they can't express them verbally.

Quality of life largely results from good economic circumstances wrong. symbolic value has nothing to do with real gratification. creating and exploring do. the myth of equating symbolic value with real value is how people are brainwashed in today's world.

"money" doesn't "power" anything. emotional attatchment to what people get conned into believing it represents is the carrot side of keeping them brainwashed.

all resources come ultimately from either nature or the ground, which is also part of it. governments keep people dependent on themselves by making it difficult, impossible, or illegal, for them to individually exploit its boundy personally and directly.

=^^=
.../\...

this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. if i don't aggree then aggree? and if "most of us do" then "most of us" are idiots.

this is also nonsense. even trees have priorities, even if they can't express them verbally.

wrong. symbolic value has nothing to do with real gratification. creating and exploring do. the myth of equating symbolic value with real value is how people are brainwashed in today's world.

"money" doesn't "power" anything. emotional attatchment to what people get conned into believing it represents is the carrot side of keeping them brainwashed.

=^^=
.../\...

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it does buy you a fast car, two girls and a bag of cocaine and that's enough for me*.

The nation, nay Grand Duchy of Barringtonia provides free fast cars, free males and females - we don't disciminate - and a bag of cocaine to all our citizens. We find it keeps them occupied, unlikely to revolt and they are certainly happy if not a little manic.

We can do this because we sit on enormous amounts of oil, oil we artificially inflate by joining with a cartel and controlling prices.

all resources come ultimately from either nature or the ground, which is also part of it. governments keep people dependent on themselves by making it difficult, impossible, or illegal, for them to individually exploit its boundy personally and directly.

At the heart of it, this is why you need government, because if I'm sitting on huge amount of oil and you're not, I'm probably buying you fairly soon, probably kick you off the land unless your rent's on time.

The wealth of a nation should be for the entire nation.

*Wish it was my quote but it's, probably poorly paraphrased, by some comic I can't remember.

I'm sorry for advertising my region on this thread, mr moderator person!

I'm glad this thread has sparked some interesting conversation, and also, the talk of tacos is making me hungry?

Anyone got a good recipe to make them?

Yum, Yum! :cool:

Strongest economy, but weakest army. You can go from butter to guns quite easily. It's hard to go the other way with little capital to start off with.

Strong army + weak economy = you'll be forced into an unsustainable warfare phase followed by absolute collapse. Seek international aid.

Strong economy + weak military = you'll be invaded by the people with strong armies and weak economies. Stabilize the nations around you and make lots of friends.

I'm sorry for advertising my region on this thread, mr moderator person!

I'm glad this thread has sparked some interesting conversation, and also, the talk of tacos is making me hungry?

Anyone got a good recipe to make them?

Yum, Yum! :cool:

That's okay, just read the stickied threads at the top of this forum and you'll know what not to do. It's Ms moderator, BTW.

The thread's sparked some interesting conversation because that's what General is (supposedly) for. Usually, when a person starts a thread, they keep popping in to agree, disagree with or comment on the various arguments.

What do you, as the OP (Original Poster) think of some of the points that have been raised?

(PS: You can ignore the tacos, though. My contribution to that was a spammy lapse brought on by yesterday's chocolate high. I am repenting it today.)

Interesting that you want a nude, opressed nation! :rolleyes:

yes well the ideal nation is too lazy to enforce either so its nice to have both of these policy's in the books

the police state stops those pesky college students who wake me up a frigging bank holiday to provide some crap to sign (:mad:) and the nudity keeps away the prudes

It's Ms moderator, BTW.

tits or gtfo! *cowers* :p

(PS: You can ignore the tacos, though. My contribution to that was a spammy lapse brought on by yesterday's chocolate high. I am repenting it today.)

eat some Chinese food, I did it and I promise you that I am 10% fine right now

show me a rock or a tree that is greatly impressed by any, even an infinite, amount of little green pieces of paper. or bullets either for that matter.

no. the human ego is rediculous.
there's a big universe out there with no reason in hell to be impressed by it.
nor are our invisible friends likely to be, however otherwise unconditional their love.

to claim that the most import thing to any "nation", let alone an ideal one, is either the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper, or its ability to bully others, is either ignorance, or premeditated deception.

now an army might be important to a government, to borrow that distinction, at least a sufficiently corrupt and tyrannical one. but i would hardly call a nation possessed of such governance ideal in any sense of the word.

nor would i call so one that puts anything ahead of the real effects of real policies on real people, places and things.

all governments are a burden, some may justify that burden by providing real bennifit. but their existence is not inheirently bennifical at all.

only infrastructure, useful, physical infrastructure, to the degree THAT requires social organization, bennifits from it. that and helping each other out, which is the only reason ever to band togather in the first place.

=^^=
.../\...

show me a rock or a tree that is greatly impressed by any, even an infinite, amount of little green pieces of paper. or bullets either for that matter.
no. the human ego is rediculous.
there's a big universe out there with no reason in hell to be impressed by it.
nor are our invisible friends likely to be, however otherwise unconditional their love.
to claim that the most import thing to any "nation", let alone an ideal one, is either the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper, or its ability to bully others, is either ignorance, or premeditated deception.
now an army might be important to a government, to borrow that distinction, at least a sufficiently corrupt and tyrannical one. but i would hardly call a nation possessed of such governance ideal in any sense of the word.
nor would i call so one that puts anything ahead of the real effects of real policies on real people, places and things.
all governments are a burden, some may justify that burden by providing real bennifit. but their existence is not inheirently bennifical at all.
only infrastructure, useful, physical infrastructure, to the degree THAT requires social organization, bennifits from it. that and helping each other out, which is the only reason ever to band togather in the first place.

=^^=
.../\...
I would appreciate if you could answer some of my questions, some of which it's possible i've misread your post, in which case i'd like further explanation if that's okay?
so 4 queries

1) What makes you think the Human ego started the whole idea of government?
I thought it was more to do with changing societies, and changing resources etc not directly linked to human ego.

2) As to (First bolded part) what do you mean by no reason to be impressed by the universe? What makes you think there are invisible friends to begin with?

3) (Second bolded part)Yet i could say the government is merely an extension of human cooperation to work together to thrash out policies which at least cover what some of their electorate wish to have, large government and the bureaucracy that comes with it is inevitable in a large human society, otherwise it would be in a chaotic state.

4) (Third bolded part)The only reason to band together? So what about when people band together because they are scared of other people? What about when people band together to send a message to a dictator? what about when people band together not because they like each other but because there are no other people to join with. Are these not also reasons why people help each other?

Nations are over-rated, let's bring back feudalism!

The ideal nation requires neither army nor economy. ;)

(PS: You can ignore the tacos, though. My contribution to that was a spammy lapse brought on by yesterday's chocolate high. I am repenting it today.)

The tacos are a metaphor. *nod*

The ideal nation requires neither army nor economy. ;)
Woah there, Bhutan! We all know how you turn out after getting TV privileges!

The alternatives go to the opposite extremes. In order to have an ideal nation, there should be a balance, otherwise it´s not ideal at all.

As an anti-militarist, anti-statist and strong supporter of the free-market, I would choose the country with a strong economy and a weak army (if one at all.)

Woah there, Bhutan! We all know how you turn out after getting TV privileges!
No, the ideal nation would have everything it needs and not need an economy. Everyone would take what they need and make what is needed. All for free.

I think everyone has brought up interesting points.

There are two I agree with,

One being - No nation is 'ideal', with a weak 'area'.

The other being, if you make friends with other nations and have the strongest economy, you can survive, and to make sure you don't get invaded, offer lots of money/food etc.

So - Do you agree with my point?

p.s Sorry Ms Moderator - Arcdoille? I think you are a great moderator (but you do bring up very random points!) :D

The ideal nation is 19th Century British Attitudes & laws, an MRSA etc free NHS, a huge dominant army, a working democracy that represents the people and has a monarch to keep an eye on things.

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest army in it's region, but the weakest economy.

OR

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest economy in it's region, but the weakest army?

Debate.
A balance of both is the solution to this problem. What's the use of great protection if it's made of cheap material? Same as to good army men if they're dying of hunger. What's the use of abundant material, if they'll just be taken away from you when conquered. Get the point? But between the two, it would be the second one.... BaLaNcE your world!!! :)

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest army in it's region, but the weakest economy.

OR

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest economy in it's region, but the weakest army?

Debate.

The ideal nation would have neither. But if I'm 'forced' to choose I guess a strong economy is better.

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest army in it's region, but the weakest economy.

OR

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest economy in it's region, but the weakest army?

Debate.

First: Since, an ideal nation has never existed nor will it ever exist as nations are products of imperfect creatures (humans). You really should think about rephrasing the question.

A better question would be. Nationstates General, what requirements would be needed to make the perfect (Ideal) nation?

Second: Your second question is a major contradiction as history has shown that nations that have the strongest economy in a particular region usually have the strongest military as armies are hugely expensive to raise and maintain.

As for Tacos, their good but overrated. Tacos would never exist without it's friend the Tortilla. An ideal nation can exist without Tacos, but not without Tortillas.

So there you have it, Tortillas rule. :D:rolleyes:

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest army in it's region, but the weakest economy.

OR

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest economy in it's region, but the weakest army?

Debate.

Neither. It should have a sensible economy, but a strong social and welfare system, as well as the healthiest environment possible.

The ideal nation is 19th Century British Attitudes & laws, an MRSA etc free NHS, a huge dominant army, a working democracy that represents the people and has a monarch to keep an eye on things.

What child labour, less than half the adult population entitled to own property let alone to vote, and slavery? Yep, sounds like a healthy society, all in all....

What child labour, less than half the adult population entitled to own property let alone to vote, and slavery? Yep, sounds like a healthy society, all in all....

Slavery outlawed in the 1830s, Child Labour and Female Labour outlawed too.

The 1880s were probably the best part of the 19th Century. Thats the era it should be based on.

The second one, because less people die by gunfire and more of obesityThis comment just reminded me of this image I found the other day.
http://dailywebb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/evolution.jpg

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest army in it's region, but the weakest economy.

OR

Should the Ideal Nation have the strongest economy in it's region, but the weakest army?

Debate.

Define strongest and weakest economies. Is it sheer output? Ability to mobilise spare capacity during wartime? Quality of goods? Location of industries (and transport)? All needed resources (with a large buffer) located in the region?

The ideal nation is 19th Century British Attitudes & laws

wha...are you sure about that one, I mean have you seen the art, architecture and (most of all) sex of the period?!

The 1880s were probably the best part of the 19th Century. Thats the era it should be based on.

a massively overstretched Britain thats too proud to accept that it just got a very real lesson from the Zulu?

Slavery outlawed in the 1830s, Child Labour and Female Labour outlawed too.

The 1880s were probably the best part of the 19th Century. Thats the era it should be based on.

Britain outlawed female labour? Wow...