NationStates Jolt Archive

Primer for the uninitiated:
This is a discussion for an idea for a new region between Anti-Flag and Danarkadia. Anyone may post their input and are welcome to do so. Both Anti-Flag and I come from anarchistic backgrounds, philosophically speaking, and a large part of this discussion will be a sharing of philosophies which will form the foundation for any new region we decide to create, though that doesn't mean we'll be exclusively anarchistic.

Thus far we've been sharing our ideas through telegrams. Here's the latest from Anti-Flag:

"What I am looking for in a region is uniformity with diversity. Such that everyone has different views but are united as such. That?s an idea that may work but may not. I want a government that has some sort of role but more of the peoples choices. Kind of like anarchy but less chaos. Is kind of hard to explain but I want to work on that. "

I think that's an awesome idea and it really isn't that hard to achieve. My typical feeling is that so long as people can agree on fundamentals, the rest will work itself out. For example, if we aim to attrack nations based on their performances in civil rights and political freedoms, rather than their ideology, we'd probably get a better batch of people to work with. To put it in political terms, as long as a government guarantees certain rights and freedoms as well as provides basic services to its people, who cares exactly how they do it? Any government can be oppressive and any government can be freeing, it all depends on the people that comprise it.

Of course, if the fate of the people rest on a single despot, then power is concentrated in one area. In order to influence the whole, you need only influence the fulcrum of power. In democracies, power is more distributed, but still centralized. This is why I like anarchic forms of decision-making. I think the basic assumption we make about governments is that we HAVE to endow these institutions with a great deal of power. I question that, and say that if we can build a society that taps into peoples' cooperative nature, a society built on a kind of culture of solidarity, then we really don't need power structures. We would need authority, such as people who specialize and advise in, say, foreign relations would be an authority in their field and shold be heeded, but we don't necesarrily have to endow them with powerful position.

What I am looking for in a region is uniformity with diversity. Such that everyone has different views but are united as such. That?s an idea that may work but may not. I want a government that has some sort of role but more of the peoples choices. Kind of like anarchy but less chaos. Is kind of hard to explain but I want to work on that.

I've tried my very hardest to run my region, The Chemistry of 923, in the manner in which you speak.

I think that's an awesome idea and it really isn't that hard to achieve.

I disagree very much with this statement. It's very hard to maintain any type of government when one is beginning to develop their region. When it comes down to it, your region's government - or lack thereof - will depend categorically on the activity of the nation's running it and the activity of the nation's being recruited to it. If activity is low, government will cease to function; if activity is high, government will function.

My typical feeling is that so long as people can agree on fundamentals, the rest will work itself out. For example, if we aim to attrack nations based on their performances in civil rights and political freedoms, rather than their ideology, we'd probably get a better batch of people to work with.

Definitely focusing on a particular aspect works better when creating a region rather than going "free-for-all" and allowing everyone in. My region does the latter, because it's the focal point of our government, and unfortunately, our region's activity reflects that.

To put it in political terms, as long as a government guarantees certain rights and freedoms as well as provides basic services to its people, who cares exactly how they do it?

For the most part, this is true.

Any government can be oppressive and any government can be freeing, it all depends on the people that comprise it.

Totally agreed.

Excellent input. Though I have no experience in regional management, I must agree with your statement that lack of inactivity will ultimately kill any regional government that tries to be representative. It's a fundamental issue that affects governments even in real life: how can you claim to have a mandate from the people if so few of them participate?

I suppose the only way to address the issue is to recruit nations that seem willing to participate. This is a luxury we have in this game that doesn't exist in reality. Of course, if they do not, and they shouldn't if they don't want to, then there really isn't much that the government can do about it other than strive to address concerns the people may have. People will participate only so long as they have an interest in participating.

This is partially why we're having this discussion, to see if there's anything that can be done to keep members engaged. If we can build a community where there is a great deal of diversity, but a strong sense of solidarity, then I feel we've created as good a ground as possible for people to begin organizing around those issues that are important to them. Rather than create a hierarchical government and figure out how best to manage the region, I think the focus should be on how best to build a sense of community within the region. We don't have to have a monolithic, constitutionally defined government that adheres to certain procedure. I'd rather see a system that is dynamic and ever-changing, something which harnesses the creativity and desires of its members. As such, the only "law" that we should have among ourselves is that we aid each other.

To sum up what I'm trying to say, I feel like the goal in region building should be strength through community rather than through government or sheer size.

Am I making any sense?

Am I making any sense?

Yes, you are.

Basically, it does come down to the type of nation you target during recruiting.

I agree. We do need to recruit those that are willing to stay active and participate. But we don't necessarily have to agree with one another, that's what will make it interesting. With the ultimate goal still thought about, though, I think that a region can be made with a good government by the people with no real leader.

*Bump* Just trying to get more people to read what we have to say.