|
Post by Sayn on Jun 28, 2010 1:23:10 GMT 1
Machiavelli seems like an interesting read, though I believe he was mainly philosophical; when he tried his theories he failed rather miserably. Or perhaps that's just me remembering it incorrectly? Guess I'll have to look it up.
So puppy, you play Go then?
|
|
|
Post by puppyavenger on Jun 28, 2010 1:31:55 GMT 1
Machiavelli never actually actually got any particular power, his attempts to curry favor with the Medeci's and get a nice sinecure in Rome failed rather miserably, as did his republican efforts in Florence, but he was never in a position to implement policies.
I doubt he'd have failed that badly though, considering his philosophy endorsed any possible means for the desired end, so he's not one ot be hamstrung by altruism.
and yeah, I used to play go, haven't for a year or two though.
|
|
|
Post by Rationalgoblin on Jun 28, 2010 2:18:51 GMT 1
Well, looks like I'll have to get myself a copy then. While I'm at it, I should probably learn how to play Go (or at least slightly better, since I already know the basics). I've heard that Sun Tzu's warfare is kind of like playing Go, rather than Chess or something. Plus, it's just an interesting game. Oh, I've read the Art of War, and the commentary on one of the English translations is quite good. I'll have to check out The Prince online, yeah. And Clausewitz, of course. Perhaps even some Descartes as well.
|
|
|
Post by Surly on Jun 28, 2010 4:39:25 GMT 1
Just for future reference, do we have any religious people here? I don't want to step on anyone's toes by mistake. Yeah, I'm Baha'i. But I was an atheist for about a third of my life, and I'm certainly not easy to offend. Also, I'm glad to hear that most of you share my deep and abiding hatred of Objectivism, the least accurately named philosophy in the history of anything. As for nations, I tend to like nations that are sort of off on the side both geographically and culturally - not centers of power, not centers of anything really, but capable of exerting powerful influence anyway. I enjoy nations that are really hard to attack efficiently; that's a lot of why Karagatan is located on tiny spread-out islands, my nation submission for TW 5125 is a bunch of violent nomads in a massive asteroid belt, and another concept I had for a futuristic game was a state under the ocean on Europa. I like nationalistic fervor (whether for a theocracy, democratic patriotism, or reverence for a dictator), citizens willing to unquestioningly fight and die for their country and pushing each other to do the same. puppy, The Prince is a pretty great book, though I feel it overshadows Machiavelli's other work more than he intended. (I've been trying to find some of his writing on republics for a while without any success). It's very frank, direct, and pragmatic, which I like. Philosophically speaking, I'm very Utilitarian; if it helps people more than it hurts them, do it do it now why the hell are you taking so long DO IT. Granted, I do think there's inherent utility to beauty and other non-quantifiables, but the sound of carts bringing bread to mankind is more beautiful than all the symphonies in the world.
|
|
|
Post by puppyavenger on Jun 28, 2010 4:55:44 GMT 1
Also, I'm glad to hear that most of you share my deep and abiding hatred of Objectivism, the least accurately named philosophy in the history of anything. Well, do the full names of the DR Congo or North Korea count? Agreed on the Prince, like I said, I managed to get a good chunk of the discourses (his work on republicanism) on Google books, quite interesting if very dry. WRT Philosophy, I remember reading a description of his work in a huge history of Western Philosophy I found a while back. Apparently he held that the most efficient means to an end were the best, regardless of morality or ethics. So he held up Ceaser Borgia as an exemplar of this despite him being a brutal warlord who put a huge chunk of Italy under the church, as his methods were the most efficent possible. Which is funny, because he also supported a democratic republic, in a very oblique way.
|
|
|
Post by Rationalgoblin on Jun 28, 2010 5:13:55 GMT 1
To be fair, I've heard from several sources that The Prince was supposed to be a parody; a "what not to do if you want to live" sort of thing.
Of course, if it was a parody, it was well enough disguised that it worked seriously as well as in comedy.
|
|
|
Post by greystone on Jun 28, 2010 16:29:00 GMT 1
Religiously? I'm not at all. I dislike the concept of organized religion, and how frankly corrupt it is. That said, I am a deist.
Politically, I was forced to take three of those 'personality tests' in US government to find out what political leaning I had. One said I was mildly conservative, one said I was very liberal, and the last called me a fascist. So, I call myself an independent.
I am a legit 'Peace through Power' guy. Few things annoy me more than paying other countries. I mean no disrespect when I say it, but until there is 0 % unemployment and poverty (aka no one left to help) in my country, then I see no reason to help others, especially when they seem damn intent on destroying themselves (looking at you Gaza Strip).
I am planning on making a career out of politics, and am going into college in August to pursue a Major in Poli-Sci, and a minor in International studies.
As my nations go, It depends on my characters. I usually design them first and the country rises up around it. As many of you have pointed out, I go into extreme detail on characters, to the point of near obsessivness. For instance Han, and through her the NAC, came about because I wanted to play a self deluding, yet power hungry character with the Heroic Finate as her foilable. The way the country worked grew up around the two of them.
|
|
thefalcon
Squad Officer
Corrupt Corporate Executive in the Warzone
Posts: 51
|
Post by thefalcon on Jun 28, 2010 18:44:05 GMT 1
As much as I love discussing philosophy, my exact, overarching view is curiously hard to describe. I'm very Idealistic, though. I believe that, in the end, everything really does work out. Not so much that we're all living in some kind of Candyland where we just have to sit back and watch our problems go away, so much as that the world will, eventually, Earn Its Happy Ending (tm).
In terms of nations, I always seem to define them by ideology. That is, I find it difficult to play as a faction until I figure out their belief system and worldview. Get inside their collective head. Once I know what they believe in as an ideology, from there I can get a feel of how they view the setting, other factions, and what they would consider victory and their general modus operandi. And all the other details spring up from there. So usually I wind up playing countries that are heavily defined by their beliefs, things like religious groups, theocracies, political movements, and secret societies.3232
|
|
odin
Officer
Confused Wanderer in the War Zone
chuch
Posts: 161
|
Post by odin on Jun 28, 2010 19:42:00 GMT 1
Ah how I hate Objectivists. It's hard to imagine a more morally repugnant philosophy. That and they stole a cool name. Objectivism should have something to do with a belief in objective truths or moral standards, not a philosophy based on ethical relativism. That and their always so goddamn smug.
In a related note we need a emoticon that shakes it's fist.
Politically I'm conservative. Actually conservative, as in small government and large amounts of personal freedom. I'm also not a fan of welfare in any form. Charity should be done by charitable organizations like food pantries and churches not monolithic governmental bureaucracies. Unfortunately that means I usually vote Republican because it's the only way my vote'll count.
In Total War games I like to create nations that are ripe for role-playing. I get enough of my megalomania fix vicariously from GMing. I like factions that are kind of divided, like The Iron Lords, or House Vespasian where there are different power players all with different, often contradictory goals.
|
|
|
Post by dargon on Jun 28, 2010 21:41:38 GMT 1
I get really frustrated with the attitude of voting for one party just so it will count. But at least thats better then not voting cause your individual vote doesn't matter.
As for Objectivists I've never met any personally but if I understand it correctly it seems to be the capitalist philosophy, you work to your own self-intreast and in doing so you will end up improving life around you. Please correct me if I'm wrong I really don't know much about Objectivists.
Good luck in politics greystone, but I'd like to point out that poverty is almost impossible to remove as the definition of who is poor will change based on the current average of wealth.
|
|
odin
Officer
Confused Wanderer in the War Zone
chuch
Posts: 161
|
Post by odin on Jun 28, 2010 21:52:28 GMT 1
0% Unemployment is also pretty much impossible. There is such a thing as a natural unemployment level, although many people would argue what that rate is.
Unemployment is not only a indication of an economies growth or contraction but also it's restructuring. For example, if someone invented a sufficiently advanced voice recognition program, stenographers might be out of a job until they reenter the workforce somewhere else.
Also wik. I've not read The Art of War but I have read The Prince. It was pretty good, and not as draconian as most people believe. Even the term "Machiavellian" doesn't really apply to most of the work. It's just common sense or a utilitarian approach to governing.
|
|
|
Post by Surly on Jun 28, 2010 22:06:26 GMT 1
Objectivism has a number of principles. If everyone acts in pure self-interest, everything will turn out for the best. (Tragedy of the commons). The evidence your senses give you is objective and always correct. (Optical illusions). Free markets solve everything always. (Robber barons, tainted food and toys, every market crash ever). The government's only proper role is to run the courts and the military (because judges are incorruptible, and no military has ever sought more power for itself ever).
And then it has lots of weird side ideas that come purely out of Ayn Rand's tastes, such as rape = love, not considering anyone but yourself to matter is heroic, burning down something you built because someone else wants to change it is the most moral course of action, and on and on into ever more sociopathic territory.
Politically I'm mostly liberal. I care more about how effective the government's policies are at improving the well-being of the people than what principles guide them.
So I support a welfare state that provides enough for everyone to be healthy enough to look for work, but not one that's more enjoyable than work. If someone can get more money on welfare than by working, you're doing it wrong. I'm looking at you, England. I support a certain level of wealth redistribution, but if you have tax evasion rates near 100%, you're doing it wrong. I'm looking at you, Greece. Having a strong military to protect the people is good, but if your military budget is more than that of the next 15 countries combined you can probably tone it down a little bit. That's my country. Frequent elections are good, but if representatives spend more time campaigning than working, you are doing it wrong. That's also my country. Farm subsidies and other economic incentives are a good concept, but if 60% of the money is going to less than 10% of the recipients, all of whom are already very rich and gain nothing but higher margins of profit from the subsidies, you're doing it wrong. And if you say that the subsidies are necessary because free markets work better, not only are you doing it wrong but you also don't know what "free market" means. That's what annoys me about my country.
I also support weapons rights, though I think there should be more of a process to prove that someone is responsible and qualified before letting them have access to more powerful weapons (e.g. everyone can buy bolt-action rifles but you have to get a certain certification level through the state militia or military service before you can buy automatic rifles). I support the death penalty in principle, but the way it's applied in the US is so ass-backwards that we might as well scrap the entire system. Don't get me started on prison reform.
My ideal state would be pretty communitarian and close-knit, with an emphasis on industry and agriculture and very small financial and entertainment sectors.
|
|
odin
Officer
Confused Wanderer in the War Zone
chuch
Posts: 161
|
Post by odin on Jun 28, 2010 22:14:07 GMT 1
My ideal state would be pretty communitarian and close-knit, with an emphasis on industry and agriculture and very small financial and entertainment sectors. More bread less circuses! ;D
|
|
|
Post by puppyavenger on Jun 29, 2010 0:15:08 GMT 1
hmm, well for politics I'm of two minds.
Firstly, I believe that every private individual should be free to do whatever they want until it starts infringing on someone else, so in terms of civil liberties I'm hovering around Orwell I suppose.
In terms of government, I believe that a. the states job is to run everything that letting private interests run would be immoral or idiotic (i.e., Military, police, fire-fighters (se also, Crassus), hospitals, regulatory bodies, etc) and b. that the remit of the state goes exactly as far as the populace allows it too. Which is too say, I'm a firm supporter of popular sovereignty, if Quebec or B.C. Nunavut or wherever they entierly legitimate in doing so as long as they then accept any counter-secessions from area's of them.
How does this relate to how I play? honestly, it doesn't. I just have a love of failing empires and primal powers, and I like playing people that are morally gray (assuming a setting as fantastic for the average peon as most nation games inevitably produce)
|
|
Murska
Officer
But I thought we were friends...
Posts: 155
|
Post by Murska on Jun 29, 2010 10:36:06 GMT 1
I also like my nations to be consistent with the surrounding world. After picking where I'll be and what my nation's main points are I'll look around and think: "How did this nation evolve? How does it affect everyone around it? How do all it's neighbours affect it? What do the people think of first when they see the nation's name?"
That's why I dislike nations that aren't a part of the world around them and are thus hard to interact with. People locking themselves into their mountain or space or underwater cities and only connecting with the others via player-sent messages just seem dull. And they are often unrealistically strong; those who isolate themselves have never managed to compete with those who work globally in real life either. (See: North Korea, isolation-era Japan, China and it's sea exploration and then on the other hand the British Empire, USA, Japan post-industrialization...)
|
|