|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 14, 2009 01:29 AM |
|
|
That is self-defense, though. But if it takes an offensive action to try to enslave someone, that is harmful.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 01:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That is self-defense, though. But if it takes an offensive action to try to enslave someone, that is harmful.
What self-defense? I meant more like this (let's take, aliens, Mvassland and Ash -- aliens and Ash being enemies, Mvassland neutral). This is just an example of course:
1) Mvassland sells to both aliens and Ash
2) Ash does not want to cooperate with aliens because they are too greedy (or she is too greedy  ). She also knows aliens try to 'assimilate' her population.
3) So she would be better off to wipe them out. After all, her 'ideology' might wash out if aliens continue their assimilation.
4) So she embargoes the aliens.
5) However, she won't have a big edge, Mvassland still sells to the aliens.
6) She decides to wipe out Mvassland, and enslave the remaining (let's say 5%)
7) In the end, she is 5% better off compared to the aliens than before. She has BETTER chances to survive the 'assimilation'.
The thing is, this stuff isn't done at the point in war, it can be done before that, in fact most of it is done in peace times.
The reason I put there aliens in the example is because you think too flawed as "all humans" instead of the ideology/nation you own which is the only thing that matters. Otherwise, we could extend it to animals too.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 01:49 AM |
|
|
But she isn't 5% better off than before. She's worse off, since Mvassland's productivity is, let's say, 5% of what it was, so what would have been its imports are reduced to 5% of the previous trade to the aliens and 5% to Asheera. Since Asheera doesn't allow Mvassland to trade with the aliens, Mvassland is forced to trade <10% to Asheera. So she cut 90% of the imports from Mvassland off from herself. Good job.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 01:56 AM |
|
|
Yes she cut 90% from Mvassland and cut for the aliens 100% from Mvassland.
Mvassland sells apples. 100 to aliens, 100 to Drathir. Suppose Drathr and aliens have 10 apples each. In total, they have 110 both (due to Mvassland). No one has an edge over the other.
Asheera enslaves Mvassland, and now only produces 10 apples (instead of 200, i.e: 5%). She gets 10+10 = 20, while the aliens, since they're cut off from Mvassland, have only 10.
In which scenario does Drathir have an edge over the aliens?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 02:04 AM |
|
|
Relative to the aliens, she gains an advantage. Relative to where she would have been if everything had stayed the same, she ends up worse off.
If she did nothing, she'd have 100 apples. If she enslaved Mvassland, then she'd have <10 apples, and the aliens would have 0. Now tell me, certeris paribus, is it better to have 100 apples or 10 apples?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 02:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Relative to the aliens, she gains an advantage. Relative to where she would have been if everything had stayed the same, she ends up worse off.
Not as worse as if she fights the aliens (with apples) which would result is tie compared to the other way, she would win with 10 apples (20 vs 10)
In the case that she has 110 apples, is she really better off? If the aliens will let's say, attack, or if she wants to attack them, she will end up WORSE.
For example, suppose Mvassland is selling nukes. Now please tell me, is it better for Ash to have 20 nukes and the aliens 10, or both 110? I think you realize, if they start nuking each other (and let's say, 110 is NOT more destructive than 20 for the sake of the argument), in the non-enslaved scenario IT WOULD BE A TIE. So she loses more. In the other scenario, she wins.
The reason you think that she is better off 'absolutely' is because in your examples you DO NOT take into account the aliens -- regardless if you become 'stronger' 'absolutely' without enslaving, the enemy does so as well. And it will strike harder, and you'll be worse off again, since it'll be a tie.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 02:22 AM |
|
|
That analysis, though, operates under several assumptions that are not necessarily true.
First, what if Asheera uses Mvassland's apples to produce super apples that are more effective? Thus, she would be increasing her power if she got more apples, even if the aliens got some too.
Second, it assumes that Asheera and the aliens are identical. But what if the aliens need 20 nukes to wipe out Asheera, but Asheera needs 30 nukes to wipe out the aliens? Then an increase in the number of nukes is to Asheera's advantage.
Third, what if Asheera and the aliens aren't planning to go to war at all?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 02:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Third, what if Asheera and the aliens aren't planning to go to war at all?
I think that was kinda the point.
You don't just go to war only for domination, sometimes to stop something, like 'assimilation' (or cultural/ideological assimilation whatever) is an imminent danger so you just have to wipe out the opposing forces and enemy (not necessarily 'literally' wipe them out).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 02:33 AM |
|
|
That makes very little sense. Let's say the US is in danger of being assimilated by Mexico. Does the US then attack Mexico? 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 02:57 AM |
|
|
Dude, will you think more in dictatorship ways? US don't even care much about them that much (well democracy never does anyway ).
Nazis for example... (although that is somewhat extreme; and of course it's just an analogy, I doubt Ash's nation is really nazi, but it is to some extent)
Now with the aliens, would you let them take over? If Nazis didn't do that, they would be as good as dead (i.e their ideology, they are not biological a 'race' or 'species'). Today, for example, they are mostly dead. At least they tried... but they failed. Same thing would have happened if they cooperated -- i.e result in their 'death' as we see by today's Germany. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Dude, will you think more in dictatorship ways?
I can't, I'm not a dictator.
Quote:
Now with the aliens, would you let them take over?
Depends on what you mean by "take over".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 03:25 AM |
|
|
human race extinction.
since you love "humans" but not an ideology, you have to understand why nazis were so 'extreme' because what you like in the "human race" as a whole they like in the "nazi race" and treat the else like you treat animals. (and it's not because they were nazis and the holocaust, but just example of how ideologies matter in a nation etc... don't necessarily have to be aggressive).
Thus, nazis don't care about Germany. The world today, has almost 0 nazis (well sort of) so practically they died, they've gone extinct. (i.e the "aliens" "took over" Germany, for example )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 03:31 AM |
|
|
If the Mexicans came, the Americans wouldn't go extinct. So I don't see the difference.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 03:33 AM |
|
|
As far as I know, they aren't an 'enemy' or at least not a very obvious one. Democracy mostly alters its ideologies anyway.
Take, for example, Dark Heresh vs Drathir. Whole different deal. Add Empiriana and Skama and you have one big pile of a conflict
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2009 04:08 AM |
|
|
Let them fight. I'll pick up the pieces. And sell them back to them at a marked-up price.
Edit: Mvassland isn't the most pro-market! I told you I wasn't a crazy right-winger!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted January 15, 2009 02:49 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 14:49, 15 Jan 2009.
|
I am more pro-free-market than Mvass 
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 15, 2009 03:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let them fight.
The battlefield will take place in Mvassland
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted January 15, 2009 05:35 PM |
|
|
One of my nations is the most pro market
Quote:
The Issue
A small nameless nation within your sphere of influence has gone on a genocidal rampage within its own borders, ridding itself of what their Supreme Ruler For All Eternity, Emperor Jack O'Bannon, refers to as 'those pesky Bigtopians'. Some escaped refugees are requesting that your government do something to end the slaughter of millions.
The Debate
1. "They're killing everyone!" gasps Freddy Gutenberg, one of the refugees. "I implore you to please intervene and stop this murder of my people! If Dark Heresh has any compassion at all then it must help us! With these madmen out of power we can finally go about rebuilding our nation as a land of justice and freedom!"
2. "Woah, woah, we can't just go around being a knight in shining armour for every random hell-hole on this planet," says Faith Jefferson, your minister of Foreign Relations. "Should we send citizens of Dark Heresh into war just so we can save a bunch of foreigners? I don't think so! Now, I'm no xenophobe, but I've gotta ask: what's in it for us? Nothing but the death of our soldiers and criticism from the rest of the region, that's what. Trouble is we're getting too much of a reputation for having a big army. So drop some of our military funding and let them fight their own wars. It's got nothing to do with us."
3. "Well, maybe this nation does have something we need, sir," says Colin Chicago, your Military Advisor, while perusing a giant map of Dark Heresh. "We're fast running out of land and resources here, so why not invade this place, kick out whoever's in power there, and take over? We've got the military power, so why wait? If any of those hippies in the region have somethin' to say about it, they can say hello to our missile programmes, haha!"
4. "They have as much right to their own internal politics as we do," says activist and peacenik Peggy Chicago. "While their actions may be deplorable by our standards, we can't intervene unless the legitimate government requests it. It's just an invitation to anarchy on an international scale, and nobody but a few crackpots want that."
Another nation captured 
Quote:
The battlefield will take place in Mvassland
With nukes 
____________
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted January 15, 2009 09:37 PM |
|
|
After a much-publicised incident involving a farmer's attempts to drive a family of travellers off private property, there has been a call for you to review the laws governing gypsies.
1. "These pikies just rolled onto my field in those caravans of theirs and camped out," says Jazz McGuffin, the enraged farmer. "And when I tries to run 'em over with my tractor, it's me who gets stuck in the cells overnight! I've tried getting the government to evict them but they take too long over it. How would these people have reacted if I'd set up a tent in their back garden? There should be a law so I can get rid of them any way I choose. Gypsies should not be allowed to go wherever they like. It's just not fair to landowners."
2. "All we wanted was a place to stay the night," says Billy Trax, a traveller and parent of fourteen children. "Or maybe for a week or so. Or a month. Perhaps through winter; it's pretty mild around here, I don't know. But is that such a crime? We weren't stealing anything, or harming anyone. All we ask is to be allowed to continue our travels without harassment."
3. "I don't think that's a good idea," says Beth Silk, one of your advisors who happens to own an extensive greenfield site. "We can't just let people go living wherever they like just because they've been doing it for hundreds of years. It's very untidy! What I suggest is that we dip into the coffers and buy plots of land, all over the country, and turn them into nice safe areas where these folks can stay for as long as they want for a weekly rent before they decide to move on. See? Problem solved."
4. "I have the best solution," says Freddy Rubin, in response to a street survey. "These gypsies should be chucked in jail, their caravans sold for scrap, and, and... told not to do it again! I think we've all had enough with the government pussy-footing their way around these criminals! The way they just swan in and disrupt communities any way they please! And think of what their presence would do to the value of my property! People ought to live in bricks and mortar, not tins on wheels!"
Between 1 and 2: which one will lower or raise my Civil Rights? For 1 I will probably lower the gypsies' civil rights, and 2 lowers my farmer's rights to drive them out from his property.
So... I'm confused here
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2009 10:30 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
