by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .21222324

Blaaria wrote:I don't think megacities need to be split up, but I do think urban areas should be reorganized to build more of a sense of community. Like suburbs should be split into clearly defined community blocks, each with their own name, with areas for people to congregate in. And then, community initiatives should be funded and widely participated in.

15 minute cities?

Vectra wrote:@Markus Sarasti-Varis

About rainbow flag, i disagree, its beautiful flag! I was watching it every day in preschool and local 'sand park'(huge park with wooden castles and sand dunes to play). Its a children's flag. It is also religious flag, as promised in the Bible, God of Adam will never drown humanity again.
But i understand the context behind the flag today, in the West. Unfortunately, new generations will remember it as completely different thing.

I kind of agree about Conservatism, it means something different today. It means trying to go back to good old days, and some even say today 'there is nothing left to conserve'. Maybe it is better to label oneself 'Traditionalist'? As tradition is by definition a continuation of your customs, rites, habits, not prone to changes.

The rainbow flag flown by the alphabet soup does not include all colors (indigo) present in the rainbow God gifted us as a reminder of his covenant. It is a filthy subversion of that good image.

Vectra wrote:15 minute cities?

That's not what I was thinking of but maybe. Why do so many people seem to hate them?

Vectra wrote:Do you guys think megacities should be split into new smaller settlements? Are megacities necessary?

Cant medium sized cities perform functions as megacities? Like having an industrial zone, free trade zone, extensive housing grid, political center, sport stadia etc? Arent megacities just copies of multiple medium cities? Same addition next to addition.
If many believe that people become faceless in the megacities, just another worker ant, does that mean people in smaller communities 'regain their humanity'? As, they know more people since the group is smaller, thus being more empathetic to them.

If something like this is ever tried, will it be possible to do it only by force, or enforced law? Would incentives like land or money be enough?

Megacities aren’t necessary, but I personally think they should stay as megacities because of how advanced many megacities (that I know of) are and how I was born in one.

McHamburg wrote:Although I believe that this is not sustainable through multiple generations due to human nature, I've always thought that some kind of theocratic monarchy would be nice, where it's acknowledged that ultimate authority does not lie with the ruler, but is instead bestowed upon them. We have few examples in human history of righteous authority so we are quick to dismiss calls for a king because we think they can be oppressive, especially here in america... But the people being ruled give the king identity as a ruler, and the king gives identity to those being ruled under the flag of the kingdom. If this is properly attended to, the collective people have equal power to the king. But again, i don't trust multiple generations to be able to produce thoroughbred humans without a few screws loose, so my solution is to give the commonfolk the right to bare arms, just to create a check and balance should the monarchy get out of line every few generations. But thus is the eb and flow of history... it's to be expected. Long story short, I think thats how you give power to the people without democracy, just give them the ability to overthrow the government you've created, then trust that they won't just as they trust you to not abuse them.

Monarchy's main problem is of course, as you wisely point out, that we cannot realistically assume that every good king will have an equally good offspring. Natural disposition of the child, upbringing (which, despite when otherwise well carried out, may not always be sufficient to temper the natural disposition), growing into a life of wealth, power and privilege, potential inbreeding and the resulting genetic degeneracy (etc.) could all point towards an incompetent oaf or a selfish despot in the making. While you could try to mitigate the impact such a bad apple would have on the nation at-large by giving people the easy means of overthrowing their Monarch, I would be concerned about how such a measure could, in all likelihood, cause extended periods of violent upheaval, insecurity and chaos, and the cycle of revolutions and petty revenges that often follow such upheavals. Additionally, there are always opportunistic populists and demagogues out there who might be even worse than the Monarch, ready to rouse the people's anger at their leader at every perceived slight or supposed wrong. If we want our leaders to be effective, that means they cannot be held hostage by the people. They should have the ability to make genuine decisions at their own best judgment, without fearing that anything they do that would mean taking something away from someone, if that something was for the better in the bigger scale of things, would immediately cause their own downfall and the triumph of someone else coveting the throne. Sometimes, the true measure of leadership is in the ability and courage to make unpopular decisions. And if a leader has the power to make unpopular decisions without losing their power, then we could truly consider them a leader in a much deeper understanding of the term. Because, even if their decision was unpopular, they would still enjoy the trust and respect necessary to shield them from the immediate effect of taking that decision. In other words, "I disagree with what you are doing, but I trust you are doing it for the right reasons". (And I will defer to your decision regardless).

In any case, This is a topic that we have covered in various publications of the NSM. Some key-points that we can bring up:

1. Officially, The NSM is not Monarchist nor do we promote a return to absolutist Monarchy. We do, however, recognize the symbolism associated with Monarchy. the Idea of a unifying personage that is representative of the nation, above the fray and the small details of daily politics, and could serve to unify the divergent interests of the people by-part through their own person. Politicization is best fought through the exercise of principled authority. Of course we cannot rely solely on the charismatic attraction of that person to have a sustainable system but, it plays an important part in it. Individuals with differences of opinion can be brought to more easily recognize each other not as opponents, but as comrades when they both fight for the same cause as embodied by a leader they both can look up to. Such a leader cannot be a politician, therefore. They cannot be a politician because politicians are always out there to exploit existing divisions instead of trying to reconcile them. (To be sure I would not consider politicians "leaders" but that's a bit beside the point)

2. To have a kingly leader does not necessitate they be called a King or be chosen through dynastic lineages. (Or elections for that matter as in elective monarchies). What matters is that they have a good amount of power to promote the vision of prosperity, order and security. If you want to ensure the competence of your kingly leader, the very least their worthiness for the position, you would want to base the selection of that candidate upon an objective reference point of merit. For example, something resembling the Personal Credit-system we have employed in this very community.

The First leader's merit stems from the accomplishment of their revolution and the attractiveness of their ideas. That is no small feat just anyone is capable of pulling off. Under political regimes where power comes from numbers as opposed to merit, the numbers can ignore merit if they so wish, a system of objective reference as described above would not yet exist; but it is the man who is capable of standing in front of millions and move them towards a greater historical destiny that is the man that is qualified to be the leader of those same millions. Future leaders could not hold claim to a similar feat, they are the upholders of the legacy of the progenitor of the revolution, they follow in their footsteps and cannot be elevated to the same level; their legitimacy will have to be testified on the grounds of their other contributions, achievements and services done in the name of that revolutionary cause.

To prevent abuse and situations where the leader might become blind or callous to the prolonged misery of their people, an embedded formal mechanic that allows for the replacement of the leader, without such a mechanic being used whimsically to undermine the capacity of the leader, would be installed in the form of a balance of power, as opposed to a separation of power. Within this balance of power, the Leader may hold 50-60% of the total share of power, while the rest is divided in 20-25% shares between the leader's council and the "leader above the leader", who we can call the High-Steward of the Revolutionary Constitution. The High-Steward would have the power to dismiss the National Leader but requires this action to be carried in consensus with the Leader's council. Neither body can act independently and, were they to conspire against the leader, so long the leader is generally competent and liked / approved of by the people, without there being sincere and major dissatisfaction among the populace, they would not realistically be able to do this without facing serious backlash, which will serve as an effective deterrent.

Each Leader would eventually assume the role of High-Steward, to watch over their successor. Their successor would be chosen in reference to their Merit-base. It is a dynamic arrangement that nonetheless brings a degree of predictability.

East Normlanda wrote:I literally just realized that most of my nation (and my main account Normlanda) heavily relies on Political History to write factbooks, literally to the point that I'm writing factbooks about the communists winning in Landian Revolutions even tho I actually live in the USA.

I've literally been thinking about this a lot, are only Bad Ideologies not allowed in the region or every other type of Modern Ideology not allowed?

"Ideologies are an interesting topic of study, to help us understand their practitioners as well as man, but the NSM believes ideology to be more of a tomb than a temple when made into a basis of politics and political power. [...]"

- Personal Introduction to the New Social Movement, from the Guide and Cancellarius, Markus Sarasti-Varis.

You are not prevented from writing or talking about ideologies, whether you want to put it down in your lore factbooks or stir up some conversation on the community chat-area. Whether or not we like it, we exist in an environment defined by ideologies. We may not view ourselves as ideological, but that doesn't mean we can exist completely free of any need to engage in ideological discourse. Be that between ourselves or between us and the ideologicals themselves. The main point of the anti-ideological platform of the NSM, as I explained in the speech I gave out just before comrade McHamburg showed up, is to denounce the institutionalization of ideology as we can see in the political- and party-model of organized statehood. We don't want a communist state, we don't want a liberal state, we don't want a conservative state (etc.). We want a Civic State.

In a sense, all ideologies are "bad". Ideology is too restricting, too limiting. We shouldn't narrow down our options based on it. But I know what you mean when you make that distinction, and there are indeed ideologies that I think are so fundamentally opposed to our values that we ought to deem them more serious than the rest. Nazism for example; which represents the political culmination of racism. We are not promoting humanity when we are setting apart people on racial characteristics and defining some kind of a hierarchy for them.

I will post more replies later as I get to it. Appreciate the input comrades!

Blaaria wrote:That's not what I was thinking of but maybe. Why do so many people seem to hate them?

I think its because some people connect this concept with no-cars proposals, neo-segregatiom or neo-feudalism. So many theories. Mainly they fear they will be enclosed within those 15 minute regions and wont be possible to visit other parts of town.

I think this is mostly American thing, where cars and open space means freedom(of movement). So they are not keen to city planning, after all, the wild spirit that roams the prairie cannot be tamed! I think this concept is better accepted in Europe. I first heard of it from Chinese media, and i liked the concept. But then again, China is the polar opposite of United States.

[TAG: POLITICS]

Thoughts on Putin's reelection? Escalation in Ukraine now, or business as usual?

First May 9th after war started(2022), some analysts said Putin would escalate the war, i didnt think so, and he didnt. Year after and he stil didnt, but this year... im not so sure anymore. I have a feeling he will escalate. He has another 6 years and 2024 military budget will be $200 billion(allegedly).

It is unbelievable how everything aligned for Putin' war: actor Zelensky replaced businessman Poroshenko, lost Biden replaced assertive Trump, incompetent Scholz replaced competent Merkel, while other nations like France and Japan also have weaker leaders, while UK cant stabilize their government(remember the lettuce bet?).

Only Erdogen remains in post, from NATO major players. Italy cant agree whether their leader is fascist, conservative or leftist, according to her speeches, actions and policies.

Russian plan remains in place, while others have their plans changed or revised every election cycle. So it appears.

Everyone, BOPDR's next debate will be on immigration. It will be at 9:00 AM AEST Sunday, or 6:00 PM EST (I think. That could be CST) Saturday. The specific topic should be 'In what cases is increased immigration a good thing?'. If you would like to sign up to participate in the debate, telegram me about it, and I will add your name to the list.

[TAG: HUMOR]

Wakeup, All ye banner lovers!

And all ye Challenge people, wakeup! You have now a new challenge that takes you further down from end to end of nationstates!

Random Goose wrote:[TAG: HUMOR]

Wakeup, All ye banner lovers!

And all ye Challenge people, wakeup! You have now a new challenge that takes you further down from end to end of nationstates!

I take it you're referencing this recent news; page=news/2024/03/25/index.html

Its nice of them to give us a bunch of additional banners but, the custom banners will always be superior. Once you unlock a few of those, I think you'll stop caring about the rest. Doesn't matter if they have a thousand pre-made design options for you to choose from. The only downside is that you can only have up to 5 custom banners, and to reach that maximum number takes a good deal of time.

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:I take it you're referencing this recent news; page=news/2024/03/25/index.html

Its nice of them to give us a bunch of additional banners but, the custom banners will always be superior. Once you unlock a few of those, I think you'll stop caring about the rest. Doesn't matter if they have a thousand pre-made design options for you to choose from. The only downside is that you can only have up to 5 custom banners, and to reach that maximum number takes a good deal of time.

Why yes.
Custom banners are truly pretty good, although the defaults sometimes are nice for certain things (That one called Exodus is not to bad for a hellish post-apocalypse society)

«12. . .21222324

Advertisement