Intergalactic Summit

Miss Mahon, history does not back up this claim, I am sorry. Time and again, the Federation has asserted itself over others, it does so with subtlety and politics rather than arms and militant action, but it still does so.



Your care for people is based upon conceptualized universal human rights, Miss Mahon. This is not to devalue the fact that you do, in fact, care for humans; but to outline that you are not the only ones that do so and your way of doing so is not the only way to do it. We Amarr care deeply for the eternal soul of humanity and the eternal existence of an individual after the passing of this mortal life. In that sense, we have a great compassion and care for humanity, but because the righteousness demanded from God and the methods we have employed in the past (and still do) are detestable to the Gallente senses, we are seen as evil tyrants rather than caring shepherds. The point is that we both care for humanity and individuals, but the way in which we do so varies greatly based on our concepts and principles.



The Intaki and Caldari may have differences of opinion with you here and they would not be without historical backing in so doing. There is also the mention that the more individuals that buy into the Federation, the greater the power, influence and wealth of your ruling politicians and their associates becomes. While you, as an individual, may not have a selfish motive for assisting those around you that you perceive to be in need, the same cannot be said for all within the Federation. Sadly.



You are not the tyrants you profess to guard against, you are tyrants of a different nature altogether. I have no desire to set your culture and your people upon the altar and dissect them for the cluster to observe so please do not suspect me of this motive. If you wish to discuss my perceptions of your people and your perceptions of mine in a constructive and civil manner, I invite you to contact me on the fluid router.

edited out after reading the post below: i think i won't interfere in this discussion.

Ms Jenneth

Good response, really but i am sorry i disagree and given that your response is using a hypothetical mean, its left wanting in its justification. That is me however and that doesnt mean that it wasnt a good response, it just means that whatever you tried to convey since i am a practical personality and you chose to speak with a hypothesis didnt really did the trick

Let me try to give my whole approach in one post(maybe two if the word count wont allow me) as what seems to be the case is that most people feel i haven’t presented an argument.

Before starting i would like to note that i am not working for the Federation nor do i belong for any Federate Corporation. I have nothing to gain about taking the side of the Federation in this one. In fact i have my reasons to be even against the Federation in many issues. The only reason why i am siding with the Federation is because in this particular matter i do believe that the Federation and the people safeguarding it have a legitimate case.
Finally my language and my tone i assure you it wont be hostile, i apologize beforehand if it will seem that way in some points.

Let us be more specific shall we Ms Jenneth?

First of all lets set the ground rules of what these so called right from the Gallente are. For that i will try to mention some groups within our societies that the Federation holds as universal rights.

The rights are concerning:

1) Children
2) Democracy
3) Business and Corporation
4) Slavery
5) Poverty
6) Marriage
7) Racism
8)Torture
9)Minorities
10) Mercenaries
11) Migration

The list can go on and on, almost for any part of daily life there are some rights and the laws accompanying these rights that the Federation believes that they should be inherent and universal.

The main problem for most of you siding against the Federation in this one is because you believe this rights can’t be inherent. Simply because as Ms Scherezad pointed out, since these rights are made of let’s say thin air(basically nonexistent how can they be universal?

What most of you seems to me are missing is the word inherent. That means in other words that these human rights are within us from the day we are born. How and why you may ask. The answer lies is in human history. Allow me to answer.

From the beginning of the first humans as specie what those humans did was to form societies. Those societies because they (the humans) were still in a primitive stage and because that world was a harsh world, they based their societies in brutal strength, a savage like society by today's standards. That is easily understandable as the sole purpose of those humans and what in extent humanity is seeking even to this day is security. Thus whoever would provide this security would become the ruler of that small society.

However, the human psychology denied that kind of societies for many reasons.

One of them was that the ruler, being one or maybe even a group of able humans capable of defending the society was abusing the power he had received and ultimately the same person who would be responsible for defending the society was becoming a reason for the society to feel threatened.
Another reason, deriving from the one above is that this kind of setup is an unorthodox one and an unfair one. That unfairness started to become evident when the power of the human brain came into display and was needed. This was apparent enough even when tyrants and Kings were ruling every human society. Kings would abuse their power and most of the times they would put themselves above anyone and anything, thus creating a new vicious circle that would only destabilize the society itself.

Humans took their lessons and felt a new system was needed.

This system was Democracy.

When humans saw that the first established rights were not enough or even they were not presented altogether by the rest political systems, they upgraded them and they added even more, and the political system which would be the platform for delivering the rights was democracy.

Pay attention as here is where the plot lies. Humans always had these rights inside them, because they wanted security. Why didn’t they stick with oligarchy? Kings? tyrants? Why did the elevation from those systems resulted in Democracy?

Because these systems still were threatening the balance of the society itself, they were never stable. You want more elaboration on the matter? Let me put it this way. Let us go in the Amarr home worlds and take a bunch of people who are not satisfied by the Empress and lets go outside her palaces and protest peacefully and see what happens...

Now some of you will start arguing that the only way of making a society secure is too have a rigid hierarchy where able minded people will be able to deliver security and so on and so forth. That is true but last time I checked the Federation had a capable military branch.

Why Democracy did come along and why in the name of Democracy people died? Why in the name of Democracy does the Federation appeals most of the people? Because our DNA asks for the protection of what the rights within the Democracy are offering. Still not convinced? Let me put it this way.

{Continues}

{Continues}
Here I am having proven that the rights have been inherent and universal within every person since the beginning of the first human society and how throughout the history of mankind the need for fulfilling these rights have pushed the human race in creating Democracy.

If you prove me with facts that I am wrong I would be glad to realize that and admit you are on the right.

The only decent argument i have seen you making in your response where you are taking something hypothetical and putting it into a context of an island is that in other words and correct me if i am wrong is that you believe that

since Democratic values and the rights within Democracy are passed down from generation to generation then they are not inherent but they are taught.

If that is the case then allow me to prove you otherwise by asking you this two questions.

1) If we take you are right then why there are people outside the Federation who try and risk their entire life on getting to the Federation? Yes granted there are many people as well who move from the Federation to the State and the Empire but these people are not many nor are willingly going if the payment will not suppress those rights their psychology needs. In addition let us not forget how many people end up going because the pay is good but return because the living conditions felt the least to say suffocating.

2) If we take you are right again then why did Democracy come along? became the most sought and successful political system (since it is around for almost as much as humanity and most people seek for it then it is bound to be doing something right, correct? ). Oligarchy was being passed down from generation to generation but it didn't succeed in staying on top did it? Neither the Monarchic system of the Empire.

Now here in my second point you may come out and say that the States oligarchy is still here, but still the Oligarchy of the State has some Democratic elements does it not? And then you can proceed and say that the Empire's monarchy system has been around for long enough...but even that Monarchy has some elements of Democracy.... don't forget how the new Emperor/Empress is gaining his/her seat and how the Empire functions as well.

And besides...lets be honest with ourselves here; both of the States and the Empires political systems, are not appealing to most people's human nature, only a selection of personalities which can exist within extreme environments (or have something to gain for theirselves) such as the Empire 's and the State's are getting appealed by the Ideologies of these two factions.
Most people cant keep up with that kind of lifestyle, that is one of the true reasons why people are trying to join the Federation in the first place(answer on point number 1).

And so my question stands slightly altered this time….

Can you Ms Jenneth and anyone else of course, prove me otherwise?

Em...how about...no...( no offense Mr Ston) and i dont think digressing from the original post is wise Ms Ashera, not for me but for the writer who gave life to this post in the first place is the least to say unfair dont you think?

I apologize in advance for not addressing your thesis paper on the subject, it is to this point that I wish to focus entirely. No one can prove anything to you Mister Drengist because you are not arguing the points that have been made. You are arguing the human psyche and human nature, then labeling them inherited rights and claiming they are afforded to all people and that Democracy is the form of government created by these rights.

The disconnect lies in the fact that you claim humanity naturally deviates toward Democracy when there are many who choose to live in places like the Empire and the State, which are not democracies. The disparity lies in the fact that you attribute "rights" to the human concept of self-identity and self-entitlement (neither of which are inherently evil), a human naturally believes themselves entitled to specific rights but that same human will just as readily deny another those same rights when their own are threatened.

You are clearly an intelligent individual, but I believe you are arguing a very different point here. You are arguing human nature and psyche, others are arguing the societal concept of rights.

EDIT: I apologize for the length. In summary, you make strong points but are only accounting for one part of human nature, ignoring another.

I will address your points in some form, if you like, sir. I hope you don't mind if my points are somewhat more brief - I will do my best to give your own points the respect that they deserve.

First let me state your position, to be sure that I have it correctly. You claim that human rights have membership within the human psyche, and that Democracy is the governmental system which allows the greatest expression of those rights. Your evidence is that people from hierarchical societies often flee to join the Federation or other democracies, and that no one has ever rebelled against democracy itself. Does this sum up the core of your argument, sir? I will proceed assuming so, but please, correct me if I oversimplify.

Firstly, to your two pieces of evidence. Migration patterns do indeed show a tend of immigration into the Federation. I'm afraid that you imply causation where there is only correlation, however. Economic reasons are often the reason for travel. I'm willing to accept that the desire for more freedom can certainly be a factor in wanting to travel to the Federation, but many immigrants often choose to maintain their own original cultures intact, in pockets, within Federation society. I suppose my reply to this is "please provide more evidence that there is a causative relationship here."

To the idea that no one has ever fought to install a hierarchy over a democracy. I'm afraid I don't know much of the history of democracies and republics, but the ascent of Tibus Heth is perhaps telling. Popular leaders, within elective or non-elective systems, can impose a tyranny over a democracy, with the support of the very people who are to be ruled over. This is not good support for my point, but I think it needs little such support. Popular leaders can install tyranny, directed by the support of the people which that tyranny is sworn to protect.

Finally, to your thesis. I agree! A desire for freedom to act in any way one likes is inherent to our species. It is a derivative composition of our survival instinct and our social architecture, specifically that one focusing on competition. We desire the freedom to act as we like in order to maximize our options to find food, protect ourselves, find spouses, raise our children, and protect our kin. This is all inherent in our brain structure. It is the competitive model.

This statement is incomplete, however. The strength of this "urge for freedom" varies according to the individual, as is expected. Some feel it strongly, others feel it weakly. For those who feel it more weakly, another social strategy comes into play - the co-operative model. In this model, we form strong social bonds with those around us and follow along with the group. This affords us greater protection, but explicitly shuns the competitive model that generates a desire for freedom, as this would threaten the group and the security it provides. This, too, is a brain structure we all share.

From this we can see - the pursuit of freedom is a strategy for survival. It creates the leaders which lead groups formed by the second, collectivist model. The natural social state of humanity is therefore on a continuum, a mixture of these two social modes - somewhat individualistic and freedom-loving, somewhat hierarchical and collectivist.

This, incidentally, is the structure of the Caldari State. I will not bring politics into the discussion, but will happily say that I find life in the State to be comformal with human nature, and am quite happy to live here. However, I wish all the best for those who decide to try for a new life in the Federation.

You got partially right what i am saying there. The proof i have is not only the desire that people have to flee into the Federation which grants much more freedom and ultimately the fulfillment of these rights but also that Democracy is the only system that is able to nurture and safeguard these rights. Again if you ask why, not only you need to check how Democracy works and what it represents but you need to look for how long it has been around and in what length it has been around.

Ultimately everything comes down to numbers. And numbers say that the most sought political system from humanity throughout the history of humanity is indeed Democracy. Eventually i take this statement and i pose the question '' Is it an accident that the only political system which is able to nurture and safeguard these inherent universal right, is the one with the most numerous followers? A connection between the inherent need for rights and this political system has to exist''

In addition for economic reasons people will move to the Federation true. But the mere need for making money is not coming alone into display here. In other words what you are giving me to understand(correct me if i am wrong) economic practicalities, such as if it is profitable to invest in the State? or the Federation or any other faction.That can not stand and let me show you why i believe it can not.

Lets say that all the factions had the same political system. If all the factions had the same political systems then economic practicalities can come in and be measured as true decision making factors. But this is not the case is it? The Federation because its more free and open to trade gives more opportunities to people to become rich. But wait a minute you ll say isnt the State open to trade? It is, but for someone investing his/her money into one place and his/her man hours into one place what ultimately matters is how happy can he/she be while working in this particular place. Having said that some people will indeed choose the State, the Empire, the Republic but most of them as you have agreed yourself will choose the Federation. Is it by accident that the only democratic place in the universe receives most people in its borders daily? What do you think?

As for


I agree with what you are saying but i have to stand on two things which contradict with what you say.

1) Tibus Heath's State no matter the reasons and the how's, he managed to gain power but he didn't erase ultimately the Democracy within the State. It merely limited it but it didnt erase it completely, simply because one cant erase democracy from a society of people. Now i wont extent more into it because as you very rightfully said , lets not make this into a political debate.

2) You say that popular leaders within elective systems can impose tyranny over democracy. That is true, it has happened, and it will happen but History - and ultimately human nature repeats itself in the matter. Tyrants can come and go but eventually Democracy shall be installed again. You dont need to be an expert on history to know this. And here is where all the plot lies respectful Ms Scherezad.
That the human nature in the end and throughout the many hardships from day 1 it seek Democracy, the only political system i ll say it again which happens to nurture and safeguard the rights that the Federation and I believe are inherent into humans. And that cant be just a mere coincidence. What do you think?

As for your last part of course i do accept and agree with what you say. But you see, this part hierarchical and part freedom loving notion that you seem to place as two forces that collide(correct if that is not the case), for a Democracy, they dont collide. They co exist. Sometimes in harmony sometimes in turmoil, but the balance is there.

I certainly don't mind talking, Mr. Drengist.

An anarchist ... well, that explains the passion, and also the impasse. I'm cheerily authoritarian, in (predictably) the Caldari meritocratic model, myself: it's the most likely way to ensure my faith's survival.

It's interesting that you were standing up for the Federation so strongly in all of this: democracy is a far cry from anarchy. I take it that you'd therefore say that the Federation makes a good start, but doesn't go far enough.

There's something you should see, however, Mr. Drengist, before you dedicate yourself thoroughly to anarchy, and that is Curse.

Take a place of anarchy, a land without laws or governance. Soon, because people do better working together than they do alone, groups develop. Because resources are desirable, these groups come into conflict. Because those groups function better as efficient, military-like autocracies than as slow-thinking democracies (compromise and inaction are the default states of democracy), democratic entities within the anarchic zone are soon defeated.

The big fish eat the little fish, and then each other. And what do you have at the end?

Curse.

Go visit some time. The Angel Cartel is quite welcoming, in its way, and you can buy almost anything from them. Slaves. Drugs. Assassinations.

Anarchy collapses into chaos. Chaos collapses into order, and not prettily.

Good luck.

I admire your ability to say these things gently, Scherezad-haani.


Mr. Drengist:

Scherezad is a pilot with whom I have much in common, including the search for wisdom. Whatever perspective or ideology you hold to, the advice she has given you is solid. You should listen to it.

An observation similar in kind to the most important part of what she said: learn what you might, believe what you may, but if ever you think you hold all that is important in the palm of your hand, in that moment you are surely wrong.

To this, I will only add that passion, though useful for many purposes, is clarity's foe. If you seek to act, it may aid you. If you seek to comprehend, it will stand in your way.