Intergalactic Summit

Right. And then democracy is a dictatorship of stupidity. Or a dictatorship of grey mass. Or the will of grey mass. Whatever, you got the idea. You can call everything as a dictatorship of something. But then what's the meaning of the topic 'democracy vs dictatorship', if democracy is dictatorship too?
Probably it means a real dictatorship as a system, governed by an actual dictator, not democracy or meritocracy.

I'm sure the State doesn't care. I don't, either. But people who have posted here somehow do. They seem to want us to buy the idea that meritocracy works as they say. I'm talking to them, not to the State. Unless you've reached the point of drone-ism where you believe you are the State.




You call us stupid? You've just made my day.

Cute little thing, you can't even think logically. How could entity "X" dictate itself? Dictatorships by definition are autocratic or authoritarian rule of single person or group over others. Means power is exclusive to a single person or group. How can power be exclusive to... everyone? Funny.

And I'm not even going to get into the matter of government positive non-invervention, where even if political decisions are partially or fully in the hands of "illiterate farmhands" (I really don't believe we have many of those in our Federation)or of the "grey mass", those seldom penetrate the private sphere of citizens. I, as a citizen, never had to cope with a bad decision by the FedGov.

Now, please answer a curiosity of mine: Do you even have a civil life, or does your corporations and government get to tell you how to dress,behave, think and live? Do you separate public and civil spheres?

I am part of the "grey mass", Miss. So yes, you did, indirectly, call me stupid.

What have I lost? Your logic is scant. You can't call everything a dictatorship of something. Specially a democracy.

Where public life ends and where civil life actually begins is subject to long discussions in the Law and Politics Schools of Caille, but basically speaking:

The civil sphere is the part of your life that is independent from the state and government. The civil society. The public sphere is the one that is not.. In a democracy there is a clear difference between both, and mutual interference is rare. A premise of a true democracy is an extensive civil sphere. That's why it relates to democracy.

The less you are bound to a superior or by laws, the greater is your civil, or private, life. In a democracy, in the civil society, you have the least laws possible, and is bound to superiors only if you choose to be, e.g., in a job contract. In other words, the civil life is the sphere of your life where you are fully autonomous, bound only by rule of law. "Bound" isn't even the ideal word, since rule of law actually serves the purpose of guaranteeing such autonomy, not limiting it.

The public sphere - de facto , not to be confused with the section of civil life where people gather to socialize and debate- is the one where you are under authority of government forces.

So, I really would like to know more about individual autonomy and self-determination inside the Caldari State. Through whatever means - private comms or this topic - you prefer to explain.

I call one specific political system a dictatorship of something and you tell me I call everything a dictatorship of something.

I give up.

My invitation for tea is still up, though.

Excellent analysis, I'd say. Except the fact that your "answer" also only looks good on the paper, since it's completely naive to believe unified moral belief can be achieved and, even if achieved, maintained for long. No such thing has happened in history for obvious reasons.

Well, Mr. Lyserius, as far as logic goes, you seem to be somewhat lacking yourself. Can power be exclusive to everyone? Of course it can!

It's quite simple: If there is a group of people, then you can think of the group as a set within which possible subsets can be made up by differing quantities of the elements, the people. Power is then exclusive to everyone if and only if it can be enforced when all elements of the set do so in unison, that is political power is then exclusive to 'everyone' if all political decisions require unanimous agreement.

Power is then exclusive to the entire set because no subset is able to wield political power alone, thus subsets are excluded from wielding political power.

Of course, that's not how it is in the Federation, as most votes go by majority. Therefore political power in the Federation might be described as giving political power exclusively to the majority of people, that is minorities being excluded from political power.

But then, that's not what is going on in the Federation either, because the Federation has a representative system instead of a direct democracy. Therefore the Federation might be described as giving political power to a minority of people, the 'representatives'. It could be described therefore as awarding political power exclusively to the most popular people, excluding the unpopular people from political power.

All that said, the Federation certainly doesn't give political power to 'everyone', because last time I checked, only Federal citizens were allowed to vote, which excludes most people of the cluster. Also, to what degree there are 'civil freedoms' within the Federation depends largely in which member state of the Federation the Federal citizen resides: Jin-Mei states for example have pretty tight control on that via their caste system.

All that said, Cpt. Kim had quite a valid point here, if you start to use the term 'dictatorship of the merit' for the political system of the State, it's equally valid (Or should I say "equally invalid"?) to call the political system of the Federation a "dictatorship of ...(the masses, the most popular)", not withstanding that both appellations are oversimplifications - as Cpt. Kim already indicated. But such oversimplification is not surprising if one already operates with an oversimplified notion of 'dictatorship'.

Fithfully,
N. Mithra

That doesn't explain why peace-loving elements in the Federation are unable to use their 'power' to prevent brinksmanship and warcrimes carried out under Roden's watch. It also doesn't explain why the Matari minority were unable to use their 'power' to prevent them being lynched by the majority, does it?

in any case, as I've said, all the Empires use 'Democracy' with the possible exception of the Empire. The sole difference lies in how they limit the availability of franchise. The Matari use membership of a tribe. The State limits franchise to the competent and interested.

Yes, even the Federation limits franchise.

Mr. Lyserius,

First, you don't seem to understand what it means if you claim that "it's logically impossible that political power is exclusive to everyone". My counter to your claim has nothing to do with any realized democracy or any realized political system whatsoever, it's just logically the case that political power can be distributed in a way that it is something that is 'exclusive' to everybody, that is excluding subsets to hold political power without the assent of the remaining subset that is lacking to the full set. What you give as my 'permises' and denounce as 'wrong' aren't 'wrong' exactly for the reason that they are the ones that show that power can, logically (I put special emphasis on that for you!), be 'exclusive to everyone'.

Furthermore, last I checked legislative and executive powers were political powers, that is is the ability to influence the behavior of people, especially the ability to legally force people to behave in a certain way. Those powers, are distributed and handed out according to a constitution, whether written or factual. That political power does 'originate' from 'the people' isn't something that is self evident or even in any way given by laws of nature, it's a convention that is most prominent in so-called democratic constitutions. That means that the political power of politicians in a representative democracy is derived from the people, that political power is vested into the representatives by the people.

In the Empire's constitution political power originates ultimately from God. I think in the State the constitution is thus that political power is vested in individuals according to merit and also originating from this merit. If I'm wrong some Caldari will be certainly able to correct me and/or make this more concise. I'd humbly ask them to do so.

Also, if I remember right, the common citizen in the Federation doesn't have the right to 'fire' their representatives. They serve their term unless resigning out of their own volition or are removed by those being invested with the political power to vote them out, that is, as far as I know, the other representatives. Thus your 'didactic example' has no real traction for that reason alone.

The idea, that 'dictatorship is the standard opposite of democracy' is such a gross simplification of what a 'dictatorship' is, that it doesn't merit any real response. Suffice to say that next to democracy and dictatorship there are other forms of organizing a polity.

So, the only payment you deserve for your 'college-level lecture' is that I award you the mark of 'Deficient', and that mark is only awarded because you tried at least. I'd suggest you try to improve your lecturing style by a) taking the course "introduction to logic" at the UoC and b) by getting a better relation of quotations to personal contribution.

Faithfully,
N. Mithra

I'll do my best to give you an answer to this question, sir.

Tibus Heth was a gift to us from the Federation.

Our evacuation from the homeworld those decades ago left a deep scar on my people, one that is never far from thought when dealing with the Federation. This grew harsher as time grew, and provided a potent lever for Heth to use in mobilizing the State.

My people were sundered by those dark days, sir; we were split apart and dismembered by the act. The pockets of Caldari scattered amongst the Citadel, the Forge, and Lonetrek were forced to fight very hard. This is a good thing, but as wealth came, so too did ease and some measure of nepotism and weakness. Tibus Heth presented to us a new battle, new weights to press against and strengthen ourselves. This would never have been possible on the homeworld, where the pressures of a tightly confined population kept us lean and fit.

Tibus Heth was able to present in sharp contrast the differences between the Caldari ideal and the Federal ideal. The Federation gave us something to contrast ourselves to, to foster solidarity between the disparate Corporations. This was another potent tool for Tibus Heth to use. We see it on display every day still.

If you dislike Tibus Heth, sir, this is fine - I would be surprised if you didn't. But he was a gift to us from a rampant eagle as much as he was the offspring of a wounded State.