The STEP High Garden - Page 2

Voltaire · December 9, 2002, 20:51

Maniac...

Quote:

Besides freedom, people and corporations also need stability, and sometimes need to be protected against themselves. To ensure this, you have to take away part of their freedom.

To quote John Stuart Mill:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

I see no justifiable reason that we need to interfere with the sovereignty of an individual if they are not harming society as a whole; the state is not means to be some all knowing parent looking out for its children and punishing them when they do as they are forbidden to. Let people have the maximum possible amount of freedom so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others they should be allowed to do as they please. We should not force people to do what is for their own good, if they choose to participate in activities which are harmful to themselves, that is their decisions, not one that the state should meddle in.

Hercules · December 9, 2002, 23:07

I have to say there is too much off topic stuff here, interesting to the debaters though it may be. The success of Smac is that it could imagine a world split into 7 factions driven/ motivated by other considerations rather than the old earth divide between left and right. Marxism and Capitalism. Both of which were credible philosophies, in theory but massively damaging to their respective citizenry in practice, and to most of the rest of the world in between.

BTW As you know Drones are the unskilled, the unsuitable and disgruntled: they are the opposite of talent, specialists and workers who are skilled, suitable and happy. Drones are not equivalent of the proletariat and I think tend to be mistaken as such. Happily they can be trained at some stage or kept under control with Holotheatres and the like which also entertain and are enjoyed by workers , talents and specialists. Anyway here's me also straying

GeneralTacticus · December 10, 2002, 02:18

It's about time somebody on the Left grasped that.

Kirov · December 10, 2002, 07:37

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Drones resemble that what was called 'lumpenproletariat' rather than 'proletariat'.

'Lumpenproletariat' was despised by Marx and Engels (IIRC, it was Engels who developed this derogative name). Lumpenproletariat was considered as people without moral spine, too unpredictable to be considered as revolutionary force.

'Proletariat', provided that it's aware of his historical destination, is the driving force of revolution. Thus in SMAC Marx would rather work with workers than drones.

OTOH, it was anarchists who considered 'lumpenproletariat' (drones) as hope for anarchistic revolution, along with proletariat of course. Anarchists claimed that people in such great poverty, having nothing to lose, will fight to the end.
It is foundation of the one of many conflicts between marxists (esp Engels) and anarchists (esp Proudhon).

So, in SMAC, only the anarchistic vision of revolution can be brought to life.

Comments?

Drogue · December 10, 2002, 07:57

I agree with what both Kirov and Herc say. Drones are not a good thing. However, they do still have reasons for rioting, and as such we should not discount them, but look at their needs, and, if possible build Rec Commons or Net Nodes for them. Though they may be "without moral spine" (A description one could apply to Morgan aswell, albeit in a different manner) that is no reason to discount them. We are a faction founded on democracy, whereby every person, be it drone, worker of talent, is equal.

Pandemoniak · December 10, 2002, 08:14

Quote:

As you know Drones are the unskilled, the unsuitable and disgruntled: they are the opposite of talent, specialists and workers who are skilled, suitable and happy. Drones are not equivalent of the proletariat and I think tend to be mistaken as such. Happily they can be trained at some stage or kept under control with Holotheatres and the like which also entertain and are enjoyed by workers , talents and specialists.

Drones are not the unskilled and the unsuitable, but they are disgruntled (if the systran translator is right). They are the untaught and the leftout. They werent born simply bad, they hadnt the chance to express themselves and are just left out !

All of you remember when we succeeded the human genome, and when we began to learn what and who we really are. This changement have taught so much to our people that many new talents appeared.
We must not forget that the drones are glad to see recreation commons and holographic theater, that makes them realize they are taken in account, and not forgotten.
Also, the holographic theater industry provides artistic jobs for lots of people, and Drones can "rehabilitate" and educate themselves and each other by learning the way of Art.
Films like "October", directed by Sergei E. Senstein, recently arrived from the University, provides them good art to think of, as well as other films such as "Citizen Tassadar", this excellent film that tells the story of this selfish press mogul who dies alone in his Xanadu, after a short and brilliant career.
All this art, cumulated with the Recreations Commons, provides to the Drones place to discuss and elaborate new artistic ideas. More over, if the director of Energy and Industry would be kind enough to allocate some credits in psychic facilities, we'll be able to soften this anger and to provide the Drones an excellent quality of life, health,education, and social rights so that can as well, elevate themselves to the "rank" of Talent.

As long as the Drones will be left out,
I will walk the Drones

Pandemoniak,
in For I have walked with the Drones
CCCP Press, Available for free at any local Party House.

Kirov · December 10, 2002, 08:34

I wasn't writing what I do think about drones, I have only described marxist and anarchistic point of view, and this is only provided that drones are indeed the counterpart of 'lumpenproletariat'.

Personally I think that relatons between lumpenproletariat and proletariat are much more complex as it is easy to be a good and well-paid worker one day and an idle drone next day. Either workers or drones, they certainly need help to escape the trap of the 'inheritage of poverty'.

And I think that Rec Commons and Holo Theatres are as good for drones as MTV and soap operas in our world - they make people calm, not happy. It is simple brain-washing. A tragedy of SMAC is that the main ways to calm people down is either thru repression (POLICE) or making them dumb. The real thing that could help drones is... school. Isn't it that simple?

Pandemoniak · December 10, 2002, 09:24

Quote:

I think that Rec Commons and Holo Theatres are as good for drones as MTV and soap operas in our world - they make people calm, not happy.

Are you saying films like "October", "Lady Deirdre's Lover", "The Lady from the Hive" or the magnificent "Citizen Tassadar" are soaps ???

mad:
You forgot that without the Recreations Commons and the Holo Theater industry, the citizen David Leech would never had been able to direct his most famous "Freshwater Drive", starring Aki-Zeta-5 and Lady Deirdre herselves !

Thers not only soaps and "opium of the drones", theres also culture and creation.

------

Quote:

I wasn't writing what I do think about drones, I have only described marxist and anarchistic point of view, and this is only provided that drones are indeed the counterpart of 'lumpenproletariat'.

No need to have an apologizing tone

I consider myself the drones as the strongest part of the revolting forces. Maybe thats why Lucky keeps calling me "ananarchist dissident"

Kirov · December 10, 2002, 12:29

I do see the difference between art and soap. But would you call such movies like "Morgan Pie" or "Night of the Mind Worms" a good art? Who benefits from these movies? Bloodshed, sex and silly humour - that is what THEY give us.

And I'm not surprised you consider drones as the only social class able to revolt. Workers in SMAC will never revolt, first they have to move to lower social classes. Obviuosly, BR is not a marxist...

Pandemoniak · December 10, 2002, 13:27

Quote:

But would you call such movies like "Morgan Pie" or "Night of the Mind Worms" a good art?

"Morgan Pie", certainly not ! This is just a whole bunch of crap about morganit consumerism where people are all reduced to their faculty of consume, physically and creditally. Moreover, there is no humor there who could raise the lower classes, only humor who could lower talents -- such films, provided by Morgan Entertainment (c), explain us a lot about their decay and degenerescence.

On the other hand, "Night of the Mind Worms", as well as "Xenorassic Park", or "The Jaws of the Sealurk" are not really clever film, though really entertaining. If we complain for "Bloodshed, sex and silly humour ", then we have to complain of "Dance of the Vampires", famous holfilm from R. Polanskinov, and almost all the films from Mr. Brian De Palmhand...

Drogue · December 10, 2002, 14:00

And what's wrong with 'bloodshed, sex and silly humour' now?

I say we need more 'Will and Deirdre', '3rd Rock from the Suns', 'Band of Scout Patrols' and 'Chirontrash' (ok, maybe not the last one

)

Long live silly humour and mindless fun!!!

Hercules · December 10, 2002, 14:47

I loved Citizen Tassadar. Fungalbud, fungalbud.

Kirov · December 10, 2002, 15:53

"Blade Rover" is my best.

GeneralTacticus · December 11, 2002, 02:15

Quote:

Drones are not the unskilled and the unsuitable, but they are disgruntled (if the systran translator is right). They are the untaught and the leftout. They werent born simply bad, they hadnt the chance to express themselves and are just left out !

Explain, then, why they're 'lazy trouble-makers, and they all carry weapons'? That's a direct quote from the SMAC manual.

Hercules · December 11, 2002, 04:05

So our garrison and military units don't carry weapons?.
Is there any proof our workers , talents and specialists don't carry weapons?
I presume you GT carry a weapon, seeing you are a 'general'?

Trouble-makers. If they are lazy trouble makers then I presume the don't make much trouble because doing so requires effort. So they may simply be trouble makers. Admittedly they can cause disruption to production for a short period.

So lets see what we have as a definition:

Someone who carries weapons.
Someone who is a trouble maker, for instance disrupting the production of ideas and debate in a political party think tank.
And presumably the name 'drone' not only comes brings to mind insects in a hive but also the connotation ' drones' on.

I wonder are there other types of 'Drones' around

GeneralTacticus · December 11, 2002, 04:11

Quote:

So our garrison and military units don't carry weapons?.

Of course they do, they need them to do their jobs. Drones don't.

Quote:

Is there any proof our workers , talents and specialists don't carry weapons?

Of course not, but they don't all do so.

Quote:

I presume you GT carry a weapon, seeing you are a 'general'?

Yes. Is there some kind of problem witht his? I have alicense and everything, to prove that I am considered mentally stable and safety-concious enough to be allowed to carry a weapon.

Quote:

Trouble-makers. If they are lazy trouble makers then I presume the don't make much trouble because doing so requires effort. So they may simply be trouble makers. Admittedly they can cause disruption to production for a short period.

They're lazy as in they don't want to work. Causing trouble is fun for them, hence they do it even thought hey're lazy.

Quote:

So lets see what we have as a definition:

Someone who carries weapons.
Someone who is a trouble maker, for instance disrupting the production of ideas and debate in a political party think tank.
And presumably the name 'drone' not only comes brings to mind insects in a hive but also the connotation ' drones' on.

I wonder are there other types of 'Drones' around

I'm hgardly 'disrupting the production of ideas and debate in a political think-tank', as, first off, this isn't a poltiical think tank; secondly, I'm not disrupting your debate, as you are free to ignore me if you wish.

Drogue · December 11, 2002, 05:28

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

I'm hgardly 'disrupting the production of ideas and debate in a political think-tank', as, first off, this isn't a poltiical think tank; secondly, I'm not disrupting your debate, as you are free to ignore me if you wish.

Actually this was intended as a political think-tank. And the fact we are free to ignore you does not matter, it would be hard to have an discussion ignoring you're posts, because it would be all to easy to get lost. Moreover, people will not ignore you, whether they be STEP or not. I'm not saying to stop debating, it's interesting, but one on the the nature of drones is more on topic in the CCCP workshop or the DLP thread IMHO.

Herc: You asked before what should our policies be, other than to save Planet. I'm not sure if you saw my answer.

“Yes we do. I would suggest taken the Gaian ideals of
1) High Planet rating, low eco-damage;
2) Pacifism;
3) Freedom of the individual.
but add a 4th:
4) Equality, wherever possible, between individuals, but by ethos rather than law or high taxes.
They would be my personal vision for a better nation. “
What are your thoughts on this? Which bits would you like to change? Can I suggest we produce a manifesto for what we stand for? To help new people who look at our thread to understand what we’re about.

Hercules · December 12, 2002, 13:27

Developing policies beyond saving the environment.
Drogue your suggestions are a good starting point.

Quote:

“Yes we do. I would suggest taken the Gaian ideals of
1) High Planet rating, low eco-damage;
2) Pacifism;
3) Freedom of the individual.
but add a 4th:
4) Equality, wherever possible, between individuals, but by ethos rather than law or high taxes.
They would be my personal vision for a better nation. “
What are your thoughts on this? Which bits would you like to change? Can I suggest we produce a manifesto for what we stand for? To help new people who look at our thread to understand what we’re about.

Much as we admire the Gaians and are in total agreement with many of their policies we do differ in some policy areas. Taking your points

1 High Planet / low eco-damge - without a doubt our central policy.

2 As we wish to share the planet with the natives then we need to achieve a balance between the native habitat and the green earth habitat we brought.

3 I am not sure about us being totally pacificist. If after constantly asking particular factions diplomatically, to cease heavy pollution production and they persist in ignoring our requests, IMO war then becomes an option.

4 Freedom of the individual. Not absolute freedom, rights and responsibilities are in here also. we are against corruption and oppression.

5 Equality. Tolerance, Respect.Yes

6 But as you've alluded to elsewhere we are also a party that likes to party. we have time for arts and culture and sport.

7 Also I think we should attempt to outline our preferred science, tech path and preferred facilities, which may be guided by our preferred SPs such as the Pholus Mutagen.

8 We might also wish to have our own 'green region'

9 Finally when we meet Deirdre, how can we work best with her.
Some initial thoughts on your /our policy ideas.

As this is our think tank it would be useful if only broad supporters of saving the environment and the draft policies above would contribute. When we publish the manifesto you can debate then.

Drogue · December 14, 2002, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Hercules
3 I am not sure about us being totally pacificist. If after constantly asking particular factions diplomatically, to cease heavy pollution production and they persist in ignoring our requests, IMO war then becomes an option.

I would be against this, as war damages the environment, and although I agree others should be Green, and we should pressurie them to, I do not believe in forcing my beliefs on others by violence. I think it would be hard to say whether the effects of the war wouldn't damage Planet more than the other factions polluting. I am willing to compromise over the party position, however I will personally campaign for a stop to all wars, because it is a stronly held personal belief of mine.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hercules
4 Freedom of the individual. Not absolute freedom, rights and responsibilities are in here also. we are against corruption and oppression.

5 Equality. Tolerance, Respect.Yes

Absolutly. Libertarianism (Freedom so long as it does not detract from others rights) but with environmental controls.
I think we should combine the two: 'We strive for an equal, fair and free society for all'.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hercules
7 Also I think we should attempt to outline our preferred science, tech path and preferred facilities, which may be guided by our preferred SPs such as the Pholus Mutagen.

8 We might also wish to have our own 'green region'

9 Finally when we meet Deirdre, how can we work best with her.
Some initial thoughts on your/our policy ideas.

I think this is all good, and I agree with it, although possibly not all in the manifesto. I would bring up some of the more specific points in discussion forums, such as how to deal with Deirdre or Green regions, as I think they are assumed by our other principles. I would keep the STEP party thread and use it for debate, and have this for STEP communication and celebration

My idea for the STEP Manifesto:
1) We believe in developing a natural harmony with Planet, including a high Planet and low eco-damage rating.
2) We will not support war unless absolutly necessary, to defend ourselves against a faction who's views are opposed to ours.
3) We strive for an equal, fair, tolerant and free society for all, where power and position are allocated by merit rather than birthright or wealth.
4) We are for research towards ecological and exploration technologies, and the building of tree farms and other ecological base enhancements.
5) We see our future in Eudaimonia and Transcendance, as we believe the happiness of people, and the harmony with Planet, are integral parts of becoming enlightened.
And we like to Party!

What do you think? Any suggestions?

GeneralTacticus · December 14, 2002, 23:14

Just a question about one of the points:

Quote:

2) We will not support war unless absolutly necessary, to defend ourselves against a faction who's views are opposed to ours.

Wouldn't that serve as justification for an invasion of more or less any other faction on Planet? We could find disagreements between our views and those of any other faction.

Pandemoniak · December 15, 2002, 06:46

Quote:

... an invasion ...

Quote:

... to defend ourselves ...

DeathByTheSword · December 15, 2002, 09:02

eh if you do not support a war then be ready to argue with me pretty soon i will propose something soon....

Drogue · December 15, 2002, 09:42

Then I shall be arguing (The party hasn't sanctioned those yet)

GT: Pande is right, I will only support a war to defend ourselves, we should never strike the first blow, even pre-emptively.

DeathByTheSword · December 15, 2002, 09:47

you might want to take a look at the new thread of the Command Nexus

Hercules · December 15, 2002, 10:15

Drogue: I can accept all the points you make.

Quote:

I am willing to compromise over the party position, however I will personally campaign for a stop to all wars, because it is a strongly held personal belief of mine.

I accept your spirit of compromise on the war question. But I think we need to tidy up the war issue.

GT has made a valid point.

Factional strife is almost inevitable in SMAC. And sometimes we can be drawn into vendetta via a pact brother. When the time comes, if need be, we can always try to get the other faction to start the war (to maintain our diplomacy rating). So a possibility for our manifesto could be 'no first strike' for 40 years. It can be renewed but see planet busters below.

If some faction starts a war against us, then we have to support our faction but seek a speedy resolution.

But I feel we are also against a proliferation of Planet Busters and would seek to intervene for their distruction in addition to developing missle shields or ordital defence.

Still working on this.

In light of DBTS's post we need to do it quick.

How about point 2
Draft

We will pursue our goals peacefully, but reserve the right to defend ourselves from military and espionage attack. We reserve the right to intervene on our allies behalf. We reserve the right to intervene to prevent large scale global eco damage.

'Intervene' allows us scope for diplomacy, to share tech, to donate tech, arrange loans, donate units to assist defence, place one of our units in a pact brothers base in order to stall attack. It also allows us to intervene militaristically if need be.

DeathByTheSword · December 15, 2002, 10:22

i just have to say about planting own units in allies bases i great....they have then a real peacekeeping mission

Drogue · December 15, 2002, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Hercules
Factional strife is almost inevitable in SMAC. And sometimes we can be drawn into vendetta via a pact brother. When the time comes, if need be, we can always try to get the other faction to start the war (to maintain our diplomacy rating). So a possibility for our manifesto could be 'no first strike' for 40 years. It can be renewed but see planet busters below.

If some faction starts a war against us, then we have to support our faction but seek a speedy resolution.

But I feel we are also against a proliferation of Planet Busters and would seek to intervene for their distruction in addition to developing missle shields or ordital defence.

How about point 2
Draft

We will pursue our goals peacefully, but reserve the right to defend ourselves from military and espionage attack. We reserve the right to intervene on our allies behalf. We reserve the right to intervene to prevent large scale global eco damage.

'Intervene' allows us scope for diplomacy, to share tech, to donate tech, arrange loans, donate units to assist defence, place one of our units in a pact brothers base in order to stall attack. It also allows us to intervene militaristically if need be.

I agree with your general ethos. I think we need to mention that we are against Planet Busters, but for orbital defence etc., that we will not strike without provocation, and that we will seek resolution with the minimum damage and loss of life.

How about:
We will pursue our goals peacefully, but when provoked, will defend ourselves. We will intervene if a faction attacks our Pact Brother, or to prevent atrocities, but will seek a speedy resolution with the minimum damage and loss of life. We will never sanction the use of Planet Busters.

Hercules · December 15, 2002, 14:08

Yes Ok it will do for 50 years and then subject to review.

Drogue · December 15, 2002, 14:30

Manifesto etc in first post. Take a look and tell me if it all looks ok.

GeneralTacticus · December 16, 2002, 01:49

Quote:

In light of DBTS's post we need to do it quick.

If you're talking about his plan for a war on Morgan, then you will (shock, horror) have an ally in me. I have no desire to see our citizens and those of our allies die for no other reason than our military's boredom.