The Debating Room

[Drogue]

Since most debate seems to be in party discussions, yet most people do not belong to parties, I thought we needed a non-party thread to debate issues on Chiron. This is for anyone to contribute, but please keep posts civil, polite, Chiron based, and preferably not too long. If someone makes a strawman or other mistake, then it is ok to point it out, but please then state what your real opinion is. And be nice!

If anyone wants to propose a motion to debate, please do, or PM me and I will for you. But please make them relevant.

Here's the latest one:

Our military should place more emphasis on individual unit quality than overall numbers.

[Micha]

so... I start!
There has never been a discussion whether to attack an ally or not. It was said that we have to think about ALL options we have, even if they will clash with our ideals. If all factions would act like our ideals tell, then there wouldn´t be any need for war. But we have to face menaces in future, which might be much more dangerous than our little skirmish with Yang. So we either need STRONG allies or much more bases/land (e.g. the one of our weaker neighbours) or both.
We shouldn´t declare war on allies, that´s for sure.
But what if they proof not that helpful as ally...

[Drogue]

Well, I think if we have built our society on Freedom and Democracy, how can we justify denying it to any other? If they have chosen a leader, why should we despose them? And more importantly, why should we presume our system is better than any other? What right have we to impose ourselves, our beliefs and ideals, upon another faction?

Overall, in a war, humanity loses. What purpose does war serve, other than to help our egos and bid for power. If we go to war, people will die. Why should we allow unnecessary deaths? Do we value our power, our authority, more than the lives of the people? We are put here, into our position of power, by the people, ot do what is best for them. If we are not provoked, if our people are not in danger, we have no business attacking.

IMHO, we should take the path of least resistance, of least lives lost. Let our aim be to improve the quality of life for all people, not just our citizens, not just our voters, but all citizens on Planet. If that means take out Yang, to liberate his people, so be it, but would Deirdre's, or Morgan's, or Zak's people have a better quality of life after a war, where many people have died, and where society is decimated? Yes I believe our system is better, but the bad effects caused by a war are far bigger than the good effects of being in our society. Why waste time, money and energy on war when we can help improve the life of our citizens? Let us prosper in peace.
Live and Let Live

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
Well, I think if we have built our society on Freedom and Democracy, how can we justify denying it to any other? If they have chosen a leader, why should we despose them? And more importantly, why should we presume our system is better than any other? What right have we to impose ourselves, our beliefs and ideals, upon another faction?

We should do none of this, I fully agree with you on this statement; it has been what I objected to in our planned future invasion of the Hive. Most of those in favor of the invasion of the Hive are in favor because they believe we have some moral superiority over the Hive, and that we must liberate them for their own good.

The proposal for the war with Morgan, if anything, was more honest. I have never claimed that it was about ideology, or anything other than territory and resources. If we are to go to war, and even if it is against our allies, lets be at least honest about our intentions and not attempt to hide behind some non-existent moral structure which we ourselves have created for the purpose of sparing us the guilt of admission of what our wars are really about.

Originally posted by Drogue
Overall, in a war, humanity loses. What purpose does war serve, other than to help our egos and bid for power. If we go to war, people will die. Why should we allow unnecessary deaths? Do we value our power, our authority, more than the lives of the people? We are put here, into our position of power, by the people, ot do what is best for them. If we are not provoked, if our people are not in danger, we have no business attacking.

If the people wish it, so be it. I have said this many times. Nevertheless, our duty is to our people, and it legally ends there. If we can fight a war with minimal military losses on our end, and little civilian losses on the enemies, shouldn’t we take the chance since it might not come again? War, despite its undesirable characteristics, is a means to an end, and we should not dispose of it as a tool simply because we find it uncomfortable. And yes, this tool should be considered for use even against allies.

Originally posted by Drogue
IMHO, we should take the path of least resistance, of least lives lost. Let our aim be to improve the quality of life for all people, not just our citizens, not just our voters, but all citizens on Planet. If that means take out Yang, to liberate his people, so be it, but would Deirdre's, or Morgan's, or Zak's people have a better quality of life after a war, where many people have died, and where society is decimated? Yes I believe our system is better, but the bad effects caused by a war are far bigger than the good effects of being in our society. Why waste time, money and energy on war when we can help improve the life of our citizens? Let us prosper in peace.
Live and Let Live

Here again I see this insistence that we have some moral superiority and right to “liberate” the people of the Hive. They haven’t asked us to do so, what right do we have of going in to liberate them, under the claim that it is for their own good? If we were to simply come out and say that we want to invade Yang since we would gain much if we conquered him, it would be considerably more honest and closer to our true intentions.

I’m saying, that if there are minimal costs, and war could be used to improve the lives of our citizens, we should use it. In to paraphrase Chairman Yang of all people, don’t deny yourself a useful tool simply because it uncomfortably reminds you of your lack of morality. And ultimately, that is what we are doing. We are hiding behind our supposed moral high-ground in regards to the invasion of the Hive, because we are not willing to admit that we want their land, resources, and bases for ourselves.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Voltaire
Most of those in favor of the invasion of the Hive are in favor because they believe we have some moral superiority over the Hive, and that we must liberate them for their own good.

I disagree, I think most just do not want war. Besides that is only one reason, and to me, a small one. I favour peace with Yang, but we have little choice in the matter. He declared war.

Originally posted by Voltaire
Nevertheless, our duty is to our people, and it legally ends there. If we can fight a war with minimal military losses on our end, and little civilian losses on the enemies, shouldn’t we take the chance since it might not come again? War, despite its undesirable characteristics, is a means to an end, and we should not dispose of it as a tool simply because we find it uncomfortable.

Legally maybe, but only under our laws. I say we should care about all humankind. We are one race, we want to unite, and I would rather unite under tolerance and democracy than force.

Even the means to an end must be closely looked at and decided if they are right. Otherwise we end up like Robespierre, having a great dream, but causing too much suffering to try and attain it. War is a tool, but by that idea, so is eugenism. Should we condone that in the name of progress and a means to an end too?

Originally posted by Voltaire
Here again I see this insistence that we have some moral superiority and right to “liberate” the people of the Hive. They haven’t asked us to do so, what right do we have of going in to liberate them, under the claim that it is for their own good? If we were to simply come out and say that we want to invade Yang since we would gain much if we conquered him, it would be considerably more honest and closer to our true intentions.

But we do not disagree with Morgan. Morgan has a democracy, Yang stands for Police state, it's antithesis. There is a big difference between the too. And the one Hive member we have met (Aaron) has asked us too. Can people really be happy under those conditions. My probes have seen what he does, it is unethical, it is immoral, and if I believed in such a concept, it is evil.

Originally posted by Voltaire
I’m saying, that if there are minimal costs, and war could be used to improve the lives of our citizens, we should use it. In to paraphrase Chairman Yang of all people, don’t deny yourself a useful tool simply because it uncomfortably reminds you of your lack of morality. And ultimately, that is what we are doing. We are hiding behind our supposed moral high-ground in regards to the invasion of the Hive, because we are not willing to admit that we want their land, resources, and bases for ourselves.

Why should it happen at all. Just because it is there, and won't be later, does not mean we should use it. We do take the moral high ground, we will not commit war without provocation. Yang has provoked us, Morgan has not. To me, it really is that simple.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
I disagree, I think most just do not want war. Besides that is only one reason, and to me, a small one. I favour peace with Yang, but we have little choice in the matter. He declared war.

You may not share this opinion, but others in our faction and in our government do. Personally I would prefer to ideally have peace with Yang, but since that is not an option, invasion, assuming we could pull it off would be desirable. Though that is a large assumption to make.

Originally posted by Drogue
Legally maybe, but only under our laws. I say we should care about all humankind. We are one race, we want to unite, and I would rather unite under tolerance and democracy than force.

Again, though I find this very noble, it isn’t practical. We should, and we must take all humanity into account when making our decisions, but if it ever comes down to between “us” and “them”, the choice should be clear.

Originally posted by Drogue
Even the means to an end must be closely looked at and decided if they are right. Otherwise we end up like Robespierre, having a great dream, but causing too much suffering to try and attain it. War is a tool, but by that idea, so is eugenism. Should we condone that in the name of progress and a means to an end too?

We should have all tools at our disposal, that is all I have to say on the matter.

Originally posted by Drogue
But we do not disagree with Morgan. Morgan has a democracy, Yang stands for Police state, it's antithesis. There is a big difference between the too. And the one Hive member we have met (Aaron) has asked us too. Can people really be happy under those conditions. My probes have seen what he does, it is unethical, it is immoral, and if I believed in such a concept, it is evil.

Again, happiness is a subjective thing. Who’s to say that they cannot be happy, or that they aren’t happy? Yes, it is true that some of the methods employed by Yang we find at best distasteful, and at worst despicable. Nevertheless, can it not be said that though our methods are different, that we have the same goals in mind, that is the betterment of humanity and the human condition. Simply because we disagree with his methods is no reason to totally and completely condemn them. Besides, as you have said we shouldn’t not attempt to unify humanity at our feet, that is not democratic, what right then do we have of stating that we should liberate the Hive?

Originally posted by Drogue
Why should it happen at all. Just because it is there, and won't be later, does not mean we should use it. We do take the moral high ground, we will not commit war without provocation. Yang has provoked us, Morgan has not. To me, it really is that simple.

Simply because the Morganies have not to date provoked us is no reason to, in complete totality, reject the possible use of war latter on. And as for the Hive, I’m completely fine with invading them, just do not give me any rhetoric about the valiant Peacekeeping forces going off to war to liberate the oppressed Hivarian people. Rather just come out and say that the true motivations for any possibly invasion of the Hive is so that we can occupy them and gain those resources for ourselves.

[AdamTG02]

Here again I see this insistence that we have some moral superiority and right to “liberate” the people of the Hive. They haven’t asked us to do so, what right do we have of going in to liberate them, under the claim that it is for their own good?

The people of the Hive haven't been asked by Yang for permission to set up his totalitarian government either. He imposed his power by force and maintains it by force. If we deposed him by force, that would be justified by his own logic. Morgan, on the other hand, while he originally used economic coercion to force those on his Colony Pod to enter his employ, was able to institute a Democracy with universal suffrage before our educational techniques were up to the task. He has shared those educational techniques with us, forming the basis for our present Democracy. He has been democratically reelected as CEO multiple times. He has maintained a Pact with us despite his belief that our economic system harms legitimate business interests.

Compare this with Yang, who has developed the largest army on Planet, preemptively declared war on us, decries all Democracy as immoral, builds his bases like underground fortesses, and maintains himself in power through brutal repression. The people of the Hive may not have begged us en masse to come to their aid. They may not have the means, they may be afraid, or they may be prevented from doing so. None of those are certain, but they are possible, as is the possibility that they are content. Most likely, some exist who are content, and some who are prevented from defecting or are afraid. Now here is the key:

Do we have the right to sacrifice the liberty of those who wish to be free, for the tranquility of those who prefer despotism? Do we have the right to sacrifice their liberty, even if fighting to establish it would cause loss of life on both sides?

I do not know the answer, but that as I see it is the question.

[Edited for typos.]

[GeneralTacticus]

but if it ever comes down to between “us” and “them”, the choice should be clear.

Of course, but it isn't a choice between 'us' and 'them'. It's a choice over whether we want what is theirs by killing them.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
The people of the Hive haven't been asked by Yang for permission to set up his totalitarian government either. He imposed his power by force and maintains it by force. If we deposed him by force, that would be justified by his own logic. Morgan, on the other hand, while he originally used economic coercion to force those on his Colony Pod to enter his employ, was able to institute a Democracy with universal suffrage before our educational techniques were up to the task. He has shared those educational techniques with us, forming the basis for our present Democracy. He has been democratically reelected as CEO multiple times. He has maintained a Pact with us despite his belief that our economic system harms legitimate business interests.

Compare this with Yang, who has developed the largest army on Planet, preemptively declared war on us, decries all Democracy as immoral, builds his bases like underground fortesses, and maintains himself in power through brutal repression. The people of the Hive may not have begged us en masse to come to their aid. They may not have the means, they may be afraid, or they may be prevented from doing so. None of those are certain, but they are possible, as is the possibility that they are content. Most likely, some exist who are content, and some who are prevented from defecting or are afraid. Now here is the key:

Do we have the right to sacrifice the liberty of those who wish to be free, for the tranquility of those who prefer despotism? Do we have the right to sacrifice their liberty, even if fighting to establish it would cause loss of life on both sides?

I do not know the answer, but that as I see it is the question.

[Edited for typos.]

Fair enough, and point taken. Nevertheless, I maintain that we should leave the option of war on table, just in case, besides it would be prudent to do so.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Of course, but it isn't a choice between 'us' and 'them'. It's a choice over whether we want what is theirs by killing them.

Fine, so be it. Even so, will we never consider the use of force to gain what we want?

[GeneralTacticus]

Fine, so be it. Even so, will we never consider the use of force to gain what we want?

That would depend on whether we are justified in wanting it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Voltaire
We should have all tools at our disposal, that is all I have to say on the matter.

Simply because the Morganies have not to date provoked us is no reason to, in complete totality, reject the possible use of war latter on.

We are not rejecting the possibility later on. What I'm saying is since they haven't provoked us yet, we should not attack. When they have provoked us, then it is a completely different argument. I do not want to reject the possibility completely, when a situation arises, we should discuss it. However, unless it is provoked in some form, I see no moral reason to attack.

Originally posted by Voltaire
And as for the Hive, I’m completely fine with invading them, just do not give me any rhetoric about the valiant Peacekeeping forces going off to war to liberate the oppressed Hivarian people. Rather just come out and say that the true motivations for any possibly invasion of the Hive is so that we can occupy them and gain those resources for ourselves.

It is not rhetoric, as I think Adam has addressed. If we disagree strongly with someone's ideals, we have a reason to attack (albeit to me not reason enough). If we do not disagree with them, then we do not have a reason. We disagree with the Hive and not with Morgan, hence our current foreign policy.

[Kirov]

Voltair, what you call "romantic idealism" is a foundation and agenda of our faction, the characteristics that distinguishes us from other factions. Imagine that Miriam imposes a secular way of government becomes it's more efficient, or Morgan runs Planned (I know he can't, but that's not the matter) because he wants to pop boom...

I do consider invasion of the Hive as "liberation", but it is not his political system what gives us excuse to invade - it is the fact he declared war on us himself. Whatever we do on that matter, we are defending ourselves.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
That would depend on whether we are justified in wanting it.

Fine, in such a case what would then be considered justification for war?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
We are not rejecting the possibility later on. What I'm saying is since they haven't provoked us yet, we should not attack. When they have provoked us, then it is a completely different argument. I do not want to reject the possibility completely, when a situation arises, we should discuss it. However, unless it is provoked in some form, I see no moral reason to attack.

Ok, nevertheless, we shouldn’t completely discount the use of force even if Morgan is not being aggressive in the future. And moral reasons are not something that wars are fought over.

Originally posted by Drogue
It is not rhetoric, as I think Adam has addressed. If we disagree strongly with someone's ideals, we have a reason to attack (albeit to me not reason enough). If we do not disagree with them, then we do not have a reason. We disagree with the Hive and not with Morgan, hence our current foreign policy.

Disagreement over ideas is perhaps one reason for attack, but one way or another disagreement over ideals cannot be used as an excuse for an attack, not should agreement over ideas be used as justification for a possible use on force.

And just to clarify, I’ve never in all my posts used any absolutes. I’ve always clearly stated that any discussion is about possibilities, therefore I’m not arguing for the direct use of force, but rather for the possibility for the use of force, even against an ally.