Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _indigo1
Incorrect.
The example is democracy because everyone has equal input but the rules of the game are well defined and executed by a representative (the game character)
Anarchy would be if the game *had* no rules and there were no standard commands to type into chat. As if each person in the chat had a character in the game world simultaneously.
But that's irrelevant.
What is relevant is I was making the point that democracy is directionless on all but the smallest timescales and therefore incapable of tackling problems that scale in time.
It can literally go in circles or stand in the corner and jump repeatedly just as a crowd controlled game character does when looked at on the wider timescale.
I mean - this is not really news though. Just depressing.
|
Indeed, i apologise! I skim read parts of it, but went back and indeed I was mistaken. The point I was making I guess, is that Democracy works in the first 50 years after a major war, but after that, there needs to be stable progression path to something other than a plutocracy, which seems to be where all of our efforts tend to take us.