D&D Alignment test, what's your affinity?

"

ScrotieMcB schrieb:

Not quite. Imagine two groups: one entirely of peaceful people honor-bound to the ancap's beloved non-aggression principle, and one not. Assuming a moderate distance separating these groups, the first will tend towards peaceful free trade, while the other will develop government first - some strongman will declare himself chieftain, assemble a group of thugs for enforcement, and essentially make serfs of everyone else. This chieftain will make the first laws (per his whims) and the first army to enforce them. Eventually, when the two groups meet, the clash will be: individuals practiced in trade and workmanship, versus an army practiced at violence. It is a foregone conclusion: the brutes win, and seize some additional technology in the process.

Everything noble about us as humans is advanced by the lack of government, free trade, free speech, liberty, reason, and the lack of violence. But one cannot reason with a human given over completely to the demon of violence, there are no words, no arguments that will soothe and no offering of material goods nor of knowledge that will appease. Force must be fought with force, animal with animal. The only alternative is surrender, enslavement, death.

I wasn't really considering something as unrealistic as a perfectly peaceful society, it's just bands of raiders versus a union of settlers. The first one can be freely formed and broken with few or no rules and lasts until the raiding is over but the latter needs to be enforced at all times to be able to counter the first.

Might be something else too, honorable people prefer dealing with those of similar mindset and laws ensure that people you meet will behave up to a certain standard even if you don't know them personally. You don't really need any confirmation if you assume that everyone around you is dishonorable, they can only act better than you expect.

Or maybe the whole thing is dead-simple, people naturally fear the unknown and laws/rules just enforce a certain pattern to the human behavior.

"

ScrotieMcB schrieb:

While I agree idiots voting doesn't help, allowing government to set the standards for idiocy is a disaster.

Local government could set the rules. It could be something perfectly reasonable, like you have to live here at least 5 years and be age XX or older. And it might be different in another community.

"

If by "corruption" you mean government subverted by a malicious entity, then yes. But the malicious entity itself may exist independently of such government, and be of virtually any size.

Not all forms of corruption work together congruently. Separate instances will still be isolated entities. For example, you have 5 separate local governments bought off and controlled by 5 separate corporations. Each with their own motives/interests. I'd like to see that local communities of people have the power to overthrow their local governments if things get out of hand. Some process they can invoke as a legal mob revolt. If they can get a super majority like 70-80% of the population in agreement for example.

In our current system, they're allowed to lobby congress who can establish law for the entire land. Corruption seeks the most powerful authorities to corrupt, and they'll skip the middle men if they can.

I don't like the fact it takes millions of dollars to run campaigns. This makes politicians seek funding from questionable sources, and does nothing but fuel corruption from within the system. If politics were kept to local levels, the need for massive campaign budgets would be eliminated entirely.

open image in new tab to see full size

---

Eh, whatever. Sorry, but I'm not dying for no fucking kings.

I agree with the "fuck D&D alignment systems" sentiment. Nobody is selfless or selfish at all times regarding all other people, nor does anyone abide or scorn all rules.