The prerequisites for having an effective Democracy are:
a) At least Steam-Engine trains for travel and communication. (Telegraph would be better.)
b) An educated populace through Public Education or Other Means.
*points at athens*
*points at early united states*

Neither of these had telegraph or steam engine or public ed. A true democracy isn't even possible until the Information Age. A representative democracy or an elective oligarchy(this is the most similar to what we have now) is certainly possible.
 
You're half-right.
Democracy is not tied to the economic well being of a country.
It is however tied to the economic well being of a people.

After all one does not need educated, well-fed, and healthy citizens to work the mines or farm the fields.
I'd debate that they need to be healthy and fed well enough to make up calories, but these limits are below what you mean to be a standard of satisfactory care.
 
Ideally for Integrating the Stallions, I'd like to do it immediately after The Law, and do The Games simultaneously.

That way our Law problems will be fixed, and we'd be in a fairly good position socially and narratively to bring the March in as part of the Ymaryn proper.

AN's hinted a couple times that our current military strategies need a higher skill level of commanders and strategists to properly implement. I believe that The Games will help out our elites and raise the skill of our average soldiers while helping our military leaders adapt to the more complex tactics we've started implementing.

If we do it right after the Law, we'll still be on Megaproject support, and could potentially one turn it. Plus, the celebration of military tradition would be a nice warm welcome for turning our oldest March back into a proper province. I believe that The Games will also give us a way to deal with red martial, if not raise our cap completely, because it's a way for bored warrior to pass the time. Plus, there might be some hidden synergy potential if we do both of them at once.
One of my paranoid fitful thoughts was I hope they don't become a problem for this tax crisis too. They shouldn't for a couple of reasons: namely that as long as we go for the not crazy complex option and start another econ crisis they have less to get onery about, and that now they are much more securely part of the system and not freshly spawned from opposing said First Tax reform. Beyond that we also with the Palace have a more detailed means of keeping our fingers on their pulse.


And that's my first bout of paranoia for today. I really don't expect them to be a problem.
 
I do not think democracy is necessarily tied to the economic well being of a people. See China as an example.
We'll see how long that lasts. Sure, the successes of the Chinese government regarding economic development can't be denied. They were in fact very clever in their strategies. But they have in fact been playing "catch up" so far and will be for a long time still. That makes conditions different. Foreign investors can easily ignore corruption and legal insecurities when personnel costs are that damn low. But to achieve and maintain a truly sophisticated high level economy, you do in fact need rule of law, to stamp down on corruption and avoid legal insecurities. And the best maintenance of rule of law is democracy. Otherwise, you'll always have a self-perpetuating and hence incesteous inner circle in power, which gives incentives to look the other way if they or their associates are corrupt.

*points at athens*
*points at early united states*

Neither of these had telegraph or steam engine or public ed. A true democracy isn't even possible until the Information Age. A representative democracy or an elective oligarchy(this is the most similar to what we have now) is certainly possible.
Athens did have a direct democracy. Of course, that was greatly helped by the fact that it indeed only covered the polis of Athens, while its empire were basically just subjects. If everyone can meet in the city, then this makes logistics far easier. This of course wouldn't be an option for us, as we are geographically too far spread out.
 
As I've said, I don't aim for democracy at our current level. That would be a hilariously unrealistic pipedream even for our bullshit levels.

But I very much do think democracy, rule of the people, should be our longterm goal - just as we always tried our best to limit any forms of slavery/serfdom, just as we always tried our best regarding gender equality, just as we always tried our best to delay hereditary elites as long as possible. This would be similar.

For now, we should broaden the elites as much as possible. Basically, in every move we make, try to keep the elites as broad ad non-hereditary as circumstances allow. And I do think the guilds are a viable tools in this.
@gutza1 had it right.
I think that are chiefs are still nominally elected, or at least they were the last time we were informed.

If I remember right, anyone can technically become a chief, but most chiefs are just the children of previous chiefs because they are the most qualified people to become chiefs, with the best education and the greatest understanding of the responsibilities involved.

The reason that I'm currently content with our system is because while our leadership is almost entirely hereditary, they all know how to properly do their jobs and they all do them pretty well. They can be corrupt, just as anyone could be corrupt, but it's very rare for any of our chiefs to be considered incompetent.
 
*points at athens*
*points at early united states*

Neither of these had telegraph or steam engine or public ed. A true democracy isn't even possible until the Information Age. A representative democracy or an elective oligarchy(this is the most similar to what we have now) is certainly possible.

Well, yes.
The requirements for an effective Representative Democratic will be significantly lower than that of a pure Democracy.
However there is also the problem in that we want to engage our entire population in government which raises the requirements significantly.
 
I think that are chiefs are still nominally elected, or at least they were the last time we were informed.

If I remember right, anyone can technically become a chief, but most chiefs are just the children of previous chiefs because they are the most qualified people to become chiefs, with the best education and the greatest understanding of the responsibilities involved.

The reason that I'm currently content with our system is because while our leadership is almost entirely hereditary, they all know how to properly do their jobs and they all do them pretty well. They can be corrupt, just as anyone could be corrupt, but it's very rare for any of our chiefs to be considered incompetent.

While I agree that our current system is good for preventing incompetency it also isolates the 'ruling class' from more local issues like the exploitation we saw in the previous update. Moving towards Democracy helps with that as it allows citizens to directly voice their discontent rather than having to go through Judicial channels which may or may not be sympathetic.

E: Also @TheDanishLord who are you calling up-jumped peasant?
 
Last edited:
While I agree that our current system is good for preventing incompetency it also isolates the 'ruling class' from more local issues like the exploitation we saw in the previous update. Moving towards Democracy helps with that as it allows citizens to directly voice their discontent rather than having to go through Judicial channels which may or may not be sympathetic.

E: Also who are you calling up-jumped peasant?
The exploitation saw in the update wouldn't have been any better if we were in a democracy.

The problem wasn't with the ruling elites, it was with the common people screwing over refugees because they knew that they could.

In a democracy the refugees wouldn't have enough votes to sway anything into their favor, and nothing would get done anyways.
 
Well, yes.
The requirements for an effective Representative Democratic will be significantly lower than that of a pure Democracy.
However there is also the problem in that we want to engage our entire population in government which raises the requirements significantly.

The amount of education and time it takes to maintain a working direct democracy...EHhhhhhhhhh.
 
And the noble will make decisions that just benefit the nobility. Let's not pretend that rule by elites was ever anything good for the people.
This is modern nonsense. Rule by elites is far FAR better than rule by the strong. And that's far FAR better than no rule at all.

You sell the ancients short. Civilization was built on tyranny almost exclusively because it worked.

At the end of the bronze age peasants were far better off than at the beginning due, primarily, to the tyrannical rule of the elite. It was completely impossible for their food production tech to support remotely comprehensive education. But they COULD support a highly educated elite. And that elite forced them (through an amazingly tyrannical and micromanaging bureaucracy) to implement technology they didn't understand. Which fed a few more elites as artisans to work bronze and run mines. Which produced a bit more food, so the elites could stockpile it for the peasants, preventing famine. Which produced higher population densities requiring more intricate irrigation tech.

The notion that rule by elites never helped the common person is antihistorical hogwash. Our civilization is built on 5 millenia of elite-rule-generated technologies.


I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Lawful Neutral is the road to to maximal human happiness right now. Doing the RIGHT thing is secondary to doing anything that increases our organization, stability and tech. You'd way rather be a Highlander wage slave than a 'free' peasant in the Hathatyn collapse. Most of the latter starved to death.
 
Well, yes.
The requirements for an effective Representative Democratic will be significantly lower than that of a pure Democracy.
However there is also the problem in that we want to engage our entire population in government which raises the requirements significantly.
I think I talked about this a few hundred pages ago as a little aside(gonna need to pull it out of the crystallized gygo), or maybe not(might have been something different but related), but I actually think a total Democracy is for Post-Information Age societies. You can certainly approach them in such societies, see America when the system works, but for the whole I would consider such countries like America to be transitional entities.

Mostly from the fact that America is still representational in a lot of things.

Ehh *shrug* personally I don't find this topic very... engaging I guess? Only word I can think of. And the reason is how incredibly far away it is right now. We will probably get there in what feels like a blitz(time flies when you are having fun) but it is actually a ways off.


While I agree that our current system is good for preventing incompetency it also isolates the 'ruling class' from more local issues like the exploitation we saw in the previous update. Moving towards Democracy helps with that as it allows citizens to directly voice their discontent rather than having to go through Judicial channels which may or may not be sympathetic.

E: Also @TheDanishLord who are you calling up-jumped peasant?
There are things we can do to reduce the hierarchy gap. Most of them are Governor's Palaces and Free Cities with a few other things like strengthening guilds and similar. Others are also increasing mechanization so that there is more skilled labor fields, though that is a long long loooong process.

I am also kinda doubtful that people like Naha can really be helped by a system change, at least to the degree you may desire since a lot of it was people being dicks to other people. I don't really know though.

*scratches beard*

Lots of work to be done in various places. As is, it is.
 
Hmm. Perhaps as a compromise we should initally create assemblies for cities which will give middle-class urbanites some representation... an extension of the guilds idea.
 
This is modern nonsense. Rule by elites is far FAR better than rule by the strong. And that's far FAR better than no rule at all.

You sell the ancients short. Civilization was built on tyranny almost exclusively because it worked.

At the end of the bronze age peasants were far better off than at the beginning due, primarily, to the tyrannical rule of the elite. It was completely impossible for their food production tech to support remotely comprehensive education. But they COULD support a highly educated elite. And that elite forced them (through an amazingly tyrannical and micromanaging bureaucracy) to implement technology they didn't understand. Which fed a few more elites as artisans to work bronze and run mines. Which produced a bit more food, so the elites could stockpile it for the peasants, preventing famine. Which produced higher population densities requiring more intricate irrigation tech.

The notion that rule by elites never helped the common person is antihistorical hogwash. Our civilization is built on 5 millenia of elite-rule-generated technologies.


I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Lawful Neutral is the road to to maximal human happiness right now. Doing the RIGHT thing is secondary to doing anything that increases our organization, stability and tech. You'd way rather be a Highlander wage slave than a 'free' peasant in the Hathatyn collapse. Most of the latter starved to death.
I can't entirely agree with you on this.

I agree that rule by the elites is better than a democracy at this time, but that doesn't mean that we can't be Lawful Good instead of Lawful Neutral.

We can have an elite that rules over a peasant class while providing them with food and safety, which is what we currently do, while also allowing them to address their grievance to the government and try to receive justice, which is something that we also do.

Being Good and being Lawful are not things that have to conflict with each other.

 
AFAIK, corruption level is fairly independent of a government having a democratically elected government or not, and a lot of practices that dealt with corruption is independent of voting people in and out anyway.

Would you have more confidence in a judge if he was elected instead of appointed? I wouldn't.
 
Hmm. Perhaps as a compromise we should initally create assemblies for cities which will give middle-class urbanites some representation... an extension of the guilds idea.
Maybe? Like, I don't think this is even on the table as an option to shoot for yet, since we don't quite have the tools to develop the tools kinda situation in my mind. Got to remember that our options for directions of change are always limited.

After the Law is done we might, then there is also Free Cities and DL to give admin advances. I could see such things sprouting out of those two last ones. That'd actually be cool to find out.

So, in sum, I think if you want these sort of things go for Free Cities and single secondary DL's as they are your best shot at spawning the mid turn events to develop these.
 
Also I think that one of the problems is that Academia Nut doesn't really do a good job at conveying to us how the Ymaryn government actually works at anything other than the highest level. We in the Thread assume that everything just works at the mid and low tiers but as we've seen in this update that assumption can be quite dangerous.
 
I can't entirely agree with you on this.

I agree that rule by the elites is better than a democracy at this time, but that doesn't mean that we can't be Lawful Good instead of Lawful Neutral.

We can have an elite that rules over a peasant class while providing them with food and safety, which is what we currently do, while also allowing them to address their grievance to the government and try to receive justice, which is something that we also do.

Being Good and being Lawful are not things that have to conflict with each other.
Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies?

In the long run, the two are pretty similar - it's only when you choose short-term standards of living over long-term optimisation that it's a problem. Not using slaves is an example of the two lining up - it's a local minima but is no-optimal in the long run.
 
Back
Top