![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueThose of you who don't play EVE will have very little interest in alliance politics. They're quite interesting, but only when you have context. That's not what I'm posting about though.
One thing that EVE does, is provide a playground - a sort of sandbox, where people can make of it what they choose. That's part of why I still play. In the recent times (18 months or so) I've been in an Alliance called Star Fraction.
Star Fraction is a roleplay alliance, and it draws somewhat from a book - called 'The Star Fraction' oddly enough.
But not in the way you see in most homages, where you have a bunch of people in EVERY damn game called some variant of Aragorn, Arag0rn 4ragorn, Aragron, Aragon etc. (Point of note - it is good for your karma to victimize anyone who's blatantly ripped off another character).
But Star Fraction is a bit more complicated - it's not really pilfering from the storyline of the book, as much as the ideology.
If I use the word 'Anarchy' then in most people, your mind will immediately leap to the perjorative definition - chaos following the collapse of a state.
So we tend to stray into Anarchism instead. Anarchism is the political philosophy of an anarchic society - one which consider 'the state' to be unnecessary, harmful or otherwise undesirable.
It doesn't preclude 'structure'. It doesn't say 'no organisations', 'no leaders' it just says - no _mandatory_ leader. No 'state' - it just makes you personally responsible for your choices. You choose to be a member of a group, multiple groups, or no groups. You choose to align with people - temporarily for a common goal. It makes no specific moral judgement, nor underlying principle - it just observes that laws and morals are only as strong as your ability to enforce them.
The key principle is that you do not get to abdicate _any_ responsiblity for your choice - you just get to make them, as you see fit. If you see something you don't like and you think is wrong, then you go and change it. Find a group of like minds - as many as you need - and assert your moral authority as you see fit. Or don't, and accept the status quo, but don't for a moment assume it's because there's 'nothing you can do about it'.
It's a sort of interesting notion. I'm never quite sure how it would pan out in the 'real world' - it takes a certain specific set of starting conditions to work out, and the primary one is that individuals must be able to hold power equal to the state - including armaments.
But at the same time, I don't actually think it's all that bad a way to live - don't assume there are 'self evident truths' or 'unassailable rights' - decide what you believe, and stand up for it. Try to convince the world that you are right, by whatever means you see fit. Leave the 'law' to one side as one of the potential consequences for your choices, but don't assume 'justice' is an immutable monolith. Assisted suicide is one that's recently cropped up - you need to think about the legal implications, but many people feel that it's ok (ISTR there was a survey and there was a majority who were supportive of it, subject to proper scrutiny, but I can't be bothered to find some supporting evidence) - in the right circumstances - despite being against the letter of the law.
It strikes me as a simple and yet pragmatic philosophy - choose as you see fit, and be prepared to pay the price for your choice.
One thing that EVE does, is provide a playground - a sort of sandbox, where people can make of it what they choose. That's part of why I still play. In the recent times (18 months or so) I've been in an Alliance called Star Fraction.
Star Fraction is a roleplay alliance, and it draws somewhat from a book - called 'The Star Fraction' oddly enough.
But not in the way you see in most homages, where you have a bunch of people in EVERY damn game called some variant of Aragorn, Arag0rn 4ragorn, Aragron, Aragon etc. (Point of note - it is good for your karma to victimize anyone who's blatantly ripped off another character).
But Star Fraction is a bit more complicated - it's not really pilfering from the storyline of the book, as much as the ideology.
If I use the word 'Anarchy' then in most people, your mind will immediately leap to the perjorative definition - chaos following the collapse of a state.
So we tend to stray into Anarchism instead. Anarchism is the political philosophy of an anarchic society - one which consider 'the state' to be unnecessary, harmful or otherwise undesirable.
It doesn't preclude 'structure'. It doesn't say 'no organisations', 'no leaders' it just says - no _mandatory_ leader. No 'state' - it just makes you personally responsible for your choices. You choose to be a member of a group, multiple groups, or no groups. You choose to align with people - temporarily for a common goal. It makes no specific moral judgement, nor underlying principle - it just observes that laws and morals are only as strong as your ability to enforce them.
The key principle is that you do not get to abdicate _any_ responsiblity for your choice - you just get to make them, as you see fit. If you see something you don't like and you think is wrong, then you go and change it. Find a group of like minds - as many as you need - and assert your moral authority as you see fit. Or don't, and accept the status quo, but don't for a moment assume it's because there's 'nothing you can do about it'.
It's a sort of interesting notion. I'm never quite sure how it would pan out in the 'real world' - it takes a certain specific set of starting conditions to work out, and the primary one is that individuals must be able to hold power equal to the state - including armaments.
But at the same time, I don't actually think it's all that bad a way to live - don't assume there are 'self evident truths' or 'unassailable rights' - decide what you believe, and stand up for it. Try to convince the world that you are right, by whatever means you see fit. Leave the 'law' to one side as one of the potential consequences for your choices, but don't assume 'justice' is an immutable monolith. Assisted suicide is one that's recently cropped up - you need to think about the legal implications, but many people feel that it's ok (ISTR there was a survey and there was a majority who were supportive of it, subject to proper scrutiny, but I can't be bothered to find some supporting evidence) - in the right circumstances - despite being against the letter of the law.
It strikes me as a simple and yet pragmatic philosophy - choose as you see fit, and be prepared to pay the price for your choice.
