stonetoes wrote:Denying self-determination on a macro-scale is, to me, a necessary evil in order to facilitate self-determination on a micro scale.
You know, if you stand off and look at democracy, it kind of looks like the Majority is denying self-determination to the Minority. That is, the Majority gets what _it_ wants, while the Minority does NOT. [This aspect of the US democracy prior to the ACW is what actually prompted the Southern States to secede. (Which was, at the time, an entirely legal option that the Powers That Be in the North couldn't afford to have go forward.) Things like ONLY Northern vessels could be used for import or export. Items imported primarily for Southern use had their tariffs jacked up and Southern exports taxed at higher rates. Then there was the fact that Slavery was NOT being permitted in new Territories and States were NOT being allowed to be Slavery-permitted States. By the precedent set in the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the southern half of CA _should_ have permitted Slavery, but the Northern majority in Congress bypassed that by skipping the Territory phase and made CA a State _immediately_ -- without holding a plebiscite on the issue. (Which would have gone the Southern route because the large majority of '49ers had come from Southern States.) It was obvious that Congress' Majority had no intention of looking out for the interests of Southern States. Ergo, either be forever bullied by the Majority in "the democratic process", or go their own way.]
stonetoes wrote:Also giving a slave the right to vote is really pointless given how unlikely it is they'd be able to cast that vote freely and fairly without retribution.
I wasn't suggesting that the slaves would actually be voting in such an election. Rather I was hypothesizing that if the slave population was small enough that _assuming_ they would be permitted to vote, their vote would be "Nay". But even with their numbers added, in that hypothetical case, the Nays were still in the minority. Yielding a "clear majority" in that hypothetical case favoring Slavery.
CaptainPatch wrote:Your perception that they (the Rangers) WILL intervene in any and all communities and enforce their view of what is or is not acceptable ...
stonetoes wrote:Your assumptions about what I believe are getting a bit tiresome, please stop speaking for me.
Well, in previous posts you have
indicated that the Rangers _would_ go into wrong-minded communities. I took this to be your theory of what would
happen just as my assertions are a theory of what will
happen. If you are suggesting that you think your scenario would NOT happen, but it is what you would like
to transpire, I missed it. For which I apologize for being so unobservant.
stonetoes wrote:I don't believe that they will, I believe that they should. And that's how I will play them given the choice, which it seems we will have due to the large amount of autonomy the rangers will have in California.
If this is how you intend to play them, then you are NOT playing a party low-level Rangers. You would also
be playing the role of the Administration of Ranger Center. That's a little "above your pay grade" I think. I'm expecting that Fargo & Company will be quite "hands off-ish" as to what the players can or can't do. However, I believe that the Ranger Center should
be adverse to Rangers that take precipitous actions that effectively creates organizational policy. [But then, I also think that any Rangers that killed those kids at Highpool just because the kids were laughing at them _should_ have been recalled and tried for murder. But apparently that's just me.]
stonetoes wrote:I also don't believe it will be easy. You keep presenting these absolutes as if they are inevitable when they're not. We can have a game where the rangers are able to influence other communities and sway the balance of power without making them "BBMWs" as you put it.
I dunno. If the leverage for change is simply "morale imperative" -- "Do the Right Thing" -- it usually
loses out to the vested self-interests of the Wealthy. (They use their Wealth to buy the "agreement" of others to secure Majority control, one way or another.) [Sort of explains why the world is in such sad shape, doesn't it?]
stonetoes wrote:The individual being able to change/save the world is premise of almost every RPG ever made.
Beg to differ on that point. RPGs go back to D&D (of which I am utterly
familiar). From back then to now, the overwhelming majority of RPGs have been straightforward Adventures that enriches the player characters and possibly enhance their Reputations "in the land". Actually, RPGs that have the PCs creating significant change in the overarching environment -- other than things like "Saved the princess!" -- are a relatively new phenomena that has only started to take off in the last decade or so. [Which, btw, will eventually trap games in what I call the "James Bond Side-Effect": What do you do for an encore when he's just saved the world _again_
stonetoes wrote:Obviously you are going to know more about it than me, but the important part is, the good guys won, right?
Actually I don't see anyone
as being "the Good Guys" in the ACW. Lots of heroics
and _personal_ integrity, granted. But nearly all of The Powers That Be had the two sides prosecuting the war for their own selfish interests. ("War is _good_ for business!")
stonetoes wrote:I'm curious what you would consider evil if slavery doesn't count.
Hmm. I think part of the underlying problem in this debate is that "Evil" is a matter of _definition_
-- and definitions have a tendency to change -- sometimes drastically, over time. As suz was indicating, Once Upon A Time serfdom was simply "the way it is". I'm sure that most serfs weren't at all happy with the institution, but usually they accepted
it. (Aside from the periodic Peasant Revolt to bleed off pent up anger, that is.) But we today raised in the Free World are a distillation of a series of Historical events starting with the Magna Carta, moving on to the American Revolution, followed by the French Revolution, etc. have had it drummed into our noggins that "The way _we_ do it is the Right
way!" [Which is an underlying meme "programmed" into the citizens of pretty much ANY government-funded Education. When was the last time that any
public school taught "Our current government sucks
"?] We are so certain that "our way is the Right way" that wars are fought to impose what _we_
want on others. (Colloquially called "forced regime change"). Makes it substantially impossible to easily envision that anyone in their right mind
could actually _want_ to do it the "Wrong" way.