Why doesn't Order and Freedom/Liberty cancel out each other?

[Bandobras Took]

Of course not. Liberty and Equality, and repudiation of "natural authority" as embodied in an Aristocracy with the God-given right to govern as a class, are so tightly bound to the American and French Revolutions you can't discuss one without the other.

Nationalism and the birth of the Nation-State, ie, the modern concept of a government of the people, likewise.

That original article is very brief, but yes, it'll do.

A government of the people has nothing to do with Nationalism as defined in that article.

It seems a bit silly to talk about a repudiation of natural authority in the American Revolution, as women still didn't have the vote afterwards. It's hard to conceive of a more direct example of "natural authority" then the idea that gender -- determined at conception -- should exclude a person from voting.

Refresh my memory, did the French give women the vote before Napoleon used the Nationalistic spirit of the times (assassination plot by Royalists -- a sure blow against French liberty) to make himself Emperor?

Again, a government of the people has nothing do with Nationalism as defined in the article you linked to. At its barest, Nationalism is "a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms." The Nation in question could be the United States, France, Judah under the Maccabees, or any other Nation that strikes your fancy. It has nothing to do with Freedom or Liberty. Some movements with strong Nationalist tendencies have also concerned themselves with Freedom or Liberty, but that does not mean Nationalism is automatically or necessarily associated with the Freedom or Liberty -- it means that both concerns could be found in the same movement.

 

[1proudamerican]

This whole thread is ironic in that we have these discussions while playing the role of a supreme dictator. I enjoy these topics as I get to analyze how you view these terms (and all the baggage associated with them) in comparison to how I see them. Unfortunately, I focus so much on the game play aspect I do not know much more than the names of the actual policy trees.

I think with our collective "wisdom" we can justify (rightly or wrongly) any combination of policies available in game play, so long as we are not concerned with the logistics of real people making them possible.
I personally understand why the game puts autocratic policies in opposition with personal freedom, but disagree with the producers inability to justify rationalism and religion. Of course, someone else might have an opposite perspective.
The producers have some pretty tough calls in deciding to go with what we have seen in human experience verse going with what is theoretically possible. Even after getting that down, a lot of smart people disagree with how these policies actually work and how human experience effects them.
As to me justifying religion and reason going hand in hand, not all people who believe in God or piety defy reason. As a Christian and a reformed Presbyterian- I am sticking my neck out and telling you where I am coming from because I love clarity over agreement- I believe that reason brings us closer to God (and the pursuit of piety leads us farther from Him.) Of course many religions, Bible based and otherwise, rely heavily on empty traditions and rituals (lets all get together and chant at this golden goat I made, or pay me and I will give you eternal happiness.) I can see how this would have a significant effect on how people view the concepts. Also, I understand how people who believe randomness (or disorder) produces order would tend to see reason and religious belief as antithetically opposed concepts.
I don't think I can say much more in a thread so I will get off my soap box and let somebody else have a stab at it.

 

[killmeplease]

what the order policy tree should be:
available in the ancient era (liberty should be moved to the classical) along with tradition
incompatible with freedom (and patronage?)
is not incompatible with Liberty because ancient popular regimes (rome, athens, sparta) were quite collectivistic.

Order tree effects:
adoption: +1 for unemployed citizens
civil works: +1 per 4
collectivism: +1 per for cities
unanimity: 5% of added to
nationalization: get 5*era per each
equality: -10% maintenance for buildings

 

[Randall Turner]

This whole thread is ironic in that we have these discussions while playing the role of a supreme dictator. I enjoy these topics as I get to analyze how you view these terms (and all the baggage associated with them) in comparison to how I see them.

It's good to keep in perspective that these forums are another form of entertainment, just like the game itself. An exchange of ideas and views is "fun", but that's all. What is, is. Our opinions don't affect reality. And we shouldn't take them too seriously. (Your piety/rationalism topic is "deep", a bit more than I want to bite off when I've already got another discussion ongoing.)

is not incompatible with Liberty because ancient popular regimes (rome, athens, sparta) were quite collectivistic.

It's good to bear in mind that the Greeks tried everything. No other culture that I'm aware of was so politically experimental. Impressively diverse and willing to try different ideas.

A government of the people has nothing to do with Nationalism as defined in that article.

Silly, silly hobbit. Your posts make me wonder about our education system. You actually sound British, Mr. Took - despite our shared language and heritage, the American philosophy is closer to the French than our forebears'. Regardless, any decently well-rounded education should touch on the birth of modern Nationalism.

At least you're not arguing that the birth of modern Nationalism isn't completely separate from the great late-18th century upheavals in France and America. The linkage is obviously more than temporal, though. It's directly related to the transition from Monarchy (Louis XIV's "I am the state") to Republicanism (the people are the state). And that populist sentiment is a keystone of all subsequent political movements, including Communism.

btw, that article "shotguns" its definition of Nationalism enough that it includes racial homogeneity. That's a mistake imo, the article trying to be everything to everybody. Racial homogeneity was a strong component of 20th Century German and Japanese ultra-nationalism, but antithetical to American and even Soviet philosophy. Tribalism isn't nationalism.

ps - your criticisms of the degree of liberty achieved by the American and French revolutions are irrelevant.

To pull this back into the game - I'd be inclined to at least consider JWAT44's suggestion that Nationalism go into the "honor" tree, its propagation (if not origin) was strongly tied to the genesis (and effectiveness) of National armies during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[killmeplease]

It's good to bear in mind that the Greeks tried everything. No other culture that I'm aware of was so politically experimental. Impressively diverse and willing to try different ideas.

there was no real freedom in grecian polices. e.g. socrates was executed for his freethinking. as any citizen could be executed or banned from a city, for blasphemy, breach of a tradition or something else. by a resolution of society

 

[Bandobras Took]

At least you're not arguing that the birth of modern Nationalism isn't completely separate from the great late-18th century upheavals in France and America.

No, I'm arguing that Modern Nationalism is only one subset of all possible expressions of Nationalism, and that taken at its most basic instead of any specific permutations, it has no direct relationship with liberty.

As an example, Joan of Arc's crusade to ensure France's rule by the French King rather than the English King can be accurately described as Nationalist -- but it was also Monarchist and Religious, at that. No necessary relationship with Liberty, but everything to do with establishing France's national identity, which had been seriously decimated by the war.

 

[1proudamerican]

What is, is. Our opinions don't affect reality.

Love it. However, once we act on our opinions everything changes. Hitler's "opinion" killed millions so there is some level of seriousness involved in the debate of ideas.

Lots of good comments on nationalism and personal liberty. I picked that quote because Randall Turner gave me the same honor. We all view these concepts through our 21st century rose colored glasses and it is hard to get past that. Throughout most history, you only had personal liberty if you were more powerful than your neighbor and your rulers were either endowed by God, or told you they were god. Greece was a bit of a prodigy in antiquity as they experimented with philosophy and political system, but lets not fool ourselves and say they had an effect on anyone but the wealthy.
As for nationalism, it changes from culture to culture. Most people have a particular fondness of one piece of dirt or another- remember the average Joe never went an hours drive from their hamlet up to a couple hundred years ago- but it can be much deeper. I think most people who claim proud American status are more proud of a heritage of ideas as to a heritage of land. If I found those ideas to be stronger in the Sahara desert I might move.
As for the French and American Revolutions, one was based more off of the Reformation and the other the Renaissance. One paved the way for new levels of freedom in the world (a bit of an internal and external proses.) The other brought the guillotine and massive war so it is hard to call them 2 peas in the same pod.
I liked the Civ IV approach where your different societal organizations had the opportunity to develop out of tribalism and paganism. You could go for slavery and then take emancipation after a couple thousand years. It also pointed out the differences between societal institutions/practices (Government, Legal, Labor, Economic, and Religion.) The system could have had some improvement; why can't a bureaucracy and free speech work together? I can't say I really agreed with their evaluations of the cause and effects of the different systems either.
It really all comes back to the makers decision to go with theory vs. reality and their understanding of each. Honestly, expecting their understanding of history to coincide with our own is laughable.

 

[Randall Turner]

Well, to be fair the French got thrown into the first version of Total Warfare. (And it's worth pointing out that in every sub-war of the Revolutionary period but one, the French were defending, ie, their opponents declared war on them.) It's not surprising they ended up with an authoritarian regime, a Democracy is good at a lot of things, but war isn't at the top of the list.

Nationalism is all about a shared secular belief system, not topography. Nor religion or ethnicity. And to that -

I don't think Joan of Arc's motivation can be characterized as "nationalistic", at least as I understand it. Nationalism is what motivates a Catholic peasant from the Piedmont region to fight for the interests of his Protestant compatriots in Flanders.

Also - self-defense isn't nationalism. A lot of the reason for French cooperation during the 100 years war period was just to get those bloody English to stop pillaging towns and razing their fields. No real shared ideology. It was also too early - no mass communication and education. Nationalism depends on Propaganda of some sort, it's not "natural".

Edit: don't want that to be taken as necessarily negative. A lot of things that are "natural" are unethical. It's "natural" to be favorably prejudiced towards shared ethnicity, natural selection rewards an effort to preserve "like" genes. It's also "natural" to be favorably prejudiced towards those sharing a religious belief system, but down that path lies nasty religious wars like the 30 years'.

It may not be "natural" to work towards the common welfare of all members of a state regardless of race or creed, but it's ethical.

 

[President Evil]

Wow, talk about off-topic. We are discussing Nationalism and France? Whatever happened to the topic of what should conflict with Order?

As I was saying before, I take back the Freedom/Liberty idea. I think Tradition would work better as it's about Social Classes and Monarchy. Or maybe Commerce because it's the other Economic Tree.

 

[Randall Turner]

there was no real freedom in grecian polices. e.g. socrates was executed for his freethinking. as any citizen could be executed or banned from a city, for blasphemy, breach of a tradition or something else. by a resolution of society

Well, Socrates was executed b/c he pissed off too many powerful citizens. In what would be the modern equivalent of a civil suit with the death penalty in play. My point was more that if he walked 50 miles away (or waited 50 years) and did the same thing, he'd have been executed via a completely different political mechanism. Ie, lots of political diversity.

 

[Randall Turner]

Wow, talk about off-topic. We are discussing Nationalism and France? Whatever happened to the topic of what should conflict with Order?

Nationalism is part of the Order tree. If we're discussing Order, we're implicitly discussing the components of Order.

 

[President Evil]

Which I think is still off-topic, but that's just me. The topic isn't just Order, but more of other Policies that could contradict it.

 

[Bandobras Took]

I don't think Joan of Arc's motivation can be characterized as "nationalistic", at least as I understand it. Nationalism is what motivates a Catholic peasant from the Piedmont region to fight for the interests of his Protestant compatriots in Flanders.

Also - self-defense isn't nationalism. A lot of the reason for French cooperation during the 100 years war period was just to get those bloody English to stop pillaging towns and razing their fields. No real shared ideology. It was also too early - no mass communication and education. Nationalism depends on Propaganda of some sort, it's not "natural".

Her motivation may not have been Nationalistic, but her crusade certainly was; her whole campaign (P.R., propaganda, whatever you want to call it) was based on the idea that God wanted a French King on the French Throne, and the whole reason for getting her condemned as a heretic instead of just killed as a a general was to undermine the idea that God was actually on the side of France. Continued success combined with the auspices of divine favor would have given the admittedly fragmented French a reason to unify and become a nation.

Obligatory game mention: since Nationalism's strength is its ability to unify people, I think it very properly belongs under the Order tree.

 

[President Evil]

Yep, because when the people are united, there is Order. Anyway, with Order, it's easier to manage a giant Empire, and it gives bonuses to all the cities, along with Production. While the antithesis to this would be a Branch that makes it easier to manage a small Empire and give bonuses to the Capital, along with Food. *cough* Tradition *cough*.

 

[Keejus]

Making Commerce more about capitalism and the free market and then making it opposed to order would make more sense than any other opposition, I say

 

[killmeplease]

Obligatory game mention: since Nationalism's strength is its ability to unify people, I think it very properly belongs under the Order tree.

there's a problem with nationalism in the order three as the communist ideology (whats order is about) imply internationalism (solidarity of workers of the world) and view nationalism as a counter revolutionary concept. on the other hand there's the north korean branch of a communist ideology (juche) that combines communism with nationalism.
so i think this policy should better named "unanimity" than "nationalism", as i've suggested in the post 63.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Again, please avoid off-topic discussions. The best way to ensure this is to make sure that each of your posts are directly (not just tangentially) related to Civ5 and the Social Policy feature.

 

[Randall Turner]

there's a problem with nationalism in the order three as the communist ideology (whats order is about) imply internationalism (solidarity of workers of the world) and view nationalism as a counter revolutionary concept. on the other hand there's the north korean branch of a communist ideology (juche) that combines communism with nationalism.
so i think this policy should better named "unanimity" than "nationalism", as i've suggested in the post 63.

I almost always agree with you, I wish you'd post more.

We need a tree that conflicts with Freedom/Liberty, but we've already got one - Autocracy. Just move Planned Economy and Communism and other policies that require governmental ability to coerce its citizens' daily movements, into some modern Totalitarian state tree, whatever you call it.

 

[President Evil]

You mean Fascism?

 

[Mods]

Making Commerce more about capitalism and the free market and then making it opposed to order would make more sense than any other opposition, I say

Yeah as of now commerce does very little to actually boost your economy