Stellaris Dev Diary #54 - Ethics Rework

[bronze Void poison]

There's a nordic proverb that I like to fall back on at times like this; gör rätt, räds intet. Do what's right, fear nothing. Dramatic for sure, but my point is that you can't please everyone, and when handling any term, you're bound to piss someone off. The fact that using the term Libertarianism might carry some modern-day political connotations is completely immaterial, because that's not how we should judge whether it's a fitting term or not.

It should be considered based on it's own merit in relation to the subject matter, and in this case, it's actually the correct term, no matter what other value-judgements others may put into it outside of that. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is quite simply wrong, for many different reasons all at once. With so many different kinds of solutions, and if we're going to have to use terms that are inherently loaded either way, why would we go with the politically illiterate option?

My suggested option continues to be to keep Individualism vs. Collectivism, because it makes the most sense by far, in context, and then add two new pairs; Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism, and Egalitarianism vs. Exceptionalism (or Elitism, but I prefer the Exceptionalist label in this context). That'd be a little bit more work than what they're doing now, though.

I disagree with using Libertarianism but compromising is in all out vested interests.

 

[Beric]

I agree with most of this, but why do you need authoritarianism vs libertarianism? An elitist collectivist society is authoritarian while an elitist individualist society is libertarian, no?

You can have an individualist authoritarian government (for example a constitutional monarchy). The libertarian distinction is necessary.

 

[Naselus]

You can have an individualist authoritarian government (for example a constitutional monarchy). The libertarian distinction is necessary.

I suspect he meant to say that an 'egalitarian individualist society is libertarian'. An elitist individualist society would imply authoritarianism, because you have an elite (and so a hierarchy) and they're individualists (and so not beholden to the collective good).

 

[Spartanlemur]

You can have an individualist authoritarian government (for example a constitutional monarchy). The libertarian distinction is necessary.

So monarchies are not individualist.

Classical conservatism was always highly communitarian in nature i.e. collectivist.

But power was held by an elite (hence elitism).

Constitutional monarchies are really outside the scope of the game (take a look at debate surrounding the legal battle over the UK's EU referendum to see how messy they really are). In practice, they operate like a crowned republic, and so for ethics, I'd call them "egalitarian individualist" (like liberal democracies), but also with "spiritualist" (because monarchists claim the institution has "spiritual" value).

 

[Beric]

I suspect he meant to say that an 'egalitarian individualist society is libertarian'.

Agreed.

An elitist individualist society would imply authoritarianism.

This really depends on your definition of "elitism" (which is also likely to provoke discussion). Does it simply mean that there are some people in the society who are much better off than others? If so this society could be libertarian as long as the individual rights of the populace are respected. Inequality isn't de facto authoritarianism, though it often does happen that way. However, if those elite hold direct power over the common people via the ability to restrict their rights, then it would be authoritarian.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I suspect he meant to say that an 'egalitarian individualist society is libertarian'. An elitist individualist society would imply authoritarianism, because you have an elite (and so a hierarchy) and they're individualists (and so not beholden to the collective good).

No, the reason I said hierarchical individualist is that an anarcho-capitalist (we have to use the extreme form of libertarianism to deliniate) society sees wealth accumulate into the hands of the few, and so power accumulates with them also.

You ultimately end up with a hierarchical, elitist society (I'm not knocking libertarianism by the way because I sort of am one myself, but this is the reality) where power is unevenly distributed.

I'll relink again to show you what I mean (you might disagree, but you'll see where I'm coming from).

Basically, I don't think we should have a situation where the "federation of corporate systems" led by CEOs and super-rich business leaders is considered egalitarian.

 

[Beric]

No, the reason I said hierarchical individualist is that an anarcho-capitalist (we have to use the extreme form of libertarianism to deliniate) society sees wealth accumulate into the hands of the few, and so power accumulates with them also.

You ultimately end up with a hierarchical, elitist society (I'm not knocking libertarianism by the way because I sort of am one myself, but this is the reality) where power is unevenly distributed.

I'll relink again to show you what I mean (you might disagree, but you'll see where I'm coming from).

The problem here is you're equating wealth with rights. As long as people are free to live their lives as they please, their rights aren't being restricted. They may not have an many opportunities as those who are well-off, but that doesn't necessarily mean those who are well off are exerting authority (even though this is not uncommon). If they use that wealth to actively restrict the rights of the less wealthy, then that would be an authoritarian society.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Basically, I don't think we should have a situation where the "federation of corporate systems" led by CEOs and super-rich business leaders is considered egalitarian.

Well, the Plutocratic Oligarchy government is already forbidden for Fanatic Individualists, which is reasonable- as I've mentioned before, said government does provide nominal equality of opportunity through the free accumulation of wealth. It's more egalitarian than an autocratic government, so it being acceptable to non-fanatic Individualists (or, as the case may be, Egalitarians) is sensible, whereas Fanatic variants would not be willing to accept it.

 

[Puking Panda]

My suggested option continues to be to keep Individualism vs. Collectivism, because it makes the most sense by far, in context, and then add two new pairs; Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism, and Egalitarianism vs. Exceptionalism (or Elitism, but I prefer the Exceptionalist label in this context). That'd be a little bit more work than what they're doing now, though.

I agree with most of ur post I don't think Authoritarianism is really a good opposite of Libertarianism considering that there have been quite a few governments which were both, most monarchies cud be seen as a combination of the two as was for example Pinochet's Chile which enjoyed the most free market in the region(libertarianism) while also supressing leftists(Authoritarianism). Libertarianism is however better represented by the more apolitical "Individualism" ethos.

I think Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism would be much better considering they are without doubt actual opposites. You could probably even use the now Indirect Democracy - Oligarchy - Despotic Empire as the Hierarchy Ethos governments although in that case Indirect Democracy should probably be replaced with (American-style) Republicanism.

 

[Naselus]

This really depends on your definition of "elitism" (which is also likely to provoke discussion). Does it simply mean that there are some people in the society who are much better off than others? If so this society could be libertarian as long as the individual rights of the populace are respected. Inequality isn't de facto authoritarianism, though it often does happen that way. However, if those elite hold direct power over the common people via the ability to restrict their rights, then it would be authoritarian.

No, 'elitism' implies that there are ranks within society who have different rights. The nobles don't pay taxes. People who got A* on their GCSEs get too kill 2 people a year without penalty. That kind of thing. The existence of the elite means there's a power imbalance, and one of the classes will use it to control the others pretty much by definition. Very elitist societies would have strict caste systems. Very egalitarian ones would object to any sort of imbalances between the population.

I think we're falling into a couple of traps here - firstly, getting hung up on governments, which exist separately in the game and shouldn't be confused with ethics, which are cultural rather than political. Ethics are how the POPs feel society should be run. Government is how it is actually run. How often do these two things coincide in real life, in your experience?

Secondly, I think we need to be cautious about taking the extreme ends of the scale to discuss everything - a Fanatic Egalitarian might agree with absolute equality in all respects, but a normal egalitarian probably just wants to see equality of opportunity. A fanatic Elitist might think of everyone born outside the Ubermensch as cockroaches, but the average normal Elitist probably just likes having a Queen because it's traditional and something you can be a bit patriotic about once in a while. It's just like the other ethics - I imagine Fanatic Materialists blow up churches, but the normal materialists just really like shopping.

 

[Everstill]

Both those arrangements are more equal than an autocratic model, because everyone has the potential to join the military or become part of the priesthood.

Everyone has the same opportunities.

That you're having this much trouble with that concept is sort of sad.

You are saying that the only thing the egalitarian opose are hereditary systems. Any kind of Oligarchy or bizarre system that 'everyone hast the potential to join' is fair. How the hell a Pop will join the priesthood if he don't believe in the faith? How a Pop that have physical or psychological problems will join the military? There will be hundreds of Pops with different privilegies in this systems because they literally cannot join this factions to get the full citzen status. You are saying that if I create a system "you can only vote if you can lift this 200 kg bar" it is a 'fair model because everyone has the potential to do'.

Seriously, egalitatian is not just about political rights, you are saying that Stellaris egalitarians only care about the 'same opportunities' (and that is bullshit, it's like saying that everyone in America have the same opportunities), the rest of the egalitarians values don't matter.

And stop using personal attacks in a debate of ideas. It's your vision vs mine, you don't hold the universal truth.

Also, I said a lot more things to you in the other post.

 

[Naselus]

I agree with most of ur post I don't think Authoritarianism is really a good opposite of Libertarianism considering that there have been quite a few governments which were both

We're not discussing it in that meaning - but this exemplifies exactly why Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism is a box of snakes which we shouldn't go near with a barge pole.

 

[Naselus]

YHow the hell a Pop will join the priesthood if he don't believe in the faith?

See History of the Papacy, 1200-1600 or so.

 

[Beric]

a Fanatic Egalitarian might agree with absolute equality in all respects, but a normal egalitarian probably just wants to see equality of opportunity.

And this is the heart of the issue. Equality of opportunity is dramatically different than equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is very anti-authoritarian, as it's merely concerned about everyone having the same rights. Equality of outcome mandates authority to enforce it, and is by very nature authoritarian.

 

[Luckmann]

I agree with most of ur post I don't think Authoritarianism is really a good opposite of Libertarianism considering that there have been quite a few governments which were both, most monarchies cud be seen as a combination of the two as was for example Pinochet's Chile which enjoyed the most free market in the region(libertarianism) while also supressing leftists(Authoritarianism). Libertarianism is however better represented by the more apolitical "Individualism" ethos.

I think Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism would be much better considering they are without doubt actual opposites. You could probably even use the now Indirect Democracy - Oligarchy - Despotic Empire as the Hierarchy Ethos governments although in that case Indirect Democracy should probably be replaced with (American-style) Republicanism.

The question really isn't what government you have, but what your prevailing social ethos is. Government and economic policies isn't as important from that point of view, although your choice of government or "how the system works" will obviously be coloured by it.. Also, in your example, you're talking about market liberalism, not libertarianism. There's an overlap, absolutely, but it's not the same.

That being said, your example isn't entirely void; if there's ever been such a thing as a regime that was simultaneously authoritarian and libertarian, it was probably Pinochet's. That being said, I would personally pet the ethos as Authoritarian, although not Fanatically so.

See History of the Papacy, 1200-1600 or so.

Or practically any long-standing theocracy, really. When you have to be part of the priesthood to do anything at all, you tend to become part of it just so you can do what you want. Interestingly, this tends to subvert the religious foundation over time, making them either lose power or reform, but now I'm just not sure where I was going with this response anymore.

 

[t6.28]

I don't really think collectivism vs individualism is a good distinction either. The first problem here is that what is considered the public good can be very subjective: if you implement a policy that hurts the poor, costing them about $1 billion in total, but helps the rich by about $1.5 billion, does that policy help or hurt the public good? Or if you have a policy that will benefit the current generation at the expense of the later one, is it considered to further the public good? The only things that (almost) everyone would consider as helping the public good are Pareto improvement (that is, to say, policies that help somewhat at the expense of no one else), yet most policies are not of that kind. Other then that, it can also be difficult to estimate, if some policy will actually fulfil the goals it is set to. It is still a matter of debate, how much certain levels of minimum wage increase unemployment, and if they create net unemployment, or only increase unemployment for certain groups.

In many situations both the implementation and the repeal of a law can be justified by the public good.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

You are saying that the only thing the egalitarian opose are hereditary systems. Any kind of Oligarchy or bizarre system that 'everyone hast the potential to join' is fair. How the hell a Pop will join the priesthood if he don't believe in the faith? How a Pop that have physical or psychological problems will join the military? There will be hundreds of Pops with different privilegies in this systems because they literally cannot join this factions to get the full citzen status. You are saying that if I create a system "you can only vote if you can lift this 200 kg bar" it is a 'fair model because everyone has the potential to do'.

Seriously, egalitatian is not just about political rights, you are saying that Stellaris egalitarians only care about the 'same opportunities' (and that is bullshit, it's like saying that everyone in America have the same opportunities), the rest of the egalitarians values don't matter.

And stop using personal attacks in a debate of ideas. It's your vision vs mine, you don't hold the universal truth.

Also, I said a lot more things to you in the other post.

Allow me to take the opportunity to refocus this on how the difference will be framed within Stellaris, a game with mechanics.

Stellaris governments fall into three main categories: democracies, oligarchies, and autocracies.

Collectivists (Authoritarians) are forbidden from taking Democratic government forms. Individualists (Egalitarians) are forbidden from taken Autocratic government forms. Both may compromise from their deals towards a more neutral position in the form of Oligarchic governments. That is to say, an Authoritarian populace would be happy with the Oligarchic semi-elite nature of power, while an Egalitarian populace would be happy with the semi-equal nature of power.

Meanwhile, Fanatic variants of either ethos- Collectivism/Authoritarianism AND Individualism/Egalitarianism- are forbidden from taking a compromising position on their ideals and are thus disallowed from using Oligarchic governments.

 

[Spartanlemur]

The problem here is you're equating wealth with rights. As long as people are free to live their lives as they please, their rights aren't being restricted. They may not have an many opportunities as those who are well-off, but that doesn't necessarily mean those who are well off are exerting authority (even though this is not uncommon). If they use that wealth to actively restrict the rights of the less wealthy, then that would be an authoritarian society.

No I'm not. I'm equating wealth with power.

I had an axis for "who has power" (the elite vs the democratic majority), and then another for "what they choose to do with it" (respect the individual or conform as a community).

The rich are powerful because they can bribe or hire mercenaries to enforce their will if they so choose. A libertarian society is the perfect example of a society where power is highly concentrated, but never really used to impose any form of will (business thrives on individualism).

 

[Beric]

No I'm not. I'm equating wealth with power.

I had an axis for "who has power" (the elite vs the democratic majority), and then another for "what they choose to do with it" (respect the individual or conform as a community).

The rich are powerful because they can bribe or hire mercenaries to enforce their will if they so choose. A libertarian society is the perfect example of a society where power is highly concentrated, but never really used to impose any form of will (business thrives on individualism).

Okay, then I'm fine with this definition. I just didn't want you to equate wealth with rights. The two can be quite related (particularly in oligarchic states such as the US) but they need not necessarily be the same.

 

[Luckmann]

And this is the heart of the issue. Equality of opportunity is dramatically different than equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is very anti-authoritarian, as it's merely concerned about everyone having the same rights. Equality of outcome mandates authority to enforce it, and is by very nature authoritarian.

Equality of opportunity isn't "very anti-authoritarian". People can have the same equality of opportunity within an authoritarian regime, provided the power structures are open to it. Authoritarianism isn't inherently anti-egalitarian in that regard, which is part of the whole issue, really. You are entirely correct in regards to Equality of Outcome, however.

Authoritarianism does not inherently oppose equality of opportunity (which could be interpreted as "regular" Egalitarianism).
Equality of outcome requires and mandates authority to enforce it (which could be interpreted as "fanatic" Egalitarianism).

No matter how we cut it, Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is quite simply nonsense. Complete nonsense.