Praetoria's morality...

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

Nor will they get it. Current events and a mountain of historical evidence has proven time and again that human beings can only tolerate so much oppression of their freedom to choose their own path before some among them choose to rebel against their oppressors.

When that happens the only means of maintaining power is even greater oppression, which in turn breeds greater rebellion. Barring outside support of the regime, the system will inevitably collapse as the leadership alienates greater and greater portions of their populace in their efforts to keep control.

The very lack of freedom imposed by Cole brought about the Resistance and the extremist Crusaders who threaten the people. This is as fundamental a force of nature as the heat of the sun bringing about storms that lash the earth with winds and rains and thunder.

Your "world without danger" is an impossibility. It does not exist.

Far better to live with the freedom to choose your path and the knowledge that you live in a dangerous world than to die in ignorance in the dangerous world your oppressor told you was safe.

Fix'd.

The fact that it has not happened before is not sufficient proof that it cannot eventually happen. People are plagued by the preconceived notion that no one in power is capable of non-oppressive control.

Need I remind you that you are not truly free right now? There are laws in place to protect people that I'm sure you would not argue against. Is this wrong?

After 5,000 years of recorded history, I think we can stick a fork in this one. It is as proven as anything is going to get in the real world outside of a math or philosophy (formal logic) class.

Even if the mythical "benevolent dictator" comes along, eventually the old man kicks off and someone else comes in. Think you can hit that bullseye twice in a row? Three? More likely the successor will be the worst double-dealing low-down backstabbing rat in the nest. (N.b. that Tyrant not aging is no guarantee of eternal rule. "No king rules forever, my son." -- T. Menethil)

Freedom is the ability to engage in the pursuit of happiness; happiness, as JMS paraphrased Aristotle, is "the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope". In what meaningful way are contemporary Americans not therefore free? Show your work.

It's easier to try than to prove it can't be done.

You are ignoring one distinct possibility. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate, and eventually we will turn over governing power to artificial intelligence. AI that is impartial, and could in fact be the "benevolent dictator" we've all been waiting for.

Even if we agreed on your definition of freedom, I don't think every American is free to pursue happiness as you've described. Far from it. There are many underprivileged families, children who will never obtain the necessary education to obtain excellence in life.

Think of our criminal population. Many of them are doing as they see fit to survive, yet they are disallowed the freedom to do so.

At the other end of the spectrum the wealthy are limited, penalized for pursuing excellence.

No one is free. We've believed we are far long enough.

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
- James Madison, Federalist #51

My remark was correct the first time. Government is a neccessary evil (and just because it is necessary doesn't make it any less an evil) because mankind is not now (nor within concievable human history will it ever be) devoid of the selfish instincts that would allow for a society devoid of some level of external control. The idea that somewhere out there is possibly someone who could rule with absolute benevolence is an exercise in self-delusion. Put more succinctly...

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
-Lord Acton, 1887.

I'm a small business owner so BELIEVE ME I know just how unfree I am. Our governments; federal, state, and local; all exert far more control over their populace than is necessary (for example, the EPA just decided to implement the safety rules for crude oil spills to MILK... because milk has animal fat which is an oil in it).

Most of our laws today are needlessly complex and largely unneccessary... instituted by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. Once upon a time it was common for a man to represent himself as the laws were based on common sense and reperations for harm done. Over time they have grown into a hopeless and often contradictory morass that no single individual could possibly know, much less understand.

I think you'd be surprised how many laws (ostensibly for our "safety") that I'd argue against. On most political scale tests I score 100% Libertarian with a core philosophy of "As it harms none, do as thou wilt." You are free to mess up your life all you wish, just don't expect me to pay for picking up the pieces of your bad choices.

And that is why I participate in a number of different efforts (mostly state and local, but some federal) to rein in the extremes of our government and because we are not (yet) a tyranny, it is possible for citizens like me to peacefully attempt to change our government through elections and peaceful protest.

Tyrannies such as those of Emperor Cole do NOT allow elections (Cole is Emperor for life) nor peaceful protest (see the Nova Praetoria zone event) to address the abuses of government. If you don't like it and complain too loudly you are "disappeared" or "re-educated". You don't even have the freedom to leave and pursue your life elsewhere (the sonic barriers keep the people of Praetoria in as much as they keep the DE out).

In such a circumstance, those who do not wish to be subject to Cole's whims have no choice but to rebel against him. He's left them no other course if they wish to chart the course of their own life. I don't support the Crusaders and their indiscriminate terrorism, but I'm definitely in favor of the Wardens approach.

And when it comes to navigating the waters of Praetoria I found that the best exit strategy was to side against Scott in destroying the water treatment plant and then side with Kang to let the people learn of the impending invasion (thereby keeping my Warden cred), allowing me to head to Paragon City via Dr. Sheridan's portal with a clear conscience.

There's a war coming for the soul of Praetoria and the only path that doesn't end in utter destruction is one that limits the targets of the battle to legitimate political and military targets (there will always be unintended civilian casualties in war, but the key word there is "unintended" if you want to be in any sort of moral shape to provide a real future once the fighting stops).

American males are required, at the age of 18, to register for the draft. Serving in the military certainly does not fall into my definition of happiness, but I have to live with the threat that I might be called to military service entirely against my will.

Americans are required to pay taxes. Some people derive happiness from making money, and paying taxes takes away from that 'happiness.' Not paying your taxes leads to penalties and prison sentences.

Some Americans choose to endorse policies that tend towards limiting the rights of minorities - choosing not to serve certain sorts of people in their businesses, trying to require that certain religious displays be required in public institutions, and so on. We have a government that chooses to prevent these things in the interests of safeguarding the rights of the minority from the 'tyranny of the majority.'

These are real abridgments of freedom as you have defined it. You might argue (as would I) that they are necessary abridgments; without taxes, there is no infrastructure that allows for billionaires or aspiring billionaires.

The price of living in a society is giving up certain freedoms for the greater good. That's basic, and not subject to debate. You might choose to depict that as giving up certain freedoms to preserve the overall concept of freedom, but that does not change the fact that Americans are not as free as you seem to be implying.

The important thing about all of ther story text you get about your character in GR is that it is potentially false. Not just 'Oh, ignore it and make up your own reasons' way but demonstratably so in the game world. This is due to the undercover feature. You can be undercover resistance and do Loyalist missions, and you get the same text as a loyalist doing it. But, you can't have the same motivations as a loyalist, even though you are perfoming the same actions. Thus, the text descriptions of your motivations can not be canon in the senes that they are officially describing the real motivations of your character.

They are instead, the motivations the rest of the world ascribes to your actions. If you perform an action that benefits the Resistance, then the world assumes thats because you are with the Resistance, and vice versa.

I maintain that your remark is not correct. Quote all the dead people you like, it doesn't change the fact that humanity is still evolving. In a few short years we have moved from a society that does most of the work to a society that provides services. What used to be done by human hands in unsatisfactory conditions is now done by robots and computers.

How long until the selfish instincts of humans are rendered completely irrelevant? I see this future as eventual and inevitable.

We are not dissimilar in this regard.

Seeing how the average citizen of Praetoria thrives, I would happily give up the freedoms they have to live in a world where everything is taken care of. When such a world exists, there will not be an evil dictator controlling the minds of his subjects. It's just not practical. If you can provide for everyone, there are no malcontents and no reason to oppress them.

The evil natures of Cole and subsequent rebellious factions are all fabrications to create tension and drama in a game. Without these conditions, the game is pointless.

They thought that it could not be done
Some even said they knew it
But he dared to attempt what they said could not be done...
...AND HE COULDN'T BLOODY DO IT!

-- B. Hill

Why should we try to do something with a 5,000 year history of failure attached to it?

As a student of computer science and philosophy with an interest in AI, I would have to say this paragraph transcends all previously known limitations on the concept of COMPLETE EPIC FAILURE.

• We are no closer to strong AI now than we were when serious research began. If anything we are farther away as we now have a better understanding of just how difficult the problem is.
• There is no reason to believe strong AI is even possible; if it happens at all it will not be within the foreseeable future. (I think it will, but only on an intuitional level; if pressed I would have to admit tha the arguments in favor of the possibility will not bear close examination.)
• If achieved, a strong AI will be, as the name implies, artificial and thus non-human. AIs will not have a human understanding of the world around them and will reason in ways that will not make sense to humans. Leading to....
• The idea that an AI will be "impartial" is laughable in the extreme. No intelligence is impartial (scroll down to "Sussman attains enlightenment").
• If someone were to suddenly reveal a provable strong AI tomorrow and seriously advocate that we surrender sovereign authority to it, I would kill them without hesitation. I'd rouse the villagers and spring for the pitchforks and torches. The foreseeable dystopian outcomes of such a profoundly idiotic decision pale in comparison only to those outcomes that can't be foreseen.

Furthermore, neither I nor anyone I personally know has been "waiting for" a benevolent dictator. History, again, has demonstrated over and over that investing supreme authority in any single individual is an extremely bad idea.

Society only offers equality of opportunity, not outcome, and there is no shortage of examples of people in this society transcending the circumstances of their birth.

Actually it's not. As any garden-variety net.troll can tell you, it is not merely easy to get a lot of blood on the floor by invoking the right hot-button topics, but pathetically so.

It makes it so hard to work out who the bad guys are.

How many tries did it take Edison to get the light bulb right?

As a practicing electrical and computer engineer, I would have to say your claim is unfounded and is the regurgitation of trite nonsense fed to you by bad professors. AI is not a mythical thing, it is an eventuality. At the current rate of progression, it will not take long.

Only because few previous dictators have been benevolent. There are short lived cases in history where benevolent dictators have proven to show that it can be a good idea.

You're being evasive by snipping portions of my argument out. I'd take the time to reply, but Smersh said it better already anyway. Since you seem to have ignored it, I'll give you a second chance to see it.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. While there are no legal barriers to transcending the circumstances of one's birth, those few cases in which it does happen are primarily used as propaganda to prevent an examination of the causes and effects of widespread inequality.

There is a huge gap in opportunity that derives from family background. There may be no legal barriers, but there are huge institutional and functional barriers. Oddly enough, more socialistic governments give a higher rate of social mobility - Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain all rate higher in social mobility than the United States. (Source)

I'd contend that the difference between the two is not as extreme as you'd like to portray it. Freedom by its nature means being able to choose to do as you will without outside influence. It is the essence of being left alone.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-C.S. Lewis

And that is why Recluse is honestly a better ruler to be subject to than to Emperor Cole. Recluse just wants to be the strongest guy in the block, but doesn't care what you do so long as you don't usurp him. Cole though honestly believes he's doing you a favor by stripping you of your free will and locking you up in his gilded asylum.

And I'd bring the salt for the earth so that after we burn the place to the ground nothing grows there for a thousand years. If you have to ask why, then read the C.S. Lewis quote above about unsleeping moral busybodies.

Hear, hear. I have an example. A man who was born in a tar shack around the turn of last century to poor cattle ranchers. A man who hide to ride the rails like a hobo to get from his home town to the University of Montana and then worked nights to put himself through college without any federal aid or scholarships. A man who went on to invent the modern water softener (prior to his invention the exchange tanks had to be replaced every month). A man who during the course of his life continually reinvested his money into new businesses so that, by the time he died he had started seven different businesses that employed hundreds of people. A man who was my grandfather.

My grandfather played a large role in shaping my perceptions of what is and is not possible for people and what is and is not desirable in terms of government power and intervention into everyday life.

I was just getting to this post, and seeing GG great responses. I wanted to answer this. Freedom is the default status IMO, because everywhere people have tried to take it away they ultimately fail. They might succeed for a time, but tyranny is inherently unsustainable. Even when tyrannies are replaced with new tyrannies, this is the case.

This suggests to be that there is something about the human condition that is inherently intolerant of [X] amount of restrictions. Cross that threshold and eventually your time will be up. Hosni Mubarak figured that out recently.

How would getting federal aid or scholarships have trivialized your grandfather's accomplishments?

And that's exactly the intent of Going Rogue.

I think you're recalling Death, from Terry Pratchett's Hogfather:

Death: Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

I am strangely reassured that other countries have their own versions of our 'The European Union is passing laws to OUTLAW BENDY BANANAS' stories.

I wonder if they have them in Praetoria, too? I expect the seers don't like them.

It didn't take him 5,000 years. (He also didn't invent it; he just made people think he did.)

Show your work. What is the current state of strong AI research? (Answer: moving the goalposts). What are the latest breakthroughs? (None.) Why should we believe that an AI would be impartial? Is it because computers are "logical" and not "emotional"? Why is logic impartial? (It isn't.) What is the true nature of emotion? (Unknown.) What is the role of emotion in consciousness and intelligence? (Unknown.) Is emotion an essential or emergent property of consciousness, i.e. is it even possible to create a consciousness that has no emotions? (Unknown.) How useful is formal logic in actually dealing with real-world problems? (Almost useless.) None of this is "trite nonsense", nor was it fed to me by anyone (my coursework in AI was directed at weak AI). And, in defense of my professors, while I did go to a public university it's one that's consistently been rated as one of the best in the country (Montclair State University, NJ).

As I said before, my intuition is that strong AI will eventually be built, because I do not believe in magic. The human brain, to the best of our available information, operates entirely according to natural laws. That means it should be possible in principle to reverse engineer and duplicate it. There is an entire host of shakey premises implicit in that argument, though; proof left as an exercise for the reader.

a) Show your work. Name them. Term of office must exceed 16 days.

b) The key words in the above are "short lived". Autocracy is unstable; this point was previously demonstrated.

Smersh did not even address the point, which is why I didn't bother to reply to him. Frankly, neither did you.

Not impressed by the source (gosh, an organization primarily run by socialists thinks socialism is the bee's knees), and the comparison is mainly apples and oranges (for one thing, the US has about a third more citizens than all of them put together), but even if the point is granted for debate purposes those countries are all democracies!

-WASHINGTON, D.C., Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: The opinion piece, “Crying over spilled milk” [Commentary, Feb. 6], gives readers the impression that EPA intends to regulate all small dairy farms as part of its work to prevent oil spills. This is incorrect.

EPA has already proposed to exclude milk and milk product storage tanks from the spill prevention regulatory program. This common-sense decision was announced months ago.

Moreover, EPA already has stayed any compliance requirements for milk and milk product storage tanks pending the agency's final action on the proposed permanent exclusion. It is known that EPA will take final action on the proposed permanent exclusion this spring.

EPA stands with the president in his commitment to using common sense and transparency to review federal regulations. This commitment to transparency is precisely why EPA publicly announced its intention to delay compliance requirements for milk and milk product storage tanks in October of 2010. (source)

No, the OECD is a group of the world's richest economies and declares in its mission statement that it is focused on democracy and the market economy.

Yes, those countries are all democracies; this does not prevent them from also being socialist to one degree or another. A nation like Norway, for instance, has an economy that is much more socialist than that of the United States.

Socialism is not inherently opposed to democracy.