Talk:Human rights in Ariddia

Would I be correct in saying that Ariddians cannot set up their own broadcast media? This seems a rather important lack of rights, yet is only hinted at in the text.

You also say that "the PDSRA’s human rights record is widely considered exemplary". Who, exactly, considers Ariddia's human rights record exemplary?

Furthermore the near-complete lack of economic liberty and its implications should be given more space. It appears that you personally do not see these as "real" rights, but you must understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and the vast majority of people, even most moderate socialists, simply do not agree with you that the right to what you produce or the right to enter into a contract with a consenting fellow citizen are not "real" rights. Something more than the glib dismissal of their importance in the introduction is necessary.

You also claim that property rights exist, but in the article on your economy you link to this passage appears:

"Ariddian citizens produce goods and services for the use of their fellow citizens, and take what they need in return, in a spirit of solidarity and mutual responsibility."

This seems to suggest that people can simply take things as they please, which is not possible if property rights exist.

Aside from that, this is a good article. You have done a fine job at explaining the positive aspects of the human rights situation in Ariddia, but as I say, it isn't awfully balanced, and for something like NSwiki that is quite important. Praetonia 20:01, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

Thank you for the comments. Point by point: Ariddians can actually set up their own broadcast media. But it's not considered private enterprise. Their company will be, to a large extent, controlled communally by its workers. There will not be any censorship from the government, however. Regarding Ariddia's human rights' record, I'm going by the UN rankings, for lack of any other "objective" source.

If you've got ideas on how to flesh out the "lack of economic liberty", please suggest them. I'm not too sure at present how to detail that. I'll think about it, though. There's the fact that you can't earn money, can't fire workers for economic reasons (obviously), but other than that...

Regarding private property: You can take from what people produce for that purpose. It doesn't mean you can go into someone's back yard and nick their bike.

Any suggestions on things to add, though, feel free to let me know. Aridd 20:33, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

Thanks for the quick response. I must admit I wasn't expecting a reply for a few weeks at least ;). Point-by-point again:

Broadcast media: I see. So people can set up their own broadcast media, but they wouldn't own or control it? If this is the case where would they get the initial capital from? I realise you have a moneyless economy, but I take it that it isn't possible for an Ariddian to walk into a building and order a work crew to set up a radio mast (or you would get vast oversupply of broadcast media and a vast undersupply of broadcast equipment), so who decides how the resources are allocated? Also, has anyone in Ariddia actually done this?

Opinions on human rights record: Ok. Maybe you could edit that to "According to the UN, Ariddia has an exemplary...". As it reads currently the article implies that there is general unanimity amongst the RPed nations that this is true, which I don't think is the case at least at the moment with the prevelence of liberal countries on the forums.

Economic liberty: I would be happy to write a section on that for you, if you want, although I may need some more info on your moneyless economy, which I find quite perplexing whenever I consider how it would affect a detailed case study. Do you have some sort of instant messanger programme?

Property: So what is stopping an Ariddian citizen from emptying all his local shops (since he isnt obligued to pay anything in return) and then using the police to defend what are now his possessions from "countertheft", as it were? Praetonia 19:15, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

Regarding broadcasting... Good question. I haven't thought it out in great deal, but presumably it would go something like this. You find people willing to create an official association with you. You make detailed plans. You find the people you're going to need to work with you. You draw up a list explaining what equipment you need, and specifically why. Most media in Ariddia are created this way (especially newspapers).

So ultimately you need state permission to set up any media outlet? Praetonia 14:22, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

Regarding the other points... Since this is a fictitious setting, I've projected this into a quasi-utopian future. (Trying to conceive in detail of communist or socialist utopias is a fairly old idea; see Morris or Bellamy in the 19th century, for example. In these cases, the premise is a fundamental change in human mentalities, such as would make them unrecognisible to us.) I've used this same approach. I'm currently in 2116; I move forward four years every time there's a new NS football World Cup. In other words, people in such societies (Morris' utopian England or my Ariddia) think and behave in ways that would seem almost alien to us, due to gradual social evolution, sudden historic events, education, etc... Or even a culture that predisposed them to it (and in Ariddia's case Wymgani communities played a significant role in that regard). Ariddian economic practices are more similar to say, contemporary (or recent) Tokelauan ones than contemporary Western ones. Produce, share your surplus freely, and know you will always obtain from others what you need. Not quite what's referred to as a traditional gift economy, but similar. So "emptying shops" would quite simply be unthinkable. (Not to mention social pressure... and the fact that it's the shopkeeper who gives, rather than you who take. So he/she won't give if you're being excessive.) Aridd 19:45, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

Human behaviour is, ultimately, malleable, both by people themselves and by their outside environment. We know for a fact that Ariddia allows in foreign broadcasters, and presumably Ariddians have the ability to view relatively unbiased references sources such as foreign books or webpages. Now admittedly social pressure to conform is powerful, but it is not omnipotent, especially if it is not backed by the threat of force. So, seeing how capitalism has proved a very popular philosophy down the ages, we can assume that at least some Ariddians would become "converts", would we not? What I am essentially asking is - what do you do with those who decide not to "play by the rules" which, you claim, are informal and unenforced except by social convention?

To take but one small example of how this will become a problem:

You claim that people own their produce and only give it to people because they choose to do so, but under your gift economy things that are high in demand and in capitalist states rationed by price, such as widescreen TVs, chocolate or high-quality cars, will necessarily be low in supply as everyone will want them in far greater quantities than can be produced if they do not have to pay for them. Therefore, either they will be distributed on a "first come, first serve" basis, or they will be rationed based on the whim of the producer (you seem to imply the latter in your previous post, but it isnt really relevent which is the case). Therefore, would it not be sensible for someone who produces one such good to promise priority in receiving it to someone else who produces another such good, in exchange for priority access to their good? Although informal, and no money is exchanged, this is trade, and it means that others further down the queue, as it were, can only get items if they try to "outbid" the others, meaning that the system will grow. What would the government do if this occured? Would any of these people be prosecuted? Praetonia 14:22, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

To answer the question, no, they wouldn't be prosecuted (unless the same people repeatedly received products and others were repeatedly denied), although such favouritism would probably make the producer unpopular. As for access to products that are in low supply, they're obtained communally (by a family or larger community unit), so that many people can use them. Forms of small scale communal property ensure that people have greater access to goods. Having said that, high-quality cars are generally not produced much in Ariddia. Cars are made functional, and environmentally as clean as possible; few if any are "luxury". In any case, Ariddians tend to use public transport, and are encouraged to do so.

Undoubtedly, access to foreign media will mean that some people are tempted by the idea of a consumer society. But deeply ingrained social values, and widespread access to information showing the negative sides of consumerism, help to limit that. People born in Ariddia have never experienced a consumer society. They know about the concept, but simply view it as something that happens "elsewhere"; most would consider that it happens in "less advanced" countries that have got their priorities back to front. No advertisements, no incitement to consume also mean that the lure of consumerism is limited.

As you say, though, it's probably not entirely absent. And instances of bargaining probably do happen now and then.

Also Ariddians who have family in capitalist countries tend to receive consumer goods from them, and to distribute them among family and friends within Ariddia. Aridd 19:32, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

If it is indeed the case that nothing is enforced, it really begs the question of why your society exists at all in the manner you describe it. For instance, why are no luxury or polluting cars produced if no one is there to stop them? Why do people choose not own cars when the freedom to travel where you want has proved highly attractive to all people who have encountered it, even in command economies like the GDR or Soviet Russia?

Ultimately, what I am struggling to understand is, if it is not enforced by anyone, how did this self-imposed quasi-fascist society manage to spring up? If insulated from any competing view of the world and bombarded with propaganda espousing the virtue and inevitability of Ariddia's view of the world I accept it probably would be possible to impose this sort of highly restrictive social self-order without the need to resort to much use of force. But we know that that is not the case. Most people, as we observe in the real world, given the freedom to do so make choices at odds with how you claim Ariddians make choices - yet Ariddians are apparently not only given this freedom in practise, but also allowed access to the information required to make these choices (ie. no brainwashing in the manner I described earlier).

It seems that this is a country which, while protecting property rights, the right to trade, Etc. under law, disapproves of them to the point that exercising these rights leads to social ostracism such that everyone is too terrified ever to put them into practise. In essense, you have created a system that is hugely open to corruption and subversion under the ideals of the system, but still claim that these do not take place on any significant scale. Praetonia 12:13, 4 March 2007 (GMT)