Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
      2. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Svip

Stability

Recommended Posts

Svip

Mmm... people have long spoken of Democracy to be moved into every corner of the world.

 

Great ideas, I presume, since "Democracy" seems so beautiful - does it not?

 

But it gets weird when they move into Iraq, and claim democracy for everybody, and what is the responds? "No thanks," they says "it was better before."

 

Same goes for currency, both inflation and deflation are bad, if the currency falls, people rush to exchange their money into something that will have static value. If it explodes in value, they will just wait till the next week or month to buy anything - the economy would stall.

 

What we require is stability - can you keep that, you have won everything! So if we have democracy if we don't have anything else such as food, water and electricy? And when you walk to your local store, you want to be sure that the currency in your hand will have the exact same value the next day.

 

I claim that stability is perhaps the most important factor in every society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

I think probably everyone being well fed and protected and free to pursue happiness are the most important factors in every society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
I think probably everyone being well fed and protected and free to pursue happiness are the most important factors in every society.

Which is just as I said - staility. You know you have your food, you know your have your protection, etc.

 

That is stability, to know you have something, and it is there when you ask for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Not necesaraly. What if you have a stable dictatorship regime under which people are poor and suffering. They might know that their currency will buy them tomorrow the same amount of food as today, but that ammount is not going to be enough on either of these days. They can be absolutly certain that the next day, things will be as bad as today. People living in such conditions might feel that it is better to take a chance with a chaos that would be caused by a revolt rather than accept the certainty of such regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

 

People living in such conditions might feel that it is better to take a chance with a chaos

If the people feel like revolting, that's not exactly stability, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
People living in such conditions might feel that it is better to take a chance with a chaos

If the people feel like revolting, that's not exactly stability, is it?

At that point, of course not, but it is just the consequence of people choosing instability over bad living conditions, which demonstrates how people might have priorities higher than stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

No, if I read you right, it demonstrates that bad living conditions equates to instability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
No, if I read you right, it demonstrates that bad living conditions equates to instability.

Exactly.

 

Commonly, there is no stability in a nation with bad living conditions. Which often leads to riots and sometimes revolts.

 

Kinda why Europe is democracital today. Due to our own history, we have fought instability and came up with our own solutions through time - and our last or just newest edition is democracy.

 

But stability will most likely become instabile - due to lack of maintaince and whatnot - for staibility is not a garantuee for stability itself. And hundred percent stability is unarchievable in a soceity where human dwelts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Ok. Alternative. People are kept quiet and cannot revolt. Anyone who complains gets shot right away. Is that a good country to live in? Everybody stays quiet and do what they are told. Perfect stability. Do you think that country should be allowed to stay that way, or should an external foce invade that country, causing great instability, to liberate it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

We're playing the "let's invent a false reality to support my argument" game now? wink.gif

 

 

Everybody stays quiet and do what they are told. Perfect stability.

 

What's wrong with that, exaclty?

 

Now, if the populace actually has dissenting opinions and are afraid to speak their mind, I'd say their lives are pretty unstable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Well, yes, I am inventing a false reality. However, there are no perfectly stable countries or regions, so either way we are forced into working with false realities.

 

And how is it unstable? Everyone hates the conditions they live in, but they are all too afraid to do anything about it. It's a perfectly stable system which can exist for many decades, which in political sense is a very long time.

 

These people might hate the situation they are in, and want to cause an instability, but any attempt to start anything is immediatly stoped by the government by force. This keeps the situation stable against the will of the people. Now there is a potential for instability, yet the system is perfectly stable. Compare it to a very long stick put on its end and glued to the floor. Yes, it is a system with potential for instability, yet while it stays glued to the floor due to the energy barier created by the glue, it cannot fall, and therefore is perfectly stable.

 

How is it bad? Well, that depends on your perspective. If you don't care about people living in horrible conditions with all their freedoms taken away, then I suppose you would not consider it so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

That's national stability, but you're forgetting about the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

It is not actually stabil, as it could break very soon - due to the fact people feel oppressed - and is willing to change this by force.

 

So it is highly instabil, and you don't have to do much (as a leader) before all hell breaks lose (upon yourself of course).

 

So your "reality" is highly instabil.

 

Besides, I have already stated clearly that no nation can be completely stabil. Not even nations we think as very stabil.

 

Stability of a nation is the likelihood of revolt (or lack of).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Note that I only need one theoretical counterexample to your argument to completely sink it. In construction of such counterexample, I have a great freedom. The only restriction you placed on the state is that it is stable. So my counterexample is a country where the dictator holds stability by force. If that dictator has a strong enough military influence, there can be no instability caused by any internal factors. This is an example of dynamic equilibrium, which tends to be even more stable than a static one, as long as the feedback system works. The external factors are not counted in the question of stability, because any stable system can be destroyed by a great enough external force. Therefore, I am asking you, should a foreign government invade such a country, by which destabilizing it, in order to free the opressed population, or should they let it be in interests of stability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Again, you are forgetting the individual. Under a regime where the subjects feel oppressed, their life is not stable, no matter how stable the nation is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
millermagic

As much as I would like to see it, I don't think it is possible for the whole world to be stable. Different things like the human mind, religion and many other things get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Again, you are forgetting the individual. Under a regime where the subjects feel oppressed, their life is not stable, no matter how stable the nation is.

How are their lifes unstable? Their lifes are miserable today, will be miserable tomorrow, and for all observable future. The government is not interested in the population to be dying off, so they keep the sanitation and basic medicine on a high enough level to prevent mass epidemics, and they make sure that there is enough food for survival, though, nobody gets quite enough to not feel hungry all the time. Except for their lives, these people have nothing else to loose, so their lifes are as stable as anyone's life can possibly be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
Again, you are forgetting the individual.  Under a regime where the subjects feel oppressed, their life is not stable, no matter how stable the nation is.

How are their lifes unstable? Their lifes are miserable today, will be miserable tomorrow, and for all observable future. The government is not interested in the population to be dying off, so they keep the sanitation and basic medicine on a high enough level to prevent mass epidemics, and they make sure that there is enough food for survival, though, nobody gets quite enough to not feel hungry all the time. Except for their lives, these people have nothing else to loose, so their lifes are as stable as anyone's life can possibly be.

I don't think simply existing in stasis passes as stability, in the sense that Svip is describing.

 

In response to your question, though - it's obviously a measured risk. Are the lives of the many worth the potential freedom of the few? These are larger questions than stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
I don't think simply existing in stasis passes as stability, in the sense that Svip is describing.

Then define stability, because I understood stability, in this case, as resistance to change, which seems to be what Svip was leaning twoards.

 

In response to your question, though - it's obviously a measured risk.  Are the lives of the many worth the potential freedom of the few? These are larger questions than stability.

My entire point was that there are bigger questions than the question of stability. Are you simply agreeing with me, or is there a typo there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just another thug
Stability is unnatural. A utopia can't be accomplished because it's in human nature to go against that. Forward progression only stops at perfection (perfect stability) but perfection is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
I don't think simply existing in stasis passes as stability, in the sense that Svip is describing.

Then define stability, because I understood stability, in this case, as resistance to change, which seems to be what Svip was leaning twoards.

 

In response to your question, though - it's obviously a measured risk.  Are the lives of the many worth the potential freedom of the few? These are larger questions than stability.

My entire point was that there are bigger questions than the question of stability. Are you simply agreeing with me, or is there a typo there?

Nope - I agree that there are bigger questions.

 

As far as stability; I think Svip's talking more about reliability, and honored dependance. If you rely on your father's life, and he can be killed for speaking against the government, I'd say that your life is rather precarious, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

First of all, Otter is completely right, the single person's life is far from stabil in your example.

 

Yes, their life sucks, and they know it will perhaps for the coming seasons, but that does make their life stabil, chances are high that they will die? How does the large chance of dying make your life stabil?

 

And how does a nation become stabil when chance is that the entire nation will suffer dead under the oppresion of the government? I don't think so, your entire idea is completely unstabil, as chances are very high that the system will collapse upon itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Nope - I agree that there are bigger questions.

Then we are in an agreement. I never tried to imply that the stability isn't good or isn't important, just that there are more important things, at least, in some situtaions.

 

@Svip.

 

A person can allways die. That's kind of a part of being human. In fact, it is very important that people die. Do you know what kind of instabilities would an immortal population cause if it keeps growing? Point is, the fact that there are risk to person's life does not make the life of the person unstable. I know that I have a chance of dying in a car crash tomorrow, yet I am not going to use it as an excuse not to plan for the next week. And as long as people can plan for the future, their lives are perfectly stable.

 

And such states have existed for very long periods of time without any chance of collapse. Pretty much, look at any Aristocratic state of the past as an example. A few people who run everything make the rest of the population live in dirt, and do so sucessfuly for many generations. That's stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
Nope - I agree that there are bigger questions.

Then we are in an agreement. I never tried to imply that the stability isn't good or isn't important, just that there are more important things, at least, in some situtaions.

 

@Svip.

 

A person can allways die. That's kind of a part of being human. In fact, it is very important that people die. Do you know what kind of instabilities would an immortal population cause if it keeps growing? Point is, the fact that there are risk to person's life does not make the life of the person unstable. I know that I have a chance of dying in a car crash tomorrow, yet I am not going to use it as an excuse not to plan for the next week. And as long as people can plan for the future, their lives are perfectly stable.

 

And such states have existed for very long periods of time without any chance of collapse. Pretty much, look at any Aristocratic state of the past as an example. A few people who run everything make the rest of the population live in dirt, and do so sucessfuly for many generations. That's stability.

No, K, I mean that there are larger questions than stability, but when it comes to quality of life, stability is probably the most important factor. These "larger questions" involve squishy subjects like morality, and the subject of national well-being over personal well-being.

 

I'm sure we both agree that a government should strive to provide a healthy, stable life for its citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

@K^2: I am not denying the fact of the importance of people dying. I am saying that if you don't know if you could end up dead tomorrow, then it is not a very stabil life you live.

 

Of course any society has these sort of issues, however some are more likely - and dying of things people died of hundred years ago is counted as highly instabil.

 

I don't suppose if you go die of hunger that your life would count as stabil.

 

But I must inform you that I know the importance of people dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

You're missing the poing. I know that I might die tomorrow. Any person who is not ignorant or is in denial knows that he could die tomorrow.

 

Yes, high odds of dying do decrease stability. However, as I mentioned above, any tyranical government that wants to keep existing in a few decades would want the life expectancy to be at least 50-60 years. Otherwise, they'd have droping population. So while such government might keep the people hungry, it wouldn't keep them so hungry that they would start massively dying. Just enough to be miserable 24/7. You also have to see that such a state would have very low crime and accident rates, due to very tight regime. With all this considered, the people would have a much better certainty that they won't die at 20 than any person living in New York or some other large city. Again, that's a very stable state.

 

@ Otter: I don't know about you, but for me personally, having opportunities in life, even if risky ones, is a lot higher on importance list than stability. Any person who prefers capitalism over socialism has to agree with this. I don't know, maybe you are a Socialist all the way to the bone, and maybe you do think that people should have food, shelter, a job, and be happy with that. I consider that to be existing, not living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I simply feel that a person living in a country should have these basic needs covered by the state. I don't think the issue of "freedom" is even comparable. Of course, I want freedom, but I do need to be alive to enjoy, dont I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Yes, everyone needs these things to survive, but I am readdy to take a risk at attempting to acquire them for myself in the conditions of capitalist economy, rather than having the state guarantee these things for me, but having my freedoms taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, though.

They don't have to be, but often you get stuck with one or the other. So if you had to choose, which one would you go for? I know that a lot of people, if not a majority, would choose oportunity over certainty. People tend to be gamblers. That means that at least for these people, stability is not the top concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.