Talk:Military fiat/Archive 1

removed text


 * Military fiat is control of borders and trade, typically by a nation state. Exception: in an Ecoregional Democracy, the military fiat is held by ecology itself. Fiat money is backed by military fiat, i.e. the capacity to collect taxes by force. Healthy money in an Ecoregional Democracy collects wastes in lieu of taxes or along with taxes, and recirculates clean air, water, and renewed soil and other organisms, as ecological services.

Sounds like nonsense to me - what does everyone else think? --maveric149, Saturday, April 6, 2002 removed text


 * Military fiat is control of borders and trade, typically by a nation state.


 * this part is certainly non-controversial enough.


 * Exception: in an Ecoregional Democracy, the military fiat is held by ecology itself. Fiat money is backed by military fiat, i.e. the capacity to collect taxes by force. Healthy money in an Ecoregional Democracy collects wastes in lieu of taxes or along with taxes, and recirculates clean air, water, and renewed soil and other organisms, as ecological services.


 * this part was badly written (by me) and the present articles on environmental economics and green economists didn't exist when I wrote it, so I didn't have them to link to to explain it more fully... now I do.

Sounds like nonsense to me - what does everyone else think? --maveric149, Saturday, April 6, 2002


 * I think it's technically exact, although possibly a bit ahead of its time in that form. Military, or "state fiat" or just "fiat", is a term from money theory, and is one of three types of money, the other two being "commodity" and "credit".  If you want to have no military, and you don't like debit/credit systems, or reducing all of nature and humanity to a set of commodities, you have to ask - who's got the fiat?  If borders match ecoregions, and each region has its own money, then ecology itself does, e.g. damage to value upstream automatically becomes damage to value downstream.  Admittedly, ecology is not very powerful from some military points of view, but it is extremely powerful from others, e.g. biological warfare.  Converging taxes to ecology is called a "green tax shift" and is common in green economists theories.

I've never heard of it. If it's to be included, I'd like pointers to just who uses the term, and in what context. -- April, Saturday, April 6, 2002


 * Military fiat is certainly a term used. A one second search on Google revealed 160 hits of the term.  However, none of the initial ones show an immediate definition, and a quick reading doesn't show how this relates to Ecoregional Democracy.  Perhaps a useful article is in here somewhere but I'm not the one to write it.  Rgamble

I've never heard of it. If it's to be included, I'd like pointers to just who uses the term, and in what context. -- April, Saturday, April 6, 2002


 * Military fiat is certainly a term used. A one second search on Google revealed 160 hits of the term.  However, none of the initial ones show an immediate definition, and a quick reading doesn't show how this relates to Ecoregional Democracy.  This kind of sounds like a very 'new' idea limited to a small group.  For that matter, Ecoregional democracy doesn't appear to be a concept that's in the public consciousness (a search on google turned up no hits).  Perhaps a useful article is in here somewhere but I'm not the one to write it and I doubt it would look anything like the above..  Rgamble


 * article on ecoregional democracy is in Bioregional democracy now which explains the various synonyms, e.g. bioregional state, bioregional borders, legal commons, etc.. Use of "ecoregional" is very new since only recently did ecologists decide that "bioregions" were to be called "ecoregions".


 * Yes, the term "military fiat" has meaning, but the specific use above is what I've never heard of. :) Maybe I'll have a go at this one... -- April


 * go ahead, the exception is a technicality and can be added back later - the healthy money stuff belongs in green economists now that that article exists.

Reads much better now, and slants toward the political not economic definition, which is important, since the political one is necessary to understanding the economic one. There should be a link to political economy here actually, since military fiat is what a given theory of political economy actually justifies.

Are the following two sentences from the article contradictory?
 * they're certainly unclear in combination, but that's why there's a "debate" - in some senses ecoregions are clearly a fiat, in others not. The question among economists is whether it counts as one economically.


 * Military fiat is a process whereby a decision is made and enforced by military means without the participation of other political elements.


 * There is debate among green economists whether ecoregions in fact have a military fiat based on their ability to protect people and guarantee value by diluting pollution, preventing erosion, circulating stagnant water which would otherwise breed disease, and other services.

How can a piece of land make a decision?


 * it can't, but it can enforce one. And, it can be deliberately "terraformed" so as to minimize potential for certain types of conflict, e.g. bio-warfare... which is drastically enabled by centralized water supply, and disabled by decentralized water drainage systems.
 * in land's normal "circulating" capacity, it doesn't have to decide anything, it's autonomous, the term "natural capital" is in global use to describe that aspect of ecosystems. Obviously the defense is relatively passive, i.e. no one argues that an ecosystem deliberately drops an avalanche on a human about to shoot the last grizzly bear.  However it has surprising high leverage, e.g. you save huge amounts of money designing an infrastructure to fit the ecology rather than fight it or avoid it.

Sure, people living in these "ecoregions" (and, at a considerable stretch, non-human animals) can make a political decision, and the physical characteristics of land obviously greatly influence the decision to use military force and the outcomes of using such military force, but
 * you've understood the essence of it - it's a leverage argument - "physical characteristics of land obviously greatly influence the decision to use military force and the outcomes of using such military force," therefore an individual with a rocket launcher in a pass he knows well can dump nasty diseases into the mountain streams that poison the guards down below who must drink from that well as their only source of water. This is not obsoleted entirely by modern "top down" methods, e.g. bombing from 30,000 feet.  Someone still has to go in the caves etc.

claiming a regional ecosystem makes decisions is surely stretching the term "decision" so much as to make the word meaningless. --Robert Merkel
 * the only decision in this case would be to trust or fight the ecosystem, the enforcement would be implicit in the natural processes of draining, growth etc.

Thanks for the clarification. Isn't the argument, though, that the physical characteristics of a region can determine the success or failure of the political decisions people in that area take.


 * that was Adam Smith's original argument in "Wealth of Nations", 1776, and it argued strongly against monetarism (trying to control the wealth of a nation as opposed to simply its currency). That is *one* good argument that plays against protectionism, and against overly specific industrial policy.

I would have thought that was so obvious as to not be worth debating (ie the military impregnability of Switzerland due to the mountains that surround it), and a very different kind of idea to what is usually meant by military fiat. --user:Robert Merkel
 * yes, that is an important example, but it digs into the ecoregion problem too - one has to ask WHAT makes mountains impregnable, it's not just the physical cover of rocks, it's also that Switzerland is *upstream* and can piss in everybody's water. It's that each valley has its own unique ecology and cannot be easily destroyed by letting some insects loose or blowing up the irrigation system, which are vulnerabilities in France or in Germany... and all of that is ultimately complementary to the natural capital argument that says that this robustness is what makes nature a form of "capital" and not just "resources".  Military and economic usefulness converge, and the protective and productive services also.  So the means of production of ecological goods are also a means of protection against coercion by alien military fiat.  Best arguments on this came from Harold Innis who founded geopolitical media "theory of Empire", but the whole modern idea of biosecurity comes from this... the military and agricultural terminology are converging, as the green economists predicted some time ago.

Is there a name for 24's particular ideological viewpoint? It will be much simpler to transform these articles to NPOV if the views can be properly ascribed to the group which holds them. Eco-politicians? Gaians? -- April


 * I don't think I *have* an ideological viewpoint, that is what Gaians could be said to have, i.e. they see a set of "shoulds" that they "must" adhere to. The eco-politicians, broadly, are the Greens, and they are committed to a particular consensus process based on the Four Pillars (which constrains that process so tightly that it's almost a rigorous spec).  I've been a member of Green Parties but they are tied of course to different places and times and policies relevant to those.  So it's got little to do with the general understanding of military fiat other than to be skeptical that by marching around and blowing stuff up, it does any good, specifically not in an age of biowar and "information warfare" which just don't care who is strutting around wearing what uniform.


 * if you want to ascribe any of the views HERE, in the TALK, I'd say they are vaguely those of the green economists, who are trying to replace the neoclassical/globalization political economy.


 * but, I did my best to stick to classical assumptions in the article, and only raised the question as to whether the greens could find a sufficient parallel between military fiat as understood by classical economists, the defensive character of terrain, and the functions of "natural capital" when acting as a Marxist means of protection, i.e. defensive instrument.


 * Personally, I think that can only happen in a Bioregional Democracy and isn't easy to apply in nations like the US and Canada which have arbitrary borders set by bureaucrats in the 19th century. But, Joel Garreau in 1981 in "Nine Nations Of North America" claimed the bioregional borders would be eventually the political borders, one way or another.


 * Beyond that, the observations about fiat made in the rest of the article, and also the money article, have no particular slant as far as I can tell, and are carefully balanced between classical and Marxist opinions... the neoclassical views are more quantitative and pay less attention to fundamentals or micro-economics, as a result they can't predict things like currency swings due to terrorism - which are easy to understand from clasical or Marxist viewpoints.
 * when we use the term "fiat", here, as distinct from just "the military and its functions", presumably we are talking about the way that the state uses its powers. If you want to move the economic stuff into just "fiat", fine, economists usually say "fiat money" and not "military fiat money" although that is precisely and only what they mean.

24, it would help greatly if you would cite all of your sources, no matter how silly or obvious it seems to you.
 * that's quite impossible, since I have background in this going back 20 years, and have read voluminously in the field. I can core dump my brain and then see where I have said controversial things, but I have no way of knowing what is controversial to this crowd in particular... or any other crowd that might read this.  So your objections to specific statements are critical to knowing what to document.  There are literally thousands of sources here, and each statement of fact or causality probably comes from at least two or three.  Else, I wouldn't believe it, as I have long since filtered out the idiosyncratic beliefs of classical, Marxist, neoclassical, or green zealots.  Let alone science zealots, or those who believe overmuch in economics itself. --24


 * 24, you've seen the reactions to your writings here enough to understand that virtually *everything* you say is controversial. Hence, you're going to need to back up just about everything :) --Robert Merkel, requesting again that 24 signs his posts to talk pages to make tracking discussions easier.
 * that seemingly reflects a normal human bias - to over-recall what is most controversial. The majority of what I write in articles is not controversial at all, and is barely edited.  That's different from what I say in talk which is designed to give you an idea where I'm coming from, why I see a need to describe something quite differently than the obvious crap you see on TV (who needs that?  anyone can get that off google or cnn.com). -24

It most assuredly is not to most of us, and as a result, what you write comes across as an essay or original research, or a polemic, but not as an encyclopedia article. I may have misunderstood others' objections, and if so, I'd appreciate clarification from others about what their objections are. Koyaanis Qatsi, Sunday, April 7, 2002
 * it may well "come across" that way to someone unfamiliar with the subject. However it's a style question.  I write for those with about a high school education, NOT a university degree in the topic in question.  That's a core question we should discuss in meta
 * No, it's not a matter of language level, its a matter of the style of writing. You are asserting as facts


 * I for one agree with Koyaanis Qatsi; right now these come across as opinions, not "facts about opinions" as is the policy. -- April
 * they do often come across that way, and you help refine them by telling me exactly what comments you think are outside general knowledge. --24


 * Right on, KQ. More than that, I think my concern is that 24's take on things appears to be very much minority one amongst practitioners in those fields, and giving it too much prominence (when more widely-held viewpoints aren't extensively covered) gives a misleading view of what the spectrum of opinion out there is.
 * that may well be true. However, I can guarantee you absolutely that if you let a classical, Marxist, neoclassical, and green economist all hack at any of my commentary on economics, you will find that each of them has added some crap that others have removed, and what is left is about what I wrote in the first place.


 * Um, no. I'm claiming that is not the case, and that your work is *not* an accurate reflection of the range of opinions out there on economic matters.
 * well, I don't see how one can do more than relate the classical, Marxist, neoclassical and green opinions, which have four different view of the fiat. If I were a strict Marxist, I'd say that *EVERYTHING* is done by such a fiat.  If I were a strict green, I'd be quoting Sun Tzu or Tecumseh or Chief Seattle all over the place to show that ecology and military objectives are inseparable.  If I were a strict neoclassical, I'd argue that nation states have to guarantee debt repayment or be left out of the global economy.  And if I were a strict classical, I'd argue that the fiat must be used to make a single global defense, infrastructure, education, justice, and currency system.  So, if you wish to include all that, go ahead, include all that.  I quoted milder opinions.  So maybe it's not "accurate reflection of the range" but I decided that the objectivse of the four schools are all incompatible and sort of bizarre.-24

You are either doing so in the belief that the writings *are* fairly representing the range of opinions out there - in which case I believe you to be wrong - or that you know you aren't, in which case your methodology is contrary to the neutral point of view policy, which prominently discusses the need to "write for the enemy", as it were.
 * "the enemy" in the case of this article is those who argue that military fiat is somehow optional in economics or political life - as the vast majority of people believe it is, living as they do in poverty under rule of people far away who seem to do the same things no matter how they vote or complain. Those people would argue that military fiat is essential to trade and economics, and it is, and this article says very clearly that it is...


 * now, there is absolutely a need for the classical, Marxist, neoclassical or green views to be idiosyncratically covered where they are idiosyncratic on matters of economics. --24


 * Agreed. But if they are minority views, they should be treated as such and not perhaps covered as extensively as more common views (and if they are to be discussed extensively they should be put in a seperate article).
 * the only minority views worth discussing extensively are extreme positions that seem to be driving responses in the majority view, or current events - when people come here for an understanding of a topic, they need to know it is relevant to something other than itself, or other areas of academic study.
 * also, classical views are not in the minority, and this article now makes explicit reference to them as the foundations of what Smith said needed to be done by a state "by fiat". The other views are those of a minority, but the global majority by far views the U.S. unilateral use of force as a military fiat since it affects the whole world but has no consultation outside the US.  I tried to represent that view and explain how it affects current ideas of the military fiat.  It depends on what we mean by "common".  What does the hundred millionth, three hundred millionth, one billionth user of the wiki believe in?  what do they think "imposed by military force" or "public participation" means.  I've tried to get appointments to talk to bureaucrats about some of their decisions and been told there is no avenue to participate other than voting - and been told by politicans they would do something that, in office, they didn't do.  Is that "participation"?  by my measures, it isn't.  So, in the view of the many who think the same thing, many decisions are fiat, -24

As has been said before, Wikipedia is an attempt to reflect the world (including scientific and other academic disciplines) as they currently are, not as some of us would like it to be. --Robert Merkel
 * political science may well define "military fiat" differently from economics. But trying to respect that, I left April's first paragraph alone, and then got questioned for using a slightly more economic interpretation in the third paragraph.  If this is going to happen often, I won't bother trying to respect other's work so rigorously, but will instead alter or generalize the definitions that do not accomodate the broader use in both of the fields. --24
 * OK I took extreme pains to differentiate commonly held views in the community that studies these things, from that which is held only by certain views of political economy.-24


 * it would help greatly if you would cite all of your sources, no matter how silly or obvious it seems to you. I think it would help wikipedia greatly if everybody took these words to heart, not just the ones who frequently find themselves in the minority.  Everything you write is going to be controversial to somebody, so always provide the backup so others know where you're getting it from, "no matter how silly or obvious it seems to you".  :), DanKeshet
 * that's correct. Which is why a discipline of writing it as you see it, as neutrally as possible, but QUICKLY and EARLY, and then backfilling sources as comments prove that statements or observations are considered controversial, is the best approach to contentious topics like poli sci, economics, and phil. --24
 * You're right on that, Dan, and I need to go through my class notes and find old books I've read, etc. and cite sources on my own articles as well. Originally I considered it a nonissue since my writing is almost entirely from memory, but I'm coming increasingly to appreciate the importance of citations.  Fortunately I've largely avoided writing which states any overt political opinion.  Koyaanis Qatsi, Monday, April 8, 2002

another suggestion: do a google search before questioning a fact, it takes two seconds. Someone actually questioned that the Knights Templar were as instrumental in banking history as they were, and this is their prime claim to fame. I don't mind responding to such stuff, but in general, it takes two seconds to do a google search and much longer for me to respond. - Ditto --April, Robert, and Rgamble. I am getting tired of the unneeded and unwanted discord that 24 is causing. A couple of hours ago I wrote a lengthy post for the mailing list about the activities of 24 in the hope that a policy discussion can be started on what to do with this miscreant. Until a full discussion can be had on this, I say we largly ignore 24's activities and simply keep track of the "damage" he/she is doing - we can always REVERT later and ban 24's IP if he/she does not step in line. I am truely sorry it has come to this. --maveric149, Sunday, April 7, 2002

''Ditto --April, Robert, and Rgamble. I am getting tired of the unneeded and unwanted discord that 24 is causing. ''
 * that's nice. I don't care how your personal ideological and emotional damage may cause you to become "tired", or how you perceive normal discourse as "discord".  Nor what is "unwanted" from your perspective.  Unlike KQ I am not avoiding but embracing the most controversial topics, and what I get in return is various levels of ignorant abuse (which I ignore), and some reasonable objections (which I answer), and censorship (which I respond to by moving material elsewhere and rewriting it thoroughly). -24

So I take it from your above statement that you think what I wrote was a reasonable objection? You did respond BTW. -maveric

''A couple of hours ago I wrote a lengthy post for the mailing list about the activities of 24 in the hope that a policy discussion can be started on what to do with this miscreant. Until a full discussion can be had on this, I say we largly ignore 24's activities and simply keep track of the "damage" he/she is doing - ''
 * you are quite welcome to have a "party" or "clique" discussion on what your mailing list clique wishes to do about the governance of this project. I will proceed as I am until someone writes a status quo that identifies some action of mine as a problem, or until someone else achieves consensus on a means of governance on the project now that Larry is gone. -24

You can be a part of the party too 24. All you have to do is play by established wikipedia standards and try to abide by our NPOV and namming policies. It's that easy. There is no need for the "governance" rubbish you are trying to force upon us by your continued disregard of our already established policies and standards. Who needs to go to the effort of writing something on another one of your pages. Many have already made it very clear why what you are doing is wrong. -maveric

''we can always REVERT later and ban 24's IP if he/she does not step in line. I am truely sorry it has come to this. ''--maveric149, Sunday, April 7, 2002
 * who's "we", and how is the "line" discovered or imposed? You are sorry for nothing other than your own lack of power and patience. I have no problem with saying that my articles by default "need attention", about 20% seem to, to deal with varying degrees of ideological damage arising from the Systemic Bias of Wikipedia.  Fine.  I treat those editors civilly.  People like you, however, who claim the authority to globally revert, ban, define "we" and define "line", well, there is simply no point talking to.

Awe, name calling - the last resort of the ...... well.. I wont fall into that trap. "We" are those on the mailing list and others that care about the project as it is -- not as you would like it be. You are more than welcome to join the wikipedia mailing list -- if for no other reason than to monitor it. We keep no secretes here. BTW, I claim no such authority - my statement was merely a call to correct the much of what you have done if those that daily contribute to and really care about wikipedia and upholding its policies decide it is necessary. Another thing you obviously don't understand, is that we all have the ability to remove text from acticles and define anything however we please and that this is as much a philosophical statement as it is a function of the software. But don't be surprised when somebody else comes along and yells about NPOV or following wikipedia policy and knocks your "contributions" down a peg. By contributing we agree to a social contract to abide by the rules that the community has established. You are constantly breaking this contract. That is why many of us protest. -maveric

It's not even that your entries are blatenly non-NPOV in many cases -- it is just the volume of questionable material that you "contribute" that needs to be fixed is very large and hard to keep up on (most have stopped trying -- don't think that is a vote of confidence). Please try to work on your material more before submitting it -- nobody wants to spend most of their time simply correcting material submitted from others.

From this point forward I will not respond to you directly until I see you are abiding by our policies and standards. I do wish the best for you. However, your actions on the 'pedia will be tracked and corrected when necessary. Good day. maveric149, Monday, April 8, 2002

Maybe it is my bad English, but what, exactly, is the meaning of this article? That a country needs military to protect itself and, therefore, its currency, and that sometimes the military power is abused? And why is it that in the "vs." sections only one side (Green/political left/Anti-Globalization) is mentioned?
 * because the classical position of Adam Smith is that "defense, justice, infrastructure, education, and a stable currency" is clearly mentioned as the default up front, the neoclassi*cals believe the same thing, and they just take military fiat for granted. Especially in the English speaking world which has for the last 400 years held a global fiat - drastically biasing its view of such things as trade far far away from neutral point of view in the global sense.  So there's nothing to say about it, other than what's said, and it appears unbalanced because, from the point of view of the world that was not raised in the US or UK or a colony, global use of military fiat *is* unbalanced and abused.  I'm just trying to reach the neutral point of view.

I know that some of you consider "24" a menace,
 * some of those same people are starting to participate in the crude model of governance I laid out at meta which has nothing to do with me or my opinions - merely an option for making collective decisions - I figure as long as some of the clique that hate me are doing that, we're doing ok.

but I'm still trying to find out what s/he is writing about;
 * it's quite amusing that all kinds of people accuse me of having some ideology in my articles, when my whole philosophy is to have no ideology. As different people's personal assumptions and ideologies and cosmologies are challenged by what I write, they get upset, but there's no possible way that I could tell in advance when or why.  So, I just try to respond to concerns they raise, in depth and detail with sources, and move on to the next thing.


 * Which the big problem with your articles. You don't have any notion of how your ideas relate to other people's ideas and hence you have this total inability to summarize the current state of knowledge in a particular area, which is the whole point of Wikipedia.


 * 24 wrote in Systemic Bias of Wikipedia "And don't even get me started on golf, which is simply a low-tech form of Biological warfare."


 * and if you find this in an article on golf, feel free to change it. But you won't, at least not one by me.


 * I agree with 24 about golf, but I think this quote shows off 24's very strong ideology. -- Olof


 * arguably, all use of "is" constitutes ideology - or propaganda. However, meta-articles are for the stating of strong opinions, and don't follow the rules here.  I think also using lead phrases like "don't even get me started" implies that I'm about to exaggerate.  You want to see how I write straight on the cuff, read governance or Response_to_Stephen_Gilbert


 * 24 -- So were you being sarcastic or deceptive when you wrote "my whole philosophy is to have no ideology"?
 * very good - since I used "is", I was being sarcastic. All use of "is" back to Jonathan Swift in English has been sarcastic - 24

some of this article, for example, could probably fit under military, or under coup d'etat, or currency, but as an article of its own, it seems to me, it can't decide on a straight line. --Magnus Manske, Monday, April 8, 2002
 * nor should it, since there is no global agreement on what military fiat is to be used for... really the history of this subject is the whole of history, and the difference between "military fiat" and just "military" is nothing but the word "fiat" as in fiat money.
 * for an idea of why this might need a full explanation, have a look at commodity markets where the historical recourse to military fiat is mentioned often... that's probably the most complex article in this series, but without that background, the stock markets articles etc. can't be simple... certain articles must be exhaustive so others can be simple.

I just searched through the google hits and could not find any references to military fiat that related to monetary theory. Is there any source for this online or in print that we can look at? --rmhermen
 * search for "fiat credit commodity" and you'll find tons of economics articles describing these three ways of "backing", and associated ways of "clearing", trade. If "fiat" has any meaning other than "military fiat" in this context it would be a surprise for anyone who ever studied political economy.  Perhaps the article should make clear that "state fiat", "police fiat", or just "fiat" are equivalent terms, and that the notion of "participation by other political elements" depends entirely on what degree of consultation you think is requied, which in turn depends on political economy.

-- April removed the following silliness:

Also, a type of armored fighting sports car (AFSC) used by the Italian Army
 * (probably by Secret Service, since no one of these presumed vehicles has ever been seen on the roads, nor bought by the official competent state administration, but others might be better informed); as the name suggests, it should have been produced by Fiat after the indications of the Armed Forces Services Corporation (AFSC), as promoted by the Advertising Federation of Sioux City (AFSC). As Foreigners Seem Confirming (AFSC).


 * Oh, we can also kill it here, it's silly enough for Bad Jokes too; really, it was only an invitation for the Epopt to remove his own nonsense. --Gianfranco