Questions concerning issues of success being measured or whether or not the game should be based on a point system all seem like similar questions to me. They are both questions that pertain to how we would go about measuring the level of the subject at hand, forcing us to put either the player, or in the case of this statement, the state on a scale of that ultimately produces hierarchy. Do these tendencies to organize knowledge on scales of relativity indicate that some kind of hierarchal order is in fact innate and a natural occurrence in societies? Is there such thing as equality in a social hierarchy? Measuring the success of a state relative to another state would create inequalities among states, which could possibly lead to greater inequalities due to the decree of freedom of movement among players within the states. Measuring the state by it's economic standing would only spur greater inequalities, implying ideas of greater wealth equals better state. This would also emphasize the importance of wealth, which would affect the individuals because it would lead them to believe that the more wealth acquired, the better. If people naturally associate more wealth with being "better" off, than I could see this leading to greed and inequality. The word "better" itself is relative, therefore pitting individual success against one another rather than having success determined individually. But how would we determine what is classified as success? Should it be classified as Yes-Success and No-Success? Should there be other levels of success?
Questions concerning issues of success being measured or whether or not the game should be based on a point system all seem like similar questions to me. They are both questions that pertain to how we would go about measuring the level of the subject at hand, forcing us to put either the player, or in the case of this statement, the state on a scale of that ultimately produces hierarchy. Do these tendencies to organize knowledge on scales of relativity indicate that some kind of hierarchal order is in fact innate and a natural occurrence in societies? Is there such thing as equality in a social hierarchy? Measuring the success of a state relative to another state would create inequalities among states, which could possibly lead to greater inequalities due to the decree of freedom of movement among players within the states. Measuring the state by it's economic standing would only spur greater inequalities, implying ideas of greater wealth equals better state. This would also emphasize the importance of wealth, which would affect the individuals because it would lead them to believe that the more wealth acquired, the better. If people naturally associate more wealth with being "better" off, than I could see this leading to greed and inequality. The word "better" itself is relative, therefore pitting individual success against one another rather than having success determined individually. But how would we determine what is classified as success? Should it be classified as Yes-Success and No-Success? Should there be other levels of success?