The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Australia gives Knighthood to Prince Philip - er, ... A Prince Philip appreciation thread
I'll make a deal with you: show me an Arab state with a functioning democratic government and I'll show you a unicorn.
I think democracy is great and would love it if more countries were democratic--when combined with limited government. However in some countries you have to admit democracy has ended in dismal failure. Examples include Gaza, Egypt, Iran, and the District of Columbia.
you should stick to compsci
politics, history, economics... and well... most everything else just isn't your thing
A democracy where the vote of an 18 year old whose only interest is the X-Factor and getting laid has the same weight as a vote by an elder who has spent their entire life studying complex issues of state. Throughout history elder figures were given greater weight in community decision making because, shock, they tend to know a lot more about things that are actually important than some dumbass kid does. We're somehow managed to not just throw that idea away but actively promote a form of democracy where looking good on TV is more effective a vote winner than actually knowing what the hell you're doing. You might remember a certain Nick Clegg suddenly becoming super popular after a TV debate because he made the right hand gestures, projected confidence and used just the right set of buzz words. Yay, democracy!
While in theory I have to agree with this 100%, the problem I do have with it is the who gets to decide who the smart guy is and who the dumbass is. Age is not necessarily the most important component in deciding competence. And we have seen the corruption of voting privileges throughout history in an attempt to deny blacks and other minorities the right to vote.
But I agree that if we could limit voting by those that knew what the hell was going on, we'd all benefit. Because otherwise, as soon as people figure out they can vote to give themselves things that can't be afforded, it all goes downhill from there.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
While in theory I have to agree with this 100%, the problem I do have with it is the who gets to decide who the smart guy is and who the dumbass is. Age is not necessarily the most important component in deciding competence. And we have seen the corruption of voting privileges throughout history in an attempt to deny blacks and other minorities the right to vote.
But I agree that if we could limit voting by those that knew what the hell was going on, we'd all benefit. Because otherwise, as soon as people figure out they can vote to give themselves things that can't be afforded, it all goes downhill from there.
Fully agree with all of that. I don't have the answer of course, but I just get uncomfortable with this idea that if something isn't fully democratic (I.E. supposedly the way things are now) that it must be terrible. Our system is deeply flawed, and I refuse to believe there's no way to improve it if we are willing to set aside preconceptions about how things 'have to be'.
Yep, even saying out loud that most determinations of competence would be considered racists, would be considered racism.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Fully agree with all of that. I don't have the answer of course, but I just get uncomfortable with this idea that if something isn't fully democratic (I.E. supposedly the way things are now) that it must be terrible. Our system is deeply flawed, and I refuse to believe there's no way to improve it if we are willing to set aside preconceptions about how things 'have to be'.
Come up with a better solution than democratic accountability in that case. Come up with a better solution than allowing the general public some degree of say in how their taxes get spent, and who governs them. Bear in mind that you've presented yourself as a pragmatist, so make it pragmatic. It's not monarchy or the House of Lords.
Come up with a better solution than democratic accountability in that case. Come up with a better solution than allowing the general public some degree of say in how their taxes get spent, and who governs them. Bear in mind that you've presented yourself as a pragmatist, so make it pragmatic. It's not monarchy or the House of Lords.
Both the monarchy and the House of Lords perform very pragmatic solutions. Hereditary people aside from concerns of electability performing roles that are at most oversight to the democractic process. We know exactly what the alternative looks like, because we can just look at America with the Senate.
Both the monarchy and the House of Lords perform very pragmatic solutions. Hereditary people aside from concerns of electability performing roles that are at most oversight to the democractic process. We know exactly what the alternative looks like, because we can just look at America with the Senate.
We can also look at nearly every other developed nation, because far from it being an outlandish flight of fancy, it's how most nations actually work. Meanwhile, what you describe as "at most oversight" is costing the nation some £300 million pounds annually, and has no means of accountability. Speaking as a pragmatist, does that sound like a good way of handling "at most oversight"?
Both the monarchy and the House of Lords perform very pragmatic solutions. Hereditary people aside from concerns of electability performing roles that are at most oversight to the democractic process. We know exactly what the alternative looks like, because we can just look at America with the Senate.
why not just abolish it. plenty of countries don't have a second chamber.
"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
This is the first time I've seen kentonio come across like a proper conservative.
Please don't bite my head off ken.
DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.
We can also look at nearly every other developed nation, because far from it being an outlandish flight of fancy, it's how most nations actually work. Meanwhile, what you describe as "at most oversight" is costing the nation some £300 million pounds annually, and has no means of accountability. Speaking as a pragmatist, does that sound like a good way of handling "at most oversight"?
The monarchy pays for itself. As for the House of Lords, having a second chamber is going to cost money regardless. We also save on not having to have elections for it.
why not just abolish it. plenty of countries don't have a second chamber.
Not having a second chamber just means that the first chamber can pass stupid populist legislation with no oversight. That sound like a great idea to you?
Tweet
Comment