Civics Screen: What combination = X Government

[Sava]

is it possible to have Universal Suffrage as Government, but Slavery as Labor?

[GeoModder]

Of course!
The voters at large elect to have you toiling in the mines!

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by GeoModder


Do you realize if that happens that all those countries who would starve simply would reverse to their traditional agriculture instead of being forcefully dependent on a certain other countries' surplusses?

Obviously that's what would happen, but it's the simply part there that gets you. No country could simply completely change the way in which they attain their food. It would take a lot of time, and a lot of energy, and a lot of resources. People would starve. Most of the rest of the world has only a few days worth of food on reserves. There are exceptions to this, like Australia, who is also a huge food exporter.

I'm not saying the human race would starve to death if the US stopped exporting food. Of course not. Humans are much more adaptable than that. But it would radically alter the world and - in the short run - not for the better.

Also, the way modern countries work today, not every country has the ability to produce food. States are divided up on ideological grounds, which means that a country isn't necessarily built to be able to sustain itself. Countries exist today because people want to belong to that country. There are places in this world where you simply can't farm.

[GeoModder]

Personally, I think it would be better in the long run... But that's just me speaking from a comfortable part of the world.
It's a horrendous shame that so many third-world countries were forced into non-sustenance regarding feeding themself.

[Lorizael]

I agree. And I'm not exactly patriotic towards my country. But the US is pretty damned important when it comes to world economics.

[GeoModder]

Give it time, 't will chance eventually.

[Lorizael]

Dun dun dun....

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Verenti


Wow, They have all the ideal last civics except one!

Here's my take on the US in modern civics

Gov't : Universal Sufferage - Modern Republic = Vote for leader

Legal : Nationhood - Patriotism is a rampant thing, as are the aqusations of being "Anti-American". That sounds like Nationalism to me.

Not to me. Yes, we have a significant degree of patriotism. But the patriotism is based on what we see that is good about our country, not on an almost blind nationalistic sentiment that makes people afraid to question the nation's policies. In a highly nationalistic society, most if not all of the nation's leading newspapers and other media would support the government almost no matter what it does - especially if the only people the nation's policies harm are people from other nations. In contrast, in the U.S., our newspapers and other media are often highly critical of government.

The freedom to express patriotism and to condemn people's views as anti-American are themselves an integral part of freedom of speech. When people criticize government policies that a lot of their fellow citizens support, they should expect to be criticized in turn. The stronger the language they use to criticize the government policies, the stronger the language they can expect to see turned against them. That's how a society with freedom of speech works.

Labour: Emancipation - But who isn't now a days. Might swap it out for Caste System to repersent the divide between Rich and Poor thats quickly growing

In a caste system, government and/or society deliberately limit opportunites for economic mobility. As a result, children's economic opportunities are almost entirely dependent on the status of their parents.

In contrast, many of America's wealthy started off in the middle class or even poor and got their wealth through a combination of hard work, wise investment, and a bit of luck. Not only do we not deliberately try to hold back children born into lower economic classes, but we have a number of programs, especially in regard to education, aimed specifically at helping them succeed. Our efforts often don't work as well as we would like, and a lot of children from poor families have little interest in taking good advantage of the opportunities available. But the fact that we make significant efforts to reduce inequalities of opportunity is directly the opposite of what a caste-based society would do.

Econ : Free Market - Cause they sure the hell aren't Enviromentalist. Might be Mercantilism considering the ammount of times they banned things like Canadian soft lumber to protect internal industry. Which is like every three months there is a new ban on a new product.

One of the more significant political issues in America today is that we're "exporting too many jobs overseas." Complaints that free trade is hurting our people are hardly the mark of a country that's economy is currently primarily defined by Mercantilism, although they indicate a danger of perhaps turning in that direction in the future. And as someone else pointed out, we certanly don't fit the Civ 4 definition of Mercantilism.

Religion: Organized Religion - Evangelical President who's fighting to turn back things like Science and originally worded his invasion of Afghanistan as a "Crusade". Also the man won an election because 50% of the population worried voting for Kerry might allow Gay people to get married.

If that's the worst you can come up with, I'd say that America is doing a great job of poviding religious freedom. If you can't see that, you haven't studied the history of religious oppression anywhere near as much as you should if you want to understand the issue.

The term "cruside" can be used quite legitimately in non-religious contexts - "crusade against hunger," for example. The cable TV series Crusade, a short-lived sequel to Babylon 5, was about a crusade to find a way to counter an alien bio-weapon.

As for the other issues you brought up, they involve deliberate assaults on the beliefs and values of a great many religious conservatives. Some segments of the scientific community want to exclude concepts of origins that compete with their purely naturalistic concepts, thereby giving their views a monopoly. Homosexuals want not merely a right to have committed, loving relationships, but a power to force recognition of those relationshps onto people who disapprove of homosexuality. Standing up against such assaults on traditional Christian beliefs and values is not incompatible with religious freedom.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Some segments of the scientific community want to exclude concepts of origins that compete with their purely naturalistic concepts, thereby giving their views a monopoly.

"Some segments of the Christian community want to exclude concepts of sexual orientation that compete with their own purely religious concepts, thereby giving their views a monopoly."

Homosexuals want not merely a right to have committed, loving relationships, but a power to force recognition of those relationshps onto people who disapprove of homosexuality.

"Creationists want not merely a right to have their own theories, but a power to force recognition of those theories onto people who disapprove of their conclusions."

--------------------

Just to be clear, the responses above are not my personal views. Purely addressing the manner in which the arguments have been phrased.

[nbarclay]

I don't want to get into a drawn-out debate regarding same-sex marriage, but the concept that marriage is a distinctly heterosexual institution is not purely religious. The foundation for a heterosexual concept of marriage is reproductive biology. In contrast, the only ways homosexuals can acquire children are ways that any other single people can use, ways that are independent of their sexual relationship. As a result, heterosexual marriage is essentially universally recognized around the entire world, while societies that view homosexual relationships as fully equivalent to heterosexual marriage are relatively rare. The distinction is not just something arbitrarily defined by one or a handful of religious groups.

Getting back to the translation between Civ 4 civics and real-world societies, I think the important thing is to look at a civilization's overall patten of behavior. The fact that a civilization does not always live up to its ideals perfectly should not disqualify it from fitting into a particular category.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Oh man, could we PLEASE get back on topic, this is getting SAD!!! My take on the US-in civ terms-is this:

Representation (sorry, no matter how I look at it, I cannot say Universal Sufferage. Then again, I don't believe Australia or Britain fit that category either).

Nationhood (Sorry, I have seen you guys, and you are VERY patriotic (almost to the extreme), to the point of turning a blind-eye to the bad side of your nation's character).

Emancipation (bit of a no-brainer here, though like us I think you make a bit too much use of cheap foreign labour on the side !)

Free Market (though it is true that a state between Free Market and Mercantilism needs to exist-perhaps Protectionist?)

Free Religion (though Organised Religion fits the bill too, but certainly not a Theocracy (though not through want of trying by the religious right !)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Aeson]

You missed the point of my post entirely. The subject matter is irrellevent. The phrasing was what I was pointing out, and what you seem to have ignored.

Instead you chose to focus on 1 word? "Purely". Which I may add, you yourself had worded. (I would have dropped the "purely" entirely, as it's "purely" a recipe for being incorrect in both cases.)

I don't want to get into a drawn-out debate regarding same-sex marriage, but the concept that marriage is a distinctly heterosexual institution is not purely religious.

The way not to get into drawn-out debates regarding a subject is to not continue discussing that subject.

The foundation for a heterosexual concept of marriage is reproductive biology.

Marriage does not result in reproduction. It is fertilization of an egg by sperm that leads to reproduction.

I myself am heterosexual, and my concept of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with reproductive biology. To me it's completely about love and commitment to between partners. Whether or not they bear children has no relevency to marriage itself.

In contrast, the only ways homosexuals can acquire children are ways that any other single people can use, ways that are independent of their sexual relationship.

In contrast, the only ways barren couples can aquire children are ways that any other single people can use, ways that are independent of their sexual relationship.

As a result, heterosexual marriage is essentially universally recognized around the entire world, while societies that view homosexual relationships as fully equivalent to heterosexual marriage are relatively rare.

Which is what needs to be changed. Just because an injustice is prevailent doesn't make it just.

All "new" ideas, good or bad, start out as minority ones.

The distinction is not just something arbitrarily defined by one or a handful of religious groups.

It is a distinction that is arbitrarily applied, mainly by religious groups, to support the prohibition of homosexual marriages though. If it's not arbitrarily applied, then consistancy would dictate that barren heterosexual couples, or those voluntarily abstaining from sexual intercourse, or those who are using birth control, should not be able to marry as well.

[Verenti]

Originally posted by nbarclay
In a highly nationalistic society, most if not all of the nation's leading newspapers and other media would support the government almost no matter what it does - especially if the only people the nation's policies harm are people from other nations.

The Invasion of Iraq. The country was pretty Jingoistic then. And for note the difference between "Patriotism" and "Nationalism" according to Merriam-Websters is instead of the word Country, Nationalism has nation for when it says "love and devotion for one's country" Nationalism also says its especially in pertaining to touting ones Nation above other national and supernational groups. Now doesn't that sound like the US?

In contrast, in the U.S., our newspapers and other media are often highly critical of government.

Like Fox news eh? There was also that guy who got cancelled after he made a comment on his show called "Politically Incorrect". Fired for a sentence, I heard the clip too, He was saying it takes guts to fly a plane into a building, while everyone else was calling them cowards. Where was HIS free speech?

The freedom to express patriotism and to condemn people's views as anti-American are themselves an integral part of freedom of speech. When people criticize government policies that a lot of their fellow citizens support, they should expect to be criticized in turn. The stronger the language they use to criticize the government policies, the stronger the language they can expect to see turned against them. That's how a society with freedom of speech works.

No, that's how mobs work. If somone is intimidated against speaking out due to social ostracising, That's NOT free speech. That's a state of fear. No one should be intimidated out of speaking their mind.

The term "cruside" can be used quite legitimately in non-religious contexts - "crusade against hunger," for example. The cable TV series Crusade, a short-lived sequel to Babylon 5, was about a crusade to find a way to counter an alien bio-weapon.

But he wasn't talking about Drugs or Famine. He was talking about a war against people, which happened to be Muslims. Now has that term been used against that population in history before...

As for the other issues you brought up, they involve deliberate assaults on the beliefs and values of a great many religious conservatives. Some segments of the scientific community want to exclude concepts of origins that compete with their purely naturalistic concepts, thereby giving their views a monopoly. Homosexuals want not merely a right to have committed, loving relationships, but a power to force recognition of those relationshps onto people who disapprove of homosexuality. Standing up against such assaults on traditional Christian beliefs and values is not incompatible with religious freedom.

Firstly, If you told me there was a place where a good number of people didn't believe in the Theory of Evolution five years ago, I would have thought you telling me a joke. I would have laughed. Hard.

But Religious Conservatives... Ugh, Let me put this one past you: Marriage is as much a tradition of Homosexuals as it is anyone else's: They had parents and a very long line of grand parents with a good deal of greats in front of them. I'm guessing a good deal of them married. So if it's their ancestor's tradition who is a church to deny them their birthright? Besides, Aren't there also people down there who are Religious conservatives who are against interracial marriage, Or am I mistaken?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ninot
American Democracy would be:
Universal Sufferage(since the Civil Rights movement), Free Speech, Emancipation(since the Civil War), Free Market, Free Religion.

Originally posted by Ninot
I expect Universal Suffrage would ideally mean a vote for everyone.

Everyone CAN'T vote. Our "universal suffrage" is no different than the "universal suffrage" we had before the civil rights movement, or before the woman suffrage movement. Lots of people can't vote, but we don't care because we don't fully consider them "people". They are second class citizens like women and blacks used to be, so we pretend we have "universal suffrage" (like we used to) and overlook the fact they exist.

I mean people under 18 who make up more than a quarter of our population, but can't vote.

[Cabbagemeister]

Originally posted by Verenti
Like Fox news eh? There was also that guy who got cancelled after he made a comment on his show called "Politically Incorrect". Fired for a sentence, I heard the clip too, He was saying it takes guts to fly a plane into a building, while everyone else was calling them cowards. Where was HIS free speech?

What you're forgetting is that in CIV, Civics don't define the character of the populace, but the character of the government. So just because Fox news is jingoistically nationalist and supresses non-nationalistic free speech among its employees, this doesn't mean that the US can be called Nationalist. If the US government had called up Fox and made them fire that guy, it would be Nationalism. But in the current US system, this is illegal.

Similarly, the fact that our President is staunchly conservative doesn't mean that the US is a Theocracy. He may personally operate with a belief system, but that doesn't mean that the government endorses his belief, or that his belief is mandatory for everyone. Remember, the US is not a Monarchy; GW Bush is NOT the government--he is merely its most prominent employee. His own views are not the views of the government.

Now, is the US leaning slightly towards a Theocratic state? Certainly. Give the most far-out extreme looney-tunes religious right a few decades with absolute power, and they'd love to push us into a Theocracy. Luckily, this will never happen, because there are enough people on both the left and the right to resist it.

On another topic, I'm really curious to see what kind of bonuses Environmentalism offers. They had something similar in SMAC, and it was a competitive civic because it let you catch Mind Worms and use them in battle. Somehow I don't think CIV will be letting me use Environmentalism to catch lions and bears and then sic them on the Romans. Will it boost the health in your cities? That's about all I can think of.