Civics Screen: What combination = X Government

[Dravin]

Where was HIS free speech?

Freedom of Speech means the government can't tell you to shut up and throw you into prison (some exceptions such as yelling fire in a crowed theater and death threats are noted), not that your boss can't fire you if he doesn't like what you say, exspecially if he is concerned about the public image of the company he operates.

If I were to go into work tomorrow and call every customer a sad pathetic excuse for a sentient being (not a parralel, but connected inasmuch as it pertains to being fired over quite legal speech) and got fired as a result, are my rights violated?

Now feel free to trash those who made said boss concerned, but he didn't lose his job because they (the goverment) threw him in the gulag (or threaten to throw said boss in the gulag if he didn't hand out the pink slip).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Cabbagemeister
On another topic, I'm really curious to see kind of bonuses Environmentalism offers. They had somethign 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 use Environmentalism to catch lions and bears and siccing them on the Romans. Will it boost the health in your cities? That's about all I can think of.

I have to assume it would reduce pollution caused by population, at the expense of banning the uberpolluting power plants and things like that? Thus increasing health, probably increasing it such that cities can grow somewhat more ...

[Odin]

US:
Universal Sufferage
Nationhood
Emancipation
Free Market
Free Religion

Most European Countries:
Universal Sufferage
Free Speech
Emancipation
Free Market or Enviromentalism
Free Religion or Pacifism

USSR & PRC:
Police State
Bureaucracy
Serfdom
State Property
Free Religion (Atheist/Organized Religion would be better, but there is no Atheist/No Religion option)

Rome:
Representation (republic)/Hereditary Rule (empire)
Bueaucracy
Slavery
Decentralization
Paganism (organized religion after Constantine)

17th Century France:
Hereditary Rule
Bueaucracy
Serfdom
Mercantilism
Organized Religion

18th Century England:
Representation
Bueaucracy becoming Nationhood
Caste System
Mercantilism
Organized religion becoming Free Religion

US in 1820:
Representation
Nationhood
Slavery
Free Market
Free Religion

[Martinus]

Good post, Odin. Pretty much agree with everything.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Verenti

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?

Keep in mind that the invasion of Iraq came a short time after the 9/11 terrorist attack. We knew that Saddam had had and used chemical weapons a few yeasrs before, and we had evidence of ties between Saddam and terrorists. Saddam's repeated resistance to cooperting with U.N. inspectors and the lack of evidence that the chemical weapons had been destroyed led us to believe that he still had them - a belief left over from the Clinton administration, not something brand new formed under Bush. And the fact that Saddam kept targeting SAM radars at our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones every now and then didn't exactly leave us feeling warm and fuzzy about him.

Against that backdrop, when other nations encouraged us to sit back and wait, a lot of us took an attitude along the lines of, "That's easy for you to say. You aren't the probable targets if Saddam does give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists." The fact that we felt like we were in a lot more danger than other nations left us feeling a lot more inclined to take drastic action without widespread international support than we usually are.

As things turned out, a lot of our reasoning was based on horribly flawed intelligence. But we didn't know that at the time, and Saddam kept resisting cooperating with U.N. inspectors who might have helped us find out. So the mainstream of American sentiment was driven by what we thought we knew.

I don't think it's fair to try to define America's character based on that sequence of events and ignore the many other times when we have worked with the international community. The reality is that America is willing to act unilaterally or with only a small coalition if we regard a situation as sufficiently serious, but that's not generally the way we prefer to do things these days.

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?

Part of freedom of speech is that different news organizations can have different points of view. That is especially true in regard to material that is opinion and analysis rather than pure reporting. Fox News is more conservative than a lot of other media outlets (many of which have a pretty strong liberal bias), but that doesn't mean it blindly supports whatever the government wants to do.

As for the person who was fired, quoting from Thomas Jefferson, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." The right to free speech is not a right to be paid to say things that the people who pay for the speech find objectionable, nor is it a right to use other people's resources to spread messages that the owners of the resources consider objectionable. Also note that in commercial television, the people who pay for the speech include not just the people at the network who sign the checks, but also the viewers whose watching ultimately pays the bills - and who have every right to stop watching if they are disgusted at what they see.

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.

So racists and anti-Semites should be able to go around advocating that we legalize the mass slaughter of black people or Jews without fear of being ostracized as a result of what they say? In my view, there are some messages that are so outrageous that it would be wrong not to ostracize people who spread them, and more that are sensitive enough that people should be expected to be careful in the tone they use if they don't want to be ostracized. I don't think we should ostracize people merely because we disagree with what they say, but when the problem goes far beyond mere disagreement, I believe that ostracizing people can be an entirely proper response.

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...

Human beings don't always think about every possible way in which what they say might be misinterpreted. The fact that terrorists happened to be motivated by an extreme interpretation of Islam does not make a crusade to root out the terrorists and the government that supported them a religious crusade. Given the history you point out, the word "crusade" was not the best possible choice of words. but I consider it intellectually dishonest for you to twist that choice of words into supprt for a claim that America does not have religious freedom.

But Religious Conservatives... Ugh,

This doesn't exactly sound like an expression of tolerance on your part.

---

I'm not going to respond to your points regarding the issue of homosexual marriage; at least not here. If there's interest in discussing the issue further, we could take it to "off topic" (assuming such things are allowed there), but it's straying too far from the topic of this thread and forum and it could drag on for a long time.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

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

There are (at least) three basic issues involved in this.

1) People need a certain level of knowledge, experience, and maturity in order for there to be a reasonable expectation that they will be able to vote wisely. The older people become, the more experience they have to help them recognize the disconnects between what politicians promise and what they can realistically be expected to deliver. Further, as people become older and more mature, they are generally better able to look beyond themselves and consider what is best for other people.

2) Allowing children to vote when they are not yet old enough to share significantly in the obligations of citizenship would itselkf raise serious issues of fairness. Children could sell their votes in exchange for promises of privileges and opportunities without having to share in the cost of providng those privileges and opportunities (or at least without having to share in the cost until years into the future).

3) If we look at the totality of people's lives rather than just at one particular point in time, most of the alleged unfairness of not allowing children to vote disappears. Everyone goes through an early stage where they are not old enough to be allowed to vote yet, and everyone (assuming they live long enough) has opportunities to vote once they are old enough to take on adult responsibilities. That is a completely different picture from systems where people of a particular race or sex are excluded from voting for their entire lives.

[Aeson]

I think the US would work equally well represented by Bureaucracy, Free Speech, Representation, Universal Suffrage, or Nationhood Civics (from the labels at least... mechanics wise it would be different probably). There are aspects of each which are part of this country.

The Pledge of Alligiance, though no longer mandatory to say in class, is a rather strong Nationalistic presence. Pretty much the same thing with the National Anthem ceremonies. Throw in the fact that the Draft is possible, and has been used in the past, Nationhood fits rather well. Nationhood fits pretty much any country though, as nationalism is the reason we have the countries we do. It's one of the more prevailent forces in the world today.

As for Bureaucracy, there are a lot of non-elected officials in our government. It's a presence in our system for sure.

Universal Suffrage fits, as technically it is not generally used "universally". The term may or may not expand to allow votes from other groups than it currently does (children, animals, aliens, trees, rocks...ect.), but as of now, the use of the term fits.

[Verenti]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Keep in mind that the invasion of Iraq came a short time after the 9/11 terrorist attack.

2 years after, 1/5 of a decade, 1/50th of a century. And there is no evidence linking Iraq to those Actions. Thus there was no Cassus Belli

We knew that Saddam had had and used chemical weapons a few yeasrs before,

Which was endorsed by the US.

and we had evidence of ties between Saddam and terrorists.

I never heard such things said with any credibility.

Saddam's repeated resistance to cooperting with U.N. inspectors and the lack of evidence that the chemical weapons had been destroyed led us to believe that he still had them - a belief left over from the Clinton administration, not something brand new formed under Bush.

That's not how it looked when I saw the news. I heard he was quite co-operative. Besides if he still had them, why haven't the US occupation found them yet?

And the fact that Saddam kept targeting SAM radars at our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones every now and then didn't exactly leave us feeling warm and fuzzy about him.

So while hiding all these biochemical weapons, he was also manning all those SAM sites? Impressive. Besides you're taking offense that he was aiming SAMs at American Planes flying over IRAQ in areas that the US had graciously designated no fly zones. How dare he be belligerant!

Against that backdrop, when other nations encouraged us to sit back and wait,

And take actions through the UN.

a lot of us took an attitude along the lines of, "That's easy for you to say. You aren't the probable targets if Saddam does give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists."

Which he didn't have or plan on building. The reports of him buying Uranium from Nigeria were false remember.

The fact that we felt like we were in a lot more danger than other nations left us feeling a lot more inclined to take drastic action without widespread international support than we usually are.

In reality you were in none. So it's like shooting an innocent man on the street because he might be dangerous.

As things turned out, a lot of our reasoning was based on horribly flawed intelligence. But we didn't know that at the time, and Saddam kept resisting cooperating with U.N. inspectors who might have helped us find out. So the mainstream of American sentiment was driven by what we thought we knew.

We are judged by what we do, Not by our intentions.

I don't think it's fair to try to define America's character based on that sequence of events and ignore the many other times when we have worked with the international community. The reality is that America is willing to act unilaterally or with only a small coalition if we regard a situation as sufficiently serious, but that's not generally the way we prefer to do things these days.

I think it's fair to judge Modern Bush America by those choices, just as I think its fair to judge 1950's America by Truman's choices, and 1940's America by Roosevelt's choices. We are defined by our choices, Not our thoughts.

As it is for people, so it is for collectives of people.

Part of freedom of speech is that different news organizations can have different points of view. That is especially true in regard to material that is opinion and analysis rather than pure reporting. Fox News is more conservative than a lot of other media outlets (many of which have a pretty strong liberal bias), but that doesn't mean it blindly supports whatever the government wants to do.

Just to let you in on a little secret, Fox news has the reputation of a Propaganda station and was banned in Canada long then Al Jazheira (typo?) was.

As for the person who was fired, quoting from Thomas Jefferson, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
The right to free speech is not a right to be paid to say things that the people who pay for the speech find objectionable, nor is it a right to use other people's resources to spread messages that the owners of the resources consider objectionable. Also note that in commercial television, the people who pay for the speech include not just the people at the network who sign the checks, but also the viewers whose watching ultimately pays the bills - and who have every right to stop watching if they are disgusted at what they see.

Ah, but you see he was fired directly after the show, not after the reaction to the show. I insist the intimidation is not free speech. If there is a penalty for speaking out, then I say sir, you are not free to speak. There needs to be legal protection to prevent this sort of economic strong arming.

So racists and anti-Semites should be able to go around advocating that we legalize the mass slaughter of black people or Jews without fear of being ostracized as a result of what they say?

As long as it's only words and they take no action to further that effort, I frankly don't care what people advocate. But when you take action against those people for their thoughts and beliefs, it becomes an act of censorship. Censorship is in no way a tenent of free speech.

In my view, there are some messages that are so outrageous that it would be wrong not to ostracize people who spread them, and more that are sensitive enough that people should be expected to be careful in the tone they use if they don't want to be ostracized. I don't think we should ostracize people merely because we disagree with what they say, but when the problem goes far beyond mere disagreement, I believe that ostracizing people can be an entirely proper response.

Again, I believe its a tactic of intimidation to invoke them into self censorship. I think we are all painfully aware of my posistion on such matters.

Human beings don't always think about every possible way in which what they say might be misinterpreted. The fact that terrorists happened to be motivated by an extreme interpretation of Islam does not make a crusade to root out the terrorists and the government that supported them a religious crusade. Given the history you point out, the word "crusade" was not the best possible choice of words. but I consider it intellectually dishonest for you to twist that choice of words into supprt for a claim that America does not have religious freedom.

Organized Religion doesn't mean Theocracy, and just as I have chosen "Nationhood" doesn't mean it also doesn't also fit for bueracracy. It just fits Nationhood better. Likewise, saying that Organized Religion is my choice isn't saying that Religious Minorities are openly persucuted but rather that in the last few years the US have become increasingly more Christian. It's all but declared the Protestant Christianity is the state religion.

This doesn't exactly sound like an expression of tolerance on your part.

Is that my job? To be tolerant? My friend, Liberals, The Centrists are responsible for being Tolerant. I'm a Left Wing Radical Social-Democrat. Infact, to be honest, I think Voltaire had the right idea when it comes to clergy.

I'm not going to respond to your points regarding the issue of homosexual marriage; at least not here. If there's interest in discussing the issue further, we could take it to "off topic" (assuming such things are allowed there), but it's straying too far from the topic of this thread and forum and it could drag on for a long time.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not that particularly interested in continuing this one. We're philosophical opposed and that leads to friction, but I get enough of heated battles in my life, and I personally hate arguments like this were both sides are too entrenched to win. So I'll propose a cease fire: But to be fair, I'll allow you to refute the points I raised now, but lets not carry on this pointless bickering. (I don't plan to refute your refutation, to be short. Unless ofcourse you insist)