Tweet
Well la di da. Looks like I'm unopposed in this election. Can't say I'm disappointed with that. I just hope there's no limits on numbers of terms, because it's unlikely this position will get all that interesting until the following term.
Anyway, this is basically a cut/paste of what I said last time, so I may as well get on with it.
I can sum up my position in but one short word. Adaptability.
I feel our Social Engineering position should best suit our situation, but it should also fit into our ideological perspective. We are not savages, and so we should not act as such. Be us in war or in peace, we should not abandon our ideals.
As such, while I do not support the use of Nerve Stapling, I do however support usage of a single Punishment Sphere in a single Prison Base, where war criminals and other violent, unable to be rehabilitated offenders, would be put to work for the common good in useful tasks. Stationed to watch over them of course would be the bulk of our military power, a power I hope we may never need. Indeed, one would hope that the Punishment Sphere is never needed, and that its mere presence in this single base would deter the prisoners from rash actions. Of course, this is not to say that in extreme circumstances that it would not be used. Certainly dangerous war criminals who violate the UN Charter should be properly incarcerated such that they pay for their crimes.
While I see great benifits both economically and scientifically for our society in a Free Market economy, I also see the value of a Planned economy for brief spurts of growth. Under a Planned economy of course, we must also run under a Democracy, such that the inefficiency caused by this socialist economic model may be overcome. Under a Free Market, I see us as being more flexable. While Democracy is of course preferred, during periods in the first years of our colonies, a Democracy may cost us far too much in support than it gains us in efficiency and population growth. For these periods, a Frontier political model may be more appropriate, and indeed, I see us running under this sort of system for a great length of time.
As for Green Economics, I see a place for these as well in our society. But I do not see them within the next 100 years, within our lifetimes. The issue of Green economics will be debated by later governments, later directors. It is our duty to leave them with a society than can cope with the reduced growth, the reduced production and research through lack of energy, that this economic model will cause. And that is best achieved without putting unnecessary strictures on our economy. Our people will learn to cause less pollution sooner if they cause some pollution first, but if they never cause pollution to begin with, they will be stuck in a technological rut using old and surpassed equipment. In short, we must despoil the environment slightly now such that later we are in a position to be able to restore it to and keep it in pristine condition. If we run a Green economic system before we're ready, we could easily stife our societies development to the point where we're unable to remain its protectors in the future.
On the issue of Fundamentalism, or "Fundy" as it has come to be known, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the idea of any sort of religious theocracy, no matter if it be Catholic, Islamic, or any of the other religions of old earth. However, there are other styles of Fundamentalism that may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Styles based not on religion, but on ideals of philosophy, such as those of Sun-Tzu and Confucious, which I believe would be familiar to many of you. I see a use in these philosophies in our society when it comes time for us to gird ourselves for war. While I would hope such a situation never comes to pass, I am a realist, and I acknowledge that we can never hope to truly bring all the warring factions together united under the ideals of democracy without conflict.
On our societies social values, I must throughly rebut any idea that our society aspire to the ideals of "Power". As I stated earlier, we are not savages, so let us not act like them! However, I see places for both Knowledge & Wealth values in our society at certain points. Indeed, while this strays from the party line, I see a strong economy as being the ultimate driving force behind any research effort, and given the levels of expansion I would hope our society will eventually reach, aspiring to the values of "Wealth" may actually bring us in more research than the values of "Knowledge". In either case, our choice here must be carefully balanced between research and energy. There is no point researching all there is to research if our economy is such that we cannot turn this research into things!
Finally, while my opponent has made assurances to prevent drone riots, I find this an unreasonable demand of this directorship, given that we have no direct control over the work allocations or facilities built in bases. While I am certainly in favour of "doping" our citizens into Golden Ages through Psych allocation, I do not believe this should be a factor in the early years, where we should be focusing on a balance of economy and research. Our economy simply would be unable to sustain the inefficiencies created in the short term, and indeed, it may take just as long for altering Economy/Labs/Psych allocations to become reasonable as it is for Green economics to become workable.
My basic SE progression for the next 2-3 terms would be thus
Free Market ASAP
Switch to Free Market / Wealth ASAP
Switch to Demo / Free Market / Wealth once we've reached "Critical Mass", with periods in Demo / Planned / Wealth for Pop-booming
Switch to Demo / Free Market / Knowledge at the point where our tech rate would be higher under Knowledge than Wealth (Again, Planned for Pop-booming.)
Any questions?
Anyway, this is basically a cut/paste of what I said last time, so I may as well get on with it.
I can sum up my position in but one short word. Adaptability.
I feel our Social Engineering position should best suit our situation, but it should also fit into our ideological perspective. We are not savages, and so we should not act as such. Be us in war or in peace, we should not abandon our ideals.
As such, while I do not support the use of Nerve Stapling, I do however support usage of a single Punishment Sphere in a single Prison Base, where war criminals and other violent, unable to be rehabilitated offenders, would be put to work for the common good in useful tasks. Stationed to watch over them of course would be the bulk of our military power, a power I hope we may never need. Indeed, one would hope that the Punishment Sphere is never needed, and that its mere presence in this single base would deter the prisoners from rash actions. Of course, this is not to say that in extreme circumstances that it would not be used. Certainly dangerous war criminals who violate the UN Charter should be properly incarcerated such that they pay for their crimes.
While I see great benifits both economically and scientifically for our society in a Free Market economy, I also see the value of a Planned economy for brief spurts of growth. Under a Planned economy of course, we must also run under a Democracy, such that the inefficiency caused by this socialist economic model may be overcome. Under a Free Market, I see us as being more flexable. While Democracy is of course preferred, during periods in the first years of our colonies, a Democracy may cost us far too much in support than it gains us in efficiency and population growth. For these periods, a Frontier political model may be more appropriate, and indeed, I see us running under this sort of system for a great length of time.
As for Green Economics, I see a place for these as well in our society. But I do not see them within the next 100 years, within our lifetimes. The issue of Green economics will be debated by later governments, later directors. It is our duty to leave them with a society than can cope with the reduced growth, the reduced production and research through lack of energy, that this economic model will cause. And that is best achieved without putting unnecessary strictures on our economy. Our people will learn to cause less pollution sooner if they cause some pollution first, but if they never cause pollution to begin with, they will be stuck in a technological rut using old and surpassed equipment. In short, we must despoil the environment slightly now such that later we are in a position to be able to restore it to and keep it in pristine condition. If we run a Green economic system before we're ready, we could easily stife our societies development to the point where we're unable to remain its protectors in the future.
On the issue of Fundamentalism, or "Fundy" as it has come to be known, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the idea of any sort of religious theocracy, no matter if it be Catholic, Islamic, or any of the other religions of old earth. However, there are other styles of Fundamentalism that may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Styles based not on religion, but on ideals of philosophy, such as those of Sun-Tzu and Confucious, which I believe would be familiar to many of you. I see a use in these philosophies in our society when it comes time for us to gird ourselves for war. While I would hope such a situation never comes to pass, I am a realist, and I acknowledge that we can never hope to truly bring all the warring factions together united under the ideals of democracy without conflict.
On our societies social values, I must throughly rebut any idea that our society aspire to the ideals of "Power". As I stated earlier, we are not savages, so let us not act like them! However, I see places for both Knowledge & Wealth values in our society at certain points. Indeed, while this strays from the party line, I see a strong economy as being the ultimate driving force behind any research effort, and given the levels of expansion I would hope our society will eventually reach, aspiring to the values of "Wealth" may actually bring us in more research than the values of "Knowledge". In either case, our choice here must be carefully balanced between research and energy. There is no point researching all there is to research if our economy is such that we cannot turn this research into things!
Finally, while my opponent has made assurances to prevent drone riots, I find this an unreasonable demand of this directorship, given that we have no direct control over the work allocations or facilities built in bases. While I am certainly in favour of "doping" our citizens into Golden Ages through Psych allocation, I do not believe this should be a factor in the early years, where we should be focusing on a balance of economy and research. Our economy simply would be unable to sustain the inefficiencies created in the short term, and indeed, it may take just as long for altering Economy/Labs/Psych allocations to become reasonable as it is for Green economics to become workable.
My basic SE progression for the next 2-3 terms would be thus
Free Market ASAP
Switch to Free Market / Wealth ASAP
Switch to Demo / Free Market / Wealth once we've reached "Critical Mass", with periods in Demo / Planned / Wealth for Pop-booming
Switch to Demo / Free Market / Knowledge at the point where our tech rate would be higher under Knowledge than Wealth (Again, Planned for Pop-booming.)
Any questions?
) for the rest as ex-partymember you will have my support 
Comment