The PPPC

[Pandemoniak]

ADAM TG SAID :
Should we make Eudaimonia / Thought Control use one of the later viewing schemes, though, since it's likely to collate pretty closely with Democracy / Police State?
MOOMIN SAID :
I always thought of Eudamonia and TC as improved versions of Democracy and Police State/Fundamentalism respectively.
DROGUE SAID:
Personally, I would take out sovereignty, and combine humanistic and education, as IMHO, fundamentalism is virtually the same as TC, but to a lesser extent, in that it is trying to force people into a belief, and as such showing them what and how to think.

I strongly disagree : I take the Democracy/Police State as systems, not as ideology ; while the Thought Control and Eudaimonia are clearly ideology. Eudaimonia is not a simple improvment of democracy, since democracy is just a government of the people, while Eudaimonia clearly states that the first will and goal of the people is happiness.
On the other hand, Police State is just a system using repressive force to make its ideology respected, while thought control change the very ideology of the people itself.
Fundamentalism isnt neither an improvement to thought control, since it doesnt force people to believe, its a government led by the religion and clergymen.

I think thats all the interest of the SMACish ideology : you can have a Police State with Eudaimonia : (Everyone caught attempting to delay other people happiness are heavily sentenced, or something like that), or Police State with Eudaimonia, where everyone try to gether to find happiness for everyone.
----

MANIAC SAID
Are conquered faction allowed to keep their original identity ?

This is about Sovereignty.

About Sovereignty, I'll try to explain better : its very much like Nationalism : Do you prefer to live in your country and give up some of your freedom, or would you rather stay where you "belong to", for the sake of your land ? Moreover, it can also answer questions like : Would you support a war against a foreign faction that could threaten you ? or Do you think [factionname] should be enlighten with our great ideologies, with Chaos Guns if needed ? etc...
Its really the importance you give to the Sovereignty of your own faction and the others.

I hope its clear enough.

----

MANIAC SAID
Perhaps we could also include some questions regarding Centralism <-> Confederalism??
ADAM TG SAID
While I'd like to see an environmentalist vs. humanist dimension, I really doubt I can persuade you all to make six axes.

These are very interesting questions, and I dont think it can be clearly stated by the five scales already choosen. I'll work on it.

[Pandemoniak]

To Lucky, I dont have much knowledge in maths (scientific baccaleaureate), so ill leave you all the nice equations. I think we'd rather agree on the main things, first : the science of politics

Glad you're helping

[moomin]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I strongly disagree : I take the Democracy/Police State as systems, not as ideology ; while the Thought Control and Eudaimonia are clearly ideology.

Shocking as it may seem to a communist, democracy happens to be an ideology to some of us.

And I'm sure fundamentalism and the police state incarnated as fascist/communist rule has its ideological proponents as well. So I don't agree with the distinction you're trying to make here.

I think thats all the interest of the SMACish ideology : you can have a Police State with Eudaimonia : (Everyone caught attempting to delay other people happiness are heavily sentenced, or something like that), or Police State with Eudaimonia, where everyone try to gether to find happiness for everyone.

I think the notions you're putting forward above are patently absurd. At least within any generally acceptable definition of the term happiness.

[Pandemoniak]

Shocking as it may seem to a capitalist, democracy is a system, not an ideal. A system can be an ideal, but it remains a system. Happiness is not a system, it is a ideal.

The notions I put forward had a typo : i meant "you can have a Police State with Eudaimonia : (Everyone caught attempting to delay other people happiness are heavily sentenced, or something like that), or Democracy with Eudaimonia, where everyone try together to find happiness for everyone.

Too much copy/paste...

[moomin]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Shocking as it may seem to a capitalist, democracy is a system, not an ideal.

So you claim. Color me unconvinced, however, until you come up with some better reasoning to support that position than "because I say so".

You see, to me and to many others the notion of democracy as such transcends the nitty-gritty of elections and slimy politicos kissing children on campagins and heads straigt into ideological territory. Democracy not only enables us to kick out useless governments without bloodshed (although, to be sure, that's a very nice feature) but it also embodies the notion of compromise as a central political vehicle and implicit rejection of various self-sure political ideologies who claim to hold the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

In fact, when I see somebody rejecting democracy as an ideology, I always harbour the nasty suspicion that they do it because in reality the regard democracy as an obstacle to whatever bloody utopia they envision, be it in the name of the Aryans, the Proletariat or the Martyrs of Faith.

[Drogue]

I don't think he meant it wasn't an ideal, just that it was a system, and since a system could be an ideal, as his next sentace was, then democracy is a system, and could also be an ideal to some people.

[Archaic]

The idea of self government by the masses is an ideal *and* a system. Not neither, not only one. Both. That is the status quo definition. If you think otherwise Pan, then as moomin said, you've got to justify your position. Burden of proof on you.

[Pandemoniak]

Democracy is a system, not an ideal. A system can be an ideal, but it remains a system.

That clearly states my opinion : democracy is a system, not an ideal in itself, but one can have a system as an ideal, and since many people do, democracy is both a system and an ideal.

Anyway, I dont want any long-time arguments here, for this is no place to have long nasty debates. Thats why I'd ask all of you, and especially Archaic, to behave nicely.

All are invited to help and share their ideas if they can share them, but please abstain to provock or do any bashing.
------

Color me unconvinced, however, until you come up with some better reasoning to support that position than "because I say so".

AS I said before, it is both an ideal and a system : in
SMAC, this is stated Politics : Democracy, and not Value : Democracy. Therefore, a wise prince will consider it a system, not an ideal. So that is why I will consider it a system in this Political Compass.
Note that I'm not forgetting that a system can be an ideology, else it wouldnt even be in the Political Compass if it wasnt also considered an ideal.
-------------
Anyone has any ideas about :
- Centralism / Confederalism
- Environmentalist/Humanist

.First, i wonder how we can make them in the compass, since that would make us 6 or 7 dimensions.

.Second, I dunno how we can oppose so easily the environmentalist/humanist. If you favour borehole or condensor instead of "natural" tiles, that makes you a non-environmentalist, you're arranging planet nature so that it fits better to human nature - lets call that "humanism".
But if you plant forest, and hybrid forests, you're still arranging nature to human nature, though its really environmentalist : how can we consider all that ?

. The Centralism/Confederalism might be rendered by the economic choice : Planned : Centralised / Free Market : Confederalism... It doesnt sound very good to me, since you can be supporting a centralized economy and not a centralized state...

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

That clearly states my opinion : democracy is a system, not an ideal in itself, but one can have a system as an ideal, and since many people do, democracy is both a system and an ideal.

Anyway, I dont want any long-time arguments here, for this is no place to have long nasty debates. Thats why I'd ask all of you, and especially Archaic, to behave nicely.

All are invited to help and share their ideas if they can share them, but please abstain to provock or do any bashing.

Translation
"Don't disagree with me vocally like you always do, because I know I can't win, and I don't like being publicly humiliated time and time again."

You have stated an OPINION Pan. Nothing wrong with that until you try and impose the opinion upon us, whereupon you must actually PROVE that your opinion is valid.

The status quo definition is that Democracy is both a system and an ideal in itself. Burden of proof on you to prove that wrong.

[Pandemoniak]

This is not the place to have another boring, useless, and stupid argument with someone like you who cant have any discussion for the simple fact that you have forgotten that a discussion is an exchange of ideas carried by words, not a simple mathematical demonstration. Thats actually what makes the difference betwen humankind and simple lentils.

Moreover, I do not have to prove you that my opinion is valid, since you dont have anything to do here and your help on the PPPC is not wished.

I do not care about your answer, since I'll actually continue the PPPC on a email list, seeing that you're such a gross kid who cant even learn the basic principles of politeness.

Though, please take a simple ethymology dictionnary and look at the greek root of "cracy", in democracy. Even better, take a normal english dictionnary and check at "democracy". I guess it will say its a system, not an ideology.
I am not denying some people like and wish this system so that it forms part of all their ideology, but this is still a system.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
To Lucky, I dont have much knowledge in maths (scientific baccaleaureate), so ill leave you all the nice equations. I think we'd rather agree on the main things, first : the science of politics

Glad you're helping

Glad to finally have a shoulder to the wheel. I'm only able to post weekdays, so I'll just do my monday catching up. When we've got our measures set, we can proceed with data collection and analysis.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Anyone has any ideas about :
- Centralism / Confederalism
- Environmentalist/Humanist

.Second, I dunno how we can oppose so easily the environmentalist/humanist. If you favour borehole or condensor instead of "natural" tiles, that makes you a non-environmentalist, you're arranging planet nature so that it fits better to human nature - lets call that "humanism".
But if you plant forest, and hybrid forests, you're still arranging nature to human nature, though its really environmentalist : how can we consider all that ?

They aren't mutually exclusive. I am an environmentalist, but I also agree with humanist (philosophical movement started in the 16th or 17th century IIRC) ideals. I think environmentalist vs polluter, or vs someone who doesn't care about the environment would be better. However, I think we have to draw the line somewhere, and we should look more at the 7 factions for what to include. Do we even need a table and co-ordinates? We can only get an absolute max of 5d in a table, and then its a little cluttered. But we have 7 factions, who each have different ideologies, for example, we have to have a Green vs Non-Green if we have the Gaians, and Police State/Democracy for Hive and PK.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
The Centralism/Confederalism might be rendered by the economic choice : Planned : Centralised / Free Market : Confederalism... It doesnt sound very good to me, since you can be supporting a centralized economy and not a centralized state...

While it would be interested, it doesn't bear much relevance IMHO to the SMAC factions, as such, i don't think we can afford the extra dimension. In the Planned vs FM, it is possible to have a central FM and a decentralised Planned economy, but I think there is as much info in them, in that most FM are decentralised and vice versa, that it doesn't warrent and extra dimension.

[Pandemoniak]

Yeah, so maybe you're right, and we'd better just leave these out.

[Drogue]

Personally, I would just put coloured blocks for each faction next to each other, where principles join (such as Gaian and Spartan individualism, or Yang and University freedom of info) and then have questions that put you at a particular co-ordinate. That gets rid of direct axis, or dimensions, and represents it on a 2d grid. But the questions are still based on many axis. This way, you can do an FM vs Planned vs Green, and not have to model it on on axis, but would get a % possible (eg I'd be 60% Green, 30% Planned and 10% FM) which would put me in the Gaian sector, but close to the Hive (or Drones if we have them) and far away from the Morganites. That's just on Economic values though, if we do that for values, future values and political systems, as per SMAC, then we get a rounded SMAC specific picture of a persons political ideals. We don't need FM vs Planned etc. just questions that give you a co-ordinate and a faction.

I'll design a prototype just to show u the idea, I haven't explained it very well.

[Pandemoniak]

If you're interested in further design of the PPPC, can u please send me your email address, so that I can make a mailing list for all who have interest ?


Pandemoniak,
inOnce upon a time on the Planet

Message sent to moomin, drogue and lucky22.
Im too lazy to keep sending, please pm with your email address if you'd like to be on the mailing list. :