more governments

[Spec]

Originally posted by facistdictator
Willem your more racist than you think. Let me educate you a little, when someone assumes that a whole group of people on a certain forum or post belongs to a certain political organization, that they do not, that is racism!

Just because someone has a bad experience with a person of a certain color or religon does not give them the right to classify all people of that race or religon a certain way. And thats what he did when he said that's where the Hitler Youth hang out.

So Willem if you are a racist that's your problem but dont condone it on these forum's.

You dont sound like a Facist dictator to me!

[Willem]

Re: Evil, and loving it

Originally posted by paulmagusnet

Health care. A national, I assume government run, health care system for the US would be a disaster. What we do need is a rational insurance market and safety net. Right now insurance companies 'cherry pick' which is bad.

Why? We have one here in Canada, and our economic structure is almost identical to yours. Granted, we have a few problems at the moment, but we also don't have anyone losing everything they own just because they get sick. As long as health care is in control of private interests, there will always be the problem of "cherry-picking" It's inherent in the system. All they're concerned with is profits, and they will always cut corners in order to ensure those profits.

[paulmagusnet]

real

Originally posted by DrFell
'1a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.'

A lot of the things in there are not neccessarily part of the government. Suppression of the opposition is not necessary for fascism to exist, and racism was more a nazi creation than a necessary product of a fascist government. I'm not sure what the true ideal fascist government would look like (don't have time to look it up right now), but I doubt it's anywhere near as bad as it was in real life.

The Fascist philosophy is that the leader is the one true source of the Will of the state or the people or the race. BY DEFINITION, all contradictitory views are opposed to the will of the people and must be suppressed, by one means or another.

Why is it that the real fasciest governments can't be accepted as the true ideal? They had absolute power to achieve their ends, seventy years and infinite resources in the case of the Soviet experiment. They did in fact achieve their objectives, which was socialism, it's simply that the reallity of that achievment is ugly indeed. No one wants to face that so instead we keep trying to 'balance the game'. And just because a Facist state is militarily aggressive, does not mean that it is militarily competent. The WWII Italian military record speaks for itself.

In contrast, Capitalism never claimed some altimate struggle free utopia, and required no perfect man. It's the ultimate ugly duckling. The American ideal was limited government whose purpose was protection of individual freedoms. This was achieved the minute the ink was dry. All our (US) failures derive from ignoring this simple principle.

[paulmagusnet]

Re: Re: Evil, and loving it

Originally posted by Willem


Why? We have one here in Canada, and our economic structure is almost identical to yours. Granted, we have a few problems at the moment, but we also don't have anyone losing everything they own just because they get sick. As long as health care is in control of private interests, there will always be the problem of "cherry-picking" It's inherent in the system. All they're concerned with is profits, and they will always cut corners in order to ensure those profits.

In principle stealing from one group to benefit another, no matter the noble purpose, is intrinsicaly bad. The easy way is always to try to use force to dictate an outcome.

Yes they are concerned with profit and effeciency, if you condem this, then lets just go to a government run economy. The problem, I believe, is the playing field encourages 'cherry picking', and the rules of the game need to influence the desired outcome. The American system is to establish an incentive structure and allow the players to meet the needs based one their self interest. But there is a limit as to the resources we can throw at people before they have to fend for themselves. Remember also that the US is a Federal system, and each state is fully capable of initiating its own program.

I don't want to dwell on this cause it's really tangent to this thread, but if you take from each according to his ability and give away according to need your nation will go bankrupt fast.

Between doing nothing at all and a state run system I'd restructure the industry.

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: Evil, and loving it

Originally posted by paulmagusnet
Yes they are concerned with profit and effeciency, if you condem this, then lets just go to a government run economy.

Well that's the point I've been trying to make, there are ways to combine public and private enterprises effectively. Unfortunately, your government is so paranoid about the whole concept of socialist precepts that they never consider conducting any social experiments in that direction. In your culture's eyes, the issue is black & white, whereas in Canada and in most of the European nations, there's a lot of room for some gray in between.

Consider your first response. You said that public health care would be a disaster in the US, yet when I ask you why and even cite a working example, you don't give me any reasons other than those of principle. BTW, our health care is administered by the provinces, the federal government only provides guidelines and financial assistance. There's absolutley no reason why the US can't do the same. Aside from the fact that medical business establishment no doubt has many of your politicians in it's pocket.

[Fresno]

Willem: I still don't understand what you meant. Would the 'socialist' government (the one you attributed to some European counties) also be similar to Canada? I mean, is in your opinion the ony difference between democracy as we know it from civ and the government type you wanted to add, that the last one has a social policy and a stronger govenment?

In that case, wouldn't it mean you make a new government type for all democratic countries except the USA?

If so, I guess it would be better to make a special government type for America instead.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
Willem: I still don't understand what you meant. Would the 'socialist' government (the one you attributed to some European counties) also be similar to Canada? I mean, is in your opinion the ony difference between democracy as we know it from civ and the government type you wanted to add, that the last one has a social policy and a stronger govenment?

In that case, wouldn't it mean you make a new government type for all democratic countries except the USA?

If so, I guess it would be better to make a special government type for America instead.

Yes, in many ways I see Canada trying to work towards a democratic model that more closely resembles the European democracies. What I see happening is a divergence of the Democratic ideal. On the one hand, there is the US model of a laissez-faire government, that allows the individual as much free reign as possible, with minimal interference from the government.

On the other hand there is a more socialist approach, involving issues like public health care, social welfare etc., which Canada, and in particular the European nations, are trying to incorporate into their vision of a democratic state. It's not a Communist approach as such, however it does extend the Democratic principle in a way that it begins to resemble Socialist ideals.

I guess the best way to describe the differences would be to call one Mercantile Democracy and the other Social Democracy. However, from a game standpoint, it's easier to just call these two forms, Democracy and Socialism. And your probably right, but allowing only the Americans to use a particular form of Democracy would be rather limiting in the game, and make it very hard to balance everything out.

BTW, at the moment, there is a great deal of debate happening here in Canada on which vision we should adopt. Being so close to the US, we are under a great deal of pressure to conform to their ideal, and several provincial governments have chosen to pursue their approach. I sincerely hope that when the dust settles, my country's political system will resemble yours more than it does that of the US. My opinion.

[Fresno]

Finally I understand what you meant. And I basically agree with your idea about making two democratic govenments, although I still think there should be found a better name for it.

Your discussion with paulmagusnet shows how different people think about the meaning of 'socialism'. For some it is more or less the same as a dictatorship like the USSR.

Furthermore, in those countries which have such a system, also right-wing, non-socialist politicians support at least the idea of having unemployment benefits and so on. So 'socialism' would be confusive for most people.

BTW, how would you call your political position then? Are you a for example a socialist, a social-democrat, a social-liberal or a green-leftist (just to mention those ideologies represented by the different left-wing parties in the parliament of my country)?

[aahz_capone]

Makes you wonder why the hell FIRAXIS didn't include SMAC's political system in this game...

It wasn't THAT complicated.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
Finally I understand what you meant. And I basically agree with your idea about making two democratic govenments, although I still think there should be found a better name for it.

Well one part of the problem is that to create the "Socialist" gov, I'm using the communal corruption model, the same one that Communism uses. So I don't think that having Social Democracy as the name would be entirely appropriate. Plus I want to avoid using double word gov names, so just calling it Socialism would be better from my standpoint. It doesn't really describe it completely, but it keeps things simpler.

BTW, how would you call your political position then? Are you a for example a socialist, a social-democrat, a social-liberal or a green-leftist (just to mention those ideologies represented by the different left-wing parties in the parliament of my country)?

Well in my younger days, I was definitely a Socialist. If a revolution would have broken out then, I would have joined up against the "capitalist pigs". However, now that I don't see things in terms of black & white as much, I would probably consider myself a Social Democrat. I feel that everyone should be free to pursue their livelihood as they see fit, but that there should be some definite brakes placed on the rampant greed I see occurring in the US, and in my own country. Although I sympathize with the Green-leftists to a certain extant, I feel that many of them go to far, and don't have realistic ideas for a pluralistic, industrial society.

[Fresno]

Well one part of the problem is that to create the "Socialist" gov, I'm using the communal corruption model, the same one that Communism uses. So I don't think that having Social Democracy as the name would be entirely appropriate. Plus I want to avoid using double word gov names, so just calling it Socialism would be better from my standpoint. It doesn't really describe it completely, but it keeps things simpler.

Well, in that case you're right. As long as you for yourself know what it means...

However, now that I don't see things in terms of black & white as much, I would probably consider myself a Social Democrat. I feel that everyone should be free to pursue their livelihood as they see fit, but that there should be some definite brakes placed on the rampant greed I see occurring in the US, and in my own country.

That's indeed a bit like most social-democratic parties here in Europe think. At least, used to think. Currently, they are facing a growing right-wing majority though - so most of them are acting more and more like they were conservatives. That also has to do with the fact that since 9-11 there is much more racism and hatred versus Muslims among the voters.

Although I sympathize with the Green-leftists to a certain extant, I feel that many of them go to far, and don't have realistic ideas for a pluralistic, industrial society.

I guess they are different in every country. Here, they are (that is, in my opinion) the only realist party which is trying not to take part in the warlike spirit against foreigners I just mentioned. They are also the only leftist republican party (the Netherlands are still a monarchy), which is why I'm going to vote for them.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno

I guess they are different in every country. Here, they are (that is, in my opinion) the only realist party which is trying not to take part in the warlike spirit against foreigners I just mentioned. They are also the only leftist republican party (the Netherlands are still a monarchy), which is why I'm going to vote for them.

Well here in Canada, there really isn't such a thing as a Green Party, I believe that's what 's called there, it's more of a fringe ideal. They keep trying to enter candidates in the various elections, mainly the provincial, but they never get any votes, and have virtually no support. It mainly appeals to such groups as vegetarians, or animal rights activists etc. There has been some discussion within our main stream left party, the New Democratic Party, to embrace some of the issues that your Green Party does now, especially in the area of globalization. They haven't been doing very well in the past few elections, they're just barely an official party at the moment, so they are looking at new options to their approach.

That's indeed a bit like most social-democratic parties here in Europe think. At least, used to think. Currently, they are facing a growing right-wing majority though - so most of them are acting more and more like they were conservatives. That also has to do with the fact that since 9-11 there is much more racism and hatred versus Muslims among the voters.

This lean to the right seems to be a world wide trend these days, we're seeing the same thing here. I figured it was because of our proximity to the US, but I guesss it goes further than that. As for 9-11, we haven't had those problems with Muslims that you mentioned I'm pleased to say. There were some problems shortly after it happened, but everything has settled down now. Unfortunately though, it's given the bigots here the justification to spout off, but most people don't take them seriously anyway.

Although there has been a lot of discussion about our immigration policies, and the rules have been tightened considerably. Some say we've gone to far, some say not far enough. I don't know enough about the new rules to be able to judge for myself.

[Cairo_East]

How about Imperialism as a government?

Modifications would be something to the effect of:
All people with the same nationality as the civ would be made happy.
War-weariness would affect only non-nationals.
Productivity bonus.
Unhappiness factor increased greatly for non-nationals, increasing more over time. A sort of war-weariness even during peacetime.

This could reflect the former apartheid government of South Africa, territorial governmental structures of colonized states such as Kenya, and the increased economic productivity and wealth of Europe at the time of colonialism.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Cairo_East
How about Imperialism as a government?

Modifications would be something to the effect of:
All people with the same nationality as the civ would be made happy.
War-weariness would affect only non-nationals.
Productivity bonus.
Unhappiness factor increased greatly for non-nationals, increasing more over time. A sort of war-weariness even during peacetime.

This could reflect the former apartheid government of South Africa, territorial governmental structures of colonized states such as Kenya, and the increased economic productivity and wealth of Europe at the time of colonialism.

Because you can't have those kinds of effects with the current game engine. It would mean rewriting a large part of the code, something that's not likely to happen.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Willem
Well here in Canada, there really isn't such a thing as a Green Party, I believe that's what 's called there, it's more of a fringe ideal. They keep trying to enter candidates in the various elections, mainly the provincial, but they never get any votes, and have virtually no support. It mainly appeals to such groups as vegetarians, or animal rights activists etc. There has been some discussion within our main stream left party, the New Democratic Party, to embrace some of the issues that your Green Party does now, especially in the area of globalization. They haven't been doing very well in the past few elections, they're just barely an official party at the moment, so they are looking at new options to their approach.

That sounds very different from the green here indeed. GreenLeft (that's how the party here is called) currently gets 8,2% in the polls; if it's still so high when the elections are hold that could make them the 4th party in the parliament.

This lean to the right seems to be a world wide trend these days, we're seeing the same thing here. I figured it was because of our proximity to the US, but I guesss it goes further than that. As for 9-11, we haven't had those problems with Muslims that you mentioned I'm pleased to say. There were some problems shortly after it happened, but everything has settled down now. Unfortunately though, it's given the bigots here the justification to spout off, but most people don't take them seriously anyway.

Although there has been a lot of discussion about our immigration policies, and the rules have been tightened considerably. Some say we've gone to far, some say not far enough. I don't know enough about the new rules to be able to judge for myself.

Well, most immigrants in the Netherlands come from Muslim countries, so the immigration debate and the anti-Muslim debate are hard to separate here.

Our neighbour countries Germany and Belgium have already got a big problem with right-extremism for a long time; for example, they are the biggest party in Antwerp. Here those parties never became very big; now it's different.