The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Yes, it's that time again, Vince! ACS Political Compass / 2005 edition!
I don't understand how this determines if you are authoritarian or libertarian social.
A liberal authoritarian would use a one party state, as a vehicle to enforce liberal ideals. The same thing with a conservative authoritarian. The idea is that a one party state, enables the state to clamp down on dissent in all forms, to a much greater deal than a multi-party system.
A libertarian would crave the political discourse and discussion found in a multi-party system, as an important check on the power of the state, and an increase in the rights of an individual.
Make sense?
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
One party systems are better for democracy, in expediting the decisions of the state.
I don't think the statement would be better. I'd expect more people to say no because of the question's flaw (because most of us people living in a democracy have learned to dissociate democracy from one-party systems) than currently.
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
I think rewording the question brings out the real issue. What is more important in a democracy? Smooth running of the state, or checks and balances? You can find cases of both in democratic states.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor
However, you plunge in another problem : people will often not have the same opinion of left/wing, authoritarian/libertarian, or whatever than the pollster.
For example, I cannot even understand why Oerdin is on the center-left on the economic scale. It strikes me as completely absurd, considering that he is an outspoken supporter of the free market and of fire-at-will practices, while he considers European like welfare system to be bloat that should be heavily purged.[/q]
The reason is stupidly biased questions like "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." No one (well, maybe some ) is going to say "oh, I want transnational corporations to benefit over humanity!" The problem is that the basic assumption of the question, that there is a fundamental, necessary conflict between the two, is heavily slanted towards the left. Then there's "What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us." That's absurd - what would be 'good' for corporations would be the ability to steal people off the street and keep them as slaves. But simply thinking that corporations should be bound by the same laws by which individuals are bound certainly doesn't make you a lefty.
The difference is that income is already measured. You know that you earn 30,000$ a year. You know that you are 36. You know that you have a BA (which is the usual measure of education, for all its flaws). You don't know that you're -5.42 on economic and -2.30 on social matters.
You do know that you are in favor, or not in favor, of government regulation of, say, news broadcasts to keep them "factual", which may be completely separate from whether or not you think they are too much entertainment and too little information right now. You do know whether you think people should be allowed to have sex out of marriage, which may be completely separate from whether you think it is moral.
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A liberal authoritarian would use a one party state, as a vehicle to enforce liberal ideals. The same thing with a conservative authoritarian. The idea is that a one party state, enables the state to clamp down on dissent in all forms, to a much greater deal than a multi-party system.
A libertarian would crave the political discourse and discussion found in a multi-party system, as an important check on the power of the state, and an increase in the rights of an individual.
Make sense?
Even that breaks down when you consider people like DF and elijah, who'd be just as happy under a monarchy as long as they were guaranteed their rights.
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The reason is stupidly biased questions like "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." No one (well, maybe some ) is going to say "oh, I want transnational corporations to benefit over humanity!"
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran
The reason I said "strongly disagree" was because I strongly disagreed with the premise that those interests are opposed.
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran
A liberal authoritarian would use a one party state, as a vehicle to enforce liberal ideals. The same thing with a conservative authoritarian. The idea is that a one party state, enables the state to clamp down on dissent in all forms, to a much greater deal than a multi-party system.
A libertarian would crave the political discourse and discussion found in a multi-party system, as an important check on the power of the state, and an increase in the rights of an individual.
Make sense?
But you can be in favor of a multi party system and still believe that one party systems are more efficient.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Even that breaks down when you consider people like DF and elijah, who'd be just as happy under a monarchy as long as they were guaranteed their rights.
Smile For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
This is a stupid question. That is an advantage of a one-party state, but it's not an advocation of one.
There is one big flaw in this. It demands that decisions made by a one-party state are the right ones, but history has proven well that that isn't the case - quite opposite. With democracy there are at least a chance to stop the worst mistakes.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
This is a stupid question. That is an advantage of a one-party state, but it's not an advocation of one.
There is one big flaw in this. It demands that decisions made by a one-party state are the right ones, but history has proven well that that isn't the case - quite opposite. With democracy there are at least a chance to stop the worst mistakes.
No. It assumes that neither one party systems or multiparty systems come to better decisions, but that one party systems make decisions with less delay.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
) is going to say "oh, I want transnational corporations to benefit over humanity!" The problem is that the basic assumption of the question, that there is a fundamental, necessary conflict between the two, is heavily slanted towards the left. Then there's "What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us." That's absurd - what would be 'good' for corporations would be the ability to steal people off the street and keep them as slaves. But simply thinking that corporations should be bound by the same laws by which individuals are bound certainly doesn't make you a lefty.
Tweet
Comment