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.
Is it morally justifiable to assassinate Tony Blair?
Generally
Left ---- Right
Economic Control ---- Economic freedom
Social Freedom ---- Social Control
Cosmopolitan ---- Nationalist
Communist ---- Fascist
Socialist ---- Christian Social Democrats (or similar)
Liberal ---- Conservative
If you're all for the freedom of the individual then you're a leftie by definition. Thats what liberals go for, generally.
How can I be "all wrong" when it is obviously that we largely agree. One's left/right axis must be divided into category.
Now we seem to agree that economic control is a leftist phenomenon. But what you don't seem to agree on, but which I like to point out, that both Communism (a form of Socialism) and Fascism have heavy economic controls and are, in this sense, both leftist ideologies.
The Communist-Fascist axis makes no sense in that both elevate the State over the people, both advocate single-party rule, both impose state control over the means of production. It is just that Communism does all of this in a more severe fashion.
The opposite of Communism is not Fascism, it is freedom.
Originally posted by Flip McWho
Social Freedom ---- Social Control
Communist ---- Fascist
Socialist ---- Christian Social Democrats (or similar)
That's not the way it is in the States.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
hmm, sometimes I support Assassinations. And perhaps assassinations in this case would deter world leaders from inavading other countries. But it could just give people reason to assassinate any person they please. Not that there's anything stopping them from doing so now.
Sometimes I support assassination of lieu of war. Such as the Kosovo war in 99. Or the Iraq war in 03. But you have to think of the long term consequences of such actions. As this sets a bad precedent. And in both cases we could have ended up with worse leaders.
Spot on. Spot on. In a democratic country, the leaders are chosen and if they mess up, they are voted out. Blair survived re-election after the Iraq war began. To assasinate Blair would be to subvert the democratic process and Hell, if you want to put that much power in the hands of ONE person, then you don't really believe in democracy in the first place.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
How can I be "all wrong" when it is obviously that we largely agree. One's left/right axis must be divided into category.
Now we seem to agree that economic control is a leftist phenomenon. But what you don't seem to agree on, but which I like to point out, that both Communism (a form of Socialism) and Fascism have heavy economic controls and are, in this sense, both leftist ideologies.
The Communist-Fascist axis makes no sense in that both elevate the State over the people, both advocate single-party rule, both impose state control over the means of production. It is just that Communism does all of this in a more severe fashion.
The opposite of Communism is not Fascism, it is freedom.
Interesting. I'd say that more economic control <-> less economic control is secondary to who the control or lack of it is excercised for. So Communism and Social Democracy are left wing because the greater and lesser degree of economic control is excercised for working people and the poor. Liberalism and Fascism are right wing for the opposite reason.
Tecumseh's Village, Home of Fine Civilization Scenarios
Spot on. Spot on. In a democratic country, the leaders are chosen and if they mess up, they are voted out. Blair survived re-election after the Iraq war began. To assasinate Blair would be to subvert the democratic process and Hell, if you want to put that much power in the hands of ONE person, then you don't really believe in democracy in the first place.
It would be a stretch to call Britain a democracy. The British electoral system is bent, and the population is not able in any case to make an informed choice.
Blair and any other war criminal like him ought to be removed by whatever means necessary as soon as possible. I've always thought that the threat of assassination was a good thing for keeping our leaders in line.
How can I be "all wrong" when it is obviously that we largely agree. One's left/right axis must be divided into category.
Now we seem to agree that economic control is a leftist phenomenon. But what you don't seem to agree on, but which I like to point out, that both Communism (a form of Socialism) and Fascism have heavy economic controls and are, in this sense, both leftist ideologies.
The Communist-Fascist axis makes no sense in that both elevate the State over the people, both advocate single-party rule, both impose state control over the means of production. It is just that Communism does all of this in a more severe fashion.
The opposite of Communism is not Fascism, it is freedom.
Aye we do largely agree, but most people subscribe to the left-right axis I put up, your is different and although I can see and agree with the reasoning you have in yours it confuses people.
Communism was state control of the economy for the "good" (note the ") of the people. Fascism is economic control for the "good" of the state. The economic control part of communism is the overwhelming factor of communism, hence it is considered left. Fascism its the state, hence right. I agree it doesn't make sense because both are extrememely "right" wing in that they are for social control as well.
Thats why the left-right thing is just whacked out, it's usually based around the economic ideologies of the group rather than all factors that make it up. Fascism and communism are only removed in who they say they're controlling the economy for.
Theres an old saying that goes something along the lines that communism is so far left and fascism so far right they're effectively the same beast. What you keep referencing too is the social freedom and social control thing, the left is social freedom (liberals, libertarians are all left here). Religious groups are all considered right, and they don't stand for 'freedom' (unless you mean freedom to live according to gods rule).
Economic Freedom /= Social Freedom
DanS,
That's not the way it is in the States.
Yeah it is, broadly speaking, though you have libertarians who are also right. Though they are really leftist-rightist (social freedom and economic freedom, one thing to be admired about libertarians is that they are fairly consistent).
Though, you have only the real two parties that collect a whole lot of people who don't normally make good bedfellows.
Interesting. I'd say that more economic control <-> less economic control is secondary to who the control or lack of it is excercised for. So Communism and Social Democracy are left wing because the greater and lesser degree of economic control is excercised for working people and the poor. Liberalism and Fascism are right wing for the opposite reason.
Not really,
Liberalism doesn't control the economy because of its belief in the power of the individual. Fascism has no such belief and instead dedicated to the state and is hence further right.
Agathon,
It would be a stretch to call Britain a democracy.
Calling it a representative democracy make you feel better? The population can make as much of an informed choice as they wish to exercise, just cause ignorance abounds doesn't make it a fault of the system.
I've always thought that the threat of assassination was a good thing for keeping our leaders in line.
It's not, generally it'll lead to a more repressive regime.
Calling it a representative democracy make you feel better? The population can make as much of an informed choice as they wish to exercise, just cause ignorance abounds doesn't make it a fault of the system.
It's a semi-democracy at most. The will of the population is thwarted in obvious ways, like having an effectively two party state. People complain about one party states when two party states are not much better. A two party state just means that it is impossible for new parties to compete. Prospective leaders must advance through the party organizations which have been thoroughly co-opted by society's elites.
New Zealand was as bad before PR.
You cannot have an effective democracy without informed consent. People have to know what they are voting for in order for their votes to be effective. British people are some of the most ignorant on the planet, rivalling the Americans in the dumb Olympics. You only need look at the atmosphere of the average English person's newspaper to get an idea of what the level of political knowledge is like.
Note that New Zealand has not had a proper tabloid newspaper for many years now.
Oh I agree, but thats hair splitting really, most people think Vote = Democracy, but there is so many shades of democracy.
And as for the second point, I agree, but thats not what democracy (as we know it and call it) is all about. People have to take some responsibility for themselves.
But the thing thats always got me about democracy is that its just another term for rule of the majority.
Spot on. Spot on. In a democratic country, the leaders are chosen and if they mess up, they are voted out. Blair survived re-election after the Iraq war began. To assasinate Blair would be to subvert the democratic process and Hell, if you want to put that much power in the hands of ONE person, then you don't really believe in democracy in the first place.
What does that have to do with the notion of the leadreship of a state being open and legitimate targets in a war? The group at war with an entity has no reason to, and is under no obligation whatever for the internal political processes of their enemy.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Spot on. Spot on. In a democratic country, the leaders are chosen and if they mess up, they are voted out.
Aside from the laughably naive notion you portray, my assumption was that it wasn't asked if it was okay for a Briton to kill Blair, but for someone from the other side to kill Blair. Iraqis have no say in what Blair is doing to their country, other than to kill Britons.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
What does that have to do with the notion of the leadreship of a state being open and legitimate targets in a war? The group at war with an entity has no reason to, and is under no obligation whatever for the internal political processes of their enemy.
GePap, I think the point of going after political leaders during a war is to end the war, not punish a malefactor. Killing the leader of a democracy at war only makes them madder. Killing the leader of a monarchy or dictatorship may actually have positive results on the war effort.
Aye we do largely agree, but most people subscribe to the left-right axis I put up, your is different and although I can see and agree with the reasoning you have in yours it confuses people.
Textbooks in my Dad's time, prior to WWII, like to teach that the left-right axis was more of a circle. Fascism and Communism were almost identical in their functioning forms meeting at the far ends of the circle, as indeed Stalin and Hitler acknowledge in 1939 after their "alliance." The polar opposite (across the diagonal) of this circle is democracy.
The more I thought of this "circle" phenomenon, the more I realized that it was flawed. Rhetoric asside, once one adopts the ideology that the state or party (depends on the system) is superior to the individual, the end result is similar if not identical. Communist societies have their elites. They are just party members. Everyone else is a slave. Ditto Fascist societies. But they do not kill off capitalism, just put it to work for the good of the natiion. Which is why, of course, Fascism was both highly productive and popular. Contrast this to Communism. It is reviled by any "citizen" who is not a party member.
As China moves to capitalism, it is becoming a Fascist state. No doubt, this will improve the popularity of the communist party in China.
The bottom line: there is more of a line to be crossed than an axis to be moved upon. On one side are democracies. On the other are tyrannies in all their flavors. All tyrannies are evil at their root, in my view.
As to the social control bit, you will find that tryanncal governments impose more controls. The Extremely Religious, those who would impose their religious views on the people against their will, are themselves anti-democratic tryants. Their states are known as Theocracies. While we think of such states as "rightist," they are better classified as on the wrong side of the tryanny/democracy line.
Tweet
Comment