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
A lot of the anti-immigrant crowd doesn't actually like free trade either.
The elected leadership (in their votes, not necessarily private opinions) are generally anti-immigrant and pro-trade.
And there's a much greater antipathy to "amnesty" than CAFTA among the base..
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Dude, you can pick a place and time at which anything was the norm. Unregulated immigration was the norm till the early part of the 20th century (actually, this is true up to about the same point where tax rates started drastically increasing).
Are you really suggesting that a bunch of people want the US to go back to exactly 1925?
Again - it's not issue-specific. It's general-society level. Conservatives want America to, in general, remain the America that they know and love (or, imagine, at least); so they support things that encourage America to remain, or become, the America they think it is. Hence anti-immigration (don't want too many people with different cultural values in here!!), anti-drugs/abortion/etc. (protect Christian values, whether we had them before or not), and such.
Think of (social) Conservatives as the old 1950s mom and dad stereotype. They'd oppose Rock and Roll if it were the 1950s...
And as Patrokolos said above, not all conservatives are on this side - it depends on what type you refer to. Again, I consider myself a 'conservative', in at least one sense of the word, but I generally oppose the Republican party on immigration, abortion, etc. - even sometimes opposing my own social views because I believe the feds don't have the right to interfere regardless of my personal opinion. Social conservatives do not believe in that.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Dude, you can pick a place and time at which anything was the norm. Unregulated immigration was the norm till the early part of the 20th century (actually, this is true up to about the same point where tax rates started drastically increasing).
Yes, but what of it?
I don't believe that Conservatives were philosophically opposed to new laws or regulation, simply that they tended to be skeptical of change of any kind. On the other hand, I see nothing philosophically inconsistent with a Conservative supporting a new law or regulation to fix one of society's ills as the lesser of two evils.
The Libertarian Free Marketer might also point out that open immigration is not a good idea as long as the welfare state exists (I believe Milton Friedman pointed this out.) The Conservative would agree but also point out that cultural dislocation is also a reason he opposes mass immigration.
Again, I refer you to my paraphrase of Pat Buchanan and especially the quotation I posted from NRO's John Derbyshire concerning immigration. I would be interested in hearing your response to those (Conservative) ideas.
Are you really suggesting that a bunch of people want the US to go back to exactly 1925?
Claiming someone wants to "go back" to "exactly 1925" is silly. But I do know of a good number of principled American Conservatives who think that a phase-out of many of the social and economic programs put in place by the New Deal would ultimately benefit the nation.
"The nation that controls magnesium controls the universe."
I read your Derbyshire quote. And responded to it. Picking and choosing when to apply skepticism to change is not a political philosophy I find compelling. Especially when the "change" you're arguing against is actually the norm for American history.
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I read your Derbyshire quote. And responded to it. Picking and choosing when to apply skepticism to change is not a political philosophy I find compelling. Especially when the "change" you're arguing against is actually the norm for American history.
I have to apologize, then, as I did not see a post from you indicating why you thought that the benefits of mass immigration outweighed potential social costs. Is Derbyshire right when he contends that mass immigration is one giant social engineering project? Would you say that he is wrong by saying that he does not want to be forced to be a part of this project?
(EDIT: VJ made similar points.)
And, of course YOU do not have to find Conservatism compelling in the least! But, you did ask the question, and this is the answer.
Originally posted by Ramo
What I don't understand is why conservatives accord property (liking free trade) more freedom than people (disliking free immigration). You've got similar downward wage pressures in both cases, and the most effective solution in both cases is to widen the safety net for permanent residents, so all that's left, really, is a fear of other cultures. And I personally like my Vietnamese sandwiches...
...because the only changes immigrants bring are culinary.
...people like to cry a lot...- Pekka ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority.- Snotty
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
1) A large amount of fairly unrestricted immigration is the norm for most of American history. You have to pick and choose specific times when it was not the case, rather than the other way around. A Burkean argument against immigration based on that is less than meaningless.
2) A 70 year old direction to American society (New Deal onwards) is not a transitory phenomenon. The Burkean argument for reversing it is weak to say the least.
I do not doubt that some people claim that by opposing immigration they are simply opposing a radical change. In fact, some people probably believe it (though the likelihood of hypocrisy rather than ignorance rises as you go up the food chain). I don't trust this argument when it's applied largely to social issues instead of across the board.
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
the government can "manage" migration better than the market?
Except for those who call for a total ban on immigration, those who wish to restrict immigration generally want the gubmint to decide (usually by prioritising highly skilled individuals) who gets in and who doesn't.
I thought conservatives were convinced of the government's inability to intelligently intervene in the labour market? If they're smart enough to figure out what the "economy needs" in terms of external labour supply then why not just have them set wages and prices too?
Why is it that liberals think it's such a good idea to have undocumented people running around?
You think this is a USA thing only? A North American thing? What exactly do you think, if anything?
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Why is it that liberals think it's such a good idea to have undocumented people running around?
You think this is a USA thing only? A North American thing? What exactly do you think, if anything?
Who said anything about undocumented immigration?
Sloww, you're always good for a laugh but I'm just going to put you on ignore so you don't clog up the thread with irrelevancies.
No. I'd say that as far as American society goes, shutting down immigration is the giant social engineering project.
So you don't expect the U.S. to endure any social costs from large-scale immigration from a neighboring country with a different culture and language?
(I also think you're being a bit inconsistent yourself -- if the New Deal at 70 years is no longer an experiment, why are immigration controls "experimental"? The Chinese Exclusion Acts were passed in 1882, far earlier than the New Deal. But I'm not going to press you on the issue, as the above question is the crux of the matter.)
"The nation that controls magnesium controls the universe."
No. I'd say that as far as American society goes, shutting down immigration is the giant social engineering project.
Prior to 1965 American immigration policies overwhelmingly favored immigrants from Western nations. Until then (and even at that point), it was always taken for granted that America would be a majority-white nation. The giant social engineering project has been to massively increase non-western immigration.
...people like to cry a lot...- Pekka ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority.- Snotty
We had large amounts of Chinese immigration earlier.
JM
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Tweet
Comment