Ideal Social Engineering Settings

[-SafaN-]

Originally posted by logic_error

Ummh.. oh, wait... just think of that horrible inefficiency! And personality cult too!

Probably the government would tell you which kind of education you will have, and after that you would have to work in a workplace choosed by the government. Your house or apartment would also be given to you by the state, and food would be distributed equally to the population in a carefully regulated portions. That is, unless there are occasionally famines because of the breakdowns in a planned food distribution system.

And they would be quite common because government spends huge amounts of resources on the military. That means you would have a 3-year military service, and your country's ruler would not hesitate to use the army should any need arise (it's not like he's going to ask any permission from the people.) If you disagreed with him, you could simply disappear in the night, leaving your relatives wonder where you have gone. But luckily many people won't just suddenly vanish, because population is continiously brainwashed to fanatically support their leader. His pictures would "decorate" every street in the nation and occasionally you would see huge, magnificient statues in parks entirely devoted to the "great leader". The ruling party would probably organize propaganda-like mass-performances where people would shout jingoistic slogans to express their support to the ruler.

Have u read Brave New World by A. Huxley. His view of the future is dividing people in classes from alpha to epsilon. At birth a computer choses what they will become. Epsilons will get injections to prevent them building a brain, while alphas will be free to make some choices. Great book, U should really read it. Actually its an anti-book, but i like that view of the society. Weather Epsilon or Alpha, they are all happy with their life. Thats better than it is now.

The not brainwashed version u can read in 1984 by Orwell. I didn't like that one

Greetz

[logic_error]

Originally posted by -SafaN-

Have u read Brave New World by A. Huxley.

No I haven't, I just invented everything I wrote (although some of the ideas were borrowed from N-Korea.) Maybe I'll read that book sometime.

The not brainwashed version u can read in 1984 by Orwell. I didn't like that one

Actually I haven't read 1984 either, I read too little... but that is fixed quickly.

[logic_error]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Well, I'd prefer "frontier-simple-none-survival"!

Maybe you would be interested in reading this:

http://www.primitivism.com/primitivist-critique.htm

[binTravkin]

Maybe you would be interested in reading this:

http://www.primitivism.com/primitivist-critique.htm

Blah..so much to read!

..and by the way, Im an admirer of technological & psychological progress of Homo Sapiens.. bout those SE -> just kidding!

[redazncommieDXP]

Originally posted by logic_error

Ummh.. oh, wait... just think of that horrible inefficiency! And personality cult too!

Probably the government would tell you which kind of education you will have, and after that you would have to work in a workplace choosed by the government. Your house or apartment would also be given to you by the state, and food would be distributed equally to the population in a carefully regulated portions. That is, unless there are occasionally famines because of the breakdowns in a planned food distribution system.

And they would be quite common because government spends huge amounts of resources on the military. That means you would have a 3-year military service, and your country's ruler would not hesitate to use the army should any need arise (it's not like he's going to ask any permission from the people.) If you disagreed with him, you could simply disappear in the night, leaving your relatives wonder where you have gone. But luckily many people won't just suddenly vanish, because population is continiously brainwashed to fanatically support their leader. His pictures would "decorate" every street in the nation and occasionally you would see huge, magnificient statues in parks entirely devoted to the "great leader". The ruling party would probably organize propaganda-like mass-performances where people would shout jingoistic slogans to express their support to the ruler.

Inefficiency can be handled by playing Hive. Never worry about inefficiency!

To have the government set out your life before you would be perfect. Think about it- specialists watch you from an early age, learn your tendencies and what you'll grow up to like and dislike based on development patterns, then choose the field you're most suited to. You're conditioned from the beginning to believe (more) that the job chosen for you is not only the best possible job for you, but also great fun and what you love doing.

There may be famines, but there will also be surpluses, where everyone can get a little more luxury.

It's not uncommon for all people to spend 3 or more years in compulsory military service.

The country's leader WOULD hesitate to use the army, because war is extremely epensive. Do you really think it matters to the leaders what the people think when national interests or national security is directly at stake, anyways?

To have everyone love the leader is hardly a negative trait.

[Chaos Theory]

The leader's desires will not always coincide with those of everyone else, unless he has himself gone through this raising process (as happens in Brave New World). For examples of this in real life, just look at about every dictatorship, and even some democractic leaderships - Stalin, Mugabe, Mao, Johnson and Nixon, "Turkmenbashi", Napoleon, King Louis XVI, King George III, modern Saudi Arabia, post-revolutionary Iran (and these are just some of the obvious ones).

To have everyone love the leader is necessarily a negative trait, because even the most benevolent leader will make bad decisions, and may be blind to them. Someone must point them out without fear of offending the leader. To have everyone automatically approve of a leader's actions is a quick route to ruin, as evidenced by some corporations.

[mmontgomery]

Free market really rocks!

If we are talking about what REALLY happens with a free market economy verses how it is depicted in the game, free market really rocks!

If the reality of free market were depicted in the game, it would be somewhat unbalanced since it would look something like:

+2 ECONOMY
+2 INDUSTRY
+2 EFFICIENCY
+1 GROWTH
+1 PLANET

Some people may not realize that in a free market, the vast majority of businesses are small, under 10 people, and that these small businesses employee 80% of the available workforce. I personally know of several business owned by people who immigrated to America with NOTHING, worked hard and saving (instead of blowing) much of their income for 3-5 years, then used their savings (capital) to open up their own businesses, which are thriving.

Anyone WHO IS WILLING TO WORK can have their own business; that is the beauty of the free market! I personally have had several businesses through the years, ranging from buying my own lawnmower as a teen and selling my services mowing my neighbors lawns, to selling database and computing services.

In fact, there would be more small businesses than there are right now if it were not for oppressive government regulations that make opening certain businesses more difficult or cost prohibitive.

The idea of "planned" or communistic enconomies sound good, but the reality is that it is basic human nature for people to want to be personally rewarded for their efforts. If I work hard, I expect to be well reward for my efforts, or I will change to a job where I am rewarded. In a situation where "society" benefits, but people see no personal difference regardless of whether they work hard or are lazy, whether the are innovative or mundane, etc., people will simply not give their best. It is just human nature. Ayn Rand pointed out this fact, and it has not changed.

Free market encourages risk taking. This is critically important. Most ideas and new businesses involve risk. If there was not a free market to reward taking this risk, then most ideas would never be developed. Why should one incur the expensive of developing a new idea and the potential of failure, if there is no reward upon success?

Some might raise eyebrows that I give free market +1 PLANET. But the fact is, people take care of what they OWN. When ownership of elephant herds was forbidden, they were pouched to near extiction. Where ownership is permitted, elephant herds thrive and grow. Where people own forested lands, they are careful to selectively harvest and regrow trees. Otherwise, areas are stripped and not regrown. Where forests are "protected" by government ownship and no harvesting is permitted, the forests tend to get too thick and are vulnerable to burning down vast areas due to natural events such as lightning strikes.

Populations in countries with free markets tend to grow; there is no lack of food and resources. It is the countries that plan their economy that generally suffer shortfalls so that nobody has enough.

There is much more that could be said in praise of free markets, but I will stop for now. Perhaps these points will make those who have been bashing free markets in previous posts reconsider.

[Whoha]

Re: Free market really rocks!

Originally posted by mmontgomery
...
+2 ECONOMY
+2 INDUSTRY
+2 EFFICIENCY
+1 GROWTH
+1 PLANET
...

Because +2 economy is already far too much for any econ setting. As for planet rating, thats not whats at stake here. The environment isn't damaged by what the factions do to it, its that the planet mind and its hoards of mind worms are pissed off about it. It does not like the kinds of stuff the free market generates, infrastructure,improvements and what not, so a negative planet rating is justified, though one should also be present for planned, just a lesser negative.

[logic_error]

@mmontgomery: sorry to say this, but I think you're just another brainwashed American. Maybe you should see that Canadian documentary named "The Corporation". Some of your statements are simply false, too.

Population growth in rich nations has decreased or even stopped as the GDP grew bigger. It's the people in poor nations who experience the heaviest population growth. Just check it from UN statistics or somewhere else. So -1 or -2 growth would be more appropriate.

+1 planet?? You're kidding! America is the biggest polluter in the world (both in per capita and absolute terms.) -3 planet rating in the game is justified, imho.

+2 efficiency seems dubious... many governments in capitalist countries have the habit of subsidizing inefficient industry.

And finally, if it was implemented in the game, free market would deserve +3 colonialism.

[mmontgomery]

Logic_error, when I see someone lead off their post with a personal attack (brainwashed American), I can be fairly certain they are substituting the personal attack for facts that they don't have.

Are you a brainwashed Canadian? There is a reason that millions each year want to come to America; that people worldwide view America as the land of opportunity. It is usually only people who live here, who have bought into the socialist agenda, who refuse to see opportunity staring them in the face, and view themselves as oppressed because they don't get as many handouts as they want.

BTW, I was talking about free markets in general, not just America. To the extent that Canada or any other country operate free markets, they prosper economically. I only mentioned America because I personally know people who came with nothing, and are doing well. America does not have a perfectly free market, but it is good enough that people with nothing who want to work hard and accumulate wealth can do so.

You are mixing together a lot of things having nothing to do with free market. Subsidizing inefficient industry is definitely ANTI-free market, so this should not be used as an argument that free market is less efficient. Without outside interference, free markets naturally weed out inefficient enterprizes (because they lose money and go out of business).

Lower population growth in highly developed nations is not the result of free market. There is plenty of food and money to support population growth. The lower population growth is due to decisions taken by the families to voluntarily reduce the number of children they have, for a variety of complex reasons.

If you think some of my statements are false, point them out. But of the things you mentioned, NONE of them specifically have anything to do with free market, so if those were your best shots, they all missed.

The only one that comes close is pollution. But pollution is not tied to free market either. Most planned economies generate even more pollution per unit of industry produced (i.e, per bar of steel, or per bolt of cloth). Which is why the ideal is probably largely Free Market, with some Green ideas mixed in, in a reasonable compromise. So the Greens are not trying to push industry back to the stone age, but are partnering for economically viable measures to protect the environment, while the Free Market has monetary incentives (i.e. its just good business) to protect the environment.

[WotanAnubis]

Re: Free market really rocks!

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Some people may not realize that in a free market, the vast majority of businesses are small, under 10 people, and that these small businesses employee 80% of the available workforce.

Until they suffer from a hostile take-over from Microsoft because there're no government regulations preventing monopolies or cartels. This is followed, of course, by a bit of mass firing because they don't really need all that surplus workforce bringing their profit margins down.

Anyone WHO IS WILLING TO WORK can have their own business; that is the beauty of the free market!

Unfortunately, some people just can't work, no matter how much they want to. Take me, for example. I suffer from a schizoid personality disorder. There is absolutely no way I coud get employed in any regular business.
Fortunately thanks to, well, previous governments (certainly not the current one) there are several programs that set out to employ the otherwise non-employable.
You might find programs like this in Planned, or even Green, but not in a true Free Market, because it's not very profitable. I'd be unemployed for life.

In fact, there would be more small businesses than there are right now if it were not for oppressive government regulations that make opening certain businesses more difficult or cost prohibitive.

On the other hand, as stated before, governments prevent monopolies. Governments (in what we think of as the Free West) also ensure that the rights of the worker are being heeded.
Of course, they did this because in the early days of capitalism workers were getting fed up with being abused and stopped working, but still.

Free market encourages risk taking. This is critically important. Most ideas and new businesses involve risk. If there was not a free market to reward taking this risk, then most ideas would never be developed. Why should one incur the expensive of developing a new idea and the potential of failure, if there is no reward upon success?

OK, name... five major scientific breakthroughs that were directly fueled by the need for profit.
And please don't mention the drive-through at the fast food joint. Or, indeed, the invention of the fast food joint.

Where people own forested lands, they are careful to selectively harvest and regrow trees.

Or, more likely, they raze the forest to the ground and put up some thermal boreholes since they're better for production and energy accumilation.

the forests tend to get too thick and are vulnerable to burning down vast areas due to natural events such as lightning strikes.

Don't know how it works in your country, but over in mine people are employed to keep an eye on things. Every year trees are pruned or cut down just to prevent this.
Of course, the people doing it are employed by the government, but still.

Populations in countries with free markets tend to grow; there is no lack of food and resources.

However, you forget to factor in the Free Market's urge for Career and Success. Nowadays, there're lots of people who decide not have kids because it'll interfere with their work.
So it kinda balances out, really.

There is much more that could be said in praise of free markets, but I will stop for now. Perhaps these points will make those who have been bashing free markets in previous posts reconsider.

Nope, not really. You had some points, I'll admit, but your argument was hopelessly subjective, so I'm sticking to my own subjective beliefs, thank you very much.

[Nabvrimn]

Free market is particularly unfairly shafted in the police department. the U.S. has always been free market and either democratic or frontier. Nobody much complained about military deployments until communist propaganda started pouring into the country during the Korean and particularly the Vietnam War. The only exception I'm aware of were draft riots during the Civil War. Nothing like that in the Spanish American War, Mexican American War, WWI, or WWII.

[binTravkin]

Free market is particularly unfairly shafted in the police department. the U.S. has always been free market and either democratic or frontier. Nobody much complained about military deployments until communist propaganda started pouring into the country during the Korean and particularly the Vietnam War. The only exception I'm aware of were draft riots during the Civil War. Nothing like that in the Spanish American War, Mexican American War, WWI, or WWII.

Dear Nabvrimn, you must clearly realise that USA hasn't ever got a WAR!!!

Are you stupid to not see that if 2 million troops from a 200 million nation is like a teardrop in an ocean???

It was NOT a war for USA!!!
It was a minor skirmish for you folks!

My nation, the Latvians were around 2 million before WWII, after it, we were only 1.5million..

Russians were 200 million before the war
After war there were only ~160 million left

THAT IS A WAR

And if US government tried to draft 1/10 of US citizens, you'd see what -5 POLICE means!
Oh man, you'd see such a hell that you'd think why the hell I was born in USA?

And if war went back and forth over USA 3 times as in Latvia, you'd see what destruction means!

You, US citizens do not know what a WAR is because the biggest losses you have had was in Civil war - ~0.5 million people (from >50 million population)

Thats 1%!!!

Latvia lost ~15% pop in the WWII and ~10% were deported or exiled from which the deported ones died wey quickly in Siberian labor camps

You should study history a bit more to be able to say what is & what is NOT a WAR

The reason why -5 POLICE still had effect on US during Wietnam conflict
(that was a WAR only for Wietnam, for US it was just a "conflict" and nothing more)
was that Wietnam was really too distant for this -5 not to show up..

For the other "wars" you mentioned
1.Spanish "war" was more a naval campaign/seaborne invasion, not a war.

2.Mexican "war" was a swift walk through unprotected lands, like your droptroops/choppers being able to capture 1/2 of enemy territory in 1 turn thus not receiving the police penalty

3.WWI had only 200k american troops transfered to Europe (while Russia had ~5million)

4.Civil war - riots were more like an unability of still-young US government to create an effective wartime propaganda + instability caused by Civil War.

Thus, please don't speak about -5 POLICE effects in US!

But you can, of course mention -3 PLANET effects in US - US is the best country to show them (as worlds greatest polluter)

[Chaos Theory]

As far as I can tell, a hostile takeover requires accumulating half the shares' votes (or perhaps something odd involving bonds, but I don't know much about that). If the company's leadership has over half the shares, they can block a takeover attempt by not voting for it. In a small business, it's reasonable that one or two people would have over half the shares.

Another way large businesses can go after small ones is to bribe their suppliers not to supply them, but that was outlawed a while ago. Given the amount of collaberation needed to pull that off secretly, that law should be pretty well enforced, but there are some questionable situations, such as health care.

Whoever thinks the Vietnam protests were due to communist propaganda should consider causes such as:
1) College students pulled out of studies to fight somewhere seemingly unnecessary and die
2) High body count (relative to the number sent)
3) Protracted war
4) Lies from the administration regarding the motive and the current state of affairs

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory
Another way large businesses can go after small ones is to bribe their suppliers not to supply them, but that was outlawed a while ago. Given the amount of collaberation needed to pull that off secretly, that law should be pretty well enforced, but there are some questionable situations, such as health care.

Correct. However, in a True Free Market, there is no government interfering with business and the economy. Hence, now laws forbidding this kind of practise.

So once again, say goodbye to the small business and hello to the mega-corporations.