by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .351352353354355356357. . .596597»

We currently have another poll going in A Liberal Haven, and we would love your input! Our last poll closed, and the results are available to be viewed by anyone interested :)

Blattaria wrote:What is that? Is it full of sugar?

Basically: yes. Polysaccharides, Lysergic acid diethylamide and Methamphetamine

New sade

I'm of Siee-estas and its, you know, me trying that usual, cliché, oppressive, imperialist government nation. :D

Should I be worried that the Civil Rights/Economy/PF rating of this oppressive nation is really similar to my primary one? ;-;

Polysaccharides

Blattaria wrote:What is that? Is it full of sugar?

Greetings from the Sultanate of Polysaccharides, here is a complimentary cup of sugar.

Holy mother church

Goshenwaish wrote:Should I be worried that the Civil Rights/Economy/PF rating of this oppressive nation is really similar to my primary one? ;-;

Depends what you're going for in your primary nation ;P

I actually place less emphasis on Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms, since I think these tell you relatively little about the quality of life in that nation. Even though World Assembly categories are based on Freedom rankings, I think there is a surprising amount of variance within individual categories. Not all Capitalist Paradises or Democratic Socialists are the same!

Nw hell rehab center

Pizza

top 100: Red skywalker, Macroglup, Microglup
top 1000: Mum, PA Terror, Anarch, Nork, T-T, Bender

bottom 100: Nw hell rehab center
bottom 1000: Superior-I, Hippies, NONNY

pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

Welcome to P115, Lhomon, Cory the busta, Zamberdonia, Goshenwaish, and Mikeartica!

RIP, Qasiotopia, Shrekdom, and Far planes.

Goshenwaish wrote:Should I be worried that the Civil Rights/Economy/PF rating of this oppressive nation is really similar to my primary one? ;-;

Actually, yes. You don't seem to understand what makes for high freedoms in NS. To quote my article from The Rejected Times:

GETTING HIGH STATS

Let me assume for the purposes of this article that you want to max out your Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms. The usual governmental form for (H, H, H) nations is Anarchy--more on that in just a sec. You really can get all three categories to 100% at the same time. I dare say it's impossible to keep them at 100% if you continue to answer issues unless you are EXTREMELY careful in the selection of what issues you choose to answer. I've achieved (100, 100, 100) a few times in my 10+ years of game play. If you stop answering issues, they will stay that way (unless you are in the WA), but you will fall behind nations in your peer group since you are frozen in time. I've left one nation of mine at (100, 100, 100) (and zero taxes to boot!) just to show people it CAN be done. Check out that nation, Haunted Roller Coaster.

ECONOMY

Economy is the easiest category in which to achieve 100%. You would think that if you answered issues completely at random that you would, over the long term, be an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy (M, M, M), but that is apparently not the case. One of my best friends in NS creates "bot" scripts that can be programmed to answer issues in any way you could think to program them. He has stated that bots programmed to answer issues randomly will eventually end up with Frightening (highest level) Economies; the game has a bias towards increasing wealth. That doesn't mean that you can always answer economic issues as you please and you'll still end up with a Frightening Economy, however.

In NS, the meat and drink of Economy is deregulation, letting businesses do as they please. If you consistently deregulate the various industries of your Economy, it will grow very quickly and your tax rate will tend to go down as the government needs to take less and less from the Economy as a proportion of its earning to fund a government that isn't growing. If your government grows faster than your Economy, your taxes will rise. The issue for you is how far you are willing to deregulate? Are you willing to abolish minimum wage? are you OK with allowing slavery? will you practice unrestrained imminent domain and seize the property of landowners to built highways and the like? are you going to let your population eat your national animal? will you permit blood sports for the entertainment of your people? are you going to let furriers carry exotic or even endangered animals as part of their inventories? will you appoint a pro-business judge to your Supreme Court? will you allow businesses to fire strikers/"troublemakers" on the spot? will you bulldoze your rain forests in order to mine the uranium underneath? will you allow your industries to dump toxic waste just about anywhere? are you willing to practice "corporate welfare" and give industries free money from the government? These are all economic issues (most of them have other implications, too). The more and more of these and parallel issues you answer in the affirmative, the faster your economy will grow.

Keep in mind that your Economy (what is shown) is not the same as Economic Freedom, which can be intuited from your form of government. I have (rarely) seen Anarchies (H, H, H) with Imploded (worst) Economies. Those nations have terrible Economies, but they allow their citizens full access to what they have. I have also seen the occasional Psychotic Dictatorship (L, L, L) with Frightening (best) Economies. These nations have terrific economies, but allow their citizens little or no access to it. With the Rift theme, you can now directly view the size of your Economy, which may be billions of your units of currency up to the quadrillions of your currency (expressed as thousands of trillions).

CIVIL RIGHTS AND POLITICAL FREEDOMS

Crs and Pfs are not identical but they tend to move up or down together. It is difficult (although not impossible) to have one high and the other low, hence you seldom see Iron Fist Socialists (H, L, L) or Tyrannies by Majority (L, L, H), for instance. These freedoms are both involved with the extent you allow your citizens to disagree with you, the government. CRs tend to focus more on what you allow people to do to their own bodies, while PFs tend to be how much you permit individuals freely to vote and make decisions for themselves. Some stereotypical CRs issues include allowing citizens to smoke pot, allowing cannibalism, allowing gay marriage (and gay rights generally), permitting people to wander around naked or go to school in their pyjamas, and many more. Most of these positively impact PFs as well, to different degrees. Note, too, that NS often interprets support for police/military/spies to be anti-CRs, and cutting support for police/military/spies often raises CRs. The very first issue you answered, 000 Should Voting Be Voluntary?, is a PF issue; option 1, keeping it voluntary, is the high freedom option, option 2, making it compulsory, is a medium-low freedom option, and option 3, outlawing voting, is the low freedom option. If you are a democracy, expect to be deluged with issues allowing you to outlaw voting or making yourself the Evil Overlord for Life or becoming the deity of your nation. If you are a dictatorship, expect regular petitions from your citizens for Not So Much Dictatorship, Please and the like. I view gun rights, religious rights, prisoner rights, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech as PF issues, although they have CR implications as well. For high PFs, allow your citizens to carry concealed weapons, don't tax religions, treat your prisoners with respect or even consider abolishing jails, allow complete freedom of speech, and do not interfere with freedom of the press. Wait, gun rights are HIGH freedom??? Yes, they are, even if in many countries their fiercest advocates would gladly curtail other freedoms. High freedoms don't necessarily correspond to contemporary notions of liberal vs. conservative, remember it's the tolerance for people to disagree with you (assuming you think having guns is bad). Religion is more tricky: you don't want to tax religious institutions, declare any religion your official one, and more, but you also don't want to go along with vile religions like Violetism, which would have you slaughter your firstborns on live TV, sacrifice homeless people, and the like.

PRISONS

An important measure of real life freedom in a given country is how it treats its prisoners. If they are used as slave labor, used for involuntary blood donations, or summarily executed, you know that country is a low freedom one, and so it is with NS. But to achieve the highest levels of Political Freedoms and Civil Rights, you will probably have to abolish prisons, de facto abolish your criminal code, and disband your police. Virtually all Anarchies with Frightening CRs and Corrupted PFs have crippling crime rates (under the old measurement) or "it is unusual to find someone actually obeying the law" under Rift. One time I took one of my Corporate Police States (L, H, L) and decided to shoot for highest CRs and PFs, which I was able to do with some effort. For a brief while, I retained the lack of crime from my CPS days even with Anarchic freedoms, but as the CRs and PFs began to sink into my national structure, I soon developed a crime problem and before long it was crippling. As I returned it to its former status as a CPS, especially as my CRs dropped, so did my crime rate. This nation, Dr George, used to be nearly unique in NS: under the former system, I was able to have Excessive or World Benchmark CRs and PFs, a Frightening Economy, no crime, no taxes and a decent environment. With the recent refactoring (see my previous article), that is no longer the case, so for the first time in years, Dr George is answering issues again. It seems unlikely that I'll be able to obtain all of my previous goals, but I want to try.

FINAL NOTES

If you are still having difficulty understanding the issues and how to answer them, you may find it useful to follow the practices of a RL high freedoms nation, say, Sweden (which I would classify as a Civil Rights Lovefest (H, M, H) from the POV of NationStates, even though NS's Scandinavian Liberal Paradise (H, L, M) has a somewhat different take on the Scandinavian countries. Likewise, for low freedoms, you might pick a RL low freedoms country, say, Saudi Arabia.
NS now takes into account the freedoms of a nation in evaluating the impact of these choices. The same answer will not necessarily have the same impact on two different nations. Back to our old friend 000, Should voting be compulsory: the high freedom choice, #1, letting voting remain voluntary will likely have a serious impact on a nation that had previously stripped the franchise from its citizens (especially if it is a relatively new nation), while that same choice may have little or apparently none on a very high freedom nation (especially if it is an older nation). I find it especially frustrating when answering an issue that previously had one effect but subsequently had a very different effect.

For some issues, every choice enhances the economy or one or both Crs and Pfs. Others will degrade at least one of the categories with every choice. Most issues will offer a high choice, a low choice, and one or more compromise choices. Don't hesitate to use the Dismiss button if the issue is poorly written with likely unpredictable results or if none of the options raises at least one of the three categories.

Sometimes the issues will try to entice you away from the high choice by making its spokesperson a "village idiot" or otherwise seem unappealing. Other issues will hold clue words that tend to go along with enhancing or degrading the three categories. For the most part, if an answer to an issue characterizes it as "nature's way," that likely will enhance one or more of the three. "Ban," "outlaw," "reign in," "make," etc., tend to mark issues that will make one or more of the three fall.

If you are new to the game, you may want to create a second nation, called a "puppet," "clone," or "multy," to test the outcomes of issues, while being more judicious in answering issues for your main nation. Keep in mind that most issues can be undone by successive issues, with one exception: if you decide to eat your national animal, as of this writing, you will never again have that animal frolicking in your forests/skies/seas again, even if you later reverse that decision and outlaw eating that animal, no matter how good your environment is. I am hopeful this will change in the near future as I consider it to be a defect in the game. {It was changed shortly after I wrote this article.]

Superior Intelligence, Red skywalker, Draughtash, Techno-titania, and 4 othersCentral Kadigan, Nitliak, Siee-estas, and Blattaria

Dr. George, I really enjoyed reading your article, thank you. What impact does being a WA member have on a nation, other than influence?

Lowest Taxes

top 100: Macroglup, Red skywalker, Microglup, @!Anarchocapitalistan, Postapocalyptic Terror
top 1000: Mum, Nork, HRC, T-T, Hoosier, Son of Bender

bottom 1000: Hippies, Superior_I, Christminster0

tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Welcome to P115, The iridescent coast!!!

Draughtash wrote:Dr. George, I really enjoyed reading your article, thank you. What impact does being a WA member have on a nation, other than influence?

You're most welcome (and apologies to those who thought it was a waste of RMB space).

That's a good topic for a future article, Garchy! ;) I think of being in the WA as akin to attaching your three categories to a small stock market: some days you're up a little, some days you're down a little, but the average "investor" doesn't necessarily see any great net movement over a medium period of time. Like the stock market, it's almost impossible to time, you know, "buy low, sell high." You might have two issues that successively lower Civil Rights, or two issues that bolster your economy, or two issues that improve your environment. Overall, I don't see a net direction--over the long run, the differences that WA issues make is quite small, but real. I've seen nations that were right on the border between two government types, that have stopped answering issues, actually change government types because of individual WA resolutions, but I consider it likely that in the long run, nations experiencing that will find themselves restored to where they were. My current WA nation has all three categories at their maximum levels currently (although not at 100% right now), so obviously it can be done, with or without WA membership. The WA typically reveals how much a resolution will affect the three categories; if your primary goal is to build a world-class economy, for instance, and you see that the present issue being voted upon will have Significant downward influence over your economy, you might consider temporarily dropping out of the WA unless you are that region's WAD, in which case you have to remain a WA member continuously to remain the WAD for that region. If your WA nation is outside of its home region over an Update, it will lose all of its endorsements.

Remember that resolutions that pass the WA immediately take effect. One time, many years ago, the WA was about to pass a resolution that I considered to be anti-gay, so I resigned before the vote was done, both as a symbolic protest but also because I didn't want that law to affect my nation.

As a reminder, especially for newer nations reading this, that you, the player, can only have 1 nation in the WA at any given time; having 2 or more is called "multying" and is considered a prime TOS violation. If this is the first time you've been caught and you only had two nations in the WA at the same time, the Mods might just issue you a stern warning and strip one of the two nations of its WA membership. Being caught multiple times or multying egregiously will carry considerably harsher penalties, including having all of your nations barred from ever again having WA membership to even being banned from the game (all of your nations are deleted and a DOS "delete on sight" tag will be placed on your IP address so that future attempts to join NS will likely be immediately thwarted). Some people try to find clever little ways to avoid being caught multying, but my STRONG recommendation is not to try-- the benefits are too small and the penalties too great to make multying worth the risk. I can envision a future time in which one might legally be allowed a second WA nation for a significant payment or significant contribution (maybe tied to having your nation Commended in the Security Council), but I consider such unlikely.

You are correct in identifying Influence as the exception that proves the rule. The only ways to gather significant Influence are:

(1) to be one of a few members of a small region, especially being the sole occupant of your own region; or
(2) to be a WA nation with a significant number of endorsements, held over time.

In this second regard, nations who become the WAD of one of the feeders or sinkers in the game will usually have more endorsements than P115 has members, so they will tend to zoom up the Influence ladder very quickly. On the other hand, regarding (1), a truly ancient nation that has never left the large region to which it has belonged and has never been a member of the WA, even after 10 years, will still be a Minnow, the lowest one can be. For most people, most of the time, the only way to improve Influence is to stay a WA member with many endorsements in ONE region over the course of time. Region hopping will tend to destroy your influence, as you immediately stop gathering influence in the home region and begin accumulating trivial amounts of Influence in the new region. I speculate that perhaps you lose half of your Influence within a region simply for leaving it, although if you return to that same region fairly quickly, you will gain back your remaining Influence, i.e., you don't start from 0 again. If you have a wanderlust or want to be a member of a region that travels to the Region of the Day, for instance, do so with your non-WA nation(s)! Raiders and defenders who routinely go on missions will seldom accumulate much Influence; to overwhelm a native or R/D delegate in power, it usually takes a coordinated attack with many nations right before an update successfully to snatch away the WAD in a region. Keeping or losing the WAD is a strict matter of total endorsements in a region, but for a new WAD in a Founderless region, all actions, from setting up a regional password to banjecting your opponents, require Influence to do, so recently invaded regions tend to be more vulnerable to a counterattack than comparable other regions.

That's probably TMI, but I wanted to cover the basics of WA membership.

Topic: Do you feel that religion should be taught in public schools. Not as a form of indoctrination, but as a "social studies" or "world history" topic.

Article:
http://qz.com/383348/if-we-dont-teach-religion-in-schools-us-kids-wont-understand-the-rest-of-the-world/

Dr george, that's exactly the type of information I was looking for, thanks again! I have noticed a few anomalies with influence, most of which you answered for me - take Derkomia, a nation which has been in ALH about as long as my WAD nation, yet has more influence than the WAD - I speculate it's because of the cost of influence in setting passwords, ejecting raiders, etc. (of which you covered above). Interesting also is the case of the good nation Sheila anteres, who has been in ALH longer than the WAD, without WA status, yet has "Ambassador" status! Very impressive.

Now the only thing I need to figure out - Easter eggs ;-)

Dr george, this perfectly explains why I have very high civil rights and political freedom, but an abysmal economy. I do not trust "big business" to self-regulate (a truly moronic idea if ever there was one) and if NS bases economy mostly on rate of deregulation, then I suppose I will remain scrapping the bottom.

In actuality, much more goes into an economy then just deregulation. I feel that my policies, which are designed to focus on the financial health and well-being of my middle and working classes, would do more to help my economy than would allowing uncompetitive monopolies to thrive and to basically enslave my populace while they destroy my environment all in the myopic pursuit of profit.

My ideal would be to have an H-M-H Civil Rights Lovefest.

I have voted FOR the General Assembly resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples".

I am open to debate on the issue.

Holy mother church

Central Kadigan wrote:Dr george, this perfectly explains why I have very high civil rights and political freedom, but an abysmal economy. I do not trust "big business" to self-regulate (a truly moronic idea if ever there was one) and if NS bases economy mostly on rate of deregulation, then I suppose I will remain scrapping the bottom.

It's more complicated than that. I would argue that subsidization of business plays just as large of a role in gameplay as deregulation - and that a savvy subsidizer can ultimately attain a Frightening economy even with private enterprise being illegal, although it may a long time to achieve this.

Please notice as well that the strength of one's economy has nothing to do with the amount of Economic Freedom - although these two values are often correlated, they are not identical.

As an example, consider my own national stats: I am presently a Corrupt Dictatorship, which means my freedom distribution is MLL. But despite the fact that I have Low Economic freedoms (i.e. a high degree of regulation and high taxes), I also have a Frightening Economy, ranked at 97/100, and if you look at the tend page you'll see that despite some ups and downs the overall long term trend for Holy Mother Church has been one of increasing economic growth, despite having a tightly regulated private sector.

One of my alts, Hanguk, is a Left Wing Utopia (HLH), has outlawed private enterprise for some now, but has also had a Frightening Economy of 99/100 for a while now. Despite an initial economic crash, which I believe was caused by banning cars and abolishing capitalism at the same time, Hanguk has been cruising along as an economic powerhouse, powered solely by state owned industry and with a very low level of income inequality.

In contrast, consider a nation like New sade: they are an Anarchy, with a freedom distribution that is H-H-H, but in spite of high economic freedoms (i.e. literally no regulation) their economy is merely "Good" and has remained fairly stagnant for a long period. New Sade is fairly unique as nations go, and I'm sure they have their own take on the matter, but I attribute this fairly lackluster economic performance to a lack of subsidies (or indeed any government spending at all!) and a truly insane level of crime.

Dr george: very interesting read. I would like to add that political rights seem more tied to civil rights than vice versa. This may be because there are more issues that pertain to civil rights than there are those that deal more exclusively with political rights. This makes it easier to have a nation with higher civil rights and low political rights (benevolent dictatorship, libertarian police state) than one with low civil rights and high political freedoms (free market paradise, tyranny by majority). I haven't seen a survey about it in years but my own observations make the LCR/HPR nations very rare indeed. The biggest problem I find with this category of government types is it is difficult to tailor your nation to other specifics (great environment, no gun rights, etc) while maintaining the government type. One of the best ways to get a nation with LCR/HPR while keeping your other priorities intact (though it takes patience) is the combo Terrorists Strike City Center (last option) & Extremists On Ballot Sheet (second option). Your civil rights might go up by the first issue but it is easier to lower civil rights without costing you too big a hit on political freedoms.

I've always thought the first two choice in eminent domain issue to be about equal economically, since the second option might not pay compensation but is still spending in areas that don't directly benefit economy (day care centers, hospitals, etc.), while the third one was the worst economically since government had to pay compensation and it could only be used for government purposes. Are you saying the first option is worse economically (no eminent domain) than the second AND third options? Or just the second option.

Undivulged Principles wrote:Dr george: very interesting read. I would like to add that political rights seem more tied to civil rights than vice versa. This may be because there are more issues that pertain to civil rights than there are those that deal more exclusively with political rights. This makes it easier to have a nation with higher civil rights and low political rights (benevolent dictatorship, libertarian police state) than one with low civil rights and high political freedoms (free market paradise, tyranny by majority). I haven't seen a survey about it in years but my own observations make the LCR/HPR nations very rare indeed. The biggest problem I find with this category of government types is it is difficult to tailor your nation to other specifics (great environment, no gun rights, etc) while maintaining the government type. One of the best ways to get a nation with LCR/HPR while keeping your other priorities intact (though it takes patience) is the combo Terrorists Strike City Center (last option) & Extremists On Ballot Sheet (second option). Your civil rights might go up by the first issue but it is easier to lower civil rights without costing you too big a hit on political freedoms.

I've always thought the first two choice in eminent domain issue to be about equal economically, since the second option might not pay compensation but is still spending in areas that don't directly benefit economy (day care centers, hospitals, etc.), while the third one was the worst economically since government had to pay compensation and it could only be used for government purposes. Are you saying the first option is worse economically (no eminent domain) than the second AND third options? Or just the second option.

Anecdotally, I am of the opinion that there are more issues which affect PFs than CRs, that it takes more nuance and skill to raise CRs past a certain point (circa World Benchmark) and especially to 100%, although with the sheer number of issues permitting you, even begging you, to end the franchise, it's easier to destroy your PFs in one (or a few) fell swoops than with CRs. Since I personally value BOTH CRs and PFs, I NEVER answer Extremists on the Ballot Sheet; I ALWAYS dismiss that one (NS++ even warns you to dismiss it, observing it is poorly written and has illogical outcomes). As for legalizing terrorism, there was a time when that reliably raised your political freedoms, no matter what level your PFs were starting at, but more recently, I've observed it actually make PFs go down in a couple of cases when my nations with very high PFs answered the issue that way; thankfully, the last time I did that, my PFs went up as they were supposed to. Another issue that used to be reliable was the one about letting the Nazis march; the obvious choice was to let them march, since I was a diverse and tolerant democracy and my PFs would go up. Again, I have observed that it started giving mixed results--if you let them march, your PFs would go up and your CRs would go down; if you said you were too civilized to let them march, then your CRs went up and your PFs went down , so for a while I didn't answer that one, either. More recently, I tried letting the Nazis march again and the only effect was that my PFs went up, as had originally been the case. I'm not on NS in any official capacity--I'm a player, just like most of you. But now into my 12th year of play, I've had many opportunities to answer most of the older issues and observe what happened. I'm less firm with the most recent 100 issues or so. I've now tried my hand at writing an issue (one that gives you options to end public flogging, tweak it, or make it much worse). I've already shared it with two friends who DO have some official standing within NS and they've given me some incredibly helpful suggestions, but so far it's not attracting much attention from the powers-that-be. One comment was that it was a little predictable, which in a way I take as a compliment--it would behave the way that most of the other issues would behave. Should it be picked up, I will not be able to give you advice about it--sorry.

My favourite government is one that has all three categories at maximum levels (Frightening, Frightening, Corrupted), but is a Civil Rights Lovefest instead of an Anarchy, or at least floats between a CRL and Anarchy. That way I have the CRs and PFs I crave, but also the wealth to give my citizens a high standard of living. Two caveats: those nations have relatively low levels of income inequality (the top 10% don't [usually] make more than 9.9x as much as the bottom 10%) and businesses are not allowed to pollute. For my high-freedom nations, that has meant over the years that my Economies have not grown as quickly as nations that are ONLY about economic growth (who consequently have moonscapes for environments), but they have grown to very respectable levels, in some cases to about 8 quadrillion of my currencies. The one exception among my high-freedom nations I've made to these caveats is Haunted roller coaster, which used to get regular ribbing in Ulthar over its nasty environment, but compared to some of the true economic giants of the game, like The Grendels and @North_Borland, HRC is a lush, garden paradise.

There are many ways to grow an economy, the foremost being deregulation. I know that some of you believe the only good Economy is a tightly-regulated; I'm down with being a Left-Wing Utopia (H, L, H) or a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise (H, L, M), but in order to afford social spending on things like universal health care without making taxes shoot through the roof is to loosen things up a bit for businesses. Should Coca-Cola, for instance, have to do a 15 year-long longitudinal study on the effects of a new flavour before releasing it to the public, especially if it doesn't contain any known carcinogens or other nasties? If you say yes, Coke will stagnate, but if you say no, then Coke can flourish and afford to hire more workers at an affordable wage. As has been mentioned, you can also subsidize industries, which makes innovation go up and product prices go down. Maybe you have to hold your nose in doing so, but that's one of the hard choices you have to make. There are other ways to game the system a bit, for instance, by appointing a pro-business judge to the Supreme Court. Again, there's a high smell factor, but it's one of the easier and cleaner ways to grow your economy.

There are also smell factors in raising your CRs and PFs. We've mentioned one already, legalizing terrorism. What RL sane country would do such a thing within its own borders? Cannibalism? Blood sports [we virtually have that now in the movies with all the CGIs]? Permitting children to gamble? Legalizing all drugs? There are other things you may want to do, but are low-freedom choices, like restricting guns to the police and military, or requiring churches to pay taxes like everyone else instead of remaining tax-free. Or maybe you want to outlaw religion entirely (hint: DON'T!) My personal take on religion in the public life is that if you start off with a level playing field, most people won't choose religion. I permit churches to remain tax free and religious people generally get to practice their own faith as they see fit so long as they don't hurt other people (beware of Violetism!) I don't fund Spirituality at all, I don't permit prayer to be taught in public schools, my directors of religious works always resign as soon as they're appointed, education is split between secular schools which teach evolution and religious schools which promote their own religious doctrines. For taking these approaches, I am consistently ranked very high in Godlessness and very low in Most Religious (even though, as many of you already know, I am an ordained Protestant minister).

In The Rejected Times article, I mention a lack of prisons. Some people start off without them because of choices they make, others outlaw them via issues. You don't HAVE to have prisons in order to achieve or maintain zero crime, but they probably help. High CRs + High Economies = bad crime rates, even with prisons. All of my Corporate Police States have no crime, as there are virtually no CRs permitted. Interestingly, the converse is also true: nations with even very high CRs but very low economies CAN have no crime, too (see Dalek hell for a counterexample, gone very wrong). As I mentioned, Dr george's goals (also Son of dr george) are to maximize all three categories with no crime and no taxes and a decent environment. Before refactoring, I was able to do it for both nations, but it's increasingly looking like now that's no longer possible at the levels of freedoms I want as a minimum (World Benchmark). Since I already have a Frightening Economy, it looks like I will have to lower my CRs unacceptably or continue to let them rise and become a nation much like New old new new york with an entrenched crime culture.

It's late, so let me head back to bed while you digest what I've written. :)

Post self-deleted by Central Kadigan.

Holy mother church, I am not a fan of the public subsidization of private businesses. All that does is privatize the rewards of capitalism while foisting the public on the hook for all of the risk. If you do well, then you get to keep everything, but if you do poorly then everyone else will bail you out. To borrow from Winston Churchill: I happen to think that capitalism is the worst economic system - except for all of the others. But government subsidization perverts an already perverted system.

That said, I do believe that regulations can go too far, but I would rather have an overregulated marketplace than one in which businesses run rampant over the rights of my populace. I do not trust “big government”, but I will choose that scenario over “big business” 10 times out of 10.

Central Kadigan wrote:I have voted FOR the General Assembly resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples".

I am open to debate on the issue.

The issue seems rather contentious in the overall vote (currently 56-44) and I have received at least 4 telegrams on the issue, but our region have voted 7-1 FOR it.

Nw hell rehab center

Central Kadigan wrote:

That said, I do believe that regulations can go too far, but I would rather have an overregulated marketplace than one in which businesses run rampant over the rights of my populace. I do not trust “big government”, but I will choose that scenario over “big business” 10 times out of 10.

It is worth noting that governments have armies, jails and a monopoly on the use of force. Businesses, even the biggest, have none of these things. This does not mean that businesses should not be regulated, but it does mean that abuses of government are far more to be feared than abuses of businesses. (IMO, of course.) Another corollary of this fact is that it is probably best for government and business to be opposed to each other. A business with the government standing behind it is far more dangerous than one which stands apart from it.

Nw hell rehab center

Let me add to the above by noting that, of course, big businesses can in fact have armies and a willingness to use deadly force, as with the Mafia and the drug cartels of various nations. This is hardly ever the sort of organization people are referring to when they talk about the dangers of "big business" however, and "business regulation" tends to have remarkably little impact on them. :) If you think Wal-Mart is evil for its labor policies, just try unionizing the Mafia rank and file!

Nw hell rehab center wrote:It is worth noting that governments have armies, jails and a monopoly on the use of force. Businesses, even the biggest, have none of these things. This does not mean that businesses should not be regulated, but it does mean that abuses of government are far more to be feared than abuses of businesses. (IMO, of course.) Another corollary of this fact is that it is probably best for government and business to be opposed to each other. A business with the government standing behind it is far more dangerous than one which stands apart from it.

Nw hell rehab center wrote:Let me add to the above by noting that, of course, big businesses can in fact have armies and a willingness to use deadly force, as with the Mafia and the drug cartels of various nations. This is hardly ever the sort of organization people are referring to when they talk about the dangers of "big business" however, and "business regulation" tends to have remarkably little impact on them. :) If you think Wal-Mart is evil for its labor policies, just try unionizing the Mafia rank and file!

This is true, and a fair point. I would observe, however, that when a government goes awry and uses it's armies, jails, and 'force' against its people, that these abuses are usually overt and blatantly obvious, and thus subject to popular opposition.

Conversely, I would observe that when a corporation attempts to leverage its amassed power and influence to squash its competition through monopoly, enslave its workers (through pittance wages, long work days, and dangerous working conditions), and sacrifice *everything* in the name of profit (environment, worker safety, public welfare, &c) - that it has not, in fact, "gone awry" at all - it is behaving exactly as a business is supposed to and expect to.

It is the purpose (one of, anyway) of the government that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" to hold the excesses of "big business" in cheque.

I'd also add that I agree wholeheartedly with Nw hell rehab center's point: A business with the government standing behind it is far more dangerous than one which stands apart from it. I absolutely agree! A similar sentiment is often attributed to Italian politician Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Holy mother church

Central Kadigan wrote:Holy mother church, I am not a fan of the public subsidization of private businesses. All that does is privatize the rewards of capitalism while foisting the public on the hook for all of the risk..

I wasn't making an argument about real world economics, I was talking about NS gameplay.

«12. . .351352353354355356357. . .596597»

Advertisement