The Liberal Social Democratic Party Steps Out Of The Closet

[Anodyne]

(Don't get the title too metaphorically.)

So, finally, after a long wait, I had enough time on my hands to start a thread about my party, the Liberal Social Democrats. The name is more referring to Earth politics than to the AC-ones, partly because the party was formed already on Earth.

Our first keyword is FREEDOM. Equal freedom for everyone. And all laws of our society should be put only to protect freedom and ensure freedom equally for everyone. Only "restrictive" laws are made for preventing anyone from preventing anyone else accomplishing him/herself freely - another word for protecting freedom and liberty equally for everyone. This has a reflection on our preferred SE-tables.

Which leads to our another basic principal: FLEXIBILITY. As many other parties have set themselves standards that they follow more or less blindly, LSD follows its own guidelines along with the need of environment / situation. Basically this means, that our Social Engineering choices should be made in accountance of our current situation and needs.
There are, however, some choices that we find unacceptable in almost all situations. These are:
Police State
Fundamentalism
Thought Control
Planned Economy (although that can be used in the early stages of the game)
You probably find reasons in our freedom-loving ideology. The "Power" option, for example, was not found unacceptable, since there are times of great conflict, when we need to make sacrifices in our personal freedoms, although LSD tries to limit these to as few as possible.

This leads to our third guideline; PACIFISM
As on Earth, LSD is against war also here on AC, and we aim to live peacefully with the other 6 factions. There are some factions that come very close to us in their values. Those are; The University, Morganites and Gaians. LSD suggests that we collaborate and co-operate with these parties in all areas for our mutual welfare.
On Alpha Centauri there are also factions that we find opposed on our own ideals; The Hive, The Believers and the Spartans. While I do suggest that we try to live with them peacefully and accept their values as they are, we must bear in our minds that their sometimes open hostility might bring us into situations that we wouldn't want to find ourselves in. That's why I wouldn't suggest too small military forces for our control, although the ideals of pacifism.

While the ideals of Freedom and Peace are now executed the first time on the surface of Alpha Centauri, we might find them in fragile state, so that they do need protection. With the other 3 factions we deem as suitably liberal, we can ensue the life of Democracy on Alpha Centauri. However, should any of these three find themselves in a situation of Vendetta by the non-democratic or pacifistic factions mentioned, we are to help them in any ways possible. If they are in a situation when they are about to be succumbed, fighting a losing war, we should ponder our changes of military aid to ensure Democratic future for AC. But as LSD is pacifistic, we always ponder what effects will our choices have on the future generations.

However, if we see a conflict that doesn't directly threaten Democracy or Freedom on Alpha Centauri, we attempt to stay as neutral as possible.

And as LSD is concerned about the future, we also have GREEN interests. The Native Life of the Planet is precious and as fragile as the life on Earth was. Although we must defend our own citizens from the possible threats the Native life might bring, we are to accept and respect it as it is. One day, I'm sure, we will find these principals to be of a great mutual benefit.

[Anodyne]

I guess I could still clear up some points;
LSD's views on Atrocities are extremely negative. We will do whatever it takes to keep the UN chapter unrepealed. If we come across a situation when the chapter is forced to be repealed, we should still hold on to humane principals and keep ourselves from committing these crimes.

[Kassiopeia]

I'm in. This is my party. I wholeheartedly agree with the flexibility matter and the preferred SE choices. Also your factions of value are close to my heart. And the Green preference is just excellent.

[Voltaire]

I’m interested in the stance of the LSD in regards to research and the social engendering choices of Cybernetic and Knowledge.

[Anodyne]

Good choice, Kass
And I welcome you as our first official Party Member

[Pandemoniak]

Let me just ask you one question : how dare you to put Planned economy banned of SE choices because of Freedom ? You obviously seem not to understand the point of a planned economy : we know what we need, and we produce according to the plans. It doesnt mean the state tells the workers what to produce, it means the state centralize the needs in order to avoid industrial wastes.

[Anodyne]

Voltaire>
LSD values scientific progress greatly (even over economic progress, if needed), since on a new planed, research and discovery are among the most important keys on survival.
As I can now only speak for ½ of the party , I do say for myself that I find Knowledge and Cybernetic as the most preferred choices in their own categories.

[Anodyne]

Pandemoniak>
I did mention that we do find it acceptable on the early stages on the game (and I didn't list it among the "worst" ones ), and we are flexible if we can see ourselves in dire need of it on the later stances of the game.

But, as Planned Economy is not directly anti-Democratic, we do see Centralization as an unwished event, and think that either letting the economy flow free, or divert it into Green way do serve our purpose the best.

Edit: ...and what you said by "knowing what we want" etc.. is not fully compatible with the LSD ideas of Flexibility.

[Voltaire]

Ade>
After some consideration I do see that we share many similar stances, and I am willing to go for either cooperation between our two parties, or even one step further, a full merger.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
You obviously seem not to understand the point of a planned economy : we know what we need, and we produce according to the plans.

Sorry if I misunderstand you, but are you saying that what the majority wants, everyone will need to want? Though from a pure objective point of view it would indeed create a more efficient state, I don't think it is realistic or human.

[Maniac]

Equal freedom for everyone? So no one can do something if that harms the freedom of someone else? Sounds like a totalitarian state to me. Just wondering...

[Anodyne]

M@ni@c> Totalitarian? That's the basic lifeline for most European / Western Democracies...

[Kassiopeia]

I do find research also paramount on Chiron. I'm all for Knowledge; my primary prefence in Future Society is Eudaimonia but as the party "charter" says, flexibility is key and I think Cybernetic serves that purpose better then Eudaimonia.

[Kassiopeia]

So no one can do something if that harms the freedom of someone else?

"You are free to do anything as long as that doesn't violate the freedom of others", that's been what I've told to people who've come up to me and said: "Finland is a free country", when they've been doing something highly irritating and I've demanded them to stop.

[Anodyne]

Voltaire>
That's great. I think that a better choice would be merging, since both of us are still relatively small parties. If you wish to participate on the election for Science Advisor in LSD's ranks, you have my total support!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Ade
M@ni@c> Totalitarian? That's the basic lifeline for most European / Western Democracies...

Freedom is the basic lifeguide for Western Democracies. To give a simple examples, one may wear the clothes he want. Equal freedom means no one is allowed to do somethin more or less than anyone else. For example everyone has to wear blue clothes.

In other words, the ultimate freedom is the ultimate prison. Contraria sunt Complementa. Opposites touch.

[Voltaire]

Ade>
In that case I officially join the ranks of the Liberal Social Democratic Party. So what’s the membership count now?

[Anodyne]

Voltaire> Three

M@ni@c> Actually many European countries HAVE the lines of EQUAL freedom on their constitution. I think you've got my concept wrong. Mandatory freedom isn't freedom. By Equal freedom I meant that people aren't classified based on their race/gender/income class, etc... and by preventing anyone from removing anyone else's freedom I meant things like Theft, for example, when a Thief takes away someone's freedom for owning property (to put it as simply as possible), etc..

[Crisler]

Ade,

It is interesting that you speak of other factions having "set themselves standards that they follow more or less blindly" and then proceed to say we are willing to be felexable in all things ecept. Then you set a very rigid standard that you say you will not flex from.

Also I find it of interest that the only other faction to express any desire to work a more Green approach was the Fundamentalist Faction.o express ideas of a defensive only military, again a point that was first introduced by the Fundamentalist Faction.

You speak of equal freedom for all, again looking back over my older posts this is a virtue that the Fundamentalist Faction supports, seeking to stop the elitest system that dominated earth.

As I read your post it seems to almost mirror 90% of the original Fundamentalist Factions objectives. The only difference is your strong opposition to the Fundamentalist ideals. This is very strange considering that based on what you have described the Fundamentalist Factions seems to closest to your idealogically.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Voltaire]

Crisler,

I cannot speak for all party members, but the opposition to Fundamentalism which I have stems from two things (which are interrelated): 1) it hinders research; and 2) it encourages collectivism reducing creativity and individual thought.

Academician Voltaire

[Kassiopeia]

If you really regard this party so close to yours, go ahead and join us.

[Crisler]

I will agree that in the base game mechanics it does reduce the research score, however there are many ways to counter that.

As for the reduction of creativity or individual thought, this is purely wrong. In fact this is even wrong of Christians, not just Fundamentalists. What fundamentalist seeks to do is set a standard of morality for the colony to live by. In this case the Christina morality. Why is it so wrong to ask each person to love his neighbor as himself? To live by the Golden Rule? To follow the basic moralities that are universally excepted.

Without a moral plum-line we devolve quickly into a society with no moral rudder. We rationalize and justify all manner of behavior becuase it in fringes on our creativity, at least that is the argument. But when that creativity is really looked at, none want it. Oh they spout how it is personal freedom and should be allowed, but behind closed doors they talk of how aweful it is.

Classic example of old earth. A gentleman made arm by SHITTING on his canvas. The people of a city found his work offensive and asked him to leave. People where in an uproar asking how we could stifle his creativity like that. The truth was 99% of the people polled by a world wide news agency, they claimed over 100,000 polled, said they would not want this mans creation in their city either.

We do not seek to limit or stop personal creativity or thought. We seek to provide society a moral plum-line to live by.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Kassiopeia]

Speaking my mind in a more serious manner;

First off I agree with Voltaire - Fundamentalism hinders research and doesn't promote individualism or the kind of freedom we strive for. Unacceptable if we wish to keep the human being progressing.

Secondly, I have difficulties in believing in a party that bases it's very foundation around a piece of literature I regard with great sceptiscm (sp), not to mention that I do not share your belief in a god. I'd be more impressed if you'd come citing The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy at me, at least it identifies the existence of a god, if I recall correctly.

[Crisler]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
If you really regard this party so close to yours, go ahead and join us.

I would rather we glory in the diversity of thought God has given us and unite in an alliance of parties. We can support each other on matters we agree on and in turn work and compromise and matters we dispute.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Crisler]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
. I'd be more impressed if you'd come citing The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy at me, at least it identifies the existence of a god, if I recall correctly.

Very well then, lets us agree to disagree on this point. You go forward in life with your towel and I with my faith and at the end of our lives we will see which is right.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Crisler
Classic example of old earth. A gentleman made arm by SHITTING on his canvas. The people of a city found his work offensive and asked him to leave. People where in an uproar asking how we could stifle his creativity like that. The truth was 99% of the people polled by a world wide news agency, they claimed over 100,000 polled, said they would not want this mans creation in their city either.

You have misunderstood the purpose of art. Art is not made to please the masses, art is not made always to be comfortable for the mind and the eye. Art, a product of creativity, is made to drive people thinking, and in this case it served this purpose well. Also I would like to see a more reliable source of this "poll" and this allegded work of art, as I see this only as inventive "chicken soup for the soul", not something to use to gain leverage in a debate.

[Kassiopeia]

Very well then, lets us agree to disagree on this point. You go forward in life with your towel and I with my faith and at the end of our lives we will see which is right.

[Anodyne]

Ade,

It is interesting that you speak of other factions having "set themselves standards that they follow more or less blindly" and then proceed to say we are willing to be felexable in all things ecept. Then you set a very rigid standard that you say you will not flex from.

Now, flexibility is our standard, like I said, on matters that come to governing, Social Engineering. It includes aspects like admitting when we're wrong and watching to matters from all sides. It is not our fundamental backbone, but rather the flesh over those bones. Now, if we attempted to make a party that was based on flexibility and nothing else, could you call it a party? No. Police cars are blue but you cannot make a police car out of just a bucket of blue paint.

Also I find it of interest that the only other faction to express any desire to work a more Green approach was the Fundamentalist Faction.o express ideas of a defensive only military, again a point that was first introduced by the Fundamentalist Faction.

Yes, we have similarities. Just like every political party with each other when you deeply look at it, and I'm not denying it. You might have put them down before, but still remember that LSD was first mentioned before your party, and I have been spurring out our ideologies for already some time before posting this thread. Also keep in mind that politics is not contest about who made something first. It's who applies these ideals the best and makes the most sensible choices.

You speak of equal freedom for all, again looking back over my older posts this is a virtue that the Fundamentalist Faction supports, seeking to stop the elitest system that dominated earth.

As for "looking back over your older posts", look at my earlier comment. You have no need of accusing LSD for plagiation.

As I read your post it seems to almost mirror 90% of the original Fundamentalist Factions objectives. The only difference is your strong opposition to the Fundamentalist ideals. This is very strange considering that based on what you have described the Fundamentalist Factions seems to closest to your idealogically.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

Now, you claim this by saying that you support also Green economics, Defensive military and Equal Freedom? That sounds quite close to reductionism. Now, the "flexibility" and admitting our own mistakes is something you cannot greatly boast about. And differencies between Fundamentalism/Democratic systems are remarkable (and better left out of this short reply). In the end, all political parties might run for similar ends, but the means are different.

When you are really looking for something and really really want to find it, you can squeeze out just what you want from pretty much any writing... but I guess you're already familiar with that .

[Voltaire]

There are other dangers to fundamentalism, of any religion, that being if the religious texts are taken too seriously you end up persecution of those who do not meet the sets of standards dictated by the text.

Here is a question, would you require that if a women marries and is not a virgin that she be stoned to death as dictated by Deuteronomy 22:13-21?

These are the dangers of fundamentalism.

[Crisler]

No I would not support that law, nor most of the laws of the old testament, they have been fullfilled in the new testament which preaches of forgiveness and tolerance.

In fact a study of this particluar passage shows that there where issues in this time historically that might have contributed to these partilcuar laws but that these laws where since resended by other parts of the Bible.

I can look at any work of ideology and find fault in a specific section, that is easy, find fault in the overall philosophy, that can be harder.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction