Save the Environment Party (STEP) or The Green Party (GP) - Page 5

Drogue · December 7, 2002, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
It's been addressed in that it's been shown that it isn't a particularly bad thing.

Well, besides from that being subjective, 'not a particularly bad thing' doesn't mean it's been rebutted enough not to count at all.

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Are you suggesting that this is gojng to change? There will always be some people whoa re rich, and some who are poor. the only injustice in this is in the reasons for it.

Yes somewhat. Under Planned or Green economies (as we learned from Old Earth) there is less economic injustice. We won't eliminate it (at least, not until Eudaimonia) but we can lessen it.

GeneralTacticus · December 7, 2002, 21:37

Quote:

Well, besides from that being subjective, 'not a particularly bad thing' doesn't mean it's been rebutted enough not to count at all.

Well, it does mean you really shouldn't keep using it until you can find a way to prove that it is a bad thing.

Quote:

Yes somewhat. Under Planned or Green economies (as we learned from Old Earth) there is less economic injustice. We won't eliminate it (at least, not until Eudaimonia) but we can lessen it.

Care to rpvoide an example? I know of no Earth example sof Green economics, and most Planned economies were run in Third World area or the Soviet sphere. Neither situation appleis here (and they're hardly situation we'd want to find ourselves in, either).

Drogue · December 7, 2002, 21:45

True, but much of Europe runs a more Planned version of a mixed economy, and has less of an economic imbalance, than say the USA that runs a Freer mixed economy. Also by theory, if the State decides pay (as in Planned), no-one will get billions, and no-one will get peanuts. The style of FM is one that means that promotes greed as good, and no welfare state (if you don't have a job, don't expect to eat), which will create more social and economic injustice and imbalance.

GeneralTacticus · December 7, 2002, 22:21

Quote:

Also by theory, if the State decides pay (as in Planned), no-one will get billions, and no-one will get peanuts.

Actually, it will likely reuslt in everyone getting peanuts. If the State, rather than the market, decides wages for people, then those wages are unlikely to be at their optimal levels, which harms economic efficiency and means that there's less money for everyone. If this is carried far enough, everyone is poor, rather than some rich, some poor, and most in the middle (NB - I am in favour of minimum wage laws and the like, to ensure that people get a wage they can live on).

Drogue · December 7, 2002, 22:40

Well, that's possible, but with a decent computer model and efficient maths system, the efficiency loses aren't actually as bad as they're often percieved. And FM with minimum wages and other welfare is OK IMHO, especially if in an eco-friendly (Green) system

GeneralTacticus · December 7, 2002, 22:46

There's no need to use green for what you want, then. Just support FM combined with lots of eco-friendly facility builds.

Drogue · December 7, 2002, 22:50

Yes, but I'd prefer to use Green, and it makes having 0 eco-damage easier (and if it doesn't, it should!) because I think both economically and socially, a Green ethos is the best way forward, so as not to repeat the mistakes of Old Earth.

Besudes, FM just reminds me of Milton Friedman's famous quote: "The only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a proft to its shareholders". This is exactly what I don't want. All citizens, from the CEO and the Commish, to the lowliest drone, should be eco-friendly and try not to spoil the environment.

GeneralTacticus · December 7, 2002, 22:56

It doesn't make it any easier; Green reduces ecodamage levels that already exist, ti doesn't make them go away. I'd say this represents the fact that if you are producing pollution, no amount of regulation and filtering is going to avert some effect.

Drogue · December 7, 2002, 22:59

Yes but Green is not just filtering IMO, it's an ethos where companies do not put waste into rivers and the sea, but recycle and use less packaging etc. It's about the whole ethos of non-pollution.

GeneralTacticus · December 7, 2002, 23:00

That depends on the society that utilizes it. Green is an economic system, not a system of values.

Drogue · December 7, 2002, 23:03

Yes it is, but we are a free people, so excessive laws would not be much used IMHO (some, but not excessive) and I think it represents values to some extent too. Otherwise what is it? Planned, FM and mized are the only actual 'economic' systems I know of.

GeneralTacticus · December 7, 2002, 23:07

Green is essentially another form of Planned, in which state controls are intended to rpotect the environment rather than control the market.

Drogue · December 7, 2002, 23:13

Well, that's your interpretation. I think of it as a mixed economy, with a strong ethos and set of laws to stop pollution, recycle and create less waste. While having some state control (much more than FM) it would still operate on a basic market structure, of competition and choice for the consumer. That's how I see it (and would like it to be) and is what I would support.

GeneralTacticus · December 7, 2002, 23:16

I didn't say anything about ti not ebing a Market economy; even Planned is still a Market economy to some extent, it's just a controlled one. In the case of Green, though, the control is intended to protect the environment rather than increase industry.

Drogue · December 7, 2002, 23:19

Ok, I took your

Quote:

Green is essentially another form of Planned

to mean that you thought it was a virtually completely nationalised economy. I still think of there being less state control than you seem to, but that's a negligable difference. Essentially I agree with your statement. Thanks for the debate, made me realise my ideals again

Edit: BTW, if anyone wants some of my specially cultivated, high quality ~~mind altering substances~~ Xenoroses, all you need to do is ask

(and covering my bar tab would be nice

)

Hercules · January 5, 2003, 22:42

Second question: (for discussion here and/or in the STEP thread), now that we've established contact with Deirdre and her (cough) handmaidens (cough), how can we mutually benefit from this friendship.

She may cultivate a better quality of Xenorose. Maybe we aught to have Xenorose trials.

Archaic · January 6, 2003, 02:11

We can't. She hates FM and Planned, and Green would kill our growth.

Drogue · January 6, 2003, 10:45

Well, we have a treaty, and are trading technology currently. She is has also taken a Spartan base IIRC, and so is a military power too. That could prove to be much help against Yang. She does not hate Planned as much as FM. I agree with the Xenorose cultivation, and since all my seafaring units carry a supply of Xenoroses (a throwback to old Navy Rum) we have already had an exchange. Trials shall be conducted tomorrow at 20:00, and results published in the STEP High Garden soon after. I have personally asked Deirdre to visit our High Garden, but she is very busy at the moment, and so is unable to come

I think we can have at least 20 years of peace with Deirdre using Planned, and I suggest we should then be thinking about a switch to Green anyway. First we must grow, then we must be efficient and harmonious.

Drogue · January 16, 2003, 13:16

We have a new threat to Planet, in the name of Boreholes. Governors are asking to build them. As far as the eco-damage goes, STEP is against boreholes, but what if the Boreholes are not causing eco-damage. Personally I am still against them, as they are an eyesore, and create noise pollution too. Should STEP not support them in any circumstances? If so, I will put it in the Manifesto, in The High Garden.

We don't need them, and so, as Governor of Akiria, I will not be asking for any Boreholes. I want a clean region. Any ideas for improvement to Akiria is greatly appreciated. Please take a look at the Akiria thread, and give me your opinions.

Also, what is STEPs policy with Deirdre? Pact at any cost? Or if not, what cost? I believe Deirdre would make a much better and more powerful Pact Sister than Morgan, and so that would give me another reason to go Green, but what do other people think.

Cedayon · January 16, 2003, 19:28

I was wondering when you were going to bring this up...

*calls to the former crews*: Quick, boys, get drilling before the tree-huggers show up!

(just kidding, btw)

The poll for the two Centralis boreholes has already closed, but I think you still have time to shoot down the Twin Sea borehole, it's 6-2 in favor right now...

Seriously, I was surprised we got as far as we did before someone cried foul

Hercules · January 17, 2003, 06:25

Re Boreholes: STEP is against them for the reasons you mention. They are not so much a problem in the early and middle game but can be come a menace in the late game when bases have high and 'safe' mineral production through other means. At that stage they tend to anger our native inhabitants a lot. Also it is not as if we really need them.

As regards voting. It is an interesting point should non residents of a region be allowed to vote on such issues that effect the whole faction. I think probably STEP supporters have been caught in two minds: whether to leave regions to determine their own build priorities or to intervene.

Hercules · January 17, 2003, 06:31

Maybe the whole issue of Boreholes should have been the subject of a nationwide poll rather than being a regional issue.

Hercules · January 17, 2003, 06:34

Regarding policy towards Deirdre. Drogue has got it right. Pact and exchange and be prepared to change to green later. We have much to benefit from good relations and a strong ally.

GeneralTacticus · January 17, 2003, 06:34

Quote:

Maybe the whole issue of Boreholes should have been the subject of a nationwide poll rather than being a regional issue.

It was. Maniac posted a poll while he was still DTC, and it was agreed that borehole construction should be decided by a poll.

Drogue · January 17, 2003, 08:47

Yes, but should the poll be open only to people living in that region (as Maniac's Jedinica polls were) or available for the whole faction to vote on. Being that ecology affects everyone, I would favour the latter, and will do so for Akiria, although in reality, it would be more likely to happen the other way. Could you imagine Russian citizens being able to vote on the US emissions, since it will affect them aswell?

GeneralTacticus · January 17, 2003, 22:43

I have never stipulated that Centralis polls are open only to Centralis residents, and I have no intention of starting now.

Drogue · January 17, 2003, 23:00

I realise that. The question is, should they be? As I said, I think so, when it comes to ecology, but possibly not when it comes to some things (RP things mostly, but breaching out into new facilities).

Hercules · April 28, 2003, 12:21

A Giant Step for leader of STEP party.

Bring me my robes

Maniac · April 28, 2003, 16:32

Congratulations with your King-ship!

Hercules · April 28, 2003, 18:51

Thank you