Official : Economics

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
Which is why you resist a change out of the current Pure Planned to a FM 20% Psych w/ all its lovely civil rights?

I don't accept there are more civil rights, as I stated. That has yet to be countered.

Originally posted by Archaic
Stop making moral decisions for the citizens. Noit everyone supports your viewpoint, and there are valid counterarguements to it, so why should everyone be forced under your yoke of government regulation and oppression?

I'm not. The people have spoken, they want to keep Planned. They have decided, not me. I know not everyone support it, but neither do they all support yours. I do not believe in oppression, I do not think that is what I am condoning. I believe in Libertarian Socialism, to a point, combined with what is best for all humanity (part Utilitarian). With that, I believe our Planet is worth far more than any worldly riches bought by FM.

Planet is not for sale

Originally posted by Archaic
I brand you as ignorant because you *are*. You and Pan (and others) have made many assumptions about both the Free Market and Socialist markets which are simply not true, all in the name of promoting your viewpoint. That you continue to hold onto these viewpoints even after the flaws in your preception of them have been corrected is *WILLFUL IGNORANCE*.

All people that disagree with you are ignorant, all other viewpoints are false, sounds rather totalitarian to me. Why do you believe that you are so much better than everyone else that what you say is right and any other point of view is wrong? Looking at the polls I'd say you have many people to convince before you can declare that your argument is so superior.

Assumptions such as? I have not seen any flaws in my preception, your counters simply did not convince me.

Originally posted by Archaic
As for not accepting arguements.....I don't accept yours because yours is flawed. You don't accept my arguement because you just don't like me, my style, or what I'm arguing about. BIG DIFFERENCE.

No, I think your counters are flawed, and I have not been convinced of the flaws in my argument. I don't like your argument because I don't agree with it, and value other things more. I would rather have a happy, healthy society than excessive civil rights, money or whatever else FM brings.

Originally posted by Archaic
Now here's a nice RP arguement for you. You keep whinging about the environment.......but did you consider that thanks to the miracle of terraforming, it doesn't matter if we "ruin" the environment, because we can take the pollutants and turn them into useful materials that will end up helping the environment anyway? I don't know the exact science behind it, go ask the terraforming crews, but we're basically transmuting pollutants and useless materials into plants here. And considering there's no native life on this biosphere except for the ravenous worms, we don't even have to worry about harming the eco system when we replace "Planet Plants" with far better for us "Earth Plants".

To be honest, I do not know of such science either, and dispute it's existance. I believe the less we harm Planet, the less harm we will do to Planet. To me, it's just simple as...

[Pandemoniak]

"The people knows everything"
Mikhael Gorbatchev, AD. 1991
Datalinks

Unfortunatly, not all the people know everything. That's because not everyone is equal.

The people [as a whole] knows everything.

[Drogue]

I can understand Archaics problem with Democracy (other than they just don't agree with him ) that not every person amkes an informed decision, and I share that. However, I think democracy is the best system we have, and I don't see much of an alternative. Give the people what they want. If they want more civil rights etc. then they can have it. But whether or not people are equal, or whether or not the population know everything, we are a democratic society, and shall govern as such. Hence we are still at Planned, and I predict, will move soon to Green.

[GeneralTacticus]

Archaic is not being 'anti-democratic' in the sense of wanting impose FM on the people no matter how they vote; he's disputing your position that because the people voted for Planned, it's the best system, and damn right too.

[Xian]

Free market capitalism is about the right of capitalists to use the population to get rich, it has NOTHING to do with "freedom of choice" or whatever. For all you know, trusts and monopolies will mean one company controls everything! Besides, whats the point of having "free" choices from corporations designed for profit? If there are no restrictions on advertising then the population will be misinformed by capitalists and we wont know what were getting on the market AT ALL anyhow

The rights of the property owner TAKE AWAY the rights of the general population, i.e. your right to land takes away my rights to live on that land- so what if YOU got the freedom to choose as polluting hovercar? THE REST OF US have to deal with death, disease and the environment. (until we have biomachinery at least

CApitalism is not freedom. Democratic Planned or Democratic green is the only form of governmet tolerable

[GeneralTacticus]

Free market capitalism is about the right of capitalists to use the population to get rich, it has NOTHING to do with "freedom of choice" or whatever. For all you know, trusts and monopolies will mean one company controls everything!

And these trusts and monopolies will come from where, exactly? And they will evade anti-trust laws how?

Besides, whats the point of having "free" choices from corporations designed for profit? If there are no restrictions on advertising then the population will be misinformed by capitalists and we wont know what were getting on the market AT ALL anyhow

You know, there's this little thing we have in our constitunio called 'freedom of information'. It means that if people wish to, they can go and find out for themselves what's going on, without being 'misinformed'. Besides, you dor ealize that false advertising is crime, don't you?

The rights of the property owner TAKE AWAY the rights of the general population, i.e. your right to land takes away my rights to live on that land-

wtf gives you the right to live on somebody else's land?

so what if YOU got the freedom to choose as polluting hovercar? THE REST OF US have to deal with death, disease and the environment.

Well, so does the person who buys the hovercar, actually. Besides, have you eve rheard of these thing sthta we call 'environmental regulations'? If something pollutes too much, it's not allowed.

Quite apart from that, how the hell is using a Palnned economy going to make things any different?

CApitalism is not freedom. Democratic Planned or Democratic green is the only form of governmet tolerable

Care to back this statement up? YOU may consider any other form of government intolerable, and that is of course your right, but that doesn't mean other people should find it intolerable.

Take a look at the Morganites, for one thing. They have a democratic capitalist government and they seem perfectly happy with it - and I haven't seen any epdiemics of Drone Riots sweeping their bases. Have you?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And these trusts and monopolies will come from where, exactly? And they will evade anti-trust laws how?

I think he was talking about 'pure FM', being without anti-trust laws, leaving it all to the market. I understand you're against that, but pure FM isn't. Pure FM leaves all to the market, including monopolistic market failure.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You know, there's this little thing we have in our constitunio called 'freedom of information'. It means that if people wish to, they can go and find out for themselves what's going on, without being 'misinformed'. Besides, you dor ealize that false advertising is crime, don't you?

Yes, but misleading, only showing one part of the argument is not illegal. They can go out and find, but many won't, and will judge and elect based upon the flawed information they are given. Much like Archaic argued about Pande and myself's arguments.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
wtf gives you the right to live on somebody else's land?

He's saying it's not your land. WTF gives you the right to own that land. Why not all be free and have communal land, that is owned by nobody?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, so does the person who buys the hovercar, actually. Besides, have you eve rheard of these thing sthta we call 'environmental regulations'? If something pollutes too much, it's not allowed.

Yes, they are great, and you may want them, but that's not Pure FM. FM with ecological regulations is what I believe Green is, a mixed economy. We do not want pure FM, and the 20% psych, though covering welfare, does not cover environmental regulations.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Quite apart from that, how the hell is using a Palnned economy going to make things any different?

By giving us regulations, and letting us choose (via the elected Government) instead of the market. We can then have enrivonmental regulations, anti-trust etc. I know you want anti-trust laws, but that isn't a pure FM, which is what we have to choose. Even 20% psych does not mean we get regulations.. I think what we all want isn'there, becuase we only have pure systems to choose from, and thus mush choose according to the pure systems, rather than what we actually want. If we could have a mixed economy, with environmental regulations, health and safety laws, anti-trust laws, and based upon a free market I would be for it. Sadly, that isn't an option here. Since I do not feel we can leave it all up to the market, because of market failure, and it's failure to meet the true social cost/benefits of a particular act, I cannot agree with FM.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Care to back this statement up? YOU may consider any other form of government intolerable, and that is of course your right, but that doesn't mean other people should find it intolerable.

Everything anybody says is there opinion. He showed us his opinion, as you and Archaic have done on many occasions (Archaic's "Libertarianism *IS* the best for of Government for everyone" for example). I agree it should have said IMO, but then again, I have seen much worse 'opinions labelled as fact' here.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Take a look at the Morganites, for one thing. They have a democratic capitalist government and they seem perfectly happy with it - and I haven't seen any epdiemics of Drone Riots sweeping their bases. Have you?

I don't see them being particulary powerful, either diplomatically, militarily, or population wise either. Mosyt factions are in a better position IMHO.

Welcome Xian. I agree with your views on capitalism not giving more rights.

Have a look at the parties threads if you want, and see if you want to join. The 3 main ones are the CCCP (anti-FM, leftist party), The DLP (pro-FM, psuedo Libertarian Party) and STEP (anti-FM, pro-Green, environmental party). We at STEP are looking for new members, especially ones with enrionmental concerns, and a good turn of phrase. For the STEP thread, see my signiture, for the others look on the main bored, or ask Pande (leader of the CCCP) or Archaic (leader of the DLP). Currently the CCCP and STEP have combined forces to stay at Planned, until we have Green, and then switch.

[GeneralTacticus]

I think he was talking about 'pure FM', being without anti-trust laws, leaving it all to the market. I understand you're against that, but pure FM isn't. Pure FM leaves all to the market, including monopolistic market failure.

*YAWN* This is where most of the misunderstandings seem to arise from. I am not in favour of a pure FM. Neither is Archaic. Neither is anyone else. I can't tell you Archaic's reasoning, but my reasoning for this simply that a totally free market is not free at all. You have to find a balance that prevents the market from falling to monopolies, et al, or from taking over the government, as has happened in the United States.

Yes, but misleading, only showing one part of the argument is not illegal. They can go out and find, but many won't, and will judge and elect based upon the flawed information they are given. Much like Archaic argued about Pande and myself's arguments.

And why do you think they will do that? Either because they trust the media to be impartial (never a good idea; even if they are, it helps to be supsicious of them), or because they truly want to believe what they're told, in which case they'll probably deny any information that's put in front of them until they go out and search for ti themselves. I know what that's like, because I used to feel the same way about the US and the atrocities it has committed all over the world.

He's saying it's not your land. WTF gives you the right to own that land. Why not all be free and have communal land, that is owned by nobody?

(WARNING: POSSIBLY INARTICULATE POINT AHEAD)

Because if it's owned by nobody, nobody has any claim to it, and hence nobody can complain if their neighbour takes over their backyard to build a swimming pool.

Yes, they are great, and you may want them, but that's not Pure FM. FM with ecological regulations is what I believe Green is, a mixed economy.

Green is not a 'mixed economy'. It's actually a rather nebulous category, as we have no 'real world' examples to compare it to, but I would say that it's simply another form of Planned, which directs the focus towards preserving the environment rather than 'serving the proletariat'.

We do not want pure FM, and the 20% psych, though covering welfare, does not cover environmental regulations.

Perfectly true. Environmental regulations are covered instead by the contruction of 'Green' facilities - like Tree Farms, Hybrid Forests and Centauri Preserves. It's rather ironic, isn't it, that the only region which has even begun to build these facilities is mine, and I'm one of the two people who you accuse of caring least about the environment?

By giving us regulations, and letting us choose (via the elected Government) instead of the market.

Environmental regulations are not unique to a Planned economy, nor are they necessarily part of it (the world's greatest environmental disasters occurred in the Soviet Union, which employed a Planned economy). Besides, we have a Planned economy now and yet we still experience fungal blooms and other problems.

We can then have enrivonmental regulations, anti-trust etc.

Anti-trust laws in a Planned economy are a contradiction in terms, as under Planned, the government is the trust, so it would effectively be outlawing itself.

. I know you want anti-trust laws, but that isn't a pure FM, which is what we have to choose.

The FM we want is as much pure FM as the Green you want is the Cult of Planet.

. Even 20% psych does not mean we get regulations.. I think what we all want isn'there, becuase we only have pure systems to choose from, and thus mush choose according to the pure systems, rather than what we actually want.

Or we can take the closest thing to the system we want, and modify it. A pure FM would mean that we automated (i.e. privatised) absolutely everything except foreign policy and became essentially spectators to the game.

If we could have a mixed economy, with environmental regulations, health and safety laws, anti-trust laws, and based upon a free market I would be for it. Sadly, that isn't an option here. Since I do not feel we can leave it all up to the market, because of market failure, and it's failure to meet the true social cost/benefits of a particular act, I cannot agree with FM.

It is an option.

1) Environmental regulations come in the form of 'Green' facilities.

2) Health and safety laws come in the form of Psych, along with welfare.

3) Anti-trust laws have to be inferred, becaus ehtere's no way of saying in-game whether you have them or not.

4) Based on FM: well, duh.

Everything anybody says is there opinion. He showed us his opinion, as you and Archaic have done on many occasions (Archaic's "Libertarianism *IS* the best for of Government for everyone" for example). I agree it should have said IMO, but then again, I have seen much worse 'opinions labelled as fact' here.

Well, of course you have; Albert Speer's 'The US should be imperialist' ranks pretty high, in much the same category as 'Hitler was right to try to conquer Europe'.

I don't see them being particulary powerful, either diplomatically, militarily, or population wise either. Mosyt factions are in a better position IMHO.

So what? They're tiny compared to us (mainly as result of their start position and of being AI), and their economy is stronger than ours, for crying out loud (AND they use 20% Psych and only 30% economy. What does this tell you?). Unlike us, they have no need to use specialists at all. Quite apart from that, what would you care about the military? I thought you were anti-war.

The DLP (pro-FM, psuedo Libertarian Party)

Pseudo-libertarian!?!?!?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
*YAWN* This is where most of the misunderstandings seem to arise from. I am not in favour of a pure FM. Neither is Archaic. Neither is anyone else. I can't tell you Archaic's reasoning, but my reasoning for this simply that a totally free market is not free at all. You have to find a balance that prevents the market from falling to monopolies, et al, or from taking over the government, as has happened in the United States.

I agree, a totally free market is not totally free. I agree with all your points, which is why I disagree with a pure FM. If I'm right you want a mostly free market, with some laws and restrictions, and as such, see FM as your closest option available. Whereas I want a slightly more regulated economy, and as such, see Green as the closest option available. Is this broadly correct? You also want to adapt FM, so that it has some, whereas I do not believe that is possible, at least not as much as it would need to make FM viable to me.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And why do you think they will do that? Either because they trust the media to be impartial (never a good idea; even if they are, it helps to be supsicious of them), or because they truly want to believe what they're told, in which case they'll probably deny any information that's put in front of them until they go out and search for ti themselves. I know what that's like, because I used to feel the same way about the US and the atrocities it has committed all over the world.

I doubt most people will search, most people, in my experience, cannot be bothered to go out and find about politics etc, and so find out how they think they should vote. Most people I know vote on a whim, or on firmly held prejudices, such as "Labour is ruled by the unions", "The Lib Dems are eco/liberal raving loonies", or "The Tories (Conservatives) are in the pay of big business" (the 3 main parties of Britain). If people did find out what each party stood for, and what their policies were, and voted according to which they believed with most, then democracy would be almost perfect. As it is, although it is the best system we have IMHO, it is nowhere near perfect. If people went and found out for themselves, we would have no need of spin doctors.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Because if it's owned by nobody, nobody has any claim to it, and hence nobody can complain if their neighbour takes over their backyard to build a swimming pool.

Well, in my example, it wouldn't be their backyard in the first place, and it would all be communal, so if you wanted to do that, it would have to get majority approval. Admittedly this doesn't work on a large scale, and your bring up a good point, but successful, small scale settlements have been founded on that principle, to the mutual benefit of all.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Green is not a 'mixed economy'. It's actually a rather nebulous category, as we have no 'real world' examples to compare it to, but I would say that it's simply another form of Planned, which directs the focus towards preserving the environment rather than 'serving the proletariat'.

I would disagree. In the real world, the economy is either Planned, Free Market, or Mixed (ie. somewhere in between). I see it as a Free Market (hence the efficiency), with strong environmental laws and ethos (hence the Planet rating), but that slows down population expansion and new settlements (hence the lack of Growth). The reason I see it as not Planned, is because, as Archaic said, state-controlled economies are not efficient (so the efficientcy bonus wouldn't be there) and industry isn't improved, by the overall control and objectives, which usually happens from a Planned economy. To me Planned is completely state controlled, Free Market is completely at the whim of market forces, and Green is in the middle, with some state control, some private enterprise, and strong environmental laws/ethos. I would see much of Northern Europe as an example of the closest we have in the real world to a Green economy, although not completely perfect.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Perfectly true. Environmental regulations are covered instead by the contruction of 'Green' facilities - like Tree Farms, Hybrid Forests and Centauri Preserves. It's rather ironic, isn't it, that the only region which has even begun to build these facilities is mine, and I'm one of the two people who you accuse of caring least about the environment?

I don't accuse you of not caring, I am aware of your record in reducing NA's eco-damage, and in building tree-farms, and will hope to follow that example in Akiria. I am accusing FM of eco-damage.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Environmental regulations are not unique to a Planned economy, nor are they necessarily part of it (the world's greatest environmental disasters occurred in the Soviet Union, which employed a Planned economy). Besides, we have a Planned economy now and yet we still experience fungal blooms and other problems.

Exactly, which is why I favour Green over Planned, at most times. Planned does have more environmental controls than FM however, because the market will not give any, yet the government can choose to impose some under Planned.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Anti-trust laws in a Planned economy are a contradiction in terms, as under Planned, the government is the trust, so it would effectively be outlawing itself.

Point taken. Although FM does have a distinct lack of them.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
The FM we want is as much pure FM as the Green you want is the Cult of Planet.

Very true (although the Gaians have higher Planet than the Cult IIRC, and so are more ecological).

This bit is all reinforcing the point made in the first paragraph. If I have got our opinions correct, there is little need to answer this, I am just trying to say why I don't want pure FM, and don't believe it can me moderated *enough*.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Or we can take the closest thing to the system we want, and modify it. A pure FM would mean that we automated (i.e. privatised) absolutely everything except foreign policy and became essentially spectators to the game.

Well, pretty much, yes. I do not believe in pure Planned, Green or FM, but feel Green is closet to what I want. I know you don't want pure FM. The point I'm trying to make is that is what we have to choose between. The psych gives us facilities and happiness etc, and is good, but does not stop it for being pure FM, sadly. I agree with your views, a mixed/FM would be great, but sadly, it isn't an option. Modifying it is ok, and the psych helps a lot, but does not stop it from being a pure FM, in the sense that everything is still up to the market.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
1) Environmental regulations come in the form of 'Green' facilities.

Well, it helps the environment, as there are facilties there if people want to recycle, but I dount agree it enforces regulations at all.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
2) Health and safety laws come in the form of Psych, along with welfare.

Hmmm... Does the manual describe psych? Personally I doubt it would include social welfare and healthcare etc. and almost certainly wouldn't include health and safety laws IMO.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
3) Anti-trust laws have to be inferred, becaus ehtere's no way of saying in-game whether you have them or not.

I think of it as pure FM, and thus, without. I would say with FM you don't have them, but I guess it could be argued both ways.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, of course you have; Albert Speer's 'The US should be imperialist' ranks pretty high, in much the same category as 'Hitler was right to try to conquer Europe'.

Yes. They are both much worse, IMO, than Xian's statement. He does not have to back it up if he wishes, he can simply be stating his opinion.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
So what? They're tiny compared to us (mainly as result of their start position and of being AI), and their economy is stronger than ours, for crying out loud (AND they use 20% Psych and only 30% economy. What does this tell you?). Unlike us, they have no need to use specialists at all. Quite apart from that, what would you care about the military? I thought you were anti-war.

What I'm meaning, is that, compared to say the Gains, I do not think they are doing too well. Yes they're economy is good, but at the expense of much else. And yes I am anti-war, but military power is still a measure.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Pseudo-libertarian!?!?!?

Block, forced voting, believes in some regulations, anti-trust etc. (which isn't hard libertarian thinking, although much better IMHO). I cannot disregard your Libertarian notions, but to call you Libertarian would be a disservice to both you and Libertarians. You believe in having a state, some welfare, and anti-trust laws (IIRC) which are not Libertarian, and block voting, which is definatly not Libertarian. I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing, it has much more politcal sense than 'true' Libertarianism (as I found out in an argument on OTF) Many hardline Libertarians would also see Democratic and Libertarian as a contradiction too, but that's going a bit far IMHO. Mostly my problem is just with block voting. I have never seen a Libertarian party in history that enforces it (can someone show me one? I'd be interested) and it seems like a contradiction with Libertarianism.

[GeneralTacticus]

I agree, a totally free market is not totally free. I agree with all your points, which is why I disagree with a pure FM. If I'm right you want a mostly free market, with some laws and restrictions, and as such, see FM as your closest option available. Whereas I want a slightly more regulated economy, and as such, see Green as the closest option available. Is this broadly correct? You also want to adapt FM, so that it has some, whereas I do not believe that is possible, at least not as much as it would need to make FM viable to me.

My problem with Green is that, in order to gain a bit more efficiency and an increased Planet rating, it sacrifices the main benefit of FM ( that being the +2 Economy). As such, I think it has very little in common with FM, especially in the amount of environmental regulatons it has.

I doubt most people will search, most people, in my experience, cannot be bothered to go out and find about politics etc, and so find out how they think they should vote. Most people I know vote on a whim, or on firmly held prejudices, such as "Labour is ruled by the unions", "The Lib Dems are eco/liberal raving loonies", or "The Tories (Conservatives) are in the pay of big business" (the 3 main parties of Britain). If people did find out what each party stood for, and what their policies were, and voted according to which they believed with most, then democracy would be almost perfect. As it is, although it is the best system we have IMHO, it is nowhere near perfect. If people went and found out for themselves, we would have no need of spin doctors.

That was your experience on Earth, but as I said, that's more an indictment of the people than the system. Again, the only way to change this is to change how people think.

And you must remember, also, that on Earth most people trusted the media to tell them the truth at the exact time when they should have been trusting it least.

Well, in my example, it wouldn't be their backyard in the first place, and it would all be communal, so if you wanted to do that, it would have to get majority approval. Admittedly this doesn't work on a large scale, and your bring up a good point, but successful, small scale settlements have been founded on that principle, to the mutual benefit of all.

The point is, though, that this isn't a small settlement, it's a very large one. Hence we can't use systems that only work on a small scale (btw, see no problem with people who live in small settlements outside the large bases from using this system, as long as it's voluntary; the Israeli Kibbutzes used it quite effectively. I just don't think ti should be applied everywhere).

I would disagree. In the real world, the economy is either Planned, Free Market, or Mixed (ie. somewhere in between). I see it as a Free Market (hence the efficiency), with strong environmental laws and ethos (hence the Planet rating), but that slows down population expansion and new settlements (hence the lack of Growth). The reason I see it as not Planned, is because, as Archaic said, state-controlled economies are not efficient (so the efficientcy bonus wouldn't be there) and industry isn't improved, by the overall control and objectives, which usually happens from a Planned economy. To me Planned is completely state controlled, Free Market is completely at the whim of market forces, and Green is in the middle, with some state control, some private enterprise, and strong environmental laws/ethos. I would see much of Northern Europe as an example of the closest we have in the real world to a Green economy, although not completely perfect.

"Greem economics strive to integrate human progress with the needs of the biosphere. Greene conomies use resources efficiently and tend to avoid the excesses of industrial development which could provoke Planet's native life, but population growth necessarily suffers due to lack of space."
- From the SMAC manual.

Nthing mentioned there about any kind of market. It could be argued that the efficiency bonus stems merely from necessity, as the restricted amount of resources that can be used mean that one must use them efficiently - or that the apparent lack of focus on industry and (presumably) consumer goods removes the area in which state-run economies are least efficient.

Exactly, which is why I favour Green over Planned, at most times. Planned does have more environmental controls than FM however, because the market will not give any, yet the government can choose to impose some under Planned.

We can choose to impose some under FM as well, simply by not producing amounts of minerals that will cause massive ecodamae (although ED is self-limiting, it's still a bad idea to produce too much, because it won't drop very fast and the number of fungal blooms it will create will decimate a base's infrastructure).

Point taken. Although FM does have a distinct lack of them.

As they aren't present in the game at all, they have to be assumed, much as under Planned you would have to assume the existence of environmental regulations.

Very true (although the Gaians have higher Planet than the Cult IIRC, and so are more ecological).

No, the Cult has +2 Planet, while the Gaians only have +1.

Well, pretty much, yes. I do not believe in pure Planned, Green or FM, but feel Green is closet to what I want. I know you don't want pure FM. The point I'm trying to make is that is what we have to choose between. The psych gives us facilities and happiness etc, and is good, but does not stop it for being pure FM, sadly. I agree with your views, a mixed/FM would be great, but sadly, it isn't an option. Modifying it is ok, and the psych helps a lot, but does not stop it from being a pure FM, in the sense that everything is still up to the market.

...?

Isn't your problem with pure FM that it lacks thing slike welfare, et al? That's what Psych effectively is.

Hmmm... Does the manual describe psych? Personally I doubt it would include social welfare and healthcare etc. and almost certainly wouldn't include health and safety laws IMO.

Yes it does. "Psych. This investment is spent on recreation, culture and basic luxuries. The more you invest on Psych, the more workers become talents, offsetting the malcontent Drones in your bases."

What I'm meaning, is that, compared to say the Gains, I do not think they are doing too well. Yes they're economy is good, but at the expense of much else. And yes I am anti-war, but military power is still a measure.

At the expense of what, exactly? Their miitary isn't any weaker than ours, proportionately; their people are happier than ours; and their economy is stronger - and they've acheived all this with a fraction of the space and resources that we have. What does this tell you?

Block, forced voting, believes in some regulations, anti-trust etc. (which isn't hard libertarian thinking, although much better IMHO). I cannot disregard your Libertarian notions, but to call you Libertarian would be a disservice to both you and Libertarians. You believe in having a state, some welfare, and anti-trust laws (IIRC) which are not Libertarian, and block voting, which is definatly not Libertarian. I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing, it has much more politcal sense than 'true' Libertarianism (as I found out in an argument on OTF) Many hardline Libertarians would also see Democratic and Libertarian as a contradiction too, but that's going a bit far IMHO.

Except when arguing with David Floyd, I consider Libertarianism to be about freedom - and as I said about why I don't want a totally free market, I don't think such a market is free at all. Hence, I can still want freedom while not wanting a totally free market.

Mostly my problem is just with block voting. I have never seen a Libertarian party in history that enforces it (can someone show me one? I'd be interested) and it seems like a contradiction with Libertarianism.

I don't consider it to be contradictory, any more than it would be contradictory for a social group to expect it's members to show up for meetings as often as possible. Membership is entirely voluntary, and if you don't want to support the party line, no-one's stopping you from voting most of it from outside the party.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
That was your experience on Earth, but as I said, that's more an indictment of the people than the system. Again, the only way to change this is to change how people think.

And you must remember, also, that on Earth most people trusted the media to tell them the truth at the exact time when they should have been trusting it least.

Can we change human nature? I would suggest, if we take how people think as a constant, which I believe it is, we then must choose the best system according to that constant. Yes it would be great to change how people think, but at the moment, people think like that, and thus it is not just the people, it is helped by the system. WIth a different system, it wouldn't matter

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
The point is, though, that this isn't a small settlement, it's a very large one. Hence we can't use systems that only work on a small scale (btw, see no problem with people who live in small settlements outside the large bases from using this system, as long as it's voluntary; the Israeli Kibbutzes used it quite effectively. I just don't think ti should be applied everywhere).

How about having many small systems, all making one big system? Even in our bases we can have many communes. I do not think it is best, but it is a possibility, that is a viable alternative IMO. Hence Xian's original comment was a viable comment.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
"Greem economics strive to integrate human progress with the needs of the biosphere. Greene conomies use resources efficiently and tend to avoid the excesses of industrial development which could provoke Planet's native life, but population growth necessarily suffers due to lack of space."
- From the SMAC manual.

Nthing mentioned there about any kind of market. It could be argued that the efficiency bonus stems merely from necessity, as the restricted amount of resources that can be used mean that one must use them efficiently - or that the apparent lack of focus on industry and (presumably) consumer goods removes the area in which state-run economies are least efficient.

If it were state run, I think it would state as such, personally. I still stand by my belief that it is a mixed economy, both market and state controlled.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Isn't your problem with pure FM that it lacks thing slike welfare, et al? That's what Psych effectively is.

Yes it does. "Psych. This investment is spent on recreation, culture and basic luxuries. The more you invest on Psych, the more workers become talents, offsetting the malcontent Drones in your bases."

et al yes, not just welfare. As you said, psych is spent on recreation, culture and luxuries. Not on healthcare, worker rights, unemployment benefit, the minimum wage, environmental regulations and facilities, etc., which is what I want. That is still impossible under FM IMO.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
At the expense of what, exactly? Their miitary isn't any weaker than ours, proportionately; their people are happier than ours; and their economy is stronger - and they've acheived all this with a fraction of the space and resources that we have. What does this tell you?

It tells me that they didn't expand fast enough, and per capita is a little misleading IMHO. We do not work on per capita, we work on absolute power, wealth, economy, resources etc. They have less military, less land, fewer bases, fewer people, and are worse than us. Moreover, I never mentioned comparing them to us, I said to the Gaians, which you have yet to attempt to counter. I think we, and especially the Gaians, are in a much better position than them

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Except when arguing with David Floyd, I consider Libertarianism to be about freedom - and as I said about why I don't want a totally free market, I don't think such a market is free at all. Hence, I can still want freedom while not wanting a totally free market.

I don't. I consider Liberty, and Liberalism to be about having more freedom, but I consider Libertarianism to be about have fewer constraints.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I don't consider it to be contradictory, any more than it would be contradictory for a social group to expect it's members to show up for meetings as often as possible. Membership is entirely voluntary, and if you don't want to support the party line, no-one's stopping you from voting most of it from outside the party.

No, but, as I've said, it may be Libertarian in views, but it is not in practice. It does not believe in freedom for everyone, and it's distorting the democratic picture by forcing people to vote for soemthing they don't want. Feel free to call it what you like, and act how you like, but I stand by my comment that, IMO, it is only a pseudo-Libertarian party.

Anyway. I suggest people have had enough, as this is beggining to violate the agreement we all made. Therefore, feel free to reply, but I will only continue by PM is you wish to, or not at all otherwise.

[GeneralTacticus]

Anyway. I suggest people have had enough, as this is beggining to violate the agreement we all made. Therefore, feel free to reply, but I will only continue by PM is you wish to, or not at all otherwise.

Alright, then.