Spring RTS Engine

The Manifesto is clearly against the concept of reformism as preached by the 2nd International though...

plus, try talking about that to Salvadore Allende.

weeeee somebody who talks politics _after_ he has done the reading :D

Forboding Angel wrote:No screw that, conservatism is not redefined. It is the same as it has always been and True conservatives are for Individual freedoms and the freedoms of businesses. Hence, less government. People aren't as stupid as the people in the government think. THey are totally capable of doing things for themselves, but the government sticks it's foot in the middle of it and makes it harder for everyone.

I could go into specific examples, but meh.

You are very wrong Froboding Angel.

"Conservative" is from conserve - they strive to conserve old values. Preserve status quo. That means conservatives are in general more supportive to old religious values (like "family" values), they most often oppose things such as gay marriages, liberalization of light drugs, sometimes even against abortion.
In Europe these parties generally call themselves "Christian democrats".

Conservatives are not supportive to greater personal freedoms.

On the other hand
"Liberals" - frome "freedom", are parties that represent and desire more freedom in both economic and personal matters.
Such parties are unlikely to interfere with your personal life, they are more likely to liberalize light drugs, have nothing against abortion, don't care about religion and generally try to give all equal opportunities.

In Europe some right wing parties and green parties generally represet these ideals.

Liberals have aboslutely nothing to do with socialists or communists.

"Socialists" - usually restrict economic freedoms in favor of greater social equality. Social parties also can be more or less "conservative" in the area of personal freedoms. Some green parties seem to be socialistic in economic area and liberal in personal.


I don't understand how can liberals be considered left-wing by some, when it means completely the opposite at least in one axis (axis of business freedoms).

left-wing and liberal is same as right-wing and conservative. these ideals are more or less orthogonal and you can be a left-wing conservative and a right-wing liberal, too.

chaotic good FTW.

American politics: There's my party and the other party (for non-liberals it's called liberals, for liberals they're called neo-cons). The other party always has an oppinion diametrically opposed to my view (e.g. I want more personal freedom = the other party supports the nanny state). There is no difference between the enemies, a liberal is exactly the same as a socialist, a communist or a fascist, depending on what I'm not. My party is always for personal freedoms and small government, even if it introduced nearly fascist laws and many new agencies. Any cost for corporations will be passed on to the consumer, any system that takes from everyone and gives to those in need is just rewarding the incompetent, if they planned their lives properly they wouldn't need any social programs. If we don't give any money to the poor they'll just starve peacefully, they won't decide to kill us and take our money. Won't somebody please think of the children???

Haha yes politics is never about serious ideological stuff. It's always more or less stupid lazy people that do whatever to gain more power and stuff or to sit around happily not doing much. Democracy is least bad becouse it kind of limits what damage they can cause in the process, at least compared to dictators and stuff.

Yeah, that's life for you.

Zpock wrote:Democracy is least bad becouse it kind of limits what damage they can cause in the process, at least compared to dictators and stuff.

Compared to a crappy(and sure, almost all are) dictator sure, but American Democracy(Media-ocracy) could really use some upgrades. It's not a bad system, per say, it's just that the implementation could sure use some work. Rule By The Most Gullible is getting old.

I agree with Enrom.

You know the best way to do it?







I don't know. Anyone have good ideas?

Licho,

American politics are quite different from anywhere else in the world.

Liberals in america do their best to take away individual freedoms among many of the other things I mentioned. They also love to raise taxes. In america, there simply is no such thing as a liberal conservative, the closest thing to that might be considered a moderate.


Also, in america, liberals are very much borderline socialists, and they definately do not support business freedoms. I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion (maybe it's different in other countries).

Your definition of conservatives in america is fairly wrong as well.

Well I only know politics of two major US parties. And conservatives seem to be similar to european conservatives (or christian democrats). That means supporting economic freedoms (trying to reduce taxes) but trying to defend "traditions" and old values, like christianity. (Mainline opposed to abortion, cloning, gay unions, changes in gun laws, liberalization of drugs). It's just trying to conserve status quo.
Conservatives would be on far right in EU in economic matters.


Democrats seem to be very similar (it would be right wing party in Europe I think), but are leaning more towards left in economic matters (more social) and seem to be more liberal in personal matters.

Forboding Angel wrote:Licho,

American politics are quite different from anywhere else in the world.

Liberals in america do their best to take away individual freedoms among many of the other things I mentioned. They also love to raise taxes. In america, there simply is no such thing as a liberal conservative, the closest thing to that might be considered a moderate.


Also, in america, liberals are very much borderline socialists, and they definately do not support business freedoms. I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion (maybe it's different in other countries).

Your definition of conservatives in america is fairly wrong as well.

By definition, "Liberals" do not try to take away freedom.

If you mean "Democrats," then you are incorrect, it is the Republicans who are trying to take away personal freedom, by banning gay marraige and abortion and stem cell research. Some of the Democrats (*cough* Hillary Clinton *cough*) are doing some stupid stuff, and Edwards is borderline socialist, but most of the newly elected Democrats are leaning towards smaller governments, and they would probably be considered moderates.

Though the problem with democrats right now is there is very little they all agree on. I think the only thing they all agree on is that we should stop global warming.

You seem to be defining Conservative vs. Liberal is small government vs. big government, but, though they started out as the exact opposite, it is more complex now.

This is all rather stupid though, because we're arguing about words that mean different things to different people.

KDR_11k wrote:American politics: There's my party and the other party (for non-liberals it's called liberals, for liberals they're called neo-cons). The other party always has an oppinion diametrically opposed to my view (e.g. I want more personal freedom = the other party supports the nanny state). There is no difference between the enemies, a liberal is exactly the same as a socialist, a communist or a fascist, depending on what I'm not. My party is always for personal freedoms and small government, even if it introduced nearly fascist laws and many new agencies.

My party is always for personal freedoms in the area I care about most. For the Republicans, it's business. For the democrats, it's personal stuff (Hillary Clinton being the exception here... She seems more facist than Democratic.)

Since in America there are only two very complex parties, you have to be a single or almost single issue voter.

Any cost for corporations will be passed on to the consumer, any system that takes from everyone and gives to those in need is just rewarding the incompetent, if they planned their lives properly they wouldn't need any social programs. If we don't give any money to the poor they'll just starve peacefully, they won't decide to kill us and take our money. Won't somebody please think of the children???

Only the moderates and conservatives think that.

Very well then, we can stop arguing about definitions and get down to basics. Forb and I are both for smaller government. My personal view is that the only thing thing government should do is protect its citizens' health, freedom, and property from other people. This means that the government should not spend money on handouts, but also should not restrict people's right to destroy themselves via drugs/fireworks/whatever. You get a freedom, you get a responsibility. Play with explosives or use heroin all you want, but blow your hand off or contract hiv from an infected needle, don't expect our help.

Decimator wrote:Very well then, we can stop arguing about definitions and get down to basics. Forb and I are both for smaller government. My personal view is that the only thing thing government should do is protect its citizens' health, freedom, and property from other people. This means that the government should not spend money on handouts, but also should not restrict people's right to destroy themselves via drugs/fireworks/whatever. You get a freedom, you get a responsibility. Play with explosives or use heroin all you want, but blow your hand off or contract hiv from an infected needle, don't expect our help.

Ok sounds good, let's all get together and use our brilliant strategic minds (from playing too much spring) and conquer some land from the corrupted communist goverments of the world and setup a nice place based on your principles!

Zpock wrote:

Decimator wrote:Very well then, we can stop arguing about definitions and get down to basics. Forb and I are both for smaller government. My personal view is that the only thing thing government should do is protect its citizens' health, freedom, and property from other people. This means that the government should not spend money on handouts, but also should not restrict people's right to destroy themselves via drugs/fireworks/whatever. You get a freedom, you get a responsibility. Play with explosives or use heroin all you want, but blow your hand off or contract hiv from an infected needle, don't expect our help.

Ok sounds good, let's all get together and use our brilliant strategic minds (from playing too much spring) and conquer some land from the corrupted communist goverments of the world and setup a nice place based on your principles!

Sounds good to me, I vote Cuba as they have quality cigars and a nice climate.

Decimator wrote:Very well then, we can stop arguing about definitions and get down to basics. Forb and I are both for smaller government. My personal view is that the only thing thing government should do is protect its citizens' health, freedom, and property from other people. This means that the government should not spend money on handouts, but also should not restrict people's right to destroy themselves via drugs/fireworks/whatever. You get a freedom, you get a responsibility. Play with explosives or use heroin all you want, but blow your hand off or contract hiv from an infected needle, don't expect our help.

I think the government should do more than that. I think it is the duty of the government to ensure that the nation is as strong and happy and prosperous and well defended as possible. That means ensuring that smart hard workers rise to the top, no matter what their parents' social status is. To ensure that, you need a good, cheap/free health care system, and a good, cheap/free education system.

I also think the government should try to prevent otherwise successful people from making stupid choices, particularly if they're young.

good, cheap/free health care system, and a good, cheap/free education system.

There is no such thing as free, somebody will be paying for it. That somebody is usually the *most* productive sector of society. Seems a bit odd to me, but the socialists in this country are obsessed with class warfare.

well defended as possible.

That's part of protecting its citizens from other people. Currently, our best defense is the Ohio class submarine. If anyone attacks you, they die.

I also think the government should try to prevent otherwise successful people from making stupid choices, particularly if they're young.

How is it helpful to harm a person who harms himself?

Personally, I'd rather have better prevention of attacks than defence from attacks. You know, make peace, not war, or something?

I'm sure that there is a way to get people to stop shooting at eachother...we just need to find it.

But zoombie, then we wouldn't have any cool wars to make games about?