Police State + Pacifism

Universal Sufferage + Slavery

Police State + Free Speach

Any others?

I do not believe Police State and Pacifism are completely at odds

What about Decentralization and Bureaucracy?

Good one!!

(note: I had to add the second exclamation point in order to meet the 10 character minimum for posting)

Theocracy & Free Speech -> Theocracy means that you have not allowed to speak(or even think) about other gods than state religion has but freedom of speech means something else... like Iran or countries like that.

Police State + PacifismNot at all paradoxical. Spain during World War II, for example.
Universal Sufferage + SlaveryDifficult but not impossible. The slaves would need to be allowed to vote; it doesn't mean they'd need to be freed from their masters.
Police State + Free SpeachAgain, not at all paradoxical. It just doesn't happen very often.
What about Decentralization and Bureaucracy?No, that would just be a nightmare. :lol:
Theocracy & Free Speech -> Theocracy means that you have not allowed to speak(or even think) about other gods than state religion has but freedom of speech means something else... like Iran or countries like that.Not at all paradoxical. Has happened many times in history.

It happens same often than North-Korea has democracy because they call themselves People's Democracy :D

Actually very few countries have freedom of speech because next step is politicall correctness what disables a lot of freedom.

Not at all paradoxical. Spain during World War II, for example.

Not a good example. Franco sent a small volunteer force to fight alongside the Nazis and Italians as a cobelligerent in Russia without a declaration of war, both to mollify Hitler and because, in his mind, it was important to defeat the "Godless communists". Spain otherwise avoided participation in the war more due to calculation and the fact that the country had been devastated by the Civil War in the '30s and needed to recover. He certainly wasn't a pacifist, in that he took up arms against (what was then) his own government during the Civil War.

Not a good example. Franco sent a small volunteer force to fight alongside the Nazis and Italians as a cobelligerent in Russia without a declaration of war, both to mollify Hitler and because, in his mind, it was important to defeat the "Godless communists". Spain otherwise avoided participation in the war more due to calculation and the fact that the country had been devastated by the Civil War in the '30s and needed to recover. He certainly wasn't a pacifist, in that he took up arms against (what was then) his own government during the Civil War.Pacifism is Civ4 doesn't mean "we never fight ever under any circumstances;" it means "we maintain a relatively small or inactive army for our size." It's probably not the best example, though.

What about Decentralization and Bureaucracy?

That is indeed ludicrous! I find it hard to believe that the game designers weren't cognizant of the fact that Bureaucracy sucks up money and production, instead of giving a 50 percent bonus to science and production. It should be a negative bonus of 50 percent. Very little good comes out of a bureaucracy except paperwork and inane rules. :p

First a historical note: Spain entered in WW II by the side of the Allies ( of course it was after the surrender of Germany and only against Japan when it was clear that the war was almost over, just to get into the victor's table .... )

Abot this one:
Universal Sufferage + Slavery
Athens had universal male suffrage for those who had born in Athens from Athenian mother and father ( even today most countreis that have Universal Suffrage difer about the definition of citizen, especially about age and country of origin ( Germany, until some years ago, only allowed as German citizen a person who had "German blood" ( AFAIK, of course ), some countries only recognize citizenship to people over 25 or 21,..... ) ) and had slaves....

Universal Sufferage means everyone votes, no exceptions.

Hah, I agree with others that Decentralization + Bureaucracy is probably the most contradictory combination. The other ones aren't necessarily paradoxical.

Just an aside, in America, Universal Suffrage is generally taken to mean that women can vote, too.

In game description of Pacifism:

Pacifism is the religious belief that all violence is against the will of god. Man must not fight his fellow man. If a person slaps your face you must turn the other check. Basically, what happens much to a person in this world doesn't matter much at all: if a bully takes your stuff or kills you and you don't fight back, you will gain your reward in heaven. (or the next incarnation) The bully my enjoy his ill-gotten gains for a few paltry years in this world, but he will suffer ten fold in the next.

There is no way that Franco was a pacifist by the CIV IV definition.

In game description of Police State:

Under a police state the government maintains strict control of thier populace by means of a police force. (and often a "secret" police force) Civil liberties are denyied and those who voice opinions contrary to the government face penalties ranging from imprisonment to death.

Free Speech and Police State are surely paradoxal, given the in game description. Pacfism could work, technically, it would result in the weakest police state ever though.

Universal Sufferage means everyone votes, no exceptions.

:nono: Universal Suffrage means 2 things:
-All the citizens can vote ( " No tax without representation" )
-Any citizen vote has the same value than other one

This excludes the non-citizens, of course ( normally the youngsters and the foreins, but ythat is not written in stone).... the problem is there. Who is a citizen? For Germany in a not so far away past, it meant people with "German blood" , in San Marino it requires being 25 years old, in Portugal you can have citizenship by having atleast a portuguese grandfather ( and EU citizens can vote and be elected like the Portuguese citizens, if they live permanentely here )....

Athens had stricter rules than the modern democratical regimes for citizenship, but it would be far more closer from the ideal of Universal suffrage than the UK monarchy in the times of the censitary vote ( pay more taxes, have more votes ).....

Universal Sufferage means everyone votes, no exceptions.

Does it mean that children, convicted criminals in jail, foreigners and mentally retarted people can also vote in universal suffrage states?

If that is the criteria, then no state ever at present or in the past is using Universal Suffrage.

Universal Sufferage means everyone votes, no exceptions.

Incorrect, as in many countries those with mental illnesses are not allowed to vote, as are some criminals.

EDIT: basically what he said ^^^, came in a bit late

Just an aside, in America, Universal Suffrage is generally taken to mean that women can vote, too.


Women can vote? Preposterous. Who does the washing?

/theCzar flees the room

Well technically speaking, if you're not allowing ex-convicts and mentally handicapped the right to vote, you don't truely have universal suffrage.

I was refering to this statement:

Athens had universal male suffrage for those who had born in Athens from Athenian mother and father ( even today most countreis that have Universal Suffrage difer about the definition of citizen, especially about age and country of origin ( Germany, until some years ago, only allowed as German citizen a person who had "German blood" ( AFAIK, of course ), some countries only recognize citizenship to people over 25 or 21,..... ) ) and had slaves....

Those examples are clearly not examples of universal sufferage. Germany can't claim to have universal sufferage and at the same time ristrict sufferage to those with german blood. Claiming they are not citizens, if they have lived in your country thier entire life, is just a means to the end of denying them suffrage, and probably other rights.

Well technically speaking, if you're not allowing ex-convicts and mentally handicapped the right to vote, you don't truely have universal suffrage.

I was refering to this statement:



Those examples are clearly not examples of universal sufferage. Germany can't claim to have universal sufferage and at the same time ristrict sufferage to those with german blood. Claiming they are not citizens, if they have lived in your country thier entire life, is just a means to the end of denying them suffrage, and probably other rights.

Then for it to be truly universal, then children, convicted criminals in jails, foreigners, aliens, and the mentally retarded should be able to vote. Otherwise, it is not universal as there are still some who can't vote even if they wanted to.

Besides, who defines what a citizen is?

Different states have different criteria of determining citizenship. Some states have people simply born on their soil citizens, while others require one or both to be citizens. Some do not allow naturalization, some easily makes foreigners citizens, others make it hard but not impossible.

^^Mentally handicapped people always had lived in the country, as well as the youngsters....You assume that they don't have the necessary mental skills to have a righteous vote.... ( Why? Are people with 17 years and 364 days of live stupid as a door, and they suddenly reach enlightement when they reach 18 years by a deus ex machina miracle? )... same thing, no divisionary line...

P.S Maybe it is better to stop this conversation.... I'm sensing a flame war starting and a mod closure of the thread

*Erroneous post*

Women can vote? Preposterous. Who does the washing?

Chinese laundromats. :mischief: (No offense intended.)

That last comment was meant to reflect another aspect about universal suffrage: race is often not mentioned. In the time of American universal suffrage in the 1910's and 20's, race was not a factor--female suffrage was the goal. Theoretically, black citizens (former slaves) had the right to vote from the end of the Civil War and passage of the 13th and 14th amendments onward, but they were often prevented from exercising that until the Civil Rights campaign of the 1960's. I don't know how this extended to other races (Asians, etc.) but I can't imagine their votes were particularly welcomed or encouraged in an age where it was illegal to marry outside your own race.

So are Slavery and Universal Suffrage contradictory...? :dunno: It's a bit of a gray area.

Well, to make my point.

A mostly agree with you, Blaarg, but I feel that the term Universal is inappropriate, as it would imply 100% of the populace should vote. I think Widespread should be used, so it would be better understood.

That way, the state can call itself practicing Widespread Suffrage and still decide with clear conscience that people it deemed unfit for voting (children, criminals, etc...) can be excluded without compromising its claim that it practices WS?

WS could then be taken relatively in time.

In the 200B.C.s, Athens' suffrage is considered WS by the standards of the age, even if limited to Athenians.

In the 200s B.C., Rome joined Athens with WS the adoption of Lex Hortensia in 287 B.C. when people who does not have the blood of the original inhabitants of the city could vote.

In the principate, WS disappeared in Rome, and only reemerged in the 1500s.

By the middle of that century, the English is considered to have the most WS of all the states considering its Parliamentary system.

Etc. etc, until the concept of WS would be expanded with time.

Perhaps, if in the future, children and mentally retarted people and foreigners are allowed to vote, then the democratic governments of today might be considered by those who live in the future to have narrow suffrage, don't you think?

Then

I would think Children and Ex-cons would be just as good as voters as the throngs of ignorent people who are allowed to vote today.

Free Speech and Police State are surely paradoxal, given the in game description. Pacfism could work, technically, it would result in the weakest police state ever though.No, you could have a Police State in which most or all citizens believed in the party line and therefore no enforcement would be necessary.

No, you could have a Police State in which most or all citizens believed in the party line and therefore no enforcement would be necessary.

This reminds me something.... 1984, isn't it? Big Brother is watching you...

This reminds me something.... 1984, isn't it?:rolleyes:

You think there's never been an authoritarian situation where most of the people actually supported the person in charge?

You think there's never been an authoritarian situation where most of the people actually supported the person in charge?

Caesar Augustus. When he tried to pretend he was laying down his power (resigning the consulship), the people rioted. So the Senate let him wear the toga of a consul in public to keep up appearances. Of course, later on he did have all the power of the consulship, just not the position itself. Very clever, these Romans. :hmm:

I would say most authoritarian states enjoy support from the majority of its citizens.

No, you could have a Police State in which most or all citizens believed in the party line and therefore no enforcement would be necessary.

Oh, that's realistic...:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

You think there's never been an authoritarian situation where most of the people actually supported the person in charge?

Nope, not 100% of everybody.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.

I would say most authoritarian states enjoy support from the majority of its citizens.
Oh, come on. In an authoritarian state the citizens aren't allowed to be anything other than "supportive" until, in due course, the revolution comes. Think of the Iron Curtain countries, and of Burma.

"police state + free speech"

You can say whatever you, but when you're through you get beaten and taken to jail :mischief: .

Nope, not 100% of everybody.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.I do believe I said "most."

No, you said most or all such that no enforcement was nessecary.

No, you said most or all such that no enforcement was nessecary.Such could be the case. No enforcement would be necessary if the dissenters were too frightened to act, for example.

I would think Children and Ex-cons would be just as good as voters as the throngs of ignorent people who are allowed to vote today.
Everyone's stupid except you, eh?

You think the majority who can vote in America are educated about the canidates and issues?

You think the majority who can vote in America are educated about the canidates and issues?
I sincerely doubt you're educated on every issue that's relevant to American policy.

Every issue isn't the matter, a basic understanding is all I'd ask and a far too many fall short.

I sincerely doubt you're educated on every issue that's relevant to American policy.I've debated with him before, and I can assure you he's not particularly educated on any issue that's relevant to American policy. :p

Ironically, I'd have to guess you'd agree with me on this issue Mr. Authoritarian.

Ironically, I'd have to guess you'd agree with me on this issue Mr. Authoritarian.Yep, I actually do. I'm just not sure if someone who claims to not be an authoritarian can justify the same position.

Democracy has it's flaws, that's for sure. I just don't think a dictatorship/Monarchy is going to be any better unless you manage to get someone who is truely wise and truely has the interest of society at heart.

However, given the nature of dictatorships, it's ussually the one who's out for himself who gets the power.

And, given the nature of monarchs, it's not ussually the one who has the best interest of society who gets in power.

Democracy has it's flaws, that's for sure. I just don't think a dictatorship/Monarchy is going to be any better unless you manage to get someone who is truely wise and truely has the interest of society at heart.As opposed to Democracy, where you would need at least a 50.01% majority of morons to decide to do the right thing for society. I don't know about you, but I like the odds of authoritarianism better.
However, given the nature of dictatorships, it's ussually the one who's out for himself who gets the power.Dictatorships? Yeah. I'm not a huge fan of military dictatorships.
And, given the nature of monarchs, it's not ussually the one who has the best interest of society who gets in power.Better chances of the firstborn son of a monarch to decide to be a good person than the chances of 50.01% of all morons to decide to all spontaneously stop thinking about themselves for a second.

Personally, I like it somewhere in between: oligarchy.

Tokugawa is protective and aggressive (Pro/Agg)

@ Peng Qi

Of course you are entitled to have your opinion, but I strongly disagree with you. You are right saying that universal vote gives power to a unprepared slice of the population and that oligarchy might more efficient ( stress that : oligarchies normally have serious distortions of the info that gets to the deciding elite, leading to equally strong distortions about the decisons that are made ), but you missed a catch: those unprepared people are the ones that are going to pay the bill and are the ones that feel how the things really are ( not the suited guys in a faraway capitol, that pass their days with equally suited guys, most of the times without knowing basic stuff, like how much it costs a burger of a bag of rice ). You wouldn't deny the stockholders of a company the right of voting in the policies of that company.... Why would you deny the stockholders of the state ( every citizen ) to decide the State's course of action?

Peng Qi, do you consider yourself a moron or an educated person?

If a moron, your opinion of Authoritarianism is probably wrong.

If intelligent, why deny yourself the right to influence the government?

You wouldn't deny the stockholders of a company the right of voting in the policies of that company.... Why would you deny the stockholders of the state ( every citizen ) to decide the State's course of action?Well, I would deny the stockholders the right of voting in company policy if they showed a consistent ability to make choices that caused the company and, by extension, themselves, to lose money. Likewise, I'm happy to let the common man remain voiceless if it's better for him that way.

Well, I would deny the stockholders the right of voting in company policy if they showed a consistent ability to make choices that caused the company and, by extension, themselves, to lose money.

But stockholders own the company and therefore your boss, right? Remember, the stockholders in theory elect the board of directors and the Board chooses the CEO and other officers, right?

But stockholders own the company and therefore your boss, right? Remember, the stockholders in theory elect the board of directors and the Board chooses the CEO and other officers, right?Irrelevant. If the CEO could get away with ignoring their bad decisions, he would. In government, the person in charge often can get away with ignoring the peoples' bad decisions.

Well, I would deny the stockholders the right of voting in company policy if they showed a consistent ability to make choices that caused the company and, by extension, themselves, to lose money.
But it's their money.... They are free to sink it where ever they feel right to do so.... The CEO is only a employee, a servant, not the other way around....
Likewise, I'm happy to let the common man remain voiceless if it's better for him that way.
The problem is: who decides that?.....

I would add even further: ( nothing personal, Peng Qi, just a logical assumption.... ) A person that says that ( or acts in conformity with that assumption ) the common people is not able to take wise decisions is, by definition, putting himself aside of that people, and , likewise, should not be allowed to take decisons about them ( you wouldn't let a fanatical Lakers fan to take decisons about the hiring of the Bulls team.... )

But it's their money.... They are free to sink it where ever they feel right to do so.... The CEO is only a employee, a servant, not the other way around....I just don't think that the free market really has any valid parallel in the real world. If you've earned something, then yes, you should have a say in it; the stock holders of a company have shown that they have at least enough common sense to make some money and invest it. If there was some litmus test to make sure all voters had common sense I'd be totally in favor of such a system.
The problem is: who decides that?.....Me, ideally. :lol:

Actually that is the primary problem. I don't favor rule by people with high IQs since they don't actually seem to know much of anything when it comes down to being a leader of men. I'd let people who have proven to be successful rule; people who have taken something small and made it into something big.
I would add even further: ( nothing personal, Peng Qi, just a logical assumption.... ) A person that says that ( or acts in conformity with that assumption ) the common people is not able to take wise decisions is, by definition, putting himself aside of that people, and , likewise, should not be allowed to take decisons about them ( you wouldn't let a fanatical Lakers fan to take decisons about the hiring of the Bulls team.... )That's kind of silly. By that logic, nobody should be able to make decisions about anybody, since almost no two individuals share every single demographic in common.

I wasn't talking about demographics or phenotypical diferences... I was talking about the state of mind. Someone that acts with shepard's mindset about the others ( "they so dumb... I must lead them to prevent their spupidy" ) implicitily is removing itself from that community, and , because of that, should not be allowed to take decisions about the others, because the there is not a common interest between that person and that community

Such could be the case. No enforcement would be necessary if the dissenters were too frightened to act, for example.

and how is this still free speech? perhaps you're hung up on the implied use of force that a police state projects...being too afraid to speak is the antithesis of free speech.

anyway, following your posts, it seems absurd to argue with you about utopic self conforming free speech police states. after all it is utopic.

I wasn't talking about demographics or phenotypical diferences... I was talking about the state of mind. Someone that acts with shepard's mindset about the others ( "they so dumb... I must lead them to prevent their spupidy" ) implicitily is removing itself from that community, and , because of that, should not be allowed to take decisions about the others, because the there is not a common interest between that person and that communityBut that's like saying "men shouldn't get to have an opinion on abortion! Whites shouldn't get to have an opinion on reparations! Landowners shouldn't get to have an opinion that would affect non-landowners!" That is to say, there's no logical reason that anyone should be prevented from making decisions that affect someone who is completely different than they are.
and how is this still free speech? perhaps you're hung up on the implied use of force that a police state projects...being too afraid to speak is the antithesis of free speech.We were talking about Military State/Pacifism, not Military State/Free Speech.

But that's like saying "men shouldn't get to have an opinion on abortion! Whites shouldn't get to have an opinion on reparations! Landowners shouldn't get to have an opinion that would affect non-landowners!" That is to say, there's no logical reason that anyone should be prevented from making decisions that affect someone who is completely different than they are.

I stress that I'm talking about states of mind, not physical or patrimonial issues. If you choose to be a citizen of a country, you must have a common interst with that community. But if you think or act like the rest of the people are lambs and you're a shepard, you are admiting that you don't belong to that community and you requested the citizenship to use as a weapon to fulfill your personal ( and most likely not for the common good ) plans.

To avoid confusions, I would find somewhat ackward that people contracted a private company rule a country ( remembers me the condotieri times of Italy ), but I would admit that: the community and the private company have convergent interests ( the fact of not being exactly the kind of solution I would advice is not relevant). I would admit as well that the resolutions were only taken by the whole community ( like it stills happens in some parts of Switzerland )..... What I think it is stupid is that a person that does not identify itself with the common people of a community ( they are stupid, I am not ( of course... ) ) enters in it and pretends to govern them, claiming that it is for the common good ( "the pigs must eat apples because they need to make a lot of mental work. And because of that they need to live inside the manor, while the other animals live in the stable" ..... Rings a bell? ). For me that is simply hypocritical...

We were talking about Military State/Pacifism, not Military State/Free Speech.

Incorrect

Me:
Free Speech and Police State are surely paradoxal, given the in game description. Pacfism could work, technically, it would result in the weakest police state ever though.

You:
No, you could have a Police State in which most or all citizens believed in the party line and therefore no enforcement would be necessary.


r rolo1:
This reminds me something.... 1984, isn't it?


you:
You think there's never been an authoritarian situation where most of the people actually supported the person in charge?


me:
Nope, not 100% of everybody.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.

you:
I do believe I said "most."


me:
No, you said most or all such that no enforcement was nessecary.

you:
Such could be the case. No enforcement would be necessary if the dissenters were too frightened to act, for example.

mrt144:
and how is this still free speech? perhaps you're hung up on the implied use of force that a police state projects...being too afraid to speak is the antithesis of free speech.

anyway, following your posts, it seems absurd to argue with you about utopic self conforming free speech police states. after all it is utopic.

( "the pigs must eat apples because they need to make a lot of mental work. And because of that they need to live inside the manor, while the other animals live in the stable" ..... Rings a bell? ). For me that is simply hypocritical...Wait, what? When did I say that the common good was "all of the smart people get to live in the lap of luxury while all of the stupid ones work to support the smart ones?"
IncorrectI got my conversations crossed, that's all. Besides, "Free Speech" doesn't necessarily mean "Free Speech for all."

What does decentralization mean? Just a lack of economic principles? Barter system?

What does decentralization mean? Just a lack of economic principles? Barter system?It means letting each region figure out their own way of doing things.

"Free Speech" doesn't necessarily mean "Free Speech for all."

Yes, it really does mean free speech for all. If you restrict who has free speech, then it's no longer free.

Yes, it really does mean free speech for all.freedom of speech
–noun
the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.

I don't see where it says "all people" in there. I'd say if most people in a society have freedom of speech, that would be enough to qualify for the "free speech" civic.

I'd say you're stretching.

I'd say you're stretching.If you say so. I guess, to you, those five civics in each of five categories in Civ4 perfectly represent every possible state of affairs in every nation that has ever existed or will ever exist. As for me, I choose to take them with a grain of salt.