Civic Combination Possibility

I'm not going by what the civilopedia says. Dictionary def:
Police State
noun
a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

I'm not going by what the civilopedia says. Dictionary def:
Police State
noun
a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

Click to expand...

totalitarian
adjective
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

Timsup2nothin said:

We might not be drafting, but large cities do produce military units at the expense of happiness. (It's not just a job, it's an adventure...and also the only job available) I mentioned Vassalage because it really doesn't have any effects that can be pointed out as not happening (our military units do get good training), and it describes our foreign policy pretty well.

Click to expand...

Hm...maybe, if you considered the National Guard to be the "free units".

I don't agree, though. If the US isn't running Free Speech, then somebody needs to tell Obama so he can round up the Republicans.

Robo-Star said:

totalitarian
adjective
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.

Click to expand...

So maybe a state that allows its people to say whatever they want, but not to actually form opposition parties?

It's a weird balance, but the civic combination is possible so there has to be some way it would manifest.

HeliosDisciple said:

So maybe a state that allows its people to say whatever they want, but not to actually form opposition parties?

Click to expand...

Mmhmm.
-

HeliosDisciple said:

Hm...maybe, if you considered the National Guard to be the "free units".

Click to expand...

I was thinking regular military. Keep in mind that even the units you draft under nationalism require the same upkeep cost as any other unit. How many people join the military for a reason other than 'it was my best (maybe only) shot at education/good job'. We've replaced the draft with economic conditions that force people into military service (or crime, or both), but the outcome is the same. Cities produce military units without having to sacrifice production, but the conditions that make it happen lead to reduced happiness.

Timsup2nothin said:

I was thinking regular military. Keep in mind that even the units you draft under nationalism require the same upkeep cost as any other unit. How many people join the military for a reason other than 'it was my best (maybe only) shot at education/good job'. We've replaced the draft with economic conditions that force people into military service (or crime, or both), but the outcome is the same. Cities produce military units without having to sacrifice production, but the conditions that make it happen lead to reduced happiness.

Click to expand...

I meant the free units that Vassalage provides.

While I don't disagree with you, I think that's a deeper analysis of the civics than a "vast overview"-type game like Civ needs.

Can the modern US really be said to be the same as Soviet Russia (Nationalism) or the Holy Roman Empire (Vassalage) or Imperial China (Bureaucracy) in this wide of a scale? At the absolute most, I'd say we switch into Nationalism when something big happens (Civil War, Pearl Harbor, 9/11) and then switch back.

HeliosDisciple said:

I meant the free units that Vassalage provides.

While I don't disagree with you, I think that's a deeper analysis of the civics than a "vast overview"-type game like Civ needs.

Can the modern US really be said to be the same as Soviet Russia (Nationalism) or the Holy Roman Empire (Vassalage) or Imperial China (Bureaucracy) in this wide of a scale? At the absolute most, I'd say we switch into Nationalism when something big happens (Civil War, Pearl Harbor, 9/11) and then switch back.

Click to expand...

I think the difference between the US and Soviet Russia would be Free Market v State property. Nationalism seems to me the best description for both.

Then what is Free Speech? Has any country ever had it if we're excluding the US?

I mean, come on. You cannot sit there and tell me the US is on the same level as the Soviet Union was when it comes to freedom of speech without being either a liar or superedgyamericasuxgrr.

Think outside the US, folks. China today has a one party system, where the police are very active and free speech is regulated. Burma/Myanmar had a military despotism, and only recently allowed opposition parties to form. Most of their wealth is concentrated in the capital, so perhaps they are running Bureaucracy. If you've ever seen the videos of "prime minister's questions" in the UK, or read any of their tabloid newspapers (or web sites), you'd know that free speech is clearly allowed there. Iran has a very active police force, a government run by religious leaders, but no free speech. Saudi Arabia is much less of a police state, but speech is suppressed and the official religion is enforced by the government.

HeliosDisciple said:

Then what is Free Speech? Has any country ever had it if we're excluding the US?

I mean, come on. You cannot sit there and tell me the US is on the same level as the Soviet Union was when it comes to freedom of speech without being either a liar or superedgyamericasuxgrr.

Click to expand...

That was my question. I personally think the answer is no. There are definitely plenty of things you can say in the US that while they won't directly get you jailed they will put you in a position where you can expect that other 'guaranteed right' to equal treatment under law to disappear. McCarthyism is far from eradicated.

If Nationhood wasn't a good fit maybe free speech as 'the only choice that makes any sense' would have some merit.

I'm not sure just what the qualification is, then, for Free Speech.

I mean, the Soviets allowed some private possession, but I doubt anybody would dispute them running State Property.

HeliosDisciple said:

I'm not sure just what the qualification is, then, for Free Speech.

I mean, the Soviets allowed some private possession, but I doubt anybody would dispute them running State Property.

Click to expand...

I would guess we will know it if we live long enough to see it. I'm pretty old though so I'm not optimistic personally.

vorlon_mi said:

Think outside the US, folks. China today has a one party system, where the police are very active and free speech is regulated. Burma/Myanmar had a military despotism, and only recently allowed opposition parties to form. Most of their wealth is concentrated in the capital, so perhaps they are running Bureaucracy. If you've ever seen the videos of "prime minister's questions" in the UK, or read any of their tabloid newspapers (or web sites), you'd know that free speech is clearly allowed there. Iran has a very active police force, a government run by religious leaders, but no free speech. Saudi Arabia is much less of a police state, but speech is suppressed and the official religion is enforced by the government.

Click to expand...

So...are any of those running Police State and Free Speech?

The best that I can figure for Police State+Free Speech would be a populist strongman who's disgusted with political parties takes over a country.

All political parties are banned, and so are elections since they create parties. The government cracks down hard on any attempt to create one, and mass protests for being an unofficial party; however, as a populist/to portray himself as "For the People", individuals can still say whatever they like, even in criticism.

I dunno, that's the best you can mash the two together, I think.

Robo-Star said:

totalitarian
adjective
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

Click to expand...

That's 2 different definitions. #2 applies in the US. The juggernaut mass-media platforms in the US exercise a form of control over the thought of others. It's called propaganda and, if you haven't heard yet, it works very well. If it isn't in mainstream media, it isn't accepted as true or even possible by a vast majority of Americans. By way of omission, the media exercises a control of thought. By providing a single point of view (that of corporate capitalism), the masses adopt such thought patterns as absolute and those who depart from these thought patterns are either "wacko" or "dangerous".

Really, #1 could apply as well if we understand that both major parties are for corporate capitalism (despite what rhetoric would suggest since their actions are all that matters). And since the party for corporate-capitalism is the only one that is represented in mainstream media, it could be considered a party that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion. As far as "exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life" I refer you to Waco Texas, OWS, and Boston after the marathon bombing (amongst plenty of others).

It is, of course, very difficult to break from American exceptionalism and see the empire for what it is.

HeliosDisciple said:

The best that I can figure for Police State+Free Speech would be a populist strongman who's disgusted with political parties takes over a country.

All political parties are banned, and so are elections since they create parties. The government cracks down hard on any attempt to create one, and mass protests for being an unofficial party; however, as a populist/to portray himself as "For the People", individuals can still say whatever they like, even in criticism.

I dunno, that's the best you can mash the two together, I think.

Click to expand...

I guess...the problem is then figuring out how that form of Free Speech precludes Vassalage/Bureaucracy.
-

blitzkrieg1980 said:

And since the party for corporate-capitalism is the only one that is represented in mainstream media, it could be considered a party that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion.

Click to expand...

If you're really committed to portraying the American Empire as totalitarian, sure! I remember when Ross Perot was assassinated for daring to run as a third party.

Rolleyes doesn't make your point any more correct. I'm wasn't committed in any way to portraying the US as classical totalitarian state. I was pointing out how a post-WW2 modern society can be totalitarian without having death camps or assassinations. However, now that you mention it, extradition, torture, genocide, and executive orders allowing for legalized assassination of "enemy combatants" (even if they are US citizens) might qualify the US anyway. It is a healthy case of nationalistic exceptionalism that makes it so easy to deny how your own country just might be a modern day totalitarian state.

Ross Perot was given his little limelight because he was a billionaire, able to fund his own campaign, and fully part of the private for-profit/free market/corporate state. There are plenty of other parties out there that have fairly large followings (despite not being given the time of day on the major media networks). Notice that, besides your great example of Ross Perot, there isn't a third podium at those awe inspiring presidential debates. No one invites those parties. There are no Socialist, Green, Communist, or even Fascist (though I don't agree, those parties do exist) invited to the debates. That basically precludes their possibility of winning in this era of mega-media domination.

Is it really that hard to see?

TheMulattoMaker said:

Nope. Also some of the Econ civics wouldn't work with most Religion civics. State Prop and/or Police State with Free Religion (or Free Speech)?

There's also a few in the same category that aren't mutually exclusive. Univ Suff and Representation, for instance. Slavery, Serfdom, and Caste could probably all be implemented at the same time. And it seems like Nationhood could go with just about anything.

My 2. Now I'll observe and possibly join the political debates to follow...

Click to expand...

I don't see why not. Cuba is a religious communist country.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

Is it really that hard to see?

Click to expand...

I think it's misleading at best and dishonest at worst to use the same term for the US and Nazi Germany.

No, the US government and system is not perfect, but to call it totalitarian means you have to stretch the word until it's meaningless. I mean, by your criteria,

extradition, torture, genocide, and executive orders allowing for legalized assassination of "enemy combatants" (even if they are citizens)

Click to expand...

damn near every civilization for the history of the world has been totalitarian.

Whatever its faults (and I am aware there's a lot), the US government does not exert enough control over its populace to qualify as totalitarian.