Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,248
Queries to the Socialist Workers Alliance
-
Is not your policy outlook overly broad in that it takes into account the far future where circumstance and the corresponding prudential actions, would render your vague intentions void? For example the socialist position on western Europe appears to have been made without any recourse to prudence or circumstance whatever, and if adopted would bind Poland to a firm directive without possibility of opportunistic action, or flexible change. In this sense the Guardians position that our military policy should not be overly broad, and focussed on present conditions and primarily on the coming term is evidently superior. We allow for regular reassessment of objectives by governments present and future, and instead of presenting vague promises of the far future propose only that which is immediately foreseeable on the understanding that it is prudent to regularly assess the nations development in order to calibrate its direction in harmony with governing intentions.
Likewise, we are concerned that your technological policy is short-sighted in terms of your stated intention to achieve a scientific or cultural victory. By heading straight to construction you effectively delay the onset of writing and libraries, which would have an earlier onset under the plan we proposed thus presenting a more efficient technological route, in addition to setting up a stronger means to a cultural development in the less immediate future than your proposal (noting that should lumbermills be pertinent due to large amounts of trees, our tech platform can easily tack on masonry and construction after the plan stated, and this would not be unduly detrimental compared to your proposal since the whole point of lumbermills you propose is for the construction of wonders, and most wonders are far beyond the scope of the relatively few turns difference between the time construction is researched in each proposition). All in all your tech proposition fails to consider long term possibilities and is inflexible.
Finally, we are disappointed that you have failed to provide a building plan beyond a statement that you intend to construct building primarily. Nevertheless, we would note that a focus on buildings is inneficient in that it fails to provide suitable defence for expansion, something both our coalitions support, and simultaneously is not a rationalised pursuit of immediate interests. In this sense the plan we proposed is superior in that it is first and foremost a rational pursuit of immediate objectives related to land-development and territorial expansion, with a secondary potentiality of setting up a foundation for faith development in order that the nation might partake in time of advantages pertaining to the same (Stonehenge allowing for fairly early religion, and hopefully best pick of beliefs for the greatest good of the empire)
All in all, your entire proposition seems very utopian, in the sense that you state long-term goals you have no immediate possibility (should you gain government) of fulfilling, while providing vague and unfocussed immediate objectives that do not really provide a decisive and goal-driven pursuit of the immediate developmental needs of the nascent polish state.
-
Is not your policy outlook overly broad in that it takes into account the far future where circumstance and the corresponding prudential actions, would render your vague intentions void? For example the socialist position on western Europe appears to have been made without any recourse to prudence or circumstance whatever, and if adopted would bind Poland to a firm directive without possibility of opportunistic action, or flexible change. In this sense the Guardians position that our military policy should not be overly broad, and focussed on present conditions and primarily on the coming term is evidently superior. We allow for regular reassessment of objectives by governments present and future, and instead of presenting vague promises of the far future propose only that which is immediately foreseeable on the understanding that it is prudent to regularly assess the nations development in order to calibrate its direction in harmony with governing intentions.
Likewise, we are concerned that your technological policy is short-sighted in terms of your stated intention to achieve a scientific or cultural victory. By heading straight to construction you effectively delay the onset of writing and libraries, which would have an earlier onset under the plan we proposed thus presenting a more efficient technological route, in addition to setting up a stronger means to a cultural development in the less immediate future than your proposal (noting that should lumbermills be pertinent due to large amounts of trees, our tech platform can easily tack on masonry and construction after the plan stated, and this would not be unduly detrimental compared to your proposal since the whole point of lumbermills you propose is for the construction of wonders, and most wonders are far beyond the scope of the relatively few turns difference between the time construction is researched in each proposition). All in all your tech proposition fails to consider long term possibilities and is inflexible.
Finally, we are disappointed that you have failed to provide a building plan beyond a statement that you intend to construct building primarily. Nevertheless, we would note that a focus on buildings is inneficient in that it fails to provide suitable defence for expansion, something both our coalitions support, and simultaneously is not a rationalised pursuit of immediate interests. In this sense the plan we proposed is superior in that it is first and foremost a rational pursuit of immediate objectives related to land-development and territorial expansion, with a secondary potentiality of setting up a foundation for faith development in order that the nation might partake in time of advantages pertaining to the same (Stonehenge allowing for fairly early religion, and hopefully best pick of beliefs for the greatest good of the empire)
All in all, your entire proposition seems very utopian, in the sense that you state long-term goals you have no immediate possibility (should you gain government) of fulfilling, while providing vague and unfocussed immediate objectives that do not really provide a decisive and goal-driven pursuit of the immediate developmental needs of the nascent polish state.
.
