Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

Two things:

One, I think the Law_Diplomacy & Law_Ideology would be very interesting, and you'll notice many US Citizens care a lot about these things, despite their seemingly limited effects on day-to-day life.

See, by being confrontational, people get scared/excited about the prospect of war.

Also, many people would rather take an "United States First" view over spending money, resources, and diplomatic clout on the people of other countries, thus Ideology is vitally important.

Two, I'd disagree on the Law_Tort.  The main reason evil conservative scum form Corporations isn't to keep the Corporations from getting sued, but to remove their personal liability.

----Ludicrious Example-----
IPOD gives some people cancer...Apple gets sued.  Even if Steve Jobs himself knew this was gonna happen five years ago.
---End Lubidcious Example----

In the legal world, the REAL problem is actually holding people responsible.  In the above example, there'd be enough deniability that the CEO could just duck out, wait two or three years, then found a new company, with loss of assets being limited to the stock owned in the company.

Thus, I'd recommend that LAW_TORT be expanded to so it allows the procecution of the people behind the corporation, at least at L+.

At C+, Corporations are nameless, onimpotent beings.

[Servant Corps]

Having browsed through this thread again, I just found some other laws...

LAW_OIL:
C+: Oil companies receive lots of subsidies in order to extract oil in other countries.
L+: Oil is banned, and the government funds alternative fuel programs.

LAW_TRADE:
C+: Completely free trade.
L+: Complete "Fair" trade. Lots of tariffs to protect local industries.

LAW_MAD: (subset of foreign policy and nuclear power, dealing with nuclear weapons)
Arch-Conservative: Tactical nuclear weapons are frequently used by the military in combat situations.
C+: The government relies on nukes to deter potential enemies, within and without.
L+: The US has no nukes whatsoever.

LAW_SOCIALSECURITY:
C+: Social Security phased out in favor of "private retirement accounts"./Social Security benefits are nominal, if they even exist.
L+: The government spare no expenses in providing for retirees.

LAW_PUBLICATTIRE:
C+: There is a standard dress code most people have to follow. (Wearing Liberal clothing in a Conservative location is a criminal offense, "violating decency".)
L+: Nudity is no longer a criminal offense.

LAW_SUPREME:
C+: Strict constructionism is in effect. "Judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning (or originally intended meaning) of constitutions and laws." Less Supreme Court cases per year.
L+: Judicial activism. Judges are expected to intervene and solve pressing social questions. There are more Supreme Court cases per year.

[mainiac]

I think that protectionism stopped being a liberal issue a long time ago and Clinton drove the last nail in the casket with NAFTA.  And the supreme court is covered by the supreme court members.  I think the other stuff is logical.  Oil seems like it would be a good addition.

[E. Albright]

LAW_TRADE:
C+: Completely free trade.
L+: Complete "Fair" trade. Lots of tariffs to protect local industries.

I actually would put completely free trade as C or M, with complete regulatory capture as C+... or if you prefer: completely "fair" trade; lots of tariffs and subsidies to protect local ma-and-pop multinational corporations. IOW, at C+ the largest of corporations, obviously being utterly essential to the economic well-being of America, use the government to entrench monopolies and otherwise promote their corporate health, rather than letting the whims of the market decide their fates/jeopardize the "common good".

As to the Tort reform, I'd throw in "corporate personhood is abolished" no later than L+.

[mainiac]

I think we're making too many issues.

This is a valid concern as well.  Maybe some issues should be consolidated or eliminated?

LAW_TRADE:
C+: Completely free trade.
L+: Complete "Fair" trade. Lots of tariffs to protect local industries.

I actually would put completely free trade as C or M, with complete regulatory capture as L+...

Bolded for editing to what I think you meant.

or if you prefer: completely "fair" trade; lots of tariffs and subsidies to protect local ma-and-pop multinational corporations. IOW, at C+ the largest of corporations, obviously being utterly essential to the economic well-being of America, use the government to entrench monopolies and otherwise promote their corporate health, rather than letting the whims of the market decide their fates/jeopardize the "common good".

While the notion of "fair trade" import laws has appeal to some liberals, other liberals vehemently oppose such nation.  Still other liberals argue for protectionism without notions of "fair trade" or argue for "carbon tarriffs" or oil tarrifs which likewise some liberals staunchly opposed.  Meanwhile on the conservative side of the issue you will find very much the same range of ideas, free traders, protectionists, fair traders, carbon tarriffs, moral tarrifs, etc.

Currently, the free traders dominate both camps, both parties are dominated by free traders and the differences are very slight.  And given that no serious economist opposes free trade in general, that's likely to continue.  The minor differences would be a subset of a foreign policy issue, not an issue in their own right.  I'd say they're minor enough that even the military issue could cover them (by tangent).

[E. Albright]

I actually would put completely free trade as C or M, with complete regulatory capture as L+...

Bolded for editing to what I think you meant.

First off, eek, ya might wanna go back and have a look at those tags.

Second, um... no. No, no, no. Regulatory capture is the antithesis of L+. Regulatory capture occurs when the entity being regulated subverts the monitoring body, whether by revolving-door hiring practices, intensive lobbying to have the organization legislatively defanged, by seating a sympathetic executive to appoint organizational chiefs that are friendly to the monitored industry, or whatever. Regulatory capture is when the foxes are given desk jobs at the henhouse's guard shack; the monitoring body meant to act as a check on recklessness and irresponsibility becomes at best a neutral bystander and at worst an active accomplist.

[E. Albright]

While the notion of "fair trade" import laws has appeal to some liberals, other liberals vehemently oppose such nation.  Still other liberals argue for protectionism without notions of "fair trade" or argue for "carbon tarriffs" or oil tarrifs which likewise some liberals staunchly opposed.  Meanwhile on the conservative side of the issue you will find very much the same range of ideas, free traders, protectionists, fair traders, carbon tarriffs, moral tarrifs, etc.

Currently, the free traders dominate both camps, both parties are dominated by free traders and the differences are very slight.  And given that no serious economist opposes free trade in general, that's likely to continue.

I think we need to be careful with our language here. We're wandering into an area where the simplistic one-dimensional political spectrum that LCS cheerfully embraces becomes rather inadequate.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "free trade"? If you simply mean "non-centrally-planned economics" or "capitalism", I agree that both the mainstream American right and left support it. If you mean "unfettered market capitalism" or something stronger, I'd argue that neither really support it. The mainstream right wants a government sympathetic to and supportive of the interests of large corporations (with the government spending its limited budget as a pliant major consumer of corporate goods and services); the mainstream left wants a government that regulates (but does not control) the aforementioned corporations, giving them their head but rapping their knuckles if they get too far out of line. This is the viewpoint LCS currently embraces; if you look at C+/C++ and L+ flavor text, the C end of the spectrum has the government actively run by and for the corporations, and the L end has the government sharply limiting their malfeasance, but not threatening their existence or private status as long as they obey (restrictive, draconian) laws.

[mainiac]

By "free trade", I was talking about international trade and the matter of import taxes or other trade barriers.  I was unaware that there was another subject that free trade referred to.  "Free markets" is a broader subject with clearer liberal and conservative divide.  Conservatives would support free markets home and abroad while liberals would want more regulation.  I would think that would fall more under foreign policy or existing domestic policy issues though.

[E. Albright]

 

The regulatory capture sidetrack (which I shall blame firmly on posting before entirely waking up) had me thinking in excessively broad terms. Free trade. Yeah. The mainstream American Left and Right both are dominated by neoliberal corporatists who favor unrestricted movement of goods and capital. No argument there.

[Servant Corps]

Neoliberalism and corporatism? Doesn't exactly mix.

Meh, when I said free trade, I mean international trade and trade barriers. That's it. I was just thinking of ways to expand gameplay.

Other issues I was thinking of:
*Dueling (Said to be an important issue in the 1860's. Democrats in favor of dueling, Republicans against dueling.)
*States' Rights (Conservatives for states' rights, Liberals against.)

[mainiac]

*Dueling (Said to be an important issue in the 1860's. Democrats in favor of dueling, Republicans against dueling.)

...

*States' Rights (Conservatives for states' rights, Liberals against.)

usually this term is just a code word for one of any number of different political issues...

[Servant Corps]

As I said, I was trying to channel Liberal Elite's support of useless issues.

Liberal Elite? You're still active? Why not post?

[E. Albright]

Neoliberalism and corporatism? Doesn't exactly mix.

This depends on whether we're talking about the academic or popular definition of corporatism. I heartily agree that neoliberalism is strongly at odds with the former. The latter, however, is integral to the neoliberal agenda...

[mainiac]

I would offer caution about these terms.  Neoliberalism can mean an interventionist humanitarian approach to foreign policy or it can mean the elimination of economic regulation.  Corporatism can mean anything from a free market to a fascist industrial sponsorship.  Do try to avoid a semantics debate.