Print

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

[Servant Corps]

You're using a much more loose definition of protecting, dictatorship, and befriending than I would agree with. It doesn't really matter though. More important is that the US no longer has a "national security interest" in propping up unstable dictators. Even if it did, pragmatism versus idealism doesn't really fit into the left-right dynamic anymore; modern neo-conservatism is violently idealistic.

I disagree vehemently. The US have many reasons to prop up dictators (need for the secure passage of oil, ensuring stability in a unstable region, stopping terrorism, etc.). Still, you are right about neo-conservatism, and while I consider it "liberal interventionism", most people won't. Kay12's idea seems more useful in that regard.

The main problem though is that I'm sure LiteralKa still wants to see some sort of law that would track Human Rights. The Human Rights law was made partly as a compromise over the debate on the 'Civil Rights' law; while civil rights have a narrow definition in LCS (meaning african-american and minority rights), liberals view civil rights to mean a wide majority of things, so LiteralKa wanted some sort of measurement of Human Rights. I remember one of the ideas LiteralKa had was to tie an Human Rights issue to a variety of issues...so that the Civil Rights law was based on Human Rights and Civil Rights, Immigration was based on Human Rights and Civil Rights, etc.

I proposed the Human Rights law as another solution, a law that represents how strongly the US supports human rights abroad, by acting as a marker for US' support for "human rights" at home.

EDIT: Here was my original proposal for handling foreign affairs issues, posted in "Rethinking the issues":

---LAW_DIPLOMACY && LAW_IDEOLOGY: This affects the foreign policy of the government, dividing it into two laws. LAW_IDEOLOGY focuses on what is America's goal in the international community: Promoting American freedom/'interests' (C+) or Promoting Human Rights (L+). LAW_DIPLOMACY focuses on how America seeks to achieve the goals set out in LAW_IDEOLOGY, either being adverse and confrontational (C+) or cooperative and willing to work within the international framework (L+). Perhaps a bit too complicated, but due to the complexities of how the two ideologies view "international politics", it seems better to just have two scales.

The only problem is, I don't know of exactly how LAW_DIPLOMACY && LAW_IDEOLOGY can really affect America back at home. So it does seem a tad stupid

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.

[G-Flex]

You're using a much more loose definition of protecting, dictatorship, and befriending than I would agree with. It doesn't really matter though. More important is that the US no longer has a "national security interest" in propping up unstable dictators. Even if it did, pragmatism versus idealism doesn't really fit into the left-right dynamic anymore; modern neo-conservatism is violently idealistic.

These ideals are also highly mutable depending on the situation. One reason neo-conservatism is so idealistic is because it's working for them at the moment.

Keep in mind that much of the work the US has done with dictators in the past has been swept under the rug, or done under the guise of disposing of another tyrant. I can certainly see it happening again, especially in a C+-style environment, if it were at all practical.

[Servant Corps]

Um...

It's really just flavor. Mid-range alignment presidents do appoint Sec. State and Attorney General outside their alignment, and they will also sign and veto outside their alignment, but these are actually separate phenomena.

...Jonathan...

         if(l==434)
         {
            if(yesvotes_s>=51)yeswin_s=1;
            if(yesvotes_s<67 && killbill[c]==-2)killbill[c]=0;
            if(yesvotes_s==50)
            {
               //TIE BREAKER
               int vote=(exec[EXEC_PRESIDENT]+
                  exec[EXEC_VP]+
                  exec[EXEC_STATE]+
                  exec[EXEC_ATTORNEY]+LCSrandom(9)-4)/4;

               if(law[bill[c]]>vote && billdir[c]==-1)yeswin_s=1;
               if(law[bill[c]]<vote && billdir[c]==1)yeswin_s=1;

               //ASSURED SIGNING BY PRESIDENT IF VP VOTED YES
               if(yeswin_s)killbill[c]=-1;
            }
         }

      for(int c=0;c<bill.size();c++)
      {
         char sign=0;
         if(killbill[c]==1)sign=-1;
         else
         {
            int vote=(exec[EXEC_PRESIDENT]+
               exec[EXEC_VP]+
               exec[EXEC_STATE]+
               exec[EXEC_ATTORNEY]+(short)LCSrandom(9)-4)/4;
            if(exec[EXEC_PRESIDENT]==2)vote=2;
            if(exec[EXEC_PRESIDENT]==-2)vote=-2;

            if(law[bill[c]]>vote && billdir[c]==-1)sign=1;
            if(law[bill[c]]<vote && billdir[c]==1)sign=1;
            if(killbill[c]==-1)sign=1;
         }