[Clausewitz]

Things go by fast here, my good Nabob.

Get with it.

Actually, I don't think we'd settled on being an island nation, but it's the easiest path to take for the purposes of giving this game context.

[Demosthenes]

I would like to point out that replacing the standing army in favor for militias does not imply that PoFo will not maintain a military at all. Standing armies outside of wars serve no other purpose than to repress the masses and serve imperialist interests. Under the SN-RF coalition, it is very possible that we build and maintain a professional army in reserve along side the active militia in more peaceful times.

Thank you for the clarification FR. I'll note none of my opinions necessarily directly reflect that of SN leadership. Though they may coincide for the most part. My comments are mine personally, and will be deferred to SN leadership upon their request at any time.

PoFo Land is not in NATO, and not all parties are in favor of joining NATO (e.g. mine is opposed to joining).

I had misread that apparently previously. My apologies for the mischaracterization.

No, it's really not that bad. Inequality causes esteem problems and is not particularly desirable.

Inequality in and of itself is unfortunately inevitable. What I want to make sure I specify is gross inequality. I'll use an example. It's undeniable I think that a man who is 6'6" has certain natural advantages over a man who is 6'. The 6' tall man has the same over a man who is 5' 6". What the system you propose to continue supporting does is not only enhance the natural advantage of the 6' 6" man, but will also grant him privledge 1000 times greater than what he already enjoys.

If this is thought of somehow as a strawman, I'll use money instead. One man has $1000, the other $1 million. The laws you propose to support grant every economic advantage possible to the man with $1 million, while the man with $1000 can barely eat, has to wage-slave his way through life and if he isn't lucky enough to excel in his given field in high school, fight a loosing battle through your education system to claw his way to middle management.

This system works superlatively for the guy with $1 million who really doesn't have to do anything if he doesn't want to. He doesn't even really need an education, but your policies will continue to grant him this special priviledge from generation to generation based on friendly inheritance laws, friendly business and lending practices, and even things like morgage and bankruptcy laws.

So, gross inequality does a lot more than make people feel bad. It keeps them in a system that they are not represented by in any way. It ignores them when they are sick, and it sends them to fight in foreign wars, in the name of the country, so that the guy who has $1 million can in turn make $10 million more...

which is why the current global elites are internationalists and working so hard to suppress nationalism.

Though I have a feeling I know where you're going with this, I'd like a more specific explanation so I can determine if we have some basis for agreement or if this is more fascist trickery...

Number of deaths on the US highway system annually: 42,000
Number of deaths in Iraq: ~4,300 (naturally one must also consider the wounded, both psychologically and mentally)

Of course viewed in this light, 4300 isn't that much. We could also compare deaths from drinking and smoking, and even suicides in order to make 4300 seem small and..."trivial" but there is a much broader point to be made and the heart of it comes from your own words. "1 death in an unnecessary Imperialist war is one too many." [Paraphrasing slightly]

Those who die in automobile accidents ostensibly do so at the behest of the very same policy makers who have goaded (we'll continue to use the US as an example) the US into two wars involving oil and dollar stabilization. These policy makers have long crafted the media image of the "car" as one of the greatest symbols of personal freedom for US citizens. Laws are written so that even the poorest of citizens can afford some type of automobile. Cities are planned based on drive time rather than transit (mass) or walk time. Roads are designed based on everyone driving their own vehicle. This demand (partly an innate love of technology, partly enhanced by media forces and the necessity created by urban planners) then in turn also serves the very same elites who also fuel the need for war.

It's a neverending pit of consumerism that is the backbone of the system you advoate. Liberal reforms are only an attempt to better stabilize this system. I'm afraid only the SN has the vision to truly combat this paradigm at it's sourse. What many of you are calling "radical" I call a necessity to once and for all free us from the tyranny of the elite.

You need a car to live free -> you need gas for this freedom -> Gas is refined from oil -> Oil comes from foreign sourses -> Those foreign sourses must be exploited so we can be free -> Military forces must be deployed to exploit those foreign sourses -> Elites at the top enrich themselves at every step along this path -> The poor are either exploited in this scenario (and are kept ambivilent) or go along and receive enough crumbs to support it (and are still largely kept ambivilent).

[Infidelis]

Perhaps we should opt out of NATO and seek to forge our own strategic alliances.

How do we just go to a country, that isn't in NATO and say "Hey, we're new around here...wanna be allies?"

I don't like the idea of not going into a NATO-esque coalition.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

How do we just go to a country, that isn't in NATO and say "Hey, we're new around here...wanna be allies?"

How does Switzerland do as such? Easy. They became a center of commerce.

In other words, money.

I don't like the idea of not going into a NATO-esque coalition.

You see, you want to join an imperialist clique for the same reason I don't: security. In my opinion, when we don't forge any set in stone contracts with imperialist nations, other imperialist nations (Russia and China for instance) are more willing to leave us to our business.

In fact, I don't get this attraction to peacetime alliances that 19th century introduced and the 20th century expanded on.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

This is looking more and more like Germany's 2005 election outcome

Well we do have a proportional parliamentary system which is prone to form many parties, with each party covering only a small portion of the ideological map. That means that several parties are going to have to work together and come up with various compromises that don't stray too far from any party's constituency.

Where the balance of the coalition lies on the spectrum is not always clear. Right now we have two parties (PUC and PNL) that straddle different sectors of the center; and we have one party each for center-right (CA) and center-left (SLD). Then four non-centrist parties covering each of the 'four corners.' So there's a close-matching party for almost everyone in the world of PoFo, and the distribution of parties looks much more "perfect" than many real-world parliaments. So I am actually very happy with the outcome so far and look forward to a fun - excuse me, hard working time in the Parliament.

And fitting to form, there is a definite divide between the four parties in the middle and each of the four corner parties. Among the corner parties only the SN and RF show strong cooperative sentiment. So it's pretty much going to boil down to a "grand coalition" that straddles the center. The SN and LC are both too far removed from the middle when it comes to economics; if either party were a bit less radical then an economic-right or economic-left coalition would be more feasible, depending on the leanings of the two centermost parties. (I suspect that if both SN and LC reached for the center, a rightist coalition would be slightly more likely to emerge than a leftist one, though I'm only guessing.)

I'm in the SLD, probably the moderate half of the SLD. I personally see PUC(L) as the party I'd be in if the SLD didn't exist. That doesn't mean I don't like much of what the PNL has to offer; in particular, the economic ideas of Dr. House seem well thought out, even with our nitpicky disagreements on the appropriate size and shape of the welfare state and regulatory state. I'm sure that in the negotiations we could reach a happy medium there. I admit that I haven't read all the platforms that closely, but it sounds like the PUC is the PoFo equivalent of America's moderate Democrats and the PNL lines up a bit with the moderate Republicans - not perfectly, but generally speaking.

I'm definitely far more comfortable with PUC and PNL than I am with the CA. Here the friction is mostly along economic lines. But I will accept cooperation with the CA if necessary.

The parties I have the hardest time with are the four corner parties. The two on the left are just too socialistic for me, the LC is too laissez-faire, and the PoP is, well, fascist.

I think we should start by laying out a very brief summary of the four center parties' economic, social and international positions to find out what kind of consensus could be formed.

Sorry for going on so long but this is getting to be a little bit too much fun and besides, it's my 300th post here.

[Ombrageux]

Idea: this negotiation process is proving very laborious via posts. It might be best for there to be a 'summit', IE, Paradigm, Nets, Dr. House and Dan have an instant-message session to thrash out the major issues. Then they will come up with a document, which is to be approved or rejected by the various parties. Then we'll have a government.

[Fasces]

The PoP has stated, and continues to states, its willingness to moderate its social positions on a variety of issues in order to create a coalition with economics as its basis, where our positions more or less correlate exactly with the SDL, in addition to a similarity in health care and environmental policy.

To be exact: The PoP is willing to allow any party that wants to form a coalition to essentially choose which aspect of its platform the PoP discards. This is a compromise greater than any other party is willing to form, and if economic concerns are what prevents the SDL from allying itself to the CA and the LC, a solution exists, a solution which should not be discarded simply because of some preconceived notions about the term "fascism".

[Demosthenes]

Idea: this negotiation process is proving very laborious via posts. It might be best for there to be a 'summit', IE, Paradigm, Nets, Dr. House and Dan have an instant-message session to thrash out the major issues. Then they will come up with a document, which is to be approved or rejected by the various parties. Then we'll have a government.

BY lenghty I'm assumming you really mean "Demo keeps hammering us and there's nothing we can do about it publicly so, like skulking little trolls we should put our tail between our legs and go play where he can't do that anymore".

The very idea of the sim requires that a good deal of it remain public...

[Nattering Nabob]

Idea: this negotiation process is proving very laborious via posts. It might be best for there to be a 'summit', IE, Paradigm, Nets, Dr. House and Dan have an instant-message session to thrash out the major issues. Then they will come up with a document, which is to be approved or rejected by the various parties. Then we'll have a government.

I agree.

The very idea of the sim requires that a good deal of it remain public...

We are only assigning negotiators here...they will bring back the results which will be publicly discussed and officially ratified or rejected by the respective parties.

[Ombrageux]

Demo, is there anyone left in the SLD who has much interest in your constant harping?

Fasces - I'm afraid you guys are tainted. SLD is having enough trouble being 'compromised'

[Attica]

Ombrageux

When did you arrive into this btw? I'm utterly confused as to how you've hopped on board and now suddenly the SLD are firmly a party in name only with basically nothing seperating them from the PUC now.

[Demosthenes]

When did you arrive into this btw? I'm utterly confused as to how you've hopped on board and now suddenly the SLD are firmly a party in name only with basically nothing seperating them from the PUC now.

Exactly. This has been running for many days now, and suddenly this newcomer swoops in and complains about my voice...

Early on there was a clear window where things would have gone differently. I was more than willing to be a voice of opposition within SLD and chant the party line when I had too, but the alliance with the PUC became all encompassing, and therefore I realized, as the PUC leader himself observed that I was in the wrong party altogether.

If Attica, Zag, or Gnote say: "move on", In respect to them, I will do so and leave you to your druthers. Failing that, there is still some fight to be fought.

[Ombrageux]

Perhaps this conflict was inevitable. There are liberals or social democrats and there are democratic socialists. Or to put it another way, those who believe the party is in the business of abolishing capitalism through electoral means and those who aspiore to the most progressive form of electoral capitalist democracy. I think Gnote is of the latter. Zag is probably of the former. I don't know about Attica.

This is why I motioned at the leadership committee. I think we need to clarify ourselves as a party if this kind of internal confusion is going to end, and we know how we are, know where we are going, and do something.

[Attica]

I don't know about Attica.

I'm a true social liberal. I detest 'socialism'. I believe the government has a role to play in regulating society to an extent, in particular the economic functions of the state, but not complete control. I advocate a mixed economy, and I am an avid believer in some aspects of capitalism. I just believe the state, as representative of the people, should be a steward of society, and protect the ideal of equality of opportunity for all.

This is why I motioned at the leadership committee. I think we need to clarify ourselves as a party if this kind of internal confusion is going to end, and we know how we are, know where we are going, and do something.

Gnote already did in his 4 pillars and it was expanded upon by other members in our platform, if you bothered to read it. Which, honestly, is still under construction but there is a good basis there even with specifics of our views on minutiae of certain issues.

[Okonkwo]

I'm a true social liberal. I detest 'socialism'.

But Attica, why are you siding with the socialists in the internal party struggle?

[Ombrageux]

I have read it, I carefully compared the SLD and PUC platforms before joining the PUC. I would have thought that if we were going on that platform any coalition with SN-RF as it stands would be unthinkable, although many original SLD members seem to think otherwise.

[Attica]

But Attica, why are you siding with the socialists in the internal party struggle?

I'm not. I'm opposing the funding of religious groups by the state. I support the separation of church and state.

As Dumbteen says, we have many similarities with the PUC which would make working with the SN or RF incompatible, but we are still a separate entity, and this is a crucial issue for me on what makes us independent of the PUC. If we cave on this issue we basically are the PUC and there is no need to separate the two groups. I want to work with the PUC but this issue remains intact. Seperation of Church and state. Fundamental.

[Ombrageux]

I can think of other issues in which we differ fundamentally:
* On social issues generally (abortion, same sex marriage) we differ from the PUC and share with PUC-L
* The whole PUC is in favor of phasing out welfare payments (I read that as unemployment benefits)
* The whole PUC favors a vocally "tough on crime" stance which I read as being in favor of frequent and severe prison terms (War on Drugs style)

The reason I hesitate so much on this religious issue is because of it is a compromise that was reached. Nets agreed to allow public funding for clinics that perform abortions (if not abortions themselves), and their religious angle was settled I think in a very moderate fashion, limiting it to charitable associations.

[Attica]

* On social issues generally (abortion, same sex marriage) we differ from the PUC and share with PUC-L

This is fundamentally, from the PUC's view a religious issue. From my point of view, they are health and civil rights issues, seperate from religion. See my point in regards to the seperation of church and state?

[Paradigm]

Tell you what: Let's get a vote on who wants this coalition to go forward. I don't want to force people to have to go along with this if they feel it compromises too much of what they believe. My first duty is to my party.