Remove ads

Victoria Falls: A Post-Collapse American Nation Quest [Down With Victoria!]

Voting is open
Reader mode
Asuryan said:
The only acceptable meme in Chicago territory is eagleposting.

Using any other meme on Chicago territory is punishable by mandatory consumption of twenty pineapple pizzas.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
pick something that's a punishment, buddy

I would like to note that the range on Legitimacy goes from +6 to -6; going for net zero isn't a bad idea, especially if it means we get some of the nicer perks.

I'll probably end up approval voting for everything except amend the constitution for this reason.
 
I'm leaning towards the following:

[][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.

[][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.

[][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need

[][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
 
Nice update, and good work synthesising something out of the preceding chaos.
...

Apologies... :) but the imp of the perverse in me demands this:
PoptartProdigy said:
Few would deny that for all of its flaws, America's system did lead to times of great prosperity all throughout society; many wish to recapture that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
PoptartProdigy said:
times of great prosperity all throughout society.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But never, to date, prosperity for all throughout society, at the same time.
 
I am broadly against centralizing power too much; imperial presidency and the failure of congress to reign in the imperial presidency are things to avoid.
 
[ ][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

Democracy is non-negotiable to me. This is the only part of the vote where I'll only vote for a single option. Writing your pet-ideology into the constitution is a affront to the democratic process and the will of the people.

I'm uncertain whether or not I'll include the Socialist option in my approval voting. It seems to me that it does allow privately owned businesses. Could you elaborate on this @PoptartProdigy? In particular, I'm interested in whether or not the state is allowed to forcibly appropriate businesses in an arbitrary manner or if certain criteria must be met for the implementation of workplace democracy.(and if so, what those criteria are?)

Here's what I imagine my vote is going to be at this point in time, in case people are interested:
[ ][IDEALS] New Capitalist
[ ][IDEALS] Social Democrat
[ ][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
[ ][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need
[ ][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[ ][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
[ ][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
 
Rat King said:
I am broadly against centralizing power too much; imperial presidency and the failure of congress to reign in the imperial presidency are things to avoid.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Centralization of power doesn't equate an Imperial presidency.

We could centralize all power on the federal level, and completely abolish the presidency, using a parliamentary structure instead.

Versharl said:
Democracy is non-negotiable to me. This is the only part of the vote where I'll only vote for a single option. Writing your pet-ideology into the constitution is a affront to the democratic process and the will of the people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The US constitution contains several pet ideologies that have been written into it.
 
Last edited:
Armageddon will not set us back on the road of progress.
[ ][IDEALS] Socialist
[ ][CRUSH] None.
[ ][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[ ][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
 
Last edited:
10ebbor10 said:
Centralization of power doesn't equate an Imperial presidency.

We could centralize all power on the federal level, and completely abolish the presidency, using a parliamentary structure instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm also wary of red-tape/bureaucracy; often a central government does not have a good idea of what local conditions on the ground might be like and might not be able to react flexibly enough to account for that sort of thing.
 
Rat King said:
All power to the worker's committees!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know this was probably said in a joking manner but what precisely is meant by "worker" in this context or really in general? It's a fairly nebulous term used by socialists in general, even in our own societies where traditional workers in factories are the exception and not the rule.
 
Professor Vesca said:
Prosperity for all at all times? Now hold on their cowpoke, let's not get crazy here...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's not quite what I said.
Being more serious, my emphasis is more on the Prosperity for all part, recognising as we all must that "at all times" is gonna be hard- considering no one is prosperous right now, and we'll probably have harder times ahead whatever socio-economic ideology we adopt.
 
Last edited:
[ ][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.
[ ][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.
[ ][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[ ][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.

WE WILL NEVER ALLOW THE IDEALS OF AMERICA TO DIE!

More seriously let me just say that some of these plans are proposing negative legitimacy. That is a nice way to get any other revivalist faction either resistant to being absorbed into us or become outright opposed to us. I'd be willing to go to full democracy in regards to Crush as well as going to modern US for Power and back up to full implementation for text Text, but I will not budge on New Capitalist. This is because it addresses all the problems people ACTUALLY have with the current system. Living wage, corporations aren't treated as people, baked in protections of worker's rights, and it allows those oh so coveted by some democratic work places.
 
Last edited:
[ ][IDEALS] Social Democrat
[ ][IDEALS] Socialist
[ ][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.
[ ][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need
[ ][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

Personally i view these as acceptable mid-range options that nobody is completed happy or angry about. But all the social safety cost big bucks so maybe we let the centralization slide a bit?
 
Might as well post

[][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.

[ ][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.

[ ][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need

[ ][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
 
[]IDEALS] New Capitalist:
[][CRUSH] None.
[][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
 
Versharl said:
I know this was probably said in a joking manner but what precisely is meant by "worker" in this context or really in general? It's a fairly nebulous term used by socialists in general, even in our own societies where traditional workers in factories are the exception and not the rule.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In my case, it's... well, it's complicated if you want to delve into it. It means people who labor or work or otherwise provide services and depend on wages for making a living; it's a very broad category and can include traditional "blue-collar" workers, such as miners, mechanics, factory workers, and etc. and can also include waiters, white-collar workers (data entry, tech support, clerks, greengrocers, etc) and generally includes everyone involved in a particular factory or work-site.

And of course, there would also be local, community committees. Traditionally (if we delve into anarch-syndicalism), it would be trade unions (i.e. plumbers, factory workers, mechanics), but I think in updating to meet a more modern perspective, it would have to expand to not just "unions", but laborers and workers of all stripes, organized by profession., by workplace, or even by geographic area, depending on population density.
 
Ghostdevil said:
Gonna have to do New Capitalist, the only one where were not telling individual Entrepreneurs that they can get fucked.
Though Social Demo is a good compromise since its not immediately get fucked for businessmen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How exactly is the Social Democrat option telling entrepreneurs to "get fucked"? Per the description, the QM's vision of Social Democracy is "rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise". How is there any implication that it's opposed to private businesses at all?
 
Last edited:
10ebbor10 said:
We don't know if legitimacy starts out at zero, or at some positive baseline.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes but at the same time we have no evidence of the opposite and lowering Legitimacy in any way is a bad thing for our position. Nothing good comes from a new government having lower legitimacy.

Alliterate said:
I'd lay money you find it doesn't (assuage all the reservations and address all the problems people attribute to the current system).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Could you name some? I'll retract the statement if someone can offer something that is actually an issue and not a matter of wishing to burn the current system wholesale.
 
Last edited:
nkd1325 said:
More seriously let me just say that some of these plans are proposing negative legitimacy. That is a nice way to get any other revivalist faction either resistant to being absorbed into us or become outright opposed to us. I'd be willing to go to full democracy in regards to Crush as well as going to modern US for Power and back up to full implementation for text Text, but I will not budge on New Capitalist. This is because it addresses all the problems people ACTUALLY have with the current system. Living wage, corporations aren't treated as people, baked in protections of worker's rights, and it allows those oh so coveted by some democratic work places.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I have my doubts about the living wage bit TBH. The New capitalist is supposed to be less radical than the Social Democracy, but the social democracy just gets around to promising housing, food and water, which makes one doubt just how bad the living wage is supposed to be if people can't afford those.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Remove ads
Back
Top