Government - Left , Right , or somewhere else?

[dev 47]

Hmm...Well this thread looks like a nice serving of political propoganda...Why not join in?

I lean very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very far to the right side of the aisle on most issues, yet in most of my cities I create an opressive liberal government...Liberalism is usually the key enemy to the sims in my regions...

Anyways, though, seriously, this thread should be closed, I see some political comments I really want to comment on, and probably will if this isn't closed...

[kyoto 0]

I must say that in my city, Milwaukee when it was under the control of Socialists fared very well. It was under Zeidler, our last Socialist mayor that Milwaukee nearly double in size, and had many of her current programs created. One of the reason Milwaukee Public Housing is some of the best in the country is because of Zeidler in my opinion. We got our citywide Sanitation program stregthened, city parks were being created in many places, and taxes were quite low suprisingly. However Milwaukee has a Socialist tradition so I believe this was one of the reasons of Socialism working here. Unfortunately taxes are not as low here as they used to be, but I have hope for the future. Milwaukee still has very good services compared to what Ive heard from friends in some larger cities. I know Milwaukee may not be the best run city, as what it could have possibly been 50 years ago (please forgive my arrogance I may be wrong hehe), but it still has a low amount of corruption compared to some other cities. Socialism would work better if humans werent so greedy, I do not in turn consider myself a Socialist.

[Gman55 0]

In Seattle, politics is left or center; the Libertarians usually get more votes than the Republicans come election time. The real political contest is how left do people want to go?

[Gman55 0]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

About electing senators in the United States: Did you know that Rome fell soon after they started electing senators? Senate membership in Rome used to be based on land holdings and families. It was an oligarcy. Sound familiar?quote>

Which is why in 1913 the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. It requires that senators be directly elected by the people. Prior to this, state legislatures elected senators. In other words, senators were one spot removed from direct accountability.

The Founders intended that senators be a "brake" on the will and desires of commoners (aka the House of Representatives). In theory it sounds good, but what happened was instead of an educated elite, we ended up with an amazingly corrupt "million dollar club" that was in the pocket of robber barons. We still might have some of that today, but it's not nearly as bad as it was...

[ACEfanatic 7]

Ideally, I think government should be as follows:

Economy:  Market Communism (Cheap nessecities provided for all by gov't, luxuries provided by private sector)
Politics:  Representative Democracy

I'm not going to go into detail of my beliefs though... but feel free to PM me if you really want to know.

-ACE

[PhantomOwl 3]

About electing senators in the United States: Did you know that Rome fell soon after they started electing senators? Senate membership in Rome used to be based on land holdings and families. It was an oligarchy. Sound familiar?quote>

Actually, the US Representative Branch of the government was modeled after England's Parliament in the late 18th century: The Senate corresponds to the House of Lords and Congress corresponds to the House of Commons. The reason it shares its name with the ancient Roman Senate is probably because the popularity of the Neoclassical style during the time that the American Constitution was written. Senators were originally elected not by the general public but rather by the state assemblies. Theoretically under the pretty much defunct American Dream anyone can rise from rags to riches. This means that anyone who works hard enough should be able to become a senator or even president if they want to. That is, however only in theory. Social mobility isn't like it used to be in the US, and high posts in the government will most likely be filled by people from the upper middle class and higher from now on. Depending on how peak oil works out, we may even see members of the lower middle class shifting into the realm of poverty. Even if peak oil works out relatively well for us, those on the borderline of poverty are already slipping into it due to rising energy prices and healthcare costs, let alone the cost of college. I really recommend to everyone here to read The Working Poor by David K, Shipler. The book is really emotional, and gives a clear picture of how poverty self perpetuates itself. Personally, I agree with the ideals of socialism, and feel that government should take care of the healthcare and educational needs of all citizens as well as provide decent quality housing for those who can not afford it. I also agree with some of the ideas of capitalism, including self betterment through hard work. I am a supporter of fair trade (not free trade, there is a difference). In my eyes, the economy exists to support the needs of people, not vice versa. That said, I am a big supporter of worker cooperatives, which I view as a preferable alternative to the giant corporations that we have today. How this translates into my city building and management: I usually set R$$ and R$$$ taxes to 20% from the beginning to build up a sizeable R$ population. After the R$ pop reaches about 20% of what I want the total population to be, I make all of the R$ buildings historical. I then lower the taxes for R$$ to 8% and zone areas for them to build. When I build the R$ phase, the buildings are usually spread out on a map, then I go back and let the R$$ fill in the rest of the areas. This way there aren't any ghettos, and R$ are allowed to "socially network." Once the economy matures a bit, the R$ buildings have mostly young inhabitants, and R$$ have middle aged and old. When commercial growth stagnates, I zone a few large lots of low density residential (using the CTRL key) and lower taxes just enough for those to develop. I then make those historical and raise the tax level to 16%. This keeps them from knocking down my R$$ homes.

[hamsterTK 93]

Technically, im a democrat, but im more of a conservative democrat. Really i guess for is that im rather progressive yet i do not agree with things like socialism at all. I think that the best way to go is to have both the power to succeed and the power to fail, since the reality of the world is survival of the fittist.

I like the government the US has now. Havent had any trouble with, so dont fix it if it aint broke.

Id also like to point out that culture has a lot to do with what a country is like, more so than the government. For example, there is nothing saying that the US cant be like the UK, but our american culture makes us american. Cars, Fast Food, Sprawl, all that stuff. Maybe we could do better, in fact i know we can do better, but its all about culture, not government in situations like that.

In simcity, my cities are very liberatarian. Of course, this is in simcity, when money magically appears from modds and mass transit can actually be profitable(toll booths are the big money maker). I do not like the real life liberatarians. If they were in charge it would be bye bye army to keep us safe, bye bye FDA to keep us healthy, bye bye everything, and then, when we hit a rough spot in the economy, it'll be the great depression all over again(these days their are measures to keep something like that from happening at such a great magnitude). Not to mention bye bye amtrak, bye bye transit funding, bye bye EPA, and everything else that gives the enviroment a fighting chance