15-11-2000 10:55									#1
	Governments vs. Economic systems. Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I was thinking last night about it.

The economic system would be entirely separated from the government (with some restrictions)

For economic system, there can be several forms of capitalism (mercantilism, etc.), communism, some sort of tribal stuff for early in the game.

Just thoughts.

------------------
Dear earthlings, dont panic.
Occupation will be painless.
There is no way to avoid it.

	14-11-2000 23:44									#2
	Support Apolyton

as long as it wont make the game too complicated.

2

	15-11-2000 00:04									#3
	Put an end to popups!

2 what?

	15-11-2000 02:26									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, SMAC had the social engineering which wasn't too overcomplicated. If you switch a bit of the names, it could certainly work with this.

	15-11-2000 15:29									#5
	Tired of ads?

I think this would needs more thought but it could addto the game so long as it did not make it over complex.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

	15-11-2000 19:16									#6
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

A lot of earlier posts talk about this. (See social engineering list). I agree that economic systems should be separate from the government system (For god's sake, communism is not a government system, it's an economic ideology). I don't know about 5 different forms of capitalism though (if your going to do that incorporate the sliding scales idea from the list). One form of capitalism is pretty much the same as another form (maybe just have laissez-faire and controlled or something), because then you have communism/socialism, barter economy, guild economy (don't know what you'd call that), and maybee a future economy such as a communisim-capitalism mix (kim stanley robinson - mars trilogy)

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

	16-11-2000 06:05									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

I don't know about this. It seems that certain governments and economic systems go hand-in-hand. Separating them would make for some weird political situations (A democratic communism??? or a capitalist dictatorship???) I think that government and economic systems should be the same as in all the previous Civ games for the sake of simplicity and political reality.

	16-11-2000 06:45									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I wouldn't dare question your political-historical knowledge but talking plain theory, capitalism is private ownership of means of production by individuals while dictatorship is total control of all political-social-economic affairs by the state. The two definitions contradict each other. When left to civvers like us, our minds could concoct endless forms of economic and political systems that could work together in theory but for the sake of simplicity and gameplay, I think the same government-economic model for all the previous civ games should be the same in Civ3.

(Wait a minute, maybe I've mistook dictatorship for totalitarianism. Oh well.)

	16-11-2000 08:51									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ok, Tical_2000. You sparked my curiousity. I was having some doubts so I checked out good old Webster to see what the definition of those words are...

dictator: a ruler with absolute power and authority.

totaliterian: designating of, or characteristic of a government or state in which one political party or group maintains complete control under a dictatorship and bans all others.

I don't think that dictatorship means that the dictator total controls the economy. I think that most dictatorships have had free enterprise although under government regulation. There is something called dictatorship of the proletariat that controls the entire economic sysem. which is basically a communist dictatorship.

I also took the liberty of looking up fascism.

Fascism: a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc.

This shows that under the dictionary's definition, there is a definition of the economic system under fascism, a government system. I must, therefore, agree that there is some validity to leaving the system as with the other civ games.

	17-11-2000 00:39									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

what i meant by diffrent types of capitalism is basically about some guy who came up with this theory of the government creating work, even though it had to employ people to dig holes and people to fill them up.(well, not literally). Using this system, economies greu amazingly, but it led to a crash in the stock markets. I think, not sure, though...

	17-11-2000 06:01									#12
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I think it would make sense if the type of government would limit the choices of economy types. However, a gliding scale is still realistic.

For instance, a Democracy could vary from 100% Free Market / 0% Planned to 67% Free Market / 33% Planned (limiting the economic systems to 2 for the sake or argument), depicting the differences between the USA and Europe.

Communism (yes, a government type) would then allow the opposite third of the line: there was a big difference between the USSR and Yugoslavia. Then Fundamentalism could perhaps be stuck in the middle.

Or maybe there could be some overlap.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

	17-11-2000 06:56									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I like the gliding scale idea. What about the other governments?

	17-11-2000 16:47									#14
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

A dictatorship is a government where a person holds control of the country through the backing of the military. This doesn't mean that they control the economic system though, (alexander the great, julius caesar and napoleon were all dictators but they didn't control the private enterprise of their empires).

This doesn't mean that a dictator can't control the private enterprise of the country (saddam hussein is the perfect example of a dictator who controls the countries private enterprise).

Tical, government systems and economic systems do not go hand in hand, in theory or in practice.

	18-11-2000 10:10									#15
	Remove this text

I've been thinking about this and have come to the general conclusion that communism as a government is no more than democracy where the government controls the economy (government owns all resources). The land is worked by the people and the results of their labor is divided up between all people in the country. If you take the time to just think about it, I'm sure you'll agree with me.

The same thing goes for despotism and monarchy. Despotism, the despot rules all, owns all and decides all. The economy is communist and the ruler is the despot. Monarchy, the monarch is the head of government and the economy is relatively free.

Dictatorship is another bracket, so to speak, because the dictator rules through the military, aside from the economy, and can choose which form of economy he wants.

So generally there are 3 government types, and a sliding rule should be used to select how free the economy is. If you choose democracy, but limit the economy to below a certain percent (about 30-40%) then your government will be called communist rather than democratic, likewise with monarchy and despotism (only about 10-25% to become despot), and dictatorchip would not change it's name.

	18-11-2000 08:57									#16
	Support Apolyton

yeah, and to be allowed to "move the slider" more than x amount, you would need to have discovered y advance.

of course, there would be a gradual change, unless a revolution is held as well.