NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratic Order of Rixtex is a massive, socially progressive nation, notable for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 3.801 billion enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

How can a nation be socially progressive and have the unemployed and working class starve to death or be crippled by easily preventable diseases?

My nation moves back and forth between "Capitalizt" and "Left-Leaning College State". THere seems to be a very fine line between the two.

I wonder if there has been any thought to re-evaluating some of the nation categories?

It makes perfect sense. Socially Progressive is much more of a statement on Morality, rather than economics -- despite much misconception. For example, The Netherlands might be considered Socially Progressive for their lax drug laws, but they might not nessasarily be considered socialist economic wise. Observe the graph below.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/nspoliticalmap.jpg

You will see that by the issues you are answering, you have Medium Political Freedoms, High Civil Freedoms (Which explains the Socially Progressive Aspects), and Medium to High Economic Freedoms (Which will explain your lack of support for the working class verses the business class, and therefore you continuous switch between the two catagories).

Theres ultimately, nothing wrong with your nation's description.

It might be worth adding that even if in this case the description does make sense, it won't always. It's not unknown for 'Anarchies' to have 'sprawling' governments. Sometimes, the correlation between paragraphs isn't exact, but it's not something that can really be adjusted.

It makes perfect sense. Socially Progressive is much more of a statement on Morality, rather than economics -- despite much misconception. For example, The Netherlands might be considered Socially Progressive for their lax drug laws, but they might not nessasarily be considered socialist economic wise. Observe the graph below.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/nspoliticalmap.jpg

You will see that by the issues you are answering, you have Medium Political Freedoms, High Civil Freedoms (Which explains the Socially Progressive Aspects), and Medium to High Economic Freedoms (Which will explain your lack of support for the working class verses the business class, and therefore you continuous switch between the two catagories).

Theres ultimately, nothing wrong with your nation's description.

Thanks for the explanation (and thanks for the cool graph), and I understand all that in the game-playing sense, but I still contend that it makes no sense.

My nation has high economic freedoms to promote a great standard of living for everyone, but we have made a moral decision to help those who need help. Thus, being socially progressive is an economic value as well as a moral value because IT COSTS MONEY TO BE SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE.

You have ... Medium to High Economic Freedoms (Which will explain your lack of support for the working class verses the business class)

Pardon me, but support for high economic freedom does not denote a lack of support for anybody. In fact, high economic freedom promote the creation of wealth, which in turn promotes job creation at all levels.

Being socially progressive is a choice to capitalists as well as socialists.

In the context of the game and the political leanings of it's creator(s), it probably does make sense.

Thanks for indulging my little rant. I will now continue gameplay.