Which of these countries would you rather live in?

[WMS]

Yeah, well it'd be easier to start up a Revolution in the socialist nation.

Both nations have wide support among their proletariate. I set up the countries so that weapons are forbidden as well, the reason being so it would be rather hard to start a revolution. The choice comes down to 'if you had to tolerate living in one of these hellholes for the rest of your life, which would it be?'

You would do that. Well, scrap the last thing I said in this topic then. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. I suppose I'll lie through my teeth and survive in Unity...

[opebo]

The funny thing is how close the USA is to this fantasy theocracy.

[bullmoose88]

Short of Slitting my own wrists (sitting in a car while its running in a closed garage, pulling that radio playing william hung into the bath with me)...I'll take the United Socialist Islands.

Religion's not a bad thing (IMHO, its a good thing)...

but theorcacy is terrifing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do the United Socialist Islands have suburbs? Are there any islands in it large enough to contain them? If so it'd be a great place if the goverment specifically prohibited them.

[afleitch]

I'd live on USI- why if I lived on Unity I would have been killed due to my sexuality.

[John Dibble]

I'd live on USI- why if I lived on Unity I would have been killed due to my sexuality.

You're making an assumption. I never even mentioned homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter. I tried my best to construct these things so the choice would simply be between economic and social freedoms, and that the two nations didn't really discriminate too much between particular groups.

[Lunar]

I'd live on USI- why if I lived on Unity I would have been killed due to my sexuality.

You're making an assumption. I never even mentioned homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter. I tried my best to construct these things so the choice would simply be between economic and social freedoms, and that the two nations didn't really discriminate too much between particular groups.

One has to assume that a nation embodied in traditionalism and normalism would react rather oddly to non-conforming identities (homosexuals).

[John Dibble]

I'd live on USI- why if I lived on Unity I would have been killed due to my sexuality.

You're making an assumption. I never even mentioned homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter. I tried my best to construct these things so the choice would simply be between economic and social freedoms, and that the two nations didn't really discriminate too much between particular groups.

One has to assume that a nation embodied in traditionalism and normalism would react rather oddly to non-conforming identities (homosexuals).

Well, in this case the assumption is wrong.

[muon2]

I'd live on USI- why if I lived on Unity I would have been killed due to my sexuality.

You're making an assumption. I never even mentioned homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter. I tried my best to construct these things so the choice would simply be between economic and social freedoms, and that the two nations didn't really discriminate too much between particular groups.

One has to assume that a nation embodied in traditionalism and normalism would react rather oddly to non-conforming identities (homosexuals).

Well, in this case the assumption is wrong.

If I understand the premise, if there is no social freedom, the state could assign you to a relationship not of your choice. That includes being assigned to a same sex relationship.

[Storebought]

In the socialist islands you can look forward to the day of your unrestricted, state-enforced same-sex marriage, just like that 82 y.o. nursing home granny hooked on the oxygen canister who married that 24 y.o. old hairdresser who lives 100 mi away. Or that 16 y.o. kid married to his 12 y.o. little brother.

You enter the free clinic because of a persistent cough, and you leave the intensive care unit with your right leg amputated and a persistent cough.

You can stand in line for 4 hours for milk and toilet paper during part of your compulsory 6 months vacation time.

And, of course, you can live with the fear of having a bullet lodged firmly in your rib cage for intimating anything other than "the party line" to any acquaintance, co-worker, government informer, state torturer, etc.

[Julien]

United Socialist Islands

[angus]

Simple question - which of the two following made up countries would you rather live in?

The United Socialist Islands - This is a country where the economy is completely state run. All goods are manufactured and sold by the government, and everyone is gauranteed healthcare, shelter, and a job, but that job is determined for you by the state - the state also determines how far you can go in the educational process(everyone is required to complete high school, but you can not go to college unless the state tells you to, but it is free then) based on intelligence and personality tests. Basically, individuals have their careers completely run by the state, and everyone is paid the same salary, which changes from year to year based on costs and profits to the state. Also, there is terrible beauracracy, which results in mass inefficiencies and waste. However, social freedoms are greatly respected by the state - freedom of speech is tolerated, prostitution and drugs are legal, television, newspapers, and entertainment are not censored at all(there's good variety too, it's one of the better state run industries, mainly because the workers determine content rather than the beauracracy), and people are generally allowed to do as they like when they are not working. Crime is often high due to good shortages, though it is mainly theft rather than violent crime.

The Holy Kingdom of Unity - This country is a theocracy of the religion called Unity. People are required to follow all the rules of this religion, which dictate social behavior. It is very tyrannical - all people are required to where robes in public, and the type of robes they where is based on their social status(the clergy have different robes from ordinary citizens) and you must wear the correct robes. Infractions are punishable by death. Children must not speak unless spoken to - if they do the religion requires they be beaten as punishment. Speech against the clergy and the faith is heresy, and can be punished by death. Marriages are arranged by parents, and divorce is illegal. However, the economy is outside of the control of the state - people are allowed to choose their own careers, run their own businesses, and taxes are very low. However, there is of course unemployment. Taxes are very low, mainly they exist only to pay for basic functions(though the faithful do tend to dontate generously to the clergy). Goods are normally cheap and plentiful. Crime is very low in all forms, mainly due to harsh punishment, but the faithful often turn in other citizens to the clergy for infractions(many times not truthfully) in order to gain favor, and sometimes murderers get away with it by claiming the victim was an enemy to the faith.

Neither country allows citizens to vote. Both forbid most citizens from bearing arms. Men and women are equal in both under law.

free drugs, free prostitutes, free television, and all you have to do is take whatever job they tell you to take.  You can't seriously be wondering which of these two will win out.

Still, they both leave a bit to be desired.  Offer anarchy as a third option and it would be much harder to predict. 

[John Dibble]

I'd live on USI- why if I lived on Unity I would have been killed due to my sexuality.

You're making an assumption. I never even mentioned homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter. I tried my best to construct these things so the choice would simply be between economic and social freedoms, and that the two nations didn't really discriminate too much between particular groups.

One has to assume that a nation embodied in traditionalism and normalism would react rather oddly to non-conforming identities (homosexuals).

Well, in this case the assumption is wrong.

If I understand the premise, if there is no social freedom, the state could assign you to a relationship not of your choice. That includes being assigned to a same sex relationship.

Well, on the whole marriage thing, in the Holy Kingdom parents arrange marriages(see original description). Whether you like it or not, that's who you have to marry. I made no provision for or against homosexuals, so one could possibly assume that a same-sex marriage could be arranged.  Like I said, I'm trying to make this so that you have to make a choice between your social freedoms and your economic ones(and that the loss of either is pretty darn crappy either way you go), regardless of what you were born as. Of course, if you believe in the party line, it's pretty sweet since you get what you want, but otherwise it's just an agonizing choice.

[John Dibble]

free drugs, free prostitutes, free television, and all you have to do is take whatever job they tell you to take.  You can't seriously be wondering which of these two will win out.

Still, they both leave a bit to be desired.  Offer anarchy as a third option and it would be much harder to predict. 

Drugs and prostitutes are not free. You do receive a paycheck for your work in the USI(though if you are smart, you'll just be lazy like everyone else and do minimal work), which goes towards just the non-necessities(the 'necessities' that the state thinks you need comes from your taxes). TV might be free, if the state thinks it is. I'm on the fence as to whether prostitution would be the only non-state controlled industry - after all, if it is controlled, your job could be being a prostitute. Though, prostitution and drugs might sound sweet, free or not, but just remember that you need to wait in line to pick up your rations(btw, food shortages this month).

Of course, I bet a libertarian option is looking pretty sweet.

[Storebought]

How can any of you think that a socialist state could ever respect individual rights?? I know some of you are too young to personally remember the dehumanizing misery that was Communism and socialism (little real difference between the two in practice), but still, read a book or watch an old newsreel/TV broadcast about it if you want to find out.

The way some of you talk--"we will be forced to perform backbreaking manual labor at no pay for the rest of our lives, but at least we get free pot"--really shows your indifference to the moral evil that all collectivist economic systems bring about.

Ex. Before the mid 1980s Russians had access to cheap vodka while they waited in line for hours for their bread and sausages. The common result was not, "hey, we can get piss drunk for only rubles!" No, it was 40-year-old men drinking themselves to death in front of their own children. Even in a less totalitarian collectivist system, like New York City during the 1970s, life was still bleak for the people who couldn't escape to the suburbs.

Truly sad that a majority of you would choose to live in a degraded state as that.