If the government doesn't do it, is it not done?

[Azzurro]

Hi, I'm very new to NS and I have a question about issues and consequences.

Example:

If my government doesn't want to spend money on education, I presume that according to the metric, I will receive a low education rating for my nation. Can I not abolish state-funded education and allow an open reign for private education systems? I don't like the implication that if the government can't or doesn't provide it, it will not be provided.

Similarly, for business, if I don't subsidize business, the effect shouldn't be that the economy suffers. There isn't a distinction between crony corporatism and capitalism, really. If anything, it should improve my nation's appeal for business, especially entrepreneurs. I don't find this game to be biased left wing or right wing, but it seems to be biased heavily towards government intervention.

Also, I decided to abolish democracy in my nation, but now I'm a dictatorship? That is a false dichotomy. Democracy shouldn't be the ultimate measure of political freedom.

Thanks in advance,
Azzurro

[Ontorisa]

You sir, are awesome

[Vistulange]

I believe that most issues like that education one have answers that can be crudely summarized as such:

1-) Government does it,
2-) Private firms do it,
3-) It's not done at all.

[Zammora]

I agree, it is slightly... awkward, how some things are measured.

[Southern Babylonia]

Hi, I'm very new to NS and I have a question about issues and consequences.

...

Also, I decided to abolish democracy in my nation, but now I'm a dictatorship? That is a false dichotomy. Democracy shouldn't be the ultimate measure of political freedom.

Thanks in advance,
Azzurro

There are ways to gain some political freedom without democracy. It takes time, but using another nation, I did it.

[Azzurro]

I believe that most issues like that education one have answers that can be crudely summarized as such:

1-) Government does it,
2-) Private firms do it,
3-) It's not done at all.

Of the few issues I have seen:

1) Government does it
2) Government subsidizes private firms to do it
3) Government ignores it

There should be

4) Government abdicates responsibility and regulation

There was a recent issue about stem cell research, and I chose the option saying that the government "supports" the activity of the scientists, which I thought just meant allowed. It turns out my government now pays for it. I hate the vague terminology.

[Andacantra]

The whole point of issues is that they're normally pretty vague, and it's your job to try and figure out what they mean (and what potential unexpected outcomes you get from that wording). It's vague, but normally entirely intentional. The lack of the "obvious" option is also intentional - you're forced to pick the lesser of 3 (or however many) evils, and that's the point. That's just how they work, and you've got to work with it, and use it as part of the fun of answering issues.

[Arkolon]

Can I just add that this is (supposedly) supposed to be satirical; based off of His novel "Jennifer Government".

So all outcomes will be silly and/or interpreted in the wrong way, or not the way you would have liked.

[Techno-Titania]

Of the few issues I have seen:

I think here is the issue.

[Undivulged Principles]

DP

[Undivulged Principles]

First: If your nation overview includes "there is no government" it means your government is almost entirely private. Therefore your government expenditures are investments in certain sectors made by very powerful private individuals.

Second: you can have a good economy without subsidizing every industry. There are plenty of choices that are only about deregulation. There are also plenty of issue choices that reduce government social intervention. Yes most choices tend to the extreme but it is what the game is about and moderating your choices between these extremes can allow you to follow a middle road pretty easily. There are plenty of moderate governments here to prove it.

Third: that stem cell issue you are complaining about was nothing more than a misreading on your part. Why does a government need a choice to allow something it already did allow? That is what dismissing is for in this issue. The issue is very clear that cloning was currently legal, therefore supporting it would obviously mean subsidiation. Or in your case heavy private investments.

Last: everyone makes "mistakes" in this game so its better to get them out of the way early so they dint affect you as much. Just last week the NS leader in auto manufacturing for the past decade banned cars. Do you think he meant to do that one?

Benevolent dictatorship ks one of 27 WA government classifications. That doesn't mean your nation has to conform to it. That is what role play is about. Make the description fit your need or desire.

Last: everyone makes mistakes in this game. It is much better to male them early in the game

[Azzurro]

Third: that stem cell issue you are complaining about was nothing more than a misreading on your part. Why does a government need a choice to allow something it already did allow? That is what dismissing is for in this issue. The issue is very clear that cloning was currently legal, therefore supporting it would obviously mean subsidiation. Or in your case heavy private investments.

That's not obvious at all. It should say explicitly what the government's action should be (though, obviously, not the real consequences). If something is already legal and two parties come to the government to plead their case for it being illegal or remaining legal, the government's declaration of support for the side of the status quo does not necessarily imply subsidization of the issue. That's a ridiculous assertion to make. The government's support could just mean a vote of confidence in the activity and letting the people know where it presently stands in the debate to help settle the issue. The government deciding to subsidize something out of the blue is a pretty big detail that should have obviously been included in the decision if the author of the issue intended that effect. The wording of these issues just comes across as incredibly lazy. Furthermore, dismissing the issue would be like ignoring it, which would make it seem like the government does not have confidence in its policy if it does not openly support legal activity.

EDIT: Another odd one today. Surveillance cameras are banned in my nation when I selected that I didn't want the government putting in a Big Brother surveillance system. It's not a logically consistent result. Not X does not mean Yes Y. There are plenty of legitimate uses, government and private, of surveillance cameras that have nothing to do with centralized life-logging of the populace.

[Undivulged Principles]

First: by your own admission you have not played this game long. You have received less than 10% of the issues available, and if those only the original 30, which have the least number of choices to them.

Second: your assertion is faulty. It is as simple as that. Why should there be "clear" choices to decisions? In the real world you are often given ambiguous choices and much of politics is the art of misinformation, why would you expect a game based on real world politics would be cut and dry? That makes absolutely no sense.

To return to your original issue. They were not there to discuss the legality of cloning. It was already legal. The first choice isn't asking for it to be legal (it already is) or remain legal. It is clearly asking for government subsidation on the assertion that cloning is not illegal. The second choice wants to make it illegal. Argue all you want. You are wrong.

The only way to influence the government of your nation is through issues. This means that the issues are the legislation, judicial and excutive branch of your government all in one (as well as local counsels that discuss variables of potential issues). It isn't just legislation and in the real world your choices are rarely clear cut, there are almost invariably unintended consequence and if laws and their choices were so clear cut as you seem to believe why are there so many lawyers? I mean propositions that come up often for vote don't give you options, so the game is offering more choices than you would normally see when one votes for a proposition. When you play a video rpg and read little about anything to do with options you have, you will find a variety of "unintended consequences" to your choice.

Over my years playing this game I see very often players who don't read the entire issue and don't take a moment to really understand the issue in question, though they will spend hundreds of hours detailing their factbooks. You are clearly not really reading the issues. This is quite obvious to your next complaint about surveillance cameras. It says "next they will be peering into your bedroom". These are obvious hints that choosing this issue will not just ban surveillance cameras in public areas but also in private ones. You can also note legality is primary to this issue since the police are only "considering" the cameras and are seeking clarification as I the legality of their proposal. This issue is easily counteracted by one that specifically states you can set up private surveillance cameras but not public ones.

Try to think in a sort of realistic setting. Laws are passed that have unintended consequences. While many might feel these consequences should be changed by further legislation or through court interpretation, it might take time before such legislation is brought to the fore or before the legality of the law in question is decided by the judiciary. In democracies and dicratorships there are many delaying tactics that are often used to delay an issue coming up, that is one way to RP the randomness of issues. If you are patient you will find additional issues that will help redefine your nation, or the reappearance of an issue so you can change your previous action.

RIF.