Apologies if this has been raised before, but a consistent theme I'm noticing in the last couple of days (having returned to the game with a new account after about a decade) is quite how simplistic the take on economic policy is at times. I appreciate it's a game but it seems a shame to make it such that RP'ing decisions as a Socialist state forces me to choose between 'Capitalism' and 'Communism'. I've been faced with questions where I want to allow free commerce i.e. folks doing their own thing without central planning, and each time it's moving me into being 'Capitalist'. In theory, Socialism emphasises the factors of production being owned by the workers, and says nothing about the need for economies to be centrally planned. I want a thriving commercial economy where workers own the proceeds of their labour, while not having an authoritarian/centrally-planned framework. Also, where I declined having a lottery suddenly my economy suffered for it, whereas in practice all lotteries really do is reduce disposable income from folks who often have the highest marginal propensity to actually consume, and hence reducing economic output. An otherwise sound economic decision has been punished because "not regulating anything = good for the economy" seems to be the guiding tenet here.
Is there room to develop a little more sophistication on this so that choices aren't forced into this false binary? I appreciate it's probably a big ask given how sprawling and calibrated the mechanics are, but figured it couldn't hurt to raise the point!
Equally, a couple of times I've lost points off 'political freedoms' when I've restricted Nazis (or similar) from free speech. In the spirits of Popper's "Tolerance of Intolerance" views, I don't see that forbidding the assembly and free speech of Nazis advocating violence (per the issues text, it explicitly alluded to encouraging violence, which is generally understood to be a no-no even amongst ardent free speech advocates IRL) is inconsistent with 'political freedom'. Indeed, decisions like this are about a Republican (not in the modern US sense) idea of advancing fundamental rights for the citizenry, rather than allowing unbridled so-called "democratic" mob rule where anything is acceptable if 51% vote for it at the time.
It just feels a little immersion-breaking and frustrating to keep on being presented with options where I'm concerned that the right choice from an RP perspective is going to break my nation's disposition because the ramifications of the decisions are misunderstood or the context of them mis-framed.
