The Codexian Saga LP

[treave]

A

Knee-jerk voting for SCIENCE!

Is it possible though to only fulfill what is reasonable of their requests, and deny the more extravagant demands?

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, now that I think about it, this is a good question - what else is there?

Trade, Finance, Health, Education, Energy, Agriculture - the usual suspects.

but I'd like to know whose share of the budget it would be cutting into.

Far be it from the Barbarian to divine any given choice for this august body.

But he suggests having a close look at the last paragraph, and what it suggests about the choice.

To his mind, there is a larger issue than spending, at hand.

 

[anus_pounder]

Not voting this time. This is one choice out of my league.

 

[treave]

In the long term B may work out better, but remember we’re dealing with the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense. The armed forces and the police. It’s no surprise they’re the biggest players, the military-industrial complex was one of the major backers of the reformist movement. They probably have some shadowy cabal of sorts communing in a darkened room via holoconferencing to plot their rule of the Respublica.

But as has been said, this is grease. We’re not surrendering our government over to the secret police, the military and the mad scientists, we’re just paying more attention to their needs over the concerns of the doctors, the bankers and the farmers.

 

[LusciousPear]

I'm going with A. These are the folks that backed us. Sure, power may be decentralized more, but them's the breaks.

As long as these factions don't start infighting, we can turn our gazes outward instead of inward.

 

[Azira]

Deals were made, promises too. We need to keep them to keep our government working. Grease the axles, or the train might derail.

For now, the only sensible answer here is

Option A

If we do not honour these demands, the future looks difficult, to say the least. I wouldn't be all that surprised if we looked at another revolution. I mean, the police and the armed forces... AND the scientific community. We don't want to alienate these players, players who have publicly supported our reforms.

No. We have to pay our dues.

 

[treave]

The choice may have been a hundred times easier had our major backers been the Ministry of Arts, Ministry of Sports and the Ministry of Silly Walks.

The Barbarian does not make things simple.

 

[Radech]

so we got the church off our back, just to turn over control to the military industrial complex - as i see this it's not just diverting funds from other sectors to the military, but diverting power over the budget. A will only lead to a more expensive, albeit happier, military not a more effective one.

B

 

[Nickless]

If I'm reading this correctly, the choice is between small and large government, and the effect the budget will have on society at large. If we vote A, we'll have a large budget and small economic growth, with civilian dependency on the government to provide a range of services, which will probably lead to a welfare state. I expect B will give us a smaller budget, an expanding economy, and more personal power amongst civilians. So basically, vote A if you want us to be more like the US today, or vote B if you want us to be more like the US in the 1950s.

Anyway I'm voting B for classical liberalism! (Even though this probably won't affect social freedom) Death to taxes!

Edit: Due to the Barbarian's clarification, I'm going to vote A

 

[treave]

In the long term B may work out better, but remember we’re dealing with the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense. The armed forces and the police. It’s no surprise they’re the biggest players, the military-industrial complex was one of the major backers of the reformist movement. They probably have some shadowy cabal of sorts communing in a darkened room via holoconferencing to plot their rule of the Respublica.

But as has been said, this is grease. We’re not surrendering our government over to the secret police, the military and the mad scientists, we’re just paying more attention to their needs over the concerns of the doctors, the bankers and the farmers.

not exactly. pay attention to barbs' last paragraph. it's not just grease, it's a policy decision. we're caving in to the interests of Das Kapital, which means it'll go and on. it won't stop here, with only these ministeries. we'll have to rule backed by these pricks should we choose to do so.

But what exactly was the nature of the promises that we made? Did we promise money, no strings attached? Do the ministries desire the funding so that they have more leeway of a budget to work with, or because the heads of the ministries want to pad their nest with money? If so, did the reformists knowingly make a pact with corrupt devils? And if so, does this not mean that the old theocracy had utterly failed in controlling corruption if their heads of ministries were this greedy?

More money going towards the ministries which is used to work for the advancement of the Respublica I do not mind, and would actively support given the nature of the beneficiary ministries. Money that goes towards lining the personal pockets of Pavel Zub, James Jules Vaingroff and Timor Denisov is another thing entirely. If it's blatant corruption I'll swing my vote; the Reformed Respublica does NOT need a corrupt Reformation and I'll chance my civil war - because the citizens at this stage would still be on the side of the reformist rulers. The moral high ground goes a long way, especially when dealing with still religious Respublicans.

 

[LusciousPear]

In the long term B may work out better, but remember we’re dealing with the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense. The armed forces and the police. It’s no surprise they’re the biggest players, the military-industrial complex was one of the major backers of the reformist movement. They probably have some shadowy cabal of sorts communing in a darkened room via holoconferencing to plot their rule of the Respublica.

But as has been said, this is grease. We’re not surrendering our government over to the secret police, the military and the mad scientists, we’re just paying more attention to their needs over the concerns of the doctors, the bankers and the farmers.

not exactly. pay attention to barbs' last paragraph. it's not just grease, it's a policy decision. we're caving in to the interests of Das Kapital, which means it'll go and on. it won't stop here, with only these ministeries. we'll have to rule backed by these pricks should we choose to do so.

But what exactly was the nature of the promises that we made? Did we promise money, no strings attached? Do the ministries desire the funding so that they have more leeway of a budget to work with, or because the heads of the ministries want to pad their nest with money? If so, did the reformists knowingly make a pact with corrupt devils? And if so, does this not mean that the old theocracy had utterly failed in controlling corruption if their heads of ministries were this greedy?

More money going towards the ministries which is used to work for the advancement of the Respublica I do not mind, and would actively support given the nature of the beneficiary ministries. Money that goes towards lining the personal pockets of Pavel Zub, James Jules Vaingroff and Timor Denisov is another thing entirely. If it's blatant corruption I'll swing my vote; the Reformed Respublica does NOT need a corrupt Reformation and I'll chance my civil war - because the citizens at this stage would still be on the side of the reformist rulers. The moral high ground goes a long way, especially when dealing with still religious Respublicans.

I agree and wish for more details from our Venerable Host.

 

[The Barbarian]

Consider the choice more a centralization/decentralization decision than a money decision. If you give in, you go a step further toward truly shared power, as various government bodies garner more political influence. If you hold out, the Council can still retain an executive/legislative/judicial stranglehold.

There is good and bad associated with either choice.

Make your preference known.

 

[Nickless]

Ah, in that case I have no idea what to vote for. I'll need to consider the options some more.

 

[RandomLurker]

Consider the choice more a centralization/decentralization decision than a money decision. If you give in, you go a step further toward truly shared power, as various government bodies garner more political influence. If you hold out, the Council can still retain an executive/legislative/judicial stranglehold.

And, just like that, the decision becomes easy. We get to not alienate our reformer power base, pump more money where it counts, AND go one step closer to a government that could support reintroducing the AIs? Yeah, I'm going from "leaning towards A" to actually voting A.

 

[treave]

Consider the choice more a centralization/decentralization decision than a money decision. If you give in, you go a step further toward truly shared power, as various government bodies garner more political influence. If you hold out, the Council can still retain an executive/legislative/judicial stranglehold.

There is good and bad associated with either choice.

Make your preference known.

Hm.

Taking a step towards decentralization means we can no longer efficiently execute decisions the way we did in Respublica: with the entire weight and might of government machinery fully behind our backs.

But that just means we have to be smarter in making our decisions so that we reach an optimal outcome, right? Shall we raise the political difficulty of this exercise?

 

[Conkrete Knight]

If I'm reading this correctly, the choice is between small and large government, and the effect the budget will have on society at large. If we vote A, we'll have a large budget and small economic growth, with civilian dependency on the government to provide a range of services, which will probably lead to a welfare state. I expect B will give us a smaller budget, an expanding economy, and more personal power amongst civilians. So basically, vote A if you want us to be more like the US today, or vote B if you want us to be more like the US in the 1950s.

Anyway I'm voting B for classical liberalism! (Even though this probably won't affect social freedom) Death to taxes!

You make a good point, but I happen to like a bloated state (living in Denmark and all).
If A is a decentralisation choice we will have factions again, which is more fun.
Also we get closer to a Technocracy which is good too.
So A it is.

 

[praetor]

i'm starting to agree with root more and more with each new decision. it's scary

B

 

[Conkrete Knight]

eh guys, centralisation/bloated state is B

just saying

Bloated state and centralisation do not necessarily go hand in hand.
You can have gigantic governmental institutions, 60% taxes, public healthcare even and yet no centralisation in power.
In our case we redeploy power to different agents, experts, while at the same time raising their funds.
The effect is a bigger less centralised state apparatus.
Remember, these factions are not private contractors, but a part of our rule.
Also, I somehow doubt that these factions will release their grip on the public, so for the common man there will most probably not be more wriggle room.

i'm starting to agree with root more and more with each new decision. it's scary

I finally disagree again, was worried there for a moment.

 

[meeneque]

Me is lost without holy guidance. No vote this time.

 

[Ulminati]

Throw in anoter vote for A

We made the deals, now it's time to pay the piper

 

[wjw]

Taking the B for Bonus.

 

[Nickless]

Also we get closer to a Technocracy which is good too.

The only reason I changed my vote.

 

[Murk]

The Ministries are actually a part of the government, right? If so, I vote A.

If the ministries are independent of the government (i.e, corporations) then I vote B - not risking our soon to be at-war federation to be crippled due to people's greed.

 

[treave]

They are a part of the government but they may or may not be beholden to corporations.

 

[MicoSelva]

Moar?