3000 was just a modernised and polished expansion of 2000. Maxis had plans to do a successor to 2k that was fully 3D but they kept hitting frustrations and setbacks. So they just stuck to what they knew and made a faithful successor.
143 karma · joined February 3, 2022
I need propositions, not further slander.
I'd be curious to hear how exiting the European Union relates to the doctrines of Benito Mussolini.
And that is another fear I share for the loss of a monarchy. Something familiar and deeply associated with our long history will be gone, and home will look even more like everywhere else.
I'll concede that the Finnish presidency sounds like a fair option, with some of the benefits I see in the monarchy. Longer term, but ceremonial and elected presidents are preferable to what we see in America. I think it is a similar arrangement in Ireland and Germany.
That's exactly the trick. Have the head of the state encrusted in titles, ceremony and tradition, but with no practical power. Leave the gritty parts of politics to the parliament. Let the King shake hands and open buildings and leave the governing to the MPs. It was basically figured out over centuries of compromise and finalised with William III's Glorious Revolution. Britain has had some bad eggs but never a tyrant. We've never had a Robespierre, Stalin, Mau or Franco. It seems to have worked.
> Save money
I look forward to finding a politician who will work for nothing. The royal family pay for themselves through their own property and holdings, they actually pay 80% of their earnings to the state and keep the remaining 20% for themselves.
While how much money is spent on American presidential elections? It will frighten you. That money has to buy something, right?
> Nowadays, what's the point? Why do we need to continue with that?
Generally we continue with things because they've worked well for us for centuries. I don't see anyone in the current political class that I'd rather have as a 'president' than Elizabeth II or even Charles III. The British way is empiricism, biased more to observation than pure reason.
> I just would like to hear real arguments about why a monarchy is so much better than an alternative.
It gives us someone who can speak for the nation, untainted by party politics. This is something you'll miss if you abolish the monarchy.
If you are actually curious to read the other side, I'd recommend Roger Scruton.
The only bit of the old Edge that had its source emancipated. It was/is? quite performant.
I'm amazed that a book with this title was published. Some people disagree with the cynical 'everything western is evil' narrative for entirely plausible reasons. This title doesn't indicate an openness or curiosity from the author, and it does so on the basis of dismissing an entire ethnic group. The fact that the conversation has moved this way bodes ill for us all.
E.g. Manga Carta Article 39: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land."
By medieval standards, not bad.
Aren't you holding that up as a bit of a silver bullet? There are many republics in this world and I'd not want to live in them. Changing the head of state from a powerless unelected to a powerless (or worse, powerful) elected head of state would change little practically. It would be just another part of our nation handed over to the partisan political class.
And even if we became a republic, who would run for election? The members of same political class as before. Just now they're even more entrenched in the structure, and we will look a bit more like America with its heated Republican/Democrat presidential elections every few years.
I think your post comes off a bit cynical. Can you not see any advantages and positive achievements of the British history of constitutional monarchy, common law, Bill of Rights, etc? Jury trials, habeas corpus, etc, have done much for freedom. The legacy code, if we might call it that, is the only thing still holding back the authoritarian ambitions of the powerful.
I think we've fared a lot better than many other countries, and it has taken great effort to destroy our institutions. We're definitely far gone now, but I can't join in with the kicking of a formerly great man when he is down.
I don't think the ability for the state to act arbitrarily is a good thing either. It is a morally ropey area when you're law enforcement engaging with groups that threaten the freedom and stability of wider society. But I suppose that's why warrants and such safeguards exist.
And I'll take the bait. We avoid the N-word because it is a pejorative, intended to diminish its subject. But no one uses "Master" as a pejorative the same way they might use the infamous N-word. The word has a much longer history, wider scope of meaning and wasn't invented as a pejorative (rather it is a compliment!). It is very possible to use "Master" in a sense that it isn't possible to use the "N-word".
Would you provide me with an objective definition of "problematic", and if I find other common words that meet that definition some point in the past, in any country between any group, will you stop using them?
It is very disengenous (and Americentric) to suggest we should revise our language just because of one event. That's simply giving more ground to the wrongdoers. Slave owners only used the word because of its existing connotations, after all.
Its ok to have a master copy, it is desirable to master your soul, someone might be of high station and therefore a master. Etc. It is a useful word. We shouldn't aim to limit the range of expression or accuracy of our words.
I could argue the linguistics, and the racial connotations never occoured to me then and don't convince me now. But what really makes me uncomfortable is the feeling that I'm surrendering part of my soul to some larger conscience that could turn on me at a whim.