Just a suggestion, but how about policies representing funding educating people about specific things. The major thing I was thinking of was drugs - the only thing you can do to redce use is to either make them illegal, or tax them. And I was thinking that governments could (and do) spend quite a lot of money educating them on the negative consequences of drug use, and that might be another way of reducing the use of drugs (or at least easing people’s consciences). Ditto for smoking and drinking - heavy efforts to educate the public on negative effects are something that governments in real life DO, in fact, do in order to try and reduce use (the signs on packets in the UK, PSAs, etc.). The other thing that I thought might work in a similar vein was in order to reduce racial tension - again, not something that is neccecarily massively effective, but trying to educate immagrants in Xian culture, or Xians in multiculturalism and acceptance seem like possibilities.
Unrelatedly, but under the umbrella of ‘education policies’, you could have a ‘sex education in schools’ policy? No education, abstinence only, etc., etc., with more liberal policies making liberals happy (and possibly increasing health), but annoying conservatives, for example.
Hi !
A drug, alcohol, tobacco and sexual education policy would be a good idea (each of them). They could positively influence liberals (since you are letting people choose after all) and negatively influence religious people (for sex) or capitalists (for alcohol and tobacco) or conservatives (for drugs) or have a reverse effect if the cursor was taken the other way around.
As for the racism education policy, I think it is already there in “community policing” since it does a lot to reduce racial tensions.
Cliff, what do you think of it ?
Yes indeed I love the idea of more ‘subtle’ policies to alter society. Maybe at some point…
Seconding this request. I’d suggest three policies.
Sex Education: Mandatory policy. None - Abstinence only - Discouraged - Safe sex information - free supplies. Higher levels anger the religious and conservatives. Pleases liberals. Perhaps liked by parents except for free supplies? Not sure.
Wellbeing Education: Optional. I’d lump information about healthy eating, drug use, smoking etc under this. Not quite certain of the group impacts here. Feels like the Liberals should oppose it somewhat - state nagging, etc? Possible positives for parents? Slight direct boost to health; secondary effects via reducing tobacco, alcohol and drug consumption
Internet Safety Education: Optional. Direct but slow counter to internet crime by increasing web-savviness of less confident users. Similar slight boost to technology. The retired and parents should like it (late adopters + carers of young kids). Conservatives oppose? Not certain.
Sex Education would also make socialists happy.
Don’t think it should in this situation. The socialists and communists in this game are mainly affected by economical policies not social policies.
Indeed, you can get very conservative religious socialists who would oppose it. It’s definitely a liberal/conservative issue. And maybe one parents would like. Much better that teachers get the awkward explaining than they do? presumably this should help with healthcare, as it would reduce sexually transmitted diseases, and also maybe reduce poverty by reducing unwanted teenage pregnancies?
Very interesting topic… I can see the icon now, it’s an open textbook and a heart 