I am uncertain as to why a minimal alcohol ban makes liberals happy. What kind of ban is so minimal that it is more liberal then no ban at all. I am not saying it does not make sense I just do not understand it.
From my liberal opinion, DUI and alcohol abuse would make me oppose alcohol, but I see here it isn’t influenced by that.
I’ve read your title only but not what you’ve said below, I apologise~ if you think it’s an oversight contact cliff by tagging him here.
Harm Reduction? But then banning guns should please liberals too, but it displeases them.
Hmmm this is a good question actually. What was i thinking??? Perhaps it should be the other way around. In the game, liberals are very pro-freedom. pro-choice. Banning alcohol is an illiberal act. I will make a note to check this, maybe change it…
Hi friends , I was playing right now with spain and I realised that liberals dont like police having guns but they like not having restrictions on guns, seems a bit weird, maybe they shouldn’t matter about police having guns. ¿Is liberals in the game more of a anti autority or personal freedom faction?. Maybe the problem is that as with the alcohol ban is not very well defined whats a liberal.
I think thats consistent for some interpretations of liberalism. The police having guns gives them power over citizens, and is in some ways authoritarian, giving the police the ability to strongly restrict freedoms. On the other hand, individuals should be allowed to have guns, precisely because to prevent them would be to prevent the freedom of the individual.
In D4, liberals are basically pro-freedom, anti-authoritarian, anti-surveillance.
Its confusing for Americans, because liberal=socialist in mainstream usage of the term, and true liberals would be pro gun, but also pro-choice, which is unusual for the US, but in theory a very consistent philosophy
Should harm reduction guide liberals too?
In what sense? are you saying liberals would like a ban because it reduces harm? I would suggest that the liberal position is to allow people the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to harm themselves (same with smoking, recreational drugs, fast cars etc).
Thanks for the response, I was thinking more of an anti or pro gun aproach. It make sense your interpretation, Im from spain and here is not a proper liberal party, the right wing parties are liberal in a more economic way and maybe pro-freedom and left in a more personal and anti-authoritarian, anti-surveillance. They are all half liberal but not fully. Even “ciudadanos” defines itself as liberal but are agains abortion so the term is a bit confusing to me hehehe. Thx
In Spain there is a proper liberal party, is called P-LIB, is almost not known because in the last general election got only 1.171 votes.
I would say, in the sense that, you cannot have personal freedom if:
- You are not free from exploitation
- Are not in good health
- Not Alive
For example: Gentle prisons lead to harm reduction, protection of personal autonomy, etc. Similarly other forms of harm reduction would please liberals because a healthy and safe individual can enjoy the freedoms that they have.
Bodily integrity is one of the things that liberals appreciate. And I think effusing harmful chemicals into one’s body would atleast divide if not face outright opposition from liberals. Maybe liberals would be against banning such substances because banning them would lead to worse outcomes (utilitarianism)? Perhaps at the least it would lead to a lower positive impact?
Ok then… the answer to the original post is…
…it doesn’t? See below:
Are you playing the game on linux through an emulator? I saw that someone else had a similar problem in these circumstances. It seems some equations are not being processed correctly under linux. FWIW we do not support linux, but even so its weird.
But yup, the equation for banning alcohol on liberals is
Its definitely negative! If you right click the effect, what does the graph show?
Renders it all moot huh?
I guess at none, it probably makes liberals happy because I guess it means that the government is not really enforcing its ban much, rendering the policy toothless.
Not having safety also violates freedom