DBWI: Successful Liberal Democracy

Today it is commonly accepted by most people who aren't wide-eyed university students that Liberal Democracy is a historical dead-end. Only a handful of countries, such as the American Free State and the Australian Republic, even attempt to adhere to a façade of Liberal Democracy, and they are mostly economic backwaters riddled with corruption and degeneracy. Yet this wasn't always the case. For a while some of the most powerful countries in the world were Liberal Democracies, and many regarded it as the epitome of civilised rule (the past is a strange country).

Although I'm sceptical of its possibility, what would the world look like if Liberal Democracy had been able to thrive despite its decadent and degenerate tendencies.

OOC: For the record I do think democracy and liberalism are good things and we should have more of it.
 
It is hard to imagine. The monarchy and nobles rule by divine right after all. Rich merchants such as myself proved themselves worthy with their quick wits or bloodlines. The general public? Have them in charge and we will all wind up baying at the moon like rabid animals and performing heathenish , savage rites and sacrificing virgins to dark gods.
 
Preventing Hamilton from becoming President? IDK the aristocratic tendencies of the American republic are kind of enshrined within the Constitution, the American Free State kind of misinterprets what the founding fathers meant
 
Well stop the Great Depression from happening. Among other things, that toppled the Weimer Republic, brought in the Bankers Oligarchy in North America, and actually stopped the growth of liberal and democratic institutions in Japan. By the mid 1930s, the only powerful "liberal democracies" left were Britain and France. When the US joined the Anti-Comintern Pact, they completely lost their chance of getting the US to side with them against Germany.

It was no accident that the communists wound up putting up a better fight against the Great Reaction than did the liberals.
 
Today it is commonly accepted by most people who aren't wide-eyed university students that Liberal Democracy is a historical dead-end. Only a handful of countries, such as the American Free State and the Australian Republic, even attempt to adhere to a façade of Liberal Democracy, and they are mostly economic backwaters riddled with corruption and degeneracy. Yet this wasn't always the case. For a while some of the most powerful countries in the world were Liberal Democracies, and many regarded it as the epitome of civilised rule (the past is a strange country).

Although I'm sceptical of its possibility, what would the world look like if Liberal Democracy had been able to thrive despite its decadent and degenerate tendencies.

OOC: For the record I do think democracy and liberalism are good things and we should have more of it.

OOC : Why is a disclaimer needed ? It's already blatantly obvious that it's a DBWI given it's on a title. You don't have to connect yourself and your views with a DBWI.


It's hard to see why and how liberal democracies could thrive. In Australia, we have dubious election frauds and nasty politics here and there that it's no surprise how democracy has utterly failed us.
 
This should probably be moved to ASB. Liberal Democracy can't ever succeed. I'm not even stating my opinion here. Whenever the power is in the hands of the people, they always start infighting and drag the country down.
 
As one of your so called "wide eyed university students", I point you to a simple phrase "What is to be done?" and various thinkers from the past two hundred years.

Conservatives and liberals alike agree that there are problems in society that have to be fixed. The problem is that conservatives shrug their shoulders, proclaim that our society is the best its ever going to get, and that those problems will just exist forever.

Now, I will concede that liberal democracy has failed quite spectacularly in the past. But I believe that was due to society not being sufficiently developed, or those who attempted it putting the cart before the horse. Slow, experimental movements towards liberal democracy will eventually result in such a thing functioning on a national scale

Some random general who died in the War of 1812? What about him?

Andrew Jackson was well liked and respected. The best example of a president up to that point had been George Washington, another general. It is widely believed that if another general, a man who had won his position through command of many people, had taken office then there wouldn't have been quite so many disasters in American history, as well as a bit more populism.
 
Today it is commonly accepted by most people who aren't wide-eyed university students that Liberal Democracy is a historical dead-end. Only a handful of countries, such as the American Free State and the Australian Republic, even attempt to adhere to a façade of Liberal Democracy, and they are mostly economic backwaters riddled with corruption and degeneracy. Yet this wasn't always the case. For a while some of the most powerful countries in the world were Liberal Democracies, and many regarded it as the epitome of civilised rule (the past is a strange country).

Although I'm sceptical of its possibility, what would the world look like if Liberal Democracy had been able to thrive despite its decadent and degenerate tendencies.

OOC: For the record I do think democracy and liberalism are good things and we should have more of it.

Well, I'll just say this: while this view will no doubt be controversial(especially coming from a Californian, a person of one democracy that actually got it's act together), it has been quite believably argued by people of the Carterite school, that democracy really only failed due to a very long string of happenstance coincidences and "foul shots", as it were.

And by the way, let's be honest: according to pretty much every single source most of the world's non-liberal theocracies and monarchies do, in fact, remain fairly corrupt themselves, even majorly so in some cases.(In fact, Italy, which has only been ruled by three queens, all from a minor noble family with no known connections to any of the major German houses, back to back since 1905, is one of the few exceptions to the general rule in Europe, along with the U.K. and maybe a few others-and Japan is the only exception in East Asia, after the Meiji era reforms; somehow, at least when it comes to the latter, I'm not convinced that it's at all coincidental. And on the other end, whatever remains of the Ottoman Empire is a totalitarian hellhole that murdered most of it's Roma population decades ago, China is now essentially run by it's biggest corporations, the recently dethroned shah of Persia was a known rapist, including of teenage girls, and don't even get me started on the Emirates of Arabia. I mean, geez, even the National Republic of Indochina wasn't as screwed up as any of these four, and they're generally regarded as the worst of the Communist states!).

One of the PODs that may work would be to stop John C. Calhoun from ever becoming President of the United States; you thought Alexander Hamilton was awful? Compared to Calhoun, Hamilton was a master statesman! Calhoun's brief tenure, in fact, would help lead directly to a near-total civil war which effectively ruined the country long term.

Really, the biggest problem with democracy was the fact that genuine liberalism was simply never given much of a chance in most places; and my own rather extensive research of post-1770s history generally seems to support the general gist of the Carterite viewpoint.
 
BTW, I also wonder what effect the greater success of classical liberalism might have had in regards to slavery & race relations in general.

I do believe it's well known by most these days, that efforts to totally stop the slave trade faltered for a while after the 1780s: the brawl at the State House in Philadelphia in 1788, that started as a result of the duel between Samuel Adams & Edward Rutledge, and the latter man's subsequent death, is generally considered to be one of the primary factors. And, unfortunately, Britain's Parliament's 20 year moratorium on discussion of the slave trade that followed a year later, after a brawl in that country, also helped convince countries like Austria-Hungary and even the Ottoman Empire, as well as a few of the German states(Prussia was particularly notorious for this), to get involved in it as well by 1800-thanks to this, it took until 1824 to eliminate the slave trade in the British Empire and 1868 to end it altogether, compared to 1856 for France and 1847 in Spain; even Austria had ended it by 1862.(Meanwhile, Prussia only stopped in 1881 and slavery was legal in Brazil to 1916; the Ottoman Empire well up until the 1940s.)
 
I'd say Dr. Sun Yetsen would have had a shot if not for the Beiyang government taking power and reforming the government.
 
BTW, I also wonder what effect the greater success of classical liberalism might have had in regards to slavery & race relations in general.

I do believe it's well known by most these days, that efforts to totally stop the slave trade faltered for a while after the 1780s: the brawl at the State House in Philadelphia in 1788, that started as a result of the duel between Samuel Adams & Edward Rutledge, and the latter man's subsequent death, is generally considered to be one of the primary factors. And, unfortunately, Britain's Parliament's 20 year moratorium on discussion of the slave trade that followed a year later, after a brawl in that country, also helped convince countries like Austria-Hungary and even the Ottoman Empire, as well as a few of the German states(Prussia was particularly notorious for this), to get involved in it as well by 1800-thanks to this, it took until 1824 to eliminate the slave trade in the British Empire and 1868 to end it altogether, compared to 1856 for France and 1847 in Spain; even Austria had ended it by 1862.(Meanwhile, Prussia only stopped in 1881 and slavery was legal in Brazil to 1916; the Ottoman Empire well up until the 1940s.)

Unfortunately, the Americans relegalized slavery just recently, parcelling out convicted criminals serving life sentences to the wealthiest taxpayers. And there are alot of convicted criminals in America.
 
Unfortunately, the Americans relegalized slavery just recently, parcelling out convicted criminals serving life sentences to the wealthiest taxpayers. And there are alot of convicted criminals in America.

OOC: I hate to say this, but this is pretty much ASB, even ITTL.

IC: Erm.....wha? that rumor was debunked months ago-it originally came from well-known Canadian satire magazine The Daily Garbage, anyway. I mean, sure, there are some very valid concerns about the continuation of private prisons and exploitation, but not even the most right-wing mainline politicians would ever suggest bringing back literal slavery.(Even the much-hated Ottoman Empire stopped doing this in 1946, so.....)
 
Last edited:

I've read Carterite views, and I'm not convinced. It comes across as an attempt to explain away the failure of Liberal Democracy, whilst exonerating it of any fault and failing to address the fundamental limitations of Liberal Democracy.

The problem with Liberal Democracy is that it doesn't take human nature into account. It assumes that all people are atomised rational individuals who are fundamentally equal and identical in temperament and psychology. Such a view doesn't take into account mankind's tribalistic character, the fundamental class divisions within a society, or the different psycho-racial distinctions between peoples and cultures.

A good example of Liberalism's naivete is the doctrine of free speech and free press. In theory, the idea is that by allowing for a free flow of ideas and viewpoints the people as a whole are able to weigh up these different ideas, with the good ones becoming widespread and the bad ones dying out.

It's a good idea on paper, but in real life it just doesn't work. The vast majority of the masses lack the training and education to fully think through and understand the understand the nuances of political and economic theories. They are too susceptible to emotional appeals and rhetoric to be able to make an informed decision, and so they become easily manipulated fodder for demagogues and charlatans. And that doesn't even touch on the dangerous degenerate material that such a system would allow to thrive.

Contrast this with the system we have in Britain based on responsible press. Here the educated classes (such as myself hence the internet privileges) are allowed access to all media and ideas, after the more explicitly dangerous and degenerate works have been censored of course. The lower classes have their access restricted to the media which has been judged, by those best able to judge it, to be either socially beneficial or harmless, with ideas that are based on irrational premises or harmful conclusion filtered out.

At it's core Liberalism is fundamentally undemocratic. It tries to enable the nation to rule itself through the state, without recognising the need to harmonise the various sectional class interests with the needs of the state. The result is ultimately a disjointed class anarchy, where different interests mobilise the masses to give them the power to suit their agendas, often at odds with the national interest. If you're lucky these are limited to cosmopolitan bourgeois elites willing to sell out the nation for a quick profit, or union thugs looking to line their pockets at the expense of small businesses or honest workers. At worst you end up with dangerous anti-Civillisational ideologies like Communism taking over and instituting a tyrannical dictatorship.

Older Liberal Democracies were able to avoid these pitfalls by limiting political participation to the responsible classes, or through the utter subordination of the lower classes to the ruling classes, but development in technology and the social forces they unleashed have made it impossible to keep those forces in check within the framework of Liberal Democracy.

You mentioned that you were from California, an ostensibly Liberal Democracy that is doing pretty well, and I'll admit it is doing pretty well. However, I would argue that its success has a lot to do with the fact that they have adapted plenty of non-Liberal elements that strengthen the system. Whilst California has a press that is far too unrestricted, they have shown themselves to be sensible enough to draw the line when it comes to dangerous and preposterous ideologies. There is a large sub-class that is excluded from political participation, formed from migrant residents from the neighbouring states, indentured prison labourers (who are also disenfranchised), and the various refugees that migrated during the civil war and their descendants who are prohibited from acquiring citizenship. This underclass serves as a unifying other that the rest of Californian society can be rallied against in hard times (the racial aspect really helps with this), as well as provides a source of cheap exploitable labour, the benefits of which can be passed onto the citizenry as a whole. Care has been taken to prevent a political culture of class warfare developing, with both major parties having ties to the Californian Chamber of Commerce and the Californian Federation of Labor, whilst the labour movement as a whole had been kept clean of Communist influence. In addition there are also various geopolitical and economic factors, such as being able to serve as the middleman between the Japanese and Anglo spheres, and ready access to bountiful resources, which certainly doesn't hurt California's chances.

In many ways California can be said to embody a hybrid system, that combines some of the more libertarian aspects of Liberal Democracy, with aspects of the sensible corporate governance of Fascism. A Liberal Fascism if you will. Getting back to the issue at hand, the only way that I can see Liberal Democracy succeeding is if it and its adherents are able to adapt it to the changing circumstances by adopting some of these measures on principle. Liberal Democracy as an ideology is too extreme to put into practice in a modern society, except in very limited circumstances. The solution, as the Ancient Greeks were well aware of, is moderation. If the extremist elements can be kept in check then I think Liberal Democracy could have had the chance to evolve into a unifying and organic ideology, not unlike Fascism, which is able to strike a healthy balance between the class anarchy of OTL Liberalism and the Class tyranny of Communism and Feudalism.

Unfortunately, the Americans relegalized slavery just recently, parcelling out convicted criminals serving life sentences to the wealthiest taxpayers. And there are alot of convicted criminals in America.

Erm.....wha? that rumor was debunked months ago-it originally came from well-known Canadian satire magazine The Daily Garbage, anyway. I mean, sure, there are some very valid concerns about the continuation of private prisons and exploitation, but not even the most right-wing mainline politicians would ever suggest bringing back literal slavery.(Even the much-hated Ottoman Empire stopped doing this in 1946, so.....)

Shame it was only a rumour. Having a hyper-exploited underclass that is excluded from political participation can be a immensely beneficial for the healthy governance of a society, provided of course that they can be kept in their place. It gives the lower classes something to look down on and boosting pride in their citizenship, whist also providing a useful source of cheap labour for unpleasant tasks. This is the basis upon which all great civilisations have been built, although whether actual chattel slavery is as applicable in modern society is doubtful. Perhaps some sort of permanent indentured servitude would be better?

OOC : Why is a disclaimer needed ? It's already blatantly obvious that it's a DBWI given it's on a title. You don't have to connect yourself and your views with a DBWI.

OOC: Because the IC persona is a literal actual fascist who would regard the worst aspects of modern America as redeeming features, and I just want to make it clear that those aren't my actual views.
 
OOC: Because the IC persona is a literal actual fascist who would regard the worst aspects of modern America as redeeming features, and I just want to make it clear that those aren't my actual views.

OOC : You wrote DBWI on the title. It was obviously clear it wasn't your views unless someone confuses DBWI for something else. Unless some of us in the board can't seem to differentiate you and your DBWI persona, then I don't know if it's really necessary.



And yes, American slavery has persisted in terms of private prisons, but it wasn't truly chattel slavery, now is it ? Aren't most serving for a limited term, like indentured servants ?
 
I've read Carterite views, and I'm not convinced. It comes across as an attempt to explain away the failure of Liberal Democracy, whilst exonerating it of any fault and failing to address the fundamental limitations of Liberal Democracy.

The problem with Liberal Democracy is that it doesn't take human nature into account. It assumes that all people are atomised rational individuals who are fundamentally equal and identical in temperament and psychology. Such a view doesn't take into account mankind's tribalistic character, the fundamental class divisions within a society, or the different psycho-racial distinctions between peoples and cultures.

A good example of Liberalism's naivete is the doctrine of free speech and free press. In theory, the idea is that by allowing for a free flow of ideas and viewpoints the people as a whole are able to weigh up these different ideas, with the good ones becoming widespread and the bad ones dying out.

It's a good idea on paper, but in real life it just doesn't work. The vast majority of the masses lack the training and education to fully think through and understand the understand the nuances of political and economic theories. They are too susceptible to emotional appeals and rhetoric to be able to make an informed decision, and so they become easily manipulated fodder for demagogues and charlatans. And that doesn't even touch on the dangerous degenerate material that such a system would allow to thrive.

Contrast this with the system we have in Britain based on responsible press. Here the educated classes (such as myself hence the internet privileges) are allowed access to all media and ideas, after the more explicitly dangerous and degenerate works have been censored of course. The lower classes have their access restricted to the media which has been judged, by those best able to judge it, to be either socially beneficial or harmless, with ideas that are based on irrational premises or harmful conclusion filtered out.

At it's core Liberalism is fundamentally undemocratic. It tries to enable the nation to rule itself through the state, without recognising the need to harmonise the various sectional class interests with the needs of the state. The result is ultimately a disjointed class anarchy, where different interests mobilise the masses to give them the power to suit their agendas, often at odds with the national interest. If you're lucky these are limited to cosmopolitan bourgeois elites willing to sell out the nation for a quick profit, or union thugs looking to line their pockets at the expense of small businesses or honest workers. At worst you end up with dangerous anti-Civillisational ideologies like Communism taking over and instituting a tyrannical dictatorship.

Older Liberal Democracies were able to avoid these pitfalls by limiting political participation to the responsible classes, or through the utter subordination of the lower classes to the ruling classes, but development in technology and the social forces they unleashed have made it impossible to keep those forces in check within the framework of Liberal Democracy.

You mentioned that you were from California, an ostensibly Liberal Democracy that is doing pretty well, and I'll admit it is doing pretty well. However, I would argue that its success has a lot to do with the fact that they have adapted plenty of non-Liberal elements that strengthen the system. Whilst California has a press that is far too unrestricted, they have shown themselves to be sensible enough to draw the line when it comes to dangerous and preposterous ideologies. There is a large sub-class that is excluded from political participation, formed from migrant residents from the neighbouring states, indentured prison labourers (who are also disenfranchised), and the various refugees that migrated during the civil war and their descendants who are prohibited from acquiring citizenship. This underclass serves as a unifying other that the rest of Californian society can be rallied against in hard times (the racial aspect really helps with this), as well as provides a source of cheap exploitable labour, the benefits of which can be passed onto the citizenry as a whole. Care has been taken to prevent a political culture of class warfare developing, with both major parties having ties to the Californian Chamber of Commerce and the Californian Federation of Labor, whilst the labour movement as a whole had been kept clean of Communist influence. In addition there are also various geopolitical and economic factors, such as being able to serve as the middleman between the Japanese and Anglo spheres, and ready access to bountiful resources, which certainly doesn't hurt California's chances.

In many ways California can be said to embody a hybrid system, that combines some of the more libertarian aspects of Liberal Democracy, with aspects of the sensible corporate governance of Fascism. A Liberal Fascism if you will. Getting back to the issue at hand, the only way that I can see Liberal Democracy succeeding is if it and its adherents are able to adapt it to the changing circumstances by adopting some of these measures on principle. Liberal Democracy as an ideology is too extreme to put into practice in a modern society, except in very limited circumstances. The solution, as the Ancient Greeks were well aware of, is moderation. If the extremist elements can be kept in check then I think Liberal Democracy could have had the chance to evolve into a unifying and organic ideology, not unlike Fascism, which is able to strike a healthy balance between the class anarchy of OTL Liberalism and the Class tyranny of Communism and Feudalism.





Shame it was only a rumour. Having a hyper-exploited underclass that is excluded from political participation can be a immensely beneficial for the healthy governance of a society, provided of course that they can be kept in their place. It gives the lower classes something to look down on and boosting pride in their citizenship, whist also providing a useful source of cheap labour for unpleasant tasks. This is the basis upon which all great civilisations have been built, although whether actual chattel slavery is as applicable in modern society is doubtful. Perhaps some sort of permanent indentured servitude would be better?

OOC: Because the IC persona is a literal actual fascist who would regard the worst aspects of modern America as redeeming features, and I just want to make it clear that those aren't my actual views.

Erm.....wow. I'm sorry, but there is just *so* much wrong with this post that I simply can't ignore this.

First of all, I don't know where in the hell you got these ideas about California, but they are simply patently untrue:

For one, political participation is universally available to anyone over the age of 18, and this includes immigrants; even ex-cons are allowed to vote once they're out of the system. Secondly, unlike a lot of the non-liberal countries, refugees are treated fairly well here(in fact, citizenship is easier to acquire here than in most other countries, apart from the Social Democratic Republic of Aotearoa and maybe a few others), and, to add to that point, we also don't have a racial manipulation OR labor exploitation problem(the former stopped being an issue over a hundred years ago, and labor protections have been very strong since the '40s). Thirdly, the CCC is actually directly under the government's control, and heavily regulated at that-and while Communism is on the fringes, social democracy is not, and actually happens to be the main ideology of one of the two main parties(the other one is slightly right of center and even they advocate regulation of capitalism for the benefit of society.....shocker!)-there is one ideology banned in California, but it's fascism, and that's only because it has proven to be so dangerous in recent history(Bulgaria from 1953 to 1988 was very much the epitome of a hybrid monarchist/fascist state, and what remains of the Ottoman Empire is still much like this).

Here in California, at least, the system of free press and free speech actually works, because of the various checks and balances that we've installed over the years, and we didn't feel the need to limit the franchise to only the upper classes(the U.S., meanwhile, only gained universal male suffrage in the 1840s, and women & people of color could only vote in some states prior to the collapse.).

In the meantime, as for Britain, I'd like to add that the Peabody Scheme of the 1880's, while no doubt beloved by authoritarians the world over, hasn't exactly proven to be all that effective in it's goals; it's simply not possible to entirely restrict the lower classes from gaining the information they desire(in fact, black market trade in newspapers used to be a huge thing). In fact, in the modern era, the main thing keeping the lower classes from using anything but the most public Internet terminals, is the exorbitant prices that many British telecom companies charge for their services.

And sure, Britain's "responsible press" system often has worked fairly well in the modern era, particularly in recent years, with pro-liberalization reforms, but it wasn't always this way. For example, prior to the 1940s, the government press was all too susceptible to falling to the whims of the current party in power or King on the throne-I need not remind folks over there of the "Muslim Peril" that gripped the country in the '30s and resulted in a number of damaging racial riots. They also largely refused to report on the numerous corruption scandals gripping the Tories during that decade and earlier in the '20s, until Conservative PM Randolph Oswald was finally tossed out in 1938 after 17 years of misrule.

But other than that, there really aren't too many other non classically liberal nations that have managed to get their acts together in those regards, apart from Japan and Italy; and neither of those two nations are all that conservative on a lot of matters, including social policy-btw, should note that racial & labor exploitation are both banned under Italian law, and the former is also outlawed in Japan, with the latter heavily restricted(interestingly enough, unions are huge in Japan, btw).
 
Erm.....wow. I'm sorry, but there is just *so* much wrong with this post that I simply can't ignore this.

First of all, I don't know where in the hell you got these ideas about California, but they are simply patently untrue:

For one, political participation is universally available to anyone over the age of 18, and this includes immigrants; even ex-cons are allowed to vote once they're out of the system. Secondly, unlike a lot of the non-liberal countries, refugees are treated fairly well here(in fact, citizenship is easier to acquire here than in most other countries, apart from the Social Democratic Republic of Aotearoa and maybe a few others), and, to add to that point, we also don't have a racial manipulation OR labor exploitation problem(the former stopped being an issue over a hundred years ago, and labor protections have been very strong since the '40s). Thirdly, the CCC is actually directly under the government's control, and heavily regulated at that-and while Communism is on the fringes, social democracy is not, and actually happens to be the main ideology of one of the two main parties(the other one is slightly right of center and even they advocate regulation of capitalism for the benefit of society.....shocker!)-there is one ideology banned in California, but it's fascism, and that's only because it has proven to be so dangerous in recent history(Bulgaria from 1953 to 1988 was very much the epitome of a hybrid monarchist/fascist state, and what remains of the Ottoman Empire is still much like this).

Here in California, at least, the system of free press and free speech actually works, because of the various checks and balances that we've installed over the years, and we didn't feel the need to limit the franchise to only the upper classes(the U.S., meanwhile, only gained universal male suffrage in the 1840s, and women & people of color could only vote in some states prior to the collapse.).

In the meantime, as for Britain, I'd like to add that the Peabody Scheme of the 1880's, while no doubt beloved by authoritarians the world over, hasn't exactly proven to be all that effective in it's goals; it's simply not possible to entirely restrict the lower classes from gaining the information they desire(in fact, black market trade in newspapers used to be a huge thing). In fact, in the modern era, the main thing keeping the lower classes from using anything but the most public Internet terminals, is the exorbitant prices that many British telecom companies charge for their services.

And sure, Britain's "responsible press" system often has worked fairly well in the modern era, particularly in recent years, with pro-liberalization reforms, but it wasn't always this way. For example, prior to the 1940s, the government press was all too susceptible to falling to the whims of the current party in power or King on the throne-I need not remind folks over there of the "Muslim Peril" that gripped the country in the '30s and resulted in a number of damaging racial riots. They also largely refused to report on the numerous corruption scandals gripping the Tories during that decade and earlier in the '20s, until Conservative PM Randolph Oswald was finally tossed out in 1938 after 17 years of misrule.

But other than that, there really aren't too many other non classically liberal nations that have managed to get their acts together in those regards, apart from Japan and Italy; and neither of those two nations are all that conservative on a lot of matters, including social policy-btw, should note that racial & labor exploitation are both banned under Italian law, and the former is also outlawed in Japan, with the latter heavily restricted(interestingly enough, unions are huge in Japan, btw).

Clearly, someone believes too much in Californian propaganda.
 
Clearly, someone believes too much in Californian propaganda.

No, this is all verifiable. Here, look up the info for yourself on the website of the International Nations' Research Institute in Switzerland; they are the most reputable unbiased (in either direction) source one can find-Nations of the World: California

Long story short, it basically backs up everything I've seen here.(but it also does talk about the CalRon gas scandal of the '80s, which, admittedly, the government here initially had trouble admitting was even a thing).

OOC: I hate to seem eager to nitpick, but I was really just trying to keep this whole thing fairly realistic.
 
No, this is all verifiable. Here, look up the info for yourself on the website of the International Nations' Research Institute in Switzerland; they are the most reputable unbiased (in either direction) source one can find-Nations of the World: California

Long story short, it basically backs up everything I've seen here.(but it also does talk about the CalRon gas scandal of the '80s, which, admittedly, the government here initially had trouble admitting was even a thing).

OOC: I hate to seem eager to nitpick, but I was really just trying to keep this whole thing fairly realistic.
The INRI is basically an arm of the Swiss government.

Of course they would probably be very willing to defend one of their largest trading partners, no?
 
Top