Please sign and share the petition 'Tighten regulation on taking, making and faking explicit images' at Change.org initiated by Helen Mort to the w:Law Commission (England and Wales) to properly update UK laws against synthetic filth. Only name and email required to support, no nationality requirement. See Current and possible laws and their application @ #SSF! wiki for more info on the struggle for laws to protect humans.
Talk:Types of countries
So is there a -2 (rogue state) to +2 (do-gooder state) scale we apply here? All states have the job of taking care of someone, so there should not be a -3 total boycott of any of them. Not even Iraq deserved this for 10 years, and Cuba never deserved it. Also states as a solution to problems suck, so none deserves a +3 blanket endorsement...
An interesting combination of this rating with those on companies would be to add them together: an endorseable company or product in a rogue state would then get only a +1 (+3-2) rating. Why? Because it pays taxes to a state that does evil things with the money. Because it doesn't move to another country where there is no such evil going on. Etc.
When dealing with the government-owned companies, like the oil industry in most countries, probably the two ratings will be the same (profits go the same as taxes to the country), so it's just like doubling the state's rating. This could yield up to a -4 score, when dealing with a rogue state's state-owned industry. Buying oh software or non-boycotted weapons from North Korea, US or Israeli government would fit in this category. This would be as bad a score as you can get since the "-5" products are not things you can legally buy: banned weapons from rogue states! To get a +4 you would need to buy an endorsed product from legalist state, or a recommended product from a do-gooder state. +5 is possible but quite rare... so this is a 10 point scale from -4 to +5.
Is that OK?
- Ummm. No, not in my humble opinion. I've been thinking about the score scale for a long time and I've come to the following conclusion:
- A unified (say 7 or 11 level) scale is the best if it just can intuitively be used in all applicable places
- Can't agree. States and companies have very different effects on policies and production, and if they are measured differently, that must be reflected differently. It's good to END up with a unified scale, but that will be the sum or product of some other numbers. Tax rates might matter, as a country with a 33% tax rate is only getting 1/3 of the money, and with a 50% tax rate it is getting 1/2 of the money, so patronizing companies that pay taxes (or pay people to pay taxes) in a +3 state with a 33% tax rate should be maybe worth +1, the same as those paying 50% in a +2 state? Just do it exactly by the cash flows.
- Multiple normalized score scales eg. pick any number between say -1.0 and 1.0 and then normalize that (or normalize other scores to that) which would likely lead to just more consumer confusion.
- We should keep the KISS priciple (Keep It Simple Stupid) in mind. Especially now that we are in the stage where we have an abundance of details to weld together.
- I think we shouldn't take any stance for or against any country, but rather trust the usual methods ie. campaigns in the Opinion Wiki to do that, but I see your motivation for writing this article and I think the subject of this article should be handled in Campaigns#Cascading Campaign eg. deciding how and based on what rules campaigns will or can be made to cascade if desired so.