I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?
Unless you make a habit of illustrating your flawed reasoning with demonstrably flawed examples, then ... yes? Well, feel free to make it, then. Please, remember that the Coke/Pepsi bit was an analogy. Here is my actual point: In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.
Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot. |
|
|
|
taxation based on democratic consent By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority? No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority. Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property. By recently I mean the 1800s. Then you meant to say "taxation based on the illusion of democratic consent," which is still going strong. No I meant what I said. People fought to the death for this stuff - you may regard them as having been deluded fools but that doesn't mean it makes sense to re-write history so that only people who lived in the 1600s but had a 2103 perspective come out OK. Then perhaps you are using a non-standard definition of "democratic"? Or maybe "consent"? 300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom. You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom. But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you. Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom. Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today? Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself? We're not talking about freedom. We're talking about taxation, democracy, and consent. Sparta (not Troy, btw) was anything but a democracy. I suspect the non-standard definition you're using is in deed "democratic," given that you keep referring to representatives and monarchies as your examples of "democratic consent." Let me correct that: de·moc·ra·cy
/diˈmäkrəsē/
Noun
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state If you're looking for a Classical example, Athens would be your best bet. But even then, Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: The idea that because an idea is popular, it is the best. |
|
|
|
Market law.
How are new laws created in a market law system? Highest bidder win and you'll get soylent green at nearest streetcorner.  Gross. Also completely inaccurate. Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes. Neat example, it's as if you've intentionally picked it to see if anyone notices. Remember "The Pepsi Challenge"? Well, many Coke drinkers prefered it to coke in blind taste tests. Remember The New Coke"? Did you think Coke didn't conduct taste tests before marketing it?! (Hint: Did they ever!) Now, how did the New Coke fare? Right. One of the biggest marketing blunders in history. You were saying? I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand? |
|
|
|
taxation based on democratic consent By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority? No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority. Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property. By recently I mean the 1800s. Then you meant to say "taxation based on the illusion of democratic consent," which is still going strong. No I meant what I said. People fought to the death for this stuff - you may regard them as having been deluded fools but that doesn't mean it makes sense to re-write history so that only people who lived in the 1600s but had a 2103 perspective come out OK. Then perhaps you are using a non-standard definition of "democratic"? Or maybe "consent"? |
|
|
|
taxation based on democratic consent By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority? No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority. Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property. By recently I mean the 1800s. Then you meant to say "taxation based on the illusion of democratic consent," which is still going strong. |
|
|
|
taxation based on democratic consent By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority? |
|
|
|
What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?
The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." |
|
|
|
Market law.
How are new laws created in a market law system? Highest bidder win and you'll get soylent green at nearest streetcorner. Gross. Also completely inaccurate. Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes. In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies. Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot. |
|
|
|
So the shares are valued at 0.1799 BTC (x 1000 shares = 180 BTC for the entire company) - but the company only has assets of 12 BTC?
Also - I think you are using the term "share holders" when you mean "shares". Do you really have 1000 share holders?
The company is clearly a ponzi, nobody is paying back their loans, yet the company is still paying dividends on the shares. It's one of those thing where you don't ask where the money is coming from and just get money on the dividends. You're mistaken, my friend. Plenty of people are paying back loans. And if you think loans are the sole source of revenue, then you're even further mistaken. There are also several mutual ventures, and a couple of companies IBB has stocks in. |
|
|
|
Does this start fresh or continue?
This is a fresh start, but people being people, your past actions may influence people's actions in this game. Are there any watchdog groups that provide some guidance on who is worthy of my trading?
Fenix is free to continue his alliance. |
|
|
|
Do not fear my loyal subjects, I have not abandoned you! I had to tke a brief visit to the hospital, BUT: things should be back up and running this weekend.
Kill/trade game is dangerous. lol... More like poor diet is dangerous, but yeah. OK! On that nore, here are the FINAL results of game 1: Round Robin: Round Five: Players: 10 Maximum societal points: 84 Maximum individual points: 15 3 Viscera <--> Ekaros 0 Trade, let's do this.
Kill
2 wdmw <--> Elwar 2 Trade with Elwar
Trade
2 Cameltoemcgee <--> myrkul 2 trade
I Trade as well, of course. 0 Foxpup <--> FenixRD 3 Trade
As stated in the thread post, I have selected to play a "Kill" against Foxpup, in accordance with the Alliance Playbook.
2 FCTaiChi <--> Rassah 2 trade
Tease
Argh. Trade. Damn you auto correct!
(I considered editing this, but decided it was funnier as is.  ) Societal total points: 72 Point totals: FCTaiChi: 10 Elwar: 10 wdmw: 10 Foxpup: 9 FenixRD: 9 Rassah: 8 Ekaros: 7 Cameltoemcgee: 6 Myrkul 4 Viscera 3 As you can see, while poor ethics lead people to an early lead, in the end those who played nice did better, on average, than those who did not. (Sorry, Cameltoemcgee, you kinda got screwed. A longer game would likely have been kinder to you.) Game two: Free-for-all starts NOW. Here are the rules: Players may offer trade with or attempt to kill steal from as many, or as few, players as they choose. If two players both choose to interact with each other, the result is determined normally. If only one player chooses to interact with another, nothing happens (except that the other player now knows you want to trade with him, or tried to steal from him). As always, I will be an available trade partner, and will always start by trading. What happens from there is up to you. Just send me a PM with the names of players you want to deal with, and in what manner, and I'll compare the lists and post the results here. |
|
|
|
|
Do not fear my loyal subjects, I have not abandoned you! I had to tke a brief visit to the hospital, BUT: things should be back up and running this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Are you a game theorist by any chance?
This sounds alot like the prisoners dilemma, albeit with a small reward for a draw
This is indeed an iterated prisoner's dilemma. I want to try some variations, mess with the rules a little bit, later. |
|
|
|
Laws chosen by vote?
Yeah, common law infringes on personal freedom in my opinion. Then that's not at all what I'm talking about. If you are trying to say that the laws we make now are better than elected law, then that is what you are talking about. law. |
|
|
|
Laws chosen by vote?
Yeah, common law infringes on personal freedom in my opinion. Then that's not at all what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Just because people have to be judges and stuff doesn't mean they are a monopoly. It does if there's only one place you can go to have your case judged. Coke and Pepsi, remember? You could have a publicly owned republic with elected officials.
You could. But it wouldn't be what I'm talking about. It would be what you are talking about. You just assumed that I didn't mean that there would be options. Even though I said repeatedly that the government programs would give you options. You pick your judge and lawyer, and there is no bond between any of them except that they are under the same roof, or under the same few roofs, and supporting the same publically chosen laws. Laws chosen by vote? |
|
|
|
I give. Who?
Workers. Socialism is all about the labor. "The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way the workers get paid the full value of their labor." Is pure socialism. |
|
|
|
So, when your daughter, let's say, asks you for a toy, you get her the shittiest toy you think you can get away with? Now imagine if your mindset was shifted ever-so-slightly and you began to think of your fellow man as family, or is that getting too hippy/Christian for you?
There's a limit to the number of people you can consider "us." Everyone else is "them." I'm sorry i didn't get it right away. I get it now. They're *both* capitalist versions. Is the debate over? Are we just making funnies now?
If you think that, then you don't understand socialism. Ask yourself, "Why the sickle and the hammer?" (hint: who uses them?) |
|
|
|
We'll never know.
That's a safe bet.  |
|
|
|
in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed. Of course they are. The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit. Aaah, that's where the problem lies for you! I have a very simple answer: Who, in God's name, told you that raising prices is ever the incentive in any form of socialism, no matter how muddled? The incentive is *helping fellow man*! Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor."  how does this: "The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit." relate to this: "Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor."" This a libber in-joke? Let me show you. Take this: "The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit." And replace this: "you get the most per unit profit" with this: "the workers get paid the full value of their labor" And you get this: "The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way the workers get paid the full value of their labor." Which is the socialist version. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
