Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Maniac]

I don't understand you guys. Really I don't...

When not taking the factor for rearing for leadership into account? Then they would have no higher percentage than the average. They are just average children. When you factor in the inbreeding, those children become below average.

No, nobles do not necessarily have the genes for leadership. Just because their forefathers were leaders, and had practice, does not make them good leaders. You cannot pass on experience in genes.

Then how can you consider a social darwinist system better than a meritocratic system if the children are just average?? In a social darwinists system people who do not always (just as much as the average person) posses the right talents for a job get educated for that job, while in a meritocratic system people who have the right talents for a job get educated for that job. That is more efficient. In a social darwinists system and a meritocratic/equal chances system everyone can gain just as much experience through education, but because in a equal chances system the students have better inborn talents & genes for that job, they will perform better than the social darwinist system student, who just happen to be born in a rich family.

Um... what do you mean by Darwinist? All I mean is survival of the fittest, natural selection.

With which I agree and one of the reasons I strive for a meritocratic system. "Natural selection" in the market makes sure the best for a certain job gets that job, and everyone begins with equal chances at the start line. What I do not agree with is "Social Darwinism", a system thought up in the bourgeois 19th century which implies that the elite of a society deserve to be there due to their supposed superior talents. Just another philosophy made up to justify that all power lies within a small group and to exclude people from lower classes to rise to that elite.
What do you mean by (Social?) Darwinism? And how does it effect how the supposed best society should look like?

I however, do not see the need to make society 'unnaturally fair'.

How do you define "natural" and "unnatural"? Are laws unnatural according to you?

Just because I believe in Darwin

So do I believe in his evolution theory, but besides the name there is no link between Darwin and Social Darwinism.

we are both Libertarians, the antithisis of Fascism.

That's your opinion. IMO absence of laws on the political and economical field can do nothing else than lead to a corporate dictatorship of multinationals in our current society (arguments provided in my previous posts). Therefore, according to me, Libertarianism after a while automatically leads to a variation of "fascism".

[Drogue]

Well, I was talking about Darwinism, as in according to Darwin's laws, not Social Darwinism, which as you say, shows little resemblance to the great man's work. I think Darwinism (non-social) is meritocratic, in that who is best equipped survives and prospers. I agree with equal eduication, but I also believe you should be allowed to pass on something (ie. money) that you have earned, as part of the reward for the work during your life.

Natural and unnatural I define by unnatural being something that is enforced, against human nature. Laws can be both, some laws are 'the collective concience' of society (ie. what most people are for or against) and are natural, some are enforced, such as police control, and are unnatural. That's just how I see things however, I'm not to good at explaining what I mean.

Actually, that definition of Libertaianism is what is given both by websites such as the political compass and by the Libertarian Party (in great britain). That Libertarian is not necessarily a completely (or at all) Free Market, which IMO is what leads to corporatiasm. Myself, and many economists (Keynes, Galbraith etc.) are Libertarian and left.

[Hercules]

Just popped in. These threads are becoming increasingly like university tutorials.
Archaic made a point somewhere (least I think it was him) that a lot of good and welcome imput to the game lanquishes in the Rec. Com.

Take note of two points: our citizen registry has not significantly increased (if it has at all);

Less than half of registered citizens post regularly.

The survival of our ACDG species is under threat unless we behave differently. The departure of DE (hopefully temporally) is a sympton of something wrong.

The survival of ACDG requires regular and varied participation and agreement to a code of conduct in discussion and debate. I suspect for many the current style of debate in many threads is a big turn off.

[Method]

Originally posted by Hercules
I suspect for many the current style of debate in many threads is a big turn off.

yes it is

[Drogue]

Ok, shall we try to keep all arguments strictly game based. So that we can RP, but anything old Earth style is off limits. Just an idea.

[GeneralTacticus]

So, no more use of the USA or USSR in the FM debate? I like it.

[Drogue]

Exactly. If FM comes up, we can debate on in-game effects, and RP in that more money and research vs more drones and eco-damage, and leave economic theory and old Earth out. Is that agreed? Should we amend the contitution for that?

[GeneralTacticus]

I don't think a constiutional amendment would eb the way out of this; it would probably end up in endless legal wrangles over what the meaning of a particular comment actually was, and in any case, the constitunio isn't there for stuff like this, it's there to provide a framework for the game's organization. It would be just to have it as an informal agreement.

[Drogue]

OK, do we all agree? (by all I mean myself, Archaic, GT, Maniac and Pande - The main participants)

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, I do, and I assume you do, too. Can't speak for anyone else.

[Pandemoniak]

Ok, shall we try to keep all arguments strictly game based. So that we can RP, but anything old Earth style is off limits.

Agreed, though we shouldnt totally ignore all that happened on Earth, just limit our conversation to quickly quote things that happened centuries ago...

[Archaic]

Agreed with Pan for once (Miracles do happen), but if any strawmans are used, the others should be allowed and obliged to point it out.

[Kirov]

The other possibility is to create a special thread, named, for instance, "Holy Wars". I agree with ceasing this endless debate, but I think your agreement would not last forever (to the next SE choices, I suppose).

[Pandemoniak]

/me ask Commisioner Lemmy to award the Great Medal of Glory and Honor of the Peacekeepers and the Crisler Prize of Peace to Drogue, for his succesful attempt to make Archaic and myself agree.

[DeathByTheSword]

Drogue good work!