Official: Free Market Economics (Repost)

[GeneralTacticus]

True enough, but that does not make his argument more valid either.

Of course not. However, that means you cannot simply dismiss his arguments out of hand because they aren't RP ones.

Well ... I don't want to throw oil in the fire but what are you trying to achieve by saying that ?

I'm attempting to establish, for the record, if Pan actually cares about what's really going on in the game, or if he's more concerned with making the PKs into his own little communist utopia.

Now, personally, I think that these forums is hardly the good place for such a conversation.
It basically spoils the fun for the people who are just coming here to have good fun playing a Democracy Game.

Perhaps, you should conduct this conversation in private ( via emails, icq or whatever) instead of here....

I don't particularly want to carry on this discussion IN ANY FORM, but this needs to be established.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Moreover, I know far more than you about marxism.

And I know far more than you about Economic Theory. And Marxism violates pretty much every economic theory there is. Are you even aware of the benevolant social planner dilemma?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Saying Im stupid is a personnal insult.

There are plenty of other ways I can say "Willful ignorance of facts". Pick one.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
What you just posted is just an excellent demonstration of what you always do : mind business that are not of your own, using text/essays/so called fallacies to make arguments instead of you, just because you have no roleplaying talent.

Perhaps you'd like to say that to the RPGA, of which I'm member #200001. I have plenty of RP talent. The fact that I'm not bringing it into these debates all the time is irrelevant. Though you could say that I'm roleplaying as myself if I was a person who'd actually been on the Unity for anypart I've debated without referencing game terms. It would seem you define RPing in this Demo Game as being a Communist who rarely if ever mentions game terms.

As for using Textbooks and essays to back up or make my arguements, as well as pointing out the logical fallacies in your reasoning, what exactly is your problem with this? That is how you debate Pan.

And Im not "poisoning the well" as you pretend, I dont think what you said is wrong just because you're a jerk, I think you're a jerk because of the way you conduct the debate. It was clearly stated in my previous post, you dont have to make so much efforts to get countersens in your so called "translations".
I'd better not check all the other fallacies, I might have to post a ten pages description of your incapacity to read a text without a proper "translation".

Oh really now? Perhaps you don't think that. But you certainly seem to use it to make other people think that.

I will conduct my debates however I please Pan. If you don't like the fact that I point out the faults in your reasoning, and your wilful ignorance of facts.

"countersens"? I don't normally pick out poor spelling so long as it doesn't ruin, but I don't even understand what you're saying there with that one.

*Shrugs* If you don't want to read up on the fallacies, that's your problem. When you have any such logical fallacies in your positions though, I can and will point them out, and you won't be able to ignore them then. Just the existance of a single logical fallacy in an arguement Pan means that the arguement is faulty.

As for my "translations", I'm simply posting the cynics view of what you just said. Seriously Pan, do you need a breakdown?

I dislike Archaic mostly for the way he misconduct a debate

I don't misconduct a debate. You're just unused to a proper debate. If you don't like the fact that you can and will be pulled up on logical fallacies and outright lies, that's your problem.

the way he misbehave

So I'm rather rude when it comes to pointing your faults out. Your point? Live with it Pan. Many people are rude. You can't just put your hands over your ears and sing to try and drown everything out.

his exceptionnaly bad RPing and the way he starts personnal attacks and accusations.

Anyone else see the hypocrisy in this statement?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Which is not what's being proposed; we want FM with 20% Psych, which is exactly what you're asking for.

Planned is total state contorl over the economy, which has never worked before in an industrialized economy (though it has only been implemented in communist nations). However, under such a regime, democracy cannot survive, because of the enormous power that is granted to the government.

And how exactly do they function? Somehow I doubt that they really fit the definition of Planned...

It fits as much as FM with government intervention fits FM. You argue that FM does not mean a lack fo public services, but Planned does mean a lack of private services. I see a Perfect Planned economy as having no private companies, and a Perfect FM economy as having no public services. I also believe that, in SMAC, Planned and FM are as near to 'perfect' as possible. I am aware you are more moderate than that, and I support that, however I believe we should still move further 'left', to a slightly more Planned (and much more Green) version. I do not want complete state control of the economy, neither do I want complete market control of the economy, therefore I support the nearest to an ecologically friendly, mixed economy (such as late 20th Century Germany or Scandanavia) that I can find. Therefore, in SMAC terms, you are nearer to FM than any other, I am nearer to Green, or at times Planned, and we choose as such.

DBTS: I agree, Scandanavia is not exactly Planned, but it is closer to that than anything else (or certainly closer to that than almost any other economy on 21st Century Earth). Examples of a libertarian Planned economy are almost impossible to find (and Scandanavia is the closest seen IMHO).

[Hercules]

I have to say Archaic when I joined the game I gave you a massive benefit of the doubt. A lot of players were picking on you and in one thread I made a mild jest.

In the RP court case against Lemmy I alerted you to the fact that at one stage Lemmy or someone else, had cited you as a possible defence lawyer (admittedly using their reverse logic) and I contacted you on that basis.

There were dangers but I thought it was an opportunity for you to show a wider RP ability and a chance to contribute in a less aggressive way to the game.

Anyhow for whatever reason you did not make a wholehearted contribution.

My next encounter was when I thought I could make a contribution to the game beyond Inspector Hercules, and volunteered for DSE.

I played the game by making a environmental case in the election debate.

However I was surprised and thought it strange that you chose to make the debate personal by making reference to a MP game we are both in (and in which I replaced another player).
In my view that level of comment is out side of the normal RP level of debate and discussion re this DG.

I don't think anyone disputes you are a formidable debater and game player. But do you have to antagonise other players at the same time.

I am sure ( 80%) one of the reasons DE resigned was you (and to some extent GT) submitting long boring threads as you notched up counter points in detail.

If you look over past posts across most threads in this game, you will detect a plea for more modest and controlled postings ( in tems of length)

Many of the citizens who asked for and hinted at that request have gone ( because the plea went unanswered). Also the new citizen enrolment to this game has stalled. I suspect because most of the threads are polluted by you and GT pursuing the FM debate and also possibly the USA/Commie world debate.

There is room in this game for these debates in the appropiate threads for those who want it. But If you want ths game to survive, think of a wider audience.

[GeneralTacticus]

I am sure ( 80%) one of the reasons DE resigned was you (and to some extent GT) submitting long boring threads as you notched up counter points in detail.

If you don't want arguments to take place, fine. That is your right. However, don't blame us because we're willing to argue in detail. Moreover, I can't think of a single thread in which we were the ones to bring the issue up. We've merely respoinded to others bringing it up.

[GeneralTacticus]

btw, I would be quite willing to agree that we confine the FM debate to 'public' threads (i.e. ones like this, rather than party threads), but that agreement would have to be mutual.

[Drogue]

I think the founder of the thread should state whether it is to be a debating or an announcement thread for parties, and if this changes. For instance, I would like to declare, for the time being, that STEPs High Garden be for inter party debating, until we finish our manifesto. However I think the main thing is common sense, while I do not mind comments or critiques from anyone, I would like insults to be barred, and long, prolonged debates curtailed. That's just my opinion however.

[GeneralTacticus]

That sounds like a logical idea to me. I'll PM Arhcaic and see what he thinks of it, sonsidering that we're th two biggest contributors to these 'long prolonged debates'.

[Archaic]

It's fine by me. Quite frankly, I'm suprised that sort of measure wasn't in place already. I'll certainly appreciate the lightened debating load with all the IRL things distracting me ATM.