The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off
Originally posted by Agathon
This thread is rather amusing.
There is no reasonable alternative to state provision of health care for the elderly. It's simply cheaper, just as Canada's single payer health care system is cheaper than private insurance
Just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better. Having a dictatorship is much more efficient and cheap than a democracy, but does that mean we should iinstall a dictator?
Partly because single payer systems involve less bureaucracy and partly because their compulsory nature prevents free riding.
Haha, you think thats true for Canada? Think again...
i don't mind people paying for others. i mind the fact that it's the single worst investment i will ever make, and i won't even get a choice nor a say in it.
Yes, and that's why it works. If people got a say in whether they paid or not, the system would collapse and the costs of taking care of the elderly would be foisted off on their chilldren or to some other underperforming scheme like private insurance.
Anyway, why are you complaining about this, and not other forms of compulsory insurance like auto insurance? There's a reason that is often compulsory, and that is that people will attempt to free ride if it isn't.
If you don't want to see hordes of elderly people on the streets (most people don't) and you want to do this in the cheapest way possible, then SS is the best option.
You say that this is the worst investment you will ever make. Have you ever considered the costs of not having social security? What about having to house and care for your elderly parents? What about the annoyance of having elderly people begging on the streets? What about the early and preventable deaths?
If there is a real complaint here, it's that the feckless baby boomers have used their voting numbers to vote themselves a free ride at the expense of everyone else. But that is not an argument against Social Security.
Just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better. Having a dictatorship is much more efficient and cheap than a democracy, but does that mean we should iinstall a dictator?
That's a terrible argument. Having a dictatorship may well be cheaper, but it isn't more efficient, since people are worse off. We want the maximum benefit for everyone at the least cost.
Some form of social security is far and away the cheapest and most humane response to the problem of providing for the elderly.
Haha, you think thats true for Canada? Think again...
Why do you think that private insurance schemes end up charging ten bucks for a Tylenol? It's the bureaucratic overheads. That's why people have moved to HMOs in the States. In any case, the figures are clear. Canada provides excellent health care to more people for less cost per capita than the US which can't even provide health care to all its citizens (and I'm including private schemes in that account). If that's not better, then what is?
Originally posted by Kidicious
If you don't want to contribute your share, how is that not greed?
Sometimes I wish you would read the thread before making your normal ignorant trolling comments. If you had read it you would have seen.
Originally posted by rah
Well, despite it being a rip off, I do feel some obligation to support the workers that are now old and in need of help.
I did say it was rip off but I went to great lengths to describe how big a share I was paying.
So I never said I wasn't willing to contribute, I just said it's WRONG to call us all greedy when all we expect is some eventual partial payback since we've contributed BIG bucks in.
And for all those that are complaining that boomers are to blame because they didn't produce 14 children families, just how many children are you planning on having? I guarentee it's smaller than the average size familys that our parents had.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
and what's wrong with foisting the care of their parents onto their children? or are we not so sure about personal responsibility here?
why i don't ***** about auto insurance: i don't drive a car. if i did, i would, but specifically in regards to the rates i would get being an unmarried male under the age of 25. i would not complain about everyone having to have it, because if some nutjob hits me, i'll at least be guaranteed that i won't have to pay for damage they caused.
as for costs of having to house and care for elderly parents: you forget, i was raised in an environment where i internalized a lot of confucian mores. there is no option for me but to house and care for my elderly parents, whether i like living with them more not.
annoyance of elderly people in the streets? about as annoying as regular people in the streets. the elderly would just garner more pity. it's not my fault if some ungrateful fool of a child doesn't want to care for his or her parents, and because they shirk their responsibility, i should have to pay?
and yes, it is an argument against social security, those voting numbers. my responsibility to other peoples' parents stops where their responsibility begins. because they're going to bankrupt the system, it will be non-existent for me.
Originally posted by Q Cubed
as i always understood the program, you pay into it to receive a payout at the end of it.
sounds like an investment to me. it's only a tax because it's at the point of a gun.
The point is that it doesn't matter whether the system costs you more personally, because it's designed for social benefit, regardless of individual costs. The measure of the system is how much it benefits workers as a group, not individually.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by rah
So I never said I wasn't willing to contribute, I just said it's WRONG to call us all greedy when all we expect is some eventual partial payback since we've contributed BIG bucks in.
This sounds like you support SS, so I'm confused. Sorry.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Unless your company tanks. Then your pension will be worth as much as an Enron employee's pension.
Only if it was a 401k where you invested most of the money into the company's stock. Japher's 401k is diversified, so he's ok. He also has a pension, which he is vested in, on top of that, and even if the company tanks, he is entitled to that money (of course it may be a bit difficult in finding the money, but he still gets 100% of it if vested).
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Tweet
Comment