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
He'll need you. But he won't have the option of needing you whereas he does have that option with Flubber.
Nah. He will have an equal interest in society. Think of a company owned by employees. Everyone can't go around doing their own thing. They all have to agree to how they will be organized, but they are willing, because they will all benefit.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Berzerker
But you want that power under your ideology. My employer's power to make that decision is limited by my power to negotiate or reject his offer, I can't reject your "offer" because it isn't an offer, it's an order. If you were right, everyone would be making minimum wage...
Society will have power over me, yes, just like it is now. I don't necessarily like it, but I get benefits from it, so I'm satisfied. If I were a discriminated minority, then I would have a problem. Of course, even though I'm white male doesn't mean I don't have a problem with discrimination.
Depends on your skills. The only job I ever had where I started out at the minimum wage was when I took a job as a mechanic's apprentice when I was going to school and I wanted the job because the owner of the trucking outfit was teaching me how to work on big rigs -training I considered valuable. Hell, I could have been paying him for that.
It depends on your skills to the extent that your skills are in high demand, and not many others have the similar skill. That doesn't eliminate conditions of exploitation for others not so lucky to have valuable skills.
No, it's called competition. You cannot be willingly exploited - it's a contradiction in terms. The fact someone will work for less than you doesn't mean you are being exploited any more than you are exploiting Ford because GM will sell you a car for less.
There is the possibility of consumers exploiting producers. Consider the fellow who mows peoples lawns. There are so many producers in the industry that he has to offer his services, basically at such a low price that he barely makes minimum wage. He decides to continue anyway, because mowing lawns is his skill, and a non-skill job will pay the same.
So that's your justification for forcing me to work for you and your ideology? You've just ~equated yourself with Walmart and you think Walmart exploits people...
I compared working for a department store under a different system to working for Walmart. I certainly did not equate it to Walmart.
Btw Kid, once again you didn't answer my question:
Is it justice or slavery for you to force me to labor for you and your ideology?
Of course it's justice. How would it be justice if society fed you and didn't require you to work? There's the possibility of not feeding you, but we won't even consider that. We have to seperate ourselves from you libertarians.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
True, but the wage would be lower without the wage floor.
Which was my point; the compensation for losing the ability to negotiate for your pay is getting a pay higher than you could have negotiated. A pay, moreover, that is equal for all workers, regardless of competence or negotiating ability.
Sounds like something a commie would approve of.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok
Kid - Ok. Point taken. You do not want to execute me, you want to kill me. Strangely, I don't really feel all that much better.
Ag - There you go with the mentions of Stalin again. I take it you didn't bother to go look in the other thread to see that it was you who made first mention of him in the previous thread either?
Sandman - Attacking that which the opposition puts before you is not a strawman, but obviously it was interesting enough that you read the entire thread, so.....?
Tough one. I would say fair, because the world has the power in this situation. It would be impossible for the family to get ahead like that in the first place.
+
Yes. I'm opposed to you being ahead of me. Getting ahead rarely has to do with fairness in my book.
=
It depends on your skills to the extent that your skills are in high demand, and not many others have the similar skill. That doesn't eliminate conditions of exploitation for others not so lucky to have valuable skills.
Do you think that this is a matter of blind luck? What about other traits that help people get ahead...being good looking, or physically stronger, or quick-witted, or able to turn a better phrase, or a million other things.
None of these can be allowed either, by your definitions. So we must atrophy people's muscles to make us all equally strong, give free state-sponsored lobotomies to the smartest to dumb them down....right?
All in the name of justice?
Or is it the case that we will simply ignore their special gifts and not pay them any more for them anyway?
That follows in this nightmare world we're talking about living in, where slavery = justice, and no matter how good you are, you're trapped in a state-mandated box that panders to the lowest common denominator.
-=Vel=-
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Originally posted by Flubber
If you think that the person that has more "stuff" is somehow superior, that's your problem.
No I don't think that. I think people should be considered equal. And treated equally. If you give people priviledges for nothing, and you don't think their superior I call it corruption. Of course, if you think some people are superior, then you need an ideology that outright claims that, but capitalism, in acknowledging that there are huge disparities in wealth, claiming to be fair, contradicts itself by saying that people are equal.
But you see, you denied me and my wife's right to work less and thereby earn less. Some people in a free society choose to work less because guess what? . . . they don't want extra stuff enough to do the extra. Others want to work more, and gain more stuff. Both are valid choices .. . . . In fact my wife makes those choices every week when offered overtime-- One time she works for the extra money while another she decides to forgo the extra income.
Many people just have to work, often more than one job. They don't have the luxury of choosing.
Its called free choice and neither decision makes her a better person than the other. The only thing earning more does is give you the opportunity to have more "stuff". Nothing more.
It means she's priviledged if others don't have as many choices.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Last Conformist
Which was my point; the compensation for losing the ability to negotiate for your pay is getting a pay higher than you could have negotiated. A pay, moreover, that is equal for all workers, regardless of competence or negotiating ability.
Sounds like something a commie would approve of.
I approve of workers combining their political power to make wages fairer, but it's not the solution that I prefer.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
May I ask the question "What is "Fair" about letting you dictate what "fair" is for the rest of us?
Is that comfy enough of a question to actually ANSWER?
-=Vel=-
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid - Ok. Point taken. You do not want to execute me, you want to kill me. Strangely, I don't really feel all that much better.
You would be the first one to take up arms.
It depends on your skills to the extent that your skills are in high demand, and not many others have the similar skill. That doesn't eliminate conditions of exploitation for others not so lucky to have valuable skills.
Do you think that this is a matter of blind luck? What about other traits that help people get ahead...being good looking, or physically stronger, or quick-witted, or able to turn a better phrase, or a million other things.
None of these can be allowed either, by your definitions. So we must atrophy people's muscles to make us all equally strong, give free state-sponsored lobotomies to the smartest to dumb them down....right?
I can't really figure out your point here, but no I don't propose making people dumb.
Or is it the case that we will simply ignore their special gifts and not pay them any more for them anyway?
That follows in this nightmare world we're talking about living in, where slavery = justice, and no matter how good you are, you're trapped in a state-mandated box that panders to the lowest common denominator.
-=Vel=-
The idea that having a special skill makes you good is subjective, and I don't agree with it.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Say that the nationalised factory has shut down doe to mismanagement . Now , the deamnd for chips near their areas of operation has gone up (in the areas adjacent to which they operate) , but they cannot increase production because all fmaily members already work in the business . To solve this problem , they invite workers who were laid off from the nationalised factory after its closure . They also offer a slightly higher wage than the one which the National Board of Industry mandated as the minimum for chip-factory workers .
Naturally , the workers accept these lucrative terms . The family promises them that they always get a little bit better than minumum wage . The family , having family values of hoinesty , sticks to their promise . Thus , their workers are a little more motivated because they get more money if they work more . So , this little business has a very good workforce , who are all getting slightly more money because they work more .
Soon enough , the workers of that neighbourhood start to have a better lifestyle bacause they work more . So , the benifits only the family had in the beginning are passed on to the workers who could not have got them otherwise . Thus , that neighbourhood becomes richer than the other ones in that city , and they have a better standard of living , better homes , and in general better job security . This is because the business is still run on family values , so the relatives of the first few workers , if they work hard , also get employed by the business . Thus , the first few workers and their families and realatives have a better standard of living in general than those working for the state .
Now , the family realises that it can have a better business if their workers are the best of the lot and very motivated , so it tells them that they will get a certain 7.5 % of the profits of the company . Because of this , the workers work much harder , and the producaitity increases by 10 % . So , the family benifits by only 2.5 % , and the workers by 7.5 % for the same rise in productivity . And that 2.5 % is more than enough to make the family much richer , because there are fewer of them .
Soon , the National Board of Industry realises that the workers in that fmaily business ought to be paid more , because theirs is the major contribution . So , they raise the mandatory minimum wage . But by now , the family has already raised it beyond that mark , as a result of the workers voluntarily working harder . In fact , after hearing of the pay raise , the family raises them to the point that 50 % of the total profits go to the workers , because they now have economies of scale and the expansion of the business requires 49 % and the family only 1 % . But thanks to the one man getting the big idea in the begginning , before the nationalised factories closed , that 1 % is more than enough .
Thus , the workers are getting paid more than double the amount they were in the state-owned factories , and the family and that entire neighbourhood is much richer than the other neighbourhoods of that city . This neighbourhood has the best schools because some enterprising teacher decided to get together with colleagues , and asked the rich owners of the chips business a loan to open a good school for the neighbourhood . The chips business owners and the workers agreed enthusiastically , because they knew that their children would be getting the best education . The workers even pitched in , helping the school by pooling money and buying the land from the government . In return , the educators agreed to teach at a lower wage (but still higher than the mandated minimum , because the workers were willing to pay more for the best , and they could afford to because of their higher earnings) . So everyone is happy .
Some enerprising shopowners decided to get government permission to open a supermarket in that locality , because they foresaw prosperity . Thus , the supermarket there paid more to its workers because it had more cousumers and bigger consumers , as the local standard of living was high .
Over a few years , that area developed into the best into the city , and those people into the richest , including the workers .
Now , is this fair or unfair ( note that in every case , the wages paid to workers are more than the corresponding government wage ) ?
Side note : Read "Atlas Shrugged" . It's nice exposure to the other side's point of view .
The idea that having a special skill makes you good is subjective, and I don't agree with it.
No...it's not subjective at all. Say I'm in the People's Union of Movers.
One of the things I need AS a mover is physical strength. Because I'm 6'6" and quite strapping and strong, I can move stuff MUCH better than my partner who is 4'11" and 63lbs. I can lift 250 pounds more than him. That's not subjective, that's a measurable fact.
But under your system, he should actually get paid MORE, because he has to work harder to move the big chest of drawers than I would.
In the end then, my natural "gift" is unfair....in the real world, you would say it's unfair to my partner, because I can do things he cannot, and that's not right.
In your world, my "gift" is actually a curse, and unfair to me.
I can't really figure out your point here
Because you do not wish to see.
You would be the first one to take up arms.
Against Kidicious Prime Utopia? Bet your arse I would.
Do you mean to ask why it is fair for a democratic society to decide what is fair?
So far, you have not outlined ANYTHING that's democratic in your utopia. We're still waiting to hear about that.
-=Vel=-
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Originally posted by aneeshm
Now , is this fair or unfair ( note that in every case , the wages paid to workers are more than the corresponding government wage ) ?
It's a good hypothetical example. I know I'll get a good argument, but I'm going to say unfair, because the company has a monopoly, which gives them the ability to pay the higher wage. If you assume that there are other products to compete with the chips than the government would surely win the competition. The question is why would the govt sit by and let this happen, of course. They don't have to force the business to close. They have other options.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Vel , son't be so confrontational . I'm posing my questions fo Kid only to make sure that
a)I have the right idea of what he's saying and am not misinterpreting his words
and
b)That he is also very clear in his mind as to where his limits lie
Socratic questioning is a very good debating technique , don't be so aggressive that the other side rejects your arguments and points outright out of sheer defensiveness .
Originally posted by Velociryx The idea that having a special skill makes you good is subjective, and I don't agree with it.
No...it's not subjective at all. Say I'm in the People's Union of Movers.
One of the things I need AS a mover is physical strength. Because I'm 6'6" and quite strapping and strong, I can move stuff MUCH better than my partner who is 4'11" and 63lbs. I can lift 250 pounds more than him. That's not subjective, that's a measurable fact.
Physical strength is beneficial to moving. It doesn't make you a good person. If you think so, that's subjective.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
But he won't have the option of needing you whereas he does have that option with Flubber.
I compared working for a department store under a different system to working for Walmart. I certainly did not equate it to Walmart.
Attacking that which the opposition puts before you is not a strawman, but obviously it was interesting enough that you read the entire thread, so.....?
Tweet
Comment