• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have a funny view of what constitutes a statesman, my friend. :)
Image, my dear friend, image. I mean, just look at some of the photos, such as:
enoch.jpg

Now that is the image of a man I would trust to lead Britain, rather than Bushy-Brows :p
You would support voluntary repatriation, the abolition of the devolved assemblies, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and rampant monetarism? :huh:
Some of that, yes. Never said he was a perfect match, mind. Perhaps ThaHoward merely sells him well *shrug*
 
Come join your real home in the Liberal party Tanzhang - we've got a Whig Wig waiting for you :p

Considering I left the party in 1969, I've no idea where you're getting these wigs from... :p
 
They are rather moldy at the moment :rofl:

In all seriousness Rosa what is the west german solution to public utilities?

Panzers?

Also, once more I need to emphasise that I would like to see Powell getting a seat in the Lords. Then "Lord Powell" thing would be official.
(Grimond also should get one, he was PM for a long time after all...)
 
Last edited:
Considering I left the party in 1969, I've no idea where you're getting these wigs from... :p

There were a lot of wigs left behind on the floor in 1969 by departing voters so I collected them, dusted them off and put them in storage :p

I still don't understand why you haven't come back to the party by the way :confused:
 
I'll be quite honest: a victory for the Yellow liberals at this point will destroy the party. If there are any more Liberals out there, please consider voting for BP instead. Even if you like the Yellow policies, electing them will doom the party to a niche and complete unelectability. I can say, for one, that I have already stayed loyal to this party beyond all reason and given it more second chances than perhaps it deserved because, in its ideal and broad state, the Liberals can do great things and actively pursue the betterment of the United Kingdom. If the Yellows win this election, I cannot in good conscience continue to do so.
 
Dystopic corporations still exist to make profit in order to survive, if they choose to become states, they start financing themselves by taking away goods produced others in the name of the 'common good'. Corporations also have no 'mythic creation legend' like the state does, them trying to justify their rule of terror will be harder. Eventually the more conscious the people become, the harder it is for states to do arbitrarily whatever they wantonly desire.
States are more or less accepted by a majority as 'necessary evils', how would your dystopic mega-corporations enjoy the same benefit?
Only by allowing fiercely free competition to exist will we prevent such 'too-big-to-fail' corporations to exist. Remember, there are no eternal corporations. They all just exist to make profits on the short run, for there can be no profits on the long run. They have to evolve or wither and die. The state do not face same amount of competition, they do not suffer from the whims of the consumer.

Basic worker right laws are a fine idea, but where do you put the fence between 'right' and 'privilege'? Who decides where one definition ends and the other begins?
Min wages are also not not necessary, I'm not going to talk more about them here, check OT for current debates concerning this issue. :)
Again, you may value some 'privilege' to be greater than the lost amount of benefit, others have different preferences. Whose preferences prevail, who pays the cost?

Ad agencies can only influence as much as the human wants to be influenced. Someone who hates cars will not buy a car after seeing a car ad. But someone who likes a car, and has not yet decided between several options, might be influenced by the ad. They are not omnipotent creations changing human desires from A to B.

The concept of sin is a silly one. Person C does not like what person D is doing, therefore calls the actions of D sinful. It's all about preferences and what some find acceptable, others find not. Some would say it is a sin to go swim naked, others find it perfectly normal. Mankind just wants to stay alive, procreate and maximize their utility. As long as these progresses do not hamper the welfare of others, none of the actions can be truly 'sinful', and even then, it is a subjective opinion.

But you still want to fund a system where half of the population of a country is working for government, moving papers around, creating laws no one ever reads, living off the real goods the private sector produces, financing it all by printing money (which destroys private wealth even more)... just because you think the other possible alternatives are even worse.
I do not like terrorist, or military rule. But there can be better forms of society than what we currently are facing, even a benevolent monarchy would be better. That is why some libertarians have come to support monarchies over the current democratic systems, having witnessed the terror of majority rule and the financial consequences.
The main argument however is, why allow a cancerous state exist and hamper the economy, when all would work well enough without the state leeching off of common people?
If not outright anarchy, consider minarchy a possible form of society.

A company would only do that by destroying competition with use of violent force, become a monopoly, and thus just become a state. But if people do not approve of states, know they are useless and evil, what keeps this new state in power? Reign of terror? The people will tolerate than only for a while, the tyrannies are always bound to fail. The more liberty of the individual is suppressed, the harder the revolution will erupt. History has shown us that no reign of terror is bound to last forever.

There will be another hotel service, if there is competition. And competition usually exists, unless prevented by force. (by government)

You are not far from truth. The states begun as household for the ruling class, first administering the financial needs of the sovereign. The more fun the sovereign wanted to have, the more power, the more wars he wanted to fight, the more the state grew. The more he wanted to secure his rule, the more to silence the opposition, the more secure his power, the more propaganda was invented (such as nationalism). The state in itself is the ultimate evil corporation, and I'm glad you have arrived at this result. :)
It does not produce welfare, it does not create happiness. It can just take away goods produced by others, and redistribute them.

What I am saying is this "free competition" will simply result in mega-corporations that are too big to fail, they are so vast, so powerful and so rich that they simply cannot flounder. Each company would be a monopoly over their specific realm, as nothing stops these corporations from simply handing ass back to their competitors and becoming the sole distributer of toilet paper on earth for example.

They also become a necessary evil, for who else will provide the service? Who else will provide the jobs? Who else will run these factories, manage these people, do this or do that.

Of course, everything within the realm of the social "sciences", including economics, is up to interpretation. A right to one is a privilege to another. I don't really care about your opinions enough to look on the OT forums so that ends that. And in the end who wins is who has the most cumulative driving influence in a society. That's all.

A lack of education can do wonders. I know individuals who think zombies are a viable threat to the human race and cannot read. Too bad schools were shut down to the lower classes because no one can afford them. Shame, but that's the market for you. They are not, but if the only information is what you see on TV, that becomes a powerful thing.

Again everything is up to interpretation. I use the concept of sin because at least it's a benchmark that many people can identify. That guy was greedy, that was a bad decision made in anger, etc ad nauseum.

Minarchy is simply not good enough. People don't get educated, rights aren't respected and since the state exists it will try to seize more power and become a normal government anyways so why bother? Libertarianism simply cannot ever happen, it is impossible. Cool, you have a vogue opinion, now go and work and vote like everyone else until you die. Unless you define a Minarchy as a good watchman state, who does his job actively. Than we'll talk on the matter.

I know, hence why I say your society will result only in class strife and struggle. Unless you are in 1984 of course.

There will be another hotel service, if there is competition. And competition usually exists, unless prevented by force - or by other companies

Cool, except it cannot possibly be a corporation. It serves more than just it share holders and is defined more than just it's balance sheet. Sorry mang, you lose this one. Besides, why break the state when you can use it to your advantage, you need to have better capitalistic senses.

Unless it does, wealth is a concept, like many others. So is happiness. Who are you to define what is the wealth and happiness of others? My grandmother and grandfather were happy considered themselves wealthy having electricity and a phone line. I consider myself happy and wealthy having the rights and privileges given to me by the government.

Heh, nothing but solipsistic narcissism for you huh?
 
I'll be quite honest: a victory for the Yellow liberals at this point will destroy the party. If there are any more Liberals out there, please consider voting for BP instead. Even if you like the Yellow policies, electing them will doom the party to a niche and complete unelectability. I can say, for one, that I have already stayed loyal to this party beyond all reason and given it more second chances than perhaps it deserved because, in its ideal and broad state, the Liberals can do great things and actively pursue the betterment of the United Kingdom. If the Yellows win this election, I cannot in good conscience continue to do so.

I would second this statement. Liberalism is at its best when it is a broad Liberalism. I voted Yellow because I support the Yellow manifesto in terms of policy and disagree with the economics of the Broad Party but nonetheless their approach to dealing with different streams of thought in the party will be far healthier in the long run than the dominance of just one school of thought.
 
I would second this statement. Liberalism is at its best when it is a broad Liberalism. I voted Yellow because I support the Yellow manifesto in terms of policy and disagree with the economics of the Broad Party but nonetheless their approach to dealing with different streams of thought in the party will be far healthier in the long run than the dominance of just one school of thought.

Says the guy responsible for cementing the dominance of said school of thought, namely, that equal cooperation with other parties is bad. :p
 
BTWs, want to hear a fun fact?

ThaHoward, our very own overly-talkative oddity from the hellishly warm climes of Norway has overtaken Densley and is just something like 300 posts shot of Tanzhang.

She has posted 1300ish times since she joined in, what 1960? Yeah, tada!
 
Says the guy responsible for cementing the dominance of said school of thought, namely, that equal cooperation with other parties is bad. :p

I was against throwing a lifeline to Labour when another election would have seen them absorbed by the Liberal party. I have consistently been an advocate for working with other parties however.

Honestly, you have me all wrong :p
 
BTWs, want to hear a fun fact?

ThaHoward, our very own overly-talkative oddity from the hellishly warm clI'm imes of Norway has overtaken Densley and is just something like 300 posts shot of Tanzhang.

She has posted 1300ish times since she joined in, what 1960? Yeah, tada!

Rosa overtook me about two weeks ago now, though I hardly see why it's important.
 
What I am saying is this "free competition" will simply result in mega-corporations that are too big to fail, they are so vast, so powerful and so rich that they simply cannot flounder. Each company would be a monopoly over their specific realm, as nothing stops these corporations from simply handing ass back to their competitors and becoming the sole distributer of toilet paper on earth for example.

They also become a necessary evil, for who else will provide the service? Who else will provide the jobs? Who else will run these factories, manage these people, do this or do that.

Of course, everything within the realm of the social "sciences", including economics, is up to interpretation. A right to one is a privilege to another. I don't really care about your opinions enough to look on the OT forums so that ends that. And in the end who wins is who has the most cumulative driving influence in a society. That's all.

A lack of education can do wonders. I know individuals who think zombies are a viable threat to the human race and cannot read. Too bad schools were shut down to the lower classes because no one can afford them. Shame, but that's the market for you. They are not, but if the only information is what you see on TV, that becomes a powerful thing.

Again everything is up to interpretation. I use the concept of sin because at least it's a benchmark that many people can identify. That guy was greedy, that was a bad decision made in anger, etc ad nauseum.

Minarchy is simply not good enough. People don't get educated, rights aren't respected and since the state exists it will try to seize more power and become a normal government anyways so why bother? Libertarianism simply cannot ever happen, it is impossible. Cool, you have a vogue opinion, now go and work and vote like everyone else until you die. Unless you define a Minarchy as a good watchman state, who does his job actively. Than we'll talk on the matter.

I know, hence why I say your society will result only in class strife and struggle. Unless you are in 1984 of course.



Cool, except it cannot possibly be a corporation. It serves more than just it share holders and is defined more than just it's balance sheet. Sorry mang, you lose this one. Besides, why break the state when you can use it to your advantage, you need to have better capitalistic senses.

Unless it does, wealth is a concept, like many others. So is happiness. Who are you to define what is the wealth and happiness of others? My grandmother and grandfather were happy considered themselves wealthy having electricity and a phone line. I consider myself happy and wealthy having the rights and privileges given to me by the government.

Heh, nothing but solipsistic narcissism for you huh?

At this point they are no longer companies, but simply 'sub-states', if not states altogether. If they use violence to protect their existence and prevent competition, they are truly 100% 'states'. And they will exist as states, until the people get tired and tear them down. Question is, would people support the emergence of such states in the first place? The amount of resources needed to kill all competition globabally requires such effort and costs, that the company might risk going bankrupt, and even then cannot completely annihilate competition.
Imagine Ikea trying to become such a megacorporation, firstly it needs to drive other furniture sellers out of business, or merge with them (costly, profits suffer). When it is the solemn seller of furniture officially left, there are still chances that people start crafting their own pieces of furniture. They cannot thus become a true 100% strong monopoly.

Is there any good or service that could only be provided by one producer, who could reject other people from producing the same good? Sure, send mercenaries to burn the home-made furniture? At what cost? The war would drag it own, make profits vanish. The company goes bankrupt. Unless it becomes a state.
For example in Finland we have a state monopoly on selling of strong alcoholic drinks (20% above). It does not prevent people from brewing their own stuff, or buying it from abroad. The monopoly prices have in fact created a whole new sector, specialized in people travelling to Estonia to buy their drinks en masse from there. (just ask Contra about Finnish tourists.. ;))

There is never any necessary evil, there is always a choice. :) That is the concept of free will, the ability of the race of man to choose between different options.

Power dynamics are nasty, the more evil and ruthless the man, the easier it is for him to hoard power. All great men are always evil men. A honest man would never become a great leader, but a ruthless man will.

Yes, education can do wonders. I think it is the duty of the parents to make sure their children become as educated as the parents want them to become. Reading is a very useful skill indeed, and I'm sure it could very well be taught by the parents at home. In fact, most of the stuff learned in schools could be self learned by reading a few books alone. But the school is actually a kindergarten, supposed to keep kids busy and away from causing damage for 12 years... All I can say is, if there is demand for education, it will be supplied. If there is demand for simple cheap education, someone will provide it. Question is, will there be demand? Or does the government think better, creating artificial demand, even if people do not want to consume the said amount of service (school) as the government provides? The whole idea that government knows what is best for their citizens has been proven wrong countless times. Only the individual can know his own preferences.
The parents ought to know themselves what is best for their children, not a bureaucrat a thousand kilometres away. Yes, there are stupid people. So what? Ban cars too because some people cannot drive?

Again I state, government cannot itself create wealth (or happiness deduced from it), it can merely redistribute it from someone to someone else. By taking away from someone, that person loses his wealth. The outcome is not Pareto-efficient.
 
BTWs, want to hear a fun fact?

ThaHoward, our very own overly-talkative oddity from the hellishly warm climes of Norway has overtaken Densley and is just something like 300 posts shot of Tanzhang.

She has posted 1300ish times since she joined in, what 1960? Yeah, tada!

Yeah, and Antonine is bound to overtake me quite soon. :p

Quality > quantity

;)
 
I was against throwing a lifeline to Labour when another election would have seen them absorbed by the Liberal party. I have consistently been an advocate for working with other parties however.

Yeah... you know that I'd just go back to voting Tory in case of Liberal anschluss, right?

Quality > quantity

Free market ranting < Antonine's occasional histrionics.
 
@ Tommy:

I had the nice surprise to see one of your IAARs, Let the Ruling classes tremble, highlighted on a french online (generalist) newspaper :)

The author mainly explain how in his opinion Internet is now the main field of the Alternative History literature and why, and then say:

Rue89 said:
The rise of sophisticated strategies games logically led to a rich uchronic literature . The titles of the Swedish company Paradox are especially suited to a literary recreation. [...] Communities players Paradox identify their creations in a monthly magazine, the AARLander (AAR meaning After-Action Report).

[...]

I particularly like this colorful After-Action Report, based on the game "Paradox Victoria II," which chronicles the creation of a socialist republic in the Rhineland after 1848. The constant disagreements between Marxists, Blanquist and anarchists offer a living table of the richness of the political thinking of the nineteenth century: [Screenshot of the 1855 Election]

The author also compare Avindian's Descend into Madness to the "surrealist's exquisite corpse".

I though you may enjoy the praise :)

Link (in french): Née sur les forums, l’uchronie réécrit l’Histoire à la sauce Internet
 
At this point they are no longer companies, but simply 'sub-states', if not states altogether. If they use violence to protect their existence and prevent competition, they are truly 100% 'states'. And they will exist as states, until the people get tired and tear them down. Question is, would people support the emergence of such states in the first place? The amount of resources needed to kill all competition globabally requires such effort and costs, that the company might risk going bankrupt, and even then cannot completely annihilate competition.
Imagine Ikea trying to become such a megacorporation, firstly it needs to drive other furniture sellers out of business, or merge with them (costly, profits suffer). When it is the solemn seller of furniture officially left, there are still chances that people start crafting their own pieces of furniture. They cannot thus become a true 100% strong monopoly.

Is there any good or service that could only be provided by one producer, who could reject other people from producing the same good? Sure, send mercenaries to burn the home-made furniture? At what cost? The war would drag it own, make profits vanish. The company goes bankrupt. Unless it becomes a state.
For example in Finland we have a state monopoly on selling of strong alcoholic drinks (20% above). It does not prevent people from brewing their own stuff, or buying it from abroad. The monopoly prices have in fact created a whole new sector, specialized in people travelling to Estonia to buy their drinks en masse from there. (just ask Contra about Finnish tourists.. ;))

There is never any necessary evil, there is always a choice. :) That is the concept of free will, the ability of the race of man to choose between different options.

Power dynamics are nasty, the more evil and ruthless the man, the easier it is for him to hoard power. All great men are always evil men. A honest man would never become a great leader, but a ruthless man will.

Yes, education can do wonders. I think it is the duty of the parents to make sure their children become as educated as the parents want them to become. Reading is a very useful skill indeed, and I'm sure it could very well be taught by the parents at home. In fact, most of the stuff learned in schools could be self learned by reading a few books alone. But the school is actually a kindergarten, supposed to keep kids busy and away from causing damage for 12 years... All I can say is, if there is demand for education, it will be supplied. If there is demand for simple cheap education, someone will provide it. Question is, will there be demand? Or does the government think better, creating artificial demand, even if people do not want to consume the said amount of service (school) as the government provides? The whole idea that government knows what is best for their citizens has been proven wrong countless times. Only the individual can know his own preferences.
The parents ought to know themselves what is best for their children, not a bureaucrat a thousand kilometres away. Yes, there are stupid people. So what? Ban cars too because some people cannot drive?

Again I state, government cannot itself create wealth (or happiness deduced from it), it can merely redistribute it from someone to someone else. By taking away from someone, that person loses his wealth. The outcome is not Pareto-efficient.

But you get the point, the corporation are sub-states, the sub-states are corporations. Same is same. Otherwise yeah, whatever, this is going in circles I am ending this part of the talk.

There will always be pirates, beggers, thieves and law breakers, but that is part of the human condition. Not arguing it will be 100%, just that it will be 99.5%.

Heh, how's the view from that ivory tower? There is always a choice, even if the choice is between A and A.

Great men are not always evil, they are always morally ambiguous though, in some portion. But so is humanity.

Who educated the parents? What misconceptions do they have? What is they think the best thing for their child is to ride a bike without a helmet, never wear sunscreen and to run across busy streets instead of waiting for it to calm down? People are stupid, but they can just be ignorant to. Education is probably one of the most important human rights. You arguing against it is frankly mind blowing.

Unless it does of course. But you seem set so that's fine. We can drop this point.

Free market ranting < Antonine's occasional histrionics.

Aye, I agree.
 
@ Tommy:

I had the nice surprise to see one of your IAARs, Let the Ruling classes tremble, highlighted on a french online (generalist) newspaper :)

The author mainly explain how in his opinion Internet is now the main field of the Alternative History literature and why, and then say:



The author also compare Avindian's Descend into Madness to the "surrealist's exquisite corpse".

I though you may enjoy the praise :)

Link (in french): Née sur les forums, l’uchronie réécrit l’Histoire à la sauce Internet

God that's awesome.
 
He'd get more praise if the Tories won!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.