What we know about unrest and standard of living

[Radically Right Wing]

Aren't slaves immune to unhappiness? In terms of their production being effected. It would still probably effect unrest. That or I misunderstood something.

Yes slaves I believe generate reasonable amount of unrest, but they do not have unhappiness affect their output. When you have unrest on a planet also they goods produced goes down, does this affect slave output or are they still immune to this? I am unsure on that one. I think that they should be immune.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I'm cackling at the claims of "socialist propaganda" and how "capitalism should be at war with (it)" oh my god.

As we can see, McCarthyism left some pretty deep scars on the ol' United States of A. Like I said: Americans got brainwashed into thinking socialism was the same thing as communism, and they still think the Cold War is raging.

 

[Sportsmaster]

Why must any of you insist that the living standards settings are taxation policies?

I will write this for the third time: these settings do no identify the means of production for our empires. It is entirely up to our imagination where resources come from, under what principles they are allocated, and who distributes them! Who knows if your empire taxes its pops or generates revenue by operating all commercial avenues and services available to them... To rank "social welfare" above "decent" only means that bumping up state resources will always please your pops. Who knows what those state resources actually do or look like! Think critically about this for bit, and keep all your classist arguments and utter bullshit to yourself. This game is not your platform for this.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Why must any of you insist that the living standards settings are taxation policies?

I will write this for the third time: these settings do no identify the means of production for our empires. It is entirely up to our imagination where resources come from, under what principles they are allocated, and who distributes them! Who knows if your empires taxes its pops or if it generates revenue because it operates all commercial avenues and services available to them... To rank "social welfare" above "decent" only means that bumping up state resources will always please your pops. Who knows what those state resources actually do or look like! Think critically about this for bit, and keep all your classist arguments and bullshit opinions to yourself. This game is not your platform.

Yeah. Like I said, the living conditions can't be solely decided by taxation. You wouldn't get "Utopian" living conditions just by not taxing anyone or having minimal taxation. Social Welfare makes your populace happier because there are more support systems and more government-provided, guaranteed services- "Utopian" living conditions are logically a step further, with the government providing an utterly blissful and, well, utopian living arrangement.

 

[terrycloth]

Why must any of you insist that the living standards settings are taxation policies?

I will write this for the third time: these settings do no identify the means of production for our empires. It is entirely up to our imagination where resources come from, under what principles they are allocated, and who distributes them! Who knows if your empires taxes its pops or if it generates revenue because it operates all commercial avenues and services available to them... To rank "social welfare" above "decent" only means that bumping up state resources will always please your pops. Who knows what those state resources actually do or look like! Think critically about this for bit, and keep all your classist arguments and bullshit opinions to yourself. This game is not your platform.

I think he was just reacting to 'better standard of living' being labelled as 'social welfare' instead of something that gets across the point that no one suffers from extreme poverty in a less politically charged fashion. Social welfare might be one way to do that, but there could be others.

 

[Mackus]

Again, taxes are part of the Social Contract. They're not "evil" by any stretch of the imagination. Oh those big bad evil governments, giving you access to food, water, roads, healthcare, and electricity! How dare they need money to pay for those things, and expect the citizens that benefit from them to contribute and thus form a functional mutually beneficial society!

Why those murderous cut-throat capitalists governments do not provide their peoples with much needed food!? All over the western world entire cities of people are starving (while kulaks exploiters are gorging themselves on hoarded grain!), because government do not provide us "National Food Service", oh wait people they don't die en masse just because government does not give everyone "fair rations" of food, like they provide "fair rations" of education and healthcare.
Why, its almost as if in absence of government taking peoples money to buy stuff that they'll then give people (minus administrative cost of governmental bureaucracy), people will just buy things they want/need. It's almost as if bureaucratic redistribution was not needed for everything it's used.
Yeah, governments do not give anything to the society, they just shovel resources from one part of the society to the other.
I just signed social contract that obligates you to pay for my strippers. Sorry, social contract does not require your consent. Pay up.

At least for slaves that still holds true. I haven't seen the production tooltip of any unhappy free Pops to see if individual unhappiness matters.

Slaves are not directly affected by happiness. But unhappy slaves will joins "malcontent slaves" faction, which once powerful enough, will indirectly affect productivity by giving planets "malcontent slave riots" negative modifiers. How it changes in 1.5 is not exactly clear.

 

[Radically Right Wing]

I'm cackling at the claims of "socialist propaganda" and how "capitalism should be at war with (it)" oh my god.

As we can see, McCarthyism left some pretty deep scars on the ol' United States of A. Like I said: Americans got brainwashed into thinking socialism was the same thing as communism, and they still think the Cold War is raging.

Are you trying to imply that Socialism does not use Propaganda c:

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Why those murderous cut-throat capitalists governments do not provide their peoples with much needed food!? All over the western world entire cities of people are starving (while kulaks exploiters are gorging themselves on hoarded grain!), because government do not provide us "National Food Service", oh wait people they don't die en masse just because government does not give everyone "fair rations" of food, like they provide "fair rations" of education and healthcare.
Why, its almost as if in absence of government taking peoples money to buy stuff that they'll then give people (minus administrative cost of governmental bureaucracy), people will just buy things they want/need. It's almost as if bureaucratic redistribution was not needed for everything it's used.
Yeah, governments do not give anything to the society, they just shovel resources from one part of the society to the other.
I just signed social contract that obligates you to pay for my strippers. Sorry, social contract does not require your consent. Pay up.

You should perhaps look into what the Social Contract is (I'll give you a hint, you don't sign it and it doesn't get amended like that) before you rail on my Soviet Canukistani tush like a clown.

 

[SuperGeek89]

Are you trying to imply that Socialism does not use Propaganda c:

Are you trying to imply capitalism doesn't?

 

[Mackus]

You should perhaps look into what the Social Contract is (I'll give you a hint, you don't sign it and it doesn't get amended like that) before you rail on my Soviet Canukistani tush like a clown.

"Social contract" is as much a contract as "Electric chair" is a chair.

And I'll give you a hint:
When I mention strippers, I am probably making fun on someone's expense.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

"Social contract" is as much a contract as "Electric chair" is a chair.

And I'll give you a hint:
When I mention strippers, I am probably making fun on someone's expense.

Well, enjoy your anarchy. I wish you the best of luck convincing people it's for their better.

 

[Mackus]

Well, enjoy your anarchy. I wish you the best of luck convincing people it's for their better.

I am not arguing for anarchy. I fully agree neither with statists nor with anti-statists.

Just arguing that social contract makes no sense.


Food is more important than roads, education, and healthcare. Yet governments in the west don't ration food. Monstrous anarchists. They want people to die off from starvation.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I am not arguing for anarchy. I fully agree neither with statists nor with anti-statists.

Just arguing that social contract makes no sense.


Food is more important than roads, education, and healthcare. Yet governments in the west don't ration food. Monstrous anarchists. They want people to die off from starvation.

"I'm not an anarchist... but the Social Contract was totally a mistake guys!"

 

[Mackus]

"I'm not an anarchist... but the Social Contract was totally a mistake guys!"

That's like saying Earth doesn't exist because we proved it wasn't created in six days.
Things can work more or less, but have bullshit justification.

Navigators were able to find their way according to nigh-sky even when they though everything revolves around Earth.

You can dislike leeches, but not be against medicine.

You need convoluted and nonsensical justifications for everything?
What's wrong with "My papy and grandpapy had social-democratic welfare state, so its good enough for me!"
That at least makes sense to argue for, but in your mind it makes you sound less cool that "muh social contract!"

 

[wurmkrank]

Relying on charitable donations is evil, because you're rewarding cruelty and punishing the people who want to help. The only moral solution is to collectively agree on what the proper level of support is, and then pay for it by taking resources from everyone in a fair and balanced fashion.It's voluntary because you chose to be part of the society (so if you can't leave it stops being voluntary) and had the option of participating in the political process that determined what was going to be paid for (so if you have no say in the government it stops being voluntary).

So if you *feel* like you can't leave or *feel* like you have no say you're going to *feel* like it's involuntary, but that's the same metaphor as 'wage slavery'. It's not entirely untrue but it's an exaggeration.

How is relying on charitable donations evil? How is it rewarding cruelty? how is it punishing anyone? I would like to understand your argument but you need to back up your points with some kind of logic for people to understand.
What is this social contract you refer to? No one signs a contract when they are born. Contracts are voluntary, so if you are born into it by default how is that a contract?

I'm not saying that taxation isn't the best way to deal with things right now. I'm saying if we recognise that the way we are structuring our society does conflict with the principles of our society, like "don't take things by force" then we have an ideal to work towards.

Your statement "the only moral solution is to decide on a fair amount of support and then take the resources by force" is simply wrong. That's because collectively deciding what a proper level of support is, then people donating to meet that requirement is objectively more moral.
It's just not logically consistent to say that "Taking things by force is not moral, but when the state takes things by force it is moral"

Taxation is effective, yes, but moral, no.

 

[dskod1]

Get back on topic or this thread will be closed.

Thanks,
Dylan

 

[Dalinski]

I hope that Pacifists are happier with less defensive armies

 

[Drakonn]

Yes slaves I believe generate reasonable amount of unrest, but they do not have unhappiness affect their output. When you have unrest on a planet also they goods produced goes down, does this affect slave output or are they still immune to this? I am unsure on that one. I think that they should be immune.

I think we need more info on how unrest affects slaves productions. Why separate their production if unhappy slaves generate unrest that does affect production then you might as well just leave their production tied to happiness right?

 

[Radically Right Wing]

I think we need more info on how unrest affects slaves productions. Why separate their production if unhappy slaves generate unrest that does affect production then you might as well just leave their production tied to happiness right?

The reason that unhappy slaves produce unrest is because they will want to revolt and gain freedom, but this does not necessarily mean they will work harder in the daytime under the watchful gaze of their government. They will likely continue to be worked to excess, thus producing excess amounts of material goods, but even though they are still productive, this does not mean they want to revolt any less. This is the state of big government afterall c;

In short no, slaves can produce unrest but it should not affect their mineral or food output.

 

[GC13]

I hope that Pacifists are happier with less defensive armies

That's what Spiritualist and Authoritarian are for. Spiritualist gives a flat reduction to Unrest, and Authoritarian reduces a percentage of slave Unrest.

I think we need more info on how unrest affects slaves productions. Why separate their production if unhappy slaves generate unrest that does affect production then you might as well just leave their production tied to happiness right?

With the new system, unhappy slaves can affect everybody's production, not just their own, but you can browbeat them into doing their jobs. Plus, Wiz has tweeted images showing that high Unrest will start negative event chains on the planet in question.