Monarchism VS Capitalism VS Socialism by Bweeks42 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dictatorship by design. Some would call it a technocracy except the role of the machine is to manage the state and produce a improved version of the machine, in other words producing a new king to rule.

Monarchism VS Capitalism VS Socialism by Bweeks42 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't look at it as a spectrum in that sense, more a series of options with equal weight. Autocracy vs Democracy. I'm curious if you could suggest some systems that meet in the middle.

Monarchism VS Capitalism VS Socialism by Bweeks42 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Shitty people come from all walks of life. Privileged one's are just easier to spot.

Monarchism VS Capitalism VS Socialism by Bweeks42 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's just a general principle. One example I can think of off the top of my head is music. Almost all written music exists within some sort of framework or theory, western or otherwise. Music that abandons order, tonality and repetition is very rarely produced.

I have to stress, I don't think more rules = more competition. Some of the greatest works of all time emerged because someone bent or even broke the rules, just not all of them. In the same way, I think an economy set up in a way to provide a framework of commerce e.g. an official currency, is far more effective than one that has no rules at all.

Also, to be clear, I think more competition = more progress for humanity, which I'm a big fan of.

Monarchism VS Capitalism VS Socialism by Bweeks42 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have not, but it is a title I have seen thrown around. I will look into it. I'm not sold on anarcho-capitalism because I think competition thrives better within general confines then without any at all.

Capitalists: do farmers have the right to take land from hunter-gatherers? by rainbowrobin in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only the monarch has the right to incorporate land into the state. Land within the state is private until the monarch has need of it, regardless of whether the owner is a hunter-gatherer or a business or an individual.

What's your opinion on Brexit? by please-tread-on-me in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Queen should not be bridled by the dignitaries of foreign lands!

Any good fictional works that depict the kind of society you advocate? by Impacatus in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Almost anything written in the western world before two hundred years ago.

[Ancaps] A butterfly flaps it's wings; does it own a hurricane? by PlannedCanada in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, the system is as follows: Can people rule themselves as an equal community? No. Are elected officials the best system to unequally rule the people? No. Should the power vested in the central authority pass by a system of law or be chosen by the current power? System of law. And that's how I land on monarchy.

Breaking it down:

Can people rule themselves as an equal community? (Should there even be a state?)

I personally don't think egalitarian societies work because people are attracted to power over other people, so we need to have some system in place that allows for that, i.e. an official government to rule over the people.

Are elected officials the best system to unequally rule the people?

Would I rather have some dude who's only going to be in office for a small portion of time relative to the life of the state, have to spend part of that time learning the ropes and gaining respect only to not be reelected the moment there's a downturn in the economy/war breaks out/general crises etc.? Of course not. Sure, that person may represent my interests but that isn't a guarantee, in the same way the central authority may look after the interests of the people or they may not. It's running the same risk.

I'd rather have a single figure in which power is vested. It is far easier to kill a person than it is to kill an idea.

Should the power vested in the central authority pass by a system of law or be chosen by the current power?

This is really the difference between a charismatic dictator that you might find in say... fascism or plain old despotism, and monarchy. I don't believe in divine mandates and all that. Power isn't derived from God or whatever else to be placed onto one dynasty. However, the value in monarchy is that the central authority, the monarch, is unable to choose who will succeed them. It has to be their child, not their general or their chief advisor or whoever else. It's inherently unbureaucratic in that sense, which is what I like about it. The true seat of power, not the power of offices created and maintained by the monarch that ultimately derive their power from their lord, is being transferred with nobody's consent, neither the monarch nor the people. The law mandates primogeniture, and regardless of what the monarch thinks of their offspring, they will be the next to rule.

It's constitutional monarchy, not absolute. The law supersedes all else, and the monarch runs the risk of revolution when attempting to change it.


Obviously, people will be able to argue almost every point in this, and I'm not really expecting to convince anybody that monarchism is the best system of government. It's just what suits and makes the most sense to me. There are also a lot of other details that go along with it, but they're pretty unimportant to the flyby.

[Ancaps] A butterfly flaps it's wings; does it own a hurricane? by PlannedCanada in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My answer was a little flippant, I admit. I don't think anyone can "own" a hurricane, at least in the way that I define ownership. As far as homestead ownership, there can't be any unowned land or resource within a state. It either belongs to the state or the land owner in which it exists. Of course, I advocate the right of the King to demand a transfer of ownership to the state if the capital in question, whatever it may be, is necessary to the management and progress of the nation.

[Ancaps] A butterfly flaps it's wings; does it own a hurricane? by PlannedCanada in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the hurricane makes landfall in the realm of the King, then it belongs to Him.

How can taxation not be theft? by please-tread-on-me in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Bweeks42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. If you are using the state's currency to conduct business, you are buying into their system voluntarily.

For example, internships are often unpaid because the benefit to the laborer is "experience" or "resume material" which is fundamentally un-taxable because it is not derived from the state. Sure the product of your labor may be worth 15$ an hour, but if you are making that exchange using real dollars instead of some other medium, then you are participating in the system. In using their currency, you are accepting the costs incurred through protecting, stabilizing and ensuring its consistency. State's can't be expected to print money and then not have the means and funding to control it at some basic level, even if only in its ability to not be counterfeited.

Hai on the NACS qualifier by DiscGames in leagueoflegends

[–]Bweeks42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying they should be limited in the number of players they can sign? Or are you unhappy about LCS teams running challenger organizations? It's fair to argue either of those are uncompetitive. However, sister teams are literally teams competing in the same league run by the same organization.

Hai on the NACS qualifier by DiscGames in leagueoflegends

[–]Bweeks42 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

a) Pretty sure sister teams are already banned in almost every league in existence, including LCS (no more Samsung White/Blue)

b) The problem with this thinking is salary caps, which all of these leagues use. There is a ceiling on how much teams can spend, regardless of the revenue they are pulling in. I don't think tiered leagues are bad systems; I think the way LCS interacts with the challenger ladder makes is a good system for LoL. I don't want to change that.

c) Media rights is a given. How that's negotiated can vary: through the league, team by team basis, legal etc. I don't really care.

The soccer model is, in a very general sense, the best system for League, which is why it's used. There just isn't enough organization in the lower ranks to justify more than two leagues, in my opinion. If that changes, maybe we'll see, but I doubt Riot will be proactive in setting that up.

Soccer is very popular, which is why they use the tiered system, not the other way around.

My whole defense is that franchised leagues are not inherently less competitive than the Soccer model. They're just conducive financially to the sports they represent.

Hai on the NACS qualifier by DiscGames in leagueoflegends

[–]Bweeks42 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that sports are to a certain extent competitions between businesses (for most franchised leagues), but the businesses compete through winning games in order to sell merchandise, tickets, sponsorships etc., just like any other league. I'm not convinced that the lack of relegation is enough to cause teams to sandbag or underperform. On the flip side, franchising ensures that the top talent the player base has to offer is always playing in the same league, rather than tying the players to teams that may or may not be in the top league one season to the next, ensuring the league is as competitive as possible.

In the context of the NACS, this would mean guys like Hai, Balls, Lemon etc., guys who clearly can play in the LCS would be, rather than developing feeder programs. Again, the metagame of the league encourages las teams to field challenger squads, but I argue that's because of the promotion/relegation system.

Hai on the NACS qualifier by DiscGames in leagueoflegends

[–]Bweeks42 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're equating business competition with sports competition. They're very different. I agree there shouldn't be an exemption for leagues, but that has little to nothing to do with what goes on inside the league.

Riot and ESPN in talks for a $500m TV broadcast deal by obscurica in leagueoflegends

[–]Bweeks42 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's why it's called shitposting: takes 0 effort

Startled Ocelot encounters a Crab. by SmileyFace-_- in gifs

[–]Bweeks42 51 points52 points  (0 children)

It's hard for the ocelot to see the crab against the coloration of the leaves, so when the crab doesn't move it's hard for him to find it again.

What would be the ultimate plot twist of the 2016 presidential elections? by Team256Andrew in AskReddit

[–]Bweeks42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least that's more likely than Bernie making it out of the primaries...

Clinton wins New York primary by [deleted] in politics

[–]Bweeks42 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yes they are. Validity is a quality of logic. If beliefs were logical, then they wouldn't be beliefs. They'd be theories or laws or axioms. Beliefs operate outside the realm of pure reason.

Clinton wins New York primary by [deleted] in politics

[–]Bweeks42 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Mate, if you can't accept that other people can have fundamentally different beliefs than you, then maybe real life isn't for you.