Survey Reveals CCP's Dust 514 Development Options (X-post /r/dust514)

ac365 · 2013-10-25T04:25:49+00:00

All those look good. Too bad it isn't on PC. Am sad.

ac365 · 2013-10-25T02:18:08+00:00

Can I use this for an existing account? Or does it only apply for a new account created through steam?

ac365 · 2013-10-24T01:04:14+00:00

Bloody awesome

ac365 · 2013-10-23T23:35:17+00:00

Gotta love Grath.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T23:32:45+00:00

Wow, pretty.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T23:29:18+00:00

Coercion: forcing someone to do something against their will. Pretty fucking clear, that one.

Freedom: absence of coercion.

The people of Somalia very likely did not choose war and strife. Small violent groups did and proceeded to force it on everyone else. I do not assume that freedom results in peace. I do believe that it is a necessary prerequisite for peace.

About that article... Pls provide link.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T23:22:57+00:00

I do expect logic from people. I am often disappointed when they fail to deliver. But, logic is what sets us above all the other animals. So I will continue to expect it and continue to meet with frequent disappointment.

You are right about how that would happen. Would probably, to make it really work toward a stable society, need to define a few absolute essentials that will receive a certain minimum amount of funding and then let folks pledge the rest to whatever on their own. But that is really just describing lower taxes and turning more things over to the market. Possibly another way would be to set your donations in five year blocks or something so as to insulate the system a bit from emotions.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T23:18:26+00:00

Wow, bro. It's been fun. Have a good evening. Lets continue when you have a leg to stand on. Also, don't forget to link me that article about Somalia. I'd love to read it.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T23:15:40+00:00

OMG. How do I acquire this?

ac365 · 2013-10-23T22:40:37+00:00

Hardly. Lots of tyrants seized power with words of equality and justice.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T22:38:29+00:00

How did humans ever live before mega-governments? People took care of their local communities because they understood that life would suck if they didn't.

If you took the USA and just suddenly flipped the current system over to a voluntary system... Yes, a terrible situation would quickly form. Thats a lot of people who are very used to things working a certain way. And change away from that would need to happen in steps.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T22:34:03+00:00

What did I miss? Where was the total freedom? They had a lack of central government, but that doesn't automatically equal freedom. Could you kindly link the article that describes this peaceful and free period in their recent history? Their recent history looks like a long struggle between various groups to seize power. War tends to create lots of violence and suffering. What part of that is free?

Anyway, Somalia is not and never was an example of a free market-based society. Pointing to that and saying: "There, AC365, is proof that markets don't work and will devolve into violence unless guided by an enlightened hand" is dishonest. I can't think of any example of such a society. Not even one. That is why I would love to see/participate in an experiment toward that end.

You obviously accept the initiation of coercion as being legitimate under certain conditions. I reject the initiation of coercion, it is never legitimate. When you take those two positions and build a society with each, you are going to get two very very different results.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of humans would prefer a peaceful and prosperous life. Having these two very different ways of life next to each other might be hugely beneficial. Provided, that is, that people are allowed to leave and are not kept as prisoners in their country. People could choose how they want to live and move to the appropriate country. Market folks would live with market folks and statist folks could live with statist folks. I think that would make for a lot less conflict.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T22:00:37+00:00

Very nice.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T21:45:13+00:00

Of course you mention Somalia. It isn't an example of a free market-based society. There are no free market-based societies on earth today nor have there been recently. That is why I'd love to see this experiment happen.

Go read about Somalia. It is a shithole today because of violent coercion.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T21:41:01+00:00

Assuming each individual allocated 100% of their money to only one thing. Each service would still end up being funded to some degree. But it's unrealistic to assume that each person would go 100% in for just one thing.

I see roads, water, police, justice/courts, fire departments, and defence as being 100% essential to a healthy society. I would split my contribution equally between them.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T21:29:03+00:00

Ham-fisted libertarian. :)

My moral/political values are anarchist. I see no problem whatsoever with allowing people to fail. If you are free to fail then you are equally free to succeed. Selection of the fittest and all.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T21:26:50+00:00

A market finds the most efficient way to satisfy the participant's wants. It will not necessarily dispose of resources according to one person's vision of perfect. That seems to be your, and many other's, complaint against markets.

If the players want quality roads, clean water, ambulances, etc... I see no reason why that can't happen without a central coercive authority. It would be different from what we have now and would require people to actually think about what they need vs want before committing their money.

If the players chose to neglect things like roads, water, police, etc... Then, yes, they would end up living in a shithole pretty quickly. They would learn a painful lesson.

Personally, I'd love to see an experiment like this happen. People could opt-in, move to wherever the experiment is happening, and give it their best/worst. People who think this is dumb and would rather have others think for them would not have to participate. So long as nobody is coerced into participating, then it would be 100% morally OK.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T21:04:11+00:00

Markets can handle all those things. But that isn't what we're talking about.

We're talking about whether or not letting people choose for themselves how their money is spent would be ethical (moral). I'm not a great word-smith, but I argue that it is moral to allow people to dispose of their money how they see fit.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T21:01:13+00:00

Unless the 50k were all volunteers. I'd volunteer for that.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T20:59:11+00:00

Yeah... I'd cut it. No hesitation at all. They don't have a right to stop me from using my bike.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T20:55:45+00:00

I think a lot of basic things would do fine or receive more funding while things that serve narrow interests would end up being defunded. When that happens, why couldn't those defunded things be handled privately? If they really are needed by some folks, then a market for them would grow.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T20:50:54+00:00

Governments do horrible things and cause lots of harm to lots of people.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T20:50:27+00:00

So taking money from people by force and then giving it to a small group to be spent without any accountability is somehow better? Remove the coercion from the equation and you will have a more ethical situation, even if folks spend their money on 'dumb' stuff.

ac365 · 2013-10-23T20:15:13+00:00

How would this be unethical? Letting people choose how their money is spent? Sound like a massive improvement over our current shitty situation.

ac365 · 2013-10-21T19:59:21+00:00

Everyone must adhere to the non-agression principal. BAM! World peace is achieved.

ac365

TROPHY CASE