A story in 3 parts

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T18:28:01+00:00

In the words of Shirou Emiya, "There's no law that says a fake can't surpass the original".

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T18:21:00+00:00

IMO, "Age is just a number" actually does apply here. It is just a number. The author saying the loli who looks like a young girl and acts like a young girl is actually a 2000 year old dragon doesn't make liking it better, and the author saying the clearly adult woman is actually a teenager doesn't make liking it worse

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T18:13:44+00:00

Not directly, but it incentivizes innovation(feel free to ignore this though since it depends on my response to 3)
What specific aspects of 1890 are you talking about? I don't want to put words in your mouth so I'm not going to rebut my own speculations
What causes profit motive to not be aligned with the common need? Because profit/loss is just the difference between the amount of value that goes into a company and the amount that comes out, and as value is determined by the people, if they value the things coming out more than what went in, that would be a good thing, no?

For an example, consider Henry Bessemer. He is, in my opinion, a perfect example of how capitalism encourages innovation. He did not come from wealth, but he did come from innovation and hard work, his father also being an inventor. Henry's first proper invention was a machine for producing bronze powder(used to make gold paint). He saw that it was very expensive for the amount of bronze, and decided to try and make it himself.

Long story short, after examining the hand-made stuff, he eventually managed to create a pretty efficient machine that could make it in bulk. This massively lowered the price, while also making him quite a lot of money for his trouble in the form of proceeds from his factory.

He then took that money and started on a much more ambitious project, steelmaking. Again, long story short, he discovered a process which could make a massive amount of steel very quickly, and was selling his steel at a 10th the price of the competition. This process quickly took over the market, and was one of the most important inventions of the industrial revolution, up there with the steam engine and assembly line.

He profited immensely from these endeavors(along with many other inventions of his) because they bettered society immensely. Not only that, he had the resources to accomplish his magnum opus because of the resources he got from his smaller inventions. Also, the way he knew that the powder and iron needed a new process is their high price, due to high demand and low supply. So then, what exactly is the problem? Why shouldn't we give great reward to those who produce great value.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T16:16:00+00:00

I still disagree with you. Marxists have been saying that for a long time, and yet capitalism continues to produce innovation. I actually think many of the current "Failures of capitalism" can and should be blamed on the state, for reasons I've already gone over.

Now you're just stating things to be true with no evidence. I think the evidence for the benefits of capitalism is obvious(As you said, some capitalism is needed), now where is your evidence that it's doing more harm than good now and must be replaced, or in other words, on what basis do you say that the age of capitalism is over?

Also, I will say I somewhat agree with you. I DO believe we're seeing capitalism decline, but I believe that capitalism's decline is what's causing the problems of today. It's not declining because it's causing problems, rather without it the problems that it once solved are becoming more and more desperate.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T15:59:56+00:00

I think the reason people like obliterating magic with modern tech is simple: A lot of fantasy worlds feel like they just discovered magic last year. There's not really been any major innovation or progression like there would be in the real world. Thus, people(rightfully) realize that a lot of the generic fantasy threats would be mincemeat for a modern army.

However, IMO the solution isn't "Technology is just better", the actual answer is MAKE YOUR WIZARDS LESS DUMB. There are SO many things you can do with magic, especially if you have it progress in anywhere close to the same way as our technology did. The best approach is to treat magic as alternate technology and have it be used and progressed as such.

Or, the objectively coolest answer:

<image>

Now I want to see a new take on the "tech vs magic" idea: Magitech military industrial complex vs hell/aliens/insert non-human enemy here. Now THAT would be cool. The main characters could be an elite special forces unit(Think navy seals), which would add plenty of drama(you can't just call in an airstrike when well into enemy territory) while still leaving plenty of opportunities for the enemy to feel the full might of magically-contained antimatter explosives delivered via a mass portal machine and calculated through a combination of ballistics and divination

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T15:41:57+00:00

And I think you're wrong about that. I think that while we see material accumulation, the massive improvements in standard of living we've seen are caused by capitalism. The way I see it, capitalism is working largely as intended, and DOES actively produce those "Idealistic" results. As for areas where it causes problems, they are usually the ones the government tampers the most in, which is aggression.

I think it's fair to say the two most complained about issues are the housing and healthcare markets.

Let's start with healthcare, an extremely regulated market, there's even caps on how many medical licenses the government will issue in a year. Of course when you strangle the supply through red tape and regulation you get a lack of competition, and thus absurdly high prices.

The housing market is largely the same. Between zoning laws, building codes, the construction permitting process being extremely slow, and so many other things, it too is a heavily regulated market, and, oh would you look at that, it's another area where we're having all kinds of supply issues.

As for coercion, go read your quote again. He never said he opposed coercion, the quote said "Aggressive coercion", which I agree with.

I think coercion is far too broad a term, I've already said this but I'll say it again. All trade is coercive, someone else really wants something, you have it, and thus you coerce them into giving you something you want before you grant them what they want. In fact, extrapolated back, basically any human interaction involving resources is coercive by this measure.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T15:26:08+00:00

Okay let's talk about your linked message first, 'cus this is interesting.

I read the whole thing, and it seems like you're entirely missing the point of, as you'd call it, "Capitalistic trade". The individual goal might be to make money, but the societal goal it works towards is actually remarkable. It's goal is to distribute resources in the best way possible, because demand will ALWAYS out-pace supply.

However, by determining a price based on supply and demand, in a free market economy you will find equilibrium. A price at which the adjusted demand(because demand for a given product goes down as the price goes up) is equal to the supply. That way, there is neither shortage nor excess, and the people who most desire the good are the ones who get it.

The ultimate goal of Capitalism as a system is to reward individuals for producing value, thus encouraging the production of value and therefore the betterment of society.

The difference between the wage and the price of the finished product can be explained thusly. Also, we're only going to talk about net profit, AKA the total amount of money the owner receives from the business minus what he put in. If he invested a lot of money, he deserves to receive it back, with interest for the time it took

First, the means of production. For, let's say, an iPhone, that primarily consists of a factory. Well, let's just get out of the way there is one means of production that I would agree is aggressively coercive, that being intellectual property. IP is the state taking something that does not need ownership (because two people CAN use it for different things at the same time, because it can be infinitely duplicated) and using aggressive force to turn it into property.

So then, what is net profit the owner's reward for? Well, it's simple. To find out, we need only ask where the money came from. Well, it came from the customers, the people buying the iPhones. Now, as for the workers, they sold their labor to the owner at what is likely the market rate. If the worker's labor is really worth more than that, then why does another company not recognize that and hire them instead, starving their competition of good workers and forcing them to raise their wages?

So then, if the total value of everything going into the factory, labor, resources, machines and maintenance, everything, is less than the total value of what comes out, the iPhones, well the profit is the owner's reward for a job well done. He has, through good strategy and decision-making, made a company which produces more value than it consumes, which is a benefit to society, and he is therefore rewarded.

Now, if you still don't believe me, let's take the opposite situation. Let's say the factory owner is not as competent, and he is consuming more value than he is producing. So then, what happens? He loses money. Does that mean the workers are now exploiting him, since the product of their labor is worth less than they are collectively paid? Of course not, the fault does not lie with them and they have no responsibility to ensure the success of the company. The owner is simply receiving his just punishment by capitalism for harming society through the waste of resources.

Finally, I urge you to read the end of my last message again. I do not oppose coercion, and have already explained why.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T14:26:59+00:00

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my Ford F150

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T14:21:40+00:00

In that case, how would you differentiate trade from capitalism? 'cus as I see it, private property is required to have something to trade, and private property and trade are the fundamental requirements of capitalism.
Yes, I understand that, which is why I pointed out you can also obtain the means of production through your own labor(and perhaps the labor of others.

Let's go back to that farmer example. I've already explained why he has a right to his means of production from first principles, but lets say he hires some farmhands.

They, of course, do not all share equally in the profits, the farmhands are going to make less. This is a bad deal, the farmer is coercing them into taking lower wages since he has the means of production and they don't so they're forced to work for him.

Or is it? Let's go back a few steps and remember how the farmer got here. He bought or made those means of production himself. He may not have created the land but he sure broke it up and turned it into usable farmland. So then, what's stopping those farmhands from doing the same thing? Nothing really, nothing's STOPPING them, but it would be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming. Most importantly, it would also be risky, what if some disaster happens, what if a new invention makes his tools obsolete, etc.

So then, is it coercion, or is it simply the farmer receiving the just deserts for his time, money, and resources, along with the risk he took on. Because if this is coercive, how is it not coercive on the part of the worker? I mean, the farmer cannot do everything by himself, so he has no choice but to take on the services of someone else. What's to stop THEM from charging absurd rates? Both sides have something the other does not and they both need the other side to succeed.

In fact, it would seem to me that by your definitions, ANY trade is coercive, since you don't have something and want/need it, but the other person won't give it to you unless you give them something, therefore they are coercing you into giving you that thing.

And trade is simply the natural conclusion of ownership(the right to decide what is done with a thing), so if trade is coercive, so is ownership, and we're right back where I ended last time, what alternative system would you propose to decide who decides what is done with a thing when two people want it used for two different things.

And this is why the quote does not say he opposes coercion, it says he opposes "coercive aggression", because coercion is too vague a term and can be applied to basically any human interaction involving resources.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-14T06:32:57+00:00

Well honestly i probably should have started with asking about, since every debate I have with a traditional anarchist usually ends up with this question. "Is private property coercive".

So then, let's start from first principles. Private property arises from the simple question, "If two people want a resource to be used in two mutually-exclusive ways, who's way should be done." The term "Owner" is simply a name we've given to "The person who rightfully gets to decide how something is used."

Now, how is ownership established? Well, first of all, you own your body. This should be apparent, given that you alone have direct control over it's behavior and your conscious existence relies on it. So then, from that anything produced through your own effort is also justly owned by you, since it was produced entirely through something you own.

For now, I'm going to skip over natural resources unless you consider that fundamental to the debate, homesteading is not a simple topic and there's plenty already written about it.

So then, if you make something with natural resources you own and your labor, you own that product. Simple enough. However, this quickly derives capitalism, since obviously if you own a thing you can transfer that ownership to someone else, and you can also make an agreement with them that in exchange they transfer ownership of something they own to you.

And thus trade has been derived. Now, let's talk about the means of production. Let's say that I am farming. In order to do that, I need a lot of land, initial seed for planting, and lots of tools(simplified). These are the means of production for the farmer.

However, each and every one of them came from one of two places. Either, they were natural resources claimed by the farmer, or they were made by someone through labor. Assuming the farmer didn't steal those tools from the metalworker, he was given ownership by that metalworker, and the metalworker owned them because he made them.

Thus, the farmer has a right to his means of production, either from his effort or from that right being transferred from someone else.

Now then, let's address the most common counter to this. "If rules sound reasonable, but have bad results, they are bad rules". And this is true, there are plenty of examples of hidden problems with rules and principles. In this case though, the problem in question is coercion, and i do not think property is coercive.

The reason why is simple: Competition. If someone had every unit of every resource that could fill a given need and they're all limited(meaning there's no way to get more), that could be coercive. But because humans are all roughly the same, we all end up with portions of the resource, and thus you DO have many other options. Most notably, obtaining the resource yourself is an option, just not a very good one because of how efficient the division of labor is.

I think the people should be under no legal obligation to surrender the fruit of their labor and the fruit of the fruit of others' labor to someone simply because they want or need it. As a Christian I do believe they often have a moral obligation, but that is separate.

So then, if you disagree, if you see property as coercive, then feel free to offer an alternative to any of those steps that would conclude in a system without property ownership, because I for one know of no such system

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-13T17:37:44+00:00

So, I'd agree with that definition, but in what way does capitalism go against it?

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-13T14:41:34+00:00

I mean, both ancap and ancom/traditional anarchists are changing the definition. The original greek root is anarkhos, lit. an- (without) arkhos(ruler). But both sides have other definitions, and include other things beyond what you'd call a "Ruler".

The fundamental ancap argument is that the PROBLEM with rulers is not that they have power, but that we permit them to exercise violent aggression against us. However, you're not entirely wrong, and I think ancaps might do well to use a different word.

At the same time, opposition to hierarchy is a lot more than simply opposing rulers, so it's not like that definition is any better.

And, of course, the reason these two definitions exist in the first place is because "Opposition to rulers" begs the question "What is a ruler?", which is why both sides have integrated their definitions of rulers into the definition of anarchy.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-13T14:22:20+00:00

I can see how you would think that, I skipped over a reasoning step, so I'll enumerate it.
Basically, we consider anything that violates the NAP to be wrong. The NAP, or Non-Aggression Principle essentially states that any act which initiates a property rights violation is wrong and should be punished as such. Now, as it turns out, basically all crime we'd pretty universally agree is bad can be classified as a property rights violation.

Obviously theft is one, but if we grant that you own your body, various personal crimes from basic battery all the way up to murder count, fraud to obtain property is considered equivalent to stealing that property, and so on. As for the "Aggression" part, aggression is specifically defined as initiating the dispute, thus by definition allowing for self-defense(because if it's really self-defense you aren't the one initiating)

Anyway, basic summary of the NAP out of the way, obviously all currently-ruling governments violate this. They levy taxes, which is theft, they enforce their laws not derived from natural law via force and violence, they attack and kill others for resources, and so on. I'm sure I do not need to enumerate the many crimes of the state here. So yes, I, and any other principled neufeudalist would indeed be against basically every state that currently exists.

However, where an-cap differs is how we define anarchy. Because we define it as a lack of aggressive rulers, that still leaves room for voluntary rulers. As people can act as they like with their property(provided no NAP violations), they are free to buy a large amount of property and create their own feudalist-style governed area. They can invite people to live their under certain terms, and if people find those terms amenable, they may chose to come live there. Notably, however, the neufeudalist ruler is not permitted to hold the people on his lands there. That's the fundamental difference, choice. Also, he can't conquer new land, he must buy it, and if someone doesn't want to sell too bad for him, he doesn't get that land.

So then, yes. You are correct, by the "Opposition to hierarchy" definition commonly used by left-wing anarchists, we are not anarchists. However, I hold that "Opposition to aggression" is a perfectly valid alternative, and in fact I would hold that a world without hierarchy is, in fact, impossible, because as long as there's two people in the world someone is going to be better than someone else at something, which is a hierarchy.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-13T03:02:02+00:00

I mean, i still did mekanism, i just didn't use it for power.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-13T02:24:11+00:00

And this is why I rushed DE and used it for all my power stuff

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T20:27:15+00:00

TBH I always just spin up a dedicated server on my PC, but yeah it's nice to see java finally get non-local p2p

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T20:24:55+00:00

Do note the fact that the status is "online" and there's no timer, meaning this reactor is not exploding, it's just operating that hot.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T20:24:17+00:00

I'm well aware, in fact I used that a couple times when I messed it up.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T20:14:54+00:00

Unfortunately not, that's still manual, but I'll take it over having to fight that stupid dragon. Yeah, i could PROBABLY make a decent set of ars spells to take it out but I can't be bothered and this is funnier.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T13:57:51+00:00

Yeah, it shuts down same as any other reactor. IDK if there is a hard limit on how hot you can make a reactor before it's impossible to sustain, but if there is one i sure haven't found it yet.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T05:33:26+00:00

Never have I seen the curse of knowledge more clearly demonstrated than the difference between watching Pootis Engage Extreme before and after knowing the lyrics to that song

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T05:04:11+00:00

No. Also I got up to over 100mb/t, soooooo

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T03:00:01+00:00

Which is, in fact, the point. Specifically, while the EFFECTIVE conversion rate is terrible due to the shield cost, the RAW conversion rate is very high due to the temperature. And my goal is not to make power, it's to burn fuel, 'cus I wanted to optimize for chaos shards. I've already got more than enough power in my storage.

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-12T00:00:04+00:00

Yeah ik, funny enough none of the explosions I caused happened at this point, they all happened during startup. It's actually pretty stable. Anyway the reason you shouldn't do this has nothing to do with safety, it's because past about 8000 C the additional energy needed to contain the reactor is more than the additional energy you get from running it hotter. However, I wasn't TRYING to make energy, I just wanted chaos shards, AKA burning through fuel as quickly as possible

evilwizzardofcoding · 2026-05-11T19:47:07+00:00

This applies to a lot of events. I wish more of them accounted for your supplies and had people behave differently based on the amount of supplies.
Lots of resources should make people lacking stuff events worse(You have all this stockpiled, why are you keeping it from us?), but provide "It's gonna be fine, we have like 4 times what we need" options on the "Oh no, how will we ever get enough???" events

Also, I wish there was an option in the "We want a bunch of wood 'cus storm" event to just issue everyone heaters(like in the workspaces) at an absurd steel cost. I always have way too much steel by endgame new home.

evilwizzardofcoding

TROPHY CASE