Well, this card is pretty cool, 4mana and it can generate up to 4 cards of card advantage for you. Also has a nice combo with Nicol Bolas, and it tells us that we are going to get a new Bolas soon, which is quite exciting.
Edit: I also realized that so far, 3 cards with the word planeswalker have been spoiled in this set...
New Ajani spoiled, I think this is a solid planeswalker, +2 is great card advantage which is going to draw you on average probably 2 cards a turn and even if you hit lands, without this card you would be drawing those lands on your next draws so it really is a win-win type of ability so to speak, -2 is Swords to Plowshares so a decent option to have, -9 is a bonkers effect for this deck, especially the tokens version. I think this card is very playable, maybe even just for the +2...
I dont want to pay for this overwhelming superiority you speak off... If you want to pay for that then by all means go ahead. Also I meant Non-Interventionism instead of isolationism. Non-Interventionism and neutrality, that means no alliances, no foreign aid, national Defense instead of national Offense(so purely defensive military), no trade restrictions e.t.c. I don't see how a policy of complete neutrality and universal free trade would anger any country thus reducing the risk of conflict.
Edit:I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will. Also all the government has to do to outcompete the private onlinegambling/lottery companies is to match their price/odds/winnings proportion, not that hard to do.
Would you rather buy a lottery ticket that supports your national defense or a lottery ticket from a private business who uses the profit in a way that he/she wants?
Look, if some one ruins their life with lottery or gambling, then it's not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's problem except that individual's. That isn't my point, my point is that we can probably fund a small government whose only role is national defense and courts with gambling as the government can outcompete the private gambling businesses for obvious reasons and monopolize the industry. And look, America spends way too much on its military it spends more than the rest of the world combined. We could cut the annual military budget by 75% and still spend more on the military per year than the second highest spender(China). The US could go without spending money on its military for many years and still be the strongest military power in the world.
Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade. When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.
One way to explain it is that libertarians are opposed to the government being above the law in the following ways: taxation- if a business or an individual were to partake in the forceful redistribution of money to the cause the he thought was worthy of it, he would be considered a thief, war- war is mass murder and conscription is slavery, why do we tolerate the government doing this and are fine with the government being above the law? I don't know.
Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...
1. First of all, the DeBeers market share reached an all time high of 80% and then startes decreasing to its current market share of 50%. Anyways, even if a company monopolizes through the use of violence, governments or private defense agencies could help out and besides they're diamonds, they're rare and not very important, so it isnt a big deal.
2. If push comes to shove and the discriminated against group can't find anyone that lets the group buy the things the group wants to buy from them,(this being obviously unlikely), the group can make their own businesses.
3. If I steal from you to buy you a car,I have still stolen from you. Besides I'd like to object to your statement that the state benefits me as I would think that the some of the things the state does, the free market could do better,and some of the things the state does is useless or harmful to the economy and the people. But I can't not use,for example,roads,so if the government lets me opt out of its "rent services" system, it would effectively have imprisoned me into a certain small amount of land.
1. Would you buy from a business that steals and kills people?
2. Bad analogy, killing people with poisoned apples is different from not doing business with someone. Also this conspiracy is doomed to fail because most rational businesses want to maximize profits.
3. Again why should I have to immigrate to avoid taxes, what if I told you I would steal from you on a regular basis unless you move? Not fair.
1. They got an artificial boost that would not have happened under the free market that led to an increase in market share up to 80% which isnt even a problem because that means there is still competition in the market.
2. That would only be fraud if I had a sign on my shop that said: will sell to anyone,or something along those lines.
3. But I never made a contract with tge government that I pay taxes in exchange for their services. My ancestors may have made that decision but I should be able to opt out anytime. The government doesn't allow one to opt out of the contract.
1. South Africa acted as a boost to DeBeers Diamond Company
2. The reason you dont have the right to drive over someone is because you would ve taking away their right to own their body. By refusing to do business with someone I am not violating their rights because they are not entitled to my goods or services.
3. All governments have a beginning in which they claim a plot of land. Claiming a plot of land is not owning that land. If you own some land, it wont become my land if I claim it.
De Beers is an international cartel. South African law, however favorable, cannot be responsible for its successful monopolistic practices beyond South Africa's borders. That'd be like saying Coca-Cola is only a beverage behemoth because of favoritism from the city council in Atlanta, Georgia.
"South Africa, the major center of world diamond production"
"The government long ago nationalized all diamond mines, and anyone who finds a diamond mine on his property discovers that the mine immediately becomes government property. The South African government then licenses mine operators who lease the mines from the government and, it so happened, that Io and behold!, the only licensees turned out to be either DeBeers itself or other firms who were willing to play ball with the DeBeers cartel."
Rent implies that the government owns your property which it doesnt.
*sigh* I literally just said it wasn't rent for your property. You can be taxed by the United States even if you own no property in the United States. That said, the state does have sovereignty over property you own within its borders. That's a sort of substratum on which your own ownership is based: it means the state will fight for your land if the dastardly Canadians invade and try to take it. The concept of "private property" is meaningless without such a guarantee of safety. Think of it in terms of land value. Imagine you're an investor looking at two plots of land: one which could be overrun by the Canadian hordes at any moment, and one whose security is backed by the U.S. government. Which one are you going to be willing to pay good money for?
Also what if I dont want to live under that legal system?
Then move to a different jurisdiction. The same as if you don't want to live in a particular rental property. You say it's immoral to force people to do business with others? By living in U.S. jurisdiction you're demanding that they do business with you, in the form of providing to you the aforementioned territorial protection, roads and infrastructure, police services, and so on -- and unlike a black guy walking into a store to buy a loaf of bread, you're refusing to pay for any of it. Yeah, yeah, you didn't ask them to give you those things. If you're born into an apartment, you didn't ask for what your landlord provides, either, but if you want to keep living in the apartment as an adult you still have to accept the lease agreement, and if you don't you have to move.
That's because the landlord owns the apartment, the government doesn't own the land. The government either stole the land or bought the land by stealing taxpayer money. "You have to move" is not an argument against the proposed immorality and hypocrisy of taxation.
Well, this card is pretty cool, 4mana and it can generate up to 4 cards of card advantage for you. Also has a nice combo with Nicol Bolas, and it tells us that we are going to get a new Bolas soon, which is quite exciting.
Edit: I also realized that so far, 3 cards with the word planeswalker have been spoiled in this set...
New Ajani spoiled, I think this is a solid planeswalker, +2 is great card advantage which is going to draw you on average probably 2 cards a turn and even if you hit lands, without this card you would be drawing those lands on your next draws so it really is a win-win type of ability so to speak, -2 is Swords to Plowshares so a decent option to have, -9 is a bonkers effect for this deck, especially the tokens version. I think this card is very playable, maybe even just for the +2...
Edit:I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will. Also all the government has to do to outcompete the private onlinegambling/lottery companies is to match their price/odds/winnings proportion, not that hard to do.
Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade. When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.
Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...
2. The so called Scandinavian democratic socialism isn't socialism, the countries pursue a system of somewhat free-market capitalism with a welfare state. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
2. If push comes to shove and the discriminated against group can't find anyone that lets the group buy the things the group wants to buy from them,(this being obviously unlikely), the group can make their own businesses.
3. If I steal from you to buy you a car,I have still stolen from you. Besides I'd like to object to your statement that the state benefits me as I would think that the some of the things the state does, the free market could do better,and some of the things the state does is useless or harmful to the economy and the people. But I can't not use,for example,roads,so if the government lets me opt out of its "rent services" system, it would effectively have imprisoned me into a certain small amount of land.
2. Bad analogy, killing people with poisoned apples is different from not doing business with someone. Also this conspiracy is doomed to fail because most rational businesses want to maximize profits.
3. Again why should I have to immigrate to avoid taxes, what if I told you I would steal from you on a regular basis unless you move? Not fair.
2. That would only be fraud if I had a sign on my shop that said: will sell to anyone,or something along those lines.
3. But I never made a contract with tge government that I pay taxes in exchange for their services. My ancestors may have made that decision but I should be able to opt out anytime. The government doesn't allow one to opt out of the contract.
2. The reason you dont have the right to drive over someone is because you would ve taking away their right to own their body. By refusing to do business with someone I am not violating their rights because they are not entitled to my goods or services.
3. All governments have a beginning in which they claim a plot of land. Claiming a plot of land is not owning that land. If you own some land, it wont become my land if I claim it.
Not An Argument