2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Hopefully this isn't offensive: Let's talk about rape
    Quote from LadyLuck

    That being said, you keep proclaiming that there is a double standard between the complainant and the defendant. But according to Tiax this is not so - the complainant must also demonstrate that the needs of their case outweigh the harm caused by the evidence they ask to introduce. Can you provide a citation of a recent (last 10 years preferably) law, or a case, that clearly demonstrates otherwise?

    Off the top of my head as a man, I would consider this to be a good high point about "guilty until proven innocent"

    Duke Lacrosse Case



    Granted, the woman involved was extremely troubled, but if you look at any of the old communications that were done during the investigation it was set up as black woman versus privileged white man. You had people like Rev. Al Sharpton try to help her with a scholarship and the like. However, one of the young men was pumping gas with a video and cell phone records. It was unbelievable how much of a canard the whole situation was.

    I am especially angry at prosecutors like Nifong who make a mockery of the justice system, and this is why I find that rape shield should be extended to the accused until proven guilty of the crime. So instead of a provincial case, we see a much larger media frenzy descended upon young white men who are privileged and very hard working to get a good job and a good life going for themselves and instead interrupted by a strange woman and a nefarious prosecutor turned persecutor.

    Allowing the rationality and evidence to go through without the media for a proper investigation before even going to court suffices to make the justice system work. A cooling down period, the use of gag rules has occurred in some trials in other contexts. A gag rule on police and investigators during a rape case without any leaks or few if any are fair.

    If they have a strong case, and they go to trial, then reveal everyone's name including the victim and the accused. If they do not go to trial, then the public records are sat down in a court house and let go to drift.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Hopefully this isn't offensive: Let's talk about rape
    Quote from DokuDokuH
    Quote from Fluffy_Bunny
    It seems to me that it might make sense to re-work the laws so a 16-year old isnt sleeping with daddy's buddy, or the teacher but wouldn't punish drunk college freshman that didnt think to ask to see some ID before sleeping with the girl he met at a party.

    I think this would be a good way to go. However, passing those kinds of laws might be difficult in right-leaning states :p

    Quote from Fluffy_Bunny
    Also in the age of web-cams, picture messages and sexting, the child porn laws need a serious overhaul. But that's probably for another thread.

    Yeeeep. You hear about 1 or 2 cases a year where some dumb kid either sends or gets caught with pictures of an ex and becomes branded for life. What would you do, though? Some sort of sliding-scale decriminalization on possession? What about if someone actually takes the pictures? The problem I see with both is that if you decriminalize it, there will be someone who takes advantage of the law to start a legal child porn website.

    For starters, we need to stop identifying teenagers as children. The concept of Minor has been scaled up in recent years to even up age of 26 years for healthcare, and the whole mess of charging "children as adults." I mean what we used to call "child" has evolved to tween, teen, twixter (or some attempts therein but they keep dying), young adult and on and on up to the 35 which I frankly think that middle age starts at 25 but I digress.

    We do not call an insect in the pupa stage a larva, we call it a pupa. We call the adult form by the adult form name. Why don't we just concede that adolescents are adolescents and get over that already?

    Which goes back to the concept of a sliding case in terms of maturation, and severity. The question is to have the laws be defined by the culture rather than the culture by the laws. Such as having everyone video tape sex, as one person actually did on Law and Order (it's drama/satire but it gets to the point) or a different episode on Simpsons where Homer is charged with sexual harassment and didn't have the problem because Willie was video taping Homer and the woman out of nowhere. While those are media and comedy and drama respective, they're made to start a conversation. That you should not need to video tape or to verify everyone at every point.

    For starters, if you're married the statutory laws do not even apply. Why? Because your parents gave consent to the action and no longer have custody of you. Which means that we do have concepts of emancipation and the capacity for a youngster to maintain an adult level relationship within a context.

    However, there are times whenever a younger teen sleeps with an older teen and the mother or father gets angry and has the person charged. There was one report of a man, who lives with his girlfriend now wife, who he had slept with and his mother in law had him charged and branded for life as a sex offender which has curtailed his employment status for life. Why should a parent have that much power over their daughter's future, even if she makes a bad decision in case... in case what happens if she makes the right decision for herself and the parent makes the wrong decision.

    At some point policing a young woman's ****** is strange, even as a parent, but at some point you have to step back and let them back their own stupid decisions and help them repair their lives.

    Now comes the question between age brackets and the history of the relationship. In a one night stand scenario where two parties "hook up" and engage in sex, it should be arguably up to the person to police their own privates as a part of personal responsibility to the person that they are having sex with. Without evidence of coercion, abuse, or power structure issues (teachers, police, ect.) then if the two people made a mistake then their own shame should be enough to let the issue go and be held responsible. Otherwise, the "child" or rather adolescent in the scenario should be held responsible with a fine.

    The other part of the issue is whether people are going to farm the material and make a website. In my own view, sexting with teenagers is troublesome in the same way that a child tries to do weed. You punish them at the home for taking advantage of your trust, and maybe force them to do some community service or pay a fine working some miserable job for a summer on the municpal level.

    We can just as easily divest ourselves by differentiating between peer to peer sexting, betwixt two teenagers, which should be a misdemeanor irregardless.Dirty old man Cummings and Fast Cindy the 15 year old hooker online, yea whole different ball game. Then we have some enterprising young woman at age 15 setting up a "hotteentitties.whatever" and charging by the hour on webcam "services." That is the one to prosecute severely and make an example of the people involved. The one, while not harmless yet very stupid, is akin to the teenager who got into your liquor cabinet the other is the equal of the person who broke into a wine store and store thousands of dollar in liquor. The crimes are not the same, therefore the punishments for either young woman should not be the same. The first may very well be best handled in house or with small court intervention without overreaching, the second has already evolved to a point to where the police must be involved.

    The punishment must meet the crime for the individual, not for an "example to the community." If we want that to occur, you have a prosecutor make a back end deal for the person to go around and make a concession speech to youngsters about being stupid or make a youtube video campaign or something along with volunteering or whatever.

    Interventions and the like do not always work, but if a youngster is engaging in promiscuity to a large degree and is endangering people in their majority. Then that person should be held accountable and be treated for acting out sexually in such a manner. I'm not condemning all teenage sex, just the people who are mainly troubled like a 13 year old having a sugar daddy that's 55. Rather than the 13 year old sleeping with the 16 year old, creep still? Yes, yet it happens. If it's two teenagers having sex, what interest is it to my tax dollars to police the 13 year old's ***** and the 16 year old's ****** and prosecute either?

    And who makes these laws? Do the teenagers themselves make the laws or have any real representation here as to what they view as normal? Not really, arguably through the parent but if the child is charged as an adult without voter representation then we are directly denying the rights of the child as they do not have the same recourse as an adult voter. The lawmakers are typically older males and female, often they're in their 40+ range at the state level and at the federal level are even older if in the Senate. Far removed from the teenage years.

    I think the issue of teenage sex is something that Goldwater may have had right, that it is in part sexual experimentation much like drugs. Obama has said, I paraphrase, "Yes I've inhaled marijuana, many times, with the intention to get high" or something therein versus Clinton's, "I smoked but did not inhale."

    If we're honest as adults with ourselves with what we did as a youth and understand the extreme situations. For example, two teenagers in an abusive relationship or strange relationships such as the previous one I highlighted with the male under age lover and the young college woman. Those are strange, weird, and at some point would require a mediator in order to look at a best outcomes scenario.

    But this is why we have police acting as case workers and psychologists. Back in the day with hostage negotiators we used to have a "John Wayne" way of policing. Then a psychologist and the FBI asked if there was a better way because of the high death rate. So they came up with some methods, that while not totally refined, were much more effective than the old "go in and shoot the bad guy and hope enough people live scenario." In today's hostage negotiation world, there are many more good outcomes than bad. Is it expensive? Certainly, but so is the value of a human life or so we say it is.

    When we begin to cheap skate justice and universal all scenarios into little blocks, we get strange cases. For example this young man's strange story:


    In the Dixon case it statutory rape, the father went ahead and pressed for it, the jury found him innocent... yet the prosecutor was creative and found that he had Dixon charged under statutory rape with a 10 year prison sentence. If he had been found guilty of rape it would have been 4 years.

    Which brings up another problem, why was it even a felony if there was no forced penetration or grooming or not even alcohol? For starters, anyone who has raised a teenager knows that they're going to do what they want when they want and they will make mistakes. The same with young adults, stop believing in fairy tales about "prevention" for using fear. Because these cases don't last long in the media, they just end up stagnating one person's life.

    Could Dixon have been charged with a misdemeanor, made to pay a fine, and told to next time card his next fling? Sure, and no one would've cared and the vindictive parent and the moralizers in the world would have been happy. Instead, with mandatory laws and other such shenanigans we end up wasting $40k a year to house some young black man who was horny and fornicated some little, horny white girl. It's a waste of my time as a tax payer, and today Dixon is an NFL player earning more money than I can dream and paying huge dividends to society without having engaged in a ruckus like some other players have these days.

    So in all, I agree with the quoted person about decriminalization. These cases should be left to courts that actually are trained to deal with strange relationship scenarios and vindictive parents rather than sending someone to jail with a "creative" prosecutor. The War on Drugs was lost, the same with the War on Sex. You know who really won the Culture War? The people who are still alive today and living their broken, yet functional American Dreams.

    And many of those moralizers from the 70's and 80's and 90's are? Well many of them have been found to be divorced, dealing with gay male prostitutes on bathroom floors, and on and on. Before we as the older Americans expect our juniors to stop fornicating and engaging in strange, sexual forays we need to stop and look our wrinkly selves first buck naked in truth of ourselves before moralizing about every ***** and ****** we do not control. And then to reflect control our penises and vaginas to act as a good example to youngsters.

    I may not agree with someone's sexual activity like MikeyG's or even care for his choices in partners, but at least what he writes he engages in a level of honor and morality with people as full adults engaged in an adult activity. For people who engage in a lot of sexual activity having good, clean standards who are honest brokers should also be allow to speak their peace to the youth. Rather than those like myself who went through abstinence and no sex before marriage. There's different people out there, while I fully support abstinence we need to let the individual make their own choices and be there for them as a community.

    Let the individuals pick their own path within reason. When they mess up, let's be there to pick up the pieces and hold them accountable so that the individual learns. We waste time worrying Johnny McPenis shagging Shirly McVagina three states over and having some federal law mandating this or that as a way to discourage activity. To make sure something isn't kosher, you must enculturate and educate rather than always dominate. Then, when we have enough information, make an educated and experienced decision on what to do about the failures.

    And we need to get used to the fact that justice isn't cheap, yet neither is incarceration and the New Jim Crow.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Hopefully this isn't offensive: Let's talk about rape
    Statutory rape is an area where I have severe problems with the information presented and the "age bracket" problem. For example, an 18 year old having sex with a young teenager, say 13, is strange. The elder in these days would be considered beastial, in older days they would be husband and wife. So I have to really consider whether some of these age restrictions make sense and having to look specifically at the relationship itself. Grooming, bullying, abuse and so forth open up a lot of problems.

    I am often reminded of a young man I knew decades ago who regaled a story about going to college party. He was underneath the age of consent, large for his age, and made love with a college girl. At the morning she lied about being on the pill and said he might be a father. His response that he maybe a father, but he he was also actually underage and she'd better deal with the problem herself (inferring abortion).

    That story has stuck with me for quite some time about the relations and power that lying to a partner can create problems. While I'm not going to dictate the veracity of the story itself, the person in question was certain adventurous, but rather the morality behind the balance behind the story for right and wrong.

    Both had sex, both lied, yet the girl would have went to jail or been charged and the young man would have been a father. In response to not worrying about being a father, he used the statutory rape to try and force an out for himself in lieu of her being charged. Which, frankly, I find to be predatory in it's own way.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Anarcho-Capitalism
    Quote from italofoca
    Quote from LordOwlingtonIII
    Who enforces the nonaggression rule in Anarcho-capitalism?
    Also, can I buy the land around your house and then bankrupt you for tying to leave/go home?

    Depends on the version of AC. In the way to naive theory, yes, that would be possible and the only remedy against it would be public opinion hating on people that would do that.

    On the version of AC were a State still exist but it's privately owned, probably non as the legislation that keeps this thing from happen now days would still apply. No one would want to live in / pay a city that psychos can bankrupt you that way.

    Basically a corporation, the idea seems to be to make city-states corporately owned and then inclined towards being ran by the "people" choosing which services they wish to employ. However, we must consider the mutations along the way with any institution with the transition from one power to another. Entrenched interests and business relationships must also be maintained in a society, where political capital is always there. This is one of the limitations that ethic within a civilization declines and wavers when the original beliefs drift with time and generations. The mutations that occur over time then become granite and held as the way to go.

    The major problem that I have is that many of the "anarchist places" are prime targets for criminal enterprises to take over. While it seems that vigilante justice can help, it doesn't help to make those people overt. This is much akin to the problem with the Numbers Racket and other such small time criminal activities within the American society.

    Equally, one of the virtues of the welfare state and the myth that the church took care of everyone and that the community was virtuous. There was a lot of political argumentation, underground work being done, and political machines that used welfare as a way to gain power over a populace. Overall, the question that I have is whether that through such decentralization that such practices would not begin to enervate our society once again on that local level.

    Then we have to compete with another societal issue that you see in older cities versus the cities of immigrants. In older cities there is a problem with the "good old boys club" that requires that someone either has excellent social skills to enter work, has familial ties, or else face some sort of pseudo exile or at least difficulty to establish business to business relations. This friction is mild, but when taken into it's worst permutations it is something that is ruinous and approaches an almost Renaissance quality.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Are Right-wingers inherently racist?
    Plus, this is debate. If we avoid touchy topics where else would we discuss them?

    Ironically I finally found a book I wanted to read, Byzantine Philanthropy and the Welfare State by Demetrios J. Constantelos. I sort of want to see how it stacks up with the German welfare state designed by Otto von Bismarck. Equally, the Romans were the first ones to use a census with their welfare state, so I'm wondering if in part if there's a tie in between militaristic societies and welfare states since there's a tendency to highly respect soldiers. Which ties in the rise of the equestrian class in Rome to the rise of the middle class in the US with the GI Bill and the middle class in the US descended from WWII vets as a "neo-eqestrian class."

    So I think that leftists and especially socialists such as Tuss may have a higher historical advantage than others in order to show the fight against racism, integration, and the rise of the welfare state to smooth over differences in a far-flung and diverse society.

    Equally, whenever I was reading recently the identity of the Byzantine Empire as Greek vs. Roman identity and the eventually rise of the Papacy as a real power. It's not something I'm well vested into yet, but I think that an aspect to looking at cultural and civic identity oscillates as power structures fade or become more resurgent. Especially if we consider the early US is that whites would consider themselves from their state more than their nation state they were forging and the argument for certain territories and offices based on territory was a justification used up to about the Civil War.

    However, the development of "white people" and the attempted extinction for some groups to not speak their native languages is an interesting topic. That whites even up to WWII would force other white ethnic groups to speak English and would use shame in their children. Equally the parents would not teach their children a language so they could talk without the child knowing what they were saying when the parents could speak fluent English.

    Fascinating topic about cultural extinction and reemergence when it comes to you white people when we consider the same thing with the tribes or African Americans.

    Yet, I think the main problem with the Tea Party's resolve of anti-Federalism is that their version, namely Ron Paul's, is anti-Constitutional which is rather ironic and much, much more Neo-Confederate state's rights theory or what is essentially Calhounism, minus the slavery. Which is bad for medium sized and large sized business, as regulatory standardization on different levels would easily accomplish more and instead unleashing what I call the "eating too many Skittles" problem with too many little governments. Don't believe me? Study the frakking state's regulatory fights on the state and municipal level, and under Calhounism that's what'd you get with even more colloquial baggage.

    However, the problem I see with certain cities with low immigrant populations is the "good old boys club" where you need to know someone to get a job during any economic cycle. Which is why keeping a central culture is imperative towards business by keeping identity fluid and accepting and keeping intermarriage open by setting the standard for exchange. However, I think we need to move from the Melting Pot to the Salad Bowl, where everyone is a part of the system yet you can see all the distinct flavors instead of everyone becoming one color and one culture. Which a "salad bowl" approach to society means more people are willing to work with different types of people more readily, and outsiders/immigrants tend to be able to more readily look at a system to analyze how to fit in and see niches more readily to start businesses.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on 85=3,500,000,000?
    Quote from Surging Chaos
    You have to consider that since the 2008 financial crisis, central banks all around the world (especially the West and Japan) have been printing money like it's going out of style. When money is created, the people that benefit the most are the ones that get to use that money first. Or in other words... the richest of the rich.

    The Federal Reserve is also paying the big banks not to lend out money. So if you want to blame someone for hoarding money, blame the Fed.

    They increased the capital standards for the specific reason of decreasing the threat that a bad loan would trigger a massive system shock and require a government bail out or a massive increase in the welfare state when the bank failed or a socialist take over the banks (US, Iceland, or Swedish response and all of which I personally detest philosophically).

    The pump priming has been on the increase in Japan with a staggering 200% debt to GDP ratio, yet it's core population has high savings rates along with rising wages. The rising wages are coming from a shrinking labor pool with high educations and a difficult immigration policy. So while the GDP grows at 2%, Japan's income growth remains steady.

    One of the causes for the system shock is also that corporations are withholding money so they can deploy it on a recovery, however corporate investment is directly tied to GDP growth these days as a part of a recovery.

    While I agree with you on the inflationary effects with regard to the sugar rush stock market, the problem is that a lot of these chicanery games with fiat currency and other forms of currency manipulation can be done with a huge conch shell game such as what occurred with the debts of WWII by having them bought out, held, and paid off at 2% or something like that.

    Even then, devastated economies such as Germany was still paying WWI reparations as of a few years still to France. And Germany is considered one of the major power houses in the global economy today, even after an expensive reunification and on and on. So we have to consider some socio-cultural factors outside of just policy and money.

    Then we have to consider Canada who has a lower debt to GDP ratio, yet has more regulations than the US does in terms of business. And they still do quite well in the global economy with a good standard of living. Equally, they do not have the kinds of financial collapses that we in the US do because they have very strict banking regulations. Rather than the banking panics of the 19th century where people were inventing currency paper and people losing their savings or their loans would get more expensive as specie currency was starved in the West after the Civil War. The Canadians had far fewer capitalistic issues with regards to business stability.

    However, we also have to consider the post 1970's trend of increasingly generous compensation packages to business management and a weakening of lower wages for workers. Then in tandem with the sugar rush with the stock market, we can see the unfairness felt with the "rich getting richer." Simply because the middle class didn't care and many business managers got paid jack, especially in the 1950's for some industries up through to the 70's and the old Axis and Allies came back into competition with the US. Thus reinforcing the "need," unlike Germany, to outsource for cheaper labor and driving down labor costs. Which actually goes counter to Ricardo's Principals for mutualism, especially when it becomes parasitism leading to massive deindustrialization.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on The 77% wage gap
    Quote from Tuss
    Quote from Fluffy_Bunny
    but for a business that has a goal of hiring people that will provide the most value it's kind of hard to ignore this factor.

    Which is why you've seen worker's movements fighting against this sort of thing, by implementing paid maternity leave and campaigning for mandatory shared parental leave.

    That bosses want control over our life situations is inherent to the relationship between employer and employee. It's why they are our enemies. The only thing to do is fight back.

    Or you start your own business, and hire the women at a better pay with good childcare services and make it a really nice place to work and retire from. When the idea catches on, the welfare state takes on the idea through populist means such as running it as a Democratic plank.

    Frankly, a lot of this has to do with another problem; over work and unpaid overtime are the norm. Women take off more to raise a family, and lose out on work "experience" and then that is not compensated towards and explains a lot of the inequality within the system.

    Frankly, I think the movement in politics is towards reunionization of the workforce as well as a rise in social entrepreneurialism in tandem would work far better in the fight. You create the companies that have good working relationships with unions, you out compete the other "evil" companies and then win the game of politics as people gradually like the idea.

    It's easier said than done, but it's something that with 401c3's and other organizations has worked across the nations.

    As an aside, I'd recommend reading Frederick Taylor's The Principals of Scientific Management. It's very classical liberal, but it shows some of the tenets to the good side of Fordism. Then taking into construct some of Tom Friedman's Lexus and the Olive Tree. Which is better seen as a metaphor for globalization than a hard academic look at it. However, ideally those two tied together would be a "benevolent neo liberalism" that when combined with specific aspects of social democracy do work out quite well such your own home country.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on My son has Angelman Syndrome
    Finding out your child has a major illness is a huge blow. With our one child, we sought treatment and she was fine within a few years without any major problems. Granted this wasn't genetic and so forth. There's time when she can be a little overwhelmed by things, but she's learned how to manage everything quite well and is healthy. There's a time when things get frustrating and you just want to scream, but then comes those times when you can talk to someone and say "Yea, this or that" that can help someone else a lot.

    My first and foremost belief is to be a good example towards other people, and you and your family going to that length are being a good example for others.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • posted a message on Don't Know What to think
    My suggestion is to read a lot more philosophy and other social works that explain different aspects of humans. This seems to be one of those first breaks with your cultural legacy, most people change religions at least once in their life. My suggestion would be to not approach as a religion, but rather a philosophy and taking in different aspects. There also exists a concept called syncretism that allows one to combine different religions together and meld it into their own personal worldview. There are "Bhuddist Catholics" and the like in the world, if you actually like some of the constructs.

    I'd suggest reading some of the Gnostic and Manichean texts if you want to walk on the wild side a bit as well as some of the other apocrypha.
    Posted in: Real-Life Advice
  • posted a message on The Welfare State: Capitalism vs. Socialism
    Quote from Icecreaman80 »

    Unlike an anarchist who wants no government, a minarchist generally wants the minimum amount of government necessary to maintain the rule of law, and the settlement of conflicts between parties.

    On minarchism vs anarchism I prefer to refer people to this long debate, by long i mean 4 hours:


    Michael Badnarik vs. Stephan Melaneux

    Badnarik is the libertarian/min anarchist and Melaneux is the anarchist, it is entertaining and informative. Badnarik was once the Libertarian presidential candidate. Badnarik I found did a better job, since he got to the point about how people actually behave as well as their preferences.

    Quote from joande

    bocephus-Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.

    The problem I see with this argument is it lacks context. I know at least one of the posters on this thread has identified as anti-capitalist. The only existing anti-capitalist country I can think of now is North Korea and well it's a joke where the (very small number of) connected eat well and the rest eat bark (no joke).

    Tuss is the only anti-capitalist, who uses Marxist theories such as Surplus Value, a feminist, and overall a leftist. Ideally, considering he's Swedish my hypothesis is that he'd want a Scandinavian social democracy with capitalist elements caged for the "proper good." He's not indicated any hatred towards industry in general, only the exploitative side of the equation and a purely for-profit motive.

    However, my own feeling is that social entrepreneurialism with leftists is a popular form of capitalism with a conscience that has a prime directive towards helping people rather than just inventing useless stuff like another Hello Kitty waffle iron without making a better waffle iron to feed hungry children that runs off of solar energy. The question is whether you're taking Marxist economic theory or using a neo-classical base with newer forms of looking at externalities and analyzing tragedy of the commons effects.

    Most American leftists are capitalists, even Bernie Sanders is a capitalist called a social democrat. That they like business, but want to use the welfare state to make other people's lives better. There are some such as a social economy from Germany concept that actually runs well and better in some respects than the American economy in some areas like maintaining their manufacturing base.

    My own journey towards questioning certain things began with FDR's efforts to save capitalism from itself thesis. I then looked at various juntas and rebel group histories and began to see some differences with them and American rebellions like Coxley's Army. So I'm not altogether sure on a good thesis, why we had FDR while others had more imperialism and fascism and communism, yet the key would be to look at the history of groups like Coxley's Army or the Molly Maguires who, while not anti-business, were anti-exploitation and just wanted a good job to raise their families. Coxley's Army was an attempt to march on Washington, while the Maguires were a loose terrorist sect.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Why such hate towards SCG?
    Quote from gavken
    You are complaining that SCG saw a trend and went out and got stock at a price they thought was undervalued. If other people can judge the trends of cards then its hardly SCG's fault!

    All I've seen in this thread is how clever SCG is at evaluating cards and trends and how bad other people are. The reason that most people follow SCG prices is that other poeple (including stores) can't evaluate the market.

    Part of the issue has been to turn the card game into a stock market. The original value of cards would shift, but not at such an abrupt period of time. The other factor has been the extreme price spikes in conjunction with the limited print. Which creates a problem or perception about a "rich man's game."

    People like price stability and ease of entry. StarCity's profit maximization model with heavy buyouts of smaller vendors disrupts that price stability and encourages the sharp price rises at a sharp point. This equates to an unfairness quotient with opportunity. A gradual rather than a sharp price spikes up or down often lead to confidence that the "market is fair."

    Since a sharp price spike can also lead towards consumer lack of confidence in ability to enter a format, this disrupts the player supply. However, this has been more of a WotC reprint issue than a StarCity games problem as StarCity can hop to a different game depending on how well capitalized it is.

    Then we also have to look at low end vendors protecting their assets as well. You'll notice that for purchases Star City doesn't allow for any data mining with it's buying. So the same tactic that's used against some other vendors cannot be as readily used against Star City. However, this also leads to criticism about people who want to sell cards to Star City about the ease to look up a card through a search engine and get a quick price rather than slogging through a massive list scrolling through. Sorry, but this isn't the 1990's anymore and being paranoid about that can make the brand appear overly guarded for something that today is done readily across many industries as a standard for buy/sell comparison.

    Quote from gavken

    Just because many stores are lazy in their pricing doesn't mean that you cannot fine what you want at a cheaper price. SCG cannot buy every copy of a card.

    You call it exploitation but in fact they are following market forces of demand. If they were exploiting you, then you would have to buy it from them. I've already pointed out that just because they are buying up stock of something that you can still get the card at the same price. However what you will find is that eventually demand will create a price increase no matter who is buying it. It's just basic economics.

    Acting as a clearing house whose prices are mimicked and practices are seen as the top do indeed set a precedence in a market. As prices begin to rise, there's been more smaller vendors activating bots or having actual people taking cards off the market more quickly.

    As there are "active traders" racing to find "deals" for greater profit maximization that whose total jobs are specialized for that will create a sense of unfairness for a game that people are used to a certain time period before prices spike.

    Judging by the one forum screenshot, there was talk about SGC's strategy becoming blatant. While the trader was asking and expecting for privacy, you're also seeing the opposite with small retailers looking at lost profits to a larger competitor with a specialized, professional trader.

    My basic expectation, like you seen in the screenshot, is to see people discussing and sharing information about business practices and expecting how to adapt to such practices. While being rampant maybe smart, there comes a time whenever the shoe becomes the other foot.

    After a while, a bad reputation for certain business practices with B2B sales can become very contentious. Nepotism and collusion are often done cloak and dagger. While it may not hurt the larger or smaller business, it does send an annoyance factor in the economic game of war if one occurs.

    Which may mean more "staple black out periods" and other such things that will act as a defense against large scale purchases or even limiting quantity to a single buyer. Which, again, can cause problems for the consumer as the capitalist tries to play a game of protection.

    Making money is one thing, starting a defensive practices business conflicts with B2B sales isn't necessarily good. It only gets worse with corporate espionage, hacking, and other stupid things (not accusing nor insinuating any establishment of engaging in such practices as no such evidence has been gathered) that comes in from other industries.

    Speculation encourages some really bad and stupid behaviors. It hasn't achieved stupid yet, but when considering other industries here I'm not going to say in a decade's time I would not be surprised if there may very well be some new rules put into place by some businesses to protect assets.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Anarcho-Capitalism
    Quote from Surging Chaos

    This is a good example of why "Who will build the roads" is a bad argument against a stateless society. The city clearly did not care about the roads, but the individuals that actually used those roads did. It wasn't until the people decided to get someone else other than the government to fix the roads that got the city to use its monopoly on force to shut down the paving.

    So what if I'm too busy to show up to every little policy decision in a direct democracy to choose which service provider our people are going to do? In ancient Greece it was mostly the rich, retired, and the poor who ended up in government. Everyone else was working, making babies, raising babies, and on and on. It's the old 80/20 rule.

    What the problem with ancient Greece was that the rich would pay for certain projects, then they would commit a crime and then say "Hey I paid for that bridge, not convicting me would be a good idea." That sort of morality plays directly into a problem with justice, when we're all forced to pay for something we cannot singularly justify that we are more deserving than the other person.

    Which we must also consider against the NAP, the rich guy's saying "I'm special" and then buying people off. If Bribery works on Emrakul, the Aeons Torn it's certainly also going to work on Little Girl. With or without government.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Brain Dead Woman Kept Alive Because of Pregnancy
    Quote from Blinking Spirit

    And it's to save a life.

    At what cost and what risk to the developing child? If the other article was born at 3 lbs., is the risk worth the benefit?

    Then we also have to consider the other costs in developing techniques to keep the child in the "axolotl tank" so as not to be premature.

    And that's where the messaging problem comes from is the capacity for actual benefits just also beyond the baby for keeping the woman's body "running" as an "axotolt tank" until a certain point or longer to keep the child healthy.

    So what you're arguing is that the child has a "life estate" until being viable as it asserts control over the rights of the "axlotl tank," and then the mother can be left to die.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Anarcho-Capitalism
    I'm a minority, why should I believe in something that someone wrote in a book about a hypothetical reality whenever I know, from other people that look like me who lived in the past and some are still alive today, that some people will treat me like garbage and try to destroy my life for being "uppity." I have seen racism, I have seen other forms of evil from humanity. And I married a white woman, produced 2.5 kids, and continue to have relations with the same woman. I would be hanged for even looking at my wife in the right time and place. From a very, very basic security concern the government has kept me safe from certain sectarian violence groups with long histories of racism.

    I am educated, safe, productive, married, working, and comfortable. You're asking me to completely change my way of life to commit towards an ideology because some people don't like the government? Then risk my family's life and my own personal safety from a nation that has had a long history of hating foreigners and people of color.

    1. Show me where this has worked, specifically in the modern age

    2. Where evidence is available, data on per capita violence is higher in places like the Wild West with a lack of government than modern New York City. I'm safer as a "colored" in the middle of modern NYC than I am walking around in some random western town.

    What self interest do I have in this experiment, considering the past socio-cultural influence would consider me to flee to Canada if we would embark on such an experiment?

    If you have failed to achieve min-anarchism, why should I trust you on anarchism? I'm all for a small area to try this out and to see if a city could live like that, beyond that it would take physical hard evidence of that nature to even begin to approach reforms towards that level.

    I look at people that look like me, and thanks to the federal government our quality of life has gradually, gradually, gradually very much improved.

    I hate to bring race into a point about this, but I just don't see people of color really embracing this philosophy en mass. Whether that's the tribes, who would just continue to be tribes. African Americans are largely sided to liberal, at the very least statists. Most Hispanics, black or white, aren't anarchist at all and with ideologies like Peronism quite the opposite. Whites are a more varied group, however most of the massive clusters are quite statist.

    I just do not see anywhere you can justify embarking on a project without the necessary leadership coming from rich people to colonize a particular, peculiar place. However, when you consider city-states that run off of capitalist ends like those in the Middle East. We must take the basic axiom, that there will be fundamentalist natures within to their governance structure with Islam. And if we talk about city-states, one must comply that there would be Jewish, Christian, and other such states cropping up very quickly for safe havens.

    Then we have to consider colonial history in the Americas... which basically meant these experiments didn't last and led to splintering and border conflict and inevitable conquest.

    You are denying your own cultural inheritance bent on a scheme that someone thought up over a few decades. Government is a tool, much like the gun, and to prohibit government, like drugs, would just have government pop back up in a "black market government." Or otherwise known as clans or gangs.

    Black market activity in the US, as well as what is called the darknet are all a shadow of what occurs in anarchy.

    As for the historical portions, Blinking_Spirit studied Icelandic history and is a historian-philosopher. He had multiple arguments against Icelandic "anarchism." The "not so Wild West argument" we debunked fairly quickly over a Mises article with simple violence per capita statistics comparisons.

    I'm very much interested in this debate, but I want something new. Talk about the actual content out of the Costa Rican Libertarian communes and what really have they achieved? I'm just not really seeing it outside of a small group of hippies that may not achieve results, or end up like the Kibbutz movement and go statist.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [[BaseSpec]] Ambitious M15
    A drop in planeswalker rarity at some point would be interesting to add more of a cast of characters, or allow more uncommon legends. Which would essentially help to an establish more identity for a plane than eating up rare and mythic slots while ushering in the possibility of a new type of "peasant" commander.
    Posted in: Baseless Speculation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.