Jump to content

Does second life need to be governed?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3339 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Marx said Communist revolution was necessary and inevitable in order for Capitalist states to change.  That was wrong as a matter of historical fact.  It's not a matter of debate, the environment or anything else.  Fundamentally wrong as a matter of historical fact.  Capitalist states changed in exactly the way Marx said they not only wouldn't, but couldn't.  Communist theory is fundamentally wrong as a matter of historical fact in that the Western capitalist states changed to buy-off the proletariat, to use your phrase.

"If he over-emphasised class issues"?  Are you serious?  Communist theory is about class.  It's not about the environment.  It's not about how Capitalist states might one-day change if things are different.  It's not even about states in that sense.  It's about class.

This is not moot since it is the point of Communism.  Marx didn't say "sooner or later capitalist states will bring about their own collapse for one reason or another" because that would have been meaningless.  All societies bring about their own collapse by not adapting to changing circumstances.  Nice, equitable ones that never bang the rocks together do it by being swallowed by the greedy predators nature provides.

Similarly Marx, and Commuism, said nothing about "planetary limits, population collapse and potential extinction".  Neither does an equitable distribution of wealth address those things.  "The point is" not Capitalism but human nature.  "according to need" becomes "according to want" by human nature, hence Communism is not only wrong but doesn't even address the question you are asking.  "Greed driven resource consumption" may be the problem but sharing doesn't reduce.  In fact goods can only be shared 'equitably' if there is enough for everyone.  That is enough everything for everyone.  Ever.  No shortage, no fear of shortage so no reason to be greedy.  So Communism can only succeed, even at a theoretical level, when there is massively more production, of everything, than in Capitalist states, which address shortage through rationing by price.

Communism would be the ultimate destroyer of the environment by being the ultimate consumer of resources.  All the destruction fairly divided and all the produce equitably shared, but 'nature' utterly devastated.

"right-thought and right-livelihood" is Bhuddist, like me, not Communist.

"The larger picture" seems to require an understanding of many things.  Notably not history, politics, philosophy, logic or computing though.  I have enjoyed some of you posts but I suspect you are right and we can't communicate productively.  Please note, I have not sought to belittle your knowledge or intelligence in any area.  The worst comment I have made about you is to say I am a prig and don't make much effort to read posts when their author appears to have deliberately obfuscated them.  In contrast this is the second consecutive post in which you have suggested I am not clever or well-educated enough to understand you.  That may be so but then you may as well change your name to Cassandra.

[incidentally, my first degree course was in computing and everyone said I was educated in the sciences.  When I went further with philosophy all of a sudden I was educated in the arts/humanities.  I'm hardly renaissance man but I don't think expertise in one precludes the ability to understand the other]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i dont want2 pick on Pussycat Catnip but i must agree a heckuva lot more w/ you CN than w/ her in this thread .. hard2 believe thata Rastafarian could post as she does .. i think shes more confused than dark-hearted tho

that said tho .. im still goin2 dis Libbies

Lao Tzu says that anything taken 2 its extreme becomes its opposite

Libbyism is so far Right that its Left in many respects .. & in those respects (govt outuv ppls lives, legalization of weed ...) im kinda sympathetic w/ the ideology

Thing that makes the ideology evil tho is its emphasis on private "ownership" of property .. specially land

Ppl dont own land, land owns ppl .. how can you say you "own" land when yer goin2 die & land will still be ther ?? land dont depend on ppl .. ppl degrade land .. yet ppl are absolutely dependant on land

2 the libby land "owners" can do what they want w/ "ther" land .. puta toxic waste dump on it .. whatever .. no1 elses business right ?? unless the toxic waste impacts the other persons land 'rights' somehow .. then they can sue .. after the fact !! This is sick .. its evil

Libbies want2 abolish the EPA .. yeah! thatsa real good idea huh?

Nawww .. sorry .. im not buying it ..Libbyism sukks

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Libertarians oppose any legislation that separates and creates a government ordained class system.  Which is what the Civil Rights Act did.


Um. Wow.

If any piece of legislation was ever needed to UNdo a "class system" it was the Civil Rights Act.

Image1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Marx said Communist revolution was necessary and inevitable in order for Capitalist states to change.  That was wrong as a matter of historical fact.<<

So history's over & the final word's been spoken?

>>..the Western capitalist states changed to buy-off the proletariat, to use your phrase.<<

Well.. at least we agree on something!

>>"planetary limits, population collapse and potential extinction".  Neither does an equitable distribution of wealth address those things.<<

Of course it does! If resources (wealth) were distributed equitably, people were content to live within the means the environment provided, and refrained from breeding beyond the carrying capacity of the environment, societies wouldn't collapse. People could lead modest & happy lives & populations persist in perpetuity. Has everything to do with these things.

>> "The point is" not Capitalism but human nature.  "according to need" becomes "according to want" by human nature..<<

Like you have the goods on "human nature." Yours is a diseased & inculcated view of that slippery concept, implanted in order to instigate your buy in to greed based ideology along with your uncritical defense of said ideology. Adaptation is the product of natural selection and cooperation is as adaptive as competition ~moreso actually. My hunch is that you're pretty clueless of Neodarwinian thought, along with human sociobiology & behavioral ecology.

>>In fact goods can only be shared 'equitably' if there is enough for everyone.<<

This is a patent falsehood. In times of scarcity its MUCH better if everyone gets a percentage of available resources than that a few get more than enough & many get nothing.

>>"right-thought and right-livelihood" is Bhuddist, like me, not Communist.<<

You're no Buddhist Peter. You don't even spell it correctly, let alone understand what Guatama taught. You defend attachment to stuff. That's as antithetical to the Buddha's teaching as anything well could be. Let go.

>>The larger picture" seems to require an understanding of many things.  Notably not history, politics, philosophy, logic or computing though.<<

I never said that. The more one understands the better. It's just that some things are more pertainent than others to understand. Politics, philosophy, logic, etc., are important.. just not AS important as is understanding the more important physical & biological issues upon which the merely human constructs are founded.

>>The worst comment I have made about you is to say I am a prig and don't make much effort to read posts when their author appears to have deliberately obfuscated them.<<

You are a prig, and I make no deliberate ~or otherwise~ attempt to obfuscate what I have to say by the way I use language. To many ~especially younger readers~ the "proper" orthography and grammar I must resort to in order to make myself comprehensible to you is the obfuscation.

>>In contrast this is the second consecutive post in which you have suggested I am not clever or well-educated enough to understand you.<<

You're probably clever enough to understand me, or once were, but your aptitudes and interests apparently took you down an irrelevant track, education wise: Which old dead white guy said what when. I don't know how old you are but my guess is that you're too set in your ways to open your mind to new information and superior ways of thinking than the one's you're stuck with. I could be wrong, of course.

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Second Life is currently over-governed. That's part of its current problem.

Linden Lab Social Policy 2006

GDC 2006

Our World. Our Reality, by Torley Linden

The Mission of Linden Lab, by Philip Linden

Things started to go wrong in 2007 with the Disneyfication strategy. It was followed by the Facebook 3D strategy, which was followed by Disneyfication II. Second Life today is a shadow of its former self. As with RL, it was governed into oblivion.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Deltango Vale wrote:

Second Life is currently over-governed. That's part of its current problem.

Things started to go wrong in 2007 with the Disneyfication strategy. It was followed by the Facebook 3D strategy, which was followed by Disneyfication II. Second Life today is a shadow of its former self. As with RL, it was governed into oblivion.

WhooooP !!

2morrow when the temps LL hires to censor these fora recover from their hangovers .. this thread will prolly be gone ..

But for the meanwhile .. truths being spoken !!

Kudos Delt ;)

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Libertarians oppose any legislation that separates and creates a government ordained class system.  Which is what the Civil Rights Act did.


Um. Wow.

If any piece of legislation was ever needed to UNdo a "class system" it was the Civil Rights Act.

Image1.jpg


Kudos Dres !!

Jeanne

I understand your confusion, JeanneAnne... it's a well known fact that all us gays look alike.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites

"So history's over & the final word's been spoken?"  Ok, I must be making this too confusing for you.  Let's try something simpler.  Dead white guy said thing couldn't happen.  It happened.  Dead white guy was wrong.  Time isn't going to change 'has happened'.

I have not defended anything.  Merely said that Marx was wrong.  You seem incapable of even considering the case without resorting to irrelevancies and personal insults.  Instead you treasure your ignorance and the errors it parents.  For someone who advocates a very individualistic writing style you seem particularly attached to my spelling.  I said I was a Bhuddist, I didn't say I was a good one.  Dead brown guy laughs.

Jeanne, I am very disappointed.  You disdain sharing.  As Lady Capulet had it; do as thou wilt, for I have done with thee.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Libertarians oppose any legislation that separates and creates a government ordained class system.  Which is what the Civil Rights Act did.


Um. Wow.

If any piece of legislation was ever needed to UNdo a "class system" it was the Civil Rights Act.

 

Griffin, the Civil Rights Act created a special protected class of people.   But, all people were already protected under the same rights; all that was needed was enforcement of the basics rights, that were in place. 

Under the The Fourteenth Amendment and it's Citizenship Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause (The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). 

So, with the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment, the protections were already enumerated.

For instance, racial segregation should never have been allowed in public schools supported by tax dollars. Nor, should there have ever been, public schools that were for men and boys only.  ALL people should have the same rights and access to public services, public hospitals, public facilities, etc.  So, the government should have acted on any public discrimination that was going on, and nipped it in the bud.  Even if it took sending out troops like they did with school integration.  The US military should never have discriminated based upon skin color or biological sex.   But, a "civil rights act" was not needed, just enforcement of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Also, at one time the Civil Rights Act of 1875, was struck done for being unconstitutional, and I think that much of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is also unconstitutional.   The federal government does not have, under the US constitution, the power and authority to regulate private sector businesses or how they conduct their business.  The 1964 Civil Right Act used a loophole to get around that, by saying that they were regulating commerce, and had such a right.

So, in RL if you want to have an all Woman's Club, Man's Club or restaurant that only serves Red-Headed people, and if you use any interstate commerce goods, you can't do it.  The 1964 Civil Rights Act, prevents people from choosing who they want to associate with, in running their own business. 

Now, we probably both agree that those would be poor business models, but if, someone wants to do that...they should be allowed.  Instead the legislation controls who they can sell to, serve to, and hire.  Thus, taking the freedom to choose out of one's hands.  Nor, can you choose who you wish to rent to or sale to.  If you have a rental property, you cannot advertise that you will only rent the house to men.  Or, only to women, or only to people without children.  You can be sued if you try that.  Even though the property is yours, and you should be able to choose who you rent to.  These are just a few examples.

The thing is, that the market of supply and demand would have solved these issues naturally, with enforcement of the US constitution and Bill of Rights.  Sure, there may still be some people who would have an Only-Left-Handed People's restaurant or Short-People-Only Roller Rink...but the majority of businesses would want to capture more market share, and they would be open to everyone. 

Same with hiring.  As a woman, I don't want to be hired just because, I'm a woman or a person with a certain shade of skin.  Nor, should a private business have to abide by some quota or system to ensure that they are hiring enough women.  Rational people will hire based upon ability, and not discriminate, based upon superficial characteristics.  So, they will then have a larger pool of applicants to choose from and better opportunities to get good employees. (just using women as an example here, because I am one)

Those who do want to hire only white males, or only Hispanic woman or only people of a certain age group, can do so...no problem.  But, then society can decide if they want to do business with those companies.  Those companies might end up with such a limited customer base, that they will want to change their polices. But, it should be by choice, that these decisions are made.   (The way that some private business have sidestepped this, is by declaring themselves "private clubs", not a public business. You might even know about some places like that in RL)

(Note that these decisions should only be allowed by the private sector...as I stated in my second paragraph. This should never be allowed in any public institutions, including public schools, public facilities, military, government jobs, or anything that is paid for by the people, i.e.: taxpayers )

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Rybus Zuhal wrote:

The most crime you get are people who duplicate, steal, and basically grief, and you can't stop that, because banning them will probably just have them come back and do twice as much damage, which is usually the the case, you can just keep making alternate accounts and coming back.

if you the world owner then you just keep on banning them as soon as they pop up and come to your attention

someone always gives up in the banhammer game

greifers who keep coming back after they been banhammer are taking it personal. like they in a war or on tilt or something. world owner doesnt care. will just keep silently closing the accounts for as long as it take

Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Libertarians oppose any legislation that separates and creates a government ordained class system.  Which is what the Civil Rights Act did.


Um. Wow.

If any piece of legislation was ever needed to UNdo a "class system" it was the Civil Rights Act.

Image1.jpg


Kudos Dres !!

Jeanne

I understand your confusion, JeanneAnne... it's a well known fact that all us gays look alike.

...Dres

i dont think much uv u Dres .. mostuv the time ..

but thats not goin2 keep me from agreeing w/ u on the rare occasions when u post something intelligent & rite- minded

so ...  >>If any piece of legislation was ever needed to UNdo a "class system" it was the Civil Rights Act.<<  

Good Post !!

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Even though the property is yours, and you should be able to choose who you rent to.<<

The government owns all property & you only rent from them. Don't believe it? Don't pay your property taxes (rent) then, & see what happens.Since government owns the land they let you pay to call "yours" why can't they tell you what you can & can't do with it? If what they tell you you can & can't do serves the public good.. then more power to em!!

Same is true in SL. LL owns or leases the servers your "land"'s code is stored on. You think you "own" that code? Don't pay tier then. Or get banned & see if LL compensates you for your "property" you can no longer access.

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Libertarians oppose any legislation that separates and creates a government ordained class system.  Which is what the Civil Rights Act did.


Um. Wow.

If any piece of legislation was ever needed to UNdo a "class system" it was the Civil Rights Act.

Image1.jpg


Kudos Dres !!

Jeanne

I understand your confusion, JeanneAnne... it's a well known fact that all us gays look alike.

...Dres

i dont think much uv u Dres .. mostuv the time ..

but thats not goin2 keep me from agreeing w/ u on the rare occasions when u post something intelligent & rite- minded

so ... 
>>If any piece of legislation was ever needed to UNdo a "class system" it was the Civil Rights Act.<<  

Good Post !!

Jeanne

@Griffin: Well I tried... some people are just too dense to penetrate.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites

@JeanneAnne: Dres was pointing out to you in a roundabout way that it was I that posted that, and not he. Don't feel bad. You're not the first who's confused us and won't be the last. *looks at Celestiall* :smileyvery-happy:

@Celestiall: So, as long as no federal funds are involved, it's all good?

Sorry. Not buying it. I didn't buy it when Rand Paul said it, either, and even he's retreated from his position... somewhat. Even if there was no de jure racial segregation like there was in the South... without the Civil Rights Act, we'd be back in the days of Jim Crow.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

@JeanneAnne: Dres was pointing out to you in a roundabout way that it was I that posted that, and not he. Don't feel bad. You're not the first who's confused us and won't be the last. *looks at Celestiall* :smileyvery-happy:

@Celestiall: So, as long as no federal funds are involved, it's all good?

Sorry. Not buying it. I didn't buy it when Rand Paul said it, either, and even he's retreated from his position... somewhat. Even if there was no de jure racial segregation like there was in the South... without the Civil Rights Act, we'd be back in the days of Jim Crow.

Oh! I see ... Sorry for confusing you guys ...

& i agree w/ your comment to Celestiall too ..

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

@Celestiall: So, as long as no federal funds are involved, it's all good?

Sorry. Not buying it. I didn't buy it when Rand Paul said it, either, and even he's retreated from his position... somewhat. Even if there was no de jure racial segregation like there was in the South... without the Civil Rights Act, we'd be back in the days of Jim Crow.

Well, I disagree. 

I think that we'd be at about the same place we're at now, through normal social progress...IF the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been upheld.  All, of the provisions for equality, were already listed in those documents.

Instead, Congress decided to not act on those existing laws, and instead, created new legislation.  

But, as the history we now have, is the only history we know, there is no way to test the other method. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

@Celestiall: So, as long as no federal funds are involved, it's all good?

Sorry. Not buying it. I didn't buy it when Rand Paul said it, either, and even he's retreated from his position... somewhat. Even if there was no de jure racial segregation like there was in the South... without the Civil Rights Act, we'd be back in the days of Jim Crow.

Well, I disagree. 

I think that we'd be at about the same place we're at now, through normal social progress...IF the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been upheld.  All, of the provisions for equality, were already listed in those documents.

Instead, Congress decided to not act on those existing laws, and instead, created new legislation.  

But, as the history we now have, is the only history we know, there is no way to test the other method. 

Interestingly, In his book 'Remembering America,' Richard Goodwin, speech writer for JFK, relates this incident.  Immediately after his inauguration walking with his advisers, JFK said to one of them,

"Did you see the Coast Guard detachment? There wasn't a black face in the entire group. That's not acceptable. Something ought to be done about it."

Which would make JFK's very first act as President a 'civil rights' act.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tIJ0_IgrY10C&q=detachment#search_anchor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3339 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...