Medhue Simoni Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 Sorry, but I'm compelled to expand on this, as I think I can bring this full circle, and back around to the topic at hand. The slavery issue, especially here in the states, is a very interesting 1. What I find very telling, is what happened after slavery. See, my real point is, that force doesn't bring good outcomes for all people. When you reject the use of force, then real solutions, that benefit everyone, can be found. When those plantations were no longer able to use force, we saw a massive gain in productivity and invention. Our open minds allows us to think of way to be more productive without using force. Imagine if those plantation made the argument that we could never produce enough without slaves? Ignoring the moral arguments. We do this all the time by thinking that government can only run the police, or the utilities, or whatever. I'd say tho, that the moral argument is the most important, as it was with slavery. When force is used, then you can't even imagine an alternative. Imagine telling a plantation owner to give up his slaves because in the near future we'd have robots combing his fields picking thousands of times more crops that any human could. He would just laugh at you, but this is what happens when you reject force. Now, in the case of LL and their proposed tax hike, they are just like the plantation owner. They have accepted force as a solution, and aren't really considering other options. If they rejected force, then the possibilities would be endless, and whatever they would make, would benefit both us and them. Now, of course, they aren't really using force, cause we can just choose not to participate, but it is still the same concept, when looked at purely from an economic stantpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: We will have to see what the new product they are working on will be like, but from what has been said I can't see much excitement going there from the sailing and piloting community if there is no mainland to explore and to cross between regions you need to find a "gateway". 1024m regions would be great for car and bike racing and by building roads up in to the sky like is done already could be great for exploring and cruising... but all the same the loss of continuity between regions is a major downside. It might be big enough to make warbug dogfights fun, or pirate naval battles. But really this is two steps forwards and one step back. Alot of the money that goes in to SL is for coastal sims. Loss of mainland and proper crossing between sims will have a huge impact on interest in taking up the new platform. I really haven't thought a whole lot about land and stuff. To me, more is better. I do own a sim, and IMHO, it is fricken tiny. Hardly worth $195/month. I think the big problem with mainland, is that it can't really work like in real life, which is why the mainlands are all hollowed out. If it worked like RL, the inner parts of each continent would be alot less money. In SL, that is hard to do, cause LL is charging us the same price, not evaluating it's value. You know, that does bring up a solution to LL's known problem of the service being too expensive. LL could make the land in the mainland reflect it's value, in relation to location. So, they would keep beach front properties at the normal $195, then maybe drop the road side property, that are not beach fronts, to $180. Then they could drop the next inner sets of land, maybe $160, and the last, most inner pieces of land, $150. I almost guarantee they would not lose money, and they could really fill the mainland to where we were a few years ago. Personally, I'd go even lower, but that is just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I've had the instructive experience of seeing the free market in action, completely unfettered by any enforceable laws whatsoever -- criminal or civil -- in Leningrad/St Petersburg (or "The Palermo of the North," as it was sometimes called) during the first few years after the collapse of communism. And everyone had guns. Fpr the first time ever, I really began to understand what Thomas Hobbes was talking about in The Leviathan: Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Anarcho-capitalism is not a game I would want to play, at least not unless I could be reassured that guns aren't allowed and that organised crime doesn't get to join in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Good quote, Innula. Even more recently people only have to look at what 19 years without a government did to Somalia to understand why we give consent to exercise power and force on our behalf for the common good. Medhue, I like your idea of Linden Labs charging different prices for land in different areas of mainland based on its desirability. Practically all they could do would be to discount plots inland, but that could damage the economy of the private estates by drawing people to mainland without increasing land ownership and revenue. If they did the pricing right, I would think they could increase overall land ownership and revenue... but it is not without risk if they get it wrong. Going forwards in SL2.0 (or whatever it will be called) if they were to set up continents, some sort of dynamic marketised value for the land that Linden Lab directly benefited from could be a good idea, and make mainland much more profitable. To have people bid what they are prepared to pay for a particular plot as tier or rent rather than just the one off cost. Whilst land costs are high, there is a positive to that in that it encourages people to interact with one another rather than just building private areas compartmentalising themselves from social interaction. But as someone that spends a lot on land, and have had to downsize from running sims personally and seen lots of other amazing and popular builds go because of cost. I do think land cost is too high. Linden Lab do need profit and revenue to keep things going though and reducing the cost of land without any increases in revenue elsewhere is only likely to cause them a shortfall in income. That leaves a new possible charge for membership or increasing the cut they get from transactions. Some charge on membership might be a good idea and a way to hinder griefers creating disposable accounts, but I doubt they could price that in a way that makes much difference to their income, especially not for Secondlife itself, as people already have their accounts. Whilst you (Medhue) have spoken strongly against an increase in the cut Linden Lab takes on sales transactions, the figures you have provided seem to show SecondLife is actually underpriced compared with other platforms. I don't really see your argument against it for the new platform. For Secondlife itself, for makers to retain their income from a product they would have to mark the price up and then relist everything... something I understand the behind the scenes functionality of Marketplace makes incredibly onerous. But for the new system they are working on, you would just increase your prices to compensate the cut. I don't see the big problem, unless costs for products rose so high people wouldn't pay for them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 LlewLlwyd wrote: irihapeti wrote: hah !!! sez you Mervyn Withholding tax, like payroll tax, is the most efficient way to extract tax money out of people. Like you get your hands on the money before they ever get it. Then make it really complicated for them to get it back off you getting your hands on the money before anyone else does (and then making it really complicated for others to prise it back from you) is what makes the taxman sleep well at night MERVYN King, recent ex-Governor of the Bank of England, was actually one of my tutors in college, and although his speciality in those days was The Theory of the Firm (along with Aston Villa AFC and Catherine Deneuve) his attitude to corporate tax would also (or even more so) be applicable to less formal jurisdictions; it was simply that withholding tax drove activity underground. Barter, black markets, and "gift" economies replaced a monitorable marketplace. Another of his arguments was that such schemes were expensive to enforce against those who wished to avoid, using legal loopholes, remitting what they had legally collected - the UK Inland Revenue at one point in the 1970s was spending more administratively on collecting tax from the FTSE 100 than the actual amount of tax they were paid. ***Focusing on virtual business is nowhere in the sights of HMCE; obstacles of practicality, legality and triviality - to say nothing of cost - mean that they will continue to concentrate on the bigger fish they have to fry*** yes I remember you telling us about you being a student of Mr King previously given that you have quite a lot of names these days, I honour you by call you Mervyn. He is your namesake (: + about Mr Kings views on the cost of collecting his 1970s arguments dont have anything to do with withholding tax. They have to do with collecting company income tax the least understood point about withholding taxes is that the person who pays the tax is not the owner of the monies paid. The owner (by law) of the money paid to the tax department is the person on whose behalf it was paid + about online trading online trading is already a big fish. Within the next decade is going to get even bigger. Within 2 decades is going to be enormous online trading only appears to not be important when people make arbitrary distinction between virtual and physicals goods. From a administrative/tax pov the type of goods traded are irrelevant. Whats relevant is the activity. The taxman doesnt care what type of widgets you trade in. What they care about is the activity of trading + as for withholding driving activity underground the bank that pays me interest on my savings doesnt pay me under the table. The company I have shares in doesnt pay me my dividend under the table. I get paid less withholding tax. The film maker who hires me as a actor to be in her movie, doesnt pay me under the table either. If I am a tax-registered business then they will only pay me on tax invoice. If I am not then they will pay me as a casual worker, less withholding tax. If employee then I get paid less income tax (PAYE). PAYE is a withholding tax. Pay as you earn employers, interest paying banks and finance companies, dividend paying companies have this down to a fine art these days. the other least understood point is that when look at tax legislation in more recent years, the onus on ensuring taxes get paid has shifted from the person receiving the money to the person paying it + is this cynical view that everybody in the world is a crook and thief. Is not true this most people are not like this. The vast majority of people pay their way and are happy to do this. They understand and accept their obligation to the communities they live in. And they will do whatever they have to, to ensure that those who would be thieves and crooks accept their obligations also. Punishment applied when they do not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Sorry, but I'm compelled to expand on this, as I think I can bring this full circle, and back around to the topic at hand. The slavery issue, especially here in the states, is a very interesting 1. What I find very telling, is what happened after slavery. See, my real point is, that force doesn't bring good outcomes for all people. When you reject the use of force, then real solutions, that benefit everyone, can be found. When those plantations were no longer able to use force, we saw a massive gain in productivity and invention. Our open minds allows us to think of way to be more productive without using force. Imagine if those plantation made the argument that we could never produce enough without slaves? Ignoring the moral arguments. We do this all the time by thinking that government can only run the police, or the utilities, or whatever. I'd say tho, that the moral argument is the most important, as it was with slavery. When force is used, then you can't even imagine an alternative. Imagine telling a plantation owner to give up his slaves because in the near future we'd have robots combing his fields picking thousands of times more crops that any human could. He would just laugh at you, but this is what happens when you reject force.. is interesting chatting with anarchists. I know quite a few in the RL anarchy being defined as the absence of central authority. Authoritarianism as you mention also, most anarchists these days predicate non-violence as a fundamental tenet of their philosophy. It never always used to be this way. Anarchists in previous times frequently resorted to violent means to bring about the breakdown of central authority. And as they found, is not easy to do this so the renouncement of violence in more recent time and the taking on of pacifism. Anarcho-pacifism pacifism works when there is a collective will to be this way - to be pacific is a philosophical connundrum this. On the one hand is the desire to follow ones own heart - anarchy. On the other the need for this desire to be collectively shared and ascribed to by all to avoid violence. In effect the need that we all ascribe to the same view to avoid violence is authoritarian, moral authoritarian, collective in nature the biggest issue for Anarcho-Pacifists to address is what to do with those who do not ascribe to the collective moral authority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 irihapeti wrote: about Mr Kings views on the cost of collecting his 1970s arguments dont have anything to do with withholding tax. They have to do with collecting company income tax the least understood point about withholding taxes is that the person who pays the tax is not the owner of the monies paid. The owner (by law) of the money paid to the tax department is the person on whose behalf it was paid SETOFF A simple concept, and one that is inherent in all fair tax laws, and where it is not (UK banking practice, for instance) it is considered legalised theft. The concept is the basis for most legal mechanisms for not paying tax authorities monies which you have theoretically collected on their behalf. ***And even if you eventually have to pay over some of whatever funds you may have collected, by deferral you have had the cash flow benefit, which can be more important than profits*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 irihapeti wrote: as for withholding driving activity underground the bank that pays me interest on my savings doesnt pay me under the table. The company I have shares in doesnt pay me my dividend under the table. I get paid less withholding tax. The film maker who hires me as a actor to be in her movie, doesnt pay me under the table either. If I am a tax-registered business then they will only pay me on tax invoice. If I am not then they will pay me as a casual worker, less withholding tax. If employee then I get paid less income tax (PAYE). PAYE is a withholding tax. Pay as you earn NAIVE? Most taxes are charitable contributions made by those afraid of the taxman. ***Almost all the taxmen I have met have had the same cognitive level as till-girls, squaddies, and forum participants*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 LlewLlwyd wrote: irihapeti wrote: about Mr Kings views on the cost of collecting his 1970s arguments dont have anything to do with withholding tax. They have to do with collecting company income tax the least understood point about withholding taxes is that the person who pays the tax is not the owner of the monies paid. The owner (by law) of the money paid to the tax department is the person on whose behalf it was paid SETOFF A simple concept, and one that is inherent in all fair tax laws, and where it is not (UK banking practice, for instance) it is considered legalised theft. The concept is the basis for most legal mechanisms for not paying tax authorities monies which you have theoretically collected on their behalf. ***And even if you eventually have to pay over some of whatever funds you may have collected, by deferral you have had the cash flow benefit, which can be more important than profits*** is not theoretical the tax money my employer withheld from my salary is real money. Is my money and not theirs. my income tax that my employer withholds from my salary is payable by them to the taxman monthly. If they dont hand it over then the taxman will be onto them. They want my tax money that was withheld from me is the same for my tax monies withheld on interest and dividends paid + that a argument is premised on a view that all taxation is legalised theft, then in effect the argument is belief-based. Is axiomatic. No different from "God exists" Why? bc he does. Taxation is legalised theft. Why? bc it is. Axiomatic reasoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 irihapeti wrote: is not theoretical the tax money my employer withheld from my salary is real money. Is my money and not theirs. my income tax that my employer withholds from my salary is payable by them to the taxman monthly. If they dont hand it over then the taxman will be onto them. They want my tax money that was withheld from me is the same for my tax monies withheld on interest and dividends paid + that a argument is premised on a view that all taxation is legalised theft, then in effect the argument is belief-based. Is axiomatic. No different from "God exists" Why? bc he does. Taxation is legalised theft. Why? bc it is. Axiomatic reasoning YOU have chosen to participate in a financial structure where you have given up your power over your earnings, in this case, to an employer, presumably because you lack the imagination or bravery to establish a different protocol for payment. I, and others I advise, do not wish to have our hard-earned monies squandered on floating duckhouses or nonsensical involvement in foreign wars. Taking some of the money I earn and preventing me from buying a Maserati would be theft, if I allowed it to happen. ***Not everyone needs to be a sheep; not even in New Zealand*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 i have chosen to work for my money. To contribute some of the money that I am able to earn back to my community that sustains me, when as a child I was not able to. when I was unable to work myself. To have some say over how that money is allocated, which I do have thru the democratic process on which my community is founded I do not live alone. Nor do I wish it. I am my community. My community is me. I will work, contribute and participate to ensure its continued well-being + about naivety is a pivot naivety < skepticism > cynicism i would rather be on the naive side than the cynical side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DejaHo Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 irihapeti wrote: about naivety is a pivot naivety < skepticism > cynicism i would rather be on the naive side than the cynical side One can not be naive and skeptical. They are mutually exclusive. Skepticism is founded on knowledge and reasoning. Most cynics are skeptical of everything; why? Again, because they know! PS I am neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 DejaHo wrote: One can not be naive and skeptical. They are mutually exclusive. Skepticism is founded on knowledge and reasoning. Most cynics are skeptical of everything; why? Again, because they know! PS I am neither. I once worked with a woman who listened to a co-worker say that there are people who need to live in homeless shelters despite having three minimum wage jobs. The first woman didn't believe this; she was skeptical. Her "reasoning"? - 'Three minimum wage jobs?! That's fifteen dollars an hour!' In other words, she was naive as to the laws of time and space making it impossible to be at three minimum wage jobs simultaneously, making her both skeptical and naive at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 DejaHo wrote: irihapeti wrote: about naivety is a pivot naivety < skepticism > cynicism i would rather be on the naive side than the cynical side One can not be naive and skeptical. They are mutually exclusive. Skepticism is founded on knowledge and reasoning. Most cynics are skeptical of everything; why? Again, because they know! PS I am neither. Scepticism doesn't have to be founded on good facts or sound reasoning... where it results in denialism, solipsism and relativitsm, or being paid to do 3 jobs simultaneously then scepticism is naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: DejaHo wrote: irihapeti wrote: about naivety is a pivot naivety < skepticism > cynicism i would rather be on the naive side than the cynical side One can not be naive and skeptical. They are mutually exclusive. Skepticism is founded on knowledge and reasoning. Most cynics are skeptical of everything; why? Again, because they know! PS I am neither. Scepticism doesn't have to be founded on good facts or sound reasoning... where it results in denialism, solipsism and relativitsm scepticism is naive. Oh yes, Aeth! I've met people who professed to be philosophical skeptics. Yet they were certain they knew the truth, even when it didn't comport with the evidence. They claim evidence can be manfactured and manipulated by those (including gods) who would hide the truth from us. Dunno why they're not skeptical of their own thinking, I'm skeptical of mine. Because, I'm pretty sure I'm naive. So there you are, I'm both skeptical and naive. End of argument. I win! ;-).--||- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 irihapeti wrote: i have chosen to work for my money. THAT would be your first mistake. ***Nobody ever got rich being paid by the hour*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 irihapeti wrote: about naivety is a pivot naivety < skepticism > cynicism i would rather be on the naive side than the cynical side "CYNIC" is the label applied by the naive to a realist. ***"Mean" is the label applied by those in denial to someone who is publicly right*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Innula Zenovka wrote: I've had the instructive experience of seeing the free market in action, completely unfettered by any enforceable laws whatsoever -- criminal or civil -- in Leningrad/St Petersburg (or "The Palermo of the North," as it was sometimes called) during the first few years after the collapse of communism. And everyone had guns. Fpr the first time ever, I really began to understand what Thomas Hobbes was talking about in The Leviathan: Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Anarcho-capitalism is not a game I would want to play, at least not unless I could be reassured that guns aren't allowed and that organised crime doesn't get to join in. Well, first, I'm an anarcho-capitalist because I see it as actually viable in today's modern world. Many of the key problem have been worked out with technology. I never claimed it would be a perfect world, especially if thrusted into it suddenly. That said, you actually show how pure anarchy can only be a temporary thing. It isn't sustainable. People eventually all start to cooperate, or people die. Notice, the words are Anarcho-Capitalist, not Anarchist. The distinction being that I advocate for complete freedom in commerce. I do not advocate for anarchy in all areas of life. Many people do this, even myself. We project our own fears, ignoring what is actually said. I never advocated for pure anarchy at all, but that is what is thrown back at me as an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: Good quote, Innula. Even more recently people only have to look at what 19 years without a government did to Somalia to understand why we give consent to exercise power and force on our behalf for the common good. Again, never did I ever advocate for pure anarchy. Anarcho-Capitalism is not the same as anarchy. Aethelwine wrote: Medhue, I like your idea of Linden Labs charging different prices for land in different areas of mainland based on its desirability. Practically all they could do would be to discount plots inland, but that could damage the economy of the private estates by drawing people to mainland without increasing land ownership and revenue. If they did the pricing right, I would think they could increase overall land ownership and revenue... but it is not without risk if they get it wrong. The risk is minimal, at best. A private land owner could already get a mainland sim for $100 less. $150 less, isn't much difference, especially given the restrictions and hassle. Currently, the land is just sitting there taking up space. Of course, LL would lose some money because all those people already owning lesser value land, like myself, would be paying a little bit less. Don't think I thought of this just for me to pay less, although I have little reason to keep owning my sim, and paying a little less would encourage me to hang on to it longer. It make sense tho, cause the value of the plots are not all the same. Economically, it makes sense also, because it is land that is being wasted, and LL currently makes ZERO on those plots now. A basic economic rule is that if you lower the price, you will sell more. Now, there are always unknown factors, but it hold true, for the most part. At the very least, with the extra land that is purchased, they would recoup any losses from people like myself paying a little less, and more people would be more invested, and spending more into the economy to keep their sims up. Aethelwine wrote: Linden Lab do need profit and revenue to keep things going though and reducing the cost of land without any increases in revenue elsewhere is only likely to cause them a shortfall in income. That leaves a new possible charge for membership or increasing the cut they get from transactions. Some charge on membership might be a good idea and a way to hinder griefers creating disposable accounts, but I doubt they could price that in a way that makes much difference to their income, especially not for Secondlife itself, as people already have their accounts. Whilst you (Medhue) have spoken strongly against an increase in the cut Linden Lab takes on sales transactions, the figures you have provided seem to show SecondLife is actually underpriced compared with other platforms. I don't really see your argument against it for the new platform. For Secondlife itself, for makers to retain their income from a product they would have to mark the price up and then relist everything... something I understand the behind the scenes functionality of Marketplace makes incredibly onerous. But for the new system they are working on, you would just increase your prices to compensate the cut. I don't see the big problem, unless costs for products rose so high people wouldn't pay for them at all. Personally, I think you are looking at this all wrong. Total profits are increased in 2 ways, by selling more, or by over charging. Many in silicon valley like to overcharge for imaginary value. Apple is a prime example. And, yes, Apple does well for itself. I will never, ever buy an Apple product tho, because I know their products are grossly overprices, and Apple handicaps it's users with restrictions. But, their model works well, because they spend a crapload on marketing and branding. Why didn't this work for SL? That's obvious to me, they didn't spend 40% of the profits on marketing. Personally, tho, I really hate businesses that work this way. To me, the way to make a crapload, especially when we are talking online world or social media, is by having a huge community. For them to even work at all, there needs to be millions. You don't get millions in an online world by over charging, especially for technology that gets cheaper every year. What you do is price things for you barely make a profit in the beginning, knowing that the techology advancements alone will provide a steady growth pattern. You'll make a higher percentage every year, even if it's only slightly. You keep the costs as low as possible, to bring in as many people as possible. You don't want to do anything that could retard the economy in anyway. It's really that economy that produces your profits. The biggest reasons why Microsoft is so big, or Apple, or Maya, or whatever, is because their products allowed other people to make money. This is why SL got big. When people can produce wealth with your product, you will sell millions, and you will become a household name. The last thing you want to do is take from the people that are producing in the economy. Every penny they make, will go back into helping them produce more wealth. When you take from them, you are only hurting yourself. When I look at other businesses, yes, I evaluate what they are doing, and if I think it is smart, I might just do that. What I do not do, and it's probably 1 of the biggest mistakes any business person can do, is jut assume that what they are doing is the best way for you. Although I have talked about Unity and Unreal alot, LL is not building the same thing. They have many other aspects they would exploit. I really don't think many can comprehend how many LL makes solely on the linden dollar. LL is running a world, which means they could make money in unlimited amount of ways, all of which add value, not takes it away. Plus, the secret sauce in SL's success was this crazy, wild west type of free market, where every person could engage with it. There were many factors around that, and cost could be said the be the most important. It was essentially free for anyone to make a profit in SL. Anyone could grab a free animation editor, or use gimp for textures or whatever. Now, LL is doing things totally different. Now, you'll need Maya, and someday, if they decide to bother themselves with supporting Blender, we'll have a free option. How many animators do you think there will be in this new world, until blender is supported. How many clothing designers will there be? How many crazy characters will there be, or NPCs? And why, because LL made the cost to create out of the reach of almost everyone, just like so many other failed platforms did. To me, LL didn't learn a dang thing from their own history. They are raising the cost for the main people that fill they economy, and somehow think they will have the growth they need to survive. The economy, merchants, and freedom to create was what saved SL, and made it something. Now, they are canabalizing the very thing that made them special, instead of being creative and giving us more value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: I've had the instructive experience of seeing the free market in action, completely unfettered by any enforceable laws whatsoever -- criminal or civil -- in Leningrad/St Petersburg (or "The Palermo of the North," as it was sometimes called) during the first few years after the collapse of communism. And everyone had guns. Fpr the first time ever, I really began to understand what Thomas Hobbes was talking about in The Leviathan: Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Anarcho-capitalism is not a game I would want to play, at least not unless I could be reassured that guns aren't allowed and that organised crime doesn't get to join in. Well, first, I'm an anarcho-capitalist because I see it as actually viable in today's modern world. Many of the key problem have been worked out with technology. I never claimed it would be a perfect world, especially if thrusted into it suddenly. That said, you actually show how pure anarchy can only be a temporary thing. It isn't sustainable. People eventually all start to cooperate, or people die. Notice, the words are Anarcho-Capitalist, not Anarchist. The distinction being that I advocate for complete freedom in commerce. I do not advocate for anarchy in all areas of life. Many people do this, even myself. We project our own fears, ignoring what is actually said. I never advocated for pure anarchy at all, but that is what is thrown back at me as an argument. Or, as happened in Russia, people eventually get fed up with the chaos and the oligarchs and vote in someone like Vladimir Putin (whose role in the St Petersburg oblast was to try to bring some kind of order to Russian companies' dealings with foreign businesses) to bring things under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 irihapeti wrote: the biggest issue for Anarcho-Pacifists to address is what to do with those who do not ascribe to the collective moral authority Again, I'm not an anarchist in all areas, just in the economy. That said, I reject your analysis, because you still want to dictate morality, which is the whole problem. Outside of some basic rules or law, nothing else needs to be dictated. These rules or laws are things people have agreed upon for ages. You can't even make a logic argument against most of these without contradicting yourself. You can't even have a society if people didn't agree to these basic things. Almost all religions acknowlege them, and almost all known philosophers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Innula Zenovka wrote: Or, as happened in Russia, people eventually get fed up with the chaos and the oligarchs and vote in someone like Vladimir Putin (whose role in the St Petersburg oblast was to try to bring some kind of order to Russian companies' dealings with foreign businesses) to bring things under control. Are you forgetting their past? They were full out communist for decades. The reason they fell into anarchy was because their system collapsed. It didn't have any areas of the economy that had any freedom at all. It was all controlled, which is why it collapsed. You had a whole nation that were reliant on that system. Almost nobody had any saving, or way to take care of themselves without the help of the government. Then, you want to say, LOOK here, it didn't automatically become a capitalist paradise over night. Sorry, I don't see the logic there. Of course it was bad. The people were basically treated like children all their lives, and then lost their parents that took care of them. Right now, as we speak, this is happening in the US. More and more people are dependent on the state. There is no stopping it. Once the people feel like they are owed something for nothing, you can only ride the wave of ignorance to the collapse. Hopefully, when it does happen, people stand up for themselves and reject the state, at least when it comes to commerce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Those that think they are owed something for nothing were and are the investors behind the banking system and the banks and mortgage lenders too big to fail that had to be bailed out by the public purse and a decade of austerity internationally. The problem you are talking about fundamentally was an issue of economic under regulation. Anyone that knows their history knows that Ireland during the potato famine was exporting grain whilst a million Irish starved to death, because the market dictated there was better value exporting food whilst those producing it literally starved to death. Remove all economic controls and innovation except in methods of fraud is stifled because any innovation would immediately be copied and sold for less than the crerator. Market economics is certainly a useful tool, but only when it is regulated to ensure it operates for the public good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Or, as happened in Russia, people eventually get fed up with the chaos and the oligarchs and vote in someone like Vladimir Putin (whose role in the St Petersburg oblast was to try to bring some kind of order to Russian companies' dealings with foreign businesses) to bring things under control. Are you forgetting their past? They were full out communist for decades. The reason they fell into anarchy was because their system collapsed. It didn't have any areas of the economy that had any freedom at all. It was all controlled, which is why it collapsed. You had a whole nation that were reliant on that system. Almost nobody had any saving, or way to take care of themselves without the help of the government. Then, you want to say, LOOK here, it didn't automatically become a capitalist paradise over night. Sorry, I don't see the logic there. Of course it was bad. The people were basically treated like children all their lives, and then lost their parents that took care of them. Right now, as we speak, this is happening in the US. More and more people are dependent on the state. There is no stopping it. Once the people feel like they are owed something for nothing, you can only ride the wave of ignorance to the collapse. Hopefully, when it does happen, people stand up for themselves and reject the state, at least when it comes to commerce. Speaking of forgetting the past: http://www.history.com/topics/articles-of-confederation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Plus, the secret sauce in SL's success was this crazy, wild west type of free market, where every person could engage with it. There were many factors around that, and cost could be said the be the most important. It was essentially free for anyone to make a profit in SL. Anyone could grab a free animation editor, or use gimp for textures or whatever. Now, LL is doing things totally different. Now, you'll need Maya, and someday, if they decide to bother themselves with supporting Blender, we'll have a free option. How many animators do you think there will be in this new world, until blender is supported. How many clothing designers will there be? How many crazy characters will there be, or NPCs? And why, because LL made the cost to create out of the reach of almost everyone, just like so many other failed platforms did. To me, LL didn't learn a dang thing from their own history. They are raising the cost for the main people that fill they economy, and somehow think they will have the growth they need to survive. The economy, merchants, and freedom to create was what saved SL, and made it something. Now, they are canabalizing the very thing that made them special, instead of being creative and giving us more value. Ebbe was talking about Maya in the alpha stages... this year a year before release. He made clear Blender specifically and other tools would be supported by the time it gets to a wider release... ie the beta stages. One of Second life's problems for attracting commercial interest as I understand it is that it doesn't properly support, Maya. There are times when people using Maya have to use Blender as an interface to get their creations in to SL. Once they get the new platform right for Maya then Blender, and the other packages should fall in to place easily since they developed to be compatible with Maya as it is the industry standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now