Reactions to AC - Page 55

Richard Tanner · #**541** 05-16-2007, 11:59 PM

Wow, you took a turn for the counter-productive quick. In any case, that game is still genius (I responded above) but it doesn't mean that any time someone raises an objection it fits that model. Sometimes an idea is wrong, and the first issue brought up doesn't prove it's wrong, but a later issue does. Should we give up after one because it fits that game?

[ QUOTE ]
Have fun mr. cody. By the powers vested in me I insist that you give up on the notion of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Becoming set in ANY way of thinking without regard to another is pretty stubborn, no?

Cody

plzleenowhammy · #**542** 05-17-2007, 12:14 AM

Who said something about Ac protecting against incest? As if the only reason one doesn't fu*k their sister is because it is illegal and not because they would be abandoned by the rest of society.

plzleenowhammy · #**543** 05-17-2007, 12:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People will need each other MORE in AC, not less (well non rich people will anyway as there is no big daddy government to turn to).

AC will encourage close communities. We will all depend on our neighbors more, on each other more. Poor people have no government to turn to that requires no social etiquette in order to be served and taken care of. Poor people will find it necessary to engage in pro social behaviors where now they do not because they can be housed, clothed, and fed in jails and homeless shelters and institutions run by the government. Expectations will rise in AC land so people will need to change in order to adapt. People will change and adapt by engaging in pro social behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they'll just kill each other to gather wealth, but they will be meeting new people (before they shoot them), so I guess you're right either way.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you think that people just want to kill each other and only refrain because of the laws against it. Is that correct?

Richard Tanner · #**544** 05-17-2007, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People will need each other MORE in AC, not less (well non rich people will anyway as there is no big daddy government to turn to).

AC will encourage close communities. We will all depend on our neighbors more, on each other more. Poor people have no government to turn to that requires no social etiquette in order to be served and taken care of. Poor people will find it necessary to engage in pro social behaviors where now they do not because they can be housed, clothed, and fed in jails and homeless shelters and institutions run by the government. Expectations will rise in AC land so people will need to change in order to adapt. People will change and adapt by engaging in pro social behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they'll just kill each other to gather wealth, but they will be meeting new people (before they shoot them), so I guess you're right either way.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you think that people just want to kill each other and only refrain because of the laws against it. Is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, not close really. But it does seem like there's a higher rate of violent crime in emprovished areas, and if that's the case, then it's possible that if there was no fear of retribution (aside from the MAD that's in effect and working so well now) that there might be alot of killings in an effort to "loot" things.

Cody

plzleenowhammy · #**545** 05-17-2007, 01:09 AM

Could you explain this more.. Are you saying that people commit more crimes when they don't fear retribution? If so, I agree. Couple things though: Does this maxim apply to governments? Do governments commit more crimes because they can't be retaliated against?

Richard Tanner · #**546** 05-17-2007, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that people commit more crimes when they don't fear retribution? If so, I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think this is a constant, with no fear of consequences, people act differently then when there are consequences.

[ QUOTE ]
Does this maxim apply to governments? Do governments commit more crimes because they can't be retaliated against?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, when we're equally armed, the government is obenient, as it should be. However, when we have glocks and they have Harriers and Napalm, we're f$@ked, for lack of a better term.

EDIT: Even with a scaled back government, the risk of sudden buildup and consoledation of power is present, although I would say if government were kept as small as I'd want it, it would be lessened.

Cody

plzleenowhammy · #**547** 05-17-2007, 01:25 AM

How can we deal with this? I don't like to be fuc*ed by anyone except Mrs. Wallace. (pulp fiction reference)

plzleenowhammy · #**548** 05-17-2007, 01:30 AM

In response to the edit: So if government were kept small that would keep them from becoming large?

Let's say that the people in gov't decide that they can better serve you by taking 100$ from your bank account everyday. Who would stop them?

Richard Tanner · #**549** 05-17-2007, 01:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How can we deal with this? I don't like to be fuc*ed by anyone except Mrs. Wallace. (pulp fiction reference)

[/ QUOTE ]

How would I know, do I look like a bitch?

[ QUOTE ]
In response to the edit: So if government were kept small that would keep them from becoming large?

Let's say that the people in gov't decide that they can better serve you by taking 100$ from your bank account everyday. Who would stop them?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, this is an issue with everything, AC or state and all points along the scale. Thankfully, rule of law usually prohibit this (although of course the government makes the laws so...), as do terms and re-elections. But if you're asking if the tanks rolled up and asked me for that money, I'm totally boned.

What I was referencing was that if government is smaller then it hopefully won't have as much power (a factor of being smaller) so it's less likely they'll start taking over.

The idea is that if the government only handles those things the markets can't, then they'll lack the monitary resources to grow too large.

Cody

plzleenowhammy · #**550** 05-17-2007, 01:42 AM

But it's not an issue in Ac. If people don't like something and feel that it is growing too large they just stop paying for it and it shrinks.

It's really funny that you say if the tanks rolled up and Asked you for your money. I think it reveals something important in your psychology concerning the state. As if the gov't just politely asks you to do stuff.

But they don't have any monetary resources.. they take our monetary resources, amirite?

I think it's important that you claim that the government can only be limited if it limits itself.