NationStates Jolt Archive

To promote the views of moral nations in the UN.

Sorry friend, but nope! I'm rather evil, you see. :twisted:

I seem to have started a trend by forming the Liberal Caucus. Now, they're a conservative one and a 'moral' one now.

Yes, we all bow to you.

Presumably this "Moral Caucus" will be anti-capitalist?

To promote the views of moral nations in the UN.

So how will this moral caucus decide on what is 'moral'?

Presumably this "Moral Caucus" will be anti-capitalist?

No, because anti-capitalism is immoral.

No, because anti-capitalism is immoral.

Yes, the poor should starve!

Not necessarily...but they shouldn't be able to enslave everybody else for their own sake.

No, because anti-capitalism is immoral.

Yes, the poor should starve!

Notice that capitalist countries have lower starvation rates than non-capitalist ones.

Notice that capitalist countries have lower starvation rates than non-capitalist ones.

Notice how capitalist countries often exploit slave labor outside of them to achieve this.

Oh, I think she meant those ten million Ukrainians starved to death by the evil Soviet capitalist J. Stalin. (Wasn't he born J. Carnegie?)

Notice that capitalist countries have lower starvation rates than non-capitalist ones.

Notice how capitalist countries often exploit slave labor outside of them to achieve this.

Slavery is the antithesis of capitalism.

Oh, I think she meant those ten million Ukrainians starved to death by the evil Soviet capitalist J. Stalin. (Wasn't he born J. Carnegie?)

Once again, I'm a guy. The name of my country translated poorly.

Slavery is the antithesis of capitalism.

What do you call sweatshops?

Oh, I think she meant those ten million Ukrainians starved to death by the evil Soviet capitalist J. Stalin. (Wasn't he born J. Carnegie?)

Once again, I'm a guy. The name of my country translated poorly.

Slavery is the antithesis of capitalism.

What do you call sweatshops?

Not slavery--they're there of their own free will, you know. No one's holding a gun to their head and making them stay.

Oh, I think she meant those ten million Ukrainians starved to death by the evil Soviet capitalist J. Stalin. (Wasn't he born J. Carnegie?)

Stalinism is state capitalism. The state takes on the role of the capitalists. It is the inevitable outcome of neo-liberalism/individualist anarchism too as one group of capitalists will eventually eliminate all competition and will themselves become a state.

Oh, I think she meant those ten million Ukrainians starved to death by the evil Soviet capitalist J. Stalin. (Wasn't he born J. Carnegie?)

Once again, I'm a guy. The name of my country translated poorly.

Slavery is the antithesis of capitalism.

What do you call sweatshops?

Not slavery--they're there of their own free will, you know. No one's holding a gun to their head and making them stay.

Apart from the fact that they would starve to death because they wouldnt be able to afford food if they left. Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

You don't have a right to a living provided by someone else, you know--THAT is slavery.

Oh, I think she meant those ten million Ukrainians starved to death by the evil Soviet capitalist J. Stalin. (Wasn't he born J. Carnegie?)

Stalinism is state capitalism. The state takes on the role of the capitalists. It is the inevitable outcome of neo-liberalism/individualist anarchism too as one group of capitalists will eventually eliminate all competition and will themselves become a state.

No becuase the state still maintains a monopoly on the use of force. Besides, Stalinism was the result of feudalism, not capitalism.

Anyway, does anyone actually want to join, or are the amoral subhuman socialist ignorant evil scumbags (sorry for the extreme redundancy) going to talk more evil propagandistic nonsense?

Notice how capitalist countries often exploit slave labor outside of them to achieve this.

Yes, it's amazing how the well-nourished, comfortable citizens of these impoverished banana republics have to bushwhacked, shackled, and forced at gunpoint to work for foreign investors while starving to death.

Funny that they don't complain about it, but overfed liberals in wealthy countries complain on their behalf, so I suppose they feel that complaining would be redundant, and that at any moment they'll be released to return to the gutters and sell their bodies for spare change - er, that is, to return to their apartments and collect their SSI checks.

Whatever.

You have much self-interest, but it is hardly rational. The people who support capitalism are pracatically slaves.

You have much self-interest, but it is hardly rational. The people who support capitalism are pracatically slaves.

Oh yes I can see how being a member of the upper middle-class of a prosperous first-world nation is so slavery-like. The biggest worry for people like me is aceing the Finals. I mean, compare that to the kind of things people in non-capitalist countries have to worry about, like being shot by AKs, arrested by Secret Police, etc., etc.

You have much self-interest, but it is hardly rational. The people who support capitalism are pracatically slaves.

What can be more rational than acting in your own self-interest? In fact, that is the only MORAL motive.

And tell me, how am I a slave? Because, unlike you, I know right from wrong? Because, unlike you, I realize that each individual is responsible for his own life? Because, unlike you, I am capable of taking care of myself without enslaving or stealing from others?

Great argument, Letila. Insults will surely prove your point!

You don't have a right to a living provided by someone else, you know--THAT is slavery.

You are avoiding the issue, sweatshop labour is slavery and you cannot deny it.

As for capitalism being moral, who decides what you own? Unless you have earn what you own entirely fairly (rather than simply according to the rules whichever ape happens to be in power has made up) then you have no right to own it.

For example you do not have the right to own a piece of land you have purchased from someone else who claimed to own it because inevitably somewhere down the line it was stolen/ someone found it and decided it was theirs.

Another example for you, in a capitalist system workers are inevitably paid less than the value of their labour (otherwise no one would make a profit) bearing in mind that the lowest paid workers in capitalism are effectively forced into slave labour (they work or they die) they must accept whatever is offered to them and cannot complain. Thus there is no voluntary trade because at the lowest level people are forced to work. Capitalism is inherently unfair therefore there is no moral argument for it.

You don't have a right to a living provided by someone else, you know--THAT is slavery.

You are avoiding the issue, sweatshop labour is slavery and you cannot deny it.
No, it's not, as I explained earlier in this thread.


For example you do not have the right to own a piece of land you have purchased from someone else who claimed to own it because inevitably somewhere down the line it was stolen/ someone found it and decided it was theirs.
False.

Another example for you, in a capitalist system workers are inevitably paid less than the value of their labour (otherwise no one would make a profit) bearing in mind that the lowest paid workers in capitalism are effectively forced into slave labour (they work or they die) they must accept whatever is offered to them and cannot complain. Thus there is no voluntary trade because at the lowest level people are forced to work. Capitalism is inherently unfair therefore there is no moral argument for it.
False again. The "worker" is free to not work there if he does not like the deal he's getting.

My, you really are retarded.

False again. The "worker" is free to not work there if he does not like the deal he's getting.

My, you really are retarded.

Of course, he is free to leave and die because he will not be able to afford food. So he will be paid the absolute minimum in order to keep him alive and productive. Where is the freedom in that?

Of course, he is free to leave and die because he will not be able to afford food. So he will be paid the absolute minimum in order to keep him alive and productive. Where is the freedom in that?

I know. Why haven't I seen you before, Wolomy. You seem wise.

What can be more rational than acting in your own self-interest? In fact, that is the only MORAL motive.

How do you come to that conclusion? Why is your life more important than the lives of slaves in sweatshops?

False again. The "worker" is free to not work there if he does not like the deal he's getting.

My, you really are retarded.

Of course, he is free to leave and die because he will not be able to afford food. So he will be paid the absolute minimum in order to keep him alive and productive. Where is the freedom in that?

No one is made a slave to another--that's freedom. The employee is free to leave, the employer is free to make agreements with others as he wishes without outside intervention, and everyone else is free to use what is rightfully theirs for their own purposes without being forced to subsidize the life of someone else.

No one is made a slave to another--that's freedom. The employee is free to leave, the employer is free to make agreements with others as he wishes without outside intervention, and everyone else is free to use what is rightfully theirs for their own purposes without being forced to subsidize the life of someone else.

If the employee leaves, they starve.

So? It's his life...he just has to decide what is more important to him. As long as no one is threatening violence against him, he's free to leave at any time. If he thinks he can make more money on his own, or if he would rather die than continue to work there, that's his decision. But he and he alone is responsible for his own living. No one else has a responsibility to take care of him--to believe otherwise is to support slavery.

We feel a moral caucas would not be a viable idea. To a very great extent, morals are relative, as is indeed proved by the above discussion. Either this caucas will never agree on anything, or it will represent the moral values of only a very small, and thus, practically insignificant minority of the world's citizens.

Office of the Governor

I say that capitalism is amoral. It only applies to morality when it chooses and when dictated by law.

(The ends ultimately do justify the means)

Anyway, does anyone actually want to join, or are the amoral subhuman socialist ignorant evil scumbags (sorry for the extreme redundancy) going to talk more evil propagandistic nonsense?

Modalert ?

And Ithuania, you are still wrong as to there being absolute morals, you have not given any rebuttal to the argument I made months ago, is it that you are still formulating one or are you just wrong and don't want to admit it?

It seems to me the ultimate moral society would be based on two fundemental principles
1- maximization of freedom, with equal freedom for everyone
2- equality of opportunity

If these are the moral values present in the 'Moral Caucus', then I'd be very interested in supporting this organization.

The UN Moral Caucus and UN Conservative Caucus will do the same things, most of the time.

Why not combine them?

Ronald Oswego
Armed President of Abkhajia

OOC: Jewish Terrorist Cell is invading us!!!! Help!!!!

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83345

Another example for you, in a capitalist system workers are inevitably paid less than the value of their labour (otherwise no one would make a profit)

Only partly true. They are inevitably paid less than the value to the employer of their labor, and more than the value to themselves of their labor. Otherwise no one would make a profit, or no one would agree to the terms of their employment.

Stalinism is state capitalism. The state takes on the role of the capitalists. It is the inevitable outcome of neo-liberalism/individualist anarchism too as one group of capitalists will eventually eliminate all competition and will themselves become a state.
Completely wrong. Capitalism is a system in which labor and goods are exchanged by freely negotiated contracts. Even if one corporation had a universal monopoly, it would be quite different from Stalinism. The monopoly would still have an incentive to operate efficiently and to produce goods that people want to purchase. Workers would be free to apply for a job in a different part of the company, but they would not be guaranteed employment. The USSR was not a profit-making organization and didn't even have a true money economy. It was well known both for eliminating unemployment and for wasting resources on producing goods that no one wanted - things that a capitalist would never do.

You are avoiding the issue, sweatshop labour is slavery and you cannot deny it.
It has been denied quite effectively - but of course what you are referring to is (in Marixst terminology) "wage slavery". That the workforce be reduced to abject poverty by competition is not desirable, but there are two important considerations relevant to the case:

1) The workers in question (in third world sweatshops) are not being reduced to abject poverty - they are being elevated to abject poverty. They are the only people for whom the sweatshops are an unqualified good. Workers in the importing countries get cheaper goods, but they lose jobs; Importers get cheaper labor but by exporting jobs they undermine their own market. But for the "slaves", it's a way to escape starvation. They have nothing to lose.

2) Wage slaves have little bargaining power, but they have more freedom than a real slave. They can quit their job - that would be a hardship, but they wouldn't be punished for it and they might very well get another one. They can learn to read and write if they wish, and own property, even if it's just their clothes. They can't be sold or forcibly separated from their families. Improvement of their circumstances is indeed quite difficult, but not impossible.

As for capitalism being moral, who decides what you own?
Other people do, and they make the decision by making voluntary exchanges. That's one virtue of capitalism - it's equitable by definition.
So what if a piece of land was stolen six hundred years ago? If the last owner freely exchanged it to me for value in return, it's paid for. If the six hundred year old Indian wants to reclaim it, let him take up his quarrel with the other six hundred year old Indian that ran him off of it.

Just as a point regarding sweatshop labor; there is a growing trend in sweatshops which actually do restrict freedoms of movement of the employees, restrict freedoms of association, and freedoms of speech/expression. Is it ethical for a corporation to knowingly hire contractors who do take away these freedoms; in short, do corporations have any moral obligation towards the people they hire, or are they bound solely by the motivations of profit?

Stalinism is state capitalism. The state takes on the role of the capitalists. It is the inevitable outcome of neo-liberalism/individualist anarchism too as one group of capitalists will eventually eliminate all competition and will themselves become a state.
Completely wrong. Capitalism is a system in which labor and goods are exchanged by freely negotiated contracts. Even if one corporation had a universal monopoly, it would be quite different from Stalinism. The monopoly would still have an incentive to operate efficiently and to produce goods that people want to purchase. Workers would be free to apply for a job in a different part of the company, but they would not be guaranteed employment. The USSR was not a profit-making organization and didn't even have a true money economy. It was well known both for eliminating unemployment and for wasting resources on producing goods that no one wanted - things that a capitalist would never do.

An absolute monopoly would have no obligation to produce what people wanted or treat people well, its only concern would be keeping itself in power as with Stalinism. Any competition could be stopped early before it became a threat. Maybe it wouldn't care about unemployment (which in a way makes it worse than Stalinism) but it would hold absolute power and once competition had been eliminated its only concern would be holding on to that power. When a corporation has more power than national governments who is going to make sure it behaves ethically? What is there to stop a Jennifer Government type scenario happening in real life?

You are avoiding the issue, sweatshop labour is slavery and you cannot deny it.
It has been denied quite effectively - but of course what you are referring to is (in Marixst terminology) "wage slavery". That the workforce be reduced to abject poverty by competition is not desirable, but there are two important considerations relevant to the case:

1) The workers in question (in third world sweatshops) are not being reduced to abject poverty - they are being elevated to abject poverty. They are the only people for whom the sweatshops are an unqualified good. Workers in the importing countries get cheaper goods, but they lose jobs; Importers get cheaper labor but by exporting jobs they undermine their own market. But for the "slaves", it's a way to escape starvation. They have nothing to lose.

That may be the case, the same logic can be used to justify the slave trade, does that make it right? Yes there is the consent issue, but with a choice of slavery or death slavery can be quite appealing.

2) Wage slaves have little bargaining power, but they have more freedom than a real slave. They can quit their job - that would be a hardship, but they wouldn't be punished for it and they might very well get another one. They can learn to read and write if they wish, and own property, even if it's just their clothes. They can't be sold or forcibly separated from their families. Improvement of their circumstances is indeed quite difficult, but not impossible.

They cannot in most circumstances leave their job, because most places where sweatshops are set up the labour market is saturated, if one person leaves finding someone to take their place is not going to be difficult, while for the person who leaves finding another job is going to be incredibly difficult.

As for capitalism being moral, who decides what you own?
Other people do, and they make the decision by making voluntary exchanges. That's one virtue of capitalism - it's equitable by definition.
So what if a piece of land was stolen six hundred years ago? If the last owner freely exchanged it to me for value in return, it's paid for. If the six hundred year old Indian wants to reclaim it, let him take up his quarrel with the other six hundred year old Indian that ran him off of it.

What if the last owner bought it from someone who had stolen it? What if someone steals a stereo and sells it to you, you both agreed on the sale but that does not mean you own it.

I would like to see one principle of such a caucus be open debate that is at the same time respectful and cordial.

We too believe in "capitalism", if that means free enterprise with private ownership of the means of production. But we prefer to combine capitalism with compassion.

In other words, our government places a floor below which human beings cannot fall. But it places no ceiling on their aspirations. That's moral enough for us.

Presumably this "Moral Caucus" will be anti-capitalist?

No, because anti-capitalism is immoral.

No, it's moral. And logical. Moralogical.

A caucus would not need to be a united front. It could be an internal roundtable discussion, incorporating varied opinions.

Anyway, does anyone actually want to join, or are the amoral subhuman socialist ignorant evil scumbags (sorry for the extreme redundancy) going to talk more evil propagandistic nonsense?

Modalert ?

And Ithuania, you are still wrong as to there being absolute morals, you have not given any rebuttal to the argument I made months ago, is it that you are still formulating one or are you just wrong and don't want to admit it?

I have several times, you're just ignoring it or refusing to accept it.

Presumably this "Moral Caucus" will be anti-capitalist?

No, because anti-capitalism is immoral.

No, it's moral. And logical. Moralogical.

False.

Stalinism is state capitalism. The state takes on the role of the capitalists. It is the inevitable outcome of neo-liberalism/individualist anarchism too as one group of capitalists will eventually eliminate all competition and will themselves become a state.
Completely wrong. Capitalism is a system in which labor and goods are exchanged by freely negotiated contracts. Even if one corporation had a universal monopoly, it would be quite different from Stalinism. The monopoly would still have an incentive to operate efficiently and to produce goods that people want to purchase. Workers would be free to apply for a job in a different part of the company, but they would not be guaranteed employment. The USSR was not a profit-making organization and didn't even have a true money economy. It was well known both for eliminating unemployment and for wasting resources on producing goods that no one wanted - things that a capitalist would never do.

An absolute monopoly would have no obligation to produce what people wanted
Nor does any company--although people don't buy stuff they don't want. or treat people well,
They're free to leave at any time.
Any competition could be stopped early before it became a threat.
Only if the competitor decides of his own free will that it's not worth it anymore.
When a corporation has more power than national governments who is going to make sure it behaves ethically?
The government has the guns and the tanks and the bombs, not the company.

Just as a point regarding sweatshop labor; there is a growing trend in sweatshops which actually do restrict freedoms of movement of the employees, restrict freedoms of association, and freedoms of speech/expression. Is it ethical for a corporation to knowingly hire contractors who do take away these freedoms; in short, do corporations have any moral obligation towards the people they hire, or are they bound solely by the motivations of profit?

They're not taking away your rights as long as they don't threaten you with violence if you decide to quit. As long as you're working there of your own free will, the company has every right to set whatever rules it wants because you can leave if you don't like them.

We feel a moral caucas would not be a viable idea. To a very great extent, morals are relative,

False. Morals are absolute.

Of course, whether or not individuals choose to accept them is a different matter entirely.

They're not taking away your rights as long as they don't threaten you with violence if you decide to quit. As long as you're working there of your own free will, the company has every right to set whatever rules it wants because you can leave if you don't like them.
That's just my point: generally speaking, coroporations don't own sweatshops themselves; rather, they contract out to the lowest bidder. There is a growing trend where the owners of these sweatshops are indeed threatening people with violence and worse, limiting freedom of speech and association on and off the job, and inflicting physical violence on those who are seeking to organize Labour. Should the corporations contracting out to these corrupt owners have any responsibility for these travesties? Should they continuing to do buisness with these people.

We feel a moral caucas would not be a viable idea. To a very great extent, morals are relative,

False. Morals are absolute.

Of course, whether or not individuals choose to accept them is a different matter entirely.

Ithunia, I haven't ever seen you come close to justifying this claim. Can you link me to a thread where you did?

They're not taking away your rights as long as they don't threaten you with violence if you decide to quit. As long as you're working there of your own free will, the company has every right to set whatever rules it wants because you can leave if you don't like them.
That's just my point: generally speaking, coroporations don't own sweatshops themselves; rather, they contract out to the lowest bidder. There is a growing trend where the owners of these sweatshops are indeed threatening people with violence and worse, limiting freedom of speech and association on and off the job, and inflicting physical violence on those who are seeking to organize Labour. Should the corporations contracting out to these corrupt owners have any responsibility for these travesties? Should they continuing to do buisness with these people.

Again, as long as they're not threatening violence against people who choose to leave altogether they have every right to make whatever rules they want because the employees are free to leave at any time.

We feel a moral caucas would not be a viable idea. To a very great extent, morals are relative,

False. Morals are absolute.

Of course, whether or not individuals choose to accept them is a different matter entirely.

Ithunia, I haven't ever seen you come close to justifying this claim. Can you link me to a thread where you did?

I've told you before, search--there should be several matches.

Again, as long as they're not threatening violence against people who choose to leave altogether they have every right to make whatever rules they want because the employees are free to leave at any time.

They ARE threatening violence against people who leave (there's records of lock ins). SO you actually think it's ethical to beat dissenters? To limit what people can say while they're not even working? That violates a number of your so called absolute rights.

Anyways...

I'm interested in your caucus, but I'd be curious to know exactly what it is you stand for.

Again, as long as they're not threatening violence against people who choose to leave altogether they have every right to make whatever rules they want because the employees are free to leave at any time.

They ARE threatening violence against people who leave (there's records of lock ins).
Locking people in isn't the same as preventing them from leaving. If someone were to try to leave, would they use or threaten violence against him?

Again, as long as they're not threatening violence against people who choose to leave altogether they have every right to make whatever rules they want because the employees are free to leave at any time.

They ARE threatening violence against people who leave (there's records of lock ins).
Locking people in isn't the same as preventing them from leaving. If someone were to try to leave, would they use or threaten violence against him?

A lock in constitutes a physical barrier, and thus , yes it prevents employees from leaving. (This has also led to some particularly tragic fires). There are also records of labour organizers being beathen and killed.

Completely wrong. Capitalism is a system in which labor and goods are exchanged by freely negotiated contracts.
Contracts are not necessarily negoatiated freely.


Nor does any company--although people don't buy stuff they don't want.
People often buy things they don't want. Millions of people are brainwashed by advertising into believing that they really want something.

They're free to leave at any time.
People are not free to leave their jobs at any time. For many the choice is to stick with their job, or starve. In those cases there isn't really a choice.


Any competition could be stopped early before it became a threat.
Only if the competitor decides of his own free will that it's not worth it anymore.
False. the monopoly company can/would use it's influence in the government/industry to force the competitor out of business.

When a corporation has more power than national governments who is going to make sure it behaves ethically?
The government has the guns and the tanks and the bombs, not the company.
Wrong again. Money is where the power is. The corporation can/will buy off the government and do what ever it wants. Or, you can have a situation similar to what the U.S. has now, where the government decides what corporations want and gives it to them without the corporations evein having to ask. So, in the future the industries that benefited from the laws past will make large donations to political campaigns.

I've told you before, search--there should be several matches.

You have 16 pages of posts... could you at least tell me which thread it's in?

Again, as long as they're not threatening violence against people who choose to leave altogether they have every right to make whatever rules they want because the employees are free to leave at any time.

They ARE threatening violence against people who leave (there's records of lock ins).
Locking people in isn't the same as preventing them from leaving. If someone were to try to leave, would they use or threaten violence against him?

A lock in constitutes a physical barrier, and thus , yes it prevents employees from leaving.

No more than a closed unlocked door. You're not answering my question--if someone decides he wants to leave, will the door be unlocked for him? Will he be beaten if he leaves?

Completely wrong. Capitalism is a system in which labor and goods are exchanged by freely negotiated contracts.
Contracts are not necessarily negoatiated freely.
Not when government gets involved, they aren't.


Nor does any company--although people don't buy stuff they don't want.
People often buy things they don't want. Millions of people are brainwashed by advertising into believing that they really want something.
The decision ultimately lies with the consumer, doesn't it?

They're free to leave at any time.
People are not free to leave their jobs at any time. For many the choice is to stick with their job, or starve. In those cases there isn't really a choice.
Heaven forbid someone should have to decide what's more important to him.


Any competition could be stopped early before it became a threat.
Only if the competitor decides of his own free will that it's not worth it anymore.
False. the monopoly company can/would use it's influence in the government/industry to force the competitor out of business.
How, exactly, could this be done?

When a corporation has more power than national governments who is going to make sure it behaves ethically?
The government has the guns and the tanks and the bombs, not the company.
Wrong again. Money is where the power is. The corporation can/will buy off the government and do what ever it wants. Or, you can have a situation similar to what the U.S. has now, where the government decides what corporations want and gives it to them without the corporations evein having to ask. So, in the future the industries that benefited from the laws past will make large donations to political campaigns.
Wrong.

They're free to leave at any time.
People are not free to leave their jobs at any time. For many the choice is to stick with their job, or starve. In those cases there isn't really a choice.
Heaven forbid someone should have to decide what's more important to him.
So, by your logic, it would be ok to force people to work for you by putting a gun to their heads.



Any competition could be stopped early before it became a threat.
Only if the competitor decides of his own free will that it's not worth it anymore.
False. the monopoly company can/would use it's influence in the government/industry to force the competitor out of business.
How, exactly, could this be done?
Bribery. Collusion.


When a corporation has more power than national governments who is going to make sure it behaves ethically?
The government has the guns and the tanks and the bombs, not the company.
Wrong again. Money is where the power is. The corporation can/will buy off the government and do what ever it wants. Or, you can have a situation similar to what the U.S. has now, where the government decides what corporations want and gives it to them without the corporations evein having to ask. So, in the future the industries that benefited from the laws past will make large donations to political campaigns.
Wrong.
Excelent argument.

We don't feel that people should have to make the choice between working in subhuman conditions and starving. That's why we have laws regulating how corporations can treat their employees, and why we provide benefits when needed to make sure people have the necessities of life. In addition, our Constitution guarantees the right of workers to organise, bargain collectively and strike. We don't feel that these things interfere with our free enterprise system in the least. We feel they make it better!!!

Concerning morals, our view is and has always been that ethics exist for the sake of life, and not vice versa.

They're free to leave at any time.
People are not free to leave their jobs at any time. For many the choice is to stick with their job, or starve. In those cases there isn't really a choice.
Heaven forbid someone should have to decide what's more important to him.
So, by your logic, it would be ok to force people to work for you by putting a gun to their heads.
No, because no one has the right to use violence or the threat of violence against another without his consent (and threatening to hurt him if he doesn't consent won't cut it).



Any competition could be stopped early before it became a threat.
Only if the competitor decides of his own free will that it's not worth it anymore.
False. the monopoly company can/would use it's influence in the government/industry to force the competitor out of business.
How, exactly, could this be done?
Bribery.
You mean to government officials? In that case the system can no longer be considered capitalist.
Collusion.
You mean with other companies? Yes, companies are run by individuals, and individuals have every right to associate for whatever non-violent purpose they wish.

We don't feel that people should have to make the choice between working in subhuman conditions and starving. That's why we have laws regulating how corporations can treat their employees,
Meaning you restrict the agreements individuals are able to come to. Why not let each individual decide what he's willing to accept? If conditions are shitty enough, people will simply refuse to work there.
and why we provide benefits when needed to make sure people have the necessities of life.
Meaning you steal from people who are able and willing to take care of themselves to give to others who either are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves.
In addition, our Constitution guarantees the right of workers to organise, bargain collectively and strike.
Yes, each individual has the right to associate with whomever he chooses (for nonviolent purposes, of course). So as long as you don't prevent businesses from refusing to hire union members or refusing to engage in collective bargaining or firing strikers, you're fine.

Can't we agree that you wouldn't enjoy working in a sweatshop or being poor?

Oh, certainly, I wouldn't enjoy it.

What's your point?

Would it involve joining a new group?

And no, I'm not evil...just psychotic.

Oh, certainly, I wouldn't enjoy it.

What's your point?

Haven't you heard of the golden rule? How do you justify making others endure what you wouldn't want to endure?

We don't feel that people should have to make the choice between working in subhuman conditions and starving. That's why we have laws regulating how corporations can treat their employees,
Meaning you restrict the agreements individuals are able to come to. Why not let each individual decide what he's willing to accept? If conditions are shitty enough, people will simply refuse to work there.

Yes we do. We don't want certain types of things in our society--like sweatshops--so we make it impossible for them to be set up by agreement between potential employers and employees. Strange, but employees don't seem to be complaining too much about being denied the right to work in subhuman conditions.

and why we provide benefits when needed to make sure people have the necessities of life.
Meaning you steal from people who are able and willing to take care of themselves to give to others who either are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves.

For reasons we've explained in numerous postings, regarding taxation as a form of "theft" makes sense only if you don't believe in any government whatever. All taxation, for whatever purpose (including national defence and police protection), involves taking from some and giving to others. Taxpayers generally don't mind, since government programmes contribute to social harmony and make everyone's life easier. This is especially true since we don't go in for expensive and wasteful programmes like a huge military and a costly "war on drugs"--making it possible to keep taxes relatively low.

In addition, our Constitution guarantees the right of workers to organise, bargain collectively and strike.
Yes, each individual has the right to associate with whomever he chooses (for nonviolent purposes, of course). So as long as you don't prevent businesses from refusing to hire union members or refusing to engage in collective bargaining or firing strikers, you're fine.

We don't think that giving workers a theoretical "right" to organise would be very effective if businesses could prevent it from happening, by defining the conditions for employment. So our law prevents businesses from interfering with the above activities on the part of their workers. Once again, it's very strange, but our workers don't seem to mind being denied the right to forfeit all their other rights.

Anyway, does anyone actually want to join, or are the amoral subhuman socialist ignorant evil scumbags (sorry for the extreme redundancy) going to talk more evil propagandistic nonsense?

Modalert ?

And Ithuania, you are still wrong as to there being absolute morals, you have not given any rebuttal to the argument I made months ago, is it that you are still formulating one or are you just wrong and don't want to admit it?

I have several times, you're just ignoring it or refusing to accept it.

Haha, no. Here is a copy (with unnecesary parts edited out) of the last posts made pertaining to our arguements, each of them directly disproves your arguement that everything (including morals) is absolute.


Wow...so you don't understand what Einsteinan relativity is about either.

All Einsteinian relativity says is that PERCEPTION is relative...not reality. If you are moving forward at ten miles an hour and someone next to you is moving forward at five miles an hour, then even though you will perceive him moving backwards (assuming you have nothing to compare your motion to), he's still moving forward.

Or moving backward, if you are standing on the sun (that is if he is moving east but if not you get the idea).
That fails to alter the fact that he still has an absolute motion vector...different perceptions may cause different misinterpretations of that motion, but that does not alter the motion itself.

No, your not understanding how this works. If I were walking along side him at the exact same speed, he is not moving at all. He is only moving forward to people comparing him to certain things, he is moving backward to people comparing him to other things. Niether is right, because there is no frame of reference that is truely not moving, so you cannot no which frame of reference is correct. I'm reading this right out of my science book, you are wrong, plain and simple, all you have to do is admit it.
______________________________________________________

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

There is no such thing as an absolute moral, as long as the earth changes morals must change.
No one has ever been more wrong. I have explained several times just why morality is absolute.
You would agree it is within morals to not tell a person you are feeding them with an iron skillet, because iron is perfectly safe for humans to consume. But if a human were to have mutated to where their blood no longer held iron, then iron would be poisonous to them, or if that person was allergic to iron, it would be poisonous. So therefore it is no longer moral to not tell them you are feeding them with an iron skillet.

That is an example of why morality is not absolute, so your first statement is incorrected, you have been more wrong.
1) You have no idea what absolute morals mean. Absolute morality means the same set of morals applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time. It does not mean that what is right in one situation is necessarily right in another situation (although often that's the case)--just that the same set of rules for each situation applies to everyone, regardless of whether they accept it or not.

moral

\Mor"al\, a. [F., fr. It. moralis, fr. mos, moris, manner, custom, habit, way of life, conduct.] 1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules.

Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-'
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English absolut, from Latin absolutus, from past participle of absolvere to set free, absolve
Date: 14th century
1 a : free from imperfection : PERFECT b : free or relatively free from mixture : PURE <absolute alcohol> c : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED <an absolute lie>
2 : being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint
3 a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements <the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence "this being the case, let us go"> b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive <blind in "help the blind" and ours in "your work and ours" are absolute> c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive <kill in "if looks could kill" is an absolute verb>

Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-'
Function: adjective

4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom>

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

So now Webster's dictionary is wrong too?
2) This is not an issue of morality. Morality deals with what you must refrain from doing--basically, you must refrain from doing any act which actively causes harm to another individual or his property without his consent. What you're referring to is called "being nice to people". It has nothing at all to do with morality.

Morality deals with what you must refrain from doing.
You must refrain from doing any act which actively causes harm to another individual.
Something that is poisonous is harmfull to another person.
Iron would be poisonous to a person who's body was not fit to consume Iron, possibly form a mutation.
Feeding a person who's body was not fit to consume Iron would cause harm to them.
It is immoral to feed another person who's body is not fit to consume Iron Iron.
It's called the law of Syllogism, you should learn it.

And yet again you are wrong...
And by definition, it cannot be pure logic if you are also basing it on absolute morals.
Wrong again. All decisions about what is moral or not must be done based on whether or not they logically agree with a core set of absolute morals.



So now you are saying pure logic means nothing at all, meaning you were only trying to fool us by saying your statements were based on pure logic. Shame on you for using such childish tactics.

No, I'm not...my, are you really that dense? Try reading what I actually did write rather than what your strawman-loving mind wants me to have written.

You wrote that all it takes to be a moral is if it logically agrees with a core set of absolute beliefs, the christian religion believes that you should not eat meat on lent, not eating meat on lent logically agrees with that belief so not eating mean on lent would be, by your definition, pure logic. You said it, not me, don't blame me for your mistakes.
______________________________________________________

If you cannot make a rebuttal to these, then you have to admit you are wrong. And that not only is everything not absolute, but morals are also not absolute. There is no flex room here, I cornered you into where you need to offer a direct rebuttal to these arguments.

I await your reply...

I agree with Ithuania in the snese that it may be possible to establish universal moral laws; however I disagree with both is reasoning (or lack thereof) and his view of the content of such laws. I'm inclined to agree with Kant in regards to the fundememntal moral law being:

Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings.

This being the case, it is possible say that feeding any rational being with an iron skillet is fundementally a moral action providing you don't conciously intend to hurt them; if you intend to hurt them, it can no longer be considered moral- 'we should poison each other' is clearly a maxim that cannot be universalized.

I agree with Ithuania in the snese that it may be possible to establish universal moral laws; however I disagree with both is reasoning (or lack thereof) and his view of the content of such laws. I'm inclined to agree with Kant in regards to the fundememntal moral law being:

Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings.

This being the case, it is possible say that feeding any rational being with an iron skillet is fundementally a moral action providing you don't conciously intend to hurt them; if you intend to hurt them, it can no longer be considered moral- 'we should poison each other' is clearly a maxim that cannot be universalized.

So you would say that feeding a person who is allergic to iron or has an inability to ingest iron food from an iron skillet. Being fully aware that they are allergic to such iron, and being fully aware that the iron will hurt them. Is not immoral unless they have maliscious intent? Which means a person who is too lazy to tell the person he is feeding that he is feeding him with an iron skillet is not doing something immoral by not telling them?

I agree with Ithuania in the snese that it may be possible to establish universal moral laws; however I disagree with both is reasoning (or lack thereof) and his view of the content of such laws. I'm inclined to agree with Kant in regards to the fundememntal moral law being:

Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings.

This being the case, it is possible say that feeding any rational being with an iron skillet is fundementally a moral action providing you don't conciously intend to hurt them; if you intend to hurt them, it can no longer be considered moral- 'we should poison each other' is clearly a maxim that cannot be universalized.

So you would say that feeding a person who is allergic to iron or has an inability to ingest iron food from an iron skillet. Being fully aware that they are allergic to such iron, and being fully aware that the iron will hurt them. Is not immoral unless they have maliscious intent? Which means a person who is too lazy to tell the person he is feeding that he is feeding him with an iron skillet is not doing something immoral by not telling them?

Uhhh... due to missing words and bizarre sentence structure I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. I'lm going to infer, and try and answer. Is the maxim 'we should not poison each other' universible- that is to say, can we reasonably expect that rational beings will agree with this maxim? I would say yes. Converesley 'we may poison each other if laziness dictates' does not seem a universible maxim.

Wow...so you don't understand what Einsteinan relativity is about either.

All Einsteinian relativity says is that PERCEPTION is relative...not reality. If you are moving forward at ten miles an hour and someone next to you is moving forward at five miles an hour, then even though you will perceive him moving backwards (assuming you have nothing to compare your motion to), he's still moving forward.

Or moving backward, if you are standing on the sun (that is if he is moving east but if not you get the idea).
That fails to alter the fact that he still has an absolute motion vector...different perceptions may cause different misinterpretations of that motion, but that does not alter the motion itself.

No, your not understanding how this works. If I were walking along side him at the exact same speed, he is not moving at all. He is only moving forward to people comparing him to certain things, he is moving backward to people comparing him to other things. Niether is right, because there is no frame of reference that is truely not moving, so you cannot no which frame of reference is correct. I'm reading this right out of my science book, you are wrong, plain and simple, all you have to do is admit it.


I rarely participate in discussions on this forum, but I could not let this one slide.

Ithuania, Tisonica is correct about relativity. The idea behind relativity is that there is *no* single "at rest" against which things move. It is not correct to say "someone has an absolute motion vector". They are at rest relative to their own frame of reference, and moving in various directions relative to the frame of reference of others. Claims that they are "really" moving or at rest are physically meaningless, according to relativistic physics.

This is not a matter of perception. "Frame of reference," as a technical term, does not apply to anything perceptual. Inanimate objects can have frames of reference as well.

If I were to correct Tisonica, it would be to point out that this concept is not due to Einstein. Newton knew this already in the 17th century.

(Einsteinian "special relativity" is the conjunction of this principle, called "Newtonian relativity," with the principle that light travels at a constant speed relative to *every* frame of reference, regardless of whether its source is moving relative to that frame of reference. It is this conjunction that has the suprising consequences that not only velocity but length, mass, and the passage of time depend on frames of reference.)

Sincerely,
Gronk van der Hoek
Scientist General
Community of Gurthark

I agree with Ithuania in the snese that it may be possible to establish universal moral laws; however I disagree with both is reasoning (or lack thereof) and his view of the content of such laws. I'm inclined to agree with Kant in regards to the fundememntal moral law being:

Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings.

This being the case, it is possible say that feeding any rational being with an iron skillet is fundementally a moral action providing you don't conciously intend to hurt them; if you intend to hurt them, it can no longer be considered moral- 'we should poison each other' is clearly a maxim that cannot be universalized.

So you would say that feeding a person who is allergic to iron or has an inability to ingest iron food from an iron skillet. Being fully aware that they are allergic to such iron, and being fully aware that the iron will hurt them. Is not immoral unless they have maliscious intent? Which means a person who is too lazy to tell the person he is feeding that he is feeding him with an iron skillet is not doing something immoral by not telling them?

Uhhh... due to missing words and bizarre sentence structure I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. I'lm going to infer, and try and answer. Is the maxim 'we should not poison each other' universible- that is to say, can we reasonably expect that rational beings will agree with this maxim? I would say yes. Converesley 'we may poison each other if laziness dictates' does not seem a universible maxim.

I'm not exactly sure what you just said there either...

What I was trying to get at was, would it be moral if the person fed the person they were feeding (who also happens to be allergic to iron) food from an iron skillet just because they are too lazy to tell them the food was filled with iron? I would not call lazyness maliscious intent, so would that also not be a moral thing to do despite the fact they knowingly killed the person?

I'm not exactly sure what you just said there either...

What I was trying to get at was, would it be moral if the person fed the person they were feeding (who also happens to be allergic to iron) food from an iron skillet just because they are too lazy to tell them the food was filled with iron? I would not call lazyness maliscious intent, so would that also not be a moral thing to do despite the fact they knowingly killed the person?

A simple way to explain Kant's ultimate philosophy is the golden rule: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. A rational being would not wish to be poisoned whether through maliciousness or neglect, so clearly it is not moral to poison someone. Kant obviously gives a much more complex and thorough account of this theory.

I confess that Ursorians are a fairly practical people (it comes from living in the mountains, I suppose). So we are less interested in the subtleties of Kant's "categorical imperative" than in the practical, day-to-day business of living together in a free society. Here's the score as I see it (note that I have made every effort to present the respective sides fairly, without resorting to loaded terms):

IN URSORIA: Employees have a right to work in safe, humane conditions.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Employees have a right to agree to work in unsafe, subhuman conditions. It doesn't matter if they make the "choice" because the only alternative is starvation--just so long as no one sticks a gun to their heads.

IN URSORIA: People in need have a right to the "requisites of a human existence, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care".

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: No one has a right to receive the human necessities--not even children--because for government to provide them would deprive others of their right to keep every cent of their earnings, without any form of taxation whatever.

IN URSORIA: Workers have the right to organise, bargain collectively, and strike.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Workers have a right to do these things, provided their employers agree. Employers can, however, fire workers who join unions, hire strikebreakers, and refuse to bargain collectively--just so long as their workers are free to quit and find employment elsewhere.

IN URSORIA: Everyone, regardless of income, can visit one of our national parks and enjoy the beaches, forests, and mountains that our country has in abundance. The government provides special programmes so that urban children from disadvantaged backgrounds can visit these areas during their summer holidays.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: All of these areas are privately-owned. Individuals can visit them only if by agreement with the owners (which in many cases involves payment of a substantial fee).

These are the differences between our two countries and our two philosophies, presented as fairly and as neutrally as I can. Readers can judge which of the two is the most "moral". I restate our position that ethics exist for the benefit of people, and not vice versa. Real human beings should not be sacrificed on the altar of "absolute" moral principles.

IN URSORIA: Business is encumbered with a host of nit-picking, inefficient regulations that purport to protect the worker but do more to support the bureaucracy required to administer them.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Government intervention is limited to policies which increase the overall bargaining power of workers by reducing unemployment. Workers are free to use that bargaining power as they wish.

IN URSORIA: The government compells productive citizens to support those who refuse to work, and their children.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: No one who is able to work is allowed to freeload on society. The responsibility of supporting children falls on the parents, not the government. Contrary to prior claims, we do have taxation; it is used primarily to provide free education. This isn't because people have a "right" to it; it's because educated citizens make better decisions about public policy. They also make more money and pay more taxes. It's an investment, and it gives a good return.

IN URSORIA: Unions disrupt the economy with strikes and interfere with the optimum allocation of resources. Workers depend for protection on the negotiating power of their union, allowing some far more than others.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Neither workers nor businesses are allowed to form monopolies. Local organizations of workers are allowed, but are not granted any special privileges. No one is expected to depend on a union for his or her welfare.

IN URSORIA: National parks are crowded and littered and are supported at taxpayer expense, so that everyone, whether they want to use them or not, has to pay for them.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: People decide for themselves whether they want to pay for recreational areas. If they don't use them, they don't have to pay. Because they are in competition with each other, the owners of these areas keep them in pristine condition.

But the big difference between Ursoria and Rational Self Interest is - our per capita GDP is twice as high. Our working class is better off, without any need for bureacracies and unions. Anyone willing to work can find a job, and they can afford things like beach fees and healthcare without depending on the government for them.

The Federation of Rational Self Interest is a very large, socially progressive nation, remarkable for its compulsory military service.

Their poorer citizens, however, are mostly starving to death while being urged to go out and get real jobs.

Wolomy: Economy: Imploded... The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.

The Global Market does not condone compulsory military service. Within our lands, the draft is equated with slavery. It has never been used.

We rely on high-tech strategic weapons such as ICBMs, free trade, diplomacy, and localized security measures for our national defense.

Thank you for responding, but I feel that you seriously misstate the actual conditions that exist in Ursoria.

IN URSORIA: Business is encumbered with a host of nit-picking, inefficient regulations that purport to protect the worker but do more to support the bureaucracy required to administer them.

That isn't quite the way it works. We have a system of locally-based "regulatory outreach workers". When a business is found to be in non-compliance, these workers cooperate closely with management to correct the problems in a non-confrontational way. Since we try to encourage small businesses and private entrepreneurs, the outreach workers have the ability to waive certain regulatory provisions, if they are too onerous and if the spirit of the regulations is otherwise met.

IN URSORIA: The government compells productive citizens to support those who refuse to work, and their children.

Yes, we do support the needy by means of taxation, whenever necessary. And, yes, we do think that it's important that children receive a decent chance to lead a happy and productive life--at public expense, if necessary. The way it works is this: Everyone subtracts $15,000 from their income, and then takes 30% of the difference. If the result is positive, they owe the government that much in taxation. If the result is negative, the government sends them a cheque for that amount (without the minus sign, of course). So someone who earns $20,000 would pay 30% of $5000, or $1500, and their net tax rate would be 7.5%. Someone making $10,000 would receive a government cheque for $1500, and their net income would be $11,500. Someone making nothing would receive $4500 (which would also be their net income). You will note that even though this is a progressive tax system, the MARGINAL tax rate is constant (30%), and the most anyone can pay is just under 30%. So there is always an incentive to work and earn additional income. We don't have a withholding tax (though banks and other private institutions provide voluntary interest-bearing plans that many workers find convenient), a sales tax, a capital gains tax, or a corporate income tax, and we have abolished all tarrifs--so our tax burden is very modest by any standard.

IN URSORIA: Unions disrupt the economy with strikes and interfere with the optimum allocation of resources. Workers depend for protection on the negotiating power of their union, allowing some far more than others.

In fact, strikes are not too common in our economy, though they do sometimes occur (it's part of our freedom). I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "optimum allocation of resources"--everyone thinks that whatever gives them the most is "optimum", and we try to balance the conflicting demands. Workers have generally found that their bargaining strength is greater when they rely on the "negotiating power of their union". Of course, some do get more than others, but we think that there is generally a more equal allocation of resources if workers can combine their bargaining strength.

IN URSORIA: National parks are crowded and littered and are supported at taxpayer expense, so that everyone, whether they want to use them or not, has to pay for them.

We invite you to visit one of our national parks and see for yourself that it's not crowded or littered. You might run into a few hippies smoking weed and reciting poetry, or you might even stumble into a sex orgy. But, hey, we're a free country, and if you don't like those things, you can always go to a different part of the park.

But the big difference between Ursoria and Rational Self Interest is - our per capita GDP is twice as high. Our working class is better off, without any need for bureacracies and unions. Anyone willing to work can find a job, and they can afford things like beach fees and healthcare without depending on the government for them.

Our statistics indicate otherwise.

About that last statement the Nationstates GDP calculator puts your (Ursoria's) GDP aper capita at $7,500. Rational Self Interest has a GDP per capita iof $20,000 according to that same source.

Of course I have $35,000 :).

About that last statement the Nationstates GDP calculator puts your (Ursoria's) GDP aper capita at $7,500. Rational Self Interest has a GDP per capita iof $20,000 according to that same source.

Of course I have $35,000 :).

and I have $100 (though really it should be $0) yet my citizens are better educated, healthier and happier than yours.

Just becuase I like this factbook stuff,,,,


IN URSORIA: Business is encumbered with a host of nit-picking, inefficient regulations that purport to protect the worker but do more to support the bureaucracy required to administer them.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Government intervention is limited to policies which increase the overall bargaining power of workers by reducing unemployment. Workers are free to use that bargaining power as they wish.

IN THE GLOBAL MARKET: Government intervention is limited to cases of criminal activity such as fraud, coercion, or the use of force. However, citizens are free to sue any business they feel has transgressed against them. Common-law property rights lawsuits against polluters are common.

IN URSORIA: The government compells productive citizens to support those who refuse to work, and their children.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: No one who is able to work is allowed to freeload on society. The responsibility of supporting children falls on the parents, not the government. Contrary to prior claims, we do have taxation; it is used primarily to provide free education. This isn't because people have a "right" to it; it's because educated citizens make better decisions about public policy. They also make more money and pay more taxes. It's an investment, and it gives a good return.

IN THE GLOBAL MARKET: Citizens and free associations of citizens (businesses and corporations) pay a flat national tax of 5% on all income. This money goes primarily towards education, a small but capable defense force, police, disaster relief, the day-to-day running costs of the government, etc. There is no sales tax, property tax, capital gains tax, tariffs, etc. At times, a nominal hazardous materials tax has been introduced, though currently it does not exist.

IN URSORIA: Unions disrupt the economy with strikes and interfere with the optimum allocation of resources. Workers depend for protection on the negotiating power of their union, allowing some far more than others.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Neither workers nor businesses are allowed to form monopolies. Local organizations of workers are allowed, but are not granted any special privileges. No one is expected to depend on a union for his or her welfare.

IN THE GLOBAL MARKET: Like a corporation or a political party, a union is a free association of individuals. Unions are allowed. They are bound to the same rules of conduct that bind other free associations of individuals. There is no special treatment either way. Workers can leave a union at any time because of extensive right-to-work laws.

IN URSORIA: National parks are crowded and littered and are supported at taxpayer expense, so that everyone, whether they want to use them or not, has to pay for them.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: People decide for themselves whether they want to pay for recreational areas. If they don't use them, they don't have to pay. Because they are in competition with each other, the owners of these areas keep them in pristine condition.

IN THE GLOBAL MARKET: Sme as in Rational Self-Interest

But the big difference between Ursoria and Rational Self Interest is - our per capita GDP is twice as high. Our working class is better off, without any need for bureacracies and unions. Anyone willing to work can find a job, and they can afford things like beach fees and healthcare without depending on the government for them.

Well our GDP is almost twice that of RSI's and over four times Ursoria's :)

About that last statement the Nationstates GDP calculator puts your (Ursoria's) GDP aper capita at $7,500. Rational Self Interest has a GDP per capita iof $20,000 according to that same source.

Of course I have $35,000 :).

and I have $100 (though really it should be $0) yet my citizens are better educated, healthier and happier than yours.

Only your citizens can't do anything with their education, whereas mine can use it to get ahead. If your GDP per capita is $0 then that means your country isn't producing anything... so it is logically impossible for your citizens to eat, much less have healthcare or education.

I want to play (with colours too because colours are fun)


IN URSORIA: Business is encumbered with a host of nit-picking, inefficient regulations that purport to protect the worker but do more to support the bureaucracy required to administer them.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Government intervention is limited to policies which increase the overall bargaining power of workers by reducing unemployment. Workers are free to use that bargaining power as they wish.

IN THE GLOBAL MARKET: Government intervention is limited to cases of criminal activity such as fraud, coercion, or the use of force. However, citizens are free to sue any business they feel has transgressed against them. Common-law property rights lawsuits against polluters are common.

IN WOLOMY: Government in the normal sense of the word does not exist, since there is no private enterprise a state is not necessary, only direct democracy on a local level remains.

IN URSORIA: The government compells productive citizens to support those who refuse to work, and their children.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: No one who is able to work is allowed to freeload on society. The responsibility of supporting children falls on the parents, not the government. Contrary to prior claims, we do have taxation; it is used primarily to provide free education. This isn't because people have a "right" to it; it's because educated citizens make better decisions about public policy. They also make more money and pay more taxes. It's an investment, and it gives a good return.

IN THE GLOBAL MARKET: Citizens and free associations of citizens (businesses and corporations) pay a flat national tax of 5% on all income. This money goes primarily towards education, a small but capable defense force, police, disaster relief, the day-to-day running costs of the government, etc. There is no sales tax, property tax, capital gains tax, tariffs, etc. At times, a nominal hazardous materials tax has been introduced, though currently it does not exist.

IN WOLOMY: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

IN URSORIA: Unions disrupt the economy with strikes and interfere with the optimum allocation of resources. Workers depend for protection on the negotiating power of their union, allowing some far more than others.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Neither workers nor businesses are allowed to form monopolies. Local organizations of workers are allowed, but are not granted any special privileges. No one is expected to depend on a union for his or her welfare.

IN THE GLOBAL MARKET: Like a corporation or a political party, a union is a free association of individuals. Unions are allowed. They are bound to the same rules of conduct that bind other free associations of individuals. There is no special treatment either way. Workers can leave a union at any time because of extensive right-to-work laws.

IN WOLOMY: Unions are unnecessary as class conflict no longer exists.

IN URSORIA: National parks are crowded and littered and are supported at taxpayer expense, so that everyone, whether they want to use them or not, has to pay for them.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: People decide for themselves whether they want to pay for recreational areas. If they don't use them, they don't have to pay. Because they are in competition with each other, the owners of these areas keep them in pristine condition.

IN THE GLOBAL MARKET: Sme as in Rational Self-Interest

IN WOLOMY: Capitalist exploitation of the environment has ended, specific areas are no longer in need of protection as everyone treats the environment with respect.

But the big difference between Ursoria and Rational Self Interest is - our per capita GDP is twice as high. Our working class is better off, without any need for bureacracies and unions. Anyone willing to work can find a job, and they can afford things like beach fees and healthcare without depending on the government for them.

Well our GDP is almost twice that of RSI's and over four times Ursoria's :)

Why should GDP be a measure of success? your poorer citizens starve to death and are denied basic rights just so an elite can make itself richer.

About that last statement the Nationstates GDP calculator puts your (Ursoria's) GDP aper capita at $7,500. Rational Self Interest has a GDP per capita iof $20,000 according to that same source.

Of course I have $35,000 :).

and I have $100 (though really it should be $0) yet my citizens are better educated, healthier and happier than yours.

Only your citizens can't do anything with their education, whereas mine can use it to get ahead. If your GDP per capita is $0 then that means your country isn't producing anything... so it is logically impossible for your citizens to eat, much less have healthcare or education.

Hrmm currency has been abolished so $ are meaningless.

We honestly don't know where you get the "official" figures for GDP. If there is some feature of "NationStates" that we don't know about, we'd like to find out what it is.

We do note that the listing for The Global Market contains the following statement: "Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 1.192 billion enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases."

We don't think that having a portion of our population (including kids) starving to death or being crippled by easily preventable diseases is the sort of society we want. Yes, we probably don't have quite the same rate of economic growth as some other countries that don't provide for their people (although our economic rating seems to fluctuate for totally mysterious reasons, even when we have approved no additional funding proposals--last week it went from "strong" to "reasonable" without any rational explanation). But we think that, in the long run, our economic growth will be both more lasting, and more meaningful to our people as a whole than if we ignored the social consequences of our policy.

We also note that our overall level of taxation is significantly lower than that of the U.S., the U.K., or even Switzerland.

About that last statement the Nationstates GDP calculator puts your (Ursoria's) GDP aper capita at $7,500. Rational Self Interest has a GDP per capita iof $20,000 according to that same source.

Of course I have $35,000 :).

and I have $100 (though really it should be $0) yet my citizens are better educated, healthier and happier than yours.

Only your citizens can't do anything with their education, whereas mine can use it to get ahead. If your GDP per capita is $0 then that means your country isn't producing anything... so it is logically impossible for your citizens to eat, much less have healthcare or education.

Hrmm currency has been abolished so $ are meaningless.

The $ is a representation of production. Even if you have no currency, the amount of resources and production in your country still have teh equivalent of a monetary value (think: what would they be worth in a country that bad currency). Currency is irrelevant. GDP still exists.

We honestly don't know where you get the "official" figures for GDP. If there is some feature of "NationStates" that we don't know about, we'd like to find out what it is.

We do note that the listing for The Global Market contains the following statement: "Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 1.192 billion enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases."

We don't think that having a portion of our population (including kids) starving to death or being crippled by easily preventable diseases is the sort of society we want. Yes, we probably don't have quite the same rate of economic growth as some other countries that don't provide for their people (although our economic rating seems to fluctuate for totally mysterious reasons, even when we have approved no additional funding proposals--last week it went from "strong" to "reasonable" without any rational explanation). But we think that, in the long run, our economic growth will be both more lasting, and more meaningful to our people as a whole than if we ignored the social consequences of our policy.

We also note that our overall level of taxation is significantly lower than that of the U.S., the U.K., or even Switzerland.

The explanation for why alot of people's economies crashed last week is the UN's AIDS bill. I foresaw that it would happen... this is why I quit.

Oh, certainly, I wouldn't enjoy it.

What's your point?

Haven't you heard of the golden rule? How do you justify making others endure what you wouldn't want to endure?

I don't. It's their decision. What part of that don't you understand?

Thank you for responding, but I feel that you seriously misstate the actual conditions that exist in Ursoria.
You're welcome, and we feel that you have seriously misstated the actual conditions that exist in Rational Self Interest.

IN URSORIA: Business is encumbered with a host of nit-picking, inefficient regulations that purport to protect the worker but do more to support the bureaucracy required to administer them.
That isn't quite the way it works. We have a system of locally-based "regulatory outreach workers". When a business is found to be in non-compliance, these workers cooperate closely with management to correct the problems in a non-confrontational way. Since we try to encourage small businesses and private entrepreneurs, the outreach workers have the ability to waive certain regulatory provisions, if they are too onerous and if the spirit of the regulations is otherwise met.
That appears to be not only nit-picking and cumbersome, but a perfect way of breeding corruption.

And, yes, we do think that it's important that children receive a decent chance to lead a happy and productive life...
So do we, which is why we ensure that jobs are available so that parents can make enough money to support their children. If they choose not to do so, their children are removed from their custody, and in that case they may be supported at public expense. The parents are responsible for repaying these costs, unless they accept sterilization.

The way it works is this: Everyone subtracts $15,000 from their income, and then takes 30% of the difference. If the result is positive, they owe the government that much in taxation. If the result is negative, the government sends them a cheque for that amount...
Similar proposals have been made by our Directorate, on the basis of stimulating consumer spending, but the Assembly has not had an opportunity to vote on them. <<Read: no appropriate issue exists in NS.>> RSI has abolished sales tax and property tax, and taxes only undistributed corporate profits. The capital gains tax had to be reinstated because real estate developers were being used as a tax shelter and land prices were out of control. However, like interest income, property sale profits are only taxed in the amount over and above inflation. Most excises are abolished, but we do have a gasoline tax to finance roads and protective import tariffs against nations whose workers have inferior standards of living, such as Ursoria. Income taxes are paid in installments, so withholding is unnecessary. Inheritance taxes are theoretically high, but implementation has been problematic, and the Directorate has not produced a satisfactory plan for closing loopholes.

In fact, strikes are not too common in our economy, though they do sometimes occur (it's part of our freedom).
We also have occasional strikes, but there are no national unions to hold the country hostage, and strikers are not permitted to harm persons or property or to obstruct the use of public or private property.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "optimum allocation of resources"...
What is meant is a Pareto solution for utility. A free market partly achieves this by automatically shifting resources to those things for which people wish to pay. The free market is imperfect in this for various reasons, but unions make the resource distribution less optimal by compelling employers (and thus, indirectly, consumers) to pay non-market prices and even to pay for undesired services (featherbedding).

...but we think that there is generally a more equal allocation of resources if workers can combine their bargaining strength.
We do not aim for an equal distribution of resources, which would mean everyone had the same income, but for an equitable distribution of resources, which means that everyone receives what they deserve, as measured by what other people are willing to sacrifice to them by voluntary exchange.

We invite you to visit one of our national parks and see for yourself that it's not crowded or littered.
Is it fair to invite foreign nationals to visit parks supported by taxes they haven't paid? We invite you to experience one of our magnificent beaches or hunting parks and see the difference for yourself, but of course you'll have to pay the fee. Or, if you want real wilderness, you could sneak into the Federal Reserve - but that's a felony.

But the big difference between Ursoria and Rational Self Interest is - our per capita GDP is twice as high.
Our statistics indicate otherwise.

How does a "Reasonable" economy compare with a "Thriving" economy? We think the latter is substantially more prosperous.

I confess that Ursorians are a fairly practical people (it comes from living in the mountains, I suppose). So we are less interested in the subtleties of Kant's "categorical imperative" than in the practical, day-to-day business of living together in a free society. Here's the score as I see it (note that I have made every effort to present the respective sides fairly, without resorting to loaded terms):

IN URSORIA: Employees have a right to work in safe, humane conditions.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Employees have a right to agree to work in unsafe, subhuman conditions. It doesn't matter if they make the "choice" because the only alternative is starvation--just so long as no one sticks a gun to their heads.

IN URSORIA: People in need have a right to the "requisites of a human existence, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care".

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: No one has a right to receive the human necessities--not even children--because for government to provide them would deprive others of their right to keep every cent of their earnings, without any form of taxation whatever.

IN URSORIA: Workers have the right to organise, bargain collectively, and strike.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: Workers have a right to do these things, provided their employers agree. Employers can, however, fire workers who join unions, hire strikebreakers, and refuse to bargain collectively--just so long as their workers are free to quit and find employment elsewhere.

IN URSORIA: Everyone, regardless of income, can visit one of our national parks and enjoy the beaches, forests, and mountains that our country has in abundance. The government provides special programmes so that urban children from disadvantaged backgrounds can visit these areas during their summer holidays.

IN RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST: All of these areas are privately-owned. Individuals can visit them only if by agreement with the owners (which in many cases involves payment of a substantial fee).


So you admit that RSI is morally superior to your nation, then?

About that last statement the Nationstates GDP calculator puts your (Ursoria's) GDP aper capita at $7,500. Rational Self Interest has a GDP per capita iof $20,000 according to that same source.

Of course I have $35,000 :).

and I have $100 (though really it should be $0) yet my citizens are better educated, healthier and happier than yours.

Only your citizens can't do anything with their education, whereas mine can use it to get ahead. If your GDP per capita is $0 then that means your country isn't producing anything... so it is logically impossible for your citizens to eat, much less have healthcare or education.

Hrmm currency has been abolished so $ are meaningless.

The $ is a representation of production. Even if you have no currency, the amount of resources and production in your country still have teh equivalent of a monetary value (think: what would they be worth in a country that bad currency). Currency is irrelevant. GDP still exists.

Then the $ of the GDP calculator is meaningless to collectivist nations because it is based on capitalist economics.

Then the $ of the GDP calculator is meaningless to collectivist nations because it is based on capitalist economics.

No it's based on nations that have production.

Hrmm currency has been abolished so $ are meaningless.
The value of things is still measured in money; abolishing currency is just a pretense for not admitting that nearly everyone in Wolomy is much worse off than the very poorest in Rational Self Interest - or almost anywhere.

Oh, certainly, I wouldn't enjoy it.

What's your point?

Haven't you heard of the golden rule? How do you justify making others endure what you wouldn't want to endure?

I don't. It's their decision. What part of that don't you understand?

It's not their decision to face the *choice*--the choice between working in sweatshop conditions and starvation. That choice is, usually, due to an accident of birth. Letila should have phrased the question, "would you like to have to face the exclusive choice of working in sweatshop conditions or starving?" If your answer is "no", and you believe in the golden rule, you are obligated not to make others face that exclusive choice either.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

In connexion with the discussion of the relative GDPs of various countries, I do wish to state that this is a "Nation Simulation Game" and not real life. A quick look at the FAQ page shows statements such as these: "Isn't this 'simulation' biased towards your politics? Very possibly..." and "Everything is exaggerated a little..." I recognise that by playing the game, I agree to its terms--one of which is that the "powers that be" get to determine the state of Ursoria's economy, according to whatever criteria they find most cogent, and are under no obligation to explain their reasoning. However, I feel that these "results" should not be confused with empirical data in the "real world".

One of my close friends is a mathematician and fortran programmer. He has given me quite an education as to how mathematical models and computer simulations can be manipulated to produce whatever results are desired. So I think it's fair to take them with a "grain of salt". (To be fair, I probably shouldn't quote from negative comments made about RSI and TGM, for the same reason. Mea Culpa.)

I'd like to know more about this GDP calculator. Anyone have information on it? Thanks.

http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?

It's commonly accepted.

So you admit that RSI is morally superior to your nation, then?

Run that by us again. When did we ever make such an admission? I'll admit that yesterday was a National Holiday (the King's Birthday, you know), and we did all imbibe some alcoholic refreshment, so maybe we put something in the forum that we don't know about. But, gee, we can't seem to find it.

We don't claim to be morally superior, just more rational.

Then the $ of the GDP calculator is meaningless to collectivist nations because it is based on capitalist economics.

No it's based on nations that have production.

No, it's based on the economy rating in Nationstates. Since the only ways to get rich in Nationstates are to allow free market capitalism or oppress your people it can be concluded that Nationstates does not factor collectivism into its economic model. Therefore economic ratings and GDP ratings based on this are meaningless to collectivist nations.

Then the $ of the GDP calculator is meaningless to collectivist nations because it is based on capitalist economics.

No it's based on nations that have production.

No, it's based on the economy rating in Nationstates. Since the only ways to get rich in Nationstates are to allow free market capitalism or oppress your people it can be concluded that Nationstates does not factor collectivism into its economic model. Therefore economic ratings and GDP ratings based on this are meaningless to collectivist nations.

Actually there are several socialist nations with Frightening economies.

I run one : Grossamerikanes Reich.

Then the $ of the GDP calculator is meaningless to collectivist nations because it is based on capitalist economics.

No it's based on nations that have production.

No, it's based on the economy rating in Nationstates. Since the only ways to get rich in Nationstates are to allow free market capitalism or oppress your people it can be concluded that Nationstates does not factor collectivism into its economic model. Therefore economic ratings and GDP ratings based on this are meaningless to collectivist nations.

Actually there are several socialist nations with Frightening economies.

I run one : Grossamerikanes Reich.

Lets see... A socialist nation which concentrates on Commerce and Defence, jails animal liberationists and has serious crime problems. Average civil rights and below average political freedoms, that sounds somewhat Stalinist. It's hardly collectivist or socialist, even if it has the UN category.

Then go find one. I've shwon that you can have low economic freedom and a strong economy. I've met my burden of proof.

Having high economic freedom helps to achieve a strong economy.

We don't claim to be morally superior, just more rational.

You may be right. The subject of rationality is a vast one, and the books about it would fill a good-sized library. I believe that Bertrand Russell was a rational human being, and so was Ayn Rand. But I don't think I'd want to invite both of them to the same party. (Even if they were still alive. It probably WOULD be grossly irrational to invite dead people to a party.)

We must admit that your country does have a better per capita GDP than ours, according to NationStates. But the same source also states that your poorer citizens "are mostly starving to death while being urged to go out and get real jobs". We don't have that problem. From your standpoint, this is totally irrelevant as to whether your system is more rational. From our standpoint, it is at the very heart of the matter. I haven't been to Mount Sinai lately, so I am not quite sure what God has to say about the issue.

Then go find one. I've shwon that you can have low economic freedom and a strong economy. I've met my burden of proof.

Having high economic freedom helps to achieve a strong economy.

Since the only ways to get rich in Nationstates are to allow free market capitalism or oppress your people

Not the oppress your people, what your "socialist" state is doing. Low economic freedom does not = collectivism.

Then go find one. I've shwon that you can have low economic freedom and a strong economy. I've met my burden of proof.

Having high economic freedom helps to achieve a strong economy.

Since the only ways to get rich in Nationstates are to allow free market capitalism or oppress your people

Not the oppress your people, what your "socialist" state is doing. Low economic freedom does not = collectivism.

Stephistan has a "good" economy which USED to be powerhouse before the AIDS resolution passed. I'm sure I could find many more.

Here's one: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=filamai

Top 60 auto manufacturers, very good civil rights, superb political, frightening economy, and its liberal democratic socialists.

There is NO economic model that favors collectivism. (Dialectical materialism is a fantasy, not a model. Dialectics are a heuristic device, not a predictive one). Nor is there any historical example of a collectivist economy which achieved progress of any kind. Collectivism is simply irrational (in addition to being evil).

...I've shown that you can have low economic freedom and a strong economy. I've met my burden of proof.

Stephistan has a "good" economy which USED to be powerhouse before the AIDS resolution passed...

Here's one: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=filamai
Top 60 auto manufacturers, very good civil rights, superb political, frightening economy, and its liberal democratic socialists.

While we're on the subject of rationality, isn't it totally irrational to believe that a set of arbitrary decisions made by GAME ADMINISTRATORS (of all people) are a reliable measure of how economic policies work (or don't work) in the "real world"?

We frankly could care less HOW the NationStates rates our economy. No matter how they dress it up, their opinions are just that--OPINIONS--and not very well-informed ones either.

[OOC: Ursoria, we're generally inclined to agree with you, both in this thread and elsewhere.

But note that, in general, the United Nations forum is an "in-character" forum. Unless otherwise specified, you should assume that people are talking about the NationStates world, not the real world. It is indeed an interesting question whether heavily socialized economies can suceed in the real world, but it is *not* the question that should most concern NS nations.

We're here primarily as representatives of our NS countries. (Note that there's at least one far-rightist posting here--not in this thread--who has admitted that OOC they're fairly left-wing; they're just playing a part. My own politics are very similar--but not identical--to Gurthark's; in particular, although Gurthark greatly values most civil rights, it doesn't consider a right to privacy very important; I do, because I don't trust any real governments as much as I trust Gurthark's). If we can argue for our own real political beliefs at the same time, so much the better, but our *primary* focus is arguing on behalf of our nations, about the NationStates universe.

If you need to remind people of this (as in "By the way...none of this is really relevant to the question of whether strong socialist economies could exist in the real world, of course"), you should probably do it in an "OOC" ("Out of Character") aside like this one.

Best,
A.F.
Real Person in Charge
Community of Gurthark
]

So you admit that RSI is morally superior to your nation, then?

Run that by us again. When did we ever make such an admission?

Earlier in this thread, in the post I quoted--in which you posted descriptions of RSI against descriptions of yours.

So you admit that RSI is morally superior to your nation, then?

Run that by us again. When did we ever make such an admission?

Earlier in this thread, in the post I quoted--in which you posted descriptions of RSI against descriptions of yours.

Ithuania, stop being deliberately dense. Posting an objective description of two nations, one of which *you* find immoral, does not mean that the poster has admitted to its being immoral. Ursoria disagrees with you. So, by the way, do I.

I'm not, by the way, arguing that morals are relative here. I'm simply arguing that the moral fact of the matter, if it exists, is *under debate*. You have not won that debate unless and until your debating partners cede it. We have not done so.

Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

While we're on the subject of rationality, isn't it totally irrational to believe that a set of arbitrary decisions made by GAME ADMINISTRATORS (of all people) are a reliable measure of how economic policies work (or don't work) in the "real world"?

We frankly could care less HOW the NationStates rates our economy. No matter how they dress it up, their opinions are just that--OPINIONS--and not very well-informed ones either.
We're inclined to agree here. NS isn't much as a simulation. The modeling appears to be simplistic and arbitrary, we don't have direct control over much of anything, and there are no real consequences for neglecting national defense, polluting the environment, or ignoring crime. Further, no matter how much political freedom we allow, we never seem to lose an election, and our nations seem to be safe from revolution as well.
But, what the hell, it's free, and we've got collectivists to make fun of.

But the big difference between Ursoria and Rational Self Interest is - our per capita GDP is twice as high. Our working class is better off, without any need for bureacracies and unions.
The second sentence here does not follow from the first. A country with a very high GDP per capita can have a very badly-off underclass. GDP per capita is a mean calculation; a few extremely wealthy individuals can set it off significantly.

[OOC: I'd love to see an "income-range" calculator, based on the GDP calculator and states' levels of "social justice." This calculator would have a number of income distribution curves based on "social justice" levels (from everybody bunched up in the middle with almost no "tails" on the bell-curve--high social justice--to most people bunched up at the bottom with a long "tail" into the upper income ranges--low social justice) and use this in combination with the GDP to tell you what, for example, the average income is among the poorest 5% of your population. But I'm not sure this is technically feasible, since I don't know whether NationStates exposes "social justice" levels.]

I'm not, by the way, arguing that morals are relative here. I'm simply arguing that the moral fact of the matter, if it exists, is *under debate*. You have not won that debate unless and until your debating partners cede it. We have not done so.

Let's say that we are debating the value of the expression 1+1. I say it's 2, you say it's 3. Does that mean I do not win until I get you to admit it's 2?

Keep in mind that to win a debate means to prove your point (as I have). A debate does not remain unwon just because the person who is clearly wrong is being deliberately obstinate and thick-headed and refusing to accept truth.

Unless otherwise specified, you should assume that people are talking about the NationStates world, not the real world. It is indeed an interesting question whether heavily socialized economies can suceed in the real world, but it is *not* the question that should most concern NS nations.

We're sorry if we broke the rules, but the arguments in the thread did seem to be about whether which economic policies are "moral" and successful in the real world. Since several nations were using GDP figures from NationStates to make their point, it seemed appropriate to respond as we did.

We honestly don't know how NS comes up with its ratings, but it's free and all in a spirit of fun (more or less). And how else could someone whose ancestors were Welsh coal miners and Irish potato farmers get to be royalty? Some of the postings get a little bit out of hand, though.

Anyway, does anyone actually want to join, or are the amoral subhuman socialist ignorant evil scumbags (sorry for the extreme redundancy) going to talk more evil propagandistic nonsense?

Modalert ?

And Ithuania, you are still wrong as to there being absolute morals, you have not given any rebuttal to the argument I made months ago, is it that you are still formulating one or are you just wrong and don't want to admit it?

I have several times, you're just ignoring it or refusing to accept it.

Haha, no. Here is a copy (with unnecesary parts edited out) of the last posts made pertaining to our arguements, each of them directly disproves your arguement that everything (including morals) is absolute.


Wow...so you don't understand what Einsteinan relativity is about either.

All Einsteinian relativity says is that PERCEPTION is relative...not reality. If you are moving forward at ten miles an hour and someone next to you is moving forward at five miles an hour, then even though you will perceive him moving backwards (assuming you have nothing to compare your motion to), he's still moving forward.

Or moving backward, if you are standing on the sun (that is if he is moving east but if not you get the idea).
That fails to alter the fact that he still has an absolute motion vector...different perceptions may cause different misinterpretations of that motion, but that does not alter the motion itself.

No, your not understanding how this works. If I were walking along side him at the exact same speed, he is not moving at all. He is only moving forward to people comparing him to certain things, he is moving backward to people comparing him to other things. Niether is right, because there is no frame of reference that is truely not moving, so you cannot no which frame of reference is correct. I'm reading this right out of my science book, you are wrong, plain and simple, all you have to do is admit it.
______________________________________________________

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

There is no such thing as an absolute moral, as long as the earth changes morals must change.
No one has ever been more wrong. I have explained several times just why morality is absolute.
You would agree it is within morals to not tell a person you are feeding them with an iron skillet, because iron is perfectly safe for humans to consume. But if a human were to have mutated to where their blood no longer held iron, then iron would be poisonous to them, or if that person was allergic to iron, it would be poisonous. So therefore it is no longer moral to not tell them you are feeding them with an iron skillet.

That is an example of why morality is not absolute, so your first statement is incorrected, you have been more wrong.
1) You have no idea what absolute morals mean. Absolute morality means the same set of morals applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time. It does not mean that what is right in one situation is necessarily right in another situation (although often that's the case)--just that the same set of rules for each situation applies to everyone, regardless of whether they accept it or not.

moral

\Mor"al\, a. [F., fr. It. moralis, fr. mos, moris, manner, custom, habit, way of life, conduct.] 1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules.

Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-'
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English absolut, from Latin absolutus, from past participle of absolvere to set free, absolve
Date: 14th century
1 a : free from imperfection : PERFECT b : free or relatively free from mixture : PURE <absolute alcohol> c : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED <an absolute lie>
2 : being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint
3 a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements <the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence "this being the case, let us go"> b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive <blind in "help the blind" and ours in "your work and ours" are absolute> c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive <kill in "if looks could kill" is an absolute verb>

Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-'
Function: adjective

4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom>

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

So now Webster's dictionary is wrong too?
2) This is not an issue of morality. Morality deals with what you must refrain from doing--basically, you must refrain from doing any act which actively causes harm to another individual or his property without his consent. What you're referring to is called "being nice to people". It has nothing at all to do with morality.

Morality deals with what you must refrain from doing.
You must refrain from doing any act which actively causes harm to another individual.
Something that is poisonous is harmfull to another person.
Iron would be poisonous to a person who's body was not fit to consume Iron, possibly form a mutation.
Feeding a person who's body was not fit to consume Iron would cause harm to them.
It is immoral to feed another person who's body is not fit to consume Iron Iron.
It's called the law of Syllogism, you should learn it.

And yet again you are wrong...
And by definition, it cannot be pure logic if you are also basing it on absolute morals.
Wrong again. All decisions about what is moral or not must be done based on whether or not they logically agree with a core set of absolute morals.



So now you are saying pure logic means nothing at all, meaning you were only trying to fool us by saying your statements were based on pure logic. Shame on you for using such childish tactics.

No, I'm not...my, are you really that dense? Try reading what I actually did write rather than what your strawman-loving mind wants me to have written.

You wrote that all it takes to be a moral is if it logically agrees with a core set of absolute beliefs, the christian religion believes that you should not eat meat on lent, not eating meat on lent logically agrees with that belief so not eating mean on lent would be, by your definition, pure logic. You said it, not me, don't blame me for your mistakes.
______________________________________________________

If you cannot make a rebuttal to these, then you have to admit you are wrong. And that not only is everything not absolute, but morals are also not absolute. There is no flex room here, I cornered you into where you need to offer a direct rebuttal to these arguments.

I await your reply...

Anytime now...

Let's say that we are debating the value of the expression 1+1. I say it's 2, you say it's 3. Does that mean I do not win until I get you to admit it's 2?

It's a bit of a moot point, since nobody is debating this with you, and nobody would, in good faith.

You at least could not say that we had already admitted that it was 2. You did claim that Ursoria had already admitted something that, while you believe it to be true, he had not in fact admitted.

Keep in mind that to win a debate means to prove your point (as I have).
No, you haven't. You've just repeated it, over, and over, and over again.

Keep in mind that to win a debate means to prove your point (as I have). A debate does not remain unwon just because the person who is clearly wrong is being deliberately obstinate and thick-headed and refusing to accept truth.

It seems to us that you keep repeating the same assertions to the effect that your beliefs are in tune with absolute morality, and that the policies of my country are "immoral". But we haven't seen you PROVE anything.

But the big difference between Ursoria and Rational Self Interest is - our per capita GDP is twice as high. Our working class is better off, without any need for bureacracies and unions.
The second sentence here does not follow from the first. A country with a very high GDP per capita can have a very badly-off underclass. GDP per capita is a mean calculation; a few extremely wealthy individuals can set it off significantly.

[OOC: I'd love to see an "income-range" calculator, based on the GDP calculator and states' levels of "social justice." This calculator would have a number of income distribution curves based on "social justice" levels (from everybody bunched up in the middle with almost no "tails" on the bell-curve--high social justice--to most people bunched up at the bottom with a long "tail" into the upper income ranges--low social justice) and use this in combination with the GDP to tell you what, for example, the average income is among the poorest 5% of your population. But I'm not sure this is technically feasible, since I don't know whether NationStates exposes "social justice" levels.]

We honestly think that a MEDIAN GDP figure would be a better indicator than a MEAN (or "average") figure. For those who aren't into such things, the "mean" is simply the numerical average. You take a country's GDP and divide it by the number of inhabitants to get this figure, so a few extremely wealthy (or extremely poor) individuals can throw the whole thing off considerably. The median is the value with an equal number of individuals above the point as below it. If there is a "normal" (or Gaussian) distribution, the two values will be identical, but most economists agree that income distribution in the real world seldom, if ever, fits such a distribution.

Any realistic simulation of the effect of social policies on economic growth would have to be based on a hypothesised curve with, say, social spending plotted along the X axis and (for example) GDP plotted along the Y axis. Few economists could agree as to the precise shape of the curve, but an empirical approximation might be derived from ("real world") U.N. statistics for various nations. If the "libertarian" model holds, the highest point on the curve would be at zero (meaning that countries with NO social spending would have the highest possible GDP). Our own belief is that the optimum point is somewhere to the right of zero, since (up to a point) social spending contributes to social harmony and improves economic performance. But the optimum point would probably be closer to zero than to 100% (meaning that a country devotes ALL of its resources to social spending).

One of the frustrating thing about NS is that we aren't told what economic assumptions, if any, underlie the various ratings. The game could probably be improved considerably if a brief explanation of such things was provided on the FAQ page.

We agree that median income would be a better measure of prosperity. Total GDP is important mainly in relation to other nations - i.e., military budget - and mean income isn't really meaningful. Unfortunately we don't know how NS measures income disparity; it might be a skew function or an arbitrary ordinal scale.

Real world models of economic output do exist. Our opinion of the models which appear to be in use in NS is that they are (unaccountably, in view of the avowed bias of the game's creator) heavily slanted in favor of "supply side" policies - a slant which is not supported by any modern economic model or by empirical evidence. Data for the U.S.A., for instance, even suggest a significant positive correlation (r=.33) between total federal spending as a fraction of GDP and real GDP growth, but virtually no correlation (r=.06) between the supply of investment capital as a fraction of GDP and real GDP growth (1930-2000).

Nonetheless, we are confident that our economic policies are, in fact, superior to those of Ursoria.

We honestly think that a MEDIAN GDP figure would be a better indicator than a MEAN (or "average") figure.

I think you mean median income. The median GDP for one nation is the same as the GDP.

We honestly think that a MEDIAN GDP figure would be a better indicator than a MEAN (or "average") figure.

I think you mean median income. The median GDP for one nation is the same as the GDP.

You're right. We stand corrected. The median GDP would involve a comparison between different nations.

Actually, median disposable income would be more appropriate. If one really believes government services are of value, one might use median disposable income plus per capita government consumption expenditures. Given the known efficiency of government services, we believe the value of government services, should, however, be accounted at 10% of their market price.

...Our opinion of the models which appear to be in use in NS is that they are (unaccountably, in view of the avowed bias of the game's creator) heavily slanted in favor of "supply side" policies - a slant which is not supported by any modern economic model or by empirical evidence...

That could explain why Ursoria's level of economic "performance" (in NS terms) is not as good as we might wish, since we have, as a matter of principle, consistently refused to tax our people to subsidise various industries.

We haven't knowingly subsidized any industries, either, nor did we knowingly adopt a flat tax rate - but there you go.....

...Given the known efficiency of government services, we believe the value of government services, should, however, be accounted at 10% of their market price.

One of the differences between our two countries seems to be that we believe that the efficiency of such services can be significantly improved, by localising them and providing a level of administrative flexibility, while RSI does not think that such measures can be effective.

In one of our postings, we described our system of "Regulatory Outreach Workers", and I believe that you (or maybe someone else, like Ithuania) said that such a policy is cumbersome, nitpicky, and prone to corruption. In fact, the purpose of our policy is precisely to make regulation LESS cumbersome and nitpicky, and to make it easier for businesses (especially small businesses) to comply--by focussing on the INTENT rather than the strict LETTER of specific regulations.

We have tried to make our system as flexible as possible, but there does seem to be a trade-off between flexibility and the potential for corruption. Frankly, our approach might not work too well in, say, Sicily. But we are not Sicily. Bribery and corruption are not a part of our way of life. The Outreach Workers are well-paid, adhere to a strict code of professional ethics, and are subject to strict penalties if they abuse their position. In general, there hasn't been too much of a problem, and the potential for corruption is probably not much greater than in any other field that involves some human discretion--such as college admissions, building code inspections, or even legal proceedings.

There seem to be two routes to having a "frightening" or "powerhouse" economy in NationStates:

1) Adopt a policy of complete laissez-faire, resisting any impulse to provide social services or to promote any degree of economic equality. (This seems to be the approach taken by RSI, TGM, and Ithuania); and

2) Adopt a policy of consistently subsidising favoured industries, deliberately fostering such things as automobile production, uranium mining, or gambling. (This approach may well be the one taken by the more "socialistic" nations that have achieved great levels of economic performance.) It may also be the case that things like legalised drugs are (rather arbitrarily from our standpoint) considered to have a negative economic effect.

In addition to the above, there may be a "randomising" feature built into the game, so that some nations are "naturally" favoured in terms of raw materials, etc. To that extent, a nation's economic performance seems to be a matter of "the luck of the draw".

There may be other factors as well. We notices that when Ursoria adopted a more vocal position in opposing some of the "libertarian" proposals at the U.N., our level of taxation rather precipitously increased and our economic rating similarly declined--despite the fact that we had approved NO new spending proposals. Also the economic effect of the "Global AIDS Initiative" seems to have been greatest in those nations (including Ursoria) that vocally supported it. There may be people in the game administration who decide (at least to some extent) to "reward" or "punish" countries, according to whether or not they like their postings.

We're not sure, but these are some possible explanations.

One of the differences between our two countries seems to be that we believe that the efficiency of such services can be significantly improved, by localising them and providing a level of administrative flexibility, while RSI does not think that such measures can be effective.
True - our Directorate is of the opinion that it is unrealistically optimistic to expect honesty to ever become widespread among human beings, especially in government. Or course, others might be of the opinion that it is unrealistic to expect human beings to consisently act rationally in favor of their own long-term interests, rather than being controlled by ignorance, superstition, habit, impatience, and impulse.

We noticed that when Ursoria adopted a more vocal position in opposing some of the "libertarian" proposals at the U.N., our level of taxation rather precipitously increased and our economic rating similarly declined--despite the fact that we had approved NO new spending proposals. Also the economic effect of the "Global AIDS Initiative" seems to have been greatest in those nations (including Ursoria) that vocally supported it. There may be people in the game administration who decide (at least to some extent) to "reward" or "punish" countries, according to whether or not they like their postings.
We think Ursoria is a bit paranoid. All of us have to put up with bizarre, unpredictable results from our issue choices - and we doubt that anyone is wasting their time reviewing posts and tampering with nations' stats.

We think Ursoria is a bit paranoid. All of us have to put up with bizarre, unpredictable results from our issue choices - and we doubt that anyone is wasting their time reviewing posts and tampering with nations' stats.

But didn't you also say the following:

...our Directorate is of the opinion that it is unrealistically optimistic to expect honesty to ever become widespread among human beings...

????

the ultimate question when your forming a morality party is, who decides whats moral and what isn't?

Are you going to go by Christian Morality? Or perhaps Viking Morality?

Every culture has its own definition and whats moral to you is probably not moral to me.

Here is a good issue for the Moral Party: Partial Birth Abortion. Please support this measure. (If you want the debate go to one of the other abortion topics)

Seriously, we've played enough Blackjack to know that human beings tend to see patterns where none exist, so it is probably best to assume that the occasionally bizarre results in the NationStates game are simply meant to reflect the occasionally bizarre results in the game of life. So we'll put our final speculation "on hold". But we stand by the rest of our surmises--at least as reasonable hypotheses.

It also seems to us that there are several factors involved in determining which set of economic policies is "best", some of which can be quantified and some of which cannot. From our perspective, the two most important questions are as follows:

1) What level of social involvement by government leads to the highest possible GDP, given a particular set of circumstances; and

2) What income distribution best contributes to the wellbeing of society as a whole.

The two questions are not identical. The first is a question of economics, and (in theory, at least) is susceptible to empirical determination; while the second is a question of ethics, and is not amenable to such analysis.

We have already discussed our view as to the first question. For whatever it's worth, our view as to the second question is as follows: That income distribution is ethically best which requires for its sustenance the least amount of coercion. Of course, some amount of coercion is necessary in all societies, if only because there are violent individuals who have to be locked up for the safety of everyone else. (I assume we agree that people like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey, and Jeffery Dahmer can't be allowed to walk the streets unrestrained.)

But experience demonstrates that people don't just sit down and starve peacefully. They claw and fight and grab whatever they think they need to survive. A society with too great a divide between rich and poor will be one in which government has to apply a greater amount of coercion, just to protect persons and property. We believe that government has a legitimate "prophylactic" role in preventing this kind of situation from arising. We think our view IS "libertarian", since it aims at minimising the total amount of government coercion in our society.

We wish we could claim credit for this idea, but (alas) it seems that someone named Adam Smith had it first.

Suppose we got an email from the "Automobile Enthusiasts Association" saying: "Scientific tests prove that Fords are the best automobiles. If you don't drive a Ford, you're against science. So if you own any other kind of car, trade it in and get a new Ford now!" We wouldn't be acting rationally if we followed that advice. At the very least, we would want to know what kind of scientific tests were performed, what they measured, and what kind of methodology they employed. We might also want to know whether there was any financial connexion between the "Automobile Enthusiasts Association" and the Ford Motor Company. For example, if its President turned out to be the local Ford dealer, we might get a little suspicious.

Our point is that we are in roughly the same position with regard to NationStates. We don't question their good intentions, but without knowing anything about how their economic ratings are derived, or what biases they embody (and all mathematical models and computer simulations embody some), we can't rationally attach any value to them. We're certainly not about to give up our political beliefs because of them.

Hey, it's a game, and it's usually rather fun. The problem is, some people seem to think that it proves something.

It also seems to us that there are several factors involved in determining which set of economic policies is "best", some of which can be quantified and some of which cannot. From our perspective, the two most important questions are as follows:

1) What level of social involvement by government leads to the highest possible GDP, given a particular set of circumstances; and

2) What income distribution best contributes to the wellbeing of society as a whole.

The two questions are not identical. The first is a question of economics, and (in theory, at least) is susceptible to empirical determination; while the second is a question of ethics, and is not amenable to such analysis.

We have already discussed our view as to the first question. For whatever it's worth, our view as to the second question is as follows: That income distribution is ethically best which requires for its sustenance the least amount of coercion. Of course, some amount of coercion is necessary in all societies, if only because there are violent individuals who have to be locked up for the safety of everyone else....

But experience demonstrates that people don't just sit down and starve peacefully.... A society with too great a divide between rich and poor will be one in which government has to apply a greater amount of coercion, just to protect persons and property. We believe that government has a legitimate "prophylactic" role in preventing this kind of situation from arising. We think our view IS "libertarian", since it aims at minimising the total amount of government coercion in our society.

Our philosophy is that liberty is the highest principle, but not the only principle. We believe that individuals have a responsibility to society, as well as society having a responsibility to individuals. The responsibility of individuals to society (and vice versa) is conditional. If someone applies to coercion others or to society, they lose the right to be free of coercion from others or from society.
Thus, some liberty may at times be sacrificed for the common good, because it is possible for other values to outweigh liberty. And the liberty of criminals is reckoned of lesser value than that of honest men; it is much more readily sacrificed.

Our answer to the first question is not laissez-faire; we believe that preserving the ideal (not equal) distribution of wealth results in the greatest economic growth.

Our answer to the second question must be somewhat similar, because we believe that economic growth is the single most important factor in the well-being of the workers.

No, because anti-capitalism is immoral.

Yes, the poor should starve!

Notice that capitalist countries have lower starvation rates than non-capitalist ones.

I'd be interested to see where that little statistic comes from. I'd also be interested to see the definitions of corrolation and causation again.

And I'd just like to say this, "A healthy worker is a good worker."