Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 770 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
umbletheheep (1645 D)
28 Jul 11 UTC
Iowa F2F Diplomacy
I have a group of 11, and we are putting together F2F Diplomacy games in central Iowa. If you would like to be a part or know of someone who does give me an email at russ (at) russdennis.net
2 replies
Open
LoneSeramoni (100 D)
28 Jul 11 UTC
Script Error
Webdiplomacy script installed on my site.How can handle this problem? ERROR: i.imgur.com/cWuVQ.png

4 replies
Open
Babak (26982 D(B))
28 Jul 11 UTC
FtF Diplomacy in New England: HuskyCon (Aug 19-21) in Long Island, NY
Details: http://huskycon.com
First round - Fri Aug 19th at 7:00pm
Big mansion, food provided, some will be camping outside - lots of FtF players, most likely including myself and theWizard. anyone else from webdip wanna go?
6 replies
Open
dD_ShockTrooper (1199 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Can anyone defend freedom?
Can anyone defend the idea that "people" can produce a better society by diminishing governmental control in exchange for increased libertarian imposition of civil freedoms on the government?
Page 1 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
thelevite (722 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
As technology advances so does our duty shift from the government to the self. We erected government/religion as a means to protect our standard of living and prevent competing governments/religions from conquering us. It was a post-biological adaptation that ensured survival through collective will. However, as technology advanced the threat of such devastation diminished and selection pressure shifted toward the individual over a large government. (Which isn't to say that libertarian thought wishes to completely abolish government (the US constitution is one of the eminent doctrines of modern libertarian philosophy and it _clearly_ establishes a government) but that governments should have assigned roles not to be overstepped to ensure maximum liberty at minimum cost of liberty to the populace, spread over the whole.). Evolution is all about efficiency and we're most efficient at an equilibrium point continually shifting toward liberty. And again, government is a necessity in our current status, but as it intrude into our daily lives it increases odds of civil unrest which decreases the odds of our survival as a species and is selected against.
Putin33 (111 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Government has increased in scope as technology has progressed. If anything our technological advancement points to the need for increased government capacity, not less. In 1850 our federal budget was something like 60 million and our cabinet was a handful of departments. The size of government has grown enormously as we become more advanced as a society. China has a massive agency that deals specifically with the internet. Soon enough we'll have to follow their example.
See, nobody can defend freedom. It is a stupid and baseless idea these libertarians that pretend to be conservative like to throw around without anything to back it up.
thelevite (722 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Correlation != causation. "Government" size increased at two major points in American history. The civil war and great depression/ww2, both of which involved crises (albeit provoked ones) and this only expanded the EXECUTIVE branch, not the entire government. I'm not too worried about China, the power of the internet comes from the free exchange of information. Restricting that effectively hamstrings whatever potential it has as an evolutionary advantage.
ScubaDan (490 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
When there is a large oppressive government people have no motivation to do anything great because anything extra a person may have earned is taken by the government.

When there is a small government and you can keep what you earn there is more motivation to go the extra mile and work harder because you benefit from it.

Innovation is not something that happens under a communist government because everyone is supposedly equal and the benefits are theoreticly spread out over the entire population. However, if I produce a product that makes millions of dollars I want to get what I have earned and if you make one you keep that money because you deserve it.
ScubaDan (490 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
@shock trooper
or maybe its because its 1:30am

dumbass commie
Putin33 (111 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Funny, I see the inventors of Soviet products names' attached to those products so they therefore get credit for them. On the contrary I see companies stealing the rights to products from true innovators (Tesla anyone?).

"Correlation != causation. "Government" size increased at two major points in American history. The civil war and great depression/ww2, both of which involved crises (albeit provoked ones) and this only expanded the EXECUTIVE branch, not the entire government."

The correlation does not = causation thing doesn't work if your argument is that government's influence is going to decrease as time progresses. That's obviously not happening. And I would say it's more than just the executive branch. Surely the role and number of cases the judiciary takes on it has expanded greatly.

We now have government agencies dealing with every aspect of family life. You can't beat up your family anymore right? That's generally considered a positive thing, although maybe some libertarians object. Government has stepped in to make sure people don't abuse their families. We have government agencies dealing with workplace safety, dealing with environmental protection, dealing with housing, dealing with new drug approval, dealing with consumer protection. None of these activities were regulated very much, if at all, a hundred or so years ago.

And yes you're right that war leads to expansions in government scope and power. The problem for you though is that scope does not recede once the crisis is over. Government creates new agencies to deal with the crisis and these agencies provide services which people want kept. For example the census was originally put into place for military purposes. Many of our social programs regarding health also had a military function originally. The OSS/CIA didn't go away just because the war ended. The DHS won't go away after terrorism has moved into the background.
@ScubaDan: You don't seem to realise the naivety in your logic. Reducing the control of a large oppressive government is a slippery slope to legalizing raw milk. If you can give me a newspaper article that says raw milk DIDN'T cause an epidemic in Europe, then maybe I'll consider believing that freedom isn't so bad.
First getting rid of death camps, NEXT SEAT BELTS!
thelevite (722 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Putin: The core of the constitution was that we could do as we wish as long as we did not infringe on the rights of others. It would be illegal for me to assault someone, family or not, because it is not within my guaranteed rights to cause injury to someone. The closest you're going to get to a libertarian advocating familial abuse is spanking, which a great deal see as ineffectual anyway. We do have government agencies dealing with certain aspects of life to ensure that rights are not interfered with, but is it within the scope of the federal government to guarantee and protect those rights or should it be relegated to a smaller governmental body or a third party commission? The current status of our government is a flawed corporatism. Corporations were allowed the power they have BECAUSE of how government chose to regulate. The banning the sale of clove cigarettes and the issues e-cigarettes are having currently are BECAUSE the government has allowed a foothold for corporations to manipulate the market outside of competition.
The judiciary itself is a reactive branch of government, it can choose to decide to take on cases but it still requires the case to be brought to them. The executive branch doesn't need that, it can order what it wants, whether it be rendition/torture, warrantless wiretapping, or unilateral "kinetic military action" against sovereign nations.

@dD_ST
People should have the right to consume what they wish, so long as it's properly labeled and they are informed of the risks involved. That's liberty. Just because you don't use an aspect of that liberty doesn't mean you have the right to disallow someone else theirs.
thelevite (722 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
The vibe that I'm getting is very much a Homer Simpsonesque "The whole reason we have elected officials is so we don't HAVE to think all the time"
Again people do not see the broken logic! If you give people the liberty to sell what they want then they will also have the liberty to put any label they want on it. They won't tell the truth all the time so quite clearly the public sector is better.

Also, if you want to talk about government oppression, start your own thread. This thread is about people trying to produce a better society by diminishing governmental control in exchange for increased libertarian imposition of civil freedoms on the government
Putin33 (111 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
States and smaller "commissions" have not expressed a willingness to regulate this kind of thing, so that's why the federal government has had to step up. We all saw what happened in the South for 100+ years when left to their own devices to regulate race issues, voting, etc.

But anyway what the issue is is not what should happen but what will happen. You can complain about 'corporatism' or whatever libertarian catch-phrase you want, but the fact is government is not getting smaller anytime soon because problems are becoming more complex and require regulation.
thelevite (722 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
dD_ST: False conclusion. Consumers have multiple routes of recourse, they can sue the firm that sold faulty product, they can use their freedom of speech, press and peaceful assembly to stage boycotts and inform other consumers, the consumer holds all the power, even in an industry dominated by a monopoly, legal or not.
Putin: Corporatism IS our current economic system. States and third party commissions don't express a willingness BECAUSE the federal government has taken authority over the issue and will continue to maintain hold of that authority as long as they want. Federal authority supersedes municipal authority and individual will even though the latter two are much more efficient governing bodies.
"False conclusion. Consumers have multiple routes of recourse, they can sue the firm that sold faulty product, they can use their freedom of speech, press and peaceful assembly to stage boycotts and inform other consumers, the consumer holds all the power, even in an industry dominated by a monopoly, legal or not."

How can you sue if there is no government? How can you find them if there are a large number of businesses that change their name frequently or spring up, exploit and disappear. See, you don't think anything you say through. If we had freedom, you couldn't do ANYTHING against a large corporation with enough security, or a small business that can never be found. Freedom is silly, and is nothing compared to government control.
thelevite (722 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Libertarians support a government, the constitution is a libertarian document that CLEARLY establishes a government. You're under some spectrum-disorder assumption that if we don't follow your ideology with the state controlling the factors of production that we're going to slip right into pre-industrialization era business tactics.
Say you have it your way, how would you deal with dissenting opinions of your type of government? Be as detailed as possible.
This topic isn't about how I would deal with dissent. This topic is about how government control is better than people diminishing governmental control in exchange for increased libertarian imposition of civil freedoms on the government.

But libertarians also support having 0% tax, so how can a government operate when no money is being added? It is complete logical fallacy at best. These idiots don't seem to realise how the real world works. They are too busy living in their fantasy land where freedom actually helps society.
Well... interesting. I think you mean "anarchists," dD. I know most libertarians want 0% income tax, and would prefer that a given government raise its revenues through sales taxes. But again, short of completely anarchic libertarians who deserve to be called something separate, I don't know where you got the idea that libertarians demand 0% taxes. And I hardly see what's so logically fallacious about that.
ulytau (541 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
"Can anyone defend freedom?"

Visit your nearest US military base. Those guys in there are Guardians of this mythical artifact called Freedom. They do their job splendidly. But once the last base closes due to budgetary constraints, Freedom will be completely undefended and the New Dark Ages will come.

"First getting rid of death camps, NEXT SEAT BELTS!

http://avenuecanyons.cementhorizon.com/img/talkto.jpg

Anyway, good job in attracting the usual suspects, DD, but it's time to move on to the next prank.
thelevite (722 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
No. Libertarians support minimal taxes with tariffs making up the rest of the budget to provide a government that does little. Private firms, state and local governments should be doing things that the federal government now does. They are at a size where they can produce the most good at minimal cost. Federal programs typically run at a diseconomy of scale coupled with the massive amounts of political inertia required to affect change on a national level.
The humor's not lost on me how you're quick to say "LOGICAL FALLACY" and then call people who disagree with you naive idiots. Debate involves the exchange of ideas and how your own personal views compare to another person's reasoning. At least Putin is going to leave me considering some points he made and trying to reconcile my worldview with valid argument. You appear to be arguing for the sake of bashing people that disagree with you rather than actually listening and responding in kind. I really see no reason in continuing arguing with you since I'm not getting anything out of this and you're obviously refusing to consider anything other than your own viewpoint that you hold out of a raging necessity than reasoned thought.
largeham (149 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
I don't understand why libertarians support a sales tax and removing income tax. Sales taxes almost always (I can't think of any that don't) take more from the poor than from the rich proportionally. Unless of course this is just usual libertarian hypocrisy.
"or maybe its because its 1:30am

dumbass commie"

What does the time of day have to do with anything? It seems so silly to just say something of no relevance then follow it up with some very unnecessary ad hominum that just makes you look like a fool that doesn't know how to present arguments.
"The vibe that I'm getting is very much a Homer Simpsonesque"

You can always count on a supporter of something as stupid as freedom to attempt to use a cartoon TV show as evidence in a debate. I question your level of intelligence.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
I would say...

No.

State of Nature theory a la Hobbes is and always will by position here...

People are desire-pursuing machines that need regulation and order by those most suited to the task and elected to serve the greater body; the greater that body of people, the greater the needs, and so the more demand and strain there is on the governing body and, as such, the more need there is for it to grow in size and strength alike.

Rule by the common man in a libertarian system will naturally produce inequality and in-fighting, as all men are NOT created equally, and so when Joseph James Williamson III and his people are sitting pretty and Joey Jim Billy Bob Jr.'s people aren't, Billy Bob is going to see an over-simplified and rather violent solution to his people's problems, and so, with no greater government to step in and help Billy Bob and protect Williamson III, there will be greater trouble, less production, and tremendous squalor and loss.


Government is, admittedly, something of an evil.
But given that the common man's a fool, it's a necessary evil.
And the more foolish and greater amount of common men there are, the greater the need for that evil.

Or...well, you know...we could always increase education to decrease the number of commeon men...but NAH! that'd NEVER work, right? ;)
Putin33 (111 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
"Unless of course this is just usual libertarian hypocrisy."

That's their goal, to tax the poor to feed the rich.
rayNimagi (375 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Libertarianism would work great if everyone started off equally. In the real world, however, some parents have more money than others. Some people get the benefit of better education depending on where they live. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Responding to the OP question directly: People can produce the more good for *themselves* with more freedom.
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Only fools think that equality of circumstance can be legislated, but of course the world is full of fools.
The idiotic idea that the government can intervene based on the assumption that everyone should have the same starting point completely ignores the reality of immigrants entering the United States with nothing.
Immigrants show up in the United States in abject poverty and enjoy more success in their lives than Americans born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
President Obama grew up in a one parent family for goodness sake.
Freedom is the answer, not some ignorant legislative attempt to redistribute wealth through an autocratic, dictatorial government whose premise for action is that everyone must have the same starting point in life.
How defenselessly absurd.
Those fools ignore the failure of utopian communities that went down the dead end road of legislating equality in their societies. Brook Farm, Onieda, etc. etc. etc.
The bullshit excuses are endless- "your parents have more money than me" or "your parents were smarter than mine" or "your parents loved you more than mine did."
Just endless, empty philosophical excuses that ignore the truth, individual freedom is the great equalizer.

The only thing legislation can do is to enforce equality of opportunity.
This isn't a problem in the United States.
An entire legal industry pursues discrimination suits of one kind or another.
Woe be it to the corporation or individual that discriminates.
Wal-Mart just spent a fortune defending itself against a class action discrimination lawsuit and still Wal-Mart just face an endless string of individual discrimination case from female employees.
Bravo to discrimination cases in the courts.

A society that values equality over freedom will have little of either, but a society that values freedom over equality will have a great measure of both.

We can't legislate the same starting point for everyone in the United States, but we can legislate that we all run the race under the same rules.

The idiotic idea that the government can intervene based on the assumption that everyone should have the same starting point completely ignores the reality of immigrants entering the United States with nothing.

denis (864 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Well as far as freedom, yes there are people who defend freedom. Namely the governments in Scandinavia, and Switzerland, as well as other western European governments. They are rather liberal and protect individual freedom rather well, while also protecting economic freedom. Obviously the Socialist/ Labour ideologies are not the ideal. One can envision a world where there are no countries, no borders, no wars, a world where corporations help people unselfishly, nourishing not exploiting. A world where people only stand to gain from making another individuals life better, and only stand to lose when they put someones life in jeopardy. A world where religious fundamentalism and far right extremism are stories of the past. A world where people understand that there is only the time we have on this beautiful earth, where they understand is no salvation after martyrdom. Where they value life, peace, love, and this planet above all. But until this world is our world we have only to strive for a time when it can be realized, he have only to work towards such wondrous goals. We have to bear the brunt of certain hardships, make sacrifices for the future. To think that we do not need governments, is not to have to much faith in humanity, but is to be ignorant of greater evils.
Invictus (240 D)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Defending freedom is like defending oxygen.
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
23 Jul 11 UTC
Governments defend freedom? What an utterly ridiculous statement.
Governments never defend freedom.
Individuals sacrifice and defend freedom.
Who in the world said we didn't need government.
No one.

I guess when you can't refute what you disagree with it becomes necessary to construct a straw man to attack.

We need government to take care of our health care. How ludicrous.
We need a vibrant free market that provides productive jobs and competitive affordable health care of the highest quality not health care that is nothing but a career path for gross bureaucracies.
We need government to pay for our retirment? Again how ludicrous.
We need a vibrant economy that provides career paths where hard working individuals can afford their own retirement.
I love the way cowards hide behind "the earth" as if their idea of stewardship is above question and they hijack the environment and bend it to their own demented purposes.

We need the highest degree of individual freedom possible, and we need the least intrusive government compatible with the maximum individual. freedom.

The goals that an individual works towards are their own, not those imposed on them by anyone or anything else.

Only cowards call on others to suffer hardships and make sacrifices.
True individuals simply put forth their beliefs with confidence and embrace anyone who shares those beliefs and never think twice about compelling them.

Page 1 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

130 replies
Putin33 (111 D)
28 Jul 11 UTC
Are no-hitters not a big deal anymore?
When guys like Ervin Santana can get one and we've had something like 10 in the past 2 seasons are no hitters going to become passe?

Also, what the heck is La Russa's major malfunction?
27 replies
Open
Fasces349 (0 DX)
28 Jul 11 UTC
End of the LAST PERSON TO POST WINS!!!!!!!!
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=444658&page-thread=385#threadPager

The thread is now locked so its now impossible to post. In the end there were 11532 posts over 728 days. dD_ShockTrooper was the last person to post and so he won. Congrats dD_ShockTrooper!!!!!!!
14 replies
Open
Eleven (501 D)
20 Jul 11 UTC
Account sitting.
I'll be out of town for four or five days, and I'm not sure what to do. I'm pretty new to this site so I'm not sure how it works, but I've seen people mention 'account sitting'? How does that work? What are the rules? How do I find someone to do that for me? I guess I'm just looking for a general explanation. Thanks in advance. Oh, and sorry if this is explained elsewhere on the site. Perhaps I missed it when I looked.
28 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
28 Jul 11 UTC
How Much Is Everyone Muting?
I ask becuase I see folks saying they're muting folks in threads more and more...and it just seems like a shame and almost unfair to me, really...granted I'm probably one of the most-muted on the site--at least I would guess I am--but even so, all the more reason I just can't mute anyone..."if you can't stand the heat"...? You can't have it both ways, give a critical opinion and erect a shield to deflect all criticism, even if that "criticism" is a foolish troll, yes?
62 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
15 Jul 11 UTC
An Education in Economics
Liberals have the mistaken and baseless idea that government creates jobs, that government creates demand that stimulates the economy, and that any time there is a great reduction in government spending a recession will result.
94 replies
Open
Yellowjacket (835 D(B))
29 Jul 11 UTC
new game
Hey all, I'm starting a game with some work friends, might not be able to get 7 though... anybody want to be an alternate? They're all new, so less skilled players preferred.

20 buy in, anon, 24 hours period, starts Saturday at 7:12
0 replies
Open
UnknownHero (436 D)
29 Jul 11 UTC
Looking for sitter
I'll be away for 5-6 days next week and still have a couple games running. It shouldn't be too huge of a time commitment if anyone is willing, since one is a 4 day phase world game in which I have only a single unit. The other is a game in the summer gunboat tournament, so someone not part of that would be preferred.
I hope I'm not asking too much with only a few days notice, but if someone with a good reputation would PM me saying they can, I would be extremely grateful.
1 reply
Open
Darwyn (1601 D)
27 Jul 11 UTC
Pizza v. Tacos
Let's say there is a pizza joint and a taco stand right across the street from each other...
27 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
28 Jul 11 UTC
Collaborative Story...
You *must* reply with an entire paragraph. Each paragraph will be proceeded by a number. You reply must be indicated by (that number +1) so we know what you are responding to. In the event of simultaneous posts, the FIRST poster is the ONLY valid next paragraph.
22 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
28 Jul 11 UTC
Obama Repeated Buffet's Misstatement
Tomorrow's WSJ shows that Warren Buffet misstated a fact Obama included in his national address Monday, Buffet doesn't pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. It's nice to see the press doing its job.
6 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
18 Jul 11 UTC
Social Security Funding
It's interesting that the motto of social security is that you've paid in all your working life and the money is sitting there waiting for you.
24 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
21 Jul 11 UTC
Immorality of the State vs Morality of the Market
Big government advocates proceed under the assumption that government is moral and the marketplace is immoral when the exact opposite is true.
146 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
19 Jul 11 UTC
Thy mythical victim
Why is it that opinions put forth to justify government monopolies to deal with social problems consistently rely on mythical victims instead of truth or logic?
102 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
26 Jul 11 UTC
Who would pass a tax increase?
The House certainly wouldn't
The Senate would pass a tax increase.
You are going to find 51 Democrats who will vote for a tax increase?
10 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
25 Jul 11 UTC
Hysteria & Welfare State Bankruptcy
In the current budget debate you see two viewpoints-the House of Representatives realizes the Welfare State is bankrupt with $200 Trillion in deficits and unfunded liabilities. The Obama administration and the Senate think everything will be fine if they raise taxes and keep pumping devalued dollars into the economy.

64 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
25 Jul 11 UTC
Monks 1 Autocratic State 0
The verdict from federal court. Monks can sell caskets in Louisiana without also providing embalming and other funeral home services that the autocratic state government required in order to grant a monopoly over casket sales.
47 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
26 Jul 11 UTC
States defy Big Government lunacy
In individual states smaller government candidates won a majority of elections across the country in direct defiance of Big Government lunacy dominant in Washington D.C.
10 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
26 Jul 11 UTC
Common sense saves schools
Schools are for the kids not for the administrators and teachers.
29 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
28 Jul 11 UTC
Signed copy of Reckless Endangerment
How many of the forum frequenters have a signed copy of the best seller "Reckless Endangerment." What a great read.
4 replies
Open
Babak (26982 D(B))
26 Jul 11 UTC
League Format for next Season
Alderian, have you decided how you will proceed towards next season?

The detailed thread about this subject has been locked, but here it is for others who want to read the debate: http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=742701#742701
6 replies
Open
1brucben (60 D)
27 Jul 11 UTC
gunboats are stupid and ruin diplomacy
the point of diplomacy is exactly what it says. DIPLOMACY. When we get rid of ingame messaging it does away with the crucial factor of diplomacy and results in no improvement of luck. It actually makes the game far more random and chancy than it should be. I believe that we need to get rid of this option to allow DIPLOMACY to take its course. Please add your comments about this.
50 replies
Open
Mujus (1495 D(B))
28 Jul 11 UTC
Can anyone defend, I mean remember, centrists?
Why is politics so polarized today--what happened to the centrists? Is it a function of the political parties controlling the vast majority of campaign contributions?
9 replies
Open
TBroadley (178 D)
27 Jul 11 UTC
Can anyone defend 1bruchen's views?
Besides 1bruchen, of course.
16 replies
Open
denis (864 D)
27 Jul 11 UTC
Nationalism and Patriotism
The bane of civilization?
32 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
28 Jul 11 UTC
Can anyone defend posts asking in the title for posters to defend something?
If you can--well, I suppose you're needed on one of the many other generic "defend" posts...
2 replies
Open
Ruisdael (1529 D)
27 Jul 11 UTC
Minor bug
I'm not sure if others in this game are experiencing the same oddity, but in
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=63232, which is a gunboat, it's telling me I have an unread global message and I can't figure out how to "read" it or otherwise fix the problem. Thanks.
10 replies
Open
Page 770 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top