It's been fun

Hey DLimit: It's cool that you clearly have a lot of passion for your party and whatnot, but don't go around hijacking other people's threads with stuff regarding your party. Your party is not relevant at all to the topic of this thread, and you should keep that shit in your own thread.

This will be the Navy Seal copypasta of the Identity forums

But that's not at all what @Xilvius was proposing...

In what way does regulation on the free market lead to economic equality?

Equal in what sense? Economically equal? Equality in opportunity? Elaborate.

The free market is a good meme until you have massive monopolies controlling industries, and destroying competition. You can look at the lassiez faire 19/20th century Great Britain for as to why regulation is needed to control a free market from getting out of hand. No. That's not what regulation on the free market means. At all. EDIT: Forgot- U.S. steel industry of the early 1900's is a better example.

Giving out government subsidies to businesses the state wants to support is one thing, but to have to tax businesses 100% just to gain control of everyone's property (yes, within the confines of this game it is THEIR property) is a ridiculous notion. You're deepthroating a system which promotes nothing more than mediocrity.

I’m not a politician, nor do I want to be one. We just are on the opposite end of the political spectrum and I took issue with a few things he advocated for. After all, who the Governor is will massively impact my experience in the game and I just want to make sure we have the right people in power.

You do understand that there’s a distinction between the population deciding to buy my product or not, in comparison to the population deciding the DIRECTION of my company, right? This is VERY different from one another.

Great.. under your administration my business will be at the will of the 14 year old majority player-base. How motivating...

Because the business' success would be at the will of the government, not on their own volition to succeed.

This would seem like a wildly unpopular idea among anybody who seeks economic success via the means of their own ideas being translated into the game. So, your plan is to tax businesses to hell until they die, so the state can buy them for cheap?

This isn't possible with how the game has been currently presented. As of now, the game will function as such: 1) Each person can have one business to their name (per server) 2) Each person can have one job to their name (per server) Nowhere has any developer stated that the government can take control of small business, because it's in the rightful property of the people who started them. For example, once I start my business in game, you can't do anything to touch it, as you have no powers to do so.

What are you talking about? We're speaking within the confines of the GAME, which has an inherently capitalist economy with a backbone of small business. You can't just take away the ability for people to create a business, because that's an integral part of the game mechanics. Your argument should not be whether communism is applicable to the real world, but rather if it is AT ALL possible in this game, which it isn't. Being a Governor does not give you the power to change the mechanics of the game, no matter how hard you RP.

Again, this goes back to the whole "quantity over quality" thing again whenever a communist society puts its' people to work towards a communal goal. The demand of the people does not entirely in itself create demand for motivated workers. It's incentives such as the opportunity to make more money, to have a nice house, and to provide for your family that motivate workers to work hard. It's only human nature to act in our own self greed, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the situation you provided, a communist society would force its' business owners to artificially lower their prices, and force workers into public projects to create more housing. Do you see where this can lead to further poverty and the destruction of small business in an already shitty situation? The idea that a capitalist society only produces the needs of the people *when they can afford it* is very much true. This goes back to where I stated: Many communist states historically haven't gone bankrupt due to U.S. intervention, but more so based on the irresponsibility of its own economy. This is what happens when you give too much power to the majority to make decisions; aka tyranny of the majority. Why do you think companies are trying to leave socialist cities such as Seattle (where I live)? It's because within a socialist society, small and large business cannot thrive. Amazon, Boeing, Microsoft, etc. are the BIGGEST contributors to our state economy, and because of recent propositions by socialists such as Kshama Sawant and Mike O'Brien, they're almost being forced out. Read what I said here: Also, as a side note, do you see how the idea that everyone will have a job with the same pay will kill competition? Why should a doctor thrive to become a partner with one of the top healthcare providers in the country if he's going to be paid as the same local joe practitioner down the block who puts in half the effort? Another communist fairy-tale. The Koreans fell for these kind of empty promises, and look at them now:

Right, but why do you think that happens in the first place? It's due to the fact that when communism crumbles due to being unsustainable, the people default to the economic system which aligns most naturally with human nature: capitalism. When the state cannot produce a certain good or service which the people need, the people will look within to see if another can provide that good/service, leading to the recycled reliance of capitalism. This is an assumption that is not backed up in any study discussed thus far. I was speaking specifically of the wealth distribution within a capitalist country, which in this case was the U.S. In advocating for a direct democracy, you ignore the dangers of tyranny of the majority, which is honestly just as bad as tyranny of the individual. Whether you are forced by a tyrant or the majority it really doesn't matter and in some ways worse because the majority does it conscious free, they think they are doing right. If you need an example, you can just look at the majority supported slavery in the South (of the U.S.). That is, if that certain role is needed or required by the economy of that country. Everything defaults back to very basic economics: supply/demand. It is incredibly dangerous for a government state to artificially produce un-needed positions just to occupy their citizens, by the aforementioned problem of "overmanning". I would argue that capitalism does a much better job of regulating this sort of thing.

This is a communist fairy-tale. Now, please understand that I'm not a blind follower of the system of capitalism, and I acknowledge the many faults of the system. This is why I personally advocate for a free market with subtle government intervention in order to sustain a healthy environment for all individuals and businesses to thrive (control the outbreak of monopolies that destroy competition). One of the communist system's strengths of being able to quickly mobilize it's people towards a common goal (whether forced against the will of the people or not) also leads to a major weakness, which is the lack of incentives- a major problem that the USSR ran into. When the USSR assigned an individual a certain job (most of the time against his/her will, as most communists states do), the efficiency to produce the desired result was massively inefficient and actually was a lot of the time detrimental to the development of that given program. For example, in a study conducted in the former USSR, over 50% of the work force admitted to drinking alcohol while on the job. Furthermore, unbeknownst to the communist party, nearly 40% chose to work a second job privately to attain more wealth. A reason for failure in work ethics and motivation is the necessity that all communists must be employed. Overmanning positions trivializes the work needed to be performed and placed the concentration on quantity rather than quality. “This fact,” according to David A. Lane, “gives rise to economic pressures that keep wage low and demand for labour high, which leads to widespread overstaffing and slack work standards.” Instead of each person contributing, each additional excessive worker lowers the overall quality of the product. Many communist societies force upon jobs out of theoretical necessity without providing a way of sustaining interest or providing training. Therefore, Communism in practice counteracts the goal of making society better through communal collaboration. This is just a flat out lie. http://www.ustrust.com/ust/pages/insights-on-wealth-and-worth-2016.aspx Only 10% of the modern wealth comes from inheritance. In fact, the vast majority of business owners in America were self-made, and the majority of their wealth came from businesses that they created with no other familial assistance. Working in a factory line completing repetitive tasks, for example, should not be rewarded the same as a person who creates a revolutionary product with real consumer demand. This is just a fundamental disagreement between you and I, it seems.

Those who are capable with the will to succeed always make it one way or another. Not this bullshit where "everyone gets a even slice of the pie". There are people on top, and there are people on the bottom. That's how the world works, and that's how the world has always worked. His interpretation of the world is disgustingly naive.

There you go again, caring too much about what people think of your image

@MauriceClinton you rn

You just answered your own question. These interviews and debates before the actual release of the modules will be pretty meaningless in comparison to the actual real debates and interviews taken place in-game where the majority of the public will receive their information: not by looking at outside sources. I'm not saying to wait until the official release, I'm just saying to wait until at least the first module where we can actually experience the game for ourselves.

Your logic makes absolutely zero sense. It's not the workers that take the risk of creating a start-up, putting the money up-front to support and fund an idea that can potentially make a lot of money. This idea that the workers should be given an equal distribution for taking a ridiculously smaller risk is going to kill innovation, and the motivation to create something new and revolutionary. This is where Capitalism is an actively better system of economics in which people can thrive on their own accord, with the will to be successful in a free and open market.

Debates shouldn't be held outside of the game in third-party venues such as Discord or whatever else you're planning to use. These should be held in-game, in front of the public.

But that's the entire point.