LuciousTimes

Mr. Lucious Times For Governor ( The Royal Family Party )

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, LuciousTimes said:

Once the business establishes it's desires that's it, no changes may be made without consent of the state! Which if isn't ridiculous will be approved! 

So even if the business is failing into the ground with its current business plan, it couldn't switch it's direction without the consent of the state??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

So even if the business is failing into the ground with its current business plan, it couldn't switch it's direction without the consent of the state??

Only because some businesses will try screwing over customers with high prices! If the clothing or product is copyrighted and customers can't get it anywhere else and they want it they have no choice but to pay whatever ridiculous price is presented! That's why it needs to be approved to be fair to the customer!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LuciousTimes said:

Only because some businesses will try screwing over customers with high prices! If the clothing or product is copyrighted and customers can't get it anywhere else and they want it they have no choice but to pay whatever ridiculous price is presented! That's why it needs to be approved to be fair to the customer!  

So essentially, you're putting an end to high-end clothing and fashion that's of limited quantity. You're conflating current government policy of industry monopoly with individual company. What you're planning to do is perfectly okay for industry monopoly, but NOT for an individual privately owned company. You can't regulate the price of my Supreme T-Shirt just because somebody can't buy the same T-shirt elsewhere. That's our property, and we can sell the product at the price that the market demands. Having the ownership to sell a particular T-Shirt does not equate to having monopoly over an industry by any means. Somebody can go by a T-Shirt somewhere else.. they don't have to buy MY T-Shirt.

Let's say for instance, that my company only releases in limited supply, and we release 20 stock of a particular clothing of a particular size, at $1000 dollars a piece (not to say that this is what my company will do, but just as example). Is this ridiculous in the eyes of the government? If there's a market demand for this piece of clothing, then why can't the organization put the price to what the customer is willing to pay? Prices are due to change dependent upon the willingness of the customer base, NOT the government.

If you're going to continue down the anti-free market position, I can't find myself supporting you unfortunately. It's the market that determines prices and wage, NOT the government. If you place fictitious price and wage regulations, it will saturate the market and destroy the economy.

Edited by SupremeLeader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

So essentially, you're putting an end to high-end clothing and fashion that's of limited quantity. You're conflating current government policy of industry monopoly with individual company. What you're planning to do is perfectly okay for industry monopoly, but NOT for an individual privately owned company. You can't regulate the price of my Supreme T-Shirt just because somebody can't buy the same T-shirt elsewhere. That's our property, and we can sell the product at the price that the market demands. Having the ownership to sell a particular T-Shirt does not equate to having monopoly over an industry by any means. Somebody can go by a T-Shirt somewhere else.. they don't have to buy MY T-Shirt.

Let's say for instance, that my company only releases in limited supply, and we release 20 stock of a particular clothing of a particular size, at $1000 dollars a piece (not to say that this is what my company will do, but just as example). Is this ridiculous in the eyes of the government? If there's a market demand for this piece of clothing, then why can't the organization put the price to what the customer is willing to pay? Prices are due to change dependent upon the willingness of the customer base, NOT the government.

If you're going to continue down the anti-free market position, I can't find myself supporting you unfortunately. It's the market that determines prices and wage, NOT the government. If you place fictitious price and wage regulations, it will saturate the market and destroy the economy.

That's not ridiculous pricing...that pricing makes sense! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LuciousTimes said:

That's not ridiculous pricing...that pricing makes sense! 

Then please explain further what you mean by the following:

On 1/31/2017 at 8:12 PM, LuciousTimes said:

They can't respond on their own to free market forces. 

Raising the price to market demand IS in essence, responding to free market forces. Customer demand and willingness to buy at a certain price IS a free market force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

Then please explain further what you mean by the following:

Raising the price to market demand IS in essence, responding to free market forces. Customer demand and willingness to buy at a certain price IS a free market force.

On their own, meaning the price needs to be approved!  Anything over $5000 is ridiculous! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LuciousTimes said:

On their own, meaning the price needs to be approved!  Anything over $5000 is ridiculous! 

Is it really ridiculous? If it's a limited edition piece, that is a legendary clothing collaboration between two companies that have had major differences over the years and they release something of the sort and price it at $5000, with many people very much WILLING to pay $5000 for that piece, is it really ridiculous?

I am very unsettled by the idea that the government can control what is accepted as "ridiculous" or not, even if the consumer base thinks entirely differently. What is a "ridiculous" price is decided by the person BUYING the item. The government should have absolutely ZERO business in a consensual transaction between two people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

Is it really ridiculous? If it's a limited edition piece, that is a legendary clothing collaboration between two companies that have had major differences over the years and they release something of the sort and price it at $5000, with many people very much WILLING to pay $5000 for that piece, is it really ridiculous?

I am very unsettled by the idea that the government can control what is accepted as "ridiculous" or not, even if the consumer base thinks entirely differently. What is a "ridiculous" price is decided by the person BUYING the item. The government should have absolutely ZERO business in a consensual transaction between two people. 

I agree with the majority of that! I'll set a $5000 limit on items that are if bulk, but all limited edition, exclusive,  and auctioned items will have no limit!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LuciousTimes said:

I agree with the majority of that! I'll set a $5000 limit on items that are if bulk, but all limited edition, exclusive,  and auctioned items will have no limit!


Even if a particular product is produced in bulk and is priced at $5000, if there's a consumer demand for that product and the consumer base is willing to purchase at that price (hypothetical), then what is the problem with this? 

It's a consensual business transaction between two people. Are you advocating to essentially put a gun to a businessman's head and force him to price his products at a certain price range? There should be no need for this. The product will price itself through the market demand. 

Also, FYI it's highly unlikely that anyone would be willing to pay $5000 for your typical Fruit of the Looms T-Shirt because of consumer market demand so I don't see a reason why you feel the need to have such a regulation in place for mass-bulk products. It seems so pointless. And on top of that, on a philosophical scale, it can be found as pretty disgusting to many people who believe in the most basic principles of individual liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:


Even if a particular product is produced in bulk and is priced at $5000, if there's a consumer demand for that product and the consumer base is willing to purchase at that price (hypothetical), then what is the problem with this? 

It's a consensual business transaction between two people. Are you advocating to essentially put a gun to a businessman's head and force him to price his products at a certain price range? There should be no need for this. The product will price itself through the market demand. 

Also, FYI it's highly unlikely that anyone would be willing to pay $5000 for your typical Fruit of the Looms T-Shirt because of consumer market demand so I don't see a reason why you feel the need to have such a regulation in place for mass-bulk products. It seems so pointless. And on top of that, on a philosophical scale, it can be found as pretty disgusting to many people who believe in the most basic principles of individual liberty.

Due to your influence I'll edit the 5 characteristics of my economy! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LuciousTimes said:

Due to your influence I'll edit the 5 characteristics of my economy! 

Thanks for having an honest and open discussion! It's hard to have one of those these days :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

Thanks for having an honest and open discussion! It's hard to have one of those these days :)

Definitely! I've now edited the 5th characteristic that explained everything we discussed! I even added what I mention about business tax!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FatherOfLoyalty said:

It's nice seeing the campaign topic labeled "HOT" on the forums!

Yes, yes it is!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Devonor said:

Please just let me know which server you're going to be on when the game is released, because I'll be on a different one lol

I'm not even upset with that! That's actually really funny, sounds like something I'd say! Good one for real!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all of the candidates I have been reading about so far, then you have my support. Still long time to full release, but you are on right track, keep up the good work @LuciousTimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Turaxis said:

Of all of the candidates I have been reading about so far, then you have my support. Still long time to full release, but you are on right track, keep up the good work @LuciousTimes

Really appreciated!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Devonor said:

I have decided to state my upset publicly. Here are my problems with a Lucious Times government.

 

The first thing that makes me question whether I'd appoint you to authority, is the mention of a Constitutional Dictatorship. Firstly, I believe you may have an incorrect understanding of the term. The "dictator's" executive powers are only to be used in a time of emergency. This discrepancy in how you are describing the process of large government decisions ("the leader will have the final yes or no) is incorrect and it also makes me worry for the sake of the people and their power if you were to be elected. Yes, he is limited by the power given to him by the constitution, but let's have a look through history; specifically at World War II. Adolf Hitler rose to power through the manipulation of his nation's constitution. Even though Germany's pre-World War II republic proved to be very poor, it is obvious that these things are now hard to overlook and must be heavily scrutinized in the modern government. Using the word dictatorship in your very own description of your ideal government throws up a huge red flag to me. Not only do I not know much about you, which leads to almost immediate distrust, but I believe that your poor choice of words should be a warning to us all. Just because a "Constitutional Dictatorship" is only supposed to be exercised during times of emergency, there is a major opportunity for the government to take control away from its people. 

 

Secondly, I do not agree with the legalization of Marijuana. (Not only do I find it distasteful that an political official would use the term "weed"", but I believe that it will just turn into a another substance (much like alcohol) for people to abuse and cause to danger to innocent citizens. Thousands of innocent people are already killed per year by drunk drivers, and I would not like to see how those numbers would skyrocket if there is another substance for the public to abuse. 

 

I am elated to see that you have replaced your "eye for an eye" policy. However, I do believe that if the government is providing sentencing, it is essentially removing that power from the nation's people on juries, the highly regarded and respected justices and magistrates of this nation, and also the general public. This freaks me out a little bit.

 

A government should provide its people with a way to battle monopolies, not own them. What you are describing is the absolute opposite of a free economy. In the United States, it is referred to as Laissez-faire or free market economics. I believe that the government should not be involved in business, and most definitely not if it is going to steal such large money-making opportunities from its people like you have described: finances, utilities, and automotive. 

 

In regards to the disadvantages of a Lucious Time economy: Why should the government have power over what its peoples' occupations and what they should provide? This comes dangerously close to a government that limits its peoples' freedom to desire and provide anything. A citizen "finding a way to fulfill their needs," is another way of saying that the government will not be providing its citizens with what they want, but instead what the government thinks they need. A healthy government should be able to provide both. Consumer demand is one of the most important things in the ebbs and flows of a free economy. I think that a black market is a very dangerous way for citizens to "find what they want." I think it is either a lie for you to say that you would not regulate it, or a very ignorant move on your part. How will the government make sure that said "black market" is not riddled with illegal substances if the government vows to not keep an eye out? Clever criminals would basically be provided with a way to buy and sell illegal substances and services. 

 

In the fifth characteristic of a Lucious Times economy, you state that the government will provide the people with a business model that it must abide by in order to "enforce the central plan." This is very dangerous and restricting on the people, and I believe that you should consider changing this. You are stealing the power of business from the people. Businesses should be allowed to fail or succeed based on what the owners deem the correct decisions for their own company. The government does not own the people or their business ideas. In fact, it should be quite the opposite.

 

In regard to your healthcare policy: is it illegal to not pay for government provided healthcare? It is evident that you are trying, but inevitably there are going to be those that cannot afford your government-based healthcare programs. 

 

In conclusion, I am afraid that a Lucious Times government is a government that tries to control its people and their will. I will not be voting for you, and I will advise that many others do the same. 

It is one thing to give your opinion, it is another to try and sway others. You may forget that this is a game and I'm far from role playing when I say this. The game doesn't have 100% real world aspects. Not everything your saying is capable of being done in the game. But I'm not upset, who you vote for is your choice. We may not even be on the same server, but I feel it would have greater for you to explain to me your distaste, I could have made some changes and bettered the campaign. As we discussed and I did so last night. Not verbatim, but you basically accused me trying to use the government to take over the power of the people etc. That's just ridiculous, I could care less about taking the power etc. I want everything to be fair. But you have your view and we can discuss this further where you may council me with your suggestions or we can just leave it as is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are going to understand your campaign without explanation! Some ask for an explanation and then when you give it to them they too understand! Some will never understand your campaign and some ask for an explanation, but still never understand...your campaign! Sadly, that's the way of politics!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polls are changing everyday! As new people influence I update my policies, let's hear some influence! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New alliances are forming amongst us great politicians, be tuned for more information! And remember, you heard it first from Lucious Times! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now