Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Gary Gygax & D&D FBI Files

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
Good points and it was fun to read. Also, just like people who claim free markets are the best, they forget that free markets lead to monopolies that are the worst. I believe in boarders and sovereignty because I believe in diversity and geographical needs. Also, I want other countries to be fun to visit and be totally alien. I hate homogeny and conformity. Free markets are good with some regulations and laws stopping things very bad for free markets, such as illegal immigration lowering wages of a countr's citizens or creating a perpetual underclass. Same goes with boarders. Same goes for everything, including liberty, etc. As Tacticus states - the more numerous the laws the more corrupt the State.

I actually have a different perspective towards the free market and monopolies. I believe every monopoly in history has been the result of government interference in the market. Under a free market, eventually competition will rise up that does something better/cheaper and they will knock the king off the throne. However, if the government is propping up the monopoly, that is virtually impossible to do. The problem with the logic of using regulations to prevent monopolies is they often end up being exactly what creates and sustains the monopoly. That's because regulations quickly become a form of crony-Capitalism once the big business interests get involved with government. They then use the regulations, masquerading as being a deterrent against big business, as a tool to crush all competition. Thus, the government becomes an instrument of uplift and protection for them, because they can manipulate the laws/regulations to suit them and ensure that any competition cannot endure them. They have the lobbyists, lawyers and money to get around them. It can't be said about any start-up that tries to challenge them. There's a reason, for example, Wal-Mart lobbied for Obamacare even though it would cost them tremendously: they knew that it would be more harmful to their competition. It also gave them a scapegoat for not providing their employees with benefits.

One of the worst examples I can think of in recent history of anti-monoply/anti-Trust laws being ridiculous is in regards to Whole Foods. A few years ago, the FTC sued Whole Foods, saying they were a "monopoly in premium and organic food supermarkets," which is a concept they invented. They ended up having to sell 32 stores to comply with the FTC. They spent over $32 million dollars fighting it, won in the courts but the FTC has their own courts so after Whole Foods won in the regular courts they told them they were going to be taken to the FTC courts. They realized this was going to cost them at least $100 million dollars so they decided it was more cost effective to just close the stores. Now, a couple of years after this Whole Foods started getting into financial trouble as profits went down and people backlashed over their expensive prices. You see, other grocery chains had started carrying huge premium and organic food sections with selections at lower prices. The free market went to work and gave them competition. Now, hilariously, Amazon -- a company that is constantly labeled a monopoly -- has purchased Whole Foods. Ironically, if you Google "Amazon Whole Foods monoply" 90% of the articles are defending the purchase or saying it's not a monopoly and the FTC hasn't flinched. I guess Amazon has better lobbyists and connections in government.

Today you can get sued for being a monopoly if your prices are too low (predatory pricing), if they're too high (monopolistic prices) or if they're the same as competitors (collusion).

No one can win under that because no matter what you do you can be sued for being a "monopoly" and consider who made the "predatory pricing" law: big business with powerful lobbyists who wanted government to be used as a tool in case someone undercuts their prices to compete. They're big enough so that they can avoid the government coming after them for overpricing goods and even if the government did they can afford to beat it in court, while smaller companies cannot. The entire anti-trust system is rigged against competition and against the consumer. The free market doesn't have these issues.

If you care to listen, Tom Woods has an excellent Podcast covering this topic from this perspective: http://tomwoods.com/ep-232-the-robber-barons-and-monopoly/

Look at Google and Facebook and Twitter. There was a time when the news would never refer to a product by name, now the populace are the ones creating and enforcing the monopolies. Everyone is so eager to the hip that they love turning a product into a commonly used verb, and the media and the government is helping them out by also using these product names as verbs.

And I disagree wholeheartedly with the free market's stance on monopolies. Historic monopolies lasted centuries and didn't change without wars. Also, in this global environment, with businesses looking for only short term gains, and the ability to lobby all the corrupt governments for their benefits, monopolies are far more hurtful to any market and the global population than ever.

Your Whole Foods example really bothers my sense of fairness. But, if the government wasn't corrupt this wouldn't have happened. Trader Joe or some other fucking pricks probably gave tons of money to the right people to "enforce justice."

What looks good on paper, and works on paper, doesn't translate well into today's world. People are to entrenched in their cults to care about anything besides what their cult leaders tell them - and why so many politicians can get away with murder. Before anything happens to allow global corporations more power we need to purge our government of corruption and have the left go through some sort of cult un-indoctrination program. And we need to start electing only severely autistic people who can pass some sort of test proving they are incorruptible and swear to uphold the constitution and the rule of law.

This is a pipe dream so I have to side against the big corps and global corps and against corporations. Just look at how the 50 year rule for public domain has been shit on by all the corrupt governments of the world, with the US leading the charge. I guess Funcom is sending cease and desist letters to people around the globe writing Conan stories or other Conan related stuff. Its bullshit.
 

GarlandExCon

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
6,957
Look at Google and Facebook and Twitter. There was a time when the news would never refer to a product by name, now the populace are the ones creating and enforcing the monopolies. Everyone is so eager to the hip that they love turning a product into a commonly used verb, and the media and the government is helping them out by also using these product names as verbs.

And I disagree wholeheartedly with the free market's stance on monopolies. Historic monopolies lasted centuries and didn't change without wars. Also, in this global environment, with businesses looking for only short term gains, and the ability to lobby all the corrupt governments for their benefits, monopolies are far more hurtful to any market and the global population than ever.

Your Whole Foods example really bothers my sense of fairness. But, if the government wasn't corrupt this wouldn't have happened. Trader Joe or some other fucking pricks probably gave tons of money to the right people to "enforce justice."

What looks good on paper, and works on paper, doesn't translate well into today's world. People are to entrenched in their cults to care about anything besides what their cult leaders tell them - and why so many politicians can get away with murder. Before anything happens to allow global corporations more power we need to purge our government of corruption and have the left go through some sort of cult un-indoctrination program. And we need to start electing only severely autistic people who can pass some sort of test proving they are incorruptible and swear to uphold the constitution and the rule of law.

This is a pipe dream so I have to side against the big corps and global corps and against corporations. Just look at how the 50 year rule for public domain has been shit on by all the corrupt governments of the world, with the US leading the charge. I guess Funcom is sending cease and desist letters to people around the globe writing Conan stories or other Conan related stuff. Its bullshit.

1. I actually don't think this statement is true at all. I can name tons of brand names people use as generic terms. Jet Ski, Bubble wrap, Jacuzzi, Chapstick, Crock Pot, Kleenex, Scotch Tape, Popsicle, Q-Tips, Tupperwear, Band Aids, etc. You pick up any kind of transparent tape or any sort of adhesive bandage and people call it scotch tape or band-aid no matter what, even though that's the name of an actual brand. This is the case because it's that well known. If 90% of the population currently uses Google to prefer internet services than of course they're going to say "Google it" just like they would "Put a Band Aid on it" or "Scotch tape it." But if it's government doing it, wouldn't that be an example of what I was talking about with government getting in bed with big business helping create monopolies (not that I think any of those companies necessarily are... before Google or Facebook existed Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL had all at one time or another been called monopolies... and what happened to them? They had a temporary competitive advantage, but ultimately were knocked from the top and then some).

2. I don't think there are any modern monopolies. I've watched so many businesses people said were monopolies either completely crash and burn or be knocked from the top. Temporary competitive advantage is a thing, but if it exists it's because they were the best. If you look at historical monopolies in the U.S. like the American Tobacco Company it is easy to see that it was government intervention and not the free market that caused it. Thomas DiLorenzo has done some wonderful writing about this subject.

3. I do agree that if the government wasn't corrupt the Whole Foods thing wouldn't have happened, but it wasn't the free market or capitalism that corrupted government, it was the opposite: it was government intervention and resulting crony-capitalism. It was the destruction of the free market.

In the end, I'm willing to bet you that in 20 years we'll have all new boogie man companies that get called monopolies and the ones we consider monopolies today won't be so fierce.
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
Look at Google and Facebook and Twitter. There was a time when the news would never refer to a product by name, now the populace are the ones creating and enforcing the monopolies. Everyone is so eager to the hip that they love turning a product into a commonly used verb, and the media and the government is helping them out by also using these product names as verbs.

And I disagree wholeheartedly with the free market's stance on monopolies. Historic monopolies lasted centuries and didn't change without wars. Also, in this global environment, with businesses looking for only short term gains, and the ability to lobby all the corrupt governments for their benefits, monopolies are far more hurtful to any market and the global population than ever.

Your Whole Foods example really bothers my sense of fairness. But, if the government wasn't corrupt this wouldn't have happened. Trader Joe or some other fucking pricks probably gave tons of money to the right people to "enforce justice."

What looks good on paper, and works on paper, doesn't translate well into today's world. People are to entrenched in their cults to care about anything besides what their cult leaders tell them - and why so many politicians can get away with murder. Before anything happens to allow global corporations more power we need to purge our government of corruption and have the left go through some sort of cult un-indoctrination program. And we need to start electing only severely autistic people who can pass some sort of test proving they are incorruptible and swear to uphold the constitution and the rule of law.

This is a pipe dream so I have to side against the big corps and global corps and against corporations. Just look at how the 50 year rule for public domain has been shit on by all the corrupt governments of the world, with the US leading the charge. I guess Funcom is sending cease and desist letters to people around the globe writing Conan stories or other Conan related stuff. Its bullshit.

1. I actually don't think this statement is true at all. I can name tons of brand names people use as generic terms. Jet Ski, Bubble wrap, Jacuzzi, Chapstick, Crock Pot, Kleenex, Scotch Tape, Popsicle, Q-Tips, Tupperwear, Band Aids, etc. You pick up any kind of transparent tape or any sort of adhesive bandage and people call it scotch tape or band-aid no matter what, even though that's the name of an actual brand. This is the case because it's that well known. If 90% of the population currently uses Google to prefer internet services than of course they're going to say "Google it" just like they would "Put a Band Aid on it" or "Scotch tape it." But if it's government doing it, wouldn't that be an example of what I was talking about with government getting in bed with big business helping create monopolies (not that I think any of those companies necessarily are... before Google or Facebook existed Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL had all at one time or another been called monopolies... and what happened to them? They had a temporary competitive advantage, but ultimately were knocked from the top and then some).

2. I don't think there are any modern monopolies. I've watched so many businesses people said were monopolies either completely crash and burn or be knocked from the top. Temporary competitive advantage is a thing, but if it exists it's because they were the best. If you look at historical monopolies in the U.S. like the American Tobacco Company it is easy to see that it was government intervention and not the free market that caused it. Thomas DiLorenzo has done some wonderful writing about this subject.

3. I do agree that if the government wasn't corrupt the Whole Foods thing wouldn't have happened, but it wasn't the free market or capitalism that corrupted government, it was the opposite: it was government intervention and resulting crony-capitalism. It was the destruction of the free market.

In the end, I'm willing to bet you that in 20 years we'll have all new boogie man companies that get called monopolies and the ones we consider monopolies today won't be so fierce.

I don't disagree with anything you said completely besides point 1. The news and the government would never say Kleenex, they would say tissue. Or there would be a new generic verb to use, such as emailing or water skiing. When the news and government are both enforcing the monopoly of monopolies, and approving nonsense patterns because people know which pockets to line, the system is broken.

Look at the East India Trading Company, or the silk trade between China and Japan around the same time. Look at how corrupt the FDA is. How is that not a monopoly?

Also look at the Molly McGuire's and the actual wars the miners and mining corps had in Idaho. Teddy Roosevelt had to step in. Some things that work in a vacuum do not work in real life. A real free market requires no government intervention and no governments, because it needs the free movement of labor and resources. USDA was formed because people were being sold rotten meat. You and I may say - get the word out and people will stop buying from there and the place will close. But this is rarely true. People are dumb and want the government to protect them from their own stupidity. And more importantly, the news agencies are all controlled by global corporations and are more propaganda machines and manipulators than actual news outlets. The do not report on news that would hurt them, their world view, or their parent company. They feel free making up news and attacking relentlessly anyone who dare oppose them and their views.

In a different, smarter, much less corrupt world I agree with you. In our current world, I wish there was a law limiting the size of any business and having huge incentives for people to start competitive businesses when there is no competition. Free markets assume there is a choice and people make decisions. Monopolies leave no choices and people do not make decisions - they follow the crowd like lemmings. There is a running joke at work because I always say "look it up on the internet, or use a search engine to find it." I refuse to ever say "Google it." Fuck google. I never use google. And I'm made fun of for not using this piece of shit commy company filled with uppity dickheads as a verb.

When I was younger I would think a more libertarian approach to government would force people to be smarter and better informed. That will never happen as long as those who hate liberty are in control of the news and all the major corporations (who also happen to own the news).

Things aren't going to be workable until there is a major power shake-up. I think there will be civil war and then a major economic collapse and vacuum. And since we manufacture basically jack and shit in the US the absolute worst case scenario would be a libertarian approach to government since that vacuum will be filled by global corporations at a time we need small business to start, flourish, and manufacture the US back to the top. I think the only chance for a bright future after the war and collapse would be ensuring no large corps are allowed in the US and stopping corps from growing at a small percentage of GDP. It kills me to have believe only heavy handed, anti-corp government would work given what I want society and the government to be, but I don't see another workable solution that doesn't result in the same lemming cult mentality and super corrupt governments pandering to way too powerful corps. Government is fire and should always be treated as such. It has to be constantly contained and controlled lest it spread and destroy everything. I know you don't believe in totally free markets so I am hoping you can see somewhat empathize with how I see the current situation as being unworkable.
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
I could see John Goodman as Gary, mainly because the Gary described in those FBI files seems awfully similar to Walter from The Big Lebowski.

I don't see it. In DDO GG does the narration for some dungeons and I was surprised when I listened to Cleve's funding campaign video that they actually sound a lot alike. He would be the way to go for an animated movie just needing a VO. I am thinking Steve Buscemi would be a good fit if he can change his voice.
 

Severian Silk

Guest
Leonardo DiCaprio or Justin Timberlake. Maybe Justin Bieber.
 

GarlandExCon

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
6,957
I don't disagree with anything you said completely besides point 1. The news and the government would never say Kleenex, they would say tissue. Or there would be a new generic verb to use, such as emailing or water skiing. When the news and government are both enforcing the monopoly of monopolies, and approving nonsense patterns because people know which pockets to line, the system is broken.

Look at the East India Trading Company, or the silk trade between China and Japan around the same time. Look at how corrupt the FDA is. How is that not a monopoly?

I'm not sure the news wouldn't say Kleenex. I bet several times it's happened because it's that common to call tissue Kleenex. The East India Trading Company or the silk trade are actually purpose examples for making my point. Both did not exist under a truly free market system and both were propped up and supported by government intervention, which again is not the free market nor is it capitalism. It is crony-capitalism. In fact the EITC was so divorced from the free market that is was practically a socialist entity as government owned shares and and eventually not only had indirect control but direct control. Since it was established via Royal Charter, the government always had indirect control, so it was practically always a government entity.

Just as is the FDA, which is wholly governmental. This is another great example that supports my point? Are you sure we don't agree 100% here? lol. Anyway, the FDA should be abolished, just like another governmental monopoly: public education. This just goes to prove my point that monopolies cannot exist without government involvement and the only true monopolies can exist in government. In a true free market, there is no government involvement, so monopolies cannot exist. The FDA is actually one of the best examples in government of the perversion of the free market and the festering of crony-capitalism. Pharmaceutical companies use the government via the FDA to prop themselves up. They can use their lobbyists and pull in the FDA to ensure that any new drug that is a threat to their existing drug is not approved.

Also look at the Molly McGuire's and the actual wars the miners and mining corps had in Idaho. Teddy Roosevelt had to step in. Some things that work in a vacuum do not work in real life. A real free market requires no government intervention and no governments, because it needs the free movement of labor and resources. USDA was formed because people were being sold rotten meat. You and I may say - get the word out and people will stop buying from there and the place will close. But this is rarely true. People are dumb and want the government to protect them from their own stupidity. And more importantly, the news agencies are all controlled by global corporations and are more propaganda machines and manipulators than actual news outlets. The do not report on news that would hurt them, their world view, or their parent company. They feel free making up news and attacking relentlessly anyone who dare oppose them and their views.

The USDA is another example of crony-capitalism propping up industry. It provides subsidies to prop up the agriculture industry and big agri-business use it to enforce ridiculous regulations on small farms to keep in "check." They're also behind the terrible National School Lunch Program.

In this modern day, it's ENTIRELY true that getting the word out will cause a place to close. We love in a day and age when things go viral and it's because all of those companies you were mentioning before like Google and Twitter and Facebook. A little dip shit diner in Alabama can serve someone rat accidentally and it's a trending hashtag on Twitter. Look at what happened to Taco Bell with the "pink slime" thing -- and that was just a made up term!

But I am curious as to why you condemn the FDA in one breath as a monopoly but in another point to what you see as the benefits of the USDA since both have similar roles in government (both are suppose to protect the population from unsafe food).

Of course, neither of a stellar record of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foodborne_illness_outbreaks_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

If you look at the FDA and USDA, consider the sustainable and organic food movement to see the free market making up for government failures. People started this movement because they were unhappy with the quality of food that was being produced under the guidance of the FDA and USDA. They didn't like that both these organizations have said it is okay to allow certain chemicals and pesticides in food (including meat) because business lobbyists have convinced both agencies to do so. They didn't like that both agencies were saying it's okay to use Round-Up Ready corn in our food supply because Monsanto lobbied them to be able to do so.

Small farmers are cut out of participating in USDA programs because of the time and cost of doing so. This works out create for the agri-business interests that use the USDA to manipulate the market because it means they have less competition. If you look at things like the USDA Certified Organic sticker, it's a joke and was created after big agri-business lobbied the USDA to create such a sticker so they could be part of the organic trend by masquerading as being organic while actually only ensuring limited standards in the production of their produce. Barriers are often created in the same way that are expensive, inconsistent and complete bureaucratic non-sense. Grade A meat, "Low Sodium," "Fat Free," "All Natural," "milk chocolate," "choice cut," "ice cream," "frozen custard," etc. All of these are loaded, meaningless definitions the FDA/USDA gives food products based on insanely complicated standards that are extremely difficult if not impossible for small farms and food producers to follow. The definitions are intentionally arbitrary and were created being big business lobbyists wrote them! They wanted to make standards so specific and ridiculous as to render competition hobbled. Hence, more government created monopolization. They're also incredibly misleading. For example, "All Natural" doesn't necessarily mean it's 100% natural and how much sodium is in a "Low Sodium" is relative to what it is... But big business lobbied to create these labels because they can put them on their products to make it sound healthy. Which isn't very healthy at all is it and about a million miles from the supposed goal of keeping our food supply safe/healthy? It's definitely a million miles away from doing things like protecting consumers from rotten meat because, see, it doesn't really do that. Look at all its failures. Instead the things it does are insane. Just look at the definition for what can be called ice cream:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=135.110

Jesus Christ. Oh yes FDA, protect us from that 1% less milk fat! Know how the market would handle ice cream? Someone would sell ice cream and if someone says "Hey, this is good ice cream" than it's ice cream and if someone said "hey this isn't very good and doesn't taste like ice cream" than it's not. Simple.

And don't even get me started on the Food Pyramid (now the "Food Plate") which is a complete invention of the food industry who lobbied to have changes made to it when it was formed and has no basis on nutrition what-so-ever. A few years back, when they changed it to the "Food Plate" it was suppose to be to fix the problems with the Pyramid but they actually made it worse.

Or how about the FDA and USDA having a swat team and using it to raid small farms because they sell raw milk to people who want to drink it?

But there are free market alternatives. The Certified Naturally Grown program offers "a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods."

Whole Foods had developed their own alternative for certifying certain production techniques for livestock and poultry via a partnership with an animal-welfare nonprofit. Of course, as we discussed above the government attacked Whole Foods with a ridiculous definition of them being a "monopoly" and they had to close a bunch of stores and went on a downward spiral. Now they've been brought by a larger company that lots of people say is a "monopoly."

In the end, Rothbard said it best: "No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know — by economic theory and by historical insight — that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government."

As for the Molly McGuire, it's worth noting that what triggered this was one of the worst depressions of that century, which was caused largely by government mismanagement: economic overexpansion due to subsidies, a stock market crash and a decrease in the money supply. It's also worth noting that Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most anti-libertarian Presidents in history and his view of unlimited executive overreach put us in the position we are in today. It really all started with him.

Here's a wonderful article by the great Thomas Sowell on Teddy (as well as Woodrow Wilson): https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/02/thomas-sowell/the-evil-legacy-of-teddy-and-woodrow/


In a different, smarter, much less corrupt world I agree with you. In our current world, I wish there was a law limiting the size of any business and having huge incentives for people to start competitive businesses when there is no competition. Free markets assume there is a choice and people make decisions. Monopolies leave no choices and people do not make decisions - they follow the crowd like lemmings. There is a running joke at work because I always say "look it up on the internet, or use a search engine to find it." I refuse to ever say "Google it." Fuck google. I never use google. And I'm made fun of for not using this piece of shit commy company filled with uppity dickheads as a verb.

I think I pretty much made my case above that the government is the cause of the corruption and the crony-capitalism that is big business getting in bed with government and using government as both a tool and a weapon is the reasons for the problems we see today. With a true free market, you do not have this problem. The free market did not get us where we are today and are not the cause of the problems you've pointed out, government is the problem and the cause. The first step to creating a free market in this country is to eliminate the big government agencies that subsidize and otherwise support big business: The FDA, USDA, etc. have to go.

When I was younger I would think a more libertarian approach to government would force people to be smarter and better informed. That will never happen as long as those who hate liberty are in control of the news and all the major corporations (who also happen to own the news).

Wait, "force"? How can you force people to be better informed and how is that at all a libertarian approach? The #1 tenant of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which is the rejection of the use of force. What you propose (or what you did when you were younger) is the opposite of libertarianism and even if that wasn't the case I don't think it's possible to force anyone to be smarter or better informed. That actually sounds like socialism or communism to me and they failed at it too. How can you force anyone to do anything and say that liberty exists or that it is done out of some love of liberty?

Things aren't going to be workable until there is a major power shake-up. I think there will be civil war and then a major economic collapse and vacuum. And since we manufacture basically jack and shit in the US the absolute worst case scenario would be a libertarian approach to government since that vacuum will be filled by global corporations at a time we need small business to start, flourish, and manufacture the US back to the top. I think the only chance for a bright future after the war and collapse would be ensuring no large corps are allowed in the US and stopping corps from growing at a small percentage of GDP. It kills me to have believe only heavy handed, anti-corp government would work given what I want society and the government to be, but I don't see another workable solution that doesn't result in the same lemming cult mentality and super corrupt governments pandering to way too powerful corps. Government is fire and should always be treated as such. It has to be constantly contained and controlled lest it spread and destroy everything. I know you don't believe in totally free markets so I am hoping you can see somewhat empathize with how I see the current situation as being unworkable.

Well, I think I do pretty much agree with totally free markets for the reasons of express in this post and the thread as a whole, however, I do agree that the current situation is unworkable and there is no going back or way to fix it until it all comes crumbling down. It will also get worse before it gets better. I think a major economic collapse is coming and this may be followed by a civil war. It will certainly be followed by chaos. Until this happens we cannot break the matrix. The system is too powerful and entrenched so it must all come down first. That said, we must be VERY VERY careful here because there are people that are part of the system -- including globalist elites and government officials -- who want this to happen, are planning for it and are even taking steps to cause a collapse to happen... because they believe this is what is necessary so they can erase any and all liberty, national sovereignty, borders, the Constitution, etc. and finally have global government with a global currency. Look at how much the state grew after the financial meltdown in 2008 and if you understand economics you realize it was triggered by government policies and the Federal Reserve (aka global elites). They used it as a power grab but then insisted that the opposite was true: it wasn't caused by the government or the fed. It was caused solely by those evil big businesses who need to be reigned in with more government! Thus the power of the state grew. If the economy collapses like we both predict, they will make the same argument again as part of their globalist power grab. They're ultimate goal is one world government.

Not to mention that whenever a war happens typically eventually the populace gets tired of war and looks to someone, who usually ends up being a military despot, to end the war by any means necessary. Liberty rarely survives.
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
It went again journalistic standards to promote products or name products that are integral to the story. If the company was part of the story it would be named along with their main product. So they would say tissue if it wasn't news about the company who makes Kleenex, such as - "ACME, the makers of Kleenex tissues, blah blah." This is well documented in old journalistic standards books.

Also, government employees were not (and I honestly don't think the regulation ahs change) allowed to promote commercial products in their function as a government employee, which included unnecessary naming of a product. Now they do it constantly. Its along the same idea of political campaigning as a government employee, or giving gifts worth over $20 (or around 20, I'm not positive this is the exact amount but it is about this) to a government employee or superior if you are a government employee.


I wasn't using the USDA as a good point of a government monopoly - I used it to make a point (that wasn't clear at all and I think I got sidetracked) that people willingly and happily create monopolies with no resistance at all. They cheer for it and love it. The USDA was not made for altruistic reasons. It was made to increase the power of government and have leverage over a powerful industry. And people cheer for it and want more of it.


To keep this short, we agree in things in theory. If I am understanding you correctly you think removing all regulations regarding monopolies would be a good move and help the free market which in turn helps enrich the people who live within the free market, or at least indirectly improve their quality of living.

I am saying that, given how corrupt the government is, how easy it is for big corp lobbyists and other special interest groups to buy regulations that hurt most people, and how prominent and loved most of the corporation monopolies are right now, and the major government are willing to allow and enforce pattern rights to simple processes that go 100% against allowing competition and 100% for enforcing a specific company's monopoly. All along with a "news" media that is bought and owned by a specific anti-free market ideology and owned by major global corporations, we basically have no meaningful anti-monopoly regulations already. At least currently it takes a lot of bribe money and power and a little effort to make a monopoly. Nothing has to change for the system to not work any less effectively or efficiently. Removing these regulations will change nothing and not help people at all. The current world and all it's systems are so broken and people are so entrenched in their cults nothing will ever get better without a major war.


Not to mention that whenever a war happens typically eventually the populace gets tired of war and looks to someone, who usually ends up being a military despot, to end the war by any means necessary. Liberty rarely survives.

Besides the war that made the US and every war since the US has been in? Or most countries in WW1 and WW2. WW2 actually turned Japan from a military despot ruled society into a major free market democracy.

But even if that was true, it would 100% be for the best in the long term. Since we have no production here, and the decadence the US citizens have and are oblivious to, war and economic collapse will not be enough. We will need to live under the yolk of very hard and very punishing tyranny for a while to get the last vestiges of stupidity and pussiness out of us as a society. Then we will rise up and throw off the yolk of oppression again and start over and make a new better DoI and Constitution and much more succinct and clearly stated and explained Bill of Rights and fix the clear and obvious errors in our current society that just leads to stupidity, people loving to and cheering when they give up liberty, all the doublespeak, and corruption.

If I was Snake Plissken at the end of Escape from LA I would hit the button. What would you do?
 

GarlandExCon

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
6,957
It went again journalistic standards to promote products or name products that are integral to the story. If the company was part of the story it would be named along with their main product. So they would say tissue if it wasn't news about the company who makes Kleenex, such as - "ACME, the makers of Kleenex tissues, blah blah." This is well documented in old journalistic standards books.

I think what companies like Google or Twitter do is totally unprecedented and that's the difference. It's totally changed the way information and news is distributed so if you have stories that get attention via Google/Twitter/Facebook or you have people reacting via those platforms how can you just ignore that? Kleenex was never a source of news or information, Google/Twitter/Facebook are exactly that. In many ways, it's no different than how when news would report on something they would report on a source... the sources these days also happen to be companies (although, to a degree that was always true, cause if a reporter sourced another news outlet that was also a company. It's a brave new world indeed.

It's for better, and for worst, but mostly worst. BS stories and trivial crap and random alarmists drive the news cycle now and the world is dumber for it.

Also, government employees were not (and I honestly don't think the regulation ahs change) allowed to promote commercial products in their function as a government employee, which included unnecessary naming of a product. Now they do it constantly. Its along the same idea of political campaigning as a government employee, or giving gifts worth over $20 (or around 20, I'm not positive this is the exact amount but it is about this) to a government employee or superior if you are a government employee.

It's a difficult situation. They use Facebook and Twitter to reach their constitutes and voters. In doing so, they unintentionally promote the company by saying "Like Me on Facebook!" or "Follow Me on Twitter!" Again, this is all unprecedented because we've never had companies that do what they do really.

I wasn't using the USDA as a good point of a government monopoly - I used it to make a point (that wasn't clear at all and I think I got sidetracked) that people willingly and happily create monopolies with no resistance at all. They cheer for it and love it. The USDA was not made for altruistic reasons. It was made to increase the power of government and have leverage over a powerful industry. And people cheer for it and want more of it.

Well, people worship the government like it's some Golden Calf. They willingly create monopolies within the government because they view government is somehow benevolent and looking out for their best interest and business as not. They see no problem, for example, in the government having a monopoly on public education, but if business has a perceived monopoly on anything, they lash out. Especially in recent years, business has become and scapegoat for government and everyone blames "the corporations" and "wall street" and gives government a pass.

To keep this short, we agree in things in theory. If I am understanding you correctly you think removing all regulations regarding monopolies would be a good move and help the free market which in turn helps enrich the people who live within the free market, or at least indirectly improve their quality of living.

I am saying that, given how corrupt the government is, how easy it is for big corp lobbyists and other special interest groups to buy regulations that hurt most people, and how prominent and loved most of the corporation monopolies are right now, and the major government are willing to allow and enforce pattern rights to simple processes that go 100% against allowing competition and 100% for enforcing a specific company's monopoly. All along with a "news" media that is bought and owned by a specific anti-free market ideology and owned by major global corporations, we basically have no meaningful anti-monopoly regulations already. At least currently it takes a lot of bribe money and power and a little effort to make a monopoly. Nothing has to change for the system to not work any less effectively or efficiently. Removing these regulations will change nothing and not help people at all. The current world and all it's systems are so broken and people are so entrenched in their cults nothing will ever get better without a major war.

I guess the big difference between our viewpoints is that I don't believe natural monopolies exist. They all exist because of government and the free market is the best disinfectant against this. The government is so corrupt because we have rejected the free market for crony-capitalism and allowed government and business to get in bed together. This is the result of the corruptions and problems we see. To eliminate this problem, you need to separate the too completely, which also means eliminating regulations -- they're nothing but a cool of big business to manipulate the market and crush competition. Basically, if you agree with me that government is so corrupt, why would you want them regulating anything? They can't be trusted. Best thing is for to remove it entirely from the equation, separate the two completely and use the free market to regulate, where the regulations are actually tougher. In the free market if you make a bad business decision you can't count on the government to bail you out. We have to dramatically reduce the size of government to a Constitutional level. If we followed Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and limited the federal government (Congress) to the enumerated powers than none of this would happen. Lobbyists would stop existing because there's nothing they could lobby the government for.


Besides the war that made the US and every war since the US has been in? Or most countries in WW1 and WW2. WW2 actually turned Japan from a military despot ruled society into a major free market democracy.

But even if that was true, it would 100% be for the best in the long term. Since we have no production here, and the decadence the US citizens have and are oblivious to, war and economic collapse will not be enough. We will need to live under the yolk of very hard and very punishing tyranny for a while to get the last vestiges of stupidity and pussiness out of us as a society. Then we will rise up and throw off the yolk of oppression again and start over and make a new better DoI and Constitution and much more succinct and clearly stated and explained Bill of Rights and fix the clear and obvious errors in our current society that just leads to stupidity, people loving to and cheering when they give up liberty, all the doublespeak, and corruption.

If I was Snake Plissken at the end of Escape from LA I would hit the button. What would you do?

That wasn't an eternal or civil conflict, though. That's what we were talking about: a the consequences of a modern civil war in the U.S. That said, it's worth noting while post-WWII he U.S. neutered Japan and they've been that way since, that caused our empire to be expanded. We now provide for their military defense at a great cost to us and our involvement in that region only increases global tensions.

I wouldn't push the button. Yet.

Although with the rising threat of an EMP attack, something we are totally unprepared for... someone else might.
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
Although with the rising threat of an EMP attack, something we are totally unprepared for... someone else might.

We can only hope. Lets cross our fingers and hope someone creates a reset button. Just as long as it effects the whole world, and not just certain countries. Hell, at this point having robot or alien overlords wouldn't be so bad.
 

GarlandExCon

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
6,957
I Look at what happened to Taco Bell with the "pink slime" thing -- and that was just a made up term!

Thought this was relevant:

http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-slime-case-settlement-2017-6

ABC News and Beef Products Inc. reached a settlement in a $5.7 billion lawsuit that claimed a story ABC ran in 2012 misled viewers and caused hundreds of layoffs.

On Wednesday, ABC announced it had reached an "amicable resolution" with BPI. The terms of the settlement are confidential, the Sioux City Journal's Nick Hytrek reported.

BPI's attorney, Dan Webb, said the settlement "vindicated" the company and its "lean finely textured beef," the product that ABC dubbed "pink slime" in its 2012 reports, according to Hytrek.

"Although we have concluded that continued litigation of this case is not in the company's interests, we remain committed to the vigorous pursuit of truth and the consumer's right to know about the products they purchase," ABC said in a statement.

Lawyers made their opening arguments less than a month ago in a trial that could have resulted in a verdict of as much as $5.7 billion if BPI had won.

In the suit, BPI alleged that ABC misled viewers by calling its lean finely textured beef "pink slime." LFTB is a common ingredient in beef products and is safe to eat, which ABC noted in its reports. However, even with assurances that the ingredient, made from the trimmings of a cow and treated with ammonia to kill bacteria, wasn't dangerous, the phrase "pink slime" turned off customers, the lawsuit claimed.
 
Unwanted

Wehraboo

Unwanted
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
544
Location
The age of the Golden Baby
Wow, they investigated some RPG/wargame players? :lol:

I wonder how many FBI agents are on this site, then. Go on, fess up.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom