Anyone else never use Slavery?

[j_mie6]

I dont use it because of early anarhcy and because of slave revolts.

The first Civic swap I make is to Heriditary Rule

 

[remake20]

I didn't use slavery at first, because I was like, who wants unhappy citizens? But then I realized it's power and started using it. But until I decided to get good I never used it..

 

[Jury-6]

From the point of view of a participatory democracy, it is not only a right but a responsibility of citizens to make themselves aware of the state of their government and its interactions on a variety of levels.

It seems a participatory democracy, when coupled with complacency, cultures its people to care relatively little about politics until an issue is blatantly and directly affecting them. The US has both of these, which, yes, results in a sad state of civic apathy, but it also highlights a relative high standard of living and security. No argument, just thoughts.

Because corporations can only exist with government issued charters, the interactions between the corporate sector and government officials is a particular problem; and the lack of oversight by the former over the latter is an abdication of duty, as the latter have propagated environmental destruction, public disinformation (what passes for TV news is worse than a joke) and a general culture of consumerism that is not conducive to continued human existence on the planet.

Problems like these naturally crop up when businesses are privately owned and motivated solely by profit. If lack of government oversight causes all of these problems, what kind of solution would you propose; they'll exist to a certain degree unless everything is socialized, and then you have a plethora of completely different problems. These are faults of capitalism, not lack of government control; the government is supposed to be relatively passive in a free market.

Moreover, the educational problems in the US are unique to the US. US schools are a joke. I spent several years volunteering as a debate coach in the US public school system, and it is shocking how little training high school students get vis a vis critical thinking skills. The shift towards using standardized testing as an evaluation of schools' and teachers' efficacy is a sham, as it can only serve to turn schools into mills of production for clerical automatons who can regurgitate facts without considering the underlying ideas or implications of the "facts." And I won't even start for what passes for a "fact" in our history classrooms.

I actually completely agree. I'm in college right now and I have no sense of real achievement in being where I am, despite being an A student my whole life and continually receiving praise; conformity to the educational system is ultimately what leads to all that, not true intellectual acuity. Now, I don't know enough about non-US educational systems to make a qualified judgment on their problems (of which I'm still sure they have plenty), but I believe facts are pretty clear in placing the US well below many others.

As for the "choice" you are making a terribly fallacious argument here. It is not a choice as to whether one person is killed either way, but whether tens of thousands are killed with guns or a hundreds are killed with swords in a major battle. And again - it's a thought experiment, not a practical suggestion.

Hundreds of thousands have been killed with all manner of bladed weaponry in a matter of days during countless major battles throughout history. The level of systematic slaughter propagated at points throughout antiquity wasn't equaled until World War I, centuries after firearms became the norm in all modern armies. So, if it's not a subjective choice over what's generally significantly less traumatizing to be killed with, it's certainly not a matter of which weapon kills more people in wars.

 

[mariogreymist]

Problems like these naturally crop up when businesses are privately owned and motivated solely by profit. If lack of government oversight causes all of these problems, what kind of solution would you propose; they'll exist to a certain degree unless everything is socialized, and then you have a plethora of completely different problems. These are faults of capitalism, not lack of government control; the government is supposed to be relatively passive in a free market.

Here's the thing: corporations are legal instruments to create diffuse liability for large ventures. When those ventures serve the public good, either by providing needed services or good which cannot be obtained due to risk levels too excessive for a single person or small group of investors to undertake, the corporation should be granted a corporate charter by the government. Corporations as they exist now, exist solely to maximize profits for shareholders (the already well to do and the downright filthy rich). That does not serve the public good. Moreover, most corporations do more to harm the public in the US than they do to help. The corporate structure is what allows companies to outsource their labor while retaining unfettered access to American markets. And do I really even need to discuss environmental issues?

Hundreds of thousands have been killed with all manner of bladed weaponry in a matter of days during countless major battles throughout history. The level of systematic slaughter propagated at points throughout antiquity wasn't equaled until World War I, centuries after firearms became the norm in all modern armies. So, if it's not a subjective choice over what's generally significantly less traumatizing to be killed with, it's certainly not a matter of which weapon kills more people in wars.

You're missing it. A million men armed with swords will kill fewer people than a million men armed with rifles. I can't make it simpler than that.

 

[Jury-6]

Here's the thing: corporations are legal instruments to create diffuse liability for large ventures. When those ventures serve the public good, either by providing needed services or good which cannot be obtained due to risk levels too excessive for a single person or small group of investors to undertake, the corporation should be granted a corporate charter by the government. Corporations as they exist now, exist solely to maximize profits for shareholders (the already well to do and the downright filthy rich). That does not serve the public good. Moreover, most corporations do more to harm the public in the US than they do to help. The corporate structure is what allows companies to outsource their labor while retaining unfettered access to American markets. And do I really even need to discuss environmental issues?

Well, the goal of capitalism is not to serve the public good, so why exactly should a corporation be held more legally responsible for protecting it? What's your solution?

You're missing it. A million men armed with swords will kill fewer people than a million men armed with rifles. I can't make it simpler than that.

How do you gather that? Just because a rifle makes it easier to kill people doesn't mean a soldier with a rifle actually kills more people. With increasing sophistication in long range weaponry, modern military engagements are being decided more and more through effective maneuvering and troop placement long before thousands of men begin meeting their deaths in all out bloodbaths. You don't have that luxury with armies comprised of swords, in which case all men can do is toss themselves at each other in waves in an open field to be annihilated on the spot within hours.

 

[kochman]

I guess he thinks that Rwanda didn't happen...
People die in bigger numbers now, during massacres, simply because there are so many more people to kill and be killed. It has nothing to do with the weapons of choice...
People kill people.

 

[mariogreymist]

Well, the goal of capitalism is not to serve the public good, so why exactly should a corporation be held more legally responsible for protecting it? What's your solution?

The answer was already in my post: Grant corporate protections only to companies which serve the public interest. Anyone else who wishes to do business can be liable as an idividual.

How do you gather that? Just because a rifle makes it easier to kill people doesn't mean a soldier with a rifle actually kills more people. With increasing sophistication in long range weaponry, modern military engagements are being decided more and more through effective maneuvering and troop placement long before thousands of men begin meeting their deaths in all out bloodbaths. You don't have that luxury with armies comprised of swords, in which case all men can do is toss themselves at each other in waves in an open field to be annihilated on the spot within hours.

Exactly...Rifles make it easier to kill people. Not only the physical act, but the emotional transgression of killing is easier as weaponry gets more and more modern. Pulling a trigger and watching a speck on the horizon fall with a puff of pink mist is a remarkably different act that running someone through with a broadsword. Do you really think it would be so easy to recruit an army to go fight in afghanistan if they knew they'd have to wade through blood and excrement on the battlefield?

AND ONE MORE TIME: IT'S A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, NOT A PRACTICAL SUGGESTION!

I guess he thinks that Rwanda didn't happen...

I didn't say that, and I understand that grave human suffering can be caused by any weapon from a rock to a nuclear bomb. Not to mention, there are about a dozen other ways what happened in Rwanda violates the Geneva conventions.

People die in bigger numbers now, during massacres, simply because there are so many more people to kill and be killed. It has nothing to do with the weapons of choice...
People kill people.

Not entirely. It's much easier to kill a dozen armed combatants with a machine gun than a pistol, and it's much easier with a pistol than a broadsword. As the means of killing become more efficient, more people die in battles. And as the means become more impersonal, it becomes easier to get people to fight. It's basic math and applied psychology. yes, the fact that increased populations mean more combatants also lead to higher casualties, but that's not the whole story.

But I wouldn't expect a person who believes the Soviet Union was a theocracy to grasp basic concepts like that.

And of course:

IT'S A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, NOT A PRACTICAL SUGGESTION!

 

[Deathstar]

I can't imagine a million people on a field with swords (would be epic), but rifles are more efficient when killing. When you're fighting with swords, you'll usually know if you're going to win or not, in which case you'll surrender or run for your life (leading to less deaths by sword). I'm using the Battle of Gaugamela (where more people were captured as opposed to killed) and Battle of Stalingrad (where a significantly larger amount of people were killed as opposed to captured) as references, but I'm sure the logic is applicable all around. I'm also using a ratio since in Mario's scenario, the size of the armies are the same.

You don't have that luxury with armies comprised of swords, in which case all men can do is toss themselves at each other in waves in an open field to be annihilated on the spot within hours.

See the thing is, you can't kill a million people even if you had days if you're going to be using a sword. Add in the mounting corpses, the dulling of the sword and so on, the rate of killing will decrease or at least stagnate. If you have a machine gun and you're just shooting away, it's significantly quicker and you'll be able to take down more people before you go down.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Corporations as they exist now, exist solely to maximize profits for shareholders (the already well to do and the downright filthy rich). That does not serve the public good.

This sounds like our free market system in action, what am I missing? People acting in their own self interest further the common good. There's always a boogey man to take the blame for society's ills, I'm sure 'rich men' are one of the more common targets.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Moreover, the educational problems in the US are unique to the US. US schools are a joke.

US schools are EXACTLY what the US populace voted for. You'll notice I live here too. There are systemic issues with one organization attempting too many things with poor economic controls (I don't mean inflation and the interest rate in this case, but just how to deal with incentives, especially in fields that do NOT force competitive behavior whatsoever, and can not) and no government in history is exempted as an organization. When one votes the government to handle US schools, this is the reality. Of course, the reason it hasn't been fixed is that there has yet to be a government created that holds 100% durability forever (exception: civ, but those leaders live forever!).

Too democratic and the population all votes individual/self interest (catered to further by candidate(s) favoring leading demographics since that is the incentive THEY are given, since they want to win. Politicians do exactly what they believe will win/succeed, and this is *not* different from your average person in anything but scale) ----> notice things that were originally intended to never have been touched HAVE been touched, but that is a predictable outcome. Too much dictatorship and there's civil war, uprisings, or in the best case a very good leader that dies with nobody to replace him/her and then it's chaos. *Nobody* has the answer, at least not yet. Nations today are overall on a pretty good run compared to how history has been. IMO the #1 reason for this is that markets have grown to the extent of international interdependence, and wars that kill oneself are not popular.

As for the "choice" you are making a terribly fallacious argument here. It is not a choice as to whether one person is killed either way, but whether tens of thousands are killed with guns or a hundreds are killed with swords in a major battle. And again - it's a thought experiment, not a practical suggestion.

It's a cute thought, but killing is final, and you can put a lot of people down with swords easily if nobody has anything better. IMO the most interesting part of this thought experiment is that if you allowed private organizations the real power, how long would it take before they used their weapons to control everything ? If you really want to block war, the answer is not to create some arbitrary penalty that nobody will supposedly want to endure, but rather to destroy any semblance of incentive for war. Nobody will start a war without a benefit for doing so, or at least a perceived one. Ax that, no more war. It IS that simple, but don't forget that simple =/= easy . Climbing a 100000 foot vertical shear with handholds built in for you is very simple. Doing it without stopping once...well you see what I mean.

 

[kochman]

But I wouldn't expect a person who believes the Soviet Union was a theocracy to grasp basic concepts like that.

See mario, I went and took you off ignore for a minute, and this is that crap you attack me with. In Civ4 terms, the USSR was certainly a theocracy of no state religion. Religion was not allowed to be practiced (no state religion), and you couldn't spread it (theocracy allowing no non-state religions). In real life, they were a terrible dictatorial, atheist loser regime. Something you seem to espouse.

You just have to go and be a jerk about things and attack me though. It is clear your ideas are pretty extreme, and why I even bothered to un-ignore you I don't know, because not only are you extreme, you are very insulting toward me. So, back to the ignore column you go, never to be seen again by my eyes.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[mariogreymist]

This sounds like our free market system in action, what am I missing? People acting in their own self interest further the common good. There's always a boogey man to take the blame for society's ills, I'm sure 'rich men' are one of the more common targets.

You probably read too much* Ayn Rand. Besides that, your argument is unwarranted. There is no explanation as to the mechanism by which people acting in their own interest serve the public good, and until such a warrant exists, you might as well be claiming that the moon is made of cheese for all the impact you can have with that claim.

*any amount qualifies

US schools are EXACTLY what the US populace voted for. You'll notice I live here too. There are systemic issues with one organization attempting too many things with poor economic controls (I don't mean inflation and the interest rate in this case, but just how to deal with incentives, especially in fields that do NOT force competitive behavior whatsoever, and can not) and no government in history is exempted as an organization. When one votes the government to handle US schools, this is the reality. Of course, the reason it hasn't been fixed is that there has yet to be a government created that holds 100% durability forever (exception: civ, but those leaders live forever!).

I would point out that many nations have public school systems which don't fall into the problematic patterns that US schools do. There is a chicken and egg relationship between the political sphere and public education. The more public education has declined, the more idiotic politics has become in this country. And because politicians have say over public schools, they become cyclically worse. When i graduated hs 20 years ago, critical thinking was scarcely encouraged, and only by a handful of teachers. The things that pass for educational reform in this country are laughable and bound to make dissent a lost art.

And you can't have democracy without dissent.

I also disagree with the idea that the reason it hasn't been fixed being a lack of perpetuity in government. It's the opposite. If every politician knew their days were numbered, they might spend their time in office doing something more meaningful than attempting to grab as much power as they possibly can. It's called public service, and damned few of our elected leaders have a clue what that means. The sad part? The people who elect them also don't know, and will re-elect party drones to ensure "those damned (insert R or D here depending on which wholly owned subsidiary of US industry you hate) don't get power!" Anyone with a desire to learn, a 90 IQ and a library card can access enough facts to demonstrate that neither political party puts the people ahead of their own quest for power. Both are antiquated, anti-democratic monsters that need slaying.

But it can't happen until we start teaching people critical thinking skills. And of course, the parties know that, so when educational reform comes up, the last thing in the world they're going to do is break away from the "eight hours at a desk preparing for a standardized test" model of education.

Too democratic and the population all votes individual/self interest (catered to further by candidate(s) favoring leading demographics since that is the incentive THEY are given, since they want to win. Politicians do exactly what they believe will win/succeed, and this is *not* different from your average person in anything but scale) ----> notice things that were originally intended to never have been touched HAVE been touched, but that is a predictable outcome. Too much dictatorship and there's civil war, uprisings, or in the best case a very good leader that dies with nobody to replace him/her and then it's chaos. *Nobody* has the answer, at least not yet. Nations today are overall on a pretty good run compared to how history has been. IMO the #1 reason for this is that markets have grown to the extent of international interdependence, and wars that kill oneself are not popular.

Democratic systems aren't designed to find "the" answer. In fact, there is no one answer to these problems. That you (obviously educated and at least somewhat engaged in these issues) think in terms of finding "the" answer is exactly the kind of example which proves my point vis a vis US education. Americans have a tendency to view the world, and particularly political issues, in a manner of "all or nothing." It is precisely this competitive focus, rather than collaborative problem posing methodologies that lead to a two party system in a country where almost everyone thinks the two parties are corrupt, self interested and not responsive to the needs of the people. The Tea Party is a good example of people who are finally waking up (and sadly, it's all the wrong people, but I digress).

It's a cute thought, but killing is final, and you can put a lot of people down with swords easily if nobody has anything better. IMO the most interesting part of this thought experiment is that if you allowed private organizations the real power, how long would it take before they used their weapons to control everything ? If you really want to block war, the answer is not to create some arbitrary penalty that nobody will supposedly want to endure, but rather to destroy any semblance of incentive for war. Nobody will start a war without a benefit for doing so, or at least a perceived one. Ax that, no more war. It IS that simple, but don't forget that simple =/= easy . Climbing a 100000 foot vertical shear with handholds built in for you is very simple. Doing it without stopping once...well you see what I mean.

Yeah...if you carry out the thought experiment to its logical conclusion, you realize that an international or transnational body would need to be engaged to enforce the rules of war, and as such, would be a menace as a potential tyrant in the long run. Whether you wear the Yoke of the Blue Sun Corp or the UN, you are still a slave.

Another crazy idea that my penchant for critical analysis of our system gave me:
Excluding educational loans from bankruptcy protection is a form of indentured servitude. Because there is no way to escape the debt, one is forced to take a job out of college. As college expenses rise, the debts graduates begin their careers with get more and more cumbersome. A very small few might succeed in starting their own businesses on the side of their work "for the man," but they will always be the exception. Hence, the school loan system, and the fact that the debts can't be defaulted leads to a system where the people with the highest capacity for critical thought are turned into broken slaves. (choosing between survivor and dancing with the stars does not make you free)

 

[mariogreymist]

See mario, I went and took you off ignore for a minute, and this is that crap you attack me with. In Civ4 terms, the USSR was certainly a theocracy of no state religion. Religion was not allowed to be practiced (no state religion), and you couldn't spread it (theocracy allowing no non-state religions). In real life, they were a terrible dictatorial, atheist loser regime. Something you seem to espouse.

You just have to go and be a jerk about things and attack me though. It is clear your ideas are pretty extreme, and why I even bothered to un-ignore you I don't know, because not only are you extreme, you are very insulting toward me. So, back to the ignore column you go, never to be seen again by my eyes.

Lol...so You get to imply (with no evidence or reasoning) that I am not aware of the Rwandan genocide, but for me to offer a similarly toned barb about something remarkably stupid you once publicly posted is out of line. Get some cheese, it goes well with whine.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Challs]

Of course it´s not right to sacrifice people to produce faster, but you have to think of it in a gaming perspective and not as a real life perspective. We all know it´s slavery is a bad thing, but back in those days it was very common. And it´s not like you actually see people get whipped to death, so i don´t consider the use of slavery in Civ as a problem. But if you won´t use it, thats up to you.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civilized. Discuss each other's posts - not each other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Problems like these naturally crop up when businesses are privately owned and motivated solely by profit. If lack of government oversight causes all of these problems, what kind of solution would you propose; they'll exist to a certain degree unless everything is socialized, and then you have a plethora of completely different problems. These are faults of capitalism, not lack of government control; the government is supposed to be relatively passive in a free market.

From an internal control standpoint, there is virtually no difference between governments and corporations (even voter vs shareholder interest is comparable in a lot of ways). Think about it a little. People have their own motivations in government just like business, and the ability to manipulate the organization toward individual needs/wants is not unique to public officials.

But, show me a government that is ACTUALLY allowing free market, and you will not be showing me anything involving USA...even claiming true capitalism here is a major, major reach if you consider the definition vs practice. I'm not going to argue whether that's good or bad here because that has plenty of subjectivity, but the fact that the definition and reality do not line up is objective.

I would point out that many nations have public school systems which don't fall into the problematic patterns that US schools do. There is a chicken and egg relationship between the political sphere and public education. The more public education has declined, the more idiotic politics has become in this country. And because politicians have say over public schools, they become cyclically worse. When i graduated hs 20 years ago, critical thinking was scarcely encouraged, and only by a handful of teachers. The things that pass for educational reform in this country are laughable and bound to make dissent a lost art.

You're missing the point. There are not a tremendous amount of nations out there who 1) have HAD public schooling as long as the USA 2) Run the same kind of government and 3) have the same degree of government control over schooling. I'd also like to see some evidence of knowledge of other nations' schooling systems. A lot of countries essentially weed people out at a younger age, so only the best remain in school and give the appearance of a superior system. The reality of everyone going is that if you mix them in one class room, the brighter students suffer. One could make the argument countries that just put students who don't do well into physical labor positions or at least out of school early actually follow a better model...I'm not going that far, but do note that the great students we see from other countries in our colleges tend to be among their top x %, or else they'd not have been sent. But, do you even know the extent of government control in other countries to make your argument in the first place? I'm not pretending I do, but I DO have a reasonable picture of how it is in USA.

Democratic systems aren't designed to find "the" answer. In fact, there is no one answer to these problems. That you (obviously educated and at least somewhat engaged in these issues) think in terms of finding "the" answer is exactly the kind of example which proves my point vis a vis US education. Americans have a tendency to view the world, and particularly political issues, in a manner of "all or nothing." It is precisely this competitive focus, rather than collaborative problem posing methodologies that lead to a two party system in a country where almost everyone thinks the two parties are corrupt, self interested and not responsive to the needs of the people. The Tea Party is a good example of people who are finally waking up (and sadly, it's all the wrong people, but I digress).

Within a fixed system (in this case a large group of people in enclosed borders forming a country that needs leadership), there is always a theoretical optimal approach. "The" answer doesn't necessarily mean a perfect one, but rather the one that offers the best amounts of x criteria with y measures. Unfortunately, even setting the criteria is an issue. Today's democracies might actually be within the range of possible conclusions using such a model, but nobody knows that and I'm not sure how one could conclusively determine it.

I'd appreciate if one would not lump assumptions on my critical thinking skills, by the way. A little "critical reading" would show that the post you quoted alludes to the very fact that we've seen extremes and that it CAN'T be "all or nothing", and so falls within a range somewhere. Of course, it's not like reading/writing skills are taught with particular force either.

Excluding educational loans from bankruptcy protection is a form of indentured servitude. Because there is no way to escape the debt, one is forced to take a job out of college.

You are making a powerful assumption here. A very, very powerful assumption ---> that bankruptcy relief should exist in the majority of cases. I don't want to open that can of worms, but the fact that you posted this without addressing that says a lot, but let's look at school loans:

1. Students do not HAVE to take educational loans at all (after graduating from my MBA program, I had/have 0 loan debt). These loans have favorable rates generally, but there are other ways to pay for school. If people choose to take them anyway and their intelligence is worth the schooling, they should be able to see the implications.
2. There are lots of positions that do not require a degree even now.
3. Students are given loans essentially based on their potential. Taking such a loan is in principle an agreement that you will use the educational training you receive to work and earn the money back.

The sense of entitlement that students should be able to default on loans makes me shudder. It's the same sense of entitlement that allows so many to get away with no/minimal contribution and still somehow expect a roof, food, and shelter. Who pays for defaulted student loans? People who actually used their education for something, and people who opted to work rather than going to school. Let's not forget that.

 

[kochman]

2. There are lots of positions that do not require a degree even now.

Bill Gates and scores of other insanely rich entreprenuers do not have college degrees.

 

[SheaD]

I hardly ever use slavery, unless its in cities that I've conquered from extremely annoying enemies...but I have a hard time using it on moral grounds especially in Rhye's and Fall. It doesn't seem right killing so many of my own citizens to get something built.
And I agree that people who play this purely as a strategy game are losing out.

 

[kochman]

And I agree that people who play this purely as a strategy game are losing out.

Really? Really?
I can't even understand this thought process. I mean, it is a strategy game. If you want to arbitrarily impose limits on yourself, that's fine, but to tell people who don't follow your arbitrarily additional rules they are missing out seems to be pretty arrogant at a minimum.

 

[qyll]

Use slavery and this might happen to you...