Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[Thunderbrd]

This is not the definition of socialism.

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

First (and thus most common) definition. When reading a dictionary entry, the meaning is 1 OR 2 OR 3 etc... Yes, folks CAN mean ( 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property ) but I don't think anyone is really advocating for that. Generally, Democratic Socialists refer to the first meaning, where any goods or services of a particular industry is organized and controlled by the government which is under collective (the people) control.

But this doesn't transfer to creating good healtcare or educational systems.

The army is well run by the government. Why could we not expect a health care system to be equally as well run? It should certainly be more committed to the actual health of its people rather than keeping people as sick and addicted to the products and services they provide as possible, which is what we have with a free market health care system. CURES would be the goal, not suspension of symptoms.

there is no real option of competition

There is little to no option for competition when you have a medical emergency either. This is one of the proven points as to why health care falls down in the private sector. Emergency rooms gouge the hell out of you because it ain't like you're going somewhere else when your life hangs in the balance.

again, the government has done a spectacularly bad job at keeping inflation at bay, perhaps because the government is also the biggest debtor in the economy

A FIAT problem. All wealth in the system has been borrowed from a central bank at interest. The entirety of income tax does nothing but staves off interest payments for the right to have money throughout the nation at all.

The police force would still be a part of a libertarian state, fire departments could also exist (with a higher percentage of volunteer firefighters), but - you are right there - public elementary schools wouldn't.

Two more socialist programs would HAVE to exist (and they have also proven to be programs that don't 'fall apart' because they aren't privatized.) And if we didn't have public elementary schools you'd have a much larger percentage of people that believe the Earth is flat and many other mind bogglingly under-educated philiosophies that without regulations would be spread by unchecked educators teaching their own 'thing'. Cults would quickly become a major problem, which they do anyhow simply because some areas choose to send their kids to private schools. Regulations, the curse of the libertarian ideal, are actually the things that save us from horrible fates as a society.

The last time the debt really went down (just a bit and only for two years - according to https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm) was in 1956 - 1958, when the President was ... Dwight D. Eisenhower. Anything else might have been a reduced deficit, but not a reduced debt. And if you blame Reagan for his increased debt during the Cold War, you would also have to blame FDR for the massive debt increase 1941 - 1945 (48B -> 258B).

I'm not sure the facts are correct here as I have been told numerous times that Clinton paid the debt down significantly. I'm not doing a ton of research on this point however. If FDR created a debt increase then perhaps it was also what was necessary at the time to pull us out of the depression. I know for a fact that although Obama may not have helped much where the national debt was concerned (better than this admin at least) the only reason we pulled out of the 2008 crash was the massive amount of investment into purchasing the majority of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and turning that around into the Harp program to save tens of thousands of homeowners by allowing them to refinance despite being underwater, and the $ poured into the HAMP program (loan modifications) to save homes that could be by providing a low interest rate to the most in need yet capable of paying if they got the break. Wise investments indeed.

Isn't that the slightest bit exaggerated?

It's about to repeat itself so... sure there have been some anomolies and we didn't really see this with Bush Sr but it's become standard GOP strategy these days. When you cut taxes to the wealthy to inspire them to invest, you're just pouring nitrous into the engine and it will backfire and break that engine eventually.

It would be even more effective if the authorities didn't sometimes even enforce the screwing over and the pollution, only to fine the business who had warned them in the first place (cf. http://www.cracked.com/article_20048_5-big-news-stories-that-left-out-most-important-part.html - No. 3).

I will agree this happens as well and it happens because the wealthy are unchecked and unlimited and have so much power that they can now influence policy quite easily. So yes, it can go either way, but GENERALLY speaking, regs are usually to 'regulate', which is basically not that different than system irrigation. You can say that irrigation is necessary to the field and it enables the farmer to spread the water resources throughout the farm so that the whole region is abundant, but it can also be used to give all the water to one small plot as well. I think we can all agree that shouldn't be the case in our laws but until we check the wealthy and get serious about eradicating political corruption, it's going to be an increasing problem.

That's really an "all or nothing" mentality. You don't see the benefit of not having to fear being shot from a dozen different directions just for leaving the house? You don't see the benefit of not having groups of people accost you in the middle of the street and taking all your money / assets? Only to encounter a second group who shoots you because there is nothing left for them? Or whenever you are buying something in a store not having to fear a group of people storming the store, shooting everyone and taking all they want? Or you can replace these muggers with foreign military if you want, and pretty much any other country would do if yours was an anarchy. Don't even start with "they wouldn't do that", there are far too many groups / nations powerful enough to overcome an anarchy for you to be certain of their motives.

I'm not advocating anarchy, but I AM saying that you're in grave danger of the entirely opposite problem when your nation is so heavily over-investing into military. A police state is just as bad as what you express. Like anything, in the extremes we find suffering.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

There are big differences between the USA definition of some words and the UK/Australian/NZ definitions. I found that out when I looked up atheist. No wonder we were not on the same page then.

 

[tmv]

First (and thus most common) definition. When reading a dictionary entry, the meaning is 1 OR 2 OR 3 etc... Yes, folks CAN mean ( 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property ) but I don't think anyone is really advocating for that. Generally, Democratic Socialists refer to the first meaning, where any goods or services of a particular industry is organized and controlled by the government which is under collective (the people) control.

OK - what means of production or distribution of goods are we speaking about when we talk about the military? Because otherwise, point 1 does not refer to the military.

The army is well run by the government. Why could we not expect a health care system to be equally as well run? It should certainly be more committed to the actual health of its people rather than keeping people as sick and addicted to the products and services they provide as possible, which is what we have with a free market health care system. CURES would be the goal, not suspension of symptoms.

The army is much more simple than just about any part of the economy. If we disregard logistics for the moment (and it is there that the army often gets outside help) we have mostly strategy and tactics, which are sciences that some people can excel at without any real training. As I said, this is the aspect of this mod that comes closest to reality (especially with your CM options), whereas the "health system" (even with the improvement proposals that were made) could never be considered a simulation of the real world, certainly not to the point that actual doctors would be satisfied. The same is true with the economic system, which - although it surpasses by far the vanilla system - still is limited to a few dozen resources, compared to the many billions of today's world (and probably trillions of resources that a galactic civilization would need). This wouldn't be feasible even with a fully 64bit game.

The most important advantage of the private sector is being close to the situation, so that some astounding things cannot happen so easily. The military understands this very well today as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_command - there is nothing worse than an obsolete command given by a very high officer if you don't implement these principles.

There is little to no option for competition when you have a medical emergency either. This is one of the proven points as to why health care falls down in the private sector. Emergency rooms gouge the hell out of you because it ain't like you're going somewhere else when your life hangs in the balance.

Only if we focus on single cases. If a hospital has a terrible track record, emergency vehicles are going to bring patients to other hospitals, especially if a patient's death is also going to be seen as their failure. Again, this is mostly about an established libertarian state, where these mistakes have already happened and you can rely on experience.

And it is not as if public healthcare systems are immune from this problem - the German healthcare system surely isn't. When my father was in hospital almost a decade ago and he had to spend some time in intensive care, the hospital "lost" pretty much all other intensive care patients between Christmas and New Year which didn't faze the hospital one bit. There was free access to the intensive care station with no checks, no hygiene measures, etc. A doctor freely told us in private that if it was his father he would immediately take him to another hospital. We tried that and the other hospital didn't agree to take on a patient of another one. As we know today this hospital is known even to medicine students as a terrible one, and of course it will never be closed down, because no politician wants to be known for closing down hospitals.

A FIAT problem. All wealth in the system has been borrowed from a central bank at interest. The entirety of income tax does nothing but staves off interest payments for the right to have money throughout the nation at all.

A problem of the base interest rate. With money itself not being subject of supply and demand, any market economy can only be an incomplete one.

Two more socialist programs would HAVE to exist (and they have also proven to be programs that don't 'fall apart' because they aren't privatized.)

Again - is it "means of production" or "distribution of goods"?

And if we didn't have public elementary schools you'd have a much larger percentage of people that believe the Earth is flat and many other mind bogglingly under-educated philiosophies that without regulations would be spread by unchecked educators teaching their own 'thing'. Cults would quickly become a major problem, which they do anyhow simply because some areas choose to send their kids to private schools. Regulations, the curse of the libertarian ideal, are actually the things that save us from horrible fates as a society.

Regulations can also force universities to accept crackpot exams, whereas free universities would be free to show those idiots the door. And you will note that these regulations don't save you from these horrible fates. You can do very little to help children against their parents' will (even today), and if these parents are unable to provide home schooling even on the level of elementary schools you have a different problem. Of course, you could have a pensions system where children directly provide for their parents, in which case these parents would really get what they deserve (in both directions).

I'm not sure the facts are correct here as I have been told numerous times that Clinton paid the debt down significantly.

I'm just relying on the web site I quoted. I was certainly surprised as well (because I thought I knew that Clinton had done this), but apparently he only reduced the deficit, not the debt.

If FDR created a debt increase then perhaps it was also what was necessary at the time to pull us out of the depression.

Try World War 2. I'm not saying it wasn't justified, but there is justification for Reagan as well, even if the war was only cold (and almost got hot several times during his administration).

the only reason we pulled out of the 2008 crash was the massive amount of investment into purchasing the majority of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and turning that around into the Harp program to save tens of thousands of homeowners by allowing them to refinance despite being underwater, and the $ poured into the HAMP program (loan modifications) to save homes that could be by providing a low interest rate to the most in need yet capable of paying if they got the break. Wise investments indeed.

That's an interesting way of putting it. Yes, on the path that was taken this was maybe the reason for recovery, but it should not mean that there was no other way to achieve this or even that it was certainly the best way. It also doesn't have to mean that this was the best way to avoid another economic crisis in the future.

When you cut taxes to the wealthy to inspire them to invest, you're just pouring nitrous into the engine and it will backfire and break that engine eventually.

Most of the really bad crises have been in the 20th/21st century - if you were right we should expect a lot more (and worse) crises in the centuries before, when we didn't have high taxes. And although the worst crisis of them all (South Sea Bubble) happened about 300 years ago, there was a lot of government debt (both Great Britain's and France's) involved.

I will agree this happens as well and it happens because the wealthy are unchecked and unlimited and have so much power that they can now influence policy quite easily.

Did you read what I linked to? Your response doesn't really describe what was said there. And Cracked is known to be very leftist, they would not have written this if it wasn't true.

So yes, it can go either way, but GENERALLY speaking, regs are usually to 'regulate', which is basically not that different than system irrigation. You can say that irrigation is necessary to the field and it enables the farmer to spread the water resources throughout the farm so that the whole region is abundant, but it can also be used to give all the water to one small plot as well. I think we can all agree that shouldn't be the case in our laws but until we check the wealthy and get serious about eradicating political corruption, it's going to be an increasing problem.

How well does your current government fit with this?

I'm not advocating anarchy, but I AM saying that you're in grave danger of the entirely opposite problem when your nation is so heavily over-investing into military. A police state is just as bad as what you express. Like anything, in the extremes we find suffering.

I am certainly not in favor of a police state, just because I want the state reduced to matters of security (mostly). The difference: I want a small government that takes care of these issues, whereas private, mature citizens take care of their own lives and of their families.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

Is Telescreen supposed to give +5 to Technocracies?

 

[Thunderbrd]

OK - what means of production or distribution of goods are we speaking about when we talk about the military? Because otherwise, point 1 does not refer to the military.

Goods/services. Military is an industry. Also case in point that there are many goods and services distributed throughout the military network... including health care. The military itself is a 'good' and a resource in service to the nation. Weapons and the ability to deploy them.

The most important advantage of the private sector is being close to the situation, so that some astounding things cannot happen so easily. The military understands this very well today as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_command - there is nothing worse than an obsolete command given by a very high officer if you don't implement these principles.

I'll not deny that there are tremendous advantages in privatized industries. Where privatizing does not lead to a predatory industry, industries should be privatized, specifically for this reason. But there are numerous industries that have become terrifyingly predatory and there is no escape from that predation on the customer and on society to push people into being customers of that industry without alternative (aside from, in many cases, either complete financial collapse, inconvenience, pain, or even death.)

There are also some cases where there's tremendous overall system inefficiencies in having multiple competing sources of a good or service. Take, for example, our local ambulance services which are privatized. A call goes out for an ambulance and we get 4 or 5 of them racing to the scene, screwing up the traffic along multiple routes, widening zones of the sound pollution they cause to far more regions, and costing an enormous amount of fuel and vehicular wear and tear (not a bad thing from the libertarian perspective when you consider this cuts into the profits of each provider and thus enforces the increased degree of forced expense to feed the pockets of yet more mechanics and auto-parts dealers, but a bad thing when you consider that it enhances the speed of overall Earth resource drain.) Yeah, they might get there overall a little faster, maybe. They've now caused traffic backups that may well delay the travel of later calls to an emergency that must traverse the regions impacted by the previous so it might not be increasing response speed in all cases and may be delaying it in plenty as well.

If a hospital has a terrible track record, emergency vehicles are going to bring patients to other hospitals, especially if a patient's death is also going to be seen as their failure.

Which it isn't. They deliver to the first place they can get to. Full stop. Because cost is not a concern since you're 'supposed' to be covered by insurance (that never covers more than the expense would be if you weren't after you take into account how much you paid in and how much they cover and the copays they demand when they do.) So they gouge the insurance companies to the fullest extent, to the point that if you don't have insurance, you get up to a 90% discount, which is still enough to bankrupt you in a heartbeat.

And it is not as if public healthcare systems are immune from this problem - the German healthcare system surely isn't. When my father was in hospital almost a decade ago and he had to spend some time in intensive care, the hospital "lost" pretty much all other intensive care patients between Christmas and New Year which didn't faze the hospital one bit. There was free access to the intensive care station with no checks, no hygiene measures, etc. A doctor freely told us in private that if it was his father he would immediately take him to another hospital. We tried that and the other hospital didn't agree to take on a patient of another one. As we know today this hospital is known even to medicine students as a terrible one, and of course it will never be closed down, because no politician wants to be known for closing down hospitals.

This is why private options must also be in place to compete with socialized ones. But when they have a socialized system to compete with they can't rig the market like they currently do in such a predatory manner. They MUST be capable of providing a good reason for people to use their services and they have to worry about cost otherwise people will just satisfy themselves with the free options available even if the quality isn't perfect.

The point is a socialized side to the system keeps the industry honest by doing all it can to limit expenses in providing the service, which you'd think would happen in the private market but it doesn't because they know how much they have the customer over the barrel.

Again - is it "means of production" or "distribution of goods"?

The means of production is the training and staffing and equipment provided to the police or fire departments while the distribution of goods refers to the deployment of those services.

The wording of 'goods' cannot be divided from 'services' in this case because the point is that it's not being delivered by private citizens but by a governmental body.

reduced the deficit, not the debt.

I didn't realize there was a distinction here.

That's an interesting way of putting it. Yes, on the path that was taken this was maybe the reason for recovery, but it should not mean that there was no other way to achieve this or even that it was certainly the best way. It also doesn't have to mean that this was the best way to avoid another economic crisis in the future.

Additionally, the problem was caused by deregulations on the lending industry that enabled lenders to abandon all caution and responsibility and project all the success they wanted to assume they would have while trading deregulations allowed a tremendous amount of wealth throughout the system to be wagered on the success of all these irresponsible loans and rating industry deregulations that enabled rating companies to give the fullest confidence in these loans without the slightest bit of close evaluation. A perfect storm all caused by letting go of the reigns and allowing the horses to run free.

Most of the really bad crises have been in the 20th/21st century - if you were right we should expect a lot more (and worse) crises in the centuries before, when we didn't have high taxes. And although the worst crisis of them all (South Sea Bubble) happened about 300 years ago, there was a lot of government debt (both Great Britain's and France's) involved.

A point worthy of consideration. I don't know enough about that deep history to comment much except that it sounds like you're referring to times before the kinds of financial products we've invented since, and times before a central banking system, which I realize was implemented to save us from a run on the banks ever collapsing the system again.

A problem of the base interest rate. With money itself not being subject of supply and demand, any market economy can only be an incomplete one.

I think we agree on this.

Did you read what I linked to? Your response doesn't really describe what was said there. And Cracked is known to be very leftist, they would not have written this if it wasn't true.

No, didn't read the link, sorry. I was going more by what I thought I understood about the situation as you explained it.

How well does your current government fit with this?

The more powerful the rich get the worse it gets because they continue to buy policies which are more beneficial to them and less beneficial to the common man. It's getting pretty bad. But the argument to deregulate is usually brought up in the context of eliminating yet another protection rather than another way things get twisted to the benefit of a powerful industry or special interest.

I am certainly not in favor of a police state, just because I want the state reduced to matters of security (mostly). The difference: I want a small government that takes care of these issues, whereas private, mature citizens take care of their own lives and of their families.

This probably works great in a system where there are no corporations dominating industries. Sole proprietorships do bring tremendous risk but that risk is also a part of the element that keeps the industry honest. And the odds of success are much higher when you don't have financial dragons consuming all great new ideas as soon as they are introduced.

 

[tmv]

Goods/services. Military is an industry. Also case in point that there are many goods and services distributed throughout the military network... including health care. The military itself is a 'good' and a resource in service to the nation. Weapons and the ability to deploy them.

The key words are "production" and "distribution", and the military itself (as opposed to the corporations that produce the goods the military needs) is not involved with either. It would indeed be socialist if these corporations were under government control.

But there are numerous industries that have become terrifyingly predatory and there is no escape from that predation on the customer and on society to push people into being customers of that industry without alternative (aside from, in many cases, either complete financial collapse, inconvenience, pain, or even death.)

You might remember that I'm actually against strong IP laws, and I think that without these you wouldn't have these problems, or at least they would not be unmanageable (no pun intended).

Which it isn't. They deliver to the first place they can get to. Full stop. Because cost is not a concern since you're 'supposed' to be covered by insurance (that never covers more than the expense would be if you weren't after you take into account how much you paid in and how much they cover and the copays they demand when they do.) So they gouge the insurance companies to the fullest extent, to the point that if you don't have insurance, you get up to a 90% discount, which is still enough to bankrupt you in a heartbeat.

So a moderate modification of the system would do? Just make the emergency services at least partially responsible to what happens to the patient after delivery? I don't like revolutions when reforms would do.

This is why private options must also be in place to compete with socialized ones. But when they have a socialized system to compete with they can't rig the market like they currently do in such a predatory manner. They MUST be capable of providing a good reason for people to use their services and they have to worry about cost otherwise people will just satisfy themselves with the free options available even if the quality isn't perfect.

The point is a socialized side to the system keeps the industry honest by doing all it can to limit expenses in providing the service, which you'd think would happen in the private market but it doesn't because they know how much they have the customer over the barrel.

There is always this argument between Boeing and Airbus when each side accuses the other of being unfairly favored by the respective government(s). Because it is unfair competition if one side is supported with tax money. It's like the government asking the biggest competitor what they could pay their employees and setting the minimum wage at this point, so that the other businesses are driven into the ground (close to what happened with the German mail system - of course, the biggest competitor was the already established German Post, formerly a public institution).

The means of production is the training and staffing and equipment provided to the police or fire departments while the distribution of goods refers to the deployment of those services.

The wording of 'goods' cannot be divided from 'services' in this case because the point is that it's not being delivered by private citizens but by a governmental body.

These definition already have a meaning, and it is a rather narrow one. Teaching is not included (and wouldn't absolutely have to be done by the public sector), and distribution of goods means logistic services, or in other words: trucks. It is socialist if the government controls the industry production and/or if the government controls the trucks, especially if private ownership of one of these is outlawed.

I didn't realize there was a distinction here.

Debt is the amount of negative assets you have accumulated, whereas deficit is the increase of said debt in a given timeframe. If you overspent last year by 5,000 $ and overspend this year by another 2,000 $ you have reduced your deficit, but your debt has increased further.

Additionally, the problem was caused by deregulations on the lending industry that enabled lenders to abandon all caution and responsibility and project all the success they wanted to assume they would have while trading deregulations allowed a tremendous amount of wealth throughout the system to be wagered on the success of all these irresponsible loans and rating industry deregulations that enabled rating companies to give the fullest confidence in these loans without the slightest bit of close evaluation. A perfect storm all caused by letting go of the reigns and allowing the horses to run free.

Wasn't it the Clinton administration that forced the banks to offer subprime loans (Community Reinvestment Act), so that poor people might be able to build houses? I'd call that regulation, not deregulation. A source for that claim (I admit it is a conservative one): https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clintonera-roots-of-the-financial-crisis-1376348141

before a central banking system, which I realize was implemented to save us from a run on the banks ever collapsing the system again.

And what a wonderful track record they have. Actually, there was an economic crisis in 1907 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907) which was rather swiftly dealt with (lasted less than a month) when J.P Morgan donated his money and convinced other rich people to do the same. The government didn't want to rely on this and formed the Federal Reserve System. How many crises has the Fed managed to deal with in such a short time?

But the argument to deregulate is usually brought up in the context of eliminating yet another protection rather than another way things get twisted to the benefit of a powerful industry or special interest.

I remember some conservatives arguing that the Presidential Office should never have been made so powerful when people were complaining about the current President.

This probably works great in a system where there are no corporations dominating industries. Sole proprietorships do bring tremendous risk but that risk is also a part of the element that keeps the industry honest. And the odds of success are much higher when you don't have financial dragons consuming all great new ideas as soon as they are introduced.

So bailouts should be outlawed and IP laws made less excessive - I have no problems with that.

 

[Toffer90]

So a moderate modification of the system would do? Just make the emergency services at least partially responsible to what happens to the patient after delivery? I don't like revolutions when reforms would do.

That's a terrible idea, ambulance personnel would then have to ID the potential patient (PP) so they could run credit checks and figure out what kind of health insurance the PP has, what clinic could the PP afford, gauge the quality of the clinic the PP could afford, they would have to do a death probability analysis based on the nature of the PP's problem while checking the track record of multiple clinics in regards to said problem, and then speculate in whether it is worth the risk for them to take on some kind of responsibility, before deciding if they should drive the PP to a clinic or maybe just leave the poor sod alone.

In the meantime the ambulance from 4 different private companies would have arrived the scene and all of them would be in this mess, perhaps they would do a kind of quick auction, or quarrel, between themselves to figure out which company will drive the patient.

The ambulance companies might draw up new kinds of insurances so that if they are fined for driving a patient to a bad quality hospital the insurance will cover the fine.

I'm just saying that attaching a personal risk to the job of getting someone who needs help, as quickly as possible, to those that can provide it could complicate matters quite a bit.
If the ambulance business is privatized (which imo is an absurd idea in itself), then the job should be as simple as possible. Get to patient, quickly assess the severity of the problem, get patient in car, drive to closest hospital or smaller clinic based on severity, provide basic treatment inside car, and that should pretty much be it.
If hospital/clinic is also privatized then the ambulance companies would have a deal with each of them about how to get paid, if hospital/clinic is public then the ambulance companies would have to have a deal with the state about payment for services rendered. So big private hospitals will most likely pay the mosty to the ambulance companies, and thus get more paying customers, regardless if there is a smaller clinic nearby that can offer much higher quality treatment (but can't afford to compete with the big hospital in paying the ambulance companies.).

 

[Thunderbrd]

The key words are "production" and "distribution", and the military itself (as opposed to the corporations that produce the goods the military needs) is not involved with either. It would indeed be socialist if these corporations were under government control.

The soldiers themselves are the goods. They are trained by the military and they distribute the use of the weapons wherever directed - by the government. You're really having to do some mental gymnastics here and splitting hairs on word definitions to avoid the fact that the government controls the military and thus it is a socialist program. The weapons manufacturers, collectively referred to as the military industrial complex, have the government as a customer but are privatized. Any industry is either a private or social industry. If a person can work in it, it's an industry.

You might remember that I'm actually against strong IP laws, and I think that without these you wouldn't have these problems, or at least they would not be unmanageable (no pun intended).

I do and without strong IP laws, you have absolutely NO incentive to invent because immediately upon bringing a market to industry, a larger more capable competitor will take that idea and out compete you at it with their greater capacity for investment, established supply line chains, and experience guiding them in what pitfalls to avoid and best practices to establish. Furthermore, you wouldn't even be able to sell a good idea to a company... what's it worth if they can just take it at will? At least the way it is now they have to fight a little in court to take it from you and even with lots of investment they might lose if you're clever in how you document and protect your intellectual interests.

We certainly don't have a perfect system because it can too easily be won by $ into lawyers and bind up the court tactics but again, it's like any lock, not perfect but a deterrent at least. And it leaves at least the slightest room for new companies and possibly even entirely new industries to more easily get started.

So a moderate modification of the system would do? Just make the emergency services at least partially responsible to what happens to the patient after delivery? I don't like revolutions when reforms would do.

I think Toffer said it all quite perfectly. Free market is not ALWAYS the most efficient answer.

There is always this argument between Boeing and Airbus when each side accuses the other of being unfairly favored by the respective government(s). Because it is unfair competition if one side is supported with tax money. It's like the government asking the biggest competitor what they could pay their employees and setting the minimum wage at this point, so that the other businesses are driven into the ground (close to what happened with the German mail system - of course, the biggest competitor was the already established German Post, formerly a public institution).

I think this can play out in a number of ways but our socialized USPS has long had the UPS and FedEX as competitors and the system has worked very well to keep costs low on all fronts. The government doesn't want to undercut or cut them out because it wants to limit how much it has to handle, and it wants to operate at a net zero sum but if the private companies can figure out how to do better than that while competing with the government's goal of net zero P&L, then they have every right to be doing what they are. Interestingly enough, this industry in all 3 outlets is one of the better paying industries to it's employees all in all. Might have something to do with the union the workers are often members of but that's a state by state applicable thing, not nationwide.

Debt is the amount of negative assets you have accumulated, whereas deficit is the increase of said debt in a given timeframe. If you overspent last year by 5,000 $ and overspend this year by another 2,000 $ you have reduced your deficit, but your debt has increased further.

Ok, makes sense. Also then makes sense that what I said about the general political differences in party policies still sorta holds true, where the term deficit is used to replace my inaccurate use of the word debt.

Wasn't it the Clinton administration that forced the banks to offer subprime loans (Community Reinvestment Act), so that poor people might be able to build houses? I'd call that regulation, not deregulation. A source for that claim (I admit it is a conservative one): https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clintonera-roots-of-the-financial-crisis-1376348141

I've heard that but don't know enough to say. I do know he at LEAST deregulated a lot that should've been regulated, and I was not a Clinton family fan because I believe they were bought out on a number of issues. Neither party is really great here, two wings of the same buzzard. I was mostly intending to point at factors that were more libertarian vs more socialist. Hillary lost because she let the swing voters, the Democratic Socialists, get split on the fact that she's a solid Capitalist. Given no good option after Bernie, many swung to Trump in hopes he could be believed that he was more free to implement policies that weren't paid for by wealthy interests because he was wealthy enough to not need them. Sadly, he's so ONE of those interests himself that he's done just as bad if not worse, in most cases.

And what a wonderful track record they have. Actually, there was an economic crisis in 1907 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907) which was rather swiftly dealt with (lasted less than a month) when J.P Morgan donated his money and convinced other rich people to do the same. The government didn't want to rely on this and formed the Federal Reserve System. How many crises has the Fed managed to deal with in such a short time?

I think we agree here but I'm not entirely sure of your point. If you're making an argument that we should abolish the Fed Reserve, I'm 10000000000% in agreement with you. It's really the source of 'the grand globalist conspiracy'. Many early Presidents knew this and more than one took a bullet trying to fight it. Have you read about the Titanic connection to the establishment of the Fed? Very interesting stuff.

I remember some conservatives arguing that the Presidential Office should never have been made so powerful when people were complaining about the current President.

Probably true. It was made more powerful as things went as well. Various presidents have taken actions to expand on its power ever so subtly, as if they all kinda get there and agree they need more than they were assigned to start with.

So bailouts should be outlawed and IP laws made less excessive - I have no problems with that.

Not sure I agree with IP laws but the actual structure of the Corporation itself should legally be dissolved IMO. That might be a little unfeasible to expect we can ever achieve that but if they keep abusing the power they have you never know what kind of response that will eventually achieve. Power bubbles burst eventually when the people unite in an understanding of who the enemy actually is.

 

[tmv]

That's a terrible idea, ambulance personnel would then have to ID the potential patient (PP) so they could run credit checks and figure out what kind of health insurance the PP has, what clinic could the PP afford, gauge the quality of the clinic the PP could afford, they would have to do a death probability analysis based on the nature of the PP's problem while checking the track record of multiple clinics in regards to said problem, and then speculate in whether it is worth the risk for them to take on some kind of responsibility, before deciding if they should drive the PP to a clinic or maybe just leave the poor sod alone.

In the meantime the ambulance from 4 different private companies would have arrived the scene and all of them would be in this mess, perhaps they would do a kind of quick auction, or quarrel, between themselves to figure out which company will drive the patient.

The ambulance companies might draw up new kinds of insurances so that if they are fined for driving a patient to a bad quality hospital the insurance will cover the fine.

I'm just saying that attaching a personal risk to the job of getting someone who needs help, as quickly as possible, to those that can provide it could complicate matters quite a bit.
If the ambulance business is privatized (which imo is an absurd idea in itself), then the job should be as simple as possible. Get to patient, quickly assess the severity of the problem, get patient in car, drive to closest hospital or smaller clinic based on severity, provide basic treatment inside car, and that should pretty much be it.
If hospital/clinic is also privatized then the ambulance companies would have a deal with each of them about how to get paid, if hospital/clinic is public then the ambulance companies would have to have a deal with the state about payment for services rendered. So big private hospitals will most likely pay the mosty to the ambulance companies, and thus get more paying customers, regardless if there is a smaller clinic nearby that can offer much higher quality treatment (but can't afford to compete with the big hospital in paying the ambulance companies.).

First off, I fully admit that transition periods are difficult. Transition to a full market system requires a certain time with a mixed system, with the public sector slowly withdrawing from anything that the private sector manages to provide. So I'm speaking about an established system. I also speak about at least modern times with the ability to store and process information very quickly, so the calculation you mentioned would be mostly automated and done in a matter of seconds, at most. And with some hospitals being specialized even today (and certain instruments being very expensive), you would need such a system anyway - some hospitals might not have certain equipment or trained personnel at all, or they might have very little experience with certain situations. And if the ambulance car is well equipped itself, there might be less urge to go to the closest hospital (not if a hospital a bit further away is much better equipped - or free, if certain hospitals already have their hands full with a big disaster, which also happens sometimes).

So I think that these problems can be solved, and would even be there in a given (European) system.

The soldiers themselves are the goods. They are trained by the military and they distribute the use of the weapons wherever directed - by the government. You're really having to do some mental gymnastics here and splitting hairs on word definitions to avoid the fact that the government controls the military and thus it is a socialist program. The weapons manufacturers, collectively referred to as the military industrial complex, have the government as a customer but are privatized. Any industry is either a private or social industry. If a person can work in it, it's an industry.

It's not hair splitting, it's keeping a definition from being all-encompassing - which wouldn't make sense, the dictionary wouldn't use restrictive words if it just meant "everything". By your understanding there is no limit to "production of goods" (and the military doesn't "produce" the soldiers anyway, they come from their families). And "use of weapons" is not a good either, or even a service, but an idea (as opposed to an entity). And this idea is not distributed (that would happen if you broadcasted to e.g. an oppressed minority the "idea" to use weapons to defend themselves) but implemented. If the m.i.complex was nationalized, that would be socialist indeed. But government control is not the same as socialist, nor is that claim made in the dictionary.

I do and without strong IP laws, you have absolutely NO incentive to invent because immediately upon bringing a market to industry, a larger more capable competitor will take that idea and out compete you at it with their greater capacity for investment, established supply line chains, and experience guiding them in what pitfalls to avoid and best practices to establish. Furthermore, you wouldn't even be able to sell a good idea to a company... what's it worth if they can just take it at will? At least the way it is now they have to fight a little in court to take it from you and even with lots of investment they might lose if you're clever in how you document and protect your intellectual interests.

We certainly don't have a perfect system because it can too easily be won by $ into lawyers and bind up the court tactics but again, it's like any lock, not perfect but a deterrent at least. And it leaves at least the slightest room for new companies and possibly even entirely new industries to more easily get started.

Almost all of the patents are held by big companies, and there is the very real possibility of stepping into a minefield if you invent anything. Who is able to afford legal advice when they have something new in front of them? And there are even times when the other company can sue back if you try to protect your IP rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(1978_TV_series)#Criticism_and_legal_actions). The entire situation is a horrible mess, and while some IP protection is probably necessary (although probably far less than you think, since reverse engineering can be really hard, especially if your invention is a big jump), it is far too strong right now - I think the situation is a bit like launching into space with all the debris around the Earth.

Have you read about the Titanic connection to the establishment of the Fed? Very interesting stuff.

Here we go again ...

Not sure I agree with IP laws but the actual structure of the Corporation itself should legally be dissolved IMO. That might be a little unfeasible to expect we can ever achieve that but if they keep abusing the power they have you never know what kind of response that will eventually achieve. Power bubbles burst eventually when the people unite in an understanding of who the enemy actually is.

These "dragons" as you called them are rarely efficient companies, and in some cases they even defeated themselves (lately bought any computer from IBM, or spreadsheet programs from Lotus? Or - while we're at it - anything from Kmart?). They are those who need bailouts the most (and they get them the most, because of their many employees, not to mention the money that was invested). Outlaw bailouts, and the smaller companies have less problems out-competing them. And if you lessen the IP laws, you reduce the entrance threshold for the market.

 

[Thunderbrd]

and the military doesn't "produce" the soldiers anyway, they come from their families

By training them and employing them, they do actively produce them.

It's not hair splitting, it's keeping a definition from being all-encompassing

Why would you want to keep this from being all encompassing? The duality is clear where Socialism is what Capitalism is not and vice versa. It's a much easier way of recognizing the factors in both systems. By trying to eliminate things like the police and military from being Socialist programs, all you achieve is the ability to discount the most successful display of socialism in action. Therefore it's a hollow argumentative victory that can be achieved by blinding us from the obvious examples of extreme positive applications of socialism that ALL of us will immediately agree is definitely THE way to run things because the pitfalls of privatizing are absolutely obvious there.

But government control is not the same as socialist, nor is that claim made in the dictionary.

There really is no valid distinction. To attempt to make one is only to muddy the waters of understanding.

Almost all of the patents are held by big companies, and there is the very real possibility of stepping into a minefield if you invent anything. Who is able to afford legal advice when they have something new in front of them? And there are even times when the other company can sue back if you try to protect your IP rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(1978_TV_series)#Criticism_and_legal_actions). The entire situation is a horrible mess, and while some IP protection is probably necessary (although probably far less than you think, since reverse engineering can be really hard, especially if your invention is a big jump), it is far too strong right now - I think the situation is a bit like launching into space with all the debris around the Earth.

It would be hard to imagine the approach of letting go of IP law and how it could impact things in reality. I admit it's not great the way it is but without it doesn't appear to be a golden solution either for the arguments I've given. One would need to save the game and change civics to see how it really plays out rather than how we guess it would to see if it's a good idea or not. I personally think it would stunt all tech growth entirely and lead to more savage undercutting in competition and a lot less fairness despite the unfairnesses of the current situation. I cannot, and I don't think you can either, say for sure which theory would prove the best approach but I'd be interested in an honest scientific experiment taking place to give some evidence of which arguments hold more weight.

These "dragons" as you called them are rarely efficient companies, and in some cases they even defeated themselves (lately bought any computer from IBM, or spreadsheet programs from Lotus? Or - while we're at it - anything from Kmart?). They are those who need bailouts the most (and they get them the most, because of their many employees, not to mention the money that was invested). Outlaw bailouts, and the smaller companies have less problems out-competing them. And if you lessen the IP laws, you reduce the entrance threshold for the market.

The size of company comparison to the size of a nation comparison in C2C is apt. Larger is more powerful but also has more challenges to overcome. And in the real world the debate will always rage on whether size is more beneficial than it is penalized. Giants have a hard time noticing flies enough to squish them on purpose and when they try the small size can be agile but if it lands a blow it's more than over in one hit. We're probably arguing here over whether an orange is better than an apple. But from the perspective of a guy who's been long considering starting a game company, I greatly fear the predatory larger guys in the scene that will rapidly steal anything I come up with if it proves popular enough to bother. If there were NO IP law, it wouldn't even be worth considering. How many have been able to successfully market a product to compete with Windows? And if they did? I don't think it's hard to see where that would go in a hurry.

 

[tmv]

By training them and employing them, they do actively produce them.

You could just as well say they "consume" them. There is no reason to prefer one over the other.

Why would you want to keep this from being all encompassing? The duality is clear where Socialism is what Capitalism is not and vice versa. It's a much easier way of recognizing the factors in both systems. By trying to eliminate things like the police and military from being Socialist programs, all you achieve is the ability to discount the most successful display of socialism in action. Therefore it's a hollow argumentative victory that can be achieved by blinding us from the obvious examples of extreme positive applications of socialism that ALL of us will immediately agree is definitely THE way to run things because the pitfalls of privatizing are absolutely obvious there.

I have already given reasons why this wouldn't transfer to success in the other areas. Just like you cannot take a Checkers AI and use it for C2C you also need to account for the massive increase of complexity going from the military to the economy. And that doesn't make lightly of a general's job - it's just that doing the same thing for the economy would require you to have roughly a 5-digit IQ or more. I don't need to throw these things out to make my point, but I really think it's making things less clear by calling everything a production. First of all, as I said, the military could just as well be called the consumer - this should not happen within the range of industry. Of course, you could call it processing of raw materials - if you wanted to be even more dehumanizing than Sergeant Hartman. I think that as long as you agree that human beings are not trade goods (in any way), the definitions are clear.

And I already said why I'm not an anarchist. Anarchism isn't stable. Someone will take over sooner or later, and because humans have a primal urge to rule they will set themselves up as the new rulers. If it wasn't for that it could work, with private security organizations who offer protection services. Unfortunately, patchworks (your neighbours aren't required to commission the same service provider) aren't defensible, so - before long - these agencies would start to draw borders where they can defend people. Which is already the start of a new government.

It would be hard to imagine the approach of letting go of IP law and how it could impact things in reality. I admit it's not great the way it is but without it doesn't appear to be a golden solution either for the arguments I've given. One would need to save the game and change civics to see how it really plays out rather than how we guess it would to see if it's a good idea or not. I personally think it would stunt all tech growth entirely and lead to more savage undercutting in competition and a lot less fairness despite the unfairnesses of the current situation. I cannot, and I don't think you can either, say for sure which theory would prove the best approach but I'd be interested in an honest scientific experiment taking place to give some evidence of which arguments hold more weight.

There were no technological patents before 1416 (https://onlinellm.usc.edu/blog/history-of-patent-law/), so every technical innovation before that time wasn't protected at all. Without is, there is both a force to slow things down (no protection for your invention) and to speed things up (no obstacle to copy/modify the idea of someone else), and I admit that it's not clear from the beginning which force would prevail. But things wouldn't come to a halt. You still need a lot of understanding for reverse engineering, and if you stop all your activities, you won't be able to pick up someone else's good idea. And all of this would be less lawyer-driven and more engineer-driven, which might already be seen as an advantage.

But from the perspective of a guy who's been long considering starting a game company, I greatly fear the predatory larger guys in the scene that will rapidly steal anything I come up with if it proves popular enough to bother. If there were NO IP law, it wouldn't even be worth considering.

There is a far greater danger that there are a few code lines of yours that distantly resemble some of theirs, leading to a massive lawyer attack.

How many have been able to successfully market a product to compete with Windows?

Linux absolutely dominates the server market, MS has recently surrendered in the smartphone market (which is mostly ruled by Android), then there are embedded systems, etc. It's just the desktop where Windows dominates, and while that's still an important sector of computing, it's rapidly losing the prime position if that hasn't already happened. There were even Civilization spinoffs (C-Revolution 1 / 2) for portable gaming.

And since Linux doesn't really belong to anyone, it hasn't gone anywhere.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I think that as long as you agree that human beings are not trade goods (in any way), the definitions are clear.

Yeah there's where we differ. Human resource is a trade good.

And I already said why I'm not an anarchist. Anarchism isn't stable. Someone will take over sooner or later, and because humans have a primal urge to rule they will set themselves up as the new rulers. If it wasn't for that it could work, with private security organizations who offer protection services. Unfortunately, patchworks (your neighbours aren't required to commission the same service provider) aren't defensible, so - before long - these agencies would start to draw borders where they can defend people. Which is already the start of a new government.

Agreed. I just believe that libertarianism is basically economic anarchism. Many of the same arguments for need for structuring exist in the same way in commerce policy as they do for overall arguments against anarchism in general. The gov that gov's the least is not always the best gov.

There were no technological patents before 1416 (https://onlinellm.usc.edu/blog/history-of-patent-law/), so every technical innovation before that time wasn't protected at all. Without is, there is both a force to slow things down (no protection for your invention) and to speed things up (no obstacle to copy/modify the idea of someone else), and I admit that it's not clear from the beginning which force would prevail. But things wouldn't come to a halt. You still need a lot of understanding for reverse engineering, and if you stop all your activities, you won't be able to pick up someone else's good idea. And all of this would be less lawyer-driven and more engineer-driven, which might already be seen as an advantage.

You could be right, depending on the industry and product. Very hard to predict.

There is a far greater danger that there are a few code lines of yours that distantly resemble some of theirs, leading to a massive lawyer attack.

Just as much I admit. Very demotivating.

 

[tmv]

Yeah there's where we differ. Human resource is a trade good.

In that case, they are "produced" by their families, and the military is more of a consumer. Socialism in that case would be ordering the families to have more children so that they could be used (up) in a war - this does resemble a certain aspect of nat.soc. in fact, where there were special awards for mothers of big families.

Then we need to make a distinction between conscription and voluntary armies. It's a bit hard to argue for someone being a trade good if (s)he became a soldier of their own free will. Conscription is considered by some to be some form of slavery, and its use is only justified (in a free country) for collective self-defense (as an adjective the word "collective" can have some meaning even if its use as a noun is more problematic). Authoritarian countries have far less trouble going that way, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was no unfree country without conscription. It is also the point where the US administration probably failed the most regarding the Vietnam War (it can hardly be called self-defense if the entire fighting happens on a different continent). Other countries (W Germany during the Cold War) are under such a massive threat level that self-defense is pretty much the only thing the military is for, and conscription can be justified that way.

Agreed. I just believe that libertarianism is basically economic anarchism. Many of the same arguments for need for structuring exist in the same way in commerce policy as they do for overall arguments against anarchism in general. The gov that gov's the least is not always the best gov.

Sorry, but I cannot agree. Protection from violence includes the need to use violence as a last resort, whereas there is no such justification when it comes to economy. Patchwork structures are not defensible against violent means, but why does that matter in the economy? They can compete in an orderly fashion, that is not the problem. If my neighbours have a different signal carrier for their smartphone, that does not mean that my house is under siege. Many people using products from the same corporation does not form a frontline. Most people don't consider someone else buying from a different brand justifying capital punishment.

The rules of strategy don't just result from there being competition, they are strongly connected to the fact that violent means are employed. There is always the danger of using false analogies if we don't pay attention. Old telephones may have been (roughly) banana-shaped, but they weren't edible.

 

[MacCoise]

So here's my favourite game of C2C yet. I've hit my max I think as it keeps crashing.

Just posting in case anybody has any ideas how to get a few more turns out of it or just to use it a test.

It's three quarters way through Ancient Era with hunderds of cities.

Great work guys.

 

[raxo2222]

So here's my favourite game of C2C yet. I've hit my max I think as it keeps crashing.

Just posting in case anybody has any ideas how to get a few more turns out of it or just to use it a test.

It's three quarters way through Ancient Era with hunderds of cities.

Great work guys.

Only 1500 MB is used when loading this save.
Do you use Toffer's Interface Overhaul?
Something clashes with Revolutions.
Also you have only 11 cities, I don't think there is even 100 cities.

Save went to next turn without problem.
I let it recalculate modifiers.

 

[Toffer90]

In that case, they are "produced" by their families, and the military is more of a consumer.

So are PMC's in your opinion simply consumers and not a privately controlled actor within the economy?
Doesn't military organizations, private or public forces alike, offer a service to a market?

Socialism in that case would be ordering the families to have more children so that they could be used (up) in a war

That is not really related to socialism.
It is rather related to the Fascism-Liberalism scale. The fascist notion that everyone must march in the same direction and put national interest before their own regardless of what personal sacrifice it may entail.

If the state controls the military and the state widely represent the citizens then the army is socialized.
If the military controls the state, or if an elite controls the military, then the military is privatized in one form or another.

Then we need to make a distinction between conscription and voluntary armies.

Employees are treated as resources within a market. To get employed a person has to sell him(her)self to the employer.
Getting employed are in most cases something that is voluntary, at least who you sell yourself to is a choice, and there is nothing that stops you from quiting to seek a new job.
Having that in mind, it should not be that difficult to view voluntary enlistees as a resource that a military business can acquire and then offer as a service to others.

 

[tmv]

So are PMC's in your opinion simply consumers and not a privately controlled actor within the economy?
Doesn't military organizations, private or public forces alike, offer a service to a market?

What market? It's not like you can buy the service of the army to have a "nice little chat" with your neighbour because their car/lawmover/dog irritates you. In most countries it would be illegal to contract such forces regardless of them being private. And I don't think humans are trade goods anyway.

That is not really related to socialism.
It is rather related to the Fascism-Liberalism scale. The fascist notion that everyone must march in the same direction and put national interest before their own regardless of what personal sacrifice it may entail.

I already said that this had happened in the NS state. But the "S" here stands for socialism, which isn't all that wrong according to the definition above, because while the factory owners did not have their factories taken away, these factories were at the beck and call of the government, which could always override the owner's decisions regarding "his/her" factory (command economy) - I wouldn't call that ownership. It's just that the government wants the full advantage of owning these factories without having to worry about micromanagement.

If the state controls the military and the state widely represent the citizens then the army is socialized.
If the military controls the state, or if an elite controls the military, then the military is privatized in one form or another.

So the Spartan military was private? That claim is a bit daring, I think.

Employees are treated as resources within a market. To get employed a person has to sell him(her)self to the employer.
Getting employed are in most cases something that is voluntary, at least who you sell yourself to is a choice, and there is nothing that stops you from quiting to seek a new job.
Having that in mind, it should not be that difficult to view voluntary conscripts as a resource that a military business can acquire and then offer as a service to others.

"Voluntary conscripts"? That's a contradiction. And this market you speak of is usually one of the least free markets in a Western system, at least if you have minimum wage laws.

And if these "voluntary conscripts" didn't explicitly agree to be given to a third party (at least as a general agreement) this would make them slaves. They may have agreed to put their lives on the line for a certain cause which they took an oath for, but this cannot just be transferred to a third party without their consent. And this hasn't really happened with regular soldiers for centuries - an example would be the Hessians in the War of Independence.

 

[Toffer90]

What market? It's not like you can buy the service of the army to have a "nice little chat" with your neighbour because their car/lawmover/dog irritates you. In most countries it would be illegal to contract such forces regardless of them being private.

So you don't think the military offers a security service to its nation, doesn't one state offer military services to other states, like training of their military, or consulting/advisory work?
Has there never been cases of one state lending its military service to another country (hoping to win some leverage or having been promised something back by the other country)?
The customers in this market consists mainly of states, but I'm sure private individuals, or groups of individuals, have bought military services once or twice throughout history too.

I already said that this had happened in the NS state. But the "S" here stands for socialism, which isn't all that wrong according to the definition above, because while the factory owners did not have their factories taken away, these factories were at the beck and call of the government, which could always override the owner's decisions regarding "his/her" factory (command economy) - I wouldn't call that ownership. It's just that the government wants the full advantage of owning these factories without having to worry about micromanagement.

What did you say earlier about false analogies...
Just because socialism can be mixed with fascism doesn't make socialism equal that which is clearly fascism.

Sure there was some socialism mixed into the NS state, but there were also loads of social darwinism (the complete opposite of socialism), fascism, capitalism, etc.
So saying that because something happened in the NS state proves that it must be something related to socialism is bad sport.
I stand on what I said that ↓

Socialism in that case would be ordering the families to have more children so that they could be used (up) in a war

↑ is not really related to socialism.

So the Spartan military was private? That claim is a bit daring, I think.

I really don't know enough about the power structure of the Spartan society and military to comment much on this.
If the military was ruled by the two kings of Sparta then it was in a way privatized. But as I said, I wouldn't know.

"Voluntary conscripts"? That's a contradiction.

English is not my native language, I should have used the term "enlistees" or "recruits" instead of conscripts.

 

[tmv]

So you don't think the military offers a security service to its nation

Market means voluntary exchange of goods and/or services, whereas the military is ordered to do this. It takes a "special" kind of society to enable the military to refuse this calling.

doesn't one state offer military services to other states, like training of their military, or consulting/advisory work?

Again, the military is in no position to decide about that, they are not partners in a contract. The different states/governments could be considered contract partners (and often are), but that is not the question here.

Just because socialism can be mixed with fascism doesn't make socialism equal that which is clearly fascism.

No, not equal. Just compatible. Which isn't that surprising considering that both are authoritarian governments/economic systems where the single person has to obey the government's commands first and foremost.

Sure there was some socialism mixed into the NS state, but there were also loads of social darwinism (the complete opposite of socialism), fascism, capitalism, etc.

You are absolutely right that social darwinism is the complete opposite of socialism in every aspect other than the fact that people are not free to decide about their own assets in both (in socialism, you must give your money to help the poor, in social darwinism, you must not do this). But if you call the NS state primarily fascist, it should be compared mostly with WW2 Italy, which was the "primordial" fascist state. In this comparison, the NS state differs mostly by antisemitism (of course), and by socialist aspects. Italy was a stratified society, with nobles retaining very high positions, a strongly corporatist economy, and it had strong colonial ambitions in Africa (compare with Imperialism) - all of these points were not true in Germany (Edit: Yes, it had colonial ambitions in the East). And Stalin also launched a massive antisemitic campaign in hist last few years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_plot).

↑ is not really related to socialism.

I meant the claim that the way the state raises an army was somehow controlling of the means of production. As the people are "produced" in their families, controlling this would be the government giving an order to the families.

 

[MacCoise]

Can Shellfish not enable the Dried Fish Maker?