I'll add Shellfish as alternative to Dried Fish Maker.
It will nicely compliment this building - Raw Fish is manufactured resource too.
Last edited:
Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
It will nicely compliment this building - Raw Fish is manufactured resource too.
That is the case for most industries, private and public, they cannot really refuse the will of the owners. If the owner of an import company wants to import something from this or that customer, then the company can't really refuse to do it.
The same would be true for any socialized industries. If power production/distribution is owned by the state, it would take a "special" kind of society for them to refuse this calling.
There has been many cases where the military refuses to obey the state too.
If the military was privatized it would not really need to follow the will of the state it resides in 100%, especially if the private military doesn't break any laws by refusing the will of the state.
You are saying that the military cannot be a socialized institution, but how can it be that it is possible to privatize it, yet it is in your opinion impossible to socialize it?
Most contemporary nations has a socialized military in my opinion.
I like discussing with you tmv, but I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
There is no market-type relationship between a company and its owners. Market means voluntary exchange of goods and/or services, usually between a supplier and a customer. There can be more parties involved (like the state receiving VAT), but they are usually not part of the decision-making. Of course the relation between a government and the military is (usually) different, that's why I'm saying it is not at all a market.
There is a difference with mercenaries (which has not been the typical kind of armed forces in centuries), but even mercenary "companies" (the business type, not the unit size) have owners who agree to a contract with certain governments under certain conditions. Entering that kind of relationship happens as a market-type exchange (in return for payment), but after that and while this contract holds the government will usually insist on controlling these units like normal military - these units have full access to the country and a sudden change of contracts would be a huge danger to this country, so there need to be safety precautions. Just like you voluntarily enter a job contract but after that you have to follow the employer's directives, or give notice (with certain predetermined conditions).
See above. The nation that would allow an organized armed force that is not under its full control within its borders would quickly vanish from the map.
I am saying that there is no market-type relationship between a government and the military (see above). There can be privatized military (mercenaries), but not fully privatized military were the company owners retain ultimate control over their units while they are employed by a government. That would be suicidal for any government. So there is no contrast - there is only the difference how an army is raised, not how it is handled while it is under government control - in theory. Of course, there is an important difference that led to the vanishing of mercenaries for a long time: They hold little loyalty to a people, and the mercenaries both in the Hundred-Years-War and in the Thirty-Years-War were infamous for plundering. Today nations may employ mercenaries, but not in their own countries - that's the lesson of history.
Again, the military is employed by the government - there is no market-type relationship. The military doesn't offer a service to the nation, they serve the nation. In a free society the government wouldn't even think about selling their troops to another nation, because that would be human trafficking. The relationship is based (ideally) on mutual loyalty, not on any kind of tit-for-tat. This is completely unlike the relationship between a supplier and a customer, which is always based on tit-for-tat, there is no duty of loyalty between them, ideally they can part ways after the market exchange and don't have to meet again, unless there is something wrong with the good or service. In that case the supplier might have to uphold some duties of guarantee in a strictly defined manner.
We started this topic because first Thunderbrd and then you claimed that the government controlling the military was an example of socialism. I gave my reasons why I think that this is not the case. There is no production to speak of (and certainly no distribution), which means the government or private people could control. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_(economics)) quotes Kotler", P., Armstrong, G., Brown, L., and Adam, S. (2006) Marketing, 7th Ed. Pearson Education Australia/Prentice Hall as follows:
Here is the main reason why the military is not production: There may be (mostly) know-how involved to transform citizens into soldiers, but soldiers are not for consumption. They may be there to be used, but not to be consumed. This is an important difference. Adam Smith put it like that (see http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN18.html):
If anything should be considered a production, you first need to name the corresponding consumption.
There is never a market type relationship between any socialized industries and the government. That's pretty much what makes it socialized instead of privatized. If a state owns a coal mining industry, there would be no market-type relationship between the state-owned coal company and the state.
Public education is a socialist institution. The state is the owner and customer, just like the military is owned by the state and the main customer for that industry is also the state.
The military produces soldiers and the people who paid for that production through taxes consume those soldiers slowly until they retire or die in service, the product is security/legitimacy and is produced by a tertiary industry.
Public schools produce education and the people who paid for that production consume that education slowly until the educated retire or "die in service", the product is knowledge/competence and is produced by a tertiary industry.
Some countries have socialized water distribution where not even private individual have a customer-supplier relationship with the water distributor.
Water from the spring could be completely free, or have a tax amount per liter if water is scarce, water pipes are placed and maintained by the state without involving anyone who lives or own in the area, and the customer of that distribution industry is the state and the owner is also the state. The state does not have a market-type relationship with the water distributor in this case either.
I cannot think of a single socialized industry that would have a market-type relationship with the state that owns it.
Pretty much all privatized industries has a market-type relationship with any and all states. But they would never have it with its owner.
PS. I've been drinking, so I'm, not sure I've interpreted what you said correctly. ^^
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
By that logic, if the state built itself robots to serve its interests, that would also not be a socialist program. Ugh... your arguments make no sense. Soldiers are indeed consumed, both when sent to battle and lost and by having an expiration date of service. But even a product that is produced that has no expiration date or is not destroyed in the process of its use is still consumed.
And this whole thing about a market type relationship... Does the military serve a purpose to the government and its people? Yes? (You've made quite the points to prove how badly a nation needs this service...) Then it's a market type relationship. The state needs the service but it needs the service so that it can uphold the charge the charter it's founded upon is demanded to provide to the people, namely the protection of the stability of the system itself. There is no point in ensuring the protection of that system without it being to serve the needs of the people. Even simply enforcing law and protecting people from a more grave threat of exploitation by a conquerer is still a service the government performs and is the reason for it. At it's core, the people, even in a more tyrannical state, are what gives the government a cause to be a government at all. It's there to 'govern' matters that require governance and provide things that cannot be provided without such a body in place, such as the elements of what can be defined as a civilization at all. But what civilization is worth a damn that refuses to ensure the health of its citizens to the best of its ability? What civilization is worth a damn that serves only to protect the interests of a small privileged percent of its people? Ok, this paragraph got a bit out of control to get back to the original points that began this discussion.
Last edited:
You are going back and forth between the claim that the military is an industry the state uses and the claim that the government owns the military. Of course I think the second claim is correct, but not the first one. I said this as a counter-argument to the first claim. These claims are somewhat contradictory, because with the first claim the military would be a tool of the state and with the second one it would be an organ of the state. It is government-controlled, but it does not include any means of production, that's why it's not socialist.
That can be argued for. But the students can easier be called consumers of this because that training is for their own benefit. The soldiers may benefit from their training as well (indeed, it may be life-saving), but only because the government put them in peril in the first case.
Not in the general case, and almost never directly. If anything the government could be considered consuming the soldiers - your claim would only be valid in a direct democracy. But if the government is the true consumer as well as the "producer", that changes the market dynamic drastically. There is no price dynamic, everything that is usually specific about either role is not there. In your above example about a state-owned coal industry there are true consumers: the people who don't want to freeze in winter.
In all these cases there is a market-type relationship with the consumers, even if these consumers have to face a state-controlled monopoly. But that is not the case with the military.
Not with its owner, but with the consumer(s).
Perhaps.
What kind of robots are you talking about? Again, when producer and consumer are the same, the usual terms break down.
Fist of all: As much as I might wish it was true, democracy is far from the only form of government that exists today. And non-free systems don't make less efforts to provide security from any (real or perceived) threat to their system.
Tell that to Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Kim (any of them)/etc. They certainly insist(ed) on their own system being defended - sometimes beyond any point of reason.
The welfare state is a rather new development, and you underestimate what was done for the poor before such a system was in place. There was charity, there was religious support, there was even voluntary help by the government without it being made into an enforceable claim (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charité#History - it might be interesting to note that this was the king who started what was later called Prussian militarism). Help can come to the people with or without government intervention. But there are many areas were direction from the government is not the best choice. Jefferson said:
Let's have a look at the feudal monarchies (or the shogunate).
Each lord with enough land could own its own retinue, or one might say a mini army, several of these lords often banded together. The king, who also had a retinue, could call upon all its loyal lords to gather their armies into one large army. This large army is what we might call the army of the nation, and it consisted of many small privately owned armies. Many of these kingdoms were held together for centuries at a time, sure there were inner conflicts between the different private armies/lords, but it rarely tore the nation apart completely. The state border might often have changed a little bit, and who governed the states could change, but the state itself would persevere, because tradition, customs and cultural identity usually held these nations together even through turmoil that we might call civil wars.
Pretty much all monarchies, empires, and otherwise dictatorial states throughout history had a privatized army, and one could also argue that the government itself was privatized in these nations. It was not the society who owned the government of its state, it was elites (mostly royalty, but also partly the nobility) who owned it. The private armies gave the elites security and legitimacy as the owners of the government. The military was often used as a tool to intimidated the people of the society to pay their due taxes to the elites. The elites funded these armies pretty much out of pocket. You might say that society then purchased the service of the military indirectly, but I would argue that it then mostly was an involuntarily purchase of said service.
A socialized army requires a socialized government, a government that belonged to no one in particular, a government that belonged to the society.
In that situation, when the army is funded by the society directly, can it be called socialized. Then the army produce security for the society, not the elites, and legitimacy for the society to govern, not the elites.
There are privately owned housing that is owned and used by the owner (either by living there or renting it out), then you have socialized housing which is owned and used by the government (either to house homeless for free or by renting it out).
My point is that anything that can be owned can in principle also be socialized, regardless of market, production and consumption.
Last edited:
I feel like this could be questions that were asked before but I'm that good at using search.
1) Is there a way to have simultaneous in single player
or
2) Is there a way to have tech splash screens, wonder videos, etc. in Multiplayer with simultaneous on?
1) Is there a way to have simultaneous in single player
or
2) Is there a way to have tech splash screens, wonder videos, etc. in Multiplayer with simultaneous on?
1. No.
2. No, but I could make it an option... It won't happen right away though.
Yeah, like it's an easy thing for less than 10 people to create a game from scratch on a new game engine without having a dime for budget.What I REALLY really want though is for Civ4 to be ported to a new engine that's 64bit so we have less limitations to deal with, please?I'm even willing to buy it for $60.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
In these cases, the right to their government is established by their will and their ability to force that will upon others. Such a government has no just right to exist, which is the argument upon which my statement is also based.
Doesn't matter what kind of robots. The military is a consumer and is also a provider and all industries are that as well. All an industry is is an agent of change, no matter what industry it may be. That change can even be to ensure that changes don't take place that naturally would, such as the blessings provided a civilization by a refrigerator manufacturer or a maker of food saver bags. The military ensures stability, the natural state being instability. It provides a service. It allows us the opportunity to trade and negotiate without being bereft of the diplomatic power of the option of force. There are a great many services and products that the military provides the people and its rulership. Thus the government is a consumer of the benefits. services, and product that the military provides. It can even be loaned out, traded and sold or contracted directly for income to those who wield its power. A private military is called 'security'. And that is definitely an industry. Sure a military creates a lot of demands that must be fulfilled to maintain that service - just like a manufacturer of bread demands flour, oil, yeast and other ingredients, ovens, fuel, a place to bake, pans, trays, etc. So since a bakery is both a consumer and a provider, it's not an industry now?
And that doesn't make the military any less an industry in that nation. Certainly more stable as a socialized one than as a private one, unless you think mercenaries can suffice a government to provide it with the stability it seeks.
We didn't need it so bad previously because the lion's share of the wealth had not become so concentrated in the hands of so few. The libertarian system works great for a long time until financial physics finally starts creating singularities that start sucking all the wealth that exists into them. It's all part of a natural cycle that operates much like the universe itself. We have to find a way to cause these sources to explode, to release all their wealth to scatter throughout the system once again. And that's exactly the war we're trapped in right now - they are doing all they can to not only keep that from happening but to expand their influence and wealth all the more. It won't be long before the cost of water is too much for most to survive.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Been discussed often throughout the years. Will not happen. Firaxis corrupted the design of the franchise of Civ and moved on and they aren't turning back now.What if we unite all Civ4 players under the cause and complain extremely loudly and persistently to 2K and Firaxis?
These feudal states were so extremely weak that they broke down in fact long before they vanished "officially". In any aspect that matters the HRE was done for after the Peace of Westphalia, even if it "officially" existed for another 158 years. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was even weaker, with every noble having a veto in the assembly. In Germany the emperor's position was as strong as his immediate territory ("Hausmacht") and at first the princes were about to go the same way, only they managed to remove the political power of the nobles (e.g. by granting them the officer's position in their army - and when the nobles accepted this hoping to "own" the army that way, they suddenly learned that they had to pledge allegiance to the prince). Any state that retained the system you mentioned came crashing down before long.
The nobles were usually exempt from paying taxes.
That's a fiction.
What means of production are you talking about (referring to what you quoted)?
Any yet, it does happen all the time. In recent years the part of the world with free nations seems to become smaller, not larger. The "End of History" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man) did not happen and even nations that were assumed to be safe could lose their freedom before long.
I don't think I have seen that definition anywhere. In fact, I googles "agent of change" and I mostly got something about British music.
A bakery doesn't produce and consume the exact same things. When you are the sole consumer of something you are not its producer, even if you provide it (the opposite is not strictly true, doing something for the group you belong to happens all the time, especially within families).
What about an army that is fiercely loyal to the crown (as it happened several times in history)?
According to Peter H. Lindert (University of California, Davis), "Unequal English Wealth since 1670" (http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Lindert86.pdf), page 2
Before that time, wealth was even less equally distributed: According to https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/29/wealth-inequality-unequal Augustus controlled one fifth of the total wealth of the empire, and the Chinese emperor Shenzong (11th century) possessed up to 30 % of the global GDP. The Guardian does state that the distribution hasn't been "this unequal since before the second world war", but that is just a tiny part of history, and does not include the times I mentioned.
CivicConscription
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2017
- Messages
- 6
Hello again!
Questions about C2C,
Would it be possible to make diseases affect revolutions? Not as much as crime obviously, but maybe enough that, if disease is high enough, people would revolt?
Also, how exactly do you get the state religion of a civ to show up on the scoreboard? I know it's "R" on the list, but for some reason it's not showing up for me (Sorry if i'm asking in the wrong thread for this).
Questions about C2C,
Would it be possible to make diseases affect revolutions? Not as much as crime obviously, but maybe enough that, if disease is high enough, people would revolt?
Also, how exactly do you get the state religion of a civ to show up on the scoreboard? I know it's "R" on the list, but for some reason it's not showing up for me (Sorry if i'm asking in the wrong thread for this).
Possible? Yes. But revolutions is something that isn't being supported/worked on in Caveman 2 Cosmos, and there aren't any active modders that deal with that part.
You are using the steam version correct? If so then go to your game proprieties > betas and select original_release_unsupported.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Start a multiplayer game with one player.
Didn't say it doesn't. A right to exist doesn't mean a capability to. It means it shouldn't be allowed to exist unless it considers its purpose the well being of the people.
We're talking about understanding things beyond just definitions given in a book. Understand the political duality of privatized vs socialized industries as opposing forces, much like forces of nature, like light and dark, rather than just some arbitrary boundaries established for a word. In all cases in nature when you can find diametric forces, you'll find that the key is to balance those forces, sometimes at very specific degrees. Too close to the sun, we burn up, too far away we freeze. If we were surrounded by 2 suns and always had light, we'd fry or at least go somewhat insane.
The trick in this duality of Socialism vs Capitalism (public vs private industry, industry defined as any categorical set of human pursuits) is to figure out what needs to be public and what needs to be private domain and sometimes we have a large world of gray areas in between, where the government subsidizes private providers, making them almost entirely government employed, with the vague freedom to not HAVE to take those subsidies if you wish to do your own thing. The main thing we need to protect is the freedom for business owners to innovate, but we must also always be capable and willing to regulate where consumers are being taken advantage of to ensure fair play. And some industries are just too parasitic or dangerous in private hands (such as an ultralethal modern military) to be trusted in the private realm at all.
What like a private force owned by a noble? Such armies have also flipped into a coup overnight on numerous occasions. It's not a safe thing for a nation to harbor much of.
Ok so you're saying that the current state of the US (I am not comparing this to the globe) of 98% of the wealth existing in the hands of 2% of the people (or worse), is NOT the most imbalanced wealth distribution previously seen on the planet?
