It is often not the right approach for iterative game development either (before launch...post launch is sometimes a very different story). But the basic idea is that if you want to test an idea or approach, you go ahead and just do it. Want to see how much more DMG would affect the game? Don't increase it by 10% and try and "feel" it out. Consider doing it by 100% so you can REALLY feel the impact. By going to the extreme, it allows you to more clearly see the impact of the change.
Let me use this post to answer my own question. I view socialism as generally bad. The key problem is you can't have government ensure equality of outcome (or anything like it) without violating people's rights. People have different goals, skills and capabilities. Socialism is too often tyrannical. I'm not just talking about the harsh tyranny of a **** Germany or Soviet Union. I'm also talking about the soft tyranny of taking away decisions people should make for themselves. One reason why I oppose Obamacare is because it took away a individual's right to determine if and if so how much health insurance to have. Let's not forget that too often with government you merely replace a market failure with government failure. That's all you would do WRT healthcare. I was in debate in high school and debated this topic and the issues really haven't changed. WRT infrastructure (I'm thinking of largely transport public works like thing) the Constitution does authorize Congress to 'Establish Post Offices and Post Roads'. There is clear recognition the federal government has a role there. Let us not forget that we have a dual sovereign system. We have state governments and a national level government. The powers delegated to the national level government are few and defined. Powers delegated to each state is defined within each state's constitution and if WA, NM and TXs constitutions are any indication, states have far more delegated authority. You mentioned northern European nations. Those nations are roughly equivalent in size and scope to our states. Imagine the chaos if the EU were to impose education, health care, welfare, retirement etc policies on top of what each nation has. IMHO the social welfare system as we know at the federal level is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not authorize the feds to operate in that area. Our Founders rightly recognized that those issues are better dealt with at a lower level. Don't bog the nation down with something that can be dealt with at state level. There's a psychological aspect too. If my state is !@#ing up by the numbers, I can go to another state that more suits my values. It's a lot harder to abandon my country.
"But the basic idea is that if you want to test an idea or approach, you go ahead and just do it. Want to see how much more DMG would affect the game? Don't increase it by 10% and try and "feel" it out. Consider doing it by 100% so you can REALLY feel the impact. By going to the extreme, it allows you to more clearly see the impact of the change." Well thanks to the old National Socialist Germans Workers' Party we can see how that test ran with government, very insightful for some, but totally ignored by others. Their attempt went so bad you cant even say their names on this very forum lol Edit to include a quote from the party- Source: planks of the National Socialist Party of Germany (****), adopted in Munich on February 24, 1920. "We ask that government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within the confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: ... an end to the power of financial interest. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand ... the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education.... We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents.... The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor -- by the greatest possible support for all groups concerned with the physical education of youth. [W]e combat the ... materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good." Doesn't sound bad at all does it, Exactly like socialists now.
On that note, there's another issue here. If a government company screws up, what is the best way to punish it? Should it be punished? Take the EPA Goldking Mine incident. To the best of my knowledge absolutely no one has been punished for the negligence (and it was declared to be negligence), and part of the reason is that the EPA fining itself would be ridiculous. If you have a government owned/run company screw up in terms of medical care, what recourse for justice (or at least compensation) do the victims of that have? Government owned/operated companies can makes sense in certain aspects, absolutely. However it's important to also have the ability to settle potential problems these companies cause without merely further burdening the citizens who were likely wronged in the first place. To say nothing of the inherent obligation to "rescue" or "bail out" things that fail, though obviously that's not limited to socialism (but that mentality of something being too "big" or too important to let fail certainly applies all the more so to the government itself).
Socialism is not inherently tyrannical. Just because some countries/dictators have used socialist ideas doesn't make socialism itself tyrannical. This is like me saying because guns can be used for murder that guns themselves are murderers. It's simply not true. As I indicated in my post, for me it's really not about equality of outcome. Even the quote you used doesn't specify that. As for choice, as I said, I think that true socialism really only works in a case where people choose to enter into it - i.e. they made the choice. Certainly there is always potential for problems, nothing is perfect. But on a spectrum of "laissez faire" vs "government control" there are some things I prefer the left for and others I prefer the right for. You asked if socialism was good or bad. Whether or not certain socialist policies is constitutional is an entirely different matter altogether, IMO. According @ssez, this is easy. But I do agree with you that you are often forced to live with the choices of other people when you are born.
People can, and often do, sue the government and its entities. And, in general, if people are criminally liable, they should be held accountable. Whether this actually happens or is actually effective is another matter altogether.
Made a different post to respond more to this: Obamacare isn't really on the socialism spectrum to me: It's government mandated consumption of a private good (health insurance) - in fact, the marketplace and many provisions within the ACA was specifically designed to increase choice (and in most states, choices have expanded since inception, tho 2016 might be different). Of course, you are penalized for choosing no now, so that's different. ~ Universal Healthcare with the government as the payer? That'd be real socialism. Because now you aren't individually purchasing anything, instead, everyone is paying for everyone else. ~ That said, insurance itself, interestingly, is a socialist concept in a way because you are pooling resources as a form of risk management. Making the risk of whatever you are insuring against into a communal good so no one individual of a community disproportionately suffers. ~ Reading what you have written, I think your problem is that historically, socialism has been forced onto some groups. But I am not sure that it makes sense to feel any and all socialist policies can only exist by removing freedoms. ~ Also, it's interesting tho that you do not feel that the Constitution has been forced on you by dead people as Thomas Jefferson feared. If you don't like the Constitution, do you also feel "it's a lot harder to abandon [your] country?"
"According @@ssez, this is easy." Again here you go with more BS of things I never said, go find me saying it is easy, copy and paste here. protip you wont. I will even help you incase you are thinking of this quote from me "I notice he compares USA to other countries, and says look at their systems they work great etc, Awesome! now go pack up and move, no one is stopping you. Problem solved!" So pffft, Life aint easy homie.
I am not sure what you mean by "here you go with more BS of things I never said." This is the first time I know of that you thought I did something like that. Your wording in these replies suggests it isn't especially difficult in the way Storm suggests it is. Contrast statements like "You can leave at will" with "I can't just abandon my country" for example. Note that your idea is that if you don't like it, you can leave (instead of trying to change it). Storm's point is that it's difficult to just do that. This suggests a difference of opinion regarding the ease by which you can do so. That's all I meant.
First, why 'state level?' What makes the state a particular good size? States have so many different sizes and make ups... would it be better if things weren't bogged down at the state level that could be handled at... county level? city level? family level? What is it about the state that makes it special in regards to socialist type policies like welfare? And this sounds like, (and perhaps you can elaborate or clarify), that you are against all taxes of any form at the federal level and against any and all services being provided by the federal government... but are ok with the same things at the state level? Socialism is ok if it's at the state level? I am guessing this isn't what you meant, but it seems like a reasonable reading. Or maybe I am unclear as to what is and isn't socialism in your view here. Is road building with tax payer money socialism? Would sewage and water being provided by the government be considered socialism? If so, how do you propose a society handles that kind of stuff? Through private companies only? And if so, and if "choice" is the important of the equation as suggested by you, do you have the same problem with defacto monopolies (such as many area's cable TV) as well? Or is the choice to not have TV sufficient in that case? Or, if there's only one sewage company, is the choice of not paying for sewage sufficient?
Taking the obvious and horrific historical examples isn't helping the discussion. We have plenty working examples of somewhat socialist welfare states that all are democracies in Europe. There is a mindset in parts of the U.S., and @DarkJello (and I have long wanted to ask you specifically!) has repeatedly expressed it as well: that problems should be solved at the most local level possible. Could we discuss this mindset for a moment? I think localizing the government wherever possible is not inherently bad; quite the opposite, I think this may very well work out better than some centralized solution. Keep in mind that the United States are huge, and when we compare it to Europe here, we have to keep in mind that any single nation is in itself tiny in comparison. So Europe already has a much more localized government structure per default. But I do think the emphasis should be on "solving problems at the most local level possible". There are some problems that require international treaties and cannot be solved locally alone. The climate change is one of those problems. But then, there are other issues -- such as those addressed by a welfare state -- on which we have different opinions at which level they should be solved. My impression is this, and I deliberately try to exaggerate a little: @DarkJello and many other here do believe that the government should be have as little power as possible, because the government is inherently stupid and incompetent and local communities care and know better. While other people here do believe that most people and local communities are inherently stupid and incompetent and cannot address global problems properly, we need the government to set and enforce rules that everyone may be as stupid as they like.
Note that with many of these issues, the general feeling among those you are addressing is that things like Climate Change to not be a true issue, but one that has been either manufactured or blown out of proportion by government in order to exert more control over the population. I am not sure if there are any issues where they feel are legitimately better solved by big government.
In the early days of MuriKa, the federal gvt was too weak and the states were too strong. Now, IMO, we have the opposite imbalance. I don't want either level of gvt to dominate. Point being, I would prefer to be more like Europe with distribution of power. So I don't want gvt to be super small, just more local. Overall, I would like a smaller gvt footprint. Nerf, but not shoebox, in Pox parlance. xD
Yes, but the payment of any successful suit (which is very much not easy), comes out of tax funds, with very rare exceptions (suing an individual who primarily pays out of their personal finances... though even then part of that will likely be from government funding). While it is reasonable to believe that suing a company would harm that companies stock holders and such, they are the ones that willingly took on that risk, even if they had no direct hand in whatever wrongdoing took place. Taxes are not a matter of willfully choosing to participate or not (at least in terms of law, obviously people can choose to defy tax laws but not without potential consequences). Which, to me, is a bit of a flaw in "socialism should be by choice." Unless you require taxes and other payments (Social Security for example) to be paid into the fund, you won't be able to pay to those most likely to "opt in" (basically, those taking out benefits). If you don't require tax participation, than it's not really much different from regular Charities, except for the accountability issues. The effectiveness (and frequency of proper application) of any recourse, whether it be civil suits, individual prosecutions, etc. when something goes wrong is very much the issue though. While regulating business (in certain aspects) is an important function of government, if the government owns/operates a business than all citizens end up "on the hook" for that business' failings, without having a choice in the matter. Especially if there is no specific individual(s) at fault. I do think this can still be worth it in terms of certain types of businesses, but it's certainly an issue that can and should be considered when discussing Socialism. To take the necessary steps to ensure that the people are protected from these problems.
So those things are typically paid out via liability insurance, or the company goes bankrupt and ends up largely just hurts people who probably had nothing to do with the decisions (they can choose where to work, but they can't really know if the company will perhaps someday be sued), while the owners are largely shielded from personal liability due to corporate protections. In some cases, they even get bonuses. Enron in 2002 paid senior executives an average of ~5 million to a tune of about 750 million dollars... then filed for bankruptcy.
I think you completely misunderstood me. I don't mean that individuals chose whether they want to participate in a particular policy or system. I mean society as a whole needs to choose whether it is going to participate, and then everyone lives by that collective choice.
That's not much different from a government owned company though, except with the minor exception that a company is unlikely to fold because it'll get artificially propped up most of the time via the tax-payers funds. The thing about losing a job is that, while it very much sucks, it's not inherently hurting them. In theory (yes yes, I'll get to that in a bit) one can simply find another job. While you can't predict your company will be sued (let alone for enough to cause it to declare bankruptcy) you can be informed of it happening, and it's usually a long enough process that one can take precautions during that process. It still sucks quite a bit. But then again losing one's job is always a possibility even if there's no suit used as a means of recourse against wrongdoing. Sometimes companies just don't do very well and have to downsize or even close even with no malfeasance on the part of anyone involved, and with far less notice than a law suit. Which is where proper business regulation by the government should come in to prevent that bullcrap. Instead, it's actually governments protecting that crap. Given that, it's understandable to see why some would not be willing to trust governments to quit doing that just because it becomes "in-house" so to speak (indeed, it's more likely to be protected in my view).
So, basically, you were going at the "Socialism needs to be voted in rather than dictated" thing (which is a different angle than I thought you were talking about at the time).
By "society as a whole needs to choose", do you mean 50.0000001% forcing the other 49.999999% to pay or else, comply or else, and/or go to war or else?
