The Lemurian Empire



  • ValidifyedValidifyed REGISTERED Posts: 612 Seed
    Don't worry guys. I'm still lurking.
  • Re EvolutionRe Evolution REGISTERED Posts: 1,105 Seed
    dont lie to us
  • CustosAeternamCustosAeternam REGISTERED Posts: 77 Seed

    First of all, Fascism is infinitely better than Communism, if it wasn't for Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, it'd rule the world, as it rightfully should.

    Secondly, sounds great, in theory, as communism always does. What about this say:

    Bill has to go out and get some wood from Monty, the local lumberjack (who sleeps all night and works all day :p). Monty would love to help, but he's cut down all the spare trees he can for the season, he has to let some of the youngins grow before there's any valuable wood. Bill is just fine with this, and continues business as usual. So with a limited amount of chairs (he has a very specialised ability in carpentry) he realises he can't take just one loaf of bread for one chair, he'd run out of chairs by the day and only have enough bread for half the season! (Everyone but Bill and Monty buys in bread xD)

    By charging more than one bread per chair, it screws up the whole system. I would love this system (not really, screw communism) but supplies might be too varied and, as always, the age old debate of can a human being contain his greed?

    What you seem to be pointing at is not communism, where everyone makes the same no matter what, but is actually Capitalism, where supply and demand changes prices for items and people can make a varying amount of money per day... I am probably wrong though.
    -Previously known as "Spirit_Guardian"
    "I will guard the seedlings with my life" -Custos Aeternam
  • ElfElf REGISTERED Posts: 75 Seed
    @Xodus_LLama that is classic laissez-faire capitalism: each person establishes their prices for what they do based on (1) what the market will bear and (2) how much profit they want to make. Their good intentions are irrelevant to the economic system; the question is whether the law puts restrictions on them, and as you've described things, the law does not.

    In communism, Bill and Monty would provide wood and chairs to the community, and would receive bread, without bothering to figure out how much either of those is worth. The obvious issue is, who gets that one chair? Establishing a fair system of distribution for limited supplies is the #1 problem with communism, even in the idealized theory version; the second is the issue of encouraging people to work (hard enough) even if they're not getting any more rewards than if they work longer hours.

    Fascism is a government system, not an economic one; it works fine with communism (who decides? the government decides what "fair distribution" is.) and has conflicts with capitalism, as government controls on who can buy and sell, who can associate, and what products are allowed to be sold, all get in the way of the free market.

    (I prefer, in the real world, to have some rather sharp restrictions on the free market; I don't want people to be allowed to sell heroin to 10-year-olds nor guns to angry teenagers; I don't want people to be allowed to sell organs or contract for slavery.)

    However, if you insist that fascism "should rightfully rule the world," it would be more persuasive if you could come up with examples where it was successful, because without those, the "should" means "in my head" rather than "because it has qualities that make it superior to other systems."
Sign In or Register to comment.