Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: For Landowners and Barons

["Charles Schaefer" <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/9/27, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Charles, you're for this? Oh, well. Most of your arguments seem to support
> my points. "Look how well the Sock Corps are doing?" They're fun for sure,
> but I wouldn't say they are doing all that great. Their Contracts don't
> much
> inspire, they're almost identical. (Although Black's Contract is a
> step toward diversity.) Now if you say that they could serve as a base for
> creative cooperation and exploration, I would agree with you. But I would
> chalk that up to the Incorporation rule, not the Socks rule.


You're right. I meant corporations in general. And I agree that we could be
doing a lot more with them then fine evasion and collecting revenue. I
thought my Votes for Sale was creative, for example, but no one seems
interested. (To everyone:) Is it because the contract is poorly written, or
is there just no interest in buying my votes (that would surprise me), or it
is something else?

The Sock Corporations, as opposed to other corporations, serve to earn a lot
> of mack for their owners and thus inflate the economy. Like the Communist
> Manifesto (if you've ever studied it, I think you know what I mean. It's a
> well considered document.) this proposal serves one group of people at the
> expense of another. In that case, it was the lower class who benefited,
> while in this case, the upper.


That's why I called you a comrade. It seemed clear by your previous
comment about new players that you were concerned about the lower classes.
(Although had that proposal passed I would have supported an amendment to
fix that omission)

You are right Charles, you wouldn't have to be a traitor (maybe just
> misguided and/or whimsically fun-seeking) to support this proposal. I
> shouldn't be flinging unjustified insults.


A traitor? No, I'm loyal to C Nomic. C Nomic for Eternity!
Misguided? Maybe a little.
Whimsically fun-seeking? That's why I'm here and not at Agora.

Glad to hear BP wasn't serious. Can we at least talk some more about this
> before voting our equal suffrage away? It's quite a radical change. In the
> original Nomic you would have had to transmute the Rule Changes rule to
> mutable before you could do anything to it. The reason was to deter people
> from making radical changes like this one.


Here in B and C Nomics, we make radical changes with little thought
sometimes. Had this passed, I'm sure we would have tired of it after a few
nweeks and voted democracy back.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss