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

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I'm glad to hear that you would have changed it back eventually. Your
Votes for Sale has been in the back of my mind, but I haven't seen the right
opportunity yet. I would use (or abuse) it every time if I thought it would
make me a profit, but you're just as likely to vote my way anyway.

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Charles Schaefer <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
 -Tyler
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss