An example that it is possible to fix this game

[jacypr]

This: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/22/total-war-shogun-2-patch-adds-80-unit-battles-22-new-maps-hundreds-of-fixes/?ns_campaign=article-feed&ns_mchannel=ref&ns_source=steam&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

I think it's a perfect example of what could be done to Civ V. Even the guys that talk down about the problems of this game will agree that Civ V has room for improvement.

I think CA have just shown to us what it means to respect their fan base.

Shogun 2 is an excellent game. Total war series is always accused of being launched with bugs. Despite that, the game sold well. But that didn't mean that CA wasn't willing to expend thousands of work hours fine tuning every aspect of the game, and this 5 gb patch shows it very well.

Not just launching DLCs and expansions, but doing MAJOR improvement for free to a game that was already very fun to play. Not to mention that the patch has a lot of NEW CONTENT. FOR FREE.

I expect something like that from 2K/Fireaxis in the future reggarding Civ franchise. No one can say that it's not possible. It is. We have a perfect example of it.

[istry555]

In all honesty, it looks like the Total War team got a new development budget thanks to the Fall of the Samurai expansion, used that to improve a bunch of things, then back ported a lot of these improvements developed for Fall of the Samurai into Shogun 2. Thing is, Firaxis is doing the same exact thing with Civ V. Stuff like MP Animations and other improvements where developed for G&K and will be back ported in a patch to Vanilla around the same time.

[_Pax_]

What Istry said. G&K development has brought about new improvements, which are being backported to vanilla for free. It's only the content we'll be paying for.

Oh, and you know what kept the Firaxis dev teams funded while they worked on the stuff that'll be backported ...? Selling those smaller DLCs.

Funny how that works.

[Antony_Lee]

Just a note, i consider this game is trash after i brought it a year ago, since the game is nearly non-operative in a top tier machines.

But anyway, after years of works (patches) of them, it looks quite good at this moment.

It seems that their company got in some ROI problems and thus publish the game in rush (or unfinished).
But seriously, I really cannot imagine how the civ title run into that kind of problems, since we, the fans, are willing to pay for the collectors editions. my mech figure are still in the boxes.

I guess they must have been waste the money in some unknown spots, such as:
"getting Intel to tune the graphic performance".....
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/sid-meiers-civilization-v-finds-the-graphics-sweet-spot/

omg, wasn't that should go nvidia or amd ? i doubt anyone would use intel display for gaming.

[_Pax_]

It seems that their company got in some ROI problems and thus publish the game in rush (or unfinished).
Horse-puckey.

You want to see what "releasing an unfinished game" looks like? Sword of the Stars II: Lords of Winter ... six months after release, and the game isn't just suffering from bugs, SOME OF IT'S ADVERTISED FEATURES AREN'T YET IMPLEMENTED, and there are even technologies which still do nothing, providing no components for shipbuilding despite saying in-game that they DO.

That's a (still) unfinished game.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

All of the things in that patch is stuff that came with Fall of the Samurai, but they gave it to the non-expansion people as well. This isn't like CA's just gone and made a nice big free patch for their community, this is CA being given a bunch of money to create and expansion so they can make some money. The same sort of thing's happening with Civ5. Those that buy the expansion get everything, those that don't get a few things.

[stethnorun]

Also, it seems like you are referencing this article mostly to say "I want free stuff that comes with my patches". That's....not really the way the world works. I agree that patching to get a game "finished" is necessary, but giving players free stuff is only a marketing tactic to increase fan loyalty. They never, ever do it out of the kindness of their hearts.

[istry555]

The OP also accuses Civ V of going the DLC and expansion route instead of offering free content, but fails to mention that Shogun 2 has had 5 civ DLCs, 1 aesthetic blood pack DLC, 1 mini-expansion campaign, and the Fall of Samurai expansion. Really, it looks like Shogun 2 and Civ V have been using the same business model; DLC and expansions to continue to fund the developers fixing the game.

[stethnorun]

The OP also accuses Civ V of going the DLC and expansion route instead of offering free content, but fails to mention that Shogun 2 has had 5 civ DLCs, 1 aesthetic blood pack DLC, 1 mini-expansion campaign, and the Fall of Samurai expansion. Really, it looks like Shogun 2 and Civ V have been using the same business model; DLC and expansions to continue to fund the developers fixing the game.

And Shogun is arguably even worse with it because the blood pack really SHOULD have been added in a patch. It's right up there with horse armor.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

No, I think the Blood Pack should have been a free DLC. That way, if you're under 15 you don't accidentally turn it on (the Blood Pack gives the game an MA +15 rating).

edit: And that's not really the point. Both games have had some stupid DLC (Blood Pack/Sengoku Jidai units; Cradle of Civilisation Map Packs/WOTAW) and some good ones (Rise of the Samurai, Ikko Ikki/Hattori; Mongolia/Spain/Inca/Babylon/Polynesia/Denmark/Korea). And now both will have expansions (Fall of the Samurai; Gods & Kings).

[stethnorun]

Oh hah. The blood wouldn't have done anything to the rating in the US. How you Aussies haven't thrown out your draconian rating system yet is beyond me. Maybe another generation has to go by for your politicians to grow up gaming.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

I hate our system. Skyrim's MA? (good thing I looked 16 at 14). Shogun 2's M? And Civ5 gets rated PG because of a couple of sentences about opium? Not to mention, they're only bringing in an R (+18) rating next year. It has taken almost thirty years for this to happen.

[stethnorun]

Sorry man, that really sucks. I was super-proud of the US with our recent Supreme Court decision regarding gaming. Gotta love the First Amendment.

[Olek]

Oh hah. The blood wouldn't have done anything to the rating in the US. How you Aussies haven't thrown out your draconian rating system yet is beyond me. Maybe another generation has to go by for your politicians to grow up gaming.

I'll agree that the system is ass about and we definitely need an R rating over here, it's always pissed me off when I as an adult cannot buy a game or DLC because of Violence, yet after serving in our military and seeing all of this anyway, I find it quite insulting.
Yet at the same time, you guys have metal detectors at your schools, kids shooting their class mates and other things we hear that filter through to here, so maybe our system does have it's advantages.

[stethnorun]

I'll agree that the system is ass about and we definitely need an R rating over here, it's always pissed me off when I as an adult cannot buy a game or DLC because of Violence, yet after serving in our military and seeing all of this anyway, I find it quite insulting.
Yet at the same time, you guys have metal detectors at your schools, kids shooting their class mates and other things we hear that filter through to here, so maybe our system does have it's advantages.

Yeah, because the same stuff doesn't happen in Germany and other places in Europe. When are people going to get it: violent fantasy does not create violent reality. Books, TV, movies, games...none of that turns a non-violent person violent. People are good and people are evil and they don't need excuses like video games to be that way.

[tfordp]

Yeah, because the same stuff doesn't happen in Germany and other places in Europe. When are people going to get it: violent fantasy does not create violent reality. Books, TV, movies, games...none of that turns a non-violent person violent. People are good and people are evil and they don't need excuses like video games to be that way.

You are absolutely correct. They just need easy access to a gun.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Yeah, because the same stuff doesn't happen in Germany and other places in Europe. When are people going to get it: violent fantasy does not create violent reality. Books, TV, movies, games...none of that turns a non-violent person violent. People are good and people are evil and they don't need excuses like video games to be that way.

Can't have shootings if you don't have guns :p

But really, the stupid, old stereotype that video games make people violent is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Does watching The Green Zone cause you to be violent? Does watching Nazi propaganda turn you into a fascist? Does reading A Song of Ice and Fire give you a love of faux-medieval politics? (okay, maybe this last one's true)

But playing COD does not want to make any normal person go out and shoot people. It might make you angry (from all the idiotic 12 years olds swearing at you) but it doesn't make you kill people.

[_Pax_]

Can't have shootings if you don't have guns :p
Absolutely right. Without a ready supply of guns, you have ... stabbings. Seems like every week, my BBC links have at least one youth stabbing to report ...

[stethnorun]

You are absolutely correct. They just need easy access to a gun.

This stat MAY be out of date, but I think that the largest body count for a school mass killing was done with a machete. So, there's that.

[tfordp]

OK, so change 'gun' to 'weapon'

[Black Gate of Mordor]

I think you all missed the point of my post.

First, you can't have shootings without guns. This was then followed by a sarcasm face.

Then, was my rant about some idiots in the media. You all seem to have missed that bit.

[oblio]

Can't have shootings if you don't have guns

With another mass shooting in California yesterday, how can anyone argue with this?

The harsh reality is that if you want a gun and ammunition in the US you can get do so with relative ease. This is pretty much unique to the US among the first or even second world. Sure stabbings occur elsewhere and the odd premediated crazies use guns like in Norway last year and years ago in Canada but those are not common.... gun violence and gun crime in the US is direct result of gun access and the gun culture in the US. Would you ever see a child bring his parent's .45 to school to threaten classmates anywhere else but the US?

[_Pax_]

OK, so change 'gun' to 'weapon'
Ten replace "stabbing" with "beating".

The only way to disarm someone, is to literally REMOVE THEIR ARMS. And their legs. And their teeth.

...

Violent people will be violent, period.

[_Pax_]

The harsh reality is that if you want a gun and ammunition in the US you can get do so with relative ease.
True fact: give me $50,000 and six months; I'll set up an unregistered firearms manufactory. And I won't be putting out only "saturday night special" cheap-a** stuff either. Submachine guns, thank you very much. No serial numbers, no registration of rifling patterns, nothing. They'd be untraceable, efficient, and ...

... I could do it in any country on the face of the planet.

[stethnorun]

I think you all missed the point of my post.

First, you can't have shootings without guns. This was then followed by a sarcasm face.

Then, was my rant about some idiots in the media. You all seem to have missed that bit.

No I got it ;)

[stethnorun]

With another mass shooting in California yesterday, how can anyone argue with this?


Based on sound principles and a lack of emotional overreaction? This stuff has been happening since humanity started, all that's changed is that the common person now hears about 24/7. In actuality, violent crime is down across the board, and has been on that trend for decades. That's education and capitalism raising everyone's standard of living (thus, everyone has more to lose when violence occurs). Access to guns has, largely, remained constant.

Just because the media hypes this stuff doesn't mean you MUST get all panicked or self-righteous about it. That's exactly what they want from you.

[oblio]

Access to guns has, largely, remained constant.

If you are referring to the US perhaps, yes, you have always have been able get a gun when you want one. But then add to that all the new concealed carry state laws so not getting better and palces like Florida where the law supports a hoodie being a death sentence. The only reason neighbourhood watch needs to be armed is because too many guns. Also look at death stats for the US, gun deaths play a much bigger role than most other western democracies.

I think the facts show gun access is getting tighter and tighter everywhere but the US.

Not that this has anything to do with the OP's first post. Maybe Civ 5 should add special unhappiness based on city size for America due to guns or maybe add a new unit to America, wild gun crazed civilian vigilante. Not sure that would make it more fun though.

[stethnorun]

palces like Florida where the law supports a hoodie being a death sentence

Yup, this statement makes perfect sense coming from you. I said above that your views are based on emotional overreaction, and here is another example of it. No one knows the real story behind the Trayvon case, but those who are willing to jump to conclusions are running on nothing but a few scattered rumors and emotion.

[_Pax_]

The only reason neighbourhood watch needs to be armed is because too many guns.
Typical Neighborhood Watch rules prohibit carrying a weapon. Any kind of weapon.


[...] or maybe add a new unit to America, wild gun crazed civilian vigilante.
*sigh*

One, ONE racist psychopath finally steps over the line, and the America-bashing begins again. :rolleyes:

[Shiav]

Violent crimes have decreased dramatically in the last two hundred years. In the 1700's the murder rate per 100 000 people was somewhere around thirty, now its around seven.

There is no possible way to connect video games and violence, if you look at the average gamer they are the people who are victims of violence and bullying, not the other way around.

Access to weapons doesn't really affect level of violence for the average person. If you have a violent person they will use whatever means necessary to do what they want. Take away guns and they will use knives. Take away knives and they will use fists. Chop off their arms and they will bite and kick.

The US has much less violence and hate crimes today than at any other point in its history. The fact that you have access to social media and 24/7 live news means that you simply know about more violence. E.G. There seems to be a lot of unrest and uprisings in the Middle East/North Africa doesn't there? Earlier this week Mali began its own civil war following backlash from a coup. Why then is there so much more of a response to it now than there was in the sixties and seventies, when almost every country on the continent was having military coups, genocides, apartheids and massacres? Because now people know.

Coming back on topic, almost all video games now a days are trying to get people to buy DLC. Just like almost all video games now a days are moving to DRM like Steam and Origin. And almost all video games can be purchased and downloaded online, instead of having to go to a brick and mortar store.

[_Pax_]

^^^ What Shiav said. All of it. ^^^

[Martinoguy]

How do ratings work in other countries?

In the United States, most good and immerse games are rated M (recent games like: Dragon Age, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Skyrim, LA Noire, Red Dead Redemption).

It's generally less about "mature" content like cycle of violence or objectivist dystopic themes or identity or anything like that and based on whether or not something could be possibly in anyway shape or form be connected to sex or drugs or mature language.

It could be a flawless masterpiece that would forever solidify gaming as a true artform and fundamentally change the world with its message, but if someone says "F___" anywhere in there, it gets an M rating.

I suppose it's still not illegal to own an M rated game if you're under age, just most stores wont sell it to minors. So there's that at least.

As for gun control or whatever, i agree with what's being said about the media blowing things way out of proportion so that you get scared and self righteous and so you keep going back to that new source. The media is doing the same with the Trayvon Martin case, making seem like a KKK member walked up to a 5 year old African American kid and shot him and then took his skittles whistling as he went by in his hooded cape. it's never that simple, and nobody knows what happens, even the media.

[Shiav]

How do ratings work in other countries?

In the United States, most good and immerse games are rated M (recent games like: Dragon Age, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Skyrim, LA Noire, Red Dead Redemption).

It's generally less about "mature" content like cycle of violence or objectivist dystopic themes or identity or anything like that and based on whether or not something could be possibly in anyway shape or form be connected to sex or drugs or mature language.

It could be a flawless masterpiece that would forever solidify gaming as a true artform and fundamentally change the world with its message, but if someone says "F___" anywhere in there, it gets an M rating.

I suppose it's still not illegal to own an M rated game if you're under age, just most stores wont sell it to minors. So there's that at least.

As for gun control or whatever, i agree with what's being said about the media blowing things way out of proportion so that you get scared and self righteous and so you keep going back to that new source. The media is doing the same with the Trayvon Martin case, making seem like a KKK member walked up to a 5 year old African American kid and shot him and then took his skittles whistling as he went by in his hooded cape. it's never that simple, and nobody knows what happens, even the media.

In Canada they copy-pasted it so that our economy can be completely fluid in its infiltration of yours. All legislation in Canada is designed to allow everything we have to be sold in the US without any changes. In the Soviet Union things were either acceptable or not, there was no middle ground.

I find the ESRB to be like a legal media censor, even though it could be easily construed as an impetus to free speech. Somebody file a law suit against them. Or are children not given the rights of person? That's the only reason I could think of that prevents the ESRB from being unconstitutional. They purposefully censor huge volumes of work from a specific demographic with pre-meditated intent.

[Martinoguy]

In Canada they copy-pasted it so that our economy can be completely fluid in its infiltration of yours. All legislation in Canada is designed to allow everything we have to be sold in the US without any changes. In the Soviet Union things were either acceptable or not, there was no middle ground.

I find the ESRB to be like a legal media censor, even though it could be easily construed as an impetus to free speech. Somebody file a law suit against them. Or are children not given the rights of person? That's the only reason I could think of that prevents the ESRB from being unconstitutional. They purposefully censor huge volumes of work from a specific demographic with pre-meditated intent.


From what I understand about ESRB. A game is completely free to publish its content without an ESRB rating. However, most stores will not sell a game without an ESRB rating and console companies usually do not license the game for use on their console without an ESRB rating.

So it's a bit like a mafia shakedown. It's completely fine if you don't want to buy our protection, but don't complain when something happens to your very lovely establishment.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Here in Australia our ratings are generally exactly the same as our movie ratings, except up until next year we haven't had an adult rating. Here's how it works:

G: General. Don't expect any violence of any kind. No explosions. Not very common to see big games with this rating (unless it's something like SimCity or Rollercoaster Tycoon). Colour is green.

PG: Parental Guidance (Recommended). Usually contains mild violence/drug references/mild swearing. Civ5 has this rating, as do games such as Kid Icarus: Uprising, Total War: Shogun 2, and Spore. Colour is yellow.

M: Mature. Violence, swearing, sexual references (light sexual references can be found in PG). Generally, a lot of movies have this rating, as do many games. Colour is blue.

MA 15+: Mature (restricted to 15 and up). Strong violence/blood and gore. Skyrim, Battlefield 3, and Shogun 2's Blood Pack DLC all have this rating. Family Guy, and gory crime shows also have this rating. Colour is red.

R 18+: Restricted. Not currently available to games, which causes some to be banned, or to be softened down. I believe the Final Destination movies had this rating. Colour is black.

[_Pax_]

How do ratings work in other countries?

In the United States, [...]
Here in the U.S., the censors are more concerned with sex and nudity, due to our Puritan forbears (see also, Tea Party and Christian Fundamentalists - lots of overlap between the two).

Overseas, they're less worried about a thirteen year old seeing a woman's breast, or someone's bare bum ... but more concerned with letting that same middle-schooler point a shotgun at someone's head and make "chunky salsa".


I suppose it's still not illegal to own an M rated game if you're under age, just most stores wont sell it to minors. So there's that at least.
It's not illegal to SELL an M-rated game to a FIVE year old, either ... not due to the rating, anyway.

Small trivia most people don't know about: neither the ESRB (games) nor the MPAA (movies) are government ratings boards. They're PRIVATE ENTITIES, and their ratings carry exactly 0 force of Law. :)





That's the only reason I could think of that prevents the ESRB from being unconstitutional. They purposefully censor huge volumes of work from a specific demographic with pre-meditated intent.
Only the government is precluded from censoring speech.

Private agencies can censor stuff to their hearts' content. And the ESRB is a private organisation.

[Shiav]

snip

Ah, that makes much more sense. My only knowledge of the ESRB has always been to not piss them off and try to kowtow to them. However if they aren't an actual agency of the government with legal enforcement then that makes sense

[stethnorun]

Ah, that makes much more sense. My only knowledge of the ESRB has always been to not piss them off and try to kowtow to them. However if they aren't an actual agency of the government with legal enforcement then that makes sense

Yup, they don't have guns backing up their mandates, they simply have business. And look how great it works :)

[Martinoguy]

Here in Australia our ratings are generally exactly the same as our movie ratings, except up until next year we haven't had an adult rating. Here's how it works:

G: General. Don't expect any violence of any kind. No explosions. Not very common to see big games with this rating (unless it's something like SimCity or Rollercoaster Tycoon). Colour is green.

PG: Parental Guidance (Recommended). Usually contains mild violence/drug references/mild swearing. Civ5 has this rating, as do games such as Kid Icarus: Uprising, Total War: Shogun 2, and Spore. Colour is yellow.

M: Mature. Violence, swearing, sexual references (light sexual references can be found in PG). Generally, a lot of movies have this rating, as do many games. Colour is blue.

MA 15+: Mature (restricted to 15 and up). Strong violence/blood and gore. Skyrim, Battlefield 3, and Shogun 2's Blood Pack DLC all have this rating. Family Guy, and gory crime shows also have this rating. Colour is red.

R 18+: Restricted. Not currently available to games, which causes some to be banned, or to be softened down. I believe the Final Destination movies had this rating. Colour is black.

I guess I still don't understand Australian rating rules. These ratings are enforced by the government? If so are M or PG games restricted at all? or just not advised for children?

M15+ how do they control viewership/playership of this category? And, lol, Family Guy really? Same question fo rM18+

[stethnorun]

I guess I still don't understand Australian rating rules. These ratings are enforced by the government? If so are M or PG games restricted at all? or just not advised for children?

M15+ how do they control viewership/playership of this category? And, lol, Family Guy really? Same question fo rM18+

It's simple: If a game falls above the M15+ category, it's banned by the government. And yes, it's very f-ed up.

[SamBC]

Presence of guns might not increase incidence of violence, but I'm pretty sure it makes the results of that violence worse. Crazy person rampaging with a semi-automatic firearm is going to do more damage than a crazy person rampaging with a machete.

[SamBC]

Those aussie ratings would confuse brits who are aware of the "R18" certificate here... that's limited to strictly "adult" content, and can only be sold in specially-license shops or by mail order. We just say 18 for the top rating for things like violence or non-graphic sex. 18 is a pretty easy certificate to get, though. Any sort of mature content gets at least a 15, generally. I think they got rid of 12 from the BBFC classifications, but I'd have to check. PG means "some kids might get nightmares" or "some parents might think it's a bit mature for their kids", U is for 'universal', and then there at least used to be (probably still is) a Uc classification, universal but particularly suitable for kids (used for things like the Care Bears movie).

[SamBC]

However, those certificates are only applied to games that have "real-seeming" content (FMV, realistic graphics, that sort of thing) and I've only seen them be 15 or 18. Like the rest of Europe, we have the PEGI ratings for all games. And yes, PEGI can rate something one age, and BBFC rate it higher.

The BBFC ratings are legally enforceable on retailers, but not on parents - if a parent wants to give their kid a game that's too old for them, they can, but a retailer can't sell it them if they know they're going to do that. AIUI, anyway.

[SamBC]

Ah, I just checked, 12 does still exist... but it's 12A in cinemas, kids under 12 can get in accompanied, and 12 in retail, no-one under 12 can buy. Not sure if 12 gets used for games.

[Martinoguy]

The government are a bunch of goons when it comes to this sort of thing. You get no support from left or right, as either side wants to censor violence/guns and nudity/language respectively.

Private companies like the ESRB are much more neutral and it's good that the only power they have is the power invested (literally) in them by the people. And, as censorship doesn't bring any benefit to most companies, they don't tend to use their money to combat nudity (which sells) or violence (which sells). However, this doesn't mean that you don't have a company here or there that wants to block or limit content that is detrimental to itself (Internet service providers). This is the part that is a bit worrying as a well organized company with an agenda is something much more powerful and frightening than an inefficient crony in government.

[SamBC]

And a bit more digging, and it turns out R18 haven't been available by mail order for about 7 years. Must restrict their availability a lot!

[_Pax_]

Presence of guns might not increase incidence of violence, but I'm pretty sure it makes the results of that violence worse. Crazy person rampaging with a semi-automatic firearm is going to do more damage than a crazy person rampaging with a machete.
Honestly ... I'd rather be shot by a psychopath, than be chopped up by a psychopath. One way or another, live or die, the shooting is likely to be over with sooner than the machete-chopping.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

I guess I still don't understand Australian rating rules. These ratings are enforced by the government? If so are M or PG games restricted at all? or just not advised for children?

M15+ how do they control viewership/playership of this category? And, lol, Family Guy really? Same question fo rM18+

Government ratings. I believe they used to have ESRB ratings on the box, but not anymore. We've got a government committee that examines the games and gives out their ratings. PG and M aren't restricted, just not recommended. It's recommended that they be watched with parents for younger children.

Also, I forgot, but people under 15 can watch MA, just they must be accompanied by an adult. Usually viewership is controlled by giving ID if you look a bit younger, but it's not really enforced much. I bought Skyrim back in December, and I'm turning 15 in May (however, I do look a little bit older. Not much though).

For R they require ID. If you don't provided ID, they can't legally give you the game/movie. It's really the only rating where you have to obey it.

And steth is right - if a game is judged to be R, it's usually banned. However, they do ask for the game to be toned down, but usually the devs don't bother and it's just banned.

[stethnorun]

The government are a bunch of goons when it comes to this sort of thing. You get no support from left or right, as either side wants to censor violence/guns and nudity/language respectively.


That's because the left/right spectrum is a huge lie. They are just flip sides of the same coin: control. There are only really two opposing philosophies: liberty (Libertarian party) and control (everyone else).

[Shiav]

That's because the left/right spectrum is a huge lie. They are just flip sides of the same coin: control. There are only really two opposing philosophies: liberty (Libertarian party) and control (everyone else).

Kind of skipping over the majority of human existence, liberty is a relativity new concept

[_Pax_]

Not to mention, falsely presenting Libertarianism as the only real source of "liberty", when really what it essentially and really is, is anarchy (or else, at "best", very very near to anarchy).

[stethnorun]

Not to mention, falsely presenting Libertarianism as the only real source of "liberty", when really what it essentially and really is, is anarchy (or else, at "best", very very near to anarchy).

EDIT: Wait, I just re-read that. No, Libertarianism is not anarchy at all. Police and court systems are very much in line with Libertarianism. We just don't support the glut of laws that turn everyone "guilty" simply for existing. You hurt someone or steal from someone, you go to jail. That's the opposite of anarchy.

[stethnorun]

Kind of skipping over the majority of human existence, liberty is a relativity new concept

That doesn't mean what I said isn't true. It just means that we were on the evil side of the scale for most of our existence.

[Shiav]

That doesn't mean what I said isn't true. It just means that we were on the evil side of the scale for most of our existence.

Yes, because one man's opinion of evil means that we must have been completely evil since the dawn of time until now, and shall continue to be evil until a group of anarchist, atheist libertarians take over every country in the world to free humanity from the tyranny of security, cooperation, interdependence, faith, government, taxes, welfare, and pornography.

Or am I just ad libbing here? I think I may have exaggerated, there might be some interdependence once every human on the planet except two has died and they have to rebuild our race.

[stethnorun]

Yes, because one man's opinion of evil means that we must have been completely evil since the dawn of time until now, and shall continue to be evil until a group of anarchist, atheist libertarians take over every country in the world to free humanity from the tyranny of security, cooperation, interdependence, faith, government, taxes, welfare, and pornography.

Or am I just ad libbing here? I think I may have exaggerated, there might be some interdependence once every human on the planet except two has died and they have to rebuild our race.

Well, you did a good job of showing your hand there, in that it's clear you have no idea what Libertarianism is. Let's go through it, shall we?

Security: No, the actual security you have now would also be present in a Libertarian society (excess laws do not prevent evil people from doing evil...ever). You may lose a bit of the illusion of security, because you wouldn't have the government telling you fairy tales about how strip searching at airports stops terrorism.

Cooperation: Given that capitalism depends on cooperation to even begin to function, this is pretty clearly an ignorant charge.

Interdependence: See cooperation.

Faith: Finally, something you are right about. Yes, faith is the enemy of intellectually free people.

Government: It would obviously be smaller, but we will always need police and military for protection of rights and courts to enforce laws.

Taxes: Certainly they would be MUCH smaller, but we need to pay for those police, troops and judges.

Welfare: If you mean government welfare, then yes absolutely. If you mean ALL wellfare, then absolutely NOT. Private charities are a great thing, getting their money from real compassion, not at the point of a gun.

Pornography: Are you kidding me?!?! You really have NO idea what you are talking about if you think Libertarians want to do away with porn.

[_Pax_]

Security: No, the actual security you have now would also be present in a Libertarian society (excess laws do not prevent evil people from doing evil...ever).
Then again, without the social safety net, you would have a whole lot more DESPERATE people. Many of whose choice would be, by and large, "starve to death" -or- "commit crimes to support yourself".


Taxes: Certainly they would be MUCH smaller, but we need to pay for those police, troops and judges.
See comment above, about taking away the social safety net, and the resultant inevitable surge in crime.


Welfare: If you mean government welfare, then yes absolutely. If you mean ALL wellfare, then absolutely NOT. Private charities are a great thing, getting their money from real compassion, not at the point of a gun.
Private charities cannot take the place of government-operated, tax-funded safety nets. They never have ... and they never will. The majority of people, if presented with a reduction of their tax bill from ~35% of their income to ~10% of their income, would not give more to charities than they already do. They wouldn't give the current ~5% (FICA, which funds Social Security and Medicare). They wouldn't even give half that much.

Which means people like me - reliant on that very safety net - would suddenly see the help we get halved, or worse. And that's assuming any help would still be forthcoming at all - not an assumption I'd be prepared to make.

[Shiav]

Pornography: Are you kidding me?!?! You really have NO idea what you are talking about if you think Libertarians want to do away with porn.

To quote my second favourite tv show, "I thought the Bazinga was implied"

The rest, however, would be demolished or greatly reduced in your libertarian society. The first thing you would lessen would be taxes. It would likely be a flat rate, probably around what, 6%? Lets be hypothetical here. Now, when our incredibly real and unavoidable business cycle comes along and dampens your economy, because you have both a flat rate, a low rate, and no built-in anti cyclical policies (because you have absolutely no policies regarding the economy, save for what? Private property?) your hypothetical nation will be plunged into a recession. And the hungry sharks of the world will eat you up and spit you out, because we live in the real world where a revolution in one nation, even if it is supposedly for the better, does not magically spread to the rest of the world. Thus, while your pro-cyclical policies of believing in the market are pushing you further and further into the toilet, the people in your country will say "Hey, WTF man? Stop this!" After which you shall be deposed and a very socialist government, if not an authoritarian one (depending on the history and size of your state) will take power and every memory of your history will be erased.

Also what about education? The poor? The industrial worker? Your system will be eaten alive by a populist revolutionary.

[_Pax_]

Your system will be eaten alive by a populist revolutionary.
*raises hand* "Have gun; will rebel."

[Shiav]

*raises hand* "Have gun; will rebel."

/wave Have guns, have rebelled, have a family tradition, will volunteer to lead the Edmonton Soviet. Prime target for People's Intelligence Commisar of the New Republic.

[_Pax_]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as 100% socialism, nor communism, myself. I believe in a partially Free Market - which is to say, a regulated economy which allows for, and perhaps encourages, privately owned entrepreneurial ventures.

[Shiav]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as 100% socialism, nor communism, myself. I believe in a partially Free Market - which is to say, a regulated economy which allows for, and perhaps encourages, privately owned entrepreneurial ventures.

I always will and always have done what is necessary for the best of my family. I do not care about communism or capitalism, I want my family to be able to succeed in either. This means being whatever I have to be. And unfortunately leaving my home behind, for the greater good.

[stethnorun]

Then again, without the social safety net, you would have a whole lot more DESPERATE people. Many of whose choice would be, by and large, "starve to death" -or- "commit crimes to support yourself".


See comment above, about taking away the social safety net, and the resultant inevitable surge in crime.


Private charities cannot take the place of government-operated, tax-funded safety nets. They never have ... and they never will. The majority of people, if presented with a reduction of their tax bill from ~35% of their income to ~10% of their income, would not give more to charities than they already do. They wouldn't give the current ~5% (FICA, which funds Social Security and Medicare). They wouldn't even give half that much.

Which means people like me - reliant on that very safety net - would suddenly see the help we get halved, or worse. And that's assuming any help would still be forthcoming at all - not an assumption I'd be prepared to make.

Awww...did you unblock solely to repeat the same stuff as before? That seems silly :p

[stethnorun]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as 100% socialism, nor communism, myself. I believe in a partially Free Market - which is to say, a regulated economy which allows for, and perhaps encourages, privately owned entrepreneurial ventures.

Way to go out on a limb there. So you would support.....exactly what we already have.

[SamBC]

The flaw in libertarianism is simple - no free contract can exist where there is a severe disparity in power between the parties. This is the principle behind unions - they allow workers, collectively, to have power comparable to the employer. Are laws that protect unions and their members from persecution on the grounds of being (in) a union a barrier to freedom, then? No, they protect freedom.

Where economic inequality exists, hurting people and stealing from them can happen in ways that laws don't generally forbid. The powerful hurt and steal from the powerless with impunity, by doing it in ways that happen to be legal - but that doesn't make them moral.

[SamBC]

Private charities cannot take the place of government-operated, tax-funded safety nets. They never have ... and they never will. The majority of people, if presented with a reduction of their tax bill from ~35% of their income to ~10% of their income, would not give more to charities than they already do. They wouldn't give the current ~5% (FICA, which funds Social Security and Medicare). They wouldn't even give half that much.

Which means people like me - reliant on that very safety net - would suddenly see the help we get halved, or worse. And that's assuming any help would still be forthcoming at all - not an assumption I'd be prepared to make.
Steth's been confronted with these arguments plenty of times here already. Seems to either ignore them, or insist those making them are wrong. A bizarrely idealistic view of the charitable nature of people that is in complete contradiction of the evidence, I feel, but there you go.

[stethnorun]

Steth's been confronted with these arguments plenty of times here already. Seems to either ignore them, or insist those making them are wrong. A bizarrely idealistic view of the charitable nature of people that is in complete contradiction of the evidence, I feel, but there you go.

Honestly, we have no way of knowing. We have never NOT had a welfare state ("we" meaning humanity) in the Western world (post Enlightenment). So no one has any idea how private charity and friends/family would deal with things. And whenever we have exactly zero information about something, I will always choose the morally right path. That tact has never failed me before, so on this topic, I can't imagine it would be all that different.

[stethnorun]

The flaw in libertarianism is simple - no free contract can exist where there is a severe disparity in power between the parties. This is the principle behind unions - they allow workers, collectively, to have power comparable to the employer. Are laws that protect unions and their members from persecution on the grounds of being (in) a union a barrier to freedom, then? No, they protect freedom.

Where economic inequality exists, hurting people and stealing from them can happen in ways that laws don't generally forbid. The powerful hurt and steal from the powerless with impunity, by doing it in ways that happen to be legal - but that doesn't make them moral.

Well, that's quite vague. How can "the rich and powerful" do anything to hurt or steal from "the less powerful" if there are laws on the books forbidding it? The only way that could happen is if the whole system were corrupt. But that's hardly a sound place to argue from, since corruption is about individual evil people, not the moral principles themselves.

[_Pax_]

Steth's been confronted with these arguments plenty of times here already. Seems to either ignore them, or insist those making them are wrong. A bizarrely idealistic view of the charitable nature of people that is in complete contradiction of the evidence, I feel, but there you go.
Oh, I know the type. People who somehow honestly believe that help for the poor and disabled owuld increase under a system which would decrease individuals' contributions to assistance programs .... or who seem to think that the 1800's was just fine for charity and the like - with things like Workhouses, Work Farms, and the destitute simply dying of privation. Yep. "Good" times, "good" times. [/sarcasm]

[SamBC]

Well, that's quite vague. How can "the rich and powerful" do anything to hurt or steal from "the less powerful" if there are laws on the books forbidding it? The only way that could happen is if the whole system were corrupt. But that's hardly a sound place to argue from, since corruption is about individual evil people, not the moral principles themselves.
Nut the laws the prevent the rich hurting and stealing from the poor are exactly the laws that libertarians object to - market regulation, employee rights, antitrust laws. For example, it's not a free contract between an employer and employee, in which they might waive conventional employment rights, if the vast majority of employers insist on that sort of contract. So we have laws that enshrine certain employment rights as unwaivable. Libertarians generally, in my experience, object to those lows as restraining free contract.

[SamBC]

Oh, I know the type. People who somehow honestly believe that help for the poor and disabled owuld increase under a system which would decrease individuals' contributions to assistance programs .... or who seem to think that the 1800's was just fine for charity and the like - with things like Workhouses, Work Farms, and the destitute simply dying of privation. Yep. "Good" times, "good" times. [/sarcasm]
I occasionally converse with one in the UK on Twitter, in the other main side of my online life (welfare and disability activism). Generally manages to stay polite, but neither of us can convince the other of pretty much anything.

[SamBC]

Well, that's quite vague. How can "the rich and powerful" do anything to hurt or steal from "the less powerful" if there are laws on the books forbidding it? The only way that could happen is if the whole system were corrupt. But that's hardly a sound place to argue from, since corruption is about individual evil people, not the moral principles themselves.
Oh yeah, there's also the point that justice is always unequal if the rich have better access to legal advice and representation, if it costs money to take someone else to court for breach of contract or similar. But I generally hear Libertarians object to legal aid, or to discounted court costs for those on low incomes.

[stethnorun]

Oh yeah, there's also the point that justice is always unequal if the rich have better access to legal advice and representation, if it costs money to take someone else to court for breach of contract or similar. But I generally hear Libertarians object to legal aid, or to discounted court costs for those on low incomes.

Well if we were to say "Public defenders are part of the court system and thus paid by taxes", in this system, PDs would have WAY more time to spend on each individual case because there would a lot less people accused of crimes (because there would be 95% less laws on the books). Sure, a private lawyer would still be better, but the PD offices wouldn't be such a joke, like they are now.

[stethnorun]

Nut the laws the prevent the rich hurting and stealing from the poor are exactly the laws that libertarians object to - market regulation, employee rights, antitrust laws. For example, it's not a free contract between an employer and employee, in which they might waive conventional employment rights, if the vast majority of employers insist on that sort of contract. So we have laws that enshrine certain employment rights as unwaivable. Libertarians generally, in my experience, object to those lows as restraining free contract.

And they do. You are starting from the assumption that people have a "right to work". All work is a privilege, not a right. The only right you have is to your own property and subsistence farming if you happen to have land. Beyond that, it's all privilege to work at a higher tech level and for another person.

[stethnorun]

Oh, I know the type. People who somehow honestly believe that help for the poor and disabled owuld increase under a system which would decrease individuals' contributions to assistance programs .... or who seem to think that the 1800's was just fine for charity and the like - with things like Workhouses, Work Farms, and the destitute simply dying of privation. Yep. "Good" times, "good" times. [/sarcasm]

Yeeeaaaaah...and all of that was still 10x better than the feudal-serf system of England and Europe. Everyone's standard of living was raising, even the poorest people. You can't just take that info out of context, view it through the glasses of 2012, and decry it as being barbaric.

The same outlook is applied to China today. Westerners with their "compassion" telling the Chinese people that they are being abused by sweatshop owners and the like. They just don't understand that those sweatshops are raising the quality of life for those people. Without the sweatshops, those same people would be subsistence farmers and in much greater danger of starvation and other natural phenomenon. Even the kids, the "poor kids", have WAY better lives working in factories than toiling on family farms. So please, save your tears and maybe even learn more about it before opining.

[SamBC]

And they do. You are starting from the assumption that people have a "right to work". All work is a privilege, not a right. The only right you have is to your own property and subsistence farming if you happen to have land. Beyond that, it's all privilege to work at a higher tech level and for another person.
But in modern society, that amounts to "it's a privilege to survive". Society exists in part because we are more compassionate than that. People are forced by circumstance to work, and have to accept whatever unequal, unfair, exploitative terms an employer deigns to offer. That isn't free contract. Consent only exists where the party is truly free to say no, not just technically free.

Now, there would be no need to regulate employment contracts beyond extreme cases if people weren't reliant on work to survive. This is why I support a "citizen income", a non-means-tested bare subsistence (ish) income paid to all people without any sort of conditionality. With that as a basic, employment would be able to be a free contract. Most people would be willing, if not eager, to work, as people want a better life than that; however, they wouldn't need to, so the contract agreed between them and any employer would be truly free. This would thus remove the need for minimum wage laws, for instance, and paid leave laws, maybe working time laws, though there is a safety argument to be made for keeping those. Personal allowances for tax could be got rid of, which would recoup part of the cost, and there would be no need to administer large, complex welfare systems (though there would need to be some additional components of welfare based on specific criteria, for example a DLA-like component - supports the extra costs of being disabled - and an extra basic living cost component for those who cannot reasonably work due to health), which would save some more money. The social benefits may lead to plenty of other savings, as absolute poverty could be entirely eradicated, with consequent savings on public order and so forth.

That would allow everyone to have the most essential freedoms you crave, apart from the philosophical freedom from taxes (after all, you would always be keeping some, even in your ideal system), yet assert our basic sensitivity to humanity that says "no-one shall be completely without".

[_Pax_]

I occasionally converse with one in the UK on Twitter, in the other main side of my online life (welfare and disability activism). Generally manages to stay polite, but neither of us can convince the other of pretty much anything.

Seeing as I'd be the one consigned to a work-house, or expected to "decrease the surplus population" by starving ...? I find it incredibly difficult to remain even remotely civil with such cretins.

After all, these are people who basically want to see me miserable and/or dead, and it's rather a bit difficult to be nice to someone who wishes that on you. :rolleyes: Especially when they trot out nonsense like "it's a privilege to work", which - as you correctly stated - amounts to "it's a privilege to survive".

People like that, Stethnorun included, really would be perfectly happy if the vast majority of the poor - working poor and disabled/aged/etc poor alike - would just hurry up and die already. They may protest, they may argue, they may deny ... but in their hearts?

They're just like Ebeneezer Scrooge:


"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''

"Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?''

"They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not.''

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir.''

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it.''

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''

"Nothing!'' Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?''

"I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''

"But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''
Yep. Scrooge was a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian. Especially, take note of that last line of his in the above excerpt, the part I have emboldened.

Well I, for one, would not be content to quietly "[die], and decrease the surplus population". Not alone, at any rate. :mad:

[SamBC]

They aren't so morally objectionable when they honestly believe that private charity would more than pick up the slack of the state, though I still think that's more than slightly misguided.

[stethnorun]

People like that, Stethnorun included, really would be perfectly happy if the vast majority of the poor - working poor and disabled/aged/etc poor alike - would just hurry up and die already. They may protest, they may argue, they may deny ... but in their hearts?


So glad you can tell me what's in my heart :rolleyes: What a strawman argument. It's like when people say if you are against Obamacare, you just want people to suffer. If you are against the federal department of education, you want children to remain ignorant. If you are against the welfare, you want poor people to die.

Does it feel comfortable and cozy turning all opposing points of view into straw men? It's no wonder you get so heated and angry in these discussions. You've essentially boiled the opposition down to mini-Hitlers. I'd be upset, too, if I thought people really thought like that.

[tejon]

They aren't so morally objectionable when they honestly believe that private charity would more than pick up the slack of the state, though I still think that's more than slightly misguided.
I disagree (that it's misguided). A private urge to provide charity, after all, is the source of every establishment of public charity. And it's not easy to dismiss the argument that a sense of "it's taken care of" significantly reduces the prevalence of private charity when there are public sources in place.

Personally, I think the problem is centralization. I've got no problem with big heavy government when it's close enough to the governed that one can reasonably assume an affected community supports it. This is why I'll often appear libertarian: my opinion of the federal government is that it's far, far too big for its britches. But as you get more and more local, it becomes more of a "right to assemble" issue. Communism is gorgeous when it's voluntary.

[_Pax_]

I disagree (that it's misguided). A private urge to provide charity, after all, is the source of every establishment of public charity. And it's not easy to dismiss the argument that a sense of "it's taken care of" significantly reduces the prevalence of private charity when there are public sources in place.
If people had been so inclined to give of their own free will, then mandatory taxation to support anti-poverty and anti-pauperism initiatives would never have needed to be enacted in the first place, half a millennia ago.

[Martinoguy]

This coming from a libertarian as well, and means nothing outside the United States.

Security: We the people of these United States insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. That is, taxation of property and goods are to be adequate to insure that our borders are secure and that the threat of domestic terrorism or foreign intervention into our country shall be prevented. This is the prime directive of a government.

Cooperation: “We” The PEOPLE of this country must come together to provide for the common welfare (that is to ensure that our individual freedoms to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness remain constant) which is not to be confused with the modern term “welfare”. Welfare means the protection of individual liberties and property.

Interdependence: A free society shall not mandate interdependence of its citizenry except by way of taxation to provide for the common defense and welfare of its people.

Faith: The ability to ascribe hope and certainty in any belief regardless of truth or validity is a consequence of a free society. When individuals are allowed their right to their belief, they are a measurement of the liberty within a society in which individuals are not held to mandated belief systems otherwise known as fascism.

Government: Government is a purposefully inefficient system at the federal level, becoming more efficient the smaller it gets which ensures that individual freedoms are maintained by determination of local government ordinances in pursuance of constitutionality of state and federal laws.

Taxes: Property and taxes on goods and imports are necessary to provide for the common defense and welfare of We the People.

Welfare: Welfare is the insurance by the governing body of the people that all constituents be wholly within their right to posterity, property, beliefs, and life without intervention or mandate otherwise.

Pornography: Pornography is an individual choice, a measurement of the freedom of a society from fascism and government regulated morality.

[_Pax_]

Security: We the people of these United States insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. That is, taxation of property and goods are to be adequate to insure that our borders are secure and that the threat of domestic terrorism or foreign intervention into our country shall be prevented. This is the prime directive of a government.
The Preamble actually says, in full:



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Welfare means the protection of individual liberties and property.
No, it doesn't, and it didn't. Other than the sense of "public assistance", welfare has precisely one meaning:


1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
(source: Merriam-Webster)

So it was a lot mroe than merely protectign liberties or property, it was also about everyone prospering together. That is to say, having a fair chance of enjoying at least modest comforts and all the necessities of life.


Interdependence: A free society shall not mandate interdependence of its citizenry except by way of taxation to provide for the common defense and welfare of its people.
Yep. Welfare, "the state of doing well in respect to good fortune, happiness, and prosperity".


Welfare: Welfare is the insurance by the governing body of the people that all constituents be wholly within their right to posterity, property, beliefs, and life without intervention or mandate otherwise.
... and prosperity, and happiness, and general good fortune (which IMO means we should take step to counter the effects of ill fortune suffered through no fault of the person subject to it - e.g., Social Security and similar safety nets). Basic level dictionary stuff here.

...

Say what you mean, mean what you say, and do try, try to use the correct words without inventing new meanings for them (or omitting those parts of their meanings which displease you).

[tejon]

Edit: NM, note to self: look things up before posting. Got my dates all wrong, Magna Carta was way earlier so you might not have been trolling.

Which mandatory taxation programs are you referring to, Pax? The church was doing that long before, so I'm not sure what you'd be referring to c. 1500.

[_Pax_]

Which mandatory taxation programs are you referring to, Pax? The church was doing that long before, so I'm not sure what you'd be referring to c. 1500.
Ordinance of Labours, 1349;
Vagabonds Act, 1530 and revised, 1536;
Poor Act, 1551;
establishment of Registers of the Poor, 1552;
Poor Act, 1575;
Act for Relief of the Poor, 1597;
Elizebethan Poor Law, 1601;
Poor Relief Act 1662.

There's a law in there whose name I do not know, passed in 1572, which specifically and directly levied a compulsory "poor tax".

[Martinoguy]

Firstly, I know what the preamble says. I was paraphrasing and would never omit anything for the purpose of lying, which you are almost accusing me of.

Linking the definition for "Welfare" from a dictionary doesn't mean welfare is that definition because dictionaries are not the end all trump card for semantic arguments. You can't base arguments on what a dictionary says, especially when the word you are trying to define is as nebulous and vague as welfare. Furthermore, you can't add to the definition you cite without justification, or it becomes special pleading. Because welfare could literally mean anything, why am I wrong for insisting that, for my views, it encompasses the maximization of individual liberties? Surely to me, individual rights would best “secure the Blessings of Liberty and Posterity”.

But that’s fine. I understand what you mean and what you believe “Welfare” means, and you make some good points and I generally do believe that social security as an institution was generally conceived to be for the best interest of the people. But, when Congress realized they had a whole stockpile of money laying around that they promised to people, they pilfered it and drained it, spending it on needless programs that seemed good at the time, and now those individuals to whom that money was promised are being told that the money is gone. Hardworking people, ordinary people, were promised that, in their old age when they had retired, that all the money that they had entrusted to the Federal Government would come back to them and that they would be able to live a modest but comfortable life. Now, these people are finding that the government STOLE all that money and wasted it. Now and entire generation of individuals are retiring with no money, no "security" promised them. Sure, those individuals who truly have no money are being promised again that their retirement will be covered, but with what money? That is the world we live in and the unfortunate consequences we face.

I am, to the best of my ability, going off what is explicitly implied by the U.S constitution by "general welfare" which is not anything that you can think of that might possibly be good or might possibly be helpful in some way or form. It’s not something you can just say “o yeah that would be good for our welfare”. Congress' ability to provide for the welfare of its people is ultimately limited:

Jefferson, one of the authors of the constitution has this to say:

“They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect” --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

It seems quite clear that general welfare is welfare that is limited by the enumerated powers to congress by the constitution and congress's ability to generate taxes to provide for that. Those enumerated powers detail what congress can and cannot do, and what the president can and cannot do. The role of government is purposefully limited, so direct assurance of everything you could possibly link to the vague notion of "welfare" is limited. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the individual to provide for itself that which is not granted to Congress to provide.

[_Pax_]

But that’s fine. I understand what you mean and what you believe “Welfare” means, and you make some good points and I generally do believe that social security as an institution was generally conceived to be for the best interest of the people. But, when Congress realized they had a whole stockpile of money laying around that they promised to people, they pilfered it and drained it, spending it on needless programs that seemed good at the time, and now those individuals to whom that money was promised are being told that the money is gone. That is the unfortunate consequence we face.
Well, here's a clue: the problem isn't Social Security. The problem is Congress being allowed to pilfer the SoSec Fund in the first place. The original Act should be amended to preclude that - make it a separate agency, from which the money CANNOT be taken except to fun the program.

If you buy a nice new car, and your neighbor steals it ... do you blame the car, or do you blame the neighbor?


Linking the definition for "Welfare" from a dictionary doesn't mean welfare is that definition. You can't base arguments on what a dictionary says, especially when the word you are trying to define is as nebulous and vague as welfare.
When the argument is "what does this word mean", then yes I most certainly can and will bring a dictionary to the table. That's what dictionaries are for.

Also, the definition of "welfare" as a noun, is not at all nebulous. Attempting to characterise it as such is nothing short of disingenuous.


Furthermore, you can't add to the definition you cite without justification, or it becomes special pleading. Because welfare could literally mean anything, why am I wrong for insisting that, for my views, it encompasses the maximization of individual liberties?
First off, "welfare" could not "literally mean anything". Dictionaries exist in order to record and clarify what any specific word means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare?s=ts

Merriam-Webster, Oxford Advanced Learners' (http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/welfare), Cambridge (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/welfare).

Every major dictionary agrees with the definition I quoted earlier. Every. Single. One.

In the face of that degree of consensus there is only one logical, intellectually honest conclusion a reasonable person can arrive at: you are wrong about the meaning of the word "welfare" when used as a noun.


Surely to me, individual rights would best “secure the Blessings of Liberty and Posterity”.
First off, that is entirely beside the fact, as it skips right over the "common Welfare" part of that pre-amble.

Second off ... what about MY right not to be left to starve to death? What about my right to basic shelter and support? Do I in fact have no right to even live, solely because I am disabled through no faultof my oen ...? (Small hint: I was born with my disability ... and didn't even have a choice about being born or not.)


“They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147
Yes, notice those words I've emphasised, please.


It seems quite clear that general welfare is welfare that is limited by the enumerated powers to congress by the constitution and congress's ability to generate taxes to provide for that. Those enumerated powers detail what congress can and cannot do, and what the president can and cannot do.
and again, it all comes down to interpretation - especially, what is meant by that "promote the common Welfare".

Interpretation of the constitution is a power specifically, explicitly, nd exclusively enumerated to the Judicial branch of our government, in the form of the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS ruled on the Social Security act, declaring it Constitutional.

Argument over .... unless you're advocating the usurpation of the SCOTUS' authority, in direct contravention of the very Constitution itself ...? :rolleyes:

[Martinoguy]

Well, here's a clue: the problem isn't Social Security. The problem is Congress being allowed to pilfer the SoSec Fund in the first place. The original Act should be amended to preclude that - make it a separate agency, from which the money CANNOT be taken except to fun the program. If you buy a nice new car, and your neighbor steals it ... do you blame the car, or do you blame the neighbor?


This is fundamentally impossible. You cannot separate the government from itself in this manner because ultimately, the power to levy taxes and to utilize tax money falls upon Congress. As we saw before, the only way to fund "welfare" is through taxation.

Also, your analogy is faulty as the neighbor in this situation would be the one who is your cosigner and loaner to buy this nice car and decided, when he needed the money, to just liquidate the car's worth




When the argument is "what does this word mean", then yes I most certainly can and will bring a dictionary to the table. That's what dictionaries are for.

Also, the definition of "welfare" as a noun, is not at all nebulous. Attempting to characterise it as such is nothing short of disingenuous.

First off, "welfare" could not "literally mean anything". Dictionaries exist in order to record and clarify what any specific word means.


You are more than welcome to bring a dictionary to the table but that doesn't mean that you automatically win an argument, just that you have a reference that shows that a panel of individuals argued over a broad, generalized meaning for a word. It is no where near the extent a word has in its meaning. As I said, and as you have failed to demonstrate, a word CAN mean anything when it is vague enough.

What is welfare? Welfare is happiness, but, hey, what is happiness? Do you know how many philosophers throughout history have argued over what happiness means? and you're here saying that all I have to do is show them a dictionary meaning of happiness to prove my case? I don't think so. Happiness, like welfare, has as many meanings as there are people on this earth. To insist that a simple link to a dictionary is sufficient to encompass all there is to "welfare" is actually what is disingenuous.






Every major dictionary agrees with the definition I quoted earlier. Every. Single. One.


In the face of such rigorous proof that dictionaries generally copy one another, I will assume you also went to other languages other than English and meticulously poured through the meanings behind welfare in that language as well. In which case, you have done your research and I concede the point



In the face of that degree of consensus there is only one logical, intellectually honest conclusion a reasonable person can arrive at: you are wrong about the meaning of the word "welfare" when used as a noun.


I understand what it takes to be intellectually honest, so don't lecture me on that. I am only wrong of not conceding my entire mentality to what a book says I should think a word should mean. Why should I? Dictionaries are flawed for one simple reason: Dictionaries are recursive. You are using words to describe other words.




First off, that is entirely beside the fact, as it skips right over the "common Welfare" part of that pre-amble.


You haven't established any facts dealing with what definitively constitutes "common welfare".



Second off ... what about MY right not to be left to starve to death? What about my right to basic shelter and support? Do I in fact have no right to even live, solely because I am disabled through no faultof my oen ...? (Small hint: I was born with my disability ... and didn't even have a choice about being born or not.)


Yes, notice those words I've emphasised, please.


I do notice them, and I am sorry you have had to face hardships in life, but so have many many other people including myself. In fact, since we are both clearly on computers, I would say that there are people even worse off. Our experiences in life do not privy us to special treatment when arguing a point, which has been brought up many many times when dealing with constitutionality of, what I assume you are bringing up as a safety net. You have the right to life, that is guaranteed to all citizens of this country. You have the right to property and to the pursuit of happiness. Those are your unique individual freedoms.

However, the simple fact is that, our constitution does not authorize Congress to use tax money outside its enumerated power, not even for what seems like a good idea at the time (like social security, which for the time being is stated as constitutional). You, as an individual citizen, have vastly, neigh, infinitely more power than the Federal Government over your life. I'm not going to insult you by trying to tell you that the constitution is perfect, but even the constitution does not say it is perfect. It is, however, our social contract.



and again, it all comes down to interpretation - especially, what is meant by that "promote the common Welfare".


I agree, though If you remember you were arguing that welfare had a very clear, dictionary approved meaning that left little room for interpretation.



Interpretation of the constitution is a power specifically, explicitly, nd exclusively enumerated to the Judicial branch of our government, in the form of the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS ruled on the Social Security act, declaring it Constitutional.

Argument over .... unless you're advocating the usurpation of the SCOTUS' authority, in direct contravention of the very Constitution itself ...? :rolleyes:

I'm not advocating "usurpation" (this is not a monarchy you know) of the Judicial branch's authority and ruling on Social Security. However, I do disagree with it because it opens up Congress to abuse its power in taxation and distribution of that taxation (like draining promised funds to what are now retiring individuals). The Judicial Branch's ruling is not absolute and is subject to change, otherwise women would not be able to vote, and we would still live in a segregated society.

[tejon]

Martino, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot by disavowing dictionaries categorically. I mean seriously, that's almost as bad as DesCartes's evil genius argument. If language cannot be defined, then language is a useless medium so why do we even bother? You need to accept dictionaries or else everything you say is equally ambiguous.

You'd be better off arguing drift, both in vocabulary and semantics, between the language of the Constitution and contemporary English usage. A modern dictionary (and more importantly, a modern style guide) doesn't perfectly model 18th-century text, just as it's difficult for a child of the information age to fully comprehend a world where not owning slaves would kill a political career.

[Martinoguy]

Martino, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot by disavowing dictionaries categorically. I mean seriously, that's almost as bad as DesCartes's evil genius argument. If language cannot be defined, then language is a useless medium so why do we even bother? You need to accept dictionaries or else everything you say is equally ambiguous.

You'd be better off arguing drift, both in vocabulary and semantics, between the language of the Constitution and contemporary English usage. A modern dictionary (and more importantly, a modern style guide) doesn't perfectly model 18th-century text, just as it's difficult for a child of the information age to fully comprehend a world where not owning slaves would kill a political career.

I'm not saying dictionaries aren't useful, just that using a dictionary to prove a point is not convincing. Language does not become a useless medium simply because we don't have a dictionary answer for what words mean (otherwise philosophy before the first dictionary would be useless). We as a society have not decided to follow what the holy dictionary has to say about a word, so I am not obligated to do anything in this regard.

As I said, dictionary definitions can be useful, but are generally broad and open to interpretation. Because dictionary definitions are recursive ( you are describing what words mean with other words which require you to define what those words mean ad infinitum) they are not the end all trump card. The way I attempted to argue what welfare means was in terms of the united states constitution, which is limited by the enumerated powers given to Congress.

I didn't feel the need to argue about language differences between 18th century British Empire and 21st Century CNN because I feel such an argument would be self defeating and redundant.

[Shiav]

Today I realised I need to use more sarcasm tags. Interesting.

Language completely derives its power from its ability to refer to something that is not present and having both parties achieve a common understanding. Thus if I say chair everyone will think of something to sit on, if I say dog everyone knows of our furry four legged friend. When someone refers to a dictionary definition, what they are trying to do is develop a common understanding with another person so that both may continue a conversation on equal ground.

Also, why has no one confronted the fact that "evil" is defined as helping your fellow man? Have we become so accustomed to crazy that we just let it go?

[Martinoguy]

Today I realised I need to use more sarcasm tags. Interesting.

Language completely derives its power from its ability to refer to something that is not present and having both parties achieve a common understanding. Thus if I say chair everyone will think of something to sit on, if I say dog everyone knows of our furry four legged friend. When someone refers to a dictionary definition, what they are trying to do is develop a common understanding with another person so that both may continue a conversation on equal ground.

Also, why has no one confronted the fact that "evil" is defined as helping your fellow man? Have we become so accustomed to crazy that we just let it go?

I assume you're talking about steth with the "evil" comment, and thor bless him he's trying but I think evil is simply a cartoonish word to use in any situation. It shames me to think that the former president of my country used this word all the time.

[Shiav]

I assume you're talking about steth with the "evil" comment, and thor bless him he's trying but I think evil is simply a cartoonish word to use in any situation. It shames me to think that the former president of my country used this word all the time.

Which one? Oh wait, all of them. Evil Empire. Evil Axis. Axis of Evil. New Evil. Domestic Evil. Used to describe us, Iraq/Iran/North Korea, Iran/North Korea/Pakistan, China, and drugs (or Mexican drug runners, more specifically). Used by Reagan, then Bush Senior, Bush Junior and Clinton.

Haven't followed obama enough to pick up on if he's done it yet