Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 04:50:28 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on April 04, 2022, 04:04:30 PM
Capitalism's basic tenet is that private ownership is virtually inviolable. You can dispense with that notion and still have trade, even a fairly free market system (at least as free as under capitalism).  Most people aren't really capitalists in survival situations, and most people don't acknowledge how many aspects of modern life are survival situations.

If nobody owns anything, you can't have trade or a free market. You just have bureaucrats guessing how to allocate resources. And no, survival situations are vanishingly rare in modern life, and those situations typically don't involve trade anyway.

Who said anything about no one owning anything? What are you even talking about?

You did. You just said you can dispense with the notion of private ownership and have free trade.

Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 05:04:51 PM
You did. You just said you can dispense with the notion of private ownership and have free trade.

I really didn't. I said you can dispense with the tenet of inviolable private ownership.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 04, 2022, 05:07:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 05:04:51 PM
You did. You just said you can dispense with the notion of private ownership and have free trade.

I really didn't. I said you can dispense with the tenet of inviolable private ownership.

No you didn't. Whatever your intent, your statement can be interpreted multiple ways. In any case, inviolable private ownership has never existed and there's a very strong causitive correlation between the strength of private property rights and economic success, so even if your reinterpreted statement is technically true it's functionally incorrect.

Though I have no idea how this has anything to do with Mongoose, so if you want to continue the conversation it's probably best to start a thread in Pundit's forum.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 04, 2022, 05:07:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 05:04:51 PM
You did. You just said you can dispense with the notion of private ownership and have free trade.

I really didn't. I said you can dispense with the tenet of inviolable private ownership.

Private ownership comes from the notion that you own yourself...

So lets say we dispose of the principle that private ownership isn't inviolable (meaning if you violate my rights you're commiting a crime).

What's the moral principle not to enslave people then?

What's the underpining for the crime of theft?

No, you can't have a free market unless you aknowledge the basic human right of private ownership. You also can't have freedom written large for any long ammount of time, because your society WILL devolve into tirany with the people being slaves if not of private owners of the state.

Corporate oligarchies are not the same thing as capitalism.  Letting McDonalds hire you and fire you has zero relationship with a corporate tac squad kicking down your door and riddling you with plasma rifle bursts because you downloaded the latest Marvel movie.  Dystopian stuff like OCP in RoboCop is fun for a story, but bears as much resemblance to an actual critique of capitalism as saying that socialism will end up with everyone plugged into vats of goo and powering the Matrix; it's hyperbolic and lazy.

I disclaim here that I haven't read over the setting, I'm taking peoples' word for it that it's trying for a capitalism bad critique rather than just something edgy and dark.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 04, 2022, 04:04:30 PM
Capitalism's basic tenet is that private ownership is virtually inviolable. You can dispense with that notion and still have trade, even a fairly free market system (at least as free as under capitalism).  Most people aren't really capitalists in survival situations, and most people don't acknowledge how many aspects of modern life are survival situations.

  In a tiny economic ecosystem or a tiny homogenous population.  What "could" or "can" happen has been shown to be a complete bust on anything but small scales.   

  Though to be fair, I have no problem being a mercenary pulling murderhobo work on massive corporations and slaughtering their mindless sheep employees like orcs in a series of tunnels to "Stick it to the MAN!!".  Of course my character will be gathering profits for the venture at every turn.

Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 05:14:00 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on April 04, 2022, 05:07:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 05:04:51 PM
You did. You just said you can dispense with the notion of private ownership and have free trade.

I really didn't. I said you can dispense with the tenet of inviolable private ownership.

No you didn't. Whatever your intent, your statement can be interpreted multiple ways. In any case, inviolable private ownership has never existed and there's a very strong causitive correlation between the strength of private property rights and economic success, so even if your reinterpreted statement is technically true it's functionally incorrect.

Though I have no idea how this has anything to do with Mongoose, so if you want to continue the conversation it's probably best to start a thread in Pundit's forum.

Ayn Rand said taxation was theft. That's a statement you can make under capitalism. Clearly, that is not a statement compatible with any form of socialism. The reason this is relevant is people offering up the red herring that capitalism owns, invented, or is even vaguely good at market economies. I'm not the one trying to start a tangent. But several people have pointed out this error, and it's up to the perpetrators of that error to stop repeating it.

Back to that matter at hand, a lot of people seem to love the idea of free commerce and free speech, right up until someone publishes something that hurts their feelings. And I'm not talking about SJWs, I'm talking about the very idea of starting a discussion thread on this forum to cry about a book existing someone doesn't like. It isn't the "woke" characters in this situation who are promoting cancellation and attacking the right of a thing to exist, it's the anti-SJW crowd.

Mongoose's book isn't oppressing anyone.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 05, 2022, 02:22:35 AM
Mongoose's book isn't oppressing anyone.

lol.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 05, 2022, 02:22:35 AM
Back to that matter at hand, a lot of people seem to love the idea of free commerce and free speech, right up until someone publishes something that hurts their feelings. And I'm not talking about SJWs, I'm talking about the very idea of starting a discussion thread on this forum to cry about a book existing someone doesn't like. It isn't the "woke" characters in this situation who are promoting cancellation and attacking the right of a thing to exist, it's the anti-SJW crowd.

Mongoose's book isn't oppressing anyone.

Boycotts are completely valid. If you don't like a product, you can choose not to buy it. If you don't like a company that makes a product, you can choose not to buy anything from them - even if the product itself were fine. If you don't like someone who works for a company, you can choose not to buy anything from that company. If you don't like a principle that shows up in a particular product, you can choose not to buy it. Hell, if you don't like the hair growing out of the wart on the face of one of the people working for a company, you can choose not to buy anything from them.

It's also completely valid if you expect other people to not want to buy a product or support a company for the same reason you don't want to, to let like minded people know about it, so they can make the same choice themselves.

There is nothing about boycotts that is incompatible with free speech or free markets.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 05, 2022, 02:22:35 AM
It isn't the "woke" characters in this situation who are promoting cancellation and attacking the right of a thing to exist, it's the anti-SJW crowd.
Mongoose's book isn't oppressing anyone.

Hyperbole??! LOOOL

No one gives a shit if this book exists. No one here is trying to 'cancel' it.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 05, 2022, 02:22:35 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 05:14:00 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on April 04, 2022, 05:07:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 05:04:51 PM
You did. You just said you can dispense with the notion of private ownership and have free trade.

I really didn't. I said you can dispense with the tenet of inviolable private ownership.

No you didn't. Whatever your intent, your statement can be interpreted multiple ways. In any case, inviolable private ownership has never existed and there's a very strong causitive correlation between the strength of private property rights and economic success, so even if your reinterpreted statement is technically true it's functionally incorrect.

Though I have no idea how this has anything to do with Mongoose, so if you want to continue the conversation it's probably best to start a thread in Pundit's forum.

Ayn Rand said taxation was theft. That's a statement you can make under capitalism. Clearly, that is not a statement compatible with any form of socialism. The reason this is relevant is people offering up the red herring that capitalism owns, invented, or is even vaguely good at market economies. I'm not the one trying to start a tangent. But several people have pointed out this error, and it's up to the perpetrators of that error to stop repeating it.

Back to that matter at hand, a lot of people seem to love the idea of free commerce and free speech, right up until someone publishes something that hurts their feelings. And I'm not talking about SJWs, I'm talking about the very idea of starting a discussion thread on this forum to cry about a book existing someone doesn't like. It isn't the "woke" characters in this situation who are promoting cancellation and attacking the right of a thing to exist, it's the anti-SJW crowd.

Mongoose's book isn't oppressing anyone.

Your entire paragraph about economics is complete nonsense, so according your own logic, it's up to you to stop perpetrating it.

Choosing not to buy something is not what anyone means when they use the word "canceling". It's certainly not attacking the right of a thing to exist. Which is a rather peculiar thing to say, because you're ascribing rights to inanimate objects.

QuoteChoosing not to buy something is not what anyone means when they use the word "canceling". It's certainly not attacking the right of a thing to exist. Which is a rather peculiar thing to say, because you're ascribing rights to inanimate objects.

But TBH vast majority of cancelling efforts are well within boycott range.
It's very efficient and organised but usually it does not include anything but threat to publishers/producers that wokesters stop buing their products if undesirable persons works for those publishers.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 05, 2022, 02:22:35 AM
a lot of people seem to love the idea of free commerce and free speech, right up until someone publishes something that hurts their feelings. And I'm not talking about SJWs, I'm talking about the very idea of starting a discussion thread on this forum to cry about a book existing someone doesn't like. It isn't the "woke" characters in this situation who are promoting cancellation and attacking the right of a thing to exist, it's the anti-SJW crowd.

Has anyone here taken action to prevent its publication? Has anyone here demanded changes be made or else? Has anyone here attempted to get the author banned from social media or wished them dead?

No one here is interfering with commerce or speech.

Quote from: migo on April 05, 2022, 04:14:30 AM
There is nothing about boycotts that is incompatible with free speech or free markets.

Indeed, and boycotts are only meaningful if private ownership is a thing.

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 05, 2022, 04:16:31 PM
But TBH vast majority of cancelling efforts are well within boycott range.
It's very efficient and organised but usually it does not include anything but threat to publishers/producers that wokesters stop buing their products if undesirable persons works for those publishers.

Not sure where you've been, but their tactics typically go well beyond simply not buying a product they were never going to buy in the first place.