Hearthpwn

Quote from MProdigy >>

i think this is winning from topdecking and luck,  not skill.  You can be totally outplayed and still win, which is taking a lot away from the experince. Just because you copied a T1 autopilot deck does not mean you are a skillful player.  

Watch WowHobbs.  He gets to rank 5 often with insane himebrew decks that are vastly underpowered.  THAT is skill.  Playing the game YOUR way is much more satisfying.   But like someone said earlier, there are people who somehow like playing single-player shooters on god-mode... 

 Sorry but if he gets to the rank than those decks aren't vastly underpowered.

And actually there is no skill in pick something you think that can't do the work.

He just know how those decks work and what he can explore with they.

A concept that most people have problem to understand .

Play bad decks actually makes you a bad player and not the opposite.

What makes you a good deckbuilder is see potential where others not see and prove it.

There are always rules in any competition. Even in a competition where people are just trying to be the winner that survives, you have rules like the laws of physics that you cannot overcome. You cannot break the rules of a competition and have that competition work properly.

But as I said earlier unlike the laws of physics man-made laws can be broken. You can try to maintain the rules by force, but you cannot assume that people blindly follow once established rules. Especially if "winning" (or at least not "losing) is so important. Like if you don't have enough money for food you might be stealing it for example. There will always be situations where competitions that are bound to man-made laws won't work properly since people break the rules. So you either have to force people to adhere to the law (government) or arrange the situation in a way that makes it unnecessary to compete.

It is possible at times for cheaters not to get caught, but that is not the kind of things that leads to success, cheating doesn't go unnoticed for long.

No, not really. Just take a look at any major corporation. There is almost none that didn't had some sort of "scandal" and it might not go unnoticed for long, but people still buy their stuff. You know "Too big to fail". Through this system that rewards winning so much with power they abuse that power to corrupt the system to do their bidding to say it that way. The problem here is this "power accumulation" through "winning". It immediately distorts the inital idea of a "fair game" so to speak. And this is just how competition works since it rewards winning so much and might be even very punishing for the others. I'm pretty sure it cannot work any other way. That's just what competiton entails.

You can have decency and civility even with serious competition. Those are not mutually exclusive.

I guess it depends on what you exactly mean with "decency", "civility", and "serious competition". But yes, they are probably not mutually exclusive. It's just that I think of a "serious competition" as something very rewarding for the winner and the opposite for the loser/s that people might easily don't care about "decency" and "civility". As I said earlier, there will always be situations where the rules of a competition might be neglected and even though you may say it "doesn't work properly" anymore, it's still the same competition and it continues.

There is nothing wrong with people feeling bad about losing. It is normal, even when you do your best performance, you will feel bad that it wasn't enough to win. But from this point forward, you have two paths you can take. A Good one, where you improve yourself, and a Bad one, where you don't accept the loss, where you try to change the system to favour you, where you decide to stop following the rules, and so on.

The path you take depends entirely on you. It helps if you had a good upbringing that taught you the proper values to take the good path.

Yes, it depends on what your life experience was. But the problem is exactly that it's normal. I have nothing against people that want to improve themselves, but in a competition you try to "force" that by "stomping" others. That's basically my main criticism. And also just think of a situation where no matter how well you do you will never "win". You improve and improve and improve, and that's good, but in the end you will still feel like a "loser". This is not good.

I disagree that Competition is dangerous, at least what is represents. However, it is extremely dangerous because people, not competition, but people, can react in an extremely large variety of ways, and with this, comes a chunk of possibilities that is very problematic. But again, this is not the fault of Competition, it's the fault of People.

Well, that's like saying it's not the "fault" of a super-infectious disease to infect people. Since, you know, they could have a better immune system or whatever to "defend" or "protect" themselves. I guess you can see it this way. But it doesn't change the fact that the drive of the disease is to infect others.

Same with competition. It's the "rules of the competition" that force people to behave the way they do. Of course it's different with everyone, but it's not like they have no reason for their behavior and just "decide" to behave that way. Or what else should the behavior come from if not from competition itself? I really can't see it, especially since competition is all around us.

Values come from the environment in which you are brought up. Starting with your parents, which are usually your first point of contact with society, and that ends up being the most important point of contact.

And what do they generally teach children? Competitive attitudes. "Who can wash the dishes fastest?" "Who's the best girl/boy in the world?" "As long as you did your best..." As I said competition is all around us, but most miss the forest for the trees.

Well, most laws are put into place because they tend to protect the minimal conditions for people to live prosperously and productively. It is kind of hard for a group of people to live that way if, say, one of them decide to go around killing the others. This tends to apply for most laws. Without them, communities fall apart.

You can see it this way, but with a good solution you wouldn't need laws. For example if you could create an abundance of food you wouldn't need to create laws that prohibit stealing food since it's pointless. Like you can't "steal" air since there is enough for everyone. So laws are put into place, because people didn't know how to deal with a reoccurring problem any other way. And we should always try to solve the actual underlying problem. Of course that doesn't mean there will or should never be any "law" or "rule". It's just that it might not work and we should rather look at what has created the unwanted behavior in the first place to eliminate the root cause.

I wouldn't use the argument that people still break rules because that is entirely up to human nature. Some people will always be willing to break the rules to gain unfair advantages. This tends to be because they didn't receive the proper values. It still comes back to the integral point, which is, the problem is bad people, not a bad system. The system is good, it's people that don't follow the rules that are the problem.

Well, "human nature"? What is that now supposed to mean? You even then relativized it by saying it's because "they didn't received the proper values". What?

I can agree on one thing though: If everyone would follow the rules it would be great. But that doesn't happen. You need force if you want people to obey the law if the situation isn't "good enough for them". As I said man-made laws are very different form natual laws.

But I can tell you, we are in a way getting further and further from the solution as time moves on, which is somewhat worrying. We are getting more and more dependant on governments to do everything and relinquishing so much power to them, and that is being used very incorrectly.

Agreed.

It depends on the rules they break. If they murder, rape, torture or perform extreme violence against innocent people, yes, I'm fully in favour of death penalty. (Obviously, I want a conviction past any doubt, there needs to be no possible doubt for said penalty to be placed)

Well, at least it makes sense. I mean if we didn't know how to cure a specific disease it also would make sense to just kill the infected ones immediately.

Otherwise, exile them accordingly to the rules they broke. I mean, what do you do when a friend of yours breaks your trust? You end your friendship.

Not necessarily. You can try to understand why they did what they did. There's a reason for everything. Hitler was not that much different from any other human (or any other dictator for that matter). It's just that they basically didn't know enough and instead "fuck up" everything.

No, a system is not the same as people. I mean, that premise falls apart the moment you realise that there are people willing to go outside the system, to break the rules of the system. If people were the system, everyone would be confined to the system and unable to break its rules.

The "system" still can't exist if people don't "believe" in it. Of course technically it's not the same. And some people behave differently because they want to "change the system". Funnily enough as you said they would be "unable to break its rules" it would be exactly what you need for something like the "free market" to work.

At first it might seem like you are inherently in need for others to lose, but that is not exactly the truth. There is a safeguard, Rank Floors, which allow you to keep failing without losing anything. You can only lose so much before you hit a safeguard. You do lose the game, but you are not losing stars or ranks.

So in Casual no one loses. I mean if you so much care for Ranked you might see it that way. But that's not really how I would define "losing".

It is not a drive against Competition, it's just our need to help those around us, at least, that tends to happen when people with values are successful. Because while being the best and being on top is great, victory tends to be more fun when you have others to share it with. If you are the best, you have to think, do I want to share what I know so that others can rise as well, and make things better? Or will I keep things to myself and limit success to only what I can achieve? But this, is a voluntary decision, one that I hope people make correctly, but that I still think should be voluntary, and not forced on people. (Because people with values will make the correct decision)

But helping others still goes completely against what competition stands for. What you're describing is rather some competition-cooperation hybrid. As I said there are bad and worse competitions. And if you're not so "fanatic" about competitions this is also helpful.

Yes we cannot all be winners, but we should uphold a system that allows the best performer to succeed and win, and that performer will usually help the rest voluntarily. Again, the problem is not in the system, the competition, but in the people competing. If the people competing and winning are people with values, then you get people with values in the best position to help others in need.

I mean that's a nice idea, but to me it seems you don't make the important connection between competitive behavior and people's values. What you're describing is an amazing idea that just doesn't work. All of human history proves this. There was always competition and this doesn't made it to get "people with great values" into high positions. And even if it did work - How was that achieved? By making others lose. To me that seems more like you stealing something from someone else without them noticing and then giving it back to do a "good deed".

I would say you should raise children with minimal necessary force. But do encourage them to compete in a healthy way and always remind them how important it is to stick to the rules. Essentially, raise them to be people with values, teach them the values, they will end up doing the right thing.

Oh, compete in a "healthy way". Because that makes sense. Beat up the other guy, but don't kill him or what? Something like that I guess. No, I don't think that is good either. Or what else?

They get values from the environment. If a child is brought up in an environment where they don't face adversities, where they get handed everything they want and not just what they need, they will not be able to handle reality well. Reality is hard and they will be faced with adversities. You don't have to torture your kids for them to understand that life is hard and they need to compete to succeed, but you also need to allow them to fail enough that they learn they have to keep going after failing and trying to improve.

That does make sense. I still think competing against other humans is extremely bad since it really is a recipe for hostility. I mean if it wouldn't be about "winners" and "losers", only an objective standard you can improve yourself upon I don't think that would be a problem. The problem with competition is because you need (to make) others fail for your own success. And this is very, very bad.

And I can compare it because I'm comparing something that is inanimate, that has no agency or ability to decide whether to act in a good or evil manner. It is incorrect to blame something that has no agency, no capacity to act or make choices, for results that ultimately don't come from that thing. It was not the concept of Competition that decided some people would not follow the rules, it's people with agency and the capacity to make that choice that made the choice. Hence why Fire Arms or Competition are not to blame. Both can be used for good or bad results, but the only actual factor that decides whether it is used for good or bad results is PEOPLE.

And this is caused by what? Is it aliens, is it a bad smell? What do you think makes those people behave that way? I'd say competition is a big part of that. Like, what else would it be?

If groups 1, 2 and 3 voluntarily decide to cooperate, I think that is perfectly reasonable. I have nothing against it. I am only against them being forced to cooperate. I think if they decide to cooperate and succeed, great. If one of the groups decides not to cooperate, that is perfectly fine, and whichever side performs best should be rewarded. If that means the one that decided not to cooperate ends up bankrupt, so be it, it was their choice.

I was said anything about forcing people to cooperate. I just said it's better than competition so we strive towards more cooperation whereever possible.

To ensure it is not rigged, you make rules for the competition, rules that do not favour some. The general premise of the free market has nothing against cooperation. It attempts to avoid any kind of rule that favours some over others, so everyone can have equal opportunity to perform their best.

A pointless attempt. Rules are specifically in place to favor some over others. Why else would you make rules? If you make a contract and the other doesn't want to do their part then the rules favor you over the other. It may seem "fair" to you and others, but it may seem "unfair" to the other person. So with rules there cannot be "equal opportunity" since there are "rules" that limit you because that was deemed "fair" by whatever.

Just look at any Team Sport. Lets say Football. The objective is to score more goals, that is how the competition is measured. If we are in the same team, I can always choose to go alone and try to score by myself, I might even be capable of doing so. I may also decide to cooperate, to pass the ball to any teammate that is better positioned to score. My individual performance would be better if I attempt to score on my own and my individual market value will be higher if I do that. But I may also fail.

Alternatively, I can cooperate and have a better chance at helping my team, which will mean a lower individual performance on my part, as I lose the ability to score myself, but better for the team. I think I should have the option to decide what I want to do, and I should have the rewards or consequences of my choice. I don't want that choice to be made for me.

Of course. But that's just a "nothing thing" (doesn't try to improve the general human condition). If it would be something like a contest to find a cure to a disease it would be even better to cooperate with any other team out there and not "compete" with them since it wastes a lot of human and natural resources.

And it changes nothing about the fact that you try to "beat" (the shit out of) the other team and as I said so many times that just makes for unhealthy relationships and breeds hostility.

Your paragraph about Communism and Capitalism is scary. You might want to read up on the subject. A Society that collectively attempts to decide what is best to do with the collective property since it basically abolishes private property, is a polar opposite of a society that allows individuals to have their private property and allows them to decide what to do with what is theirs.

Scary? How in the world that? I didn't even said that it was good. It was just another slightly different dictatorship. And it's as much a "polar opposite" as the other side of a coin. It's still the same coin.

About property: It's also just an idea. Only paperwork and other people give people the "illusion" that they "own" something. And of course that "ownership" can be on the individual or a group. Ideally there should be no "ownership" and people just share whatever is needed and that's pretty much it.

Free Markets, a system that allows individuals, or groups, to freely enter, by creating no barriers, establishing only the minimal rules to ensure it operates properly, that favour no one. The premise of the free market is that no one should be barred entry from competing within the rules that favour no one, since that allows the best product and service to be available for people. This is because when people are allows to operate individually then tend to make the best choices rather than be forced by governments to act as the government sees fit. They are free to act as they want, voluntarily making the transactions they deem good, both on the supply and demand sides, and everyone benefits in the long term, because demand will naturally migrate towards the best supply.

Well, I see a lot of flaws there. First I already said some paragraphs ago how rules always favor someone. Then I want to mention that you are indeed not "barred entry", but instead you are kind of "forced" to "play the game" since otherwise you probably can't survive in the "free market". Also you seem to see the goverment as way too much detached from "the market" as it actually is. You always need government to enforce your "rules". Period. Without those "rules" there would be no "game" ("free market"). And the thing about supply-demand is that it might be artificially created demand or artificially decreased supply and that's a really big problem.

It's not a matter of being more concerned with myself. I also don't want you to be forced or discouraged to play what you like, if that happens to not be what the majority favours. As long as you follow the rules, I see no reason why what others prefer should be forced upon you. I think freedom is extremely important, yes.

And what about the freedom to play the game in the way I want? Oh, yes - the rules. So much for freedom I guess, right? There's always something forced upon you either way. And overall what the majority favors will be the most rewarding in this mode even if every now and then someone would "dislike" you for playing what the majority actually likes.

I would like to point out to you, that there is also no guarantee that you will be in the majority side, and that the system could easily end up punishing you for being in the minority. I just prefer a system will not cause that to begin with. When you go with a system that cares only for the majority and tries to force itself on the minority, it's only a matter of time before the majority changes just enough so that you are in the minority at some point. That is so dangerous as a concept.

That is a good point though. Ideally we wouldn't need that at all and everyone has access to everything regardless of anything. As I said it's just a patchwork.

Hum, I don't know. It's just so hard for me to justify rewarding people when they aren't performing well. But the fact is, there is precedent in Hearthstone for such decision, at least when it comes to the Gold side of the game. We do have Quests that don't require Winning, so we could have said system for Gold with an Experience Bar. But only for the Gold, I don't think this should be considered for Ranks and Stars.

Obviously it's in total contradiction with competition and I never said anything about "Ranks" or "Stars" since I also don't give a shit about competitive play (as you might imagine).

I tend to believe that people will be the biggest factor not the competition itself.

If you really think about it then "competition" is just a fancy way of comparing ourselves to others. You may describe it using a different word but for your entire life you will always compete, or in other words compare, yourself with other people.

Someone may say that taking part in any game will be a startup of jealousy since one person is going to loose but it will always be a case.

For your entire life you will be playing a game that is hidden under funny name:

• "Am I good looking" - this person next to me seems more attractive than i am.
• "Is my partner funny/attractive" - My neighbor partner seems like a more interesting/ attractive person.
• "Is my house nice enough" - My colleague furnished his apartment in a more cozy way.
• "Am I really healthy" - People around me don"t have allergies or don't suffer from any disease

These are just a couple of examples that show that competition ( in one way or the other) is irreplaceable part of our life. That's why banning games and banning loosing will not remove jealousy from our life. If somebody is a generally bad person they will always find some inequality in this world. And by inequality i mean that somebody has it better than me.

It was also mentioned before that finding a job or your loved one is also a little competition. The one where can be usually only one winner. Cheers to others who mentioned that before.

Based on this i believe that learning how to loose is a very important part of becoming a mature person.

As a side note, if anybody is interested I'd really like to recommend a book regarding this exact discussion:

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

Interesting view on a utopian society that goes challenged only by a single outsider.

If you don't have money for food, you should offer something in return for the food that others want. Stealing is against the rules, creating something and offering that in return for food or for money you can use to buy the food is within the rules. One is a good path, the other is not.

They "should", but if you're starving you might not give a shit about that. It's as simple as that.

Just because people can break rules doesn't mean the rules and the system with those rules is the problem. It's people that are the problem. I think I already repeated this more than enough so I'll stop repeating, should be obvious already.

But why do people behave this way then? It's like if a tree falls over you can't just say it's the "fault" of the tree. There are many things acting there like gravity, wind, etc. And in the same way we also get influenced constantly. So what influence leads to say breaking the rules? (And don't say values again. It's like saying the tree fell over because the roots couldn't support it anymore. I want to know then the cause to this.)

There is a third option. You don't increase government, you don't remove incentive to compete, you change the mindsets of people as best as possible. It is actually the easiest solution because it depends on the individuals alone, as everyone can decide to have proper values and follow them, even if they weren't properly taught when being raised. It is harder for some people that went further down the wrong rabbit hole, but still possible.

I guess if it would lead to good values with less competition it would be a good thing. I just can't see good values with competition.

Don't fix what isn't broken. The system is not broken, it's the people breaking the rules that are broken.

Why are those people broken?

What you consider scandals might not really be scandals or reasons for consumers not to buy from that corporation. As well as if the scandals were actions against the rules, the companies would be sanctioned. So either the actions were against the rules and they were sanctioned, or the actions weren't against the rules, they just happened to be politically incorrect, and the scandal was simply over that rather then them breaking the rules.

The sanctions are a really funny thing. Those will just be "expenses" that lower profit for them. So if it's more profitable to take the sanctions you would still do that. It's just another trade-off like any other transaction.

But again, if they broke the rules, there was no fair situation as they received an unfair advantage and breaking the rules means breaking the competition. Competition is only possible within the rules of said competition, whatever the rules may be. When someone breaks the rules, they aren't actually competing because they already have an unfair advantage. You are not actually competing if you start a 100 meter sprint race 50 meters ahead of your opponents.

Oh, interesting. What would you call it then? Because that happens like all the time with almost any competition out there. Especially since "fair" doesn't really mean anything on it's own. You have said rules, but those rules might also be "unfair" in certain ways. So what exactly would then a "competiton" be to you? I guess as long as you adhere to the predetermined rules. I mean that's a nice idea, but that's just not how it plays out generally.

No, you improve so that you can win. You are not guaranteed that your improvement will be enough to win, but yes, you can win. And many times, you will win. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of people that have been successful in life have failed before being successful. By necessity, since even though we are increasingly creating more and more competitions for people to succeed in, the fact that every previous competition only allow one or a select few winners forced the losers to continue improving or even moving to other competitions where they succeeded. When humans first developed, the amount of possible competitions they could win at were absurdly limited. With time, we increased the amount of competitions by ridiculous amounts.

If people can and want to improve it's great, but it's just like with infinite growth on a finite planet. Eventually you can't do more than your best. But some people still have to be losers for others to be winners. And this is really bad. Or how would you feel losing all the time? As I said if there is no pressure and expectation to improve it's great, but not if you "force" people. That just creates unnecessary conflict.

The thing is, Competition doesn't have a drive, it is not an living organism with agency like a virus or bacteria, and even then, these have a limited agency. Also, people to play a role, both the infected and the non-infected. The moment someone is infected both sides quarantine themselves appropriately, and if they decide to fail to do so and infection spreads, is the fault on the infection or on the people that failed to take the appropriate actions for the infection not to spread?

I can see what you mean. But the infection obviously spread because of all those things combined. And that's the point.

Again, the behaviour comes from the values of the people... I already said this a good number of times but you keep trying to remove the fault from the guilty, people, and onto anything that lacks guilt or agency, like the system of competition. Competition doesn't force people to act wrongly, or else everyone that competed would act wrongly. The only factor of variation is people, not Competition, which is why the results vary depending on the people instead of depending on the system. If only people that act properly compete, no one will break the rules.

Well, I mean that competing people act wrongly is kind of what I tried to say the whole time. But to me it seems you just mean something differently when talking about "competition". And as I said earlier relying on people competing "properly" (not breaking the rules) is very hopeful to say the least.

We had really different upbringings, I was never told anything like that. I was told my future depended mostly on my own efforts and that if I wanted to succeed, I should try my best, and if I failed, determine what I did wrong and how I can improve to succeed later.

I just used typical examples. And it's not like what you just stated is that much different. But it sounds like it was better than the usual.

Look, there is no unicorn tree. Food doesn't magically appear. If there was an unlimited supply of food we could use, we wouldn't have any need for competition. Competition appears to solve a problem, some relevant, some less relevant. Producing Food to sustain the population is a much more relevant problem than deciding which Football team can perform the best in a given season.

Yes, but we should still try to minimize the amount of competition we need. And no, that doesn't require a "unicorn tree". We just need to share more. Instead we're stuck "competing" all the time. To say it this way: If we all cooperated we would be closer to that "unicorn tree".

Honestly, if I actually need to explain to you why the need for competition is there in economic terms, this is pointless to discuss.

Oh, is it? To be fair currently it seems rather that this entire discussion is leading nowhere.

The root problem is people without values that act improperly and break the rules. Don't try to remove the fault from where it belongs. This is what makes humans unique, the capability to decide how to act freely and the flaw that this also means some will act in a bad way. We are the beings capable of distinguishing whether our actions are good or bad.

Aha! I think I can see the problem now. You still believe in "free will", right? Gotcha. As I already stated: "Free will" doesn't make sense. It would imply action without cause. Debunked!

Your values come from the environment you were brought up in. If the values you were taught weren't the proper ones, that means the people in your environment also didn't have proper values, since they didn't teach you the proper values. Again, people with lack of proper, good values are the problem.

And why don't they have those?

No, the infected people are innocent until proven guilty. You don't kill infected people, you quarantine them so the infection doesn't spread. They didn't commit any death penalty punishing crime like the ones I said. If they did and they are infected, they should be killed, but it's not because they are infected, it's because of the crime they committed. Getting infected is not a crime.

Good to hear that. Because bad behavior is basically the exact same thing. People are influenced by their environment and then act accordingly. Case closed.

Well, Hitler was born like other people, then he lived his unique life path, which everyone has their own, and that lead him to the horrors that we know. And you might want to blame his father for beating the hell out of him almost all of his young life as well as other factors for his crimes, and his father lack of values did influence him a lot, but again, every human still has the ability to decide how to act and if they want to retain the values they were taught. While the blame for turning Hitler into what he was is partly other people with lack of values, his actions afterwards were still his fault, he still decided to keep the values and not see them as a problem.

Every humans has the "ability to decide how to act"? No, not really. It depends almost entirely on the environment/upbringing/experience. And the rest might be genes. Everything else doesn't make any sense whatsoever since it has no basis in reality.

Whenever you are put under a tremendous amount of pressure, it is still your decision whether or not to crack. You still have the ultimate decision, regardless of how difficult it might be to hold or as opposed to the easy of giving in.

If I just think I can lift this 1,000,000 kg thing I can do it! Yeah, right... because that's how reality works...

Incorrect, Human History proves otherwise. Government mandated Social Safety Nets are a recent thing, before these existed, all you had were voluntary ones, and they worked great. And the problem is when you implement Government mandated ones, the voluntary ones tend to disappear, or are ever relinquished by the government, or by their attempts. But this because of a political incentive that exists, voter dependency. Which again, is political and I can explain in a Message if you'd like to not infringe the forum rules.

And that proves what exactly? Certainly not that competition makes it so that "decent" people naturally come into positions of high power.

You're only going to beat up someone else physically if that is the competition you are in. Otherwise, if you mean metaphorically, I don't mean destroy them. I mean do your best performance. You are thinking of competition as trying to destroy the opponents as badly as possible. Competition is about doing your best performance and hoping that is enough to be the winner.

Just like I thought. Your definition of "competition" is completely different from mine. No, a competition for me is not necessarily to "destroy them as badly as possible", but still to win at all costs. Anything else is just some weird thing that doesn't make much sense to me.

Again, mindset. Competing is trying to be the best, to perform the best, not about trying to make the others lose. When your mindset is to try and make the others lose rather than to perform the best, you easily turn to breaking the rules, because you are much more likely to try and create an unfair advantage for you and make sure the others lose.

Well, I wouldn't say so. In any "competition" there is either a need that others lose or in the worse kind it even requires you consciously to make the other/s lose. And I wouldn't say this has anything to do with "mindset". It's just what competition calls for.

A Contract requires all parties to accept for it to be a Contract. If parties don't accept the terms, the rules of the Contract, it is not a Contract... If all parties accepted, that means the rules are fair to all parties... And you can make the Contract.

And what if someone talked you into the contract? But of course if everyone accepted (for whatever reason that may be) it's "fair" to all parties so you shouldn't complain. I learned something from this once. To avoid any contract and any trade and anything that could be used against me later on. Except of course what is absolutely necessary or appears to be so. But most importantly: Dont. Trust. Anyone. Great, right?

They are polar opposites, one is based on individual freedom, the other is based on full control of the individuals, that is about as different as it gets. Capitalism is not a dictatorship. It is fully based on consent. You are free to do as you see please as long as you don't infringe the limited rules. You decide how to use your time, you decide how much your time is worth, you decide how much your production is worth, you decide whether you want to dispense with either your time or production as you see fit. This doesn't exist under Communism. You are forced piece of the puzzle the government decides you are, and they will force you to do as they see fit.

And of course under "capitalism" the big corporations have to influence over you whatsoever... It's just not all the power at the top. It's still based upon money and trade. The government there is like one big giant corporation. Two sides of the same shitty coin.

The role of the government is and should be and be limited to, protection of life, liberty and property of the individuals in it's jurisdiction. Free Market has rules that are needed for it to work properly, they few but they do exist. Government's only role in the Free Market is to punish those that do not follow those rules. They have no other role in the Economy. One can talk about tariffs, but again, that comes as a response to a rule broken in the Free Market and you are simply correcting it.

And what's your point here? The government has to directly interfere with the "economy" everytime they need to enforce a law. So it's entirely interconnected.

What? I said you should be allows to play the game in the way you want, as long as it doesn't break the rules. If you want to play in a way that breaks the rules, it means you want to play in a way that gives you an unfair advantage.

No, it just means I want to play differently. With a "competitive mindset" you of course think immediately of an "unfair advantage", but I wasn't talking about the "competitive" side of things. You know, some people just want to play for fun.

We do have access to what we want,, we already have that. No one is telling you you cannot play something, not unless that something gives you an unfair advantage, but that is obviously against the rules, and in this case, the rules can be enforced digitally for the most part. There's still bots and such but those eventually get taken care of.

Oh, really? I can go to the US server I never played on and make any deck there is? Wow, amazing! Except... I can't.

Man is really putting up a fight to justify being a loser

Cooperative winning - Eggs Inc's multiplayer is a contract system where you and a group of folks have to meet certain conditions together to win. There have also been a couple Tavern Brawls with a similar concept of no longer "me vs you" but "me and you vs the AI". EIther of these (or even bot) would make me feel much better about continuing time and spending money in the game.

 

Then the question becomes, why are you starving in the first place? How did you put yourself in that position?

That would imply that everything depends entirely on you. That's not how the world works. You have some influence over that, but if the actions of other people lead to it, you might not be able to do anything about it. Not everyone can be an expert in all fields. Society is all about humans acting with one another and doing more than they could do themselves alone. So it doesn't make sense to just say it's the exclusive fault of the individual.

You already answered, just like I did, Values. And these are independent of competition, not mutually exclusive. And I already answered where they come from. I'm going to stop repeating myself every time you ask something I already gave the answer in previous posts.

Well, as I tried to make clear: Those answers don't tell me something useful. You did say it is the environment and upbringing, but then just talked about other people behaving in those ways. That's like saying someone becomes infected with a disease because they met with people that were already infected. It doesn't say where this infection might have started. So, again: Where do you think our values originate from?

It is how it plays out generally, that is why competitions work in the first place. Whenever you have rules broken in a competition, this always leads to problems.

And I would say in a "pure" competition people are incentivised to break the rules, so...

No one is forcing you to compete, you compete if you want. You can argue that it is a necessity because nothing drops down from the sky, products and services need to be produced and provided by other people, but that just helps the argument, it is this fact that should tell you that since nothing falls from the sky, unless you try to be productive, unless you improve and try to accomplish something, you will not be able to survive.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try your best, be productive, improve and so on. The problem with competition is that you need to "beat" others. You could achieve all that without making other people feel bad and behave hostile. And saying that you're not forced to compete may apply to something like HS, but certainly not if you want to find a job for example. And that's the problem.

But you have to understand between not being able to survive, and being killed. Not being able to survive means you failed to create the conditions for your own survival, it is up to you to do so. If you lived in an island without other people, you wouldn't have anyone to ensure your survival, you have to do it yourself. This is the principle at play here. You should have to do something to survive and do it on your own. If you can do it by cooperating and improving in a society, great, that is why we create societies, but this is a voluntary contract you make, which also makes you obliged to adhere to the rules that are decided. No one is killing you because they are competing and outperforming you.

It doesn't work like that. If I don't want to "play this game" (free market, capitalism, however you want to call it) where could I even go? All the land is "owned" by someone and I'm still vulnerable to those with high power in "the game". (Like they can just come and take everything from me since I can't defend myself.) And yes, in effect (even though indirectly) people are killing one another when they compete and outperform except of course when they actually care about the other person/s. I guess it now really depends on what you mean with "competition", but to me it's doing everything to win without regard to the other party. And that might turn out to be really bad.

The infection, again, is a living being (well, the virus or bacteria), per say. It will spread because that is how it operates. Competition is not a living being that will act independently...

It was just a comparison. Of course "competition" in and of itself doesn't do it. But the general idea behind it causes it. As I already said we're probably just talking about different interpretations of "competition".

How exactly does free will not make sense, to you? Are you telling me that is you are brought up in X environment, and face Y conditions, your action will always be Z? Because that is what you have to believe if you don't think free will makes sense. Otherwise, if you know that you, despite the previous circumstances X and Y, can still decide to take other actions other than Z, you understand free will.

Having wrong values, or lacking good values, is something taught to you in your environment, but you still decide to follow that course of action yourself, hence why I say people without good values. You can have every circumstance surrounding you lead you in a path, that still doesn't mean you will follow that path. You still, ultimately, have a choice.

They don't have them because their environment didn't teach them, nor did they decide to look for them. It always comes down to lack of values, to poor decisions.

No, you are not a living being that will always act exactly the same way when faced with the same circumstances. You have the option of choice and of decision, which other living beings don't do. But if you don't agree with this, there is literally no point in the discussion at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjy-FU6tqPI

People have the ability to overcome overwhelming odds, they don't have the ability to overcome the laws of physics, at least no solely with their body. There are people that will not crack and betray trust even under physical torture, yet you also see people that will crack and rob others just because of jealousy. Is it possible that the people that don't crack under torture can handle more pressure than the jealous ones?

Yes, exactly. But the point is there might be a limit. And in this case you're just punishing great performance. I think we should try to avoid that if possible.

If someone talked you into a contract that is not beneficial to you, either you failed to recognise that, or in case you have some legal grounds to stand on, do what is needed to rectify the problem. Usually, it always tends to fall on your side, the blame that is. Don't ever sign a contract without reading everything in the contract.

You can see it that way. But that doesn't make it "fair". And you can always put the blame on either side since contracts work in both ways. The main problem: With contracts you can dominate and force other people to whatever. And some people might not comprehend it and thus get "exploited".

Incorrect. Corporations don't have power over you. You are free to engage with them as you see fit. The Government has power over you. They are the ones that have the power to force you or to force something on you. Corporations cannot force you to buy their products or work for them if you don't want. Government will force you to pay taxes or any other act they decide you are required to do, and they will use all the force they have at their disposal if you refuse. It is a very different situation.

I guess corporations don't have the military, but it's still very similar. They "force" you by making "offers you can't refuse". For example big corporations that can offer products for cheap and that's the only thing you can afford. But I guess you can choose how to "get fucked".

Now, the Government doesn't need to directly interfere with the Economy to enforce a law or rule. They interfere with the people or group that is breaking the rule or law. That is what they should do rather, not always how they operate, and that is part of the problem, they don't limit their interference to what should be.

But people are part of the "economy"? I mean there's another reason the separation doesn't make sense: Money. Everything is based upon money (or rather trade). So this general "get money out of politics" cannot work. It's one big thing. It's just that "government" is a little different, but not much.

I don't understand. How are you exactly not allowed to play as you want if the way you want to play is not against the rules and doesn't give you an unfair advantage? What are you incapable of doing, what is the way you want to play that is not permitted?

That wasn't my point? As I said (as weird as it may sound to you) some people just want to have some fun. And meme decks don't generally have a chance against netdecks to say it that way. It would also be better if people would experiment with all kinds of different decks. As I said I don't really care much for the "competitive" side of things.

That last part is nonsensical. Because that breaks the rules. The rules are you have a separate collect in each server and if you want to go to a different server you start anew. What you want is not within the rules. And it would give you an unfair advantage, since everyone follows the same rule, everyone starts anew in a different server.

"Follow de rules!"

No, seriously. Of course it's not within the current rules, but that doesn't make the rules a good thing. I would rather see this game offering everything for free and be financed via crowdfunding. You can disagree with me on that, but that was basically my point.

Holy light you put a lot of effort writing that text! ^

Too bad most people are not gonna read it.

There is nothing stopping you from seeking land that you can use and generating your own food. I mean this in reality, in the real physical world, if you live in a free country.

"Free" country. Whatever that means. And I would say no. If someone has no money or anything else to trade most people wouldn't let them have that land. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I'm not saying it's a better alternative to cooperating with others to make food generation a simpler and more efficient task, but nothing is truly preventing you.

Really? What do you then mean with "prevention"? You can't just take any resources you need without trading something like money in return. I'm not saying this isn't justified (by the rules indeed), but obviously I would say that "prevents" you from doing that. And since competition is still the dominant thing, cooperation has not much chance yet to say it that way.

Also, about 90% of everything that influences your life, the life of any average human being, is fully dependant on them. You are only mostly dependant on your parents and environment to form you for your young years, during which you still maintain a lot of control, specially the older you get.

What do you mean with "fully dependant"? There are always outside influences you have to take into account.

After that, it is mostly just about how you decide to progress in life. There are always external factors that will affect you, but ultimately, you still hold the decision to let those factors actually dictate your progress.

And where does this decision/s come from? Thin air? Magic? I'm curious.

Few of those factors are completely out of your control and will be truly forced upon you.

At least on that I can agree, I think.

You are trying to ask me how people that lacked values started to appear? I wasn't present when humans first came to being. All I can tell you is that it was a conscious decision that they made, because ultimately, the decision to follow that path of no values, was still from those people.

Interesting. I would add: And they had a damn good reason for following this path. (Spoiler: I don't know what that reason was.)

It is the mere fact that we are creatures with free will that creates this possibility.

Lol. What is this "free will" anyways. Something actually based in reality or just a fairytale. As i said: "Free will" doesn't make any sense.

Otherwise, anyone faced with hard circumstances would always decide to take that wrong path and humanity would already be extinct.

Well, I mean "Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do." You might do the "right" thing by taking the "wrong" path so to speak. It's not like good and bad have exact definitions and it all depends on the situation.

Lack of values only leads to destruction over and over.

I agree. And I would say "competition" is part of the problem. But I can also understand that you mean something quite different when you're talking about "competition".

Some people will be incentivized to break the rules, most will not.

I would rather say it's the other way around.

That is just about as ridiculous as it gets. How else are you supposed to decide who to employ for a job? You decide based on their performance. If you want a job, you need to provide the best performance to guaranteed you get that job.

I can see. But everyone needs money and therefore it's mostly a forced competition that incentivizes to break the rules since people try to avoid dying. And that's bad.

Competition isn't about "beating" the other person by forcing them to perform worse than you, it's about you performing your best and hoping that best is better than the best of others.

That's the ideal scenario, but in the real world it always deteriorates to "beating" the other person.

Until you realise this, it is going to be extremely difficult for you to understand competition and why it is not a problem.

I just can't see how this is better than cooperation. As I said earlier why take the risk of competition if cooperation is as good if not better.

People should be incentivized to perform their best, that never guarantees they will win, but it always guarantees they have the best chance they can get. When they want to guarantee they win, they break the rules and instead, they force others not to have the best performance, by granting themselves an unfair advantage.

I mean, you know, the rules of the game could be rigged. So "breaking the rules" in the eyes of those breaking may just be a "fair advantage". Of course 99% of the time people just want to win since it sucks to lose and it's an "unfair advantage", but you just can't balance everything perfectly also.

Incorrect, there is still unclaimed territory on Earth. It is not much, but there are territories that do not belong to any person or country.

Okay, I didn't said useful/habitable/arable land, but I thought this was obvious. And even if: How do you get there? Everything good is "owned" and people will use force to protect it.

No, the only way to indirectly kill someone else is to take an action which consequences actively kill that person. You cannot kill someone by outperforming them in a competition if that competition doesn't require or ensure the death of the losers. Anything else is just trying to blame someone for your own fails. This is why you cannot accuse someone who performed better than you and took the job you wanted, but you can actually accuse companies who pollute water sources of murder if said pollution lead to deaths from that source, or you can accuse someone of murder even if they didn't kill you, but hired a third party to perform the murder.

Well, that's a very limited way of thinking. For example there was a (in their eyes) good reason to pollute the water source and this should be considered. It's not like consequences stop with the next person/thing. A lot of things are interconnected.

Your failure to survive while free and not being forced any lethal procedure or factor, but simply your own body's needs, isn't being killed.

"Free"? What is that? And something like starving is a leathal factor. Using no force just makes it indirectly. But apparently you don't see it that way for some reason.

Competing is doing everything within the rules to outperform the other parties. The moment you do something outside the rules, you are not competing, and that is generally when you are doing something bad towards the other parties.

With that definition your replies do make sense, I think. But I still don't see competition that way.

Regarding the video, he is correct in most things regarding how heavily our environment and factors shape us, but his premise falls apart the moment anyone with the same factors decides to take a different course of action. You can have twins with the same genetic make-up, the same environment and impositions on them, yet they will take different actions despite having the same factors on them. By his premise, it is impossible that a single human being faced with the same factors will decide differently at any point.

It's not the same environment. That's impossible. I can't stand where you currently stand. There will always be little differences. And also: What else would cause people to behave that way. It really doesn't make sense. Action without cause.

Again, if you weren't forced into the contract, whose fault is it exactly that you decide to accept the rules of the contract that didn't benefit you in the first place? It's yours.

And that's a great way to make people trust one another? I guess it might not be about that. But I just find that disgusting.

There are no offers you cannot refuse unless they actually force you to accept the offer. Enticing offers are not offers you cannot refuse, they are offers that you want to accept voluntarily, that you are not forced to accept. If a corporation provides you a product or service that you find enticing, they are not forcing you. If the government decides that you broke a law, they will force you into confinement or whatever the punishment is decided. How can you not understand how brutally different this is?

You choose if you want to buy the product, you do not choose whether or not you get punished by the government. Companies are not going to go after you and physically force you to make a purchase, you can decide to not make that purchase. The Government will go after you, they will literally hunt you down if need be to ensure your punishment. The difference is night and day.

Well, I guess you can choose to die instead, but don't counting that as "force" is rather silly. And I mean if I steal food the corporations need the government to enforce their rules. So it is different, but ultimately it's always about the use of force. Without government power corporations couldn't do anything about people just stealing their stuff.

Yes, people are in the economy, they can present good, services, labour. Government doesn't present these, and when it does, it always ruins the market they are in. Government always has the power to set more rules or restrictions than actually necessary and to their benefit if needed. And these additional regulation that is not needed to operate the market, is going to be forced whether the other free agents in the market want it or not, which is a complete abuse of power.

And what wouldn't be an "abuse of power"? If I steal something because I feel like I was mistreated and they then punish me that might also be "abuse of power" or not. The point is that "absue of power" only a very loose definition.

Companies and persons can dictate the value they think their goods are worth it freely in a free market, and the other side, the demand, decides whether it agrees or not of their own freedom. When the government dictates that employers need to pay a minimum wage the employers don't agree on, when the government dictates the value of goods regardless of whether the supply sees that as the value they are worth it, they will enforce these regulations, the agents in the market are not free to do otherwise, else they are punished by force. By default, the government, being the entity capable of enforcing whatever it deems fit on free agents without retaliation, will always constitute a heavy imbalance of power.

As I said above in such a system you always need punishment by force. Otherwise people can just steal your stuff among other things. And since everything is for sale you can "buy laws" as you see with if you have enough money/power/influence. In other words: It's totally normal it happens and most importantly reveals that the government is just a very speical kind of corporation at it's core. And we general public for that matter also.

As such, government should be left out of everything that it is not required for. Free Agents in a Free market don't need the government for anything aside from enforcing the only few, limited rules required for the market to work.

And what would those laws be? I imagine everyone would say differently. And even if everyone could agree, people with enough power will just try to justify why this extra patchwork or that patchwork is needed and then it becomes a new rule.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. You are free to play whatever deck or strategy is allowed within the rules. It seems to be you want to rig the system so that whatever you decide to play can actually be successful. You don't want the option to play the way you want, you want the option to play the way you want and have that way you want be forced to be successful, which again, is against the rules because it gives you an unfair advantage. You want to arbitrarily decide that what you want should be allowed to succeed even if you cannot do so when you freely try and fail.

You're still thinking way to much in terms of competition. I. Don't. Care. For. Your. Fucking. Competitions.

And for the record, I would also personally love it if Blizzard implemented options to customise matchmaking for Casual Mode, there is no reason I can think of for them not to implement it as it has no competitive impact, but obviously, these should be optional for players to use.

Or are you? I don't get it.

As for preferring Crowdfunding with everything free, well, you are free to create your own game and have it financed that way. I personally really disagree. If they felt that model would be more successful, they would have adopted it.

Well, that's true. But I don't care about their "success". They should rather try to make a great game. Good thing it already is.

And also: If someone wanted to recreate HS there would be copyright laws in place. I'm just curious: Are those rules to you one of the few that are necessary for this weird "free market" or an "abuse of power"?

I am generally against Crowdfunding. If by this, you mean some people decide to fund the project and hope it gets completed and gets launched. Otherwise, Hearthstone is crowdfunded, since everyone can play and if people want, they can spend money in the game.

The idea that if people were given everything for free and that if they wanted they could contribute is a fun idea, which when it comes to practice always fails, specially in the real world. In Video Games, it can work, because there is no real need being fulfilled by video games, they are purely a distraction that people can live without if they want.

By crowdfunding I mean what you described in the second paragraph. Goods/services distributed freely and people are free to support it.

And on the general failure I will say this: It's exactly this competitive market model (or "free market" if you will) that makes that fail. As I said earlier it's irrational to cooperate in a competition and that's basically what happens here. "You give something for free? Let's take advantage of that. You fool!" And people like you then come and say "Well, that was their fault." and when suggesting on changing the rules "No, the rules are fine. People just have to compete properly."

So this is why it fails. If you don't like it and rather like it how it currently is, fine. But the important thing: It's not inherently a bad idea. Indeed I would argue it's much better since it doesn't force you at all. It's all voluntary. If I want a product/service I have the choice to not buy, but if I want it I have to spend the money first and not afterwards. (Otherwise the market calls the government to punish me.) That also makes it prone to tactics that disguise the usefullness and such, but rather try to talk you into it since then they can enforce the contract.

Free Country, where the government doesn't decide what innocent people get to do with their lives or how to live them, or what they are allow to say or think, so on.

So no country. That's what I thought. (Seriously, you even admited that there have to be rules and thus you are limited in what you're allowed to do. Or maybe you mean it differently?)

If the land is not claimed, they don't have to. If the land is claimed, then that means if you want it, you have to trade it for something they want.

Yes? As I said trade and thus people seeking "competitive advantage" without regard to other factors is part of the problem. Of course there are always exceptions, but that this "trading" (instead of sharing) is the norm can lead to a buch of different problems.

You cannot use resources that are owned by others. Not all resources on earth are owned. Few are not owned, you can use those few if you don't want to trade people for theirs. And you do have a resource that every human being has, their time, which can be traded for money or goods if you want. This is called work, you dispense with your free time in exchange for another resource.

I mean you're just stating what is obvious in our current system. The problem with trade is that it naturally leads to what you might call "power imbalance" and depending on how "serious" you take the "competition" you will "abuse" that "power" to your advantage. Again, it depends on what you see as a "competition", but bending the rules of said "competition" to favor you is not some abnormalcy since the main point is to "win" the "competition" and if you can "conseal" it no one might notice and you're still the "winner". It's something you can only "fight" with even more rules, regulations, and more rigid enforcement of said laws. And volià welcome to our society today.

What I mean is that even with outside influences, in the end, you still have control to act upon those influences.

Free Will, your ability to make decisions based on the circumstances and have that decision be your choice. You have the choice of acting as you see fit, even if that means taking no action. You can decide to follow your needs or not to follow them, to follow your intuition or not follow it.

That's what most people think. I disagree. As already said "free will" would mean "action without cause" and that doesn't make sense.

Humans can make that decision which other animals and living beings cannot.

That's about as arrogant as it gets. But maybe you're right if you can answer this: Why? What is so different about us? And please keep things in reality. If you can't pinpoint something down in reality it's like believing in god. You're free to do that, but don't act as this is something other people should blindly accept.

It is not a forced competition. You are not forced into competition, you decide to enter competition because if benefits you. You have the option to not compete, no one is actually forcing you, physically forcing you to compete.

Hmm, what do I do? Compete with others to survive or die? As I said it doesn't apply to everthing (for example HS), but some things are "indirectly" "forced" upon you. If I feel I need to compete for a job in order to get money so I'm allowed to live in a (generally) very limited way then all of this is "forced" by everyone else participating in society. And all I say is that it doesn't need to be this way.

Because Cooperation is not always better. If you have a competition where a solitary company is competing a group of companies, and they are producing a multifaceted product whose production is divided among the companies in the group, but the solitary company it produces all the whole product, the quality of the product in the solitary company will be as good as this single entity can make, while the quality of the product in the group of companies will only be as good as the quality of the company in the group that produces the least quality components.

The thing about cooperation is that the majority of the time, when cooperating, you are only going to be as good as the worst party in the cooperation.

Think about it this way, you can have a race. In this race, you decide if you want to race alone or with one of your ankles tied to a cooperator. If you decide to race alone, you will race as fast as you can race, if you race with a cooperator, you will only race as fast as the slowest of the pair.

Can you only think of cooperation in terms of team vs team competition? When I talk about cooperation I don't mean cooperating to act like a single entitiy in a "normal competition". Your reasoning in this limited way of thinking is correct though. Of course "cooperating" is not always superior if you want to "beat" another group or individual.

What I generally mean when talking about "cooperation" is trying to help one another without worrying that they will keep it all for themselves if that makes sense to you. In a "competition" you could be sharing ideas and resources, but as I said many times it would be irrational. Why should I help you if your success comes at the price of mine?

It doesn't matter if they believe they had a good reason to pollute the water. What matters is whether they did pollute it or not, and whether that killed people or not. Death is extremely rarely ever justified. You, or they, wouldn't be able to present an actual good reason to justify it that would hold up against the law.

Wow, just wow. You're not even interested in why they did it? That's just plain ignorant. That way I can see why you think it's so important to enforce rules and punish people. In reality that might just not work out so well as pointed out before. You can only investigate why someone behaved that way and then try to alter that condition if possible. If you don't agree on that further discussion seems almost pointless.

Failing to survive because your body is not being fed is not a lethal factor. This is not an external factor to you, it is your own body that is shutting down. Lethal procedure or factor, as it seems wasn't clear, is something inflicted upon you externally, not something that happens from within, and by from within, that naturally develops in your body, even if you were sealed inside a case and completely immune to external factor.

Well, that's an interesting definition. Okay. Weird.

What you say doesn't make sense is the premise of free will. Humans have the ability to take a course of action that no matter what number of parameters you decide to account for, you will never be able to explain said choice and it's divergence from others.

Yes, that doesn't really make sense. Everything has a reason even if you cannot determine that.

We are the only beings capable of breaking rules. Can you think of any other being that can break the laws of physics like we can, on their own, without the help of humans and their tools? For example, how many animals that cannot physically fly create or engineer a mechanism to break this restriction and take to the sky, like we humans did?

That's not breaking the laws of physics. It's using tools to allow us to fly. But I think it's true that we humans are the only ones that can great use of tools. Although it depends on what you mean with "tool" also. For example a bird may pick up a nut and to get off the shell they might fly high with it to let it fall and thus breaking off the shell. In a way one could even say that's also "breaking the laws of physics" if you so want.

We have the option to decide whether to obey rules or to break them if it is humanly possible. There is a reason this itself is an expression, "humanly possible". You don't see other beings breaking the rules like we do.

I guess we are the ones that "break the rules" most often by the given definition. It's why we're the dominant species. That allowed us to adapt to all kinds of situations. Understandable in that regard.

Also, if every action has a cause, you, by said premise are required to be able to identify and specify what each cause lead to each action, why each divergence from said action occurred. Every single human action having a cause means you can predict not every actions any single human can make, but what actual action they will take. Obviously, I hope you understand that if at any point you fail to make a correct prediction, the entire premise falls apart. Hell, most human massacres would have been prevented because you can predict exactly what will happen. This is what every human action having a cause means, the entire future can be predicted and detailed right away, without any room for error.

That's an extremely backwards way of thinking that doesn't make any sense. By your premise that everything else has no "free will" I can immediate return what you said by replacing human with non-human and that is equally stupid. The important thing is: If we do not know enough we cannot make accurate predictions. Yes, this is true. But this has nothing to do with the underlying assumption that everything has a cause.

Again, as I explained earlier, Governments exist with the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property. And by protecting, I don't mean from their own failure, I mean from other humans.

Government exists to prevent other humans from taking away your life, your liberty and your property.

I'm not sure what exactly you're refering to now, but I mean it doesn't even make that much sense. What if I want to kill someone or steal something? Isn't that a "liberty"? I guess you said there are fundamental laws, but what are those? And will those be enough? As we can see in our current world today, it wasn't apparently. It all depends on the laws and people can think of many different laws they might agree upon because they think it's good, but that doesn't make them good. And let's not speak about laws put into place to favor only some people. You might not call it "free market", but this is just what will eventually grow out of it so to speak.

It doesn't matter if you feel mistreated. It matters if your feeling is justified, if you can prove it to justify breaking the rules. Stealing cannot really be justified as a rule to be broken, which means you have no way to justify. You can justify killing people if you can prove they were actually endangering you in a real, eminent way.

"Justified"? I guess that refers to said rules. As I said rules come and go and even if you would like only enough to make it work, that's not the general tendency as we can see in the world today. And who knows what arbitrary rules humans may come up with next. The point is: If someone with enough power/influence feels mistreated they can, in our current system, "justify" it. If it's either by making a new law, bending existing ones, or just by convincing people to make an exception for whatever reason.

Hence why it is important to remove powers from the Government when those powers are not needed for government to perform it's job. Governments interfere in far more areas of society than they need to.

Well, the point is: Government does its job. It's just that people with enough power/influence abuse it like any other "tool" at their disposal because of their main focus on "profit". And this has a lot to do with "competition". Except of course you wouldn't call that "competition" anymore from what I can tell.

And how should it be any different. Of course government is setup by people with a lot of power to protect the established system. This is no surprise. I guess you can say that it got "corrupted", but as far as I'm concerned that's just the way things go due to the premise of the system.

The rules to run Free Market as very much in line with the rules that are needed to protect what the Government is created to protect. Almost no other rule is required.

Well, that's a nice roundabout way to say it. It's also completely open for interpretation and personal opinion. In essence, at least to me, it doesn't say anything.

How exactly do you not care for my competitions if you already stated that what you want is to be able to be successful, to be able to win, which by default, means you care about the competition? Do you even realise you are contradicting yourself?

Hmm. I guess that's a good point. I just don't like losing. And the only alternative in a competitive game like HS is winning. I guess what I'm saying is that I care more about having fun and in such a game and for me to have fun I would like to have a chance. As I said initally I feel just making a "competitive game" is a "inherent design flaw" when it comes to making people enjoy the game. Although I do admit, that if you don't overdo it, it's not as bad. Just like with such a rating system. You still try to win, but not as much because your opponent doesn't like losing. That's the idea.

Yes, Copyright is one of the rules necessary because copyright is simply a rule to protect intellectual property. You cannot recreate Hearthstone without infringing on their intellectual property, Hearthstone, Warcraft and so on are all property of Blizzard, a universe created by them and if you want to use anything related to it, you need their license.

I guess I didn't say anything about the specifics, but from what I heard copyright law was changed numerous times to increase the "lifespan" of the copyright even beyond the author's death so that companies can further "capitalize" on it. So as much as you would like there to be "basic rules" and don't want any further, people will argue that all those new laws are necessary and thus we now have society as it is. But just because I'm curious again: What would be the specifics for a "basic rule" in that regard?

You can create a similar game with similar mechanics that doesn't use any of the property that is under their copyrights, and be as successful as possible according to what the market, demand, decides.

Yes of course, but it's still an artifical limitation imposed by what you may call "free market". So much for "freedom". But I guess if those are the rules "freedom" doesn't matter anymore. And people trying to skew the rules because the system incentivizes taking advantage at every opportunity is just an "abnormality" that just needs people to be punished more by force to "get in line" again and respect the old "basic laws" again since nothing else is "needed" apparently.

No, it fails because there cannot be free supply when there is no free unlimited source of resources. Fact is, the moment you provide free goods and services, you are no longer operating a free market. There is no exchange in free goods and services, nothing is exchanged in return for them, it is not a free market, no trades taking place.

And no "trades" taking place is desireable in my view. Only because you don't consider it a "free market" doesn't mean the "free market" can't take advantage of that. And that's what happens in a environment where the "free market" is still a thing. That was my point. And it certainly isn't doomed to fail. It just relies more on more concern for the others (maybe something very strange to you) unlike the "free market" where it's more about narrow self-interest as you can say enforce a contract you talked someone into for example.

What you want is called Socialism. "To each according to his needs from each according to his ability", everyone can freely take what they want depending on what they need, and those that can contribute do so. In real world, where resources are not virtually created like in Hearthstone, this doesn't work. You have a long history showcasing it and why.

No. What I want is that people care more about others instead of this silly "if everyone does what is best for them it will magically lead to a prosperous society" dogma. From what I know of these "-isms" the big problem always was that people tried to superimpose their ideas politically with laws. And forcing people to do anything might easily fail because you have to be extremely rigid and people generally don't like it when they don't understand why it's supposed to be this way and how that's better than it already is.

In the real world, there is no such thing as you wanting a product/service and being able to have it if that product or service belongs to others. Which it almost always does, as you are not creating it yourself. If you do create it yourself, that product or service is yours to do with as you please.

Well, as I said earlier the notion of ownership is just an idea, an invention. It doesn't have to be this way. And just think of how you can even prove that you own something. It's just some papers and people agreeing upon that. It's not something "real". Although most tend to follow those "rules", there are also people that wouldn't see it that way. And I'd say: Sharing is better than trading with this ownership notion.

In Hearthstone, it can work, or any other virtual reality where resources can be generated as they see fit. Developers can dump trillions of gold and dust into any account without it actually having impact since that literally materialises in the game out of thin air.

Or, you know, there wouldn't be gold and dust in the first place since it's unnecessary if everyone has access to everything which could easily be done in a game like HS.

And in the same way if we cooperated all and didn't compete since there would be less waste of human and natural resources I'd say enough abundance could be achieved in many areas in the real world as well. Although I can see why you would disagree on that. And that's okay. It's just that this "cooperation instead of competition" has to start somewhere and therefore I say: Maybe you want to consider cooperating instead of competing since the latter is generally really waste- and harmful in comparison. And maybe someday also people like you can see the value in sharing rather than trading.

Quote from Thaulopi >>

I can sense your fingers tingling to call me libtard or snowflake, but bare with me! In this, short, thread, I will try to explain why loss evasion is a thing and will ask you how to add this to a given computer game.

Most people hate to lose because inherently we are afraid of losing value, things, family members, lovers, keys...the list is endless. What we gained, we hate to lose, because sometimes our efforts are denied and on top of that, what follows in today's "I am winning" societies is sneer.

Just think of the last time you developed a fine board and bam Mechathun destroys your dreams, your number is diminished, 30 mins of close evaluation, card reading, keeping your ae are denied, nill and void.

How do you feel? Happy?

Property is a defining aspect of an proprietor society and is associated with success and positive traits. Taking this away, takes away self esteem and sometimes reason. Want prove? Just go to youtube and watch gamer rage videos.

These people are angry, yes, we should deride them, mock them, feel superior? Well, for my part, this is not a desirable reaction. So, I am asking myself and you:

What could be the alternative?

Tell me, how you would design a game that does not punish the loser by taking away hard earned currency of any given type and does not favour the winner solely.

I am curious.

 

 Get good. Fuck sakes, the rank 25 community is back at it again. Its fucking ranked. You fuck or get fucked. You lose to Mech Thun your decks to slow, so try something else. ADAPT AND OVERCOME. The ranked system has been modified so it is easier to climb I mean It's 3 stars to go from rank 20 to 15. Took me 30 minutes to go from 18 to 15. You can check my Yt for that video. Try a new deck and earn the harsh reality of HS. Good luck to ya OP

Oh for all that's good can you just stop please. Flooding our notifications with politics and topics not even related to this bloke's questions (anymore). Seriously,take it on Discord or something.

Politics without Polis is just autocracy. Democracy without Demos is just a fraud. Philosophy without sofia is just imbecility and life without meaning is just a waste of time. This thread has shown me one thing, my grand-daughters will grow up to live in a unyielding, relentless future where they will either be a perpetrator or a victim. Thus, I will teach them to be a perpetrator...Farewell, i am out

Quote from Thaulopi>>

Thus, I will teach them to be a perpetrator...

Wise choice, dude, wise choice. :)

 

Actually, most Western Countries are, to higher or lower extents. Innocent people doing what they want, I guess I should have made it more specific, within the rules that are required for the society to work, which are the rules made to protect Life, Liberty and Property, which the Government exists to protect. Innocent people are free to do as they see fit as long as they do not infringe on these rights of others. For a society to work, everyone needs to respect the rights of the others.

If you put it this way - yes, of course.

There is this saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", shouldn't be to difficult to understand. Do anything you want, but don't do anything you wouldn't want others to do to you. You wouldn't want people infringing your right to life, to liberty or to property, so don't infringe on their right either. If you don't respect those rights, you cannot live in a society, it doesn't work well.

This doesn't really work since others can be, you now, different. You should always try to understand the other person. Only relying on yourself and projecting it onto others might work in some or even most cases, but certainly not always.

Why would sharing be the norm? If you used your time to produce something, why should you have to share it without receiving anything in return? You are free to do that if you want voluntarily, it's called charity, but otherwise, it is perfectly normal to want to trade you property for other property voluntarily instead of just giving it away. If everyone just collects a pool of resources and everyone can just use them as they see fit without regards for who actually collected the resources, why would the people collecting the resources do so if others can just use them without contributing?

Did I say it would be the norm? I say it should be the norm. The problem with trade is that it works well until, for whatever reason, there is a big problem. In trades you try to get your advantage and thus in times of need you can just "abuse your power" you have gotten from trades to dominate the others. If instead you would be more sharing you would also be more caring about the other. And it's not unthinkable. It's like a mother that loves her child unconditionally. The only thing we would need for it in order to work is to create a abundance of relevant goods and services and teach people better values. But most importantly: It has to start somewhere. Therefore I try to do more sharing and less trading.

Have you ever second guessed your decisions? Have you ever pondered your options and made a decision based on the options? Have you ever witnessed someone make a decision that you would never do in their position even when accounting for the same factors? Have you ever noticed that you have the capability of stopping and taking time to ponder any of these questions instead of solely bothering to fulfil you needs like other animals?

None of that requires the existence of so-called "free will". I'd say this "illusion" is a survival mechanism created by evolution just like our hands. It's a very complex system, but that doesn't mean you can just conclude that everything you don't understand (yet) is some "magical" "free will".

I'm not telling you to believe in God, I don't believe in any of the Gods that religions speak of, at least not as they see them. At the same time, I do not discard the likelihood that there is some entity that can make decisions that we humans cannot hope to explain.

I said it that way because the assumption of a "free will" is also based upon some "faith" as it has no ground in reality. At least you didn't say so yet.

What caused the Big Bang to happen in the first place? What caused living organisms to start existing on Earth? What caused these beings to diversify into cellular and non cellular beings? What caused some to become multi-cellular as opposed to single cell organism? What made these self reproductive organisms move to sexual reproduction? These questions, which some have theories for, are all questions Science cannot answer, some of which, are as far as possible for even attempting and answer.

What do you mean "cannot answer"? On the first I would agree though. On the second I'm not too sure. But the rest is clearly "answered" with the current theory of evolution as far as I know. And please don't say "It's just a theory". Everything in science is a theory until another theroy can be postulated that can be proven to be more in line with reality. That's how science works.

Try to logically even attempt to come up with a reason why self reproductive organisms would ever abandon this property to diverge into two sexes? It has no benefit you can even attempt to reason, nor any factor that could ever explain it.

I guess I cannot say anything about that. But as I said only because we cannot understand it (yet) doesn't mean there is no cause to it.

Until these questions can even be remotely close to an answer, I cannot ever discard the possibility of a higher entity.

Oh, is this all just because I mentioned "god"? I guess I should've never mentioned it... I mean "god" is just another word that people don't even want to properly define I feel. Whatever...

The problem with thinking free will doesn't make sense is that the moment you come across these actions that have no causes, your theory falls apart. Most of these you cannot even think of a causal relation with any factor you can imagine.

Because that makes sense. No, as I said only because we don't know the answer we cannot just conclude it has no cause. To say it that way: Thinking our universe works any other way is an "insane" mindset people need to overcome. With the scientific method you can at least try to determine what is more and less likely and for the most part that's enough to "cope with reality" so to speak. Of course it doesn't mean reality always have to be that, but from our past experiences it makes more sense to conclude that reality has a "logical framework" to it which we can study to make sense of it.

The fact that you had to "indirectly" "forced" should tell you that your argument is pointless. You used quotation marks because you already know you cannot use their literal meaning for your argument, which invalidates you argument. They are not forced on you, you know that, you just don't want to admit it because your argument relies on something being forced on you that actually isn't forced on you.

Well, you can bend the words however you want. It doesn't make it any less brutal. Maybe it shouldn't matter? I mean currently over 10,000 people die each day of starvation and we throw away about 1/3 of all food we see in supermarkets. As I said maybe that's just how it should be, you might say, but it still could be done better. It's not like those poor people even had a chance. But of course you can continue to indirectly exploit others and rationalize it by saying that "indiretly" means it's totally okay. I would disagree though.

But as I said, I have no problem with cooperating to share resources or information. If you want to do that, you are free to do that. I am simply against forcing people to have to cooperate. You should have the option to cooperate or to compete, depending on what you want. You want to force everyone to cooperate, I don't want to force anyone to anything, I want you to cooperate if you want to do that, and to cooperate with others that voluntarily decide to cooperate with you. Nothing is stopping you from doing that.

It seems really we're talking past each other. Did I ever say anthing about forcing people to cooperate? If you think so I didn't meant it that way. I just say it's probably much better than competition.

If you want me to care about the reason why they did it, would you kindly present to me any reason why it would ever be justified? I only care about a reason if there is a possible reason that can justify it, otherwise, if there is no reason that can possibly justify it, why would I care about the reason?

Because it is "justified" in their eyes? One explanation is that say did it to increase profit. Even if there is a fine they would just take this as expenses and it might still be more profitable to do such a bad thing.

That is not breaking the laws of physics. Nothing in the biology of the bird prevents it from picking up that nut, flying and dropping it. That's actually using them. Do I need to tell you that human biology prevents it from flying? You will not see a bird engineer a nutcracker like you see humans engineer an air plane...

The laws of physics prevent humans from actually leaving and surviving outside of the Earth's atmosphere. We are capable of overcoming that with our ingenuity.

Maybe it was a bad example, but as I said a flying machine also doesn't break the laws of physics. The bird wouldn't be able to crack the nut normally, just as humans cannot normally fly if they don't use something like a flying machine. It's exactly the same if you're talking about ingenuity. So I actually was right in my conclusion that you refer to this. But somehow you don't see it that way apparently.

No, the premise is that if you have all the information, you are required to always be able to predict the action because you know the causes. It means that if ever your prediction fails, there was an action without cause. It means, for example, that if I can detail all the information to you about any person, and I have that person draw a painting, you have to be able to detail to me exactly what that painting will be, you have to be able to replicate it without ever seeing it, by knowing all the information that would cause the painting. This applies to every creative field.

That's about as ridiculous as it can get. No, it just means we cannot explain it. But apparently you don't think so. Weird.

If by having fun requires you to have an equal chance to win every single game you play, then you shouldn't be playing a Strategy Card Game. By definition, a strategy card game will put two strategies against one another. Unless the strategies are exactly the same, your chance of winning will never be equal to you opponent.

I don't really care what other people intended the game to be. If I wouldn't have some fun playing it now, I wouldn't play it. I guess you could say I try to make the game something it isn't. But I also don't care about that. If this game would become extremely competitive I would just leave.

The basic rule would be the rights to said intellectual property protects against the use of any names and assets created by the rights holder. These names and assets are all expressly designated when they claim the rights, at least last I checked, unless changed, that was the deal. You cannot use the names and assets except with their license.

So indefinitely then? Okay. Well, then there will eventually be nothing left to work with and a lot of (or maybe even just one) corporation/s control/s all your thinking. A pretty scary future. I hope that won't happen.

Freedom to act as you please doesn't mean freedom to violate the rights of others as I explained above. Freedom needs the basic restrictions because your freedom is to do as you please, not to violate the rights of others. As long as what you wish to do doesn't violate the rights of others, you can do as you want. If what you wish to do violates the rights of others, then that needs to be restricted. We accept those restrictions in our freedom because we value those specific rights. Would you want other people to violate those rights of yours? If no, then you have to accept the contract not to violate those rights of them. Neither you nor them infringe on the rights of each.

And what are those "rights"? But given that it at least makes more sense. But as I mentioned earlier people are very different, also in interpreting "rights" (rules/laws/whatever).

Dude, it is not a free market because it is not even a market by definition. Market is a space where the trade of goods and services takes place...

That's technically true but irrelevant to what I said. You can have those things side-by-side and indeed in our current society it cannot be separated. Even if I would go to some isolated island and implement it the "free market" might come and take/destroy it as they please. It needs to be a shift in general consciousness to work.

If you believe that sharing is better than trading as a system, you might enjoy living in societies that work that way. You might want to try Cuba. Maybe China, although they have been implementing more and more of a gradually freer market so you might not like it. I would say Venezuela but they are currently in the middle of what might be political change and if it succeeds, you will not want to be there, it will likely become prosperous. You just missed your shot there, they have been as you wish for like 20 years...

Incorrect. As far as I know they still use money to do trades.

The sharing notion doesn't work. More over, if ownership doesn't make sense to you, what are you doing all day long? With that perspective, your own free time is not yours, you don't own your free time and as such, you have no right to decide what to do with it, so you should be sharing it, but doing what others want you do to rather than what you want to do. It is not your time, so you shouldn't be using it for your own interests but rather, for the interests of others.

Well, currently I'm sharing my time with you, but I can see how much of a waste that probably is. :)

Again, if we all cooperate voluntarily, there is no problem. The problem only comes when you force people to cooperate. You should be able to cooperate, voluntarily, with anyone that also wants to voluntarily cooperate with you, I have no problem what so ever. My only problem appears when you want people to cooperate even if they don't want to. If people want to compete voluntarily, good, if they want to cooperate voluntarily, good as well. So long as it is not forced, I don't see a problem.

I think if you want to create a community of like minded individuals, that all voluntarily decide to join and cooperate, I think that is fantastic. I just don't want anyone forced to join or to cooperate against their own will. You just have to stop with the whole "if we all" thinking, because if people voluntarily decide what to do, you might see that not everyone will decide to cooperate, and you shouldn't force them to do so even if you think it is better for them. They are not infringing on your rights or anyone else's, and as long as they don't, they shouldn't lose their rights either.

Agreed. (Did I say something different?)

It works because we define objective standards that any sensible human can agree on. This is how we decided on the standards in the first place. You will not find a single sensible human that doesn't wish to have their life, liberty and property protected from others. More than that, and you get into subjective standards, where some people don't care and others do and that means no reason for rules for those. Like say, you might not want to be insulted, I personally don't care, it is a subjective standard, so there is no need for rules. I can safely assume you don't want anyone to take away your life, liberty or property.

As I said it works some of the time, but not always. There are people that don't want to live anymore, "liberty" can mean all sorts of things to people, and "property" would be unnecessary if people had access to desired goods whenever needed.

If you say it should be the norm it means you envision a situation in which it is the norm, hence why I asked why it would be the norm, what would lead to that situation. I asked this because if people wanted it to be the norm, it would be the norm by now. Or in other words, it is not the norm because people don't want it to be the norm, and for it to become the norm, you would need to force it to be the norm as people wouldn't voluntarily want it.

How can you believe in unconditional love if you don't believe in free will? Unconditional love requires there to be an action without cause. That would mean that the love would have no cause, and that no matter what causes could exist, there would be no action derived from those causes. This is impossible if there are no actions without cause because every cause becomes the action that derived from it's own cause. No action without cause means all causes will lead to action. How can love be unconditional if every cause will have an action? Love cannot be unconditional if every cause has an action.

That's just a play of words. What I mean is what happens in reality. You have someone that doesn't put themselves at first priority. As I said an abundance of basic goods and services as well as teaching people better values are required. And this could be possible. At least from a technological perspective.

It is a requirement because without free will there is no choice. You cannot even consider second guessing yourself when you didn't have a choice in the first place.

I guess you can see it that way.

You own premise that there is no action without cause requires everything to be predetermined but also requires faith that there is a reason when you have none. Religious people have faith there is an entity that either decides destiny for them, or that allows them the option to decide the future for them. You have faith that there is always a cause for an action, which tells you that everything is predetermined. Both are a faith in something that cannot be proven.

Well, that's an interesting perspective. But it's also "faith" to believe in "free will" since it's something that's, as far as I know, is not yet proven in any way. And I certainly disagree that both those things "cannot be proven". How do you conclude that?

I wrote those questions specifically because there is no scientific answer for them. I wouldn't ask them if the answer existed, believe me, I've tried hard to find the answer for personal interest, those are the reasons I still keep the possibility of a superior entity existing alive. If those were explained, I wouldn't keep that possibility alive...

Not sure what you then mean with "scientific answer", but whatever.

It is strange that you agree on the first one, the Big Bang shouldn't make sense to you in the first place. How can the Big Bang happen out of nothing, literally nothing, meaning the lack of causes? It cannot, the Big Bang cannot have happened because it would need to have a cause for it to happen and that cannot happen out of nothing, which is the lack of causes. It is contradictory.

It is a paradox, no action without cause means there can be no action if there is no cause. There cannot be a beginning because for a beginning to happen, there needs to be a cause to trigger the beginning, but that means it wasn't the beginning as there was something before that beginning to cause the beginning.

I agreed upon that "science didn't have a good answer" to it. But now that I think about it... I think there are some theories about it. One weird I remember now is something like in a multiverse whenever one universe "touches" another a "Big Bang" could happen or so. It's not like it had to happen out of nothing, although the question then could be how the multiverse came into existence. Maybe those things were always in place and there was no beginning. We just don't know enough about that to answer it and that's what I agreed on.

I didn't bend the words, you did. You are the one that is knowingly using words they shouldn't be using because you know you are using them incorrectly and even feel the need to illustrate that with the quotation marks.

I just wanted to get the accurate meaning across. Words can mean very different things sometimes and that's why I used quotation marks. But maybe it's also "bending the words" sometimes. The question is how relevant that actually is. You didn't address here anything else I wrote there to further get the message across. But whatever...

There is no justified in their eyes. It has to be justified legally, not in their eyes. In their eyes is a subjective standard. We use the law to impose an objective standard sensible people agree on.

"Sensible people"? I mean their "subjective standard" is also "sensible". If you refer to something like "common sense" I will say that whenever one uses that word it just means "this is my opinion". Only because something works great for you doesn't mean it's great for everybody. Ideally it should be an "objective standard", but at least today you have at best what most people agree on which isn't "objective" at all. The only thing is that most people can agree upon. It's not something everyone will agree upon. And those are also "sensible people" in their own regard.

And trust me, the sanctions the corporation would take for killing people would always be heavy enough that the activity would seize to be profitable. If there weren't, then the rules would need to be revised.

You think so? What if it's just indirectly and/or only becomes obvious some time later, etc. And don't forget: If you don't get caught rules are irrelevant. I guess there are a lot of rules then to revise even though it properly won't even do much since people will always find loopholes.

It was a bad example because we are not comparing directly the same task for a human and a bird. We can. Neither Human nor Bird can break the laws of physics and fly into space, past the Earth's atmosphere. Except Humans can engineer a method to break these laws, while the Bird cannot, they will not even attempt to break it once it realises they are naturally incapable. We are the only ones that actively bother to engineer anything we need to break the laws of physics, mostly because we can actually succeed, where other animals cannot. We can decide not to surrender to the laws and engineer a way to break them.

A bird is always limited to whatever its biology can accomplish on it's own. Humans, not at all. If our biology limits us from something, we can still accomplish it.

As I said humans are amazing at creating and using tools, but other animals also do similar things in different ways. E.g. not just "surrendering" to not being able to break that nut, but instead fly high with it and let it fall to break it open. It's not a physical tool, but you could think of it as a "mental tool" just like we also come up with different things. What I try to say: We might be "better" (hence why we are the dominant species), but other animals are very similar.

It is not ridiculous. If you have all the information, if you know all causes, that means you can predict all actions.

What? We do Not have all the information. We do Not know all the causes. Where did you get that impression?

And in regards to the premise: It's better to think of probabilities. But for the most part we can predict quite accurately if we have enough information. But indeed a lot of the time we do not have enough information. The more information you have the better then the prediction.

There won't be a single corporation controlling everything because as long as the laws protect what they need to protect, all exchanges in property are voluntary. You cannot control everything if you don't own everything, and for you to own everything, people need to voluntarily give you everything they own so that you can control everything. That will never happen. Not unless said corporation breaks the rules, which has consequences for them.

We were talking about copyright. Currently various movies, books, etc. are all copyrighted. If this would be until end of time it would mean people can "consume" it (when payed), but not build stories upon them. For example all the Disney movies are based on older at that time not yet copyrighted stories and now there's a copyright "slamed" on it that prevents further use until who knows when. Of course there might then be a lot of debate when it comes to what actually here is copyrighted, but my line of thought was that even if it's just a small thing copyright prevents other people from using it and thus over time more and more will be "removed" from general use. Again, you wasn't very specific what copyright exactly would encompass (like what exactly is meant with "assets"), but in theory it could allow for all sorts of interpretations and as such naturally rules will be bent, especially since corporations have a lot of power/influence through their money/trade and all of that is incentivized in a market where it's all about profit.

Rights, as I said, are Life, Liberty and Property. This is what the Governments are tasked with protecting, your rights (and of every other person under the jurisdiction).

As I said above there can be a lot of interpretation into those general words. Especially "liberty".

Well, if those with money don't suit you, I guess you could try some tribe. I am not well versed on the situation of tribes so I cannot tell you the best for your needs but you can try and find information on that. You will soon realise that if you want to live with some decent standards, you won't get very far by searching societies living the way you want, and that is not a random coincidence.

As I said you would need an abundance of basic goods and services and teach people better values. But given that I think it's possible to make the old ways of money and trade obsolete. You don't have to "go to some tribe" for that. And honestly the way we still behave in some regards I'd rather ask "Which one is the tribe?". We are also still very "primitive", at least in our values although this "exploitation" has allowed us for technological advancement. And I'd say now we can stop "exploiting" people and let machines do all the work. Because it's not like you have to make AI a mechanical human. Just make it do what is needed. But for that we need to realize first what limits us the most. And people talking about "machines taking our jobs" you know exactly where the problem is. Since who wouldn't want machines do repetitious and boring work for them if money wouldn't be an issue. It's the "rules" of our "game" we play that are at fault.

Well, it should be a waste as you don't see the concept of ownership as pertinent. The time isn't yours if you think that way, you should be slaving away for the good of others, not to mention, it also would make no sense consider your life or liberty as yours, so you wouldn't oppose to others ending either, they are not yours, as you don't see the importance of ownership. I'm not sure you fully explored the consequences of your premise.

Well, that's a pretty radical way to think about it. The general notion "ownership" is a bad thing since it can lead to a lot of waste in the real world. If you think of those other things (time/life/liberty) as "ownership" I just wouldn't really use that word. And overall I would say it might be in your interest to help others since this cooperation is part of what has allowed us to even get where we are now.

I'm not sure if you said, so tell me, how would you make said shift in the general conscious and what would happen if almost no one wanted to make said shift?

That is a very good question. Just like there is no one cure for cancer there is no one solution for this whole mess. The important thing is to understand that basically trade is what creates most of our problems just by it's inherent nature. You wouldn't "trade" if you don't see it as "profitable" for you, but naturally it will never be a "perfect trade" in terms of value since that is very "flexible". In other words: It naturally gravitates towards power accumulation and since the premise is to make even more "profit" at all costs it "corrupts" everything. Of course it's different from person to person depending on their life experience/backround/environment, but in general I would say that the notion of "trade" is bad as you tend to not care for the other person which can increase conflict and even lead to aggression as we can see throughout all history. And at the present time I'd say we now have the technical capability to overcome the need for trade. People just need to realize this.

By the way, since we are taking so much space as pointed out, and if you still want to continue, we can move to messages or even to Bnet Chat.

It was really interesting to talk with you. But I'm getting tired. We could continue for ages and don't really get anywhere. I think we're just too different in terms of thinking/values. I guess maybe I'm also not so good in getting my ideas across. But anyways thanks for the conversation nonetheless. (And if you want to know more about this "trade-free" idea there is supposed to be coming "something really cool" at trade-free.org. Although that could also be just a collection of people offering goods/services as trade free like crowdfunding. I think it's very important and much better than trade. But if you don't think so... Well, I tried. Have a nice life:)

Quote from IDontLikeFun >>

Holy light you put a lot of effort writing that text! ^

Too bad most people are not gonna read it.

 this goes for most long texts in this thread imo