Sure, I was planning on a fighting retreat, not wanting to just flee while we have people down or still fighting, but if we just want to hand wave the retreat that's fine by me.
I remain unconvinced. 588 pages can cover a good 16 levels of the game with ease. Although I love the idea of a 20 level AP, that's not the formula. So if you're making the material longer without adding levels, what are you adding exactly? More box text?
I wouldn't add more (character) levels, I would add more (dungeon) levels. Like I said before, unless there are at LEAST 15 dungeons levels and several sublevels, I consider it a big dungeon, not a mega-dungeon. And the dungeon levels themselves should be pretty big as well...I think the bigger dungeon levels that I've seen in Pathfinder products would really only be considered pretty smallish in a mega-dungeon.
But isn't the metric really character levels? Or rather encounters -> XP -> character levels?
Are you saying you want more content and more adventuring, without spanning more levels? I guess you could just slow advancement. I don't know if that would be popular.
You could, I suppose, make the dungeon deeper and the dungeon levels bigger without adding more encounters, but I'm not sure what the point would be. Nor would that take up significantly more space in the books.
You could make much of the dungeon optional, perhaps having many routes to the MacGuffin you're trying to find. To the extent you do that, you're making customers pay for content they're not going to use.
That's probably what I would do if I was going for mega-dungeon flavour, but I wouldn't detail stuff to far off the expected track.
I guess I just don't see what you actually want out of this. What should be in the expanded content?
2. I doubt that every single TSA agent is a child molester too,
Seriously? The way you phrase that sounds like you wouldn't be surprised if they all were, but there might be some exceptions?
What do you think? 95%? 90%?
I'd say maybe 1% at most. Actual child molesters are rare. Most TSA employees started long before this policy and had nothing to do with creating it. Most probably find the whole process as stupid and demeaning as any of us, but it's a job and the economy is lousy.
Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if more perverts did join TSA, given these silly rules.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I have no idea why you would infer this. See Kirth's #2 and my #2. The point is that
A. I never said that all agents would go too far.
B. The percentage of offenders probably won't mean much to the victims and their families.
A) True, nor did I claim you did. But this statement is only slightly weaker than your first version.
I don't want to be insulting, but if you really have no idea why I inferred what I did, you really need to work on your phrasing.
Perhaps the same phrasing in a different context would help you see why I took it wrongly:
"I doubt that every single black man is a criminal"
"I doubt that every single libertarian is a crackpot"
"I doubt that every single liberal wants a police state"
Technically those statements would be even if I thought that no libertarians were crackpots, for example, but all of those imply general statements while allowing exceptions.
Does it really not seem that way to you?
If you do think it's only a few, can you think of a better way to put it?
B) No, the percentage won't matter to victims. But it does matter on the larger scale. If most agents are child molesters, then most children going through security will be molested. If there are very few, then there will be far less victims.
And of course, people's perceptions of this will affect how the search is perceived. If someone thinks all agents are molesters, they will be far more likely to perceive a pat down as groping, even if the agent is trying to be as inoffensive as possible.
I cut the rest, as I largely agree.
I hate defending this, because I do think the policy is stupid, intrusive and useless, at best. But I also think that the overwhelming majority of TSA agents are just ordinary people trying to do their jobs.
@Sergei: Working for the Surtovas could be a very, very interesting angle for this game. Given the background of the game I'm running, House Orlovsky doesn't feel too hot about the Surtovas as true kings. These expeditions are too suspicious and could be a ploy by Orlovskys and Restov to secure land and allies in the region in a plot to overthrow them! There will be many like you at this wedding. Spies and counter spies... after all everyone has spies. You may actually have been ordered here with other agents but you suspect there are others you do not know. Your orders can be whatever you want. What did you specifically have in mind? Why would you give up on being a spy and shift loyalties to a new kingdom? This kind of background has a lot of potential and instead of just spoon-feeding you a good one I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
Olondir:
Much of this will work better if the other player's don't know about it. And at least for the start, it'll be behind the scenes.
I wasn't sure how much the Orlovskys were in on the expeditions, or given the different start if the expeditions were known at all. If they're working with Restov, then Surtova does make much more sense.
I'd originally come up with this concept for a Kingmaker game with the traditional start. There my orders were to infiltrate the expedition and report back.
Obviously any orders will need to lead me into the actual AP. Not knowing what the connection is between this wedding and the expedition, I'm not sure how to set that up. Unless you've got a better idea, or my superiors know something I don't, it might be best to have me start out as a backup to a better placed agent at the wedding. He can give me new orders or I can act on my own initiative, depending on how things play out.
In the long run and ooc, I'd change allegiances because I don't want to become the party's enemy. And who said anything about giving up being a spy. I'd just be becoming a spymaster.
That said, until and unless it became necessary, there would be no need to make the break. Or at least of letting anyone know. I kind of like the idea of a spymaster for one kingdom who's working for another. Or is he really?
IC, he's a younger son of an impoverished branch of the Surtova family. Ignored and neglected until a more prominent relative saw potential in him and took him to be trained as an agent. He believes he's a tool. Only valued as long as he is useful. This has given him the desire to prove himself but not a lot of actual loyalty. If he's treated well by the group and the eventual kingdom seems like a better place, he may switch loyalties without even noticing it.
2. I doubt that every single TSA agent is a child molester too,
Seriously? The way you phrase that sounds like you wouldn't be surprised if they all were, but there might be some exceptions?
What do you think? 95%? 90%?
I'd say maybe 1% at most. Actual child molesters are rare. Most TSA employees started long before this policy and had nothing to do with creating it. Most probably find the whole process as stupid and demeaning as any of us, but it's a job and the economy is lousy.
Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if more perverts did join TSA, given these silly rules.
I do agree that this, like much of the airport security, is pointless. It's security theater intended to reassure people not to actually make anything safer.
In original D&D, if you used the 1gp treasure = 1xp rule, it was possible to advance significantly faster than that. Every published adventure I ever tried to run ended up hitting the "You cannot gain more than 1 level per adventure" rule, and every pc was 1 xp away from leveling a second time. And that was after I stopped giving xp for treasure.
Though IIRC, at least in 1E AD&D, leveling also required 1 week/level of training and a payment, which was at low-levels more gold than you were likely to have earned. A rogue needed 1250xp and 1500gp to train for 2nd level. Since 1gp = 1xp and you presumable did something to get the gold ...
As I see it, this depends very much on the storyline.
If there's a main plot with some great threat or quest the party is reacting to, then it often makes no sense to go back to civilization or just take a few weeks off for training. "The armies of the Evil Overlord are advancing! Only we can find the MacGuffin in time to stop them! and we'll start looking again in three weeks."
It's hard to build a sense of menace and pressure while also fitting in large chunks of time off every level.
Games can certainly be more episodic, which lets you have more downtime to slow down the in-game rate of advancement. That's a different play style though and isn't to everyone's taste. It's harder to keep players involved when the characters don't have things to deal with.
If the players are happy with the real-world advancement rate, ignoring XP or using a slower XP chart aren't the solution.
The best solution, if you can fit it into the overall storyline is to give the characters things to do that lead towards the main plot, but don't give XP or take up much player time. At low levels this can be as simple as travel time. At high levels travel time can be bypassed, so you have to be more creative: Politics and other responsibilities can work if your characters settle down.
Edit: Now that I've seen your second post. The mega dungeon makes it hard. There really isn't anything to do but adventure. And time not adventuring is really the cure. Depending on why they're there, I might have made them head back to civilization for supplies and used that both to take up time and set up more plot complications. In a few levels they may have Teleport access or other quick travel methods and do that on their own or with some prompting.
That's all very nice and logical, but ignores how the phrase is commonly used by the pro-life camp. The whole point is to declare embryos protected human life.
Now it's possible that Ron Paul's campaign used the phrase in a strictly literal sense with no consideration of how it would be understood, in which case they're hopelessly naive. It's also possible they meant the phrase in the strictly literal sense knowing full well it would be misinterpreted. If so, that's one step short of lying. Far more likely, that they're promising abortion opponents exactly what it seems they want.
As you know it goes well beyond law makers and even regulators. Do you apply the laws to everyone in the federal government? Wouldn't that be a pretty strong disincentive to work in the public sector? How would this impact service members transitioning to civilian life?
Unless those service members are spending their time in the service working for a particular corporation (which one would hope they aren't, as the armed forces are supposedly for national defense, not a mercenary private security force), and then want to muster out and go to work for that same corporation, it shouldn't affect them at all. I'd go slowly, too -- start with lawmakers and regulators, then see if there is egregious bribery going on somewhere else.
And it's the highest levels that matter. Having generals move directly to defense companies does bother me. They may have had a significant say in contracts with those same companies. The same with congresscritters, their high-ranking staff, department heads, cabinet members etc.
Lower-level bureaucrats or regular servicemen are much less of an issue.
Is it bribery when issue advocacy groups run adds stating where candidates stand on the issues? Unions, civil rights groups, and other issue advocates pool their resources to get their message out. It's not all about big evil corporations buying politicians. I think we can agree that we don't want civil rights and environmental groups to have their political speech criminalized. On the other hand if the government is going to restrict political speech by groups like businesses wouldn't you also have to restrict the political speech of unions for example? I don't think those restrictions are fair to members of either group.
I'll admit third party ads are a more complex issue, since restrictions there are directly on speech.
Can we agree that large scale direct campaign contributions and the less direct but even larger contributions through PACs, bundling or whatever dodges they use to get the big money produce at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Enough to get you kicked off a jury or to require a judge to recuse himself, but it's SOP for lawmakers.
I would, but several Supreme Court decisions have pretty much rendered it pointless.
Public financing won't work if it has to compete with unlimited private financing, since that either puts us on the hook for the arms race or handicaps whoever takes the public money.
You have to stop the legalized bribery before public financing can work. And since the SC has ruled that money == speech, you can't do that.
You'd have to do something about the Citizen's United decision as well.
Of course, none of this really matters, even beyond Constitutional issues since you'd have to get Congress to pass it and they're already owned.
Though many of them hate the fundraising treadmill. Most of a Congressman's working day is spent calling donors and asking for money.
The obvious answer is to not allow 2, by not requiring politicians to go begging to rich donors for campaign contributions.
If giving money to politicians was considered bribery not free speech, then politicians wouldn't owe their jobs to the rich and we might get a more diverse set of them.
I don't quite agree with you. Or at least I don't think we're quite there yet. Largely because everywhere the worker's revolution has been tried it's been a horrible failure.
I'll limit myself to saying that there is only one place that a genuine, successful worker's revolution has ever occured and that was in the Soviet Union. The very sad history of what happened there is way outside the purview of this thread, of course, but there is a very rich and lengthy literature of socialist analysis of why it went to shiznit. Personally, I'd recommend starting with Leon Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.
Well, I was including the fact that it went shiznit as part of the horrible failure.
And I, and IIRC Marx, thought Russia was more of a peasant's revolution than he'd anticipated.
I'd agree with Doctor Wu here. The current deficit is a Republican problem, driven almost entirely by the Bush tax cuts, the wars and the Great Recession. The Democrats problem is that they haven't been willing or able to change course.
They've taken ownership of the wars, apparently of their own free will. Largely due to Republican opposition, the stimulus was too small and poorly targeted and all the tax cuts were continued. And now we're looking at huge cuts just to extend the debt ceiling, which has always been a routine bipartisan affair before.
What you have to understand is that it's to the Republican's political advantage to keep the economy down. It gives them their best chance to beat Obama in 2012. They just have to keep if from being too obvious that they're screwing all of us for short-term political gain.
Or perhaps, I played straight man and pointed out your trap. :)
I don't quite agree with you. Or at least I don't think we're quite there yet. Largely because everywhere the worker's revolution has been tried it's been a horrible failure.
That said, I do think that the fear of a worker's revolution is the only thing that has ever kept the oligarchs in line. The lack of any serious left in the US worries me greatly. There is little pressure to keep the political left (Democrats) from chasing ever further rightward in pursuit of the mythical center.
Social democracy with a strong safety net, high marginal taxation and strong unions seems to work better than anything else I've seen.
I don't see anyway to get there from where the US is now. Due to some dodgy SC opinions, money rules politics and there is no effective left. The reactions to Republican overreach in Wisconsin and elsewhere give me some hope, but not much.
I will remark on the "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish." statement though. I wonder how many businesses placed these signs at the insistence of their customers? (obviously not the blacks and Irish). I can see how a business would not want to lose a loyal customer base if the customers are the ones that have racial superiority complexes, rather than the management.
I missed this comment the first time around, but this is the whole point in a nutshell.
If the culture is racist, there will be economic incentives to go along. It doesn't matter what the motivation is. When the law changes to forbid the discrimination, the behavior changes and so do the incentives. The racists can't boycott the places that let the minority in, since everyone has to.
The point of anti-discrimination laws isn't to punish racists, it's to stop the discrimination. To give the discriminated against group a fair chance.
I'm afraid I'm unsuited to argue against abortion as I believe it is murder (which most states have laws against). However, my belief that it is murder has not stopped women from doing it. I'm also not a woman, so perhaps should step down from the abortion argument altogether. Most of what I learned about abortion did come from my mother (who did inform me of the coat-hanger abortions). She also told me the reason that most women did not want to go through a full term pregnancy and give the child up for adoption was due to social embarassment or fear of parental punishment at the discovery of pregnancy. And that's all I'm going to say about that since I would likely go into a moral debate, and I want to stay away from that.
Fair enough. I don't want to go off on the abortion debate either.
I just wanted to point out that on this issue, as on others, saying: "It doesn't matter what he thinks, Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of it" isn't sufficient.
There are predictable consequences to removing federal rules on many issues. If you're going to take that position, you should at least address what the practical consequences will be. And hand-waving them away by saying "Women can just go to other states" isn't valid either, as I said above.
If that's a result you're okay with, or if you think the small government principle is more important that's fine. But you have to own that opinion, as you now have.
I'm not sure Ron Paul has. Especially on racial issues.
I am not the best thinker, sometimes, though I try.
It feels to me, like discrimination is a certain thought-based behavior, while treating people equally is just a behavior without any type of thought behind it (at least no specific philosophical thought).
I mean, treating people equally seems to be what Ron Paul has consistently said we should do.
I'm gonna have to tag team someone else for a response, I'm brain-numb at the moment.
You also have to consider possible differences between common and legal uses of words.
As for Ron Paul, while he may consistently say we should treat people equally, he also has consistently argued/voted that the federal government should not enforce that in any circumstances, except possibly it's own behavior.
You can argue that such a position is Constitutionally sound, it's also clearly harmful to minorities, since historically states have been willing to abuse them. Without federal intervention, Jim Crow laws would have lasted much longer. Many states still have laws banning abortion on the books, which would come back into effect if Roe vs Wade is reversed.
Ron Paul is like an uncle at the family gathering who says things about the family that no one else is willing to say and that you tend to agree with, but the more he talks you begin to realize that he is a little off his rocker and possibly racist.
I think someone who is the greatest defender of personal rights and liberties and the rights of the individual, should not be called a racist (or possible racist).
Well, I don't think someone who is a racist (or possible racist) should be called the "greatest defender of personal rights and liberties and the rights of the individual", so we're even.
Or. more simply, your opinion of him isn't going to change what I call him.
And of course, "greatest defender of personal rights and liberties and the rights of the individual", does not apply to the rights of gays to marry or of women to have abortions. In the nicest possible interpretation he does not think the federal government has a role in defending those rights and the states are free to limit them as much as they want. Which hardly seems like a great defender to me. Possibly not a threat, but that's hardly the same thing.
While I give him credit for his reversal on DADT, he still supports allowing businesses to discriminate against homosexuals, women, minorities and probably pretty much anyone they please. He also has made statements opposing civil rights legislation and the repeal of Jim Crow laws, which implies again that he does not oppose allow states to discriminate. And lends pretty strong support to the racist claim.
All of which may be supported by a certain twisted literalist reading of the Constitution, but hardly counts a great defender of human rights. The main rights I've seen him fight for are property rights.
Unfortunately, I don't have anything long range available so I'm going to waste my nice initiative roll by delaying until they start to close. When they do I'll move to within 30' and give one of them the Evil Eye. (-2 AC for 8 rounds, DC 15 Will Save for 1 round.)
If I'm around when they move, I'll pick a target, otherwise target of opportunity, keeping someone between me and them. If Krathok closes, I'll follow him, otherwise down behind Kjolmar.
Unless the 20+ stuff becomes sufficiently pervasive that all/most of the new APs extend into those levels, meaning you have to deal with it if you want the end of the story.
Maybe not likely, but still a valid concern. Those who think the game breaks past 12-13 are already in that boat.
I don't think that the game breaks at all. I love high level play. All that high level play requires is a good GM who is willing to improvise a little, who knows what the PCs are capable of and what NPCs are capable of. If you enter High-level play expecting to se 10- level play...of course you will think it's broken. High level play is nothing like low level play.
Note that I said nothing about whether high level play is broken or not. I haven't played Pathfinder at high level. I have no opinion on the subject.
It is apparent from this thread, that there are some people who do not enjoy high level play. I pointed out a scenario where it will be difficult for them to just ignore the high level rule book as many have suggested. I don't understand the relevance of your response.
And because you don't want something, then all of us who want 20+ rules should suffer? If you don't want 20+ rules, don't by the book. As simple as that.
If there is an AP that uses the 20+ rules, don't by it an we are all happy.
Unless the 20+ stuff becomes sufficiently pervasive that all/most of the new APs extend into those levels, meaning you have to deal with it if you want the end of the story.
Maybe not likely, but still a valid concern. Those who think the game breaks past 12-13 are already in that boat.
But doesn't tying the person's personal conduct to the validity of their statements constitute the basis of the classic ad hominem fallacy?
Not in this case, when what he is talking about specifically ties into his personal conduct. Just as I wouldn't write papers on how Haterade(tm) is destroying society, nor should Jefferson really have gotten into this particular subject without first freeing his slaves.
I'd argue that it is the same. Jefferson didn't live up to his own theories. That doesn't make his arguments invalid. It just makes him hypocritical. Or more generally a flawed human being, with the prejudices and customs of his time. It's really not fair to judge him by today's standards, even if he helped shape those standards.
I've never been happy with the common hero-worship of the founders. They did some great things and were very impressive people in many ways. But they were also complex flawed human beings, perhaps ahead of their times, but still shaped by them. Far more interesting than the stock portraits we're taught about in school.
Another question, now that I'm actually working on the character.
The lack of writing means no scrolls, correct? Since that's one of the main ways a witch can learn new spells, will there be some alternative? Possibly just more opportunities to meet NPC witches willing to exchange spells.
I could fit into either group, depending on where he's needed. Witches have patrons, which gives him a link to the gods.
No direct ties to the dragonborn, but if he discovers any real chance of success, he'd certainly be willing to throw in with them.
I wanted to raise this one more time as well. If you don't know the story look it up. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire is an iconic illustration of what early industrial age work was like in the absence of government regulation. That's what happened when you let industry self-regulate. People take jobs in horrendous conditions because that's all there is. Child labor, poisonous chemicals with no protections, fire doors locked so employees could be searched on the way out, etc, etc.
Why do you think we wouldn't go down that path again? It happens in many of the overseas sweatshops where our cheap plastic junk is made today. What stops the race to the bottom, except regulation that ensures one company can't cut just one more corner, pay a little less? It might take a little while here. You can't go all the way back to Dickens in one jump, you have to inch down a little at a time.
Isn't a police state justified in your model as long as it "works"?
You say you support protections for minority rights, but don't you want the state to make those determinations? When the state has the power to harm one minority they have the power to harm others.
I think we live in a police state, and I think all extant states are police states in various degrees.
As I've stated before I think the government is justified in using force or the threat thereof when someone initiates violence or the threat thereof against someone or by extension their property.
Given your definition of police state, then I would agree that my model justifies a police state. My definition is a lot narrower and I would claim a police state is not justified.
Minority rights includes not just racial minorities but minority opinions, if that wasn't clear. The things much of our Bill of Rights is intended to protect and that would be threatened by the "tyranny of the majority" problem you mentioned.
It is interesting that you've switched from harm to violence. Violence (or force) is the term I'm more used to seeing in libertarian arguments. It's also a much narrower one.
So you would consider the use of government force to not be justified in cases of fraud or contract violation?
To go back to my earlier examples, would dumping toxic waste into a stream flowing off of my property count as violence? Could this minarchist government regulate air pollution? How toxic does it have to be before the use of government force is justified?
How about cars? I assume no safety regulations. Speed Limits? Do we just wait until the drunk driver hits someone?
And of course, no force can be used to collect revenue, so the government will have no funding to do anything anyway.
I'm not just trying to be a pain here. These are all real questions that someone would have to answer. Along with hundreds of others.
There are an awful lot of things that most of us don't want happening that are not simple and obvious violence like someone punching you in the nose. If you want a working society it will have to deal with them.
I'm thinking a Half-elven Witch. Outcast from both races, among the humans he's ostracized for his blood, among elves he's too weak to fit their human stereotypes and not elven enough to be accepted for his own talents. He wandered in his youth, even into the elven lands, seeking a place he could fit in. Not finding one, he settled near a small village in the Wyrm Lands and traded his skills for tolerance, if not acceptance.
He would oppose the Wyrm Lords, but has seen no hope in the struggle and resigned himself to little more than survival.
If you don't object I'd like to make him middle-aged. The mechanical bonuses won't hurt, but mostly it fits the way I conceive the character.
I'd expect, in this setting, most half-elves are not direct human-elf crosses, but children of other half-elves? Doesn't matter mechanically, but it seems to make more sense.
Since he'll probably need a kick to get him out of his rut and off adventuring, he can either be driven out by superstitious humans after a string of bad luck/weather/harvests as is the usual fate of witches or the village can be burned out by the dragons for some imagined sin. Whichever works better for you.
If you haven't seen it check out Dominions3. The graphics are outdated, the interface takes some learning, but it is by far the deepest fantasy strategy game I've come across. It's not Pathfinder based, but has it's own world, based more on myth than on modern fantasy tropes. It's not for everyone, but if you like that kind of thing, I can't recommend it enough.
I haven't heard of it before - how does it compare to FFH2? I'm willing to try it out.
I haven't actually played FFH2. From what I know of it and extrapolation from Civ, Dominions is more of a wargame, much less of a build cities game. The build aspect comes more in researching magic so your mages can slaughter armies or summon and equip creatures to do it for them.
It's not fan-made, but it's written by 2 part-time game designers, at one of whom teaches comparative religion as his real job, which leads to much of the depth in the game world.
There's a demo, which gives a good feel for how the game plays. IIRC, it cuts off research past a certain point and doesn't give you all the nations, but it's enough for a basic intro.
So you're argument against basic human rights and individual liberty is that it doesn't scale? Wow.
I reject your argument that convenience is an acceptable reason for violating the human rights of millions. Compromise is no justification for a police state in my opinion.
Yeah, pretty much. If it doesn't scale, it doesn't work. If it doesn't work you can't do it, no matter what your pretty little theories say.
And I completely reject your straw man that the only alternative to pure libertarian ideology is a police state. You'll note that I spoke of a democratic government and for the record I do support constitutional protections for minority rights, in case that wasn't clear.
Can you point me to a nation, in the world today or the recent past, that is run by mutual compromise with no force used by the government, except in cases of "harm to others"? If not, are all nations police states? Can you give me an example of one that doesn't qualify.
As well, do you have any response to my questions about harm and regulations?
Instead of a good RPG (which I'd enjoy too) - I would really like to see a good empire-building Pathfinder game. Fantasty Civilization basically. The best game of the type, in my opinion, is Master of Magic from 1994. That's a very long time without a great fantasy XXX game. (That is explore, expand, exterminate, not the other type of XXX game :P)
If you haven't seen it check out Dominions3. The graphics are outdated, the interface takes some learning, but it is by far the deepest fantasy strategy game I've come across. It's not Pathfinder based, but has it's own world, based more on myth than on modern fantasy tropes. It's not for everyone, but if you like that kind of thing, I can't recommend it enough.
Tastes vary, of course, but I think the "dead is dead" approach doesn't work so well with high level games. It's easy enough to die that normal death is really more like being knocked out of the fight in early levels.
There are also ways to kill someone so that the easy raise dead won't work, so there are still ways of getting rid of people.
Reference Brust's Taltos books for assassins who often kill people just to send them a message.
If high-level baddies want someone dead, they'll know enough to try to kill them in a permanent fashion, or at least one whose cure is out of reach of their enemies.
You mean like Earth-1 and Earth-2 pre-Crisis? That works just fine, until they start having crossovers and multiple titles with different versions of the same character and people slipping from one to the other without explanation...
Isn't that what started all this confusion?
DC seems hooked on reboots. Marvel never seemed to have the need, despite continuity at least as confusing. DC had some excuse for the first Crisis reboot, since they had an extra 30 years of continuity and two earths with ongoing stories, but they haven't had that excuse for 25 years now and I've lost track of the number of reboots they've had since.
Tell good stories. It's possible to do that without throwing everything away.
There is a world or difference between coming to a mutually agreed upon compromise in a society and using government force to make people "compromise" who aren't harming anyone else.
Compromise can be a very ugly euphemism for, "Obey the majority or whoever holds political power or pay a terrible price!".
Imprisoning people because because they don't choose to obey the rules the majority sets for them when they cause no harm to others in not compromise. It's an abuse of government force. This is the great danger of democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Fortunately we live in more of a constitutional republic than a democracy. A constitutional republic should be committed to defending the rights of minorities and individuals even when...
The problem with "coming to a mutually agreed upon compromise in a society" is that it doesn't scale. A society of 100s of millions cannot work by mutual compromise. Even if you all managed to agree to set of common rules, you'd have to renegotiate the whole thing whenever anyone immigrated or just grew up. Which would be constantly. What do you do if someone won't compromise? Force him to accept the current rules?
It's possible to run a small community or organization that way, though it's not easy, even if the members are self-selected for wanting to work that way.
Government is itself a compromise. We give up our "right" to come to mutually agreed compromises with everyone in exchange for a system that will actually allow us to get something done. And we try to structure that system to reflect what everyone wants as closely as possible.
Now if, as a libertarian, you want to absolutely minimize what the government can do, mutual compromise might sound like a good idea. Only the bare minimum things that everyone agrees on. I suspect you wouldn't actually like living in such a system after a few years, but it's never been tried, (or never lasted long enough on any significant scale to be noticed.) I would rather not force that experiment on a nation on the scale of the US. Such an experiment should also not rely on the infrastructure built up over generations of more traditional governance.
Even you seem to exempt "causing harm to others" from your compromise. Or is it just assumed that everyone will agree to that? More importantly, will everyone agree on the definition of "harm"?
Many of those rules and regulations are intended to prevent harm. Fire and building codes, for example. Workplace safety rules. Reread the Triangle Shirtwaist fire history. That's how it used to be when the government didn't regulate business.
How about drunk driving? That doesn't cause harm and so you shouldn't be imprisoned for it. Until, of course, it inevitably does...
Environmental regulations? Does dumping toxic waste in your water supply harm you? How about burning toxics up wind of you? (We're all upwind of someone.) How about small amounts, like every car emits? Should there be no regulation unless everyone agrees, which everyone won't? Or should we imprison everyone who drives?
For your last point, a constitution republic is a form of democracy and I was using democracy as such. Nor is there anything inherent about a constitution that makes it defend the rights of minorities. Ours, for example, specifically allowed racial slavery until the 14th amendment and was of little use protecting minority rights until the 1960s.
If I was in charge, there wouldn't be a reboot. None of the previous reboots have done more than make things more confusing and throw away good ideas and characters.
If I was forced to reboot, I'd actually start over. Introduce the old iconic characters as new starting heroes in a world without them. Then let things develop from there. You'd have Batman, probably with Robin (Dick Grayson) being introducing in an early storyline, but no Red Robin, no Son of Batman, no Oracle or Batgirl, etc. No characters who depend on things that haven't happened on screen in the new continuity. You can keep the old WW2 era/Earth-2 heroes as the previous age of Super-heroes, long retired, since someone will eventually want to bring them back.
Much like Marvel's Ultimates (Though that's not strictly a reboot, since the original titles continued.) Or like the Superman or Wonder Woman continuities after Crisis, though they didn't reset the rest of the world with them, which led to many problems.
Everyone would hate it, of course. So would I. I like a lot of the new characters. But it's the only way a reboot makes any sense. Otherwise you just wind up with characters whose backstories are either unknown or just don't make any sense in the new continuity, since they have nothing to fit into.
Using that measurement of efficiency seems like an awfully bad idea. Using that logic the more massive the pay outs relative to administrative costs the more efficient the system is. Can we agree that is not a smart metric?
BTW, our system is not mostly private. IIRC government pays slightly over half of medical costs in the US, and every aspect of the medical industry is highly regulated.
Since the purpose of Medicare is to pay for medical care for those in the program, I would say that ratio of money spent on medical costs to money spent on overhead is a pretty good measure of efficiency. Obviously, you could improve that ratio by overpaying on each claim, but since Medicare is known to pay less for procedures than private insurance, I don't think that applies. Can you suggest a better metric?
The argument in your link, that Medicare appears more efficient because it serves a higher cost population and therefore naturally spends more relative to its overhead costs, is valid, but the suggested alternate measure of flat administrative cost per person is biased in the other direction. A healthy person who files no claims will have less costs than someone getting regular medical attention.
I could argue that our system is mostly private, since most people get their coverage privately and simply being regulated does not mean an industry is not private, but that's someone pointless. Will you accept that our healthcare system is more private than that in most developed countries? And that we spend a much higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare (both public and private) than those nations with various forms of "socialized" medicine?
This comment (or at least the facts that support it) is a bit deceptive. The government forces health care providers that accept Medicare to charge less for the services than they charge private insurance holders. It isn't that Medicare is more efficient, it is that the private insurance holders subsidize it through having to pay more than they would have to otherwise for the exact same services.
Much like private insurers pay much less than providers charge those without insurance? I believe providers are still free not to accept Medicare patients? In fact, one of the problems with Medicare is that many doctors are opting out, because of the low rates.
But that isn't actually relevant to the efficiency claim. Medicare is considered more efficient than private insurers because it has an extremely ratio of low administrative/overhead costs to claims paid out, not because it's reimbursement rates are low.
I dont disagree. But that wasnt the question. The question was "What is more efficient than government?"
Edit-Unless you are talking about murder or theft. Then yes, nothing is more efficient than government.
Your post, that I was responding to, said nothing about efficiency, only about others telling you what was best for you.
As for efficiency, government can be very efficient at many things.
In many cases, government services contracted out to private companies in the name of efficiency have been proven to be more expensive and less effective.
Health care is one. Countries with some form of single payer system have much better outcomes at much lower cost than the US's mostly private system. Even our government run Medicare has, despite issues with fraud, much lower overhead than our private insurance companies. Overall, we spend a much higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare than other developed countries, for worse results. Admittedly, if you can afford it, you can get great healthcare in the US.
But that speaks to one thing government is much better than private industry at: serving the entire population. Anytime you want the whole population to get something, whether it's healthcare, phone service, water, whatever, the government has to be involved. Otherwise there will be segments of the population that it simply isn't worth serving, either because of poverty, population density or some other reason.
Whether that's efficiency or not depends on what you mean by efficient.
Private companies tend to be more efficient at making a profit, but that's not a government's job.
Individuals. I know what is best for me. I dont need a government, business, or a business controlled government telling me what is best for me.
edit- Just like I have no right to tell you what is best for you.
Which is fine as long as you're living in a cabin in the woods, miles from your nearest neighbor.
Once you're a part of a society you have to compromise in order to get along with everyone else. Once your society gets big enough that you can't deal individually with everyone you might effect or who might effect you, we form governments to set common rules. Representative democracy, though far from perfect, is the best form of government we've come up with yet, allowing everyone the opportunity to shape the rules we all have to live by.
In a society as large and complex as ours, with as many individuals and organizations with such wildly varying levels of power, someone is going to be able to set rules for you. Better it is a government over which we have some level of control than a faceless corporation only interested in profit or whichever local thug can field the most hired guns.
Rugged individualist libertarianism is a great theory, but it bears no resemblance to the real world.
I did mention that "Full government control of the economy on a micro level doesn't work."
Our current tax code, insane or not, is nothing like an "example of centralized planning run completely amok". The USSR, China under Mao or North Korea are good examples.
Our tax code, in the worst cases, is an example of influence peddling in the absence of any actual plans.
Most developed countries in the world today have far more government interference in their economies than the US does, in terms of infrastructure development and investment and support of new technologies. Many of them are doing far better than we are by most measures. The sheer size and influence of the US economy hides some of that.
I agree that "there is real danger in centralizing so much power in so few hands." That is why the government is designed with checks and balances, to be accountable to the people, the most obvious of which are elections. The other main powers, multinational corporations, have no such limitations.
I would also agree that "corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats" are not qualified, but that's a straw man, since no one has ever argued that they are.
I do think that's the basic philosophical difference. Though I wouldn't phrase it as "which businesses should succeed", which implies that the government might back Bob's Hardware and not Joe's Hardware. More that the government has a role to play in directing the overall direction of the economy. Helping out sectors that might not yet be profitable on their own, but which will boost the economy as a whole. Sometimes it's infrastructure, sometimes it's helping a new innovation get a foothold against an entrenched industry.
Successful governments around the world have always done this, as has ours. From railroads in the 1800s through rural electrification and phone projects in the 40s to the roots of the Internet in the 90s.
Obviously this can be taken too far. Full government control of the economy on a micro level doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that a completely hands-off approach works either.
I wouldnt mind overly much if it was a progressive tax, as long as it was a simplified tax code that closed all the deductible loopholes. Or as I like to call it: deregulated. For example, (and these numbers are pulled straight outta my butt and have no meaning) 1% tax on income up to 45k. with an additional 5% for every additional 45k that is earned up to 51% So make 60k? pay 1% on the first 45k and 6% on the last 15k. BOOM-Deregulated.
That's not a bad scheme. It's far more steeply progressive than the current system, which is why I like it. I have no idea whether it's anywhere near revenue neutral. I suspect it isn't, despite the boost on the high end and the lack of deductions. I make above the median income and would have a huge tax cut under your plan, which I don't really need.
Most of the seriously proposed plans to remove deductions balance out by dropping the top marginal rate. I see that as a trap, since it's always much easier to add deduction back in than to raise the top rate again. This is in fact what Reagan's tax cuts did back in the 80s, remove deductions and drop the top rates. You can see where that's left us.
Minor quibbles with it: There needs to be a good name for a no-deductions tax scheme, but "Deregulated" isn't it. (Nor is "Flat".) Tax deductions aren't regulations and the parallels don't really make sense.
It's also a tax increase on the very poor. A minor one (1%), but it makes little sense to add taxes to those who already need assistance to get by. If you tax another $100 from a family that earns $10,000, they'll just need another $100 in aid. That 1% raises a trivial amount of revenue, so it's probably not even worth bothering with. It seems like it's just in there so everyone has to contribute, but it doesn't really do that.
More importantly, I'm suspicious of the idea that all deductions are bad. The basic idea behind tax deductions isn't just to let rich people keep more of their money, that can be done by cutting the rates, it's to encourage people to do useful things with their money. It can be used to encourage development of new industries until they have the critical mass to stand on their own, for example the current tax credits for installing solar panels. The mortgage deduction is intended to encourage home ownership, some college costs can be deducted etc.
Fundamentally, the economy does better when people do productive things with their money. Whether that's buying things or putting capital into developing and making those things. Tax policy should encourage these things. Deductions are a way to do this.
So in general are high marginal rates. With a high personal rate, business owners have more incentive to invest money back into the business than to take it as personal income.
Edit: I meant to add: Obviously not all deductions do serve a useful purpose. Some did and have outlived their time. Some never did. They can be are and are abused, but that doesn't mean the concept is bad.
I'm not talking about an exodus, I'm talking about when it makes more sense to not work than to work because of gov't programs. When everyone's living on the gov'ts dime, where will the gov't get it's dimes from? Right now all I have to do is get fired and I got income for 99 weeks. What happens if unemployment is extended to 120 or more weeks? 3 year vacation paid? Hecks yeah! I can easily cut down on entertainment stuff and live on 60% of my salary for 3 years.
"That's unsustainable" you may say. Alot of gov't programs are unsustainable. I don't see any end for them, either. Eventually, there will be nothing left to put into them.
First, an awful lot of people will have trouble taking a 40% pay cut. Few spend 40% on entertainment. You have to be laid off, you can't just quit or be fired for cause. And there are requirements to keep looking for work. They can be gotten around, I'll admit, but it's hardly a vacation. Do some abuse the system? Yes. I'm sure they do. Right now, all that means is that they don't apply for a job and someone else snaps it up.
Second, we're still deep in recession territory. Official unemployment numbers are around 9%. U6 is much higher. It's not like all those collecting unemployment could go out and get a job tomorrow. There aren't jobs going begging. (Some sections of the country and some fields are better off. There may even be companies in some areas who are having trouble hiring, but that doesn't change the overall picture.) So what should they do? Cut people off after the base 26 weeks? Or not even provide that much?
What happens to those that still can't find work? Do we just let them starve? Hope charities will take care of them? Soup kitchens and shelters are already stressed.
Third, we are trying to claw our way out of a demand based recession. People on unemployment keep paying their bills, keep paying their mortgage, keep buying things. All of this helps keep others employed, which keeps demand up, which helps lessen the depths of the recession and speeds the recovery. This is basic economics. Every serious analysis has unemployment insurance as one of the most effective stimulus.
Finally, it's not indefinite and it's not unsustainable. The program will only be extended while unemployment stays high. In every previous downturn, back to the Great Depression, unemployment insurance has been extended, routinely, by both parties, until the economy recovered. And not beyond then. This one is just longer than any recent recession.
The program is thus only unsustainable if the recession continues indefinitely. If the recession continues indefinitely, we have much bigger problems than paying for unemployment.
Almost everyone pays into the system. 47% paid no federal income tax. That's different.
Everyone who works pays SS and Medicare taxes. Many pay state sales or income taxes. Most pay property taxes, either directly or through a landlord.
But it's all about those "lucky ducks" who are too poor to pay income tax. We have to raise taxes on them, so they'll have a stake in the system.
Actually, I want them to pay taxes too. And I want the top 1% to bear a smaller percentage of the tax burden. But I want that to be because the bottom half is making enough money to live on and the rich aren't capturing it all.
And what does producing have to do with paying income tax anyway? Most of those 47% work, they just get paid very little for it. Many of them, in fact, produce stuff. They plant and harvest your crops. They transport or sell all the stuff you buy. However, they aren't producers. Those who shuffle money around or make deals for a living are. Makes no sense to me.
Does a falt tax hurt the poor more than all of the assistance programs in the US drying up becasue there is no one left to pay for them?
I can't answer that because I don't agree with the premise: Everyone except the poor isn't going to leave the country if we don't enact a flat tax.
This has been a constant threat, but although individuals have always fled to tax havens, there has never been the kind of mass exodus that keeps being predicted. Tax rates, particularly the top marginal rate, are at historic low levels. The rich did not flee the country en masse when they were higher. They are not likely to do so if they stay the same or go back up a few points. They will threaten this, because they want rates to drop, but most won't follow through.
This is partly because stable countries that are comfortable to live in and good to do business in require strong social supports and safety nets. These in turn require high tax revenues.
Note that the converse is not true. High taxes do not, in themselves, make a country a better place to live. They can be spent in ways that do not help.
Well, all I can say to this is somethign has to change. The producers in this country are shrinking while those depending on gov't assitance are increasing. The solution isn't to take even more from the producers. Eventually, there will be none left that live here.
Something needs to be done before the pendulum swings the other way, and all this class warfare bulls**t backfires, leaving those who truly need help thrown out with the bathwater becasue of those who exploited the previous system.
At the moment the producers are shrinking because we are in a huge recession (or the aftermath of one, according to the technical definition). Any time that happens gov't assistance takes up the slack. This not only keeps people from starving in the streets, or rioting, it also keeps demand from continuing to spiral downward, lengthening and deepening the recession.
As for class warfare, I'll quote Warren Buffett: "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. "
Edit: Ninja'd on the Buffett quote!
I was also going to add: Who are the producers, the Walton heirs making millions off of Walmart or the Walmart workers, working full-time and still getting state assistance because Walmart doesn't pay enough to live on?
Flat tax is also a buzz word that means different things to different people. It usually means a single percentage rate applied to all income, but it often also includes no deductions (or loopholes) and sometimes just means no deductions. I had a long discussion with someone about the flat tax before realizing he was actually talking about a progressive marginal income tax, just with no deductions.
Either way, it hurts the poor. Any flat rate means an increase for everyone but the richest. Removing all deductions includes all the standard deductions as well as the loopholes for the rich, so that means most of us pay more as well.
