unholymight's forum posts

Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts
I don't have complaints about Avatar being cliche. I have other complaints, but a cliched story isn't what bugs me.PannicAtack
Well, I couldn't really find anything to complain about. For someone who doesn't like stuff much, Avatar was pretty good.
Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts
[QUOTE="unholymight"]

I mean, this claim has been made more times than once. It would seem that the claims themselves are becoming cliché.

Does anyone else agree with this?

Dreamerdude26
This thread is cliche

Well, considering that the thread has been made once, and the claim is made more than once, it is still relatively not cliche.
Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Wow, I have a habit of misreading your posts :P

Ace_WondersX

Laissez-faire leads to the kind of situation I described. I don't see your logic.

It depends, because government law enforcement could still be in place. So even though government could not interfere with economic decisions, they could still go after companies for breaking laws like murder/extortion/etc. That if you assume that machine politics and corruption would not come in to place.

No, if you're preventing me from selling bloodthirsty mercenaries, you're interfering with the market and the economy. Simple as that.

Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts

did this REALLY need its own thread?

you couldn't have just posted this claim in the very large, very active thread about Avatar's cliched plot?

rlake
Well, considering the number of times such a claim had been made, on or off of Gamespot, I figured it deserved a formal address to such a phenomenon.
Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts

I would agree that people need to stop posting about the movie. Like it or not, there will be people who like it for various reasons and people who don't like it for various reasons. Can we just move on and wait for the next movie to come out?

tycoonmike
Not in a way that we can't express opinions about a movie we enjoyed. I was simply outlining a view which had occurred.
Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

No, it just means no government interventionism on economic matters. (in other words, no government policies regarding economics, unemployment, wage rates, bailouts, etc...) You're confusing it with Anarcho-capitalism.

coolbeans90

I wasn't the one arguing anarcho-capitalism would happen. That was unholymight, but that's what I meant. The government cannot intervene in economic/business matters at all.

Wow, I have a habit of misreading your posts :P

Laissez-faire leads to the kind of situation I described. I don't see your logic.
Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="fidosim"]

the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/laissez%20faire

fidosim

That may be the modern defintion, but I prefer the actual translation when the term was coined which meant "leave it alone"

If the whole system could have been summed up by saying "leave it alone", then Adam Smith wouldn't have needed to write a book about it.

He had to write a book about it because as I demonstrated real laissez-faire capitalism could never work, so he had to find ways to change it or make it sound more convincing.

Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="unholymight"] Extreme capitalism means the government does not intervene with the market. If you prevent me from selling nukes, you're interfering with my market and you're violating the basic principle of capitalism: the free exchange of money. That's all there is to it

No, no. The emphasis is "as little government intervention as possible" not "no government intervention ever."

Actually true Laissez-faire mean no government intervention what so ever.

Now that the path is clear, let me continue what I was going to say: Yes. With the services of private military gear manufacturers, miltiary research facilities and military personel all up for sale, the larger companies can simply eliminate competition and resistance with bullets, bombs, or planted viruses. In order to obtain maximum security, the large company needs to eliminate all other companies so that its hold will never be threatened again. Thus begins a war, easily involving nuclear bombs, until one super-powerful megacompany remains. Now don't say that just because you have ability you can still live comfortably just yet. These companies are no way obliged to pay you for your services and they might even force you to work for them in horrible conditions. They can even spy on you 24/7 using heartbeat monitors, GPS, and video to make sure you aren't trying to work your way up the company. Besides, the man holding the position above you is no way in want of losing his position.
Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts

I mean, this claim has been made more times than once. It would seem that the claims themselves are becoming cliché.

Does anyone else agree with this?

Avatar image for unholymight
unholymight

3378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 unholymight
Member since 2007 • 3378 Posts
[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="unholymight"]Then that's not the extreme capitalism we're speaking of here. Pure capitalism means nothing interferes with how money is exchanged. If the government is preventing me from selling mercenary-for-hire services, it's intervening in my market and it's intervening in the economy. Simple as that.

Afraid not. Capitalism =/= Anarchy. We're arguing over Laissez-Faire capitalism, right? Laissez-Faire, meaning the belief in the "invisible hand" that drives the economy. Laissez-Faire economists would argue that the government simply should not stop inhibit the invisible hand by over-regulating or subsidizing parts of the economy. Nothing to do with allowing violence.

Extreme capitalism means the government does not intervene with the market. If you prevent me from selling nukes, you're interfering with my market and you're violating the basic principle of capitalism: the free exchange of money. That's all there is to it