rem1100

The punishment for bigamy... two mothers in law . Just kidding seriously

I would certainly accept it, even though I thouroughly disagree with the concept. In this case boycotting isn't going to sway the government.

"A significant portion of your taxes support those who do not produce. Why? If you don't, you'll quite probably be put in jail." It is interesting to think that by putting a person who refuses to pay taxes in jail it simply denies money to both parties. The government doesn't come out ahead by imprisoning people (yikes imagine if it did!), and the prisoner doesn't come out ahead either, so the cost ultimately falls on those who are productive and do pay taxes. I'm not quite sure what to make of this situation.

I think I can pull off getting places on time in the real world, I worked a 9-5 (often more) job the past two summers without any major problems.

Today I was faced with a quandry. I am a highschool student, and have a bad habit of arriving to school a few minutes late almost everyday. I miss home room and sometimes a few minutes of gym class, so in reality this not a big deal, as I am not losing any educational value. However the school sees this differently (Attendance is related to their funding, and their stated reason is "In the real world this is not OK"). Today this caught up with me and I was caught up with me. I was summoned to the vice principals office and handed a long list of my tardies to give to the VP. He looked it over and made some worriesome remarks. Then he said something to the effect of "Your a good student, and not a problem student, and so I will cut you a break". He gave me much fewer detentions than protocol suggests. And then he said "You drive to school, so just come a few minutes earlier, and it won't be a problem. There isn't anything else (out of the ordinary) making you late is there?" I told him no, although this was not entirely truthful, I have a health problem currently that contributes significantly to my tardyness, so I had two options. -Tell him of the health problem, This would have almost certainly have reduced my number of or gotten rid of my detentions. However I regard this as private and also I didn't wan't to play the victim. I believe this whole situation to be an injustice anyway. -Don't tell him, and take the extra detention. What should I have done

The tax system consists of a seperate rate for the nobility and the commoners, I haven't ever crunched the numbers, but if you highly tax the nobility you get a notice that the high taxes are hurting long term growth. Also new towns pop up when the population of a region increases and population growth is directly impacted by taxes. Unfortunatetly for my subjects I find high taxes and military reppression to be more fun, the high taxes are neccesary to pay for the upkeep of my legions of redcoats. Do as I say not as I do in video games. .

Well on second thought it isn't quite capitalism per say, but trade and economics are way more important. For example I play as England, and so pirating and establishing trade routes are important to my income. I am finding myself in trade wars, fighting other pirates and raiders and competing nations, it isn't just about land any more. Your countries citizens being economically succesful is important to you, for example I always get this warning that overtaxing my ruling class is stifling growth. I don't suppose I rule as an objectivist, but a large part of my job is keeping industry and trade going. In my opinion trade is capitalism in the game, even though its government intervention I take tax revenue and I create new ports and trade routes and protect my money sources, which can be raided and rendered fruitless by maruading enemy armies. Also certain regions have universities or colleges, where you can research military technology, industrial or agricultural technology, or social philosopical technology like "division of labor" and Adam Smith idea.

Hey, I am new to the site and I was wondering if anybody plays the total war series, most recently empire total war. I find it to be a fascinating embodyment of capitalism, and self determination. There is a complex (and profitable) economic system, and no scripted story aside from an optional American revolution campaign.

Thank You Rachel, I do think the private ownership idea is a good one, certainly in my experince private companies and charities are far more effective and efficient than government programs (isn't welfare just mandatory charity!) . For example Ducks Umlimited a waterfowl and wetlands group which I believe is contributed to mostly by those who use the land, and its services and products (hunters) mangages to use 88% of their money for conservation, 10% for fundraising and R&D, and a mere 2% for administration and HR. In the 2007 they took in 213.1 million. You would be hard pressed to find any government agency that lean and efficient.

I agree with what you said, but I am still interested in the concept. Lets say hypothetically there is X number of fish in a lake, and they reproduce at a rate of Y. The problem is that they are being removed and consumed at a rate that exceeds their ability to procreate. Is it unreasonable to limit the number of fish being removed in order to keep the resouce availible? What if this is just a private agreement among fishermen?

There is a famous essay popular among environmentalists called "The Tragedy of the Commons", written by Aldo Leupold. The basic "gist" of this paper is that one person can benefit while harming others, while not suffering in turn. For example; a factory pollutes the air, poisoning it just a little for everybody else. The factory benefits because it can make and sell its product, and aside from perhaps purchaing a cheaper product, the rest of society is harmed. How do we explain this. P.S. I am new to Objectivism