After some quick Wiki-research, I have discovered that "ethics" is the study of moral philosophy. But, really, for the purposes of a conversation, "ethics" and "morality" are interchangeable.
@damian I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. But there's a reason that I brought up the question of private property, and I think both krellin and kramerkov18 have touched upon the issue.
krellin said: "For anyone that makes an ethical stance that socialism is good because it provides for the greater good or some other bullshit, I can make the stance that it is unethical to provide for those that WON'T PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES, even to the point of saying that it is detrimental to the human race in its entirety to facilitate the lifestyle and ease the burden on those with fewer innate skills to SURVIVE ON THEIR OWN, who will then procreate and pass those bad lazy genes on. [Emphasis mine]."
kramerkov18 said: "While I think that a guaranteed minimum standard has its benefits I can also recognize the draw backs in that it cuts the desire to work harder or REALLY EARN what you have. [Emphasis mine]."
On this point, I shall draw incredulous reactions, but here it goes: why is working hard a good thing? Why is self-sufficiency a good thing?
If it's because both lead to good outcomes, I would contest that. As I said in my first post, "merit" or "hard work" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success. There are poor people who work hard and there are rich people who don't. And on the point of self-sufficiency, I would posit that it's impossible to depend only on yourself--this is especially true in this game called Diplomacy. )Have you guys heard of it?) Human beings are social creatures, and, on the whole, we need society and other people in order to exist as we do now.
There is an implicit assumption in the above quotations--this idea that you need to work hard and that you need to be self-sufficient. From this line of reasoning, we complain about homeless people spending our change on booze or drugs, and we gripe about people receiving welfare and using it to buy "unnecessary" things. But why shouldn't they do that? There isn't a very large chance that if a homeless man saves his pennies he'll one day be able to start his own business. So why not enjoy a beer?
Put another way, why is life worth living if its entire purpose is to work? How is that freedom?
In order to be truly free, in order to be autonomous, we have to be able to make choices. And among those choices is the option not to work.
And, as an aside, what on earth do you all mean by "capitalism" and "socialism"? The clearest conception I get is out of krellin, and he says that "socialism" is exactly the system they tried in the Soviet Union. There are many variations of socialism (there's even something called "market socialism"!) and there are many variations of capitalism. Until we get a clear idea of precisely which two systems we are comparing, we're going to be stuck in a circle of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
giving players their points back.. a bad idea?
their points back, puts an unfair twist in the game. In the game i played with this player, we almost had a draw forced against one larger power, and he decided to attack me.
)
)
)
)