by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .919920921922923924925. . .2,1802,181»

Kaputer wrote:As one of the original writers of the current constitution I can tell you the court exist just fine. Cybertomix's bill is unnecessary.

Omg. Guys, do YOU really think you can just throw statements out?! you have to back your statements! Jesus lord have mercy!

For the millionth time, somebody prove to me, why is competing with the judicial industry not a violation of Point 2?!

---

I am getting tired of this. If all you guys are going to do is say "it's legal, just cuz" then screw it. I'm done. You obviously have no intention of a real debate beyond just repeating your claims without backing them. Either that, or you and CapPro just want to protect your monopoly as I suspect.

I encourage all CP WA nations and the Delegate to vote "For" the current Security Council Resolution Condemn the Pacific. It was the Pacific Army that tried twice to overthrow Capitalist Paradise while we were founderless.

Greatubs

FASTERCAT wrote:Try this logic:
If the Capitalist Paradise Constitution says "The regional government may not manipulate nor compete with the public or private sector markets of resident nations through any means", that would mean that the regional government may not manipulate nor compete with the public or private sector markets of resident nations through any means.

If the Capitalist Paradise Constitutional government structure mandates a Supreme Court, that would mean that Capitalist Paradise will have a Supreme Court.

It really really really is that simple

Thank you! I fail to see how Cybernomix does not understand this.

Cybernomix wrote:Omg. Guys, do YOU really think you can just throw statements out?! you have to back your statements! Jesus lord have mercy!

For the millionth time, somebody prove to me, why is competing with the judicial industry not a violation of Point 2?!

---

I am getting tired of this. If all you guys are going to do is say "it's legal, just cuz" then screw it. I'm done. You obviously have no intention of a real debate beyond just repeating your claims without backing them. Either that, or you and CapPro just want to protect your monopoly as I suspect.

Then leave, simple as that. If you believe there is a monopoly that we aren't willing to give up, then clearly you can't win here

FASTERCAT wrote:If the Capitalist Paradise Constitution says "The regional government may not manipulate nor compete with the public or private sector markets of resident nations through any means", that would mean that the regional government may not manipulate nor compete with the public or private sector markets of resident nations through any means.

Then why is the court competing with the private sector?

FASTERCAT wrote:If the Capitalist Paradise Constitutional government structure mandates a Supreme Court, that would mean that Capitalist Paradise will have a Supreme Court.

Nope, there is a law banning competition with the private sector.

Armus Republic wrote:Thank you! I fail to see how Cybernomix does not understand this.

You fail to understand how law works. Problems arise when laws conflict with each other. The whole point of my first proposed bill was intended to avoid this situation. You were the ones that voted against that.

If a law says cleaning is illegal, and another says you must shower, then the law is in conflict because showering is cleaning.

Similarly,

If a law says government competition is illegal, and another consittutes a court, then the law is in conflict because the public court competes with the private market.

It's not hard to get at all.

Armus Republic wrote:Then leave, simple as that. If you believe there is a monopoly that we aren't willing to give up, then clearly you can't win here

LOL I'm anarchist remember? I'm reading your laws. You don't like them now that the monopoly is threatened?

cry me a river.

Bruntilia

Let's say for a moment you are right. What are we going to do about the founder monopolizing the founder business?

Cybernomix wrote:LOL I'm anarchist remember? I'm reading your laws. You don't like them now that the monopoly is threatened?
cry me a river.

I'm not upset about the monopoly because there is none. You are trying to fix problems that do not exist, just like any other liberal and socialist

FASTERCAT wrote:I encourage all CP WA nations and the Delegate to vote "For" the current Security Council Resolution Condemn the Pacific. It was the Pacific Army that tried twice to overthrow Capitalist Paradise while we were founderless.

While I normally ignore the WA Security Council, this I will happily vote for. Thanks for the heads up.

Armus Republic wrote:Thank you! I fail to see how Cybernomix does not understand this.

He chooses not to.

Cybernomix wrote:Then why is the court competing with the private sector?

Because in this region the courts are not privately run.

Cybernomix wrote:Nope, there is a law banning competition with the private sector.

Exactly. You're finally catching on!

Cybernomix wrote:You fail to understand how law works.

WHO fails at understanding law?

Cybernomix wrote:You were the ones that voted against that.

And you are still going against the majority that voted against that and for keeping you and your plans out of government.

Cybernomix wrote:If a law says cleaning is illegal, and another says you must shower, then the law is in conflict because showering is cleaning.

If you understand that, why did you bring a bill that is patently illegal? I really don't get you.

Cybernomix wrote:It's not hard to get at all.

So there is hope for you after all. I was beginning to think you would never catch on.

FASTERCAT wrote:Let's say for a moment you are right. What are we going to do about the founder monopolizing the founder business?

Put The-CID in time out while everyone else gets milk and cookies?

Armus Republic wrote:I'm not upset about the monopoly because there is none. You are trying to fix problems that do not exist, just like any other liberal and socialist

Pretty much.

**STAMP OUT MAKE WORK JOBS IN GOVERNMENT - VOTE NAY ON CYBERNOMIX'S PROPOSAL**

There is a distinction that the Constitution makes which I believe is being overlooked by both sides of this discussion which was aptly put by Armus Republic:

Armus Republic wrote:The inherent rights of membership section is supposed to designed so that the regional government cannot impose things on the national governments (the player). The regional government cannot charge players in order to be a member of the region. The regional government cannot force players to make their nation specialize in say arms manufacturing. The regional government cannot make services and compete with nationally produced services. The regional government cannot force players to setting a certain flag or motto. The regional government cannot be roleplayed in any RPs. You are mixing things up by saying rule two must be applied to both public and private. Rule two only applies to public owned business, which means your bill is illegal. If you want to make that private, go ahead. But it won't be on the books and won't effect anyone.

There are two levels of government in the region: the national level and the regional level. The Constitution has clauses that prevent the regional level from impeding on the national level some of which Armus Republic listed in his post.

Now l let's go back to clause 2 of the Inherent Rights of Membership: "The regional government may not manipulate nor compete with the public or private sector markets of resident nations through any means."

It is stating that regional level cannot force the national level adopt/alter markets such as force nations to increase their Arms Manufacturing and the regional level cannot make a service that competes on the national level.

The Supreme Court is a service that strictly operates on the regional level as it decides conflicts nation v. nation or region v. nation; the Supreme Court does not operate on the national level such as it does not decide conflicts between individual people within a single nation.

As for the proposed law, if we assume that the term "state" means the regional level of government. Then it is talking about the creation of services operating strictly on the regional level. An example of such a service would be a flag making business as this would be a nation doing business with a nation. In the court example used by Cybernomix, the Constitution does not prohibit the creation of more courts that operate on the regional level and compete with the Supreme Court. Now if we assume that the term "state" in the law means the national level then I believe the law to be unconstitutional as it would be creating regional level offices to control regional services operating on the national level.

Post by Cybernomix suppressed by Acario.

FASTERCAT wrote:Let's say for a moment you are right. What are we going to do about the founder monopolizing the founder business?

There is no services being provided by the founder. Hence, no monopoly.

FASTERCAT wrote:Put The-CID in time out while everyone else gets milk and cookies?

In case you haven't noticed, he is rarely here lol

Armus Republic wrote:I'm not upset about the monopoly because there is none. You are trying to fix problems that do not exist, just like any other liberal and socialist

I see, you are one of them. Fine, I will answer for other Nations to see.

The SC currently has a monopoly over cases involving CP vs Nation, because the government does not recognize any other court. No other court may resolve such disputes; that's a monopoly. So when you and CapPro keep saying "well why don't you just make your own court" is one of the must mind-numbing things I've read except for CapPro in general.

Capitalist Producers wrote:Because in this region the courts are not privately run.

Oh, so it's legal to provide services if they are public? Hail Mary! wait for it... he is about to understand...

Capitalist Producers wrote:Exactly. You're finally catching on!

Wait... I thought you just said the courts do not compete with the private sector... you wouldn't be... contradicting yourself now are you? *gasp*

Capitalist Producers wrote:I fail at understanding law.

Pretty Much.

Capitalist Producers wrote:And you are still going against the majority that voted against that

That's why none of you are justified in complaining about conflicting laws.

Capitalist Producers wrote:If you understand that, why did you bring a bill that is patently illegal? I really don't get you.

I'm a known anarchist... and you are surprised I am using government laws against the government? And here you thought I actually wanted that first bill to pass. You claim that as a victory, but look at the RL effects. I spent 1 min on that, you spent 4 dollars for that. You might want to pull out your credit card, because I am willing to bet I have more time than you have credit. Oh game theory, you never fail me <3

Acario wrote:The Supreme Court is a service that strictly operates on the regional level as it decides conflicts nation v. nation or region v. nation; the Supreme Court does not operate on the national level such as it does not decide conflicts between individual people within a single nation.

Oh that's a plot twist... up until now I had conceded that my bill was illegal, but what you have just presented changes that entirely.

If what you say is true, then a state-owned PMC - who would also not operate on the national level as it would not raid individuals people with a single nation - would be legal.

Acario wrote:As for the proposed law, if we assume that the term "state" means the regional level of government. Then it is talking about the creation of services operating strictly on the regional level. An example of such a service would be a flag making business as this would be a nation doing business with a nation.

In your example, the flags are provided by a state-owned Corporation to a nation, as opposed to providing to individual people within a single nation. According to your first quote, that is strictly regional level. Which is legal.

Bruntilia

Keep Capitalism alive! Don't let the socialists destroy our glorious system!

Capitalist Producers, Cyborga, and The united oman

Greatubs wrote:Keep Capitalism alive! Don't let the socialists destroy our glorious system!

How is it socialism if the means of production are private?

Bruntilia

Cybernomix wrote:The SC currently has a monopoly over cases involving CP vs Nation, because the government does not recognize any other court. No other court may resolve such disputes; that's a monopoly. So when you and CapPro keep saying "well why don't you just make your own court" is one of the must mind-numbing things I've read except for CapPro in general.

So you want to shop your case around to get a court that you like? That sounds almost as fair as the binding arbitration clauses in everything from cell phone contracts to construction. If something goes wrong you have to go to the arbitrator the company chooses. And since that arbitrator sees the company lots more then they see you... well, most people can see where that is going.

**VOTE NAY ON GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR - GET THOSE NAY VOTES IN BEFORE TOMORROW**

Armus Republic, Orlogtun, Cybernomix, and Greatubs

Cybernomix wrote:There is no services being provided by the founder. Hence, no monopoly.

In case you haven't noticed, he is rarely here lol

You really haven't read the Constitution, have you?

Cybernomix wrote:I see, you are one of them.

Oh, now I'm "one of them" because I disagree with you? How very liberal of you. Can't win someone over so clearly they are the enemy

Cybernomix wrote:The SC currently has a monopoly over cases involving CP vs Nation, because the government does not recognize any other court. No other court may resolve such disputes; that's a monopoly. So when you and CapPro keep saying "well why don't you just make your own court" is one of the must mind-numbing things I've read except for CapPro in general.

I don't recall anyone ever saying go make your own court. You wouldn't be lying, would you?

Cybernomix wrote:I'm a known anarchist...

Yet you are trying to pass a bill so it becomes law.....does anyone here see the irony of this?

Cybernomix wrote:If what you say is true, then a state-owned PMC - who would also not operate on the national level as it would not raid individuals people with a single nation - would be legal.

If by state you mean nation, then yes. However, your bill is trying to create a regional government position that would oversee this and therefore it's unconstitutional. If you want to create a corporation in your nation, then go ahead. You can do that. A law is not required. In fact, no one would care.

Capitalist Producers, The Devils Advocate, The united oman, and Poetry and poems

So what's this vote thing all about anyway

Zenzibar

LadyFasterkittens wrote:Now before the Legislature, a Proposal sponsored by Cybernomix to establish 2 new seats of government, the text as follows:

This legislation is to add a new section in the Executive.

Under the Executive, add:

Minister of Corporate Affairs

This position is appointed by election:

- Responsible for founding state-owned Corporations
- Hiring a management team for each Corporation
- Raising capital for state-owned Corporations

Treasurer

This position is appointed by election:

- Collection of dividends from state-owned Corporations
- paying the wages or bonuses of government officials
- general management of government finances

Please telegram your vote of "Yea" or "Nay" to bothvote counters Mortem inferre and Crooked timber of humanity.

The poll is now open and will close Tuesday April 28 at 7:00 pm ET.

Alright fellow Capitalists, how is everyone today?

Greatubs wrote:Alright fellow Capitalists, how is everyone today?

Pretty good! I'm just enjoying watching this debate since I'm too new to have any impact on it.

Been quite the interesting first few days here.

Capitalist Producers wrote:So you want to shop your case around to get a court that you like? That sounds almost as fair as the binding arbitration clauses in everything from cell phone contracts to construction.

Telecoms and construction companies have government-imposed regional monopolies. They can afford to take advantage of their monopolies like the SC.

Capitalist Producers wrote:If something goes wrong you have to go to the arbitrator the company chooses.

Nope. You choose it together. If you don't like that court, you can simply choose another contract with another company, unless you are a monopoly like the SC.

Armus Republic wrote:You really haven't read the Constitution, have you?

The Founder has a monopoly on none of the things in the constitution.

Armus Republic wrote:Oh, now I'm "one of them" because I disagree with you?

Nope, because you are making nothing but claims, instead of applying logic to debunk me. Here is the actual quote: "I'm not upset about the monopoly because there is none. You are trying to fix problems that do not exist, just like any other liberal and socialist "

You're welcome to back that.

Armus Republic wrote:I don't recall anyone ever saying go make your own court. You wouldn't be lying, would you?

Nope. CapPro has repeatedly suggested that I am welcome to form my own court.

Armus Republic wrote:Yet you are trying to pass a bill so it becomes law.....does anyone here see the irony of this?

I don't. Using my bill as a scapegoat to get to the court seems kinda rational. But don't worry, the more you guys rule unconstitutionally, I'll raise you another law that ruling contradicts.

Armus Republic wrote:your bill is trying to create a regional government position that would oversee this and therefore it's unconstitutional.

Nope. If you read my bill carefully, Minister of Corporate Affairs appoints private citizens to oversee this, as opposed to overseeing it himself.

Armus Republic wrote:If you want to create a corporation in your nation, then go ahead. You can do that. A law is not required. In fact, no one would care.

Oh, I know that. But I am not sure why you guys think I care so much about founding companies. All I really want is free-er markets by booting the court monopoly. Since you guys vote against everything, I figured the only way I can do that is if you vote against yourselves.

Bruntilia

Rashidunistan wrote:So what's this vote thing all about anyway

Cybernomix is trying to put the government into competition with private sector business. He also wants to create the position of treasurer in a region that collects no taxes, has no revenue stream and no chance of generating one. As near as I can tell his goal is to inflict his brand of anarchy on this region regardless of what the majority of the residents want.

M14 wrote:Pretty good! I'm just enjoying watching this debate since I'm too new to have any impact on it.

Been quite the interesting first few days here.

Never a dull minute.

Cybernomix wrote:Telecoms and construction companies have government-imposed regional monopolies. They can afford to take advantage of their monopolies like the SC.

I'm not certain how things are on your planet, put here in reality, cell phone companies are not monopolies. There is loads of competition. Construction companies are not government imposed monopolies here in reality either. What ever led you to believe that?

Cybernomix wrote:Nope. You choose it together. If you don't like that court, you can simply choose another contract with another company, unless you are a monopoly like the SC.

You don't have a cell phone, do you? Or if you do, you didn't read the contract you signed. There is a binding arbitration agreement in there. In that agreement you will find the arbitration company is chosen for you.

Capitalist Producers wrote:has no revenue stream and no chance of generating one.[/nation]

Rashidunistan, and that right there is how CapPro spreads his deceiving propaganda. Utter nonsense from start to finish. It doesn't necessarily take taxes to collect revenue.

[quote=capitalist_producers;11295993]cell phone companies are not monopolies. There is loads of competition. Construction companies are not government imposed monopolies here in reality either. What ever led you to believe that?

My bad, I meant cartel. -.-

"Here in reality", the landlines and towers are either government-owned or regulated and always licensed without exception. This is a pretty expensive barrier to entry and imposes a price floor to the consumer. On top of that, they are limited from region to region; they need to have subsidiaries and licensees to operate under their trademarks, but there is only one trademark owner.

"Here in reality", most construction companies have mostly one customer and that is the government. Without exception, they overbill, and undersupply. This is because they need government licenses; the government monopsony also means that these companies must accept any of the government's

Capitalist Producers wrote:You don't have a cell phone, do you? Or if you do, you didn't read the contract you signed. There is a binding arbitration agreement in there. In that agreement you will find the arbitration company is chosen for you.

Nope. By agreeing to the terms of that contract, I have agreed to the use of the arbitration company. Nothing was forced upon me. If you reread your contract, you will see that your service provider was offering you their services under their terms; you could have refused and went with a service provider that uses an arbitration company that you prefer.

I have never seen you so left-wing sounding. Your argument is like those idiots in the financial crisis who borrowed money they couldnt pay back and then complained that "oh no, they took my house!". No one imposed them those loans.

Bruntilia

where's this vote being held

woah, I messed up the bbcode. My bad lol

So what I miss? I was in Florida for the past few days

Scorpions Army wrote:So what I miss? I was in Florida for the past few days

Well, you need to get hold of both vote counters, Mortem Inferre and Crooked Timber of Humanity, before 7:00 p.m. eastern time today and vote against Cybernomix's latest ration of garbage. (That is a nay vote.)

Rashidunistan wrote:where's this vote being held

Alas, you have to a resident in the region for 15 days or longer before you can vote. Sadly you will need to sit this one out on the sidelines.

Cybernomix wrote:"Here in reality", the landlines and towers are either government-owned or regulated and always licensed without exception. This is a pretty expensive barrier to entry and imposes a price floor to the consumer. On top of that, they are limited from region to region; they need to have subsidiaries and licensees to operate under their trademarks, but there is only one trademark owner."

That maybe the case in the land of Cybernomix. But if you are referring to the real world, the attorney's at AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile and a host of local providers may disagree with you.

Cybernomix wrote:"Here in reality", most construction companies have mostly one customer and that is the government. Without exception, they overbill, and undersupply. This is because they need government licenses; the government monopsony also means that these companies must accept any of the government's

The construction company that built my house never built anything for the government. While I'm not certain whether they have ever done a government gig in the past, the construction company that built my company facilty does the vast majority of their work for private payers. In fact they build or renovate empty space into a surprising number of Subway sandwich shops. Unless you are going to tell us that Subway sandwich shops are a government monopoly...

Cybernomix wrote:Nope. By agreeing to the terms of that contract, I have agreed to the use of the arbitration company. Nothing was forced upon me. If you reread your contract, you will see that your service provider was offering you their services under their terms; you could have refused and went with a service provider that uses an arbitration company that you prefer.

Your are absolutely right. No one forces you you to sign that contract. However that does not mean I like the practice. But you are diverting the argument with more smoke and mirrors to avoid what that response was all about. Let me refresh your memory. I pointed out that court shopping is one of the down sides to private courts beginning the exchange like this:

Capitalist Producers wrote:So you want to shop your case around to get a court that you like? That sounds almost as fair as the binding arbitration clauses in everything from cell phone contracts to construction. If something goes wrong you have to go to the arbitrator the company chooses. And since that arbitrator sees the company lots more then they see you... well, most people can see where that is going.

Then you wrote this, dividing my quotes into two parts:

Cybernomix wrote:Telecoms and construction companies have government-imposed regional monopolies. They can afford to take advantage of their monopolies like the SC.

Nope. You choose it together. If you don't like that court, you can simply choose another contract with another company, unless you are a monopoly like the SC.

Then I pointed out that sometimes the consumer has no choice. Cell service is universal in this practice right down to the very small operations that have been in existence since the 800MHz bands were given over to cellular service from STL service.

To which you responded with this pearl of wisdom:

Cybernomix wrote:Nope. By agreeing to the terms of that contract, I have agreed to the use of the arbitration company. Nothing was forced upon me. If you reread your contract, you will see that your service provider was offering you their services under their terms; you could have refused and went with a service provider that uses an arbitration company that you prefer.

Seriously? Do you think a cell company, or any other company is going to go with an arbitration company that is going to favor the consumer?

Sometimes I think you believe the crap you write here.

But, to make sure you didn't miss it, whether or not I like it is irrelevant. I would not outlaw the practice. But that said, I would not give a private court the power to fine, incarcerate, execute or handle civil matters where both parties do not agree to the results. I might consider a law where the public courts have appeal power over the private ones just to make sure the private courts at least try to be honest.

But when one party is dragged into court, kicking and screaming every inch of the way, that must be government's job. Or would you like to have a private court called "The Feminists Women's Divorce Court" handle your divorce?

Cybernomix wrote:I have never seen you so left-wing sounding. Your argument is like those idiots in the financial crisis who borrowed money they couldnt pay back and then complained that "oh no, they took my house!". No one imposed them those loans.

Is that what you got out of that exchange?

**VOTE NAY ON GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR - GET THOSE NAY VOTES IN BEFORE 7:00 P.M. EASTERN TODAY**
Vote Counters: Mortem inferre and Crooked timber of humanity.

It is with the meekest trepidation that I must pass on this pronouncement by the leader of Orlogtun pending the legislative proposal above:

-----------------------------

From the Shooting Range of Count Toller the Cranapple:

Attention:

Provided the passage of a proposal to pre-approve ultra jures courts in the region, our Attorney General, Major K'Pow K'Pow, is pleased to announce the construction of the Orlogtun County Courthouse For Regional Affairs--a Branch of the Orlogtun County Justice Department--for quick, efficient, and ruthless resolution of legal whatnot. All this comes pre-approved upon posting.

With regards,

Count Toller the Cranapple

q.v., op. cit., passim, etc., etc., etc.

-----------------------------

The guy signs my paycheques so I can't tell him to wait or to tone it down. The Count was indeed happily surprised to discover his own court system might be legitimatised for the entire region in such a simple way. It didn't seem to be possible upon reading the constitution when he told me we were joining Capitalist Paradise.

«12. . .919920921922923924925. . .2,1802,181»

Advertisement