but how will we pay for <anything that’s not increased military spending>???
talk about social services and taxes are like a bake sale, talk about funding war and it’s what you describe
but how will we pay for <anything that’s not increased military spending>???
talk about social services and taxes are like a bake sale, talk about funding war and it’s what you describe
good point! and maybe they’ll have refined the system so there are more saving opportunities. I’ll keep an open mind. It was enjoyable otherwise
I see your point but “better” is subjective, especially in a single player game imo. I hope it’s an option. I don’t play every game for the same reasons, and it’s presumptuous to think I need to treat this game as a challenge.
Coupled with the systemic things the article talks about like your clothing having a big impact on the game, I foresee getting frustrated and having to redo large sections of the game because of some systemic interaction that I couldn’t have predicted.
I’ll wait and see, but being able to save any time I want would have let me opt in to those frustrations rather than having them forced upon me.
The article makes it seem as if they kept the outdated consumable-based save system, that’s too bad.
just like the previous versions
A person’s relationship with their life is an interesting thing philosophically. You can’t consent to it, and most of us feel you can’t easily give it up either.
I don’t believe this myself but you could rationally argue that having life and being required to keep living is a violation of your agency as a human being.
This sounds the same as “Starfield becomes fun after 500 hours” to me, doesn’t really sell it. I spend enough of my day trying to rise above mundanity.
I still had this in my clipboard from an earlier comment:
"The son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give? But their heir comes into the world poorer than the lowest savage. If he obtains leave to till the fields, it is on condition of surrendering a quarter of the produce to his master, and another quarter to the government and the middlemen. And this tax, levied upon him by the State, the capitalist, the lord of the manor, and the middleman, is always increasing; it rarely leaves him the power to improve his system of culture. If he turns to industry, he is allowed to work–though not always even that --only on condition that he yield a half or two-thirds of the product to him whom the land recognizes as the owner of the machine.
We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We call those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger."
The Conquest of Bread
That betrays a lack of understanding about leftism. Government control over the economy is one way, yes. But your two options aren’t public dictator and private dictator.
Worker coops, syndicated unions (anarcho-syndicalism), anarcho-communism, gift economy…
Within the confines of the system you can also balance power quite a bit with UBI, mandated worker councils, worker representation on the company board of directors, etc.
As long as people are not allowed to fend for themselves because everything is privatized and commodified and you need to work for someone else to stay alive then you will not have freedom, a free market that retains that power dynamic just gives your employer even more ownership over you.
The government exists as a check on the power of huge corporations in this model (and is required to enforce private property in the first place). Who stops the richest company from picking winners and losers? Who stops companies from buying up their competition then cranking up prices? You need a framework to keep the market “free” in the first place.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, right-libertarianism is an oxy moron.
The problem is capitalism, full stop. There’s no good and bad kind, there’s just capitalism. An owning class dictating over a working class isn’t freedom.
You don’t need private ownership over the means of production to have trade and markets and productivity.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
Maybe you can’t think of them but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
“Free and open markets” work in theory, lol.
Private ownership over the means of production and allowing people to hoard capital will ALWAYS concentrate wealth and will ALWAYS produce an oligarchy.
You just unironically made a “capitalism hasn’t actually been tried yet” post in a thread where you’re on the “communism and socialism never work” position.
The irony is delicious
frankly man, if you need someone to talk to whatever I’m here. you seem like you’re in some pain
I checked your post history and it’s funny how spot on my assessment was lol.
Sounds like it’s too late though, oh well
can’t imagine a life outside of console wars huh?
take the advice or leave it, just trying to prevent future incel man-children mad at the world
hey man as you get older you should consider rounding out your personality with things that actually matter. personality based on which corporations you support over others isn’t going to be appealing to prospective friends and partners.
I wonder if this is a factor in why the steam link app (which allows you to stream your games) seperate from the steam app that lets you buy games.
oh competely agreed, I’m just pointing out the dishonest framing by politicians and pundits