Celebrity CGI in games - is it legal?

[c3p0]

Well, I'm an anarchist, so I actually don't think we should have a law system "as deployed in most "modern" nations". I think the legal systems in our modern nations are incredibly flawed. There are plenty of laws that limit freedoms that would harm no one. Some of those laws even put minorities in prison at a rate of 7 times that of white people, even though we know white people commit the same "crime" just as often.

Changing our legal systems doesn't mean going opposite. To imply that it does is a dishonest argument.

I don't say "our" law system is flawless. That would not be honest. I think it works for 90%.
I don't have an example with an anarchist system on a "national" wide level - most likely nations and anarchist don't harmony. I can't say, which one's would be better.

If you have an example for anarchism on a "national" wide level, I would be interested.

Celebrities are wealthy, but not wealthy enough to compete with corporations on lobbying and special interests. It's not even a realistic argument to say that celebrities would have that power./QUOTE]
Yes and no. It is not always wealthy people against wealthy companies. Most times is wealthy people or companies against the 90% of the (unwealty) rest.

And for the people against companies (wealthy or not, but on must be on similar level of wealthy) the company, I assume, would have the advantage.

The whole lobbing system and disguise your true interest is a point in the democratic system that is not as good as it should be.

This is correct, but as someone else already pointed out, there's also the threat of bankruptcy. Donald Trump makes fallacious lawsuits against economically weak opponents all the time, knowing that he'll crush them with money and force a settlement. There's no reason to believe the same couldn't be done by a celebrity against some poor game dev.

Haven't said otherwise:

...
What I think if a celebrities want to sue you, even if they know that they wouldn't gain right, they could made your life a financial hell. Go to three instance (for most states) to pay lawers, even if you would be right in the end? Most of us don't have this much money they can use over years for this.
Sure most celebrities would like to solve this without to much publicity, so you should come out with only a black eye.
...

 

[saintvermillion]

I've seen a number of people advocate for smaller government within and outside libertarian circles but I've only ever seen one self-proclaimed anarchist before.


In all seriousness though I'm geniunely curious what the practical application of anarchy is supposed to be when people naturally organize into hierarchies. It seems the definition of a poorly thought out political stance.

 

[kaboomer69]

Alright just to recap what we could gather as facts.

The OP question is simple:

I'm just wandering if it is safe to use celebrity look-alike DAZ characters in games with sex scenes?

Also the thread title is "is it legal" (which is a different question than the safety)

1. There is no global consensus about this, unlike certain matters like copyright violation or child pornography where content is being instantly shut down worldwide (copyright violations just being too large in numbers for authorities / companies to keep pace)
2. Legality in terms of criminal offense and civil action are two different pairs of shoes - just because you wouldn't go to jail, you still can have your ass sued with lawyer costs for the rest of your life
3. Without explicit laws, criminal courts could still use precedence from "celeb fake" cases
4. The question wether the used 3D models are created from real photographs is probably relevant in both cases, in particular when combined with point 3 above

So apparently the question of legality cannot be answered, if you want to be 100% safe then don't do it.
Perhaps the first instance would be to ask the folks at Patreon, if they have no objections then anything beyond that is purely hypothetical.

 

[saintvermillion]

Alright just to recap what we could gather as facts.

The OP question is simple:

Also the thread title is "is it legal" (which is a different question than the safety)

1. There is no global consensus about this, unlike certain matters like copyright violation or child pornography where content is being instantly shut down worldwide (copyright violations just being too large in numbers for authorities / companies to keep pace)
2. Legality in terms of criminal offense and civil action are two different pairs of shoes - just because you wouldn't go to jail, you still can have your ass sued with lawyer costs for the rest of your life
3. Without explicit laws, criminal courts could still use precedence from "celeb fake" cases
4. The question wether the used 3D models are created from real photographs is probably relevant in both cases, in particular when combined with point 3 above

So apparently the question of legality cannot be answered, if you want to be 100% safe then don't do it.
Perhaps the first instance would be to ask the folks at Patreon, if they have no objections then anything beyond that is purely hypothetical.

See what I mean, just as we were descending into anarchy.

 

[Volta]

It isn't as far as i can see illegal, especial

I've seen a number of people advocate for smaller government within and outside libertarian circles but I've only ever seen one self-proclaimed anarchist before.


In all seriousness though I'm geniunely curious what the practical application of anarchy is supposed to be when people naturally organize into hierarchies. It seems the definition of a poorly thought out political stance.

Anarchy is an oddity in the sense that it's never sufficiently explained by the anarchist, it's instead a lazy stance adopted by any anti-establishment "rebel" who no doubt will have to eat humble pie and do a butter advert in 30 years time, it's not a political stance it's merely being anti any political stance that is currently in practise, think along the lines of "any rebellion will do"

 

[DarthSeduction]

This is technically off the topic of the sub, so I'll post it in spoilers.

I don't have an example with an anarchist system on a "national" wide level - most likely nations and anarchist don't harmony. I can't say, which one's would be better.

Spoiler: Nation?

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

If you have an example for anarchism on a "national" wide level, I would be interested.

Spoiler: Has anarchy been done? How would we do it in the future?

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

In all seriousness though I'm geniunely curious what the practical application of anarchy is supposed to be when people naturally organize into hierarchies. It seems the definition of a poorly thought out political stance.

Spoiler: Human nature includes the ability of humans to deny their nature.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Anarchy is an oddity in the sense that it's never sufficiently explained by the anarchist, it's instead a lazy stance adopted by any anti-establishment "rebel" who no doubt will have to eat humble pie and do a butter advert in 30 years time, it's not a political stance it's merely being anti any political stance that is currently in practise, think along the lines of "any rebellion will do"

Spoiler: Damn kids and their anti-establishment

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Volta]

This is technically off the topic of the sub, so I'll post it in spoilers.

Spoiler: Nation?

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Has anarchy been done? How would we do it in the future?

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Human nature includes the ability of humans to deny their nature.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Damn kids and their anti-establishment

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Re the anarchists, i went to university with a dorm full of them, now you could say they aren't "proper" anarchists but tbh you need to realise that anarchy isn't just anti-establishent or anti-governement, it's tantamount to anti-civilisation, frankly that doesn't add up any way you cut it.

 

[DarthSeduction]

Re the anarchists, i went to university with a dorm full of them, now you could say they aren't "proper" anarchists but tbh you need to realise that anarchy isn't just anti-establishent or anti-governement, it's tantamount to anti-civilisation, frankly that doesn't add up any way you cut it.

See, that's not anarchy. There are primitivist socialists who might call themselves anarchists, but mainstream anarchists and socialists tend to look at them the same way we do stalin and mao apologists. If you're talking about "some people just want to see the world burn" people who think anarchy and chaos are synonymous, then no, that isn't anarchy, that's misanthropy.

 

[Volta]

See, that's not anarchy. There are primitivist socialists who might call themselves anarchists, but mainstream anarchists and socialists tend to look at them the same way we do stalin and mao apologists. If you're talking about "some people just want to see the world burn" people who think anarchy and chaos are synonymous, then no, that isn't anarchy, that's misanthropy.

I think you're right to differentiate between "rebel without a cause" ideology and what you're calling "mainstream anarchists" but i have to say in my experience there are far more of the former than the latter, making calling them "mainstream" anarchists somewhat difficult to swallow, bloody good point though.

 

[saintvermillion]

See, that's not anarchy. There are primitivist socialists who might call themselves anarchists, but mainstream anarchists and socialists tend to look at them the same way we do stalin and mao apologists. If you're talking about "some people just want to see the world burn" people who think anarchy and chaos are synonymous, then no, that isn't anarchy, that's misanthropy.

Yeah the joker was kind of a bad choice on my behalf because he was engaging in Aporia (identity manipulation) in that scene just like he did with batman. All of his rhetoric about not having a plan while he must have spent enormous amounts of time meticulously planning on multiple projects to pull off what he did in the Dark Knight. So ironically he was straight out lying to and manipulating Harvey Dent as apart of a larger plan of his own. The monologue was and performance in the movie in total was persuasive enough though that one guy was convinced enough to start shooting people at the next movie premiere. All this being said he was the closest to a self proclaimed anarchist that I knew of so obviously my pool of information is pretty limited there.

In my experience if there is a following or overarching ideology like anarchism the mainstream will automatically dismiss it on face value with little time spent examining the belief system and for a belief system to gain traction there has to be some value to it. Religions, belief systems and ideas undergo a type of natural selection over time. Take Christianity for example, one aspect of it but it applies to alot of it, priests were designated as being unable to marry by the Pope because they were basically rockstars banging all the women, and their personal success in life then became tied into the success of their congregations(through internal promotions). So it was in the best interest of priest x, y and z to suppress the darker sides of his flock which gave them an 'evolutionary advantage' over those who never attended church or had an alternative belief system.. and so that and the many other aspects of Christianity like what is contained in the messages of the bible gave those who participated in the church a life advantage, their genes were passed on and the ideology continued strongly for 2,000 years. The church suffered it's greatest hit when the ideology clashed greatest with what was needed to succeed in the modern world, when it was less of advantage to be christian and so the church had to start shifting it's guiding ideas. So you've got a system of natural selection ongoing for not only overarching belief systems but the individual ideas that comprise them.

I figured with my limited knowledge and viewpoint aligning with farmer joe about anarchism there must be something I was missing and I think you've done a decent job of explaining that. I can see the importance in chopping off the higher rungs of the power structure if you want to avoid oppression altogether. The problem with this goal of avoiding hierarchies is human nature. A hypothetically fully realized group of anarchists can successfully as you point out suppress that nature(to a debatable degree) but no one else is. When you've got a horizontally organised groups living with a co-op style system pitted against those in a capitalistic hierarchically structured system(and the mindbloggingly enormous benefits this kind of system brings) over a long enough time scale the latter will win out every single time in almost every dimension you could measure...

and here's the brutal kicker.. even if there was an apocalyptic event and all of civilization had to start from the ashes and in this scenario some form of anarchism rose to be the dominant system.. it would only be temporary.. some greater system would have to evolve and breakthrough. and thank god that's the nature of nature. Thank god anarchism in whatever form is doomed to eventual failure just as communism is. Humanity has far too much potential to be capped by such a basic system and that's exactly what a system like anarchism is, a handicap, an attempt to turn back the clock. If you want a political framework of legitimate value look for ways to advance upon the system we have.

 

[DarthSeduction]

The problem with this goal of avoiding hierarchies is human nature. A hypothetically fully realized group of anarchists can successfully as you point out suppress that nature(to a debatable degree) but no one else is. When you've got a horizontally organised groups living with a co-op style system pitted against those in a capitalistic hierarchically structured system(and the mindbloggingly enormous benefits this kind of system brings) over a long enough time scale the latter will win out every single time in almost every dimension you could measure...

Anarchy, like most socialist ideologies recognize that they cannot exist alongside capitalism. So, for instance, I live in the US. For me the goals are along the lines of education, in particular about how capitalism is the cause of most of our problems (not to say that feudalism or slave economies of the past were any better) so that we, together, as a nation can choose socialism.

That's where things get a bit difficult though. As I stated before, I don't believe in forcing people into one system or another. I'd suggest that a post-capitalist US immediately decentralize and allow autonomous regions to define their version of socialism. This could translate to Florida looking a lot more like modern Cuba, while California looks more like Catalonia, and idk, Nevada looks like what I described above. Each of these areas could still interact with no problems though, using contracts, consent, and consensus.

and here's the brutal kicker.. even if there was an apocalyptic event and all of civilization had to start from the ashes and in this scenario some form of anarchism rose to be the dominant system.. it would only be temporary.. some greater system would have to evolve and breakthrough. and thank god that's the nature of nature. Thank god anarchism in whatever form is doomed to eventual failure just as communism is. Humanity has far too much potential to be capped by such a basic system and that's exactly what a system like anarchism is, a handicap, an attempt to turn back the clock. If you want a political framework of legitimate value look for ways to advance upon the system we have.

Spoiler: Holy fuck that's a lot of words, but it's a complex topic and this just barely scratched the surface.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

~sigh... that was a lot of typing. Now, once you see how capitalism doesn't work, we have to talk about what does, what doesn't and what needs to happen to make something work.

Most people tend to pretend that socialism means starting from scorched earth. But Marx wrote about it during the height of the Industrial Revolution in the UK. His major conceit was that it was because of the industrial revolution that socialism would even be possible. So really, any argument that socialism is moving backwards is a literal misunderstanding of what socialism is. Everything, and I mean everything, is built on the backs of the generations before it. Slave economies and their emperors gave way to kings and their feudal lords. An alienated merchant elite rose up against the feudal lords and demanded change to bring us into capitalism, and each put new blocks on the old. When the US started the idea of a capitalist democracy was as laughable as socialism is today. They didn't know it would work, but they pushed for it anyway. It took over 100 years and a civil war to even get something that was kinda stable. Now, 100+ years more, and the economic system has taken over the world, but it's constantly teetering on collapse. This system doesn't work for the majority. It's time to put in place one that might, even if we aren't 100% sure it will succeed. Maybe, as we learn it's flaws we'll find an even better way to organize, and ideally, since we'll have the horizontal power structures and no state monopoly on violence to keep us oppressed, we'll be able to make those adaptations quickly and willingly.

 

[c3p0]

@DarthSeduction I agree with you that the capitalism is not the best idea.
In theory it could be. The same I see for the communism. In real it didn't. That capitalism works we need a patch to adjust it that brings us to the social state.
But the ideas of the social state was implement when the cold war was still there and the fear of comunist and their ideas was great. So to avoid that the small workers will rebell this was a solution. But now, without the fear of the UDSSR and the only mark ideal is capitalism, we are disintegrate this social state idea.
This will, on long term, bring us to another turning point, if we will follow this path without correnctions. What comes then I don't know and I'm not sure, if I even want it to know.

What history has, in my eyes, proven, is that humanity can easily forget was they have learned only a little time before.

The Great Depression in 1929 and the 2008 financial crisis has a lot in common and the later was only possible because we have change some rules that was installed after 1929 to prevent such an event.

 

[saintvermillion]

Anarchy, like most socialist ideologies recognize that they cannot exist alongside capitalism. So, for instance, I live in the US. For me the goals are along the lines of education, in particular about how capitalism is the cause of most of our problems (not to say that feudalism or slave economies of the past were any better) so that we, together, as a nation can choose socialism.

That's where things get a bit difficult though. As I stated before, I don't believe in forcing people into one system or another. I'd suggest that a post-capitalist US immediately decentralize and allow autonomous regions to define their version of socialism. This could translate to Florida looking a lot more like modern Cuba, while California looks more like Catalonia, and idk, Nevada looks like what I described above. Each of these areas could still interact with no problems though, using contracts, consent, and consensus.

Spoiler: Holy fuck that's a lot of words, but it's a complex topic and this just barely scratched the surface.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

~sigh... that was a lot of typing. Now, once you see how capitalism doesn't work, we have to talk about what does, what doesn't and what needs to happen to make something work.

Most people tend to pretend that socialism means starting from scorched earth. But Marx wrote about it during the height of the Industrial Revolution in the UK. His major conceit was that it was because of the industrial revolution that socialism would even be possible. So really, any argument that socialism is moving backwards is a literal misunderstanding of what socialism is. Everything, and I mean everything, is built on the backs of the generations before it. Slave economies and their emperors gave way to kings and their feudal lords. An alienated merchant elite rose up against the feudal lords and demanded change to bring us into capitalism, and each put new blocks on the old. When the US started the idea of a capitalist democracy was as laughable as socialism is today. They didn't know it would work, but they pushed for it anyway. It took over 100 years and a civil war to even get something that was kinda stable. Now, 100+ years more, and the economic system has taken over the world, but it's constantly teetering on collapse. This system doesn't work for the majority. It's time to put in place one that might, even if we aren't 100% sure it will succeed. Maybe, as we learn it's flaws we'll find an even better way to organize, and ideally, since we'll have the horizontal power structures and no state monopoly on violence to keep us oppressed, we'll be able to make those adaptations quickly and willingly.

Yeah capitalism has serious fundamental flaws written into the core code of the system that inevitably are expressed as time marches on which summarizes 3/4ths of your post. I agree with that completely. You could also fairly claim that the blueprint or ideology or theoretical groundings of what it was supposed to be has become progressively more corrupted with the ever blurring lines of church, state and business or you could say it is a manifestation of what it always meant to be or it never matched an idealized version... either way it is what it is and I think both us and most people reading this have a decent general idea of what capitalism as it stands today entails, the hidden darker side and all. That same system and democracy has also fueled advancement in science and technology and shaped the best possible societies you could live in today in terms of quality of life. For all its flaws and injustices it has gifted some pretty damn amazing gifts.

What I was saying in my previous post about the natural selection of overarching belief systems applies to both capitalism and democracy. I believe that the more aligned or complimentary a belief system is with human nature/the way the natural world works the more successful that system will be in spreading and surviving. The systems ability to interact and plug into the larger ecosystem of what is already there defines its value. Capitalism may not always be in the best interest of all members of society or a paradigm of equality but neither is nature. Nature is a brutal realm where the fittest survive and the rest get stomped into non-existence. In political terms this translates to meritocracy and social mobility(the ability to excel in this world irrelevant of the status of your parents). There is also something to be said for communication and cooperation being what began the evolutionary separation from and primacy of humans over animals but this was a sharper edge for one group over another in that same brutal world. Socialist governments or intended socialist government when established end up going to the shit because of this failure to recognize human nature. Corruption always emerges. Hierarchies always form.

I digress, the main discussion and disagreement seems to be on where to go from here. I'd love to see a big fucking (democrat funded lol) wall established between business and government as I find the idea of the corporations running things beyond their current degree terrifying Starting over in an anarchist style system for shits and giggles for the next hundred years to see how it evolves seems like a terrible idea. I'd rather focus on fixing the flaws with the current one until a clearly more viable alternative presents itself.

If we're going to flip the board and try something new we should learn from history and closely examine the likelihood of success or that it's at least going to be better than capitalism first. I don't see subdivided anarchist communities advancing the plight of the human race or getting us a step closer to colonizing different planets out in space or any other future benefits that a continuation of our current system could bring. One could argue the validity of an alternative system on quality of life grounds but that might be in direct contrast with the productivity of the society. If that's the case then maybe some kind of happy medium between the two forces could be found in a similar manner as how France has one of the highest quality of life ratings in the world yet has a successful economy. That comes back to a definitional issue.. what kind of ideal social system are we aiming for? what criteria is that structure supposed to facilitate or meet? Topping capitalism and democracy is a higher bar than it looks. Jacque fresco had the idea of a resource based society with his Venus Project but I don't know viable something like that would be. In fact unless you've taken the time to research a hundred different alternatives comparing and contrasting and god know what criteria how can you be so sure alternative direction/social structure X is the way to go? Furthermore even if you worked out alternative social structure is the way to go, how do you get everyone else in society to that same logical point? The near impossibility of that task makes me think the energy is better spent on more achievable positive changes within society.

 

[Rhythm]

Not sure on legal status in each country but you'd never get sued or charged with anything. Not worth the money or effort by the police.

This is wrong. I have a law degree, so let me explain some of this to you guys It isn't a criminal offence, the police wouldn't be involved. It would be civil proceedings where the actor/actress sues you for defamation via libel. In my country at least, they could absolutely sue you for this. Here, the requirements for them to sue you are that:
- You have made a communication to other people, through words, in person, art, etc.
- The communication relates to the celebrity or identifies them (hardest stage to prove in art).
- The communication was defamatory - meaning that it negatively effects their reputation, lowers your estimation in the eyes of other people or might cause them to be shunned/avoided.

The only defences to this are that the communication is based on truth, that it was given in a situation of absolute privilege (like court), that they are based on honest opinion, or based on the premise of free speech (this only works when talking about government or politics).

So yeah, a game with renders of Ariana Grande getting pounded by her brother would potentially be defamation and she could sue you.

 

[saintvermillion]

This is wrong. I have a law degree, so let me explain some of this to you guys It isn't a criminal offence, the police wouldn't be involved. It would be civil proceedings where the actor/actress sues you for defamation via libel. In my country at least, they could absolutely sue you for this. Here, the requirements for them to sue you are that:
- You have made a communication to other people, through words, in person, art, etc.
- The communication relates to the celebrity or identifies them (hardest stage to prove in art).
- The communication was defamatory - meaning that it negatively effects their reputation, lowers your estimation in the eyes of other people or might cause them to be shunned/avoided.

The only defences to this are that the communication is based on truth, that it was given in a situation of absolute privilege (like court), that they are based on honest opinion, or based on the premise of free speech (this only works when talking about government or politics).

So yeah, a game with renders of Ariana Grande getting pounded by her brother would potentially be defamation and she could sue you.

Yeah that applies to your one country, lots of countries in play. Do you think Ariande Grande would ever sue someone over a game where she fucks her brother in the process drawing massive attention to it? Come on. Even if she happened to be geniunely outraged it existed she'd be shooting herself in the foot by suing.. furthermore there is an uptick in all of these kinds of media when a celebrity speaks out about it and if money is the/a factor in the choice to sue, $2-10Gs is a drop in the bucket to most celebrities who are big enough to bother faking.

 

[c3p0]

Yeah that applies to your one country, lots of countries in play. Do you think Ariande Grande would ever sue someone over a game where she fucks her brother in the process drawing massive attention to it? Come on. Even if she happened to be geniunely outraged it existed she'd be shooting herself in the foot by suing.. furthermore there is an uptick in all of these kinds of media when a celebrity speaks out about it and if money is the/a factor in the choice to sue, $2-10Gs is a drop in the bucket to most celebrities who are big enough to bother faking.

I would see this from the perspective of the one that get sued.
Most of them can probably choose between personal bankruptcy or to give in. If the choose to give in the terms would be, most likely, dictated from the other party. Could be never develop a adult game again and of course a gag order on top of it.

And people that are enraged usually don't think as clear as when they are calm. So I see it absolutely possible that the sue your over this rather than hope that it doesn't attract to much action. If they sue you it would obviously have a Streisand effect, but your main concern would be the ongoing case and the money it cost, even if you win at the end.

 

[Rhythm]

Yeah that applies to your one country, lots of countries in play. Do you think Ariande Grande would ever sue someone over a game where she fucks her brother in the process drawing massive attention to it? Come on. Even if she happened to be geniunely outraged it existed she'd be shooting herself in the foot by suing.. furthermore there is an uptick in all of these kinds of media when a celebrity speaks out about it and if money is the/a factor in the choice to sue, $2-10Gs is a drop in the bucket to most celebrities who are big enough to bother faking.

I mean, my country is Australia. And almost the exact same policies exist in America and the UK. In fact, America is even more lenient with defamation requirements so it would be easier to get done there, in fact in the libel clauses it even specifies that showing people committing sexual misconduct is libel. You might be safe if you live in Sweden or something?
As for celebrities bothering, it depends entirely on how big your game becomes. If you end up making 10k/m on Patreon with thousands of people paying you and they get notice of it, I'd say they are almost certainly going to sue you, and they have no issue finding you due to you going through Patreon. Of course, if your game is tiny then the chances they will notice or have any claim for damages is probably 0.

 

[saintvermillion]

I mean, my country is Australia. And almost the exact same policies exist in America and the UK. In fact, America is even more lenient with defamation requirements so it would be easier to get done there, in fact in the libel clauses it even specifies that showing people committing sexual misconduct is libel. You might be safe if you live in Sweden or something?
As for celebrities bothering, it depends entirely on how big your game becomes. If you end up making 10k/m on Patreon with thousands of people paying you and they get notice of it, I'd say they are almost certainly going to sue you, and they have no issue finding you due to you going through Patreon. Of course, if your game is tiny then the chances they will notice or have any claim for damages is probably 0.

Straya cunt Yeah fair enough. That's a pretty accurate assessment. Only way to be 100% is to not do it.

 

[DarthSeduction]

You could also fairly claim that the blueprint or ideology or theoretical groundings of what it was supposed to be has become progressively more corrupted with the ever blurring lines of church, state and business or you could say it is a manifestation of what it always meant to be or it never matched an idealized version

I want to dispel an illusion here. The ideology that is taught with the exception of Keynesian economics, does not support much, if any government involvement in business. Most economic ideology truly believes the market regulates itself. That is not the case, and that is the problem. Keynes attempted to correct for this. He realized the market didn't regulate itself, and wasn't acting as a price setter, and thus Keynesian economics decides that we should insert into the equation someone who does what the Malthusian Auctioneer did. Keynes argues that the government is the only entity that could do that.

Spoiler: History of US Capitalism

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Now, hold that there, we have something else to look at.

I digress, the main discussion and disagreement seems to be on where to go from here. I'd love to see a big fucking (democrat funded lol) wall established between business and government as I find the idea of the corporations running things beyond their current degree terrifying Starting over in an anarchist style system for shits and giggles for the next hundred years to see how it evolves seems like a terrible idea. I'd rather focus on fixing the flaws with the current one until a clearly more viable alternative presents itself.

Spoiler: Reform hasn't worked yet, but lets keep trying -_-

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

If we're going to flip the board and try something new we should learn from history and closely examine the likelihood of success or that it's at least going to be better than capitalism first. I don't see subdivided anarchist communities advancing the plight of the human race or getting us a step closer to colonizing different planets out in space or any other future benefits that a continuation of our current system could bring.

Why don't you? Socialism, removing the profit incentive, and cutting so called bullshit jobs, would lead to more people having the leisure to pursue education and encourage those who have the drive to actually do that. Now, would we do it before solving our more pressing concerns here on earth? Absolutely not. But to imply that we wouldn't be able to become a space faring species capable of colonizing other worlds is pure ideological speculation.

One could argue the validity of an alternative system on quality of life grounds but that might be in direct contrast with the productivity of the society. If that's the case then maybe some kind of happy medium between the two forces could be found in a similar manner as how France has one of the highest quality of life ratings in the world yet has a successful economy. That comes back to a definitional issue.. what kind of ideal social system are we aiming for? what criteria is that structure supposed to facilitate or meet?

France right now|

The first 2:47 are all about the Yellow Vests and police Brutality.

Spoiler: Images of injury, not pleasant to look at.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

The yellow vests movement or yellow jackets movement (

You must be registered to see the links

: Mouvement des gilets jaunes, pronounced

You must be registered to see the links

) is a

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

for

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

that began in

You must be registered to see the links

in 2018. After an online petition posted in May had attracted nearly a million signatures, mass demonstrations began on 17 November.

You must be registered to see the links

The movement is motivated by rising fuel prices, high

You must be registered to see the links

, and claims that a disproportionate burden of the government's tax reforms were falling on the working and middle classes,

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

especially in rural and

You must be registered to see the links

areas.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

The protesters have called for lower fuel taxes, reintroduction of the

You must be registered to see the links

, a minimum wage increase, the implementation of

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

and

You must be registered to see the links

's resignation as

You must be registered to see the links

. The movement spans the political spectrum. According to one poll, few of those protesting had voted for Macron in the

You must be registered to see the links

, and many had either

You must be registered to see the links

, or had voted for

You must be registered to see the links

or

You must be registered to see the links

candidates.

You must be registered to see the links

Before I hear a "wikipedia is your source, really?" I was actually expecting bias in favor of France that isn't there in that so that's why I posted this. My sources on the movement are Yellow Vests who have spoken with the likes of Dr. Richard Wolff on his weekly show Economic Update, which can be found on Youtube. As well as other news I've read or watched via twitter.

So, no, capitalism isn't working, even in France, where it works a lot better than here.

That comes back to a definitional issue.. what kind of ideal social system are we aiming for? what criteria is that structure supposed to facilitate or meet? Topping capitalism and democracy is a higher bar than it looks.

Who said anything about toppling democracy? Consensus and consent are the highest priority, how do you think you attain consensus without democracy? Capitalism is not intrinsically linked to democracy. In fact, Capitalism thrives under dictatorships. This is likely because, businesses, as they exist under capitalism, function as totalitarian dictatorships.

What ideal social system are we aiming for? One that doesn't exploit anyone else. One in which everyone has the exact same opportunity to live a life they desire. One in which the world isn't destroyed by greed.

In fact unless you've taken the time to research a hundred different alternatives comparing and contrasting and god know what criteria how can you be so sure alternative direction/social structure X is the way to go? Furthermore even if you worked out alternative social structure is the way to go, how do you get everyone else in society to that same logical point? The near impossibility of that task makes me think the energy is better spent on more achievable positive changes within society.

How do we get everyone behind a change to single payer healthcare? How do we get everyone behind building a stupid fucking wall? See, your question is inherently ignoring reality in favor of the status quo. The economists have studied our economic system, and many have decided that some form of socialism is the answer. Even Parecon, which is something I only learned about recently, and which thinks that the market would still have to exist as a check and balance on our resources, promotes a very bottom up organizational method. To paraphrase, he talks about who should have the right to make a decision. If you want to listen, with headphones, to music, that's your decision. But in the workplace, if you want to listen to a boombox with death metal playing, you're gonna have to get the rest of the office on board. In that way, people should be allowed to make decisions which affect them. Nothing wrong with that take, in fact, Rojava, an autonomous anarchist region in Syria, has done this in a way, having both mixed and women's councils to ensure that women have a voice, which is particularly important in a culture that has serious issues with women's rights.

Fixing capitalism is the only thing that is unattainable. Because capitalism isn't broken. It's functioning exactly as intended.

 

[c3p0]

I want to dispel an illusion here. The ideology that is taught with the exception of Keynesian economics, does not support much, if any government involvement in business. Most economic ideology truly believes the market regulates itself. That is not the case, and that is the problem. Keynes attempted to correct for this. He realized the market didn't regulate itself, and wasn't acting as a price setter, and thus Keynesian economics decides that we should insert into the equation someone who does what the Malthusian Auctioneer did. Keynes argues that the government is the only entity that could do that.

Why don't you? Socialism, removing the profit incentive, and cutting so called bullshit jobs, would lead to more people having the leisure to pursue education and encourage those who have the drive to actually do that. Now, would we do it before solving our more pressing concerns here on earth? Absolutely not. But to imply that we wouldn't be able to become a space faring species capable of colonizing other worlds is pure ideological speculation.

From my believes, and as said before - and I think we share this opinion - "pure" capitalism, without any leash on it, don't work.

I believe that social state works better than the other forms, emphatic on the work better. They all come in combination with capitalism with will not work for humanity over long term in this form (at least). If it ever works in another form, I doubt it.

I don't mean it doesn work for how it's work, as it does what it's do quite effizient. Accumulate power were some arise from the crowd. And with this withdrawn the power from them in the same step.

Only counterforce is the goverment itself, but there you only have people and most likely some winners of the capititalism itself. In some country to a lesser degree than in others, but the issue is there in general.

It think, it also gives a study from Britain where they have look at, how the money is spread among the different working class. The conclusion was that their is hardly ever a money flow among different working class and most money flow is with the same working class. So the riches give money to riches and so on.

But for a social state to keep working, the advance of the capititalism and the neo-liberalism must be constantly batteled. A Social state is not self sustaining. The people with power don't like it, as they are constantly limited in their power. So they will try to weakaning the social state and thus must be battleded. Otherwise the social state today would not be the same or better tomorrow.

Also, as a statement, we "all" rich nations are there were we are, because that capitalism system work as it's work. Means we are were we are, because fuel our wealth from the poor.

I've said sometime ago to a friend of my: We need wealth to buy us our prosperity....

France right now|
...
Before I hear a "wikipedia is your source, really?" I was actually expecting bias in favor of France that isn't there in that so that's why I posted this. My sources on the movement are Yellow Vests who have spoken with the likes of Dr. Richard Wolff on his weekly show Economic Update, which can be found on Youtube. As well as other news I've read or watched via twitter.

So, no, capitalism isn't working, even in France, where it works a lot better than here.

As I am in a immediate neighbour country to France, I see them as strike proven. I don't judge them and I sure they have their own, very understandable reasons.
But then again, how many countries would you like to list?

Who said anything about toppling democracy? Consensus and consent are the highest priority, how do you think you attain consensus without democracy? Capitalism is not intrinsically linked to democracy. In fact, Capitalism thrives under dictatorships. This is likely because, businesses, as they exist under capitalism, function as totalitarian dictatorships.

What ideal social system are we aiming for? One that doesn't exploit anyone else. One in which everyone has the exact same opportunity to live a life they desire. One in which the world isn't destroyed by greed.

To be one pessimistic bastard and bring you this brutal hard facts: It will never happen.

• One that doesn't exploit anyone else.
  • Would say goes against human nature. Even if you and I could battle human nature or are civilised what about the rest of the 7 billion people? Don't think so. Otherwise the police would have a lot less work to do...
• One in which everyone has the exact same opportunity to live a life they desire.
  • Not happend. Even in the most perfect world. You only must be at the false time on the false place and you are in the plaine that crash and not someone else.
• One in which the world isn't destroyed by greed.
  • Goes also against human nature and I even think we're behind that point that the can change if the world is "destroyed". Can we destroid the world? I don't think. Can we destroid it to the point it has a serious impact on the human life? Sure, if we haven't done it already.

Should we try it even if it would never work - as I say: GO FOR IT!
Best thing that could happen, we would achieve it and prove me wrong. Worst thing, we would have tried it.

How do we get everyone behind a change to single payer healthcare? How do we get everyone behind building a stupid fucking wall? See, your question is inherently ignoring reality in favor of the status quo. The economists have studied our economic system, and many have decided that some form of socialism is the answer. Even Parecon, which is something I only learned about recently, and which thinks that the market would still have to exist as a check and balance on our resources, promotes a very bottom up organizational method. To paraphrase, he talks about who should have the right to make a decision. If you want to listen, with headphones, to music, that's your decision. But in the workplace, if you want to listen to a boombox with death metal playing, you're gonna have to get the rest of the office on board. In that way, people should be allowed to make decisions which affect them. Nothing wrong with that take, in fact, Rojava, an autonomous anarchist region in Syria, has done this in a way, having both mixed and women's councils to ensure that women have a voice, which is particularly important in a culture that has serious issues with women's rights.

Fixing capitalism is the only thing that is unattainable. Because capitalism isn't broken. It's functioning exactly as intended.

Other thing for reference:
In the Swiss their was a debatte and a vote about an unconditional base income. It wasn't supported, obvious neither from politicans, nor firm, nor person with greater wealth and at the end also not from the electors.