Ye New Galactic Bar & Grill & Phong's Head Cantina - After Hours

[Fyron]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

Oppressing most of the citizens in the nation may be stable, but it certainly isn't right. And that is exactly what Feudalism is based upon: systematic oppression of the lower class by a very small upper class.

*Dogscoff sees an unmissable opportunity for some Pythonism. He bops Fyron on the head with his sword, and Fyron responds with:
"Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system."
"Shut up, bloody peasant..." *thwack* *thwack*
"Ooh! Did you hear that? Help, help, I'm being oppressed..."

---

Isn't it "I'm being repressed", not "oppressed?"

[Erax]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oppressing most of the citizens in the nation may be stable, but it certainly isn't right. And that is exactly what Feudalism is based upon: systematic oppression of the lower class by a very small upper class.

There is no need for us to disagree (as a Vulcan would say). Feudalism works, but it isn't right. Communism, on the other hand, seems to break down all by itself sooner or later, so it doesn't even work.

- Serious mode is now off -

"Just because some watery tart chucked a broadsword at you, that doesn't make you king !"

[Fyron]

Feudalism doesn't work all that well when any sort of cultural progress begins to occur, actually.

[Growltigga]

Exactly my point Fyron, feudalism only works well where there is no change

[Fyron]

Erax didn't seem to get the point though.

[Growltigga]

Well, conceptualising about the economic and social viability of diverse systems of government is one thing and I believe that is what we were trying to discuss.

Erax was raising a point on the moral viability of the relative system of government, and to give him credit, that is the point Timstone was making which started this discussion off.

"Just because some moistsome bint lobbed a scimitar at you doesnt give you absolute dictatorial authority"

[ZeroAdunn]

Of course there are problems with all societies/forms of government/economies. The problem derives from the fact that at their hearts all of these systems are based on the person unit. People are inherently unreliable and disruptive to any attempt at doing anything. The solution: Replace people with robots. I mean, just look at the matrix. The whole world was happily one working society with everybody peacefull coexisting, but those damn humans had to go and screw it up!

[Growltigga]

ZeroAdunn, when do you start the medication programme?

PS I am also surprised at how well you can type with your hands strapped behind your back!

[Growltigga]

Help, I downloaded the latest turn from the Galactic Bash game Last night. But when I tried to run it, it says "data files dont match data files of game" or something like that.... I have 1.78 loaded with 1.78 compatible TDM modpack, what is happenin? can anyone advise?

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oppressing most of the citizens in the nation may be stable, but it certainly isn't right. And that is exactly what Feudalism is based upon: systematic oppression of the lower class by a very small upper class.

And that's different from American capitalism how? Because sometimes a member of the lower class can fight, claw, scheme and con his way into the upper class where he can join in the repression of the lower class?

The whole discussion of stability reminds me of my participation in a "Model United Nations Security Council" back in High School (over 15 years ago now; I feel old... ). Anyway, this was back when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan, and one of the resolutions we were debating was whether the USSR should end it's occupation. The argument against the resolution centered around the fact that the occupying forces had stabilized the country of Afghanistan. The argument for the resolution was that the "stability" only existed by force of arms and was therefore unsustainable, not to mention that it was stifling free expression and obviously ran contrary to the wishes of the general population. I think the resolution was eventually voted down, mainly because the Security Council was set up to allow any one of the "big 5" (US, USSR, China, England, and one other) to single-handedly veto any particular resolution (IIRC; it may have required 2 vetos).

I have to say, this is one of the more intellectual discussions we've had in a while here. I think we need to drink more mead and get back to random carousing and cartoon violence...