next »

[Capntastic]

ACT 3:

[Shack interior, a woman in plain dress wrings her hands and looks out the window before addressing the audience]

Harborwoman:  My husband is out there, fretting ceaselessly.  His dreams of a pure blue water to call his own have slipped further and further beyond the horizon of his reality.  His breath alone disturbs it, causing ripples.  From the very first, he has not realized this.

[From offstage, noises of a struggle]

Harborwoman:  Even now he conspired to engineer an enormous comb, with which to filter his water of debris and what he considers putrid life.  Will this not stir up the silt at the bottom?  Will not the teeth of the comb snap, and drift?  It is, to say nothing ill upon his intentions, a waste of effort.  It is not that his goals of a seaside utopia are poorly envisioned, nor his ideal something which cannot exist in reality.  It is his methods that are, again, respectfully, flawed.  

[The whine of a Briggs and Stratton 5hp outboard motor emanate from outside, attenuating through the same smoke it gives off]

Harborwoman:  Meanwhile, as he conspires, I am alone.  The shack is cold, and falls into disrepair.  The silverware tarnishes from disuse.  The spiderwebs stretch across all surfaces.  The window, that I once was able to look out of and enjoy a scene of what I consider to be untouched nature, is now a portal to my husband's madness and strife.  Is that a dimmer view than the interior I am constrained to, as I cook him his dinner?  It is something I do not wish to think of, for either outcome is damaging to me.  So I shall sit now at our wooden table, upon a wooden chair, and fold my hands into my lap, keeping them warm, while I wait for him to return, either victorious or in failure.  I am the Harborwoman, and this is expected of me.

[End scene]

[:^)]

Captntastic, this is for you.

The Harborwoman

[SirNiko]

and insofar as it's possible to give everyone whatever they rationally would desire (e.g. excluding things like 'i want to own my own island'), it's possible today, with no new technology required

The words "Rationally" and "Excluding" are the caveat that proves my point.

In order to achieve post scarcity you will have to reach a point where you do not need those qualifiers before you can write that sentence. In our current world, that means intense regulation is required. That regulation will be far more difficult to implement than improved distribution, assuming that you can even consider it "Post scarcity" when you have to enforce it.

[antybaner]

I think I will ask Derek for a custom title
"Atention magnet" or something...

seriously, what are you talking about?

[rob]

Gingrich has been so fucking racist lately it's comical... and somehow that's gaining him support. Fuck off, Republicans.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't think it's gaining newt support

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

gaining him support in *south carolina*, yes, but not nationally; nationally he's still in a freefall

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

and insofar as it's possible to give everyone whatever they rationally would desire (e.g. excluding things like 'i want to own my own island'), it's possible today, with no new technology required

The words "Rationally" and "Excluding" are the caveat that proves my point.

In order to achieve post scarcity you will have to reach a point where you do not need those qualifiers before you can write that sentence. In our current world, that means intense regulation is required. That regulation will be far more difficult to implement than improved distribution, assuming that you can even consider it "Post scarcity" when you have to enforce it.

i would claim that we would be in a post-scarcity situation if the distribution of wealth were not negatively enforced (as it currently is). if there were no enforcement (e.g. no government-corporations system), the wealth of the average person would be astronomical, and would probably eclipse even the steve jobs and bill gates of the world. it's exactly because of enforcement favoring the ruling class that we do not have post-scarcity

so i reject the idea that it would require enforcement to have post-scarcity; it's precisely because of enforcement that we have a situation where there are a few people who are super-rich and everyone else is close to poverty in comparison

[Dragonmaw]

Except that's not really true. Under enforcement for socialist countries, like Sweden, the income disparity is far, far less. Something like 20:1 CEO:Worker, instead of the almost 500:1 of the US. Proper enforcement keeps companies honest. And while one can apply pure laissez faire economics to non-essential economic systems (books, movies, games, jewelry, clothes, etc), doing so to essentials like food and medicine is asking for trouble.

[Capntastic]

I think if we all work hard and come to ethical decisions based on fact when it comes to enacting government legislature, both federal, state, and local, we will usher in a new era of enlightened rule where everyone gets a truly fair share of what America has to offer, and, to quote Roadside Picnic: ’HAPPINESS FOR EVERYBODY, FREE, AND NO ONE WILL GO AWAY UNSATISFIED!’

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Except that's not really true. Under enforcement for socialist countries, like Sweden, the income disparity is far, far less. Something like 20:1 CEO:Worker, instead of the almost 500:1 of the US. Proper enforcement keeps companies honest. And while one can apply pure laissez faire economics to non-essential economic systems (books, movies, games, jewelry, clothes, etc), doing so to essentials like food and medicine is asking for trouble.

i guess don't accept the common sense premise that so-called socialist countries have more enforcement than so-called capitalist countries. i feel that in many ways, sweden has much less regulation than the US does, and that sweden is much much more laissez faire than the US is

even according to the index of economic freedom (which in many ways uses insane measurements to measure economic freedom) sweden is *very close* to the US (the US is 76.3, sweden is 71.7); even just according to that list, sweden is a very economically free country, above japan and germany

you also have to consider the income disparity in some communist countries (like china and cuba) is even greater than it is in the US

[Capntastic]

Captntastic, this is for you.

The Harborwoman

Thank you, I enjoy images!

[Player 3]

Related.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yeah that's one of his better ads i think

[DavidCaruso]

Related.

Jesus christ that text is obnoxious as hell. What's that called again, kinetic typography? The ending was cool though, and I like the actual ad.

[The Monster King]

Thank you, I enjoy images!

And yet you are well known as a conversation man for DWARF FORTRESS a game with very little accent on images... explain that.......

[Capntastic]

I play the game minimized and have an image set as my desktop background.

[The Monster King]

and yet we have sources that state that your "image" set as background is actually a word document.... you dont like pictures, you like LETTERS. Letter-lover. if you could marry a letter, WOULD YOU????

[Capntastic]

Probably.

[The Monster King]

a fine interview thank you very much Capntastic, please vote for him next voting season

[Theophilus]

a fine interview thank you very much Capntastic, please vote for him next voting season

but hes a terrorist