Jump to content

Khaleesi did nothing wrong

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Khaleesi did nothing wrong

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 05/11/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,194 profile views
  1. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Bull**it Jobs

    Maybe. What makes me skeptical about those predictions is that, relatively speaking, people in rich countries already live in societies of abundance. Average citizens in Western Europe, the USA etc. have incomes between 50 and 100 times greater than people in preindustrial economies. Yet many still feel poor. Not sure why that would change even if incomes increase by as much again over the next couple of centuries.
  2. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    International Thread 3

    Taiwan also has a strong military and is an island. China is definitely not able to just walk in there the way they can do with Hong Kong. Then there is the real possibility of a direct confrontation with the USA if they were to try. USA's traditional approach regarding this issue is one of strategic ambiguity, where strong support is expressed for Taiwan's right to be protected from aggression, but the US refuses to give a clear answer on whether they would interfere on their behalf in a war or not. This is done in order to discourage Taiwanese hardliners from needlessly provoking China, which they might if they felt safe that the US would cover their backs in any situation. Either way, invading Taiwan would be a very risky move for China. The situation in Hong Kong is completely different.
  3. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    U.S. Politics: Trump of the Will

    I don't see why you would hate that, unless you want journalists to work for free. Ad sales are nowhere near lucrative enough to sustain most newspapers and magazines after Google, Facebook and other social media platforms got into the market.
  4. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Workable Socialism

    Well, it is not good enough for me, so I guess that is that. Not at all. Not in the sense Socialists mean it anyway. Most of the means of production in the British Empire at this time (which would have been things like farmland, cattle, mines, merchant ships, simple factories, etc) were privately owned. Not controlled by the British state or held in common. No, not quite. Both want to kill the capitalist system. Socialists want to kill it through reform, Communists by revolution.
  5. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Workable Socialism

    Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, National Socialists. Just quibbling with definitions. Wishing to eliminate private corporations, private profit, and having a social order based on popular control over resources and production is the same thing as abolishing private property. That is, privately held capital. Or the "means of production", to use traditional socialist terminology. They are distinct from each other, but not regarding the aim of abolishing the capitalist economic system. You are the one who is confused.
  6. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Workable Socialism

    It contradicts it because you said "just". Socialists do not at all just want those two things. Not even close. Secondly, Social Democracy is not the same thing as Socialism, or Democratic Socialism. At least not if you talk about Western countries where Social Democrats have historically achieved some success. The traditional Socialists tend to have their own political parties. As for an example to your question about private property, here are some statements by the Democratic Socialists of America taken from their wikipedia page: Etc. Anyway, I think this is risking sidetracking the thread. The point is that socialism as an ideology goes a hell of a lot further than just wanting some amount of public services or a welfare state, but is rather about the abolishment of capitalism. Then there are a thousand different interpretations of how exactly the new system should look like, many of which resulted in bloodbaths within the historical socialist states, but that is a hole this thread should not dive into.
  7. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Workable Socialism

    I agree with you that Marx' writings are antiquated, but "community buy in for communal services that benefit the entirety of the collective" covers almost every political ideology. That is not true. Even Social Democrats want to to significantly further than that, and they are the most moderate out of the different branches of socialist ideology. Look up the stated goals of some actual Socialist parties (should not be confused with Social Democrats) and you will see that most of them aim to abolish private property at some point.
  8. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Workable Socialism

    I never said that capitalism should be unfettered. But the foundation for the economic system, sure. Regarding your second point, I don't think your definition for socialism is the mainstream one. If I recall my Marx correctly, socialism also involves the abolishment of all private property (capital). Although at the socialist stage it is controlled by a central government rather than the "workers" themselves, as in the ideal communist stage that would come later.
  9. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Workable Socialism

    I really don't see the need for abolishing an economic system that historically has doubled average incomes every 40 years. Especially not when its suggested replacement has a horrible track record in almost every respect.
  10. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    [Spoilers] Episode 806 Discussion

    Yeah, that one was funny. Edmure Tully is the Jeb Bush of Westeros.
  11. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Welcome to war

    It depends on what we are discussing. Destroying the entire city like that was of course extremely cruel, and quite crazy too. If D&D had been better writers, it would have been the culmination of Daenarys' gradual turn from an idealistic and considerate leader into a paranoid tyrant. But from a legal perspective, there are no codified rules governing warfare in Westeros, merely certain norms about acceptable behavior. According to those it seems like, much like in real history, the residents of castles and cities can only expect merciful treatment if they surrender before they are stormed. For example, look at how even the very justice oriented Stannis Baratheon was expected to execute the garrison of Storm's End if he had stormed it, or sack King's Landing if he had won at the Blackwater.
  12. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Welcome to war

    Yeah, I chose it a long time ago since it even then seemed like Dany was eventually going to become... well, not so nice. Of course, the way the show handled her gradual transformation into that (or didn't, rather), was very dissapointing.
  13. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Welcome to war

    Well, I agree that what is depicted on the show is worse than normal. Although you definitely don't need dragons or modern technology to destroy old cities like King's Landing. Just look at what simple accidental fires could do to Rome or London, for example.
  14. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Welcome to war

    What Dany did was cruel, but probably not outside the norms of warfare in Westeros. If we assume Westeros is similar to how it worked in real history, then a city or castle should surrender before it is stormed if it wants to receive favorable terms (i.e. not being sacked). King's Landing waited until the walls were breached and the battle was basically over.
  15. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    Regarding 3, I do not doubt that US elites will try to undermine reforms either. That said, isn't a popular saying in political science that all laws are temporary, or something like that? What I mean is that achieving a system that is perpetually safe from being undermined is unrealistic, and is hence not a standard that different choices should be evaluated against. As for number 4, I suppose you could argue that in terms of political strategy. But then you'd really want to make sure that you don't end up in a situation where those people actually end up taking power. Courting extremists is a dangerous game that has backfired many times in the past. However, I get the impression that your definition of "revolutionary" does not necessarily mean actual communists.