metanet's next game
Posted by dessgeega Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:30:00 GMT
sorry my updates have been kind of sporadic lately – i’ve been busy with my weekly column at gamesetwatch! (warning: capitalization.)
i appealed to my bff raigan burns to give me something exclusive for my column on metanet software. he divulged some tidbits on his and mare’s new game.
tentatively titled “robotology”, the game stars a robot who swings from a wire and navigates a future robot world using parkour-inspired acrobatics. influences include “umihara kawase, commander keen, vectorman/rayman, wirehang redux, gish, z-lock, lyle in cube sector, flashback/out of this world.. and the usual suspects like mario and sonic.” the game’s story, inspired by phillip k. dick (among others), “will hopefully be something different and interesting for jaded indiegamers. and also probably sarcastic.”
he also told me they hope to have robots of varying proportions in the final game, and then slyly made an allusion to ueda’s shadow of the colossus. (!)
the game will, of course, have a level editor, just like its predecessor n (which metanet have spent most of their development history re-releasing). speaking of n, you might be seeing that game on the xbox live arcade in a little while! holy smokes!
Holy smokes!
Hot damn, do I ever love indie gaming.
N on Live Arcade, huh? That’s interesting. I wonder if that means we’ll see further updated indie titles on the 360. They’ve already got The Behemoth games and Darwinia announced. N is such a great game to play in those small instances of spare time. I left a copy of it on my campus computer whenever I start to drone out of whatever it was I was researching. A good few minutes of the stuff and back to work.
Yeah, I’ve been busy with my as well. ;)
Niiice article, though! I’m excited.
it was a totally relevant plug. i have plenty of shame!
Haha, I know, I was just razzin’ ya.
Does Live Arcade even allow freeware? Or do you have to set a price not equal to zero?
The second one, I’m sure.
Yeah, there’s got to be a small fee for the server bandwidth (or just for the profit).
Oh, oh, do we get to argue about whether or not such games are still indie, now? Did pompom and ninjabee really sell out or do they still have the indie badge of awesome?
freeware is indie. no budget to advertise or write off hosting costs.
“N+” won’t be freeware, but if we actually make a profit it will go to funding our next freeware games.
our currect (highly speculative and optimistic) business model is: make freeware continuously, releasing commercial/console versions of any games that nintendo/sony/ms are interested in.
that way, we still get to make whatever games we want, and release them for free, AND we can work on games full-time.
however we’ll have to see how viable this is, there’s a very good chance it won’t work. luckily we got a government loan for the XBLA thing, which is conditionally repayable – they get paid from the profits. so if the worst happens and we don’t make anything, we don’t owe them anything.
this is great for us because it means we don’t have to worry about making sure the game sells.. of course, we still need to please the MS greenlight committee…
Indie badge of awesome confirmed.
p.s i definitely wouldn’t consider N on 360 to be indie, a good analogy is “Peluca” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0398259/ vs “Napolean Dynamite” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374900/
the former was made by the filmmakers independently/on their own. the latter was what happens when a distributor/investor/publisher funds a commercial version of the former.
El Mariachi vs Desperado is another good example.
that doesn’t mean one film is better or worse than the other, but i really do think it’s important to make the distinction between big-I-indie/strong independence (for instance, the movie “Primer”) vs. small-I-indie/weak-independence (for instance, the movie “Sin City”).
i really think that it’s great if you’re independently funded/financed, but if you’re making a commercial product for a mainstream audience then your endeavour is distinctly different from creating a product for yourself, or an audience that’s perhaps smaller, but much more “well read”, literate, or interested in what you’re doing.
the reason this distinction is important isn’t for any sort of flame-y “game/developer A is better than game/developer B” argument, but more pragmatically: to distinguish games which deserve festival/award/community recognition from those who don’t.
i believe that commercial products don’t really belong in festivals or contests because they’re made with the expectation of generating a profit.. the profit is “award” enough for making the game.
if your game is on a console, it’s a commercial venture: you have marketing, you have distribution, etc.. you don’t need to steal the spotlight from people who could make much better use of both the publicity and the small amount of prize money.
Being hung up on indie cred can kill a project as fast as the demands of the business world.
I’m glad you guys seem to have your heads on straight.
To your artistic AND financial success, I say!
Another “much success” from me as well. I loved N and agree with your definitions of big and little I indie. Let the guys who make big I games get recognition and awards and not have to compete with guys who are looking to make (and have secured) boatloads of cash. Completely different goals.
thanks!
“luckily we got a government loan for the XBLA thing, which is conditionally repayable – they get paid from the profits. so if the worst happens and we don’t make anything, we don’t owe them anything.”
By “them” do you mean the people who actually worked for the money you were given, or the ones who stole it from those people and gave it to you?
.. it’s strange that your site seems to be british, i’d think you understand the benefits of a small amount of socialism?
i can’t think of any country that doesn’t have a lot of arts council grants and other initiatives designed to promote growth in games/digital media. aside from possibly the US.. but i’m pretty sure they even have arts grants.
yes, ultimately the Telefilm New Media Fund is setup and payed for by taxes. the purpose of the fund is to stimulate our economy. canadian business flourishes, our dolar goes up, and all those tax-payers who gave us $0.000001 get richer.
it’s no different than the government investing tax money in a stock portfolio, except that they’ve taken the longer view: instead of trying to maximize immediate profit by sucking the highest royalty rates they can our of us, they recognize that if we succeed, the country’s economy gets stonger, and they get a bigger return on their investment.
instead of getting funded by a publisher (who would take a much bigger cut of the profits, as well as having editorial power) we’re getting public-sector funding because it lets us operate without the threat of bankruptcy. our government recognizes that this sort of arrangement is better for us, the small start-up company. we don’t have to be under the thumb of a bigger, established company.
when you have investors or a publisher breathing down your back, you’re forced to compromise what you want to create in order to keep them happy. i think we’re all aware of the sort of risk-averse behaviour this leads to.
we’re not planning on making this project a failure, but at the same time we don’t have to make commercial success our #1 priority.
also, i personally think it’s better that we get then money instead of the numerous “digital media” groups we were competing with, many of whose business plan boils down to living off of the grants. in comparison our proposal has a very good chance of returning on the investment!
..sorry about all the typos, ugh.
incidentally, el mariachi is better than desperado.
raigan,
Thank you for your civil reply. I realize my initial post might have seemed harsh. I meant nothing against you personally. I am truly against any taxation, period, for ethical reasons (principally; there are economic reasons as well). I realize that most people do not agree with me on this.
That said, if we are going to be taxed, I would rather my money go toward video games than be used to, say, bomb other countries or spy on me.
If you are good at what you do (and the response your work has gotten is an indication that you are), then there is a market for what you are creating. I wish you a productive and successful career.
P.S. What did you mean about my site being British? I don’t have a site (at least, I don’t THINK I have a site …).
I agree with both null and raigan here. Yes, I also think taxation is basically theft. Yet, since it exists, I see nothing wrong and everything right about trying to put that already confiscated money to the best possible use - according to your own abilities. I also wish I could direct my tax dollars to indie game development and other startup venture assistance, rather than the incredible waste and downright harm it funds elsewhere.
ah, i forgot firefox automatically google’s anything it can’t find (http://null/ redirects to http://dev.null.org/).. doh.
i personally love paying taxes. i mean, yes it sucks to lose money, but at the same time i go to the doctor every month for free, i had to go to the hospital for shingles (free), etc.. personally i think canada isn’t european enough – a lot of european countries have a much higher tax rate, and the quality of life there is better. i’d love to be able to live in amsterdam or switzerland. or pretty much anywhere in europe..
of course, the rich people here don’t like it so much, but then they can always move south ;)
when i hear americans complain about taxes, i really don’t understand.. they barely pay anything at all! and at the same time they wonder why their health and educational systems are so messed up ;p
anyway, this is quite OT. thanks everyone, we still have a long way to go on this game but we won’t let you down!
Yeah this is way OT, sorry…
Just wanted to throw in there that my perspective comes from having grown up in Sweden, arguably the highest taxed nation on earth. The point I want to make is that it’s an error to call socialized healthcare ‘free’, when it really is just ‘pre-paid’ - with a mandatory and very hefty adminitration fee added on top (for the tax collection and governemnt administration).
Everyone would be able to afford amazing health care if they could keep that %60 of their income. 60% still sounds like a lot, but it really blows your mind when you run the numbers on how much it would end up being in savings compounded over time.
This is one of many economical arguments which can be made against taxation, but really the more important ones are ones of principle, like null mentioned before. Let’s not go there though… OT overload.
Groovy. That freeware to console downloadable business model you’re mentioning is fascinating. All the benifits and mass exposure of freeware to establish the brand, and fix the game before it makes it’s way to the mass market.
Again, good luck with your rope game. ;)
Dan,
All of what you said is true but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Even discounting the administrative fees of running the bureaucracy, the price of health services in a socialized system will not be the same as in a free market.
Socialized health care is marked by shortages, i.e. long waiting times for surgery, etc. Why? Because there is no price system to coordinate supply with demand. This is the same reason socialist food production has invariably led to famine.
In markets, an increase in demand would be seen not as a problem but as an opportunity. Initially, prices would rise and providers, motivated by the chance to earn a profit, would rush to meet the demands of consumers. The resulting increase in supply would eventually lead to lower prices and better quality services as providers had to compete for the consumer’s patronage.
By contrast, government health care will become more expensive and of lesser quality as time goes on, just as is the case with government schools. If you can force people to buy what you are selling, why not work less and charge more?
Of course, even the U.S. healthcare system is far from free. It is a government-managed mess and the only solution the government sees is for itself to get further involved, thereby worsening the situation.
How’s that for off-topic overload!
Ah, a man of true libertarian/Misesian principles… I approve wholeheartedly.
Yes, there are multitude of reasons why taxation is bad news. You covered a bunch of important ones - kudos.
Begs the question: “Are we relatively well-off thanks to government, or despite of it?”
Cheers
i’d love to be able to live in amsterdam or switzerland. or pretty much anywhere in europe..
Just avoid France. Or the UK.
Dan,
Ha! What are the chances of finding someone else who is familiar with Mises on a gaming website (or anywhere else, for that matter)? This bodes well for the future.
Good to make your (virtual) acquaintance.
Haha - libertarians, unite! ;)
@Null, not sure what you’re getting at there, but the US health care system is broken. Really broken. Far more is spent per capita on what isn’t even the best care anymore. Insurance companies are in business for a profit, paying for people’s medical bills opposes that goal. That’s the start of the problem right there…
As for the libertarians here… can you really trust everyone to make the right decision, collectively? :) That’s why we all drive SUVs, right ;)
No, but can you trust the people in positions of authority? Remember: They’re just like every other person in the street, they just happen to wear poorly-fitting suits.
one difference between governments and businesses is that a government has to answer to everyone, whereas businesses only have to answer to their shareholders.
i suppose the two cases are identical if you consider citizens to be shareholders in their government.
also, here’s a thought: if capitalism and free markets work so well, then why is every corporation structured internally like a socialist monolithic hierarchy?
Why not the Nintendo Wii’s download system, that IS possible, right?
Bill,
I agree that health care in the US is a mess but the mess was created by the government, not the market.
HMOs as they exist today are a creation of the US Congress. The HMO Act of 1973 was passed precisely because HMOs were uneconomical, i.e. could not thrive in a free market. The Act subsidized the startup of HMOs and forced businesses with over 25 employees to offer HMO as an option.
This, by the way, was an attempt at fixing problems the government first unleashed when it introduced Medicare and Medicaid in 1967. Health care expenditures doubled within 5 years, causing a panic in Congress.
A system wherein third parties(employers, taxpayers, etc.) are forced to pay government-created insurance companies that, in turn, make decisions for the consumer who finally receives the service, is in no way a free market.
Unless consumers know the actual economic value of medical services as communicated by market prices, supply and demand will remain out of sync and waste will result.
raigan,
If I give my money to a business, I do so voluntarily in exchange for something that is of greater value to me at this moment than the money itself. This is self-evident; if I did not see myself being better off as a result of the trade, I would not make the trade.
The same conclusion can not be drawn from my “contributions” to government, which are made solely to avert violence to my person and property by the government.
Bill Gates can ask me to buy his operating system, but he cannot lock me in a cage or shoot me if I refuse to buy it. In any case, if he did these things to me, people would not see his actions as anything but tyrannical and criminal.
This is the fundamental difference between business and government.
you are free to choose governments – beyond voting/etc – because if you dislike your government you can emigrate. just like changing from windows to linux.
the flip side to your argument is that Bill Gates is free to shaft openGL, Mac users, etc. because he only has to care about pleasing his share-holders, not everyone. having to maximize the welfare of everyone at once can lead to totally different decisions or behaviour.
i guess i just feel that it’s worth living under the “tyranny” of government if it helps offset/avoid getting stuck in the sort of local-maxima that free markets create.. when the only valid criterion for decision-making is economical, sometimes the behaviours which emerge don’t maximise everyone’s happyness. for instance, pollution..
seriously though, i need to do work! i’m going to have to abstain from visiting tigsource for a while.
Finally, to answer this last point from Bill.
“As for the libertarians here… can you really trust everyone to make the right decision, collectively? :) That’s why we all drive SUVs, right ;)”
I think most libertarians would say there is no “right” decision in the sense you are arguing because there is no such thing as an entity called “the collective” or “the people” except in political rhetoric.
For instance, what is the people’s favorite color? Does the collective prefer coffee or tea?
There are only individuals and each makes subjective judgments of value. Not all of us drive SUVs. Those who do have judged that paying more for gasoline is worth it. Who am I to tell another adult how to live his life? Would I appreciate him telling me how to live mine?
Our economic decisions enter the calculus of the market, which balances the desires of everyone against everyone else in the most peaceful way possible.
The alternative to economic allocation of resources is political allocation, i.e. the exercise of raw power. This would work wonderfully if God was running the government, but has never worked out well with human beings.
“you are free to choose governments – beyond voting/etc – because if you dislike your government you can emigrate. just like changing from windows to linux.”
What if I dislike all governments? Your argument logically implies the people who call themselves “the government” have some inherent, rightful power over me – a right to my property and life, which is what governments claim – simply by virtue of my residing within certain territorial boundaries. Thus, I can change owners but never be free.
“the flip side to your argument is that Bill Gates is free to shaft openGL, Mac users, etc. because he only has to care about pleasing his share-holders, not everyone.”
In order to please the shareholders Bill Gates has to please the consumer first and foremost. If he fails at this, there are plenty of others waiting in the wings to jump at the opportunity.
“having to maximize the welfare of everyone at once can lead to totally different decisions or behaviour.”
The market process (not any one business) DOES maximize the welfare of everyone at once. It is the reason we have abundant food and clothing that everyone can afford, and it is the reason we take for granted luxuries the richest men of 100 years ago could not dream of.
Does government maximize the welfare of everyone at once? Just look at the last century. Government experiments in socialism led to totalitarianism and the murder of tens of millions of people. And that’s not even considering the wars that governments start.
Were “the people” in America clamoring for a war in Iraq or did they have to be whipped into a frenzy of fear by the government and its intellectual minions?
“when the only valid criterion for decision-making is economical, sometimes the behaviours which emerge don’t maximise everyone’s happyness. for instance, pollution…”
There is no one “decision-maker” in the marketplace. The market reflects the decisions of millions of people engaging in peaceful, voluntary transactions.
All that is meant by “economical” is the weighing of one thing against another. Do I buy a new computer today or put that money toward saving for a house? All resources have alternative uses.
The only way for anyone NOT to have to make such trade-offs is if one lives off the labor of others, i.e. makes others his slaves. Much of legislation is about making some people pay for things other people want but are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices for.
As for pollution, I don’t want to run too much longer, but to put it simply:
We all “pollute” to an extent just by existing (ever wonder what happens to your dead skin cells?).
But pollution that results from industrial processes, i.e. dumping toxins in the stream that end up in someone else’s water supply, are property rights violations. They are a form of trespass and were recognized as such by US courts until the “Progressive Era,” when big government and big business got into bed with one another.
Industrial pollution, sanctioned by the government, is the socialization of the costs associated with production.
i’d say that in the UK “the people” prefer tea, while in the USA “the people” prefer coffee. “the people” is a perfectly concrete concept.
“In order to please the shareholders Bill Gates has to please the consumer first and foremost. If he fails at this, there are plenty of others waiting in the wings to jump at the opportunity.”
but the consumer is NOTORIOUSLY stupid and brain-dead. look at pop music!! or commercial video games for that matter.
the average consumer doesn’t care that microsoft is trying to push their proprietary directX at the expense of the non-proprietary openGL. any way you look at it, microsoft is making decisions that are in THEIR best interests. unless their interests perfectly coincide with what ends up being the globally maximal goal, then they’re pushing the system towards a local-maximum.
i realise that you’ve argued that that market pressure/competitors would change this if it were “bad/wrong”, and thus either it will be changed or it isn’t wrong. at that point we’re just arguing about the metric for measuring value.
don’t you agree that certain things which are “good” or which should exist are simply not profitable? in those cases, you need government because it’s the only entity that’s in a position to reallocate money.
certain functions such as caring for disabled people are fundamentally NOT profitable. this is because it costs a lot of money to care for each person, and at the same time caring for a person generates 0 revenue.. unless you start changing for the service.
but then you’ll end up with service degrading as the amount of money the patient/patient’s family can afford to give decreases. which i don’t believe is fair: certain functions, like fire-fighting, libraries, water, and education, should be available equally to everyone regardless of how much capital they have. this is probably something we disagree on.
i really think it’s the government’s duty to artificially tamper with the free market (redistributing money to such un-profitable sectors) so that people with 0 money don’t have 0 access to the basic necessities of life.
there’s NO WAY to arrive at completely equal education, for instance, while at the same time driving the system only via market dynamics. the rich will inevitably always receive better treatment if the only real basis for making judgements is how much profit can be generated.
if my mother’s house burns down i might buy her a new one. BUT, this is only because i have a concept of what’s right and wrong which transcends tangible goods. the decision to buy her a house would NEVER be made if it were a corporation making the decision, because the net effect of buying her a house would be a huge loss.. but isn’t buying her the house the right thing to do!?
i don’t know, i’m confused.
raigan,
“but the consumer is NOTORIOUSLY stupid and brain-dead. look at pop music!! or commercial video games for that matter.”
You are substituting your opinions for absolute truths. If much of the art produced today is not to your taste, that is because many (perhaps most) people have preferences different from yours but the same right to buy what they like with the money they worked for.
“don’t you agree that certain things which are “good” or which should exist are simply not profitable? in those cases, you need government because it’s the only entity that’s in a position to reallocate money.”
What I think should exist is irrelevant as concerns any obligation binding you or anyone else. If I have the same fundamental rights as every other human being (which I believe to be the case), then I have no more right to force Britney Spears fans to buy classical music than they have to force me to buy Britney Spears albums.
“certain functions such as caring for disabled people are fundamentally NOT profitable. this is because it costs a lot of money to care for each person, and at the same time caring for a person generates 0 revenue.. unless you start changing for the service.”
Of course caring for the disabled is profitable! Many people do just that for a living. And YES, that implies they must charge for the service. There is nothing wrong or unusual about this. To say that someone has a RIGHT to something for nothing is to say the person who must provide it is a slave.
“there’s NO WAY to arrive at completely equal education, for instance, while at the same time driving the system only via market dynamics. the rich will inevitably always receive better treatment if the only real basis for making judgements is how much profit can be generated.”
The rich do not become rich at the expense of the poor. On the contrary, capital investment by the rich is what makes possible the production of better and cheaper consumer goods along with higher wages. These are benefits to the poor.
To put it another way, if socialistic policies had been in place during past centuries, our countries would never have moved past subsistence living.
I point this out because your argument seems to be that it is morally wrong for the rich to be able to purchase better goods and services than the poor. But a person with more money than me owes me exactly NOTHING, provided he committed no crime against me.
Also, it is wrong to assume the free market is somehow cold-hearted and cruel, while only government cares about people. There is a market for all things people desire, including the provision of care for the needy.
Charity preexisted governments. Privately-funded charitable organizations exist today despite competition from governments, and people donate amazing sums of money each year despite already being taxed so heavily.
Government actually increases poverty by subsidizing it and thereby weakening incentives toward thrift, responsibility, hard work and the forming of closer ties with family and community, all of which are defenses against poverty.
I think this thread wins an award for most off-topic (but civil) discussion on TIGS. I’m tired now!
Wow, this is interesting, since I was just at a debate camp and our topic was whether or not a just governments should provide health care.
I think the most canon libertarianism was this quote:
“I think most libertarians would say there is no “right” decision in the sense you are arguing because there is no such thing as an entity called “the collective” or “the people” except in political rhetoric.”
The libertarian idea is that there is no such thing as a collective, and taking money from person A to feed person B is taking from person A, and nothing more, because person A receives no direct benefit. (In other words, he is not part of the “social good”)
And the idea that we can emigrate from governments we don’t like is sort of improbable when you get down to it. People have possessions, and loved ones - saying “if you don’t like it, abandon your life, uproot yourself, and go to another nation” seems quite harsh. The poor can’t afford to emigrate in an era of passport registries - does their poverty mean they agree with their government?
But I think the ultimate problem with libertarian approaches to government is their ineffectiveness. This is historically true; the Articles of the Confederation in the U.S. failed because governments had no corporal power and couldn’t stop a rebellion. None but a solid anarchist, I think, would advocate a government that can’t even muster the power to save its citizens from the revolt of a mob of annoyed farmers.
And further, what’s the balance that constitutes what a government can provide? Is taxing a rich citizen to provide a fire department unjust? Would said rich citizen still think so if his house was the one on fire?
I’m torn on the issue. I think governments should ideally be minimalist, but I don’t know that our current society is quite ready to let the government go, and I think government possession of nuclear weapons means that revolts take on a whole new context.
Anyway, I’m pretty in love with this discussion, and I hope it keeps going.
Faunis,
The problem with the “social good” is that, if you believe all men have equal rights, then why are certain men qualified or entitled to determine what is best for everyone and then to impose their determination by force?
Remember, the central planners of the Soviet Union believed they knew exactly the correct amount of wheat to be grown and goods to be produced. In other words, they thought they knew what was in the “social good.” In fact they did not know and people starved to death or scraped by in abject poverty.
The idea of minimalist government has never worked out for long. Inevitably, the government interprets its own powers more and more broadly until any trace of its original, limited character is lost.
Lysander Spooner, the first prominent American libertarian anarchist, wrote the following comparison of the government to a highwayman (robber):
“The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber.
“He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a ‘protector,’ and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to ‘protect’ those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.
“Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you. He does not keep ‘protecting’ you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands.
“He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.”
While I think Spooner is exaggerating, since a highwayman would also probably not provide you with a police force and a fire department, I think he runs into the same logical problem all anarchists run into.
As Nozick said, it’s entirely reasonable to assume that out of systems of anarchy, the weak would find ways of hiring stronger people to protect their lives. There would form mercenary-like protection agencies, but these agencies would, rationally, have to set up standards for how to resolve inter-customer violence. From there, these agencies grow into what we know as governments. This invisible hand method is pretty hard to disprove, since it makes rational sense, although I’m not doing the idea justice with this brief description.
I also think the U.S.S.R. serves as a pretty extreme example of a government that failed. This is because socialist governments are supposed to exist only long enough to instill the cultural value of equality and human dignity, and then evaporate - but the evaporating part hasn’t gone so well. The question of the instigator of the change in cultural views is hard to resolve.
So I think the ultimate answer is that we don’t let certain men have absolute control over a fictional social good. People ought to decide on appointing equally empowered sets of individuals with expertise in a certain area. And the idea that governments ought to have the monopoly over physical force is also something I disagree with. But again, it seems naturally like there ought to be something preventing the elderly being clubbed to death for their wallets - but that protection agency becomes a government.
I think the problems head down to our cultural and human views, and I don’t know that purely governmental discussions can fix them. The only government originally intended to change cultural perspectives is a socialist government, but they devolve into tyranny.
On a side note, if the world was in anarchy, I would donate money to raigan anyway. Forget protection agencies. Let me die happy while I play my N.
“This is because socialist governments are supposed to exist only long enough to instill the cultural value of equality and human dignity, and then evaporate - but the evaporating part hasn’t gone so well.”
Ha! Neither has the “human dignity” part. They did manage equality – at least, most of the population was equally miserable!
What would a stateless society be like? It’s impossible to predict. It’s fair to assume it would be different depending on the people involved, their culture and values. In some places it probably would not work out well at all.
A number of proposals have been made dealing with how a free market might provide security. Hans-Herman Hoppe has written a great deal about this.
Most anarchists are NOT, however, utopians. They know life without the state would not be perfect as human beings are not perfect. They simply argue, quite convincingly, that without the centralized power of a state, enjoying the consent of most people and commanding nearly limitless resources, it would be impossible for large-scale wars or totalitarian social experiments to occur. Life and property would be comparitively safer.
Ludwig von Mises, the foremost defender of free markets and liberty during the rise of socialism, believed in the need for a limited state to provide order. But he said it was the duty of all defenders of liberty to focus their efforts on restraining the state.
My example of the U.S.S.R. was merely to point out that central planning does not work. More precisely, the planners have no rational means of coordinating supply with demand because only market prices communicate the necessary information.
Food production is an extreme example only because food is necessary to sustain life. But central planning fails for the same reasons in all other endeavors, just with less spectacular results. Witness the recent blackouts in California and Queens, NY or the skyrocketing housing prices anywhere government tries its hand at “planning for growth.”
It’s been a good discussion but I’m going to call it quits now so I can focus on more profitable (ha!) endeavors.
Bye-bye!
I take exception to this, because on those rare occasions I have required police or emergency services, trying to get them ended in failure. Case in point, I thought I was having a heart attack one day, so I called 911. I lay on the floor, writhing in agony for twenty minutes, while the phone kept ringing. Eventually, I felt better and drove myself to the hospital. Thank gawd, it was only an anxiety attack.
I’ve had similar lack of success when trying to gain protection of the police. I’ve had somewhat more success when dealing with courts (assisting people with gaining restraining orders). Fortunately, I’ve never had a fire, so I’ve no data to judge that, but in pretty much every community in which I’ve lived, the fire department has been volunteer.
failrate, while your story does show mass governmental inefficiency, my point was that governments -intend- to provide welfare. People’s lives are saved by police forces - or even the fact that there is a police force checking action - and a fire department. And I may be wrong on this, but I think volunteer firefighters are still funded publicly. If I’m wrong, feel free to point it out.
And to the previous null user, I agree that anarchists aren’t utopians. But while you did point out that cultures are different and it’s hard to predict the actions of stateless societies, since I think the will to live is fairly universal (as universal as we get) and the urge to be profitable is the urge of the capitalism you support, then weaker individuals (who have the will to live) will hire stronger individuals for protection, who, to be profitable, have to set up strict physical rules for their customers. As those rules expand and the protection companies gain in size, that protection agency soon finds itself a government. So anarchy still really would lead to government, unless people actively prevented them - and who could prevent the formation of a government besides a government?
Furthermore, I don’t think ALL central planning is ineffective. Sure, when one small group tries to create regulations for every aspect of society, the results will probably be disastrous. But there is a balance there for regulation, just a shaky one, and just as anarchy may incidentally create some bad situations, so would a regulatory system.
And I find the idea of market prices regulating themselves extremely hard to swallow - the free market’s self balance is the reason why Hersheys and Nestlea are buying the cheapest chocolate possible, and thus providing money to child slavery rings in the ivory coast.
The problem with market forces as the only regulator is that not all services function in the way we consider traditional business.
Consider hospitals. They’re inelastic, in that one HAS to go to one to survive in many case. And start up costs are extremely high, with the technology involved, so it’s hard to get the “new businesses” most economic freedom models rely on. Citizens MUST by from them, and new hospitals can no longer create competition. What you end up with is a monopoly citizens are forced to buy into, a monopoly which no longer has to worry about any competition, and thus can gouge prices to their own satisfaction.
This is a pretty undesirable situation, and at least SUGGESTS the need for regulation by an outside force.
Indeed, volunteer fire departments are funded publicly. The money comes from local taxes. However, if a fire department was instead available via subscription service, I’m sure I’d sign up ;)
Well, while your response is pretty witty, I think it does bring up one valid issue - the poor, or at least people with few resources, would not be able to afford fire protection, as their money would go to immediate food and shelter needs instead of insurance plans.
D’oh! You’re absolutely right.
Check this out. http://www.pc.gov.au/study/pbsprices/finalreport/ But wait, theres more, The Canadian government provides (mostly)free healthcare for it’s citizens, but spends only 57% of what the U.S government spends per capita. It’s weird huh? Somehow the U.S. government spends almost twice as much to provide only a fraction of the care. More socialization equals not only cheaper health care but less government expenditure. In other words, even though it is common “knowledge” that buisness is more efficient than government, socialism would seem to result in a more efficient system. The failure of neoliberal economic policies has been illustrated time and again. But strangely, it’s faliure is always used as a justification for it’s use. “Maybe my head hurts because I didn’t hit it hard enough.” This is similar to the logic of the anti-government government of the Bush administration which says “see, government doesn’t work. Look what a bad job we are doing.” Their incompetence becomes proof of their wisdom. Man, someone should make a game with Noam Chomsky as the main character. Or maybe an econimist fighting game Smith vs. Marx
man, that post didn’t work right. Oh well
Fight Entropy,
“Somehow the U.S. government spends almost twice as much to provide only a fraction of the care. More socialization equals not only cheaper health care but less government expenditure. In other words, even though it is common ‘knowledge’ that buisness is more efficient than government, socialism would seem to result in a more efficient system.”
This statement makes no sense. You are equating government spending with “business.”
If you truly believe that socialism is more “efficient” than free enterprise, then how would you explain the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the fact that socialism has led to poverty and totalitarianism wherever it has been implemented in earnest? Just the wrong people in charge?
The Canadian government, along with many others, takes a piecemeal approach to socialism. It relies upon the free market for the economic prosperity that it can feed off of to pay for its massive spending on the health care bureaucracy. This in itself is an acknowledgement that socialism does not work. If it did work, why wouldn’t the government also provide food, clothing and all other goods and services? After all, it would be more “efficient,” right?
I have to disagree with the previous enigmatic null user.
The Soviet Union has been repeatedly brought up. The Soviet Union is not synonymous with socialism. Not only is it a government under unusual circumstances (I.E. a super power during the cold war), it’s barely even socialism as much as it is autocracy. We simply call it socialism in the wake of a cold war where that was an easy way to classify it.
The socialization of health care simply means the government controls its flow. Sure, there are elements of the free market in Canada. But HEALTH CARE, being uniquely inelastic and without start-up options (as I previously mentioned) uniquely needs to be socialized.
Since the topic of the thread, as linked, is socializing Health Care, then on that topic, you’re simply conceding that it needs to be socialized. One doesn’t have to live in a socialist nation to socialize health care. (European nations, Canada are examples) Is the free market WORTHLESS? No. But as Fight Entropy made clear, the benefits of socializing HEALTH CARE are substantial.
I see you consistently saying why socialism is bad. But the socialization of health care seems to be entirely benificial under the arguments presented, and the socializing of health care would not destroy the free market you speak of. Win-win situation, then?
Faunis,
Socialism entails state ownership of the means of production and, consequently, the abolition of private property and destruction of the market’s price system. These were the conditions that existed in the Soviet Union and China, and still exist in North Korea, Cuba and a few other places in the world nobody wants to live.
Of course, socialized health care does not mean the full adoption of socialism to replace the market economy. But it does apply socialistic principles to one very important sector of the economy. To the degree that it does so, the provision of health care is made worse.
You argue that health care is “inelastic” and “without startup options” and so “needs to be socialized.” Yet it was the market, not government, that brought quality medical care to the masses in the first place! Hospitals and medical practices have been starting up and competing for the business of consumers in America since as early as the 19th century.
It is government intervention in the market that drives up prices. Even licensure and regulation of medical practitioners has the effect of curtailing the supply of health care, causing prices to rise. This is why the medical profession originally lobbied for such regulation – to reduce competition and thus increase the prices it could charge.
Universal healthcare (and to a lesser degree welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid) removes the price tag from medical services, resulting in a rise in demand. The correlation between the individual’s consumption and the actual cost of that consumption is lost on him. He is not forced to make any economic tradeoff so he consumes far more health care than he would otherwise.
The market responds to a rise in demand with rising prices (increased profits), which in turn leads to an increase in supply. Prices are the signal that direct labor and capital to their most economical employment.
But under a socialized system, prices are fixed arbitrarily to keep costs down. This means demand will exceed supply and shortages will result because the people who would be providing for the increased demand in a free market are never brought into the fold by the market’s price signals.
All of this is borne out in reality. Great Britain has seen a steady decline in the numbers of its doctors and surgeons and has responded to this shortage by importing doctors from third-world countries. In Canada, shortages have resulted in infamously long waiting times for surgery that have led Canadians to seek treatment in the United States or elsewhere. Many people have died while waiting for heart surgery.
Complete privatization and deregulation of health care would be the best way to fix the US healthcare system. Likewise for every other country.
Well rats, this is off the front page link.
The market did bring health care to citizens in the early 19th century, yes. In the early 1800’s, the prices for a doctor to start up a business were considerably smaller. Now, with high-priced technologies being expected of hospitals, one can’t simply start up a hospital from scratch - they have to become a doctor at an established institution, or else have the millions of dollars off hand that it would take to start up a competitive practice.
Without government regulation, the present-day hospital system would destroy itself. Even in the U.S., government rules are in place. Free market models ALWAYS rely on competition as an integral factor, and health care is one economic model where that competition doesn’t exist.
You paint a pretty bleak picture of socialized health care - infinite wait lines, supposedly inferior third-world doctors, and increased demand.
Waiting lines are a problem. So are doctor shortages. This is a byproduct of the cause you cite - increased DEMAND.
But what does that demand really mean? It means people can afford health care.
Sure, only letting the rich access health care would reduce waiting lines and the need for doctors.
But it means more people are dying because they can’t afford a doctor.
I don’t think this is a reality we want to live with.
“In the early 1800’s, the prices for a doctor to start up a business were considerably smaller. Now, with high-priced technologies being expected of hospitals, one can’t simply start up a hospital from scratch - they have to become a doctor at an established institution, or else have the millions of dollars off hand that it would take to start up a competitive practice.”
And millions of dollars are available. People willing to invest in other people’s ideas and business ventures are an integral part of capitalism. This happens all the time.
“Without government regulation, the present-day hospital system would destroy itself. Even in the U.S., government rules are in place. Free market models ALWAYS rely on competition as an integral factor, and health care is one economic model where that competition doesn’t exist.”
Competition DOES exist in health care! The absence of competition (i.e. monopoly) means that entry into the market is blocked by force. For example: public utilities. That you can choose one doctor over another, and that doctors and hospitals advertise in newspapers and telephone books is proof that competition is taking place.
“Waiting lines are a problem. So are doctor shortages. This is a byproduct of the cause you cite - increased DEMAND. But what does that demand really mean? It means people can afford health care.”
You misunderstand. The rapid increase in demand that occurs under socialized health care is artificial. It happens because the person using the product (health care) is not presented with a bill. In his mind, there is no tradeoff or sacrifice involved, so he uses it far more than he would otherwise.
It is a fact of human nature that people will use more of something they don’t have to pay for. This is the source of increased demand for health care in a socialist system. If your bill for electricity was the same regardless of how much you used, or if there was no bill at all, you would probably keep you air conditioner running all night and day during the summer. Multiply that by millions and you understand why there would be an increase in demand.
“Sure, only letting the rich access health care would reduce waiting lines and the need for doctors. But it means more people are dying because they can’t afford a doctor. I don’t think this is a reality we want to live with.”
This is a red herring. The market provides increasingly better quality goods and services at lower prices. Think of food, which is a necessity of life. Think of luxuries like computers. This is a natural result of competition and capital investment. Health care would be very affordable if this process was not circumvented by government.
Of course, the rich at any period will be able to afford higher priced goods and services. This is part of the process that results in those goods and service becoming cheaper and more widely available. The rich provide demand for things that would otherwise be uneconomical to produce in the first place. The alternative would be not to have these newer and better goods and services at all.
It is important to remember, however, that today’s poor in America can afford better health care than the richest men of 100 years ago. And for the very poor there is charity, which would be even more widespread if not for the oppressive levels of taxation that exist today.
Millions of dollars ARE available - but not to everyone. Typical smaller business may cost several hundred thousand, something reasonable for a venture capitalist to cover. But once you hit the millions needed for the TECHNOLOGY ALONE - not even counting the enormous staffs and architecture - the venture capitalists aren’t quite enough unless you start out already rich. And this is assuming venture capitalists act with the good of the people in mind and are willing to invest in hospitals as opposed to high-priced entertainment.
I’m not sure I follow you with the competition argument. Even assuming that a man bleeding from the waist and about to die could say, “no, I don’t think your rates are good; may I please go to another hospital?”, your argument is that competition between pre-existing hospitals exist. Sure, established institutions have competition between themselves. But without the possibility for start-up institutions, that competition doesn’t exist in a meaningful way - without new life in a capitalist industry, the industry stagnates into sets of agreed monopoly.
Your clarification of demand is helpful; I now understand the logic behind the argument. I fail to believe the analysis, however, when you claim that increasing death tolls are going to be countered by “increased quality of goods.” Goods do not infinitely increase. It’s not as if socializing health care will eliminate an elixir of immortality from going on the market in five years. Even still, presuming that goods COULD increase infinitely in quality, I don’t quite understand why government regulation hinders the development in a significant way. We assume that fueling our markets with human greed and urge to make profit will tap into that power and force us to create more. I’m not sure a greed-fueled system can lead to social good. Furthermore a system of government provision would NOT mean that the government regulated medical study and who they bought their technology from, only the distrubution. It’s just as likely that the technological studies would increase at rates almost the same.
But even presuming I’m false - that government regulation of health care would halt all technological increases in the field of medicine - I think it’s more important for the U.S. to fix the problems of the present (millions in the U.S. dying of poverty and unable to afford cold medicine) than giving slight conveniences to the rich of the future.
I need to tone down my rhetoric.
Your argument that it is impossible to start up a new hospital because it is expensive to do so just doesn’t hold water. If this were true, it would have been impossible for Dell, Wal-Mart and countless other big businesses to come into existence in already established fields, and to wrestle market share away from established competitors who arrived there first. I don’t know what else I can say to change your mind on this.
“And this is assuming venture capitalists act with the good of the people in mind and are willing to invest in hospitals as opposed to high-priced entertainment.”
You are thinking about this backwards. It is not the job of capitalists and entrepreneurs to decide what is the “good of the people.” Each individual decides what is best for himself and acts accordingly.
What is best for any businessman who wishes to stay in business is to learn what other people want. He cannot force them to buy what he is selling; therefore, he must offer something for which they will voluntarily exchange their money.
Strictly speaking, most everyone who does any kind of work is a businessman. Most of us sell our labor and the exact same principle applies. What can we do for which other people will pay us?
“I’m not sure a greed-fueled system can lead to social good.”
First of all, I wouldn’t call voluntary exchange a “greed-fueled system.” Certainly it is fueled by self-interest. Nobody wants to go hungry or live exposed to the elements.
The world in its natural state is inhospitable to human survival and comfort. The only way for man to live, to clothe and feed himself, and to improve his condition is for him to mix his labor with nature, to work and produce.
This being so, we have two choices: consume the product of other people’s labor by robbing from or enslaving those people; or trade with them by producing something of value ourselves and offering to exchange with them.
If we rob them, we benefit at their expense but the condition of humanity is not improved. Instead of having what they produced AND what we produced, we have only what they produced. Society is poorer and no advancement is made.
Voluntary exchange, or the division of labor under capitalism, is the better way for human beings to live and thrive. It is better morally AND economically.
“I think it’s more important for the U.S. to fix the problems of the present (millions in the U.S. dying of poverty and unable to afford cold medicine) than giving slight conveniences to the rich of the future.”
Come on! Millions of people are not dying of povery in the United States, nor are millions of people unable to afford cold medicine.
As I explained in an earlier post, the provision of health care in America has already been botched by government officials. The solution to this problem is not to let the same people take complete control over health care, but to get them out of it entirely.
Only in government is failure rewarded with more money and power. In the market, inefficiency and incompetence result in bankruptcy. The private businessman can not rob people indefinitly to keep his projects afloat.
You bring up Dell and Wal-Mart as competition examples. First, the start-up costs for a grocery store are far less than a hospital, because grocery stores can’t start small; if a hospital is lacking surgical equipment, it isn’t “quaint,” it’s deadly. To change my mind, ring up the prices of a hospital - how much it would cost to start one just from money - and then tell me why if you hate your local hospital you can make a new one of that price. If it’s so easy, heck, let’s scrape up some change and build a hospital.
The argument about venture capitalism is only a segueway into the argument on greed-fueled systems, really. Your societal binary isn’t very believable - enslave or capitalism? I mean, if you assert that claim without justification - that there is no inbetween - then obviously capitalism is better. But if I assert that all food is either Pizza or tastes like vomet, then nobody would eat anything other than pizza. The point of that sad little example is that if you set up a dichotomy as such, your choice is easy; the question becomes proof of why it’s either one or the other.
Isn’t it possible to work for MORE than just your self preservation? And assuming it’s so, is a venture capitalist with dollar signs for eyes going to?
We don’t have to rob people. But if we act as a union and establish ground rules for mutual benefit - not enslavements, but voluntary rules - then we won’t have to rely on self interest.
Millions of people AREN’T dying of poverty? I just checked off with the U.S. Census 2004 pdf, and the number of U.S. citizens in legal poverty is 37 Million. I doubt they’re lying.
The problem with poverty and health care is that one simply can’t afford prevention - to shell out the money for heart pills to prevent heart attacks would mean no heat in the household.
The U.S. government is a flawed provider. Major changes would need to be made before I’d be comfortable allowing it to control the flow of medicine.
But I’d much rather that medical care be plagued with inefficiency, of good intent, than with money-mongering, if that’s the choice to be made.
Faunis,
“Millions of people AREN’T dying of poverty? I just checked off with the U.S. Census 2004 pdf, and the number of U.S. citizens in legal poverty is 37 Million. I doubt they’re lying.”
All that means is 37 million people meet the U.S. government’s criteria to be called poor. It does not mean they are dying in the streets. Most of them own television sets and cars. Many of them are obese as opposed to starving. They are not poor in the sense that people in Africa, Burma or North Korea are poor. They are poor relative to the average American today.
“If it’s so easy, heck, let’s scrape up some change and build a hospital.”
I never said it was easy. But until you can prove that no new hospitals are opening anywhere in the United States, this argument is pointless. It is made even more pointless by the fact that the current health care market in America is far from free; government intrusion is pervasive.
“We don’t have to rob people. But if we act as a union and establish ground rules for mutual benefit - not enslavements, but voluntary rules - then we won’t have to rely on self interest.”
If a group of people believe in socialized medicine, I have no problem with them entering into such an arrangement amongst themselves. The problem is when they try to force others into their plan. There is nothing voluntary about the state, its taxes and its laws.
“But I’d much rather that medical care be plagued with inefficiency, of good intent, than with money-mongering, if that’s the choice to be made.”
Again, you equate the desire to improve one’s living conditions with “money-mongering.” You are falling back on that old tactic of associating opposition to state planning with greed and/or lack of concern for the poor.
The free market is not a “system” imposed on us by government to serve the interests of greedy fat cats. It is the absence of government planning. It is millions of people freely and spontaneously engaging in peaceful, voluntary exchange without interference from third parties who think they know better.
It is not a “design flaw” of capitalism that people act out of self-interest. It is human nature. Government officials act out of self-interest as well, no matter how much we might fantasize that they work for the “public good.”
What you are doing is suspending reality in your analysis of government. You are assuming government acts with high-minded “good intent,” as if it were something other than a collection of mere humans with a dangerous amount of power over others.
A politician has to win regular elections or else find a new job. Guess which he would rather do?
Winning elections means, to a great extent, distributing spoils to various interest groups who then become dependent on the politician staying in office. To keep the benefits flowing, they shower him with votes and campaign contributions. It is a system of legalized bribery. This is why incumbents are seldom defeated.
Those politicians who don’t care about the money are often an even worse breed: the ones who love power.
These are the people who would necessarily be in charge of any centrally planned health care “system” imposed on us. I prefer freedom, which has a proven track record of improving our lives.
“Isn’t it possible to work for MORE than just your self preservation?”
Of course it is but one must provide for himself before he can serve any higher purpose.
A person’s choice of work often does reflect his values and interests rather than simply a desire to maximize material wealth. Game developers are a perfect example. Most people get into this field because they love video games, not because they are likely to become millionaires.
Self-interest is not mere self-preservation or greed. It is determined subjectively. A devout Christian, for instance, might weigh his decisions according to whether or not they will help him get to heaven.
I’ll leave the discussion here, only because I’m spending way too much time here. It’s been enjoyable. Thanks!
Your first response is flat-out untrue. People in poverty based on the federal standard aren’t obese people with televisions. Is U.S. poverty anywhere near that of an African nation? Of course not. But the official poverty threshold means unable to provide for one’s self financially. To have 37 million U.S. citizens in that situation warrants notice.
Your second argument ignores the actual logic I gave you. Established companies can obviously start new branches to existing hospitals. You have, however, yet to give ONE REASON why a start-up company can create competition. I think we can both agree that McDonalds opening a new McDonalds near an old one isn’t true competition.
But despite how problematic I find your previous arguments, the idea of the third rings true. As I said before, my problem with government theory is tacit consent, because it doesn’t exist in a meaningful way. We are subjected to a pre-existing government, and if you’re in the minority, you either protest until arrested or move? That is not a satisfying conclusion.
However, on the next argument, I am making no such suggestion that all opposition to the state is greed-driven; that’s naieve. What I am suggesting is that capitalist free markets, left to themselves and without competition, form greed-based organizations, and that the desire to further one’s financial situation for its own sake (which is what companies do) is greed - what else is it? Does Microsoft REALLY need to expand to “provide itself with resources to live?” It could stay as it is now and none of the leaders would starve. It’s not expansion for living, it’s expansion for luxury.
But I can’t help but agree with what you have to say about politicians, and I realize that my previous governmental evaluation was sunshine optimism with a lack of realism.
I feel the dilemma at work here. Corporations and governments are both run by people, thus having the same flaws. Both are subject to greed and power-mongering. Basic good intent to protect or provide grows, and its success lends it to be leeched by the greedy until it’s oppressive.
I really don’t know the answer, although since it’s just you and I at this point, I think the health care discussion is about over. Thanks to you too!
uhh, guys, this is a discussion about a game. why are we arguing about american medical care?
personally, i think it’s all too bureaucratic
I really LOVE N.
N the best platform game. Its forum community, the worst.
Oh and BTW I know one “secret”, and I haven’t finished the game (dont worry I wont say it)
english link exchange recipricol link exchange service backlinks.