StoneyDcrew

Talking about it would be enough.

It would find it's way to a citizen that could make a difference.

There is a reason most modern dictatorships restrict access to the the Internet.

Of course it is exaggerated. That is the point of a hyperbolic arguments.

Examining hypothetical edge cases in more detail is a useful tool for defining where the issues lie in a debate.

Would you support/play a game of 100+ devs if key management DID commit war crimes? I'd like to think probably not.

It's though it is clear from your response that misogyny isn't a deal-breaker for you for this case, so the question then becomes; how shitty does a single person need to be before it becomes an issue for you then?

Other people drew a line in the sand at misogyny and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I'd say it is a respectable opinion.

You probably would prefer to just ignore any controversy and just judge the game on its merits alone, and that is fine in its own way too. It is exhausting keeping up with the news and you would be happier and find it easier to just blindly enjoy a game.

But don't pretend that just because you are ignoring it, doesn't mean that you aren't supporting bad practices like misogyny when you do so.

Edit: downvoted for not wanting to pay attention to stupid controversy about video games? Weird...

It's one thing to live peacefully in ignorance. I get it. it is exhausting keeping track of every shitty thing a company does when it's so much easier at the end of an exhausting 9-5 shift to avoid news and play your games guilt free without thinking about who it's hurting.

It's a completely separate thing to brag that your ignorance somehow makes your way of life superior.

People caring about these issues, and sometimes leading to actions being taken because of that, all makes the gaming industry, or to be hyberbolic; the world a better place.

It's fine to avoid news on controversy and just blindly enjoy games, but don't lie to yourself (and others) by pretending that it is a good thing.

Oh, but those Activision scumbags had no issue with this hype boosting MW1 sales right up until the day before the mods planned release date.

It's one thing shutting down a modders passion project, it's a complete other level of evil to allow it to proceed right up until release date because it boosted sales for an otherwise dead game.

I hope negative press from this tanks their sales, but we all know it won't.

That problem still takes place in capitalism. It's just that, instead of having to convince people for funding, you risk going into bankruptcy when you try your business idea

Capitalism is still seeking funding, but there is more freedom in how to get it. You can self-fund or seek investors and the option to fund publicly via crowdsourcing. Funds that are invested in a company is the only cost that you are liable for. E.g. If you invest £1000 the maximum you could lose is that £1000. (unless it is an LLP I think).

Bankruptcy is a protection of capitalism in that the owner cannot be liable for the debts of the company. Yes, there are scummy abusers of this protection, but it is a protection no the less

Great, so you run you business in capitalism, and run the other cafe into bankruptcy because that's wonderful for everyone, very efficient and humane. How about the local council decides that the other cafe is shit, and they give a warning to the place that they need to improve the quality of their work?

Lets assume that the council actually gives a crap on the quality actually issues this warning? This implies the council has the final say on how a business should be run, further proving that individualism is restricted.

What if it still doesn't improve? I'm assuming they'd shut down the business for ignoring the warning? So in this hypothetical there is no cafe and no jobs. When in capitalism there is at least a competing better store left over with presumably the same number of jobs.

Do they fire the manager and the staff and replace them? I suppose this is job neutral still and probably the quality improves, but ignoring the difficulties finding a replacement then it will be the same store and same equipment used. There is no development or improvement or creativity because there isn't any incentive or "freedom" to do so because the council has the final say on how your store is run.

This can very easily be compensated by bigger, not so local, councils. Maybe specialized in more weird and experimental business ideas. Located in densely-populated ideas so that one of these weirder businesses can give cover to a high amount of population.

I'd consider this worse as it widens the divide of urban and rural areas.

Again it is still the taxpayer that is taking this risk, and not the individual, so there is no reason why a council would bother with anything that isn't an easy win for the public approval (or a selfish grift done under the table).

For example: A council member that a approves a sex shop could easily be labelled a pervert by his opponent in the next election so why would he take the risk on it?

I'm sure there are other businesses too that are punished in this system as the need to go through government means it needs easily positive public approval before it is considered, and there is no option to do it on your own as private owned businesses aren't allowed.

Really, you seem to be coming up with increasingly-complicated problems

Have you considered that its maybe because it is an increasingly-complicated issue?

I could accuse you of giving increasingly-easy answers too. Though to be honest I don't think that. I think you have thought through the benefits in great detail but not reflecting on the negatives and who could get hurt.

My point is that all of these problems can be outsourced to direct democracy instead of "consumer democracy", in a more efficient, fair, and risk-free way for everyone

I don't think it is that simple. As I said before democracy is the will of the majority and thus only majority-approved cases are considered leaving little room for freedom of expression (or at least in terms creating a business and diversity of products)

Democracy is NOT "efficient", but it is "effective". It is a slow tedious process with 9001 rules, with the goal that the end of it, the only possible candidates are people that serve the majority's best interest. It works well for governments (well...for the most governments) but it results in an economy only serving majority interests. Capitalism with all it's flaw still provides products to the minority as long as demand outweighs production. It is a fair, and risk-free way for the majority, not everyone

Saying that I don't think the current state of capitalism is acceptable in anyway. It has turned into large companies bullying smaller ones via mass produced goods/ large user bases/brand recognition/etc, and thus accumulating power and wealth in which no human should have.

Capitalism thrives with competition, as new ideas and higher quality products are a survival pressure for the businesses to thrive. However there is little/no survival pressure to treat employees well (aside from rare/ high skill jobs) and also large companies do not have any significant competition meaning they have no need to incentivise better consumer experiences. In fact it turns to the opposite where they try to squeeze value from customers instead. This is made worse with how public trading incentivises investing in a small company then demanding unsustainable growth until it is sold at the peak market price and left to rot.

"Pure" capitalism left us with this mess. But I think proper regulation to tweak these survival pressures are key to turning things around.

All employees should have the right to affect the profitability of a company, either through unions or otherwise. This incentivises a company to treat the employees well.

Investers in the stock market should be liable for selling "at risk" stock for up to 3 months since the transaction date and the buyer of this stock can then sue for any damages from the base price. This incentivises investors to invest in stable long-term businesses rather than "pump and dump" a new fad.

"51% of the population decided to wear a blue shirt so only blue shirts are made" isn't at all a good representation of the possibilities of democratic planning of the economy.

I understand it doesn't highlight the benefits like better working conditions but I feel that it illustrates my point well in that individualism is affected negatively in a democratic planned economy and forced to conform to the majority.

While it would be nice for individuals to get funding for whatever businesses ideas they think are profitable, in reality it comes down to trying to sell a product you haven't produced yet.

Going by your cafe example, what if there was a Diner nearby that sold some coffee/tea on its menu. You have to convince the majority that your shop is a worthwhile investment with them never even tasting the product, and even if it is low cost enough that you would still make profit.

What if there was a sub-par cafe with lazy employees already in town and you want to make a cafe that takes pride in its work. Would people want two cafes in the same town? If not then you are competing with a store without even able to sell a product of your own.

It's ultimately the taxpayers that are taking the risk on your product instead of the individual so they won't want to pay for a service they won't use or care for. Even if the minority of people can make it profitable.

Maybe a hybrid system where company can be owned by both private and public funding, but the private would win as they exploit their workers to cut down costs.

Ultimately I believe people should be able to start a private business on a product they believe in, as there is more diversity in products and more freedom for creativity that way. While at the same time believe that employees should have a voice that can disrupt profitability if they are mistreated. Either via Union or otherwise.

100% agree with the exploitative global market.

Also, that was an interesting read and a great example of an ideal company's practice.

Though it was a bit vague on where the start up funding came from. Which is what I was most curious about (and my main reason I consider the practice complex to implement)

Mondragon seems to be founded by a generous man that created the company from the ground up with these principles in mind, but unfortunately most people with the resources to this kind of business do not have such great ideals (and for the most part, they have these resources because they don't have them and thus exploited workers)

How would a business take off the ground in this scenario without a selfless benefactor?

Also it's a much different beast to convert an already established company like amazon and convert that to the same system. Mainly in that the owners and shareholders do not want to give up their investment for nothing.

What are the options then? Steal the company from the amazon investors in spite of the capital they invested to the company? Or pay them off?(would be expensive if going by market value)

Stealing would still be dystopian. I have no love for amazon investors, but imagine a lovely small family-owned business that invested all their life savings into it, before being taken from them because they hired some teenagers to help them for the summer.

It's complex, and not likely compatible with the current economy (unless the rich bastard's hearts grow 3 sizes large), but it would be nice if this business type was more widespread.

I consider the tax rate suggestion a good way to integrate the employee vote with capitalism. it still "survival of the fittest" but the "fittest" would be a profitable company that looks after it's employees.

My concern is that I cannot see a democratically planned economy implemented in a way which doesn't sacrifice individualism of people .

Democracy isn't strictly "freedom" on its own, but it is a powerful tool to protect our "individual freedoms" by ensuring our leaders act in our best interests.

But unless everyone has the exact same mind set that means that the majority will always drown out the minority and so the minority voices will be forced to conform to what the majority want.

We are mostly like-minded in things like what should be crimes/punishment/rights/etc(but note this wasn't always the case): but everyone has individual preferences, like colour of shirt, a specific brand of food, video games, etc which means they need an economy where products can be created by individuals rather than decided by the majority.

If 51% of people think wearing a t-shirt with a cute dog on it is a stupid waste of time then that t-shirt doesn't get made, and so the 49% people that did like the shirt lose out.

Also if 99% of people wanted the garbage collected, but no one wanted to work there, what happens then? Is someone forced to work there? That would be extreme, instead maybe there is more incentive to work there with more pay, but then what if lots of people wanted to work there due to this incentive who would decide who works there and therefore who owns the company?

Hyperbolic examples I know but i hope you see the point I'm trying to make.

Capitalism despite all it's flaws can allow a single person the chance seek funding to provide a good or service and if deemed profitable (either through high demand or cheap production) then the product gets made. People can also seek the obscure products they want rather than what's popular.

How is that simpler?

It sounds way more complex to logistically set up a system like that. Best case is a lot of regulation needed, worse case is a complete overhaul of the economy.

I would love to see a policy where there is a variable tax rate on companies based on employees satisfaction.

If a company has a largely unhappy workforce they would be taxed most of their profits.

If a company has a extremely happy workforce then it can reduce the taxation rate below the standard rate. And employees can still vote on this 2 years after termination.

It incentivises companies to invest more in the employees wellbeing, and punishes companies that take practice in unsustainable hiring and mass layoffs later.

If it is unavoidable that a company needs to downsize, they would be incentivised to help employees find new employment.

I'm sure there is a large issue I'm not seeing with this but I'm pretty fond of the idea.

"I'm a bit nervous with this being my first court case, so I hope you don't mind that I'm a bit drunk"