Reistance v. Founders (Security)

(Seyu) #141

[QUOTE=tokamak;283507]Which makes it a job worth doing.

Which makes it a job worth doing.[/QUOTE]

So, if a slave works just so that his hands aren’t chopped off, would that make his job worth doing too?

(tokamak) #142

Do we have any official lore of this?

Seems like a job worth doing to me. But I’d still like to see some sources on how the Security forces people to work for them. I don’t see the Resistance guys as slaves at all, these guys own the same arsenal of weaponry after all.

(H0RSE) #143

Seems like a job worth doing to me. But I’d still like to see some sources on how the Security forces people to work for them.

From the official Brink site:

"Are the Ark’s Founders really doing all they can to re-establish contact with the outside world? Why are only the Guests on rationed water? If their work keeps the Ark afloat, why are they second class citizens? The Resistance formed from those sick and tired of being the Founders’ captive workforce."

“Captive Workforce.” Can’t that be translated into “Slave Labor?”

(Seyu) #144

Growing Guest unrest has led to Security crackdowns, which have brought the Ark to the brink of civil war.

From H0RSE’s compendium

(tokamak) #145

The crackdowns could be for anything, weapons and such. And really, a captive workfore with miniguns? Sure, of course.

Like I said, we’re only seeing two heavily biased perspectives which makes the entire affair far less interesting than the starting conditions which are more clear.

(II Captain K II) #146

[QUOTE=tokamak;283467]A hippycrite, someone living in a country with the biggest ecological footprint per head, approx four times what is considered sustainable preaching about not taking more from nature than they need.

The founders however made a 100% sustainable place, keeping emissions to a minimum in the construction and lived on a minimum ecological footprint.[/QUOTE]

You loudmouth prick. Don’t you dare come at me when you have no idea how I lead my life. I don’t need to justify my position with a personal anecdote, but I will since you called me out. I do just about everything humanly possible to reduce my footprint. I don’t even own a car, I either bike or take the bus everywhere. I eat meat at most once a week. I have a damn compost bin in my back yard. And no, I’m not a hippy, I just try to do the best I can. I’m not perfect, but how dare you call me a hypocrite?

I thought we were having an abstract discussion about ethics, and all of a sudden you call me out? If you ever said something that arrogant to me in public, I swear upon everything holy I would knock your teeth down your throat. That’s right, I’m so insulted I’m going to go internet tough guy on you, and I mean it 100%.

(Nail) #147

live in a yurt, grow your own food, make your own clothes and then give half that food and clothing away, possibly then the give will be more than the take. Untill that happens, everyone’s a taker, K

(amazinglarry) #148

I walk on my hands, so I leave no footprint. What do you think about that?

(tokamak) #149

Now that’s more interesting. You’re still likely to live above the ethical entitlement though. See, I admit, I think I live way beyond it. And I don’t see why I shouldn’t natural resources are just like any scarce goods, they have a price. The problem is not that people don’t bear personal responsibility, the problem is that the external costs to products are rarely included. People don’t pay for the damage they deal to their planet.

Should those costs be included the living standard for the middle-class would drop considerably as they’re the ones that profit the most from these empty economies. That’s why there’s such a political reluctance to do anything about it. Even though it’s the only effective solution to quickly spearhead our society to a green sustainable economy. I beat two members of the Dutch parliament over their heads with this during a public debate thingy, they were just left without any rational ground to stand on yet still clung to the public appeal which was basically that the middle-class is allowed to live well above their means.

Now back to the founders. These rich guys bought their resources in an attempt to bring humanity closer to this green utopia. They were too late and their platform of sustainable development became their lifeboat. And now you’re here going all Captain Planet saying that they ‘stole’ from Gaia herself? That’s an incredibly skewed sense of justice.

I thought we were having an abstract discussion about ethics, and all of a sudden you call me out? If you ever said something that arrogant to me in public, I swear upon everything holy I would knock your teeth down your throat.

Whatever one understands under a ‘abstract discussion about ethics’ I guess.

(II Captain K II) #150

I never said I wasn’t a taker. I do my best in the 21st century. Also, I never said you couldn’t take more than you need, I simply questioned the justification of it being “yours”. That part is key, and it’s what you guys want to ignore, and would rather paint me as a hypocrite and radical. Of course I take more than I need. Yet I would never claim that I have some right to it just because I took it. Its part of the reason I don’t care much about money. If, overnight I was suddenly forced to ration my food and consumption of goods I wouldn’t complain. I wouldn’t think that some injustice had been forced on me.

(Seyu) #151

It’s funny how you think your tepid attempts are ‘just about everything humanly possible.’

And I don’t see why I shouldn’t natural resources are just like any scarce goods, they have a price. The problem is not that people don’t bear personal responsibility, the problem is that the external costs to products are rarely included. People don’t pay for the damage they deal to their planet.

Yea, increasing prices does seem a feasible solution to me, initially at least.

Such measures could easily pulverize economies all over the world but then again, I don’t know as much about Economics as I’d like.

These rich guys bought their resources in an attempt to bring humanity closer to this green utopia.

I sort of agree with Captain K here, how does their buying resources mean anything?

(tokamak) #152

Such measures could easily pulverize economies all over the world but then again

If that were the case then that proves that these economies were shifting their external costs onto something and someone else. Abolishing slavery turned out to negatively effect the economy, that didn’t make it any less right because that part of the economy was empty (unethical, unsustainable) in the first place.

I sort of agree with Captain K here, how does their buying resources mean anything?

I don’t even understand the problem. You think you don’t own what you buy? If you don’t have any problem with property now then it’s hypocritical to have a problem in the scenario where it that property becomes immensely valuable, like the ark. Nobody here has an issue with bricks and mortar, but the moment it becomes the single means to survive and sustain oneself, it is suddenly goods stolen from mother earth?

This is exactly why I keep referring to that Little Red Hen tale.

(II Captain K II) #153

Fair enough. I was pretty heated when I typed that post and you are right. Still stand by what I said in the sense that I do enough to not be labeled a hypocrite by some moron who doesn’t even understand what a hypocrite is.

(II Captain K II) #154

I don’t even understand the problem. You think you don’t own what you buy? If you don’t have any problem with property now then it’s hypocritical to have a problem in the scenario where it that property becomes immensely valuable, like the ark. Nobody here has an issue with bricks and mortar, but the moment it becomes the single means to survive and sustain oneself, it is suddenly goods stolen from mother earth?

See you don’t understand what anybody is saying, and then label them a hypocrite. What I was saying is that property ought to be “provisionally” yours. Like I said, anything beyond what we need to survive is luxury, and hardly belongs to us in a strict sense. You are trying to draw a logical equivalence between being in possession of something and believing that you have some actual claim to it. That’s where you fail. I can have possession of my $300 jeans, but if they were to be taken from me, or repossessed for someone else’s use, I wouldn’t shed any tears about it, since they are extraneous anyways.

(Seyu) #155

There is a huge difference between how the economy was then and how it is now, look at how things were during the recession that took place a few years back.

Nobody here has an issue with bricks and mortar, but the moment it becomes the single means to survive and sustain oneself, it is suddenly goods stolen from mother earth?

lol No, that wasn’t my point. Making a payment for natural resources, in general, doesn’t compensate for the damage caused, which you have already addressed.

Anyway, you can’t really treat rights to property as they are in normal times to that during an apocalyptic event.
For example, during times of emergency the State is empowered to acquire private properties for national interest. How is the guests’ asking for more of a share any different? Which brings us back to the argument of whether or not the guests deserve the same rights as the founders as is the case in a republic.

(II Captain K II) #156

Another way to look at this: during a worldwide disaster, and assuming the dissolution of a central government and society, assuming that there is nobody to provide safety for the people (since that is the government’s function), it would be a return to “might is right”. In that case, neither the resistance nor the security would be in the wrong. Once the social contract is broken, what reason would the resistance have to act as normal citizens?

(tokamak) #157

You’ve got to be kidding me, nothing has changed and we’re even heading for worse. The Dutch environmental law I need to study now has a few additions that severely neuter the entire system making it easier for companies to bypass regulations for the sake of economical revival. It’s not an unreasonable guess that this is the same for the other countries. Luckily the EU sits on top of this so they can’t get away with as much as they wished.

And that’s just the very short therm which I wasn’t after. I’m talking about the grotesque plundering of the Amazon to produce cattle fodder, the huge amounts of clean water required for our consumption, the mineral and metal quarries sterilising large swathes of land and so forth.

Nobody is paying for that damage. We act as if it’s free. It’s rape and run.

lol No, that wasn’t my point. Making a payment for natural resources, in general, doesn’t compensate for the damage caused, which you have already addressed.

The point to absolve the founders of their rights to own the Ark.

Anyway, you can’t really treat rights to property as they are in normal times to that during an apocalyptic event.

That’s the very thing you’re doing now. Millions of people are living in absolute emergency now, they’re living in what we would define as an apocalyptic event. Yet we appeal to our right to property by not feeling obliged to help them out.

(NeutraiIty) #158

Resistance. I’ve always been anti-authoritarian, so I have sympathy for the Resistance.

The rule of this war seems to be, there is no bad, there is only us and them.