It's just nazbol and strasserism

In a shitty mos

Terrible politics

Alot of history bending and Wikipedia research

At the self admission of some of their devs

lol retards

Kaiserreich? More like Commiereich

Kaiserreich

more like

gay

No u

re: the debate q
i think there should be a minimum wage but im not tied to the idea. the minimum wage effectively communicates an expectation that people should be working in such a way thats at least hitting that low bar which given the amount we invest in people doesnt seem unreasonable. I think that welfare as it seems to be implemented undermines how effective that is, however

as for the second part whatever the value someone accepts for their work is what its worth

I support minimum wage, as it decreases migration.

Plain 'n simple.

@Deleted User Does it tho?

When minimum wage is imposed, buisness owners and special interest-folk would not seek massive amounts of immgration to get themself cheap labour. Once the wealthy have already a minimum wage to abide by, they would not support immigration. Donors and special interest rule the govermnent in most cases.

@Aki You understand?

@Deleted User I see the logic behind it.... but hmmm I am a bit busy atm so gonna think about it and get back to you on it.

Sure.

i dont agree that special interests and "big business" control the govt and if that were true you would not see min-wage laws passed based on what your saying. otherwise spot on david but you might have emigration as some might not be able to provide that level of work to support giving them minimum wage and would have to seek work elsewhere

You're right, the donors and special interest does not rule over the government, but breed among them like rats.

I articulated that specific sentence with hyperbole.

is it wrong that people advocate their own interest?

No-no, of course not, but afluence is a dangerous thing.

- A tool that can wreak havoc upon even the mightiest empire.

They, the wealthy, have the right in human nature to preserve their self-interest. But their interest does not represent what the people truly needs, - Which is the government's purpose in the first place; serving the people.

i dont think theres a necessity that "the people's" interests and the interest of individuals, even extremely influential individuals, must be at odds. that being said obviously there can arise situations where they do and i think that beyond all else the most important priority as "a people" is to figure out how to avoid those situations and create means of acting together for mutual interest in a beneficial way

The point that the state never wants to get to, is the point where politicians and the 1% mix, that is when you achieve maximum corruption and abuse of power. Therefor, the state must have certain regulations that keep the STATE over the individuals who only seek their own profit. Don't get me wrong, i'm no socialist / Communist, but I realize the importance of protectionism and restrictions.

realistically the "1%" and the politicians are always going to mix and they even need to, it would be stupid for instance to make provisions making cars less expensive if car manufacturers are telling you it wouldnt make a difference or even make it more expensive, for example. I agree the state needs regulations and provisions but with the recognition that individuals will always, in some shape or form, pursue their own profit to the exclusion of all else and that isnt a bad thing.

fuck protectionism tho

We agree. People will always pursue their own profit. But are you really willing to make the bold statement that what's best for the top of the hierarchy is best for the people?

in general if the system they are participating in is well constructed, yes

if the system is poorly constructed then perhaps not

People will always pursue their own profit, even if it means exploitation.

i agree, so then the emphasis should be in creating a system that allows people to profit without exploitation

Of course. That is when you need restrictions, to assure that the certain people with power do not abuse them; both politicians and richmen.

We agree?

we do, but its also important to realize that changes to the system dictate who those people who are politicians and richmen are

if your changes merely change who is on top, without changing the actions they're incentivized towards, there will always be a conflict

That's why we should have a nobility :p