A worthy opponent at last

There being an expressed need for worthy bad guys and there being a seemingly endless supply of holes in AnCap a truly competent evil genius, a Moriarity to Reggie's Holmes, could exploit, this topic is hereby dedicated to creating him, her, them, it or even Them.

A seed.

Since the UW inherited Fort Knox along with the old USA, they have gold and ships to move it. So they back those fiat bills with gold, maybe they are special bills somehow like blue gold based Continentals just for export or flood the precious metals market. They do some kind of Goldfinger gold scam to reveal one of the many holes missed by the author.

NEXT?

Stuck this also in the wrong place.

One of the best villans I remember was the "mule" of Asimovs foundation.

His mutated Psi ability made it hard top keep a secret from him and easy for him to manipulate minions.

What could you do against someone who was really reading your mind?

The "mule" could have the stupidest political and economic ideas , but would not care , he would make you behave his way or elese. 


Recent tecnological advances in understanding th ebrain make me think that a mind reading machine is plausable , and would certainly top the wish list of a dictator.

I once achieved a state where I simply did not think, at all, unless there was an immediate, specific reason to do so and then I'd think for only as long as needed (milliseconds, probably) and then stop.  A side effect of this was that I also did not move without reason -- i.e., no fidgeting, shifting, tapping, doodling, whatever.  Would have been a marvelous state of mind for an assassin.

Since we have the anarchists representing all that is good in the world why not have a good statist acting as their protagonist?
Some UW politician who is a born leader, genuinely cares about others and wants to use the power of the UW to make things better for everyone. A reformer who wants to fix everything that went wrong.

The best "villains" are the ones you want to win just as much as you want the heroes to.

I once achieved a state where I simply did not think>>>>


I thought of about a dozen things to say to this but I could not come up with just the right phrase.  Any help?

I once achieved a state where I simply did not think>>>>


I thought of about a dozen things to say to this but I could not come up with just the right phrase.  Any help?

 

Was the state Alabama?

Since we have the anarchists representing all that is good in the world why not have a good statist acting as their protagonist?
Some UW politician who is a born leader, genuinely cares about others and wants to use the power of the UW to make things better for everyone. A reformer who wants to fix everything that went wrong.

Well, there is the very first story arc of this comic, where Guy Gaillard is just about exactly what you're asking for.

Since we have the anarchists representing all that is good in the world why not have a good statist acting as their protagonist?
Some UW politician who is a born leader, genuinely cares about others and wants to use the power of the UW to make things better for everyone. A reformer who wants to fix everything that went wrong.

Well, there is the very first story arc of this comic, where Guy Gaillard is just about exactly what you're asking for.

He was and he could dam well have been an awesome antagonist if after spending some time among the anarchists he went back to Earth and the UW with the intent of actually reforming the system there to what they claim it is. If he actually went and tore up the robber barons shit.

Or helped the anarchists adopt the best of both a state approach and free market approach.

Good, very good, a smart Guy with his sheet together, his boss's boss's boss.

Make it so.

Or helped the anarchists adopt the best of both a state approach and free market approach.

What value is a state approach supposed to be bringing to the party?

Or helped the anarchists adopt the best of both a state approach and free market approach.

What value is a state approach supposed to be bringing to the party?

Economy of scale by employing all the deranged megalomaniac has politicians, gotta save relatives insane caring centre fees.

ETA : Reminds me of when a British kid told me that ''The UK government has successfully subsidized Health Care'' ... as if acclimatization Hell itself would be impossible with a broad enough tax slave base.

Or helped the anarchists adopt the best of both a state approach and free market approach.

What value is a state approach supposed to be bringing to the party?

Well here in the UK we found that certain pieces of infrastructure have benefited from a centralised state approach. The Royal Mail worked gloriously to an extent where competition with it was nigh impossible inside the UK, until privatisation of it began and companies instead of developing their own infrastructure simply threw their load on the Royal Mail meaning the state run segment not only had to deal with its load but every private companies load too which they had to take on either for free or at a reduced rate due to the laws surrounding the privatisation of mail in the UK. As such both private industry and the Royal Mail have suffered.

Public transportation was another example of the state approach providing superior service. Bus and rail travel was safer, cleaner and generally better before privatisation than it is now that private companies have been given it all. The national rail network was a purely state orchestrated project done in the time before privatisation with the majority of stations and rail lines in use today being the same ones laid down by our government back when they ran the rails. Under private operation rail maintenance, customer service and overall quality have degraded rapidly. A similar story with the buses.

Then there was the national grid. A system designed to put the power plants where it was cheapest to put them in the country and ensure that the power generated at Drax stations A & B in Yorkshire got down to lands end in the southwest as well as London, Cardiff and Glasgow. To ensure that our nations power infrastructure was as efficient as possible. Nothing like it exists in the USA because there was never the drive for it as well as certain practical limits as a result of their size. By having this gigantic centralised system the information could be better collated and understood leading to better decisions being made in regards to the construction of power stations, their location and where the power went. This meant that the taxpayers received savings on their power bill thanks to a power station being located in the cheapest possible place to run it. Since privatisation however we've had a steady rise in prices in regards to power and the infrastructure is only maintained because the system forces the companies to help maintain it or go bankrupt when their plant in the middle of nowhere in Yorkshire suddenly gets cut off from all those customers in London, coupled with a healthy amount of the government sticking their noses in and fuming at the power companies when they play silly buggers.

British Telecom had a similar story. Investment via taxpayer money made it possible for the UK to have a world class communications network fairly quickly with a consistent standard. The company was initially state run after it was spun off from the Post Office until it was privatised.

Also in regards to the NHS. Well it's not perfect but it's better than most. And our private sector in healthcare is much kinder to its customers than their US counterparts with a much higher standard of service and more lax in regards to paying out.

There are merits to the state approach. Just as there are drawbacks. Hegelian dialectics anyone? Thesis creating antithesis resulting in synthesis.

I once achieved a state where I simply did not think>>>>


I thought of about a dozen things to say to this but I could not come up with just the right phrase.  Any help?

I didnt rise to the statement merely because it would have been expected of me, and as you know, I prefer to be contrary to expectations.   

But, since I'm here... mellryn, so *thats* why you're here.   

Or helped the anarchists adopt the best of both a state approach and free market approach.

What value is a state approach supposed to be bringing to the party?

Well here in the UK we found that certain pieces of infrastructure have benefited from a centralised state approach. The Royal Mail worked gloriously to an extent where competition with it was nigh impossible inside the UK, until privatisation of it began and companies instead of developing their own infrastructure simply threw their load on the Royal Mail meaning the state run segment not only had to deal with its load but every private companies load too which they had to take on either for free or at a reduced rate due to the laws surrounding the privatisation of mail in the UK. As such both private industry and the Royal Mail have suffered.

Public transportation was another example of the state approach providing superior service. Bus and rail travel was safer, cleaner and generally better before privatisation than it is now that private companies have been given it all. The national rail network was a purely state orchestrated project done in the time before privatisation with the majority of stations and rail lines in use today being the same ones laid down by our government back when they ran the rails. Under private operation rail maintenance, customer service and overall quality have degraded rapidly. A similar story with the buses.

Then there was the national grid. A system designed to put the power plants where it was cheapest to put them in the country and ensure that the power generated at Drax stations A & B in Yorkshire got down to lands end in the southwest as well as London, Cardiff and Glasgow. To ensure that our nations power infrastructure was as efficient as possible. Nothing like it exists in the USA because there was never the drive for it as well as certain practical limits as a result of their size. By having this gigantic centralised system the information could be better collated and understood leading to better decisions being made in regards to the construction of power stations, their location and where the power went. This meant that the taxpayers received savings on their power bill thanks to a power station being located in the cheapest possible place to run it. Since privatisation however we've had a steady rise in prices in regards to power and the infrastructure is only maintained because the system forces the companies to help maintain it or go bankrupt when their plant in the middle of nowhere in Yorkshire suddenly gets cut off from all those customers in London, coupled with a healthy amount of the government sticking their noses in and fuming at the power companies when they play silly buggers.

British Telecom had a similar story. Investment via taxpayer money made it possible for the UK to have a world class communications network fairly quickly with a consistent standard. The company was initially state run after it was spun off from the Post Office until it was privatised.

Also in regards to the NHS. Well it's not perfect but it's better than most. And our private sector in healthcare is much kinder to its customers than their US counterparts with a much higher standard of service and more lax in regards to paying out.

There are merits to the state approach. Just as there are drawbacks. Hegelian dialectics anyone? Thesis creating antithesis resulting in synthesis.

Sounds good, but you'll never convince an anarchist that efficiency and convenience trumps freedom.
Anarchists prefer to be cold, starving and sick rather than admit than efficiency and convenience have their place.
Capitalist are all about money.  Nothing else matters.

So, it stands to reason that Anarchist Capitalists would prefer to be inefficiently and inconveniently cold, in the dark, and sick, but with pockets full of money than admit that maybe a collective might have a solution.