Moiaussi wrote...
'On spec' means they will do the work for free and hope you pay them anyway. That seems an unlikely business model to rely on. Make up your mind. Are the contract terms legislated or are they negotiated? If they are legislated, it isn't on spec. The privateers know the terms in advance. And keep in mind that for an on spec arrangement to work, the offer has to be known publicly, meaning the enemy (and public) can learn of it blowing the whole 'secrecy' plan.
Secrecy and deniability are separate concepts. A situation can call for one, either, both, or neither. We are discussing deniability.
There’s no “contract” at all either. The Legislature merely authorizes private individuals or groups to attack and seize enemy shipping.
Privateer ships also aren’t “paid” in the sense that salaried or hourly or contract employees are “paid”. The proceeds from privateering come entirely from selling captured ships and cargoes.
If you really don’t understand these concepts, might I recommend a biography of Captain William Kidd?
Moiaussi wrote...
You are hiding behind technical definitions again. If a nation builds more ships than normal and uses some of those for commerce raiding it is the same effect.
But a higher cost to get that effect.
Moiaussi wrote...
"Using existing civilian ships" has a couple problems. First, those are civilian ships, so they aren't as well suited to the task.
Tell that to the corporate fleet that took Garvug. I should probably clarify though: many existing civilian ships would probably have to be modified before they would be fit for duty. Or military grade vessels could be purchased (again, both at the owners expense).
And, as I said, the unsuitability of modern civilian shipping for modern naval combat is largely why privateering was abandoned. But in Mass Effect this is not the case. Several private organizations are shown or mentioned as having substantial deep space combat capabilities.
Moiaussi wrote...
Second, they are presumably used for some other purpose currently. Likely for actual commerce. That means you are pulling them off economic duty and paying them to do something else instead.
No one is paying anyone I can't emphasize that strongly enough. The privateer ships sell the proceeds of their privateering. The government just has right of first refusal. It is a potentially lucrative enterprise for all involved (except the enemy of course).
Moiaussi wrote...
Also even though you haven't had to build the ships under a privateering plan, the ship owners will still need to be compensated for the use of their ships, usually at a premium for the risk.
Why? Ship owners who decide to go a-privateering are doing so of their own free will. The government never takes their ship, that would be commandeering. It’s the owners choice what to do with their ship. It’s their ship, it’s their risk. How they intend to be compensated for failure is between them and their insurance carrier.
Moiaussi wrote...
Now you are just deliberately being dense. WHILE it is independant, there is obviously no benefit, but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit to joining a union. Quit trolling.
We’re all friends here exploring an issue raised by our favorite video game. You don’t have to call someone a troll just because you’re losing an argument. There’s no shame in admitting when you’re wrong.
Alternatively, you can just say "agree to disagree" I'll take no offense either way.
Moiaussi wrote...
Funny, I am pretty sure Luxemburg is part of the EU now. Independance is always desirable for representation and autonomy, but larger unions offer economies of scale and economic efficiencies. The majority of individuals want all the benefits of being part of something larger, without all the costs and compromises. Posters declaring the council evil simply because they don't agree to all trade terms and requests for military assistance exemplify this.
It's a balancing act for sure, larger unions have benefits and downsides just as smaller states do. It all rests on the principle of self-determination. That is, whether or not the people have a right to choose is ultimately more important than the choice they make. One of the downside of large empires is they tend to limit that right to choose.
For their part, Legion and the geth seem rather familiar with the concept.
Moiaussi wrote...
The Alliance feels there is a benefit to independant worlds being part of the union and is actively trying to make that case rather than send in the warships and telling them they are now part of the union. That suggests 'good' on the part of the Alliance rather than evil. Cerberus, on the other hand, is happy to sacrifice any one and anything to advance, regardless of any claims to independance. That suggests something other than 'good.'
I agree compeletly. My concern is with what happens when a world does not want to be part of the Alliance, or a world that is part of the Alliance wants to leave.
Moiaussi wrote...
You are a troll. I don't seem to recall your shepard sitting down with TIM for any 'perhaps you should rethink your philosophy' heart to hearts.
The thing about TIM is he sees the galaxy as a dog pile and wants humanity on top. That does have a certain “animal nobility” about it. He cares about something besides himself, at least partly, thus there is hope. There is good in him, I can sense it, the dark side has not corrupted him fully.
Modifié par General User, 02 mai 2011 - 03:15 .
Retour en haut
