Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[TheodoricFriede]

Which makes me wonder why you guys even bother holding on to the damn thing if it's such a money drain.

At a guess, it probably has something to do with military bases and sphere of influence.

But could you even imagine the response to the US cutting Puerto Rico loose? We would be utterly vilified on a global scale.

[Vol]

http://archive.is/uf2uO

The free market in action. The supply for bigots is far too low for the demand, so as nature loathes a void, so do humans, and so bigots are created, and in turn future bigots to respond to them.

[Mazder]

Which makes me wonder why you guys even bother holding on to the damn thing if it's such a money drain.

At a guess, it probably has something to do with military bases and sphere of influence.

But could you even imagine the response to the US cutting Puerto Rico loose? We would be utterly vilified on a global scale.

I mean, yeah, true.

Oh, damn, yeah.
Which just goes to show how fucked a position Puerto Rico is in. Doesn't get support form the Protector, can't go it alone, kinda just fucked.

http://archive.is/uf2uO

The free market in action. The supply for bigots is far too low for the demand, so as nature loathes a void, so do humans, and so bigots are created, and in turn future bigots to respond to them.

TBH it's nothing new.
I mean there is this older video of a similar class being done in the states, but it's more a discussion of older kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi3iqJykwEo

[TheodoricFriede]

Oh, damn, yeah.
Which just goes to show how fucked a position Puerto Rico is in. Doesn't get support form the Protector, can't go it alone, kinda just fucked.

My sympathy evaporates when all this is paired with the fact that they are allowed to vote for their own statehood, and have voted against it. More than once I believe.

[Mazder]

My sympathy evaporates when all this is paired with the fact that they are allowed to vote for their own statehood, and have voted against it. More than once I believe.

I mean if it's that much of an economic sinkhole then maybe that's affecting their choice?
Maybe they care about America enough to not be a massive drain to become another state?
I dunno, spitballing.

But, yeah.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Oh, damn, yeah.
Which just goes to show how fucked a position Puerto Rico is in. Doesn't get support form the Protector, can't go it alone, kinda just fucked.

My sympathy evaporates when all this is paired with the fact that they are allowed to vote for their own statehood, and have voted against it. More than once I believe.

Their local government also REALLY wants to avoid statehood because things are disgustingly corrupt in PR to the point where US Statehood would represent a genuine QoL improvement in that regard.

[TheodoricFriede]

Maybe they care about America enough to not be a massive drain to become another state?

...That is so naive I cant even tell if you are joking.

Their local government also REALLY wants to avoid statehood because things are disgustingly corrupt in PR to the point where US Statehood would represent a genuine QoL improvement in that regard.

Right, I forgot about that.

[Mazder]

...That is so naive I cant even tell if you are joking.

I didn't say it's probable, just that it's a maybe.

I don't think it's the reason though.

Their local government also REALLY wants to avoid statehood because things are disgustingly corrupt in PR to the point where US Statehood would represent a genuine QoL improvement in that regard.

Ah yeah that'd be why then.

[Mobius_118]

Russia has been offering bounties for terrorist groups for kills on Coalition forces in the Middle East, especially US troops.

Trump has done nothing but allow Russia to run roughshod over the US and her allies. He's done less than nothing to stop this.

[Vol]

Russia, the Taliban, and the US have all denied that, and Trump/Pence/Pelosi were apparently not even briefed. So the NYT better have some real good sources to back that claim up. For other people anyway, I call them liars out of hand, regardless of what they say. The WSJ is mildly better. The Hill, Reuters to an extent. All are great liars, but to lesser and greater extents. You have to get the news from somewhere, after all.

[Mazder]

Russia, the Taliban, and the US have all denied that, and Trump/Pence/Pelosi were apparently not even briefed. So the NYT better have some real good sources to back that claim up. For other people anyway, I call them liars out of hand, regardless of what they say. The WSJ is mildly better. The Hill, Reuters to an extent. All are great liars, but to lesser and greater extents. You have to get the news from somewhere, after all.

Are we seriously going to trust the guys they're accusing as the source of their innocence?
Of course they'd deny it, they're the ones implicated!
You're not exactly gonna get a confession from any of them.
Getting someone independent to look into the claims is the only way we;'d find out and it's gotta be done before all three have time to cover it up if it is true.
Not saying the NYT are the independents that should be the ones doing it thought.

[Vol]

Are we seriously going to trust the guys they're accusing as the source of their innocence?
Of course they'd deny it, they're the ones implicated!
You're not exactly gonna get a confession from any of them.
Getting someone independent to look into the claims is the only way we;'d find out and it's gotta be done before all three have time to cover it up if it is true.
Not saying the NYT are the independents that should be the ones doing it thought.

I don't trust any of them to tell us the whole truth. But given that there were not briefings on the claim, any kernel of truth to it is not going to be how the press has presented it.

I agree, an independent, viciously ethical third party organization should be trusted implicitly to look into these sorts of matters. We don't have any, but it'd be nice.

[Mobius_118]

Considering I got it through mil.net, I'd say it's real.

Seeing as how both sides of the house want answers, I'd say it's real.

But hey, believe what you want.

[Sinekein]

Whether it is true or not, at this point it is not going to change anyone's mind.

--> If a commission ends up saying those claims were bogus, the left will claim it's rigged and that the truth has been hidden
--> If a commission ends up publishing the intel reports, the right will claim it's fabricated and a conspiracy

So, basically tuesday.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA7Oazzv_tI&t

[Vol]

Bad news, lads. Mondale's going to blow Reagan out.

https://theharrispoll.com/wp-content/up ... 983-01.pdf

This, however, is also amusing.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi ... 39577.html

Do neocons realize _nobody likes them at all_? Conservatives put up with them, and to an extent backed up their oversea nonsense, but I'd like to think 99% of Americans would agree we need to launch them into a medium sized star.

[Sinekein]

Bad news, lads. Mondale's going to blow Reagan out.

https://theharrispoll.com/wp-content/up ... 983-01.pdf

I just want to point out that this poll was made 22 months before the 1984 presidency. This is a poll from the same institute taken four months before the election, in July 1984 in fact, and Reagan is up 51-46 (down from 56-41 a few weeks before).

Another thing that matters is that even in July 1984, the name of the Democratic candidate was not yet known, which means that voters did not know what the final duel would actually be.

[SciFlyBoy]

Who would you vote for in the 1984 election? Knowing what you know today.

[Vol]

@Sine: Right, and our polls were in the margin of error for the national vote, albeit totally wrong on a number of state votes, in '16. So you have to consider the factors that my play into such shocking disparities.

@Sci: Reagan, because for his fuckups, he did good overall. GOP presidents are a bit like amputation to avoid infection. You run out of parts eventually, but it's better than letting the rot get to your heart.

Been interesting seeing how our brave digital vigilantes work. Whole lot of people losing their jobs for not being on board with the revolution. Milquetoast criticism can get you virtually lynched and out on your ass. If government programs and social pressure to conform doesn't work, economic terrorism is the moral path. Not like there are alternatives, even if a company stands by someone who said the wrong think, a company behind that company will buckle. Suppliers, loan providers, accountants, lawyers, shipping companies, there's someone who can be targeted and harassed into compliance, until the company fires the heretic.

Guy who runs a very successful comedy podcast, very libertarian, but culturally moderate, started up a Patreon alternative, but for total free speech. Petit fascists went right to the banks and payment processors and got him booted out of all of them so far. If you cannot interface with the financial system, while attempting to run a completely legal business, for entirely political reasons, what do you call that?

This is a disgusting spectacle. If nothing else, normies might learn to not broadcast their name and face when daring to give an opinion, but that it's come to this will not end well.

[Sinekein]

@Sine: Right, and our polls were in the margin of error for the national vote, albeit totally wrong on a number of state votes, in '16. So you have to consider the factors that my play into such shocking disparities.

I know, and I don't want to predict who is going to win in November, but in the election you linked the pollsters did correctly predict the outcome of Reagan being reelected in their polls four months to the election.

Obviously a lot can change in four months time (like who Biden will pick as a VP, or third-party candidates getting in). And with the US system, even if Biden ends up winning by 8 in the popular vote he might still not be elected president. Trump got elected despite losing it by 2.

Which is why honestly I don't know why they bother with "popular vote polls" at all in US elections. In France, this is the only thing that gets you elected president, so it makes sense to focus on it, but in the US it includes the voters in the roughly 30 States such as California, Hawaii, Alabama or Mississippi whose colors are known already. All of the 2016 "surprises" were in States within the margin of error, 4-5 points at most, but many are still way outside of it.

Especially since there is no equivalence between population and electoral votes, and the census tends to favor Democrat states more and more in the popular vote with the way population is growing (since they have more "high population/electoral votes ratio" states leaning their way, including California and New York which are the worst two). The popular vote tool is becoming less informative by the year and yet is still used.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

The popular vote ultimately exists so that we can figure out who won each individual state so electors can be allocated.

With the supreme court recently deciding that oh yes Electors have to vote for who THEIR state voted for that has just been further reinforced. Is it fun that someone can lose the overall number of votes but win the election? Not really.

But I'll take popular vote oddities over two cities effectively controlling the destiny of the nation in every election.

[Sinekein]

The popular vote in each state has a meaning yes. But the aggregate of 50 different popular votes is rather meaningless, and it is the one that is the most commonly used. It might change after the conventions when the proper tickets are known and used by pollsters.

[Vol]

It's useful for giving a general national perspective, as well as propaganda, though it can be used both and for against any given candidate ("We need to fight harder, show me your war face!" & "Ahaha, the American people adore me, don't get complacent, but clearly that guy can go fuck himself.") As we are specifically set up as a republic as a union of 50 states, I'm obviously against the popular vote meaning anything more than that. Frankly we should be restricting voting rights to landowning men born on this soil, but nobody will listen to me.

Thankfully the politicians of smaller states will lord their power jealously, so even if that silly interstate popular vote compact got past the magic threshold, and Roberts punted on it, it would take some brass balls to try and actually use it. Which is why DC and PR are pushed to be states, because they'd ad 4 permanent blue Senate seats and a handful of House. The balance is precarious already, though the parties are shifting a bit, takes a couple elections to solidify it.

But it's curious as to how big the disparity from what we'll see in November is. Shy Tory effect, selective polling, difficulty actually getting the GOP base (white, blue collar, rural) to talk to pollsters, etc. I'd be curious as to why they cannot compensate for that by now, and adjust the predictions to how they'll probably be, or if the changes in voting patterns are severe enough that it cannot be done reliably.

[Sinekein]

.538 actually rates pollsters depending on their methods and past results. Notably they highly rate Monmouth University, one of the few institutes that accurately and consistently predicted Trump's win in 2016.

I expect some other pollsters to have adjusted due to 2016 but 2016 was still well within the margin of error do it was not a 10 points fluke.

I am not sure the Dems are all-in on changing the system as it stands. They know that the evolution of society favors them, with fewer people living in rural areas and non-white people growing in proportion even in red states. If the GOP keeps picking candidates that focus on white rural Americans, they might end up with an easy advantage in a couple decades. If the GOP goes back to moderates though they might capture minorities again but that is not the current direction.

[Vol]

Depends how they're taking the long view. A reasonable position would be to have plans for if current trends continue/accelerate or if the pendulum swings back. For example, if the neocons continue to be booted from the GOP, and it becomes the party of populist nationalism, that can peel away the minority vote very easily. Albeit at the cost of there no longer being a socially or economically right wing party.

Our economic system cannot function indefinitely on debt and magic money, one day there has to be a reckoning. Will cities hit a soft carrying capacity? Eventually a president and Congress will offer total amnesty for illegals, and de facto open borders, will that bind together the disparate people here now? Will the open hatred of white people cause identitarians to gain local, and then broader, power?

I would bet that the DNC is expecting trends to continue as is, given their fellow travelers control all the means of affecting mass perception. So, yeah, the GOP will have to pivot center to expand in the face of the folly of mass immigration. They lost that fight, totally and completely. Their adherence to international capitalism fucked their base the hardest, as the jobs and wealth went everywhere but here. With no hope for even a fraction of what their parents had, youth have to migrate to the cities, and that in turn degrades them.

So yeah, the future looks rosy for the Democrats, as of right now. Best not be complacent, the neocons are on the outs, but the GOP is grossly inept and culturally suicidal still.

[Sinekein]

The interesting thing in the US is that the system is entirely locked around two parties and that absolutely no one has managed to make a third one emerge. This means that movements have to happen from one party to another, and there is always a brain drain from one side to another.

I think the GOP is going to be losing in the short and medium term because Trump's strategy revolves around a very faithful but ultimately shrinking base, one that is not guaranteed to keep supporting the GOP as intensely once he's not there anymore. But since he tends to widen the gap between him and potential minority voters that the GOP absolutely has to seduce, it is possible that his successors will double down on his rhetoric because his legacy makes it impossible to seduce a large part of the electorate.

Give it enough time however and a more consensual, center-right figure might emerge in the GOP and profit from the inevitable cracks among Democrats. Considering that the left wing of the party is becoming more and more influential by the day, it is likely that a sizable portion of "moderate minorities" might eventually be fed up with the racial rhetoric and be seduced by a moderate conservative. Basically, people who have supported Biden since day one of the primaries could be an easy target for a Republican who can promote law and order without peppering his speeches with nationalist or outright racist subtitles.

Because Democrats are becoming afraid to speak out against those that I would call for lack of a better word "extreme SJWs", while Republicans are terrified to not sound tough enough on immigration. It leaves a giant gap in the middle for, I assume millions of Americans who want a leader who can both condemn nazis and the antifa - the problem being that right now such a figure would be unable to emerge on either party since both are moving away from the center.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

We have a president that has condemned both Nazis and Antifa....

One party currently seems to hate the country because it's shifted so far to the left since 2008 that it's dropped off a cliff. Fucking hell people on the American left consider Biden and Obama to be conservative now and the rest of them are too chickenshit to call out the insane ideologues. It has to stop.

[Sinekein]

Indeed, Barack Obama. Problem is, he's not president anymore. The new one has a hard time being tough on the "fine people" walking in the streets carrying nazi flags.

I don't understand why you try to defend him, he's pretty obvious in his political strategy: trying to unite the right including those very, very far away. That means being meek when talking about the worst of them so as not to anger them.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Oh rack off with that Sinekin Trump has shit on Nazis and communists both. There were "Fine people on both sides" and there fucking were because there were plenty of people there to protest or counter protest that weren't communists or neo-nazis.

It just so happens that we have an overwhelming sample size of one group attacking people and burning shit.... and never once gets called out for it by the media.

[Sinekein]

Right. Remind me, which organization is he trying to add on the terrorist list? Is it the KKK, antifa, or both?

Anyway, your communist obsession is really starting to see, maybe you should consult. It was normal in the 1950s, but today it might have a hint of paranoia in it.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Ah yes. The KKK. All 12 of them. Utterly terrifying.

Antifa needs to be crushed like the wanna be revolutionaries they claim to be. Your country might not have issues with uppity communists but don't fucking condescend. It's a stereotype of the French.

People used to be aware of the threat communism posed to western civilization.

[Sinekein]

We have roughly as many issues with communists as you do. Thing is, we don't overblow their actual influence, and we know what the difference between communists, socialists, anarchists, hippies, hardline ecologists, looters and disenfranchised youth is. We don't call them all "commies", because only a tiny part of them actually are.

For the record, the USSR did not win the Cold War, and you might start thinking about blaming the shit that occurred during the last 30 years on people other than communists. It was already arguable that they were responsible for everything going wrong before 1990, but after that it just sounds silly. They seem to be to you what Jewish people are to rabid antisemites.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Yes. Because we haven't had a bunch of intersectional cultists pumping the soft heads of university students with bullshit ideology for decades now...

Sometimes a spade really is a spade. No matter how much our compromised media might want to white wash it.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5PpT7dOhD0&t=0s

well if you ever wondered why some people don't support the BLM movement, it's because of people like this.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EGzOTrzPts

I've been mentioning for a while that these people need to be stopped. Preferably through peaceable means. But honestly. The longer this goes on. The more lives sacrificed on the alter of woke ideology. The less peaceful I feel.

[Vol]

I honestly hope there's more to it than that. Because if not, then a white woman, a mother no less, was just executed over a political disagreement with black supremacists, and nobody seems to care much.

[Sinekein]

After the many issues of sexual harassment or worse in the Smash community, this weekend it is one of the most famous Fire Emblem content creator that was accused of sexually assaulting someone. Turns out that the misogynist, homophobic and kinda racist character he was "playing" in his videos to make people laugh was just him.

I am not really surprised, considering one of the game's main selling points has become to relate with the sexually frustrated by giving them more and more anime waifus wearing less and less clothes (although FE3H was at least a step in the right direction art-wise - then again, Heroes is becoming worse and worse at the same time).

It might also have to do with the kind of personality being required to become a streamer/youtuber - I assume that to succeed you need to care about yourself and your own image, and not about what other people are feeling, which translates in real life.

[TheodoricFriede]

I cant believe it.

You actually have reached the point of blaming video games for societal problems.

[Vol]

It might also have to do with the kind of personality being required to become a streamer/youtuber - I assume that to succeed you need to care about yourself and your own image, and not about what other people are feeling, which translates in real life.

Or men have an innate craving for sex and intimacy, with video game players being traditionally part of the quarter of men who receive none. But then the most driven, competitive of that group find some real social status and wealth, and having not been allowed part of the usual process of growing up with females, have repressed and stunted means of dealing with these basic human cravings they can now access. And in some cases, they turn into pedos/rapists/harassers, because power is a component too, but again, expressed in unhealthy ways.

Clearly sex and intimacy must be commodified, if not government mandated as a form of mental health care, so that any transgressors left can be crushed without moral compunctions. Leaving it to the free market is very inefficient, and prone to malicious manipulation.

[Sinekein]

I cant believe it.

You actually have reached the point of blaming video games for societal problems.

I think you misunderstood me. I do not think there is anything wrong with video games. If anything, I might blame in that case the same thing that I think is problematic with a number of anime - or other media content -, ie using what basically amounts to softcore porn to sell a product, and embracing extreme objectification/sexualization of characters.

I linked to the Smash thing just because it was a coincidence it targeted two of Nintendo's biggest licenses in barely a week, but I do not think the situations have anything in common. If it was not clear I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Or men have an innate craving for sex and intimacy, with video game players being traditionally part of the quarter of men who receive none. But then the most driven, competitive of that group find some real social status and wealth, and having not been allowed part of the usual process of growing up with females, have repressed and stunted means of dealing with these basic human cravings they can now access. And in some cases, they turn into pedos/rapists/harassers, because power is a component too, but again, expressed in unhealthy ways.

Yeah, Youtubers are now akin to successful athletes/movie stars in their global fame, but indeed they might in some cases have a higher likelihood of growing up without learning how to properly interact with the other gender. I'm not sure specifying the gender is even accurate because some of the worst accusations in the Smash thingie were targeting a female streamer.

Clearly sex and intimacy must be commodified, if not government mandated as a form of mental health care, so that any transgressors left can be crushed without moral compunctions. Leaving it to the free market is very inefficient, and prone to malicious manipulation.

Stopping the criminalization of prostitution would indeed be a first step. As an added bonus, making it a legal business would very quickly cause the end of numerous gross networks of human trafficking, on top of vastly improving the health and life conditions of prostitutes - and, as a consequence, of their clients.

[Mazder]

Stopping the criminalization of prostitution would indeed be a first step. As an added bonus, making it a legal business would very quickly cause the end of numerous gross networks of human trafficking, on top of vastly improving the health and life conditions of prostitutes - and, as a consequence, of their clients.

Didn't Australia already do that?

[TTTX]

Stopping the criminalization of prostitution would indeed be a first step. As an added bonus, making it a legal business would very quickly cause the end of numerous gross networks of human trafficking, on top of vastly improving the health and life conditions of prostitutes - and, as a consequence, of their clients.

I swear some countries are really behind the times with this and I say this as a country where Prostitution is legally and I can't understand why it's not legal other then the usual hypercritical religious nonsens.

[Vol]

https://gamasutra.com/view/news/366371/ ... ethics.php

Committees, ethics, standards, fuck these lil' Stalins. They create nothing and degrade everything.

@Sine: Same vein as celebrities of yore, but without the system to filter and elevate, which is nominally a good difference, but makes these public incidents more prevalent.

But yeah, totally on board with legal, standardize prostitution. Probably less rules than some people would like, but a marked improvement over the shitshow on the streets and the grey market. The simps that pay e-girls fortunes for _nothing_ bother me far more than a fair transaction between a sex provider and seeker.

[Mazder]

But yeah, totally on board with legal, standardize prostitution. Probably less rules than some people would like, but a marked improvement over the shitshow on the streets and the grey market. The simps that pay e-girls fortunes for _nothing_ bother me far more than a fair transaction between a sex provider and seeker.

I mean the USA is a lot more Puritan when it comes to sex/nudity anyway so I can see why a lot of your simps pay for fucking nothing, lol.

[Sinekein]

But yeah, totally on board with legal, standardize prostitution. Probably less rules than some people would like, but a marked improvement over the shitshow on the streets and the grey market. The simps that pay e-girls fortunes for _nothing_ bother me far more than a fair transaction between a sex provider and seeker.

The legal aspect should only be about health and logistics. A clean room, regular checks for STDs, protection mandatory if the sex worker so chooses, and after that like everything else it boils down to offer and demand.

It would also reduce the taboo regarding having sex with prostitutes, so it would be seen as less of a shame and might push some to go from being alone and frustrated to becoming a customer and let go of those frustrations.

[Vol]

I swear some countries are really behind the times with this and I say this as a country where Prostitution is legally and I can't understand why it's not legal other then the usual hypercritical religious nonsens.

The religious lobby has very little power anymore here. The opposition would be a weird coalition of them, feminists, and people who "feel" it's immoral, but can't articulate why, as they lack an objective moral code. Mostly no one wants to be the first to really push for it on the national level. Plus it'd be harder for our elites to murder hookers if they're making detailed records.

I mean the USA is a lot more Puritan when it comes to sex/nudity anyway so I can see why a lot of your simps pay for fucking nothing, lol.

Quite frankly, it fucking sucks. We swung from one extreme to the other, culturally, and never got to stop and catch our breath and admire the human body before the neo-puritans called it sin.

The legal aspect should only be about health and logistics. A clean room, regular checks for STDs, protection mandatory if the sex worker so chooses, and after that like everything else it boils down to offer and demand.

It would also reduce the taboo regarding having sex with prostitutes, so it would be seen as less of a shame and might push some to go from being alone and frustrated to becoming a customer and let go of those frustrations.

Pretty much in agreement then. Up to the girl what they do, how they do, and the john's know the risks, know the girls are clean, and the sirs/madames will handle the necessaries. Might solve a lot of problems if Americans could fuck, quickly and safely, at a fair market price.

[TheodoricFriede]

at a fair market price.

Riddle me this, Batman.

What do you get when you factor in the added costs of vice taxes, human maintenance, and big business?

[Mazder]

at a fair market price.

Riddle me this, Batman.

What do you get when you factor in the added costs of vice taxes, human maintenance, and big business?

Don't forget skill!

Oh, that means Prostitution Degrees and school/University!

Blowjob U.
Reverse Cowgirl College.
Whips and Chain Polytechnic.
etc.

[TTTX]

The religious lobby has very little power anymore here. The opposition would be a weird coalition of them, feminists, and people who "feel" it's immoral, but can't articulate why, as they lack an objective moral code. Mostly no one wants to be the first to really push for it on the national level. Plus it'd be harder for our elites to murder hookers if they're making detailed records.

Hypocrites at it's finest.

but the "Moral Code" they are using are basically the same one from religion as it has been around for thousands of years, even before Christ was born and well various followers and former Jewish scholars (and other through time) along with the culture of the roman empire that basically made the Bible and the code most people follow today.

[Vol]

Riddle me this, Batman.

What do you get when you factor in the added costs of vice taxes, human maintenance, and big business?

Fuck taxes and big business.

But more seriously, the cost of a legal whore in Nevada was about $1k+ when I wanted to fly out there a few years ago. Clearly far too high for the common man. However, because of the limitations on the legality, as well as the grey market, the actual average price is assuredly closer to a few days' pay.

So in my perfect vision, the legal burdens to providing service would be so low that independent contractors could undercut each other, while larger, organized guilds/companies would also compete, but at a far higher price, with a correspondingly higher degree of accommodation. Sort of like what we see with freelance artists. In reality, yeah, the monopolistic nature of our economy and retardation of our ruling class would price out the common man.

Hypocrites at it's finest.

but the "Moral Code" they are using are basically the same one from religion as it has been around for thousands of years, even before Christ was born and well various followers and former Jewish scholars (and other through time) along with the culture of the roman empire that basically made the Bible and the code most people follow today.

All moral leaders should be ascetics, at the very least, to ensure trust. If they live better than their followers, they might still be righteous and fair, but there'll always be a gnawing doubt.