Anshe

And that is your opinion Blaze. It still does not negate the original point I was trying to make. Which was to clarify for some what Ulrika was tyring to say.

*Ulrika pulls on cord and starts up her philsophy motor.*

This is a brilliant question. The problem is that the word "ethical" used casually is often relative to the user and is employed more as a method of behavioral control than it is as a universal guideline. For example, the use of the term "good work ethic" has nothing to do with ethics, rather it describes someone who works a lot, usually more than the 40-hours per week paid for by a company. This is beneficial to the company and those who hold positions of power in the company so they drape free and hard work in the cloak of "ethics". In fact, making people work without pay is actually fundamentally unethical. (More examples provided by request.)


So how does one define ethics? For ethics to be universal, they must be grounded and absolute and not be subject to interpretation. For myself, I use Kant's moral philosophy (Kantianism) as the fundamental definition of morality and where it fails I then apply Utilitariansim and finally Multicultural Feminism.

Kant grounds all morality in the Categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative is an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions and is both required and justified as an end in itself, not as a means to some other end (you can spend weeks analyzing that sentence). In his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant formulates the Categorical Imperative in three different ways:

1. The first (Universal Law formulation): "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
   
2. The second (Humanity or End in Itself formulation): "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
   
3. The third (Kingdom of Ends formulation) combines the two: "All maxims as proceeding from our own [hypothetical] making of law ought to harmonise with a possible kingdom of ends."

Stated simply, immorality (unethical behavior) occurs when a person attempts to set a different standard for themselves than for the rest of humanity!

For example, stealing would be unethical, since, to steal, you must deny the existence of property rights. But in so doing, you would be denying ownership of your own property, and the whole act of stealing would become (in Kant's eyes) logically self-defeating. The same goes for killing, lying, and so on - I cannot will that these be universally practiced, since if they were it would be harmful to me. Any such actions I carry out are thus inconsistent with reason. There are also more subtle effects: for example, I cannot decide never to help others out, as I must recognise that I am likely to need help from others at some point. (Paraphrased from Wikipedia.)


However with any simple system it does not provide solutions for complex situations. An example is when unethical behavior is required to stop other unethical behavior. Because it's based on absolutes, Kantianism provides no mechanism for choosing among unethical actions. The solutions is Utilitarianism. It is a philosophy for weighing and choosing a course of action based on ultimate benefit. (Note that it does not invalidate Kantianism, rather it provides a mechanism for choosing the least damaging behavior even if that behavior is unethical.) Here's an example which shows both in action:

I man asks me to keep my word and I agree. The man then tells me he is going to kill my friend. If I tell my friend, I have lied and done something unethical. If I don't tell my friend and he is killed, the man has done something unethical. Under Kantianism both acts are unethical. By employing Utilitarianism, I recognize that both acts are unethical but from simple common sense I recognize that one has greater long-term consequences.

I'll skip feminism for now, since this became quite large.


I'm very excited to post this, as it is relatively new to me. I actually inherited a tremendous amount of this information from my husband who researched Kantianism looking for morality which wasn't relative. In the meantime I was researching Multicultural Feminism and we met in the middle. (You'd be amazed how many of my posts are aided by me shouting over my shoulder, "hey someone in the forum said X, what do you think about that".)

~Ulrika~

What did bush say?

Pendari,

<<Isn't that how you act when you are all alone and no one can see you? Or is that character?>>

No - that's masturbation.



Sorry to go off-topic, but that seems to be what's happened with this thread. It was a thread about Anshe, not market forces or capitalism or even dealing in land. I think there are plenty of threads about for people to discuss those things.

It would be courteous for those people who want to discuss those things to take that discussion there.

- T -

Kant is as relative and arbitrary as philosophers come.

PM me if you accept my chalange to debate this.

Guilty as charged and in total agreement. But sometimes it is difficult. I started following the forums in August and there has not been a day I have not seen unfounded personal allegations against Anshe, simply because she has a successful business. Most of the allegations are usually politically oriented and they always have to bring up the evils of Capitalism and free enterprise.

Heck, I don't even know Anshe in person. I am just another satisfied customer that does not like seeing her name smeared simply because she is smart and successful.

- T -

Buying and selling is a fundamental human right. All barriers to trade should be removed with the exception of those barriers that prevent the exploitation of people.

An example of arbitrage is the mall-to-eBay analogy. A person purchases jeans at a discount in a mall and then sells them for a profit on eBay.

How is our situation different than this? A see a few critical ones:

1. We could always go to the store and purchase discount jeans too.
   
2. There exist multiple sources for jeans both retail and on eBay.
   
3. Profits are on resale are taxed twice, once with a VAT (sales tax) and again with a progressive income tax.
   
4. The cost of "owning jeans" is not a function of the number of jeans owned.
   

That last point is profound! Let's explore it. Did you know that someone who is tiered up to support a full sim in a group can hold over 72,000 m^2 of land for $195 per month? Compare that to 141 individuals not in a group who hold single 512 m^2 plots (about 72,000 m^2) for $5 per month. Their total comes to $705! The difference is 361%! That is, because of land tier prices, the top land owners pay about 1/4 what the small land owner does. While this is a great reward for those who enjoy owning large parcels it is a massive discount for those who want to buy and sell land.

Note that this excludes the part of the US$3000 that Anshe received for dwell on her land (assuming a linear division between 45 that's about $70 per month). Including it would reduce her RL costs to about 1/6 that of a single player. This is the use of RL purchasing power to receive massive subsidies.

As you can see this is not simple arbitrage. This is the exploitation of a system geared to reward elite players with massive discounts and bonuses that come straight out of the common player's RL pocket. The land barons use this massive discount to create land oligopolies and extract RL money from individual players. What's really insidious about the system is that it charges us twice. First those who own smaller parcels subsidize with RL US$ the land of large land owners and then we pay an overhead added to land we purchase from land barons who are using their purchasing power to control the market.

Do you see the massive factor-of-six inequality in costs, the clear oligopoly, and the fact that we subsidize our own exploitation or is it just me?

~Ulrika~

Here is a lady that worked hard to put herself through culinary school and after a few years working 14 hours a day as a chef, sees an opportunity to fulfill her dream of owning her own restaurant.

She empties her savings account. She goes to the bank an borrows every penny she can. She calls friends and family and borrows some more. She maxes out her credit cards. She obtains a second mortgage. She quits her full time job so she can devote the 60-80 hours a week required to run a restaurant. She borrows even more for her living expenses while the restaurant turns a profit.

Eventually, the restaurant is a great success.

And now here comes Tito Gomez, the forty-hour-a-week dishwasher, questioning why she is making the money she is making and he is not. Why she has a big house and he has a small apartment. Why she drives a Mercedes and he drives a Kia.

Life is so unfair...

- T -

Heheheh

You sure you used L$?

You sure Marker it wasn't a KidGrid Buck? or a Play-dough$?

KidGrid Bucks - Name 'em



LoL

Well I'm still considered a new person here and normally don't post unless it's to speak of an event. I've seen people here and in world get eaten alive for lesser things. However I must add that I've met Anshe and she too sold land to me under market value, in addition shes a cool lady. Most of these attempts to smear her name is because, Anshe is a success, She saw something she wanted, she got it , as most of the hatters could have done as well. Since being here, many SL residents are so mean lol .. and they really haven't met you and will talk badly of you. I look at it like this, it's your lost to greet and meet new and possible very nice people. Try and Smile and have fun in this *GAME * and get to know someone very well before casting Rocks !!

*waiting for the Newbie Bomb* lol

Anshe is a pleasure to do business with.

BTW, anyone bothered to read Ulrika's post and follow her math?

The problem is not capitalism per se, or if Land Baroness X or Y are really nice and successful people. The problem is that the current system, as set in place by Linden Lab, encourages exploitation.

Not that LL is doing things so differently than other systems in RL. Say, if you borrow USD $100 million from a bank, you get much, much lower interest on the loan than if you borrow USD $10,000. The point is, you don't get SIX TIMES LESS interest! (remember inflation and operation costs... there is a limit on how low an interest rate you can set...)

Another example. You buy a CD from Amazon. You pay a fixed price. Now you tell Amazon, I want 128 copies of the same CD. If Amazon thought like LL, you would get the CDs for 1/6 of the price. You would be able to sell them for 1/3 of the price, completely undercut all shops on the planet (who, at most, get a 40% price reduction...), and not add value at all. And really, 128 copies of a CD is not really much, is it?

Economy regulation is exactly in place in real life in order to prevent this kind of things of happening. If it worked like this in RL, it would mean that the price of a CD would be dozens of times higher (after all, Amazon has to make a profit, even after doing such discounts). Bottom line, the consumer loses. You get heavilly overpriced just because someone is giving out too much discounts, and they have to cover at least their costs of operation.

Ever wondered why land in SL is overpriced? Now you know why

Gwyneth,

Yes, I did. But not in this thread.

This thread is there because Anshe was roundly abused in these forums, and I wanted to demonstrate that there is another side to the story.

I read Ulrika's posting in the thread she started. Where it belongs.

Not here.

Yes, Selador, I fully agree with you. One short reading at Cristiano's excellent interview with Anshe shows very well the type of person Anshe really is - there is no "evil-minded land-baronning" in her head. Rather the contrary In case of doubt, read and re-read what Anshe really says about herself, and not what we think she is.

Perhaps I have given the wrong impression here. I condemn the system, not the people that take advantage of the system to get a benefit. While I haven't worked with Anshe directly (yet ), I have known her "real reputation" for a long time now - and I never believed about the "evil land baron" image.

There is a psychological reason for both things. First, why Anshe and the biggest land barons cannot ever be "evil, blood-sucking devils". Secondly, why we have this image of them which isn't true.

The first answer is not so easy to explain. A successful business person - either in SL or in RL - must build a reputation. If everybody in the world knows you're a scam, you cannot survive as a business owner. As the old saying goes, you can fool some people some of the time, but you cannot fool all people at all the time. With the releative easiness that bad news spread around SL, it's way too easy to get "bad PR". You do a mistake once, the next day it's all over the forums, and bye bye reputation. And a bad reputation means, "no sales".

So, as you rise to visibility in SL, it means that your reputation has to be immaculate. Let's be honest here. If Anshe didn't have one of the best reputation as an ethical business owner in SL, she wouldn't be at the place she is. Sure, there are factors like "seizing opportunities" and "charisma" and "good biz talk" which come in handy when setting up your business. But to remain a successful merchant - there is no way you can live with a bad reputation.

Selador, like you, I only have heard good stories about Anshe. I'm not always browsing all the forums, all the threads, and reading all the posts. The ones I read, which are very "to the point", all tell the same: ethics is something that is tied with Anshe. The "bad PR" in the forums, using Anshe as a "scapegoat" are using her as a stereotype land baron - which she isn't. I have failed to find a single person who was "scammed" by Anshe - ever. What I have seen are misunderstandings, prejudice, and a way to attribute "guilt" to Anshe, when really she hadn't anything to do with it. But such is human nature. Blaming someone else is far easier than admitting our own mistakes

The second reason for the stereotypical image of "evil land barons" simply comes from the "small fish", ie. people that do some real estate businesses in unethical ways - mostly, all of them come from dealing with new residents, or people who are new to the land sale business, and get "false" instructions for setting things up inproperly. These are the real scammers. Do you know some of their names? Actually, I don't, but I know personally of several people having been "scammed" like that. They're such small fish, nobody ever remembers who they are. However, it's also in human nature to extrapolate from a single individual to the whole group.

So, you're a resident doing your first land sale, you deal with an unethical land baron, what do you think about them? "All land barons are evil exploiters". That's about the same idea we have of car dealers, and that's also an universal stereotype - everybody knows car salespersons are "always dishonest" But surely that's not true, either!

What this means is, since there is no regulation - i.e. we dont have an "association for ethical business practice in real estate business", which would be controlling its associates or so, and forbid unethical behaviour - there is no simple way to get rid of the stereotype of the "evil land baron". For one established, ethical dealer - like Anshe - we have a few dozens of unethical ones, scamming newbies every day. We never remember those names, but everybody knows Anshe (even if we tend to easily forget all the other things she does for the community, besides deals in real estate...). So it's in human nature to "blame it all on her". As if she wouldn't be the first to step in and prevent those nasty little sharks from giving a bad name to the job of real estate sales - if only she could!

So far, I have only been referring to the problem of "individuals" and "personality" and "stereotypes". But the problem is not with the individuals - it's with the system. The current system is screwed, and, instead of giving SL residents equal opportunities when buying land, it actually encourages the existence of a small group of real estate owners cornering the market. I remember talking with Kavai Onizuka about that - he said it would be quite easy for the top 10 or so "land barons" to join forces and buy out all land, if they only wished to do that. The mere fact that this is technically possible shows how badly designed the system is. Thinking about the real world, we have millions of real estate agents, and we go to them for their services - something people keep forgetting. Real estate agents (in SL or RL) provide a valuable service - instead of wasting your time looking around for the "best spot" for the "best price", and taking weeks of your "game time" to make a choice, you can simply go to a real estate agent and see what they've got to offer. While I personally never dealt with Anshe (it's just coincidence ) I have had similar, good experiences with other very ethical real estate agents. I ask them for something - mostly for friends, not for me, I'm too poor to own land - and, after perhaps one hour, I have seen 5 or 6 different plots, and most certainly have made a deal. No time is wasted there. This is a valuable service, if my mind is not really into hopping around SL to locate good spots - I prefer to spend my limited time doing other things, and real estate agents are here to take the burden off my shoulders. Sure, they make a profit of that! But it's the same thing with building homes or buying clothes. I can spend two weeks trying to design a new dress in Photoshop - or spend 5 minutes at Chip Midnight's and get a much better one for only L$ 300 Is Chip also an "evil demon clothier" just because he does fantastic stuff and sells them for a fair price? Of course not!

The problem with the system was really well explained by Ulrika on one of her early posts, and she summed it up pretty nicely on this thread. While auctions in RL are also "fixed" - and there wouldn't be any reason to expect them not to be in SL as well - the problem with tiering and the way it benefits the bigger land owners in an absurd way shows why things like "cornering the market" is possible. When you have rules that encourage monopolies, the rules are wrong - at least, that's the way things work in RL! There is nothing "evil" with monopolies, when they come from good business practice under a system which gives equal opportunities to everybody. The problem with the current system is, simply stated, it does not give equal opportunities.

So, if the system is wrongly designed, and you explore it to your own advantage, does that mean that you're are an "evil, blood-sucking capitalist"? Of course not. It's nothing wrong with exploring a badly designed system (say, we abuse the flaws of the rating system as well...). Rather the contrary, it's a mark of intelligence, to recognize those flaws and seize the opportunity. So Anshe has grabbed an unique opportunity and has made a profit from it. "Hating" that is just plain and simple envy - we would do the same, if we were at her position when she started, and had the same opportunities. We just envy her success because she managed to pull it off, before even people started to understand how the system worked! (Personally speaking, I admire Anshe and the others who have managed to make the system work for them, not "hate" them because they're working with a flawed system that gives them unfair advantage).

Tito gave a good example of what is meant by taking risks and reaping the benefits thereof. Now imagine Tito's example, but where banks suddenly loaned money without an interest, and restaurants starting up would not require to pay any taxes, or all items/foods you bought for your restaurant would cost just 1/6 of the price, just because the system was flawed, and you happened to notice it first - turning it to your advantage. Tito, I'm sure you would still admire the restaurant owner for her intelligence of taking the opportunity while she could pull it off. But would you then classify the system as "fair"?

So, all of this is not about Anshe at all. It's about the system. Anshe is cool

Thank you Selador and all the other nice people who post here. I am very moved reading this thread

I must say that it has been a bit frustrating at times to be at center of what should have been philosophical debate but turned into something else. I still believe what I am doing is ethical and adds both competition and value to market as compared to situation before I started business. What is better? Market without Anshe or market with Anshe driving the competition?

I think Gwyneth describe some things very well. Especially the small fish part. Now there is something I always wanted say, but how can people believe it? Would you believe evil greedy land baroness of doom Anshe Chung if she tells you that she actually fried some of those bad small fish because of their exploiting, screwing of people and bad business practise? And if she even tell you that those stories you may have heared in certain popular places in SL back in August and possibly also later, such as about Anshe screwing newbies, if she tell you that it was some of those bad fried little fish (and their alts) taking revenge spreading those stories, could you believe? Could you believe that the first people to hate Anshe Chung had names such as Paris Parks, Eddie Vogel, Justin Williamson or Elisabeth Beckett? Besides this, there has also been some issues with people who did not enjoy competing with me :-/

So I am really glad things calm down recently. I have big plan for nice construction projects to make some places, especially shopping area near telehubs, look nicer and more interesting

To add my two cents in:

I think Anshe is a very intelligent and effective business person - She saw a way to make money by providing services (land, shopping, etc.). If I had the means and the drive to so the same I would. I applaud Anshe on her success in SL.

I also wanted to add my opinion on the tier fees, and other stuff that has come up here and in cross-threads. I am constantly amazed at the ideas that people have about SL and how it should be run.

What I try to always remember is:
This is a game (call it whatever you want but I honestly believe it really is a game)
This is not the real world (to try to make SL fit our ideas of government or corporate world is just wrong)
LL has the final say about how the world is run (we can whine and complain and make suggestions all we want but they don't have to listen)

Try to have fun, make money, enjoy yourselves. And, I guess the bottom line is, if you don't like the way things are run find another playground to play in.

Sorry to digress in this thread - not that it doesn't happen all the time around here. And, in closing I would add "keep up the great work Anshe"

I enjoy shopping and selling in the malls run by Anshe and she has always been very honest and upfront in the few land dealings I have had.

Thanks for listening to my very disjointed ramblings

Anshe has been nothing but cooperative, nice, and generous whenever I met her. She's been easy to approach and not difficult to talk to at all. Some have felt burned by her while others, just jump on the bash Anshe bandwagon for attention-seeking drama. How each of us approaches her, dictates the Anshe experience.