Does the idea of protected, private property exist for all the classes? Or does a patrician class (caravanserais, ranchers, and industrialists) seize whatever they want through the Senate, from people within their boarders, like they seize whatever they want from people outside their boarders?

People can own land of any class. But some people who are richer and more powerful use their power to push others around and take land.

Like Walter Phebus. But then again it is possible that people like Walter lost their farm to the bank or something like that because they couldn't pay the bills and people like Heck Gunderson buys their farm from the bank.

It is known to happen in real life. Bigger ranches tend to drive smaller ones out of business.

Alright, so people of the NCR can own property, without the persistent fear the government or a bigger neighbor will take it.

I would say that the current NCR looks a ton like the late west. Sure in the "civilized" areas there is a rule of law, but that rule only goes to the point where you come up against minute political interests or the bribes of the local brahmin baron. And if you venture into areas that are not very civilized, then a gun and a kind word, still goes one hell of a long way.

Yes! 19th century capitalism at its finest.

I would wager money that if someone with money wants your land, they will get it. Pay off the ncr or whatever law there is, and take it. There is a reason most of the people who left cali, they did it so they did not have to shovel Brahmin crap. It sounds like the people in charge back in the ncr lands are just as greedy and corrupt as our own worlds rich and political figures.

People with money want more money. News at 11.

Its not the people with money people should worry about. Its the people with aspirations for power. Money only buys so much. Power buys everything. A skilled demagogue or rhetoricist who can whip the masses into a frenzy with empty promises, hollow illusions and gilded visions, can wield far more power than any cooperation ever has. The examples in the last century alone are legio.

Money is power. Skilled demagogues are few and far in between. Money, for those who know how to make it, are plentiful. They're also easier to organize, since the rich are much more likely to share goals and have things in common than demagogues.

Not saying you're wrong, but money really is a big element of power. Even Hitler had powerful and wealthy backers supporting his rise to power.

To be fair here do we really know the circumstances of how Walter Phebus lost his farm? People go broke all the time and lose property to the bank. The bank then sells it off. We also know that NCR is having water issues. It's possible this is hurting smaller farms and they lose out.

Basic supply and demand. Bigger farms can supply more and they can sell cheaper. Smaller farms can't. This goes for any business.

For all we know Phebus was bad with money, lost his farm and is hating everyone but himself. Sure Heck Gunderson is a total dike but that doesn't mean he is doing anything illegal. Remember Phebus is the one who is tying to have someone killed here, he would do it himself if could get a gun into the casino or get close to Heck. Doesn't sound like a stable person to me, sounds like the type to punch the clock with a shotgun.

Yeah Brahmin barrons have alot of cash and they have rangers and other forces back in NCR watching out of their herds. But it is a huge business and we know the BoS went after the Gold, so logically the next thing would be the Brahmin and Big Horners. Could argue they could just pay for their own security, but hey if you can get the government to do it why not?

People are making it sound like Heck Gunderson just walked up to Phebus with a lot of armed men and told him to get lost and took his land. I doubt the NCR would allow that. No matter how rich he is, it would piss a lot of people off and cause chaos. "If he can do it then I can do it" will become the norm.

Ethel Phebus - "That was before we lost some land to Heck Gunderson. The bank demanded payment in full the day after the Stockmen's Association bailed it out."Walter Phebus - "If he ain't chiselling behind your back he just sends his men, ready for a fight. Then you either 'sell' your ranch for a penny or you're dead."Obviously Walter is a dubious source but his wife would be more reliable, given that she just wants Walter to give up on ideas of revenge and head back to...whatever they have left.

From that I get he couldn't pay his bills and lost his land to the bank. Yeah the "Stockmen's Association" could have had something to do with that. But I am sure there are other banks out there in the NCR. He chose a bad bank After all it needed to be bailed out. If it wasn't bailed out we could assume that a lot more people would have been screwed by a bank failure. So it is only natural for whoever bailed it out to want to make sure they see a return of their money. Which means no more "pay when you can" small town banking practices.

Not saying Heck is a nice guy by any means. But as you said Phebus not a reliable source. He's pissed enough to kill a man.

If you look at Heck, you see a guy who is used to getting it his way. He doesnt really take no for an answer and he isnt above the petty notion of denying vegas en bloc their meatsupply if he doesnt get his kid back. When you talk to his kid, you pretty much get the impression that the kid too is used to dad wielding quite a bit of power and he is used to dad saving his nuts, and getting him out of trouble.

Whilst Phebus might not be the most relyable source, Heck isnt precisely a paragon of virtue either. I wouldnt put it past him to have done precisely what Phebus says he did, and then some.

Aren't alot of powerful people used to getting their way? His son is rich, spoiled and stupid but that doesn't have much to do with the matter.

Just because Heck and his son are all around dislikeable jerks, even bullies doesn't mean he is breaking the law.

Also if your kid went missing and all you got was evasive responces from the authorities and or owners of the establishment in which your child went missing in. Wouldn't you be mad as all hell? Seriously imagine your child went missing at Disney land and all you got from the staff is "well have you tried looking for him at Six Flags? Are you sure he isn't at the other Disney Land?" ect, ect... I bet you would be pretty pissed as well.

The man's son has been kidnapped. He might be a dike but he does love his son and you can't fault him for using what means he has at his disposable to try to get him back and or get back at those who took him for the purpose of eating him. Even if they did get the wrong man.

Sure styles and you are correct on all points, but that doesnt really take away from the fact that the law might very well be constructed to let Brahmin barons protect their interests. Infact Id say its more than likely given our own timeline (the US west has more than a few stories that more or less resembles this), and the fact that money and politics have a way of intermixing, to the point where those who donate more to the right candidate, gets more influence that the law really should allow.

It doesnt take away from the fact that Plebus might be 100% correct and that Heck did indeed muscle him out of his property. The NCR might have rule of law on paper. But De Facto execution of power and the interpretation of said laws, might not at all be fair in our contemporary sense. Hell even to this day we can find court descitions that boggle the mind due to the handywork of a good lawyer or lobbyist.

From my understading of history when it comes to "Range Wars" was because it was "the wild west" as in there wasn't much established law out there. Anyone could go out and say "this land is mine because I say it's mine" and then the government when it did show up started saying property has to be marked. So all the people in the area fought over who controlled what and when, fought one another.

Basically conflict happened because it wasn't clear who owned the land because everyone went out and grabbed as much land as they could when there was "free" land to be grabbed and there was no real law in the area.

But the law did come in time and establised who owns what and how land can be bought and sold and ended the fighting.

I seriously doubt the NCR would establish as law a "survival of the fittest" legal system. "Well he's got more money men and guns so he can do what ever the hell he damn well wants" type system. That is chaos.

Edit: Also what legal system is fair?

The definitions of "Survival of the fittest legal systems" are highly subjective to both socio-culture time and place.

What in america might be percieved as a perfectly decent legal system, isnt nessesarily percieved as the same in Scandinavia... or Japan.

Personally I think you give the NCR too much credit for having set up a legal system that is impervious to the execution of power, either political or financial. Again, I do not really percieve the NCR as a nation-state entity that has contemporary rule of law (as I would define it, that is) and a fully fleshed out system of appeals, fair trials, lawyers, hearings etc. Im not even sure that prewar US had that in the FO timeline as the world seems to have been more about might makes right, nationalism and protecting your own backside, than worrying about petty notions of fairness.

Im sure there is a sufficiant legal framwork and that anarchy doesnt rule, but I am not at all sure that people who wield potent political and fiscal clout have just the same legal potential as the one who does not.

So, I lean more toward the story Plebus tells me, than Hecks complete innocence in the matter.

I never said the NCR is impervious to the execution of power political or financial.

The NCR's frame work is based around what America used to have.

Look at todays America. We see billionaires on either side of the political spectrum throwing their endless money into policial campaigns and even enviromental campigns. And you know what? It's been that way since forever. Most if not all people in the United States government are there today because they were backed by people with money and power and when they leave office they often end up working for those people.

America is hardly alone in that either. So why is it such a shock to find the NCR could have the same things happening? That people with money in the NCR might put that money to use in trying to get their way in government? If the NCR is smart they would have some safe guards in place to prevent a complete take over of the government by a company. The biggest such safe guard is being able to vote the leaders out.

As for a "fair" legal system. My point with that is no system is perfect. People will always find fault with it. If they find themselves on the wrong end of a system they tend to be bitter about it. As in Plebus lost out to Heck. Which we don't know was a legal matter. It seems to have been a banking matter as in the bank who Plebus owed money to pay off his farm went bust and people came along and bailed out the bank to prevent more loss. They want their money back so the bank had to re think their business practices, such as making people pay their payments in full. What a novel idea that is. Imagine if I could tell the bank I am only going to give them 50% of my mortgage payment next month

Yeah, but the real ticker here is, we do not know what legal framework US used to have. Im betting dollers to doughnuts that it isnt by far a carbon copy of what the US has today. Infact, given the insetting lore, Id be surprised to see it be similiar.

I am very well aware about the money sink of the US political system. Whilst it does have some resonance in my region of Scandinavia, it doesnt at any lenght really compare to that of the US. However even here, the right lawyer, the right lobbiest, the right judge and the right place of a trial, can have a powerfull impact on any hearing, trial or political decition. I do not think it can be avoided, and strictly speaking from my own political viewpoint, I do not think it should.

Its not a shock to see the NCR functioning like that. Infact its a relief, its a sign of good writing that the ingame world takes a cue from ours. IT would be dreadfully boring and uninteresting if the NCR could go from pissant shady sands to fully fleshed out governance and statehood in such a short time, with the challenges facing the post apocalyptic US. Which is part of my point. The fact that NCR cannot have a fully fleshed out legal or even fiscal (banking) system as we know it, and that the US in the alternate timeline and this, is susceptible to lobbyists, powerbrokers and politicians, compounds my doubt about Heck being innocent. Its not a matter of "Get the fatcat capitalist" syndrome that my region of the world has a not undeserved reputation for. Its a matter of maintaining some critical sense and trying to see the NCR as it is if I was in it, not as I am as a gamer looking into it.

As for your last paragraph, there is such a thing as agreements. Thats the flipside. If Plebus has had reason to believe that he would be given some sort of respite or that the bank did not have a practice of immediately forclosing or demanding full payment at the risk of defaulting on the loan, then Plebus could very well be right in the fact that Heck bought his debt with the explicit purpose of driving him out of business. That might be more or less legal, but its certainly not something that will induce much faith in a banking system, nor is it good practice to change practice in the midst of an agreement. Not even in our timeline. It does happen ofcourse, and it does happen in our timeline aswell, but its never really percieved as being anything but applying blunt force to achieve a subjective goal.

Well, if you had an agreement with your bank that you had an extra few months to pay off your debts or that you were allowed some leniency in the comming months due to drought, sickness or other and the bank suddlenly foreclosed and tossed you on the street, you would be miffed aswell, regardless of the legality. Especially if your sister in laws rich hubby and their annoying brats who had allways coveted your propery took it over.

I can understand Phebus and why he would be pissed. He had an agreement. But things change. Banks can go bust, they are for the most part run by the private sector. Heck could have very well bailed out the bank to take Phebus' land as well as others. But the flip to that is he might have done it to save others as well. Can't save everyone and Phebus might have been to deep in the hole to be worth saving.

Sure we are speculating but I don't see how some see this is the fault of the NCR government. Should the government step in and save everyone from losing their house? That could bring down the whole government. Also if they did step in that would mean the government owns your house, and everything else for that matter. So... welcome to communism. Not what the NCR is trying to establish.

But yeah it is great we are even having this debate. The developers got it right by putting this stuff into the game. Politics and so on which is a big reason why I fell in love with Fallout.

We are toeing a line here Styles

Things do inded change. But the thing with banks and other financial institiutions, and indeed most people in power, is that they can go back on a deal, whilst you, joe shmoe, cannot. If you suddenly decide that you get a better offer in the middle of an agreement and you decide to shift horses, you might very well not be able to do that, or your bank, financial institute, whatever demands fees or other "penalties" fiscal or otherwise, for letting your business go elsewhere. A contract is usually one that binds you, regardless of circumstance. That does go both ways, or should ideally, or you are de facto, if not de jure, in a perpetual state of impotence before the law.

Its not the "fault" of the NCR per se. Its just the way it is. I personally take offense at laws that do not work both ways. In my book, laws are laws for Kain and Abel, Thor and Loki... or there is no law to speak of. I am however not ignorant of the fact that power, in any shape, makes it such that there will allways be variations on that theme.

My point here is, that I am not going to discard the notion that Heck did indeed play hardball to the extent where he might not de jure have committed something wrong, but it is very possible he did it, de facto. I think we have established that this, is at the very least, a possiblity.

In the end you are left with who you place the more trust upon. I used to work politics, so my view is perhaps biased. I have seen nice, and not so nice wielding of power. Im more inclined to take the word of the underdog than the rich bramin baron. It remains a subjective call, I believe. But one where both notions can be argued as having their own validity.

Agreed a case can be made in favour of both parties. It makes for interesting game play and debates. I just don't get that some people think that the situation is somehow the problem of the NCR government.

It seems most people would just side with Phebus. When he first told me his story I was like "man that svcks" and was thinking of killing Heck. But then Heck tells me about his son and I thought "well I would be pissed as well no one is helping this man find his son!" As things progressed I started thinking more about Phebus and how he would be any different from a person who goes into the work place with a gun... I didn't find any difference. So I didn't kill Heck for him.

If there was more to support Phebus and his claims of Heck outright steeling land from others then things might have played out differently.