A lot of, shall we say LIBERAL types are bleating about the removal of 'safety net's' under conservative governments. Apparently, if one is not able to integrate themselves into society somehow it is the moral responsibility of those who have to look after them, thus they support using tax revenue to fund 'safety nets' to support them. Such safety nets usually include basic welfare payments to meet living costs and free medical treatment should it be required. Amongst the more vigorous proponents of these nets they can include benefits that really amount to privileges. It seems 'everything for nothing' is the moral goal. I personally think the collectivist ethics of these liberals are ignoble. I would like a nation that nurtures its leaders and innovators, not one that restricts them to look after the weak and lagging. But having said that, I do realize that certain failed citizens do have to be dealt with somehow, that's why I support a gulag type system like what Stalin used. In my country, if you proved yourself to be unemployable the state would send you to a camp and use your labor. Work camps would be set up in rural areas where failed individuals would be put to the task of manufacturing and farming and in return for this the government would provide them food and living facilities. I wouldn't have this be the end of the road, however; the incentive to acquire skills would be central to my labor camps. It would be a strictly elitist affair, and workers would be divided into levels according to the talent they demonstrate. Everybody would enter the farm as a level 1, but have the opportunity to work their way up to a level, say.. 7, whence the government would give them a financial grant and some logistical support so they can have another try at becoming a useful member of society. I guess you could say the system would work similar to a rehabilitation program in a Jail. I like that analogy because in the elitist society I envision lacking talent or being lazy would be treated just like a crime. One positive outcome of my system would be that 'problems' would be dealt with in the family, instead of palmed off onto the community. The return to family values should be encouraged. One of the most ignoble legacies of the 20th century is the enforcement of a mommy and daddy role onto the state, the destructive corollary being that it has been taken away from real families. Non-self sufficient people, in my system, would only have to go to the farms if their existence became a burden of the state. To save people from going to camp families could take over the role of helper. This would be a much more home-grown, healthier system than the statist one that is popular now. Hopefully I'll have a party together based on all these platforms by the next election, and you can vote for me and have my noble dream realized. You’re really looking forward to it I know.

Ok, ignore list time.

Finally!

Repo Man,

I don't see what wrong with Vlad idea, it seems like a very effective system, very communist and ultra-liberal but very effective solution to the loafer problem, concept like it have been proven in reality, though life on such camps were deplorable at best. I always wanted slave labor for prisoners, why not add bums in there to.

Last post in any thread begun by Vlad; this isn't about an intelligent discussion of ideas, or differences of opinions, this is about being an inflammatory jerk. No better than trying to discuss racial equality with someone from **********.org.

Good riddance Vlad.

I don't think Vlad being intentionally inflammatory at all, he just stating his idea, it not like he wants to kill everyone that he does not find to his liking, he just wants to enslave them until they shape up. Its cruel and unsympathetic, even fascist, but its not flaming.

Also Undecided I don’t want to see Ad hominems like that again, If Vlad is a loafer ask him if he is willing to suffer under his own enslavement system.

What flame what did I say was factually incorrect?

Hungary is on the EU's welfare system, thus do we enslave all of Hungary?

Undecided,

Vlad is not asking to enslave all of a people, he is asking to enslave each individual that fails to be a productive member of society. I find it doubtful that everyone in Hungary is a criminal or bum.

A lot of, shall we say LIBERAL types are bleating about the removal of 'safety net's' under conservative governments. Apparently, if one is not able to integrate themselves into society somehow it is the moral responsibility of those who have to look after them, thus they support using tax revenue to fund 'safety nets' to support them.

We have basically two main ideas. On the left: socialization of everything and everybody will save us. On the right: jungle full of the rugged individualists is the way to salvation. to rule the jungle the right needs the strong hand/stick/army/etc.

Both groups are missing something. Namely, humans are where they are (you may not like it, but it's still progress) because they could both cooperate (i.e. socialize stuff) and act like rugged individualists.

To assume that the only people who require welfare support are lazy bums is ridiculous. What about crippled and old? What about cyclic nature of the capitalist economy (boom-bust=lots of uemployed from time to time). What about structural economics changes, outsourcing, etc.? What about urbanization...=estrangement of people, loss of family/social support networks?

Modern society is way too complex to apply rugged individualist approach. You do not own anything to anybody, nobody owns you anything. Strongest wins.

Vlad, while you are writing smart posts to sciforums, your more agressive, more "rugged" countrymen privatize everything what is left from the socialized Serbian property. They are robbing you while you theoretize "how wonderful is to live in a jungle". You and your children will work for peanuts for those folks. Do not complain, those people are simply more rugged than you are, they deserve the loot.

Amongst the more vigorous proponents of these nets they can include benefits that really amount to privileges. It seems 'everything for nothing' is the moral goal. I personally think the collectivist ethics of these liberals are ignoble.

What the hell are you talking about? What do you know about welfare in the USA (I doubt it's too widespread in Serbia). First, the number of welfare recipients is quite small. Second, you cannot really stay on welfare all your life. Social security, medicaid, unemployment benefits are not welfare, those are insurance programs. One pays certain % of his salary to be eligible to get those benefits. Private insurance=ultimate good (which is total BS). Social insurance = evil. Right? Some states may pay a single woman enough $ for her to live on the expense of her children's welfare. Many states pay close to nothing ($137/month in Texas, for example) to these women.

Secondly, in the USA, lower 20% of population owns just 4% on the nation's wealth. Thus, to blame welfare recipients for the nation's economics problems is the top of stupidity. It serves no purpose except finding a scapegoat for the greedy souls.

I would like a nation that nurtures its leaders and innovators, not one that restricts them to look after the weak and lagging.

Leadears/inventors need a working environment. They cannot create in a jungle. Therefore, maintenance of such an environment (including welfare) is just a cost of the business. It's as evil as any other business expense.

What about corporate welfare? It's way more wasteful than social one.

But having said that, I do realize that certain failed citizens do have to be dealt with somehow, that's why I support a gulag type system like what Stalin used. [/QUTE]

Stalin sent failed citizens to Gulag? What a BS. The most industrious people were wrongfully accused, sent to and worked to death in the Gulag. On the other hand, working was considered below the dignity of the "traditional", seasoned criminals sent to Gulag camps. Even draconians Stalin's Gulag could not make those people to work.

Secondly, why do you persist on believing that American (or any other's country's) homeless and loiterers are such a drain on welfare system? It's total BS. They may use food banks, soup kitchens, .... funded mainly by the private donations (charity, heard such a word? Charity is a totally unconditional thing.). But those people certainly are NOT on the welfare, etc. People who still has a hope for the better may be on welfare, those without hope/desire are laying at the bottom without welfare.

Again, justice crusader, reminder for you: lower income 20% of the Americans own only 4% of the national wealth. Maybe 10% of those 20% have used a welfare at some point in their lives. is it worth to blow welfare "burden" out of the proportions? The main American problem= US government squandered social security funds on arms, corporate welfare etc.

[QUOTE] In my country, if you proved yourself to be unemployable the state would send you to a camp and use your labor. Work camps would be set up in rural areas where failed individuals would be put to the task of manufacturing and farming and in return for this the government would provide them food and living facilities.

Again those people who chose to be unemployable (it's a choice as good as any other) live mostly on charity. they do not use goverment welfare programs much because they cannot qualify for them. Those who are still trying to employ themselves, should have the right for welfare. Those physically, mentally incapable of working should also be taken care of. It's not a nazi state. We still live in the society of humans not in the jungle where everybody for himself.

Does government own farms, etc.? Your stupid camps would cost much more $ than welfare. They would create huge paperpushing ($ eating) industry around, they would be inefficient. Slave labor is never efficient.

Lastly, your dream country has existed already. It was USSR circa 1970th-1990th (the was NO Gulag in that time frame). In later days USSR, it was ILLEGAL to be unemployed for more than 3 months. Those who did not comply (or those who did not bribe some official) were sent to very "liberal" camps (no, it was not Gulag, it's quite humane). Those people were used on the most dirty (chemical wise) jobs. Nobody else wanted them because they were unmotivated slaves. Also, alcoholics, drug addicts were compulsory sent to the prison-like hospitals where labor therapy was #1 cure. Nobody wanted them either. Also, there were mandatory trips of city dwellers/students to collective farms in the fall to "save yield" for the country. that was a complete waste. City folks neither wanted to work on the land nor had what it takes to work hard physically. Guess what? Those programs did not help to save USSR's economy from collapse. It would have been much cheaper and more efficient to leave those people alone.

On the other hand, FDR created labor camps for those who DID want to work when there were no jobs around during depression. There were strict entry requirements. It was not compulsory. It's successful.

I wouldn't have this be the end of the road, however; the incentive to acquire skills would be central to my labor camps. It would be a strictly elitist affair, and workers would be divided into levels according to the talent they demonstrate. Everybody would enter the farm as a level 1, but have the opportunity to work their way up to a level, say.. 7, whence the government would give them a financial grant and some logistical support so they can have another try at becoming a useful member of society. I guess you could say the system would work similar to a rehabilitation program in a Jail.

Your program is totally pointless. Those who could/wanted to get skills - got them. Those who do want to get skills but have no money needs financial help (including welfare). they do not need your fucking big daddy programs. Those who chose loitering spit on your world, your system, and your skill programs. they have different priorities, different philosophies (or lack of those) and they have the RIGHT to chose them. Secondly, modern "knowledge" economy need more and more people with little or no skills. Education BS is bloated beyond any proportion. Your program would be the waste because there are millions of unemployed people with skills who seek and cannot find employment.

I like that analogy because in the elitist society I envision lacking talent or being lazy would be treated just like a crime.

Here you go nazi. You've forgotten gas chambers. There is more to life than being an efficient, skilled robot. Secondly, again, every talant needs a support of thousands of the less/much less talanted folks in order to bloom. Talants do not develop/exist in vacuum. % of the highly talanted people (in the general population) is small and more or less fixed. I doubt society of the talented folks could exist. Nobody would be willing to clean toilets. There are millions of routine jobs where having concentration is much more valuable trait than having some "talant". I would spend more efforts in finding talants and helping them to develop. Eugenics BS, camps, forced skill programs etc. is a waste.

One positive outcome of my system would be that 'problems' would be dealt with in the family, instead of palmed off onto the community. The return to family values should be encouraged. One of the most ignoble legacies of the 20th century is the enforcement of a mommy and daddy role onto the state, the destructive corollary being that it has been taken away from real families.

Dear, you are mixing causes with effects here. Urbanization/crowding/specialization/schedulization/sky rocketing of child raising expenses/more education/more freedom/more wealth/more entertainment choices/....=weaker family and social networks. You need to GM human to change the current pattern of development. Blaming modern humans for the weaker family ties is the same as blaming them for the having only 1 head. It's a normal response to the modern capitalist environment.

Secondly, you (as every other human) tend to embelish good old past where family ties were strong, everybody cared for each other, and so on. It's the most ridiculous BULL SHIT. Learn some history for somebody's sake. There was no golden age of family, etc. values. Granted those ties were stronger in some aspects BUT not that much stronger.

Non-self sufficient people, in my system, would only have to go to the farms if their existence became a burden of the state. To save people from going to camp families could take over the role of helper. This would be a much more home-grown, healthier system than the statist one that is popular now. Hopefully I'll have a party together based on all these platforms by the next election, and you can vote for me and have my noble dream realized. You’re really looking forward to it I know.

You would create all state prison camp. Where the most noble, the most admired (theoretically at least), the most rare (unfortunately) human qualities (unselfishness, willingness to help "just because", charity...) will extinct. In your world, big daddy government rules one's life from craddle to death for one not to be a burden but an efficient bee. Don't slack, don't stumble big daddy watches you. I think you and Adolf have much in common.

Far right and far left have much more in common than their "opposite locations" on the political spectrum suggest.

Vlad is not asking to enslave all of a people, he is asking to enslave each individual that fails to be a productive member of society.

Who is on welfare correct? Alas Hungary.

I find it doubtful that everyone in Hungary is a criminal or bum

To his standards they are…

Vlad is just trying to tell us something in the only terms he knows how to. His daddy beat him whenever he screwed up, or at least treated him very harshly, and now whenever he sees somone not doing as well as he is, he wonders where daddy is to beat them strait.

He is trying to confess his tormented upbringing to us, and all we can do is tell him he is a nut. That isn't very nice.

Look here:

Economic aid - recipient:
Serbia: $2 billion
Hungary: $250 million (non-EU aid)


So tell me Vlad which work camp do you prefer? Magadan? Or Shakalin?

I'm totally going to beat up that heroin addict who rides my bus today. Now that vlad has spoken up, I realize that its ok to treat the lowest element in our economy as I want. Rather than gulags, do you think perhaps we could liquefy them and see what nutrients might be extracted? Or perhaps turn them into sources for embryonic stem cells? After all the children they could sire could HARDLY be considered human.

Undecided,

Vlad is not asking to enslave all of a people, he is asking to enslave each individual that fails to be a productive member of society. I find it doubtful that everyone in Hungary is a criminal or bum.But I find it doubtful that we'll be able to agree on what is 'productive'... although I can see this as an optional program. (Hell, that's what the military is for to many people.)

As long as it's optional, fine. If it's mandatory, then 'productive' needs to be hased out.

One of the most ignoble legacies of the 20th century is the enforcement of a mommy and daddy role onto the state, the destructive corollary being that it has been taken away from real families.

Nobody is surprised at Communism's view of the nuclear family as inefficient, but what about the Biblical principle that has stood for two millennia?

Good luck with the political party, Vlad. I'd be interested to see how many people support your destruction of the family. After all, it is a coincidence of minor interest that the American politicians you choose to support (e.g. Bush/GOP/conservatism) beg the prestige of Biblical principle while ignoring the actual content thereof.

Although, what's with making the state so damned important? A burden to the state? For the state, existence is a burden.

Why should we keep the physically and mentally incapable alive? Yes indeed lets liquidate them for nutrient value. :D :m:

That's an argument Singer would make, and a Utilitarian as well.

Don't even get me started on the concept of "childhood" it boils my blood that some people think they have upwards of 18 years to be complete leaches. Labor camps for them all I say.

Why not pregnant women? Why not elderly? Why not newborn babies? Why not mentally demented ppl? Why not people with terminal diseases? Are they also to be put into these camps?

You forgot people who are unhappy on Mondays. All these parasites must be made to account for the drain they place on the state!

Ritual killings of old/cripled was a wide practice in the Siberian tribes only 100 something years ago. Healthy tribesmen had virtually no food surplaces to feed crippled and old. Everybody was for himself and his small children (foodwise).

Well, I leave "moral" justifications aside (it's hard to defend them without the appeal to the higher authorities). Lets talk selfishness and insurance. One should care for disabled for his own sake. You never know when that brick will hit your head or drunk driver will hit your car. Crippled people usually (not always) want to live as much as healthy ones. We could become crippled, we may want to live afterwards. To be deliberatelly killed will not be fun.

Housewives as well, all service economy employees they aren't productive they are leaches as well, the military they aren’t productive, are they also included in the gulags. Since by definition their jobs are not productive.

Management should go first to the gas chambers. Those fuckers are not simply useless, they are DETRIMENTAL virtually to any project.

The Bourgeoisie are the first quite obviously, they do shit all.

Ok ok enough with the funny Slippery slops and red herrings, back to the issue of strictly sending way reasonable normal adult people who haven't had a job in some time or are fired repeatedly, to slave labor camps.

So lets see using the genius Vlad’s vision of a new world in which only productive members of society would survive we wouldn’t have:

 The Bourgeoisie
 Management
 Housewives
 Service sector employees
 The military
 Pregnant women
 The elderly
 Newborn babies
 Mentally disabled persons.
 People with terminal diseases.
 Doctors
 Nurses
 Scientists
 Politicians
 Lawyers
 Judges
 Entertainers
 Infertile

Any more? All these are non-productive members of society because they don’t make anything they are by definition leaches of the system because they don’t contribute to the wealth of a nation. So how is the infant baby wing going to make I wonder?

WCF:

reasonable normal adult people who haven't had a job in some time or are fired repeatedly, to slave labor camps.

That wasn't the argument made his argument was those individuals who leach off the system, not only those who do not work. Alas the safety net.

Undecided,

That’s a slippery slope, that’s not what Vlad is asking for, you and I both know what he was describing, don't try to take the semantics of his statement against him. I'm tired of your lack of understanding argument fallacies.

That’s a slippery slope, that’s not what Vlad is asking for, you and I both know what he was describing, don't try to take the semantics of his statement against him. I'm tired of your lack of understanding argument fallacies.

He described those who were dependent on a safety net, which is his nation of Hungary, and Serbia. Should we put them in camps? Or those people that were listed are they to be put in camps too? Note he used labour in the camps that were adding value to the nation:

Work camps would be set up in rural areas where failed individuals would be put to the task of manufacturing and farming

a housewife does not do that, thus why does she not go? A baby when it is born is dependent on that safety net should be getting rid of that as well? This is a logical consequence of his outrageous sad statements. If you don’t like it then don’t bother with it. Nothing I have said is not germane to this subject, no matter how much you don’t like it.

thus they support using tax revenue to fund 'safety nets' to support them.

Who supports these occupations?

>The military
>Doctors
>Nurses
>Politicians
>Lawyers
>Judges

Tax payers by his own definition these people should be in the gulag, because they are just as dependent on the net as an unemployed person. Hasn’t history taught this genius anything?

Undecided,

Everything you have said is most likely not what vlad was describing, and if vlad ever replies he can dismiss your entire argument by simple saying thats not what he asking for, he can then specify in detail who he describing for slave labor, at which point you will most likely continuing attacking his semantics until he refines his definition enough that you can't make any functional exaggerations from it. Please read up on slippery slope fallacy.

You could also learn for dixonmassey who did a much more logical and effective counter argument then you many post ago.

[COLOR=Black]Everything you have said is most likely not what vlad was describing,

That’s the beauty of it all; it’s all unintended consequences of his actions. I don’t care what Vlad was aiming to do that’s not the point. He has a fundamental flaw in his theory that cannot be rectified. The “Mommy and Daddy” state also makes jobs and takes away from private hands. So by his own admission and definitions they are both equally and innately bad.

You could also learn for dixonmassey who did a much more logical and effective counter argument then you many post ago.

Who do you think you are telling me what is logical and what is not? You are just pandering as usual to keep things quiet, please be quiet.

And what would that flaw be?

Can you read?

Well so far from what you have describe into your posts, the flaw is on your part, slippery slope.

You have yet to show the slippery slope, I am merely saying that those employed by the government are just as much part of the net as those who are not; they both derive their income from the public.

Undecided,

Vald was implying those who grossly failed to get employed or maintain employment, loafers, bums. You state why not housewifes, children, ect. This is a slippery slope: you ask that if he going to go only so far why not all the way. You and I both know why such extreme are impractical.

Please stick to the issue instead of exaggerating a much more extreme one that is easier to defeat. It is possible to defeat Vlads argument on its grounds, dixonmassey did it with easy, why can’t you?

Vald was implying those who grossly failed to get employed or maintain employment, loafers, bums. You state why not housewifes, children, ect. This is a slippery slope: you ask that if he going to go only so far why not all the way. You and I both know why such extreme are impractical.

No its not, his argument was a two pronged attack, read it again. It was an attack on the social safety net more then anything else. Using his logic, those who do not produce for society are useless for that society. Service based jobs do nothing for the society, and he even alluded to manufacturing and farming as alternative work for unproductive labour. Since again many people are employed by the same safety net he abhors, they will left out of work and become the surplus labour (which is needed for a capitalist society to work mind you) just like the rest. Secondly those hired by the government are a drain on the government coffers. Welfare pays ppl not to revolt!

Please stick to the issue instead of exaggerating a much more extreme one that is easier to defeat. It is possible to defeat Vlads argument on its grounds, dixonmassey did it with easy, why can’t you?

WCF please stop pissing me off, where do you get off telling me how to structure my arguments? I know what I am doing, so please be quiet I am quite sick and tired of your undeserved patronizing tone to me (which you SURELY do not deserve).

We have basically two main ideas. On the left: socialization of everything and everybody will save us. On the right: jungle full of the rugged individualists is the way to salvation. to rule the jungle the right needs the strong hand/stick/army/etc.


Yeah that's how I see it too; as the coexistence of two opposing systems - capitalism and communism.


Both groups are missing something. Namely, humans are where they are (you may not like it, but it's still progress) because they could both cooperate (i.e. socialize stuff) and act like rugged individualists.

Yes Montesquieu had some good ideas, but his goals were different to mine: He sought to put the spirit into the laws, my only goal is to realize a Darwinian political system were peoples social status is defined squarely by their ability. I would like to see talented people flourish and useless people flounder. I think nurturing them is an aberration from nature.

To assume that the only people who require welfare support are lazy bums is ridiculous. What about crippled and old?

The crippled and elderly could be looked after by their families, or be shipped off to the camp.

What about cyclic nature of the capitalist economy (boom-bust=lots of uemployed from time to time). What about structural economics changes, outsourcing, etc.? What about urbanization...=estrangement of people, loss of family/social support networks?

What about them? If unemployment should rise a little in my system it would only please me, because people would have to fight hard to stay afloat and it would weed out a higher percentage of societies dregs rather than comon 5% unemployment would. Higher unemployment would just be a greater social refiner.


Vlad, while you are writing smart posts to sciforums, your more agressive, more "rugged" countrymen privatize everything what is left from the socialized Serbian property. They are robbing you while you theoretize "how wonderful is to live in a jungle". You and your children will work for peanuts for those folks. Do not complain, those people are simply more rugged than you are, they deserve the loot.

I enjoy the private system. It's only helped me out.


What the hell are you talking about? What do you know about welfare in the USA (I doubt it's too widespread in Serbia). First, the number of welfare recipients is quite small. Second, you cannot really stay on welfare all your life. Social security, medicaid, unemployment benefits are not welfare, those are insurance programs. One pays certain % of his salary to be eligible to get those benefits. Private insurance=ultimate good (which is total BS). Social insurance = evil. Right? Some states may pay a single woman enough $ for her to live on the expense of her children's welfare. Many states pay close to nothing ($137/month in Texas, for example) to these women.

Well I know that you have a welfare system. That is enough for me to reject it. I have been to America.

Secondly, in the USA, lower 20% of population owns just 4% on the nation's wealth. Thus, to blame welfare recipients for the nation's economics problems is the top of stupidity.

Not once did I blame welfare for the nations economic problems. But you can't deny that having huge state sectors is uneconomic and only serves slave ethics and the poor. If everything was privatized as in a Libertarian society the economy would perform so much better. The only reason not to privatize are ethical ones that seek to safeguard inalienable rights ect. I would like to see such ethics replaced with more elitist one more conducive to national progress.

It serves no purpose except finding a scapegoat for the greedy souls.

The only greedy ones are the one who want to take money that I've earned and live off it because they can't support themselves.

Leadears/inventors need a working environment. They cannot create in a jungle. Therefore, maintenance of such an environment (including welfare) is just a cost of the business. It's as evil as any other business expense.

My system will only help the working environment, by making it more competitive.

What about corporate welfare? It's way more wasteful than social one.

Not really because corporations generate a lot of business, but I don't dispute corporate interest need to be kept in line by the government. That's a different issue though.


Stalin sent failed citizens to Gulag? What a BS. The most industrious people were wrongfully accused, sent to and worked to death in the Gulag. On the other hand, working was considered below the dignity of the "traditional", seasoned criminals sent to Gulag camps. Even draconians Stalin's Gulag could not make those people to work.

No no, I'm not saying Stalin sent failed systems to the gulag. He sent anyone who was an enemy of the state to the gulag. I would sent people there for other reasons. A lot of people should be happy t go, because the state would be providing them with accommodation and food - things they couldn't get for themselves in regular society.

Secondly, why do you persist on believing that American (or any other's country's) homeless and loiterers are such a drain on welfare system? It's total BS. They may use food banks, soup kitchens, .... funded mainly by the private donations (charity, heard such a word? Charity is a totally unconditional thing.). But those people certainly are NOT on the welfare, etc. People who still has a hope for the better may be on welfare, those without hope/desire are laying at the bottom without welfare.

State provided medicine and welfare and education drain up a lot of the economy. But it's not just about that. Iit's also about crating a system that channels people into their rightful places - as winners or losers or in between. At the moment there is too much parity between the rich and the poor, the strong and the week. Seriously, the Libertarians have great ideas. I'd just like to see the failed manhandled a little bit more.


Does government own farms, etc.? Your stupid camps would cost much more $ than welfare. They would create huge paperpushing ($ eating) industry around, they would be inefficient. Slave labor is never efficient.

I would design it so that goods produced on the farm would be sold on the market at cost calculated to sustain the farms. It would have to be a pretty inefficient farm to equal losses in line with what the government pays out each year on state hospitals and welfare.

Lastly, your dream country has existed already. It was USSR circa 1970th-1990th (the was NO Gulag in that time frame). In later days USSR, it was ILLEGAL to be unemployed for more than 3 months. Those who did not comply (or those who did not bribe some official) were sent to very "liberal" camps (no, it was not Gulag, it's quite humane). Those people were used on the most dirty (chemical wise) jobs. Nobody else wanted them because they were unmotivated slaves. Also, alcoholics, drug addicts were compulsory sent to the prison-like hospitals where labor therapy was #1 cure. Nobody wanted them either. Also, there were mandatory trips of city dwellers/students to collective farms in the fall to "save yield" for the country. that was a complete waste. City folks neither wanted to work on the land nor had what it takes to work hard physically. Guess what? Those programs did not help to save USSR's economy from collapse. It would have been much cheaper and more efficient to leave those people alone.

The soviet Union was a socialist state. I don't want anything close to socialism. I would have a socialist micro-society for the unemployed/hapless. Inefficiency wouldn't be a problem (like it was in the Soviet Union) because efficiency is not the goal. The goal is to remove all the social beggars and leaavebehinds from the province of regular society and into a camp where they can look after themselves.


Your program is totally pointless. Those who could/wanted to get skills - got them. Those who do want to get skills but have no money needs financial help (including welfare). they do not need your fucking big daddy programs.

No but they do need my money, it seems. It's just that I don't want to give it to them.

Those who chose loitering spit on your world, your system, and your skill programs.

I spit on them too, and their begging defeated mentality.

Again why should Western Europe support your petty existence through transfers of money, and aid? As you state: Darwinian political system were peoples social status is defined squarely by their ability.CLEARLY Serbia cannot do that, it is weak and should be destroyed. Why aren't you following your own advice and go to camp along with your entire nation? Stop being a self-hating beggar.

Let’s look at your nation:

Serbia:
% of population below poverty line: 30%.
Unemployment rate: 34.5%
Budget: Revenues: 8.668 billion
Expenditures: 9.633 billion
Net: -$965 million, alas you are dependant on our loans to sustain yourself.
Public Debt % of GDP: 123.2%, pay up…common.
Current Account balance: $-2,416 billion, more money you owe.
Trade account: -$4,477 billion
Economic aid: $2 billion

So as shown your nation should be sent ot the gulag because it simply is too poor, and unsustainable like a welfare mother.

Serbia welcome home. (http://www.videofact.com/english/workuta1_opt.jpg)

Undecided,

I'm sorry but that I what I have found of your argument, I have the right to critize your argument as its not logical. Yet you refuse to listen to me, oh well aside for the some insulting ad homenims your not breaking any laws just making a fool of your self, I won’t be surprise if Vlad simple ignores you.

You have not proven any of your assertions to even come close to indicate that what I am doing is what you characterized it as. Using Vlad's own logic he should be gulaged, along with his nation because they are a burden on society, not a asset. Why should we keep on feeding those poor Serbians? Let them die off so we can have more for ourselves, if Vlad wants to act like Malthus so can I.

I think I did prove my assurations already. Your logic is flawed more then his.

Show, you have not shown any of your assertions. Do you need everything personified to make sense?

I explained them well enough, do you want me to quote you?

I won’t be surprise if Vlad simple ignores you.

Oh you can count on that ;)

Who said that "productive" (whatever that means) folks are superior to the slackers? Why pushing meaningless papers around is somehow superior to being a bum? Sometimes, it's better ($ wise) for a business to pay "welfare" $ to some folks just not to let them to engage in "productive" activities. Still, in our mind those people are somehow superior to a bum. Prove that without Bible.

I am not so sure that creatures who are capable of living on the expense of others are inferior to paper pushers. they could be quite superior. It's they who could round up "productive" sheep to the camps to maximize output.

For example, bum with a gun=ganster; Shitless "productive" folks stay in line to pay off $ to such a bum. Productive sheep adore worthless (production wise) bums who have billions. Obviously, bums are the chosen ones, who are destined by the providence to live off the "productive" sheep. On the other hand, sheep feels superior to the modest kinds of bums, those who live without guns and billions. Is it freudian compensation ?

Sometimes, it's better ($ wise) for a business to pay "welfare" $ to some folks just not to let them to engage in "productive" activities.Farmers ?

To Vlad.

Why libertarian society is just another utopia.

Rugged individualists left to themselves can create two kinds of scenarios: bad and worse.

1) (relatively benign option). Rugged individualists create countless number of gangs (strongest rules after all; one can find numerous historical examples of this.). Gradually, strongest gang appears, kills off all competitors, unites lands, renames gansters/etc. into army, security; writes down laws. In other words, the strongest gang of rugged individualists creates impetus for a strong state ruled by the law.

2) Rugged individualists create countless number of gangs; but, unfortunately, nobody can win. Endless turf wars. Gradual degradation into obscurity.

History does not now the third way in which rugged individualists (left to themselves) would behave. Obviously, you think that this time something wonderful will be born. Well, communists were of the same opinion in 1917.

Second reason why Libertarian idea is dead born.

Libertarians are not capable of any kind of cooperation (even within their small parties/groups). usually, they deny existence of the global/statewide problems (except defence) for the solution of which cooperation is needed. Bussiness by its nature cannot invest into long term projects with uncertain results=good bye infrastructure (roads, etc.), good bye fundamental science, good bye many other things which made our lives more tolerable.

BTW, congrats on your sharing benefits of privatization in Serbia. From what I've heard, Serbian privatization is not much different than that in Russia or Ukraine (i.e. it's simple plunder). So, if you are benefiting, you must be on the fleecing side. Congrats. Now, I understand your love of the jungle society.

Farmers ?

Not necessarily, some employees are dangerous for a business/profits (broken equipment, bad decisions, waste, etc.). The higher rank the more dangerous for the profit some people become.

At one of my jobs we had 100K manager. Man was pushing papers like crazy from 9 to 5. We had no clue what was the point of man's position/paper pushing though; management spot was obviously exuberant. After 10 years of hard paperpushing, the man became BIG boss. On the second week of his being a big boss, he's eliminated his former bread&butter position. From the business standpoint, it would have been better to pay this man 100k/yr just not to come to work=less waste, less intrusions, less useless BS. Still, as long as this man has made $1 million in 10 years by doing worthless BS, he's somehow superior to a bum in Vlad's eyes. How? He's much worse drain on the taxpayer's $ (yes, it was a government lab) than 1000 bums or 50 welfare queens with children combined.

From what I know, big private corporations have the same problems.

Bussiness by its nature cannot invest into long term projects with uncertain results=good bye infrastructure (roads, etc.), good bye fundamental science, good bye many other things which made our lives more tolerable.Um, businesses HAVE invested in those things you've listed.

Um, businesses HAVE invested in those things you've listed.

Yeah, it was bussiness that invested $ in railroads in 19th century (government paid $38k/mile to business); it was business that invested bulk of $ in the interstate network, etc. Bussiness contributions to fundamental sciences??? Maybe some crumbles, not more. Do not mix fundamental and applied stuff. Do not mix CEO's donations to a foundation/university with investments. Sure, bussiness will invest in those things as long as they will promise relatively fast and certain returns. In other words, bussiness will build roads in the densely populated areas. Beyond these areas there would be dirt roads, and so on.

Modern businesses think more and more short term. Most of them appear as a man cutting the branch on which he sits. but it's another topic.

Firstly the problem with his theory is that there is actual definition of what is productive. Productive means making something, and adding on to the relative wealth of society. The only people who make such wealth are the working class; no one else in the economic relationship makes wealth. The financial markets are not real wealth, nothing is created, everything is mere speculation and the wealth invested in those markets is derived from the income earned by workers. So if Vlad (even if the sad twit should be ignoring me) doesn’t define what productive is then my analysis is correct. Since Doctors and welfare recipients have the same job which is to provide something to the government, then they are both doing a service. What people like Vlad believe is that the welfare state and system exist because some hippie liberals love all of mankind, not really. The reason why there is a welfare state is simple, so the liberal democratic capitalist system can survive. We in history have already seen what happens when a welfare system does not exist, look to Africa for inspiration. The welfare state exists to secure that another “sans culottes” revolution doesn’t happen. To keep people at some sort of respectable level of income so they don’t revolt against the powers that be. Now this only goes back to the ignorance that a lot of libertarians and ultra-conservatives forget. They never seem to have a good grasp on history, you cannot afford to radicalize the unemployed, or underemployed populations because they will end up overthrowing you. Unlike WCF who also doesn’t seem to grasps the essence of the argument it’s not illogical, it’s logical to the extreme. Basic economics is at play here, and obviously WCF doesn’t understand. That’s why he shant be talking, Vlad does not spell out what he is talking about effectively at all because he incorrectly assumes that welfare receiptants do not do a service to society. So if we are to argue to get rid of welfare, then let’s start with the government itself, and move our way down.

To Vlad.

Why libertarian society is just another utopia.

Rugged individualists left to themselves can create two kinds of scenarios: bad and worse.

1) (relatively benign option). Rugged individualists create countless number of gangs (strongest rules after all; one can find numerous historical examples of this.). Gradually, strongest gang appears, kills off all competitors, unites lands, renames gansters/etc. into army, security; writes down laws. In other words, the strongest gang of rugged individualists creates impetus for a strong state ruled by the law.

2) Rugged individualists create countless number of gangs; but, unfortunately, nobody can win. Endless turf wars. Gradual degradation into obscurity.

History does not now the third way in which rugged individualists (left to themselves) would behave. Obviously, you think that this time something wonderful will be born. Well, communists were of the same opinion in 1917.

Second reason why Libertarian idea is dead born.

Libertarians are not capable of any kind of cooperation (even within their small parties/groups). usually, they deny existence of the global/statewide problems (except defence) for the solution of which cooperation is needed. Bussiness by its nature cannot invest into long term projects with uncertain results=good bye infrastructure (roads, etc.), good bye fundamental science, good bye many other things which made our lives more tolerable.

Damn, this is wierd..why is Michael Badnarik bothering to run for President if the Libertarian dream is all crap? I think it's only fair that someone send him a hyperlink to you post above so someone can tell him before he wastes too much money? God this could be awful. We should tell professor Zorzick too..he's obviously way misguided.


TW, congrats on your sharing benefits of privatization in Serbia. From what I've heard, Serbian privatization is not much different than that in Russia or Ukraine (i.e. it's simple plunder). So, if you are benefiting, you must be on the fleecing side. Congrats. Now, I understand your love of the jungle society


From what you've heard? Do you really think you know much about Serbia? Hearsay is not the best platform from which to launch an opinion, you know.

Damn, this is wierd..why is Michael Badnarik bothering to run for President if the Libertarian dream is all crap? I think it's only fair that someone send him a hyperlink to you post above so someone can tell him before he wastes too much money? God this could be awful. We should tell professor Zorzick too..he's obviously way misguided.

Wow, such loud names. No reasoning is needed. You've proved your point. So what if Bandnarik runs? What does it prove? Everybody has the right for the dream, myth, utopia. Communists, Badnaric, Monarchists, Christians, etc. Their dreams prove nothing. Mr. Badnarik have a mission/dream. Nothing else really matters for the folks on the mission to make everybody happy as they see it. BTW, there are folks preaching second coming of Jesus/rapture in 2005. They have strong faith in that; as strong (at least) as Mr. Badnaric's faith into libertarian paradise. Would you like to join the "chosen" ones if one of them will run for a president?

From what you've heard? Do you really think you know much about Serbia? Hearsay is not the best platform from which to launch an opinion, you know.

You know, I listen short wave/internet radio, read stuff. Hearsay came mainly from hearing the Serbian workers describing how "wonderful" their life become during and after robber baron privatization. Again, my congrats on your being on the fleecing side. It really sucks to be on the other side.

Wow, such loud names. No reasoning is needed. You've proved your point. So what if Bandnarik runs? What does it prove? Everybody has the right for the dream, myth, utopia. Communists, Badnaric, Monarchists, Christians, etc. Their dreams prove nothing. Mr. Badnarik have a mission/dream. Nothing else really matters for the folks on the mission to make everybody happy as they see it. BTW, there are folks preaching second coming of Jesus/rapture in 2005. They have strong faith in that; as strong (at least) as Mr. Badnaric's faith into libertarian paradise. Would you like to join the "chosen" ones if one of them will run for a president?

Well I think the Jesus mob don't quite have the credibility that the Libertarians do. Nobody will be voting for them, will they? But yes you are right, It proves nothing that the Libs run. Liberals have their egalitarian dream, too. It been gloriously failing for 50 years.



You know, I listen short wave/internet radio, read stuff. Hearsay came mainly from hearing the Serbian workers describing how "wonderful" their life become during and after robber baron privatization. Again, my congrats on your being on the fleecing side. It really sucks to be on the other side.

Yeah the moment I sense that you actually know something about Serbia I'll let your provocations get to me.

Well I think the Jesus mob don't quite have the credibility that the Libertarians do.

You think so. Perception is relative. What if Jesus will come in 2005 and you are not among the chosen ones? You (and others) select the myth you/they like more and make an infallible icon to worship out of it. The rest of myths is discarded as wrong/ridiculous/etc.... It does not mean a lot. It just means that certain myth is more suited for one's brain chemistry.

But yes you are right, It proves nothing that the Libs run. Liberals have their egalitarian dream, too. It been gloriously failing for 50 years.

Definition of the word "liberal" changed significantly for the past 100 years. Whom do you consider liberal? Whose liberalism failed? Libertarians are the most close to the classical version of liberalism. Classical liberalism failed splendidly in 1929=great depression, world war, etc. Then, revived right changed definition of liberal. Now it's somebody who advocates government's social programs, labor/environmental standards, minimal wage....., trade union. How that's failed btw? You do not like 8 hrs working day? You do not like that 8 years olds are not digging coal, working machines? ..... Damn, those cursed neo liberals. Another thing that corporate funded right is assaulting everything that benefits working man. They are winning=economies/society crumbling; BUT it's liberal's fault. (I'm speaking about USA; I do not know, maybe Serbians are masochists who likes slaving for more "deserving ones").

Yeah the moment I sense that you actually know something about Serbia I'll let your provocations get to me.

I do know something about Eastern Europe, Serbia including. And after reading the last your sentence, I am sure you are on the fleecing side. Congrats. Enjoy while it lasts.