Does anyone else yearn for a society based on inequality?

[Cort Haus]

Dr Strangelove, Milosevic had no such vision of Yugoslavia as Greater Serbia. That is propaganda bull**** designed to whip people up into a war-mode frenzy to justify NATO intervention.

[Heraclitus]

I have a hard time believing any subset of the population values society as a whole over its own narrow interests. I think even individual people who sincerely feel that way are few and far between.

Yes I poorly phrased that particular sentence. What I mean and what I've stated in other parts of the thread is that some subsets of the population whose self interests coincide with the interests of the society as a whole more than others.

[Heraclitus]

Dr Strangelove, Milosevic had no such vision of Yugoslavia as Greater Serbia. That is propaganda bull**** designed to whip people up into a war-mode frenzy to justify NATO intervention.

He did have a vision of keeping Kosovo and a large chunk of Bosnia Serbian. I can sympathize with both desires but not the methods. Also he wanted for much of the power to be given to Serbia.

This however like you point out isn't a attempt to create a Greater Serbia out of Yugoslavia.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I am for an unequal society where I am king, and you get to serve me for free every day. If you die, I replace you.. sounds great doesn't it, someone has to be on top, so it is me

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Dr Strangelove, Milosevic had no such vision of Yugoslavia as Greater Serbia. That is propaganda bull**** designed to whip people up into a war-mode frenzy to justify NATO intervention.

Cort - tell it to me when I was shelled actively for weeks, the Serbs were 1km from my house, and the territory was occupied for 4 years afterwards... and that was in Croatia, 400km from Belgrade, actually about 40km from Slovenian border... not to mention 100k+ dead in Bosnia, or what later went on in Kosovo... even Slovenians had 10 day war in the beginning but it was too hard to wage a proxy war with Croatia standing in the middle...

I thought people were well past that misinformation 10-20 years after

[Aeson]

Yes I poorly phrased that particular sentence. What I mean and what I've stated in other parts of the thread is that some subsets of the population whose self interests coincide with the interests of the society as a whole more than others.

So... given that our modern society has determined that it's best interest in this regard is "equality"... and since your stated self interest is for a society based on "inequality"... your self interest is conflicting with the mainstream society's interests... and so you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you had your way?

[Provost Harrison]

HE ****ING EDITED HIS ****ING POST.

His exact words were "I would argue Communism triumphed"

I know this son of a ***** would edit it. I should have ****ing quoted him.

Those excellent debating skills are shining through again I see

[Heraclitus]

So... given that our modern society has determined that it's best interest in this regard is "equality"... and since your stated self interest is for a society based on "inequality"... your self interest is conflicting with the mainstream society's interests... and so you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you had your way?

I wouldn't personally benefit from a society based on inequality any more than the average voter. I just happen to (used to?) value such a society more than the average voter.

However suppose you are right, that my self interests do conflict with wider society as determined by certain criteria. As long as people who are excluded by such criteria have the right to leave said state or seceede I have no problem with being disenfranchised.

However my implicit conention is that most people thus disenfranchised would not leave such a state because they would enjoy a higher standard of living and would truly be better off in a unequal society than in one based on equality, since a equal based society would eventually be deserted or would strifle those who make extraordinary or above average contributions and would grow stagnant and controling.

[Aeson]

I wouldn't personally benefit from a society based on inequality any more than the average voter. I just happen to (used to?) value such a society more than the average voter.

u value ur self interests, they value their own.
That is what self interests r

As long as people who are excluded by such criteria have the right to leave said state or seceede I have no problem with being disenfranchised.

why do u try 2 force equality and freedom of choice on everyone in this regard?
If someone sees that society is best served by enslaving people, then it's just peachy...

However my implicit conention is that most people thus disenfranchised would not leave such a state because they would enjoy a higher standard of living and would truly be better off in a unequal society than in one based on equality, since a equal based society would eventually be deserted or would strifle those who make extraordinary or above average contributions and would grow stagnant and controling.

because disenfranchized groups have always been treated so well!

[Heraclitus]

because disenfranchized groups have always been treated so well!

And enfranchized groups have never ended up abused!


Please mock me a bit less with your spelling, Its hard to try and respond to your comments seriusly otherwise.

[Cort Haus]

Cort - tell it to me when I was shelled actively for weeks, the Serbs were 1km from my house, and the territory was occupied for 4 years afterwards... and that was in Croatia, 400km from Belgrade, actually about 40km from Slovenian border... not to mention 100k+ dead in Bosnia, or what later went on in Kosovo... even Slovenians had 10 day war in the beginning but it was too hard to wage a proxy war with Croatia standing in the middle...

I thought people were well past that misinformation 10-20 years after

It might also be claimed by Croatian Serbs who were on the wrong end of Operation Storm that the Croatian Government were trying to create an ethnically pure Croatia. Greater Croatia, even, if the aspirations to include Croatian parts of Bosnia are taken seriously.

I'm not suggesting all this, however.

My original point was to refute the suggestion above that SM wanted to turn Yugoslavia (no reference was made to Krajina, for example) as a whole into a 'Greater Serbia'. Countless years of trial at The Hague before his death got nowhere near proving any such allegation.

[Provost Harrison]

Not really, I'd hate to be on an even level with the riff raff...

[Aeson]

im on a numeric keypad on a cellphone. Just b glad im n0t pro at this yet.

[Provost Harrison]

Should get a proper modern phone then

[Kidlicious]

To elaborate I think democracy is flawed primarily because it formally gives equal political rights to people who do not equally share a long term interest in the welfare of the country.

What makes you think that a minority has a long term interest in the welfare of a country and a majority doesn't?

Edit: I see that I didn't read your clarification. I will ask another question, why is the long term welfare of a country more important than the welfare of people?