[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Then drag yourself into a little hole and be alone and angry there.

Enforced solidarity helped me, my family and most of the people I know so I really don't care about if it's voluntary or not. No one got killed paying those taxes.
But you know when people would die ?? When un-enforced solidarity would be in place. Especially in a nation as cold-hearted and egotistical as Slovenia. You think people would line the tax office with money to ''donate'' to the healthcare system. They wouldn't give a cent and people would die because of it. And in the end they themselves would die because they wouldn't be able to afford it.

So what if my insurance was used to pay for someone's heart operation 100km away from me. So what if my taxes were used to build a road to a place with only one house. A nation where an ambulance can't be at any house within minutes is not modern and not civilized. Enforced solidarity ensures that.

I'm a one response away from having to apologise to Jim and Steve in the evening about the infractions that I'll get from being honest about you.
So I'll just ignore.

There is a logical fallacy. There is no such thing like "enforced solidarity".

Regartding yourself, you can asdk other peopel for help. Your friends, family, for example, that would come to mind first. Before we had this modern madness (that ahs beocme totally unmaintaianble now, and creates costs we cannot afford and raises our debts!!!), people used to take more care for each other. You also can found fincing on dionations, olike they use to do it in the Us ver ymuch. In many cultures and societies, voluntary donation is seen as morally desirable, is even favoured by religions. But the state doie snto want that to be in pirvate intiiave, but wants to enforce it mandatorily - via the state. Becasue else the state would noit be needed, and all those bureaucrats workjing in stat5e service would not be payed anymore.

A simple math excercise for you.

In Germany, state spending on social issues has increased by a factor of 19 in the 4 decades from 1960 to 2000. At the end of that time era, over one third of the state budget was spend for the "social sector". Who benefited from that? In 2000, at best one in twenty persons was really depending and was really poor in Germany, needing to get support from state-driven social programs, around 4 million people. One third of the state budget translates into over 1.2 trillion bucks. That would have meant that each of the depending social net receivers would have been paid 300,000 thousands bucks per year! Obviously that has not happened! NMo social wellfare receiver ever gets 300,000 per year. He may get let'S say 15,000 per year. Makes a difference of 285,000. and here is the question for you:

Where has that money gone?

You should know that estimations are that in 2000, for every socially depending person there may have been 10-15 persons in adminstration who spoend their working timwe with amdinstrating and channeling the 15000 bucks to the net receiver. These people all wanted to get payed for their organsdartion service. The offices need to be payed for, the maintenance costs need to be made straight. Ministries have more staff working over these issues, they ll want their privileges and limousines, careers in politics base on having a function in the social field.

In other words, of the 300,000 bucks for single receiver, 285 thousand get sucked up by the system, and 15,000 ends up to actually getting spend on the individual in question.

Any company or insurance doing business like this, would be mauled at the end of the first quarter already, and would be trialed. The state does not get trialed, because he has a monopolised status that he has claimed for himself and secured by making legislation and laws supporting his monopolised status.

the same service on social issues could be had much cheaper. Estimations are that when you donate money to an organisation busy in charity or protection of nature, good management could reduce administrative costs to around 10% of the money they collect, that means of one dollar you donate, 10 cents get spend for the internal buraucracy, and 90 cents end up ina tually being used for social aid or environment protection measurements. Obviously the state cannot compete here, of one dollar you give him, he spends 95 cents on internal bureaucracy, and jst 5 cents on the issue the money was collected for.

Why is the state still in business then? Because he is a monopolist. He does the worst quality in service, and charges many many times more in fees for providing that service. Competent management means one tenth of the funds get consumed for administration. State management means 95% opf funds get spend for administration.

Grewat show! And people are asking why states de facto are bancrupt and only carry on by criminal cheats and tricks that are nothing else than punishable-by law delaying of filling of insolvency...?

What people have forgotten is that you cannot spend more than you can afford, and when you spend more than you have, sooner or later you get a problem and end up crashing with your head against a wall that is harder than your skull. That crash is not too far away anymore. Until it makes Wham!, the paraitical prfiteers of the system will do all they can to suck up more welath rom porivate property that is not theirs, thy will steal and lie and loot and enforce and suprerss increasingly, that is the nature of socialism. Socialiost econoimic thoery is the thoery of plundering and looting, and giving the state the monopole in legalising himself to do all that.

You know why people allow this disaster to unfold? Because they got bribed and trained and brainwashed not to know the nature of money, and not to value the value of material value anymore. People have learned that wealth comes form money printers, indefinetely, and that the majority has the right to steal and plunder form a minority, which explains sufficiently the essence of democracy. And that si why I and others say: democracy always and unavoidably must lead to and end in socialism, which always is totalitarian and tyrannic.

"Enforced solidarity...?" Illogical. Impossible. Immoral and totalitarian.Corruption or collaboration or pressure, never should be mistaken with "solidarity", the many people in Eastgermany or Nazigermany suffering from the regimes, or living silent and anxious in order to not attract unwanted attention, did so not because they were solidaric with the regime'S policy. They bowed under the pressure applied to them.

The paper money system will collapse (which is good, even when it will mean disaster, but it is a needed, hurting correction), and the wealth and culture of the West will collapse as well. And it is self-made and well-deserved, I say. I have reached a point in my life where I watch it unfolding in cold blood, and with absolutely no mercy with the ordinary population.The only innocent victims in this, are the little children. All others are accomplices in crime already, some more, some less. The consequences of what we were willing to let the elites do to us, will find us, and then will, crush us. And we deserve it.