If you want to have slaves...

[Anonymous]

If you want to have slaves, you don't put them in a cage, ration their food nor directly observe and regulate every part of their life. You can get so much more from them.

Here's how: You give them the illusion of freedom. You allow them to "own" things and travel as they please. Give them a "voice" in your rules by allowing them to cast "votes" towards higher slaves you choose. They will be happier and produce far much more. Heck, they may actually invent things and learn advanced skills.

All you have to do to collect from them and control them is take a little bit from their paycheck through the credits you issue them. The credits are printed and issued at your whim. You can go as far as collecting credits from their goods and every time they are traded. You call the credit "money" and you call your collection a "tax". Tell them the tax is for the greater good and their happiness. Scare them into believing that things will be worse without a tax. If they are too smart and catch on to your game, just put chemicals into their water and make them more agreeable.

Do you want them to spend more of their money so you can get more control and more luxury? Just put more of your credits into the supply stream and keep your money in something with actual value. Your higher slaves will learn to spend more and they'll pay more tax.

The possibilities are endless; you can manipulate your slaves any way you choose just by controlling their money and how much of it you take back.

In fact, if you play your cards right, you can gradually have a whole populace at your fingertips. Your imagination would be your only limit.

[1713932945]

1713932945

[1713932945]

1713932945

[1713932945]

1713932945

[1713932945]

1713932945

[Hawker]

You really should read Marx and his description of wage slaves.  You'll be waving a red banner in no time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

[FredericBastiat]

You really should read Marx and his description of wage slaves.  You'll be waving a red banner in no time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

Your "democratic" form of government doesn't fall too far from that tree either. If you read articles related to and referencing Marx's work, you'll notice that his disciples mention that democracies are just one step in the direction of complete communism.

Blatant and publicly visible communism failed. The neo-commies/socialists use other more nefarious but subtle ways to yoke you. They use business and personal regulations, monopolies on information dissemination, fiat money-credit systems, and discriminatory censorship tactics.

It takes a little longer. But you'll get there eventually. Just you wait and see.

[Hawker]

Marx was brilliant at describing life in a democracy.  His failure was his crazy vision of a society without a state called "communism" preceded by a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Its interesting that his description still makes some sense and that people still have fantasies of a stateless society, isn't it Fred

[Hawker]

I don't mind dating Marxists for a reason.

By "a reason" you mean they have a pulse? 

[FredericBastiat]

Marx was brilliant at describing life in a democracy.  His failure was his crazy vision of a society without a state called "communism" preceded by a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Its interesting that his description still makes some sense and that people still have fantasies of a stateless society, isn't it Fred

The guy couldn't string two thoughts together without contradicting himself. He could also barely put his thoughts onto paper and make them readable either. Others have done a better job of enslaving the world in a much "nicer" and "quieter" manner than he did. You should sign up. Your arguments are at least a little more coherent than his.

He was merely a pawn. Join the club.

[Hawker]

Marx was brilliant at describing life in a democracy.  His failure was his crazy vision of a society without a state called "communism" preceded by a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Its interesting that his description still makes some sense and that people still have fantasies of a stateless society, isn't it Fred

The guy couldn't string two thoughts together without contradicting himself. He could also barely put his thoughts onto paper and make them readable either. Others have done a better job of enslaving the world in a much "nicer" and "quieter" manner than he did. You should sign up. Your arguments are at least a little more coherent than his.

He was merely a pawn. Join the club.

Never bothered reading him so I'll defer to your experience.

[fivebells]

Marx was brilliant at describing life in a democracy.  His failure was his crazy vision of a society without a state called "communism" preceded by a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Its interesting that his description still makes some sense and that people still have fantasies of a stateless society, isn't it Fred

The guy couldn't string two thoughts together without contradicting himself. He could also barely put his thoughts onto paper and make them readable either. Others have done a better job of enslaving the world in a much "nicer" and "quieter" manner than he did. You should sign up. Your arguments are at least a little more coherent than his.

He was merely a pawn. Join the club.

Pointers to some representative excerpts of his would be interesting.   Particularly if they're in his seminal works.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

His failure was his crazy vision of a society without a state called "communism" preceded by a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

His failure was to derive all of his "economic" writings from a false hypothesis (labor-value). You can make anything "true" starting from a false hypothesis.

[molecular]

If you want to have slaves, you don't put them in a cage,

Pretty much worked for Egypt for a thousand years.

Look to Egypt today. Looks like divide an conquer to me. The interim military government even says "external forces" are responsible the outbreak of the sectarian violence going on.

[fivebells]

Immanuel, you may find Debt: The First 5,000 Years interesting.  One of its themes is that the modern wage-based economy arises out of, and is disturbingly equivalent to, earlier slave-based economies, particularly that of the Romans.  (Apparently around the time of the end of the Roman Republic, 30-40% of its human subjects were slaves.  Did not know that.)

[Rassah]

Ironic how this thread is about how modern man is just a slave to the gub'ment but you then say that being forced to build a pyramid your whole life for someone else is not slavery because they were "paid".

From what I remember of my history, the "slaves" that built the oyramids were actually local farmers, who would work the fields when farming was in season (flooding from the nile), and when farming was over with, would go work on building pyramids in exchange for food and shelter. Questionable on how much of a choice they had between working or starving, but not technically slaves.

[JeffK]

Questionable on how much of a choice they had between working or starving, but not technically slaves.

Just because someone isn't whipping the shit out of you doesn't mean you aren't a slave. If you have to choose between working for someone with food and starving, you're a slave.

[Rassah]

Questionable on how much of a choice they had between working or starving, but not technically slaves.

Just because someone isn't whipping the shit out of you doesn't mean you aren't a slave. If you have to choose between working for someone with food and starving, you're a slave.

So, we're almost all slaves then...

[Hawker]

Has Atlas deleted his account or something?  The thread says that OP is an anonymous guest.