Cook up all the justifications you want about why Trump 'won' the election and why he should be president.
How about -- he won the electoral contest? You know, the one set of rules that actually counts? The one system that was perfectly okay before the election, until now that some of the losers are sore and are concocting all the justifications for a change in the outcome after-the-fact?
Democracy is a system whereby elected representatives are chosen by winning the popular vote not a gerrymandered system where you elect a group of functionaries who then vote for the runner up.
Actually, if you live in the United States, then you don't live in a pure democracy. You are in a democratically elected representative republic. This means, by design, that sometimes the majority does not get its way.
‘With its effective range apparently not exceeding one kilometre, this weapon may be used against UAVs flying right above the battlefield,’ said Korotchenko.
That doesn't sound very far. By flying at 3500 feet, it can't hit a UAV even if it is directly overhead.
Even in its extreme form, communism recognizes that some people need more than others.
I think you meant to say "deserves", not "needs". Suppose a doctor and a waitress each work 8 hours a day. Can you explain why the doctor might "need" more than the waitress? I actually think I am familiar with communism. Usually the theorists and advocates espouse equality at first, before they get into power. The pragmatic and unequal distribution part is usually reserved for after the communists take control of all the guns. That the article does consider some monetary incentive for the more productive workers up-front certainly is surprising.
I'm willing to accept that, but tell me how; and this blog post that merely repeats the mistakes of the past is not succeeding to do that.
I'll never be willing to accept communism, because it has always failed to account for human behavior. The communists have hoped that simply by being smarter, or more intelligent, or having a bigger planning committee, or accounting for more variables, and now delegating authority to their computer model that they will achieve success. No amount of explaining will convince me, however, because communism has never appropriately accounted for human behavior, greed, needs, wants, incentives, or creativity. These things are a part of human nature; communism has tried to defeat human nature; capitalism has sought to work alongside it.
Surprisingly, the article does recognize that equal distribution to everyone is a problem, and seems to advocate unequal distribution near the end of the article. That, to me, isn't communism, but simply fiat redistribution-ism so that someone can gain popularity and control. And also I disagree with the article's assessment that dis-incentivizing the wealthy would not cause a mass-exodus of workers from those positions.
Is the current economic system so inevitable or desirable that those things are preferable to just letting people stay home?
Yes, an economic system where some people work, while others do nothing but take from the producers is called SLAVERY.
Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings