Moderator: Community Team
The1exile wrote:You could also avoid the problem by not having one person calling the shots but rather having all 10 as part of the decision making process and voting in referenda (or similar) to decide course of action.
Simon Viavant wrote:You were saying that if 10 people run for president, they should all automatically get in and have equal power and vote on things. (At least that's how I saw it).The1exile wrote:You could also avoid the problem by not having one person calling the shots but rather having all 10 as part of the decision making process and voting in referenda (or similar) to decide course of action.
That means first of all, they'd never get anything done, and second of all, anyone could just sign up to be president and they'd be in. If that happened, thousands of people would do it. That's where my quote you took out of context came from.
Nobunaga wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:Just two comments (right now).
First, I think the best thing to do in any democracy is to abolish political parties, so that everyone votes locally for a person, not a national figure.
Second, especially if you're in the US, try to get hold of a copy of Take Back your Government by Robert Heinlein. It's an old, non-fiction book based on some opinions formed during his attempt at a political career, but the basic sentiments are neither outdated nor partisan.
... Did Heinlein require military service for citizenship, and citizenship as a requirement for having children?
...
muy_thaiguy wrote:A militaristic Republic similar to what the Romans had. A small, but the most efficient, best trained, well equipped military force, with levies stationed in about every city and town (with sizes of levies being proportioned to that of where they are stationed at), a head quarters for both military and levy force in each distinct region. Those of the upper class will be forced (for a time) during their youth to experience the rigors and turmoils of the lower classes. A document that would be quite similar to that of the Constitution would be the supreme law of the land and a government similar to that of the US. A Democracy is out of the question period. There is a good reason, which is that the Founding Fathers of the US saw that the majority rule (can also be known as mob rule) can end up being a disaster. A phrase which sums it up nicely is, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
Economy would be relatively free market. What hecter proposes sounds nice, but where the hell is all that money going to come from for health care and the likes from the government? There WOULDN'T be any rich people due to the size of taxes. However, the government here would let companies do private health care, but will keep an eye on it in case it goes out of whack.
I think I'll stop there for the time being.
Jenos Ridan wrote:Some Ideas that I would like discussion on:
The two party system is obliterated, in favor of more parties with similar views but different approaches (allowing for a break between small-government conversatives and big-government conversatives and so on).
Pork-Barrel Politics is banned as a proceedure of the legislative branch, eliminating the need for a line-item veto.
Marajuana is legal but subject to an excise duty/tax just like alcohol and tobacco. The drinking age is lowered to eighteen, which is the same age to drive, vote, enlist, etc (note, I would expect this to be mostly at the state level).
Taking a cue from Alexander Hamilton, there should be a national bank along his specifications.
The freeway system is, both in design and the laws of the road, built along the lines of the German Autobahn; no more passing on the left.
Automatic Tranmissions are banned. Broadform Auto Insurance (basically means your driver's licence is insured, as opposed to separate policies per vehical) is considered a tax write off to all middle and lower income families worth 10% of the tax burden.
A National Sales Tax modeled after New Zealand is enacted, along with a tax on Credit Cards and Loans with an exemption made for home morgages. Payday loans are banned.
The state government may "nationalize" any intra-state business for brief periods of time in an emergancy, the Federal Government may only nationalize interstate businesses, again in emergancies, and may nationalize international businesses if those companies are incorporated in the US.
Any person who is a member of a gang must renounce all ties to any criminal organization before entering the military, all those who are serving and do not are dishonorably discharged and any person who uses skills gained in the military for criminal purposes is guilty of treason.
The Federal Government may not ban the sale, importation or otherwise distribution of firearms (State Governments may or at least have tighter regulations).
Most cities should enact recycling ordinances. As a side note, use of bicycles and/or public transit should be a deductable on property taxes.
Public Schools should follow the example of the German education system of Gymnasiums and Vocational High Schools. Home schooling is allowed as things stand (different states are able to have different standards in this regard). "Magnet" Schools are chartered by the Public School System to take on advanced students.
US Healthcare should be a hybrid private/public affair, with the public system covering basics like prescriptions (especially insulin), doctor's visits and the like, leaving things with surgery to the private hospitals.
Health Savings Accounts are counted as deductables for middle and lower income families and individuals and cannot be drawn from in a lawsuit (so if someone sues you, he/she cannot take money you need to pay your medical bill).
Childless couples (meaning not having children born to them), especially in the upper income percentile, are not able to use any deductable or write-off to lower their taxes, which are set 3% higher than couples that have children (most deductables ought to be for the middle and lower income households anyway).
And that does it for now.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
PLAYER57832 wrote:Call me patriotic or and idiot
PLAYER57832 wrote:Call me patriotic or and idiot, but I think our form, here in the US is pretty decent. Sure, some folks decided to elect a mistake.. but as was said before
"democracy is a terrible form of government ... but it beats the alternatives" (and yes, I am fully aware that the US is not truly a democracy, it is a republic.)
Snorri1234 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Call me patriotic or and idiot, but I think our form, here in the US is pretty decent. Sure, some folks decided to elect a mistake.. but as was said before
"democracy is a terrible form of government ... but it beats the alternatives" (and yes, I am fully aware that the US is not truly a democracy, it is a republic.)
THEY. ARE. THE. SAME.
Seriously, it's just another form of democracy, not a new radical type of government.
Also, the best form of government is the one in the Discworld novels.
got tonkaed wrote:eh if your looking for something to take you to the founders vision of america, with a dash of social conservatism, may i recommend the constituion party. While i only skimmed through most of their platform, they may have some appeal for you if thats what your looking for.
a link:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
jonesthecurl wrote:A very timely comment about markets working fine.
I hadn't noticed any problems had you?
spaceghst44 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:A very timely comment about markets working fine.
I hadn't noticed any problems had you?
I am not here to teach you basic economic principles, I get paid to do that and by doing it here I get no compensation.
That being said:
You obviously know nothing about markets.
Claiming markets do not work without a government presence by citing current market failure engulfed with government oversight is trite.
Recent economic failures are due to past and present government intervention.
Please do not comment with snide remarks on things you know nothing about, it only makes you look the fool.
Governments produce nothing positive that can not be privatized, hence forth, governments should not exist. markets work fine, we should use them.
Frigidus wrote:spaceghst44 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:A very timely comment about markets working fine.
I hadn't noticed any problems had you?
I am not here to teach you basic economic principles, I get paid to do that and by doing it here I get no compensation.
That being said:
You obviously know nothing about markets.
Claiming markets do not work without a government presence by citing current market failure engulfed with government oversight is trite.
Recent economic failures are due to past and present government intervention.
Please do not comment with snide remarks on things you know nothing about, it only makes you look the fool.
Haha...nothing about economics, cute. All right, lets tear apart your theory.Governments produce nothing positive that can not be privatized, hence forth, governments should not exist. markets work fine, we should use them.
The obvious problems with completely free markets aside (the unchecked and constantly growing division between rich and poor aside, something which generally leads to true mob rule), there are plenty of things that can't be privatized. For example, a military. How, exactly, would you go about charging for military service? Let's say you're the protector of a city, but a member of that city refuses to pay for the service as he feels he can protect himself. You would still be protecting him, as he is surrounded by those that actually pay. What if half the city was like this? The only way to guarantee that it wouldn't be a losing venture would be to enforce payment by all individuals. Some would call this taxation, others extortion, I call it the foundations of government.
This doesn't even mention that without large governing bodies, war would become much more profitable. If you could overwhelm the company guarding a certain area, you would get everything. It's not like they would receive support from other companies, why help the competition?
Let's look at education: your system would essentially only educate the rich, removing the poor from any type of job that would require an education and leaving them permanently at the bottom of the pile. I somehow doubt they'd be thrilled with this.
These problems were around before systems of government were put in place. That is why they exist. You want to talk about knowing nothing about markets, let's look at the guy that's saying that an economy, simply by existing, solves all the problems that come with a ruling body.
