Super awesome government.

Democracy is all well and good, something worth risking your life for, but there is space for improvement...


#1 No central government beyond the military and vital laws.

The more distant you are from a person, the less you care! Thus a good way for democracy to work better, which has been slightly over-looked, is to approximate the best method of preventing people who care about a local issue from having to compete with someone on the other side of the country with a different opinion.

Why should responsible small towns not allow 18 year olds to drink? New Yorkers think churches should not get tax breaks, but some places in Ohio disagree, so why should it be one way or the other across both places? Maybe shoplifting is not such a problem in Wyoming and locals feel rehabilitation would be more useful than a strong deterant, why do the laws for central LA have to apply there?

Chances are you live no where near any of these places and don't really care, so why should your vote have a say in other people's matters and dilute their influence over their local area? Beyond vital laws, there is no need for central government intrusion. We hear too much about silly little laws, or lack thereof, that are forced apon unsuspecting locals and are only resisted after their effects are seen in which case it usually takes years to repeal.


#2 Only tax property!

Ordinary tax lifts money from various points during the circulation of capital in an economy. The worker's income, products and workplace are taxed reducing the worker's post-tax spending power and increasing the cost of the products and services they want. Property tax occurs in only one area of the economy which happens to be the area in which government services are used allowing a more accurate judgement of how much tax is owed. After this the results are the same, companies must reduce wages and increase the cost of products to pay for that tax, so eventually even someone who owns very little or no property pays tax depending on how much they take from the economy.

This satisfies the concerns of both pinko commies and capitalistards.

Communists believe that capitalism is evil because people who own the means of production can make workers in low demand dependant on them. Property tax is a redistribution of tax which allows equal opportunity without the need to reduce economic freedom. The pressure of tax is evenned, putting monetary strain on the property owners making their profits and dividends more closely aligned with the good they have actually done for the economy. There is no need to bluntly tax the rich in this system since you can be sure the rich deserve their cash and have already paid their tax.

Capitalists believe that communism is evil because handing over all property to the state is disasterous and totalitarian. A property tax only system means 0% income tax, shares aren't taxed, the nest egg isn't taxed. You can trade stock and don't have to spare a dime, it's all yours. The state cannot get it's hands on your capital unless you actually use/pay for something provided by the state, that has to be fair and if you disagree that makes you more of a whining welfare twat than a capitalist!


#3 The elimination of poverty and sufferring is the only justified welfare.

Welfare creates the most irrational opinions in our commie and capitalistard friends. Communists of course believe everything should be paid for you, whether you work or not expecting that you somehow have the natural incentive to work with everyone else collectively and don't mind if no one else does. Socialists being their little side kicks have a toned down version of this, but it's the same bullshit, it's written down in the fucking communisst manifesto socialism is supposed to be the stepping stone from capitalism to communism and thus it has to be a less extreme version of communism so people buy it. Socialists are without a shadow of a doubt communists dressed up in ranting dumbass clothingand they piss me off severely with their immense stupidity! I had hoped that capitalists generally see a need for welfare so as not to contrast themselves with socialists, but I've heard plenty of them say that not even a homeless guy should be given shelter, a cold shower and carrot and potatoe pottage just to get him up off his feet. Get fucking real, no one wants to live like a medieval peasant. Simple food, a shower and an address (even if it's only a metal frame with a plastic sheet draped over it) is often the only thing standing between them and at the very least having the opportunity to get a job. Would you employ someone who smells like urine and sleeps on the streets? So it's concluded, welfare should be to eliminate poverty, no more otherwise people won't bother working and no less otherwise you are an evil greedy son of a bitch.

I believe the preservation of justice and helping the victims of crime are in the same subject as welfare. We are sentient, this matters and one purpose of the economy should be to reduce suffering. I would like to mention that I find socialists repulsive for abusing this fact in order to push for stupid ass marxist ideas and I believe anyone who thinks we live in some sort of darwinian reality where everyone must try to gain power over each other has something up his ass. If you have to troll, troll #3 since I feel very strongly about it!


#4 Criminals who can repay their crimes should be punished as a deterant, rehabilitated and repay the damage they have done. Felons should be punished for the sake of being punished.

I fail to see how getting people to repay their crimes is an elaborate form of punishment. My dad made me wash off the paint on a wall I graffitti'd and made me go there an hour a day scrubbing at this white paint absorbed into the wall for 2 weeks, it would not come off it seemed completely fused with the wall and I had to completely clean it or I would be going there for the rest of my life. After experiencing first hand how much damage I had done, I didn't just learn I will get punished for doing something wrong, I actually believed it was wrong. It is an important aspect of the rehabilitation process, we have all made mistakes and done stupid things even though we know they are wrong, but we did them anyway because knowing is only half the battle. You must also develop legitimate moral fibre in order to be a good person. Criminals should spend some time in prison for the purpose of rehabilitation, they should then fix the damage they did for their crime. I don't mean community service, repaying their debt to society is an important, but only one part of dealing justice. Criminals must first be punished and partially rehabilitated in jail. After they are physically tamed and know who's in charge, the next step is to intellectually enrich them by ramming home the reality of their crimes and allowing them the opportunity to clear their conscience by rectifying their error as is best possible. It's a case of proving the law is there, then proving why the law is there.

Felons cannot repay their crimes. The term you sometimes hear in dramas "Killing him won't bring her back." etc etc is a very relevant philosophy, but I prefer another analysis. Since they cannot undo the damage they caused, they should be punished for the sake of being punished aswell as to serve as a deterant. As there is no point in rehabilitating someone who cannot repay their crime they should not be placed in rehabilitation-prisons, they should instead be placed in maximum security prisons who's purpose is also to help researchers interrogate the prisoners in order to find ways of preventing others from committing the same crime. Also as the crime can never be repaid the deterant must match being extreme and it's observation accessible by the public.

I can dream of how I think people should act in a perfect efficient society, but that doesn't mean anyone will go along with it.  We like our inefficiency too much.

This beauracracy can only be eliminated by submitting an application form to our departmental chief administrator who will evaluate it in the next board meeting which will be held in six to eight weeks.  Please visit our website to print out this form and mail it with a $41 fee.  In addition, you will need to provide a copy of three proofs of identification, and a background and employment history form labelled Form-9871.  Thank you for your cooperation.    

#1 if you strongly believe that, then go to the website for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, SPP.COM

and see how america is now changing forever, thanks, mainly to "our nations" predident, Bush or Fox, whomever you feel runs this country.

It is sad when things like this, spp.com happen.

Good by America

>>1 I agree with most of this... but I have a few problems.  If you put a tax on property, what happens to people who just want to go out in the woods, build a log cabin and whatnot... and just hunt and shit? I think there should be exceptions to the property tax for woodsman or whatever you call them, so they aren't effected.

>>4
Yeah, we should defend the nation's borders.  Too many people these days think the U.S. should be subordinated to the authority of foreign governance such as the U.N.

>>6

FUCK the U.N.

>>1
Yeah local govt rules.  We should go back to that.  Also, in general, less bullshit rules and regulations... we should start repealing laws across the board.  I suggest we start with gun control, and victimless crimes (crimes in which nobody but the 'criminal' is hurt... such as seat belt laws).

www.lp.org

>>7 Hey, if you want out, by all means. We can't make you prevent your corporations from extortion of thirl-world biospheres and its human and non-human inhabitatnts, nor can we make you extend the courtesy of removing land-mines or offering a constructive solution to Gitmo. You are indebted to the UN until you need our unwavering support for invasion of resource-rich countries whose dictators you've funded, and when we don't you veto the fuck out of it. If-a y'all want ta, Go on, git. Have fun dancing solo with N. Korea.
>>7

>>10
Enjoy your corrupt circle-jerk.

Karl Rove got off a hook that a democrat would have been sliced to pieces on and you speak of corruption. I'm afraid that as long as the US persists to be a vicious, insidious government (affected to too high a degree by monetary power) watched over by an emotional populace that can't tell Australia from France, I'd rather leave it to the circle-jerkers. At least they have the decency to spunk on themselves and share a cig afterwards.

>>10
I do want out.  Unfortunately, our politicians don't. 

"extortion of thirl-world biospheres and its human and non-human inhabitatnts"

The only "extortion" going on is our shitty politicians extorting our tax dollars at government gunpoint to fund shitty anti-gun organizations like the U.N. against our will.

>>12
Two wrongs don't make a right. You should know that.

Natrium and Chloride makes for tasty salt... :(

>>14
      That is the stupidest thing ever said in the history of man.  I mean literally, and it has been said so many times it is getting really fucking dry.  the second wrong was never meant to make the situation right, it's made to make the party the first wrong was done to feel better.  That is the nature of an eye for an eye.

>>16
In context, he was speaking with the knowledge in mind that the dems are corrupt and shitty just like the republicans. 

I think he was saying that:  "just the fact that rove got off easy is no reason to vote preferentially for the corrupt dems just because rove and the republicans are slightly more corrupt."

>>17
      Yeah but two wrongs can beat the shit out of one another so giving the right a better oprotunity.  Like stalin and Hitler using eachothers forces to kill one another, Making both groups weaker and leading to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

>>16
I agree with your observation, but not your conclusion. Justice isn't about making the victims feel better, it 's about deterring and preventing crime. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but punishing criminals is not a wrong, it is a right since you are deterring future crime.

If Xel had any proof that someone in the US was committing crimes to people in another country unnoticed he could reveal it to the press for cash and press charges, but he doesn't so he just bullshits to make people think he is clever or something.

>>19 There is proof of corporations stepping on those less productive and wealth-producing, yet the corporations have a legal staff large enough to overthrow Monaco. Main-stream press in america is not that interested in corporate malpractice either. Some Indian artist made a mural depicting Coca-Cola stealing water from a poor village. Bewm, the legal staff said; it was out of line and offensive to the company's good name. They've stolen water from Uganda too, but few people know this because advertising is crowding our perception. And now, the market is to become a factor on the internet, as well. This means that websites trying to give a more nuanced view of corporative power can be circumvented and have its bandwidth oppressed. All so that our kids can get obese, safe in the cozy knowledge that they are not weird because they drink what everyone else drinks. Corporations make our lives easier, but said comforts are the result of corporations taking resources from others. We silently agree to this if we buyy products made by these corporations. The consumers are not educated or aware enough to limit the market.

>>20
That's a problem with globalization, and the governments of OTHER countries that permit coke to do that to begin with, so it's a moot point. 

The problem is clearly not American government, or Coca-Cola, but the Indian government.  Seriously, why even bring this shit up? It has little or nothing to do with the concept of a U.N., E.U., or World Government in general. 

Anything we could do for the Indians they could do for themselves if they'd patch up their shitty government and society. 

Funny how a lot of the people who believe in this stuff also say "AMERICANS SHOULDN't BE WORLD POLICE ZOMG", but as soon as our position as "world police" might dictate that we restrict the market, you are ALL FOR IT.

>>21 Consumers are in the end the real judges of Coca-Cola, so the point isn't moot, considering it wasn't an attack on capitalism, just a call for more consumer awareness. I'm not against american policiary actions per se, it's just that the operations are shady as hell, have dubious motivations and on occasion lead to pure mayhem. Lastly I don't think the market should barely restricted at all, but it must be under constant watch and at the mercy of consumers at all times.

>>22
It is the responsibility of the Indian government what happens in India, not the responsibility of American consumers or governments.  We shouldn't have to babysit the rest of the world. 

The Indian government should outlaw the practices if it is really that bad.  If it is really that bad, and nothing is getting done, blame should be placed on the Indian government, not on American consumers, businesses, or governments.  We aren't responsible for activities that happen between private companies on the soil of OTHER nations.  We are responsible for what goes on here.

>>23 This isn't about responsibility, it is about education. Do you honestly think that any government that has a shot at $ is going to say "We've got some poor villages and frail biospheres here, so mind your step!"? No, and this is only bad news for the poor 'uns. Hence, I take direct action by rejecting stupid shit I don't actually need and ask people if they do. That may not be my responsibility but I think it is. I'm doing the right thing.

>>24
Sure, but in the end, you must realize the problem isn't Coca-Cola, it's the Indian government that won't stand up for it's  citizens.

>>25
Actually Indians have no balls, they never resist violently. Mahatma only won because Britain was a democracy recoverring from a bloody world war, so now they believe accepting dick up the ass whenever someone with a gun commands them to bend over is the way forward.

>>25 So the problem isn't the bully but the parents who have their hands full with other shit? Nah, you know, the real problem is us. I'm not an enemy of the market, but the consumers need to get... better.

>>26
That's because they are stupid.  I'm not going to change my buying practices because they are a bunch of pussies willing to take it in the ass.

>>28
You're right, but they don't really take it up the ass, that's just a provocative figure of speech aimed at people who come up with irrational ideals to justify their cowardice.

>>29
Was that somehow directed at me? Capitalism is hardly a cowardly ideal. 

Cowering in the corner and begging the government for handouts is more cowardlike. 

>>1

"Why should responsible small towns not allow 18 year olds to drink?"

There's no federal law prohibiting 18 year olds from drinking, its all state. The catch is that the federal government coerced the states with money for their roadways. But I agree, it should be 18, at least for wine and beer especially in restaurants.

>>31
I think people should need to be 18 to BUY the alcohol... I don't think they should need to be to drink it.  What is so wrong with a few responsible parents here and there letting their kid have a glass of champagne on new years or something?

>>30
No, I was discussing how Indians don't have the balls to reduce corruption in their government.

>>31
That's why I said "this issue has been overlook slightly", because states can make their own laws. I believe that businesses and communities should be able to request a wide range of permits if they gain enough local support or something along those lines to alleviate the heavy hand of the government. Permits cost less red tape than new laws stating that so and so can happen here and here, but not this here and not that if this etc etc..

>>32
They can under supervision. Giving a baby whiskey of course is illegal.

>>33 A person that accepts all of capitalisms effect and refuses to change his pampered consuming is like a person that accepts all of the democrat standards without argumenting for better gun legislation: expendable, problematic and pathetic. We are spinning cogs anyway, and if many cogs decide to spin in a better direction bigger, stronger but depending cogs will spin just as well, but in a less violent and selfish direction. I'm not a fucking adbuster over here, I'm simply stating it is our fucking responsibility to make sure capitalism doesn't go haywire; sitting around with a gun or whatever it is laissez-faire fans do isn't gonna defend, help or inspire anyone, sonny jim.

>>33
"They can under supervision."

That's illegal in alot of states. From wikipedia article on drinking age:

"As of 2005, 15 states do not specifically ban underage consumption and an additional 15 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. [3]
Federal law explictly provides for religious, medical, employment and private club possession exceptions; as of 2005, 31 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage possession laws. [4]"

>>34
Problem is that money doesn't came from nowhere. You'd have to tax people very heavily to create working wellfare system. Also that system isn't exactly best thing. I don't know how it's in there Sweden, but I've got friend in Finland and he says that public healthcare there seriously sucks when compared to private one also he has told me that it's alarming trend to abuse wellfare system. Apparently Finnish economy is in really bad shape due to heavy taxation and still there isn't enough money to pay for wellfare system, so such system can be also dangerous. Note also that higher taxing also hurts more poor and rich people, but progressive taxing isn't answer either as then it's hurts middle class really badly and rich(who are often big contributors of jobs etc.) get punished for their own work. Capitalism however is system that fixes itself it's virtually indestructible and works very good even though it had darker side, but positive things outweight negative things in this case. Only true(very hard to fix too) problem in capitalism is the fact that big corporations can gain too much power.

>>36
Exactly.

>>34
Most people who have such thoughts and worries about Capitalism just don't understand it.  I don't accept your "democrat" standards.  The Democrats are a horrible party.  The more taxes there are in a system like we have here, the worse it hurts the middle and lower classes.  The largest body of tax dollars comes from the middle, and lower income classes.  If you want to help them, and boost the economy, dump the taxes and spending.  Give big-government the boot, and vote libertarian.

>>37 I don't worry any longer about capitalism, since I'm already aware of the damage it causes. Now I'm concerned with beating back capitalism from where it doesn't belong, while at the same time not handicapping it. Corporations had no plights about turning KOngo-Kinshasa into hell for profit, why isn't a corporate body capable of hurting others if it gets even further control? I just don't want to take it for granted, nor do I want to go over board with environmental legislation or unionizing.

>>38
You seem to be against free trade.  Keep in mind the following quote:  "If goods don't cross borders, armies will."

>>39 As stated, I don't want to let loose capitalism without the citizens hands firmly on the leash. Nor do I want to neuter it. Good quote though

>>40
Free trade is something I find questionable, even as a libertarian.  I like to think of myself as (more or less) an isolationist libertarian. 

I think we (the United States) have enough of our own problems that we should be working on here at home, and that sticking our nose in other people's affairs abroad should not be our big concern. 

There was an interesting article by an anti-war libertarian about the cost of the Iraq War on the U.S. economy.  It's pretty sick.  Just think, the amount of money spent on that war..  imagine if it was dished out as a tax cut across America's workers. 

It would raise the nation's standard of living significantly.  Check this out: 

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/#us

War is expensive.  $700 BILLION dollars...

If you take this sum and divide it up evenly among the 295 million americans (roughly) that live in the United States, the total per-person is: 

$2372.8813559322033898305084745763

So, roughly speaking, about 2500$/person.  Imagine what could be bought for America's families with all that money.  A few computers each family! A new used car!

If each family suddenly had that much money more in their pocket(s), and they bought things, ipods, computers, cars, bikes, goods, services, it would not only raise their standard of living, it would create a HUGE nationwide surge of demand for products. 

As the demand goes up, to step up production, employers build new factories, expand their labor forces, which in turn, creates jobs, and gets even MORE money flowing through the market.  The creative force of such a measure would be indescribably beneficial!

IMO, the Iraq War is a significant drain on the United States' productiveness.  It's like throwing our money into a black hole.  As a taxpayer, none of it is coming back to me.  It is not in my interest to pay for it.

>>41 I supported the war on principle, but considering the evidence and/or indication of corruption, conspiration, deception, subversion and the wrong kind of greed, I consider it a real stain on the credibility of the right. The fact that most of the left refused to take the high road and politicized the war as well made me turn to the libertarians. Legally, Bush and Cheney should have been impeached long ago.

>>42
The left isn't doing anything about the war.  Please don't tell me you think the democrats are anti-war.  Almost all the democrats voted for the war, and consistently do.  The democrats are not an anti-war party, regardless of all the hippies that seem to think so.  Few people seem to take into consideration that it was the DEMOCRATS who got us into the VIETNAM war, NOT the Republicans. 

Hillary Clinton, the left's Athena, not only supports the war, but supports more war with Iran.  The left is much less violent than the right. 

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html

>>42
Oh, and btw, something I forgot to put in, it was actually a REPUBLICAN who pulled us out of Vietnam, not a Democrat.

>>43

"The left is much less violent than the right."

Typo.  I meant to say "is NOT much less violent than the right."

>>43 Didn't say a word about the left being better. I hate almost every facet of the american political world. Everybody needs to stfu about God, BET network, guns, leaks, wars, making up words for each other and just settle down with some brew and discuss what is to be done.
>>44 And the republicans handled things well before the pullout? There are 14 proven cases were america has fucked over a smalle country; until I know which party was intrinsical in most of them I'm quiet. I approve of the libertarians a lot, I just hope that if they ever get to power they keep an appropriate and balanced check on the corporations.

>>46
They both are.  It's not singly either the democrats, or the republicans' fault.  It's both of them, and it's the mixed economy that breeds that kind of corruption.  Yet another reason we have to give them both the boot and vote libertarian.

o_o

>>46
Don't worry they likely won't get into power. 

Your vote on them won't be "wasted" though, as some people claim.  If the republicans see you voting libertarian, it means if they want to satisfy you and others like you they must take a more 'libertarian' approach to the issues. 

For the dems, it means they must take a less Socialist stand on the issues. 

For example: 

Republicans:  stronger stand in favor of gun rights, less corruption, less war, stronger stand for self-defense rights, more laissez-faire policy, and less gay-hating

Democrats:  More laissez-faire policy, stronger stand in favor of civil liberties, and 2nd Amendment in particular

Just to name a few.  When the two main parties see that enough people are getting disgusted with the two of them and voting 3rd party, they will likely change their policies to draw those people back in. 

Of course, there is the chance libertarians could actually get elected.  It has happened here and there.  Some run on main-party tickets to get elected as well, so you have to watch the primaries :D

There's no real difference between democrats and republican's agenda. Both aim to create a police state with big goverment. Both want to take away your freedom of speech. Only difference is that republicans are supposed to care for your gun rights and democarats supposedly care more for other civil rights, but that is lies and propaganda. Both democrats and republicans are ban crazy.

>>50
BAN THE GOVERNMENT

>>51
I have better solution. Lets reorganize our laws so that they're fully compatible with constitution then add new clause to constitution that says "no laws maybe changed or added". Instant win.

Just vote libertarian.  That's the solution.

>>53
Ahaha, I'm not throwing my vote away.  I'd rather vote for the most evil party and then whine about it for years.  Possibly I'd lie and say that I voted for the loser, so people think I'm serious business.

>>54  See post >>49

>>52
Ban laws?

>>56
Generally speaking, we have far too many bullshit laws today.  What the hell are our representatives doing?

If we don't start removing laws asap we are going to end up in either a fascist police state, or some sort of socialism.  It's like rot.  We should start removing it before it corrupts the whole system. 

>>57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28Chinese_philosophy%29

>>1
#1 Agree with the general principle but not sure if that is a precise way to define the ideal distance of government respective to the laws it covers. There are more factors at play here. You might want various levels of government and some laws lie within the grey area, like regulations on pollution, in order to cut down on bureaucracy you want a single organization with blanket laws that ignore borders, however in order to prevent the heavy hand of government you want local government which understands the intricacies of the environment in that region. Maybe these regulations should be handled on the state level? Maybe the federal government should issue guidelines and allow states to do the bear minimum to ensure safety and exceed safety standards if they wish for whatever reason. Like for instance fracking in Alaska isn't as much of a big deal as fracking in New Jersey.

#2 Same again, agree in principle but it is more complex than that. Sound reasoning but you kind of brush off on the technical details.

#3 Not the same again, I think you covered it pretty much. We treat our criminals better than the homeless, I don't understand it.

#4 Speaking of which, the current private prison system doesn't even make a profit. It really needs an overhaul, if they're going to use prison labor they need to do it properly.