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.

>>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.