Agree? Disagree? The future of the US!

Agree and disagree with the following policies and give a brief explanation if you disagree, or if you can't be botherred a general troll of this post.


Beyond a firm belief in the preservation of liberty and justice and to a lesser extent the elimination of poverty and the funding of security through the self-determination of the population, complete political freedom.

No welfare for people aged 22 and over, welfare for people aged 16+ will be aimed at keeping them out of poverty so they can get civilised and willing to work. There may also be privately owned charities to provide welfare for people aged 22+ and small state funded education programs briefing the homeless on how they can get out of their mess if they can be botherred.

Anyone can buy any arms they want, however people and communities can ask the local government to turn their property into safe zones where only their guns are allowed, which would involve building a wall and them paying for an armed security guard to check people incoming.

Complete egalitarianism and social freedom as long as it does not conflict with justice.

Ban immigration unless the immigrants are a female (or male) model, have a university degree and can pay the $100000 immigration fee.

Bribe everyone in Canada to vote in a government which will permit the US to annex the "country". When the government is voted in, everyone in Canada gets $10000 dollars from the US treasury ($320 billion for canada, good deal, like the louisiana purchase). Canada's military becomes divisions of the US military paid for by Canada, Canada's becomes a new state and it's parliament subject to the same local government friendly laws of the states in the US.

Blockade all waters and build a wall across the Mootxican border to ensure that the only thing coming in or out is trade. There will be no tariffs for trade in order to spur the free market, however foreigners must pay a fee for the government services needed to preserve justice.

Once our promises of democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan and other promises in other countries in the world are fulfilled, troops will withdraw and US troops will never again risk a US soldier's life outside US borders and seas, except in special forces roles used to protect the lives of those unlucky US politicians who have to leave the US for diplomatic or formal purposes. Countries which do not permit special forces to use any means necessary to protect the lives of US politicians will not be enterred by US politicians. Countries in which US citizens are abducted or victimised by crime will be considerred engaging in an act of aggression for intentionally failing to do enough to protect the lives of US citizens.

The US will make one last declaration to the UN declaring that if there is another terror attack on the US, no matter how elaborate the plot those responsible will be found and nuclear weapons will be used indiscriminate of the loss of human life and the nuclear, biological or chemical deterant of those the weapons are used on.

US military budget will divert towards technology and will reach extremes of secrecy apart from the occasional declaration in the UN stating their capabilities for deterant purposes. They will never lie, but will not say how they can achieve the capabilities. For instance if a space-bourne ordinance deployer is put into action, the US diplomats will say "we can detonate a 1000 kg bomb anywhere on the surface of the planet within 20 minutes and with an accuracy of 20 metres".

The US economy will divert fossil fuel resources towards a sustainable economy, large areas of unused land will be converted into solar farms and rivers will be turned into multi-stage hydro-electric power plants. This will be done by declaring that fossil fuels will run out and that people are better off investing in energy companies which are preparing for the future.

Oh and the deportation of all felons to mootxico.

>>1

"Beyond a firm belief in the preservation of liberty and justice and to a lesser extent the elimination of poverty and the funding of security through the self-determination of the population, complete political freedom."

"No welfare for people aged 22 and over, welfare for people aged 16+ will be aimed at keeping them out of poverty so they can get civilised and willing to work. There may also be privately owned charities to provide welfare for people aged 22+ and small state funded education programs briefing the homeless on how they can get out of their mess if they can be botherred."

"Anyone can buy any arms they want, however people and communities can ask the local government to turn their property into safe zones where only their guns are allowed, which would involve building a wall and them paying for an armed security guard to check people incoming."

"Complete egalitarianism and social freedom as long as it does not conflict with justice."

No.  I want individuality, not egalitarianism.  You want to turn humanity into a bunch of toy soldiers in a box?  NO thanks.

"Ban immigration unless the immigrants are a female (or male) model, have a university degree and can pay the $100000 immigration fee."

No, just enforce the laws we have now.  Pull the troops out of Iraq, and put 'em on the border.

"Bribe everyone in Canada to vote in a government which will permit the US to annex the "country". When the government is voted in, everyone in Canada gets $10000 dollars from the US treasury ($320 billion for canada, good deal, like the louisiana purchase). Canada's military becomes divisions of the US military paid for by Canada, Canada's becomes a new state and it's parliament subject to the same local government friendly laws of the states in the US."

No.  Bigger, and more centralized government over a larger area and more states is not a good idea. 

"Blockade all waters and build a wall across the Mootxican border to ensure that the only thing coming in or out is trade. There will be no tariffs for trade in order to spur the free market, however foreigners must pay a fee for the government services needed to preserve justice."

Not sure.  No tariffs sounds questionable though.  The free market can be a somewhat wild thing to unleash entirely.  We should have relatively free trade within our borders though. 

"Once our promises of democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan and other promises in other countries in the world are fulfilled, troops will withdraw and US troops will never again risk a US soldier's life outside US borders and seas, except in special forces roles used to protect the lives of those unlucky US politicians who have to leave the US for diplomatic or formal purposes. Countries which do not permit special forces to use any means necessary to protect the lives of US politicians will not be enterred by US politicians. Countries in which US citizens are abducted or victimised by crime will be considerred engaging in an act of aggression for intentionally failing to do enough to protect the lives of US citizens."

Sounds good except for the last sentence.  Not really our business what goes on in other countries, and, in the case of Iraq, and Afghanistan, I certainly don't want to have to pay for it. 

"The US will make one last declaration to the UN declaring that if there is another terror attack on the US, no matter how elaborate the plot those responsible will be found and nuclear weapons will be used indiscriminate of the loss of human life and the nuclear, biological or chemical deterant of those the weapons are used on."

The U.N. sucks but so does this idea.

"US military budget will divert towards technology and will reach extremes of secrecy apart from the occasional declaration in the UN stating their capabilities for deterant purposes. They will never lie, but will not say how they can achieve the capabilities. For instance if a space-bourne ordinance deployer is put into action, the US diplomats will say "we can detonate a 1000 kg bomb anywhere on the surface of the planet within 20 minutes and with an accuracy of 20 metres".

No.  Military spending here is too high as it is. 

"The US economy will divert fossil fuel resources towards a sustainable economy, large areas of unused land will be converted into solar farms and rivers will be turned into multi-stage hydro-electric power plants. This will be done by declaring that fossil fuels will run out and that people are better off investing in energy companies which are preparing for the future."

If they do so voluntarilly.  It shouldn't be forced.  This isn't a command economy. 

>>3
Just an explanation is needed.

"We shouldn't ... because..."

I should have been more specific, I meant legal egalitarianism and meritocratic egalitarianism within the constraints of liberty. Meaning that people can make legally binding deals to ensure the success and legitimacy of a company, so that if an employer in that company chooses an unqualified person over a qualified person he must be answerable to the shareholders.

The laws we have now concerning immigration do not take into account the fact that the gdp per capita will decrease as more people enter the country and consume our meager resources. Once fossil fuels go, the gdp per capita will be immensely low. As long as other countries do not share our values or have not been annexed by the United States, it is unfair on us to have free-immigration with them.

I believe that we should annex Canada through bribery, it's just easier for both of us. Canada can keep their counties and states if they want, just so long as they participate in laws which e are better off both with. If not we will have to erect another expensive border with customs checks etc etc with Canada.

I believe that the US should compete with the rest of the world on an economic level, the more competition the more efficient the economy. What's the point in growing coffee in florida when it is easier to grow it in Columbia and trade it for high-tech goods? Tariffs only serve to corrupt the market and mercantilism is unfair. My security policies are merely there to secure the US from unfair threats from the rest of the whining terrorist barbaric world because it is unfair on us, regardless we must still be fair on the rest of the world such are our values.

Military superpowers in the past have sprung up almost literally over night, just a few years of military expansion. 5 years turned Germany into a huge threat, it happenned so quickly the French were almost apathetic. As a democracy we must stay light years ahead of everyone else and explore every avenue of military applications possible so we are prepared when someone else does.

They should do so voluntarily which is why I said that people should be encouraged to buy shares in energy companies that are investing in the future. As part of the preservation of justice the govenrment must inform the public of something important as the finite supply of the fuel that our economy depends on. I am sure that is all that is needed for energy companies and new energy companies to start preparing to capitalise on the energy supply of the future by constructing renewable energy sources now.

This thread smells of fascism.

me likes it