what form of goverment do u prefer?

[Praise_Google1]

what goverment do u prefer or phiosiphise about? for me its communism

[Alice Shade]

O rly?

_____________

Frankly, I`m not sure, what kind of philosophy could be concieved with such atrocious language skills. Luddism, maybe?

In any case, it`s pretty hard to sum up my political ideas. I was born in USSR, and I know by firsthand experience both communism and democracy. Can`t say that either is particularly bad or good. And while I would certainly appreciate the order and hierarchy of communism (Which, in it`s ideal form, is meritocracy.), civil liberties of democracy quite make up for haphazard way of decision-making.

I believe I would pick moderately-socialistic society, if I were picking, at the moment. Something similar to governmental systems of Scandinavian and Benilux countries (Canada and Australia too, to a lesser extent).

"Rabid" democracy, like in USA, is quite an outdated system, and on a big scale, appears to be a breeding ground for civil dissent (just look at the religion and all the bullcrap associated with it right now), and rigid communism, similar to that practiced in USSR is simply too advanced and alien governmental structure for humankind to apply it in rational way.

[Digs]

Well, to be fair to communists, what the Soviet Union was doing was a pretty bad job of communism. All the collectivist nations thus far have been terrible at it.

I'd like to think an ideal government would do very little. Prevent violence, theft, etc. Democratic, but the vote would need to be controlled, either by requiring anyone who would like to vote to serve the nation in some way, perhaps through civil or military service; or by some kind of periodic test of the worth of the voter, perhaps a battery of intelligence tests. Elections would be direct; electoral colleges are a bankrupt idea in this modern, pan-Terran communicative world. Victory in elections would be decided by plurality. The government would be stringently secular but would not oppress any belief that did not infringe upon the rights of others.

Since its only job would be to prevent economic or physical violence, it could commit itself to these problems with real resolve and do a pretty solid job of preventing them, as much as can be done, or stopping them once they come up. Taxation would be fairly low because of the smaller pile of duties.

Information would be restricted in no way. There would be no concept of intellectual property. One of the state's duties would be to provide funds to intellectuals just to make stuff up. I expect this would be a great deal of money, and the government would need to check in with all the researchers from time to time and evaluate their work using qualified evaluators.

As for the shape its leadership would take, probably three parliamentary bodies of approximately equal power, each with some power over the other. Perhaps legislative, judicial and executive bodies, though this could be further refined. No individual would have real leadership of these bodies, but there would be a marshal of some kind of handle the proceedings.

No political party would be officially recognised. Once a candidate could show that enough people would be interested in that person rising to government, that person's run would be paid for by the government.

Its economic system would likely be laissez-faire unless an individual could be found to have committed a crime.

Regarding the judicial system, there should be no division between that of the military and civilian, though any decisions that require immediate action - and the inevitable responsibility for that action - would fall to whoever has highest authority in the area.

[Alice Shade]

Uh. Digs, you might want to rethink your recepy.

What you suggest is more or less military dictatorship.

[Digs]

It's weird you'd say that, military dictatorships usually have governments controlled entirely by a dictator, who places a strong emphasis on military prowess.

I guess the voting requirement bit might sound a little centralist. I had meant that the term of public service, which could - and more than likely, would - be served in a civil capacity, would be for a brief period. Maybe a year or so to earn suffrage. Just something to illustrate that the person in question really cares about the nation and that the person's interests align with the nation's.

[Kokoba]

I'm all for small nations with small governments, working together in a loose collaboration on the international level (kind of like the EU). I think humanity's overshot its "ideal" size and outgrown its niche; we need to start scaling things down.

[punkinside]

Well, being an anarchist at heart, I do obviously believe in small government. Like Kokoba, I believe the optimal political organization is a large federation of rather small and very independent regions/states united by a very limited federal government.

I believe the responsibilities of the state have to be limited to providing the public with free, high quality and universal education, security (both economic and personal) and an independent justice system (that could be mangled in with the security thing but I feel I should mention it), the operation of all of these would, of course, require some level of taxation. But I don't think this should be regarded as mandatory since this is the base of what everyone should have to provide equal opportunities to all citizens.

A free, high quality, secular, universal and MANDATORY education system is what would save us from that Digs-ocracy. With universal access to education, equal opportunity arises and then natural selection comes into play of course, thats life: a few winners, a whole lot of losers!

In economic matters I largely believe in laissez-faire, with of course some anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations set in place.

Until now, my observations lead me to believe that a parliamentary democracy, with a separate weak head of state/ weak head of government (prime minister or chancellor), and a strong parliament and courts is the way to go.

In matters of security each state in the federation would be in charge of keeping the peace within its borders, and there would be a federal army for matters of international defence consisting of a small permanent body and reserves that have to attend training/exercises at least twice a month to keep them on their toes. Of course all of it voluntary! If not enough people want to defend the country, they can be invaded and destroyed for all I care.

Intellectual property would of course exist, in the age of information and knowledge, it is these resources that will drive any economy in the centuries to come. Though I would also provide the government with the right to fund scientific projects deemed (by the population, in a general election) to be of national interest.

As to political parties, I'm undecided... if like-minded people want to come under the same standard and let the population know it, why not? Though I can see this system seems to be breaking down.

And what else? I don't know hehe

[Alice Shade]

Well, let`s sum points a bit.

Digs - your idea would be very easily subverted into a military dictatorship. Why? You base your idea of government on assumption, that people are naturally willing to work towards common good. This is simply not so.

So, in the system like yours, following would happen. First of all, military will instantly form a majority of voters. No soldier wants to be sent on a deathwish mission (which is more then viable even in peaceful environment), thus, all of them will vote for whom their commanders will tell them to. Thus, marchal of army gets undisputed vote from whole army.

First step of dictatorship is placed. Following occurs - army is used as a leverage to make sure civil posts offering voting rights are assigned only to "right" people.

Then, science is centralised. As government controls the entirety of country resources by now, it has the most powerful research, and consequentally, can adapt and enhance any private research (which is not protected by law), much faster then independant inventers. Which, insures technological superiority of governmental forces in any event.

And as a final stage, system gets rigid. Military and scientific circles become casts, with very limited exchange, and whole system slowly ossifies into either monarchy, either teocracy, with obvious incoming regress.


Kokoba, punkinside - While I do agree, that from personal point of view, small independant countries are quite good solution, as we can see in Europe, there is one problem. Namely, small independant countries would not be able to support large-scale projects. All the space exploration would be more or less shut down.

As for intellectial property, I think I`d suggest a profit patent system. Namely, once someone invents/researches something, it should be patented. This patent ensures, that the original inventor receives their share of profits/credit, should the patented concept be used in the manufacturing/research. Patents should be nestled. Aka, if patent is based on existing ones, those old ones get subsequent share from income. Obviously, all patents should have author rights expire in 100 years, after which concept becomes public domain.

[Digs]

While it's true that corruption is almost certainly not avoidable, in the case of the theoretical government I proposed I would think the corruption would be of more of a civil nature, really. Unless there was an overwhelming need for military power, like some nation nearby annexing weaker nations, there would very likely be many more civil jobs that needed filling. You'd wind up with jerks giving other jerks, say, government contracts at unreasonable rates, but probably not a military dictatorship. Perhaps one of the three elected parliamentary units could set limited parameters for the size of the military, the police, the firemen, whatever's needed. Put in some provisions for voting to modify the parameters as is necessary, and maybe toss in emergency and inherently temporary ability to increase their number as a situation may call for. As for actually battling corruption, perhaps each parliamentary body could have a unit to mind the affairs of the other two, to make sure they don't do anything too ridiculously corrupt. Watchmen for the watchmen.

Political parties could still be a thing the public did, of course, but the government would not recognise them in any official capacity.

Ooh, I hadn't really said anything about it, but amp the education up to eleven. Smarter people are more likely to make better decisions. I guess I'd included it mentally with research, as one needs strong, willing, open minds to advance knowledge.

[Alice Shade]

Watching each other is a good idea, except that now you`re just describing simplified USA structure.

Legislative, Executive and Judial branches. Each watches other two.

[punkinside]

Kokoba, punkinside - While I do agree, that from personal point of view, small independant countries are quite good solution, as we can see in Europe, there is one problem. Namely, small independant countries would not be able to support large-scale projects. All the space exploration would be more or less shut down.


Well, if they can't... they can't. Though the so-called "large-scale" projects would of course have to be a joint venture of the whole federation, that's why I said that such projects needed to be approved by the public, and I'm even thinking of a qualified majority requirement, sure that would send a lot of projects down the tube, but if a supposedly educated public doesn't want it, then fuck them, their choice!


As for intellectial property, I think I`d suggest a profit patent system. Namely, once someone invents/researches something, it should be patented. This patent ensures, that the original inventor receives their share of profits/credit, should the patented concept be used in the manufacturing/research. Patents should be nestled. Aka, if patent is based on existing ones, those old ones get subsequent share from income. Obviously, all patents should have author rights expire in 100 years, after which concept becomes public domain.

While I do agree with you on this, the "trade secret" should be also protected, though I would also set a limit to how much you could milk it, similar to the time limit set in the patents.

[Alice Shade]

What bars you from patenting trade secret?

[punkinside]

What bars you from patenting trade secret?

Its two different things... the recipe for Coca-Cola is not patented, they just don't tell anyone. That's the difference between a patent and a trade secret. A patent calls for you to describe in detail the workings of your invention, people can use it provided they pay royalties to you, a trade secret is used by no-one but you because nobody else knows how to do it.

[Alice Shade]

Well, you can deny the right to use patented concept to anyone you don`t particularly like.

As with trade secret, it`s pretty tough to protect something secret - you`d have no proof it WAS your secret in first place, if you don`t tell anyone.

[punkinside]

But patents still require that you describe in detail your invention to others, even if you tell them they can't use it without paying you, you'd waste resources going after those who attempt to bypass patent laws. With trade secrets, as long as you can keep others from knowing what you do, then you have no problem.

If your "trade secret" infringes patents then its the job of the patent holder to take you to court.

[Alice Shade]

Point is, that if you keep it a trade secret, and someone finds it out, and patents it, you can kiss it goodbye.

[punkinside]

Exactly, so you better keep it good! Thats how it is right now also so... not much change there.

[Kokoba]

Kokoba, punkinside - While I do agree, that from personal point of view, small independant countries are quite good solution, as we can see in Europe, there is one problem. Namely, small independant countries would not be able to support large-scale projects. All the space exploration would be more or less shut down.

The large-scale projects would be developed, funded, and worked on by the larger international organization levels, like punk mentioned earlier. I don't know how the EU handles stuff like that, but the EU is only a rough approximation of what I think would be ideal. And I mean, the idea of people working together towards one common, international goal...I think it's kind of unifying. It gives me the warm fuzzies. :)

Now, I'm sure in cases like that (like, 10 countries working together to try to build a space station) there would be some amount of bickering and dead ends and unwillingness to cooperate given different goals, but I would hope after some amount of time in this loose federation system, leaders would have developed the diplomacy and negotiation skills needed to smooth out most of the bumps...and the countries would have begun to foster closer, more harmonious relationships rather than antagonistic.

[Alice Shade]

International organisations dealing with large-scale projects would have enough of resources and spunk to try and unite all countries into one big with them as government.

Thus, turning your idea of country unions into technocratic totalitatian conglomerate.

[Digs]

Keeping things like trade secrets decrease the overall efficiency of work being done on the whole.

Watching each other is a good idea, except that now you`re just describing simplified USA structure.

You're certainly correct, but I don't think it's strictly necessary to reinvent the concept of the wheel every time you want to design a new car. The system we use here in America is pretty okay, although it could do with some tweaking. Liken it to our car's, uh, suspension needing some work, perhaps new, more advanced dampers for the ever-bumpy road of the future.

[Alice Shade]

Well, that is reasonable.

Though, USA sure could do with an elephant`s dose of secularism.

[punkinside]

International organisations dealing with large-scale projects would have enough of resources and spunk to try and unite all countries into one big with them as government.

Thus, turning your idea of country unions into technocratic totalitatian conglomerate.

Doubt it. The EU is the model we've been citing as our example, please explain how you see the EU, with all its *joint* large scale projects ( Intl. Space Station, Airbus, CERN, etc. ) is on the way of becoming a "technocratic totalitatian[sic] conglomerate"?

Keeping things like trade secrets decrease the overall efficiency of work being done on the whole.



You're certainly correct, but I don't think it's strictly necessary to reinvent the concept of the wheel every time you want to design a new car. The system we use here in America is pretty okay, although it could do with some tweaking. Liken it to our car's, uh, suspension needing some work, perhaps new, more advanced dampers for the ever-bumpy road of the future.

I don't see the U.S. as such a good example, in spite of all its "wonderful" checks and balances, the system still relies more power on a single person (the president) than a parliamentary democracy places on any one individual. And we can see how the "checks and balances" are easily worked around when a single party controls all Powers. Just look at it: the republicans controlled congress and the white house, all the while Bush had the luck of getting two nominations to the already conservative supreme court, and all his crimes have gone unpunished and even applauded. But Clinton gets his cock sucked in the oval office and the guy that presided over the best years of the US economy almost gets fired.

[Alice Shade]

Eh.

EU divides tasks between themselves.

That is a bit different, then creating a internationally-wide company to carry out global projects.

[punkinside]

Eh.

EU divides tasks between themselves.

That is a bit different, then creating a internationally-wide company to carry out global projects.

Airbus is an International company which stock is divided between some of the Govts of the EU, last I heard, they're still bickering over who gets to assemble the A-380 (they all want the "jobs" for themselves), after they reach a compromise, I'm sure no one will be happy! politics at its finest :D

CERN is another pan-european enterprise in which 20 of the members have a stake, no dividing going on there, they're all working together there.

These are the type of organizations I mean. No-one of the single european countries is able to fund such projects all by themselves but together they're very powerful entities.

[Alice Shade]

Once again - they bicker over who gets to do what.

Your suggestion was about pan-european organisation which has the autohrity to assign the jobs as it sees fit, as far as I understood suggestion.

[punkinside]

Once again - they bicker over who gets to do what.

Your suggestion was about pan-european organisation which has the autohrity to assign the jobs as it sees fit, as far as I understood suggestion.

It would not come to that, it being an international company, the interests of any single major stockholder would have to be upheld, hence the bickering!

[Digs]

I don't see the U.S. as such a good example, in spite of all its "wonderful" checks and balances, the system still relies more power on a single person (the president) than a parliamentary democracy places on any one individual. And we can see how the "checks and balances" are easily worked around when a single party controls all Powers. Just look at it: the republicans controlled congress and the white house, all the while Bush had the luck of getting two nominations to the already conservative supreme court, and all his crimes have gone unpunished and even applauded. But Clinton gets his cock sucked in the oval office and the guy that presided over the best years of the US economy almost gets fired.


I figure the American executive branch was set to be effectively operating under the word of one person because that's faster and doesn't really require the deliberation that a parliamentary body does. It allows for rapid response to all manner of possible disasters. Still, I agree, no single person should have Real Ultimate Power in government. Let whoever is onsite handle the immediate response, and the parliamentary executive body can handle what should happen thereafter, or a bureau previously set up and empowered by the executive body can.

Regarding the tyranny of the majority, mneh. What can one really do? It's democracy or the tyranny of a tiny minority, a minority perhaps named Joseph Stalin or Henry I/VI or whoever. At least in my proposed government the majority, that tyrant, demonstrates(or at the very least makes a show of doing so) an interest in the continued operation of the nation. A true meritocracy would be best, of course, but the question is how?

[Alice Shade]

Not exactly, Digs.

Tyranny of Majority, as you put it, is the ideal of Athena` Democracy.

Yet, the current system is still a tyranny of minority. Who, with all their resources are quite apt in swindling majority into letting them reign on.

[Fallen Hero]

I prefer scandinavian style socialism. too far left and too far right is just wrong.

[Rand]

Take America's Government.

Reinforce separation between church and state. All decisions regarding rights, laws, etc. must be logic based. Ethic based is NOT required, but is a strong support for logic based items of deciding.

Operations such as Google Street View may not be advanced to a constant stream of video (No big brother stuff).

Spending must go first and foremost to science in a time of peace, specifically health and space sciences. Reasoning: At this point in time, the human race needs to expand. After science comes education, followed by security/emergency services, medical, building, then common sense funding the rest of the way down.

In a time of war, funding to military operations becomes higher priority, coming behind building (assuming the war is like the war now, not in America).

Jail system: If a person is sentenced to death, they have one appeal, that's it. After their one appeal, they have up to two days to live and enjoy what they can of life, including one last meal. Method of death will be lethal injection for all cases. Criminals who commit crimes that yield a "for life" sentence will put in low quality prisons and treated as subhumans: forced to work ten hours, given low quality (yet healthy) food, and given no entertainment other than board games.

Immigration: Illegal Immigrants will not be given amnesty, but will be allowed to live in America given they follow special rules.

1. Their children, if born in the United States, will take the citizenship of their parents. If their parents are illegals, they are illegals.

2. Illegal Immigrants may not attend public schools or qualify for free public services that citizens are.

3. Illegal Immigrants may only work in low quality jobs and get paid less than a citizen of the same job. If a citizen wishes to have a job at a low quality work place and they have no spots, the company shall open a spot at the cost of an illegal employee.

Illegal Immigrants can, at any time, return to their country and enter the United States a legal way. If Illegals are caught breaking any rules, they will be sentenced to up to a year in jail and then deported.

Health Care: National Health Care will be optional! The government will increase your taxes in order to pay for the health care only if you choose to have national health care.

Education: It is REQUIRED that citizens graduate from either of the specialty schools. At 8th grade students will be tested to see potential. Depending on their potential, they will either attend an Academic school or an Apprentice school for four years. Immense funding will be flowed towards education, promising high quality teaching. Religious topics will be allowed as study classes, but not worship (in other words, have a class for World Religions or Christianity, but it's to learn about the religion, not to worship it).

More to add later, I guess. Sorry for length, I like these sort of topics. I'm not sure what this would be considered.. I'd say it's my modified American Government.. but I'm not sure.

[Alice Shade]

I`d say it`s potently silly to make rules for ILLEGAL immigrants.

All ILLEGAL immigrants are subjects to immediate deportation, simple as that.

[Rand]

If we deported them, the economy of this governed state could go haywire if it is already using Illegal immigrant labor. Illegal immigrant labor is one step down from slave labor, if you think about it. That's something companies like, very very cheap labor. Goods and Services from these companies would rise in cost. With laws, you can optimize Illegal Immigrant labor. They break the rules, the committee that deals with those sorts of crimes will determine a time (up to a year) in jail and the immigrant spends it, then is deported.

It's the whole Logos required thing... though it might not be ethical to put these laws in place and restrict them this way in some peoples opinions, it is logically a good idea.

[Alice Shade]

No, that`s fallacious point.

If all illegal immigrants were deported, that would`ve provoked significant rise in number of legal immigrants.

Companies, on the other side, would lose the ability to lay off citisens to use illegal immigrants instead.

That would`ve produced only small changes in product costs, overall.

[Rand]

Though I do see what you are saying, all I'm trying to do is make life hard for people who live in the country illegally. Thus, not letting them the rights that a normal citizen has. If you booted all the illegal immigrants out of the country (somehow), they'd either come in legally or come back in illegally again. If they came in illegally once, why wouldn't they do it again? If they became active citizens like everyone else, then that's just great. More taxes, more money, good.

HOWEVER

Booting out all illegal immigrants is a bitch of a thing to do. You could do it, but getting everyone to do it, giving them more work... it's a hassle.

[Alice Shade]

Oh, it is actually solved very simply.

Any illegal immigrant is deported only two times. If they are caught for the third time, they get life sentence in work camps, or are shot on the spot.

Of course, that is only needed, if there IS a need to protect borders.

____

Actually, there is a very interesting solution to that problem.

Once over 50% of citisens illegally immigrate in another country, they all become citisens, and their native country is annexed into the country they all immigrated to. (Aka, Mexican imigrants would cause Mexico becoming part of USA before long.)

[-AoG-Kero]

wow i didnt know that 50% thing, but would the would-be illegal immigrants move back to their respective towns once mexico was part of the U.S.?

i mean if they didnt, mexico would remain low-populated, and alot more people would move from low-class towns to big cities and stuf...

[Rand]

I'll agree to that 3 strikes rule... much more favorable to put them in a labor camp than shoot them.

I don't think the USA would benefit much from adding Mexico into it. Too much debt.. too much hassle. If anything, California should be its own country, has such a powerful economy (which can be credited to Illegal Immigrant labor).

Solve everything and convert to 1984 style government. Everyone ended up happy in the end... or else.

[Alice Shade]

Mexico is overpopulated as is - this is why it has so big emigration ratios.

And if it became a part of USA, it`s economy and infrastructure would be updated pretty significantly.

[Rand]

And if it became a part of USA, it`s economy and infrastructure would be updated pretty significantly.

I'm not so sure.. but I am not confident in my own knowledge of the subject.

[-AoG-Kero]

I'll agree to that 3 strikes rule... much more favorable to put them in a labor camp than shoot them.

I don't think the USA would benefit much from adding Mexico into it. Too much debt.. too much hassle. If anything, California should be its own country, has such a powerful economy (which can be credited to Illegal Immigrant labor).

Solve everything and convert to 1984 style government. Everyone ended up happy in the end... or else.

plus they have plenty of worries all by themselves. You cant look at anything anymore and not see "known in the state of california to cause...(cancer or w/e)

my freakin CHRISTMAS LIGHTS had a warning from cali. that said it may cause birth defects >_>

[punkinside]

I figure the American executive branch was set to be effectively operating under the word of one person because that's faster and doesn't really require the deliberation that a parliamentary body does.


Hmmm so unilateral, undeliberated actions are good?


It allows for rapid response to all manner of possible disasters.


A guy in Washington can respond more quickly to a disaster in New Orleans (hint, hint) faster than the local authorities with enough resources to do so?


Still, I agree, no single person should have Real Ultimate Power in government. Let whoever is onsite handle the immediate response, and the parliamentary executive body can handle what should happen thereafter, or a bureau previously set up and empowered by the executive body can.


On site. Not the president in Washington. Less power in D.C., more power to the local authorities.


Regarding the tyranny of the majority, mneh. What can one really do? It's democracy or the tyranny of a tiny minority, a minority perhaps named Joseph Stalin or Henry I/VI or whoever. At least in my proposed government the majority, that tyrant, demonstrates(or at the very least makes a show of doing so) an interest in the continued operation of the nation. A true meritocracy would be best, of course, but the question is how?

This is a clear false dichotomy: we don't have to choose between democracy and autocracy/dictatorships/monarchy. Representative Democracy is not the be-all, end-all of political systems y'know?

Take America's Government.


Ugh, off to a bad start already.


Reinforce separation between church and state. All decisions regarding rights, laws, etc. must be logic based. Ethic based is NOT required, but is a strong support for logic based items of deciding.


Here we agree.


Operations such as Google Street View may not be advanced to a constant stream of video (No big brother stuff).

Well, I don't think the government should meddle into what industry can or can't do (if its not to do with the environment of course), educated consumers should realize that the fate of any one company lies in their hands.


Spending must go first and foremost to science in a time of peace, specifically health and space sciences. Reasoning: At this point in time, the human race needs to expand. After science comes education, followed by security/emergency services, medical, building, then common sense funding the rest of the way down.

Education must come first, R&D is best done by the private industry, which will without doubt feed from the stream of excellent young individuals coming out of the free, universal and high quality education centres of our dear Utopia. Like I said before, government has absolutely no need to pour billions of dollars into these projects, and those billions have a myriad of better uses.

If "the human race needs to expand" let the real estate industry fund those projects so they can sell houses on the moon if they want to.



Jail system: If a person is sentenced to death, they have one appeal, that's it. After their one appeal, they have up to two days to live and enjoy what they can of life, including one last meal. Method of death will be lethal injection for all cases. Criminals who commit crimes that yield a "for life" sentence will put in low quality prisons and treated as subhumans: forced to work ten hours, given low quality (yet healthy) food, and given no entertainment other than board games.

No individual or group of individuals has the right to take the life of another human being, and I believe there are far worse punishments than death. I think all persons sentenced to jail must be put to work 10 hours a day, but the job they do will be according to their ability. A cracker sent to jail for wreaking havoc in some computer system should work to help secure it, and so on. Of course their work would have to be closely watched and audited.

I don't think the state should spend a dime on punishing wrongdoers, they should pay for every penny of their stay. A person that kills another person and sentenced to any amount of time should compensate the family or if there is none, the employer of the murdered individual through labour.


Immigration: Illegal Immigrants will not be given amnesty, but will be allowed to live in America given they follow special rules.

1. Their children, if born in the United States, will take the citizenship of their parents. If their parents are illegals, they are illegals.

2. Illegal Immigrants may not attend public schools or qualify for free public services that citizens are.

3. Illegal Immigrants may only work in low quality jobs and get paid less than a citizen of the same job. If a citizen wishes to have a job at a low quality work place and they have no spots, the company shall open a spot at the cost of an illegal employee.

Illegal Immigrants can, at any time, return to their country and enter the United States a legal way. If Illegals are caught breaking any rules, they will be sentenced to up to a year in jail and then deported.

I hate this, why does everybody blame the immigrants? They're taking our jobs! booohoooo, why do they work for so cheap? booohoooo.

Why do they go wherever it is they go? BECAUSE THEY FIND JOBS THERE. The laws should not punish those that come looking for jobs but those that give them! Start cracking down on "citizens" that employ illegal aliens and you'll see the stream slowing to a trickle. Why do they take advantage of free services? because you're all soooooo concerned about "privacy" that you can't allow a national identity card, sure, they can still get a "fake" one, but that I'm sure won't be free and will definitely weed out the rest that still crossed over after all the people that give jobs to illegals are in jail and they don't find any more work.


Health Care: National Health Care will be optional! The government will increase your taxes in order to pay for the health care only if you choose to have national health care.

Either you have socialized health care or you don't. "Optional" is a sure-fire way kill any form of socialized health care, because those who can afford it will surely not pay it and those who can't afford it will be equally left behind. With little funding only the worst will opt to work in such a system, only creating more distrust for it, sending the figures even more towards the center of the earth. in essence.. you have to pick a side there I'm afraid.


Education: It is REQUIRED that citizens graduate from either of the specialty schools.

And if they don't want to? Bill Gates didn't graduate from college, my father didn't finish high school... smart, a degree does not make!


Immense funding will be flowed towards education, promising high quality teaching.


Something we agree on at last. Education must be the first and foremost priority of government.

[Rand]

Ugh, off to a bad start already.

I hate it too, but it is a decent template.

Well, I don't think the government should meddle into what industry can or can't do (if its not to do with the environment of course), educated consumers should realize that the fate of any one company lies in their hands.

The big thing I meant was, as in 1984, the secret police spied on the people through telescreens. Privacy was a big no no. I just don't want that to happen, so, restrict it while it is young. Now that I think about it.. I guess you could make the government just not use it.. but I'd prefer, in my preferred form of government, to not have it.

Education must come first, R&D is best done by the private industry, which will without doubt feed from the stream of excellent young individuals coming out of the free, universal and high quality education centres of our dear Utopia. Like I said before, government has absolutely no need to pour billions of dollars into these projects, and those billions have a myriad of better uses.

If "the human race needs to expand" let the real estate industry fund those projects so they can sell houses on the moon if they want to.

Fair enough. But presently we can't massively colonize the moon, other planets, or anywhere in space for that matter, which is why I put money to science first, but I guess education could yield an equal or greater effect.

No individual or group of individuals has the right to take the life of another human being, and I believe there are far worse punishments than death. I think all persons sentenced to jail must be put to work 10 hours a day, but the job they do will be according to their ability. A cracker sent to jail for wreaking havoc in some computer system should work to help secure it, and so on. Of course their work would have to be closely watched and audited.

I don't think the state should spend a dime on punishing wrongdoers, they should pay for every penny of their stay. A person that kills another person and sentenced to any amount of time should compensate the family or if there is none, the employer of the murdered individual through labour.

I believe that when a human being is sentenced to death, the crime they committed forfeited their right to life. My own personal belief, just like religion. I guess making them work in labor camps would be more effective anyways.

I hate this, why does everybody blame the immigrants? They're taking our jobs! booohoooo, why do they work for so cheap? booohoooo.

Why do they go wherever it is they go? BECAUSE THEY FIND JOBS THERE. The laws should not punish those that come looking for jobs but those that give them! Start cracking down on "citizens" that employ illegal aliens and you'll see the stream slowing to a trickle. Why do they take advantage of free services? because you're all soooooo concerned about "privacy" that you can't allow a national identity card, sure, they can still get a "fake" one, but that I'm sure won't be free and will definitely weed out the rest that still crossed over after all the people that give jobs to illegals are in jail and they don't find any more work.

Not blaming the immigrants one bit. The illegal immigrants are the ones I'm blaming. I personally don't like the idea of people sneaking into our country, having kids and letting the kids have an easy ride. It's not that hard to come into the country legally. But sure, the government could crack down on those companies as well.

Either you have socialized health care or you don't. "Optional" is a sure-fire way kill any form of socialized health care, because those who can afford it will surely not pay it and those who can't afford it will be equally left behind. With little funding only the worst will opt to work in such a system, only creating more distrust for it, sending the figures even more towards the center of the earth. in essence.. you have to pick a side there I'm afraid.

Right then, no national health care. *shrug*

And if they don't want to? Bill Gates didn't graduate from college, my father didn't finish high school... smart, a degree does not make!

All it requires is the completion of high school. Academic and Apprenticeship school are just the two branches of high school. It doesn't hurt to have at least that much education. It could lessen stupidity. But then there are those people who just don't care about school what so ever and refuse to do anything. Don't know what to do with those people. The purpose of this requirement is to minimize stupidity. Never know until it happens.

[punkinside]

I hate it too, but it is a decent template.


I think the government of the US today is a far cry of what Thomas Jefferson or George Washington had in mind... that could not necessarily be a bad thing, sadly though, it is.


The big thing I meant was, as in 1984, the secret police spied on the people through telescreens. Privacy was a big no no. I just don't want that to happen, so, restrict it while it is young. Now that I think about it.. I guess you could make the government just not use it.. but I'd prefer, in my preferred form of government, to not have it.

The difference here is what the government used the information for and the availability of it. If it is publicly available then it is fair play for the government to have a look, and if the majority of people don't like it they can force any company to stop doing it. The no-no for me is government funding such projects.



Fair enough. But presently we can't massively colonize the moon, other planets, or anywhere in space for that matter, which is why I put money to science first, but I guess education could yield an equal or greater effect.


Nobody said not putting money into science, I said not putting public money into R&D that isn't properly approved by a qualified majority.


I believe that when a human being is sentenced to death, the crime they committed forfeited their right to life. My own personal belief, just like religion. I guess making them work in labor camps would be more effective anyways.

Rights are rights. The death penalty carries too many stigmas with it, including the wrongful death of innocent people, which, IMO makes the whole argument tumble down. I'm afraid that in the majority of cases, one cannot be 100% certain beyond any sort doubt that a person committed a crime, and the loss of a single innocent life is completely unacceptable. If an innocent person is sentenced to the labour camps, they're at least still alive and able to sue the shit out of the government if they want to.



Not blaming the immigrants one bit. The illegal immigrants are the ones I'm blaming. I personally don't like the idea of people sneaking into our country, having kids and letting the kids have an easy ride. It's not that hard to come into the country legally. But sure, the government could crack down on those companies as well.


I'm only talking about illegals. I can agree that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens, but the rub lies in that they emigrate from their home countries illegally because they see opportunity, which should be illegal to give them, even more than the act of taking the opportunity.



Right then, no national health care. *shrug*


Good.



All it requires is the completion of high school. Academic and Apprenticeship school are just the two branches of high school. It doesn't hurt to have at least that much education.


I have a problem with forcing supposedly free people to do anything, like I said, my father never even finished the second year of high school and did well enough to give me & my family a very good life, just by working harder and better than other people.


... But then there are those people who just don't care about school what so ever and refuse to do anything. Don't know what to do with those people.


Nothing, they:

a) become criminals and end up in our dear forced labour camp
b) starve to death

The thing here is, if someone is unwilling to get an education and unwilling to work their ass off, forcing them is not going to get them much farther than their own ambitions.


The purpose of this requirement is to minimize stupidity. Never know until it happens.

Stupidity we can do nothing about, it is ignorance that we can curve. If education is freely accessible and high quality, they just need to show up and do well... if they don't want to, their problem.

[Alice Shade]

Well...

You are both wrong about education.

Main purpose of education is two-fold. It is needed to assess the mental qualities of person as much as to give the information.

While school education is more or less bona fide basics that everyone should know, college/university education is geared more towards teaching person to conduct research on their own and meet deadlines.

I think that both should be mandatory, governmentally-funded, and closely tied with research facilites (intersecting, if possible).

In our age, there is much less demand for low-qualified masses of workforce, and much more demand for highly-qualified specialists. Therefore, there is now considerably less options for the low end of job market.

Frankly, if you`re smart enough, you`ll get through college with little problem. Don`t take that janitor spot. Someone with retardation would need it more, and be suited to it more.

___

As for illegals - I think my suggestion about >50% equalling annexion would work pretty good in this case.

Otherwise, just deport them.

On a side note, I`m a bit stumped about how this problem is in first place. I take it that you in USA have no need in documents to hire out?

Here in former USSR, everyone has "workbook" - a special document, which contains the listing of all places you worked at, including the term of your work there, assessment of level of that work, and reason why you left/was fired.

No "workbook" - no job, simple as that.

___

I COMPLETELY disagree with you on social medicine.

I think that it should be one of the first issues in country budget, and funded nothing short of excessively.

Since governments give permissions to construct industrial complexes and sell ecologically non-safe devices, which cause collateral damage to health in huge areas, they could as well pay for restoring that health back in acceptable norms.

[punkinside]

Main purpose of education is two-fold. It is needed to assess the mental qualities of person as much as to give the information.

While school education is more or less bona fide basics that everyone should know, college/university education is geared more towards teaching person to conduct research on their own and meet deadlines.


Up to here we agree 250%.


I think that both should be mandatory, governmentally-funded, and closely tied with research facilites (intersecting, if possible).

Agree with everything but the first. Why does everybody insist on forcing supposedly free men and women to do something if they don't want to? Sure up until some point in time education should be completely mandatory but only because children tend not to know the value of going to school until later. Once they're grown up they can make their own decisions, and suffer the consequences.


In our age, there is much less demand for low-qualified masses of workforce, and much more demand for highly-qualified specialists. Therefore, there is now considerably less options for the low end of job market.

Their problem, not the state's.


Frankly, if you`re smart enough, you`ll get through college with little problem. Don`t take that janitor spot. Someone with retardation would need it more, and be suited to it more.


Once again, their decision, not yours, not mine, not the state's.
___

As for illegals - I think my suggestion about >50% equalling annexion would work pretty good in this case.

Otherwise, just deport them.


Why don't you agree that the problem lies in that the "citizens" hire the immigrants much more than in that the immigrants come to look for those jobs?


On a side note, I`m a bit stumped about how this problem is in first place. I take it that you in USA have no need in documents to hire out?


Something or other about "privacy" I presume... :icon_rolleyes:


Here in former USSR, everyone has "workbook" - a special document, which contains the listing of all places you worked at, including the term of your work there, assessment of level of that work, and reason why you left/was fired.

No "workbook" - no job, simple as that.


I love this, people couldn't lie on their resume's :D
___


I COMPLETELY disagree with you on social medicine.

I think that it should be one of the first issues in country budget, and funded nothing short of excessively.


Well I didn't state my position on socialized health care, just suggested Rand make up his mind (which he did reluctantly).

I haven't completely made up my mind in this regard (how hypocritical of me, right Rand? :icon_lol: ) because both systems have a myriad of problems, making them unsustainable in the long run.

Socialized health care is very much dependent on demography. Europe's and Scandinavia's system is breaking down because people are living longer and having fewer children. This means that the "demographical age pyramid" has been inverted in most of these countries, with rising costs and sinking income, the tip of the pyramid is supporting the "base" and the system will go bankrupt within the next 30 or so years if nothing further is done.

As for completely privately own health care, we all know the seeming "injustice" of this system, even though I know it would mean most efficiency.

So... the jury is still out on this one. Anybody care to give ideas?


Since governments give permissions to construct industrial complexes and sell ecologically non-safe devices, which cause collateral damage to health in huge areas, they could as well pay for restoring that health back in acceptable norms.

The thing is: its not the "government" that pays for it, but all of us in taxes.

[Alice Shade]

Well... Education should be mandatory simply because you insist on democracy.

How can I trust someone utterly uneducated with the right of voice on what will happen in country? I don`t think one can make an informed choice on political matters, having no education at all in appropriate fields.

This, in particular, is one of the main vices of democracy. To make an informed choice in current political choices, one pretty much has to undergo college/university, and be taught the basics of information processing, economics and ideological politics.

Otherwise, it`s entirely too easy for slick-tongued politician to persuade people, that his disastrous economical/political decisions (Hello, George!) are actually sound simply from point of authority - "Our best experts had determined, that this is the most cost-effective decision we can possibly undertake.", or from the point of deception - "Charts from F to K indicate the expected growth in the rate of reduction of inflation of american dollar compared to indian rupia within next third quarter of 2007-2010.", or even from point of bullshit - "If we will not press on with this war, gas prices will skyrocket along with terrorist attacks!"

___

Regarding immigrants...

Putting it simply, there is no way to legally crack down on employers of illegal immigrants without serious infringement on personal rights.

Since immigrants are illegal, noone signs up contracts with them, and therefore, it`s entirely unfeasible to prove actual act of hiring.

Attempting to crack down illegal immigrants this way will either be utterly ineffective, either outright tyrannical - from legal point of view, illegal immigrant putting up hours of work in sweatshop is equivalent to illegal immigrant receiving a Big Mac from someone for helping them to tote the bag.

Putting it simply - while from common sense point of view it should be obvious to close down the facilites which employ illegals, skillful lawyer will overturn this order within an hour.

___

Taxes paid are the entire point of it all, actually.

What are taxes better spent on, from your point of view - on social medicare or on biological weapon development?
If the funding of chem/bio warfare would be diverted to medicinal education/research/care, it would be more then enough to provide free state-wide medicare.

[Digs]

Quite a bit Bah, I just told you I don't agree with the idea of the executive branch moving at the word of one guy. I'm just saying I understand the reasoning the founding fathers used. They didn't have radio or fiber-optic cable to carry their messages, so time was a serious issue.

Even if education is mandatory, the vote probably shouldn't be a given. There are lots of people who fail out of high school civics, as there are lots of people who would cheerfully abuse the system for the gains and for the lulz.

[punkinside]

Sorry for the delay guys, things are getting crazy over here.

Well... Education should be mandatory simply because you insist on democracy.

How can I trust someone utterly uneducated with the right of voice on what will happen in country? I don`t think one can make an informed choice on political matters, having no education at all in appropriate fields.

This, in particular, is one of the main vices of democracy. To make an informed choice in current political choices, one pretty much has to undergo college/university, and be taught the basics of information processing, economics and ideological politics.

Otherwise, it`s entirely too easy for slick-tongued politician to persuade people, that his disastrous economical/political decisions (Hello, George!) are actually sound simply from point of authority - "Our best experts had determined, that this is the most cost-effective decision we can possibly undertake.", or from the point of deception - "Charts from F to K indicate the expected growth in the rate of reduction of inflation of american dollar compared to indian rupia within next third quarter of 2007-2010.", or even from point of bullshit - "If we will not press on with this war, gas prices will skyrocket along with terrorist attacks!"


Well, we make people get a license to drive, why shouldn't we get a license to vote? Like I said, IMO democracy is completely dependent on the population being educated and knowledgeable. I don't feel we should be forcing people to attend school after the 9th grade (16 years of age) when young adults should be able to make their own decisions regarding their level of education, and suffer the consequences of wrong decisions! If education is freely available in every stage, then there is no excuse but a personal decision not to go.

___

Regarding immigrants...

Putting it simply, there is no way to legally crack down on employers of illegal immigrants without serious infringement on personal rights.

Since immigrants are illegal, noone signs up contracts with them, and therefore, it`s entirely unfeasible to prove actual act of hiring.

Attempting to crack down illegal immigrants this way will either be utterly ineffective, either outright tyrannical - from legal point of view, illegal immigrant putting up hours of work in sweatshop is equivalent to illegal immigrant receiving a Big Mac from someone for helping them to tote the bag.

Putting it simply - while from common sense point of view it should be obvious to close down the facilites which employ illegals, skillful lawyer will overturn this order within an hour.


Not so. It is entirely possible to prove that a business has been using illegal labour without a paper trail. As for illegals getting bic macs for helping old ladies carry their bags to their car, well, that is hardly an economic activity that would support a person in the long run. Illegals don't ask for any other price than what the people should give them out of the kindness of their hearts and should "citizens" be willing to do that (they can't do it for more or less money, its just what the person decides, regardless of the nationality of the person asking for the remuneration), they just need to point out the illegals to the police, next time they "take" their spot.


___

Taxes paid are the entire point of it all, actually.

What are taxes better spent on, from your point of view - on social medicare or on biological weapon development?
If the funding of chem/bio warfare would be diverted to medicinal education/research/care, it would be more then enough to provide free state-wide medicare.

So what has this to do with anything? I laid out a specific guideline for projects that could or should be funded by the government of Utopia, if a qualified majority of educated people want chemical weapons instead of health care, who are you to tell them otherwise?

--------------------------------------------

Bah, I just told you I don't agree with the idea of the executive branch moving at the word of one guy. I'm just saying I understand the reasoning the founding fathers used. They didn't have radio or fiber-optic cable to carry their messages, so time was a serious issue.


When did you say you were against this? I didn't find references to "parliamentary democracy" or "the weakening of the powers of the executive branch" anywhere in your posts. You're proposing a system very similar to that of the U.S. today, and that system relies too much power on the executive branch. 200 year-old reasons notwithstanding.


Even if education is mandatory, the vote probably shouldn't be a given. There are lots of people who fail out of high school civics, as there are lots of people who would cheerfully abuse the system for the gains and for the lulz.

Agreed. Hence, my "license to vote" idea.

[Digs]

As for the shape its leadership would take, probably three parliamentary bodies of approximately equal power, each with some power over the other. Perhaps legislative, judicial and executive bodies

Anyway, licenses for voting were Heinlein's idea before either of us ever thought of it. Starship Troopers was a pretty good book, even if it was open political commentary like most of his work.

[punkinside]

Perhaps legislative, judicial and executive bodies


Perhaps?
You might've just copied the U.S. Constitution.


Anyway, licenses for voting were Heinlein's idea before either of us ever thought of it.


Never said the idea was new, but Alice presented me with a valid argument to which I responded with that. I think its perfectly doable and fair.

[Digs]

Again, no need to reinvent the wheel every time a new car is built. There's nothing catastrophically wrong with the separation of powers laid out by the US constitution. We could tweak it in a lot of ways, as the founding fathers had to deal with a lot of problems that we simply do not have to, but at its base it's a pretty good organisation of powers.

As far as voting, we're on the same page effectively.

[Can Not]

I enjoy communism and anarchy.

Smaller countries, no matter what the government, sound good to me.