P
PadawanBater
Guest
For a better society, I would say remove nearly all of the Federal Government, leaving only enough to protect the country from foreign invaders. I would leave the majority of power in the hands of the States, or perhaps in an even smaller grouping. I feel like the closer the government is to the people, the happier they will be. Because the Federal Government tries to please everyone, it cuts a medium line through society. The poorest feel they aren't getting enough, the richest feel they are being taken from too much, the liberals feel things are too restrictive, the conservatives feel things aren't restrictive enough, yadda yadda ya. The point should be obvious. We have all kinds of people in America in wide varieties and beliefs.If you make 1 government try to please 350 million people, you can be damn sure that a good portion of those people are left unsatisfied. So bring the the Government down to a local level, and I think you will see more satisfaction within and without Government.
Two questions, 1. what would a foreign policy in a government like this look like? and 2. what would you do in the instance of local governments (I'd assume state governments) developing tensions over whatever reasons? If there were no higher authority like the federal government, what would stop them from erupting into a civil war type conflict?
I believe to remove some of the disparity of Capitalism, we should remove our Money based on Debt system. We should remove the ability to make money without labor. I believe money should not represent anything other than labor. If you don't labor, you make no money. Quite simple really.
What is "labor" exactly?
I also believe taxation on a man's labor, or products of labor is wrong. The only government taxation that I can get behind is Land Taxation. Because land is not a product of our labors, and belongs to all. If a man wants private property, then he can have it as long as he can pay "rent" to society for it. (This idea originates mainly with Georgism-- look it up)
Who do you pay this to? Local state governments the land you're "renting" is in? On the surface land taxation seems to be a little sketchy to me, I haven't given it very much thought, but it essentially would mean that even if you wanted to get away from everything it would be impossible because you would still have to pay a tax on the land you occupy, so you would never be 100% "free", in that sense.
I believe that all children living within the borders of a government, should pay no taxes, but receive most of the benefits of a taxpaying citizen. At 18, I believe all children should receive a thorough education on the government, how it works, where the power comes from, and what their obligations would be to be part of society. Then give them a social contract, which they will sign if they want to be a part of society and under it's laws. If they don't want to be a part of society and follow it's rules, then send them on their merry way out of that government's borders. Such a method would remove any excuse of saying "I had to no choice! I didn't choose to be a part of this!"
I think I'd opt for improving the current education system so that students grow up understanding exactly how everything works. I don't think we need any kind of contract to justifiably enforce the laws of the land. I think living here is enough, if you live here, you should know the laws, if you don't, that's your own fault if you break one and get caught.
I believe criminals should be forced to pay for their own incarceration. Simply put them in a cell with nothing in it. Tell them if they would like, they may receive a free lethal injection at any time. Or they can starve themselves in their cell. But if they desire substance and life, they can work for it. Their labor would first pay for the cost of keeping them in prison, and second for their own comfort (food, water, clothing, entertainment, etc.). Once the sentence is complete, the prisoner may opt to stay on for a month or some other period of time, to earn money for their own pockets-- this would be to ensure they have the funds necessary to reintegrate themselves into society. Victimless crimes are not crimes at all, and would not be punished. (ie. drug use and other such things)
Sounds pretty reasonable on the surface.
If you were to combine this with money based on labor, then each criminal would be given their sentence based on how much money or labor they cost another. They would then be in prison for as long as it took them to repay their debt.
What about capital charges? Felonies? Multiple offenses? Ect.
Most of these ideas are somewhat rough cut, and still need to be refined. But I believe they are viable options.
I agree. Thanks for contributing, good perspectives.
Two questions, 1. what would a foreign policy in a government like this look like? and 2. what would you do in the instance of local governments (I'd assume state governments) developing tensions over whatever reasons? If there were no higher authority like the federal government, what would stop them from erupting into a civil war type conflict?
I believe to remove some of the disparity of Capitalism, we should remove our Money based on Debt system. We should remove the ability to make money without labor. I believe money should not represent anything other than labor. If you don't labor, you make no money. Quite simple really.
What is "labor" exactly?
I also believe taxation on a man's labor, or products of labor is wrong. The only government taxation that I can get behind is Land Taxation. Because land is not a product of our labors, and belongs to all. If a man wants private property, then he can have it as long as he can pay "rent" to society for it. (This idea originates mainly with Georgism-- look it up)
Who do you pay this to? Local state governments the land you're "renting" is in? On the surface land taxation seems to be a little sketchy to me, I haven't given it very much thought, but it essentially would mean that even if you wanted to get away from everything it would be impossible because you would still have to pay a tax on the land you occupy, so you would never be 100% "free", in that sense.
I believe that all children living within the borders of a government, should pay no taxes, but receive most of the benefits of a taxpaying citizen. At 18, I believe all children should receive a thorough education on the government, how it works, where the power comes from, and what their obligations would be to be part of society. Then give them a social contract, which they will sign if they want to be a part of society and under it's laws. If they don't want to be a part of society and follow it's rules, then send them on their merry way out of that government's borders. Such a method would remove any excuse of saying "I had to no choice! I didn't choose to be a part of this!"
I think I'd opt for improving the current education system so that students grow up understanding exactly how everything works. I don't think we need any kind of contract to justifiably enforce the laws of the land. I think living here is enough, if you live here, you should know the laws, if you don't, that's your own fault if you break one and get caught.
I believe criminals should be forced to pay for their own incarceration. Simply put them in a cell with nothing in it. Tell them if they would like, they may receive a free lethal injection at any time. Or they can starve themselves in their cell. But if they desire substance and life, they can work for it. Their labor would first pay for the cost of keeping them in prison, and second for their own comfort (food, water, clothing, entertainment, etc.). Once the sentence is complete, the prisoner may opt to stay on for a month or some other period of time, to earn money for their own pockets-- this would be to ensure they have the funds necessary to reintegrate themselves into society. Victimless crimes are not crimes at all, and would not be punished. (ie. drug use and other such things)
Sounds pretty reasonable on the surface.
If you were to combine this with money based on labor, then each criminal would be given their sentence based on how much money or labor they cost another. They would then be in prison for as long as it took them to repay their debt.
What about capital charges? Felonies? Multiple offenses? Ect.
Most of these ideas are somewhat rough cut, and still need to be refined. But I believe they are viable options.
I agree. Thanks for contributing, good perspectives.
