If you could create your own poilitical system/government how would you set it up? What would you to in comparision to today's government... I think I would focus on enviromental and long-term factors, rather then a technological aspect...

I would set up intensive recycling schemes that means everything would be recycled.
I would put lots of money into research for alternative fuels
I would invest in renewable energy
A better military
Better food
Basically...focus on things that will affect us sooner or later that no-one is prepared to sort out.

Interesting Thor,
But what do you mean better food, like spreading food around the world? Or just more high quality food...

More high quality food. This means healthier eating along with strict food preparation guidlines.

So my government wouldn't have Maccy D or BK. KFC would stay, their chicken is finger liking good.

Military, Military, Military


Sparta would tremble at my roar.

Women, in the military. Men, in the military. Animals.. uhh.. fur in the military, savage ones in the military. We would be disciplined to a T.

Two principles behind the socio-political system I would like to see are:
(i) egalitarianism, and
(ii) libertarianism

(i) Nature is wild, and difficult to control, and its resources are, in certain ways, difficult to control. But, in as far as possible, I consider that these same resources should be distributed equally. I don't believe any argument levied against the concept of equality (whether it's 'I've worked hard and I deserve what I've taken' or any other argument) are at all reasonable. And, I think that's what ethics in many (if not all) cases comes down to - appeals to be reasonable. You don't need me to spell out for you what nature's resources are do you?
(ii) I don't know how the man would have judged my previous paragraph, but John Mill, in his 'Essay on Liberty', sets down what I believe is (or should be) a cornerstone of social philosophy:
The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is
amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the
part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of
right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind,
the individual is sovereign. Need I directly say more? I hope not.

I anticipate the argument: libertarianism & egalitarianism - an oxymoron surely! Well that depends on what you think the boundaries of 'liberty' should be. Appropriation of nature's resources is surely an action which ‘concerns others’, and therfore falls under the applicable territory of the above principle (ii). Reconciling egalitarianism and libertarianism is perhaps a venerable issue, and, after a potent dose of drambuie, isn’t something I feel like discussing at length. Maybe another day.

Anyway, I could list perhaps a hundred things I’d like to change – end of cruely to animals, regular 5-10 person orgies, end to the distraction of chemicals from their natural biogeochemical cycles etc. – but, even if an approximation to (i) and (ii) were realised, you would already be on the way to paradise.

Disclaimer: Opinions liable to change. ;)

Yamayama with the first one are you saying that all resources should be distributed equally regardless if "somebody has worked harder for what the deserved" and if so, isint that similiar to Communism

And with number 2
I had no idea what you are saying that you should only do something if everyone will have a positive attitude towards something?

No. Please note the very important second paragraph; the one on libertarianism, to which Communism (as defined by Marx, Engels and Communist Russia) is antithetical. What I consider a person is entitled to for their 'hard work' is the 'fruit of another person's work' - not an increase in their share of the resources which this labour transforms. In a world with over six billion people, equal distribution of resources is, in certain respects, more important than ever. I have far more empathy with Marx and Engel's rival - Proudhon - than I do with themselves.

What I was saying in 'number 2' is basically that, if what do doesn't affect/harm anyone else, than no one should attempt to stop you from doing it.

People wouldn't get off for murder. 20yrs then probation? no way. I would devise a system or capital, corporal.. something punishment that would resuslt in so much pain.

Military would be a must. They'd actaully be paid good. Along with cops. Welfare money would cease to exist. These "homeless" people can quit being a mooch and get a job. Also, treating minorities differently would also be punishably by death. Not just racsim but "Asian Only" Scholarships. Clubs/Gangs/Organizations that are based on race and ethical backgrounds would be abolished (KKK, NAACP). The schools would be different.. wow. I could go on forever

Marshall, how would you punish racists/people with murder
If by death the what will the execution be?

Also, a lot of you say you would do something about the military like what?

1.) Murder would be death. Racism would be a lesser crime.. everyone is racist.. just human nature

2.) I'd let them choose.

Military:

I'd want to be able to take out a country in a second if it showed any signs of destroying my country.


Also, if it was possible. I'd get an island to put everyone that breaks the law. Drop in some food every now and then..other than that .... they're there forever

The problem about creating a better society is that people will eventually just screw it up for you.
This is paradoxically true. Like the old idiom "the grass is always greener..."
No matter what society someone grows up in, they will always think there is someway to improve it, mainly for selfish reasons.

I dont think as a culture man has evolved enough to just stop being greedy, that is without lots and lots of drugs. Once people are concerned about the whole before theirself, then we've taken the first step toward becoming bees or maybe ants... hmm *buzz*

Meh cheese it

Also, if it was possible. I'd get an island to put everyone that breaks the law. Drop in some food every now and then..other than that .... they're there forever

Like Australia?

was thinking Puerto Rico actually :P

I would first stop:
The voting for politicians that put policies forwards and then hypocritically revoke those policies after their win election

Instead voting would be done on what policies that are put forwards would be the best one for the mass population, voting would be once a week, with a different policy each week.

The policies would be put fowards by anyone that wants to put one forwards and would be weighed on the validity of the policy in conjunction with current events.

Voting wouldn't be compulsary, however if you vote it puts a little towards a decrease in taxation at the end of the year, thus creating an incentive to vote.

Policies are therefore shaped by the voting populous who have the concern for what the policy actually is, rather than politicians that are just looking at how it effects their clout.

If I ran a government, I would eliminate welfare and encourage everyone to work. I would have all post-secondary education paid for.

Most drugs would be legalised and sold at stores, but the people that sell illegal drugs would have very harsh penalties.

I would eliminate the death penalty (if it was the US) but I would force convicts to work.

Instead of throwing money at third-world countries, I would try to help them build a stable economy and provide job opportunities.

Eliminate affirmative action so everyone has equal opportunity.

Instead of increasing the military, I would decrease it and try to eliminate all military (yes, I know it sounds impossible, but someone needs to start the trend).

There are a lot more things that could be done, but that is where I would start.

Thor for PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!

Stryderunknown good post, but what wouold the policies be over once a week? are there really that many decisions to be made, and do you think the citizens should be completely involved in everyone?

The schools would be different.. How would the schools be different Marshall?

I would only let the elected officials prepair any bills that were needed to run America. Then those bills would be put on the internet and let everyone vote upon them . The writing of each bill shall contain no more than 2500 words, be written so that a 10 year old understands what they are saying and not have any ambiguities involved in it.This bill would be on the net for 1 week for everyone to read and vote it up or down. The Congress would then impliment those bills that are passed with a two thirds margin and either rewrite the other bills or dispose of them. That would reduce the problem of bribes and insider trading with those lobbiests I would think.

On the internet...? What about hacking? Don't you think it would be to easy for people to find a way to vote multiple times... I dont think that would work

You can vote only with your social asecurity number and a password. Only one vote per password would be allowed and only ine vote per social security number. I think that would prevent hacking and I'm certain there are smarter people than me who could also impliment security protocols that would restrict hacking. Then there is also using a fax to fax your vote, one vote per fax phone number. Just a thought, it would be better than what's going on now. At least we could actually see the nills that are being written and passed because now we know nothing!

And also, will there be a "president" in any one of your governments? Will there be houses?

Also how will your province be seperated like states, or districs etc..

It would be as it is now set up the only change is that the people get to vote on every bill that is written by their Congresspeople.You could also call in your vote as well as write in your vote through the mail. That way not much changes but who votes for the laws to pass or be rejected. I like the way Americas Congreee is set up I just don't care for the weasles making the bills and selling out this country as they are doing.

If I were a dumbass teenager: "I would make a government where everything is paid for with sex. Duh."

I anticipate the argument: libertarianism & egalitarianism - an oxymoron surely! Well that depends on what you think the boundaries of 'liberty' should be. Appropriation of nature's resources is surely an action which ‘concerns others’, and therfore falls under the applicable territory of the above principle (ii). Reconciling egalitarianism and libertarianism is perhaps a venerable issue, and, after a potent dose of drambuie, isn’t something I feel like discussing at length. Maybe another day.

Somehow the appropriate use of resources, egalitarianism, and libertarianism don't seem to mesh well in my head. A libertarian state would undoubtly be an environmental wasteland. Just a thought.

Egalitarianism is impossible. There are always going to be some people that are better than others on many different scales. And there is no way to balance that scale. In no society that ever existed was there equality. Even equality of votes doesn't exist. Some people just don't know who is on their side or not, and are too ignorant to ever know.

The only society that would be efficient would be a society that places importance on intelligence. And not a society that gives you a position, like taking iq tests to guage your position in society or by lineage. It must be natural and unforced. In the underground society of hackers and open source, ideas that are shared openly are craved. Those who contribute the most ideas are the most respected. Those who try to steal ideas from others, or take undue credit are frowned upon. These criminals are then black listed and it will become very hard for them to earn back respect. No need to punish through outside means since the justice system would be built into society. A society that lets people contribute, unforced, would work the most efficient. People contribute the most when they desire it. But in this society there will always be a few who just pursue pleasure and joy and won't contribute much as it seems on the surface. They will be contributing to the well being of society. They will be the athletes, the gamers, the entertainment. There will always be a few who just don't contribute much at all, no matter how hard they try. But it is all for the better. Today in society those that contribute least far outnumber those who would contribute least in an open source society.

Also in a libertarian society, communistic ideals will naturally come about. But there is a certain level of base intelligence required for this to occur. It cannot be started with ignorant overgrown kids who's only motivation is to physically control others. At first there must be some security also to control those of less intelligence. After some progress in society, eventually there will be no need for this as we will have evolved for the better.

The only thing holding a society like this from coming about is limited resources, and a few key inventions to allow for a pure informational society.

The biggest motivation for people today is money. Humans crave for power is not a problem like we all think. It is how we get that power that is the problem. We crave money because it brings us power. We just need to redirect our means of attaining power. Attaining power or prestige through our contributions to society would make it better for everyone. Even those at the very bottom of society.

Military, Military, Military


Sparta would tremble at my roar.

Women, in the military. Men, in the military. Animals.. uhh.. fur in the military, savage ones in the military. We would be disciplined to a T.
With power a country or me can ule the whole world.

God, how a government needs money. Alcohol, tobacco, street pharmaceuticals, all legal, but taxed HEAVILY. People should have the right to choose, but keep the crap cheap and all the human debris will remain that way; leaching, non-contributing sub-members of humanity. Take it out of their reach of the jobless, make them work hard for the right to be one of millions weeded out of the gene pool. There's money saved by diverting all the attention and resources law enforcement place on the "war on drugs," and money raised thanks to the taxes. Cut off welfare and foodstamps. Money saved. Let the poor work their way out of it like I did, stop reaching for a handout. Or let them get poorer and fade away. That used to be me, and I can say without any hesitation that the strain they place on the economy will only get bigger and bigger as long as someone thinks it's the government's responsibility to support them. Scale down the military in place of mechanical countermeasures; Other people's business is other people's business, if we keep our nose out of it they'll be more likely to leave us alone, but if they want to take unprovoked action against us, push a button and give them what they have coming.

retrospectively, all that seems rather ignorant/naive. . . still posting it, tho.

Wes Good! All Hail Wes! Weddoubleplusegood! Vaporizenonwes! Wearewes! Weiswe!