Your Own Government


So dark the con of man
Registered Senior Member
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?
1.) Murder would be death. Racism would be a lesser crime.. everyone is racist.. just human nature

2.) I'd let them choose.


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?
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.
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?