PDA

View Full Version : What is your Perfect Government?

Theodore Kurita
3rd October 2003, 02:44 PM
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
My Idea of the Perfect Government:





<big><span style="font-weight: bold;">Social Issues

</span></big>
<ul>
Pro Choice when it comes to abortion


Minimum Wage Increased to a more liveable wage
Major Campaign Funds Reform


<ul>
Every candidate has the same amount of cash to spend on their
campaign


[/list]
Racial Tolerance will be encouraged, yet, it will not be enforced
The ACLU would be the standard for Civil Liberties
Health Care for Everyone! NO MATTER WHAT!!!
Everyone gets a College Education Free!!!
Gun Control will be a standard
<ul>
Hunting Rifle's will be allowed
Most Handgun's will be allowed
Semi Automatic wepaons will be allowed for the most part


Fully Automatic Weapons will be BANNED


Gun's must always have a fingerprint recognition device on them
<ul>
That means when you buy your gun your fingerprint will be
used to recognize you as the owner of the gun


<ul>
With that, many tragic Gun Accidents would not happen!


[/list]
[/list]
[/list]
[/list]
<span style="font-weight: bold;"><big>

Economic Issues</big></span>

<ul>
Capitalism Will Only Exist in These 2 Industries:
<ul>
Medicine
<ul>
Medicine will still have an FDA to regulate everthing,
including "Alternative Medicine"
[/list]
[/list]
<ul>
Technology
[/list]
<ul>
Medicine and Technology need capitalism as an incentive for
growth and specialization
[/list]
Taxes will be increased


<ul>
About 1/2 of your income will become the government's
[/list]
The government will be in complete control of the Insurance
Industry
Corporate Wellfare will be completely eliminated
Pornography will stay a legal industry
Cradle to Grave Economics


<ul>
Government pays for you to go to school
Government provides insurance as a standard
Government helps pay for your funeral


[/list]
[/list]
These are just a few ideas for a perfect government... A government
where nobody can just plain slip through the cracks an vanish....



Create your own idea of a perfect Governement and post it below.





</body>
</html>
Cleon
3rd October 2003, 02:49 PM
My perfect government?

That's easy. Four words---

ALL HAIL EMPEROR CLEON!

:wink:
Ravenwood
3rd October 2003, 03:21 PM
Gee Theodore...
Sounds like you would be perfectly happy living under the Government of the Federated Suns...Glad you snake boys finally came to your senses...:p
Segnosaur
3rd October 2003, 03:45 PM
You know, its really hard to tell if you're serious in your post or not. You have some OK ideas, others that I disagree with but are fairly main stream, then others that are just too bizarre.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Every candidate has the same amount of cash to spend on their
campaign


Although this makes some sense (in the fact that elections can't be 'bought'), it leads to a few problems. During any election, many 'marginal' parties get put on the ballot. Why should a party that only gets 0.001% of the vote because of their policies (the Kitten Eating Party anyone?) get the same funding that a party with widespread voting gets? (And why should taxpayers be forced to pay for the campaigns of parties they are morally opposed to?)

Not to mention that such a rule may easily be circumvented by 3rd party ads.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

The ACLU would be the standard for Civil Liberties


Although the ACLU is right in most cases, I believe it has made some really stupid stands lately.

Probably the dumbest one is their support of a woman who wanted to have her driver's liscence photo taken with a veil on.

I do find it strange that you want to follow the ACLU, but you want total government control over people's money. If 'freedom' is your desire, shouldn't that freedom include the ability to spend my own money as I see fit, free from overburdening taxes?

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Health Care for Everyone! NO MATTER WHAT!!!


Too vague here... Pretty much everyone in the western world has access to 'health care', with the differences being in the 'levels' within each country. Are you proposing 'single tier' health care for everything? Or multi-tier where everyone gets basic health care, and those willing to pay a little more can get slightly better service?

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Capitalism Will Only Exist in These 2 Industries:

Medicine
Technology

Medicine and Technology need capitalism as an incentive for
growth and specialization

So, basically you're a communist (except for those 2 industries). Is that right? You will have all restaurants, all department stores, all flower shops, all taxi-cabs, all operated by the government?

Its been tried and failed.

By the way, how exactly do you define a 'technology' company? Cars may seem 'old', but there is a lot of research and development that goes into them. (Same with many other fields that may not be viewed as strictly 'technology'.)

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

About 1/2 of your income will become the government's

That's what happens in Canada. And our economy suffers greatly because of it.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Government pays for you to go to school


For how long? Can I be a professional student and take as many courses for as long as I want before going into the work force? Why would I ever stop?

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

These are just a few ideas for a perfect government... A government
where nobody can just plain slip through the cracks an vanish....


Sorry, but people would still slip through the cracks; its just that every one else would be much poorer for it.

How's this:

- Lower taxes and lower government spending
- Don't let the government run our lives
- More freedom from censorship
- Provision for public health care to those who can't afford it, but give people the freedom to spend their money on better care if they can
Theodore Kurita
3rd October 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Ravenwood
Gee Theodore...
Sounds like you would be perfectly happy living under the Government of the Federated Suns...Glad you snake boys finally came to your senses...:p


lol

Actually, I prefer being a totalitarian dictator of a feudal system... THE DRACONIS COMBINE.

That is just fantasy though.
corplinx
3rd October 2003, 04:13 PM
"Pro Choice when it comes to abortion"
vague

"Minimum Wage Increased to a more liveable wage"
government infringes right of small businessmen, totalitarianism

"Major Campaign Funds Reform"
is this even a problem?

"Racial Tolerance will be encouraged, yet, it will not be enforced"
The government should not condone morality, good or bad.

"The ACLU would be the standard for Civil Liberties"
No competition? Too much trust in one org.

"Health Care for Everyone! NO MATTER WHAT"
Nice thought, tends to suck in a country this large with our rate of population growth. Tends to limit choice, totalitarianistic.

"Everyone gets a College Education Free"
Who pays for that? Oh right, taxpayers, then how is it free?

"Fully Automatic Weapons will be BANNED"
Already are (with exemptions which are not abused currently)

"Gun's must always have a fingerprint recognition device on them"
you have no idea about guns and how they work, do you? Is your name tattoo? Do you see a plane? Cause I swear, your living on fantasy island.


I would go on but this is the sort of naive utopia 13 year olds come up with in their blogs.
Theodore Kurita
3rd October 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur

You know, its really hard to tell if you're serious in your post or not. You have some OK ideas, others that I disagree with but are fairly main stream, then others that are just too bizarre.



Although this makes some sense (in the fact that elections can't be 'bought'), it leads to a few problems. During any election, many 'marginal' parties get put on the ballot. Why should a party that only gets 0.001% of the vote because of their policies (the Kitten Eating Party anyone?) get the same funding that a party with widespread voting gets? (And why should taxpayers be forced to pay for the campaigns of parties they are morally opposed to?)



Not to mention that such a rule may easily be circumvented by 3rd party ads.

No, just the top 3 or 4 political parties..

Although the ACLU is right in most cases, I believe it has made some really stupid stands lately.

Probably the dumbest one is their support of a woman who wanted to have her driver's liscence photo taken with a veil on.

Why do you refer to that as being idiotic? I think freedom of religion should have won in that one.

I do find it strange that you want to follow the ACLU, but you want total government control over people's money. If 'freedom' is your desire, shouldn't that freedom include the ability to spend my own money as I see fit, free from overburdening taxes?

Overburdening my @** you could still make a good living off of high taxes, a more frugal living, but still a good living.

Too vague here... Pretty much everyone in the western world has access to 'health care', with the differences being in the 'levels' within each country. Are you proposing 'single tier' health care for everything? Or multi-tier where everyone gets basic health care, and those willing to pay a little more can get slightly better service?

I think that everyone deserves the same treatment in healthcare, even if that means you are the richest person in the country!

So, basically you're a communist (except for those 2 industries). Is that right? You will have all restaurants, all department stores, all flower shops, all taxi-cabs, all operated by the government?

Its been tried and failed.

No, socialist except for those 2 industries.

By the way, how exactly do you define a 'technology' company? Cars may seem 'old', but there is a lot of research and development that goes into them. (Same with many other fields that may not be viewed as strictly 'technology'.)


That's what happens in Canada. And our economy suffers greatly because of it.

Biotechnology and Silicon Valley Industry was what I was mainly referring to.

For how long? Can I be a professional student and take as many courses for as long as I want before going into the work force? Why would I ever stop?

All the way through college.

Sorry, but people would still slip through the cracks; its just that every one else would be much poorer for it.

How so?

How's this:

- Lower taxes and lower government spending
- Don't let the government run our lives
- More freedom from censorship
- Provision for public health care to those who can't afford it, but give people the freedom to spend their money on better care if they can

Ah, now your style of argument makes sense you LIBERTARIAN!
How the f*** are you going to have a system that has little government intervention, and yet business industry not exploit its workers?





Oh, and BTW.... I forgot to add this little bit.

People will still elect leaders, and representatives, and more or less could be added by laws.
Mendor
3rd October 2003, 04:17 PM
The Perfect Government (for some theoretical independent state not too far north of Carlisle):

Socially: See Libertarianism. You should have the right to do anything you want until it impinges on the freedom of others.

Economically: B*ggered if I know. I shilly-shally between Left and Right and never really settle in one place. At the moment, I'm feeling a bit socialist (though not quite reaching the levels in the OP). But on Monday, I was arguing in a high school debate for the expansion of private health care, and then I believed it. Hopefully my economic views will settle down soon, but there's been no sign of it. I have to say, that before coming to this board and reading some of the (mostly American) opinions here, I was firmly in the lefty camp. That's us socialistic Eurotrash for you. ;)

Foreign-policy-wise: Supports an international (probably UN-based) strategy for removal of dictators (which could be military). Does not support unilateral military action towards this end.

System: Presidential democracy. Two houses of Congress (Senate/Parliament/Dáil/whatever you want to call it), one elected by a party-list proportional system, the other by first-past-the-post. Independent supreme court. Constitution to guarantee certain fundamental rights and freedoms (fair trial, free speech, the usual. "The usual" does not include gun rights - although I'm a rarity in Scotland, as I don't want guns totally and completely forbidden)


I knew there was a reason I never wanted to enter politics.

p.s. Corplinx - I wouldn't call minimum-wage and national health care totalitarianistic. I live in a country with both of those, and I haven't noticed the telescreens yet. Nanny-statish, perhaps, but not totalitarian.
Theodore Kurita
3rd October 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


"Gun's must always have a fingerprint recognition device on them"
you have no idea about guns and how they work, do you? Is your name tattoo? Do you see a plane? Cause I swear, your living on fantasy island.



I have operated several types of guns in my life... Most of them hunting rifle's.

After Columbine I remember there being lots of talk on adding these devices to guns, as a safety precaution.
Richard G
4th October 2003, 08:23 AM
The perfect goverment, for free men, is no goverment. It is however a necesary evil.
Segnosaur
4th October 2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

No, just the top 3 or 4 political parties..


And just how do you define the 'top' parties?

Is it by the results from the previous election? If so you put a barrier up for any 'new' parties to form because they won't be able to crack the top 3 or 4. If you base it on opinion polls or petitions, then you are bascially partially deciding an election before the actual vote.

Edited to add: And why 3 or 4? why not 5? Why not 2? Under your suggestion (only 3 or 4 parties), here in Canda, a party that recieved I think around 10% of the vote here in Canada in the last election would get no money for the election campaign. (However, it is the party that is the most socialist, so maybe I shouldn't complain too much)

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Why do you refer to that as being idiotic? I think freedom of religion should have won in that one.


There are situations where public security should override freedom of religion. Given the fact that a drivers liscence is a key piece of identification, it is necessary to be able to identify the user.

Put it this way, should we accept people from the middle east using veiled photos in passports?

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Overburdening my @** you could still make a good living off of high taxes, a more frugal living, but still a good living.


Yes overburdening.

You must not have been a taxpayer for very long

Freedom is freedom. Taking more taxes than is needed to provide basic services and saying "you can still make a good living" is no better than saying "Censorship of politics is OK because you can still speak your mind on other topics like art and music".

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

I think that everyone deserves the same treatment in healthcare, even if that means you are the richest person in the country!


First of all, from a practical point of view, it doesn't work well,

Although universality sounds nice, in reality it creates inefficiencies that decrease the level of care for the 'average' person. (Compare Canada, with a universal system but long waiting lists for things like MRIs, with the US, where there is virtually no wait for the same services.)

Secondly, in some cases, it may not be a case of money, but in choices. If 2 people have the same income, and need the same medical test, one person may simply choose to spend money to get the test at a private clinic and get it faster. In that case its a matter of choice, not wealth. And you are eliminating that choice.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

No, socialist except for those 2 industries

Biotechnology and Silicon Valley Industry was what I was mainly referring to.


Its obvious you don't understand what the term 'captialism' means. From the dictionary: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned . You said in your original post that you would eliminate capitalism from all but the 2 industries listed. If you eliminate capitalism, you eliminate private ownership, and what you are left with is government ownership.

Plus, your idea that those are the only industries that you would leave capitalism in shows that you have no clue about the importants of innovation in other industries.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

All the way through college.


You totally ignored issues like: students taking multiple degres or becoming "professional students". Trust me, when the government pays, it happens.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Sorry, but people would still slip through the cracks; its just that every one else would be much poorer for it.


How so?


Compare canada, a 'socialist' country (higher taxes, universal medicare) with the US (lower taxes). In Canada, our average income is almost $10000/yr less than in the US, and our unemployment is several percentage points higher.

Yet, in Canada, our 'poor' are not really very much better off; in fact, the average 'poor' person in the US is probably better off than the average 'poor' person in Canada, in terms of purchasing power and quality of life. The effects of a socailist economy hasn't really done much to improve the plight of the lower clases, it has only reduced the average so that the poor don't look as bad by comparison.

And people still slip through the cracks in Canada. No 'government' program is perfect, and there will always be people unwilling or unable to comprehend whatever effort is needed.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Ah, now your style of argument makes sense you LIBERTARIAN!
How the f*** are you going to have a system that has little government intervention, and yet business industry not exploit its workers?


I'm marginally libertarian in outlook. But, I think full-fledged libertarianism is far too extreme for my taste.

As for businesses 'exploiting' workers, all that is needed are basic work legislation (no retrocative pay cuts, enforce safe working conditions, etc.) The government does not need to run the companies, nor tax them heavily to accomplish that. (In fact, with lower taxes, the companies will have more money to either: lower their prices, thus benefiting everyone, or pay their companies more.) A company taxed at 50% instead of 20% will not necessarily treat their workers better as a result of the highter taxes; in fact, the opposite may occur as the companie tries to cut costs to make up for the high tax burden.

Apart from that we have the law of supply and demand; if there is a demand in a particular field, wages and benefits will rise. If there is a drop in demand, workers can and should find work in other fields, instead of having the industry 'propped up' with artificially high wages.

I really suggest you get a good book on economics before you start trying to propose political and econonomic systems.
Iamme
4th October 2003, 03:12 PM
Mendor---The concept of liberatarianism as you highlighted above sounds good. But isn't there this flaw in where one can draw the line on what infringes on other people and what doesn't?

One of the problems is that we live in a society where it seems like no secrets can be kept. If people conducted certain unapproved activities behind closed doors, that didn't affect other people, and they absolutely stayed there, that would be great.

But aren't certain influences going to get out to the kids?

Let's say that the liberatarian party became a bigger party than what it is. Do you think that people smoking pot in their house, or having orgies, or...you name it, is JUST going to stay in those houses?

I like being 'free' as much as anybody, and don't like big government. But aren't we deceiving ourselves if we believe that we can actually do things that don't hurt other people, someHOW?

A lot of our current laws are based on prevention. There is nothing wrong with speeding or driving drunk, for example. But they have laws against these things because you COULD kill someone. That would be ok, if we figured out how to bring people back from the dead. Since we can't, they pass restrictive laws, that infringe on some of us who CAN speed or drive drunk, without killing anyone. But, I go along with such laws, because for the reasons posted.

Morals can be applied the same way. Even though you are engaging in activity, privately, that isn't anybody elses business.....unfortunately, it WILL become everybody elses business. Here's one example:

If a druggie od's and has no insurance, do we then say, "Hey bub...you did your own thing behind closed doors. That was your problem. Now, to treat you, you have become our problem. Or, if some guy is a modderate user but is pickling his brain and some teacher has to keep wasting there time on this person to grasp concepts. Or, the guy can't function right at work?

In the end, you are left with a decision to make. It is this: Do we want a society where we can do drugs, have orgies, underage sex as long as we don't hurt the girl, drive without seatbelts,and etc.?

We have ALL the current laws we do because someone has determined that there are others that DO get hurt, by such activities. Otherwise, surely they wouldn't have the law. They aren't just 'out to get us' for no reason.
Mendor
4th October 2003, 03:23 PM
You generally make good points, and I think I'll revise my view to "do what you want - in a private setting". I can see roles for restrictive laws in a public setting, such as drink-driving laws, public drunkenness laws, etc.

However, I must take issue with your last paragraph:
We have ALL the current laws we do because someone has determined that there are others that DO get hurt, by such activities. Otherwise, surely they wouldn't have the law. They aren't just 'out to get us' for no reason. If this is true, whyever is (was) homosexual sex illegal in many states? Who does this harm?

Why is cannabis illegal when alcohol and tobacco isn't? Surely those two legal drugs are more dangerous to others than cannabis?

There are laws which are based on some people's individual views on morality, usually religious views. These laws ARE "out to get us".

This paragraph seems to beg the question somewhat; it seems to imply that the law is correct because it's the law. I assume this is not what you're saying...?
Chaos
4th October 2003, 03:39 PM
On lamme´s post:

There shoud be two sets of laws or rules.

Set 1 includes all activity that is completely forbidden because it harms other people - things like driving while stoned or drunk, murder, and all the other nice spare time activities.
However, "harms other people" should be very carefully defined, so as not to include things like "voting for Democrats is forbidden, because it harms the Republican Party not to get that vote".

Set 2 includes all activity that is not directly harmful for others, but might unreasonably damage them in some way - say, it can cause high costs the public would have to bear. If someone choose to do these things, he does this on his own risk, and the public/government has no obligation whatsoever to do anything to help cope with the result. Such activity could be using drugs, or driving without a seatbelt, and so on.
Gem
4th October 2003, 03:39 PM
Simple:
Governent provides all that is needed to cover basic human rights (food, water, shelter, health, security).
Private businesses fill up whatever people want, so long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights.

Government has a responsibility to its people. Democracy has a better record than dictatorship.

Then we can add more detailed and complex things, like the environment. Government and Businesses would have to work together to do the least damage possible (like creating incentives).

To prevent corruption among candidates and pork barrels, candidates should run out of their own pockets. Campaigns, ads and so forth are not allowed, only debates on public access TV, interviews and public speeches. There should be no restriction on who runs except that only citizens of a certain ammount of years can run.

Gem
Iamme
5th October 2003, 05:47 PM
Mendor---HOMOSEXUALITY: A: A perceived perversion (religious moralists) whose boundries can't always be controlled by privacy. Some homosexuals CAN control themselves as to not become agressive while out in public. Others can't. And then, there are the disease issues associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Hence, laws stifling homosexuality. Also, as long as we have a group of people calling themselves a 'moral majority', homosexuality will always get shot down as they claim there are Bible verses forbidding it.

CANNABIS: A: Because alcohol was an already established and thriving business first, with factories and jobs, and taxes that are being paid, to whom the government can trace income/earnings to.We all know that there are many who would like to abolish this legal industry as well. But it's already here, and here to stay, I would imagine. I feel they simply drew the line with pot, for no other reason than saying, "Enough is enough. No more mind altering substances." Mind altering substances if used in moderation and in private perhaps pose no harm to others. But once again, there will be abusers who will create problems for society...even if they partaqke in private.And as soon as they leave their home and get in a car, or operate machinery, or have to go to a hospital uninsured...they pose a problem. And, the moral majority doesn't want to see their little Johnnies and Susies get influenced either.
Segnosaur
5th October 2003, 07:16 PM
I just want to point out that I totally agree with your points (well, i wouldn't mind if the occasional orgy spilled out into the street.)

I'm suprised that shanek (our resident libertarian) hasn't posted in this thread yet. But, I think I can answer part of your question the way a 'typical' libertarian might...

Originally posted by Iamme
Mendor---The concept of liberatarianism as you highlighted above sounds good. But isn't there this flaw in where one can draw the line on what infringes on other people and what doesn't?
...
If a druggie od's and has no insurance, do we then say, "Hey bub...you did your own thing behind closed doors. That was your problem. Now, to treat you, you have become our problem.


I think the way a libertarian may answer this is to say that charitable organizations would take over. The theory is, if people didn't have to spend so much on taxes (which in this case would be 'forced charity'), they could give donations to hospitals, etc. to care for the people who otherwise don't have insurance or cannot care for themselves.

Not that I necessarily agree that that would happen...
Mendor
6th October 2003, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Iamme
Mendor---HOMOSEXUALITY: A: A perceived perversion (religious moralists) whose boundries can't always be controlled by privacy. Some homosexuals CAN control themselves as to not become agressive while out in public. Others can't. And then, there are the disease issues associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Hence, laws stifling homosexuality. Also, as long as we have a group of people calling themselves a 'moral majority', homosexuality will always get shot down as they claim there are Bible verses forbidding it.So, we have a law that IS based on outdated religious morality. Can you see that the liberty conveyed by being able to follow a homosexual lifestyle far outweighs the "hurt" caused to the "moral majority" (which is, in fact, neither) by its legalisation?

I have to ask - are you seriously defending laws that make homosexuality illegal?

CANNABIS: A: Because alcohol was an already established and thriving business first, with factories and jobs, and taxes that are being paid, to whom the government can trace income/earnings to.We all know that there are many who would like to abolish this legal industry as well. But it's already here, and here to stay, I would imagine. I feel they simply drew the line with pot, for no other reason than saying, "Enough is enough. No more mind altering substances." Mind altering substances if used in moderation and in private perhaps pose no harm to others. But once again, there will be abusers who will create problems for society...even if they partaqke in private.And as soon as they leave their home and get in a car, or operate machinery, or have to go to a hospital uninsured...they pose a problem.So do those that drink alcohol. By your logic, that should be banned as well. The reasoning "but alcohol's here to stay" - which, of course, isn't true in the States; look where Prohibition got you - leads you to an inconsistent system of justice, where alcohol - arguably a more dangerous mind-altering substance - is legal but cannabis isn't.