You are in charge

[rahmota]

Of the United States.

OKay we've all got ideas here about how to make the world or at least the states a better country. we've all been arguing and discussing things in the various threads so lets just see what you would do with this scenario. You have just been handed a big bottle of whiteout and a pen and the keys to the nation. You can change as little or as much as you like. Throw everythign out and start over or change nothign and let the status quo continue. I'll start with a few of my ideas. Just a few of them.

Laws
Remove any law that hs the sole purpose of promoting, defending or legislating consideration or the judeo christian morality. Rape is a physical assault and not a moral issue. What I am talkign about is a lot of the "blue laws" Specific examples are:
1:Marriage would be defined as a social contract between two or more consenting adults. No mention of gender or anything. this would make homsexual marrige legal as well as polygamy.
2:Prostitution is legal and regulated by federal law.
3:Public nudity is no onger criminal. Especially at beeches and other recreational areas like that. Sadly being a prude is not goign to be able to be illegal but at least with proper education maybe we can stamp out the prudes.
4:Suicide and euthenasia would be legal with express written and witnessed consent of the subject.
5: no more censorship of media. Dont like swear words dont listen to certain kinds of music. Youre an adult some bad words is not going to destroy your psyche and if your psyche is that fragile then maybe you should rawl back under your rock.
6:No more war on drugs. Marijuana and the drugs are legal. this will reduce crime and improve the quality of life in america.
7: mandatory firearms training in high school and barring any physical or severe mental disability mandatory carry and firearms ownership.
8:nationalized healthcare as the rest of the enlightened countries have.
9:CPS would be depowered. No more anonymous calls to them. they have to declare why they are at your doorstep, who called on you and what your rights are. No more withchunts they would have to have definate and limited proof of abuse or neglect before they could lift a finger. Any investigatiosn would be limited to specific charges and allegations and anythign ANYTHING else is not allowed to be touched looked at or otherwise investigated. The rights of the parent are sacrosanct and the government has to have definate proof before interefereing in that for any reason.

Finances
1: No more deficit spending. A balanced budget is required and if the government doesnt have the money to cut the check then it doesnt get paid. I cant deficit spend at my bank why shoudl the government get to do so.
2:flat tax. The entire tax law is as follows: How much did you make last year from all sources of income? What is 20% of that? You owe the answer to the previous question ot the US government. No ifs ands or buts and no more loopholes for the rich to wiggle through to get out of paying their fair share.
3: price controls on all items.
4: a systematic removeal of capitalism as a means of motivation and commerce. Communism is a much superior form of commerce.
5:Minimum and maximum wages. If a company ceo wants to get a pay raise they ahve to give the bottom rung employees twice the raise they get percentage wise. ie ceo wants a 3% riase the bttom paid employees get a 6% riase.
6: any company that brings in over a billion dollars in profits is siezed and run for the common good as if they are making that much in profit they are doing somethign illegal.
7: any company that attempts to close plants in america and remove those jobs from america is fined a minimum of 500,000$ per job that is removed from america. If the company attempts to remove more than 100 jobs the company is siezed and run for the cmoon good of all citizens.

Military
1: maintain a volunteer active military
2: use them wisely and appropriately. No more invading countries just for political BS.
3: maintain an adult citizen militia as required by the Constitution of the United States of America. Militia members are issued military hardware to be kept at ready for national emergencies.

Illegal Immigration
1: It ends. Border patrol is authorized to use lethal force to repel invaders. Which is what people crossing the border illegally are. You either come in through the front door or you dont get in. End of story.

Transportation
1:rebuild the railroad infrastructure in this country.
2: mandate that hydrogen fuel cell and other advanced technologies including biofuels begin to be implemented so that 50% of all petroleum powered cars will be off the road in 5 years. 100% in 10 years. Since there are price controls in place these new cars will be priced to be available to the common people.
3: any car that gets less than 20mpg combined is illegal to be liscenced or driven on public roads.
4: Develop public transportation easily and readily available to all individuals.

Education
1: all schools public or private must maintain educational standards including teachign evolution in science class. Creationiam and all its derivatives can be taught in social studies where it belongs as they are not scientific truth and fact.
2: academics shall take precedence in all regards to physical athletics.
3: Scrap this no child left behind BS. If the kid is too dumb to move on to the next grade then he gets to repeat that grade until he gets enlightenment or gets old enough to join the military or somethign else. Learn or lose.

General culture
1: Promote and defend that the individual is the source of all power in the government. That the individual when willingly working together can produce a stronger, better country than when forced to work together by whiny scumbags attempting to legislate consideration or morals.
2:teach that hateful terrosit groups such as focus on the family, phelps and his crew, KK or neo nazis are ignorant shameful cowards who teach hatered ignorance and vile evil and should be reviled and ridiculed.
3:mandate that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. No religion is above another and any attempts to do so will be fined or prosecuted .

Those are just a few of the ideas I got. I may not be explaining someo f them the most clearly in this cliff notes version. But basically I would want to see the powers of the individual increased, the raping and pillageing of corporate america removed and the attitude of selfish greedy instant gratification destroyed. The power of the government limited to that of what the original founders intended. To protect preserve and defend the common good. After all the Constitution starts WE THE PEOPLE not we the government or we the companies or we the churches.

[ebonyknight]

Wow, you are truly a Libertarian.

Can I move to your United States verse?

[Dreamstalker]

Agreed with the blue laws and war on drugs. They were good ideas at one point in time, but are no longer useful.

Legalize/regulate marijuana. Start farming hemp for utilitarian purposes so we can stop cutting down trees. There's no good reason why we should have stopped using it.

100% independence from fossil fuels in twenty years (ten if research is going faster).

Force companies to hire locally (as in stateside) first. If an applicant meets most qualifications but lacks only one or two, train them in the ones they don't have.

If an immigrant truly does their best to get citizenship, hold down a job and become a productive member of society, what does it matter exactly how they got here? In my city there's a rash of deportations and attempted deportations of people who are trying their damndest to become legal (and in some cases have families who are full citizens), just because they showed up illegally way back when.

Ban drug commercials on TV, and restrict drug marketing to non-physicians. Do something about the rampant overuse of antibiotics, although I'm not sure what yet.

Remove the requirement that people must be in "Section 8" or group housing to get rent assistance. People still must prove eligibility though (unemployed/underemployed but looking for work, etc).

Clean up the student loan industry and make it possible for borrowers to "freeze" repayment/interest if they are genuinely struggling for a short period. Or get rid of interest altogether.

Workers' bonuses come directly out of the CEO's personal fortune, and they (CEOs) are not allowed to contest this.

Hell, every year or two, force some of the richest people to give up a few million and distribute that money to people who can actually use it.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

I would like to alter the school system in this country. The needs of kids in the middle and upper classes are way different than the needs of the kids in the lower classes; public schools we have now were originally geared to the needs of the former and are not prepared to cater to the needs of the latter, although they try. In most of our schools, we spend many times more on the lowest 25 percent of the students---simply trying to keep them out of prison and out of trouble(which often fails)---than we do on the top 25 percent. The brightest kids are left to fend for themselves, many of them dropping out and getting GED's because public school is so unchallenging to them, and they are more likely to have negative experiences with other students (bullying, etc.)

First thing I would do is open the market to private schools. Lay down some very simple but very specific gateposts---graduates of these schools need to read at this level, and be able to do math at this level, have knowledge of science to this level, teachers must have this much education, etc---and ENFORCE them. But let people open up schools. Two things will happen: one, people will open up schools geared towards specific disciplines. Some schools will emphasize science or mathematics, some schools will specialize in artistic pursuits, etc. People can choose which schools to send their kids to. Two, the price of private schooling will go down through availability and competition.

People who can afford private schools will put their kids there.

The kids who are left will be the ones who need the most basic help. I would then alter the way public schoosl get their funding---taking it away from property taxes and making it much more uniform across the board. The public schools would then offer simple, healthy breakfasts, lunches and dinners; training in things like resolution conflict (how to settle a dispute without resorting to violence); how to handle money responsibly---including an understanding of a credit report, how to balance a checkbook, and how to do well in an interview; and basic cooking, cleaning, and parenting skills.

Many of the kids from lower class at-risk families have parents who work long hours, so these kids end up unsupervised after school. I would extend public school hours from 5am to 10pm. The kids would not have to be there the whole time, only during regular school hours and then while their parents are working.

I would have several large study rooms for in between classes, and would encourage people to donate time by teaching music, art and computer workshops as electives for the kids. The point would be to have a safe place for these kids to go the entire time their parents are working. I'd have metal detectors if need be, but the schools would be tightly contained. They would be oases---safehouses---especially in more violent neighborhoods. Kids would have access to safe, well lit, quiet places to do homework, teachers to assist them with it, adults to help them with personal problems, other kids to talk to, and either unstructured time to play around or structured time with fun activities for them.

Whether their parents are poor and work long hours or just don't care about them, these kids would get at least some of the things they need to grow up properly, including safety, regular meals, structure, basic life skills and positive attention from adults.

Personally I believe that doing this would cut down quite a bit on the amount of violent crime we suffer from, and give many people the skills they need to get out of the poverty cycle.

[DesignFox]

Wow Blaquekatt, can I go to one of your schools? How great would it be to implement something like that?

[DarthRetard]

I like your setup for the most part Rahmota, even though we do seem to disagree on philosophically on some ends, I think in the end we both seem to have the same general goal.

Number 3 on your military inclusion is unnecessary, it really is. That militia, as you call it, is what is now the National Guard.

Keep in mind, also, that evolution isn't "scientific truth and fact" either.

As far as what I would change? Hell, I would re-establish the general election as it was before-it can be found in the second to last line of Article II, Section 12- where whoever gets the most electors is President, and whoever gets second most, is.......TADA! Vice President, no more choosing your running mate bullshit, it alienates entire voting bases and makes half of the country's vote unrepresented in office.

[Dreamstalker]

Oh yes, definitely revamp the election system. I read an article awhile ago that compared/contrasted other systems to that of the US and made recommendations as to what to replace the present system with. We only need to look back to 2000 and 2004 to see what's rotten.

Yeah, the US school system blows. The kids who want to get ahead are forced to slog through a curriculum dumbed-down for the rest, and penalized for thinking. NCLB and the standardized tests that some schools are requiring for graduation have to go (what do those kinds of test prove, anyway?). I would come up with an "affordable" private school tier/plan for parents who don't want their kids in public school yet can't afford full private tuition.

[rahmota]

That militia, as you call it, is what is now the National Guard.
If you say so the citizen's militia and the National Guard are two different creatures. Especially as they are being used now. What we have are two different militias.

The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State and Federal militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.

The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

The second one is a lot closer to the original constitutional militia than what we have now. And somewhat closer to what i was thinking of. All adult citizens without some other sort of disability would be a member of said militia unless they where a member of the active military.

that evolution isn't "scientific truth and fact" either. Its a lot closer to it than creationism and its derivatives.

I'll agree about the election reform. Also one I would like to see woudl be the politicians pay for everythign during their campaign totally out of their pocket. no pacs, no donation no nutin but out of pocket. MIght make only the rich be able to run (like that would be much different than now) but at least it might make people more motivated to run just for the ability to do some good than the power and greed. Or might not. Have to see. At least if they pay out of pocket then they might not go so much BS with the tv ad every 5 seconds.

TPG: I'll agree that schools in america need some reform. Some more so than others. Around here the rural schools seem to be doing okay. Kids are not missing school, we dont have drugs or violence or high failure rates. But urban schools do seem to be in more trouble. So I dont know exactly. your plan though does sound like a very effective one.

If an immigrant truly does their best to get citizenship, hold down a job and become a productive member of society, what does it matter exactly how they got here? It matters because how they got here says a lot about who and what they are. A person willing to go throug the proper channels is goign to be a lot more honorable and honest than someone willign to sneak across the back door. yeah mexico has some problems but that is not our fault and we dont need them streaming across the borders to take what few jobs there are and resources from those who have played by the rules.

EBony:Sure just remember to come throu the front door.:p

[Darrien]

I honestly can't find any fault with that original post. I beleive Ron Paul had similar concepts in mind however he did not win which depresses me.

[DarthRetard]

Rahmota, thanks for the Militia clarification. I agreed with it, either way, to be honest.

If evolution hasn't been 100% proven as scientific fact, it's still a theory to me, so other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, I see no reason to leave out creationism, as long as it is taught in a way to be unassociated with any religion, so as to not tread on other students' backgrounds.

[Boozy]

I honestly can't find any fault with that original post.

I can find quite a few faults. rahmota's got some great ideas as usual, but he and I disagree on the following points:

1. Mandatory gun ownership. What gives the state the right to tell me I need to be armed? I absolutely disagree with this from a civil liberties perspective.

2. CPS is no longer allowed to investigate anonymous complaints. This will leave a lot of scared and abused children with nowhere to turn.

3. Serious issues with economic theory, which are too complicated for me to get into right now.

4. Bizarre and unworkable combination of libertarianism (power to the individual) and communism (power to the state) will cause the whole thing to collapse faster than it starts.

[rahmota]

I honestly can't find any fault with that original post. Well then you're probably not looking hard enough.;) trust me its not a perfect plan or a perfect idea and would no doubt need to have some tweeks and fine tuning if it did come about, like most things. The past 200 years have been us the peopel tweeking and finetuning and sometimes going back and untweeking the tweeks that where previously made. A government and a constitution are not meant to be a set of stone tablets forever locked and unchanging but then again they also arnt meant to be written on an etch a sketch either. Some where in between where what works is hard to change and what doesnt work is better able to thrown out.

Rahmota, thanks for the Militia clarification. I agreed with it, either way, to be honest.

If evolution hasn't been 100% proven as scientific fact, it's still a theory to me, so other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, I see no reason to leave out creationism, as long as it is taught in a way to be unassociated with any religion, so as to not tread on other students' backgrounds.

Okay cool about the militia thing. A lot of people though do get rather bent about how the militia is defined.

Well I guess this is where our perceptions differ. I have no problem teachign creationism in social studies as there is no way to seperate it out from religion. And I see Intelligent design as the same kind of pseudoscientific bunk that says you can add a magnet to your car's fuel line and get 300 mpg. As for a science class teach science. Be it fact 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt (which last I heard gravity was still technically a theory as they ahve not 100% proved that it exists or how it works scientifically) or theory 99% prooven.

1. Mandatory gun ownership. What gives the state the right to tell me I need to be armed? I absolutely disagree with this from a civil liberties perspective.
Okay why shouldnt you be armed? An armed society is a polite society, If each person is capable of defending themselves from intruders then that would reduce the workload on the constabulary. And with the citizen militia most citizens would be armed through the auspices of that program anyhow. So whats the difference?
I suppose there could be religious exemptions, disability exemptions and criminal exemptions but not much else. i mean just because you have it doesnt mean it couldnt be thrown in the back of the sock drawer in a locked case and never brought out to the light of day again. I didnt say mandatory firearm usage just firearm ownership.

2. CPS is no longer allowed to investigate anonymous complaints. This will leave a lot of scared and abused children with nowhere to turn.
Maybe, maybe not. It would also reduce their ability to just randomly come into people's lives and destroy functioning families that otherwise have had someone outside get mad at them and wants to get revenge or harrassment. No I dont have stats on this as the local and state level CPS keep those records hidden and you have to get a court order to see their mistakes. Which they never admit to making any anyhow. CPS needs reformed and a definate decrease in their power levels. Right now though the CPS equals the gestapo or the KGB in secret police attitudes and powers.

3. Serious issues with economic theory, which are too complicated for me to get into right now.

4. Bizarre and unworkable combination of libertarianism (power to the individual) and communism (power to the state) will cause the whole thing to collapse faster than it starts.
Again maybe, maybe not. true communism as an economic force is what I was striving for. Unfortunately the corporations would not surrender their power or greed willingly so one would have to use force to control their evil. Their would of course be limits on the powers of the government when it came to individual people. Corporations are not people and therefore do not have any rights whatsoever under the law and should be treated as public servants there to provide goods and services to the public at a fair and honest rate. Not rape, plunder and pillage like they do not.

And dont feel bad my economics professor and I got into some heated debates back in college too. I'll admit on the surface it does look bad and scary moving away from capitalism and greed and the selfish motivation they require. But with enough social education about the evils of capitalism and corporate dominated worlds true communism would be able to flourish. Especially in a coutry where the rights and powers of the individual citizen where respected and you didnt go over into the socialist states callign themselves communists like the former soviets did. At least I think so.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Okay why shouldnt you be armed? An armed society is a polite society, If each person is capable of defending themselves from intruders then that would reduce the workload on the constabulary. And with the citizen militia most citizens would be armed through the auspices of that program anyhow. So whats the difference?

Rahmota, it is just as unfair to force someone to have guns in their house as it is to outlaw someone from having guns in their house. Some people are morally opposed to guns. Some people have small children in the house and don't want weapons anywhere near them. The vast majority of people in first world countries have no idea how to use a gun and would not be interested in learning, as it has no bearing on any part of their lives.

This is one of the main differences between rural American culture and the rest of the western world; rural Americans see guns as a necessity and as part of their cultural heritage. Very few other places do. Most other first world cultures see guns as military weapons and nothing else.

[DesignFox]

I have to agree with TPG, Rahmota.

I live in the most densely populated state in the nation.

Most people around here have no use for a gun.

I think making fire arms training more readily available might be a good idea...but then that scares me because there are too many criminals around certain parts of Jersey.

The rural areas people still carry hunting rifles and such. But the cities? Eh. The police are very quick to respond. It's not like where you are where they take 20 mins to show up.

I think it's good that people have a choice. That's how it should be.

I'd be interested in learning how to use a handgun...but I'm not sure what I'd really do with it if I owned one. I don't feel truly threatened where I am, and I won't be hunting anytime soon....soooo... *shrug*

[AFPheonix]

Rahmota, thanks for the Militia clarification. I agreed with it, either way, to be honest.

If evolution hasn't been 100% proven as scientific fact, it's still a theory to me, so other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, I see no reason to leave out creationism, as long as it is taught in a way to be unassociated with any religion, so as to not tread on other students' backgrounds.

Agh pet peeve time!
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has stood every test and experiment thrown at it. It is the closest to gospel that science is allowed to come to. There is no such thing as fact in science. Evolution has been the best supported theory probably in every branch of science out there, especially since Newtonian physics got blown out of the water by Einstein. (but then as a student of biology, I'm probably biased).
If you want to see why Creationism doesn't belong in science class, head over to the Creationism and ID thread.

[DarthRetard]

Ah, yeah, about that AFP, I did read that thread, and I forgot to come and retract my statement on it. I do rather agree with Rahmota after reading the discussion on it.

[Darrien]

Of the United States.
Transportation
1:rebuild the railroad infrastructure in this country.
2: mandate that hydrogen fuel cell and other advanced technologies including biofuels begin to be implemented so that 50% of all petroleum powered cars will be off the road in 5 years. 100% in 10 years. Since there are price controls in place these new cars will be priced to be available to the common people.
3: any car that gets less than 20mpg combined is illegal to be liscenced or driven on public roads.
4: Develop public transportation easily and readily available to all individuals.


As good as that idea, not something that they would do. That would be excellent if they had hydro powered cars but thats a wish for now rather than waiting for later.

[Dreamstalker]

TPG, I'm in complete agreement with your plan for the school system :) I luckily graduated before things got really messy and agree that today's kids have few of the skills they actually need.
basic cooking, cleaning, and parenting skills.
I was probably one of the few kids in my grade school who enjoyed Home Ec. Sure the teacher was a bit of a loon, but she wasn't bad and was actually nice to the kids that tried hard.

Personally I believe that doing this would cut down quite a bit on the amount of violent crime we suffer from, and give many people the skills they need to get out of the poverty cycle.
I agree.

I would also make "career centers" in schools much more useful than they are now. Staff them with mentors across many disciplines (IT, retail, finance, etc), preferably those who have been (or are) employed in the fields. Make sure the centers have enough funding to provide training materials and discount vouchers for tests if needed (IT certs especially can get expensive in a hurry).

[rahmota]

Design/tpg: I supose I'll defer to your regional experiences.. around here firearms are just a normal part of life. I still think firearms safety and general knowledge should be taught in schools as knowing the truth about firearms can dispel a lot of the hollywood mistakes and glamorization.

Darrien:A lot of the technology for alternative powered cars have been aroud for sometime. The only reason why they havent been on the road already is money. It has been far more economical and cheaper for people and companies to run around with the status quo of the IC engine than to come up with somethign else. With the price of oil starting to skyrocket maybe that will change the balance of things. Hopefully.

[DesignFox]

I still think firearms safety and general knowledge should be taught in schools as knowing the truth about firearms can dispel a lot of the hollywood mistakes and glamorization.


This I can't disagree with. In my school, I have vague recollections of the videos we watched that taught us not to play with guns...I don't know what, if anything, they teach in schools, now.

With the pansy assing we have going on nowadays who knows... The safety videos they used to show us were graphic and memorable...I don't know if they get away with that, anymore.

[rahmota]

With the pansy assing we have going on nowadays who knows... The safety videos they used to show us were graphic and memorable...I don't know if they get away with that, anymore.
I have no idea. I dont think they really teach anythign involving that anymore leaving that up to the individual parents. I think thats due to the schools having to fall into the state and federal guidelines more.

Which is just fine with me as my teaching methods I dont think would work well in a classroom. How I taught my kids the difference between a real firearm and a toy firearm was using the eddie eagle program from the NRA and my own blend of direct experience that involved several watermelons. Suffice to say that my kids are smart and capable enough that I could leave a fully loaded 45 on the dining room table and they would not touch it but come and get me or their mother.

[blas87]

I'd like to live in a society where people actually had to face consequences of their actions. You can take that however you'd like it, in any legal situation. Preferably, someone driving drunk who runs over and kills a little boy either spends life in prison or gets the death penalty, not manslaughter and less than 10 years in prison.

[DesignFox]

I'm not sure the crime fits the punishment in that scenario blas.

Sure, the guy should go to prison. I think he should definitely lose his license. But the Death Penalty???

I think that guy is gonna be hating himself for the rest of his life knowing he killed an innocent little boy... and knowing that the accident was probably avoidable, since he was impaired at the time. But he certainly didn't kill the kid intentionally...

I agree with you, people DO need to take responsibility for their actions, though. None of this "it was TV/the Video Game/my up-bringing/my dog dying/ some other lame ass excuse, that made me do it.

Drunk Driving is pretty inexcusable, and the punishments should be harsher...but I don't think the Death Penalty is the answer...maybe life imprisonment...but even that...I don't know...There is limited jail space and there are far worse criminals I'd rather keep there.

[DesignFox]

I wanted to make this separate from the point I was trying to make above.

In regards to people taking responsibility, I would like to see frivolous lawsuits immediately thrown out of the courts. I don't want to hear any more shit in the media about every guy that drops coffee in his lap having to sue someone.

Accidents happen and I'd like to see people not have to sue each other for medical expenses, lost work, and whatever else they think they're "entitled" to.

Lawyers should be disbarred for ambulance chasing and advertising sue-happy services. (seriously, there is an ad around here about calling for legal counseling if you've been bitten by a dog! for deity's sake!)

I think our government should do away with tracking devices, wire tapping, and all that other "patriot act" bullshit. You shouldn't be tapping phone lines unless you have suspicions, REAL ONES, that someone is doing something illegal.

I also hate the TSA and all their bullshit. Security is one thing, paranoia is ridiculous. I should be able to take my goddamn shampoo and conditioner on a flight with me.... :rolleyes: I also remember some golden days when you could bring FOOD on flights with you rather than chopping off your arm in the lobby to get some peanuts to bring with you.... sheesh...what's next? We get stuck in a hospital gown and given a full body cavity search before we get on board?

Wow. I'm feeling ranty...

[daleduke17]

Rahmota, I agree with a lot of your ideas, mind if I add a couple?

Politics
- Term limits on every office. Park board trustee to the President. Maximum number of terms is 3. Maximum number of years in a term is 4.
- Campaigning will start no more than January 1st of the year of the election for the office you are running for (ie 2008 Presidential election = start date of January 1, 2008).
- 55 states/territories/etc (Washington DC, far Western territories, near Western territories, Eastern territories, active duty military), 5 primary dates. Each date will be two weeks after the previous one. First primary will be the third Monday in January. No more of this BS of primaries all over the calendar from January to almost June.
- Primaries will be decided by popular vote. At the end of the 5th primary date, person with the most votes wins.
- Two senators, ten representatives from each state (every state will have equal say).

I'll try to think of more, but, here is a start to making sure politics is the least annoying as it could be.

[Dreamstalker]

It matters because how they got here says a lot about who and what they are. A person willing to go throug the proper channels is goign to be a lot more honorable and honest than someone willign to sneak across the back door.

Desperation does not always equate to laziness. Boston never wanted the Irish here originally, and a lot of them worked hard to start over, did well and some started very successful businesses after coming in "across the back door" so to speak.

[Ree]

I find it interesting that you decry the infringing of the government into your personal rights, yet you then go on to say that firearms training will be mandatory.

I do not want to know anything about guns, thank you very much, and nobody will ever force me to learn about them.
Cover it in your right to bear arms BS and "people kill people" rhetoric, but the fact is, a gun was made for one purpose only, and that was to kill, and there is no way in hell that anyone can force me to learn how to use something designed for that purpose.

As for the ruling regarding CPS, saying that there will be no "anonymous" reporting, and anyone who becomes a target of their investigations will have a right to know who the accuser was, well, you can stick that one where the sun doesn't shine, too.
They have to depend on anonymity to do their job properly.

Yeah, false accusations get made, and sometimes, innocent people get hurt, but where there's smoke, there's usually fire, and they have to investigate everything.
I have reported situations where I was very concerned about the child, and in one case, it was someone that I care about very much, but I was more worried about the safety of her baby. Although they claim nothing was said, she claims she was told they were there because of a complaint that came from my area. I haven't seen or spoken to her since March, now. (She called a couple of weeks ago and spoke to my daughter to ask if I had reported her, because they had just investigated.)

It's all well and good to make rulings based on situations that may have touched you personally, or which get mishandled in 5% of the cases, and decide to make it a law that it will now be handled in the entirely opposite manner, but sometimes, it has to be handled a certain way for it to work in the other 95% of the cases.

It's called erring on the side of caution.

Oh, yeah, and tell some little child who is being sexually molested or smacked around in areas where the marks don't show, that the rights of her parents are sacrosanct and there's no point in saying anything because CPS has their hands tied since she could be making a false accusation, and having a teacher or neighbour or the parents of a friend become suspicious due to the child's odd social behaviours is simply not enough proof that a problem exists.

As for the rest of the post, it all became a bit of a blur after a while, but those two things stuck out.
It was a bit to me like saying, "The rules are, there are no rules," which still means there is a rule! :p

[DarthRetard]

DaleDuke17, I agree with most of your post there, but I do have one problem, for clarification purposes.

With regards to every state having two senators, and 10 representatives each:

1. Why would it be fair for my state, Florida, to have as equal a say as a state like Rhode Island, who has a population of my town and the two closest to me? Smaller states right now can gang up and it's even, if they were to do that after this kind of policy implementation, the smaller states would dictate larger policy.

2. The representatives issue also creates a serious problem in terms of communication with the masses. We have a representative for every district, so it really helps when we want to communicate to our congressman, and not having to send 1 million letters every day to one man/woman. It'd be harder to judge voting demographics, policy standing, just about everything.

The two senators idea is good though, seeing as we already have that.

[Sylvia727]

In regards to people taking responsibility, I would like to see frivolous lawsuits immediately thrown out of the courts. I don't want to hear any more shit in the media about every guy that drops coffee in his lap having to sue someone.

Accidents happen and I'd like to see people not have to sue each other for medical expenses, lost work, and whatever else they think they're "entitled" to.

This is my pet peeve. His name is Gerald.

The original Mickey D's coffee suit was far from friviolous. The little old lady in the drive thru got third degree burns on her thighs and groin after being handing a cup of coffee 20 degrees Fahrenheit over the maximum safety limit with an unfastened lid. First she asked McDs for her medical expenses and they said no. Then she sued for medical expenses and moderate pain and suffering. The jury awarded her a very high amount (15 mil? Don't quote me), and the judge downgraded it to 2 mil(?) but it included medical expenses, which for third degree burns on delicate areas with fragile old-lady skin could be quite expensive indeed. Unfortunately, most people hear "sued for spilling coffee!" and dismiss the entire case.

If you want an example of frivilous, try the guy who sued McDs for forcing him to eat their fattening food, or the guy who tried to sue a company because their billboard distracted him from a red light and he caused an accident.

[Boozy]

The original Mickey D's coffee suit was far from friviolous.

You have inspired me to come out of the closet and admit that I too thought the "spilled coffee" lawsuit was valid. McDonald's coffee used to be WAY the hell too hot, and their employees were extremely lax about making sure the lid was on securely before handing it to you.

There have to be dumber lawsuits.

Besides, the only reason people want tort reform is because politicians, at the bequest of their corporate donors, are telling the public fairy tales about how supposedly out of control lawsuits have become.

My gut tells me that tort reform will hurt the public by capping a corporation's liability for wrong-doing. Where's the incentive to behave if their misbehaviour nets them more profit than it will cost them in lawsuits?

[DesignFox]

Ok, maybe spilled coffee was a bad example...

:o

I still don't think lawyers should be ambulance chasing and encouraging law suits.

People have to protect themselves, but at the same time, people shouldn't be thinking about suing each other over a dog bite or slip and fall or whatever. We shouldn't have to have warning signs and disclaimers all over everything because people can't/won't take responsibility for themselves.

[rahmota]

Ree: First off about the firearms. Fine we can file you under religious exemptions I take it. By firearms training in the schools I was more referring to the proper attitudes when dealing with firearms. Including that firearms is not the solution to every situation. That hollywood does not reflect the realities of firearm and that while firearms may be glamous and cool in the moves and tv shows and video game sin the real world they are a very deadly, cold, and unforgiving tool with I will admit limited purposes. Very valid and useful purposes but limited agreed. i have never denied that. Hopefully by coming to a middle ground where students are shown that firearms are not somethign to be scared of or worshiped then a lot of the hysteria over firearms can be gotten rid of and those who enjoy firears and use them responsibly can be left in peace adn those who would misuse them figure it out before they do so and either leave them alone or become responsible firearms owners and users.

as for the CPS. this is not about a personal vendetta or bias totally. i will admit that my counties CPS has been one of the worst in the enire state of ohio and I have been persecuted by them personally (turns out my exstepson was the one who had been calling against me. My lawyer sued him for harressment and he almst wound up in jail for it but at least there is a CPO against him that if he calls CPS against me anytime in the next 6 years for any reason he will go to jail.) They have been under investigation by the SAG for the past year and there is tallk that the entire agency will be dissolved and folded into the department of job and family services so the state can have better over sight of the actions undertaken by the CPS. This is possibly going to happen staewide. There have been as of the last count over 3 dozen lawsuits brought against my counties CPS for them abusing their power and authority against people. 1 CPS social worker was arrestted for assaulting a parent when that parent refused to admit they where a bad parent (turns out it was another one of those cases where the parents got divorced and the non-custodial called CPS to harrasses and get revenge on the custodial parent) . The last three times they tried to get a tax levy passed to continue operating they got defeated by over 80% of the voting populace in the county. Its not 5% of the cases being malicious or false its more like 45% or higher in my county. I do not have statistics for the rest of the nation but I would not be surprised if it isnt the same elsewhere, especially in states like texas that give their CPS way way too much latitude and let them basically act on too flimsy of any excuse. cps needs reformed, reorganized and brought under the control of the rest of the ntire legal system instead of being allowed to run rampant liek some sort of secret police that is above the law. They are public servants like anyone else and are bound and restrained by the law. Unfortunately too many of them act like they are above the law and judge jury and executioner if you dont bend over and let them rod you up the butt. Guily until proven innocent is their mantra and that needs to be changed.

daleduke:Term limits on every office. Park board trustee to the President. Maximum number of terms is 3. Maximum number of years in a term is 4.
term limits is good. Although that can have a bad effect in some of the smaller local offices. My local township trustees have a 3 year term no upper limit on terms they can serve. one of them finally retired after serving 8 consecutive terms. he was goign to retire last time but everyone wrote him in as he has done such an excellent job for the townhip and getting things done for us and protecting us from the county seat and their urban ideas as to what should be done in the county. This last year he made sure everyone understood he was RETIRING!!!! dangnabbit and going to be a farmer only. The guy who replaced him had some mighty big boots to fill. Still though it would help keep a bad person from doing too much damage either. maybe instead of having one blanket set of term limits have graduated ones so that the ones who can do the most damage get cycled through there quicker than ones who can only mess up minor things.

Campaigning will start no more than January 1st of the year of the election for the office you are running for (ie 2008 Presidential election = start date of January 1, 2008). I like this one. bad thing is it might increase the advertising density past critical mass and destroy the universe as we know it. Not that this is a bad thign to consider on some days but generall univrse destruction is to be avoided....One of my friends was joking around and suggested a reality show like american idol to determine the president. Not quite sure how that one would go down but hey might get more people involved.

55 states/territories/etc (Washington DC, far Western territories, near Western territories, Eastern territories, active duty military), 5 primary dates. Each date will be two weeks after the previous one. First primary will be the third Monday in January. No more of this BS of primaries all over the calendar from January to almost June.
- Primaries will be decided by popular vote. At the end of the 5th primary date, person with the most votes wins.
Interesting. I'll agree that all this primarie malarky needs to get straightened out. Might be interesting.

Two senators, ten representatives from each state (every state will have equal say). Hmm. Two senators is good enough to stay. but I'll agree with Darth about needing a more balanced representation. one of he reasons we have two houses in the congress is to keep things fair and balanced. While the current method of assigning representatives is not very pretty or efficient in many ways it does make sure that a sparsely populated state like wyoming is ramroded by a place like california or new york with population centers that you could drop into wyoming and they would double the state population. Maybe assign 1 presentative per 1,000 or 10,000 citizens or so if we have to change the ratios.

Dreamstalker: That was then this is now. Not only was this countries population a lot lower so was the worlds. We have a much more finite set of resources to deal with now, jobs, housing, medical care etc... A person here illegally is benefitting without truely contributing in return. The irish back then who did sneak in did wind up contributing a lot more than the current crop of illegals. But any more indepth discussion of the llegals shuld be taken over to that thread to avoid cross pollination beyond saying I stand by my POV on illegals. They are foreign invaders and should be treated as such as long as we have a national border. Either that or the natinoal border should be disolved and stuff like passports and national citizenship forgotten.

I would like to see frivolous lawsuits immediately thrown out of the courts Agreed. this country is way too sue hapy for stupid shit. I'm not sure how you could legislate for personal responsibility though as that woul be more of a social engineering issue for the eduation system and parents and people in general to deal with. maybe legislate against people being able to sue for being stupid and ignoring common sense and hurting themselves for stuff like standing on a metal ladder and working around live electric wires. Or trying to claim that they didnt think that using a heat gun as a hair dryer would result in them melting their face off. remove a lot of the nanny state laws like smoking bans, helmet laws change personal injury laws where if you fail to take responsibility or your own safety too damn bad you're a moron and dont deserve to live.....Its you life be responsibile for it. If you cant be responsible for it then it aint the governments job to be your mommy or daddy and live it for you.

I think our government should do away with tracking devices, wire tapping, and all that other "patriot act" bullshit. You shouldn't be tapping phone lines unless you have suspicions, REAL ONES, that someone is doing something illegal.

I also hate the TSA and all their bullshit. Security is one thing, paranoia is ridiculous. I should be able to take my goddamn shampoo and conditioner on a flight with me.... I also remember some golden days when you could bring FOOD on flights with you rather than chopping off your arm in the lobby to get some peanuts to bring with you.... sheesh...what's next? We get stuck in a hospital gown and given a full body cavity search before we get on board?

hehehe dont give them any ideas..... but I'll agree right now we are still operating in knee jerk paranoia mode. Rational thought is probably still a few years out when it comes to security issues. Maybe lookign to how other countries , especially israel deal with terrorist issues and still have passenger comfort and convenince balanced.

Where's the incentive to behave if their misbehaviour nets them more profit than it will cost them in lawsuits? Well thats where the laws letting the government seize a company that is not acting in the public good come into play. Either a permanent seizure or one long enough to reform the company, criminal charges against the responsible executives and generally change theattitude that led to the misbehavior of the company before it can return to more responsible private hands.

Anyhow all interesting ideas. even yours Ree though I totally disagree with them. But that does show you that no matter what not everybody is going to be happy. After all luciferl stood abashed and saw how awful goodness was and chose to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven...(Yes I've read Milton.:p)

[the_std]

i will admit that my counties CPS has been one of the worst in the enire state of ohio... I do not have statistics for the rest of the nation but I would not be surprised if it isnt the same elsewhere

I find it kind of frightening that you would call for a national reform on something, based solely on your observation of your county or, possibly, state.

[daleduke17]

Hmm. Two senators is good enough to stay. but I'll agree with Darth about needing a more balanced representation. one of he reasons we have two houses in the congress is to keep things fair and balanced. While the current method of assigning representatives is not very pretty or efficient in many ways it does make sure that a sparsely populated state like wyoming is ramroded by a place like california or new york with population centers that you could drop into wyoming and they would double the state population. Maybe assign 1 presentative per 1,000 or 10,000 citizens or so if we have to change the ratios

The reason I threw this in was due to having the Primary elections being decided by popular vote. Another check/balance if you will. Rahmota, I do like the idea of one representative for every 10,000 persons, even though that would mean there would be almost 300,000 representatives.

[Sylvia727]

I find it kind of frightening that you would call for a national reform on something, based solely on your observation of your county or, possibly, state.

Agreed. As discussed in another thread, the CPS in my area has the exact opposite problem from rahmota's. (EDIT: removed unnecessary details.)

The CPS does need to be reformed, but different areas have different problems. Taking power away from the (alleged) victims and giving it to the (alleged) abusers is not going to help. It will only make matters worse.

[Ree]

Taking power away from the (alleged) victims and giving it to the (alleged) abusers is not going to help. It will only make matters worse.Exactly!
I am not saying it's a perfect system, and I know there are problems, but I had a major issue with the whole "rights of the parents are sacrosanct" notion.

[Kaylyn]

My question is about the whole fuel issue. I'm just curious, as a truck driver, about where the transportation industry fits into your fuel reform. I totally agree with finding alternative fuels, but would the truckers that are the backbone of just about everything in the country suffer? A diesel rig gets about 6 mpg, and I'm not sure how they'd function on anything other than diesel (mainly because I don't think it's ever been tried). In your United States, they'd be illegal, and then commerce would collapse in a matter of days because you'd have no way to get the goods from factory to store shelf. While I agree they should work on converting them over to renewable fuel sources, I don't know if it could be done within 10 years.

[rahmota]

I am not saying it's a perfect system, and I know there are problems, but I had a major issue with the whole "rights of the parents are sacrosanct" notion.
No it most definately is not a perfect system. And the rights of the parents should be respected whenever possible to the utmost. maybe not sacrosanct where the child can never be removed but it should be difficult for the government to remove them just on a suspicion or whim. It is always better to give the government too few powers than too many. For it is easier to add power than to remove it from a government agency.

I'm just curious, as a truck driver, about where the transportation industry fits into your fuel reform. I totally agree with finding alternative fuels, but would the truckers that are the backbone of just about everything in the country suffer?
Okay well. Some of what I am about to say might not be happiness causing for you as a truck driver. Aside from bio-deisel (be it soy based or cellulose or the bio sludge seshat mentioned sourced), newer technology to increase fuel economy and lighter trucks that are just as durable I dont see much that can be done with big rigs. Maybe deisel electrics like trains but my vision for transportation reform would de-emphasize rigs as the main long haul transportation for goods in this country. America used to have one of the biggest rail systems in the world. We threw it away. I would see the railroads rebuilt and re-emphasized as the king of long haul freight moving.

Example. used to be if you lived in podunk iowa and there was say a stove in pittsburg Pa you wanted to buy from the sears catalogue. It would be loaded aboard a boat in pittsburg, sent down river then upriver to the nearest port to podunk iowa that was a train center. Then it would be on a train at the depot and go by rails to the nearest town with a train depot to podunk. This is assuming podunk wasnt big enough to warrent its own train stop, even a whistle stop at least. Getting it from the train depot to your home was your problem.

Now to modernize that scenario. A spiderweb of rail lines expanded from what we currently have, improving the technology and roadbeds on somewhat the european model (you guys have an excellent rail system I noticed in my research for the trip there) with several major depots in each region and smaller depots in each state. From the depots trucks would then transport items as usual to the factories, stores and homes. Within a region trucks would still be king. So sending an object from indianapolis indiana to say chicago illinois or columbus ohio would be on a truck. Also for time sensitive items there would still be airplanes.

It would repurpose trucks from the long haul over the road so reducign those amounts of trucks on the road would reduce that much fuel consumption and make those units of fuel available for other uses. There really would not be a need for more trucks on the road as the train depots would be chosen so that they where not too close together but not too far apart. Most trucks would be used for shorter (by big rig standards) in state, in region, or local deliveries. So smaller trucks would be able to be used.

Like I said before the system might need a bit of tweeking but it should work out.

Another check/balance if you will. Rahmota, I do like the idea of one representative for every 10,000 persons, even though that would mean there would be almost 300,000 representatives. yeah there is the problem that we would have to rebuild the halls of congress into somethign worthy of Coruscant if we went with the 1/10k ratio so a higher ratio might need to be done but anythign that keeps government from being too productive is a good thing.

[BlackIronCrown]

First, the disagreements. If I don't comment on it, I'm not disagreeing with it.


6:No more war on drugs. Marijuana and the drugs are legal. this will reduce crime and improve the quality of life in america.

Objection. While it is granted that the current prohibitions against drugs are malum prohibitum rather thanmalum in se, there are some drugs which are detrimental to the good of society. Those drugs that have too high of an addictive nature need to be barred for the good of the populace. While I have no objection of a federally regulated supply of marijuana, ecstasy, or other 'recreational' drug, I contend there are others which need to still be prohibited. Those are:
1) crack
2) heroin
3) cocaine
A case could be made for opium derivatives in general, but that is debatable. Essentially, the three substances above need to be controlled.

7: mandatory firearms training in high school and barring any physical or severe mental disability mandatory carry and firearms ownership.

Objection. While I support the 2nd Amendment and the rights of others to carry firearms, I have no wish EVER to carry one or learn to utilize one myself, except in defense of my country. This particular rule violates my civil liberties in this regard.

CPS would be depowered. No more anonymous calls to them. they have to declare why they are at your doorstep, who called on you and what your rights are. No more withchunts they would have to have definate and limited proof of abuse or neglect before they could lift a finger. Any investigatiosn would be limited to specific charges and allegations and anythign ANYTHING else is not allowed to be touched looked at or otherwise investigated. The rights of the parent are sacrosanct and the government has to have definate proof before interefereing in that for any reason.

Objection. What would you do for those cases in which a child wishes to report abuse but faces reprisals if the child does so? this is essentially neutering CPS entirely and going back to before the 1950s. I can't support regression back to an earlier age.


2:flat tax. The entire tax law is as follows: How much did you make last year from all sources of income? What is 20% of that? You owe the answer to the previous question ot the US government. No ifs ands or buts and no more loopholes for the rich to wiggle through to get out of paying their fair share.


Question! Your flat tax covers all variants of income from a personal source; how does this affect sales tax, business tax, and the taxes on corporate income? Are corporations treated like a person [as in the legal interpretation of a corporation] or a business? How does your flat tax address the fact that those with lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income than do those who are more affluent?


3: price controls on all items.


COMPLETE OBJECTION! This is not Maoist China nor Stalinist Russia; price controls on ALL items have historically proven to be economically unmanageable and eventually disastrous for the economy.


4: a systematic removeal of capitalism as a means of motivation and commerce. Communism is a much superior form of commerce.


COMPLETE OBJECTION! The ONLY country to have survived under communism is Cuba and they only by the strictest of social and economic controls. North Korea has become a wasteland of starvation. Soviet Russia's economy collapsed. China's economy can no longer be described in any way as communistic, which they admit, calling it "communism with Chinese characteristics". Communism as an economic system does not work, simply because it relies on human altruism as its basis, not human self-interest.


6: any company that brings in over a billion dollars in profits is siezed and run for the common good as if they are making that much in profit they are doing somethign illegal.


Objection! Several companies have made billions without engaging in illegal tactics. Microsoft is a good example; despite the charges that they are a 'monopoly', they did nothing fundamentally illegal to reach that state. The same may be said of AT&T, General Electric, Ford in the 1920s-60s, and several agricultural combines.

I think those are my strongest rebuttals to make. :)

[BlackIronCrown]

In regards to people taking responsibility, I would like to see frivolous lawsuits immediately thrown out of the courts. I don't want to hear any more shit in the media about every guy that drops coffee in his lap having to sue someone.


Agreed. There are currently movements within the bar societies and the court systems to begin fining people for bringing forth frivolous lawsuits.


Lawyers should be disbarred for ambulance chasing and advertising sue-happy services. (seriously, there is an ad around here about calling for legal counseling if you've been bitten by a dog! for deity's sake!)


You can actually complain to the state bar about that. While regulations for advertising have been relaxed, they have not been relaxed that much.


I think our government should do away with tracking devices, wire tapping, and all that other "patriot act" bullshit. You shouldn't be tapping phone lines unless you have suspicions, REAL ONES, that someone is doing something illegal.


....
Oh dear.
Well, I'll be addressing that disagreement in my own government proposal. :D

[rahmota]

First, the disagreements. If I don't comment on it, I'm not disagreeing with it.
okalie, dokalie neighbor!

I contend there are others which need to still be prohibited. Those are:1) crack 2) heroin 3) cocaine
Yeah I know. I would probably honestly add meth there to that list too. Having had personal experience with meth dealers and a couple users thats not good shit there. However legalizing it means that the government can actually have more control over it than letting it stay out in the streets and backyards and all of america. By saying that all dealers have to be liscened and tested and stay within purity and sales location regulations that could hopefully localize the problem and when the problem becomes localized into a captive audience slowly educate and regulate the substances so that only the hard core die hard addicts are left. Anyone who doesnt play buy the rules gets seized and removed from the general population. Somewhat pollyanna maybe but also there are laws for other behavioral crimes committed under the influence does it matter if the person behind the wheel of the car that hit grandma jones was drunk on beer, wacked out on cogh syrup or high on smack? If the person was incapable of controlling a vehcile the cause of that incapacity is a moot point.

Objection. While I support the 2nd Amendment and the rights of others to carry firearms, I have no wish EVER to carry one or learn to utilize one myself, except in defense of my country. This particular rule violates my civil liberties in this regard.
Well as I mentioned to Ree (which you never got back to me on if that sounded like a good compromise or what?) there could be several different exemptions available for people to apply for. Also i expanded upon what I meant by firearms education in the schools. Not just teaching how to handle and use firearms but when to and when not to and all sorts of other issues related to firearms. Considering to be perfectly honest the length of time it take to teach a person to use a firearm is 15 minutes or less while the time to teach responsible use of a firearm is a lot longer. I'm willing to use an entire school year to teach the responsibility.

this is essentially neutering CPS entirely yeah and so? They need it. As I've stated there needs to be proof and evidence not just whims and suspicions before you start destroying families. if there is enough proof then theyc an go in and get a court order. If there isnt then tough. that sucks but families are the core of what makes up a society. the rights of the individual and the family are more important than the rights and powers of the government.

Your flat tax covers all variants of income from a personal source Yes it does. Doesnt matter what it is if it is being paid to you (above the table of course) then it is income and taxable.

how does this affect sales tax, business tax, Poof! they no longer exist. Gas tax, orad use tax etc... Government has to learn to play within the balanced budget or else they dont do it.

and the taxes on corporate income? Well considering under my rules most corporations would be a not for profit or a neutral profit organization there would be no corporate profit for the government to tax. If the corporation did make a profit they would need to distribute it to their employees as a social credit. Either that or a 100% tax on corporate profit sounds fair.

Are corporations treated like a person Nope they are a business pure and simple. However the CEO is personally responsible for everything that happens under his command. Just like the captain of a ship or harry S truman the buck stops here is gonna be on his desk. Some mindless goomba in level 47 of podunk iowa drops the ball and doesnt do proper maintenence on a pipeline and kills 2 dozen people not only is that goomba personally responsible so is the entire chain of command up to and including the CEO. That should help make sure companies are small enough to be easily managed. No more mega corps.

How does your flat tax address the fact that those with lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income than do those who are more affluent? I have thougt about that and considered the numbers so I'll just start my flat tax above the pverty level. If you live in the poverty level then no taxes for you. As poverty is something that needs to be reduced as muchas possible though I might consider having a graduated flat tax say 10-15k you pay x 15001k to 25k you pay this etc... etc... that way the rich can help pay their fair share from their ill gotten gains and spread the wealth back down the food chain to those who actually produce things.

price controls on ALL items have historically proven to be economically unmanageable and eventually disastrous for the economy.
Actually as true communism as found in Karl Marx's wonderful little book has never been tried on a grand scale there is no proof one way or the other as to its ability to work or not. Its only when you allow personal greed to become a factor in the system does things begin to destruct.

Communism as an economic system does not work, simply because it relies on human altruism as its basis, not human self-interest.
Actually its not really relying on human altruism as the basic principle but more of a sense of understanding the importance of the balance of production and consumption. I dont have enoug time here to go into a discourse on communism vs capitalism but suffice to say that capitalism is about greedy selfish pigs that consume more than they produce and communism is about enlightened self interest understand that comsumption has to equal production or bad thigns result. Also look at the social credit (something else I support) a really good book for the layperson that has a dicsussion on that is Robert A Heinlein's For us the Living.

North Korea has become a wasteland of starvation
I actually wanted to comment on this one individually. N Korea is about as Communist as Mcdonalds food is healthy. the problem with NK is that they have been ruled by one family as a totalitarian state where the state has all the rights, all the powers and all the vision comes filtered through one rather eccentric indivudal with a loyal personality cult willing to die to do his bidding. A perfect example of what happens when the individual surrenders all of their powers and rights to the state.

Several companies have made billions without engaging in illegal tactics. Microsoft is a good example; despite the charges that they are a 'monopoly', they did nothing fundamentally illegal to reach that state. The same may be said of AT&T, General Electric, Ford in the 1920s-60s, and several agricultural combines.
Really? (we need a spockian raised eyebrow smilie like on YIM) Monopolies are not a good thing and isnt that what all that trust busting was about back at the turn of the 19th century? I'll not discus the morals, ethics and all the nitty gritty legalities of the various corporations here as there have been enough of that on thewweb but suffice to say that just because the courts have not been able tog make anythign stick yet doesnt mean that they havent done anythign wrong. This is a very business friendly country and very megacorp friendly government right now so of course they are going to turn a blind eye and a wink wink nudge nudge for anything bad.

Well, I'll be addressing that disagreement in my own government proposal
Please do. I'd love to see your opinions and ideas. I somehow get the feeling that on many things we are going to be at opposite ends of the spectrum on things but thats not unsurprising. I will admit I do see the power and rights of the individual as being more important, more worthwhile and worthy and more valuable than the rights and powers of the state and government. Society is only as strong as the individuals are that comprise it. Weaken the individual and you weaken society. Empower the individual and you raise the society to new heights.

[the_std]

I find it kind of frightening that you would call for a national reform on something, based solely on your observation of your county or, possibly, state.

rahmota, I was wondering if you had anything to say about this?

[rahmota]

rahmota, I was wondering if you had anything to say about this?Yes , sorry I missed it the first time around.
there have been calls for national reform on less.

[the_std]

there have been calls for national reform on less.

I hardly see that as reasonable ground for it. Just because they did it doesn't mean they were right to do it. Surely you have a more responsible reason than that?

[Difdi]

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has stood every test and experiment thrown at it.


I have that same pet peeve (mine is named Bob and is a cute 'lil bugger, heh).

The sun rising in the east and setting in the west is a theory, not a fact (there's some evidence the Earth rotated the other way at some point in the distant past, for example) and there's no guarantee it will do so tomorrow.

Gravity is a theory. We believe things will continue to fall down because they always have for us in the past. But scientifically, there's no guarantee this will continue.

Heck, reality itself is a theory. We could all be disembodied brains, along the lines of The Matrix, being fed simulated nerve impulses. And we'd never know.

Evolution is a theory. It fits existing facts, and what gaps it has can easily be explained by us missing critical pieces (the fossil record is not complete).

Creationism, however, is not a theory. It's a hypothesis, and doesn't adequately explain existing facts, so it's not a particularly good hypothesis at that. Intelligent Design differs a bit from plain vanilla Creationism, and while it's scoffed at by quite a few people, it is quite a bit more robust a hypothesis than Creationism. The problem though, is that Intelligent Design is inherently unprovable, barring the Designer showing up and saying hi.

[Difdi]

Of the United States.


I remember this quote, I don't remember from where: "Power does not corrupt. However, it is an irresistable lure to the easily corrupted."

Laws
Remove any law that has the sole purpose of promoting, defending or legislating consideration or the Judeo-Christian morality. Rape is a physical assault and not a moral issue. What I am talking about is a lot of the "blue laws" Specific examples are:
1:Marriage would be defined as a social contract between two or more consenting adults. No mention of gender or anything. this would make homosexual marriage legal as well as polygamy.
2:Prostitution is legal and regulated by federal law.
3:Public nudity is no longer criminal. Especially at beeches and other recreational areas like that. Sadly being a prude is not going to be able to be illegal but at least with proper education maybe we can stamp out the prudes.
4:Suicide and euthanasia would be legal with express written and witnessed consent of the subject.
5: no more censorship of media. Don't like swear words don't listen to certain kinds of music. You're an adult some bad words is not going to destroy your psyche and if your psyche is that fragile then maybe you should crawl back under your rock.
6:No more war on drugs. Marijuana and the drugs are legal. this will reduce crime and improve the quality of life in America.
7: mandatory firearms training in high school and barring any physical or severe mental disability mandatory carry and firearms ownership.
8:nationalized health care as the rest of the enlightened countries have.
9:CPS would be depowered. No more anonymous calls to them. they have to declare why they are at your doorstep, who called on you and what your rights are. No more witch hunts they would have to have definite and limited proof of abuse or neglect before they could lift a finger. Any investigation would be limited to specific charges and allegations and anything ANYTHING else is not allowed to be touched looked at or otherwise investigated. The rights of the parent are sacrosanct and the government has to have definite proof before interfering in that for any reason.


Agreed. But I'd also add:

10: Amend the Constitution to make knowingly and willfully subverting the Constitution to be Treason, and punishable accordingly. This will prevent congresscritters from passing laws they know will be unconstitutional and/or vetoed, just to look good to their constituents. It will also, as a side effect, make it far more hazardous for a lawyer to seek public office than for a regular person. This would also make it impossible to prohibit the carrying of guns on private property or by one's employees.
11: Make shrinkwrap/sneakwrap EULAs fraud. Any contracts must be up front, and understandable to the average person on the street. Failing to do so applies any ETF fee in the contract to the person writing or issuing the contract and voids it.
12: Corporations are not people. Any corporate officer becomes fully and personally responsible for any corporate policy that violates the law. If a corporation violates the law, apply the RICO Act to anyone who has decision making power who knew about the violation and did not act to prevent it and/or report it, as well as anyone without decision making power who helped to carry it out.
13: No legal or civil immunity for anyone who commits a crime, exceeds their authority or misuses their authority. A principal who violates civil rights can be sued (in addition to the treason charge from #10) and the school's liability insurance won't cover him, for example. Qualified immunity would only apply to legitimate actions in the line of duty, within the narrow confines of whatever actions the law allows for the position of authority in question.
14: The Constitution and other US laws apply to all actions taken by citizens of the US, regardless of their location at the time; If it's illegal at home, it's illegal to travel outside the country to do it. Yes, this applies to the CIA as well. This is not to say that the host country's laws do not apply, but rather, that it would be impossible to evade US laws by going elsewhere (underage sex junkets to Thailand, for example).
15: The rights of an adult (drug use, sexual consent, signing contracts, reproduction, etc) are not granted automatically at a set age. Passing a test to prove competence in those areas would be required.
16: National ID. No exceptions. Make it as secure as possible, with forging one a capital crime.

Finances


1: No more deficit spending. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money.
2: Make the tax regulations the IRS uses match existing tax laws. Modify the tax laws so that taxable income is taxed at a flat rate, regardless of how much income is taxed. No tax shelters other than a 1:1 tax reduction for any money (or cash value of goods) donated to a real charity.
3: Either abolish the Federal Reserve Bank or nationalize it. As it stands, it's a private corporation that owns the US money supply, and loans the money the government prints back to the government.
4: Return to a hard currency standard. Perhaps using radioactive elements or an energy credit system instead of gold and silver.
5: I like the original posters idea of minimum and maximum wages, although I'd do it a bit differently. A CEO should give a 1% raise to all employees for every 1% of raise the CEO gets. No CEO severance packages unless employees get the same value, proportionately. No CEO bonuses unless employees also get a proportionate one.


Military


1: Mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting only those who are too disabled to serve. If you object to violence, field medic or quartermaster are options. No service, no citizenship. If you're not prepared to defend your country, you are not prepared to vote or hold office. A citizen refusing to serve in wartime or in the event of a militia call-up for a natural disaster is guilty of treason.
2: Eliminate most of the standing military. Exceptions would be training cadre as provided in the Constitution, special forces troops and long range missiles. If a military response is required, reaction levels would be conventional missile, special forces (SEALs, Delta, etc) if a personal presence is required, nuclear. In that order. If someone wants to attack the US, feed them a missile. If it's not a place we have an interest in and they need to die, make it nuclear or a big thermobaric. Only send troops out if we absolutely have to.

Illegal Immigration
1: It ends. Border patrol is authorized to use lethal force to repel invaders. Which is what people crossing the border illegally are. You either come in through the front door or you dont get in. End of story.


Agreed. The border gets secured with a microwave fence, incursions are met by Army Rangers with live ammo, backed up with Apache helicopters. I'd add:

2: Instead of issuing visas, start issuing tracking bracelets. Impossible to remove accidentally without removing the hand at the wrist. Removal for any unauthorized reason equals instant expulsion from the country. Removal coupled to any violent crime equals speedy trial and very probable speedy execution.
3: Make it easier to immigrate legally. Anyone who wants to come in, providing they are not a criminal or terrorist gets in. Any immigrant must undergo a 1 year probation if they come in with, say, $20,000 or more to their name, or 5 years with less. Committing any felony, failing to acquire an apartment or house, or failing to acquire a job in that time, will result in deportation and the immigrant must start all over again, after settling any legal issues.

Transportation
1:rebuild the railroad infrastructure in this country.
2: mandate that hydrogen fuel cell and other advanced technologies including biofuels begin to be implemented so that 50% of all petroleum powered cars will be off the road in 5 years. 100% in 10 years. Since there are price controls in place these new cars will be priced to be available to the common people.
3: any car that gets less than 20mpg combined is illegal to be licensed or driven on public roads.
4: Develop public transportation easily and readily available to all individuals.


I agree. I'd say #3 is problematic for some applications; Large trucks for example. Most existing trains wouldn't meet that standard either. Limiting #3 to just private cars using petroleum fuels would be a good idea, with a somewhat less restrictive minimum mileage for cleaner or more renewable fuel types; I'd be willing to say no mileage rules on a zero-emissions vehicle, for example.

Education
1: all schools public or private must maintain educational standards including teaching evolution in science class. Creationism and all its derivatives can be taught in social studies where it belongs as they are not scientific truth and fact.
2: academics shall take precedence in all regards to physical athletics.
3: Scrap this no child left behind BS. If the kid is too dumb to move on to the next grade then he gets to repeat that grade until he gets enlightenment or gets old enough to join the military or something else. Learn or lose.


I mostly agree. #1 I'd stipulate that what gets taught is solid theory, rather than specifying evolution. Who knows what will get refuted and when? As for #3, the idea is behind no child left behind is good, but the implementation seems to be designed to fail. Modify it so that every dropout, every kid expelled under zero tolerance, count against the school. As it stands, a school can improve its stats by expelling kids or encouraging them to drop out. I'd also add:

4: Zero-tolerance policies do not work. At best, they teach students that all crimes are equally serious - bringing a picture of your brother the Marine with his rifle is just as bad as bringing the rifle and shooting up the school; What you gain in discipline, you lose in critical thinking. The purpose of a school is to educate the students for their adult lives, not to control them in every way. The purpose is to breed citizens, not sheeple.

General culture
1: Promote and defend that the individual is the source of all power in the government. That the individual when willingly working together can produce a stronger, better country than when forced to work together by whiny scumbags attempting to legislate consideration or morals.
2:teach that hateful terrorist groups such as focus on the family, Phelps and his crew, KKK or neonazis are ignorant shameful cowards who teach hatred ignorance and vile evil and should be reviled and ridiculed.
3:mandate that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. No religion is above another and any attempts to do so will be fined or prosecuted.


I agree with #1 and #3. The problem with #2, is that there is no need to protect the freedom of speech when you agree with the sentiments expressed. You can't restrict speech you disagree with, without opening yourself to someone disagreeing with you and restricting you on that basis. While I agree that racism in all its forms is stupid, there is no way to legislate this without legislating away the first amendment. I've met people who are so irrational, they honestly consider anyone disagreeing with them, for any reason on any topic, to be hate speech. If you can restrict what you consider hate speech, you open the door for someone else to do the same to you.

[Norton]

15: The rights of an adult (drug use, sexual consent, signing contracts, reproduction, etc) are not granted automatically at a set age. Passing a test to prove competence in those areas would be required.


I like the idea, but how could it be enforced? Particularly when it comes to sex - people won't stop breeding just because they're not supposed to by law. Aside from giving mandatory birth control (which I doubt the country would ever accept), I don't see how it could work.

[rahmota]

I hardly see that as reasonable ground for it. Just because they did it doesn't mean they were right to do it. Surely you have a more responsible reason than that? Responsible as in what? CPS is an evil organization created to protect children and families and winds up in many cases harming families and children more or outright stealing and selling them like slaves. I see my reasons as just as valid as any other reason to do it. And I am not totally basing this just off my own personal persecution but on the cases around here and the thigns I have seen/heard/read about throu my research in fighting the evil gesttapo that is CPS in more cases than not.

Difdi:
"Power does not corrupt. However, it is an irresistable lure to the easily corrupted."

Agreed which is why the government must be as weak as possible to protect the citizens yet as robust and strong enough to do the job it must do. A very delicate balancing act that requires a lot of checks and balances.

And as per the usual if I dont comment on an idea I either find it interesting enough that I agree with it or otherwise dont have a problem with it.
15: The rights of an adult (drug use, sexual consent, signing contracts, reproduction, etc) are not granted automatically at a set age. Passing a test to prove competence in those areas would be required.
See this is a problem. I know several people who are in their 40s and if they had to pass a competency test to breed, or drink or smoke they would die of old age before passing the test unless it could be done in crayon on the back of napkin. Competency tests beyond the basic high school graduation type are dangerous things to implement as the ones who create the test can skew thigns so that only the "right" people can be found competent. Personal I say lower the legal age for everything back down to 18 (or so) and let the course of nature weed out the responsible from the irresponsible.

16: National ID. No exceptions. Make it as secure as possible, with forging one a capital crime.
I'm not fond of one national database for everythign and everyone to be in it. I like the local id scheme and would liek to see all the rest of the national databases go away. no more firearm registration, no more public accessable criminal databases, no more credit checks allowed for job seekers etc... The government needs only enough data to know where to find me to give me my money, take my money or otherwise do business with me. Theoretically the only thigns that the government shoudl know about its citizens is that they where born, they have a job and a driver's liscence. And thats it.

1: Mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting only those who are too disabled to serve. Coming from a military family I ahve to disagree with mandatory service. Looking at vietnam and the morale issues that mandatory military service brings I do prefer a volunteer military. That ensures that for whatever reasons for the most part the people who are in are there of their own volition and motivation. If a person does somethign because they want to do it generally they are goign to do a better job of it than because they have to do it.
I'll agree that some sort of service equals citizenship system should be in place but braoden it out to include a lot of civilian jobs and careers not just limit it to military.

If it's not a place we have an interest in and they need to die, make it nuclear or a big thermobaric. Only send troops out if we absolutely have to.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot them in the dark is not a very good idea from an environmentally speaking or lifespan continuonce speaking idea. Radioactive fallout (of which there would be plenty if you start flinging ICBMS, ALCMsor any of the nuclear arsenal around) will drift back around the world. Do it enough times and you can cause some interesting and unfortunate problems. Also we are not the only one with nukes. We start flinging them aroud others will start flinging them and the next thing you know greebo from clorax 9 is looking throuhg his scope at the new slag heap that used to be earth. Nuclear weapons are not a good option or replacement for conventional means.

2: Instead of issuing visas, start issuing tracking bracelets. Impossible to remove accidentally without removing the hand at the wrist. Removal for any unauthorized reason equals instant expulsion from the country. Removal coupled to any violent crime equals speedy trial and very probable speedy execution.
Big brother is watching. Hmm not good why not put an explosive in the bracelet too so that if the person goes into the wrong area or needs dealt with just punch in a code and "boom"? Implanting or installing trackign devices on people is not a good step for a free society to take.

While I agree that racism in all its forms is stupid, there is no way to legislate this without legislating away the first amendment. Agreed this is why it was placed under cultural and not legal. You cannot legislate what people think or really what they say for the most part. Everyone has the right to be a hateful ignorant racist or intolerant bigot. The thing is by changing the thought patterns by showing that that sort of thinking is more harmful than not through examples, life lessons, etc... would need to be done subtly and slowly and with the support of other equal rights laws that people may not like but will eventually get over. I mean for the most part integration of blacks is a minor issue for america in jobs,schools, and military. (For the most part there are still some issues there but at least not like the 60s) Given enough time and enou education eventually bigots will still be around but they will be a lot fewer, hopefully. You'll never get rid of them and actually bigots do serve a useful purpose. It is hard to define light without dark to contrast it with.

I agree. I'd say #3 is problematic for some applications; Large trucks for example. Most existing trains wouldn't meet that standard either. Limiting #3 to just private cars using petroleum fuels would be a good idea, That is what I was trying to say by using the word car there instead of vehicle. Also no more of this classing an SUV as a light truck so they can get around the fuel economy restrictions.

All in all aside from a couple of rather scary ideas very interesting.

[rahmota]

A couple thigns I thought of while talking to the wife today at lunch. Just a couple quick thoughts off the cuff.

1: I would prohibit all government agencies/agents from hiding behind bulletproof glass or metal detectors or otherways of hiding and insulating themselves from the public. these are public servants they are here to serve the public. not be tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood looking down upon the great masses of america from behind their barriers. Transparency in government in all things. Ease of access to all government gents from the BMV,CPS,Welfare offices to the governor of the state up to the president. Security can be acheived without sacrificing accessability. And if security does lapse and someone does get through then oops oh well. It might teach these arrogatn bastards to be polite and respectful to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The government is there to serve its people not the other way around.

2: Thinking about the way the invasion and occupation of iraq has gone make tighter controls as to how, where and when the government is able to use the us military. Keep the military under the political branches control but transfer "ownership" to congress. that way except for extremely limited emergency situations the president has to go to congress and ask permission to play with the military. I know thats how it is supposed to really work that way already but the way it is done is too loose. I say tighten it up to put more limitation on it.

A limited government is a good government.

[the_std]

1: I would prohibit all government agencies/agents from hiding behind bulletproof glass or metal detectors or otherways of hiding and insulating themselves from the public. these are public servants they are here to serve the public. not be tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood looking down upon the great masses of america from behind their barriers. Transparency in government in all things. Ease of access to all government gents from the BMV,CPS,Welfare offices to the governor of the state up to the president. Security can be acheived without sacrificing accessability. And if security does lapse and someone does get through then oops oh well. It might teach these arrogatn bastards to be polite and respectful to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The government is there to serve its people not the other way around.

I take offense to this point. I work for the government as a receptionist and, yes, I am behind bullet-proof glass. I work for a justice department, which means that we handle court cases, among other things. The floor I work on is the only floor that is accessible to the public. ANYONE who knows we're here can come up to this floor. There have been many times where I've been threatened by members of the public who missed their court dates, or didn't get the results they want, or are just plain angry/on drugs/delusional. We are downtown, an area that dangerous people have very free access to. And yes, there have been a few times where I actually thought that, if not for the glass between me and the other person, I could have been attacked or shot. I am well trained in self defense, but I cannot grapple someone over a desk. I do not have bullet-proof skin. If someone does get through, oh well? If I am shot for something that is not my fault, like them missing their court date, oh well?! I happen to be very polite, cheerful and willing to bend over backwards to accomodate people. I am not an arrogant bastard and I do not deserve to be shot just so that you can improve your society.

[BlackIronCrown]

Again with the rebuttals, this time to Difdi:


10: Amend the Constitution to make knowingly and willfully subverting the Constitution to be Treason, and punishable accordingly. This will prevent congresscritters from passing laws they know will be unconstitutional and/or vetoed, just to look good to their constituents. It will also, as a side effect, make it far more hazardous for a lawyer to seek public office than for a regular person. This would also make it impossible to prohibit the carrying of guns on private property or by one's employees.


Mmm-hmmm.
Tell me, what laws have been attempted to be passed that are unconstitutional? Or that up front are known to be vetoed? I am aware of one bill attempted by Ron Paul to bypass the judiciary and prevent them from declaring any law unconstitutional. Who will determine that bill to be unconstitutional? So far, nothing can be declared to be so unless done by the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court have to go over any bill that needs to be submitted for vote?
How will you prove at the trial for treason that the person submitting the bill was "knowingly and wilfully subverting the Constitution"? This is a criminal trial; you need more than "preponderance of evidence"; you're required to have "beyond all reasonable doubt" and have to convince a grand jury to indict and a regular jury to convict.
How would this make it hazardous for a lawyer to seek public office? In order for a lawyer to subvert the Constitution, he must be specifically trained on Constitutional Law. Most aren't.
How would this make it impossible to prohibit the arrying of guns on private property or by one's employees? Laws that do this have already been determined by the USC to be constitutional and non-infringing; would this somehow retroact the court's decisions? After all, it is the USC that determines if a law is constitutional or not.


11: Make shrinkwrap/sneakwrap EULAs fraud. Any contracts must be up front, and understandable to the average person on the street. Failing to do so applies any ETF fee in the contract to the person writing or issuing the contract and voids it.


How do you recommend software companies protect themselves legally? Should we also institute regulations making it illegal to sell or otherwise acquire software or other shrinkwrap EULA items unless the contract is personally signed by the recipient?


12: Corporations are not people. Any corporate officer becomes fully and personally responsible for any corporate policy that violates the law. If a corporation violates the law, apply the RICO Act to anyone who has decision making power who knew about the violation and did not act to prevent it and/or report it, as well as anyone without decision making power who helped to carry it out.


...
You want to make a secretary of an executive responsible for an environmental violation that crossed her desk?
No, I DAMN well don't think so. You'd never get to hold that up in court.


13: No legal or civil immunity for anyone who commits a crime, exceeds their authority or misuses their authority. A principal who violates civil rights can be sued (in addition to the treason charge from #10) and the school's liability insurance won't cover him, for example. Qualified immunity would only apply to legitimate actions in the line of duty, within the narrow confines of whatever actions the law allows for the position of authority in question.

You have immediately removed all possible use for plea bargains, resulting in a lower rate of conviction.
Secondarily, you have immediately paralyzed all public officials. For example, as that principal, I WOULD NOT prevent the KKK from burning a cross on the school property, as calling the police or attempting to prevent that would be a violation of their civil rights.


14: The Constitution and other US laws apply to all actions taken by citizens of the US, regardless of their location at the time; If it's illegal at home, it's illegal to travel outside the country to do it. Yes, this applies to the CIA as well. This is not to say that the host country's laws do not apply, but rather, that it would be impossible to evade US laws by going elsewhere (underage sex junkets to Thailand, for example).


Uhhh. Right.
Well, that's crippling the CIA even more than it is already crippled. Law prevents any domestic agency from performing espionage within the United States. Law also prevents the CIA from operating within the United States. What you have just done is say to the CIA, commit no espionage functions either within or outside the United States - it is illegal for a US national to do so. Which means the CIA is either made up of people that do not have US citizenship and are thus not subject to those laws, or the CIA doesn't exist, since it can't do work either inside or outside the USA.
Congrats.
Secondly, your extension of extraterritoriality will be protested by every country in the UN. That's not going to work very well.


15: The rights of an adult (drug use, sexual consent, signing contracts, reproduction, etc) are not granted automatically at a set age. Passing a test to prove competence in those areas would be required.



4: Return to a hard currency standard. Perhaps using radioactive elements or an energy credit system instead of gold and silver.


Much as I like the idea, current unfeasible. See your local Macroeconomics class on why. Simply put, there is NO material, including energy, that is able to serve as hard currency and not cause a total depression ala the 30s in today's society.


1: Mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting only those who are too disabled to serve. If you object to violence, field medic or quartermaster are options. No service, no citizenship. If you're not prepared to defend your country, you are not prepared to vote or hold office. A citizen refusing to serve in wartime or in the event of a militia call-up for a natural disaster is guilty of treason.


Ah, the Starship Troopers solution. I might have agreed with national service for one year, but not this. If you want a draftee army, fine. However, I'll note that conscript militaries do quite badly on the scene of warfare. Secondly, you're asking fo a revolution with this type of deal.


2: Eliminate most of the standing military. Exceptions would be training cadre as provided in the Constitution, special forces troops and long range missiles. If a military response is required, reaction levels would be conventional missile, special forces (SEALs, Delta, etc) if a personal presence is required, nuclear. In that order. If someone wants to attack the US, feed them a missile. If it's not a place we have an interest in and they need to die, make it nuclear or a big thermobaric. Only send troops out if we absolutely have to.


Your views on the military are a bit idealistic. First, nuclear weapons is contravened both by US and international law except in such cases as we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction; nuclear is only a response to nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry. Utilization of nuclear weapons in such a...cavalier manner will result in embargoes, removal from the UN Security Council, and probably outright war with nukes being thrown our way. We do not practice Soviet-style brinkmanship as a war policy.


2: Instead of issuing visas, start issuing tracking bracelets. Impossible to remove accidentally without removing the hand at the wrist. Removal for any unauthorized reason equals instant expulsion from the country. Removal coupled to any violent crime equals speedy trial and very probable speedy execution.


Speedy execution? You mean deportation. Executing foreign nationals is a good way to have war declared...unless we simply don't care about the rights of foreign nationals anymore.
Also, I think the ambassadors and diplomatic corps of nations like Mexico, Canada, and the UK are going to be a bit pissed. "Mr. Ambassador? We're tagging you like a dog. Look, you German fuck, put up or shut up. This is the USA!" That's not very, uh, diplomatic.

====
More rebuttals for Rahmota:


1: I would prohibit all government agencies/agents from hiding behind bulletproof glass or metal detectors or otherways of hiding and insulating themselves from the public. these are public servants they are here to serve the public. not be tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood looking down upon the great masses of america from behind their barriers. Transparency in government in all things. Ease of access to all government gents from the BMV,CPS,Welfare offices to the governor of the state up to the president. Security can be acheived without sacrificing accessability. And if security does lapse and someone does get through then oops oh well. It might teach these arrogatn bastards to be polite and respectful to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The government is there to serve its people not the other way around.


Thereby ensuring that I can walk into the court downtown, pull out my Glock, and open fire on some judges, yo. Or that I can put on a fake military uniform, waltz into the Pentagon looking spiffy, make my way into a records room with my forged id, and pull some files. No metal detectors, magnetic card locks like you have in corporate buildings, or stuff like that. Fantastic.
And before you ask who would open fire on judges and/or other court staff, see what's happened in Chicago and Atlanta lately. These weren't "arrogant bastards" or "tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood". These were killed by people who thought

Tell you what, have a current headline:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_re_us/courthouse_shooting;_ylt=AlY7Y0cpL6VnHBGibe5L5_pvz wcF
Why yes...that guy should have been allowed to carry it into an actual courtroom and open fire. No searching, no guards, no metal detectors, no nothing. Yup.

[rahmota]

Or that I can put on a fake military uniform, waltz into the Pentagon looking spiffy, make my way into a records room with my forged id, and pull some files
Standard security procedures on any military base would prevent that. As the Pentagon is the base of all bases their security would be just fine. The problem isnt having security it is having too much security that intereferes with the transparency and accessability of OUR employees the government.


This coutry has turned into a paranoid over zealous elistist nation. Heading rapidly for a police state with the rich and the government sperated from the people solidifying the social classes instead of working to remove social barriers and resolve the problems that the rich and the government have caused by their actions.

std: If the city is that dangerous and bad then maybe you should go someplace less combative. A lot of the stress and situation people are having is caused by the repressive and oppressive atmosphere in the courthouses and government buildings. I mean last time I went into a federal building it felt like walking into the reichstag in 1938 germany. The guards wore black uniforms, there was a metal detector booth there that could have ben used as a prop on star trek for the agonizer booth, the entire atmosphere of the place was one of grim oppression of humanity. Heck even the building was a large black cube. Go into a welfare office and the people who work in there are hiding behind their bulletproof glass looking down their noses at the people on the other side. Its just a major attitude problem with the public servants. Our government has encouraged the attitude that the government is above the people and that everyone should bow down and worship the government and all its lackeys and that just aint right.

[the_std]

std: If the city is that dangerous and bad then maybe you should go someplace less combative. A lot of the stress and situation people are having is caused by the repressive and oppressive atmosphere in the courthouses and government buildings. I mean last time I went into a federal building it felt like walking into the reichstag in 1938 germany. The guards wore black uniforms, there was a metal detector booth there that could have ben used as a prop on star trek for the agonizer booth, the entire atmosphere of the place was one of grim oppression of humanity. Heck even the building was a large black cube. Go into a welfare office and the people who work in there are hiding behind their bulletproof glass looking down their noses at the people on the other side. Its just a major attitude problem with the public servants. Our government has encouraged the attitude that the government is above the people and that everyone should bow down and worship the government and all its lackeys and that just aint right.

The city is not that dangerous and bad. I feel safe walking around by myself, even at night. We don't have any guards or metal detectors and we're in a mall, not a government-owned building. There is nothing inherently wrong with our set-up, except for the fact that we're a city with 300,000 people and there are always going to be some crazies. I agree that the government's view of the public might need to be overhauled, but sacrificing the innocent and their protection (my only protection is the bullet-proof glass) is definitely not the way to go about it. You make it sound like us government employees are less than human, or not as important, because it doesn't matter if we're killed, as long as the government is changing the way it deals with people. That's like the people who swear at telemarketers because they don't think they have real jobs, or don't believe that they're real people on the other end of the phone. If you're so "individual before the masses", remember that we who work for the government are individuals as well, thank you.

[BlackIronCrown]

Standard security procedures on any military base would prevent that. As the Pentagon is the base of all bases their security would be just fine. The problem isnt having security it is having too much security that intereferes with the transparency and accessability of OUR employees the government.

I don't understand. WHAT standard security procedures? Standard security procedures are limited access, physical patdowns, and electronic scanning. What OTHER security procedures would take the place?

How does it interfere with the transparency and accessibility of the employees? What information or service is being withheld from you? Are you demanding the ability to walk up to the Secretary of Defense any old time you wish?


This coutry has turned into a paranoid over zealous elistist nation. Heading rapidly for a police state with the rich and the government sperated from the people solidifying the social classes instead of working to remove social barriers and resolve the problems that the rich and the government have caused by their actions.


Blanket hypothetical statement. For me to accept this as absolute fact, I want rigorous proof - backing by academic studies and independent reports performed in a proper statistical and testing method.

[crazylegs]

1: I would prohibit all government agencies/agents from hiding behind bulletproof glass or metal detectors or otherways of hiding and insulating themselves from the public. these are public servants they are here to serve the public. not be tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood looking down upon the great masses of america from behind their barriers. Transparency in government in all things. Ease of access to all government gents from the BMV,CPS,Welfare offices to the governor of the state up to the president. Security can be acheived without sacrificing accessability. And if security does lapse and someone does get through then oops oh well. It might teach these arrogatn bastards to be polite and respectful to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The government is there to serve its people not the other way around.

I'm going to strongly disagree with this. For well over thirty years the UK has had the shadow of terrorism hanging over it, government buildings have always been a target, it was only in the last two or so years that a gunman ended up trying to storm the parliament buildings in (northern ?) Ireland.

In the US there are lots of people who have access to lots of firearms, some of which shouldn't. These people would dearly love to pop a few rounds off at any agency. The person behind the glass is exactly that.

A person.

They probably have parents, possibly kids.

How do you explain to them that Mummy or Daddy died becase a piece of glass wasn't there...?

Another point I will disagree with you on is the CPS. Anon tips can serve a purpose, they could be from the abused themselves, or a neighbour of a particularly violent person. I understand you have had a difficult time with this agency but they do save lives. It is difficult to express just how hard it must be for the people within the agency to have to make the desicion to remove children from their parents but make it they must.

[rahmota]

I understand you have had a difficult time with this agency but they do save lives.
You know people I am sorry you see this as some sort of personal vendetta and I dont need or want anyone's pity or sorry. There are hundreds if not thousands of families every year victimized by CPS. Who have their civil and legal rights ignored and violated by CPS on the basis of scant or no evidence of any wrong doing whatsoever. But if a person tries to say anythign negative about the bastards you get the response I am seeing here "Oh but think of all the children they save! Oh see how much good they do." Its like trying to point out a vicious not housebroke puppy that just happens to be cute and does one or two good things. One good deed does not excuse a hundred evil acts.http://www.fightcps.com This is a network for victims of CPS mindless and needlessly evil aggression to help get support and fight back against the persecution of these gestapo bastards.


A person.

They probably have parents, possibly kids.

How do you explain to them that Mummy or Daddy died becase a piece of glass wasn't there...?
If you're so "individual before the masses", remember that we who work for the government are individuals as well, thank you.
And as an individual it is your duty and your responsibility to only folow those orders and regulations that are constitutional and legal. It is your duty as an individual to understand what the person on the other side of the glass is goign throu and to not give in to the attitude of supercilious superiority that is so commonplace among our government officials. The attitude of "I have the power so you will kneel before me and do my bidding to get whatever it is you need from me if I feel like it."
A lot of the problems that "require" these Orwellian and overzealous security responses would go away if the government was reformed to better serve the people instead of expecting the people to serve it. Yes there would still be an occasional nutjob who wants to be famous but you can never get rid of them no matter what. And society should never try because the methods required to do that would hurt and burn hundreds of innocents more than it would. The good of the body politic is the good of the individual.

It is difficult to express just how hard it must be for the people within the agency to have to make the desicion to remove children from their parents HA! I laugh at that joke. Considering how zealous the gestapo agents who persecuted me and those in my county are to try and remove kids at the slightest whim they dont seem to have a problem with it. I asked the agent if they could sleep at night knowing they persecute innocent people everyday and she had no answer for it. Well hopefully she'll be able to sleep better at her new job at mcdonalds since we managed to get her fired and her liscence to be a social worker in the state of Ohio revoked. (I got that piece of good, no great and terriffic news yesterday)

Which that remiodns me of another piece of regulation that I would require: Only parents with children may work for CPS. You cannot judge another parents ability unless you are a parent. No more of this freash out of college dipshit who doesnt know anything about the real world judging other people's ability to do or not do anythign. Interefereing in the rights of parents and their family is too important and too serious to be left to inexperienced tyros.

And yes the rights of parents are sacrosanct enough that to try and remove or interefere in that you had better have definate and absolute proof of wrongdoing. Otherwise you are in the wrong and evil.

And as for the anonymous tips this country's legal system is based on two fundamental principles. One is that everyone is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (unlike how the CPS operates which is the diametrically opposite of that. You are guilty until you can prove yourself not guilty. you are never innocent in their eyes. and they will keep a record of you for the rest of your life. Which that would and should be illegal as well. No cetnral databases for anything. Once a case is closed with them they would be required to destroy all records that you where ever perseuted by them) , and the other is that the accused has the right to know and face their accusers. You start breakign those principles and you start the destruction of our legal system into the persecutorial and orwellian society we are on the brink of if not already in right now.

That's like the people who swear at telemarketers because they don't think they have real jobs Oh yeah thanks for reminding me. Telemarketing would be illegal and punishable by jail time and fines startign at 500,000$ per call made. The CEO of the company invovled in telemarketing would be held personally responsible for it. and would be the one doing the jail time and paying the fines out of their own pocket.

All phone numbers would be unpublished and unlisted by default. If you wanted to have your personal phone number listed you would have to opt in for that and pay extra. The phone book would consist of those individuals who had opted into publishign, government agencies and offices and all businesses.

I don't understand. WHAT standard security procedures? Standard security procedures are limited access, physical patdowns, and electronic scanning. What OTHER security procedures would take the place?

None that would be the usual stuff to get on a military base. They are quite good at knowing who is and is not supposed to be there and your average joe would not be able to just put on a uniform and stroll into a base with no challenges.

I am not opposed to requiring ID or a physical guard standing there at military bases. I am talking about all the overzealous and orwellian methods used at the BMV, the welfare office, the CPS office, the court houses. There is no need for that kind of bugaboo. Not in a free country that has nothing to hide or seperate form its people.

[the_std]

And as an individual it is your duty and your responsibility to only folow those orders and regulations that are constitutional and legal. It is your duty as an individual to understand what the person on the other side of the glass is goign throu and to not give in to the attitude of supercilious superiority that is so commonplace among our government officials. The attitude of "I have the power so you will kneel before me and do my bidding to get whatever it is you need from me if I feel like it."
A lot of the problems that "require" these Orwellian and overzealous security responses would go away if the government was reformed to better serve the people instead of expecting the people to serve it. Yes there would still be an occasional nutjob who wants to be famous but you can never get rid of them no matter what. And society should never try because the methods required to do that would hurt and burn hundreds of innocents more than it would. The good of the body politic is the good of the individual.


I do not order people. I do not direct them. I sure as hell do not expect them to kneel before me and do my bidding. I am a bloody receptionist. I answer their phone calls and sign them in if they have appointments with our lawyers. I have absolutely zero control over if they're arrested and charged with with "Orwellian" offenses. I have no control over anything that happens to them outside of my lobby. My lobby, by the way, that has comfy chairs and potted palms and nothing restricting them or watching them or anything like that except for a piece of bullet-proof glass between my desk and them which does them absolutely no harm whatsoever. If the government is trying to control them and hurt them through their laws and "safety procedures", overhaul them before you put innocent people in the face of danger. Social change does not happen over night. Taking away the bullet-proof glass is not going to stop the angry people from threatening me or trying to hurt me. You seriously need to rethink your strategy here.

I'm very, very glad that you are not in charge of my government.

[rahmota]

std: realize that all of these changes I am proposing would not happen in a vacuum or alone. And no social change does not happen over night. And sometimes it is very painful and can be rather unpleasant. No birth happens without some blood.

The thing about social change is that not everyone is going to want to change their society. Either because they see no need to as they are profiting or are not facing the same problems under that society as others. They are too scared to make changes. Because they are too complacent or comfortable with the way thigns are and dont want to try something new or different.

Your situation is different than what I have encountered and lived and see everyday so you are going into this with a different set of perceptions and attitudes about things. I for one am very dissatisfied with the way this coutry is being run and would like to see somethign better put into place. I am very glad I would live in a country under the rules I have proposed and consider it a good place.

How do you recommend software companies protect themselves legally? they dont. EULAs become freeier and more upfront or comapnies dont get to stay in business as an independent entity and are siezed and run for the common good.

[daleduke17]

Something I would do, if I was in charge would be to streamline some of our governing agencies. Earlier I looked up a list of different state agencies in Illinois. What a huge list. I got to thinking, instead of paying for that many Executive people (something like 75 agencies) why not group like agencies together.

I got out my handy-dandy Excel file (Excel is fun for stuff like this) and grouped different agencies together.

Illinois has a board for "Educational Labor Relations", a "Community College Board", a "Student Assistance Commission" and then the "Board of Education". Sounds like four groups that could go together really well. One person in charge of it all, and four assistants.

To further make it sound weird, we have a "Toll Highway Authority". There's less than 300 miles of toll roads in this state. Let me think. Roads are for transportation...Illinois has a Department of Transportation who maintains roads. Group the THA with them.

Illinois also has boards for racing, gaming and Lottery. Yet another area to streamline.

Pretty much, if Illinois wanted to, they could save a lot of money by grouping some of these redundant groups together. Of course, there would be a small amount of jobs lost, but, it could be kept to a minimum as well. There's always job openings at state offices all over Illinois.

[rahmota]

daleduke17: Yeah thats a good idea. I forget how many redundant or similar agencies there are in ohio but probably about the same as illinois. Most governments do have a tendency to bloat over time as everybody wants to get their piece of the pie.

[daleduke17]

daleduke17: Yeah thats a good idea. I forget how many redundant or similar agencies there are in ohio but probably about the same as illinois. Most governments do have a tendency to bloat over time as everybody wants to get their piece of the pie.

http://www.ohio.gov/agencies/

There's a list. Sounds about like Illinois.

[Slytovhand]

Originally Posted by rahmota
Illegal Immigration
1: It ends. Border patrol is authorized to use lethal force to repel invaders. Which is what people crossing the border illegally are. You either come in through the front door or you dont get in. End of story.

Difdi:
Agreed. The border gets secured with a microwave fence, incursions are met by Army Rangers with live ammo, backed up with Apache helicopters.

I presume, therefore, that anyone who isn't full-blood Native American should either find a new place to live, or face a firing squad?

[AFPheonix]

I presume, therefore, that anyone who isn't full-blood Native American should either find a new place to live, or face a firing squad?

And they get to pay a helluva lot more for produce as there isn't really anyone else around willing to pick the fruit off the trees.
Hood River encountered that issue when INS started cracking down. Those farmers had fruit literally rotting on the branch for lack of workers.

[Difdi]

Tell me, what laws have been attempted to be passed that are unconstitutional? Or that up front are known to be vetoed? I am aware of one bill attempted by Ron Paul to bypass the judiciary and prevent them from declaring any law unconstitutional. Who will determine that bill to be unconstitutional? So far, nothing can be declared to be so unless done by the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court have to go over any bill that needs to be submitted for vote?


The Telecommunications Decency Act is a good example. There have been a number of cases in past years of city councils legislating against religious groups.

How will you prove at the trial for treason that the person submitting the bill was "knowingly and wilfully subverting the Constitution"? This is a criminal trial; you need more than "preponderance of evidence"; you're required to have "beyond all reasonable doubt" and have to convince a grand jury to indict and a regular jury to convict.
How would this make it hazardous for a lawyer to seek public office? In order for a lawyer to subvert the Constitution, he must be specifically trained on Constitutional Law. Most aren't.


It's not hard to read the constitution. to use the decency act I mentioned above, passing a law that criminalizes internet speech that is protected speech in any other medium, to look good to constituents ("I voted to PROTECT our CHILDREN!") would be a pretty obvious example. If you don't know the constitution, swearing an oath to defend it is violated the instant the oath is made. How do you defend what you have no knowledge of?

How would this make it impossible to prohibit the arrying of guns on private property or by one's employees? Laws that do this have already been determined by the USC to be constitutional and non-infringing; would this somehow retroact the court's decisions? After all, it is the USC that determines if a law is constitutional or not.


The US supreme court is wrong. Go find a legal dictionary from the 1780s, and look up what the phrase "well-regulated" means, as well as the definition of militia, both in the dictionary and the constitution. The second amendment doesn't specify a branch of government, it simply states the right shall not be infringed. If the right shall not be infringed, then it shall not be infringed. By anyone. If private policies trump the highest of laws, then what happens if you are on private property and see a sign that states "anyone on this land consents to being buggered, and agrees that no legal recourse is allowed"?

How do you recommend software companies protect themselves legally? Should we also institute regulations making it illegal to sell or otherwise acquire software or other shrinkwrap EULA items unless the contract is personally signed by the recipient?


If I buy a product, and there is no contract on the label, and I did not agree to a contract prior to paying money, I should not be bound by the contract that is printed on the inside of the box. That product is mine, from the moment I paid for it. I don't have rights to copy it, beyond the provisions given in copyright law. But I do own the copy I bought. A EULA inside the box that declares that I am only licensing it, not buying it, is modifying the terms of the deal after the fact. Getting a refund on opened software can be rather difficult, to say nothing of the companies that will sue you for breaching an after-the-fact contract you never agreed to.

Try this: By reading this post, you agree to send the author $0.02 in cash, postage payable by the reader. In return, the reader is licensed to make copies of this post, so long as no monetary or other material gains are acquired by doing so. Failure to send the author $0.02 within 10 business days will result forfeiture of ownership any pastries currently owned by the reader, to the author. The reader waives any rights to take the author to court over this, and must instead submit to binding arbitration, by the arbitrator of the author's choice. Note that this agreement does not limit the author to the remedy of binding arbitration, and the author may revoke copying rights from the reader at any time, for any reason.

It's just as legitimate as any other sneakwrap EULA, and I have just as much right to do so as a software company does. Courts have actually upheld the binding arbitration clause in EULAs in some recent cases. I wrote that up with silliness in mind, but if a software company can force you to agree to a EULA after the sale is final, then my little EULA above is just as binding.

You want to make a secretary of an executive responsible for an environmental violation that crossed her desk?
No, I DAMN well don't think so. You'd never get to hold that up in court.


No, I want to make a secretary responsible for anything she believes to be illegal, but does not report to the authorities, that crosses her desk. The law to do so is already on the books. Go look up RICO, it holds up quite well in court.

You have immediately removed all possible use for plea bargains, resulting in a lower rate of conviction.
Secondarily, you have immediately paralyzed all public officials. For example, as that principal, I WOULD NOT prevent the KKK from burning a cross on the school property, as calling the police or attempting to prevent that would be a violation of their civil rights.


Incorrect. The KKK is damaging the lawn, which is not their property.

Well, that's crippling the CIA even more than it is already crippled. Law prevents any domestic agency from performing espionage within the United States. Law also prevents the CIA from operating within the United States. What you have just done is say to the CIA, commit no espionage functions either within or outside the United States - it is illegal for a US national to do so. Which means the CIA is either made up of people that do not have US citizenship and are thus not subject to those laws, or the CIA doesn't exist, since it can't do work either inside or outside the USA.
Congrats.


Incorrect. It limits the CIA to behaving as a law enforcement entity, rather than a band of thugs and killers. The FBI is not significantly hampered by wiretap laws. The police do just fine with search warrants. There is even a special court for agencies to go to with covert requests for search and tap warrants. There's no reason the CIA can't do the same. If you're dealing with terrorists, for example, the emphasis would be on capture, rather than assassination. The CIA would be required to justify itself when holding a suspected terrorist, and would prevent the practice of extraordinary rendition. To say nothing of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods.

Secondly, your extension of extraterritoriality will be protested by every country in the UN. That's not going to work very well.


You appear to have misread my post. There are already US laws on the books that do what I suggested, I simply want to extend them to apply to official business. And I never implied, let alone stated that US citizens would be exempt from foreign laws when in foreign countries; Simply that if a US citizen goes to, for example, Thailand, to have sex with 10 year old girls, he'll be in quite a bit of trouble when he comes back home. This is already illegal under US law, and to my knowledge, nobody, UN or otherwise, has complained yet.

Much as I like the idea, current unfeasible. See your local Macroeconomics class on why. Simply put, there is NO material, including energy, that is able to serve as hard currency and not cause a total depression ala the 30s in today's society.


No, it wouldn't cause a depression. If anything, it would do the opposite. Why? For one thing, it would eliminate the national debt. For another, it would eliminate any need for income tax. Period. Go look up the federal reserve bank, and what it does.

Ah, the Starship Troopers solution. I might have agreed with national service for one year, but not this. If you want a draftee army, fine. However, I'll note that conscript militaries do quite badly on the scene of warfare. Secondly, you're asking fo a revolution with this type of deal.


I seem to have been unclear, as you're the second person to miss my point. I didn't specifically limit it to military service. The national guard acts as a disaster relief force, as well as a military force, and combined with the military changes I'd make, were I in charge, most of those serving would never touch a weapon, outside of basic training. But my original point stands: if you don't care enough to serve your country, you don't care enough to lead it, or vote for those who do.

Your views on the military are a bit idealistic. First, nuclear weapons is contravened both by US and international law except in such cases as we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction; nuclear is only a response to nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry. Utilization of nuclear weapons in such a...cavalier manner will result in embargoes, removal from the UN Security Council, and probably outright war with nukes being thrown our way. We do not practice Soviet-style brinkmanship as a war policy.


Again, I seem to have been unclear somehow, though I'm not sure how so many people are missing two thirds of what I said, and seizing on this one example. I specified nuclear as a ultimate response. Not a first response, not a response to every problem...a final response. You can get most of the same results with a large thermobaric bomb, without the radiation and pollution. Two thirds of my post on the matter was conventional, not nuclear...so why has no one commented on that?

Speedy execution? You mean deportation. Executing foreign nationals is a good way to have war declared...unless we simply don't care about the rights of foreign nationals anymore.
Also, I think the ambassadors and diplomatic corps of nations like Mexico, Canada, and the UK are going to be a bit pissed. "Mr. Ambassador? We're tagging you like a dog. Look, you German fuck, put up or shut up. This is the USA!" That's not very, uh, diplomatic.


Wow. So if someone who is a real life Hannibal Lecter illegally enters the US for his idea of a vacation, all we can do to him is deport him with a stern talking to, or his home country will declare war on us? Wow.

There was an incident a while back, of a neonazi in the USA who repeatedly emailed neonazi propaganda to someone in Bavaria. What he did was protected speech where he did it...the worst he was guilty of, under US law, was harassment. That didn't stop Germany from extraditing him, or stop the US from allowing it. As far as I know, he's currently still in prison, for a non-crime. I certainly don't agree with his politics, but he didn't commit a crime in Germany either. I'm dreading the next slip down the slope on this sort of thing; Perhaps someone in Germany will surf into a skinhead website in the USA, be offended by it, and the webmaster will end up in a German prison too.

I'll reiterate: If you enter the country illegally, and commit a felony, you don't get deported to try entering illegally again. You get a fair trial, and if convicted, you get executed. If found innocent of the felony, but guilty of illegal immigration, you get deported. If you're not an illegal immigrant, then other rules apply. If you're a foreign diplomat, then of course you're not going to be executed...of course, since it's impossible to simultaneously be an illegal immigrant and have diplomatic immunity, I don't see how you can envision the situation ever occurring.

Thereby ensuring that I can walk into the court downtown, pull out my Glock, and open fire on some judges, yo. Or that I can put on a fake military uniform, waltz into the Pentagon looking spiffy, make my way into a records room with my forged id, and pull some files. No metal detectors, magnetic card locks like you have in corporate buildings, or stuff like that. Fantastic.
Why yes...that guy should have been allowed to carry it into an actual courtroom and open fire. No searching, no guards, no metal detectors, no nothing. Yup.


Though the origins of the quote are somewhat in dispute, it's still a valid point: "Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both"

Yes, allowing unlimited carry by non-felons would make it possible to have a shootout in the courthouse (or the mall). But how does such a possibility justify the reality of infringing on the rights of the law-abiding citizens who would not do such a thing? If someone smuggles a gun in illegally, and his first shot kills the bailiff (or mall security), then anyone who obeys a law banning weapons is screwed. They have a legal right to self-defense, but if you remove any means they have of defending themselves, the end result is the same as if you banned self-defense.

I don't understand. WHAT standard security procedures? Standard security procedures are limited access, physical patdowns, and electronic scanning. What OTHER security procedures would take the place?


The fact that the soldiers have guns is a wonderful deterrent to random shooting sprees. Armed citizens likewise deters the same sort of random shooting sprees in public areas...except for those areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to defend themselves.

I presume, therefore, that anyone who isn't full-blood Native American should either find a new place to live, or face a firing squad?


I have some native american ancestry. Not alot, but some (french trapper that married into a tribe). But I don't understand what your point is here. It's illegal to enter the country illegally, punishing crimes is a legitimate act of government. Securing the border with the most advanced and cost effective methods is also a legitimate act. Those who enter illegally deserve to be met at the border in the same manner as any foreign invader is met: With a well-regulated militia, and turned back the way they came...or if they resist, turned back vigorously.


P.S., the author hereby voids the EULA above, no need to give me your two cents... :)

[crazylegs]

But my original point stands: if you don't care enough to serve your country, you don't care enough to lead it, or vote for those who do.

You can serve your country without having to join a body that has the primary aim of killing people in the most efficient way possible, you could become a paramedic, or a firefighter, you could work to maintain the highways or other infrastructure, it is not just the armed forces that serve the nation.

[Boozy]

You can serve your country without having to join a body that has the primary aim of killing people in the most efficient way possible, you could become a paramedic, or a firefighter, you could work to maintain the highways or other infrastructure, it is not just the armed forces that serve the nation.

I agree.

Everyone who works, learns, teaches, buys, sells, builds, invents, and lives in the country is serving the nation. We don't live in a vacuum. Everyone has the potential to contribute to the growth and well-being of their country.

[Slytovhand]

2 quick thoughts for Difdi.

Firstly... my comment on full-blood Native Americans was a shot at European invasion of the land about 300 years ago - the murders, enslavement etc of those orginally living there... and then relating it to the term 'illegal immigrant', since you were so willing to have them all shot on sight.... given that it could be argued that the 'government' is actually 'llegal'...especially when you look at all the 'agreements' that were brokered and broken.

Secondly... one word... Amsterdam (in relation to doing things that are illegal in the US, but may not be elsewhere).

Slyt

I think I like some of the ideas you are having, but not the way you are going about it. And that seems to be some of the arguments arising here...

[BlackIronCrown]

The Telecommunications Decency Act is a good example. There have been a number of cases in past years of city councils legislating against religious groups.

It's not hard to read the constitution. to use the decency act I mentioned above, passing a law that criminalizes internet speech that is protected speech in any other medium, to look good to constituents ("I voted to PROTECT our CHILDREN!") would be a pretty obvious example. If you don't know the constitution, swearing an oath to defend it is violated the instant the oath is made. How do you defend what you have no knowledge of?


Ok, since there is no listed Telecommunications Decency Act, I'm going to assume you are talking about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Title V is known under the more popular name of the Communications Decency Act.

It may surprise you to know that the CDA was NOT overturned and the majority of it is still in effect. The main problems were with the anti-obscenity and anti-indecency portions of the CDA. It was felt that the indecency portions were too broadly worded. Reno v. ACLU struck down the indecency portions because of that reason, not because it was unconstitutional. The anti-obscenity portion still remains in effect - it was correctly worded.

The refined variant of the indecency portions were passed as the Children's Internet Protection Act in 2000. It was challenged and the USC found it to be constitutional in 2004. It's simply a tighter rewrite of the part of the CDA that was struck down.

In no way does this mean that Congress or then-President Clinton (who passed the CDA) were deliberately trying to be unconstitutional. Something being too broadly worded is not an offense and thus serves as a bad example.

The US supreme court is wrong. Go find a legal dictionary from the 1780s, and look up what the phrase "well-regulated" means, as well as the definition of militia, both in the dictionary and the constitution. The second amendment doesn't specify a branch of government, it simply states the right shall not be infringed. If the right shall not be infringed, then it shall not be infringed. By anyone. If private policies trump the highest of laws, then what happens if you are on private property and see a sign that states "anyone on this land consents to being buggered, and agrees that no legal recourse is allowed"?

And here's where the reasoning fails. You are interpreting the Constitution in accordance with "strict constructionist" theory, which is a legal theory on the Constitution that was abandoned after the Civil War. You are attempting to use the original meaning of the words at the time the document was written, thus turning the US Constitution into a "dead document" that cannot be applied to modern legal situations as it does not address modern legal issues adequately. If you truly believe in strict constructionism, then you also a) do not believe in judicial review and thus the USC cannot declare what is and is not constitutional (which automatically retroacts every decision since Marbury v. Madison in 1803) and b) that the states had a right to secede in the Civil War, as explicitly stated by the Constitution, and that the Federals had no right to perserve the Union. Sorry, it's all part and parcel of that viewpoint.

However and thankfully, that is not how Legal America, including the state and federal governments, view the Constitution. The Constitution is a "living document" which must be interpreted in modern times in light of the spirit of the time it was written, not the literal word-for-word-without-deviation of the 1780s.

More info on the Constitution and its interpretation:
Strict Constructionism & Originalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
The Living Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

It's just as legitimate as any other sneakwrap EULA, and I have just as much right to do so as a software company does. Courts have actually upheld the binding arbitration clause in EULAs in some recent cases. I wrote that up with silliness in mind, but if a software company can force you to agree to a EULA after the sale is final, then my little EULA above is just as binding.

And rightfully so. Feel free to enforce your EULA by any legal means necessary.

(Although, I must warn you, you will have to prove that this is a private, not public forum, and thus you are in re sovereign when it comes to posting.)


No, I want to make a secretary responsible for anything she believes to be illegal, but does not report to the authorities, that crosses her desk. The law to do so is already on the books. Go look up RICO, it holds up quite well in court.

Ok, you're going to get 'em on the RICO statute. So, I'm some Enron exec and I pass a detailed report on how I and the board of executives are going to defraud all and sundry on to my fellow execs. It goes across my secretary's desk and she gets to make the copies for everybody. Now, exactly how is my secretary going to know this report is for something illegal when I'm using terms like "re-balancing input and output of income into negotiable protocols" and "determining cost/benefit analysis on subsidience into diversified subsidiaries in order to not negatively impact main fiduciary stability"? I'm using quotes from Enron's own documents on the shenanigans they were doing, ones that DIDN'T get shredded. Are you actually telling me that those phrases are going to trip a secretary's Illegal Sensor? How could you possibly prove that in court?

I don't think you have an understanding of the sophistication of white-collar crime. There's a reason why EVERYONE gets suckered by these guys; they're saying things that seem legit until you do the utmost careful investigation or the bottom falls out of the con.


Incorrect. The KKK is damaging the lawn, which is not their property.

No, but it is public property (unless a private school). A case can easily be made that any government property is public property and therefore is not subject to censure if the KKK is wiling to pay for any and all property damage that THEY incur.


Incorrect. It limits the CIA to behaving as a law enforcement entity, rather than a band of thugs and killers.

Except that the CIA is not a law enforcement agency and never has been. It is an intelligence and espionage agency.

The special court you mention for wiretaps and such exists only for domestic surveillance. Are you saying that we need a similar court for extraterritorial espionage, ie, permission from Congress to spy on foreign nationals or take action against foreign threats? Or are we going to be asking permission of a court in China to come spy against them?

Also, if the focus on terrorists is capture and not assassination, what are you wanting to do with them? A public trial? Let's say we capture a Pakistani terrorist - do you realize that unless classified as an enemy combatant we are required, BY TREATY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, to turn that person over to the Pakistani government to be dealt with? Are you suggesting that try foreign citizens on American soil under American laws when we have no jurisdiction to do so?


You appear to have misread my post. There are already US laws on the books that do what I suggested, I simply want to extend them to apply to official business. And I never implied, let alone stated that US citizens would be exempt from foreign laws when in foreign countries; Simply that if a US citizen goes to, for example, Thailand, to have sex with 10 year old girls, he'll be in quite a bit of trouble when he comes back home. This is already illegal under US law, and to my knowledge, nobody, UN or otherwise, has complained yet.

The reason why no one has complained is because it's already a violation of Thai law too. Trufax: must be 15-16 or older to have sex in Thailand. The 10 year old business is underground and illegal already. It's kind of like buying heroin there and porting it back to the USA - illegal in both places.

So, let's do it this way. Smoking pot in Amsterdam is perfectly legal, so long as done in a hash bar. So, American goes over there to smoke some pot legally in that country and when they come back here we arrest them?

How about old-fashioned prostitution? It's legal in many other countries. Gambling too. Should a native of my state, Georgia, be arrested because they gambled in another country and violated local law?

You probably don't mean to apply it to those items. However, that's the issue you run into with law - if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.


No, it wouldn't cause a depression. If anything, it would do the opposite. Why? For one thing, it would eliminate the national debt. For another, it would eliminate any need for income tax. Period. Go look up the federal reserve bank, and what it does.

I understand exactly what the federal reserve bank does. There is no such thing as hard currency for ANY currency in the world today; none of it is backed by specie. Wishing otherwise does not change the fact that there is NO substance currently existing that would not cause a fiduciary mplosion if used as hard currency. Eliminate national debt? Absolutely. Cause runaway deflation, which would invoke a depression, same as runaway inflation does? Also, absolutely. That's macroeconomics for you.


Again, I seem to have been unclear somehow, though I'm not sure how so many people are missing two thirds of what I said, and seizing on this one example. I specified nuclear as a ultimate response. Not a first response, not a response to every problem...a final response. You can get most of the same results with a large thermobaric bomb, without the radiation and pollution. Two thirds of my post on the matter was conventional, not nuclear...so why has no one commented on that?

Because a) thermobaric bombs are also considered to be 'borderline' weapons of mass destruction and frowned on for use at all and b) the policy you're describing is called brinkmanship. We do not practice brinkmanship, period.


Wow. So if someone who is a real life Hannibal Lecter illegally enters the US for his idea of a vacation, all we can do to him is deport him with a stern talking to, or his home country will declare war on us? Wow.

Current legal state of affairs:
- If he commits a crime on US soil, we may try, convict, and punish him for it so long as his country says we can.
- If his country says no, we have to deport.
- If he has diplomatic immunity, we have to deport regardless. This is to prevent a cessation of diplomatic relations and possible reprisals against US diplomatic personnel in that country, if any.

Naturally, how our relations with that country are currently has a lot to do with it. Canada? Could care less if we try one of their people. China? Will make a stink.


There was an incident a while back, of a neonazi in the USA who repeatedly emailed neonazi propaganda to someone in Bavaria. What he did was protected speech where he did it...the worst he was guilty of, under US law, was harassment. That didn't stop Germany from extraditing him, or stop the US from allowing it. As far as I know, he's currently still in prison, for a non-crime. I certainly don't agree with his politics, but he didn't commit a crime in Germany either.

Actually, he commited a VERY big crime in Germany. Importation of neo-nazi material, especially if it references a swastika or other elements of the Nazi Party is forbidden by law and punishable by up to a decade in prison. If he was sending neonazi propaganda to a German citizen over the internet, that's a big crime in Germany.

Mostly you see that with games. For instance, Wolfenstein 3D and Return to Wolfenstein are still banned in Germany, as they reference Nazis. City of Heroes had a villain group called the Fifth Column who were neonazis; the images of that group had to be completely changed and all neonazi references removed before it could be marketed in Germany. The official term for all this is "denazification" and was started by the Allies after WW2.

If he was extradited, I assume it was due to a treaty. We had to agree to extradite before sending him over; we can refuse to do so. He did commit a crime on a German citizen, so *shrug*

cont. due to post length

[BlackIronCrown]

Though the origins of the quote are somewhat in dispute, it's still a valid point: "Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both"

As a side note, usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the most bloodthirsty bastards in all of American history, to the point of being really, really unsettling.


Yes, allowing unlimited carry by non-felons would make it possible to have a shootout in the courthouse (or the mall). But how does such a possibility justify the reality of infringing on the rights of the law-abiding citizens who would not do such a thing? If someone smuggles a gun in illegally, and his first shot kills the bailiff (or mall security), then anyone who obeys a law banning weapons is screwed. They have a legal right to self-defense, but if you remove any means they have of defending themselves, the end result is the same as if you banned self-defense.

1) The chance of someone smuggling in a firearm with current security procedures and detectors is nil if done correctly. You can't even detect a Glock going through. I should know, I've seen it attempted. You do it right, the only people with firearms are law enforcement personnel.

2) So, non-felons are allowed to carry on government property. So all these unarmed judges, secretaries, and other normal government employees who are not packing - what the HELL are they supposed to do when McCustomerSucks who feels his divorce terms were unfair unstraps the Uzi and lets go on full-auto? Or hell, just a pump shotgun with a mixture of shrapnel and shell, modified to accept a clip and with the slide jiggered so tht it can be racked by arm movement alone? No bulletproof glass, no body armor, no detectors - exactly what are these people supposed do? DIE? "Oh too bad, let's elect/appoint another judge?"

DON'T suggest that the federal/government employees should all go about armed and ready to pop off someone's head. Just because they're armed or even trained doesn't mean they're going to be able to quick-draw the guy. Secondly, it has been law (judged Constitutional too) that government employees are NOT to be armed unless they are law enforcement personnel...and even then, there are restrictions. Check on why the FBI was not allowed to carry firearms for the first 10 years of their existence.

The fact that the soldiers have guns is a wonderful deterrent to random shooting sprees. Armed citizens likewise deters the same sort of random shooting sprees in public areas...except for those areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to defend themselves.

Now, here's where we get to the crux of the matter.
WHY would I consider another armed citizen to be a deterrent if I'm armed myself?
Also, why am I relying on the "good nature" of others to keep it holstered when such doesn't exist? Why am I relying on everyone to "remain cool" when people can't keep a handle on their temper most of the time?

The reason -I- don't own a gun is because I know better. I would already be in jail for assassinating several people in incidents of road rage. Or arguing on the internet. Why? When I get mad, I simply (like most people) don't give a damn until it's all over.

Oh, and that's another good question. With your "Guns are allowed in government buildings." policy, what preventions do you take to prevent assassinations of government officials? Do we simply go back to a Kennedy-era situation where protection for government officials is, well, damn scanty?

That last one about the Native Americans was from Slytovhand, so I can't rebut that one. :)

[rahmota]

There is no such thing as hard currency for ANY currency in the world today; none of it is backed by specie. I know and that is a very bad thing. Basically all money is any more is nothing but an IOU backed by the good faith and value of the government. Which with some governments doesnt really amount to much.

So, non-felons are allowed to carry on government property. So all these unarmed judges, secretaries, and other normal government employees who are not packing - what the HELL are they supposed to do when McCustomerSucks who feels his divorce terms were unfair unstraps the Uzi and lets go on full-auto? Or hell, just a pump shotgun with a mixture of shrapnel and shell, modified to accept a clip and with the slide jiggered so tht it can be racked by arm movement alone? No bulletproof glass, no body armor, no detectors - exactly what are these people supposed do? DIE? "Oh too bad, let's elect/appoint another judge?"

Well theres a bit of hyperbole and exageration now. The odds of that sort of behavior happening if the rest of the social order changes would be quite reduced. We are not talking about ckeeping our soceity in the exact same fucked up rich and elite have the power/ poor and commoners have the shaft social order we have now that generates the violence but a better more enlightened society where the citizen is respected, resources are fairly and equitably shared so that all people have the same ability to live a decent life. Do that and I guarentee violence would go down.

[DesignFox]

I live in the angry state....around the angry city parts. I'm pretty happy that most people around here aren't packing.

I can see why guns would be a necessity for self defense in rural areas, where the nearest police force is over 20 mins away. But not here. We're too damn crowded...I think that their should be limits, and it's no bad thing that criminals aren't allowed to bring their weapons to the court house with them...I think it's good that the teachers and students aren't carrying weapons on school property...etc. People who work in those situations do have a right to some security- not everyone chooses to carry a gun- nor should they have to feel the need to carry one in order to defend themselves.

People are fracking nuts. While I don't think we need guns to be outlawed, I see no issue with having some restrictions, especially in densely populated areas. Honestly, if someone popped one off around my neighborhood, there would almost certainly be property damage, if not major/minor injuries.

[Slytovhand]

... The odds of that sort of behavior happening if the rest of the social order changes would be quite reduced. We are not talking about ckeeping our soceity in the exact same fucked up rich and elite have the power/ poor and commoners have the shaft social order we have now that generates the violence but a better more enlightened society where the citizen is respected, resources are fairly and equitably shared so that all people have the same ability to live a decent life. Do that and I guarentee violence would go down.

Rahmota... love your thinking...

but please get back to me when society evolves to that level... :D


BIC... as for your long post, but my bit at the bottom... yeah - I already did respond :)

[BlackIronCrown]

Well theres a bit of hyperbole and exageration now. The odds of that sort of behavior happening if the rest of the social order changes would be quite reduced. We are not talking about ckeeping our soceity in the exact same fucked up rich and elite have the power/ poor and commoners have the shaft social order we have now that generates the violence but a better more enlightened society where the citizen is respected, resources are fairly and equitably shared so that all people have the same ability to live a decent life. Do that and I guarentee violence would go down.

Ahhh. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that premise. No matter how long one was in charge, be it 10 or 1000 years, I do not believe that the basic nature of humanity can be changed.

[Difdi]

WHY would I consider another armed citizen to be a deterrent if I'm armed myself?


For the same reason most violent crime declines in areas where concealed carry is very common. Attacking someone who is armed is a good way to get hurt; The average criminal is in it for the profit...gangbanger types aside, most would rather pick on the unarmed than the armed. How much of a deterrent to violence is it, after all, to know that everybody around you is helpless?

Also, why am I relying on the "good nature" of others to keep it holstered when such doesn't exist? Why am I relying on everyone to "remain cool" when people can't keep a handle on their temper most of the time?

The reason -I- don't own a gun is because I know better. I would already be in jail for assassinating several people in incidents of road rage. Or arguing on the internet. Why? When I get mad, I simply (like most people) don't give a damn until it's all over.


Self-interest works better than good nature, most times. And just because you might have self control issues, doesn't mean others would. Projection of your motives onto others is a logical fallacy, after all.

Oh, and that's another good question. With your "Guns are allowed in government buildings." policy, what preventions do you take to prevent assassinations of government officials? Do we simply go back to a Kennedy-era situation where protection for government officials is, well, damn scanty?


Heh, the protection Kennedy got was scanty, not because that was standard policy, but because, depending on who you ask, he either had a conspiracy among his bodyguards to kill him, or had an amazing number of screwups happen by dumb luck all at the same time. Open limos were forbidden by secret service regulations but one was used anyway instead of the armored limo he was supposed to have, his route was changed from the secured route to an unsecured one at the last minute, half his protection detail wasn't present when he was shot, and so forth.

I can see why guns would be a necessity for self defense in rural areas, where the nearest police force is over 20 mins away.


Unpleasant truth: In the US, the police have a duty to keep the peace. They have a duty to investigate crimes. They have a duty to arrest criminals. They explicitly do not have a duty to protect the citizens. There have been a number of instances where people trusted the police to protect them from criminals, called 9-1-1, and were injured/robbed/killed before the police arrived. Without exception, every lawsuit they (or their family) filed that claimed the police were at fault for not protecting them was decided in favor of the police. Because the police have no duty to protect citizens, it is the citizens own duty to protect themselves.

[BlackIronCrown]

For the same reason most violent crime declines in areas where concealed carry is very common. Attacking someone who is armed is a good way to get hurt; The average criminal is in it for the profit...gangbanger types aside, most would rather pick on the unarmed than the armed. How much of a deterrent to violence is it, after all, to know that everybody around you is helpless?

How is attacking someone who is armed a good way to get hurt? You simply wait for them to pass and then attack from behind. Being armed is no good in that situation; you're dead, no matter what.

But my other argument gets folded into this next one...

Self-interest works better than good nature, most times. And just because you might have self control issues, doesn't mean others would. Projection of your motives onto others is a logical fallacy, after all.

It is not projection of personal motives. I may not think I am a criminal, but I am. We all are. Free of fear of the law, we would all be looting and pillaging without a care in the world - because humanity is by default evil, selfish, and cruel. Oh, we may have personal relationships to others, like our loved ones and families...but that just makes us gangs. Or warlord clans. Altriusm is a lie of self-delusion; we are all damned from birth.

The only thing that keeps criminals/the populace in check is fear of the law. The fear that something that is higher than us, that operates outside of Rule of Man. Whether it be Fear of the Law of the Autocrat or the Fear of the Law of the Republic, it is fear that keeps the citizens in line.

Granted, there are those criminals who do not fear the law. These are the mental aberrations, the cancers of the human body of society. They must be rooted out, exterminated, cut out on the operating table of the world in accordance with the Law.

Heh, the protection Kennedy got was scanty, not because that was standard policy,

Now that's just plain not true. It WAS standard policy. See the reports of the French Security Service on the comparison of security measures taken between JFK and DeGaulle in 1961. It's appalling, really. JFK and previous presidents to him have been wide-open for simple lack of security. The OAS would have had a field day in comparison with the trouble they had with DeGaulle.

Unpleasant truth: In the US, the police have a duty to keep the peace. They have a duty to investigate crimes. They have a duty to arrest criminals. They explicitly do not have a duty to protect the citizens. There have been a number of instances where people trusted the police to protect them from criminals, called 9-1-1, and were injured/robbed/killed before the police arrived. Without exception, every lawsuit they (or their family) filed that claimed the police were at fault for not protecting them was decided in favor of the police. Because the police have no duty to protect citizens, it is the citizens own duty to protect themselves.

I disagree with this on two points:

1) The preamble for the Constitution directs the Republic to provide justice and for the common defence. That "common defence", per legal opinion, extends to protecting the citizenry from crime. So if cops are protecting citizens, they are NOT following the law.

Probably corrupt. A few public hangings or beheading will scare the rest into obedience.

2) If it is our duty to protect ourselves, what do we need the police and judicial system for? Protecting ourselves is the Rule of Man, warlordism. It's certainly not Rule of Law.

[Difdi]

How is attacking someone who is armed a good way to get hurt? You simply wait for them to pass and then attack from behind. Being armed is no good in that situation; you're dead, no matter what.


How is it more of a deterrent to an attacker to know that a potential victim is helpless? Most criminals aren't in it to prove their courage, they commit crimes to profit. There's little to no profit in getting hurt or killed in the commission of a crime. A criminal who feels doubt about attacking someone is a criminal who may well pick a different target they are more sure of. There are some towns that have passed laws mandating that all adults be armed; A criminal in one of those towns has no doubt that a potential victim is armed; As a result, violent crime rates are extremely low.

It is not projection of personal motives. I may not think I am a criminal, but I am. We all are. Free of fear of the law, we would all be looting and pillaging without a care in the world - because humanity is by default evil, selfish, and cruel. Oh, we may have personal relationships to others, like our loved ones and families...but that just makes us gangs. Or warlord clans. Altruism is a lie of self-delusion; we are all damned from birth.


You're projecting your personal motives so hard, you can't even see the possibility of your self-delusion. Not everyone is only good while the law is looking. Not everyone is just waiting for the police to be looking the other way to kill and rob. I do what is right because it is right, not because I fear punishment. I do understand, though, that it's not a comforting thought to realize that there are people who are better than you. It's far more comforting to fantasize that they too are corrupt, and only pretending to be good, because they lack honesty. But that's all it is, really. A fantasy.

The only thing that keeps criminals/the populace in check is fear of the law. The fear that something that is higher than us, that operates outside of Rule of Man. Whether it be Fear of the Law of the Autocrat or the Fear of the Law of the Republic, it is fear that keeps the citizens in line.

Granted, there are those criminals who do not fear the law. These are the mental aberrations, the cancers of the human body of society. They must be rooted out, exterminated, cut out on the operating table of the world in accordance with the Law.


Wrong. If a criminal truly feared the law, he/she would not be a criminal. No, what makes a criminal is the belief that they have the right to do whatever they want to anyone they want, coupled to the belief that they can evade discovery by those who would punish them for those acts.

I respect good laws, because they are good, not because they are laws. I don't do so out of fear of punishment. I have absolutely no fear of punishment; I would regard being punished for disobeying an evil law to be an honor. Such punishment means that I stood my ground against evil; Being overcome by superior force is not a dishonor, it's simply a fact of life - nobody is all-powerful.

I don't fear the Law in the slightest. A good law has nothing in it to fear. An evil law, like any evil, great or small, is to be opposed by those who are good. To die fighting against evil is a good death. Though it would be far better to make those perpetrating evil die instead. Were I to find myself in the middle of anarchy, I'd impose justice or die trying. More likely the latter than the former, as people, in general, will fight to the death to preserve their own selfishness.




I disagree with this on two points:

1) The preamble for the Constitution directs the Republic to provide justice and for the common defence. That "common defence", per legal opinion, extends to protecting the citizenry from crime. So if cops are protecting citizens, they are NOT following the law.

Probably corrupt. A few public hangings or beheading will scare the rest into obedience.


I think you may have a typo in there, since as it's written, it doesn't appear to make sense.

2) If it is our duty to protect ourselves, what do we need the police and judicial system for? Protecting ourselves is the Rule of Man, warlordism. It's certainly not Rule of Law.


Law is made by Man. The Man in question may be a priest, may be a ruler, may be a citizen of a republic or a may be despot, but in the end, Law is written by Man. The law is never perfect, but the lack of perfection does not mean that perfection should not be striven for.

It is the duty of every citizen to obey the laws, providing they are just. It is the duty of every citizen to educate himself or herself to be able to make that judgment. The police are nothing more than citizens, called to serve as active militia, and sworn to enforce the law. All citizens are militia; Some serve actively, some are inactive, but all share certain duties to go with their rights.

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm - a couple of interesting points here...

Firstly..Black Iron Crown (Morgoth?? :p)

...Free of fear of the law, we would all be looting and pillaging without a care in the world - because humanity is by default evil, selfish, and cruel.

Well... that doesn't explain how people can play a game like NWN or Star Wars:KOTOR etc and be successfully Lawful Good or Light Side (I'm one of those... I have a major problem trying to be Sith... or Chaotic Evil assassins etc....). And for those sort of games, the game makers actually make it quite possible (if not preferable) to play the more evil side to fullest effect and equality. In WoW, there is Horde (perceived as evil-ish) and Alliance (percieved as a bunch of do-gooders) - well, that's how they are presented. Most servers have close to a 50/50 ratio... so I don't think humanity is as bad as you are presenting (not saying we're all glowing rosie... after all, Horde do represent 50%, and people do play Sith... and people do murder and rape and torture...but most of us get horrified when we hear about that guy in Austria...)

And before you say 'but you've all been indoctrinated by society'... just consider all of those tribes that have existed for thousands of years before our current civilisation came along. Most were very egalitarian and peaceful. If things have become so selfish and pillaging, it's through variations in resources... either we've had too many and lust after more, or we haven't had enough and want things to be easier. When we live in a place of equality and freedom from worrying about resources - then things turn nice and peachy :D


The only thing that keeps criminals/the populace in check is fear of the law I presume you meant punishment? The law is nothing without a form of punishment...


Difdi...
I don't fear the Law in the slightest. A good law has nothing in it to fear. An evil law, like any evil, great or small, is to be opposed by those who are good. To die fighting against evil is a good death.

Ah... but what or who decides what is evil and what is not? I could quite easily say that not having a free public health system is 'evil'... what then? Go assassinate any politician who votes against it? (don't worry - I actually agree with your sentiment :D) Education has shown that what is good for some will be evil for others...

What may be good for me may be very bad for others, and what's bad for me may be very good for the rest of the population... that's pretty much what the gun control thread is about... the perceptions we have.

The law is never perfect, but the lack of perfection does not mean that perfection should not be striven for.

:D


ok... time to go home now...

Slyt

[Difdi]

Ah... but what or who decides what is evil and what is not? I could quite easily say that not having a free public health system is 'evil'... what then? Go assassinate any politician who votes against it? (don't worry - I actually agree with your sentiment :D) Education has shown that what is good for some will be evil for others...

What may be good for me may be very bad for others, and what's bad for me may be very good for the rest of the population... that's pretty much what the gun control thread is about... the perceptions we have.


Most people aren't actively good or actively evil. Either one requires a fair amount of work and effort. Only an insane person wakes up and decides "Today I will be an evil bastard." No, instead, the work and effort needed to be evil lies in self-delusion. Sacrifices must be made. Someone has to make the hard decisions. The ends justify the means. These are all means of deluding oneself that one is actually a good person in an imperfect world. The problem is, that you make the world good by being good -- If you decide that because the world isn't perfect you shouldn't be either, you're giving up.

On the other hand, being good takes work too. Anyone can parrot the morality of an established religion or philosophy. But actually being a good person takes honesty, self-sacrifice, and putting effort into defining, objectively, what goodness actually is. Subjectively, one group might consider slavery a good thing. Subjectively, another group may consider genocide to be perfectly ok. But only subjectively; The slaves and victims of genocide have their own subjective views, and they disagree strenuously.

So, objectively, what is good? To the best of my ability, it seems to be very similar to the wiccan creed of "an it harm none, do as ye will." The thorny issue then becomes, defining harm. Loss of free will can also be objectively defined as harm. The best definition I can come up with for harm is "doing things to others without their consent."

So, I don't object in the least to someone who chooses to smoke; But I object very strongly to second-hand smoke (there is enough nicotine alone, to say nothing of other toxins, in one cigarette to kill a smoker instantly, were it to be all ingested; Most of it is exhaled. A single drop of 5% nicotine solution on the back of the hand is fatal to the average adult in minutes).

I don't object in the least to people poisoning themselves with their drug of choice -- But I do object to asking anyone else to pay for the medical treatments resulting from the consequences of that choice. And if that person causes harm to another while under the influence, they are wholly responsible for the damages (this is the one instance where I would consider indentured labor to be a good thing -- Accidents happen, of course...but impairing oneself before an accident is not ok).

By my standards, the average prohibitionist is more evil than the average drug dealer, taking their stance on prohibited substances as a stand-alone issue.

[MystyGlyttyr]

Heh. All I have to say is that you guys wouldn't want me in charge of anything. I'll just say there'd be a hell of a lot more radioactive smoking craters in the world and a lot more well-muscled men in camo pants and leave it at that. There's a reason my two favorite things are wrestling and the Scorched Earth video game.

Hence why I avoid any possible position involving abuse-able power. Except for being a secretary. That I freely abuse. :D

The rest of the debates here, though, I'm rather enjoying.

[Boozy]

Heh. All I have to say is that you guys wouldn't want me in charge of anything. I'll just say there'd be a hell of a lot more radioactive smoking craters in the world and a lot more well-muscled men in camo pants and leave it at that.

I'm trying to work out whether or not this would be an improvement over the current state of affairs.

Could be, really. :D

[rahmota]

Somethign I noticed I forgot under finances:
1: Make it illegal for a company to run a credit check when considering a person for hiring. Having bad credit does not automatically make that person a bad choice for a job. Especially in the crappy economy america is struggling with right now. Recession my big toe this is a depression.

BIC: Let me tell you somethign about criminals. I've been in jail with some and around others. I have walked on the dark side of the street. Most criminals will not bother someone who is armed and will go out looking for easier prey. If they think you are weak, or unarmed or incapable of defending yourself they will come after you. One reason I have made sure people understand I am armed and willing to kill to defend my home and my family as well as myself. A good deterrent is the weapon you only have to fire once.