How would you

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
217
0
hitssquad said:
Intelligence as in evaluated information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or a possible theater of operations?
yes..that kind... :smile:
 

matthyaouw

Gold Member
1,137
4
Bladibla said:
1. ANY form of protest is banned

2. Bunking school is a death sentence

3. Goths wannabes are apprporiate reason for execution

4. Hippies are wanted as criminals

5. All religion is banned.

6. 'National' parties will be burned down

7. Vegetarians will be made to farm their own food, and are banned from any mechanical influences

8. R+B music, Rock music, and goth music is BANNED. Penalty:death.

9. There will be more violas players encouraged

10. Womens right to vote taken away.
Read the original post again. It says democracy, not dictatorship you know.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
The US Constitution is a high level document. Consitutions cannot be too prescriptive. For example, the government has the right to raise taxes, but the Constitution does not state how that is accomplished or how the taxes are spent; rather it allows for legislative bodies to determine such matters.

The major purposes of a constitution are:

1). Define a structure of government which will provide as just and fair a form of social regulation as possible, and this is achieved through laws.

2). Ensure basic human rights, rather than restrict rights.
 
343
1
matthyaouw said:
Read the original post again. It says democracy, not dictatorship you know.
dictatorship would be to ban all parties except my corresponding one. Read more carefully.
 

rachmaninoff

Hmm, "totalitarianism" fits pretty well, don't you think?
 

wolram

Gold Member
4,227
551
I think it's time to leave for my private island, before i get shot, oe even
worse, the tax man gets a hold of all my ill gotten gains. :biggrin:
 
424
3
I can't resist adding comments.

Townsend said:
I would keep most of the US constitution that is currently in place....with the following changes..

1. There will be four candidates to run for president and each would receive equal funding, no more, no less. The candidates are to be selected by the House of representatives. What ever candidate recieves the majority of the US vote wins.
Actually, there's nothing in our system that limits the number of viable parties to two. The two major parties have just been able to fix this perk for themselves through many years of manipulation. I don't see how your law would ultimately change this. They would quickly marginalize whichever parties got the other two spots, and it would result in the waste of a lot of taxpayer money. Also, those last two would come each time as result of sheer happenstance, and sometimes they would be the the most far-out of parties. On the other hand, LaRouche would almost certainly love your idea.

Townsend said:
2. I would extend the idea of equal protection under the law to mean equal rights for everyone. In other words, things like AA would be illegal.
Not so!, unless you eliminate the Supreme Court.

Townsend said:
3. I would I make federal income tax illegal. I would impose a consumption tax in its place.
Remember, the Constitution did make Income Tax illegal, until the Congress in the 20th century tampered with that. On this your choice is are absolutely right! It amazes me that those in Congerss do not see the debilitating effect on a nation of a "production-tax".

Townsend said:
4. I would privatize all education....
It was until the 19th century, and the job went unfulfilled. Without "public school" competition, I think you would see costs go out of sight, like with hospitalization insurance..

Townsend said:
5. I would limit the powers of the federal government on issues like abortion. To do this I would make the bill of rights the federally protected rights...all other individual rights are at left to the states to control.
Careful here! If you limit one side, the other will go ape. Remember, when the Supreme court declared that the Government had no right interfering with reproductive choices, the extremists in the Pro-Choice world claimed the right for complete Government financing of abortion. (Isn't that Governmental interference?) You just can't win on this one. Taking the Federal Government out of this would just put us back to where we were before the Court acted, 50 different State edicts, from one extreme to the other.

Townsend said:
6. I would give congress a bigger say in our foreign policy.
Resulting in absolute confusion, and an inability to do anything in a timely manner.

Townsend said:
7. I would make SUV's get federal registration and tax the hell out of it to the point that no one save for the very rich would own one.
I see what side you are on. How about just taking away the advantages that SUV's were granted (before there were any SUVs), like exemptions from safety and antipollution requirements (intended for commercial users)?

Townsend said:
8. I would make things like Social Security illegal.
Isn't it a bit late now? That would cause massive disruption in an economy that has come to rely upon it. I do agree, however that SS poses a serious and potentially fatal problem if it isn't corrected very soon (and at great cost). Let's just not make the cure worse than the disease.

Townsend said:
9. I would establish the TCRER...the Townsend Center for Renewable Energy Resources and I would give them the means to make a difference.
Then everyone could blame you for all their problems.

Townsend said:
10. I would fund stem cell research.
Okay, but be ready for attack from most religious groups.

Townsend said:
11. I would make frivolous law suits a federally a punishable offense. The details can be worked out by congress.
Actually, these are a feature of our most recent years. Previously judges automatically threw out anything that had any scent of being frivolous. Then someone in the court system decided that this offered inadequate protection. So, now we are at the other extreme. What we need is a good way of weeding out the chaff, like possibly a series of judicial case review boards (at all levels), backed up by appeals for those who felt that theirs were good causes that shouldn't be ignored. This would make frivolity much more expensive, while still allowing just causes to be heard. Those could be compensated for after having been vindicated - - and only then would they be heard in court. This would also reduce much of the present court backlog.

Townsend said:
12. I would legalize medical marijuana.
And recreational marijuana?

Townsend said:
13. I would work hard at making my countries Intelligence the best in the world.
Eugenics? or are we talking about information gathering? Either way, nothing is guaranteed.

Townsend said:
14. I would offer tax breaks to companies that didn't out source.
What would you do with GATT?

KM
 

Mk

1,963
3
Bladibla said:
10. Womens right to vote taken away.
This is the only one I object to. I think no one should be able to vote... except paraplegics.
 
217
0
Kenneth Mann said:
I can't resist adding comments.
Comments are welcome.

Actually, there's nothing in our system that limits the number of viable parties to two.
What makes you think I think that? The Jeffersonians were the first political party that latter became the democrats....I know a little about American politics, but thank you non the less.

The two major parties have just been able to fix this perk for themselves through many years of manipulation. I don't see how your law would ultimately change this.
The only money they are allowed to have is fixed....that same amount of money is given to the four candidates that are selected. No money is to be spent by third parties on behalf of a candidate.

They would quickly marginalize whichever parties got the other two spots, and it would result in the waste of a lot of taxpayer money.
I know it would more often than not be a battle between two parties but who the two parties would be is the thing. It would not always have to be the rebs vs the dems. That is the key difference.


Also, those last two would come each time as result of sheer happenstance, and sometimes they would be the the most far-out of parties. On the other hand, LaRouche would almost certainly love your idea.
The last two are still being supported by the House...these are candidates that have political support...that is not happenstance

Not so!, unless you eliminate the Supreme Court.
Yes so...even with the Supreme Court....

I would limit the interpretation of laws by the Supreme Court to new laws...and I would explain and outline each of the existing laws so as little interpretation is needed as is possible.

Remember, the Constitution did make Income Tax illegal, until the Congress in the 20th century tampered with that.
Well..basically my laws would make things like the New Deal impossible....

On this your choice is are absolutely right! It amazes me that those in Congerss do not see the debilitating effect on a nation of a "production-tax".
Well thats cool...

It was until the 19th century, and the job went unfulfilled. Without "public school" competition, I think you would see costs go out of sight, like with hospitalization insurance..
I don't see why.

Careful here! If you limit one side, the other will go ape.
I would prefer it being a state issue even if the states cannot make up their minds...

Resulting in absolute confusion, and an inability to do anything in a timely manner.
I would give congress a bigger say but not that much bigger. Just a tad bigger....

I see what side you are on. How about just taking away the advantages that SUV's were granted (before there were any SUVs), like exemptions from safety and antipollution requirements (intended for commercial users)?
Perhaps....I would be willing to look at different ideas.

Isn't it a bit late now? That would cause massive disruption in an economy that has come to rely upon it. I do agree, however that SS poses a serious and potentially fatal problem if it isn't corrected very soon (and at great cost). Let's just not make the cure worse than the disease.
Yes, it is too late now...but my country is starting new so I don't have all those problems like the US does.

Then everyone could blame you for all their problems.
People will blame the government for their problems either way. It's just politics...but I really believe in this one.

Okay, but be ready for attack from most religious groups.
Ok...all set...bring em on....

Actually, these are a feature of our most recent years. Previously judges automatically threw out anything that had any scent of being frivolous. Then someone in the court system decided that this offered inadequate protection. So, now we are at the other extreme. What we need is a good way of weeding out the chaff, like possibly a series of judicial case review boards (at all levels), backed up by appeals for those who felt that theirs were good causes that shouldn't be ignored. This would make frivolity much more expensive, while still allowing just causes to be heard. Those could be compensated for after having been vindicated - - and only then would they be heard in court. This would also reduce much of the present court backlog.
Ok... we will do that then.

And recreational marijuana?
Up to the States to decide.

Eugenics? or are we talking about information gathering? Either way, nothing is guaranteed.
Information....I would never support eugenics...I know nothing is guaranteed but I still want the best I can get.

What would you do with GATT?
I don't know that much about it.....so it all depends.


Regards,
 
310
2
Well, I'm an anarchist. But if I were to create my own (what I assume you mean) liberal representative democracy... I'd do it this way:

Welcome to Smurfonia.

Structure:
-Parliamentary.
-Semi-Presidential System
-trias politica separation of powers
-Bicameral legislative chambers

Principles:
-Based on Jeffersonian Democracy
-Based on Trudeauian Democracy

Separation of Powers:
-Prime Minister and President share the most senior position in Cabinet. Prime Minister and President each appoint 50% of other cabinet members from the sitting legislature.
-Prime Minister and President can only be dismissed during their term by a motion of no confidence, at which point a general election is held.
-Every executive position is ultimately answerable to Parliament.
-All residual powers belong to Parliament.

Voting:
-Preferential, Multiple-Winner Single Transferable System is used.
-The Prime Minister is drawn from the senior office of the party with the most seats in government.
-The President is elected independently from a separate vote at the same time as the parliamentary election.
-A person cannot run for President while holding the senior office in a party running in a general election.

Charter:
-The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be sufficient, with the following modifications:
1. Voting age in General Elections is 16. Provinces may decide their own voting ages for provincial elections, not exceeding 21 years.
2. There will be a sitting of parliament and each legislative body at least once every three months.
3. Removal of section 33 and subsection 6.3
4. Section and 7 through 15 given utmost priority in the constitution and are not to be limited or violated in any way except in the most extreme of situations.
5. Section 34 will read "This Part may be cited as the Smurfonian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Centralization:
-Smurfonia is a Federation. Provinces will have their own levels of elected government (using the same system as the federal government) with judicial and limited legislative powers as well as limited constitutional veto ability. Municipalities will also have a separate level of government with limited judicial and bylaw powers given to city council. Residual powers belong to the Federal Government.

Federal Services:
-Education up to a College degree is entirely government funded.
-Health care is entirely government funded for Smurfonian citizens.

Specific Legislature:
1. All sales taxes must be included in the price of a product. :biggrin:

2. Retirement age is raised to 70 years barring physical disability.

3. Legalize and tax marijuana.

4. Illegalize the addition of harmful chemicals to tobacco cigarettes.

5. Raise taxes on sales of Tobacco and Alcohol.

6. Harsher punishments for DUI, especially re-offenders.

7. Higher restrictions in Competition Act to encourage small businesses and Smurfonian ownership of the economy and to prevent higher degrees of market monopoly, federal corporations excluded.

8. The Patent Act modeled after Canada's, but not including intellectual property contained in higher life forms.

9. Strict requirements for creation, usage and distribution of Pharmaceuticals, to be regulated by a federal institution.

10. Create a government institution with the specific purpose of monitoring, enforcing and advising on environmental protection and energy laws.

11. Create a government institution for the research and development of renewable energy sources.

:smile: This is fun.
 
Last edited:
9
0
A different kind of democracy

I'm trying to describe a model of a completely different of democracy. It's called "multi-level election". For the sake of the argument, let's create an imaginary country with only 100 citizens. loosely every 3 citizens voluntarily form a "group", so there are roughly 30-35 such "groups". Each group has about three citizens. from each group a "first-level officer" is elected by his or her fellow group members. Again "second-level groups" are formed from the "first-level officers". Each "second-level group" consists of roughly 3 first-level officers and from each second-level group a second-level officer would be elected... And so on...
So about 4 such levels of groups would cover our imaginary country and about 20 such levels are enough to cover the entire world population. The highest-level "officer" would be considered the president.

There are many advantages of this system. The most obvious one is flexibility.
Since each "officer" is elected from his or her group of only three people. He or she can be changed at absolutely anytime he or she is found to be imcompetent, corrupt or in other way inappropriate (or dead). In many cases such changes doesn't even need to be formally written.
Another advantage of this system is that people of great ability is for sure to be higher level officers and vice versa. Since each "group" consists only three people, the voters know the candidates extremely well. Unlike the current system which the voters know almost nothing about their candidates.

I know it is going to be very difficult to start carry out this system. But once it starts, I don't see any shortcomings of this system.
 
310
2
zhongsan said:
I'm trying to describe a model of a completely different of democracy. It's called "multi-level election". For the sake of the argument, let's create an imaginary country with only 100 citizens. loosely every 3 citizens voluntarily form a "group", so there are roughly 30-35 such "groups". Each group has about three citizens. from each group a "first-level officer" is elected by his or her fellow group members. Again "second-level groups" are formed from the "first-level officers". Each "second-level group" consists of roughly 3 first-level officers and from each second-level group a second-level officer would be elected... And so on...
So about 4 such levels of groups would cover our imaginary country and about 20 such levels are enough to cover the entire world population. The highest-level "officer" would be considered the president.
That's a horrible system. That's just hidious, only 2/3rds of the population get any say at all and only 1/4 have any significant power. This is just begging for tyrrany of the majority.

And how do you plan to distribute power among these officers?
 
9
0
Smurf said:
only 2/3rds of the population get any say at all and only 1/4 have any significant power
Why's that?
Remember the grouping of people is voluntary so if you don't like your group members you can choose another group. I don't see where the "only 1/4 have any significant power" come from.
The "officers" are responsible for his or her own group, so the power is distributed and dissolved among the whole population.
Also the current democracy system has all the same problems you pointed out. What percentage of people do you think get any say at all in the current system?

This is just a preliminary model only, and some details need major modifications. But I think the idea is better than the current system. The central theme is "dissolving of the power"
 
310
2
zhongsan said:
Why's that?
Remember the grouping of people is voluntary so if you don't like your group members you can choose another group. I don't see where the "only 1/4 have any significant power" come from.
The "officers" are responsible for his or her own group, so the power is distributed and dissolved among the whole population.
Also the current democracy system has all the same problems you pointed out. What percentage of people do you think get any say at all in the current system?

This is just a preliminary model only, and some details need major modifications. But I think the idea is better than the current system. The central theme is "dissolving of the power"
1. It's totally inefficient, and these groups.. why bother? It's unnecessary.
If they can move groups at any point you're just adding more paperwork. Just let each person vote for who they want as president instead of going through all this burocracy. You're gonna end up with X number of groups supporting Y candidate on each level, president is essentially the one with the support of the most groups. It's like using the electoral college instead of the popular vote, you create unfair distribution of representation.

2. How are you going to distribute power? I can only assume the president gets total power so long as he's at the top, In which case only the most populous group gets representation, which doesn't even have to be the majority.
 
9
0
Smurf said:
1. It's totally inefficient, and these groups.. why bother? It's unnecessary.
If they can move groups at any point you're just adding more paperwork. Just let each person vote for who they want as president instead of going through all this burocracy. You're gonna end up with X number of groups supporting Y candidate on each level, president is essentially the one with the support of the most groups. It's like using the electoral college instead of the popular vote, you create unfair distribution of representation.

2. How are you going to distribute power? I can only assume the president gets total power so long as he's at the top, In which case only the most populous group gets representation, which doesn't even have to be the majority.
1. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. One of the greatest advantages of this system is it's efficiency. In fact you don't require any paperwork at all. With merely three people in each group, the leader can be chosen at anytime informally and orally. And the "presidnet" is not really the one with the support of the most groups but merely the head of the highest-level-group.
2. The president has very little real power. He is only responsible for his own three-person-group. And it's not the case that "most populous group gets representation". First each group is fixed at roughtly three people, and even if it's not so, having more people in a group does not give that group any advantages. After all only one officer is chocen from each group to go to the higher level. The power is equally distributed among all the people. The "officers" of each level doesn't have much power. They are mainly for the organizational functions to form higher-level groups. And within each group each officer plays the role of "the head of the family."
 
310
2
so... it's totally efficient with no purpose?
 
310
2
zhongsan said:
1. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. One of the greatest advantages of this system is it's efficiency. In fact you don't require any paperwork at all. With merely three people in each group, the leader can be chosen at anytime informally and orally. And the "presidnet" is not really the one with the support of the most groups but merely the head of the highest-level-group.
2. The president has very little real power. He is only responsible for his own three-person-group. And it's not the case that "most populous group gets representation". First each group is fixed at roughtly three people, and even if it's not so, having more people in a group does not give that group any advantages. After all only one officer is chocen from each group to go to the higher level. The power is equally distributed among all the people. The "officers" of each level doesn't have much power. They are mainly for the organizational functions to form higher-level groups. And within each group each officer plays the role of "the head of the family."
Okay, here's some specific examples so we can get some de facto info on how your system works.

1. How will a criminal code be constructed?
2. How will a specific peice of legislation be decided on?
3. What is the responsibility of the leader of a level 1 group?
4. What exatra power does a leader of a level 2 group gain over a level 1 leader?
5. Who has control over the military?
 
9
0
Smurf said:
Okay, here's some specific examples so we can get some de facto info on how your system works.

1. How will a criminal code be constructed?
2. How will a specific peice of legislation be decided on?
3. What is the responsibility of the leader of a level 1 group?
4. What exatra power does a leader of a level 2 group gain over a level 1 leader?
5. Who has control over the military?
I'll try to answer the first two questions together because I think criminal code is also a piece of legislation. First let's say an average citizen comes up with an idea of making a new law(for the sake of the argument let's say the person belongs to the lowest level). He first discusses it with his fellow group members. If there is a consensus within his group, the group leader brings it to the second level and discusses it. If there is a consensus within the second-level group, the group leader brings it to the third level and discusses it.... and so on... Now let's say when this process goes to the fifth level and an a consensus cannot be reached, then the idea would become a law for the groups from the first four levels that aggree on it, much like the "local bylaws". Some discussions here only involve the officers from higher level groups. But if the group members these officers command doesn't like the new bylaw, they can certainly revoke it within their lower level group or change the officer. This sure is going to create a lot of unstableness at the beginning but an equilibrium is going to be reached afterwards. This is why I say it's difficult to start carrying out. There better be a set of pre-established laws. Also criminal code sure is different from other kind of laws, so there should be a set of special laws that cannot be changed so easily within the lower level groups. I should think these over some times...

The main responsibility of the leaders of all levels is purely organizational. They exist so the multi-level structure can be formed. Also they have personal authority within each group.(That's why he can be chosen) When certian issue is in dispute, he is the main settler. And the group members trust him to make certain decisions for them.(in the law making process when he is discussing with the higher-level group members) Besides that the officer of each group has no other power and he can be changed at anytime informmaly. And level 2 officer has not much more power than a level 1 officer. When they belong to the same level 2 group, the level 1 officer is a member of the group and the level 2 officer is the head of the group. When they are not in the same group, they may or may not have anything to do with each other.

I haven't think of the military yet. Military itself is a danger to any democracy. :biggrin: Maybe I'm being to idealistic.
 
217
0
zhongsan said:
Military itself is a danger to any democracy. :biggrin: Maybe I'm being to idealistic.
So what should that democracy do when an invader comes? Do you think the people of your country would feel safe without a military?
 
310
2
oh come on townsend at least respond to MY democracy. It's by far the most interesting.
 
217
0
Smurf said:
oh come on townsend at least respond to MY democracy. It's by far the most interesting.
ok...

but not today.... :smile: There is too much to cover in a reasonable time frame.
 
310
2
zhongsan said:
I'll try to answer the first two questions together because I think criminal code is also a piece of legislation. First let's say an average citizen comes up with an idea of making a new law(for the sake of the argument let's say the person belongs to the lowest level). He first discusses it with his fellow group members. If there is a consensus within his group, the group leader brings it to the second level and discusses it. If there is a consensus within the second-level group, the group leader brings it to the third level and discusses it.... and so on... Now let's say when this process goes to the fifth level and an a consensus cannot be reached, then the idea would become a law for the groups from the first four levels that aggree on it, much like the "local bylaws". Some discussions here only involve the officers from higher level groups. But if the group members these officers command doesn't like the new bylaw, they can certainly revoke it within their lower level group or change the officer. This sure is going to create a lot of unstableness at the beginning but an equilibrium is going to be reached afterwards. This is why I say it's difficult to start carrying out. There better be a set of pre-established laws. Also criminal code sure is different from other kind of laws, so there should be a set of special laws that cannot be changed so easily within the lower level groups. I should think these over some times...

The main responsibility of the leaders of all levels is purely organizational. They exist so the multi-level structure can be formed. Also they have personal authority within each group.(That's why he can be chosen) When certian issue is in dispute, he is the main settler. And the group members trust him to make certain decisions for them.(in the law making process when he is discussing with the higher-level group members) Besides that the officer of each group has no other power and he can be changed at anytime informmaly. And level 2 officer has not much more power than a level 1 officer. When they belong to the same level 2 group, the level 1 officer is a member of the group and the level 2 officer is the head of the group. When they are not in the same group, they may or may not have anything to do with each other.

I haven't think of the military yet. Military itself is a danger to any democracy. :biggrin: Maybe I'm being to idealistic.
That's just... bleh.
1. Nothing would ever get passed
2. How much money that would cost!! That Burocracy has worse mileage than a Civic!
 

Related Threads for: How would you

  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Top