Izzy

Hanshin Priestess (Identical Twin Sister to Scientist) [devoutly religious] (Identical Twin Sister to Hanshin Priestess) [intellectual] Dr. Amalie Thibadeaux ^ Lmao.

Lord of the Flies was a terrible book.. Moving away from UtF's ideas entirely (I think it's clear that we disagree. We're trying to fix the US here, but feel free to secede and start your society elsewhere. Lemme know how to goes. ) Anyway, back to productivity, do you think there should be laws preventing the maltreatment of people in other countries? If say, <random country> allows slavery and child prostitution, do we make it our priority to come in and stop it, or do we allow the iniquity to persist?

DOUGLAS ADAMS = <3333 Darren Shan Shel Silverstein JK Rowling Isaac Asimov Dan Brown

Ziggy: No brah, it's spelled however you think it's spelled man. It's totally just random photons, bouncing off of your computer screen and dancing with your mind, giving it the appearance of being spelled "I-Z-Z-Y". Free your mind man, feel the world.

That's actually one of the things I really disliked about Anthem. The way the book was spun, she made the collective group (totalitarian and evil, no doubt there) seem as loathesome as she possibly could, really putting emphasis on the importance of the ego at the end. While I myself am fairly hedonistic, I feel that if Rand had written a sequel and expanded on the society Equality and Golden One or whatever her name was began to create, the problems with a political system centering around oneself would have been blatantly obvious, and no one would ever embrace her philosophy. I strongly suspect that's why she never wrote anything but dystopian novels, highlighting the bad so people would assume whatever is on the other hand of the spectrum is best. Dawh, Force is anarchist, not libertarian. Please don't think we all think like that, haha.

I'm going to start this by saying I've never taken any sort of government class, and looking at my projected schedule, I don't think there will ever be time. (It would kind of be a waste of time anyway, I know the teacher, and he's this totally rad pot-smoking hippy, but he doesn't teach haha.) Though, I think that may provide some benefit here. I'm not really biased one way or another, I'm just advocating what makes sense. And the anarchy (not libertarianism) that UtF is proposing is scary and will lead to the total demise of the US. You are giving countries permission to act lawlessly, do as they like, and riot like hell. It makes me think of the G20 summits, tbh. Yes, I'm sure we will have our share of good countries, but we can't neglect the needs of the ones that won't be self-sustaining. If world peace is ever to be achieved (give peace a chance!), it won't be like this. Feudalism, communism, slavery, and all the other things we've worked so hard to eliminate in the modern world will return, and no one will step in to stop that. You want people to be free, I get that, I'm with you. But we really need to work on a compromise that isn't anarchy, because all though everything all be smooth at first, powerful dynasties will take over, dictatorships will happen, and history will be repeated verbatim. Btw, that AIM convo was a joke, not a display of ignorance. However, if you do get your way, I am making a zombie/pirate/jedi Ultimate Frisbee country. ;P No, that wouldn't happen. Perhaps I haven't been very clear. I'm not saying that I want to force people to disband into 300+ million separate nations (as I think all three of you have said), but rather, I want you all to realize that there are people in the United States who want different things than you. They don't want to give their money to various poor people who they don't even know, for a major example. Oh, you wouldn't be forcing people to secede, they would do so entirely willingly. Poverty is the result of capitalism, which, is memory serves me correctly relies on a 6% unemployment rate rate function. Without charities and welfare, in your countries, it would only get worse. You're 18, so I'm going to assume you live with your parents, or have for at least the last 17 years. Everything you own is because you were fortunate enough to be born into a well off family (I'm assuming, based on your feelings against the poor), not through any success of your own. You could just have easily been a street urchin sleeping in the streets of New York, stealing food for survival. When you grow up (in thes hypothetical situation), you won't get a fancy job, your life difficulties prevented you from all the studying, because at that point, food > school. You could just as easily be living out of a car, with a lousy job, on a month to month pay check. I think the selfishness of people is apparent when people with literally billions of dollars do little to contribute to the well being of others. Let me ask you this. Have you, ever, personally donated money to charities or volunteered at a shelter for reasons other than yourself (yourself being containing, but not limited to "It's a graduation requirement" or "Oh, this will look awesome on college applications". Very few people do. The same with blood donations, yes, you have your donors who truly want to help people, but the reason blood donations thrive at schools because it lets students skip class, get extra credit, and cool t-shirts. (Also, y'know, if something ever happens to ME, the more _I_ donate, the higher the chances are MY blood will be available). Oh, which reminds me. Homosexuals should be allowed to donate blood, and so should people that shoot up occasionally, as long as it wasn't in the last 6 months (because HIV can't always be detected until that long). All blood is tested for HIV/other diseases individually anyway, and while there will be instances of unusable blood, we're gaining more than we lose. Back to my original point. Humans are inherently selfish, and in a perfect world, your system of government would be almost ideal. What you aren't realizing is the problems an infinite amount of countries will create. No, there won't be 300 million, and I'm not saying make 300 million, but no one will ever agree on every law, and some laws (don't kill, rape, steal, etc.) need to be instilled to keep people in line. As much as I hate to say it, the majority of Americans are stupid and uninformed. At no fault of their own, but their school systems. If suddenly we have a country that teaches its students "Intelligent" Design, another Scientology, and another terrorist extremism (where Gawd WANTS you to blow yourself to bits in the name of da lawd), there is nothing the children learning this bullsh*t can do to protect themselves because they are victims of random geographical location and the will on their ancestors. Maybe I haven't made myself clear. Imagine every single political issue brought up in this thread. Actually, no, I'll make it easier. Let's do the Ten Commandments. For each Commandment, you can either agree or disagree. 2^10 is already more countries than we currently have! It's just ridiculous. It's impossible to please everyone. It's like, where will we have the room for all these countries? United we stand, divided we fall. If, for one reason or another, the USA decided to invade and conquer Jamaica, unless international superpowers step in, there's nothing to stop us. The US is 9,400,000 square miles. For the sake of this, let's pretend the only laws anyone has ever come up with are the Ten Commandments. 9,400,000/1024 = ~ 9200. Granted, we're bigger than Vatican City, but from Google, "The average land area of a country, based on the land area comprising the earth is approximately 767,731 square kilometers (296,422 square miles) - slightly smaller than Turkey but much larger than Chile or Zambia." Dude, if people wanted to invade, we would DIE. That said, our countries aren't going to be 9200 square miles, because we're selfish, and it's gonna be all "This like is my land, this land is still my land, from California, to the New York Island.." There would be insane amounts of disputes about how to distribute the land, leading to civil wars and unnecessary deaths. Are we going to base land ownership off of money? Then again, the rich get everything and the poor get nothing, and we're left with sort of the Rich North vs. The Hillbilly slave owning south all over again. The poor get nothing. You are not helping people by letting them secede, you are creating monopolies and a world in which only the rich will thrive. By agreeing to live in this country, the least you can do for your right to be protected by our police and military and taken care of by our hospitals and drive on our clean streets is to help fund it with your taxes. Now, I think taxes should only go to things used by the public, like roads, schools, etc. If you really are that selfish, feel free to leave, lol. There are plenty of private islands to claim. But on your way out, make sure you don't use the road you didn't help pay for. Oh, and if someone decides to rob your house, don't call the police, you didn't support them. The problem with optional taxing is that most people will think "Oh, I don't need to pay for this, someone else will and we're good", and when that's the mindset of everyone, nothing gets accomplished. I'm Jedi, (I'm 15, so don't pay taxes, irrelevant) but one day my tax money will help to fund churches. Ick. However, my money will also fund hospitals and teachers, yay. Now, let's say I wanted to build a Jedi temple (this falls under the classification of church, lmao), but in your world, I have to fund this myself, and we Jedi tend to be fairly low in number, especially compared to Christians. My temple, which would be an awesome contribution to society in which children will learn to deal with their emotions peacefully, feel the environment around them, be in tune with themselves and their surrounds, and mostly, love all creatures. This will never get funded. In it's place will be another church telling kiddies they fina go tah hell (...). Without tax payer money, there are so many things we would not have right now. Just look at all the debt we're currently in. If marijuana was legalized and taxed, the revenue would be more than enough to solve our country's problems. Do those 14 cents when you buy a drink really matter? Dude honestly, I would think it was immoral if tax payers didn't get anything out of it. The money doesn't go to some fat people sitting around in Congress smoking cigars and banging a gigolo. Taxes pay for the necessities that keep us civilized. ..The rich do lose more money, but I don't think they notice it as much. I can't see Bill Gates crying over losing a million dollars, sorry. I highly recommend watching Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore. (*sings* I'm watching Michael Moore, expose the awful truth / I'm listening to the Dead Kennedys and Wasted Youth *ends singing*). It clearly demonstrates the flaws of capitalism and does so much more clearly than I can (aside from my mother and I, only three other people were in the theater with us ). Instead, I'll give you can example from history class. Two people own two different burger restaurants. Two are in China, two are here. (Might be a bad example because it puts communism in a good spotlight, but I'm sure we're aware of the other draw backs.) In China, the president or whatever says this to the restaurants. 1: I like you, we're friends. You can sell your burgers for $1, and they must have bread, cheese, meat, tomatoes, and lettuce. 2: Meh. Your burgers will be $3, but they can only have bread and meat. It doesn't matter how much money they make because it's evenly distributed, even thought number 1 probably works harder due to consumer demand. Now obviously, everyone is going to eat as restaurant one because the overall food is better and the prices are cheaper. P stands for people. In Capitalism, there are no rules, but there are two restauraunts. 1: *opens shop* *sells basic burger, just bread and meat* Cost: $2 P: *eat at 1* 2. *opens shop* *sells burger with bread, meat, and cheese* Cost: $2 P: *eat at 2* 1: *adds cheese and lettuce to burger, reduces price to $1.50* P: *eat a 1* 2: *adds everything you possibly can to a burger* , Cost: $1.50 P: *eat at 2* 1: *does the same, reduces right to $1.25* P: *reduces price to $1.12* 1: *reduces price to $1. 2: *goes out of business because the cost of the ingredients is more expensive than the profit from selling burgers* 1: *slowly starts reducing burger quality because there is no competition until the food sucks, but people still eat there, even though the price is increase* That's capitalism. You switch back and forth from crap and awesome stuff at good prices to crappy prices to eliminate competition, and businesses have almost nil chance at survival in an industry where successful businesses already exist. The rich become richer, the poor take the jobs (like flipping the burgers), and the gap between middle and upper class continues to widen. In the end, the 1% of the rich have 90% of the nation's money and restaurants like McDonalds (eww) survive because the competition has been squashed. Hey, welcome to America. Uh bro, yeah they do. Either meet my cats (who steal food from my puppy) or watch some animal planet. As humans, we are pretty civilized and have overcome our inherent animalistic nature, but to a degree, we still do this. That's why the fat kid is always picked last for sports. But you know what it eventually leads to? A channel of interconnected roads connecting the moon and planets, giving people to freedom to explore the galaxy. I would totally fund that. That's how you build society up and expand it! If our societies are essentially nonexistent because of your proposal, aren't we all poorer? :shrug: Again, people are inherently selfish. If one person can get rich off of slavery in a country with legalized slavery, they will. If the rest of their community is poor and they don't feel like contributing, they don't have to because there are no taxes to force them to. Hence, society declines. If you recall, the only reason slavery ended in the US is because Britain threatened to cut off all trading (gmoz, we need our tea) if we didn't. The US at the time, was a perfectly self-sustaining country, and the elimination of the importation caused a significant upset with an economical decline until solutions were reached and the country eventually built back up again. The country itself was poorer. Admittedly, the slave owners/sellers lost the most, but the price of cotton, tobacco, etc. increased, but overextension on the people (and the country's wealth) caused serious outrage and the dollar was pretty valueless for a bit. Disclaimer: I am not advocating slavery! I'm merely pointing out a flaw in Force's logic. Mmm, I got bored of reading and typing. So hopefully this will suffice for now. Bro, you post, a lot. Which is good, yay discussion. Dawh, lmao, I <3 your Monty Python reference. Bah. Should probably read the other page and a half now.

Ah, this was easy last time when there was nothing left to choose from. D: By nature, I want to be the scientist, but I'll leave that open, haha. Then I want to the be the chancellor, becasue, yo, I'd be Chancellor Palpatine! But.. after much debate (seriously), hippy it is! Businessman [hotheaded, big ego, likes to get in scuffles] Blablah Disciple [always getting caught up on/fascinated by tiny details]-Miles Barker Chancellor [prudish and germophobic] Hot Dog Vendor Dude [outgoing, people person] Hobo/Beggar [sloppy, sometimes drunk] Hanshin Priestess (Identical Twin Sister to Scientist) [devoutly religious] Outsider [foreign accent] Filly City Enforcer I[aggressive]- Ralph City Enforcer II [obsessed with the law, nitpicky] Framm Man Eating Sandwich [talks with a full mouth; observant though] Mmarf Coroner [nervous wreck] Well-Known Tal'Vrak Mob Boss [mob boss attitude] Izzy Hippie [hippyish] Ziggy Stardust Pregnant Animal Trainer Lady [good at manipulating men] Scientist (Identical Twin Sister to Hanshin Priestess) [intellectual]

Man oh man. Listening to Muse - Time is Running Out, while reading this thread and waiting for Xanax to knock me out (extreme insomnia) has been.. so sensational haha. My iTunes knows me man. It freaking knows me. Fits so perfectly on my feelings about UtF's posts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ9xadD2h48 Anyway, I just had a thought (at 5 am, after 4 mg of Xanax, I'm awake, wtf) . Florida's economy is based almost entirely off of tourism because of our attractions like Disney, Universal, Islands of Adventure, etc. Without these and our citrus fruit, our state wouldn't survive. I think like 70% of our states money comes directly from tourist contributions. The parks were state built, so the money presumably goes to the state, funding public education, roads, etc. Now, imagine that instead of taxes paying to build and maintain the parks, imagine some random patron had. That money, roughly 70% (I'm not sure about the percentage, tourism amounts to about $60 billion a year) goes directly to that patron, rather than the government. The entire state is now in total poverty. ..Actually, the money would be going to a dead dude 'cos Disney decided to build the rail roads haha. $60 billion a YEAR. We're officially broke. We can only have so many citrus farmers yo, there's definitely a cap on the amount of food stores need to buy from farmers. Your system doens't work. I'm not in the proper mentality atm to elaborate, but essentially, unless that benefactor is kind enough to donate his money for the greater good, the state is in utter turmoil, and its inhabitants will flee to other states (or even Mexico, as dawh noted), putting serious strains on the jobs there and living space. I totally agree. If people were peaceful and would get along with each other, your idea looks awesome. It's already been demonstrated that that is impossible. Remember the gay and weed laws, let's add in abortion. What is that, 8 countries base on three laws? Throw in capital punishment. 16 countries. Voluntary military. 32. Or, in short, we will have 2^(number of laws proposed) countries. Bill of rights is like what, ten laws? + 27 amendments? 2^37 = 137,438,953,472, and we don't even have that many people in the world, lmao. And that's based off of the CURRENT constitution, not the hard core ones we're going to rewrite and make beastly. WHY THE HELL AM I NOT ASLEEP YET. Like really, how much effing laws are there? Hundreds? You do the math. No one will unanimously on ANYTHING. I'd rather stay how we are than drift into anarchism (you're anarchist btw, or like, libertarian to the extreme. ..Which... isn't exactly great when it comes to compassionate and philanthropic solutions.

Still reading through posts, but discussing this on AIM. UtF, this is why your ideas should never be implemented. Izzy but brb Eli kkk Izzy back my neo-nazi kkk homie Nick lol Izzy lol eli Eli there's a country for that Izzy and there's a country that bombs it Izzy i want a country where everyone dresses like viking pirates and we raid cities and burn them down. but first you have to find the flag. IT'S LIKE AN ENORMOUS GAME OF CAPTURE THE FLAG AND WE EXECUTE THE LOSERS. Can I get a "woo modern Rome?" Eli a country for the west boro church Eli imagine the picket signs they'd come up with Eli imagine school? Izzy hahaha Eli prostiution marketnig 101 Izzy all schools have to have classes that teach us how to survive the zombie invasion Eli lawls Izzy it's like gym class, but practical Eli i would find it highly important

Btw, missed my edit time. UtF (sorry, I'm forced to like you just because of your name even if I disagree with you entirely) is totally anarchist, not libertarian.

Eugggggh. SO MANY POSTS. Gonna do this one at a time, sorry, I don't know what's already been replied to. Here's the first one, then gonna take a break, and be back in a bit. You are proposing exactly what we are trying to prevent. You are regressing from our current political system to that of 200 years ago. If a country allows slavery, are we going to let it? People were fine with it 200 years ago, and gawd knows the world is full of people that would prefer free labor increasing their gross profit thousandfold. This countries won't "die out". They'll grow in number. I think we're actually trying to accomplish the same thing, a peaceful situation, you're solution just slows us down. If people don't like the rules we create, they can leave, but I assure you it's safer than an entirely unorganized political system with nothing to prevent war and stuff. Idk if you've noticed, but through-out history, strong centralized governments have been the only successful ones. When your "weaker" countries "die out" we're in the exact same situation we're currently in, and have accomplished nothing. That's not what we're doing whatsoever. Follow the golden rule. If you harm other people in a any way or form, their freedom to peace is being violated, and in turn, you need to be dealt with accordingly. If I don't like my neighbor, decide to shoot him, and the secede creating my own country where this is legal, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Do you REALLY want that? Because that's exactly what you're proposing. If you're not trying to create world peace, we have different goals. Your system is incredibly selfish, whereas the one most people in this thread are proposing is peaceful and we're putting people aside from ourselves before us. If you want to be hedonistic and only care about yourself, cool, go have fun, but don't expect government welfare. I think taxation is necessary, because we use it to fund things everyone NEEDS, like roads, schools, hospitals, firehouses, police stations, etc. Without this, only the rich will get an education and the poor will die because they can't afford to go to the hospital. Does this sound like a good system to you!? This is why we need to switch to a direct democracy (made possible by the internet). In another thread, dawh pointed out some flaws with this, but this way EVERY voice is heard. I think one of the things we need to focus on is eliminating (or seriously limiting) Congress/Presidency, and just have laws and an amendment process. Yeah, there's no way everyone is going to agree. Even if you allow everyone to secede and form their own countries, they're STILL going to disagree, so I don't see your point. Example. Say California is the only country with legalized marijuana but also legalized marriage. The people that don't like either of those are going to secede and form their own country. Then the people that don't like gay marriage are going to secede and form their own. Because of two laws, you've already create four countries. 1. Legal gay marriage and weed. 2. Legal weed, illegal gay marriage. 3. Legal gay marriage, illegal weed. 4. Illegal weed and gay marriage. TWO people will never unanimously agree on every law. We have 300 million people in this country. Are we seriously going to allow them to create 300 million NEW countries? Who will pay for the schools and educate the children? What happens if someone gets sick. I'm sorry, but your solution causes more bad than good, even if everyone is "free". If the price of freedom is unhappiness and chaos.. it isn't worth it. It's easier to just break the laws you disagree with and still have a fully structured system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities I agree with *everything* dawh says. I think it was stated previously that if we do build corporations in other countries (like the Nike thing that happened), they should still be paid USA wages. Btw, globalization takes care of the Mexio problem and the aforementioned. If we allow Mexico to join the US, we could create businesses there, make everyone have a wage fit to meet middle class standards, etc. Now, I'm no God ( ) so I can't fix everything ( ), but I really think globalization is the easiest solution. The only problem is getting people to agree. ...We can use Jediism/Phronism!

That's why this is being discussed in a public forum and a collaborative list has been comprised. I used to be all "Woo, anarchy!", but if you take a peak at the countries where it's actually implemented, it's total madness. On that note, I must sleep.

As much as I like your idea in theory, it would never work in practice. It would end in chaotic warfare. We at least need some sort of common law in which people respect others. If we start allowing people to create their own self-run mini-nations within this country, you're going to have your KKK country, your Neo-Nazis, your riot starts, etc. You'll have people with absolutely nil consideration for other people, and invasions will start. Children will be born into these societies and influenced by them, and when they grow up, they won't secede, they'll stay with your family. In essence, all you're doing is creating more and smaller countries very close to each other with nothing mandating they respect or be civil to own another. Laws will be much stricter within these nations, and you'll have millions of self-governed people. Yeah, awesome, they're completely free, but we would fight way too much for it to be practical. Eventually, there won't be any room to secede any more because everyone will disagree way too much, and they'll be forced to get along, because we can only build so many schools and neighborhoods. We'd be in the same, if not WAY worse, situation.

Disagree. It's their money and we can't tell them what to do with it. We can up the inheritance tax, but we can't stop it. It means we need to create more jobs, not force people that don't need jobs to take them on.

Lol, I'll bite. Why does it matter when it was written? If I ask you when the Koran, Code of Bushido, or some Taoist scriptures were written, you're unlikely to know.

Because they're the most controversial. I don't care about other countries. I flat out refuse to ever be an active member of a unit that kills people. We can have a military, awesome. Do not make it mandatory, it goes against people's personal beliefs and morals.

Your entire religious belief is centred around zombies. ..Jus' sayin'.

Why do we need a leader?

I disagree. I don't want people telling me what I should do with MY money. Also, if we do this right, we won't need parties. We'll have all the laws needed and everyone can just live freely/peacefully.

Hmm. How about for drinking/drugs, but 16 for sex, like how the UK currently does it? ..Lmao. I'm totally going to turn 18, and change my mind on that, but that isn't the point.