[Guest]

How would you rule it?

What form of government would you use? What laws would you make? How would you support your new empire?

[Guest]

I guess I don't fit the criteria in this topic. World domination or anything similar (control or pressuring people into a false set of ideas/beliefs) is not a way forward.

I don't want to rule the world or have an empire - but I would like a non BS/Spin elected government to do what hey have been

elected to do. Majority should always rule. There can be local exceptions for those groups that huddle together with a need to support each other so long as it harmless - best intentions do not always have freedom to come and go.

Society shows us for what we are; solitude tells us what we should be - Phil O'Sophy

[Guest]

Society shows us for what we are; solitude tells us what we should be - Phil O'Sophy

I guess I don't fit the criteria in this topic. World domination or anything similar (control or pressuring people into a false set of ideas/beliefs) is not a way forward.

I don't want to rule the world or have an empire - but I would like a non BS/Spin elected government to do what hey have been

elected to do. Majority should always rule. There can be local exceptions for those groups that huddle together with a need to support each other so long as it harmless - best intentions do not always have freedom to come and go.

[Guest]

Society shows us for what we are; solitude tells us what we should be - Phil O'Sophy

I guess I don't fit the criteria in this topic. World domination or anything similar (control or pressuring people into a false set of ideas/beliefs) is not a way forward.

I don't want to rule the world or have an empire - but I would like a non BS/Spin elected government to do what hey have been

elected to do. Majority should always rule. There can be local exceptions for those groups that huddle together with a need to support each other so long as it harmless - best intentions do not always have freedom to come and go.

Hey I'm all for Government to do what they were hired to do. And want to see nothing but peaceful existence, but majority rule????? What if the majority is wacko? you know, moral ethics gone. They're murderers rapists that kind of majority? Should they rule? No I don't think so. I would not want to rule the world. Couple of Quotes, smarter men than I. "Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John Adams. (Democracy, is majority rule.) "I have no ambition to govern men; it is a painful and thankless office". Thomas Jefferson. "To Rule the world. Great project, even greater responsibility, sure to bring MUCH pain and sorrow, I'll have to say Thanks but No Thanks" Hambone.

Edited September 24, 2009 by hambone

[akaslickster]

Simply, no one person can handle the job and still please everyone. We certainly wish it could be that easy. This is real life, not dream land.

[Guest]

When I say rule the world I don't necessarily mean have a global dictatorship. I want opinions on what the perfect world government would be like.

[EDM]

my idea in ruling the world would be no corruption, equality, compulsory education, no poor people, healthy environment, no prisons (i.e. no crime - but i doubt that's possible....), all healthy food tasting like cake or something (ya i know....weird), long life for all, no stupid debates on religion or race and no stupid behaviour (unless it's for funny video shows)........ :D

ooh....don't forget super fast cars.....

eh...a person can dream, right..????

[plasmid]

This is a topic I might really be interested in if I had more time. It's much like the one earlier where we asked how you might design a useful religion. The beauty of this is that although there are no perfect answers, there are almost certainly answers that are pretty good and likely better than what we have in place right now.

Unfortunately I have very little time to contemplate such things nowadays (or else I would be testing the waters with Phronism that was developed in the religion thread). One question that might help steer the discussion, though: do you mean to say "What if you were a sort of immortal power who could run the world like in the game Civilization or something?", or more like "What if you were the founding father of a new nation, or had tons of money and could flat-out buy someplace like Bangladesh and set up whatever governmental system you want?"

[Guest]

"What if you were the founding father of a new nation, or had tons of money and could flat-out buy someplace like Bangladesh and set up whatever governmental system you want?"

Wow! Buying real estate is more than just acquiring it. You become its steward (It will be there long beyond your brief ownership.) In considering buying Bangladesh, I'd first be sure I had a huge cash surplus remaining after I bought it. Otherwise I'd have no useful effect on what happens there. First I'd take multiple actions to assure that the population there is safe from sea level rise due to global warming, from storm surges due to the devastating Cyclones that batter that low lying country, and from Tsunamis. Then I'd begin to invigorate the economy, tapping into the energy of the grateful population to create a diversity of new industries, serving first world countries with products and services that they would be as grateful to receive at bargain prices as my population would be grateful to provide at wages far higher than anything they've experienced before. Win-win.

[Guest]

for government i would use monarchy and have Vulcans be my assists in decision and all the stuff and let everything just run it's course

[Izzy]

Man.. I haven't posted on this site ages. Here goes.

I'm going to get the ball rolling by saying that I don't want to rule the world. (I did at one point, and will get into that, and how I proposed to do it, in a second.*) It just seems like a lot of effort for very little reward. Are the lives you wreak havoc on in the process and the hatred championed by all afterwards worth the satisfaction you get from "beating" everyone? Will the pleasure derived from this even remain as you incessantly attempt to shield yourself from the danger of those who wish to become your successors? What irreparable damage will you cause, how will you defend against acts of rebellion, how do you intend to remain in power, and how will this help the current "earth crisis"? Way more work than play. Your life is a short interval of pointless existence between two eternal spans of nonexistence. Essentially: nonexistence, life, nonexistence.

Now, my ideal world is far from one where I do any controlling. My entire philosophy can basically be summed up with the Pagan saying, "An it harm none, do as thou willst." What this means is pretty self-explanatory, but let me break it down for you. Do whatever you want as long as it has no direct negative impact on anyone else. Life should be about self-indulgence and personal happiness because everyone has the right to live freely (except our lame current laws don't seem to endorse this..) as long as they aren't interfering with anyone else's right to live freely.** Basically, don't punch anyone in the face because it's not cool. Now, clearly we're going to need some form of judicial system to regulate this. I'm aiming towards a minimalistic government, so this won't get too huge. For those familiar with minarchism, that's pretty much what I'm aiming for, though I don't think the Wiki article (which, admittedly, is all I've read on it >_>) elaborates on how it can actually be done. So, since this will be worldwide, here's what I thinking:

• All countries will be divided into states, roughly the size of the states in the US. Borders, since I'm ruling the world here ( ), will be decided by myself, but in a real world application of my idea, I don't care, as long as they exist. These states will be divide into counties, as done in the US.
  
• Each county will have its own police force, an independent organization funded through donations and taxes on weapons, ammunition, oil, and cars. (If funds are not sufficient, we can tax more things. Sorry, tax can't disappear.)
  
• Police officers will join the force the same way they do today. Years of schooling and a clean record. Police chiefs, I'm thinking maybe 3-5 per county, will be elected every two years, hopefully minimizing the opportunity for corruption. Every resident of the county gets one vote, regardless of age, gender, or ethnicity. However, prior to receiving your voting license, you must pass a literacy and basic understanding of what you're voting for test. (This test will be readministered every five years and can be taken online at public libraries where identification can be confirmed. There is no age limit for this test, and it MUST be passed before you can vote.
  
• Courts will function much in the same way. We'll have county level, state level, and country level courts. Jurors will be randomly selected county residents with clean records and no biases towards the case and have passed a comprehension test. Judges will be senior ex-lawyers who have demonstrated a good understanding for the law. They are appointed by the police chiefs, but can be fired (along with the chiefs) if found guilty of misconduct or abuse of power.
  
• THE ONLY THINGS SOMEONE CAN BE TAKEN TO COURT FOR ARE THE ISSUES WHERE THEY HURT OTHER PEOPLE. THIS MEANS PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TREAT THEMSELVES HOWEVER THEY LIKE, BE THIS WITH MODERATE DRUG USE (or abuse, hey who's counting? though help programs will be offered), PROSTITUTION, AND SUICIDE. IF YOU ARE THE ONLY VICTIM OF YOUR ACTIONS, THAT IS NOT A CRIME. !!!!!!!!!! . AM I CLEAR?! Good.*** (That was really my biggest concern anyway. Personal freedoms, the most important thing you can have. We're living this pointless 70-or-so year life, so no one, NO ONE, should be able to tell us what we can and can't do with ourselves. Do your research. You know what's in your best interest, not some old-fat-white dude who has never met you yet for some reason dictates your life.
  
• Armies. We need armies to protect from invaders. Honestly, I'd prefer world peace where everyone just minds their own business and leaves everyone else alone, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Sorry, can't change it. We'll have voluntary state militias but with mandatory training sessions for those who wish to join. Men and women can serve on the front lines. The age for volunteering will be 16. In a time of crisis where we really do lack volunteers, we may need to draft people. It sucks, I know, but please realize there isn't much of a choice.
  

Okay, so, slightly rushed and it isn't perfect, but I'll come back and make modifications as I see fit. That's pretty much what I'm aiming for with this world. I don't care about you, I don't care about people, I just want to do what I want to do, and not worry about getting criminalized for it.

* Actually, sorry, I'll be back. This took longer than expected, and I just realized I have a huge history test to study for. D:

** As with everything, there are exceptions. Hate speech and the like would apply here, but I really cba to type it out right now, so give me a shout if anyone cares.

*** We can get into the dangers of drugs, organized crime, etc. later/in another thread. I've argued it on other sites before, so I'll come prepared.

Oh, I realized I didn't touch on schools or anything. I seriously will be back. Have to go spend some time in the real world now, though. Peace out.

[Guest]

Swimming Pools, Democracy, World Peace , Brainden libraries, Mafia City

[akaslickster]

Swimming Pools, Democracy, World Peace , Brainden libraries, Mafia City

Hey! Don't forget the chicks.

Well, I think your idealistic summary is great, though it shows the opportunist want. In that regard, it can't be done without taking away from those who are classified as the "haves". Let's be simple in replying to this question.

If you are able enough, to eliminate the BS from your life and get by without suffering much, then you have ruled your very own world without the nature that has been bestowed upon you.

Moral for you and others is: Make the best of what you can do with yourself, because you ain't getting a free ride dude. You'll be much better off keeping a close eye on your decisions for the future. Good luck & be careful.

Edited September 30, 2009 by akaslickster

[Guest]

Swimming Pools, Democracy, World Peace , Brainden libraries, Mafia City

Vulcans!

[Guest]

as a libertarian/ anarchist (i think anarchy would be optimal but libertarian republic would be close to optimal)

here's basically the guidelines:

free market capitalism: government won't bail out any industry no matter how "big" they are.

voluntary effort encouraged constantly by leaders: no mandates, no arrest or punishment if you don't give.

taxes: if we find them necessary, no "progressive" taxes. sales tax or population tax only (I'm kinda iffy toward inheritance tax; i think people tend to be more giving if they have to work for their money rather than be just given it, but would obviously need to be a progressive tax.)

education: i think the free market can handle this better than any government program, but if necessary, money from government follows the student.

police: once again i think voluntary effort (citizen arrests) would be optimal, but if necessary we can use tax money to fund police effort.

army: militias. as the above poster said, once you join, mandatory training.

now here's a question; what to you call the leader of an anarchy? (I'm thinking just "Mister")

[unreality]

I agree mostly with phillip, being a libertarian (idealist anarchist) myself. The smaller the government the better. It's just as corrupt as any organization/corporation except it has armies and police and fear and control on its side. We need to free up the minds of the population. Prohibition on anything leads to violence, gangs, more crime. Prohibition on alcohol (if it comes back) would need to end (for so many reasons). Prohibition on most drugs needs to end (again for soooo many reasons). Gun control needs readjusting too - "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". We need to take some powers from the police and put them back in areas where they are needed.

As Izzy said "Now, my ideal world is far from one where I do any controlling."

Big money-wasting government programs, bailouts and other bs need to end. When you put people in control all they want is more control. That's why we need policies put in place to reduce government control/taxes/bloatedness/pigheadedness rather than allow it to increase in an out-of-control spiral of corruption and bad policies that has very real effect on daily life of people everywhere. The goal is to instate people that have the desire of cutting back on their own power - that's the tricky part. But with libertarianism the "third largest party" so to speak, I think it's possible.

I agree for the most part with the LP: http://www.lp.org/issues

[Izzy]

Peace adn lov e and good happiness stuff.

GLOBAL-I-FECKING-ZATION.

[Guest]

as a libertarian/ anarchist (i think anarchy would be optimal but libertarian republic would be close to optimal)

here's basically the guidelines:

free market capitalism: government won't bail out any industry no matter how "big" they are.

voluntary effort encouraged constantly by leaders: no mandates, no arrest or punishment if you don't give.

taxes: if we find them necessary, no "progressive" taxes. sales tax or population tax only (I'm kinda iffy toward inheritance tax; i think people tend to be more giving if they have to work for their money rather than be just given it, but would obviously need to be a progressive tax.)

education: i think the free market can handle this better than any government program, but if necessary, money from government follows the student.

police: once again i think voluntary effort (citizen arrests) would be optimal, but if necessary we can use tax money to fund police effort.

army: militias. as the above poster said, once you join, mandatory training.

now here's a question; what to you call the leader of an anarchy? (I'm thinking just "Mister")

Yikes!

I'm sure that there are myriad ways that Libertarianism/Anarchism could work in theory, but I don't think that many practicing anarchists are too happy when everyone in their society is a practicing anarchist. I guess I just don't think like an anarchist might, but if I want something that you have and I think that I can take it from you without your noticing, as an anarchist, do I have a right to take that from you?

It seems to me that people have been trying to get away from anarchy for centuries. Aristotle called life without civilization (aka. anarchy) a place where men exist primarily as beasts (I'm pretty sure that's in "Politics", but I can't find the quote), and Thomas Hobbes famously said in "Leviathan" that life in the "state of nature" is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Is that really an ideal in this day and age?

Libertarianism might work in a small society (similar to the way that Greek direct democracy could work in the relatively small city-states), but as the society grows, such a thing becomes completely intractable. As far as I can see, Libertarianism works off the idea of everyone living as "rugged individualists," but most people in today's world don't want to live that way, and frankly, we can do better than that, so why should they?

If you have a society of "rugged individuals," then how do they all interact (I realize that this is a bit of a strawman, but I just don't see Libertarianism as a viable strategy for large, interconnected populations)? If everyone is making his own rules, then you need a separate agreement between each pair of individuals and as any tech-savvy people will tell you, that requires N² connections where N is the number of people. It's not a scalable solution, hence the reason that anarchy (and it's next-of-kin libertarianism) don't work in larger populations.

Once populations grow, you need some centralized, standardized control to direct traffic. As Izzy colorfully put it, globalization couldn't happen in an anarchistic/libertarian society since there would be no force creating cohesion between disconnected parts. We in America like to celebrate the US dollar as a symbol of our strong economy, but such a thing is not a child of anarchy or libertarianism. It seems to me that if libertarians had their way, we would be stuck with the Connecticut Dollar and the New York Dollar and the Rhode Island Dollar, etc. and commerce would be a joke because there would be constantly changing exchange rates and today it might be more valuable to deal in the Georgia Dollar, when tomorrow, it's the Massachusetts Dollar that's strong. The reason that the US became the super-power that it is has to do with its strong central government. If the Articles of Confederation had won out (or the South had successfully become the Confederate States of America), then we'd be nothing more than an agrarian backwater in the world since we wouldn't have been able to do all the things that made us "great." I very much doubt that we would have been able to participate in the "Great War" to stop the Kaiser and the Austro-Hungarians from taking control of Europe in 1918. Where would the US highway system be in a libertarian world? We enjoy the level of commerce and trade that we have in the US because the Federal government came in and said, "As a matter of National Security, we need a developed, maintained system of roadways connecting our cities, from coast to coast."

When you work with millions (or billions) of people, you have to have some centralized control to make sure everyone can know their own boundaries. Some people are going to have their toes trod on, but that's the price we pay for civilization. So why shouldn't we tread on the toes most able to afford it? If you can afford to go to a podiatrist, then I think that you can afford to pay a little more into society than the rest of us. What's the problem with progressive taxation? The higher up the chain you are (and the more money you're making), the more reliant you are on the government system that allowed you to get so high. You may not realize it or notice it directly, but indirectly, you are building off of all the people below you in the corporate ladder. You have government built roads and sewer systems supporting each of your company's employees getting to work each day and living at their home or apartment with government-regulated utilities. If your employees didn't have reliable, affordable living space (a possibility subsidized by the government), you wouldn't be the CEO of Mud, so you owe your accretion of millions as CEO to that government propping up the least of us. You should have to pay your fair share that represents the amount of government services upon which you depend.

Hmm, I was going to do a point-by-point response, but I seem to have run long on my rantish introduction, and for that I apologize. I do wonder what you mean by a "population tax" as I couldn't find a ready definition with a Google search. Wikipedia has a long list of different kinds of taxes here, and I'm not reading through them just to guess as which (if any) you mean, so if you could point me at the correct entry (or explain it in your own terms), then it would be greatly appreciated. Also, I really don't understand what you think an inheritance tax is. An inheritance or estate tax as I understand it is to take some of the assets from large estates so that it isn't just accrued in the estate and returns some of it to the people. Its purpose is to stop people like the Waltons (of Wal-Mart/Sam's Club infamy) from keeping all of the money that Sam Walton made within the family and to provide some of that wealth back to the community that built it.

As for my own thoughts on how the world should be run, I defer (possibly apocryphally) to the great Winston Churchill: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

I rest my case.

[Izzy]

Hmm. I was considering getting into a debate with dawh, but then I remembered I already posted how I want the world to be run above, and I'm still fairly happy with it.

Anarchism fails because we'll just end in civil war. We need SOME rules and SOME regulations, merely for the sake of keeping the peace. Libertarianism and Minarchism step in quite nicely here, and.. I don't really see what's wrong with either.

I do think we should eventually globalize, because the sooner we realize we're all in this together (eh, cliche), but sooner we can fix the world, end the misery, and.. go populate space!

Meh. That aside, I don't actually care. I find it hard to. I just wanna be happy, yo. Which is why I'll selfishly embrace anarchism/libertarianism/minarchism/whatevs. I'm in this for me, not the collaborative group, so I'll make strides for personal happiness, not necessarily everyone else. Consider that barbaric, but mehh.

[unreality]

dawh, Libertarianism is not outright lawless anarchism, and it's still democracy. It's just an improved form where the government isn't so bloated and self-righteous and the people have more freedoms.

[Guest]

dawh, Libertarianism is not outright lawless anarchism, and it's still democracy. It's just an improved form where the government isn't so bloated and self-righteous and the people have more freedoms.

I do recognize the Libertarians insist that there are differences, but then you have people like Phillip come along and say I'd be anarchist if I could, but otherwise I'll be Libertarian. It can sort of make it hard to tell them apart. The problem with "bloated" government is that democracy is by nature a messy form of government. The simple fact is that a dictatorship is a much more efficient means of running government (that's what Thomas Hobbes saw), but the Leviathan depends on a beneficent ruler, and without a means to guarantee such a leader, the best we can do is aim for consensus of the body politic (John Locke and Rousseau). In terms of government efficiency, that's already creating a "bloated" government.

Do I think that there are unnecessary government agencies in the US? Yes, but I think that we should carefully consider the consequences before we just start axing them right and left. The more rabid libertarians seem to just want to get rid of anything that doesn't immediately affect them (so far as they can tell) or if it adversely affects them. The Libertarians and the pseudo-libertarians say, "Let's get rid of the IRS...Let's kill the Department of Education! It will make us more free!" You did the same thing (to a lesser degree). What do you mean by "more freedoms"? That's an extremely vague term. I would have more freedom if I could withdraw as much money as I want from other people's bank accounts, but somehow, I doubt that's what libertarians really mean when they say that. But it's a possible interpretation.

Would I prefer to pay less in taxes? Probably, but I know that there are numerous reasons for a lot of those taxes and a majority of some body of people elected by me (more or less) to represent me decided that that was a fair amount of taxes for me to pay. They (presumably) have more expertise in the matter than I do, so should I have the right to say I shouldn't pay those taxes since I think I pay too much and I would have more freedom if I paid less? If there's a legitimate grievance, then we petition our representatives to change it and try to show why our line of reasoning is correct and just. If they don't comply, then we try to elect someone who will comply. The best we can do is take what's in the middle.

I'd be interested in hearing more about your specific political philosophy (since you may not agree with all the Libertarian party says regarding IRS, Dept. of Ed., etc.), but it's probably not the right thread for that here. I would say that I think the US has a pretty good system, though I wouldn't be against a world of enlightened people who understand logic perfectly, but as that's seems to be something of a pipe dream, I'd settle for Immediate Runoff Voting. (You'd like that since you can vote for the Libertarian candidate without worrying about wasting your vote, since if your first pick gets eliminated, you automatically get added to your second choice, and so on until someone gets a majority. It would give third parties a better chance.)

[Izzy]

Heh, I think for once, we actually are in the right thread.

Our educational system could definitely do with some amendments. Mandatory attendance for grades K-5, but I think older students deserve some leniency. I'm habitually truant, and have been forging doctor notes since 6th grade. That said, I'm also a straight A student and in the 99th percentile in my class in a ridiculously competitive International Baccalaureate school. Last year, I only went to school 143 days (out of 180, for you non-Americans). I was lost some of the time, and make up work was a b*tch, but I still maintained my class rank, whilst taking seven academics. The significance of this is that mandating students that need to go to school (especially if they don't need to be there) is a waste of resources, effort, and money. I propose we make students show up based on grades. So along as you are able to provide your own accommodations, you only have to show up in classes you have a B or less in. Pretty much junior year on, people have their own cars. So if I have all A's, but I have a B 6th period, I can sleep in 'til 12, hit up that class, and go home. It might make sense that Mondays are mandatory, so teachers can lay out the lesson plan on the board along with test dates, so people know what they're responsible for. (We used to be given exam exemptions prior to the swine flu madness, but then the county found out it's illegal to give students an incentive to go to school ) People should still be allowed to drop out at 16. ..I don't really feel it's fair to force people to go to school, but I've seen the stupidity of the people that do go, so.. I think it's best. =/

By freedom, we mean personal freedoms, like sex (Texas is trying to make sodomy illegal ), drugs, and rock n roll (is all our brains and bodies need, sex and drugs and rock n' roll, are very good indeed. (Haha, sorry, that's a song)). The US should be able to say "This is our country, and this is how WE govern it, and if you don't agree, gtfo", but people should have the inalienable civil rights we were promised. Laws like the Baker Act (if you look like you're going to kill yourself, hospitals can detain you for up to 72 hours) need to be removed because the state has no right to say what we do to ourselves. I shouldn't be able to die for this country before I can drink in it. And in the UK, you can legally have sex before you can look at it? Huh?

There's this pretty rad anarchist (anarchitect) group called the Space Hi-jackers, that literally hi-jack space. They took corporate land and had a cricket game in the middle of the night. In the UK, the metro had to be rerouted because of Circle Parties they were having, which involved playing music and partying while the train as in motion. A group in Boston schedules times to ride the T pantless and hosts cross-city scavenger hunts. These people redefine space, space that has been stolen from us by the corporate world. The Native Americans had one thing right. Land shouldn't be owned, it should be shared. The world is a huge community, but no one acts like it is.

I think the perfect system would be somewhere between full blown libertarianism and direct democracy (none of this representative crap. The internet makes this possible again), but I haven't found the balance yet.

The scary thing? I realized a few days ago that if I become a US citizen, I'll be old enough to vote in the next presidential election.

[Guest]

Heh, I think for once, we actually are in the right thread.

I don't think this is quite the right thread, since my take based on the title is "If you could do anything, how would you rule the world?" while we're actually talking about serious, (practical?) policy ideas based on reasonable expectations. I don't think that this thread was created to have a policy debate. It was more for people to post whatever ideas they want to. I guess providing reasons for why we think the way we do is part of the equation, but like I said above, if I could have things any way that I wanted, I would do something differently than if I restricted myself to what I thought could be reasonably achieved.

I think the perfect system would be somewhere between full blown libertarianism and direct democracy (none of this representative crap. The internet makes this possible again), but I haven't found the balance yet.

The problem is that libertarianism and direct democracy require an engaged and informed public even more than the representative democracy. If you just give everyone a computer and say, "Vote!" you're going to get all sorts of ridiculous parochial things coming up that the cities will veto outright. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but you'd only need some number of the top 10-50 (maybe a few more ) most populous cities to reach a majority of people in DD. The urban, densely populated areas would dominate every ballot initiative to the detriment of rural areas. That's why we have the House and Senate, to try to balance that. (Of course, the Senate is totally dysfunctional right now, but that's the fault of their own rules, not the Constitution, and they should be changed. That's a separate problem entirely though. )

[Izzy]

Hmm. I just had a thought. You know how you guys put together things you wanted to accomplish and fabricated Phronism based off of that? I think we should do the same thing, but more politically based. After agreeing on what we want to happen.. we.. might actually generate a dignified political policy.

[Guest]

Hmm. I just had a thought. You know how you guys put together things you wanted to accomplish and fabricated Phronism based off of that? I think we should do the same thing, but more politically based. After agreeing on what we want to happen.. we.. might actually generate a dignified political policy.

If you want to start the thread, I'll be happy to contribute, but I'm not so sure that the results will be as interesting. With Phronism, we were discussing things sort of from an "outside looking in" perspective while I don't know if we can be so dispassionate about political philosophy...

[Izzy]

Okay, I'll work on the OP now. Thread should be up by this time tomorrow.