Government for the people. How?

[Izzy]

The objective of this thread is to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met. (None of this "general public" crap, we should try to make everyone happy. ) It's impossible to not be aware of how inconceivable this sounds, but I think by being mindful of what we're trying to accomplish, but.. just might be feasible?**

Now, before we can even begin devising laws, creating our constitution, bill of rights, etc., I think it's best we assemble a list of what people want from their government. Feel free to contribute ANYTHING. (I stole some of these from the world's smallest political quiz and the bill of rights. >_>)

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.
2. Military service should be voluntary.
3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults, where a consenting adult is anyone of 16 years of age or older.
4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
5. End government barriers to international free trade.
6. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
7. Keep government welfare, but no taxation without representation.
8. Freedom of speech, religion, sexuality, peaceful protests, and petition.
9. Soldiers may not be quartered in a house without the consent of the owner.
10. People may not be unreasonably searched or kept in captivity.
11. The right to a free, public, and speedy trial.
12. Laws are to remain the same from State to State.
13. Eventual globalization is a priority.

*We can get into the semantics of altruism later. I have.. mixed feelings, but this most closely elucidates my intentions. (Lol, I swear, I bounce back and forth from being the apathetic hippy civilian who just wants to live to the extremely fervent humanitarian practically daily. >_>)
** Eh, truthfully, it isn't. Too many people disagree on matters of religion, which define the moral code for a LOT of people (even if they don't strictly adhere to it, haha). We need to agree now to define morals for ourselves and not base them off of religious texts. Like, if someone proposes "Don't kill", that's perfectly acceptable, and I expect it to be fully ratified. If someone else suggests "Love God", this is more open to debate. While you can submit ideas that coincide with religious texts, submit them because they are mandates you want and agree with, not just because your scripture of choice tells you to follow them.

Edited February 13, 2014 by bonanova

[Guest]

Hey, I might have to drop this thread because it's too time consuming and I don't really have time for the internet if I want good grades, enough sleep, and a social life.

I'll hopefully be doing the same thing (or at least fading away from the thread for a while). In about 60 hours I'll be at college and there's no way I'll be continuing at anything close to this pace on this thread (a good thing... I won't want to be spending nearly so much of my time here, even though I admit these discussions have been fun (for the most part)).

actually, your parenthetical is really interesting. Can you define the differences you believe exist in heaven that suddenly make a utopia possible? Do you believe you still have the ability to think, remember and make critical decisions in heaven?

And also, what defines a "utopia" to you (gvg)? Is it a world where everybody is happy (like what most believers consider Heaven to be)? If so, do you really think that it's impossible to turn our world here on Earth into a much more Utopian society? If you think that only a perfect utopia is impossible on Earth, then what is it that makes it allowable in Heaven? Is it the fact that all of the evil wrongdoers, etc, don't get to enter into Heaven? Or it a different property of heaven (e.g. something like the inability to make "evil" choices or have "evil" thoughts while in Heaven (I think unreality was hinting at ideas like this with his quoted remark above))? In Heaven, is someone unable to choose to do un-Utopian "evil" things? Or are they free to, but never do choose to because of the unending happiness that Heaven provides for them?

Actually, I think I agree with you "let's not get into this." This would just turn into another religious debate about how unreality and I don't think that you can know anything about such a place called Heaven, and then you would say that there is a lot you don't know about it either, but you still have faith that it's such a great Utopian place. So if you feel that answering my above questions would result in an unproductive discussion, know that I won't mind if you choose not to answer them.

EDIT:

Whoops, I didn't see your last response, gvg. You seemed to answer some of my questions (I would interpret what you said as implying that you think that people in heaven are free to do evil things, but never do such things because they are always blissful and thus never see reason to do anything "evil").

Jarze:

I'm not sure what this "soul" concept is supposed to be. I can understand the metaphorical meanings of the word, but as for something that actually exists in a religious sense, I must say I'm not sure what such a thing that "soul" would actually be. Physical? Spiritual? Is the spiritual world called "Heaven" a different type of "physical" world? What is it if it has no physical laws? What is it to just be "spiritual"? I ask the same questions about a "spiritual" soul.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Use the Force

[Guest]

A continuation of my questions about what Jarze said (aiming towards gvg to answer mainly (only because I'm not sure if Jarze is religious, or agnostic on all of the religious stuff, or what... and unreality isn't religious I don't think either)):

What I said above:

"I'm not sure what this "soul" concept is supposed to be. I can understand the metaphorical meanings of the word, but as for something that actually exists in a religious sense, I must say I'm not sure what such a thing that "soul" would actually be. Physical? Spiritual? Is the spiritual world called "Heaven" a different type of "physical" world? What is it if it has no physical laws? What is it to just be "spiritual"? I ask the same questions about a "spiritual" soul."

What I say now:

What is the soul physically? Is it detectable in our physical universe? If not, what reason do we have to think that it exists (what the Bible says?)? Also, how do we know anything about what this "soul" is? I think The bible describes the soul to be something like the "essence" (to use gvg's term) of a human being, but as someone who believes that humans and oak trees share a common ancestor, I'm skeptical about what this actually entails. Assuming gvg doesn't believe oak trees have souls (perhaps this is a poor assumption for I have encountered people who think that all "living" things have souls), do you also believe that oak trees and humans share a common ancestor? If so, did us humans gradually develop a soul, or did at some point in the past did an individual suddenly acquire a soul at birth when both of his parents were soulless?

Oh wait, gvg, you said you were agnostic on the subject of a soul (right?). If so you may not have many answers to these questions for me. Forgive me for not realizing soon enough.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Use the Force

[Quag]

mostly been just reading this thread, but ill make a small point now, gvg if heaven is a place where everything is provided to you, i dont see how it can, at the same time be a place of happiness that never wavers. If one does not strive for something, if there is no risk of failure, then there is no sense of accomplishment, no real reward. take any game and rig it so that you always win. you may feel great at winning at first but soon you will become very bored with it.

On the Utopia bit i agree we will never ceate it ourselves, i just dont see how we can, That doesnt mean we shouldnt TRY to create utopia, we should and maybe we will get a bit closer

[gvg]

UtF:

Whoops, I didn't see your last response, gvg. You seemed to answer some of my questions (I would interpret what you said as implying that you think that people in heaven are free to do evil things, but never do such things because they are always blissful and thus never see reason to do anything "evil").

Yep. =)

What is the soul physically? Is it detectable in our physical universe? If not, what reason do we have to think that it exists (what the Bible says?)? Also, how do we know anything about what this "soul" is? I think The bible describes the soul to be something like the "essence" (to use gvg's term) of a human being, but as someone who believes that humans and oak trees share a common ancestor, I'm skeptical about what this actually entails. Assuming gvg doesn't believe oak trees have souls (perhaps this is a poor assumption for I have encountered people who think that all "living" things have souls), do you also believe that oak trees and humans share a common ancestor? If so, did us humans gradually develop a soul, or did at some point in the past did an individual suddenly acquire a soul at birth when both of his parents were soulless?

Yeah, it is a little hard to answer that. I think we have a common ancestor, but we will only know if we both have souls if we die and find oaks in heaven =) Or, maybe there's a tree heaven

Quag: I meant the necessities, and I was trying to show that because such things like food or water will be provided to you, there wouldn't be any fighting over those things. I think you can think and remember and make decisions in heaven, but don't want to do evil in heaven because, as UtF described it:

people in heaven are free to do evil things, but never do such things because they are always blissful and thus never see reason to do anything "evil"

It should be a fun experience, and obviously everyone has a different idea of fun, so...

And obviously we can try to make a utopia. Wasn't what we are (or were, this is getting very philosophical) trying to do in a way? I just think we may get close, but never reach it.

[Guest]

I don't have much to say.

Anybody have any interesting philosophical subjects for me to think about (perhaps that you're yet to make up your mind about)? Free will isn't nearly as interesting to think about as it once was.

[gvg]

I don't know many...

[gvg]

Here's a few:

http://www.saviodsilva.net/philosophical-questions.htm

http://www.answerbag.com/category/philosophy_535

http://able2know.org/topic/148090-1

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/eterques.html

I say we start a new thread. It seems interesting enough.

[Guest]

Here's a few:

http://www.saviodsilva.net/philosophical-questions.htm

http://www.answerbag.com/category/philosophy_535

http://able2know.org/topic/148090-1

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/eterques.html

I say we start a new thread. It seems interesting enough.

I wouldn't mind starting a new thread. Perhaps in the new thread we should make our best efforts to read the posts first, then think about them, then write concise, terse, responses so that I can keep up with the thread easily without spending so much of my time per week on it.

I thought that it was funny how this link you gave acted as though it was given that humans have free will and also assumed that biological evolution is an indeterministic process. I only briefly skimmed the questions, and many of the assumptions made not only ought to be points for debate, rather than things to assume as true, but I also disagreed with the assumptions. Also, I found it funny that the questions "Where does it all come from?" and "Where do we come from?" were answered in more of a scientific, rather than philosophical way (i.e. it was said how we came from the Big Bang... rather than wondering the possibilities of how or why our Big Bang started and the possibilities of what events (if any) preceded the Big Bang).

The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is one that I have considered before, but I realize now that it is difficult for me to put my answer into words and also my answer isn't very exact or specific. So perhaps this would be an interesting question to discuss (in a new thread?). Also, I will mention that when I thought about this question before, I decided that it would make a lot of sense if everything exists. By everything, I mean infinitely many universes that are completely unrelated and independent to our own universe (note: I'm not speaking of parallel universes or anything of that nature, but rather, of universes that you might be able to dream up with your imagination). So if we were to have a discussion on a new thread on this subject of "something rather than nothing", I would be glad to share my thoughts on why I think there may be infinitely many universes.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Use the Force

[gvg]

I didn't really look at every question on each of the links, just skimmed em. I'd like to make a new thread with your rules. Are you going to start it or do you want me to?

[Guest]

I didn't really look at every question on each of the links, just skimmed em. I'd like to make a new thread with your rules. Are you going to start it or do you want me to?

I just started a thread on the subject:

If anybody else reading this wants to join in, feel free. Note that I intend on it being a slower placed thread than this thread has been for the last couple dozen pages.

[gvg]

Just replied to it =)

If someone ever comes up with another good political idea to debate on this thread, I will be watching. =)

[Guest]

I know that this thread has died to some extent, but I was wondering about people's reactions to this article in the New Yorker? If ever there was a reason to question the lucidity of allowing money to be spent unchecked in society (and government), I would hope that this article helps to clarify the issue. It's a bit long, but I do think that even the first couple pages are illustrative of the topic at hand.

[gvg]

This is after reading the first page, but I think that what they're doing is horrible. I think any political party can only use money raised from public event type of things, which each donor limited to 5-10 percent of his wealth, or better yet, a set rate of $15,000. Something like that would limit it (again, this is only after reading the first page, so...)

Oh, and each donor can only donate twice a year. A strict record must be kept.

[Izzy]

I have to write an essay on JFK's inaugural address. Here's a snippet of it, which would have fit the thread a while back. =/ What happened to people thinking like this?

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

[Guest]

I have to write an essay on JFK's inaugural address. Here's a snippet of it, which would have fit the thread a while back. =/ What happened to people thinking like this?

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

This graph on Slate discusses income gains and social mobility for the amalgamated Democratic presidencies and the equivalent Republican presidencies since World War II. Under Democratic leadership, every bracket (20th, 40th, 60th, 80th and 95th percentiles) made modest gains of more than 2%, with those in the lowest bracket having the highest increase (2.6%), and those in the top bracket having the smallest increase (2.1%), but everyone about the same. Under the Republicans, however, there is a stark contrast. The highest bracket (95th percentile) increased wealth only 1.9% (less than under the Democrats), while every other bracket saw further diminishing returns (the lowest bracket only made a statistical zero of 0.4% gains ).

So at least so far as the graph implies, liberal government seems to be the rising tide that lifts all boats far more than trickle-down economics ever could be. Taking an "every man for himself" approach to governing has always seemed wrongheaded at best. Sure, supporting the "parasites" as some on this thread may have at one time characterized those stuck on welfare, may seem to hurt "society" if you look at some shallow level that only sees the immediate effects of giving money out for "free," but if you give something to people who would otherwise have nothing, you give them the opportunity to make something of their lives that they otherwise might not (and almost certainly would not) be able to do otherwise. Some won't. That can't be helped, but it's a terrible idea in my opinion to limit everyone just because there will be a handful of freeloaders.

The Republicans have been asked from time to time (less and less often as the media conglomerates ) to show real evidence of "Welfare Queens" or small farms forced to sell the land because of the Estate Tax and time and again, no credible evidence has ever come to light that these sorts of things really exist in any significant way. Obviously, welfare can't be for just anyone who wants it, since then everyone would be trying to get some money from the pot, but I don't think that any welfare policy that could deny money and support to people who truly need it would be good for our future government (to try to get back on track ) just in an effort to stop the relative few freeloaders who would abuse it.

As a direct example, the right likes to whine about voter fraud (something very different from election fraud), where voters find ways to vote twice, or bring dead people to vote or allow illegal immigrants to cast ballots. As much as they like to make a hullabaloo about the whole thing, experts that examine the polls and count ballots find no credible evidence of vast voter fraud conspiracies. More often than not, any case of apparent fraud that does surface usually stems from confusion or poorly designed ballots, rather than malice, but that doesn't stop the meme that we need more restrictions on voting. The problem of course is that some of the restrictions they'd like to impose would likely disenfranchise legal voters, by turning people away from the polls if they don't have "adequate" identification or because they just changed districts and they haven't managed to swap their status. Which is worse, a handful of illegal votes counted as legal, or a bunch of legal votes discounted as illegitimate?

Good luck on that essay. I hope you find some more nuggets in the speech from that most dangerous Papist...

[gvg]

AMEN!!!

[gvg]

I have to write an essay on JFK's inaugural address. Here's a snippet of it, which would have fit the thread a while back. =/ What happened to people thinking like this?

AMEN!!

(Sorry about the double post, it wasn't working...)

Edited September 13, 2010 by gvg

[gvg]

This graph on Slate discusses income gains and social mobility for the amalgamated Democratic presidencies and the equivalent Republican presidencies since World War II. Under Democratic leadership, every bracket (20th, 40th, 60th, 80th and 95th percentiles) made modest gains of more than 2%, with those in the lowest bracket having the highest increase (2.6%), and those in the top bracket having the smallest increase (2.1%), but everyone about the same. Under the Republicans, however, there is a stark contrast. The highest bracket (95th percentile) increased wealth only 1.9% (less than under the Democrats), while every other bracket saw further diminishing returns (the lowest bracket only made a statistical zero of 0.4% gains ).

So at least so far as the graph implies, liberal government seems to be the rising tide that lifts all boats far more than trickle-down economics ever could be. Taking an "every man for himself" approach to governing has always seemed wrongheaded at best. Sure, supporting the "parasites" as some on this thread may have at one time characterized those stuck on welfare, may seem to hurt "society" if you look at some shallow level that only sees the immediate effects of giving money out for "free," but if you give something to people who would otherwise have nothing, you give them the opportunity to make something of their lives that they otherwise might not (and almost certainly would not) be able to do otherwise. Some won't. That can't be helped, but it's a terrible idea in my opinion to limit everyone just because there will be a handful of freeloaders.

The Republicans have been asked from time to time (less and less often as the media conglomerates ) to show real evidence of "Welfare Queens" or small farms forced to sell the land because of the Estate Tax and time and again, no credible evidence has ever come to light that these sorts of things really exist in any significant way. Obviously, welfare can't be for just anyone who wants it, since then everyone would be trying to get some money from the pot, but I don't think that any welfare policy that could deny money and support to people who truly need it would be good for our future government (to try to get back on track ) just in an effort to stop the relative few freeloaders who would abuse it.

As a direct example, the right likes to whine about voter fraud (something very different from election fraud), where voters find ways to vote twice, or bring dead people to vote or allow illegal immigrants to cast ballots. As much as they like to make a hullabaloo about the whole thing, experts that examine the polls and count ballots find no credible evidence of vast voter fraud conspiracies. More often than not, any case of apparent fraud that does surface usually stems from confusion or poorly designed ballots, rather than malice, but that doesn't stop the meme that we need more restrictions on voting. The problem of course is that some of the restrictions they'd like to impose would likely disenfranchise legal voters, by turning people away from the polls if they don't have "adequate" identification or because they just changed districts and they haven't managed to swap their status. Which is worse, a handful of illegal votes counted as legal, or a bunch of legal votes discounted as illegitimate?

Good luck on that essay. I hope you find some more nuggets in the speech from that most dangerous Papist...

Very true. I'm glad you found that graph. Gives us progressives some evidence =)

And yes Izzy, good Luck.

[Izzy]

Good luck on that essay. I hope you find some more nuggets in the speech from that most dangerous Papist...

Haha, as much as I hate to admit it, I ended up using quite a bit of his religious commentary as examples of ethos. *shrug* It is a predominantly religious nation and I'm not above BSing essays for good grades.

(We wrote one about Einstein's letter to Phyllis yesterday, so I'm sure my teacher will be very confused about where I stand reliously. )

[Guest]

Cost of Living?

I really don't know much about it, but it seems wrong that a $1 here in Knoxville, does not equal a $1 in San Francisco for example.

Edit: If there is anything that could be done that is.

Upon a cursory glance, this seems to be the last post that was truly on topic with the OP. I guess I'll run with it to see if we can get this thread back on track.

Regarding cost of living, that is definitely something driven by market forces and it would definitely be a point of contention if the government regulated it. I can see how having the same cost of living everywhere could be beneficial since people could live anywhere they could get a job (provided that the job paid enough to live anywhere), but there is a marked difference between living next to a beach and living next to a cornfield (not to imply that living in Knoxville is like living near a cornfield ). Most people would be more willing to live near that beach if given the choice. So if everyone had the same cost of living the world over, all of the most hospitable places would quickly get really overcrowded. Because it's cheaper to live in places that are less desirable, it helps to balance out the fact that it's less desirable.

So for once, I agree with market forces as the best way to handle cost of living. Though I still support the idea of subsidized living for people who can't currently make their bills (so long as they were paying their bills at one point and are just going through a rough patch now ).

Anyone want to keep going with this subject, or is there something else people would rather discuss?

[Molly Mae]

I'll roll with CoL.

I'd never seen this thread before today.

I really just wanted to note another fact of Cost of Living, though. It doesn't just alter the price of something (rent, coffee, cigarettes, etc.), but it drastically changes salary as well.

For instance, with my current qualifications, if I were to get a job in Raleigh, NC I would make about $58k. Alternatively, if I had the same job in Alexandria, VA or the DC Metro area, I would make anywhere from $90-115k. Rent for me here in NC is about $950 for a two bedroom, on bath at 1100 square feet. The same apartment in Alexandria would cost $1800-2000.

Stay with me here.

If I make significantly more in Virginia, I can afford to live there. If I make significantly less in Cairo, Illinois I can still afford to live there. But there should be an ever-changing ratio for each area.

Cost of living isn't solely adjusted for how nice a place is. It's really to keep places from underpopulation or overpopulation. I don't think the approach they're using works, though. If you increase income because of increased rent and other necessities, you get Cost of Living. If you can see the closed interaction, you can understand that it won't fix an overpopulation problem. More people will still go to the metro areas, make more money (not exactly at a 1:1 income to cost ratio [but not necessarily less than a rural town]), pay higher bills, but have all of the advantages of living in or near a city. Granted, there are a lot of disadvantages to be had: daily commutes, pollution, crosswalks, rush hour, et al.

(I'm jumping all over the place on this one...)

So a fiscally responsible person may be well-off in a big city (or area with a higher Cost of Living), while an irresponsible person might be broke in a township (or area with a lower Cost of Living). It's a two-edged sword, really.

If you're trying to standardise costs, though (e.g., every 12 ounce cup of coffee, regardless of where it was purchased) has a value of $1.00, it just won't work. Part of all of it is the industry of the given area. It's more expensive to ship coffee to Wisconsin than it is to send it to Montego Bay, for example.

[gvg]

I don't know much about cost of living, but I have to agree with Dawh on this. It shouldn't be regulated a lot. Notice I say a lot. We have to make sure it's reasonable after all.

[Guest]

Cost of living seems to have burned out, so maybe we should try another topic?

I suggest caring for the elderly. You can probably guess where I stand on the issue, but I'll leave specifics out for the time being as I'm a little busy at the moment.

So more specifically, the question is, "What responsibility do we have, as a society, to care for the elderly?"

[Izzy]

The same as we have to care for our children. Those incapable of caring for themselves deserve help, and we as a civilized society should provide.

In other loosely related news, holy factorial at my English class today. We had a prompt about gun rights, and it somehow turned into this huge gay rights/atheism/Tea Party idiots debate. So many people in my class are so.. eugh.

I eventually shut them up about California voting against gay marriage by pointing out that mankind is inherently stupid and asking if we should bring back slavery if everyone voted in favor of it. I consider that a win, even if they don't.

[gvg]

Izzy: WIN!!!! =)

Dawh: They held up society on their backs; it's our turn to help them.