You are in charge

[DesignFox]

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



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

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

[rahmota]

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

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

daleduke:

Term limits on every office. Park board trustee to the President. Maximum number of terms is 3. Maximum number of years in a term is 4.

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

Campaigning will start no more than January 1st of the year of the election for the office you are running for (ie 2008 Presidential election = start date of January 1, 2008).

I like this one. bad thing is it might increase the advertising density past critical mass and destroy the universe as we know it. Not that this is a bad thign to consider on some days but generall univrse destruction is to be avoided....One of my friends was joking around and suggested a reality show like american idol to determine the president. Not quite sure how that one would go down but hey might get more people involved.

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

Interesting. I'll agree that all this primarie malarky needs to get straightened out. Might be interesting.

Two senators, ten representatives from each state (every state will have equal say).

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

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

I would like to see frivolous lawsuits immediately thrown out of the courts

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

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

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

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

Where's the incentive to behave if their misbehaviour nets them more profit than it will cost them in lawsuits?

Well thats where the laws letting the government seize a company that is not acting in the public good come into play. Either a permanent seizure or one long enough to reform the company, criminal charges against the responsible executives and generally change theattitude that led to the misbehavior of the company before it can return to more responsible private hands.

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

[the_std]

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

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

[daleduke17]

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

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

[Sylvia727]

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

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

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

[Ree]

Taking power away from the (alleged) victims and giving it to the (alleged) abusers is not going to help. It will only make matters worse.

Exactly!
I am not saying it's a perfect system, and I know there are problems, but I had a major issue with the whole "rights of the parents are sacrosanct" notion.

[Kaylyn]

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

[rahmota]

I am not saying it's a perfect system, and I know there are problems, but I had a major issue with the whole "rights of the parents are sacrosanct" notion.

No it most definately is not a perfect system. And the rights of the parents should be respected whenever possible to the utmost. maybe not sacrosanct where the child can never be removed but it should be difficult for the government to remove them just on a suspicion or whim. It is always better to give the government too few powers than too many. For it is easier to add power than to remove it from a government agency.

I'm just curious, as a truck driver, about where the transportation industry fits into your fuel reform. I totally agree with finding alternative fuels, but would the truckers that are the backbone of just about everything in the country suffer?

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

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

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

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

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

Another check/balance if you will. Rahmota, I do like the idea of one representative for every 10,000 persons, even though that would mean there would be almost 300,000 representatives.

yeah there is the problem that we would have to rebuild the halls of congress into somethign worthy of Coruscant if we went with the 1/10k ratio so a higher ratio might need to be done but anythign that keeps government from being too productive is a good thing.

[BlackIronCrown]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3: price controls on all items.

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

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

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

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

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

I think those are my strongest rebuttals to make.

[BlackIronCrown]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rahmota]

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

okalie, dokalie neighbor!

I contend there are others which need to still be prohibited. Those are:1) crack 2) heroin 3) cocaine

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

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

Well as I mentioned to Ree (which you never got back to me on if that sounded like a good compromise or what?) there could be several different exemptions available for people to apply for. Also i expanded upon what I meant by firearms education in the schools. Not just teaching how to handle and use firearms but when to and when not to and all sorts of other issues related to firearms. Considering to be perfectly honest the length of time it take to teach a person to use a firearm is 15 minutes or less while the time to teach responsible use of a firearm is a lot longer. I'm willing to use an entire school year to teach the responsibility.

this is essentially neutering CPS entirely

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

Your flat tax covers all variants of income from a personal source

Yes it does. Doesnt matter what it is if it is being paid to you (above the table of course) then it is income and taxable.

how does this affect sales tax, business tax,

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

and the taxes on corporate income?

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

Are corporations treated like a person

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

How does your flat tax address the fact that those with lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income than do those who are more affluent?

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

price controls on ALL items have historically proven to be economically unmanageable and eventually disastrous for the economy.

Actually as true communism as found in Karl Marx's wonderful little book has never been tried on a grand scale there is no proof one way or the other as to its ability to work or not. Its only when you allow personal greed to become a factor in the system does things begin to destruct.

Communism as an economic system does not work, simply because it relies on human altruism as its basis, not human self-interest.

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

North Korea has become a wasteland of starvation

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

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

Really? (we need a spockian raised eyebrow smilie like on YIM) Monopolies are not a good thing and isnt that what all that trust busting was about back at the turn of the 19th century? I'll not discus the morals, ethics and all the nitty gritty legalities of the various corporations here as there have been enough of that on thewweb but suffice to say that just because the courts have not been able tog make anythign stick yet doesnt mean that they havent done anythign wrong. This is a very business friendly country and very megacorp friendly government right now so of course they are going to turn a blind eye and a wink wink nudge nudge for anything bad.

Well, I'll be addressing that disagreement in my own government proposal

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

[the_std]

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

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

[rahmota]

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

Yes , sorry I missed it the first time around.
there have been calls for national reform on less.

[the_std]

there have been calls for national reform on less.

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

[Difdi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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