You are in charge

[Difdi]

Of the United States.

I remember this quote, I don't remember from where: "Power does not corrupt. However, it is an irresistable lure to the easily corrupted."

Laws
Remove any law that has the sole purpose of promoting, defending or legislating consideration or the Judeo-Christian morality. Rape is a physical assault and not a moral issue. What I am talking about is a lot of the "blue laws" Specific examples are:
1:Marriage would be defined as a social contract between two or more consenting adults. No mention of gender or anything. this would make homosexual marriage legal as well as polygamy.
2:Prostitution is legal and regulated by federal law.
3:Public nudity is no longer criminal. Especially at beeches and other recreational areas like that. Sadly being a prude is not going to be able to be illegal but at least with proper education maybe we can stamp out the prudes.
4:Suicide and euthanasia would be legal with express written and witnessed consent of the subject.
5: no more censorship of media. Don't like swear words don't listen to certain kinds of music. You're an adult some bad words is not going to destroy your psyche and if your psyche is that fragile then maybe you should crawl back under your rock.
6:No more war on drugs. Marijuana and the drugs are legal. this will reduce crime and improve the quality of life in America.
7: mandatory firearms training in high school and barring any physical or severe mental disability mandatory carry and firearms ownership.
8:nationalized health care as the rest of the enlightened countries have.
9: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 witch hunts they would have to have definite and limited proof of abuse or neglect before they could lift a finger. Any investigation would be limited to specific charges and allegations and anything 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 definite proof before interfering in that for any reason.

Agreed. But I'd also add:

10: Amend the Constitution to make knowingly and willfully subverting the Constitution to be Treason, and punishable accordingly. This will prevent congresscritters from passing laws they know will be unconstitutional and/or vetoed, just to look good to their constituents. It will also, as a side effect, make it far more hazardous for a lawyer to seek public office than for a regular person. This would also make it impossible to prohibit the carrying of guns on private property or by one's employees.
11: Make shrinkwrap/sneakwrap EULAs fraud. Any contracts must be up front, and understandable to the average person on the street. Failing to do so applies any ETF fee in the contract to the person writing or issuing the contract and voids it.
12: Corporations are not people. Any corporate officer becomes fully and personally responsible for any corporate policy that violates the law. If a corporation violates the law, apply the RICO Act to anyone who has decision making power who knew about the violation and did not act to prevent it and/or report it, as well as anyone without decision making power who helped to carry it out.
13: No legal or civil immunity for anyone who commits a crime, exceeds their authority or misuses their authority. A principal who violates civil rights can be sued (in addition to the treason charge from #10) and the school's liability insurance won't cover him, for example. Qualified immunity would only apply to legitimate actions in the line of duty, within the narrow confines of whatever actions the law allows for the position of authority in question.
14: The Constitution and other US laws apply to all actions taken by citizens of the US, regardless of their location at the time; If it's illegal at home, it's illegal to travel outside the country to do it. Yes, this applies to the CIA as well. This is not to say that the host country's laws do not apply, but rather, that it would be impossible to evade US laws by going elsewhere (underage sex junkets to Thailand, for example).
15: The rights of an adult (drug use, sexual consent, signing contracts, reproduction, etc) are not granted automatically at a set age. Passing a test to prove competence in those areas would be required.
16: National ID. No exceptions. Make it as secure as possible, with forging one a capital crime.

Finances

1: No more deficit spending. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money.
2: Make the tax regulations the IRS uses match existing tax laws. Modify the tax laws so that taxable income is taxed at a flat rate, regardless of how much income is taxed. No tax shelters other than a 1:1 tax reduction for any money (or cash value of goods) donated to a real charity.
3: Either abolish the Federal Reserve Bank or nationalize it. As it stands, it's a private corporation that owns the US money supply, and loans the money the government prints back to the government.
4: Return to a hard currency standard. Perhaps using radioactive elements or an energy credit system instead of gold and silver.
5: I like the original posters idea of minimum and maximum wages, although I'd do it a bit differently. A CEO should give a 1% raise to all employees for every 1% of raise the CEO gets. No CEO severance packages unless employees get the same value, proportionately. No CEO bonuses unless employees also get a proportionate one.

Military

1: Mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting only those who are too disabled to serve. If you object to violence, field medic or quartermaster are options. No service, no citizenship. If you're not prepared to defend your country, you are not prepared to vote or hold office. A citizen refusing to serve in wartime or in the event of a militia call-up for a natural disaster is guilty of treason.
2: Eliminate most of the standing military. Exceptions would be training cadre as provided in the Constitution, special forces troops and long range missiles. If a military response is required, reaction levels would be conventional missile, special forces (SEALs, Delta, etc) if a personal presence is required, nuclear. In that order. If someone wants to attack the US, feed them a missile. If it's not a place we have an interest in and they need to die, make it nuclear or a big thermobaric. Only send troops out if we absolutely have to.

Illegal Immigration
1: It ends. Border patrol is authorized to use lethal force to repel invaders. Which is what people crossing the border illegally are. You either come in through the front door or you dont get in. End of story.

Agreed. The border gets secured with a microwave fence, incursions are met by Army Rangers with live ammo, backed up with Apache helicopters. I'd add:

2: Instead of issuing visas, start issuing tracking bracelets. Impossible to remove accidentally without removing the hand at the wrist. Removal for any unauthorized reason equals instant expulsion from the country. Removal coupled to any violent crime equals speedy trial and very probable speedy execution.
3: Make it easier to immigrate legally. Anyone who wants to come in, providing they are not a criminal or terrorist gets in. Any immigrant must undergo a 1 year probation if they come in with, say, $20,000 or more to their name, or 5 years with less. Committing any felony, failing to acquire an apartment or house, or failing to acquire a job in that time, will result in deportation and the immigrant must start all over again, after settling any legal issues.

Transportation
1:rebuild the railroad infrastructure in this country.
2: mandate that hydrogen fuel cell and other advanced technologies including biofuels begin to be implemented so that 50% of all petroleum powered cars will be off the road in 5 years. 100% in 10 years. Since there are price controls in place these new cars will be priced to be available to the common people.
3: any car that gets less than 20mpg combined is illegal to be licensed or driven on public roads.
4: Develop public transportation easily and readily available to all individuals.

I agree. I'd say #3 is problematic for some applications; Large trucks for example. Most existing trains wouldn't meet that standard either. Limiting #3 to just private cars using petroleum fuels would be a good idea, with a somewhat less restrictive minimum mileage for cleaner or more renewable fuel types; I'd be willing to say no mileage rules on a zero-emissions vehicle, for example.

Education
1: all schools public or private must maintain educational standards including teaching evolution in science class. Creationism and all its derivatives can be taught in social studies where it belongs as they are not scientific truth and fact.
2: academics shall take precedence in all regards to physical athletics.
3: Scrap this no child left behind BS. If the kid is too dumb to move on to the next grade then he gets to repeat that grade until he gets enlightenment or gets old enough to join the military or something else. Learn or lose.

I mostly agree. #1 I'd stipulate that what gets taught is solid theory, rather than specifying evolution. Who knows what will get refuted and when? As for #3, the idea is behind no child left behind is good, but the implementation seems to be designed to fail. Modify it so that every dropout, every kid expelled under zero tolerance, count against the school. As it stands, a school can improve its stats by expelling kids or encouraging them to drop out. I'd also add:

4: Zero-tolerance policies do not work. At best, they teach students that all crimes are equally serious - bringing a picture of your brother the Marine with his rifle is just as bad as bringing the rifle and shooting up the school; What you gain in discipline, you lose in critical thinking. The purpose of a school is to educate the students for their adult lives, not to control them in every way. The purpose is to breed citizens, not sheeple.

General culture
1: Promote and defend that the individual is the source of all power in the government. That the individual when willingly working together can produce a stronger, better country than when forced to work together by whiny scumbags attempting to legislate consideration or morals.
2:teach that hateful terrorist groups such as focus on the family, Phelps and his crew, KKK or neonazis are ignorant shameful cowards who teach hatred ignorance and vile evil and should be reviled and ridiculed.
3:mandate that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. No religion is above another and any attempts to do so will be fined or prosecuted.

I agree with #1 and #3. The problem with #2, is that there is no need to protect the freedom of speech when you agree with the sentiments expressed. You can't restrict speech you disagree with, without opening yourself to someone disagreeing with you and restricting you on that basis. While I agree that racism in all its forms is stupid, there is no way to legislate this without legislating away the first amendment. I've met people who are so irrational, they honestly consider anyone disagreeing with them, for any reason on any topic, to be hate speech. If you can restrict what you consider hate speech, you open the door for someone else to do the same to you.

[Norton]

15: The rights of an adult (drug use, sexual consent, signing contracts, reproduction, etc) are not granted automatically at a set age. Passing a test to prove competence in those areas would be required.

I like the idea, but how could it be enforced? Particularly when it comes to sex - people won't stop breeding just because they're not supposed to by law. Aside from giving mandatory birth control (which I doubt the country would ever accept), I don't see how it could work.

[rahmota]

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?

Responsible as in what? CPS is an evil organization created to protect children and families and winds up in many cases harming families and children more or outright stealing and selling them like slaves. I see my reasons as just as valid as any other reason to do it. And I am not totally basing this just off my own personal persecution but on the cases around here and the thigns I have seen/heard/read about throu my research in fighting the evil gesttapo that is CPS in more cases than not.

Difdi:

"Power does not corrupt. However, it is an irresistable lure to the easily corrupted."

Agreed which is why the government must be as weak as possible to protect the citizens yet as robust and strong enough to do the job it must do. A very delicate balancing act that requires a lot of checks and balances.

And as per the usual if I dont comment on an idea I either find it interesting enough that I agree with it or otherwise dont have a problem with it.

15: The rights of an adult (drug use, sexual consent, signing contracts, reproduction, etc) are not granted automatically at a set age. Passing a test to prove competence in those areas would be required.

See this is a problem. I know several people who are in their 40s and if they had to pass a competency test to breed, or drink or smoke they would die of old age before passing the test unless it could be done in crayon on the back of napkin. Competency tests beyond the basic high school graduation type are dangerous things to implement as the ones who create the test can skew thigns so that only the "right" people can be found competent. Personal I say lower the legal age for everything back down to 18 (or so) and let the course of nature weed out the responsible from the irresponsible.

16: National ID. No exceptions. Make it as secure as possible, with forging one a capital crime.

I'm not fond of one national database for everythign and everyone to be in it. I like the local id scheme and would liek to see all the rest of the national databases go away. no more firearm registration, no more public accessable criminal databases, no more credit checks allowed for job seekers etc... The government needs only enough data to know where to find me to give me my money, take my money or otherwise do business with me. Theoretically the only thigns that the government shoudl know about its citizens is that they where born, they have a job and a driver's liscence. And thats it.

1: Mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting only those who are too disabled to serve.

Coming from a military family I ahve to disagree with mandatory service. Looking at vietnam and the morale issues that mandatory military service brings I do prefer a volunteer military. That ensures that for whatever reasons for the most part the people who are in are there of their own volition and motivation. If a person does somethign because they want to do it generally they are goign to do a better job of it than because they have to do it.
I'll agree that some sort of service equals citizenship system should be in place but braoden it out to include a lot of civilian jobs and careers not just limit it to military.

If it's not a place we have an interest in and they need to die, make it nuclear or a big thermobaric. Only send troops out if we absolutely have to.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot them in the dark is not a very good idea from an environmentally speaking or lifespan continuonce speaking idea. Radioactive fallout (of which there would be plenty if you start flinging ICBMS, ALCMsor any of the nuclear arsenal around) will drift back around the world. Do it enough times and you can cause some interesting and unfortunate problems. Also we are not the only one with nukes. We start flinging them aroud others will start flinging them and the next thing you know greebo from clorax 9 is looking throuhg his scope at the new slag heap that used to be earth. Nuclear weapons are not a good option or replacement for conventional means.

2: Instead of issuing visas, start issuing tracking bracelets. Impossible to remove accidentally without removing the hand at the wrist. Removal for any unauthorized reason equals instant expulsion from the country. Removal coupled to any violent crime equals speedy trial and very probable speedy execution.

Big brother is watching. Hmm not good why not put an explosive in the bracelet too so that if the person goes into the wrong area or needs dealt with just punch in a code and "boom"? Implanting or installing trackign devices on people is not a good step for a free society to take.

While I agree that racism in all its forms is stupid, there is no way to legislate this without legislating away the first amendment.

Agreed this is why it was placed under cultural and not legal. You cannot legislate what people think or really what they say for the most part. Everyone has the right to be a hateful ignorant racist or intolerant bigot. The thing is by changing the thought patterns by showing that that sort of thinking is more harmful than not through examples, life lessons, etc... would need to be done subtly and slowly and with the support of other equal rights laws that people may not like but will eventually get over. I mean for the most part integration of blacks is a minor issue for america in jobs,schools, and military. (For the most part there are still some issues there but at least not like the 60s) Given enough time and enou education eventually bigots will still be around but they will be a lot fewer, hopefully. You'll never get rid of them and actually bigots do serve a useful purpose. It is hard to define light without dark to contrast it with.

I agree. I'd say #3 is problematic for some applications; Large trucks for example. Most existing trains wouldn't meet that standard either. Limiting #3 to just private cars using petroleum fuels would be a good idea,

That is what I was trying to say by using the word car there instead of vehicle. Also no more of this classing an SUV as a light truck so they can get around the fuel economy restrictions.

All in all aside from a couple of rather scary ideas very interesting.

[rahmota]

A couple thigns I thought of while talking to the wife today at lunch. Just a couple quick thoughts off the cuff.

1: I would prohibit all government agencies/agents from hiding behind bulletproof glass or metal detectors or otherways of hiding and insulating themselves from the public. these are public servants they are here to serve the public. not be tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood looking down upon the great masses of america from behind their barriers. Transparency in government in all things. Ease of access to all government gents from the BMV,CPS,Welfare offices to the governor of the state up to the president. Security can be acheived without sacrificing accessability. And if security does lapse and someone does get through then oops oh well. It might teach these arrogatn bastards to be polite and respectful to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The government is there to serve its people not the other way around.

2: Thinking about the way the invasion and occupation of iraq has gone make tighter controls as to how, where and when the government is able to use the us military. Keep the military under the political branches control but transfer "ownership" to congress. that way except for extremely limited emergency situations the president has to go to congress and ask permission to play with the military. I know thats how it is supposed to really work that way already but the way it is done is too loose. I say tighten it up to put more limitation on it.

A limited government is a good government.

[the_std]

1: I would prohibit all government agencies/agents from hiding behind bulletproof glass or metal detectors or otherways of hiding and insulating themselves from the public. these are public servants they are here to serve the public. not be tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood looking down upon the great masses of america from behind their barriers. Transparency in government in all things. Ease of access to all government gents from the BMV,CPS,Welfare offices to the governor of the state up to the president. Security can be acheived without sacrificing accessability. And if security does lapse and someone does get through then oops oh well. It might teach these arrogatn bastards to be polite and respectful to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The government is there to serve its people not the other way around.

I take offense to this point. I work for the government as a receptionist and, yes, I am behind bullet-proof glass. I work for a justice department, which means that we handle court cases, among other things. The floor I work on is the only floor that is accessible to the public. ANYONE who knows we're here can come up to this floor. There have been many times where I've been threatened by members of the public who missed their court dates, or didn't get the results they want, or are just plain angry/on drugs/delusional. We are downtown, an area that dangerous people have very free access to. And yes, there have been a few times where I actually thought that, if not for the glass between me and the other person, I could have been attacked or shot. I am well trained in self defense, but I cannot grapple someone over a desk. I do not have bullet-proof skin. If someone does get through, oh well? If I am shot for something that is not my fault, like them missing their court date, oh well?! I happen to be very polite, cheerful and willing to bend over backwards to accomodate people. I am not an arrogant bastard and I do not deserve to be shot just so that you can improve your society.

[BlackIronCrown]

Again with the rebuttals, this time to Difdi:

10: Amend the Constitution to make knowingly and willfully subverting the Constitution to be Treason, and punishable accordingly. This will prevent congresscritters from passing laws they know will be unconstitutional and/or vetoed, just to look good to their constituents. It will also, as a side effect, make it far more hazardous for a lawyer to seek public office than for a regular person. This would also make it impossible to prohibit the carrying of guns on private property or by one's employees.

Mmm-hmmm.
Tell me, what laws have been attempted to be passed that are unconstitutional? Or that up front are known to be vetoed? I am aware of one bill attempted by Ron Paul to bypass the judiciary and prevent them from declaring any law unconstitutional. Who will determine that bill to be unconstitutional? So far, nothing can be declared to be so unless done by the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court have to go over any bill that needs to be submitted for vote?
How will you prove at the trial for treason that the person submitting the bill was "knowingly and wilfully subverting the Constitution"? This is a criminal trial; you need more than "preponderance of evidence"; you're required to have "beyond all reasonable doubt" and have to convince a grand jury to indict and a regular jury to convict.
How would this make it hazardous for a lawyer to seek public office? In order for a lawyer to subvert the Constitution, he must be specifically trained on Constitutional Law. Most aren't.
How would this make it impossible to prohibit the arrying of guns on private property or by one's employees? Laws that do this have already been determined by the USC to be constitutional and non-infringing; would this somehow retroact the court's decisions? After all, it is the USC that determines if a law is constitutional or not.

11: Make shrinkwrap/sneakwrap EULAs fraud. Any contracts must be up front, and understandable to the average person on the street. Failing to do so applies any ETF fee in the contract to the person writing or issuing the contract and voids it.

How do you recommend software companies protect themselves legally? Should we also institute regulations making it illegal to sell or otherwise acquire software or other shrinkwrap EULA items unless the contract is personally signed by the recipient?

12: Corporations are not people. Any corporate officer becomes fully and personally responsible for any corporate policy that violates the law. If a corporation violates the law, apply the RICO Act to anyone who has decision making power who knew about the violation and did not act to prevent it and/or report it, as well as anyone without decision making power who helped to carry it out.

...
You want to make a secretary of an executive responsible for an environmental violation that crossed her desk?
No, I DAMN well don't think so. You'd never get to hold that up in court.

13: No legal or civil immunity for anyone who commits a crime, exceeds their authority or misuses their authority. A principal who violates civil rights can be sued (in addition to the treason charge from #10) and the school's liability insurance won't cover him, for example. Qualified immunity would only apply to legitimate actions in the line of duty, within the narrow confines of whatever actions the law allows for the position of authority in question.

You have immediately removed all possible use for plea bargains, resulting in a lower rate of conviction.
Secondarily, you have immediately paralyzed all public officials. For example, as that principal, I WOULD NOT prevent the KKK from burning a cross on the school property, as calling the police or attempting to prevent that would be a violation of their civil rights.

14: The Constitution and other US laws apply to all actions taken by citizens of the US, regardless of their location at the time; If it's illegal at home, it's illegal to travel outside the country to do it. Yes, this applies to the CIA as well. This is not to say that the host country's laws do not apply, but rather, that it would be impossible to evade US laws by going elsewhere (underage sex junkets to Thailand, for example).

Uhhh. Right.
Well, that's crippling the CIA even more than it is already crippled. Law prevents any domestic agency from performing espionage within the United States. Law also prevents the CIA from operating within the United States. What you have just done is say to the CIA, commit no espionage functions either within or outside the United States - it is illegal for a US national to do so. Which means the CIA is either made up of people that do not have US citizenship and are thus not subject to those laws, or the CIA doesn't exist, since it can't do work either inside or outside the USA.
Congrats.
Secondly, your extension of extraterritoriality will be protested by every country in the UN. That's not going to work very well.

15: The rights of an adult (drug use, sexual consent, signing contracts, reproduction, etc) are not granted automatically at a set age. Passing a test to prove competence in those areas would be required.

4: Return to a hard currency standard. Perhaps using radioactive elements or an energy credit system instead of gold and silver.

Much as I like the idea, current unfeasible. See your local Macroeconomics class on why. Simply put, there is NO material, including energy, that is able to serve as hard currency and not cause a total depression ala the 30s in today's society.

1: Mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting only those who are too disabled to serve. If you object to violence, field medic or quartermaster are options. No service, no citizenship. If you're not prepared to defend your country, you are not prepared to vote or hold office. A citizen refusing to serve in wartime or in the event of a militia call-up for a natural disaster is guilty of treason.

Ah, the Starship Troopers solution. I might have agreed with national service for one year, but not this. If you want a draftee army, fine. However, I'll note that conscript militaries do quite badly on the scene of warfare. Secondly, you're asking fo a revolution with this type of deal.

2: Eliminate most of the standing military. Exceptions would be training cadre as provided in the Constitution, special forces troops and long range missiles. If a military response is required, reaction levels would be conventional missile, special forces (SEALs, Delta, etc) if a personal presence is required, nuclear. In that order. If someone wants to attack the US, feed them a missile. If it's not a place we have an interest in and they need to die, make it nuclear or a big thermobaric. Only send troops out if we absolutely have to.

Your views on the military are a bit idealistic. First, nuclear weapons is contravened both by US and international law except in such cases as we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction; nuclear is only a response to nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry. Utilization of nuclear weapons in such a...cavalier manner will result in embargoes, removal from the UN Security Council, and probably outright war with nukes being thrown our way. We do not practice Soviet-style brinkmanship as a war policy.

2: Instead of issuing visas, start issuing tracking bracelets. Impossible to remove accidentally without removing the hand at the wrist. Removal for any unauthorized reason equals instant expulsion from the country. Removal coupled to any violent crime equals speedy trial and very probable speedy execution.

Speedy execution? You mean deportation. Executing foreign nationals is a good way to have war declared...unless we simply don't care about the rights of foreign nationals anymore.
Also, I think the ambassadors and diplomatic corps of nations like Mexico, Canada, and the UK are going to be a bit pissed. "Mr. Ambassador? We're tagging you like a dog. Look, you German fuck, put up or shut up. This is the USA!" That's not very, uh, diplomatic.

====
More rebuttals for Rahmota:

1: I would prohibit all government agencies/agents from hiding behind bulletproof glass or metal detectors or otherways of hiding and insulating themselves from the public. these are public servants they are here to serve the public. not be tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood looking down upon the great masses of america from behind their barriers. Transparency in government in all things. Ease of access to all government gents from the BMV,CPS,Welfare offices to the governor of the state up to the president. Security can be acheived without sacrificing accessability. And if security does lapse and someone does get through then oops oh well. It might teach these arrogatn bastards to be polite and respectful to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The government is there to serve its people not the other way around.

Thereby ensuring that I can walk into the court downtown, pull out my Glock, and open fire on some judges, yo. Or that I can put on a fake military uniform, waltz into the Pentagon looking spiffy, make my way into a records room with my forged id, and pull some files. No metal detectors, magnetic card locks like you have in corporate buildings, or stuff like that. Fantastic.
And before you ask who would open fire on judges and/or other court staff, see what's happened in Chicago and Atlanta lately. These weren't "arrogant bastards" or "tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood". These were killed by people who thought

Tell you what, have a current headline:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/...Gibe5L5_pvzwcF
Why yes...that guy should have been allowed to carry it into an actual courtroom and open fire. No searching, no guards, no metal detectors, no nothing. Yup.

[rahmota]

Or that I can put on a fake military uniform, waltz into the Pentagon looking spiffy, make my way into a records room with my forged id, and pull some files

Standard security procedures on any military base would prevent that. As the Pentagon is the base of all bases their security would be just fine. The problem isnt having security it is having too much security that intereferes with the transparency and accessability of OUR employees the government.


This coutry has turned into a paranoid over zealous elistist nation. Heading rapidly for a police state with the rich and the government sperated from the people solidifying the social classes instead of working to remove social barriers and resolve the problems that the rich and the government have caused by their actions.

std: If the city is that dangerous and bad then maybe you should go someplace less combative. A lot of the stress and situation people are having is caused by the repressive and oppressive atmosphere in the courthouses and government buildings. I mean last time I went into a federal building it felt like walking into the reichstag in 1938 germany. The guards wore black uniforms, there was a metal detector booth there that could have ben used as a prop on star trek for the agonizer booth, the entire atmosphere of the place was one of grim oppression of humanity. Heck even the building was a large black cube. Go into a welfare office and the people who work in there are hiding behind their bulletproof glass looking down their noses at the people on the other side. Its just a major attitude problem with the public servants. Our government has encouraged the attitude that the government is above the people and that everyone should bow down and worship the government and all its lackeys and that just aint right.

[the_std]

std: If the city is that dangerous and bad then maybe you should go someplace less combative. A lot of the stress and situation people are having is caused by the repressive and oppressive atmosphere in the courthouses and government buildings. I mean last time I went into a federal building it felt like walking into the reichstag in 1938 germany. The guards wore black uniforms, there was a metal detector booth there that could have ben used as a prop on star trek for the agonizer booth, the entire atmosphere of the place was one of grim oppression of humanity. Heck even the building was a large black cube. Go into a welfare office and the people who work in there are hiding behind their bulletproof glass looking down their noses at the people on the other side. Its just a major attitude problem with the public servants. Our government has encouraged the attitude that the government is above the people and that everyone should bow down and worship the government and all its lackeys and that just aint right.

The city is not that dangerous and bad. I feel safe walking around by myself, even at night. We don't have any guards or metal detectors and we're in a mall, not a government-owned building. There is nothing inherently wrong with our set-up, except for the fact that we're a city with 300,000 people and there are always going to be some crazies. I agree that the government's view of the public might need to be overhauled, but sacrificing the innocent and their protection (my only protection is the bullet-proof glass) is definitely not the way to go about it. You make it sound like us government employees are less than human, or not as important, because it doesn't matter if we're killed, as long as the government is changing the way it deals with people. That's like the people who swear at telemarketers because they don't think they have real jobs, or don't believe that they're real people on the other end of the phone. If you're so "individual before the masses", remember that we who work for the government are individuals as well, thank you.

[BlackIronCrown]

Standard security procedures on any military base would prevent that. As the Pentagon is the base of all bases their security would be just fine. The problem isnt having security it is having too much security that intereferes with the transparency and accessability of OUR employees the government.

I don't understand. WHAT standard security procedures? Standard security procedures are limited access, physical patdowns, and electronic scanning. What OTHER security procedures would take the place?

How does it interfere with the transparency and accessibility of the employees? What information or service is being withheld from you? Are you demanding the ability to walk up to the Secretary of Defense any old time you wish?

This coutry has turned into a paranoid over zealous elistist nation. Heading rapidly for a police state with the rich and the government sperated from the people solidifying the social classes instead of working to remove social barriers and resolve the problems that the rich and the government have caused by their actions.

Blanket hypothetical statement. For me to accept this as absolute fact, I want rigorous proof - backing by academic studies and independent reports performed in a proper statistical and testing method.

[crazylegs]

1: I would prohibit all government agencies/agents from hiding behind bulletproof glass or metal detectors or otherways of hiding and insulating themselves from the public. these are public servants they are here to serve the public. not be tin plated dictators with delusions of god hood looking down upon the great masses of america from behind their barriers. Transparency in government in all things. Ease of access to all government gents from the BMV,CPS,Welfare offices to the governor of the state up to the president. Security can be acheived without sacrificing accessability. And if security does lapse and someone does get through then oops oh well. It might teach these arrogatn bastards to be polite and respectful to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The government is there to serve its people not the other way around.

I'm going to strongly disagree with this. For well over thirty years the UK has had the shadow of terrorism hanging over it, government buildings have always been a target, it was only in the last two or so years that a gunman ended up trying to storm the parliament buildings in (northern ?) Ireland.

In the US there are lots of people who have access to lots of firearms, some of which shouldn't. These people would dearly love to pop a few rounds off at any agency. The person behind the glass is exactly that.

A person.

They probably have parents, possibly kids.

How do you explain to them that Mummy or Daddy died becase a piece of glass wasn't there...?

Another point I will disagree with you on is the CPS. Anon tips can serve a purpose, they could be from the abused themselves, or a neighbour of a particularly violent person. I understand you have had a difficult time with this agency but they do save lives. It is difficult to express just how hard it must be for the people within the agency to have to make the desicion to remove children from their parents but make it they must.

[rahmota]

I understand you have had a difficult time with this agency but they do save lives.

You know people I am sorry you see this as some sort of personal vendetta and I dont need or want anyone's pity or sorry. There are hundreds if not thousands of families every year victimized by CPS. Who have their civil and legal rights ignored and violated by CPS on the basis of scant or no evidence of any wrong doing whatsoever. But if a person tries to say anythign negative about the bastards you get the response I am seeing here "Oh but think of all the children they save! Oh see how much good they do." Its like trying to point out a vicious not housebroke puppy that just happens to be cute and does one or two good things. One good deed does not excuse a hundred evil acts.http://www.fightcps.com This is a network for victims of CPS mindless and needlessly evil aggression to help get support and fight back against the persecution of these gestapo bastards.

A person.

They probably have parents, possibly kids.

How do you explain to them that Mummy or Daddy died becase a piece of glass wasn't there...?

If you're so "individual before the masses", remember that we who work for the government are individuals as well, thank you.

And as an individual it is your duty and your responsibility to only folow those orders and regulations that are constitutional and legal. It is your duty as an individual to understand what the person on the other side of the glass is goign throu and to not give in to the attitude of supercilious superiority that is so commonplace among our government officials. The attitude of "I have the power so you will kneel before me and do my bidding to get whatever it is you need from me if I feel like it."
A lot of the problems that "require" these Orwellian and overzealous security responses would go away if the government was reformed to better serve the people instead of expecting the people to serve it. Yes there would still be an occasional nutjob who wants to be famous but you can never get rid of them no matter what. And society should never try because the methods required to do that would hurt and burn hundreds of innocents more than it would. The good of the body politic is the good of the individual.

It is difficult to express just how hard it must be for the people within the agency to have to make the desicion to remove children from their parents

HA! I laugh at that joke. Considering how zealous the gestapo agents who persecuted me and those in my county are to try and remove kids at the slightest whim they dont seem to have a problem with it. I asked the agent if they could sleep at night knowing they persecute innocent people everyday and she had no answer for it. Well hopefully she'll be able to sleep better at her new job at mcdonalds since we managed to get her fired and her liscence to be a social worker in the state of Ohio revoked. (I got that piece of good, no great and terriffic news yesterday)

Which that remiodns me of another piece of regulation that I would require: Only parents with children may work for CPS. You cannot judge another parents ability unless you are a parent. No more of this freash out of college dipshit who doesnt know anything about the real world judging other people's ability to do or not do anythign. Interefereing in the rights of parents and their family is too important and too serious to be left to inexperienced tyros.

And yes the rights of parents are sacrosanct enough that to try and remove or interefere in that you had better have definate and absolute proof of wrongdoing. Otherwise you are in the wrong and evil.

And as for the anonymous tips this country's legal system is based on two fundamental principles. One is that everyone is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (unlike how the CPS operates which is the diametrically opposite of that. You are guilty until you can prove yourself not guilty. you are never innocent in their eyes. and they will keep a record of you for the rest of your life. Which that would and should be illegal as well. No cetnral databases for anything. Once a case is closed with them they would be required to destroy all records that you where ever perseuted by them) , and the other is that the accused has the right to know and face their accusers. You start breakign those principles and you start the destruction of our legal system into the persecutorial and orwellian society we are on the brink of if not already in right now.

That's like the people who swear at telemarketers because they don't think they have real jobs

Oh yeah thanks for reminding me. Telemarketing would be illegal and punishable by jail time and fines startign at 500,000$ per call made. The CEO of the company invovled in telemarketing would be held personally responsible for it. and would be the one doing the jail time and paying the fines out of their own pocket.

All phone numbers would be unpublished and unlisted by default. If you wanted to have your personal phone number listed you would have to opt in for that and pay extra. The phone book would consist of those individuals who had opted into publishign, government agencies and offices and all businesses.

I don't understand. WHAT standard security procedures? Standard security procedures are limited access, physical patdowns, and electronic scanning. What OTHER security procedures would take the place?

None that would be the usual stuff to get on a military base. They are quite good at knowing who is and is not supposed to be there and your average joe would not be able to just put on a uniform and stroll into a base with no challenges.

I am not opposed to requiring ID or a physical guard standing there at military bases. I am talking about all the overzealous and orwellian methods used at the BMV, the welfare office, the CPS office, the court houses. There is no need for that kind of bugaboo. Not in a free country that has nothing to hide or seperate form its people.

[the_std]

And as an individual it is your duty and your responsibility to only folow those orders and regulations that are constitutional and legal. It is your duty as an individual to understand what the person on the other side of the glass is goign throu and to not give in to the attitude of supercilious superiority that is so commonplace among our government officials. The attitude of "I have the power so you will kneel before me and do my bidding to get whatever it is you need from me if I feel like it."
A lot of the problems that "require" these Orwellian and overzealous security responses would go away if the government was reformed to better serve the people instead of expecting the people to serve it. Yes there would still be an occasional nutjob who wants to be famous but you can never get rid of them no matter what. And society should never try because the methods required to do that would hurt and burn hundreds of innocents more than it would. The good of the body politic is the good of the individual.

I do not order people. I do not direct them. I sure as hell do not expect them to kneel before me and do my bidding. I am a bloody receptionist. I answer their phone calls and sign them in if they have appointments with our lawyers. I have absolutely zero control over if they're arrested and charged with with "Orwellian" offenses. I have no control over anything that happens to them outside of my lobby. My lobby, by the way, that has comfy chairs and potted palms and nothing restricting them or watching them or anything like that except for a piece of bullet-proof glass between my desk and them which does them absolutely no harm whatsoever. If the government is trying to control them and hurt them through their laws and "safety procedures", overhaul them before you put innocent people in the face of danger. Social change does not happen over night. Taking away the bullet-proof glass is not going to stop the angry people from threatening me or trying to hurt me. You seriously need to rethink your strategy here.

I'm very, very glad that you are not in charge of my government.

[rahmota]

std: realize that all of these changes I am proposing would not happen in a vacuum or alone. And no social change does not happen over night. And sometimes it is very painful and can be rather unpleasant. No birth happens without some blood.

The thing about social change is that not everyone is going to want to change their society. Either because they see no need to as they are profiting or are not facing the same problems under that society as others. They are too scared to make changes. Because they are too complacent or comfortable with the way thigns are and dont want to try something new or different.

Your situation is different than what I have encountered and lived and see everyday so you are going into this with a different set of perceptions and attitudes about things. I for one am very dissatisfied with the way this coutry is being run and would like to see somethign better put into place. I am very glad I would live in a country under the rules I have proposed and consider it a good place.

How do you recommend software companies protect themselves legally?

they dont. EULAs become freeier and more upfront or comapnies dont get to stay in business as an independent entity and are siezed and run for the common good.

[daleduke17]

Something I would do, if I was in charge would be to streamline some of our governing agencies. Earlier I looked up a list of different state agencies in Illinois. What a huge list. I got to thinking, instead of paying for that many Executive people (something like 75 agencies) why not group like agencies together.

I got out my handy-dandy Excel file (Excel is fun for stuff like this) and grouped different agencies together.

Illinois has a board for "Educational Labor Relations", a "Community College Board", a "Student Assistance Commission" and then the "Board of Education". Sounds like four groups that could go together really well. One person in charge of it all, and four assistants.

To further make it sound weird, we have a "Toll Highway Authority". There's less than 300 miles of toll roads in this state. Let me think. Roads are for transportation...Illinois has a Department of Transportation who maintains roads. Group the THA with them.

Illinois also has boards for racing, gaming and Lottery. Yet another area to streamline.

Pretty much, if Illinois wanted to, they could save a lot of money by grouping some of these redundant groups together. Of course, there would be a small amount of jobs lost, but, it could be kept to a minimum as well. There's always job openings at state offices all over Illinois.

[rahmota]

daleduke17: Yeah thats a good idea. I forget how many redundant or similar agencies there are in ohio but probably about the same as illinois. Most governments do have a tendency to bloat over time as everybody wants to get their piece of the pie.