NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been here going on 2 years, and in that time,I've seen a lot of opinions from a lot of people. I've also come to the conclusion that some of you, a lot of you (too many to list) would make excellent politicians. I mean that in a good way.

Some of you may very well decide to go into politics and put your ideas to work. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk. My question is, that if you are ever in the position to make a difference, make some changes, what would they be? Which laws would you toss out? Which ones would you modify? What new laws would you put into effect? With all of you ideas -if you could make the Government better....what would you do?

Nobody would vote for me, so I guess my opinion is irrelevant here :p

Nobody would vote for me, so I guess my opinion is irrelevant here :p

Nuh uh- youre opinion is always important. I think maybe some of the best ideas come from the average Joe. That's whats wrong with the US. We have to get some of the old fogeys out and put some new thinkers in.

Nuh uh- youre opinion is always important. I think maybe some of the best ideas come from the average Joe. That's whats wrong with the US. We have to get some of the old fogeys out and put some new thinkers in.

'mm, but my political beliefs don't correspond to those of the average Joe over here....or really anywhere for that matter :p

I've been here going on 2 years, and in that time,I've seen a lot of opinions from a lot of people. I've also come to the conclusion that some of you, a lot of you (too many to list) would make excellent politicians. I mean that in a good way.

Some of you may very well decide to go into politics and put your ideas to work. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk. My question is, that if you are ever in the position to make a difference, make some changes, what would they be? Which laws would you toss out? Which ones would you modify? What new laws would you put into effect? With all of you ideas -if you could make the Government better....what would you do?
I would get rid of the death sentence and replace it with military service.

My question is, that if you are ever in the position to make a difference, make some changes, what would they be? Which laws would you toss out? Which ones would you modify? What new laws would you put into effect? With all of you ideas -if you could make the Government better....what would you do?
How drastic of changes?

How drastic of changes?

Anything you have in mind. We probably need some drastic measures.

I would more evenly distribute wealth by how much work you accomplish.

Nuh uh- youre opinion is always important. I think maybe some of the best ideas come from the average Joe. That's whats wrong with the US. We have to get some of the old fogeys out and put some new thinkers in.

i agree but there is where the problem comes in to play, by the time they get to the high levels of government and actually get political jobs they are/become "old fogeys" fast. i guess once you become a politician you are instantly ingulfed by their political cult

I would get rid of the death sentence and replace it with military service.

great idea, give people that seem to not care who they kill and give them guns and put them in a group with those guns

I've been here going on 2 years, and in that time,I've seen a lot of opinions from a lot of people. I've also come to the conclusion that some of you, a lot of you (too many to list) would make excellent politicians. I mean that in a good way.

Some of you may very well decide to go into politics and put your ideas to work. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk. My question is, that if you are ever in the position to make a difference, make some changes, what would they be? Which laws would you toss out? Which ones would you modify? What new laws would you put into effect? With all of you ideas -if you could make the Government better....what would you do?
I would install a one party, my party, system. With me as only candidate. Streets, holidays and schools would bear my name. And the people would worship me at least 3 times a day. Those who don´t agree would disappear under mysteriouse circumstances.

I would get rid of the death sentence and replace it with military service.


How long would they have to serve? Would you send them into front line battles? I guess you wouldnt have to worry about them slacking off because they would have to fight to stay alive. hmm...

nobody here would vote for me......but I would seriously reduce the size of the federal government.

I wouldn't really run for office though, my husband is in a few years, I don't want to compete with him, and anyway, it would take time away from my #1 job.

Wow, where would I start? :p
Actually, I think Canada's pretty well off... it needs some tweaking, of course, but I don't have any fundamental problems with it.
I think we need to embrace our multiculturalism more, and I think the latest victory for the Sikh community is a great one. That being said, I don't think we should "baby" any cultural group, either. I'm not a fan of special treatment. I'm looking at you, Alberta, Quebec, and Native Canadians.
As much as I love our free healthcare system, limited two-tier DOES make some sense. I don't want private for-profit groups taking over, but some of the best countries in the world for healthcare have two tiered systems.
Definitely I'd work on the education system. It needs a massive overhaul. I mean, granted, it's better than a lot of countries, but it could be better. Students are in debt for years after they graduate. They should be able to start investing in their own lives immediately, rather than having to be bogged down for ages afterwards, paying for their schooling. If people want to learn, there shouldn't be monetary barriers. Education should be a right, not a priviledge.
With the aging population, research has to be done on seniors, looking at ways to increase their safety, and keep them our of our hospitals for longer, to ease the burden on the health care system. I'm against increasing lifespan, without keeping a good quality of life. Euthanasia would be legalized for those who are suffering, with no hope of recovery. Keeping people alive simply because people are weak and can't say goodbye is horrific. We treat our animals more humanely.
I'd try to get rid of the Governor General. It's a useless post, and if the English like their little socialite puppets (aka Royalty) that's fine, but the GG post is purely useless, and a massive waste of money, as was shown by our last one, and her outrageous bills for travel/food/accomodations/etc.
I'd oppose cutting taxes, at least until we're out of debt. I hate to run things conservatively, but the reality is we still have a lot of money to pay off, and the sooner we do that, the sooner we can reap the rewards.

So, which group would I run for? Either NDP or Liberal... right now Liberal is a dirty word, but they're the most moderate choice, and Canada, as a whole, is pretty moderate.

I would install a one party, my party, system. With me as only candidate. Streets, holidays and schools would bear my name. And the people would worship me at least 3 times a day. Those who don´t agree would disappear under mysteriouse circumstances.

LOL.....that is soo not what I expected from you Von.:p

LOL.....that is soo not what I expected from you Von.:p
I know. I always come of as a big softy.

I would more evenly distribute wealth by how much work you accomplish.

This is a good one. How would you execute this plan?

You can just look at my nation. I run it like I would run a real life nation.

We'd be poor, but free and happy.

If I tried to run for anything, there's no doubt in my mind I'd just ruin my whole campaign by doing something stupid. Besides, a lot of people nowadays have contempt for them "insiders," which is how I'd probably want to run.

Theoretically, if I did run, I'd be one of those benevolent liberals open to any new idea and such, but once I'd take power, Orwell will be rolling in his grave even more ;)

This is a good one. How would you execute this plan?
They will all *donate* it to me and then I will evenly distribute it among my variouse Swiss bank accounts.

Does anyone think that the each individual state should govern themselves in regards to most issues, or should the Federal Govt have the most say so for each state?

They will all *donate* it to me and then I will evenly distribute it among my variouse Swiss bank accounts.

Thats exactly what I'd do:eek: GMTA;)

USian here, so I'll talk about the US.

A few things really
- slash the military budget to a level that is reasonable, i.e. one that doesn't spend ~57% of the entire world's defense budgets
- Ask all nations in which the US has military bases/a military presence to hold a national referendum on whether or not the US should stay. Remove forces from any country that wishes it. (my thinking here is to reduce the idea that America is an imperial force. After all, if we have consent, it's not a rape of nations.:p )
- legalize all drugs, lower age of drinking to 18
- lower age of consent to 15
- Insitute a national healthcare system that provides free basic coverage to all who need it, but still allows for private healthcare providers
- Legalize gay marriage
- Add a constitutional amendment giving all citizens of the US the right to a social safety net that will support them at a very basic level if they cannot support themselves
- Add a constitutional amendment expressly guaranteeing the right to an abortion
- ditto, except for guaranteing Reasonable Privacy from all agents public and private.
- abolish the death penalty.
- abolish all censorship.
- crack down on companies that do stuff that is illegal - union-busting, hiring illegal immigrants, etc.

I'm sure there's more. But that's all that comes to mind.:)

Does anyone think that the each individual state should govern themselves in regards to most issues, or should the Federal Govt have the most say so for each state?

i think states should govern themselves quite a bit, but there should be some unionization to maintain the country as a whole

some things will work in LA and not in a rural farm county. its different mentality from city to country.

the people in the country are always smarter, enough said:D

i would lower the cost of education. there is no reason to have tuition cost $30,000 a semester. my college is only 6 grand a year and i have to take out loans to pay for it. 48 grand in debt by the time i graduate. $#&@#%$(

anyway, lowering the cost would open the door for more people to get a higher education...

Anything you have in mind. We probably need some drastic measures.
Well, I would disband the army for starters and seriously reduce the size of the navy and air force. The marines would be reincorporated into the navy.

I would legalize gay marriage and disband the vast majority of federal agencies, including the CIA, Drug Enforcement Agency, all the superfluous defense agencies, all foreign aid agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the Bureau of arms control, Medicare and Medicaid, the Corporation for National Service, the EPA, the INS,the FTC and many others.

I would seriously limit the powers of the FBI and put the FDA under the authority of several unaffiliated committees.

A gradually reducing flat tax rate would accompany a gradual reduction in welfare services.

All the “rules” for treatment of the flag would be officially repealed.

Does anyone think that the each individual state should govern themselves in regards to most issues, or should the Federal Govt have the most say so for each state?
I do. I think the federal government is needed for things like border security, and defense, but not much else. States can deal with a lot of the crap that the federal government tries to poke it's nose into.

All the “rules” for treatment of the flag would be officially repealed.

there are guidlines, but i wouldnt call them rules, you can treat it how you want to

anyway, lowering the cost would open the door for more people to get a higher education...
Fool, we have a serrious shortage of peons. Why do you think we need the Mexicans?

Does anyone think that the each individual state should govern themselves in regards to most issues, or should the Federal Govt have the most say so for each state?
Depends on what the states would do with more power. The constitution would have to be much more specific than it is to allow states rights in the modern age.

i would lower the cost of education. there is no reason to have tuition cost $30,000 a semester. my college is only 6 grand a year and i have to take out loans to pay for it. 48 grand in debt by the time i graduate. $#&@#%$(

anyway, lowering the cost would open the door for more people to get a higher education...

if you truely want to go to college, and you try, its not that hard, theres grants, loans, scholarships everywhere. alot of scholarships are over looked and never taken.

plus education isnt for everyone, some people just dont cut it in college

Assuming I get elected - an impossibility - and have enough of a majority in Congress and state legislatures to violate the Constitution:

1. Begin a program of large-scale expropriation of capitalist property, handing it over to a national network of grass-roots democratically-elected worker's councils who would control the economy;
2. Legalize gay marriage; offer refuge to gays and lesbians being persecuted by authoritarian governments around the world;
3. Attempt to use US influence and economic power to put the institutions of the global economy under the direct democratic control of the world's workers and peasants;
4. Replace the US flag with a plain, monochromatic red flag; replace the Star-Spangled Banner with the British version of the Internationale; end the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools; rename the country the United Socialist States of America;
5. Guarantee all US children free public education through college;
6. Guarantee universal health care;
7. Expropriate unused housing and rent it to the homeless;
8. Launch job training and public works programs to reduce unemployment and replace unemployment benefits with decent, well-paying jobs;
9. Ban the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes; mandate the teaching of safe sex and sexual orientations in sex education courses; force schools to permit student-formed GSAs;
10. Legalize prostitution under the democratic control of the prostitutes;
11. Legalize marijuana; adopt a drug policy similar to that of the Dutch;
12. Lower the drinking age to 16.

Edit: Some more begin coming to mind.

13. Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act; reduce restrictions on public sector unions;
14. Ban the death penalty;
15. Adopt a general program of democratic decentralization to dissolve the centralized state apparatus and replace it with a confederation of the aforementioned worker's councils;
16. Slash the military budget by two-thirds or so;
17. Apologize to the world for repeated aggressions;
18. Offer citizenship to all illegal immigrants; liberalize the immigration policy;
19. Invest heavily in alternative energy and energy conservation; begin replacing cars in metropolitan areas with decent public transportation;
20. Enact strong environmental regulations.

if you truely want to go to college, and you try, its not that hard, theres grants, loans, scholarships everywhere. alot of scholarships are over looked and never taken.

plus education isnt for everyone, some people just dont cut it in college

it is hard to pay for college. not everyone gets scholarships. i dont qualify for them. i get kees money and thats it, a biig 500 bucks, woop ti doo. the rest i pay with loans. loans i have to pay back. loans that will take years to pay back...

Someone will laugh at this but I dont care.

When I was in Oregon, I had to get used to not pumping my own gas. It's illegal to pump your own gas there. At first I was annoyed, but then I thought "this is nice...I dont have to get out of the car." So, maybe I would make it illegal to pump gas in all 50 states. Why? Well the most current info I could find( and because I'm being lazy and not digging too deep) says that there are about 190,000 gas stations in the US. If you arent allowed to pump your own gas, then someone else has to. Say 10-15 staff members to cover 2 shifts. I've just created 2,850,000 jobs! No they arent the most prestigious jobs in the world, but they are doing a service.And they'd be paid a decent wage too.

Someone will laugh at this but I dont care.

When I was in Oregon, I had to get used to not pumping my own gas. It's illegal to pump your own gas there. At first I was annoyed, but then I thought "this is nice...I dont have to get out of the car." So, maybe I would make it illegal to pump gas in all 50 states. Why? Well the most current info I could find( and because I'm being lazy and not digging too deep) says that there are about 190,000 gas stations in the US. If you arent allowed to pump your own gas, then someone else has to. Say 10-15 staff members to cover 2 shifts. I've just created 2,850,000 jobs! No they arent the most prestigious jobs in the world, but they are doing a service.And they'd be paid a decent wage too.

brilliant idea!

Someone will laugh at this but I dont care.

When I was in Oregon, I had to get used to not pumping my own gas. It's illegal to pump your own gas there. At first I was annoyed, but then I thought "this is nice...I dont have to get out of the car." So, maybe I would make it illegal to pump gas in all 50 states. Why? Well the most current info I could find( and because I'm being lazy and not digging too deep) says that there are about 190,000 gas stations in the US. If you arent allowed to pump your own gas, then someone else has to. Say 10-15 staff members to cover 2 shifts. I've just created 2,850,000 jobs! No they arent the most prestigious jobs in the world, but they are doing a service.And they'd be paid a decent wage too.

and up goes the price of gas, maybe, how was the price in oregon?

1. Begin a program of large-scale expropriation of capitalist property, handing it over to a national network of grass-roots democratically-elected worker's councils who would control the economy;
What happens to the middle class, especially the self-employed with few or no regular employees?

Communism could only work if society is polarized between the capitalists and proletariats and would require an anarchic revolution, not government policies.

All these multi million dollar lotteries floating about, I'd put those to work. -Lottery proceeds would go to education, healthcare and job assistance programs.
-Free daycare for all working parents. Soem day cares cost up $200 per week per child!
- There would be no pre existing condition clauses in health care insurance. If someone is sick- you treat them....no matter if they had the ailment 6 months prior to receiving insurance coverage.

Someone will laugh at this but I dont care.

When I was in Oregon, I had to get used to not pumping my own gas. It's illegal to pump your own gas there. At first I was annoyed, but then I thought "this is nice...I dont have to get out of the car." So, maybe I would make it illegal to pump gas in all 50 states. Why? Well the most current info I could find( and because I'm being lazy and not digging too deep) says that there are about 190,000 gas stations in the US. If you arent allowed to pump your own gas, then someone else has to. Say 10-15 staff members to cover 2 shifts. I've just created 2,850,000 jobs! No they arent the most prestigious jobs in the world, but they are doing a service.And they'd be paid a decent wage too.
I know people that own convenience stores. They aren’t well off financially at all.

You’d force them to hire more employees? The family I know can barely afford one part-time guy to watch the shop when they go to their hindu temple thing.

and up goes the price of gas, maybe, how was the price in oregon?

It was $2.35 here in Georgia when we went out there last year and it was $2.39 when we got out there.

I know people that own convenience stores. They aren’t well off financially at all.

You’d force them to hire more employees? The family I know can barely afford one part-time guy.

No- there could be some kind of incentive or compensation for small businesses. I'm thinking about large corps like BP and Exxon I guess.

I know I tend to go on about this, but I really want it to happen: The slow, but certain, extermination of humanity. Or nuclear war. Blow up EVERYTHING.

-Free daycare for all working parents. Soem day cares cost up $200 per week per child!
0_o The lottery is going to cover all that?
- There would be no pre existing condition clauses in health care insurance. If someone is sick- you treat them....no matter if they had the ailment 6 months prior to receiving insurance coverage.
Then the insurance companies would just not accept people with pre-existing conditions.

I know I tend to go on about this, but I really want it to happen: The slow, but certain, extermination of humanity. Or nuclear war. Blow up EVERYTHING.


You will not be allowed to work at one of my Federally funded gas stations.

No- there could be some kind of incentive or compensation for small businesses. I'm thinking about large corps like BP and Exxon I guess.
These people work one of the large corporation’s shops. It’s called a franchise.

What happens to the middle class, especially the self-employed with few or no regular employees?

Leave the self-employed and very small business alone, at least in the early stages. If for some reason government or worker's council policy leads to interference that prevents the effective running of their business, they can sell it to the burgeoning socialist institutions for a fair price and, as long as the workers agree, they can retain their positions within the business.

0_o The lottery is going to cover all that?

Well the lotteries pay out about $300mill every week or two. Thats a damn good start. Besides, the method of payout they have now is crazy. I mean one person doesnt need 250 mill. Why not give them 50 mill and use the 200 mill to fund something that would benefit everyone?


Then the insurance companies would just not accept people with pre-existing conditions

No thats what I mean, the insurance companies would have to cover it. I believe that people who need a surgery or medical treatments shouldnt have to go through waiting periods ....up to a year in most cases,with some carriers- in order to receive treatments that would improve their health.

These people work one of the large corporation’s shops. It’s called a franchise.

Well whatever the specifics -I'd work them out. I wouldnt make the people you speak of hire 10 people that they couldnt afford to pay.

"But in writing your Constitution let me invite attention to the wonderful virtues of the negative! Accentuate the negative! Let your document be studded with things the government is forever forbidden to do."
-- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein

If I didn't just resign immediately upon gaining power (people who want power are not to be trusted with it), I'd try to spend most of my time repealing laws. Once that phase is complete, I'd do everything I could to make it as difficult as possible to pass new laws. (Edit: not very interesting or exciting, but then that's pretty much the idea).

Leave the self-employed and very small business alone, at least in the early stages. If for some reason government or worker's council policy leads to interference that prevents the effective running of their business, they can sell it to the burgeoning socialist institutions for a fair price and, as long as the workers agree, they can retain their positions within the business.
What makes the workers more important than the self-employed? Why do they get to be in charge? Being less well off certainly doesn't make one more virtuous. I've known what most would consider “good” people (I just find them annoying) from all socio-economic levels.

And, as I stated before, communist ideas are worthless as long as a strong government still exists.

Does anyone think that the each individual state should govern themselves in regards to most issues, or should the Federal Govt have the most say so for each state?

I very much think that the states should handle their own internal affairs. As long as they're not abusing the civil rights of their citizens, Uncle Sam should keep his nose out.

Were I President with a Congress who would follow my every whim, this is what I'd do.

The US Army would only consist of the current 18th Airborne Corps, along SOCOM. The rest would become National Guard.

I would repeal Federal laws that covered anything except defense and international relations.

I would withdraw the US military (who would mostly become National Guard anyway) from our bases all over the world.

If I could then resign from the Presidency and become Governor with a similarly pliable legislature I would:

Legalize marijuana, prostitution, and gay marriage

Enact universal healthcare and free education for all through college

Repeal most gun laws, except those involving convicted criminals and those who are medically unable to be responsible with a firearm

Lower the drinking age to 16

And that's all I can think of right now.

As you can see, I'd never be elected.

Well whatever the specifics -I'd work them out. I wouldnt make the people you speak of hire 10 people that they couldnt afford to pay.
Ok. So who gets the jobs? If you haven’t noticed, most Americans aren’t willing to work jobs like that.

Unless you are willing to open the boarders (which I’m all for) most of the new jobs are just going to go to illegals who cross the boarder specifically to take those new jobs. They'd still try to get those jobs, but they wouldn't be as much of a burden.

As you can see, I'd never be elected.
If it makes you feel any better, I'd nearly fight a violent revolution to install you as President. Unfortunately for you, I’m uncharismatic and far too attached to preserving my own life.

What makes the workers more important than the self-employed? Why do they get to be in charge? Being less well off certainly doesn't make one more virtuous. I've known what most would consider “good” people (I just find them annoying) from all socio-economic levels.

No, I'm talking about the very small business owners with employees, not the self-employed.

And, as I stated before, communist ideas are worthless as long as a strong government still exists.

That's why you didn't see me advocating nationalization. I have anarchist tendencies, one reason among many that I would never be elected in the first place. The decentralized, grass-roots, participatory democracy of the worker's councils would replace the state.

No thats what I mean, the insurance companies would have to cover it. I believe that people who need a surgery or medical treatments shouldnt have to go through waiting periods ....up to a year in most cases,with some carriers- in order to receive treatments that would improve their health.
Why not just have a national healthcare system. No need to despotically legislate private business when you could just destroy them with unbeatable competition.

The decentralized, grass-roots, participatory democracy of the worker's councils would replace the state.
Sorry, but that ain't going to happen without a lot of bloodshed. Don't get me wrong, I have no qualms with that as long as its not my own.

Ok. So who gets the jobs? If you haven’t noticed, most Americans aren’t willing to work jobs like that.

Unless you are willing to open the boarders (which I’m all for) most of the new jobs are just going to go to illegals who cross the boarder specifically to take those new jobs. They'd still try to get those jobs, but they wouldn't be as much of a burden.


Unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who would qualify for those jobs due to lack of education.

Thats another thing, I'd make it possible for illegals to get into the country legally....without years of paperwork.

Why not just have a national healthcare system. No need to despotically legislate private business when you could just destroy them with unbeatable competition.


I'd love to have a national healthcare system. Still with no pre existing clauses of course. What would happen to all of the insurance carriers? Maybe we could have them pump the gas?:)

(I'm not too fond of health insurance providers...bastards)

i dont think national healthcare would work so great in america, people would go to a docter for a splinter, just because they could, plus the quality of health care would go down

Unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who would qualify for those jobs due to lack of education.
Sure, plenty qualify, but they won't work. Welfare and occasional supplementary illegal activity is so much easier. If I was in their position, I'd do the same.
Thats another thing, I'd make it possible for illegals to get into the country legally....without years of paperwork.
Would you disband the INS?

What would happen to all of the insurance carriers? Maybe we could have them pump the gas?:)
I’m fairly certain that even out of a job, most of the higher ups at which your animosity is directed could probably live the rest of their lives comfortably without working.

Sure, plenty qualify, but they won't work. Welfare and occasional supplementary illegal activity is so much easier. If I was in their position, I'd do the same.

Would you disband the INS?

I'd put them in a small doublewide trailer somewhere in Wyoming. All of them...in the same trailer.

i dont think national healthcare would work so great in america, people would go to a docter for a splinter, just because they could

Easy to deal with. Just prioritize the system so that people who need the care the most get first service.

Easy to deal with. Just prioritize the system so that people who need the care the most get first service.

We should make a thread and ask people who have a NHCS how it works and what do they have to do when they get sick or need a surgery or something. Get some first hand info. I've heard that there are terrible waiting lists in Canada...but I dont know if thats true.

We should make a thread and ask people who have a NHCS how it works and what do they have to do when they get sick or need a surgery or something. Get some first hand info. I've heard that there are terrible waiting lists in Canada...but I dont know if thats true.

I sometimes hear people would sneer at the supposed waiting lists in Canada, but when I lived right on the border none of my Canadian friends had been on a waiting list, or known anyone on a waiting list. Of course, that was in a smaller community with less of a workload than, say, Toronto.

I've been here going on 2 years, and in that time,I've seen a lot of opinions from a lot of people. I've also come to the conclusion that some of you, a lot of you (too many to list) would make excellent politicians. I mean that in a good way.

Some of you may very well decide to go into politics and put your ideas to work. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk. My question is, that if you are ever in the position to make a difference, make some changes, what would they be? Which laws would you toss out? Which ones would you modify? What new laws would you put into effect? With all of you ideas -if you could make the Government better....what would you do?
IF I was in a position to make meaningful changes, I would like to do so as an American.

1. Scale back the military so that it would be for defensive purposes only.
2. Free education for all citizens up to including college/university, for those with the academic ability.
3. Free universal health care. Goodbye middle men and ambulance chasing lawyers.
4. Embark on the most aggressive research for renewable energy sources. Bye, bye gas guzzlers. Nuclear power to replace coal, gas, and wind turbines.
5. Invest heavily in continental rapid transit.
6. Institute a national fitness program.
7. End corporate lobbying of government officials.
8. Eliminate the electoral college.
9. Work towards the elimination of poverty and redress Indian claims.
10. Abolish capital punishment.
11. Work towards a meaningful peace resolution between Israel and Palestinians. That would probably mean no longer holding Israels' hand.

There is more, but I think that would be a good start.

Realistically?

I would push for laxer gun control laws. I would also push for death penalty or life in prison for pretty much all intentional illegal gun usage. I don't see why someone who uses a gun to try to rob a store should be let back into society. He consciously misused his rights.

I would push to legalize drugs, all drugs. I would put the money saved on enforcing these laws on rehabilitation centers, and education.

I would push to lower the drinking age to 18. I would like it even lower, but meh. A drinking age only pushes people under it to be more attracted to it. I would push for heavier penalties for crimes commited while under the influence.

I would not cut military spending, but try to make it be spent more efficiently. I probably saw about five Xbox's when I was joining the army, at my recruiters office, at the MEPS, at the hotel, etc. Big screen TV's, etc as well. I would also try to set up a commitee of some sort to try and streamline government internal operations.

I would stop giving money to Israel, and other nations as well. If they want our goods, they can buy them from us. I would hold referendums in Afghanistan and Iraq, letting each region decide whether they want an active presence of Americans there or not.

I would push for greater use of Nuclear power. I would try to subsidize the nuclear power industry, and give awards to those who create the most stable, most efficient and lasting plants. We could then greatly reduce our need for oil, to mostly just automobiles(and a number of those could be switched to cheap nuclear electricity).

I would, finally, give an incentive for voting. I would have monetary rewards for voting. These would be randomly given to certain people on election day. These people would be required to tell the person with the award why they chose their canidate, and it would have to be a legitimate answer(Just not something like "he was the oldest). They wouldn't be worth a lot, maybe like 50-100 dollars each, but they would push people to look up the canidates, find out about them, and give them a bit of an incentive to do so.

And for one radical one, I would push to eliminate the senate, though I know it would never happen. I just hate the thought of Iowa or Nebraska being seen as important as New York or California. They arent!

-fix education. Increase budgets, require higher standards for teachers, demand science in science classes, improve special education. Create a better system to open higher education to all. Do away with teachers unions, not sure about tenure...I need to see better studies.
-cut military funding. There is no need to pay the amount we do. Also, increase wages to a decent amount.
-fund research in new fuels, transportation systems, and communication systems.
-improve city infrastructure...mass transit, water supply systems, the electricity grid, etc.
-legalize drugs, regulate and tax the sale.
-ban death penalty
-protect right to privacy, abortion rights, free speech, religion
-increase nuclear energy use
-swap to a parliment system rather than congressional, giving a shot to third fourth and fifth parties
-eliminate the electoral college
-Free minimum level health care, with private sector for additional benefits

Realistically?I would push to legalize drugs, all drugs. I would put the money saved on enforcing these laws on rehabilitation centers, and education.
It is estimated that in 2000 illegal drug use cost America close to $161 billion:

$110 billion in lost productivity
$12.9 billion in healthcare costs
$35 billion in other costs, such as efforts to stem the flow of drugs.
Beyond the raw numbers are other costs to society:

Spread of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C either through sharing of drug paraphernalia or unprotected sex
Deaths due to overdose or other complications from drug use
Effects on unborn children of pregnant drug users
Other effects such as crime and homelessness

Are you sure?

USian here, so I'll talk about the US.

A few things really
- slash the military budget to a level that is reasonable, i.e. one that doesn't spend ~57% of the entire world's defense budgets
- Ask all nations in which the US has military bases/a military presence to hold a national referendum on whether or not the US should stay. Remove forces from any country that wishes it. (my thinking here is to reduce the idea that America is an imperial force. After all, if we have consent, it's not a rape of nations.:p )
- legalize all drugs, lower age of drinking to 18
- lower age of consent to 15
- Insitute a national healthcare system that provides free basic coverage to all who need it, but still allows for private healthcare providers
- Legalize gay marriage
- Add a constitutional amendment giving all citizens of the US the right to a social safety net that will support them at a very basic level if they cannot support themselves
- Add a constitutional amendment expressly guaranteeing the right to an abortion
- ditto, except for guaranteing Reasonable Privacy from all agents public and private.
- abolish the death penalty.
- abolish all censorship.
- crack down on companies that do stuff that is illegal - union-busting, hiring illegal immigrants, etc.

I'm sure there's more. But that's all that comes to mind.:)


We here in Canada already offer the alternative you're looking for (for the most part). Welcome aboard. :p

It is estimated that in 2000 illegal drug use cost America close to $161 billion:

$110 billion in lost productivity
$12.9 billion in healthcare costs
$35 billion in other costs, such as efforts to stem the flow of drugs.
Beyond the raw numbers are other costs to society:

Spread of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C either through sharing of drug paraphernalia or unprotected sex
Deaths due to overdose or other complications from drug use
Effects on unborn children of pregnant drug users
Other effects such as crime and homelessness

Are you sure?
can't argue with the cash figures...but the other facts I can
With legal drugs would come clean paraphenalia, and drop in transmission of HIV and HepC. Unprotected sex seems unrelated here
the crime and homelessness would be greatly reduced (well, crime atleast) due to the legal trade instead of cartels and gangs.

btw, when I say legal drugs, I don't mean all...I mean shrooms, pot, and other relatively "safe" drugs.

It is estimated that in 2000 illegal drug use cost America close to $161 billion:

$110 billion in lost productivity
$12.9 billion in healthcare costs
$35 billion in other costs, such as efforts to stem the flow of drugs.
Beyond the raw numbers are other costs to society:

Spread of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C either through sharing of drug paraphernalia or unprotected sex
Deaths due to overdose or other complications from drug use
Effects on unborn children of pregnant drug users
Other effects such as crime and homelessness

Are you sure?

Yes I'm sure.

Its not like drugs are hard to get now. If they were legalized, the habitual users would still be habitual. The lost productivity would stay relatively the same. Same for healthcare.

If anything, they would go down. There would be more money in rehab, trying to get addicts off of it with help. I would also push taxes onto drug makers and retailers, so try to make up for these costs.

I sometimes hear people would sneer at the supposed waiting lists in Canada, but when I lived right on the border none of my Canadian friends had been on a waiting list, or known anyone on a waiting list. Of course, that was in a smaller community with less of a workload than, say, Toronto.

My fiancee and her dad live in Guelph, Ontario (Canada....)
Her father was diagnosed with cancer in his throat, and was only had to wait for a week or two to get radiation therapy.
If it's life threatening, you don't wait.
If it's elective surgery... take a seat, we'll be with you when we're not busy with people who really, really need it, and the line up of other people who want such surgeries and treatments.

*Looks at thread title.........*

I HAVE THE POWER!!!


/He-Man reference.

Yes I'm sure.

Its not like drugs are hard to get now. If they were legalized, the habitual users would still be habitual. The lost productivity would stay relatively the same. Same for healthcare.

If anything, they would go down. There would be more money in rehab, trying to get addicts off of it with help. I would also push taxes onto drug makers and retailers, so try to make up for these costs.
With a permissive attitude, drug usage could soar and there would be lost productivity.
If you try to place taxes on the drug makers then they could substitute?
Also if the cost of drugs rise then those with habits would need more funds therefore more crime. Certainly a viscious circle.
More birth defects = higher health care costs.

According to the figures that I posted, you will already be in a negative financial position for your support programs.

My first official act as President would be to take a machete and flamethrower to the huge amount of bureaucratic crap that the US has built up over the last couple of centuries. Half a dozen intelligence agencies doing the same thing, miles of paperwork to get pretty much anything out of the government, endlessly complicated tax forms... Bleh. Use it for as long as necessary while devising new systems (eliminating obsolete positions), then make a grand switchover and send the rest to a recycling plant.

My second act of office would be what I consider a Sidethought of the Obvious: Legalize gay marriage and polygamy (so long as everyone is willing, who cares?) and legalize marijuana and hemp (why this stuff is illegal and alcohol isn't, I'll never know). If the reasons for these aren't obvious, ask me and prepared to be bored as I expound the virtues of hemp, the angelicness of marijuana compared to the legal substance alcohol, and what I consider to be the only reasonable secular response to demands to allow gay marriage and polygamy.

My third act of office would be to take the previously-mentioned machete to the military budget. Severely curtail the Army and give more modest cuts to the Air Force and Marines. The only part of the US military that would have anything close to the budget it had before would be the Navy; the US is protected by two huge moats on either side, and maintaining a strong navy is really all that's needed in those circumstances- just look at the last 1000 years of British history. Part of this program, of course, involves pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other countries that want us out of their country.

My fourth act of office is to use the money from the military cuts to reform the country's education. I'd cut the idiotic No Child Left Behind Act, and replace it with financial bonuses to be granted to schools with high populations, a large number of poverty-stricken students, and those with a large number of non-English-speaking students- in other words, the schools that need extra money that are currently punished by NCLB. I would try to find ways to encourage intelligent people to become teachers, to nip in the bud the rapid growth of class sizes. Perhaps most importantly, I would sponsor vocational education classes in schools, so that the average of 75% of students that don't go to college still get training in fields useful to what they're planning to go into.

My fifth act of office would be the creation of a national health care system in imitation of those in Canada and New Zealand- a public baseline with private options; the private companies would be more expensive, but there would be no waiting lists for nonessential surgery (or few, depending on the company).

My sixth act of office would be to lower age of consent and the voting age in the US to 16. At the age of 16, I can get a job, I can become independent from one's parents with their consent (in California, anyway), I can sign a contract guaranteeing that I will join the military after graduating, and I'm considered mature enough to drive. If I'm considered mature enough to handle several tons of metal and plastic, why am I not considered mature enough to handle a ballot?

We should make a thread and ask people who have a NHCS how it works and what do they have to do when they get sick or need a surgery or something. Get some first hand info. I've heard that there are terrible waiting lists in Canada...but I dont know if thats true.
I hear about them on the news, too. Never seen one, or heard of any of my friends dealing with one of them. But what do you expect when the budget is so tight that nurses make minimum wage?

What Would Posi Do (C)?

Move away from the sales tax. The funds would still have to come from somewhere, but not from consumption. However, there will be a few exceptions: alcohol, cigarettes, non-medical drugs, gas guzzling vehicles, etc. Provincial sales tax will be allowed but frowned upon. All products sold that have a sales tax will have it incorperated into any displayed prices.

Set some guidlines for education and medical staff wages. It is ridiculus that a highschool principal can drive a Porche to work, while the teacherscars get mistaken for the students' cars. While we are here, both systems should recieve more funds and upgrade there equipment and techniques.

I would also mandate that highschool shall start no earlier than 9:30, eventually moving it back to 10:00. Science has found that a teenagers sleep cycle typically shifts a few ours later. Allowing teens to sleep in a way that is more natural for their bodies lowers makes students more mentally aware (thus learning more) and less irritable (thus getting in trouble less). Some US schools have tried pushing there scheduels back a half hour, and had positive results. I would also start a free lunch program at schools. The free lunches would all be nutritious, and there would have to be more than one free meal available per day (I'm thinking three choices) One would be vegan, all would be kosher. Schools would still be allowed to sell students the same junk they do now.

Tax insentives would be offered for those who made their homes more energy efficient. Upgrading to two or three ply windows, adding weather stripping, buying lower wattage lights, etcwill all lower the amount of taxes you pay each year (and your hydro bill too). Solar panels will be encouraged through subsidation. If one is able to generate more power than their house uses, by solar or other means, then they have the oppertunity to sell it back to the power company for use in other peoples homes.

An greater effort will be made to teach students both official languages. Basic French (English in Quebec) will be taught to student in Kindergarden and Grades One and Two. From Grades Four to Grade Seven, all instructional time after lunch will be in French (English in Quebec). In highschool, both English and French will be mandatory until Grade Ten. Either Engllish 12 or French 12 will nessary for graduation, the student will be able to decide whether they want to continue learning English, French or both.

The drinking and smoking age would be lowered to 18. The age of consent would remain at 14, with the current strings attached (ie the partner of someone under 16 cannot be more than two years older, or an authority figure). Drivers licsences will be decided by the provinces (as it is now).

Canada would increase the number of immigrants accepted each year. Currently, Mexican carpenters are being recruited to come live in Canada provided they get a job as a carpenter (most ending up in BC). This will be continued but, people who apply for citizenship (from any country) will be given priority, because they wanted to be here enough that they applied.

As it is getting late, I will cut this short (read stopping now) expect another post tomorrow, if I stumble upon this thread again.

USian here, so I'll talk about the US.

A few things really
- slash the military budget to a level that is reasonable, i.e. one that doesn't spend ~57% of the entire world's defense budgets
- Ask all nations in which the US has military bases/a military presence to hold a national referendum on whether or not the US should stay. Remove forces from any country that wishes it. (my thinking here is to reduce the idea that America is an imperial force. After all, if we have consent, it's not a rape of nations.:p )
- legalize all drugs, lower age of drinking to 18
- lower age of consent to 15
- Insitute a national healthcare system that provides free basic coverage to all who need it, but still allows for private healthcare providers
- Legalize gay marriage
- Add a constitutional amendment giving all citizens of the US the right to a social safety net that will support them at a very basic level if they cannot support themselves
- Add a constitutional amendment expressly guaranteeing the right to an abortion
- ditto, except for guaranteing Reasonable Privacy from all agents public and private.
- abolish the death penalty.
- abolish all censorship.
- crack down on companies that do stuff that is illegal - union-busting, hiring illegal immigrants, etc.

I'm sure there's more. But that's all that comes to mind.:)

Tell me when this is done, and I'll move straight to the US... with a green card of course!

As for my country:

1. Anything not harming anyone else would be legal, though second hand harm would be included.
2. Harming others would be punished with harsh but non-physical penalties, long prison sentances.
3. Rapists found guilty a second time would be excluded from rule #2 and castrated and lobotimized.
4. Very low tax so that people can take care of themselves.
5. A system providing the very basic things for living for those who doesn't work but keep it simple enough for people to want more.
6. Keep the free education and healthcare of Sweden.
7. Abolish the military completly and making civil service compulsory for everyone.
8. Buy 50 sq. miles of the atlantic and build a huge wind and hydroelectric plant there to provide clean power.
9. Offer great prices on hybrid and hydrogen cars.
10. Boost govt. funding of research on artificial photosyntesis.

My dream nation:)

I'd introduce a new system of taxation, which saw a tax rate based on every £1,000 or so rather than the huge leaps we currently have. Given modern technology, I see no reason why this would not be possible.

I'd keep benefits for those incapable of working, or those trying their best to find a job. Ideally, those who just don't want to work would be on their own, as I don't consider laziness to be the taxpayer's problem, but in reality, I'd probably allow them some small amount. (NB. I know this kind of thing is hard to prove, but you know, in an ideal world...). I'd increase state pensions for those who worked all their lives.

Criminal justice agencies would assess minor - medium crimes on a case-by-case basis. Violent criminals, if found guilty, would be sent to forced labour camps; in the event of miscarriages of justice, a large compensation programme would be available. (NB. Those who committed a violent act out of defence would not be punished).

Marriage would be totally legal for both straight and gay couples. I'd also give better rights to co-habiting couples, and allow civil partnerships for both gay and straight couples, since not everyone wishes to get married. Straight and gay people would have complete equality when it comes to adoption.

I'd cut the numbers going to university, and scrap tuition fees for those that do go. Currently, degrees might as well be handed out at the post office, and so many students end up in mountains of debt. I'd increase funding for technical colleges where people who have different skills to those required in academia can be taught skills required in a range of professions.

Abortion would be legal across the UK, not just on the mainland (or, assuming I was Taiseoch in the RoI, I'd legalise it there...if I could work my way around that constitutionally). I'd like to see a much better sex education programme for all people from primary school (including the emotional and physical impacts of sex, how to properly use contraception etc, as well as just the biology of it all). On specific request, people in secondary-level schools would be allowed free contraceptives. Not that I necessarily think they should be having sex at that age, but if they're going to do it anyway...

Euthanasia, though controlled and limited to terminal illnesses that cause immense suffering prior to death, would also be legalised (though, of course, entirely optional!).

I'm sure there's other things, but that's all that springs to mind right now.

My national redesign would in some ways be incredibly liberal and in some ways considerably the opposite. I would never want to achieve power via party politics, but rather through a peaceful revolution; indeed, only with mass popular support or a totalitarian level of aggressive conquest would I be able to make the reforms required in my country.

First off, begin removing any laws that govern behaviour in regards to oneself. For instance; It is legal to smoke dope, use a fire-arm, drink at whatever age and have sex with whoever the hell you want on your own property or on the property of a consenting citizen - but do ANY of those things on the street and you're arrested, fined and jailed. The only court you'll see is the magistrates court, no messing. The inside of a citizens home is sacrosanct. I don't care what the hell goes on in there as long as no harm is coming to any other individual. If it does, that individual may request the intervention of the state. If they do not do so, they come under the heading of 'Mills' Law", where failure to resist is consent. Harsh? Of course. If the citizen wants freedom, they must begin with self-responsibility. Any defence of the citizens home is permitted if the intruder does not make themselves known as having for whatever reason a right to be there.

Once on the streets, freedom is reversed. The state is the shared property of the people, administered for their benefit by the government; Trespass on the rights of another citizen and you have denied their citizenship; In punishment, you will be denied their own. All laws that deny freedom of speech, expression or orderly protest will be removed. Someone acting threatening towards you is committing no crime. Only if they have done something that transgresses on your freedoms will they be liable for punishment. Discrimination, positive or negative, is illegal.

Punishment will be in proportion to the damage done. For instance, the economic value of a theft might be converted into a suspension time equal to the working hours the victim undertook in order to earn the money. Within the terms of suspension, all protection of the state is withdrawn - the victim may either arrange their own justice or ask the government to arrange an appropriate use of the criminals resources. No physical harm may come to a suspended citizen that debilitates them beyond the time of their suspension. In case of corporate (in terms of more than one person) crime, the one in authority will be held responsible in addition to obvious direct criminals.

Murderers, rapists and traitors get permanent removal of citizenship rights. All property reverts to the state and the victims or their proxies may take any retribution they see fit. If they have no particular requests, the state can always use more labour.

National service is compulsory for all young people who do not attend university, though attending both is possible if desired. For three years they must live in barracks conditions under military style discipline. However, they have a choice as to which service to join - Civil Administrative, Civil Manual, Civil Defence or Civil Medical. In each area they will receive basic training and qualifications appropriate to their level of advancement. For instance, members of the Civil Medical force will at the very least become qualified medical support personnel, but have the potential to get an advanced nursing qualification.

Energy and Transport would be nationalised. The British power infrastructure would undergo rapid adaptation to make the country self-sufficient in electrical power through whatever method is cost-effective in the long term. Meanwhile, transport would be run as a government service to the citizens, never for a profit.

I would gut the civil service almost completely, removing any and all powers those glorified secretaries somehow have come to gain. No consultative committee paid for by taxpayers money can exist for more than a week, nor may it ever command any employees not personally employed by members. (Voluntary committees and personnel are welcome) Any lobbyist or individual making payments of any sort to government members is branded an immediate traitor, as is any politician that accepts. For this purpose the Ombudsmen will be replaced with an independent government agency technically answerable only to the Crown, although in practice to the First Minister. There job will be the elimination of corruption, either in the financial or political world. White Collar crime will not be tolerated.

There would be massive parliamentary reforms - The Commons would become essentially the government. There would be no 'ruling party', but upon reaching Parliament members would vote for and nominate one individual to lead them. After this, dissent is not tolerated. Elections to the Commons would take place every year, but the position as First Minister would be permanent until death or removal by the Crown.

No-one who has not undertaken National Service would be permitted to stand for government. Members of parliament must give up all personal possessions for the duration of their service. Their living quarters will be comfortable, but not opulent, and they will recieve 'pocket money' equal to the average wage of the average citizen (after average tax, average rent and average sundry expenses). Any money that they might accrue personally during the time of their service defaults to the State.

My major targets would be bureaucracy and privilege; From early education children would be taught that as citizens they have Rights and Duties. Hopefully by the time they leave the schools (more independent, less administrative crap) they will slot the capital letters into those concepts by themselves. I want to eliminate the 'entitlement' culture that extends from corrupt politicians to leeches on the welfare system.

Oh yes, the Welfare state; If you can't find work, the government will provide. It will also provide you a barracks to sleep in, a canteen to eat in and a drill square to practice on. PERMANENT National service (not in military sector) until such time as you find your own job. With the reconstruction of the nations infrastructure and the elimination of many of the paid bureaucrats there will be a lot of back-breaking manual or adminstrative labour that needs doing - you'll be doing all of it.

- i would ban corporate and private donations to political parties - votes aren't meant to be bought.
- would also ban lobbyists - i know some of them lobby for good causes but it seems the successful ones are the ones working for big business interests. besides, lobbyists are effectively middlemen between the people and the politicians. politicians already act as (ineffective) middlemen between the people and democracy, further removing the people from the democratic process simply undermines its legitimacy.
- halt and in some cases immediately reverse the process of privatisation, particularly in healthcare.
- stop supermarkets from forcing farmers to part with their produce for pitence while selling it on at grossly inflated prices.
- stop the patenting of genes - theres something seriously wrong with the way thats going - science and its findings should be in the public domain seeing as the aim of scientific research is the furthering of understanding and the betterment of human kind not the generation of profits and increasing state power.
- abolish the military, or at least slash its budget to the point that it becomes unsustainable and implodes.

those are the negative changes i'd make. as for positive changes
- seeing as europe produces such a huge surplus of food produce - start aforestation programmes on unused/unnecessary farmland.
- relax immigration laws so that immigrants have other options than applying for assylum - the reason theirs so many assylum seekers is that there is no other way for people to legally enter the country not that there are suddenly so many more people wanting to come in.
- change copyright laws to better favour readers and writers rather than the publishing industry.
- change the focus of schooling from preperation for employment to general enlightenment (not in some mystical zen sort of thing but with focus on such things as the real concequences of the decisions made by ourselves and governments in our names). this would decrease political apathy and help people to actually effect changes to their lives that are actually an improvement rather than restricting them.
- legalise cannabis and magic mushrooms
- legalise gay marriage and allow equal rights of adoption for gays. also introduce civil partnerships for both gay and straight couples and increase legal rights of cohabiting couples.
- take money from military budget and put into NHS, education and social security
- also, increase taxes on the rich, following the scandinavian model by taxing the uberrich close to 100%, and also close as many loopholes as possible so businesses and wealthy individuals cannot avoid paying taxes.

finally when all this was done and settled - open all borders, socialise the economy, get rid of the wage system and invite everyone to the party :D hopefully the emphasis on enlightenment in education would stop it becoming a free-for-all; even that would be better than the limited free-for-the-rich-and-corporations system that is capitalism.

1. Income taxes to be reduced, sales taxes to be increased.
2. The Federal Government will repeal all federal laws on marriage and reproduction and drugs.
Such matters will be henceforth be the exclusive territory of the People and the States.
3. Schoolhours will be brought in line with the OECD averages ( meaning an increase ).
4. Out goes each and every statute promoting diversity or multiculturalism.
4A.It will become a criminal offense to promote in any way diversity or multiculturalism or any other doctrine deleterious to the principle of One Nation, One Language, One Law.
5. The Oath of Allegiance will be mandatory - the price for Citizenship.
6. Gun Ownership remains as it is - but owning a Firearm WILL carry an obligation to serve in the State Militia ( read: National Guard )
7. Basic military training ( on the marching level, not the bayonet level ) WILL be a required topic in education.
8. Fuel Economy will be enforced no matter what.
9. All environmental issues will be federalised when there is a cross-state elkement ( interstate commerce )
10. We're all Americans. We're no polyglot boarding house. Therefore, defining yourself in public as an anglo-american, or afro-american, or whatever... WILL result in the deletion of your Citizenship.

1. Income taxes to be reduced, sales taxes to be increased.
2. The Federal Government will repeal all federal laws on marriage and reproduction and drugs.
Such matters will be henceforth be the exclusive territory of the People and the States.
3. Schoolhours will be brought in line with the OECD averages ( meaning an increase ).
4. Out goes each and every statute promoting diversity or multiculturalism.
4A.It will become a criminal offense to promote in any way diversity or multiculturalism or any other doctrine deleterious to the principle of One Nation, One Language, One Law.
5. The Oath of Allegiance will be mandatory - the price for Citizenship.
6. Gun Ownership remains as it is - but owning a Firearm WILL carry an obligation to serve in the State Militia ( read: National Guard )
7. Basic military training ( on the marching level, not the bayonet level ) WILL be a required topic in education.
8. Fuel Economy will be enforced no matter what.
9. All environmental issues will be federalised when there is a cross-state elkement ( interstate commerce )
10. We're all Americans. We're no polyglot boarding house. Therefore, defining yourself in public as an anglo-american, or afro-american, or whatever... WILL result in the deletion of your Citizenship.


I largely agree except for the income tax thing. I would increase income tax for the rich.

Also I would make dental care free or at least affordable. Its always pissed me off that the NHS doesnt cover that properly. Private dentists would be required to take at least some NHS patients to make up for the shorfall. My dentist retired at 50 and moved to the Bahamas, so I think they can afford it.

I largely agree except for the income tax thing. I would increase income tax for the rich.

Also I would make dental care free or at least affordable. Its always pissed me off that the NHS doesnt cover that properly. Private dentists would be required to take at least some NHS patients to make up for the shorfall. My dentist retired at 50 and moved to the Bahamas, so I think they can afford it.


I consider incometaxing the rich selfdeating - they can avoid it.

But you cant avoid a tax on riding in a Roller....

If I had the power... I would transform into a muscle-bound super hero along with my cat Cringer, and spend my days fighting the evil forces of Skeletor. (While keeping a secert identity for no particular reason.) :)

I am not pretentious enough to say that I know what is best for everyone, only that I know what is best for me.

take money from the military budget and invest vastly in education, specifically upping the salaries of teachers to entice new blood into the field.

move all contracted-out elements of the NHS back into the public domain and enact measures to give greater job security for public sector workers

renationalise all previously privatised industries such as british rail and all other public transport services, coal and oil (including north sea oil), british telecoms (with a view to investing in upgrading broadband networks). all newly nationalised industries will work as quasi-markets - competitive government funded businesses operating in the public interest but with incentives to drive profit and efficiency (but profit or satisficing shareholders is not the priority of the company); regulation.

simplify taxation (i like Kazcaper's £1000 banding idea) and invest in an online tax-form evaluation system (paperwork is costly), while increasing the top band(s) of tax to 50% (from 40) and working with the inland revenue to stop tax-evasion techniques employed by the very rich (offshore accounts and the like - if you take it out of people's pockets on this island, you pay your share back. no getting out of it just because you can afford fancy accountants and the like)

simplify the welfare system (reading books on it at the moment so i can't say how, just that there is a problem of bureaucracy and too ridgid a system at current)

integrate further with the European Union and pool resources accross the EU to create a European Defence Force, enabling less dependence on american military power and cuts in defense spending accross the board through economies of scale. lead the way to forming a Federal (Socialist) Europe

install democratically elected mayors back into local government while reducing the size (and cost) of local councils.

probably some other things too, but thats all i can think of right now.

I do. I think the federal government is needed for things like border security, and defense, but not much else. States can deal with a lot of the crap that the federal government tries to poke it's nose into.

Why do States need autonomy, though?

Isn't it a little ridiculous to allow States any 'sovereignty'?

The states are different sizes, different populations... what is the 'logic' for a 'state' government?

Not that I oppose state government.... it just makes more sense to me to EITHER have one central national government, or devolve ALL the responsibility down to something far more 'local' than a 'state'.

Why do States need autonomy, though?

Isn't it a little ridiculous to allow States any 'sovereignty'?

The states are different sizes, different populations... what is the 'logic' for a 'state' government?

Not that I oppose state government.... it just makes more sense to me to EITHER have one central national government, or devolve ALL the responsibility down to something far more 'local' than a 'state'.
my theory gets complicated. I will see if I can simplify it

Federal- defense, border control, FDA, collect consumption tax (not income tax) to cover expense for defense ect.

State- roads, highways, state parks, ect.

Local (county)- everything else. schools, welfare, public health ect. (there will be communication between local, state, and federal in cases where public health at large is at risk)

Why do States need autonomy, though?

Isn't it a little ridiculous to allow States any 'sovereignty'?

The states are different sizes, different populations... what is the 'logic' for a 'state' government?

Not that I oppose state government.... it just makes more sense to me to EITHER have one central national government, or devolve ALL the responsibility down to something far more 'local' than a 'state'.

I would probably agree with you if the United States were a unitary state like the UK, but the way I see it the states created the US govt for some very specific purposes. The states are the plenary governments in this system. The states are the primary governmental agents of the people, and as such exist for the same reason any other nation-state does.

Of course, a good argument could be made against the concept of a nation-state, but that's neither here nor there.

I would probably agree with you if the United States were a unitary state like the UK, but the way I see it the states created the US govt for some very specific purposes. The states are the plenary governments in this system. The states are the primary governmental agents of the people, and as such exist for the same reason any other nation-state does.

Of course, a good argument could be made against the concept of a nation-state, but that's neither here nor there.

So - we hold on to the mechanism, JUST because it is old?

It certainly seems that a lot of Americans buy into that old maxim "You don't change horses in the middle of the stream" (Hell, it about won Bush the alst election)... but you DO change horses mid-stream, if your horse is not a good swimmer, or if the current is stronger than your horse can stand.

The concept of 'states' serves no real purpose, and really hasn't for quite some time. It is neither locl enough a form of government to have any bearing on the needs of a given area, nor general enough to make reasonable decisions for all.

It has no geographic significance, and it has no population significance.

States are anachronistic. They are a feudal mechanism in an allegedly modern political structure.

Institute anarcho-capitalism <.<

my theory gets complicated. I will see if I can simplify it

Federal- defense, border control, FDA, collect consumption tax (not income tax) to cover expense for defense ect.

State- roads, highways, state parks, ect.

Local (county)- everything else. schools, welfare, public health ect. (there will be communication between local, state, and federal in cases where public health at large is at risk)

Okay - but why can't a centralised government - just one - deal with things like roads and parks? Why can't a central government be the best mechanism for schools?

Why can't local governments coordinate issues like roads and taxes, defence, etc.?

In fact, thinking about where I live, things like roads ARE a county issue...

My point is, a state is a 'means-nothing' value. There is no consistency over an area as large as a state... so what is 'fair' for my state-neighbour, may have NO relevence in my part of the state.

Also - I look at the specific geography in my locale.... I am in the corner where three states meet, no more than 25 minutes from two borders. And yet, the 'law' where I live is the same where I live, as it is at the far extreme of my state... and different to those other states.

The way I see it... there should either be town governments, and the minimum national government (to orchestrate things like defense).... or there should be one level of government... maybe with local 'administration'.

The way I see it... there should either be town governments, and the minimum national government (to orchestrate things like defense).
yep. That is something I could agree with.

yep. That is something I could agree with.

It would be nice to see. It's even fairly logical. I can't see 'state government' giving up their cushy jobs any time soon, though.

It would be nice to see. It's even fairly logical. I can't see 'state government' giving up their cushy jobs any time soon, though.
I see more of a problem with the federal government giving up their rights to stick their noses into things like drug laws, marriage, taxes and education.

It would be nice to see. It's even fairly logical. I can't see 'state government' giving up their cushy jobs any time soon, though.
So are you minarchist then?

So - we hold on to the mechanism, JUST because it is old?

It certainly seems that a lot of Americans buy into that old maxim "You don't change horses in the middle of the stream" (Hell, it about won Bush the alst election)... but you DO change horses mid-stream, if your horse is not a good swimmer, or if the current is stronger than your horse can stand.

The concept of 'states' serves no real purpose, and really hasn't for quite some time. It is neither locl enough a form of government to have any bearing on the needs of a given area, nor general enough to make reasonable decisions for all.

It has no geographic significance, and it has no population significance.

States are anachronistic. They are a feudal mechanism in an allegedly modern political structure.

So, would you think that holding referenda in the states, and breaking them up as necessary into more culturally homogenous areas would be a better solution? I'll never agree to creating a centralized superstate for the same reason that you dislike states. The US is far too large to be governed by a strong central authority, and if you were to govern it in such a fashion it would implement "one size fits all" solutions that fit no one, much as it does now.

Actually, I believe the Federal government is anachronistic. It was created to defend the states from the great powers of Europe, but for the last century at least all of the threats to the states came from the actions of the Federal government. And many of the states are similar in population and GDP to nations in Europe. You ask why we need states, and I ask why we need a Federal government. Wouldn't a looser economic and military bloc like the EU be sufficient?

Wouldn't a looser economic and military bloc like the EU be sufficient?
The EU is rapidly centralising. Furthermore, it's not much of a military bloc. We have to reform it as soon as possible into a confederation like Switzerland and avoid it becoming an over-burdened superstate.

I see more of a problem with the federal government giving up their rights to stick their noses into things like drug laws, marriage, taxes and education.

Both levels would create problems... but the mechanism I suggest reduces federal government, and REMOVES state government... so the bigger fight is going to come from the middlemen, I suspect.

The EU is rapidly centralising. Furthermore, it's not much of a military bloc. We have to reform it as soon as possible into a confederation like Switzerland and avoid it becoming an over-burdened superstate.

Right, I meant the EU as it stands now. Or, more practically, the states would join a strengthened NAFTA and NATO.

Both levels would create problems... but the mechanism I suggest reduces federal government, and REMOVES state government... so the bigger fight is going to come from the middlemen, I suspect.
yes. I can see that now. so, in your town government style, I have a question. My family has a town, okay not really but it's population 75 and 60 of them are related to me, so would they just govern themselves? that would be kinda cool, I might move there.

So are you minarchist then?

Not exactly.

My politics are odd and dichotomous.

I am a communist in theory, and a 'reluctant-capitalist' in practise.

I am an anarchist in theory, and a 'reluctant-statist' in practise.

Right, I meant the EU as it stands now. Or, more practically, the states would join a strengthened NAFTA and NATO.
As it stands now it is a stagnating legal union suffering from schlerosis. This is why I said it needs quick reformation, hopefully in the form of an amended Constitution.

Not exactly.

My politics are odd and dichotomous.

I am a communist in theory, and a 'reluctant-capitalist' in practise.

I am an anarchist in theory, and a 'reluctant-statist' in practise.
Odd. :p I am anarcho-capitalist ideologically, although I would see a mix of anarcho-capitalism with syndicalism as fairer (the elitist in me rejects it though). In practice, limited government with capitalism as its economic model is what I reluctantly accept, in effect a form of minarchism.

As it stands now it is a stagnating legal union suffering from schlerosis. This is why I said it needs quick reformation, hopefully in the form of an amended Constitution.

I guess I don't pay nearly as much attention to the EU as I should. Especially if I'm going to be making comments about it.

yes. I can see that now. so, in your town government style, I have a question. My family has a town, okay not really but it's population 75 and 60 of them are related to me, so would they just govern themselves? that would be kinda cool, I might move there.

According to the model I suggest here, yes.... the local government block, would be the town government, which would dictate the local issues. If you had a couple of towns that shared a school, they would obviously have to work THAT situation out between them.

Taxation would largely be an absolute local thing, although, if you wanted to benefit from national priviliges (like, defense in case of aggressive invaders), you'd have to account for some kind of national tax arrangement.

In the situation I see here, local towns would also 'contract' their federal tax. If Smunkeeville (the town) doesn't want to pay taxes towards nationalised health, that would be their choice, and their tax dollars would be attributed only to the categories they contracted to pay towards.

Of course, if they then wanted to USE such facilities, they would have to do some hasty negotiating.

Some towns would be like-minded individuals... some would be families. Some might even be religious enclaves, I guess. But, things like (local) roads would be their responsibility. If they didn't bother to upkeep their local roads, they'd be out of luck, because Big Brother isn't going to step in and do it for them.

I guess I don't pay nearly as much attention to the EU as I should. Especially if I'm going to be making comments about it.
The Economist provides a wealth of information on it. It constantly (and rightly so) criticises it for being slow to adapt to change and to be paralysed by its inefficiency. It has the potential of being the wealthiest force on the planet, yet its economies are melting down (in general). This is why it needs reform so urgently. If you want a model country, go by Switzerland. We need to reform into it.

According to the model I suggest here, yes.... the local government block, would be the town government, which would dictate the local issues. If you had a couple of towns that shared a school, they would obviously have to work THAT situation out between them.

Taxation would largely be an absolute local thing, although, if you wanted to benefit from national priviliges (like, defense in case of aggressive invaders), you'd have to account for some kind of national tax arrangement.

In the situation I see here, local towns would also 'contract' their federal tax. If Smunkeeville (the town) doesn't want to pay taxes towards nationalised health, that would be their choice, and their tax dollars would be attributed only to the categories they contracted to pay towards.

Of course, if they then wanted to USE such facilities, they would have to do some hasty negotiating.

Some towns would be like-minded individuals... some would be families. Some might even be religious enclaves, I guess. But, things like (local) roads would be their responsibility. If they didn't bother to upkeep their local roads, they'd be out of luck, because Big Brother isn't going to step in and do it for them.

I like it. Now, how exactly do I make this happen? ;)

The Economist provides a wealth of information on it. It constantly (and rightly so) criticises it for being slow to adapt to change and to be paralysed by its inefficiency. It has the potential of being the wealthiest force on the planet, yet its economies are melting down (in general). This is why it needs reform so urgently. If you want a model country, go by Switzerland. We need to reform into it.

I used to read The Economist when I was in the Army, but I've since moved to a very small town (30k people) and no book stores here carry it. And being a student I can't justify throwing down enough money to get a subscription.

If I were a European I'd probably disagree with you about the need for the EU to become a confederated nation, but that's mostly because I'd be afraid it would become a federal leviatian like the United States.

I used to read The Economist when I was in the Army, but I've since moved to a very small town (30k people) and no book stores here carry it. And being a student I can't justify throwing down enough money to get a subscription.
It is rather pricy. Luckily I got my parents to buy me a subscription. :p

If I were a European I'd probably disagree with you about the need for the EU to become a confederated nation, but that's mostly because I'd be afraid it would become a federal leviatian like the United States.
Err that is exactly what is happening. It is becoming a federal leviathan. A confederation (not the difference in words) is a much looser form of government, and in some ways, more efficient. I would suggest the book "Why Switzerland?"- it explains the advantages of such a government, with particular regard to the EU. The EU right now has a number of options: a) to become like the US, a federal power; b) to remain in its current form and collapse from its inefficiency; c) to become a confederal power and d) to become a mere economic union. Of all, c is the best.

So, would you think that holding referenda in the states, and breaking them up as necessary into more culturally homogenous areas would be a better solution? I'll never agree to creating a centralized superstate for the same reason that you dislike states. The US is far too large to be governed by a strong central authority, and if you were to govern it in such a fashion it would implement "one size fits all" solutions that fit no one, much as it does now.

Actually, I believe the Federal government is anachronistic. It was created to defend the states from the great powers of Europe, but for the last century at least all of the threats to the states came from the actions of the Federal government. And many of the states are similar in population and GDP to nations in Europe. You ask why we need states, and I ask why we need a Federal government. Wouldn't a looser economic and military bloc like the EU be sufficient?

The 'good thing' about a central government is that one size fits all is democratically unfair... rather than regionally unfair.

I guess it comes down to what is MOST important to you.

My heirarchy is as follows - from MOST important to least.

Most:

Resident of 'the world'.

Resident of my 'town'

Resident of my nation.

Resident of my state.

Least.


I identify myself as being a human being. It is important to me to do things that influence and assist everyone, no matter what 'country'.

The next most important thing for me, is to be a factor in the lives of those I am in this situation with... those on my doorstep, with whom I have to interact daily.

Far below that, is nation. I do not see a logic in deciding that someone in Seattle deserves my attention, but someone in Toronto does not.

And, below even that, is state. Do I identify myself as Georgian? Are Georgians more important to me than North Carolinians?


I do not like 'borders'. Especially where borders are meaningless. WHY is it important that this piece of sand is America, and that piece is Mexico? Why is it important that THIS side of the river is in Georgia, and that side is in North Carolina?

I like it. Now, how exactly do I make this happen? ;)

I guess we need to find devolutionist elements of government, and sponsor (and pressure) them?

Feel like forming a Devolutionist pressure group? I'll vote for you. :)

Odd. :p I am anarcho-capitalist ideologically, although I would see a mix of anarcho-capitalism with syndicalism as fairer (the elitist in me rejects it though). In practice, limited government with capitalism as its economic model is what I reluctantly accept, in effect a form of minarchism.

By syndicalism, you mean the formation of 'syndicates' of local equality? Kind of like communes... where the fruits of production are equally shared WITHIN the commune, whilst interacting in a separate manner with those OUTSIDE the commune?

By syndicalism, you mean the formation of 'syndicates' of local equality? Kind of like communes... where the fruits of production are equally shared WITHIN the commune, whilst interacting in a separate manner with those OUTSIDE the commune?
No, I'll define what I mean a little better. Corporations would be formed by collective action of individuals, rather than individual capitalists. In this way, all the workers creating the firm would have a share in it, as would all those joining it. Depending on their experience, they would receive greater shares. The retired would hold on to their shares eliminating the need for pensions. That is the extent I will take it to.

It is rather pricy. Luckily I got my parents to buy me a subscription. :p


Err that is exactly what is happening. It is becoming a federal leviathan. A confederation (not the difference in words) is a much looser form of government, and in some ways, more efficient. I would suggest the book "Why Switzerland?"- it explains the advantages of such a government, with particular regard to the EU. The EU right now has a number of options: a) to become like the US, a federal power; b) to remain in its current form and collapse from its inefficiency; c) to become a confederal power and d) to become a mere economic union. Of all, c is the best.

I'm well aware of what a confederation is, and how Switzerland works (I have some friends I used to visit in Geneve quite often), but I'm also aware that the United States began as a somewhat loose confederation. Even under the Constitution the US was hardly centralized in the beginnning. De Tocqueville in the 1830's observed that the only contact the average American had with the Federal government was the post office. And look at it now.


*snip*

I agree that it's a question of where your priorities lie.

My own heirarchy is this

Resident of my state

Resident of the world

Resident of my town

Resident of my nation


I identify with my state because it's the culture and world I grew up in. It's the society that shaped me. I can see how you don't feel the same way, living so close to several borders. Where I live I have to drive 4 hours to get to either Canada or Ohio.

After that, I agree, I'm a human being. However, my attachment to my state does not preclude this.

I've never lived in a city that I really cared about. I have a hard time understanding people's attachment to their city.

As for my "nation" I think that the US is far too large to have any attachment to. Toronto feels less "foreign" than Denver does, but neither of them are quite "home".

And as for things being democratically unfair as opposed to regionally unfair, the smaller and more homogenous the unit you use the closer to democratically fair it becomes. I just don't take it quite as far as you do, although I could agree with seeing localities getting more power.

I'm well aware of what a confederation is, and how Switzerland works (I have some friends I used to visit in Geneve quite often), but I'm also aware that the United States began as a somewhat loose confederation. Even under the Constitution the US was hardly centralized in the beginnning. De Tocqueville in the 1830's observed that the only contact the average American had with the Federal government was the post office. And look at it now.
Well, by confederalising the EU a la Switzerland we would be doing the opposite of what we're doing now; ie, creating a simulacrum of the USA. In effect, we would be giving it a status and power, but in such a way that it could not centralise at the expense of the confederal states. There would also be free right to secede (ie to exit it).

Well, by confederalising the EU a la Switzerland we would be doing the opposite of what we're doing now; ie, creating a simulacrum of the USA. In effect, we would be giving it a status and power, but in such a way that it could not centralise at the expense of the confederal states. There would also be free right to secede (ie to exit it).

Having a specific unconditional right to secession would make it a lot more palatable to me.

Having a specific unconditional right to secession would make it a lot more palatable to me.
It was engineered into the original Constitution, and seeing the attitude of most European nations right now, it will doubtlessly remain in an amended version. The Swiss model of Confederation is the best way for us to go.

No, I'll define what I mean a little better. Corporations would be formed by collective action of individuals, rather than individual capitalists. In this way, all the workers creating the firm would have a share in it, as would all those joining it. Depending on their experience, they would receive greater shares. The retired would hold on to their shares eliminating the need for pensions. That is the extent I will take it to.

Okay... that's why I was questioning your meaning of syndicalism.

By the meaning I thought you were intending, you and I would not be that different. My idea of little town governments allows for capitalist or communist syndicalism, since syndicalism is all about the internal structure versus the external structure.

The problem I have with the model you suggest here, (and don't get me wrong, I like the idea you suggest... it just seems like 'halfway' to me)... is that experience doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Example - (I'm going to simplify this example... I'm basing it on a real life experience, but there was a whole extra level of irrelevent stuff I'm going to leave out) - I worked for a MAJOR bluechip company in the UK (seriously, one of the biggies). I worked for this company for about two years, during which time I actually wrote official resource material for that company. Their training material? I wrote it. Their quality control? I wrote it. Their procedures manual? I wrote it.

Now - I admit... I am a hotshot. There were people at that company (all over the country) that called me for advice and input... people that had literally decades of 'experience'.

According to your idea of syndicalism, those people 'deserve' more of a 'share' of the situation, just because they had been there longer. Is that 'fair'? Should quality not figure, as well as quantity?

Personally - I think there is a balance... which is why I think the 'fairest' method is to share the 'share' equally. (It would lower staff turnover, also, I believe).

Okay... that's why I was questioning your meaning of syndicalism.

By the meaning I thought you were intending, you and I would not be that different. My idea of little town governments allows for capitalist or communist syndicalism, since syndicalism is all about the internal structure versus the external structure.
Anarcho-capitalism envisions a form of this, ie the creation of small communities based on local corporations, that would trade with other communities. Again, it's not exactly the same, but the movement ideally says that communities should be self-governed.

The problem I have with the model you suggest here, (and don't get me wrong, I like the idea you suggest... it just seems like 'halfway' to me)... is that experience doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Again, I was vague. Of course I favour quality over quantity. So skill, expertise, experience etc would all come into play. I just phrased it overly minimally, sorry. If this model of capitalism could be set up, ie a reconciliation of syndicalist and capitalist principles, I think we could eventually move on to anarcho-capitalism.

I agree that it's a question of where your priorities lie.

My own heirarchy is this

Resident of my state

Resident of the world

Resident of my town

Resident of my nation


I identify with my state because it's the culture and world I grew up in. It's the society that shaped me. I can see how you don't feel the same way, living so close to several borders. Where I live I have to drive 4 hours to get to either Canada or Ohio.

After that, I agree, I'm a human being. However, my attachment to my state does not preclude this.

I've never lived in a city that I really cared about. I have a hard time understanding people's attachment to their city.

As for my "nation" I think that the US is far too large to have any attachment to. Toronto feels less "foreign" than Denver does, but neither of them are quite "home".

And as for things being democratically unfair as opposed to regionally unfair, the smaller and more homogenous the unit you use the closer to democratically fair it becomes. I just don't take it quite as far as you do, although I could agree with seeing localities getting more power.

Actually... this is not even the nation I was born into. But, that makes little difference to me. It is where I am now that affects me most.

Example: Georgia state law says no selling alcohol on Sundays. I don't know if that is the same all over the US, but it makes no sense to me. Let me point out - I hardly ever drink at all... but I MIGHT like a glass of wine with my dinner on Sunday, and the law says I can't go get one.

It doesn't matter which country I was born into... or which nation I live in now. The things that are affecting me day-to-day, are those that I encounter day-to-day. And, that is my 'town'.

(I say 'town', because where I live is hardly really a town by conventional measure).

Do you really feel like you are a 'citizen of Michigan'? Is that something that 'matters' to you? Do you identify strongly with people close to your place IN your state, and on the other extreme IN your state?

As far as I can tell... the political and religious divides in the US tend to be bigger than states.... so, Georgia is much like Alabama is much like the Carolinas..... etc.

I'm not sure what impact the 'state' has on someone... can you explain what you mean about how it is "...the culture and world I grew up in. It's the society that shaped me..."?

Anarcho-capitalism envisions a form of this, ie the creation of small communities based on local corporations, that would trade with other communities. Again, it's not exactly the same, but the movement ideally says that communities should be self-governed.

Again, I was vague. Of course I favour quality over quantity. So skill, expertise, experience etc would all come into play. I just phrased it overly minimally, sorry. If this model of capitalism could be set up, ie a reconciliation of syndicalist and capitalist principles, I think we could eventually move on to anarcho-capitalism.

See - to me this is the future.

I need a catchy name for it... is there one out there already?

If you achieve this level of extreme devolution, you can have any 'production' model you like.... capitalist or communist, because each community decides how it will administrate it's internal factors.

So - I might live in 'Town A', which might be a sort of communo-syndicalist anarchy... and you might live in 'Town B', just across the river. which might be modelled on a form of anarcho-capitalism.

Our trade between our communities would have to fit some contracted form between us two... and our interactions with (what there would be left of) federal government would have to be similarly moderated... but, WITHIN our 'towns', our local rule could happily be as we wished.

See - to me this is the future.

I need a catchy name for it... is there one out there already?

If you achieve this level of extreme devolution, you can have any 'production' model you like.... capitalist or communist, because each community decides how it will administrate it's internal factors

So - I might live in 'Town A', which might be a sort of communo-syndicalist anarchy... and you might live in 'Town B', just across the river. which might be modelled on a form of anarcho-capitalism.

Our trade between our communities would have to fit some contracted form between us two... and our interactions with (what there would be left of) federal government would have to be similarly moderated... but, WITHIN our 'towns', our local rule could happily be as we wished.
That is the beauty of libertarianism :) It advocates just that. The ideal economic model would be the form of capitalist syndicalism I mentioned, as it would cause wealth levels to rise and be more or less close to equal. However, each community could organise itself as it so wishes. In a sort of "free market" of communities, those with optimal models would be emulated, those whose systems failed would be avoided.