Thoughts from a Vet

[The Imp]

Why don't you leave if you can't change it?

Why is this everyones 'go to' line in an arguement... 'if you dont like it them leave'... no... why should I have to leave my homeland to be free? how does this solve any of the major issues concerend? Just a childish line to use when all reasonable arguments are worn out.

Its not a dead end, just look at the civil right movement and you can tell it works.

The civil rights movement was a concession by government, this is true. There may have also been some genuinely good intentions along with it.

However there is no real structural change, the people are appeased, but nothing more is given. The same people keep all the power.

being grateful should not be confused with being complacent

and being grateful isn't an excuse to be complacent.

[Nuriho]

The Imp, you answered one of teh questions, how about the others?

i really don't understand then. please teach me. If you aren't content with "good enough" why don't you change it to be "better" or "best" or, even "good"?

if you don't use your voice, what do you use? please, teach me.

[The Imp]

If you aren't content with "good enough" why don't you change it to be "better" or "best" or, even "good"?

Easier said than done... one person can only change **** all, especially a person in my situation.

if you don't use your voice, what do you use?

If you can't use your voice, then violence is normally the next answer is it not

[Gallowmere]

It is, and therein lies the real problem. When violence has become the only alternative, mankind is truly screwed. With the type of ordnance in the hands of the various states these days, there is no way for most people to win a show of force, especially not in the United States. Hell, the Libyan rebels couldn't get the job done on their own, so this country moved in to help them. Can you imagine the destruction that would come down if someone tried to pull a coup on the U.S. government? I think 'biblical proportions' would be an understatement. Pretty sure that there were no high explosives involved in any of the plagues.

The point is that we have created a monster that can now do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and there isn't a damned thing (short of activating the mutually assured destruction practice) that anyone can do about it. As the world economy continues to stagnate, and in fact, get worse in many places, I will be interested to see just how evil world government gets when it goes into true survival mode. Just don't say 'no one saw this coming', because at least one person did.

[Scott250]

It is, and therein lies the real problem. When violence has become the only alternative, mankind is truly screwed. With the type of ordnance in the hands of the various states these days, there is no way for most people to win a show of force, especially not in the United States. Hell, the Libyan rebels couldn't get the job done on their own, so this country moved in to help them. Can you imagine the destruction that would come down if someone tried to pull a coup on the U.S. government? I think 'biblical proportions' would be an understatement. Pretty sure that there were no high explosives involved in any of the plagues.

The point is that we have created a monster that can now do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and there isn't a damned thing (short of activating the mutually assured destruction practice) that anyone can do about it. As the world economy continues to stagnate, and in fact, get worse in many places, I will be interested to see just how evil world government gets when it goes into true survival mode. Just don't say 'no one saw this coming', because at least one person did.

Create a "super commitee" to make the desisions that our elected officials are supposed to do which underminds there authority

[Nuriho]

ofc one person can do jack all, and yet in Egypt one person helped start their changes. By doing nothing and being inactive politically, you are helping keep the system you protest so much about.

[Gallowmere]

Scott, battling politics with beauracracy is like throwing gas on a fire, hoping to put it out.

Nuriho, you're right, to an extent. The problem is that due to partisan politics, and the goofy way that most Americans are willing to swallow whatever is fed to them on the 11 o'clock news, we have a nation where few are willing to stand with said single individual. It gets in the way of their 'me time', so to speak. Those that have actually been willing to stand up and speak out...well, the Tea Partiers got turned into 'Republican lite', and the OWS movement can't even agree on the petty things long enough to get the major ones sorted out...not to mention the police state style crackdowns on some of their encampments.

What we have is a country that is a failing experiment. It's ideals are noble and well though out, but they just don't practice well in the real world. Trying to have a central government where 'everyone has a say' is bound for failure. Why? Because for one, not everyone CAN have a say, there just isn't enough time in the day/week/month/year. For another, 'you can't make everyone happy' shows through immensely in our government. The best solution, in my opinion? Allow people to opt out of everything they disagree with, (again, so long as it isn't something asinine like "I disagree with laws that say rape and murder are wrong so they shouldn't apply to me") without having to renounce their citizenship. True freedom can exist only when everything is voluntary.

Let people opt out of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid. Set everything up as a VAT and remove all income tax. That way people are only taxed on the things they actually agree to buy. Need more money to fund wars? Do like the Girl Scouts have to and set up fundraisers, but divide it into two setups. One for defense military, and another for aggressive imperialist action. Lets see how much money that last one ends up with.

Yeah, I am aware that the funds could easily be shuffled from one side to the other using 'magic bookkeeping', but that is where the fraud prosecutions that I mentioned earlier should come into play. Would the country be underfunded and have to scale back government? Yeap. Would the piggy banks of retirees dry up because people refused to believe Social Security was a Ponzi scheme in government clothing? Yeap. Would our military be forced to cut spending to the point where all hostile action had to be ceased? Yeap.

Many problems could be solved by people just being allowed to speak with their wallets instead of being forced to deal with government prescribed theft.

[The Imp]

I disagree with you gallowmere, your system rejects the idea of community - there is enough money to go round, there is enough food to go round, and people should be forced to share. 'Tis the spirit of community and while i agree, people should have freedom and should not be forced, however parents and education systems are raising selfish people. I am a 'physcological egoist'; i truly believe that deep down all humans act only on their self desires. However they should desire to be the kind of person that shares, and cares about other people. They should feel good that they value selflessness and brotherhood.

Solving the problem of the government is simple, yet won't happen. All thats needed is complete transparanecy. And when i say complete i mean every decision recorded and published. Basically, i'm looking at communism, without the lies, propoganda and corruption.

I'm obviously living in dreamland here, and this won't happen...

[Gallowmere]

Pure communism can never exist, because it relies on a beginning that has never existed. If it could, I still couldn't support it. Why? Pure communism offers FAR more freedom than any capitalist system, and it offers it to everyone. BUT, it would also require an utter lack of desire for anyone to ever advance beyond anyone else, and we would end up with a stagnant species. Total equality would bring progress to a screeching halt...unless you MADE people advance, but it would generally have to be through force...which is why most communist states that waved such a banner were very 'iron fist'. If you aren't allowed to essentially bribe people into improving things, they have no real motivation (back to your selfish beings part).

[The Imp]

How do you use advance? Socially? Technologically? Morally?..... I think the system in itself would be advancing massively. I think socially mobility created will, by the pure increase in numbers of people being educated increasing, create many advances in many different fields.

I don't think you understand the depth of change i am suggesting. Education IS the most important thing in creating a society. I'm not talking intellectual intelligence im talking about molding the children raised in said 'utopia' as if they were clay.... their brains will be wired differently. Yes there will still be slackers (due to laziness), disabled people etc... but the numbers will be dramatically reduced... so much so that the disabled can be catered for and the slackers can be reduced in a fair but efficient manner.

I sound like a raging lunatic with what i am saying but i do honestly believe that drastically, across the board, changing the way kids are raised is the glaringly obvious solution to all the worlds problems. This + communism + goverment transparacy = peace + less suffering + more freedom

i realise this aint simple

[Gallowmere]

It's not just 'not simple', it's not possible. I do know understand where you are going, but it relies on something that can never exist, even in a completely natural setting (which is what we would have after an across the board leveling of the playing field). You can even everyone out on a financial level...hell, you could even do away with economics altogether. However, you cannot take away the natural physical strength of the stronger, nor the will to power of the more determined.

What you seek would require a complete erasure of all that is 'human', and as such, is impossible. Even if you managed to form a utopia, expect there to be rebel groups willing to use violence to try and get a leg up on the rest of society. VERY few people want real equality across the board, so if it were achieved, I have a feeling you'd be looking at some serious resistance for a long time. It would require a beginning much like what the Soviets and Chinese attempted with their Communist incursions. We all see how well that went.

Edit: Also keep in mind, there is a very fine line between utopia, and 'Soylent Green is people'. ;)

[Landro]

http://www.mattbors.com/archives/513.html

[barbrolie]

The best solution, in my opinion? Allow people to opt out of everything they disagree with, (again, so long as it isn't something asinine like "I disagree with laws that say rape and murder are wrong so they shouldn't apply to me") without having to renounce their citizenship. True freedom can exist only when everything is voluntary.

I can't tell whether you're joking or are being serious.

For one, a system where each individual specifies where his/her tax money goes isn't workable. You need an incredible bureaucracy to handle a system like this one.

Secondly, there has to be a certain minimum taxation for maintaining roads, the national electric grid, school systems, border controls and the various other functions undertaken by the government that it has become fashionable to speak out against (think: Perry), but are very essential to the well-being of the majority of this country's population.

Third, Social Security and Medicare is set up as insurance. And because the time frame that it promises payments kicks in after MANY years, there is no way where it can be an optional system. Either you get rid of these altogether, or you modify them keeping their basic structure the same (a structure which is somewhat akin to a Ponzi scheme, but I don't know if there is a way around it).

And the argument that "freedom" to be completely selfish is the hallmark of a civilized country is flawed. Complete freedom is anarchy, because then it's each person for himself fighting by the rules of the jungle. Incidentally, humans did that in the prehistoric era, and I don't see the charm of reverting to that system.

[Gallowmere]

I can't tell whether you're joking or are being serious.

For one, a system where each individual specifies where his/her tax money goes isn't workable. You need an incredible bureaucracy to handle a system like this one.

Secondly, there has to be a certain minimum taxation for maintaining roads, the national electric grid, school systems, border controls and the various other functions undertaken by the government that it has become fashionable to speak out against (think: Perry), but are very essential to the well-being of the majority of this country's population.

Third, Social Security and Medicare is set up as insurance. And because the time frame that it promises payments kicks in after MANY years, there is no way where it can be an optional system. Either you get rid of these altogether, or you modify them keeping their basic structure the same (a structure which is somewhat akin to a Ponzi scheme, but I don't know if there is a way around it).

And the argument that "freedom" to be completely selfish is the hallmark of a civilized country is flawed. Complete freedom is anarchy, because then it's each person for himself fighting by the rules of the jungle. Incidentally, humans did that in the prehistoric era, and I don't see the charm of reverting to that system.

First of all, you assume there is no gray area. The 'stone age' argument is one that I hear perpetually, and is fundamentally flawed. Everyone assumes that without an overreaching government system that we'd suddenly find ourselves in the dark ages, or in the grasp of...worse tyrannical thugs than what we have now. Just because forcible taxation and overreaching government evolved with mankind doesn't mean that they are essential to our existence. You still have that vestigial tail at the bottom of your spine that we haven't manage to shake yet as well.

As for funding roads and electricity: that is where a well set up VAT tax really shines. No one likes toll booths though, so guess what: gas tax hike. Yeap, I am all for it. I am sure millions will cry the blues about how expensive gas already is. They are free to walk...or keep driving and crying...either way is fine. Same thing with electricity. That way the guy living in a shack with no power isn't being forced to pay for someone else's indirectly.

Don't even get me started on school funding. Obama jacked the tobacco taxes by close to 300%, under the guise of school funding, and that tax increase happened years ago. Pretty sure the kids in this area are still using ratty ass books...oh wait, gotta make sure the teacher's unions are happy...so that's where the money went...now I get it.

Given only those two options, I would say do away with Social Security and Medicare. I understand what they were intended to be, but when Social Security was started, the retirement age was the same as the max life expectancy. Can you imagine how irate our entitled seniors would get if suddenly they had to be more like 76 to collect it? That's the only way it is sustainable at the levels the original creators intended. You MUST have an age that most of the population will never reach, or it's not sustainable. That's what the Social Security and Medicare systems bank on: 'early' death. It's just too bad that our medical field has found it necessary to allow most people to live well beyond the age of initial grotesque.

[barbrolie]

First of all, you assume there is no gray area. The 'stone age' argument is one that I hear perpetually, and is fundamentally flawed. Everyone assumes that without an overreaching government system that we'd suddenly find ourselves in the dark ages, or in the grasp of...worse tyrannical thugs than what we have now. Just because forcible taxation and overreaching government evolved with mankind doesn't mean that they are essential to our existence. You still have that vestigial tail at the bottom of your spine that we haven't manage to shake yet as well.

We already live in the gray area between complete governmental control over our lives, and the complete lack of any legal oversight. There are countries in the world right now where the experiment of not having an overarching government is being carried out, and the results are not so spectacular. I would like to draw your attention to Somalia, and other places like that.

Besides, comparing evolutionary vestiges to the evolution of government, while catchy, is a very flawed argument. A system of government is something adopted by a society to fix problems that arose without said system. These things change on a time scale different from evolution, and are much more sensitive and reflective of what people actually want than evolutionary events. Surely you know this, and were joking when you compared government to the vestigial tail, but I thought I'd respond anyways.

As for funding roads and electricity: that is where a well set up VAT tax really shines. No one likes toll booths though, so guess what: gas tax hike. Yeap, I am all for it. I am sure millions will cry the blues about how expensive gas already is. They are free to walk...or keep driving and crying...either way is fine. Same thing with electricity. That way the guy living in a shack with no power isn't being forced to pay for someone else's indirectly.

Does your VAT also include the electricity distribution costs that goes into producing food? Fertilizer? Irrigation? Transportation? VAT, by definition, is workable for value addition, not for value creation. The dude who lives in a shack still benefits from the electric distribution grid each time he does essentially anything. Besides, if said person is completely isolated from the economic world, so isolated that he doesn't have electricity, chances are he doesn't pay tax anyways.

Besides, even if we were to implement this VAT on everything, we would need to find the money to pay the bureaucracy to administer this tax. Where does money come for that? Would we start paying VAT to pay for a bureaucracy to maintain our freedom to not pay tax on things we don't want to consume? Seems like a waste to me.

Given only those two options, I would say do away with Social Security and Medicare. I understand what they were intended to be, but when Social Security was started, the retirement age was the same as the max life expectancy. Can you imagine how irate our entitled seniors would get if suddenly they had to be more like 76 to collect it? That's the only way it is sustainable at the levels the original creators intended. You MUST have an age that most of the population will never reach, or it's not sustainable. That's what the Social Security and Medicare systems bank on: 'early' death. It's just too bad that our medical field has found it necessary to allow most people to live well beyond the age of initial grotesque.

You're right here. The social security age needs to be raised, there is no question about that. And it needs to be raised progressively, I would think, by about 10 years over the next 10 years.