Congratulations! You won!

[Malak]

You are victorious, your revolution has succeeded. Being the leader of the revolution you are now tasked to create a new government. It is a clean slate, do whatever you want! Will you duplicate what was already done or try something new? Something old? Explain your decision in 2000 words, double spaced, APA format. Due Friday.


Personally I go for Monarchy. I do not think that a single person should make all the decisions, but I believe a single person should have all the power. The founding fathers of America were afraid of this and thus split the power up quite a bit. I think political parties should be banned and no political affiliation given to any regional representative. This will force people to consider a rep much more closely, it is pretty obvious that many voters vote for a rep for reasons other than what they actually want. This also helps reps by removing the stresses and pressures of political parties. Regional reps will govern their regions and counsel the monarch, but the monarch has absolute authority.

I would also remove laws entirely. Laws do not stop crime and quite often are used as leverage to get away with things that are morally wrong. The courts will institute moral law in all decisions. You shouldn't need to write on paper that killing someone is wrong or that stealing is wrong. Whatever the monarch says goes. Instead of death penalty you will be deported to the wasteland to the north.

There will be no income tax, only sales tax. Revenue will be used to support the people. Foreign policy will be that there is no foreign policy. The military will be restricted to direct defense of the land. Human services will be the largest portion of the budget.

 

[Tristicus]

Are you taking the Anarchist420™ stance? That sounds absolutely retarded.

 

[ShawnD1]

You are victorious, your revolution has succeeded.

 

[palehorse]

wow... just wow.

nice blog dude.

 

[Malak]

Well played sir.

 

[Bitek]

lol, I thought this thread was going to be a goof on the Pea Tardies and their recent primary victories.

Congrats, now what do you actually want to do, and when will you actually talk to the media (instead of running away and pretending you never said that crazy shit you said, and you are in fact, quite sane)?

 

[sandorski]

Yay, Cake for all!

Henceforth, those who call Cheese Cake "Pie" shall be incarcerated in re-education centers until they Recant their Heathenism!!

More CAKE!!!!

 

[woolfe9999]

My "ideas" can be summed up from the following exchange:

General Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

 

[StageLeft]

People who say laws don't stop crimes are messed in the head.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I would also remove laws entirely.

This may well be the greatest BS serving of all time --- not just our typical ATP&N fecal variety.




--

 

[ShawnD1]

People who say laws don't stop crimes are messed in the head.

Tru dat

The people saying laws don't stop crime are speaking from the standpoint that it's not a crime when there's no law against it. If choking bitches becomes legal, the "crime" rate goes down because it's not a crime to choke bitches anymore. Everybody wins (except Shawn's bitches).

Lots of things (not just crime prevention) only happen as a direct result of laws. Lead in gasoline is awesome from an engineering standpoint because leaded gasoline has a very high octane rating. The only reason we don't use leaded gasoline in cars anymore is because it's illegal.

 

[piasabird]

Time to replace some of the Judges. All judges and all members of congress should have term limits.

 

[TehMac]

LOL!

We have a genius on the internet who values himself a better political scientist than some of the greatest philosophers, political theorists, lawyers, and statesmen the world has ever seen. That's rich.

 

[feralkid]

I was pretty alarmed when I saw that, although I really shouldn't have been.

 

[Malak]

LOL!

We have a genius on the internet who values himself a better political scientist than some of the greatest philosophers, political theorists, lawyers, and statesmen the world has ever seen. That's rich.

I never once claimed any of that. In fact the purpose was to see other people's ideas. Some of the greatest philosophers and statesmen didn't think our form of government was wise at all, and there are very clear issues with it that will never be resolved without completely destroying and rebuilding it. The constitution must burn before anything can really be changed.

 

[Malak]

People who say laws don't stop crimes are messed in the head.

Name one crime that has ever been stopped because of a law. Laws justify judgment, they don't stop crime. Remove the laws, and you remove the leash on Justice.

 

[DrPizza]

Name one crime that has ever been stopped because of a law. Laws justify judgment, they don't stop crime. Remove the laws, and you remove the leash on Justice.

What on earth are you talking about? If there weren't laws, there'd be no such thing as "crime" - is that your point? I could run around killing people and no crime would be committed if it wasn't illegal to do so?

Or, are you arguing that regardless of what laws are on the books, my behavior wouldn't change in any way. If this is the argument that you're making, it's pretty retarded. And in that case, I can name a crime under current laws that I would have committed if it wasn't against the law: There was a deer in my back field this morning. I'd have shot it and butchered it if it wasn't against the law to do so this time of the year. Therefore, the law prevented me from committing this crime.

 

[cwjerome]

I never once claimed any of that. In fact the purpose was to see other people's ideas. Some of the greatest philosophers and statesmen didn't think our form of government was wise at all, and there are very clear issues with it that will never be resolved without completely destroying and rebuilding it. The constitution must burn before anything can really be changed.

The genius of Madison was the then-new idea of an independent judiciary, which acts as a pressure valve and self-correcting mechanism, making the US Constitutional order wildly successful by any measure.

So make an argument 1) why the current system needs radical change, and 2) why your system would be better. Lay the groundwork, review the history, and present systemic structures that demonstrate cause-effects and the nature of the problematics... what is your conceptual outline? If you cannot do 1 and 2 correctly then you're just an opinionated person... and you seem like the kind of person who won't let a little knowledge get in the way of your opinion.

 

[Lemon law]

Why dump on Malak, when he is basically repeating some of the arguments made by Plato thousands of years ago.

Of course the one flaw of finding the one benevolent dictator is that one man can't do it alone and therefore needs the help of a evil bureaucracy.

In short, when it comes to government, all roads lead to ruin.

 

[Malak]

What on earth are you talking about? If there weren't laws, there'd be no such thing as "crime" - is that your point? I could run around killing people and no crime would be committed if it wasn't illegal to do so?

Or, are you arguing that regardless of what laws are on the books, my behavior wouldn't change in any way. If this is the argument that you're making, it's pretty retarded. And in that case, I can name a crime under current laws that I would have committed if it wasn't against the law: There was a deer in my back field this morning. I'd have shot it and butchered it if it wasn't against the law to do so this time of the year. Therefore, the law prevented me from committing this crime.

My argument is that the current system actually states that if there is no law there is no crime. If we do away with laws entirely, the crimes still exist but now we aren't prohibited in any way to bring judgment on someone.

 

[Malak]

Why dump on Malak, when he is basically repeating some of the arguments made by Plato thousands of years ago.

Of course the one flaw of finding the one benevolent dictator is that one man can't do it alone and therefore needs the help of a evil bureaucracy.

In short, when it comes to government, all roads lead to ruin.

Yep. Pretty much nailed it.

 

[spittledip]

Forms of govt don't matter. What matters is the integrity and morality of the people of the nation and the rulers of the nation. The real problem is defining morality. Unfortunately, morality is an issue of the heart/character, so it cannot be enforced by laws. However, having laws in place that help to guard against immoral behavior may help to protect against the heart becoming tarnished. Also, laws can protect people from being harmed by the immoral acts of others (and their own immoral acts with which they harm themselves although they may not know it). Being harmed via the immoral acts of oneself or others can lead to further corruption depending on the individual response.

 

[nonlnear]

People who say laws don't stop crimes are messed in the head.

On the contrary, laws create crimes.

 

[Malak]

Forms of govt don't matter. What matters is the integrity and morality of the people of the nation and the rulers of the nation. The real problem is defining morality. Unfortunately, morality is an issue of the heart/character, so it cannot be enforced by laws. However, having laws in place that help to guard against immoral behavior may help to protect against the heart becoming tarnished. Also, laws can protect people from being harmed by the immoral acts of others (and their own immoral acts with which they harm themselves although they may not know it). Being harmed via the immoral acts of oneself or others can lead to further corruption depending on the individual response.

Even religious-backed government like they have in the middle east doesn't stop the immoral. What propagates immorality is something this and most governments completely ignore. They all seem to believe laws govern the people and that by military force they can enforce those laws, but they ignore the hearts.

 

[exdeath]

Implement the US system again but with 3 major changes:

1) Term limits on all politicians including congress and judges: no more Kennedy's, no more untouchable incumbents, no more planting seeds in the courts, etc. Why should my liberty suffer because I'm outnumbered by stupid people?

2) Mandatory sunset on all legislation: make sure all laws are relevant to the current generation and eliminate the threat of slippery slopes and end progressive "get your foot in the door" Pelosi politics. I don't like being bound by laws that were created 100 years before I was born that have zero chance of ever being brought up again (eg: NFA), especially laws that were hastily passed purely on irrational emotion after some big event. Then it doesn't matter who gets elected or what damage they cause, because it will expire and at some point in one persons lifetime he/she will be able to have that abortion or get that assault rifle and not fear one way ratcheting slippery slopes.

3) No unrelated amendments to bills: no more sneaking in crap with desirable bills to get it passed unknowingly at the last second and bypassing committee and skipping debate. No more bills titled "For X and other purposes" where X is providing money to school children while "other purposes" is banning guns, cars, and big screen TVs and giving congress a 500 percent raise while touting an "education" bill.

Those 3 things alone would eliminate the source of a lot of problems we currently face.