64 replies to this topic

[Manoka]

If you could create a Utopia, or, just your preffered form of government, what would it be?

 

Mine would be- 

 

 

-Qausi-socialistic capitalistic, like in Switzerland, 55-45. Governments owns big things, like oil, coal etc.

 

-Invest into Uranium and Thorium energy, maybe Fusion if it's practical

 

-Invest into sciences, be it NASA, hadron colldiers, quantum mechanics, basically the study of science to enhancement humanity, and help civilization. Humanity was better than the animals due to the invention of spears ,bow and arrows, agriculture. It's the fundamental thing that gives our standard of living, from the bronze age, to the iron age, to the space age. This should be our fundamental focus as a society, and strive for a post scarcity Utopia. 

 

-Banks should not be for profit, they should be ran by the government, or nationalized. Interest already consumes half the average Americans salary, on their homes, cars and the like. Imagine if it was just 5-10%, just enough to run the business. We would double our economy overnight. Banks are middlemen, who hold on to money and loan out money. Fuck that. We should just have the money in our bank accounts.

 

-Focus on hard capital, like factories, things to make money, instead of an economic stimulus of 500 billion dollars or something, I'd instead put it into something that makes money, like a factory, that forces companies to hire workers to make money, instead of just lowering taxes and the like to give free money, or literally giving out free money in a stimulus

 

 

 

Plus pretty much all the laws of the U.S., maybe legalized machine guns and other guns. What do you guys think?!

[Lord Draculea]

Vade retro satana! ))

[Staccs]

Agreed with everything you said until you got to guns.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I'm sure we've done this before, but I can't find the thread. But my utopia would have:

• A progressive tax rate. Specifically, it would have a Negative Income Tax (NIT), meaning that no one would make below a certain amount. A minimum standard of living would be guaranteed for all.
• Universal single-payer health care.
• 100% public funding of elections. No private money would be permitted.
• Instant-runoff voting and proportional representation.
• No religion in public life.
• An emphasis on science, technology, and education.
• No private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns would be permitted, but regulated to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from possessing them.
• ABBA would be required listening.

Okay, that last one is optional.

 

The main thing I would like to see is a license to vote. I believe that all citizens should be entitled to the same rights and protections under the law, but that voting is a privilege that one should have to earn. This would be in the form of a test to demonstrate competency in the structure and function of government and the issues of the day.

[Lord Draculea]

That's not an Utopia, Jorost, those could be all laws that will have to be passed through the Parliament (Congress). I don't agree with some of them (except the ABBA tbing, which I would 100% support!), but hey, that's what democracy is about.

Your last proposal is particularly interesting, and I've had that discussion with some friends. There's another version to it, in which everyone is entitled to one vote by default, but if you want the priviledge of having the right to multiple votes, you will have to earn it by taking a comprehensive test (in which the better you do, the more rights to vote you acquire). Such a system is highly controversial of course, and there are pros and cons that I see in it simultaneously.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

It's a utopia because it's a dream country where people would actually enact such laws.

 

Also your support of the Sublime Swedes meets with my approval. I've been an ABBA superfan since the day I was björn.

[Allant]

Meritocratic Monarchy

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Meritocratic Monarchy

 

YES. I call being monarch.

[Redezra]

Hmmm.... I've been discussing this recently. My current "Best fit" model goes a little like this:

• Negative Income Tax 
• Guarantee of basic standard of living (this is mostly the NIT thing, and some regulation of healthcare to keep things affordable as per your income bracket)
• Everything else is privatised. Very little regulation as to what businesses can or can't do. Financial stability of country is insured via private asset seizure, ie if you fuck up the economy, you help pay for it.
• Govt can intervene/regulate only where a clear threat to the citizenry exists.

What this should lead to is a reaaallly free market (income taxes notwithstanding) with a highly productive (happy, secure) workforce and no minimum wage. If the Govt can keep it's shit together and maintain that standard of living by varying the NIT, it should remain a productive and happy society. What constitutes the govt can be swapped in and out, democracy, monarchy, whatever. I prefer some kind of selective elective judiciary-and-constitutionally restrained absolute monarchy (you can do anything, but the judiciary can strike it down, and the constitution says what's out of limits, aaand candidates must be established professionals/intellectuals that are nominated by their peers... like the bankers guild, or the mathematicians guild or the like).

[The Dark Empire]

Hmmm.... I've been discussing this recently. My current "Best fit" model goes a little like this:

• Negative Income Tax 
• Guarantee of basic standard of living (this is mostly the NIT thing, and some regulation of healthcare to keep things affordable as per your income bracket)
• Everything else is privatised. Very little regulation as to what businesses can or can't do. Financial stability of country is insured via private asset seizure, ie if you fuck up the economy, you help pay for it.
• Govt can intervene/regulate only where a clear threat to the citizenry exists.

What this should lead to is a reaaallly free market (income taxes notwithstanding) with a highly productive (happy, secure) workforce and no minimum wage. If the Govt can keep it's shit together and maintain that standard of living by varying the NIT, it should remain a productive and happy society. What constitutes the govt can be swapped in and out, democracy, monarchy, whatever. I prefer some kind of selective elective judiciary-and-constitutionally restrained absolute monarchy (you can do anything, but the judiciary can strike it down, and the constitution says what's out of limits, aaand candidates must be established professionals/intellectuals that are nominated by their peers... like the bankers guild, or the mathematicians guild or the like).

I thought you were more in favor of a moneyless socialist society where everything is provided by nanobots. I just recall this came up in a thread 2 years ago and you and Jorost vehemently supported it.

[Lord Draculea]

I thought you were more in favor of a moneyless socialist society where everything is provided by nanobots. I just recall this came up in a thread 2 years ago and you and Jorost vehemently supported it.

 

Well, It's allowed for one to change his mind. 

 

We have a saying (you must have heard of it): if you're not a commie at 20, you have no heart, but if you're still one at 30, you have no brains. 

[Redezra]

Hmmm.... I've been discussing this recently. My current "Best fit" model goes a little like this:

• Negative Income Tax 
• Guarantee of basic standard of living (this is mostly the NIT thing, and some regulation of healthcare to keep things affordable as per your income bracket)
• Everything else is privatised. Very little regulation as to what businesses can or can't do. Financial stability of country is insured via private asset seizure, ie if you fuck up the economy, you help pay for it.
• Govt can intervene/regulate only where a clear threat to the citizenry exists.

What this should lead to is a reaaallly free market (income taxes notwithstanding) with a highly productive (happy, secure) workforce and no minimum wage. If the Govt can keep it's shit together and maintain that standard of living by varying the NIT, it should remain a productive and happy society. What constitutes the govt can be swapped in and out, democracy, monarchy, whatever. I prefer some kind of selective elective judiciary-and-constitutionally restrained absolute monarchy (you can do anything, but the judiciary can strike it down, and the constitution says what's out of limits, aaand candidates must be established professionals/intellectuals that are nominated by their peers... like the bankers guild, or the mathematicians guild or the like).

I thought you were more in favor of a moneyless socialist society where everything is provided by nanobots. I just recall this came up in a thread 2 years ago and you and Jorost vehemently supported it.

 

I change my mind on politics according to my mood, the day I've had, how sore my muscles are from doing stair climbs, and the relative position of Barnard's Star to Venus. This is not a bad thing, this is a mark of flexibility.

 

I would also like to point out that I have never been, and will never be, a communist. Cause communism is based on stupid.

[Lord Draculea]

Not just stupidity, but also hatred and above all, violence. Marx et co. were firmly convinced that their revolution could not be accomplished otherwise than by phisically eliminating large parts of the society. He was also racist and antisemitic. E.g. he wrote (I quote from memory): "In the revolution to come, the parasite classes and races should be eliminated". While his companion, Engels, wrote that "There's no place in our new world for the weaker nations". I bet those are the kind of ideas that the contemporary leftist ideologues that cherish the Marxist legacy don't particularly like to quote nowadays...

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I thought you were more in favor of a moneyless socialist society where everything is provided by nanobots. I just recall this came up in a thread 2 years ago and you and Jorost vehemently supported it.

 

I still support it. But even in a moneyless society there would still be goods and services, so there must be some medium of exchange. I imagine this is true even in the utopian Earth of the Star Trek universe (how do Benjamin Sisko's father and Jean-Luc Picard's brother "own" property, for example?). For the purposes of keeping the conversation simple, it's easier just to think of this in contemporary economic terms. A negative income tax/guaranteed minimum standard of living, coupled with a cap on maximum earnings (i.e. after a certain point earnings would be taxed at 100%) would achieve much the same effect in a framework that is easier for us to conceptualize.

[Lord Draculea]

Hey, where is our investment banker when you need him? I could use some help here!

Are you aware what a cap on earnings would do to the business environment, Jorost? How would the formation of capital take place? Or are you of the opinion that it should be left to the Gov. because the "Gov. knows better"? I'm curious how you see it.

[Manoka]

My main problem with a negative income tax is that it's physically impossible. You'd have to, presumably, tax someone to get money from something. If your ideal society is doing the impossible, why do you envision trying to tax rich people and give it to the poor? Just make a salary cap and then say no-one can be rich and everyone has to be paid X amount, like socialism. That seems like a quick fix rather than a Utopia, at the very best, and if you're arguing you'd try to do this in real life, a negative income tax is IMPOSSIBLE, like saying I want a negative gold deduction. Like, Gold doesn't just apparate from nothingness. If you print more money, you lower the value of money, and thus you get inflation, which destroys your economy. If money becomes worthless, what's the point of printing it and giving it to people?

 

As far as the whole, proving your competency? That seems silly, since, the directions of what people will choose of who is a capable voter is arbitrary and biased. Some people may say, all Democrats can't vote, others will say Republicans can't vote. So on and so forth, so who determines competency? My second issue with that is it's exclusionary. It literally excludes a portion of the population from being allowed to vote. Unless you're insane, a criminal, I don't see a reason why not. People should be allowed to vote as members of society, as a rule, as a right. It's not a privilege. 

 

 

Finally, not allowing religion in public life is just down right ridiculous. You also patently ignore that your beliefs are their own religion, which is ironic. You can say "But it's not a religion! It's fact D: " in the same was a Christian can say that, or a Hindu. So, it holds even less water with me that you think you're right this time ,compared to everyone else.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Hey, where is our investment banker when you need him? I could use some help here!

Are you aware what a cap on earnings would do to the business environment, Jorost? How would the formation of capital take place? Or are you of the opinion that it should be left to the Gov. because the "Gov. knows better"? I'm curious how you see it.

 

I don't think an individual income cap of $100 million dollars a year would seriously affect business earnings (which would not be subject to individual income tax limits). I have nothing against rich people, in fact I'd dearly love to be one. But there need to be limits.

[Staccs]

Hey, where is our investment banker when you need him? I could use some help here!

Are you aware what a cap on earnings would do to the business environment, Jorost? How would the formation of capital take place? Or are you of the opinion that it should be left to the Gov. because the "Gov. knows better"? I'm curious how you see it.

I don't think an individual income cap of $100 million dollars a year would seriously affect business earnings (which would not be subject to individual income tax limits). I have nothing against rich people, in fact I'd dearly love to be one. But there need to be limits.

I don't agree that there should necessarily be limits. We've gotten to the point though were people all over the world are getting taken advantage off (like all throughout history) just so a couple people at the top make all the good money. We have people with 30, 40, 50 billion dollars. Now, if people were able to make that money, while still being held accountable for basic standard of living. (Which they should... I strongly believe the rich should be held accountable for the people making them rich but nooooo.)

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore, but he makes a good point in Capitalism: A Love Story: In the 1950s the highest marginal tax rate was 90%, but there were still plenty of rich people.

[Lord Draculea]

So you genuinely believe that the Gov. should just take away people's income above an arbitrarily set limit and use it how it sees fit. Why, because "the Gov. knows better"?