Clean-Slate Policies

Here, I will post some ideas for this clean-slate city-state's official policies.

First off, I think lotteries should be disallowed. They are unethical by the way in which they ensnare the lower class with a tempting but false promise of instant riches without work. I think many countries have banned lotteries already. The ones that haven't banned them usually exploit them by requiring most of the profits to be returned to the state. But to me, this is perhaps even more unethical, as it ends up being just another tax of which the burden unfairly falls mainly on the lower class.

Small, once-off lotteries, such as school raffles held to raise money, would still be allowed. Likewise, lotteries for charity or the like, where the punter gives money without expectation of a significant return, may still be allowed as well.

Actually, just thinking of it now, perhaps it would send a better message if the government were to simply give a little tax money back to the taxpayers in a low-value lottery in which all citizens are automatically enrolled. That way, the lower-income citizens are not sucked into buying lottery tickets.

But then again, maybe not. The government should present a message that money can only be earned. Saying that, perhaps prizes for some recognized achievement should be the closest thing to a lottery that is allowed.

Another area where there should be changes in policy would be that of Insurance. Every citizen should be automatically enrolled in a comprehensive insurance policy. Like the banking system, the insurance system may be state-owned, but whats more important is that everyone is automatically insured against things like theft, fire, and other misfortunes.

If a household is robbed, for example, then the state should immediately reimburse for losses, as it is the states responsibility to prevent such crimes from occuring in the first place.

To this end, perhaps the "right to be free from crime and corruption" should be integrated within the constitution.

All over, I think the purpose of every law and statement of the constitution should be given.

I.e

not just: All should be given freedom of speech

but: All should be given freedom of speech. The purpose of this is ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ and ~~~~~.

That is actually a very good idea. Thanks jumpboy.

well, I think that this is really what killed

A) Socialism

B) the intentions of the framers of the american constitution.

::Edit:: added in American. Too america centric, will work on that.

Quote :

framers

???????????????????

They're the Founding Fathers! Calling them Framers is disrespectful.

word choice and political correctness is much less important to me than getting my point across.

Well, you used the Term framers, which is a word that was invented by the mad dog liberal left.

well, I will tell you that I don't share their opinions, unless of course I do (I'm not sure exactly who you're referring to)

I got my point across, didn't I?

I'm sorry, but what clearly prevents the US constitition from providing effective legislative guidance is the fact that it is over 200 years old and thus fundamentally incapably of anticipating contempary society and providing sane instruction. It predates the US standing army let alone automatic weapons, the internet, or Macdonalds. By a strict interpretation of the second amendment the only people carrying weapons in the US should by the likes of the hells angels the crips or the KKK because they clearly are militias, and by weapons I mean rifles, rpg's, tanks, because they should be well armed, not just armed.
Clearly crazy, clearly not desirable, clearly true.
With time it only gets worse, you only have to look at how torturous it is for organized religions trying to apply thousand year opld texts to the modern world.
The only rational response is to say I am not immoral, I have a soul and a conscience and and intelligence and feeling and that between ourselves surely we can figure out how to live our lives and run a country without recourse to a document written before the end of slavery.

sounds like that limits any government to ~100 years.

What happens then

maybe a forced revision every 25 years?

It's called having an unwritten constitition and a robust healthy democracy, many civilised countries do it, many for far longer than the USA.

I like limits on government, rights, etc.

What is your opinion on planned revisions every 25 years, where the only things that can't change are the revision/amendment procedures, and guaranteed rights?

In effect the US already has that, it's called the Supreme court and every so often one of them dies, a new one is appointed and thus there is a subtle shift in the interpretation of the constitution.
Of course one could argue that that is an entirely random and undemocratic proccess giving undue power to the elected representatives of the moment, but so would regular revisions.
The benefit of an unwritten constitution is that every citizen has an idea of their rights and responsibilities and duty but that without them written down they're free to bend and twist with the flow of society and retain their truth and relevance at all times.
If you have to stop and write down what you truly believe in, you don't really believe it, because if you did you'd never forget it.

what if the government decided that the people believed in another holocaust? What then?

No, right a constitution, but keep in mind that society changes. I think the right to free speech would remain pretty much unchanged over time, so that can be included etc. Although, it would have to be explained how to interpret it. That would be useful, but no-one (religons, the founding fathers, etc) have never done it. Which is very annoying.

is it more or less agreed that it will be some form of democracy (ie, no rule by computers)?

And what will we be doing to capitalism, as it obviously needs to change.

Why?
Capitalism is older than civilisation, it REALLY IS the worlds oldest profession. Before you go about changing it you need to think long and hard about what it is that you don't like about it, and whether the fault for that lies with the system or your government. Because there is no other system that works nearly so well.
Surely a constitution that not only sets out a rule but provides a handy guide on the right interpretation would be even more inflexible?
Lastly, I can't believe this conversation has already reached the Hitler stage, Godwin's law clearly acting swiftly.

this is what I dislike:

Not good with long-range planning.

only cares about profit, profit, profit. Not the environment, welfare of the people, or anything else.

Assumes mutual distrust and exploitation, whenever possible. This fosters a general feeling that others really aren't trustworthy.

Can be counter-science (gas companies counter clean fuel/greenhouse research, tobacco companies health impacts etc.)

promotes disparity of income and living standards

I know there are many positive aspects, but this is what I think should be changed.

1) Most large companies have better long term planning than most governments, unlike governments they don't work to a four yearly election cycle which prevents long term thinking rising up the agenda because there will never be any tangible results in time for next election. The companies that don't go to the wall, I'm talking to you GM and Ford, what were you thinking?

2)That's a good thing, a single clear motivation makes for a predictatable and maleable system.

3)Your thinking of government and their cold war based game theory representation of the people. Capitalism on the other hand runs on trust, when you purchase a good or service you are trusting that it is as described and they are trusting that you have the money. The stock market is in fact a direct barometer of trust in the market, the current credit crunch is caused by bank traders being seized by distrust of the liquidity of their fellow banks and so ceasing to lend. trust is essential which is why capitalism only really thrives when there is a government to enforce law and order. As for exploitation, if your govenment allows it then some companies will do it, see no 2). But that's your governments responsibility.

4)Again, if your government allows it, some companies will do it, see no. 2). But again that's your government's responsibility.

5) People are different. The biggest predictor of living standards and income are those you are born into, but still, people are different. it is fundamental to the human experience that some people are more capable than otheres, some are smarter, some work harder, some are more likeable, some can spell reel goot. welcome to the human race. Even if everyone started out from birth with equal resources ( as at one point we must have) there would undoubtably be disparities that develop.
Some people just do better in life. that may seem unfair, but life is unfair.
The only way to change that disparity is to allow a small number of people to steal everything from everyone else and thus great an equality of poverty. Unfortunately that also greats an equality of misery, a small group of people vastly more equal than everyone else and growing pits of bodies from the attempt to enforce this equality.

Sounds to me like you just don't like your government. Have you considered voting?

4)

can't vote, too young.

Seems to me that you see no need to change any of the current systems, that doesn't seem to be a CS approach to me.

I would like to add that capitalism is prone to instabilities due to the speculation on the market, so once it goes down or up it will be hard to equalize it.

I have no problem with a very highly modded capitalism. Ideologically, capitalism is basically unjust. realistic to the point of ultimate pessimism.

this is going to be a post to links that might be useful in an economy.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy


seems to be a good way to integrate computers into the world. It would account for all services, which currently constitute much of the world's economy. It seems to me that our goal should be to have manufacturing/mining etc done by automated machines. Closely related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_economy I would have the manufacturing facilities effectively self contained (controlled by government, but self-replicating when needed, and not really costing many tax dollars) The vendors of goods would, I suppose operate more as providing the service of getting things to people.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESOP

I think this is how the necessary remaining service companies should be managed.


can't find anything else specifically. What do you think?