Um...
1) Ban economics.
Intrinsically there will be a higher value placed on something more desirable aesthetically, in volume or just perceived value. Effectively if you distributed all wealth evenly, within minutes you'd have rich and poor because there would be those who provided a service and those willing to pay for said service - and it's likely that the more aesthetically pleasing people providing said service would likely receive more than those who look like me.

a) One single worlwide currency. NWO lot would love you.
Everyone on earth would pay the same price for a basket of shopping. That's one way to do it. Regardless of delivery and storage costs... really?

b) Ideally a nice idea, commie.

c) Wholehearted agree.

2) I agree actually... but again unified government would have to pass this to avoid drug havens

3) The restriction of governmental activities and powers by a considerable margin - um, whose going to dole out the licences or sort referendums and get this shit passed initially

4) There should also be some rules regarding media. Who by government, or more totally transparent independent groups?

a) Agree.

b) What if falsely accused?

c) Quite right, but tough on the asset stripped

d) What about those who don't have time to read both but want to keep a breast of current affairs?

6) Ah the workhouse... they worked well before!!!

7) Why if we all share the same currency, brother?

8) Ah yes, state deciding on Alpha, Betas etc in this Brave New World.

9) 3 year olds with condoms and relationships shutdown once someone is over 18 (by that I mean if you and your GF/BF got together at 15 what happens when the eldest gets past 18?

10) What about those that don't?

11) i)lots of these "independent bodies" who monitors them?
ii) So a change to restrictions... but how much blocking of access... I could park half on pavement half on in a highstreet - still partial access for pedestrians and traffic?
iii) but shooting in the face OK.
iv) Bit lenient on those who drive clapped out old bangers.

12) What about religious rights e.g. Catholics and contraception or parents who naturally have triplets etc.

13) You want to wipe out 66% of the World's population? Have you got a ticket to the new Denver Airport and/or a Hitler tash?
( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Sat 24 Sep 2011, 2:01, 2 replies)

Regarding point 9; half your age plus seven is the ticket.
(nuffnuff, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 7:51, closed)

Sure, that's a good system - although my grandad told me that when I was 12...
...but that would screw the 19-22 year olds under the proposed system.
( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 9:51, closed)

Why thank you...
... I was really hoping someone would take the time to read the proposals and give some constructive criticism. When all this comes to pass (as it most definitely inevitably will, and you all know it), I shall give you a post as senior advisor, at least until I inevitably go mad with power and devote all my time to hanging cabinet members and awarding myself spurious medals ;-) Anyway, in answer to your points:

1) True; but in the absence of anything remotely resembling a replacement system (answers on a postcard if you can think of one) it's simply not practical or reasonable to actually ban money or expect the idea of "value" to become completely redundant. Therefore my proposals were posited on the idea that we need to reduce the impacts of having allowed global capitalism and economics to get so out of control so it's all-powerful and allows some people to get rich beyond words by doing nothing productive (i.e. currency traders) and others to starve because of the first groups' actions.

a) It's the only way. The trick is to ensure that there is enough wealth redistribution as a result to allow everyone to live in reasonable comfort without anyone becoming unfeasibly wealthy and hogging the resources so they can buy million dollar shoes. This would entail the price of said theoretical shopping basket being a reasonable proportion of the average wage packet. And yes, regardless of delivery and storage costs - this whole task would hinge upon efforts to reverse the impacts of pollution and overfarming in the developing world to enable goods to be produced locally so people can have their basic needs met without needing huge quantities of goods to be imported (eventually).

b) Yes, it's an idea which has mostly been associated with socialist regimes, but they actually tended to nationalise the wrong industries. Marx and Engels never intended communism for agrarian economies like Russia but industrialised nations whose bourgeoise classes were mostly able to prevent it happening, at least for very long periods. Also the model fell down due to the greed / power madness of the leadership, but it doesn't mean that nationalising the financial industries for the benfit of the populace rather than a select class of individuals is a bad idea. As for the railways and road networks, do you know we pay more money in public subsidies to the companies which run the railways than we did to run it when it was nationalised? The transport infrastructure is too important to be used for the political gains of short-term-obsessed politicians and profiteers.

c) Yes, you do.

2) Yeah, unified government, with a full and clear constitution involving the rights of everyone on the planet to have education, healthcare, clean water and air, adequate shelter, sufficient foods and protection of their human rights (in conjunction with human responsibilities), plus complete transparency, a separation from business interests and a barring of any individual who becomes involved in corruption is necessary.

3) That would be the government's responsibility. The key aspects of this model of government are transparency and clear processes for holding probematic aspects to account.

4) Regulated by an independent transparent body.

a) OK

b) Wouldn't happen until the accusations had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Asset stripping is a necessary and justified punishment for the corrupt or avoiders of their fair tax responsibilities.

d) Simple - read one, or the other, or make time!

6) Yes, the workhouse for the workshy, not for those who have genuine reason to be unable to support themselves. I haven't said anything about the infirm, for instance, because though I'd like to see more resources directed towards finding work which fits the skills and abilities of disabled people and better enables them to contribute, I wouldn't suggest that they should have to live under these conditions. Anyway, the current system of giving the workshy free houses, paying them to reproduce kids they don't want and can't be bothered to take proper care of and encouraging them to be unproductive by giving them the same stuff the rest of us have to work to afford works really well, don't you think?

7) Just because we move to a single worldwide currency doesn't mean all inequalities are going to vanish. People will want to move around and in many cases have good reasons for doing so; and can come to other coutries and be productive and contribute.

8) It's not the state which decides; these things would be predicated on exam results, the need for different skills to fulfil the needs of the society, and would be done in a system where everything possible was being done to provide equality of opportunity.

9) 3 year olds can use them as water balloons, but would get sex education as appropriate for their age, irrespective of parents wishes as every individual would have to have responsibility for their own reproductive capacity. For pre-teens, sex education would focus on how to avoid danger from would-be abusers and the abstracts of reproduction. Post 12, it would include relationship ethics and aspects of childcare. Re: those who turn 19 while in a relationship with a younger partner, these relationships would be allowed to continue under license as the age difference would remain the same between the two.

10) Those that don't continue to perform their jobs effectively - this being proved through a peer-reviewed transparent process - would have to be retired. Currently, a lot of people don't get to choose when to retire, and overall more people would be be able to have more choice under this model.

11) i) Yes, you'd need them, but they should not be making judgements on tickets which result in them either getting the money from the fine or not, as councils currently do. Councils and other bodies shouldn't use parking etc as a means of raising revenue.

ii) Access for a wheelchair to pass in comfort on the pavement would be sufficient, as they are wider than bikes, prams and fat people.

iii) Only for companies who illegally clamp vehicles.

iv) Normally, those who drive clapped-out old bangers are poorer and can't afford the fines, especially if the car's been towed and fines have built up. I'm generalising but...

12) Fuck the religious. They can make do with the same rights as the rest of us. In fact, I'll add another rule - a test to be passed by anyone who wishes to practice a religion to prove first that they are of sound mind. Which they'd all fail because believing in a beardy sky wizard is sufficient proof of insanity. This would be extended to include all children. Any child who said they didn't want to attend their parent's church or other place of worship should have their choice respected and parents who made them go would be locked up for child abuse. Re: triplets etc, these are relatively rare, and as long as no fertility treatments had been used exceptions would be allowed. I doubt it would seriously impact the issue of reducing overpopulation.

13) No, those people are all pussies. In more serious terms, I would very much encourage abortion for unwanted pregnancies (and do whatever required to provide access), and not only legalise euthanasia but give inheritance tax breaks to those who choose it. Overpopulation will finish us all off in the end, for sure.
(rampants, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 15:53, closed)

I can't wait!
Although I'll need a month's notice, pompous title and licorice on tap.

In response:

1) Tally sticks?

a) But what about desert regions where resources are scarce and storage of any perishable goods difficult? Relocation of those populaces to Venus project cities (http://www.thevenusproject.com/). Does everyone want to live in a city?

b) I'm with you comrade.


2) Those religious folk will have a ball. But I hear you.


3) The problem is who holds accountability... it is true that government should be servants of the people, and that an independent body should be able oversee that all is done by the current government in a transparent and honest way - but look at the current Stateside system... I wonder whether the Founding Fathers would be happy.

4) Comprised of? Piers, as in the case of the House of Lords. Ex-government officials who may have already had their moral compasses turned?

b) But how much faith do we hold in 'reasonable doubt'... would Amanda Knox be stripped (albeit she's not a corrupt official!). And what would happen to the dependents of those stripped? Equally, who would want to be an investigative journalist given the potential repercussions of not only those exposed by the draconian/1984 punishment.

d) Fair enough.

6) Yes, I agree... and I was brought up in a single-parent council house.

7) But if we are really going to banish poverty and disparity based on geography (because of course you and will be handed this remit any day now), then we have to treat everyone the same regardless of where they originated. If there are holes in the system from the start then they will be exaggerated over time.

8) What about those who are not good under exam conditions or late bloomers? Also would you not get specialist schools based on profession, and therefore an unequal education system. What if say you or I were born to climb palm trees, but going to school in Leeds we were never offered the opportunity. Alternatively, if our school offered Palm Tree climbing classes but I had no inclination to climb trees would I not be better ploughing my energy into something I have an aptitude for?

9) While I agree in principle, "irrespective of parents wishes" makes it sounds very Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World.

10) Seems sensible.

11) i) Again though, I'd ask who would form these independent bodies and review their actions... albeit I think it makes sense.

ii) Ha! OK.

iii) Fair enough - though rapists get off a bit easy.

iv) But those who've let fines built up are generally lazy... that said disproportionate fines are wrong.

12) OK.

13) Why not just get rid of 'the poor' then... strychnine in chicken nuggets? Easier to kill of the middle classes though - you still need jobs done. Isn't that what the NWO, Rockefeller, Rothschild lot, our "lizard masters" want anyway? *gasp* You're a shape shifter aren't you!!!



www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E&feature=player_embedded#!
( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 14:08, closed)