I think our system (or any system, barring really extreme ones to be honest) is “perfect.” However the PEOPLE royally eff it up. And by the time we fix that there’s not much of a point in having anything more than anarchy anymore.
As long as people are subject to corruption there are people to find loopholes, intentionally write loopholes, declare martial law, send people to Gitmo and whatever other bad things you can think of. And I can’t think of any real way to avert this, curb it maybe, but even then it’s pretty much just our current system with “without loopholes” tacked on. Maybe the only real change I’d make would be a viable third party, possibly by tweaking the electoral college (mostly at the state level to not make it All or Nothing as it is in most states now), and maybe campaign spending laws, but it still rests more in popular mindset than lawmaking. I could go along with votes of confidence/no confidence however. Overall, I still think the perfect system of government is Anarchy. I’m NOT an anarchist, but the reason it’s perfect is because the only way for a perfect government is for the people to be perfect and whats the point in a government if everyone is gonna be a good boy and take care of their neighbor, never hurt anyone, fund/do scientific study, and build up infrastructure out of the kindness of their hearts?
I’m being honest on my beliefs though, not trying to bring the thread down in any way.
Edit: I know you’re asking how to fix it. But I really think the government IS fixed, save for a few loopholes and electoral stuff that could be tightened up to facilitate less greed and promote polypartisanism, which seems to have been covered pretty well above.
So your “ideal government” isn’t just swooping in like a pack of vultures when someone dies and taking everything that’s not nailed down, they’re also going after anyone they gave anything to during the previous 10-30 years?
“Hey, kid. Your dad just died, so we’ll be taking that car he gave you. For the greater good, you understand.”
Because working to give their children a good life is what motivates people.
“Motivation” is what differentiates capitalism from socialism. And socialism has proved that minus motivation, 80% of everyone will sit on their ass and collect a check, dragging your society to the bottom of the ocean.
Thank you. It seemed appropriate, given that you seem to think it’s the government’s job to keep the population dependant on the government’s “benevolence”.
Honestly, if this was the system I was living under, I’d emigrate as soon as possible. There is no point in me even considering starting up any sort of business under these conditions. It sounds like a recipe for economic ruin.
But people are not responsible for their own welfare. That is precisely the point of having a family.
Are you asking this from a legal or philosophical stand point? From a purely legal viewpoint, it’s intuitively obvious that the dead have rights, that’s why acts like necrophilia, grave robbing, and unauthorised organ harvesting are illegal.
Social contract, same as current right of taxation.
Oooh… not “right for everyone to be equals”, but “everyone to have equality of opportunity to pursue their idea of happiness as far as is possible”.
You’re given the opportunity through Csalary, education, healthcare to pursue whatever goals you desire. That’s paid for through the taxes on both inheritance and income.
Equality of opportunity is different from everyone being equal. Equality of opportunity is just a starting point, a fair one, what you do with your opportunity is down to you.
Nonsense. Successful businesses would be auctioned off, so could continue to be successful (depending on their new owners).
What?
Err. Maybe those things are illegal for different reasons (icky, theft is wrong etc). I don’t like the term “intuitively obvious”, intuition has a habit of being wrong.
The present social contract exists because the majority of people recognise that there’s a need for some (non-excessive) level of taxation. Where exactly is the support for your idea going to come from? The working classes? How long until they figure they’re going to be buying back heirlooms, passed down for generations, from the government? The middle and upper classes? Don’t be ridiculous!
There is absolutely zero popular support, or chance of popular support, for 100% inheritance tax, nor the rest of your ideas. Citing a social contract that could never possibly exist as the moral justification for your ideas is bizarre.
Err… this is totally hypothetical. Just because it could never be, just like libertopia btw, doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it.
As I listed in my original post, this hypothetical involves a democratically elected government and ongoing elections (didn’t you see the “state funded elections” point).
Meh. Governments are purely practical things. Submitting an idea to a thread entitled “design an ideal government” that requires everybody act in ways that they demonstrably do not is a pointless exercise. The same holds for libertopia.
Yeah, other reasons that just so happened to make the point I was making :smack:
Oh and Citizen Salaries are actually on the Green Party’s platform. I don’t actually belong to them though.
Not really. I just listed other possibilities. And theft can be defined as “taking what’s not yours without permission”, it doesn’t necessarily need a victim.
You had me going for a little while, but then lost me at the end.
I would restate that for your point #1 above, just because 51% of the voting electorate ‘wants something’ doesn’t mean the other 49% has to go along. That’s what the Constitution was designed to protect against, in my opinion. Maybe 60% of Californians want to fund stem cell research. Fine, go ahead. Talk amongst yourselves and figure it out. I don’t want to participate. I don’t live in California, of course, but you get the idea.
You are right to point out potential economic collapse and recent intervention in the financial markets as a good example. And a rich and juicy one to analyze. I’ll go along with you on this one, since the underpinnings of a national economy were at risk. The Congress actually came together reasonably well in a time of crisis and crafted a bill, which was kind of my point a few posts above. But there were lots of little goodies thrown in on the sides for various special interest groups. As part of the bickering, that is.
Let’s bicker over freedoms. Let’s bicker over the Constitution. Let’s bicker over decisions to go to war. That’s good and useful bickering, in my opinion. Because those are the few, important fundamental principles that define our nation. The first Constitutional Convention had lots and lots of bickering that produced a pretty darn good result.
Bickering over pork, or who controls what Federal agency and how big it gets, or who is going to trade off a tax break here for a special goodie over there, isn’t bickering over freedom, or the Constitution, or anything like it. It’s a bunch of people presuming control over something that they should have no control over, to begin with.
You might want to expand on this a bit. Is an individual citizen allowed to sign (and thus vote) on as many petitions as possible? If so, what prevents a (say:Republican) party official from going door-to-door with a list of 200 or so party candidates? Just have every registered Republican voter sign their name 200 times, go to enough doors quickly enough, and you have a legislature 100% composed of a single party.
I think you’re used to petions being a generally laid-back affair, but under your system, with a limited amount of seats, “petition-day” would become a gigantic confusing rushed mess, with everyone running all over the place to get a seat as quickly as possible. It’d be inherently un-democratic, as it tremendously favors the candidate that can get signatures the fastest, rather than the one that more people actually want to vote for.
That sounds a lot like Ecotopia, as described in the novel by Ernest Callenbach, and the only way he could sustain his fictional society was, I figure, by engaging in massive literary cheating where inconvenient obstacles are either ignored or reduced to passing references in isolated paragraphs.