|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 17, 2011 19:01:23 GMT -5
Alright since this is in demand. Here's what I would do if I would run the world.
Note that this takes into premise that I have the power to enforce and make the changes I want. No quagmire of opposition to make it happen.
First things first, wealth and resources would be redistributed so that every human being has his basic needs met and the ability to pursue a career and successful life. This is because, without these cornerstones. Enlightenment and advancement are simply impossible to achieve.
From there education would not only be available. It would be mandatory and any and all individuals would be required and to have at least high school level education, with the changes I need. Adults would be tested and if they fail my requirements, sent back to school. Right off primary school, children (and adults sent back to school) would received education in three languages (English, Mandarin and either spanish or hindi). Primary school is where education in history, science, math and critical thinking begin. Every level of education above would serve the purposes of:
1-educating an adult on his chosen profession
2-creating a responsible adult with a good base of ethics and understanding of ethics and the world around him.
In all cases, any and all professionals would be required regular retesting of their competence and ability to perform their professions. Ethics and proper conduct would be part of those tests.
When it comes to environment. Transition would be imposed to greener energy and renovating/changing all infrastructures to a less environmentally harmful model. I would institute unilateral bans on all activities that are harmful to endangered species. The nature of the legislation and laws would be after careful oversight and study.
Crime and law would follow on under a uniform system of justice and law where capital crimes would face imprisonment and where everyone is equal under the law and allowed protection. My world would provide freedom of religion. But there would be a complete and utter separation of state and religion. And any and all issues where state would find it's power to enforce the good of all and the necessities of improving life impede by religion would find the state having power to overrule such comments.
My world would have a clear set of rights, defenses and principles to all individuals under my rule. Such individuals would however be bound that their individual rights do not overstep the rights of the collective and vice-versa by law.
Within these bounds, discrimination and violence. Abuse of power would not be tolerated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 19:07:26 GMT -5
How would you handle drug use?
|
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Sept 17, 2011 19:14:26 GMT -5
He'd take them for himself.
|
|
Matezoide
Team Buster Ledger
Elephants!
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by Matezoide on Sept 17, 2011 19:16:20 GMT -5
My reaction:  Kidding,kidding,i will give it a read and post a serious response  |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 19:19:03 GMT -5
I actually would like to know how you would handle crime in general since that part of your post is especially vague.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Sept 17, 2011 19:19:04 GMT -5
1-educating an adult on his chosen profession You world will end without women.  |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 19:19:52 GMT -5
Also what about those you will financially ruin such as millionaires? What about their rights getting trampled?
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 19:20:31 GMT -5
1-educating an adult on his chosen profession You world will without women. LIES! His world will just refuse to educate women..... Just as it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Sept 17, 2011 19:22:49 GMT -5
I do like a lot of it. I'm a big fan of freedom, privacy and equality. Not being badged by religious fanatics will be great. I hate when you see on the internet and or TV them fanatic religious people who are against gays, blacks, etc. And they just brainwash their children. Seriously get worked up about it. Knowing that a world would be a better place without them.
If science did actually get fact that there is no creator. I would make a video stick it on you tube of my laughing at them. The fanatics that is. Others have their faith for a good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power NeXus on Sept 17, 2011 19:38:54 GMT -5
1-educating an adult on his chosen profession You world will without women. LIES! His world will just refuse to educate women..... Just as it should be. He would make it just like 1950s America. Women don't get chosen professions. They get ovens and frying pans. |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 17, 2011 19:52:10 GMT -5
Side-bar to all nincompoops hanging on the word "his": Any and all uses of words should be considered gender neutral unless specifically talking about an issue of gender (Which has not been specifically raised yet). Furthermore, there is no discrimination by gender at all permitted, tolerated or endorsed in a world ruled by the Crom-Cruach. In fact such discrimination will be expunged from the world.Erik-El-El: Crime would follow a court system where crime and sentencing is based on a code where the punishment fits the crime. Each crime has a fixed sentence, and there is no shortening of sentence for good behavior etc. As studies have shown that capital punishment is both more costly and less practical then imprisonment. It would not be supported. However any and all prison systems would require prisoners to work and serve a practical use of the state. Such as donating blood and such. Drugs would be illegal and education of the nefarious effects of drugs would begin at the primary level. LAw enforcement would be assigned to not only destroy production and distribution but also clients and buyers. Depending on the crime of the individual his sentence would be different. Note that alcohol and smoking would not be illegal. But it would receive government control and oversight. And drunk driving as well as any destructive behavior on the effects of alcohol would have a zero tolerance policy and fall under the laws and legislation that covers drug crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 20:03:57 GMT -5
Hey you cannot expect me to protect against insults when you toss out nincompoop to others. That is it, I am outta here. Good luck fighting off the wolves Crom.
Ties meat to Crom's back. Sic em boys!
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 17, 2011 20:12:04 GMT -5
lmao!
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 20:13:33 GMT -5
Also what about those you will financially ruin such as millionaires? What about their rights getting trampled? |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 17, 2011 20:17:11 GMT -5
Also what about those you will financially ruin such as millionaires? What about their rights getting trampled? Redistribution of wealth to cover basic needs and what is necessary to every human to have to be able to succeed in life does not require any millionaires to be ruined. Furthermore, because the rights of the individual do not overstep the rights of the mass and vice-versa. It would not be legal for one to hoard wealth and resources when others do not have their basic needs covered. Because the state's purpose is to the welfare of all individuals. None may be allowed to live highly above their means at the expense of others. As my first post stated. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 20:24:44 GMT -5
A person living above their means does not mean that they do so at the expense of others. Just tossing out an example but if you took away the wealth of those who got it by providing a service (say doctors) you would get widespread ragequitting. Then the entire healthcare system would be fucked. Only instead of it just being America like it is now, it would be a global Dr. Fuckoff!
Likewise, self-made millionaires got there because in some cases, pushing humanity forward technologically in some way or another. Should Bill Gates or Steve Jobs be reduced to the average joe for their brilliance just so Katie Crackhead can have a slightly higher standard of living?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 17, 2011 20:36:27 GMT -5
A person living above their means does not mean that they do so at the expense of others. Just tossing out an example but if you took away the wealth of those who got it by providing a service (say doctors) you would get widespread ragequitting. Then the entire healthcare system would be fucked. Only instead of it just being America like it is now, it would be a global Dr. Fuckoff! Likewise, self-made millionaires got there because in some cases, pushing humanity forward technologically in some way or another. Should Bill Gates or Steve Jobs be reduced to the average joe for their brilliance just so Katie Crackhead can have a slightly higher standard of living? There is a big difference between slightly higher state of living and having one's basic necessary human needs covered with having what one needs to have a chance to succeed at life. What I am talking about is starving masses in Africa. Rampant disease in south american countries etc. There is more then enough wealth in the world for everyone to live comfortably. Especially with proper state support to business and oversight of the needs of the mass. Frankly speaking if one is to actually change the world, somewhere along the line. You will have to break some eggs and unilaterally take or give things without it being open to negotiations. Other unreasonable and greedy individuals will never concede to anything to protect their individual interest at the expense of the mass. Katie crackhead is destructive to society and the state. However this is where legislation and government oversight of the drug problem comes in. Katie's behavior not only burdens the state but also individuals. In such she will receive treatment and if need be punishment to correct this. If there is no way for Katie to reintegrate society successfully. Then she will be kept under the judicial system where the punishment and thus imposed contribution to the state will help to keep her out of trouble and not burden the state. I am not a communist and I believe in the value of wealth. I will not punish millionaires for being millionaires. Neither will I stifle their financial and business growth if their presence is beneficial to the state and it's citizens. However, I will have a zero tolerance policy for exploitation, abuse of authority and will not give free passes to millionaires. Furthermore, because unilaterally speaking the State (myself) must see to all citizens. Even the wayward ones, I cannot afford to favor one over the other. By a new instituted system of taxation and government oversight of economic and social mechanics. I will promote responsible business and ethical management in the financial system but expunge any and all business practice that impede the state's ability to see to the needs of all individuals. And I would eliminate any behavior that would prevent the state from acting in capacity where beneficial systems and models would be implemented because of greed and unethical behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 20:59:09 GMT -5
This does not really have much to do with your previous post because you did answer it in a way I found fairly pleasing, if not still a little vague. But I believe people that become teachers, scientists, doctors, law enforcers and those that improve quality of life like say Bill Gates and Steve Jobs SHOULD enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle than say, a janitor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 17, 2011 21:14:03 GMT -5
This does not really have much to do with your previous post because you did answer it in a way I found fairly pleasing, if not still a little vague. Speaking in a thread like this. Obviously it is a little vague. This is because for my changes to work, first I will need to collect data and address with proper knowledge each sub-issue within a larger issue. Legislation of every minute specific detail are beyond the scope of the discussion here and specific points will be address as asked by Ledgers. However billionaire is a vague concept, it includes asshole oil barons and responsible businesses. Hence why I tried to be as specific as possible but was also forced to make broad lines in many places. But I believe people that become teachers, scientists, doctors, law enforcers and those that improve quality of life like say Bill Gates and Steve Jobs SHOULD enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle than say, a janitor. Janitors and garbageman are necessary to the state. They prevent the spread of disease, see to sanitation and perform a service that all the people you mention absolutely need. Thus they deserve to have a chance to live a successful life happy. Obviously I will promote and encourage teachers, doctors and responsible business practices (unfortunately some of Steve Job's practices are unethical in some respects for all the good he has done, and those would punished). Police officers and anyone like scientists and such who improve the quality of life will be actively encouraged by the state, received state sanction support to their activities and rewards for meaningful contributions (like discovering a cure for a disease). However, what I will not do is support any policy that would impede my capacity to see to the needs and rights of everyone or allow free passes for a slippery slope that can lead to abuse. And as far as I'm concerned. Teachers, doctors, scientists, cops and soldiers are as vital a part of successful state as any other. Thus I will see their efforts rewarded. However what I will not support is greater reward for them, just because he's a doctor. Whatever additional reward and support I will see him have will be dependent on his contribution to the state and it's citizens and furthermore will all be calculated and based on priorities and assessments of absolute needs of state functions as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 17, 2011 21:24:49 GMT -5
Personally judging the value of every one of the 6+billion people on the planet will not only take up all your time, leaving none to actually run the world, but it would just be flat out impossible to accomplish.
Promoting a profession does not mean people will pursue it. One of the reasons I am pursuing a life in the medical field (not the only one mind you) is because I want to improve MY quality of life. And I can guarantee you that it is at least a partial reason for literally everyone that became a doctor.
The very reason why people try for anything at all is in the pursuit of happiness. Taking care of trash is admittedly necessary to the cleanliness of society. But I can promise you that most people that work that type of career are capable of more. There are two people that get into the kind of work a janitor career is. They either had not the means to pursue better or did not try. I will be fucked if I am going to give up my future lifestyle so a lazy SOB that still does his job but does not do more than that can take part of what should have been mine through a lifetime of incredibly hard work. And mind you, my chosen future profession is one that I have to work harder at than the janitor indefinitely. Hell 5 years after I graduate medical school, half the things I learned will be out of date.
|
|
