|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 24, 2013 19:50:38 GMT -5
It is possible that you are correct in that the Earth does in fact have the resources to sustain our current population. But before I am willing to entertain that notion, I would like some kind of data from you that supports that stance. I have already referenced some of the highest minds in the field of ecologists, climatologists, and environmental biologists that very much disagree with your position. Now I actually do believe you to be an exceptional human being but I am sorry to say that your word does not carry as much weight in my eyes as theirs without some kind of evidence to support your theory. Conjecture and political leanings are not enough for me, though I do agree with you that big business can sometimes do great harm to our environment. Your stance looks at numbers. I already explained how population density is not overpopulation so I am a little unsure why you keep bringing it up as though it is part of my argument. I am not sure that I can agree with you on human feces and urine is what kept the circle of life going. Human feces is highly toxic to the environment, so is our urine (dogs and cats are the same way in case anyone is wondering, that is why there are laws against not cleaning up after your dog on walks). I don't see your logic as being sound. Science is not strictly based on the status quo and I honestly don't see these guys missing something so obvious. Especially when these studies say the exact opposite. Things will not continue as they are. Eventually, the ecosystem will drop something in its proverbial juggling of supporting human beings. Your theory of turning human waste into compost might work fine in your backyard (assuming you have the tools and materials to do it safely) but again, it is highly toxic and would never be approved as life-sustaining soil. Everything that grew from that soil would potentially carry whatever disease that was passed by the human and when you have millions of humans dumping waste, that is millions of potential infections waiting to happen. Even if something like that was tackled, you still have to ensure the porosity of the soil before steps taken to implement such a thing. Since what you are talking about requires a giant septic tank capable of accommodating the waste of millions, that is going to need to be some amazingly accommodating soil. If you think that is a viable solution, please by all means, work something like that out. Not only would you become world-famous, you would also be filthy rich. I say that without a shred of condescension. If you could come up with a workable solution instead of just arm-chair theorizing, that would be great. But since what you are doing is throwing out theory as fact, I currently have to disregard it. I think you are right about potential energy in plant-life. But with massive deforestation around the globe, I don't think it is a viable system, nor is it necessary when we have renewable energies already available that are easily harvested. Solar energy, hydro energy, kinetic energy in wind turbines. All these things, if used on a global scale, would heavily reduce our dependance on fossil fuels and nuclear power if not eliminate it outright. The problem is that big business makes them impossibly expensive. That would not be so much of a problem with me in the big chair. I would heavily penalize companies that sought to impede human progress in order to make a buck. I am fine with companies making all the green they want in the pursuit of human growth but companies like the oil companies that actually did sabotage Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Car in the 30s. The thing had a MPG of 30 which is satisfactory in modern times but back then, it was outrageously efficient with fuel. It could also transport 11 passengers and had a top recorded speed of 90 MPH. This all back in 1933. It was a future-mobile and the oil companies attacked it with fear propaganda and sabotaged it so they could keep people dependent on fossil fuels. That would get your business shut down and your assets seized in my world. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fulleren.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_carAs for the taxes, yes at least in the states, religious institutions are able to glide past many of the taxes we as a country currently have. But the argument is a moot point anyway because under the new tax system I would implement, there are basically only two kinds of taxes. 1 is a consumer tax; you pay a tax when you buy things. 2 is a property tax; you pay a yearly tax on the land you bought from the government (directly or indirectly like from a real estate broker, bank, etc). I don't understand why you or Sherlock are hung up on the taxing of religious institutions. It only makes me think you did not understand what you are reading. Churches already pay a consumer tax when they buy stuff, just like you. Churches already pay a property tax, just like you. I am just getting rid of all the loopholes that corporations and yes, even churches take advantage of and having two taxes that they already pay be the only taxes. Where is the disconnect? The catholic church is one of the wealthiest business in the world and the second wealthiest religious organization in the world. The fact that the common priest wears hand-me-downs is not indicative of their wealth, only of how they choose to disburse that wealth among their subjects, which apparently is not very even. If you do not understand how the right to bear arms is essential to ensure your freedom, just look at countries that had civilian disarmament just prior to being systematically wiped out. What could these citizens do? Anyone that believes we are beyond such barbarism is naive. Nearly every nation in the world shares one or several borders with a nation that practices inhuman barbarism even currently. Those that are in control of the masses seek to keep control of the masses, even at the expense of the masses' rights... sometimes deliberately at their expense. Beatboks, I consider you a very intelligent person but how to you think I weigh your argument when you cherry pick your examples and say that is the rule? For every example where revolution was gained through peaceful protest and with shovels, I have a dozen that was won through war. It is much harder to rule your people through tyranny when your people are fully capable of physically deposing you. That is the guarantee I would be providing the people under my rule. That I will rule honestly and with their best interests and if I don't, they would have the option of fighting for their freedom from me if it ever came to that. Especially since I am not immortal and I have no way of guaranteeing that my successor would share the same beliefs. If you honestly don't want a gun, fine. Never buy one. You are NOT being forced to own one. I think everyone is better off with them though. Those that owned guns would be well educated on care, maintenance, and use by law. People with a violent criminal history would not be legally allowed to carry either so I am not seeing how this is a problem for you. Those that carry would be law-abiding, well trained citizens. YOU do not have the right to tell someone that they cannot have the option to protect themselves just like you don't have the right to force your beliefs on them. My law would only allow people the option.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 24, 2013 21:44:38 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong it's not as over simplified as i said. the whole flush toilet system is inadequate to properly deal with true recycling of human waste and would need to be redesigned. It combines too many other contaminants in the effluent. Yes there are bacteria in human waste, 1000's of them. However they in themselves when composted are not harmful to humans. 1. the bio-organisms that break down such waste will burn out much of the bacteria present in the waste. 2. There are actually on 300 ( or there abouts) bacterias that are harmful to humans so many of the bacteria involved are of no consequence 3. Your working under the assumption that bacteria are a bad thing. have you ever had a vaccination?? if you have that is small amounts of bacteria and diseases given to you so that you can build a tolerance or immunity. So as the bacteria is burned down to tolerable levels the result is a stronger healthier more immune populous Also the whole process of composting isn't a quick one. It would take a few years to use such land to produce. Burried human bodies also contain disease but if you check the soil of a grave yard from a hundred years ago the nitrogen levels would be through the roof and the bacteria levels very low. It's a question of "cooking the ground" properly. www.worldwatch.org/node/448 Check out the attached PDF it covers quite a bit in detail. www.alternet.org/story/141718/your_crap,_our_compost%3A_turning_human_feces_into_fertile_soil here are some details of one of many trials done by Nancy Klehnm an ecologist in high standing ( there are many more by her and by others) I could link several examples where communes have successfully run on this basis for a few decades and show low sickness rates and higher health standards than the average without a lot of involvement of modern medicine as well if you want later. The Tax of religious groups has never been avoided here down under. Not just because we have an indirect tax system but also because contributions to them are tax deductible. Since churches have to supply receipts to it's members for what they donate so they can claim the government is well aware of how much they take in. They then have to show how they use that money to determine what is for public benefit and what is income to the organisation. So I guess that's a problem for elsewhere. I wasn't cherry picking examples. Everyone is well aware of the instances when the possession of arms aided in the cause of freedom. I was simply showing with the examples I gave that it isn't necessary to have them to achieve freedom. Quite frankly even these times when wars have been the catalyst for freedom it has less to do with the guns or weapons than the will and drive of the people. Let's use the America revolution as an example. Here we have a nation of men who are armed with far inferior weapons to the nation that subjugates them. they have fewer of them, they are not as well trained in their use. Yet this nation through off it's oppressors because of the hearts, minds and will of a people who would accept nothing less than self determination. They defeated what was a superior force because they had the greater drive, the greater desire. It's my firm belief that no oppressor or dictatorship can ever last for long. To control a mass of people relies on the fact that the fear of that people is greater than their desire for something better. History is full of times when the act of a single martyr inspires a mass of individuals to stand against the tide and win the day no matter what the odds.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 25, 2013 0:57:37 GMT -5
Okay I was under the impression you thought we could pour our waste onto the dirt and after a certain amount of time passes, presto, soil that we can grow our food with lol. I am glad you don't actually see things that way.
You brought in some very interesting and thought provoking references, it gave me some options to think about. But circling back to a point you made previously, let's say we did adopt your method of sewage recycling and "slow and steady" farming, both ideas which I admit are very appealing to me now with your information... We would still need to reduce our numbers for those methods to accomodate us because as you said, they are the slow methods. Even with our fast "right now!" methods, it still takes 1.5 years to recoup 1 year of used resources. The slow method cannot support our numbers because it is just too slow to meet the demands. It is, based on what you provided me, seemingly the vastly superior method for sustained resources though.
Back to the religion thing, there will be no tax breaks because no one will be filing taxes. Income tax is removed under the Fair Trade Tax as well. I think there might be some kind of tax on corporations that make over a certain amount but I would have to read through it again to be sure on that. As memory serves, the only taxes are property and consumer taxes. No deductions because there is no taxes they can be applied to.
It isn't ALWAYS necessary, this is true. But based on human history, armed revolutionists typically have more success than unarmed ones. Even arming them with shovels and pitchforks is armed. However guns are equalizers. If revolutionists are armed with weapons that make them equal to the tyrannical government military, the odds of success tend to favor the revolutionists through sheer numbers and loss of life is significantly lower (as opposed to fighting with words while your dictator still fights with automatic rounds).
We won the Revolution due to strategic mistakes on the side of the Brits, not through the hearts of the brave. The Brits was crushing my ancestors throughout most of the war. History is not stressed education in the states so my details are a little sketchy but if memory serves, without those mistakes, we would still be paying taxes to the Queen to this day. The war being won by the hearts of the men fighting it does appeal to my over-sized American patriotism though and I want to agree with you... Part of me suspects that was debating strategy on your part lol.
I think North Korea might disagree with you on the dictator/oppressor belief.
This is getting a little off track anyway with the philosophical debate. The point is that the right to own a weapon is everyone's personal right, so long as said person adheres to the rest of the laws governing the planet and their country (countries and states can still make laws so long as they do not violate the global constitution) and as long as they regularly keep themselves up to date on training and education on firearms. That is it. If every man in Australia wants go avoid guns like a disease, fine, that is entirely their right. But the local government cannot pass laws that prohibit ownership and carrying of firearms. Not just to protect themselves from the government but also to protect themselves from local crime. Until such a time that crime is literally non-existant, people will have a right to protect themselves.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 25, 2013 2:00:43 GMT -5
Yeah items by no means a quick fix. To begin with we would have to have a very large capital out lay to change waste systems to prevent the. Pure waste of the body being contaminated by chemicals etc. Then we would need cultural changes to make people accept the whole idea and to act appropriately. The idea you mentioned that the waste is toxic is so readily accepted because the precepts that lead to it are culturally ingrained. The link that people rightly have of poor cleanliness in relation to same causing disentry etc makes it easy for even well educated scientist to accept anicdotal evidence that it is hazardous. there would have to be some static population growth for some time as it might up to 50 years or more to reclaim these lands as productive.
Hopefully those in power etc realize it is the necessary course to take for long term sustain ability in time and take the appropriate action.
On the tax thing I guess that's never been an issue here.
We ll have to agree to disagree on the gun thing
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 25, 2013 2:34:56 GMT -5
I am always confused as to why liberals want to restrict the rights of their brothers and sisters. I just don't understand it. I grew up as a liberal but I have recently fallen into the Libertarian party because their views parallel mine for the most part. I believe in individual rights. As the men Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., John B. Finch, John Stuart Mill, Abraham Lincoln, and Zechariah Chafee Jr. all said in one version or another, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins.".
This was a quote used heavily by liberals in nearly every highbrow debate on politics I have ever seen and it is absolutely right for the most part. But it seems it is only followed when it is convenient and when it is not, it is promptly ignored by liberals. Liberty freely given up for a false sense of security.
Benjamin Franklin (and/or Richard Jackson) said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
How true that statement is. No temporary safety is worth freedom and I would not allow laws to be passed that curtail the rights of the people.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 25, 2013 11:00:59 GMT -5
I am always confused as to why liberals want to restrict the rights of their brothers and sisters. I just don't understand it. I grew up as a liberal but I have recently fallen into the Libertarian party because their views parallel mine for the most part. I believe in individual rights. As the men Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., John B. Finch, John Stuart Mill, Abraham Lincoln, and Zechariah Chafee Jr. all said in one version or another, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins.". This was a quote used heavily by liberals in nearly every highbrow debate on politics I have ever seen and it is absolutely right for the most part. But it seems it is only followed when it is convenient and when it is not, it is promptly ignored by liberals. Liberty freely given up for a false sense of security. Benjamin Franklin (and/or Richard Jackson) said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." How true that statement is. No temporary safety is worth freedom and I would not allow laws to be passed that curtail the rights of the people. If this was directed at me, than your making assumptions to my position that are not what I stated. 1. I never said ( not once) that i wanted to restrict anything. All I said is that the notion that freedom depends on the right to have arms is flawed and I believe it is. For one thing many of the armed revolutions in history ( the ones you thought I avoided in my "cherry picking") involved revolutionary groups who did not have that right but still acquired the weapons to do so. To my knowledge there is only one country that has that "right" and yet there are many many more free democracies around the globe and some supersede teh US. Do you think the Germans allowed the French or Poles etc when they occupied them to keep or carry arms. Yet the resistance groups still got them. In your own American West the native American peoples also acquired fire arms without government consent ( in fact the government at the time disarmed them and put them on reservations. 2. Personal safety has absolutely nothing to do with why I take the stance I do. For the reasons i stated above. Being legally allowed to have weapons or not does not preclude those who wish to do harm with them acquiring them. I'm an old army brat and former serviceman my self, I grew up with weapons around and it doesn't guarantee a thing either way. Quite frankly my personal safety is the least thing on my mind. I had a misspent youth where I associated with many unsavory characters. The result is that I have ties to no less than four illegal Bike gangs. In my 30's I was regularly approached by local law enforcement to help keep the piece between some bike gangs because they knew I talked to all sides. in my 20's I was in many bar room brawls usually because when i saw a fight where some guy was outnumbered by an opposing gang I jumped in on the short odds side to even the odds. You can blame the over pronounced sence of honour instilled in me by my drill sergeant father. I had this stupid notion that if a man lacked the courage to face his enemy mano a mano than he lost the right to face him at all ( the honour thing was pretty much what earned me the respect of all but one local bike gang with whom I regularly fought). Frankly If I had a problem I'm not likely to call the law I'm likely to find the one who wronged me and sort it out ( in a way they wouldn't like and denying them certain rights they should have). 3. It honestly comes down to the case that I believe you reap what you sow. Let me put it this way ( and this is based a little on that history i just went through). If you come in offensive at someone you automatically make them defensive. it's far more likely that things will escalate. When you enter a situation with a positive frame of reference your more likely to have positive results. Let's say in your neighborhood you help people and offer assistance a lot. When you need help the neighbors readily repay you out a a sense of obligation and respect. If you on the other hand confront others and make things hard for them than they are more likely to do the same for you. Gang violence grows gang violence, a loving neighborhood that helps each other grows the same. IMO opinion the US faces much of the hostility it receives because it is perceived as warlike because "all American have guns". I'm not saying control guns, I just don't see why you need a law/statute/ etc either way.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 26, 2013 0:17:18 GMT -5
I think a law is needed in order to prevent unnecessary control of guns.
As loudly as I fight for gun rights, a lot of people make the mistake of assuming I am for no gun control at all. That is not the case with me. Let me outline my exact position...
I think guns need to be carefully catalogued have regular inspections, much like Switzerland.
I think guns can only be owned by people that have no violent criminal records (this is something that I need to actually refine to be more specific).
I think gun owners should have to take regular classes on proper care and storage, legal use, and efficient use, just like Switzerland.
If I were just addressing America, I would say citizens would do this through militia training, like Switzerland, which is required from 18 until the age of 30 (34 if you are an officer), where you would be given the choice of keeping your military weapons (yes this includes assault weapons).
But since I am addressing the issue globally as a single ruler of the planet, militia is not necessary since their is no external enemy to war against. Classes could be government jobs or privatized jobs, either or I suppose.
Essentially, I want to adopt many of Switzerland's policies on gun law as they have the smallest gun-related crimes in the entire civilized world and nearly every single citizen in their nation is armed with at least one sidearm and at least one assault weapon (fully automatic while in the militia, converted to semi-auto when retired). The only difference is that I do not want it to be required that you own a gun like it is in Switzerland.
|
|
|
Post by Lunacyde Prime on Jan 26, 2013 19:52:40 GMT -5
Very good idea. Knowledge is the greatest tool with which we can fight crime.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 27, 2013 6:22:50 GMT -5
I did type a three paragraph post last night that got lost when my PC froze on a few more policy ideas to think about.
Economics
Deregulated free market trade is a must. I won't post the long spiel I had on it. Suffice it to say markets that don't rely on protection policies or governmet props stand better through tough economic times
public Purse/ spending Is is just me or do governments specialize in throwing money down the drain.Public service managerial incomes should be lowered as a base and added to with bonuses based on performance assessments on the efficiencies and correct application of public funds. I'm sorry but the argument that those who do the same in the private sector get paid more to do the same doesn't hold water. For one thing private sector managers have less job security because if they don't manage effectively they get the can and right quick. So either accept the same potential loss of job based on performance or the lost income.
This should also extend to the education dept. The old adage that those who can do and those who can't teach should never be allowed to even have the potential to be the truth. I'm not suggesting that teachers pay be decided solely on marks as that can be affected by so many other factors ( wealthy areas for example are more likely to have private tutors for their children). But there should be a regular competency assessment. Back when I went to school I remember some teachers who weren't fit to teach anything while others made classes truly interesting and relevant. My year 8/9 history teacher for example didn't just teach the facts about history but taught us more how to question it, assess it and make our own value decisions. His classes were more like group discussion where we all would put forth our own ideas and perspectives in relation to the subject at hand. Often relating the events of the time in history we were studying to some current political position etc. It's definitely just as important to teach youth who to think and reason as to teach them facts. On the policy of eduction I'll say it never comes down to just how much money you throw at the situation. It's how effectively you use every penny you've got.
CUT THE RED TAPE. What is it with bureaucracy and the umpteen levels of crap you have to go through. It seems to me that getting anything accomplished within the public system costs three to four times what is should just because of duplicated work. No business model would survive past a few years that way.
Reduce the number of levels of government. Seriously with modern technology the world is getting smaller. Do we truly need so many levels of government. Less is more I would say. Not to mention if you think about for example having a single national law enforcement body answerable to the democratically elected government /head of state than you wouldn't have criminals using loop wholes like jurisdiction, county and state lines to elude justice, and by extension costing you more to police crime. Not to mention the efficiencies gained.
It may only be over here but DROP elected official perks. Here in Australia if I'm not mistaken all a federal politician has to do is serve two terms and they receive a pension for life. I wouldn't mind so much if they actually did a decent job running the country but when they only seem to act like children in a playground fighting over the right to be top dog it's an insult.
Public money for the most part should be spent on providing infrastructure, and services only not administering how we are going to decide to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 27, 2013 17:14:21 GMT -5
Your idea on deregulated free market piqued my interest. I wish you would elaborate on that, it sounds like it would be right up my alley.
I agree with your government vs private jobs pay scale. Government jobs are not only more secure, the benefits are typically much better and cheaper than in the private sector. So while government jobs tend to have less on the pay scale, they more than make up for it in other ways. I know, I personally spent time at the post office and my ex-fiance worked for the state, during which time, we lived very comfortably while everyone else was crapping their pants about money.
Yes! The red tape is such an annoyance. I would just do away with it.
Yeah I am a very big supporter of small government. I think it is extremely bloated in the states. So that is something I would also change. We live in the information age, there is no need to have so much doing so little.
I am actually very tempted to make a political career a very common pay grade. The idea behind that is that if they can't do it for the money, they would do it to actually forward our human progress. Of course, paying politicians very little would open the world up to even more potential bent politicians with bribes and other nasty, greed-motivated actions. It is a risk that I think is worth taking though.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 28, 2013 6:41:37 GMT -5
courtesy of floods etc my internet's down and as I dont have a wifi modem ( or dongle) and all our tablets (3) are wifi only I'm stuck on my iphone. I'll apologize for the mesh of words to follow.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 28, 2013 7:08:54 GMT -5
Tariffs and subsidies that are put in place to protect markets only serve to weaken them. If you have to artificially inflate the price of a foreign competitor or artificially lower your price by comparison to compete with them than the survival prospects of the industry in the long term are not good. removing these types of protections make a business stronger as they have to become more efficient to compete. the removal of such protections in Australia while causing a mini recession at first resulted in stronger businesses in the long term that came through the GFC with minimal hardship. During times like this it becomes harder to maintain subsidy schemes as other expenditure is needed to drive growth in other markets. Similarly regulations that dictate trading terms to businesses on the whole only serve in the the long term to stifle business. Things like trade limitations ( example many nations have set limits for foreign ownership of certain types of business, limits to imports in certain markets to maintain a certain percentage of local commodity maintained within the market. some countries maintain tight control over things like interest rates with regulations while others let market forces dictate these things. Artificial controls on markets never work and usually cost more to do that simply allow market forces to work. the whole reasons these are done is usually to protect interest groups for political expedience ( or to maintain a power base). Market forces when left alone can wright any downturns in the market themselves. For example when an economy falters the first thing that happens is a drop in prices. prices drop and suddenly demand increases then you have grown in the market again. it's not long until your back where you were and growing upon that. It's the J curve principle. Over regulated and protected markets interfere with the normal market forces and slow such turn arounds. If you look at the history of the share market you'll find that every collapse over the pas 120 years with the exception of the great depression took only 18 months to 2 years for the market to be back above where it was.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 28, 2013 21:55:48 GMT -5
This all sounds good to me. When I get some time, I will try to get some of your ideas implemented into my OP.
Driving market prices down by actual demand rather than letting the suppliers dictate price has always been my personal stance.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 28, 2013 23:19:09 GMT -5
This man is my successor
|
|