|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 19, 2013 3:23:29 GMT -5
I wanted to give this thread another chance now that I have learned a lot about politics within the last few months. I want to outline issues that I think are important, the solutions I see and eventually when I have time, carefully draw up a "global constitution" including the rights and freedoms afforded to the people under my rule. Below will be the issues I think are important and if I haven't considered some, feel free to list them.
Taxes
No getting away from it, taxes are absolutely necessary for a money-based economy to thrive. However, instead of allowing for corporate loopholes that only serve to benefit the rich (which according to the rich, indirectly benefit the poor), I would do away with any kind of tax break period and adopt a Fair Trade Tax. Instead of taxing things like income levels, aside from property tax, there would only be a consumption tax. In other words, you only are taxed on what you buy. It seems odd at first but only at first. Let me explain.
A tax of this nature would provide revenue of at the very least, $2,400 per adult, per year in just America alone. This is unavoidable because it is a tax on the things you buy. Food, clothing, your absolutely necessary iPad, etc. So in America, that would bring in a minimum of $754,382,011,200. That is a conservative estimate due to it only being one factoring in adults in America.
This does not factor in purchases from companies and children because I think my point is made without adding that to the mix. Not only that, but it will actually lower the cost of living as well because the tax would actually be cheaper than the system currently in place for many nations, America included. Closing tax breaks would open up business potential for the smaller companies and we have competition again, which means more jobs and lower costs of living.
I am sure there are some flaws to the system but until someone points them out to me, this seems like a drastically better tax system than anything I have even heard of.
Abortion
This is a big issue and there really is no winning stance on it. Someone would be filled with murderous rage at whatever position I take. So I will leave emotion out of it and take a completely biological stance towards it.
From a biological perspective, a fetus does not have the biological components to perceive pain until after 20 weeks and there is some research that suggests pain cannot be felt until up to 30 weeks. My stance will be that abortion would be legal up until the 20 week mark (any woman that waits until after 5 months to attempt an abortion is pretty lazy and/or stupid anyway) and it would be a public service.
Making it a public service is a very controversial move but I hear too many stories about how women try "at home remedies" when they can't afford it. Which brings me to birth control.
Birth Control
Free and very much encouraged. Religious organizations don't have to worry about funding it anymore so they have no reason to complain.
Religion
Religious organizations will no longer be able to avoid taxes. They are an organization that takes money from its people. When they make purchases, they will have to pay taxes just like everyone else. Also they will have to pay their property tax. But my hope is that these organizations will die out because...
Education
This will get a giant cash dump. My goal would be to modernize every school in the world. Higher education would have more funding as well. The more people that have higher education, the better an economy is. I would be able to do that easily even in the 3rd world nations because all the money I would get from wealthier countries and because...
Military
Since I would be the ruler of the globe, there is no need for giant armies. Funding would all but cease for military. Individual countries would mostly handle their own internal affairs but should things get too crazy (like in certain parts of Africa) there would be a global police force that would be a kind of military. There is no need for it to be a swollen organization though, because it would be in place to assist individual countries when asked for (ideally).
Nuclear weapons would be completely dismantled. I never liked dirty bombs. Not because of what they can do to the human species, but because of what they can do to the Earth. And speaking of the Earth...
Environment
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch brings shame to the entire human race. I would see that and the rest of the global ecosystem restored. With all the educated people that my rule would bring, I imagine alternative fuel sources would be on the rise and fossil fuel would soon be a thing of the past.
Gay Marriage
It would be a constitutional right provided to every citizen of the planet to marry whomever they wished. I think marriage is an antiquated concept but to those that still think it has value, they would have it. Religions would not be forced to recognize it but it would be a government contract and a freedom afforded to everyone nonetheless.
Guns
Every law-abiding citizen would have the right to own a gun. It would be my guarantee to the people that they are not ruled by a tyrant or a dictator and it gives them the option to defend themselves from personal attack. But there would be certain conditions that would have to be met. Firstly, they must be educated on gun safety and must go through rigorous training in order to keep their weapons. Second is that every legal gun would have to be traceable. Much more thorough background checks would need to be performed. I don't think it is necessary to restrict firearms by type or magazine size.
Death Penalty
Absolutely will be a thing but only in cases where the evidence of guilt on a capitol crime is 100% certain.
Now in situations where a country or state does not want to have the death penalty, they are not required to have it. The very same goes for owning guns for example. But they will not be able to pass laws that prohibit those things.
Drugs
This is a costly war and it is one that needs to be fought. But I have no intention of making marijuana an illegal substance. It would be treated exactly like alcohol. It can be sold, purchased, owned but not grown. That must be done at businesses. I am toying with the idea of making them government businesses so all money raised off of the sale of marijuana would be money in school pockets. This law does not prevent busnisses or establishments from having bans on it though. If you get busted getting baked on college campus, it is the school's prerogative to expel you without refund. The same goes for your job. They cannot fire you for being a smoker but they can for smoking while on the job.
The big drugs would still be aggressively attacked via the global police.
Tobacco
I have decided to give up my battle on cigarettes. It is a disgusting habit but some people like being disgusting. However, I would absolutely refuse to allow tobacco companies to continue to put all that trash into their tobacco. If smokers insist on smoking my required kinds of cigarettes, they can do so. But not on public property. Sorry chums, second hand smoke still can potentially harm others. I liken it to the swinging fist quote, "You have the right to swing your fist all day, every day, anywhere you want. But your right to swing your fist ends the moment it makes contact with another person.". Likewise, a smoker has a right to smoke until their smoke is at risk of being inhaled by those that are not consenting parties. So in your home or designated smoking establishments or locations.
Population
Overpopulation is a big problem but I am unsure on how to tackle it. This one I am open to suggestions on.
Evolution
Scientific fact. Teachers will no longer have the right to suggest it is otherwise based on religious conviction. They can however, challenge it with science. Speaking of bad teachers...
Unions
Unions kind of are a problem in America. I am not sure about other countries but in many states, they are a "required service". That would be a no-no in my world. They would be an option, but one that absolutely is not required to be selected. Having it be optional would force unions to actually do more for the people they claim to represent rather than doing little and still picking the pockets of the employees. There will not be any laws allowed that bar unions from forming either. Also, bad teachers, police officers, etc that are currently invincible with the union would have no such luck in my world. If a teacher is a terrible teacher, the school absolutely has the option to terminate their employment, union or no. Same with police officers.
That is all I really have for the moment. What do you guys think? It is a major step away from my previous thread, if any of you remember that. Would you like to live in my economically stable, education focused, environmentally conscious world?
|
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Jan 19, 2013 6:00:09 GMT -5
I was waiting to debate on the abortion part then I read more and that's how I feel about it. When I life is sentient, no one has the right to take it away. Population, well you build more homes, you have more homes for people. So all that space between areas America has, you know them films where they have the long roads. Houses could be built on them. If your planet is "united" then it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe just build houses that soot the climate and not g for the 4 walls and a top. Which I hate by the way. Never liked them. Maybe you could sort that? Create technological homes. Might cost a lot, but the world is united and if it is money shouldn't THAT much of a problem.  Especially taxes them crafty religious organisations. |
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jan 19, 2013 6:35:25 GMT -5
The only problem I have is taxes. Consumption tax would discourage people from spending beyond the bare necessities, which is exactly what you don't want to do. Modern economies depend on people spending as much as possible. Spending creates demand, demand creates supply, supply creates jobs, jobs make more money. A consumption tax would mess with the underlying foundations of economy something fierce.
EDIT: Also, regarding gun freedoms, nobody really gives a fuck about those outside the US and would probably rather have a good degree of regulation in place. But you can leave that option to the individual countries I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 19, 2013 14:28:23 GMT -5
I was waiting to debate on the abortion part then I read more and that's how I feel about it. When I life is sentient, no one has the right to take it away. Population, well you build more homes, you have more homes for people. So all that space between areas America has, you know them films where they have the long roads. Houses could be built on them. If your planet is "united" then it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe just build houses that soot the climate and not g for the 4 walls and a top. Which I hate by the way. Never liked them. Maybe you could sort that? Create technological homes. Might cost a lot, but the world is united and if it is money shouldn't THAT much of a problem. Especially taxes them crafty religious organisations. Our global overpopulation problem is not that we don't have homes for all the people, it is that it takes us about 1.5 years to replace all the resources we use up every year. This means we are slowly running out. Our population is such that the planet just can't support us as things currently are. Modern "green homes" do actually help with that but all by itself, it does almost nothing. It needs to be done in combination with several other things to make it effective. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 19, 2013 14:42:07 GMT -5
The only problem I have is taxes. Consumption tax would discourage people from spending beyond the bare necessities, which is exactly what you don't want to do. Modern economies depend on people spending as much as possible. Spending creates demand, demand creates supply, supply creates jobs, jobs make more money. A consumption tax would mess with the underlying foundations of economy something fierce. EDIT: Also, regarding gun freedoms, nobody really gives a fuck about those outside the US and would probably rather have a good degree of regulation in place. But you can leave that option to the individual countries I guess. I disagree. Many countries already have a consumption tax. It's why that $0.89 stick of gum actually costs $1.00. They just call it other things depending on where you live. Fortunately, people much smarter than I am have outlined how a Fair Trade Tax would actually lower prices on product overall. For example, a can of soda which currently goes for $1.50 here in the states would be about $0.80 total. They gave several reasons for this but the ones I can recall off of the top of my head are that since the cost of materials would go down under this tax, so then would cost of production, which in turn would lower cost of purchase. The other reason is overall lighter and dramatically less complicated taxes would seriously encourage new business and entrepreneurs, which would also lower price of product through competition. That is just under the current model. I am sure much more satisfactory models could be made after something like this is implemented and everyone has a clear understanding of what it is. As for guns, few other developed nations care one way or another, which is fine. But they won't be able to pass laws that violate these individual rights of a citizen of Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jan 20, 2013 1:15:37 GMT -5
Overpopulation is a big problem but I am unsure on how to tackle it. This one I am open to suggestions on. Workforce and education,, the world isn't really over-populated yet rather resources are vastly unequally distributed. Assuming you have the entire world under your control, third world regions would provide a stable and steady supply of workers to give you the numbers to tackle large scale issues like cleaning up the environment, dismantling dangerous and rundown construction, building structures to improve society as a whole (schools, research labs, etc) People in third world regions want to work to support themselves and live comfortably provided they are dutifully and fairly remunerated for their efforts. So use your education system to create the personnel you need to make large scale changes. With a correct handle on the flow of natural resources you can feed them and turn them into an asset to change the world. And from there, general violence and societal issues will drop as daily life becomes a lot more comfortable. I'm not going to touch the gun issue, I'm fed up debating it . I personally think the U.S approach to the issue is incorrect. I've laid out my position. Guns are fine, how they are regulated now isn't and having to rely guns in the hands of individual private citizens to feel safe is indicative that your state security and police force is not effective. What the world needs is competent and diligent systems of social security and law enforcement, not for private citizens to have to buy guns to feel safe. As for the death penalty. I'll just state that the death penalty is financially more costly then life imprisonment and does not make the state safer in the long run, because unlike in comics. Maximum security facilities do work. Therefore I am against the death penalty. Because it cost too much money. Let the guy rot in prison, cheaper. Here's an example: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 20, 2013 3:19:37 GMT -5
I was thinking something similar about education helping with our global workforce but I disagree on the suggestion that we are not really overpopulated as a planet. I have only heard the opposite from specialists on the matter. I can pull up the figures if you want them but if it were a distribution problem, recovery of resources would not take half a year longer than it should.
Developing impoverished nations would be a priority which I believe education would tackle but adding modernized living conditions is another way to help with that, as Supreme already suggested.
Even the most effective police force on the planet cannot prevent your attack before it happens unless they just happen to be there. Maybe one day crime would not be an issue and citizens would feel safe enough to put away their guns but it is absolutely wrong to restrict someone's right to defend themselves with equal or greater force. I strongly believe it to be wrong to give up freedoms for security. I also don't subscribe to egalitarian communal thinking where individual rights are curtailed because a group of people don't like the way those other people think. If I did feel that way, I would ban religion and prosecute those that practiced. But as a Libertarian, I tend to lean towards individualist thinking, which is something sorely lacking from a person with a liberal political bend.
That is not the cost of the death penalty. That is the cost of court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jan 20, 2013 6:06:36 GMT -5
I disagree. Many countries already have a consumption tax. It's why that $0.89 stick of gum actually costs $1.00. They just call it other things depending on where you live. Fortunately, people much smarter than I am have outlined how a Fair Trade Tax would actually lower prices on product overall. For example, a can of soda which currently goes for $1.50 here in the states would be about $0.80 total. They gave several reasons for this but the ones I can recall off of the top of my head are that since the cost of materials would go down under this tax, so then would cost of production, which in turn would lower cost of purchase. The other reason is overall lighter and dramatically less complicated taxes would seriously encourage new business and entrepreneurs, which would also lower price of product through competition. I'm not sure how that would work. I mean, you still need to buy goods to make goods, so all the material needed to make gum would be taxed, which would still drive to cost of the final product up. Unless you're internalizing the entire production from start to finish or something... Yeah, but... what if they want to? Like there are plenty of countries around like the UK who culturally abhor guns and want them as far the hell away from their society as possible. Now I'm getting an amusing image of you forcing guns on them to prove how non tyrannical you are. UK: Ew, those guns are nasty and ugly and icky and dangerous. Get them away from us! Erik I The Magnificent: Shut the hell up! You're gonna take your guns and you're gonna like them! And then you're all gonna write a 100 page essay on what a benevolent ruler I am and how you're totally happy under my rule! And then you drive off in a car full of Amazon bodyguard babes. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 20, 2013 13:43:54 GMT -5
No you are missing the fact that this stuff is already taxed. The model for a straight consumption tax in its current form would be a lower tax overall. How would it drive the cost up when it costs companies less?
Seems to me that if you need a law prohibiting guns, then there are people that want them. If your country is truly so enlightened, not only would you not need a law banning guns, your country would remain completely unchanged if a lift on the ban was put in place. Me providing you the right of choice is not forcing you to carry. You can choose to not own a gun. Criminals are still not allowed to own firearms so I don't see how your society would be affected at all unless what you previously said about them not caring is untrue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jan 22, 2013 4:46:10 GMT -5
Man I thought the bodyguard babes would get at least get a chuckle out of you.  But wouldn't you have to raise the taxes on that stuff considerably to compensate for all the other taxes being dumped in a shallow grave? |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 22, 2013 21:35:16 GMT -5
Man I thought the bodyguard babes would get at least get a chuckle out of you. But wouldn't you have to raise the taxes on that stuff considerably to compensate for all the other taxes being dumped in a shallow grave? I actually was planning on commenting about the babes but I was on my phone so when I forgot, I was too lazy to spend another 40 minutes to add a 'lol' to my post about it. But yes, that is how I would roll. They would all be dressed as Wonder Woman too.  But to your question, all the taxes being dumped would cause the sales tax to be raised yes, but since all those other costs that make up that product would be coming down as a result, the sales tax would be high (say something like 15 - 20% or whatever) but the overall outcome would be a less expensive product through less company cost and much more competition. I am no mathematician nor am I an economist so really, the best I can do is parrot the consensus of these "experts" that claim it is not only viable, but a vastly superior system than what is currently used by many countries. They have a website, which at this point I think would be best to direct you at to keep from misinterpreting/mistranslating information to you. www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorksNow it is geared towards only America obviously but I think if it would reverse our current situation, I see no reason why it couldn't work on a global level under a single government. |
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 23, 2013 8:15:19 GMT -5
The only problem I have is taxes. Consumption tax would discourage people from spending beyond the bare necessities, which is exactly what you don't want to do. Modern economies depend on people spending as much as possible. Spending creates demand, demand creates supply, supply creates jobs, jobs make more money. A consumption tax would mess with the underlying foundations of economy something fierce. EDIT: Also, regarding gun freedoms, nobody really gives a fuck about those outside the US and would probably rather have a good degree of regulation in place. But you can leave that option to the individual countries I guess. Consumption taxes do work. In Australia we have had them for quite some time ( also in New Zealand). Ironically they were something that two of the greatest economic minds of our country agreed on in private but fought on in public. When Paul Keating was treasurer he wanted to introduce an indirect tax system ( something he and his opposite number John Howard of his political opposing party often discussed was necessary for the country - that and free trade). His "liberal party ( the Labour party) would never allow that to happen the way he wanted so he gradually introduced many singular indirect taxes aimed solely at luxury items or things only the wealthy could afford. When Howard became prime minister he introduced a full indirect system. Basically you pay a 10% tax on everything you purchase. If the things you purchase are the cost of doing business or a commodity you use to produce another good or service you claim that. since you pay every quarter the GST you pay for goods to produce the things you produce simply comes off the GST you have to pay for the product or service you've sold. The overall cost to the consumer is only 10% on the total of the product as a whole. Believe me it's a much more simple system that is harder to get around and much cheaper to enforce or police. We still have a small income tax system but to be honest for most when you do your tax return and with other levelling things it amounts to almost nothing for an entire year. Those who are wealthy or on high incomes are really the only ones who still pay any real income tax. |
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 23, 2013 8:27:02 GMT -5
I was waiting to debate on the abortion part then I read more and that's how I feel about it. When I life is sentient, no one has the right to take it away. Population, well you build more homes, you have more homes for people. So all that space between areas America has, you know them films where they have the long roads. Houses could be built on them. If your planet is "united" then it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe just build houses that soot the climate and not g for the 4 walls and a top. Which I hate by the way. Never liked them. Maybe you could sort that? Create technological homes. Might cost a lot, but the world is united and if it is money shouldn't THAT much of a problem. Especially taxes them crafty religious organisations. Our global overpopulation problem is not that we don't have homes for all the people, it is that it takes us about 1.5 years to replace all the resources we use up every year. This means we are slowly running out. Our population is such that the planet just can't support us as things currently are. Modern "green homes" do actually help with that but all by itself, it does almost nothing. It needs to be done in combination with several other things to make it effective. See the problem her is it isn't so much the over population that is causing these issues as it is the multinational corporations and their greed. A few of the most heavily populated areas on the globe do not suffer these issues. For example in third world nations poor people can't support themselves sustainably on the land as they have for centuries because the methods they use to do so can't yield enough economically enough to pay well. Large corporations with short sighted outlooks buy their land for a song and them make them work it for a pittance with machinery that they provide to do the job more efficiently. In doing so they reduce the long term fertility of the soil in the zest to get big profits fast. Not an issue as they see it because another cheap bit of dirt will show up soon. If these same 3rd world farmer had access to the machinery to work the land themselves as they originally owned it they would increase their yield but as that bit of land is all they would have for life they would allow for fallow land to regenerate on the property while other fields yielded, the same way responsible farmers have done since the industrial revolution and a little before Trust me the world population isn't the problem it's played up to be, it the irresponsible attitudes of big business that is screwing the planet and always has been |
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock Laforet on Jan 23, 2013 11:57:15 GMT -5
A few things i want to throw out here
First the world isnt over populated.We could stand to feed at least 3 times what we have currently.If you truly believe that it is overpopulated then the only way to change that is to start a war,or plague to kill them off or stop having children.TBH im not really one for killing millions of people because someone said the world is over populated.Not having kids will also be stupid since you would just have a bunch of older people and no younger ones.China is currently having this problem
Taxing a religious organization more than they already are is a blunder.A church for example makes enough via donations to support the establishment and the people who run it.In order to tax it you are going to have to make the people of your world pay for it.Since not everyone is the same religion taxing it is going to be amazingly difficult.That why its easier just not to do so
Evolution is not a fact,never has been proven,and never can be proven.Evolution isnt a testable theory (And yes its a theory) and can thereby never be called the law of evolution.Further more most of the evidence that is used for evolution isnt very conclusive.Evolutionists are going off of very little aside from faith making them no better than religious fanatics.Evolution isnt a science,its a religion
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 23, 2013 14:07:54 GMT -5
See the problem her is it isn't so much the over population that is causing these issues as it is the multinational corporations and their greed. A few of the most heavily populated areas on the globe do not suffer these issues. For example in third world nations poor people can't support themselves sustainably on the land as they have for centuries because the methods they use to do so can't yield enough economically enough to pay well. Large corporations with short sighted outlooks buy their land for a song and them make them work it for a pittance with machinery that they provide to do the job more efficiently. In doing so they reduce the long term fertility of the soil in the zest to get big profits fast. Not an issue as they see it because another cheap bit of dirt will show up soon. If these same 3rd world farmer had access to the machinery to work the land themselves as they originally owned it they would increase their yield but as that bit of land is all they would have for life they would allow for fallow land to regenerate on the property while other fields yielded, the same way responsible farmers have done since the industrial revolution and a little before Trust me the world population isn't the problem it's played up to be, it the irresponsible attitudes of big business that is screwing the planet and always has been By any scientific definition of the phrase, the planet is very much overpopulated by humans. I have no idea why people think of overpopulation as a "population density" issue because it isn't. Overpopulation is defined by the numbers of people living in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. So when exactly would an area be considered overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources or when renewable resources must be converted into nonrenewable resources and when the population has a degrading effect on the area's capacity to support the population. So when a area is being degraded by its human population, it is overpopulated. Using this standard, every nation in the world is overpopulated. China is a great example of this. Their population was so out of control, they had to implement heavy fines to families that had more than one child. Their population has just gotten to a point that it is under control but they are still trying to reduce their numbers to get as far away from destroying themselves as possible. Now I think they are going about it in a way that will be catastrophic on their population in about a decade or so but that is another segment of conversation. The US is overpopulated because we are using up our soil and potable water resources and we are a massive contributor to the destruction of the global environment. Other first world nations contribute heavily to overpopulation due to their carbon footprints. Every first world nation contributes due to their dramatic consumption of global resources. Nations that cannot thrive on their own resources... Beatboks is partially right in that big business is to blame. That is part of it. It is not the complete equation though. Your sight is too narrow and in my opinion, maybe influenced by views that are too "left". What I mean by that is that the problem is always the big bad corporations and it is never the fault of the masses in an exaggerated example. Everyone is to blame on our overpopulation issue. You, me, Sherlock, everyone. The only things I can even find denying overpopulation is from people that are not experts in the field or are politicians. I have in my corner, Stanford scientist and ecologist Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich and climatologist professor of environmental biology and global change at Stanford Dr. Stephen H. Schneider on my side to name a few more popular scientists. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlichen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_SchneiderI find it alarming when people take the word of politicians and uneducated naysayers over scientists. I myself am nowhere near an expert on this matter but I do allow myself to be led by the claims of these scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 23, 2013 14:40:01 GMT -5
A few things i want to throw out here First the world isnt over populated.We could stand to feed at least 3 times what we have currently.If you truly believe that it is overpopulated then the only way to change that is to start a war,or plague to kill them off or stop having children.TBH im not really one for killing millions of people because someone said the world is over populated.Not having kids will also be stupid since you would just have a bunch of older people and no younger ones.China is currently having this problem Taxing a religious organization more than they already are is a blunder.A church for example makes enough via donations to support the establishment and the people who run it.In order to tax it you are going to have to make the people of your world pay for it.Since not everyone is the same religion taxing it is going to be amazingly difficult.That why its easier just not to do so Evolution is not a fact,never has been proven,and never can be proven.Evolution isnt a testable theory (And yes its a theory) and can thereby never be called the law of evolution.Further more most of the evidence that is used for evolution isnt very conclusive.Evolutionists are going off of very little aside from faith making them no better than religious fanatics.Evolution isnt a science,its a religion What evidence do you have that we can feed 21 billion human beings long term? No one is suggesting genocide and I already admitted I was unsure how to tackle the overpopulation issue myself. China has no law about having no children. Their law limits the freedom to have children to 1. Any children beyond that is fined the equivalent of thousands of dollars. Since they have this in place to reduce their unsustainable numbers, and because traditional Chinese culture still believes in "carrying on the family name" through men, they prefer to have male children. China is still heavily populated, they just opt to make their one child a male child. It is a flawed system long term but maybe not as a short term plan. In the short term, say 30 years, they will only 1 male in every 5 to 7 that will be able to reproduce. No one dies, they just have no women to reproduce with. At such a time, their law on limiting children could easily be lifted. Their law does not make a problem for population, it makes a social problem as there will be millions of men that never get to have sex. More than they already are? Religious organizations are free of most taxes just because they are religious organizations. Why do you think certain people try to avoid taxes by creating their own "religion"? Churches do not barely squeak by on their donations. Besides, if you had understood the restructured tax system, religious organizations are taxed the very same way everyone else will be. They are not being penalized, they are just being held to the same standard as everyone else. If they cannot survive on such standards, then they are a business not meant to thrive. No bailouts for failing businesses here. Adapt or fail. Organized religion is probably one of the most limiting things about our modern age so if the Westboro Baptist Church needs to disband due to lack of funds, I wont be shedding any tears. Actually, evolution is a fact and a theory. It is not however, a law. Every living thing that we are aware of evolves. We know this. What we don't know is how it all started. That is what has not been proven. There are theories that DNA started from RNA but that is all theory. I am getting the impression you are a little confused on these science terms. Evolution is an observable event. The only people that deny this are those that have not taken undergraduate level science classes... or deny the teachings therein. Evolution is testable, observable and very much supported through science; factual and verifiable data. The layman does not truly understand the difference between terms like adaptation, variation, evolution, speciation, mutation, genetic drift, traits, all the types of selections, fitness, recombination, gene flow, and several other factors that contribute to the dynamics of life on Earth. I am sorry to say but you are flat wrong on your stance that evolution is a religion. Religion is not guided by evidence, research and hypotheses and null hypotheses. Religion is guided by faith. faith by definition is the belief in something without any evidence at all to back it up. Faith is the exact opposite of science right to its core. Evolution is a product of scientific observation, research, verification, peer review, and support via collected data. |
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 24, 2013 5:01:38 GMT -5
your stance. Basically is that their are insufficient. Resources to sustain the. Population. This is incorrect. The planet has. Sustained more than is currently on it with less of a foot print. While human population is at a high animal l population is at an all time low.
The biggest contribution to our ecological woes is that man's "civilized systems" interfere with the symbolic relation that was intended in nature between all living organisms. For example in nature when an animal (even man) ate a fruit or vegitation we usually consumer the seeds. Natures intent is that when we pass them ( and Urinate etc) we effectively sow the seed furtilize it and. irrigate it to cause germination. Think off all the nutrients that the earth soil has been denied over the past few hundred years by a simple thing like plunging/sewage.
See the think is that all scientific studies etc still base on a status quo. They still assume that social structure and systems as. They exist. Will continue. Lets say for. Argument sake that some Changes are made. If for example here in Australia infrastructure was changed so that public waste was pipes to the Australian out back ( desert) and. The human waste turned into the soil. Suddenly our huge desert ( unproductive land) becomes fertile able to produce crops, vegitation etc. As such it produces oxygen, reverts and helps rebuild the ozone layer. Do you know what else it yields? WATER , the simple Process of evaporation ( not just from The moisture in the human waste but the moisture given off by plants etc) and precipitation means more clean water. Imagine the effect if this as done by every culture/nation on the globe. Water, food, timber for construction ( as it can be grown where metal ores have a limited supply) would all be plentiful to supply far more than those we currently do.
So you see the way we have structured our society has a LOT more to do with resource shortages than the actual number of people on the planet. The other thing of course is fuels . Has it never dawn ed on anyone that fossil fuels are from crushed compacted flora and fauna . We get energy from long dead plants and animals. Today we know that energy can't be created or destroyed right? What's the bet the same energy is in those very plants waiting for us to find a way to extract it. Plants that we d have more of than ever.
As a final point the. Chemicals we use as fertilizers while yielding crops in the Now Have the Effect of burning out the soil in the long run. Expedience is man's worst enemy.
I'll get to religion, guns etc soon
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 24, 2013 9:41:15 GMT -5
I'll be brief on both.
First I understand if someone takes issue with Religion. It's not my stance and I would never push my beliefs on anyone but I understand. I think many parts of religious movements get things wrong but this is because those guiding the faith are human and make mistakes. For myself I went to a catholic school that taught evolution, the big bang and everything else. I was actually taught in religious lessons that most of the old testament was in fact fiction. that the book of genisis etc were simply stories told by the Jews to explain things they didn't have the answers for. We were taught that the messages of the profits of love were what truly mattered. I could go on and explain how I can scientifically explain using highly regarded theories ( like Einstien Rosen Bridge theory, general relativity etc)the "mysteries of God" as defined by the church , but that's not the intent of this post
Erik said he religions would no longer be able to avoid taxes. I'm not sure that they do, but I think it's important to look at the work they do. I can't speak for everywhere naturally but for example in my own parish the local church funds several schools, hostel, Hospitals, aged care and palliative care facilities. Plus outreach programs to helm youth going down the wrong road and many other things that would otherwise put a strain on the public purse.
I've known in previous parishes catholic priests who wear hand me down cloths, lived on marked down spoiled foods and traveled a large parish via bicycle. This same priest after services would approach parish member he knew were doing things tough and give them moneys from the parish collection to help them through difficulties.
If these are the types of religious organizations that you want to garner more tax from I think your idea would be very counter productive.
Now the notion that the right to bare arms is essential to ensure freedom Is something I'll admit totally baffles me. I understand that it is an underpinning concept behind the culture of the American nations but I truly don't get it and history proves it to be false. there are many revolutions in the history of man where an unarmed populous achieved freedom from an armed oppressor. In the late 1700's the French peasants rose up against their tyrannical monarchy, armed with noting more than house hold objects against the armies of France armed with muskets and swords and trained in their use. It wasn't weapons that won them their freedom it was will, resolve, and courage. India achieved independence though peaceful protests led by Ghandi. In south Africa the beliefs and commitment of Nelson Mandela willing to be imprisoned for his beliefs and values turned world perception against a government until it finally succeeded and negotiated with him. He won the support of the wider world because for most of his resistance to apartheid he adopted a non violent approach ( only turning to small acts of violence and sabotage one year before his imprisonment).
It's not guns that ensure freedoms it's the hearts and minds and will of a people prepared to accept nothing short of that.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jan 24, 2013 9:49:34 GMT -5
And with that I broke my soap box
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 24, 2013 18:47:17 GMT -5
*Looks at two mega posts, falls out of chair*
I am going to try and address both of these as best I can. But first, I have to read the darn things lol.
|
|
Especially taxes them crafty religious organisations.
