A new nation with no government. What would you suggest?

We would have to assume a "buy-in" cost for participation and that buy-in would have to be vested and subject to resale if a person decided to leave. That results in "capitalism" in spite of what many believe. For example I once calculated how much it would cost for the employees of Caterpiller to own the company and each would have needed to pony-up about $270,000 as I recall. That was the value of the corporation based upon the number of employees.

 

Individuals still have the right to free speech, and the ability to agree or disagree on issues of importance without a political party to dictate to them. To assume otherwise or declare it is impossible without opposing political parties to provide such rights is not only absurd, it's totally ridiculous.
　

How in the world political parties have been given so much clout in a supposedly free country in the first place is beyond me. The entire purpose of a democratic republic is that a small minority or a major majority cannot dictate to others concerning their inalienable rights or the power to assure they are not imposed upon. By having the two controlling parties dictate policy and control the election process of all things, seems to contradict the entire premise of this nations basic principles, and should be unconstitutional without question. Would be except the two parties are the only one's who can address such improprieties, but since they are happy, how can they be dethroned, from their proverbial high horse??
　
　
The only benefit I can see by having two polar opposite parties is to insure a constant divide, so the public is distracted from realizing what is really going on. At the moment you have about 20% of the participating voting population that is diehard party extremists, so already right off the bat, the majority of the participating voting population is being disenfranchise, and left to settle for the lesser of two evils, so we are plagued with settling for the extremist nut jobs as the only options that "will" determine our leadership. The largest political party is the normal people who do not always lean towards the extremist point of view, and those who do not participate since they have nobody who represents them in the first place. The entire system is skewed simply because of the power the two dominating parties wield.

 

It isn't really the political parties that are to blame but instead it is basically an uninformed electorate. The founders of America were very much aware of this which is a primary reason they opposed "democracy" and instead chose a republican form of government based upon enumerated powers. That worked well for over 100 years but then in the late 19th Century along came the "progressives" which no longer believed in a government of limited enumerated powers.

Many misunderstand what the word "progressive" means when applied in politics. It's not about government concerns for the welfare of the People as many Democrats believe. It is about a government that is not constrained by the enumerated powers delegated to it by a Constitution. Instead of looking for authorization within the Constitution the "progressive" looks for any expressed prohibitions as they hold that anything not expressly prohibited is a power of government. While it started out being promoted by liberals the conservatived soon jumped onboard. It's expanded to the point today where even express Constitutional prohibitions, such as torture and murder, are commonly ignored by our presidents.

Sadly the electoriate has been brainwashed into believing the "progressive" philosophy regardless of whether they're Republicans or Democrats. They condemn the opposing party for being "progressive" but fully endorse it for their own agenda.

 

The only thing I disagree with is the original "progressive" party was a branch off of the republican party at the turn of the last century and many democrats (conservatives at the time) joined in, just like the "neo-con artists" branched off from the democrat party in the 1950's, bringing unsuspecting conservatives into their new fold, the republican party.
　
Democrats and republicans, are no longer constitutionalists, or actually looking out for the best interest of the nation as a whole, they are both members of a political franchise, owned and operated for and by the best government corporate money can buy these days.
　
　
The constitution is meaningless to both parties since they control the process and all three branches of government. See my signature.

 

So how would we prevent the corruption of a Constitutional government is key to the proposition of this thread.

 

In other words, a totalitarian state in which there is no incentive to create wealth or better one's self unless that incentive is in line with your narrow moral preferences.

 

What if they decide not to be communal?

 

It never really works anyway. As the original proposition stated this would be an island nation so there would be some beach front property and probably some swamp land as well. Everyone wants to live on the beach and no one wants to live in the swamp so there would be an almost instant revolution over ownership of the beach front properties.

 

Treat employees of the state exactly like what they are, employees, hold them accountable for their actions, charge & convict them when they step out of line, and stop treating them like they are above the law or part of the country's royal class.

 

The problem is that the fox is in charge of the chicken coop.

Former President Bush has not been charged with violating Title 18 Part I Chapter 113c for authorizing acts of torture that violated the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution as well as international law.

President Obama has not been impeached for violation of the 5th Amendment and laws against murder as well as international laws for his authorization of the extrajudical execution of an American citizen.

I agree that both should be held accountable under the law but who's going to prosecute them when only the government has that authority?

 

Here in lies the dilemma. They will talk smack about each other but heaven forbid they have to hold anybody accountable. Organized criminal activity, exactly why Capone had every politician in Chicago on the payroll.

 

There are ways to address this and to a limited degree it is addressed in the United States but it could be done better. For example a citizen can file a criminal complaint against another person but then it's turned over to the government to prosecute and the government can decline to do so.

Perhaps on this "Island" there can also be a means for a citizen to file a complaint directly to a Grand Jury of citizens and the Grand Jury can, if it sees probably cause to prosecute, turn the matter over for government prosecution OR to an attorney representing the plantiff in the criminal complaint. It is a thought anyway.

I would also like to see a strict rule related to the "Constitutionality" of government actions and laws. I would suggest that any law or government action that is challenged based upon it's Constitutionality be required to pass "unanimous consent" by the "Supreme Court" of the Island. If there is any question as to the Constitutionality, which would be represented by a split decision, then the action or law is unconstitutional. Eliminate any gray areas always erroring on the side of the Constitution.

 

　
　
Which is exactly why it rarely gets pursued. Same BS when dems complained about "executive orders" when Bush did it with grandeur, not even documenting most of them and then when Obama gets in he does 57 the first what 150 days he's in office. They pitchthe(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), when it is the other guy but fail to hold them accountable because the barn door has been opened and they might want to do the same when they have the opportunity.
　
So what you get is two wrongs make it right.
　
　

　
　
Yes but if it is left up to the crooked politicians, behind closed doors, where they can pass the buck appropriately, they have a tendency not to treat themselves with the same broad brush of blind justice.
　
　
　

　
Our USSC has become a political domain, that is why there are so many obviously divided decisions being made. Finding a dozen people to agree completely on anything is hard enough but when bought and paid for politicians have the controls, anything is possible. Constitutionality becomes a whim that goes to the highest bidder.

 

Please explain how you get that from what I say. How id it totalitarian.
So why isn't there incentive, isn't improving the society you live in, raising living standards, seeing better health care for the community, creating a sustainable community enough incentive for you?

What would be an incentive for you.
Getting a bigger swimming pool then the others?
Being able to be in charge because you think you know best?
Being in charge because you think you try harder?
Being the employer so you can do it your way?
Having the right to exploit the island, it's population and it's resources?

WHAT EXACTLY WOULD MOTIVATE YOU,

for me, there would be no greater motivation then seeing our nation prosper in peace and harmony. A nation where the people were not greedy, but content to live in balance with each other AND their environment.

Am I a dreamer, is it a Utopian world I am trying to create.

BLOODY OATH IT IS, Why not?

 

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MY MORALS ARE MY FRIEND.

If you did you may be surprised, no I look past my preferences as they are not those of the general community, I am not that shallow.

 

No, it is not enough if it comes at the price of violating the inalienable Rights of the Individual. What we have seen with government interventionism is that the standard of living is lowered, healthcare is of a lower quality, and a "sustainable community" is something the government has no ablity to create and all of this degradation is based upon interventionism which violates the basic inalienable rights of the individual which, by definition, is government tyranny. Few would actually support a tyrannical government.

By way of examples to support the above we need merely address the interventionism of the United States government.

The US government intervenes in the economy of the United States by issuing (Federal Reserve) promissory notes that it will not redeem for that which is promised. Because these promissory notes are discounted on the free market a person that is paid with them loses purchasing power (through inflation) so their exchange of labor for commodities is lost over time. Since the introduction of Federal Reserve notes the value of labor expended has been reduced by over 97%. This is the theft of labor by the government.

Today we have Medicare from the Federal Government but 96% of private clinics in the State of Washington refuse to accept new Medicare patients. All of these clinics will accept patients with private health insurance or those that will pay cash for services. Private insurance and cash for services provides healthcare where a government program will not. Who has better health care if one person can actually receive health care services while another cannot or where their choices are highly limited? I'll vote for private insurance and cash over any government health care program as providing superior health care.

And if we address a "sustainable community" then we need only look at the 2008 recession in the United States as an example of government failure based upon interventionism. The recession was solely the making of the federal government's monetary policies and it's promoting of debt that the People couldn't really afford.

Of course today because of Federal Reserve monetary policies interest rates are being artificially suppressed. This is costing tens of millions of Americans a huge loss of revenue because to value of money is being corrupted. Instead of historical interest rates on money in the 4%-6% range it's been suppresed to about 1%. That has reduced the income to many or most retirees to 1/4th or less of what is would be in the free market. Would a retiree be better off receiving $4000/yr for every $100,000 in the bank or are they better off receiving $1000/yr because of government interventionism in the interest rates? Their "standard of living" has been reduced by at least 75% so any statement that the government can provide an improved standard of living for the people is false.

Finally we can look at Social Security as many support it but today it offers poverty level benefits to those forced to participate. The same dollars invested in a diversified and age adjusted portfolio offer a minimum of twice as much in benefits for the individual and as much as 5 times more. Once again the standard of living is reduced by government and not improved. There are actually no examples where government inverventionism results in superior benefits or an improved standard of living for the individual.

Government interventionism is the problem and not the solution related to the welfare of the People.

 

I am traveling by rail, I think our American friends would call it 'Travelling coach ' and I feel very uncomfortable. I am surrounded by those left stranded by the Qantas grounding. I also know that a lot of them are now using the public transport network they have been reluctant to support.

 

This seems to reflect a belief that transportation systems such as rail or ferry service (we have government subsidized ferry service in WA) is required. I would argue that it is not. If the transportation system offers value to the customer the custormers are more than willing to pay for the costs of operation. Often we see government run transportation systems that ignore "value" to the customer which results in losses or where government funding is being used were the individual doesn't want or need it.

Two examples.

I love taking the train but won't. The reason is simple. I'm a smoker and AMTRAK has, for political reasons, banned the "smoking" cars from trains. As much as I would like to take the train I'm not going to take it when it means I have to spend extended periods of time being unable to smoke. AMTRAK needs to provide reasonable accommodations for smokers and if they did they would increase the number of riders many times over. AMTRAK could also focus on customer value by greatly reducing the cost of sleeping berths on their long distance trip packages. It costs very little to pull a rail car and yet AMTRAK charges more than many five star hotels for a very small berth. Customer value is what public transportation fails to address.

When it comes to the ferry system in WA they subsidize the users to the tune of a few dollars per trip. I've never asked for taxpayer money to subsidize my use of the WA ferries but I have no choice related to it. If someone wants to use the ferry then they should be willing to pay the full cost of service. There is no need or requirement for government control and subsidies for the WA State Ferry System.

 

Need I say more, thank you!

 

With only rare exceptions, such as national defense, we see that government involvement results in negative impacts on society. This is true whether we address health care, welfare, transportation, and certainly the economy.

 

Well tell all those that think like you do to bloody walk next time your fancy assed planes don't get off the ground, so us that do not mind subsidising an economical and environmentally sound transport system use it.

This is the most ridiculous reply, business and it's unlimited greed is what is screwing countries and governments. Our "Pie in the sky" attitude won't last long anyway, you will all be queuing for trains. When the bubble bursts we will see who survives the best.

 

This point fails as there is no reason for government to subsidize transportation. If we talk about air transport the customers, with the purchase of their airline tickets pay the airlines which in turn pay for air traffic control. There is no reason for a subsidy as the consumers that use air transportation will pay the cost of air traffic control and for airports in their ticket purchase. It's not even something the government needs to fund as the airlines and private pilots need airports and will pay for them as well as air traffic control.

If we talk about trains we can point to the fact that there are still privately operated trains that actually make money in the United States. Freight transport over the rails has always made money and passenger service made money until the US government became involved. We still have passenger trains that fill in a niche that earn a profit. Why should I, for example, living in WA State, subsidize a worker living in New Jersey getting to work by train? Why doesn't that worker using the train pay for the full cost of getting to work? No one is subsidizing my purchase of a car to get to work.

We have the same problem here in WA where the ferry service is subsidized to the amount of about $2.50/ticket on the ferry. We have people living on one side of the Puget Sound taking the ferry to Seattle everyday for work. Don't tell me that they can't afford an additional $2.50 to get to work.

This is the same old tired "greedy corporation" argument that is unsupported by fact. Corporations seek to provide value to the customer. If they don't provide value then consumers don't purchase their products or services and they go out of business. Business survives because it seeks a reasonable return on investment as opposed to being greedy. Most large corporations seek about an 8%-10% return on investment and that does not reflect greed. Even "big oil" which is often villified only earns a small percentage on the oil they sell to the market. They sell a lot of oil so their bottom line reflects billions of dollars in profit, usually gross profit and not net profit, so people whine about it but it doesn't reflect greed.

And who will survive when the government created bubble bursts? Those that converted their income in fiat currency into hard money will survive. When the "bubble burst" in 2008 I personally made a small fortune because I had a large percentage of my retirement assets in gold and silver coins. When a nation uses money as opposed to currency then the average person does not "lose" anything when there is a recession. They don't slowly have their labor taken from them because their labor is stored in a commodity that always has basically the same value to other commodities. Those that lose the most are the common person that has their assets in fiat currency as inflation slowly (or rapidly) steals that labor previously expended from them.

People need to ask themselves a simple question. If fiat currency is so good then why does the Federal Reserve hold it's assets in gold? What does the Federal Reserve know that the common person doesn't know? The truth is that the Federal Reserve knows that the fiat currency it's issuing isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It has a legal obligation to redeem Federal Reserve notes in gold and silver coins under Title 12 but it refuses to comply with this legal requirement. Why is that?

 

Spoken like a true capitalist, no where here do you mention the people that allow you to be rich. It is easy for you people that have everything to dismiss those that have been the ones that actually make the money. The street cleaners, garbage men, checkout operators, porters etc. All those people that just manage each week to pay their bills if they are lucky as the rest of the world pushes up land and home prices to feather their own nests.

I too retired reasonably well off, I have put all my money into helping the less fortunate. I see me grandson each week and his father is a cleaner. He works 5 days a week to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. They would never be able to afford housing or public transport if it was not subsidised. I could have used my money to buy them a small flat, but that would have been counter productive. Property prices are rising astronomically every day as the rich try desperately to get richer, if I was to tap into that "Pie in the sky" I would be as low a life as the rest.

NO WAY, we all deserve to live, to work, to eat and to have a roof over our heads, even the lower socio/economic groups. Until I can see any benevolence from business I will fight capitalism with my dying breath. Capitalists are a cancer on society. Capitalists act just like cancer in every aspect. They take all the good, the life force from the body, pack it all away for their own use, leaving the rest of the body to wither and die. Enjoy your breakfast.

 

A few years back I ran in one of our Australian Federal elections, to sit in our "House of Representatives" to try to help right the wrongs I saw. I was inspired to do this while sitting watching a combined schools coral concert.

After each school choir had done a performance their was a break. They set up rows of seats on the stage and after the break all the children took to the stage. It was a small country community and their was around 500 children on the stage.

That day I had read in a national newspaper that among school leavers there would be approximately 10% that would not find a job and about 6% that would never work. As I looked at those children I thought who would be the 30 that would never work.

When I announced my candidacy I was asked by a farmers group what I did before I entered politics. I said I was a systems analyst, they asked was that computers. I told them it was and they smiled, "So you are one of the ones causing unemployment, building Teller Machines so they close our banks, automated systems in supermarkets so they employ less staff, closing down our regional stores forcing us to go to the major towns.

I begged his pardon and asked him what he did. He said he was one of the life bone of the country people. His wheat harvest would bring in good money for our nation.

So I asked him why was the youth finding it hard to get jobs, why were they moving to the larger centres. Could it have been because his father and his fathers father employed dozens of men to harvest their crops, same as all the other broad acre farmers would have. But now they hire a contractor, who comes in with 3 or 4 combine harvesters and trucks and does in one day what took dozens of men weeks to do.

Maybe that has something to do with it? I asked how often he went to the local supermarket, was it just for bread and milk and a few necessities whilst the bulk of his needs were bought in the larger centres. Something that has been going down for years as transport got better and they had more time on their hands.

I told him that they, the farmers were screwing their own children out of jobs in the name of profit. They were destroying local business by their decision to shop in the regional centres rather than locals.

In Australia at the moment one of our iconic brands and probably our most famous, Qantas is suffering. Cheaper airlines are undercutting Qantas fares significantly and Australians are responding by deserting our brands and then we expect the government to DO SOMETHING.

Greed will destroy capitalism because greed is an integral part of capitalism. One of the things a businessman will investigate as part of his business plan is "What share of the market can I get", or in other words, what other business can I destroy so I can make more.

Been there done that, I had a small computer business, sales and service. A large chain moved to the town and sold computers at a cheaper price then I could buy them, but when asked could they service them they were told to come see me.

Without the cream from sales I had to increase my service costs and soon was driven out of business. A few years later the large chain also saw it wasn't what they expected and closed down. Now that community has nothing and I hope they all rot in hell because I went down, lost my business and home, not just due to the business but my wife had cancer at that time and I was unable to work a normal wage job.

Now until the day I die I will do my best to destroy capitalism just as capitalism destroyed me, or tried to. We shall see who gets the last laugh.

 

I've never read a statement that reflected the ignorance of the socialist more.

Yes, a business is often interested in increasing market share. They typically attempt to do this by increasing the value to the customer either through lowering the costs of the product, by improving the quality or performance of the product or a combination of both. By doing this the increase the demand for the product increasing the number of customers. If, for example, there are 100 customers and two business share that equally each has 50 customers. By lowering the costs and/or improving quality/performance the market expands to, for example, 150 customers. If one company is responsible for this then they have doubled their sales and increased their market share from 1/2 to 2/3rds of the market. The second company has not lost any sales but it has not captured any of the new sales resulting from lower prices and/or improved quality/performance of the product.

The socialist argument against this is that enterprise should not attempt to lower prices and/or improve quality/performance of the product.

Of course selling a product for less than cost in an effort to drive competitors out of business is an unfair business practice that would be prohibited under laisse faire capitalism but that seems to be ignored by the socialist.