Your Version of a Perfect Political Climate or Society?!

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Please describe what your vision of a perfect society or civilization or utopia looks like. Who runs the show and what are their credentials? If your version of a "perfect society" isn't based on freedom and liberty then please explain why your model is superior to America's original Constitutional Republic.

Hm... K. I'll answer just for fun. It would essentially be what we have now with key differences.

Constitutional differences:
The Constitution would have been written to include the inalienable rights of the Declaration (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). Separation of powers would be more strictly enforced, so the executive and judicial branches couldn't give themselves legislative authority through fiat. The Second Amendment would still allow owning a gun but would explicitly require joining the local militia (meaning the state defense force, not a redneck gang) for monthly drill and safety education. The states would be less dominated by the federal government and it would take more than just one large liberal city to bulldoze over the rights of everyone outside that one city at every turn. The Equal Rights Amendment would be part of the Constitution. We would have an amendment declaring that corporations have no personhood or civil rights.

Other legal differences:
Taxes would be higher. Abortion would be classed under murder with the performing doctor charged. Voting regulations would be strictly enforced to keep Democrats from using to the votes of illegal immigrants and convicted felons. The vote counting process would be closely monitored to keep Republicans from fudging the numbers. Bob Riley, Karl Rove, and select other criminal scum would be in prison. It would be illegal for the press to report sensitive information like troop movements (like what Fox loved to do back in Second Iraq War). Prisons would focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The death penalty would be abolished. Gay marriage would be federally legal. Drug addiction and use would be classed as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue.

Government program differences:
We would have a functional universal healthcare and free college education. NASA would be a strong and active program. TVA would be another strong and active program and would offer work and experience to the unemployed and enable the restoration of public resources like roads.

Territorial differences:
All Mexican citizens would be given US citizenship. Mexico would be annexed, by force if necessary, and its states made US states. Puerto Rico would be granted full independence.

How would we reach your goals? Force? Wishful thinking? Coercion? Bribery? Brainwashing? Other?

We couldn't at this point. Parts (like requiring militia membership to own a gun) are highly unconstitutional right now. Parts (like restricting the parties' primary methods of winning elections) would never be allowed to happen. The annexation of Mexico would most likely be condemned by Russia and very well could lead to WWIII.

Are your goals realistic? Can mankind in it's current immoral (and often amoral) condition even come close to realizing your dream?

Nope. Not in the least.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

 

[DriftingSand]

Please describe what your vision of a perfect society or civilization or utopia looks like. Who runs the show and what are their credentials? If your version of a "perfect society" isn't based on freedom and liberty then please explain why your model is superior to America's original Constitutional Republic.

Hm... K. I'll answer just for fun. It would essentially be what we have now with key differences.

Constitutional differences:
The Constitution would have been written to include the inalienable rights of the Declaration (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). Separation of powers would be more strictly enforced, so the executive and judicial branches couldn't give themselves legislative authority through fiat. The Second Amendment would still allow owning a gun but would explicitly require joining the local militia (meaning the state defense force, not a redneck gang) for monthly drill and safety education. The states would be less dominated by the federal government and it would take more than just one large liberal city to bulldoze over the rights of everyone outside that one city at every turn. The Equal Rights Amendment would be part of the Constitution. We would have an amendment declaring that corporations have no personhood or civil rights.

Other legal differences:
Taxes would be higher. Abortion would be classed under murder with the performing doctor charged. Voting regulations would be strictly enforced to keep Democrats from using to the votes of illegal immigrants and convicted felons. The vote counting process would be closely monitored to keep Republicans from fudging the numbers. Bob Riley, Karl Rove, and select other criminal scum would be in prison. It would be illegal for the press to report sensitive information like troop movements (like what Fox loved to do back in Second Iraq War). Prisons would focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The death penalty would be abolished. Gay marriage would be federally legal. Drug addiction and use would be classed as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue.

Government program differences:
We would have a functional universal healthcare and free college education. NASA would be a strong and active program. TVA would be another strong and active program and would offer work and experience to the unemployed and enable the restoration of public resources like roads.

Territorial differences:
All Mexican citizens would be given US citizenship. Mexico would be annexed, by force if necessary, and its states made US states. Puerto Rico would be granted full independence.

How would we reach your goals? Force? Wishful thinking? Coercion? Bribery? Brainwashing? Other?

We couldn't at this point. Parts (like requiring militia membership to own a gun) are highly unconstitutional right now. Parts (like restricting the parties' primary methods of winning elections) would never be allowed to happen. The annexation of Mexico would most likely be condemned by Russia and very well could lead to WWIII.

Are your goals realistic? Can mankind in it's current immoral (and often amoral) condition even come close to realizing your dream?

Nope. Not in the least.

1) Thanks for a real response to my questions.
2) Pretty good answers even if I don't agree 100%

 

[DriftingSand]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

Even your benevolent dictator?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

Even your benevolent dictator?

Nope. That's kind of the point eh?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

Then you would have to apply that logic to your dictator. Both sides of the equation have to be the same.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

Then you would have to apply that logic to your dictator. Both sides of the equation have to be the same.

The dictator is smart, his subjects are stupid. There's no issue here, except for you not being able to put two and two together.

 

[DriftingSand]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

Even your benevolent dictator?

Nope. That's kind of the point eh?

So what you're saying is that there can't be a better society than the one envisioned by the Founders because all governments run by "dumb" humans will/would be horribly imperfect. That being the case, we should embrace their vision as the best we will ever experience.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

Then you would have to apply that logic to your dictator. Both sides of the equation have to be the same.

The dictator is smart, his subjects are stupid. There's no issue here, except for you not being able to put two and two together.

What makes him smart? I would surmise that he is insecure. Strongmen, dictators are cowards.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

Even your benevolent dictator?

Nope. That's kind of the point eh?

So what you're saying is that there can't be a better society than the one envisioned by the Founders because all governments run by "dumb" humans will/would be horribly imperfect. That being the case, we should embrace their vision as the best we will ever experience.

No, that's absolutely not what I'm saying. Put a smart guy in the driver's seat and everyone else pushes. Most of you will end up in a very happy place, if he's a good guy that is. That part is very important. Your first indicator is, he doesn't want the job. That's your starting point.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.

Humans are generally dumb as dog shit, so, what's the problem?

Then you would have to apply that logic to your dictator. Both sides of the equation have to be the same.

The dictator is smart, his subjects are stupid. There's no issue here, except for you not being able to put two and two together.

What makes him smart? I would surmise that he is insecure. Strongmen, dictators are cowards.

They can be, but mostly they are men of Will, who want to get things done. It's hard as hell to get anything done here, which is by design. A strongman has no such problem.