Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I might just vote for Mercnbeth, if we can get this Walmart situation straightened out. First of all absolutely write the Law so they cannot force themselves on a community, stop giving them any tax breaks or subsidies and take all their employees off food stamps.
I am a firm believer in fighting for others' rights, as long as they are rights. The right of a business owner to declare his establishment a smoking area. The rights of crack and smack addicts to persue their happiness, but not to use tax dollars to fix them when they destroy themselves. The right to be a prostitute. The right to be a homosexual. These are rights that I do not excercise, but rights nontheless.
I am none of these things, but I remember a saying, I think it was a Jewish saying but I don't care. They came for the Poles, I was not a Pole so..... and so forth, and then when they came for me there was nobody left.
To keep the Gays and Lesbians happy, businesses would be required to keep X amount of people on healthcare at the whim of the worker. Basically it would not be a whim, a person needs to make a declaration, and like a marriage, once on, it is very hard to get them off of it. Same way with private pensions, they would be assignable. This would not apply to social security, but that is not worth a shit anyway.
Even the right to drive after drinking is imbued with the responsibility that if one causes property damage or injury or death while driving intoxicated, it is considered a deliberate act. Just think of the deterrent, kill someone on the road and get convicted of first degree murder, possibly face the death penalty. Injure someone in that state and you go down for assault and battery. Even a fender bender would be intentional vandalism.
Actually now that I think of it social security can be handled too, you may assign a portion of your witholdings to another person.
A new way of thinking is needed, the old way is not working. We need drastic changes to make this country what it should be. They keep saying that this country was founded by Christians, but the Constitution says "Creator", not God, nor Yahweh or Jesus. They had witch hunts for Communists, but there is no law against being a Communist. Were they subversive and try to enforce their beliefs on the People ? As long as they only want to try to convince others of their belief, there is nothing wrong with it.
First of all, Communism in it's pure form can indeed work well, but it is NOT "each according to their ability and each according to their needs". The two are improper
because that removes personal responsibility to strive for excellence.
The government should have absolutely nothing to do with the scholls, although it should issue diplomas, based solely on tests. These provide proof that a person has normal competency for many tasks, and can read and write. No free education either. Pay for your kids dammit, I do not have to.
Vote for me and this is what you will get. Whaddya think ? True freedom, but coming with it is responsibility. No universal sufferage, one can become an adult at any age after some tests. If you don't pass the tests for a diploma the other tests will not be administered and you can be a minor all your life, which means your Parents must support you for the rest of their lives, or until you do pass and are an asset to society.
I bet this sounds like a rough life to some, and there are many reasons it probably wouldn't work, mainly stemming from the fact that your average sheeple out there have the minds of children. That is their parents' fault.
You want to see society change for the better ? Try that set of rules.
In my world there would be one thing that the government does actually subsidise, and that is a gun in every household. With ammunition. Want to see crime go down ? A small town in Texas tried this a few decades ago, actually requiring each household to have a firearm, ammo, and at least one person living there able to use it. What do you think happened to their crime rate ? (hint: there are no figures if you don't count zero as a figure)
The thing most people don't take into account is that when you have the freedom of choice, you must live with the consequences of your choices, good or bad. That scares some, but not me. I already live outside the legal system. I will never take anything from them, nor will I give them anything. The statutes and codes do not apply in my house, MY LAW is the last word here.
In my world, no prosecution could be started without a victim. Legislate all you want. But no, in my world a grand jury couldn't indict without a victim. Any Law proposed is limited to 100 words, and is made public before the houses vote on it, then all the votes are made public on TV, the internet and the newspapers. Private newsletters would be exempt, but if the publisher is incorporated it is part of their charter that they must do this.
The government would also publish it, and include ONLY the opinions of elected officials, not their aides, handlers or writing staff. It must come from the person we elected, and are suposed to be able to trust. Campaign promises would be enforcable by LAW. A proven lie in your campaign platform is treason, and you are executed. Still want the job ?
T
|
RE: Freedoms? Would you fight for yours? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread