The Society Right For You?
Political: Politically instead of a dip shit "president" (what is this a fan club) I want a royal monarch established with a king and queen. Not those figureheads in UK who allow the prime minister to do the real ruling. It would bring more class and dignity to the U.S and bring proper etiquette to younger people. It would be beneficial and unique.
Government and Police: I know this will sound bat shit insane of me but I think the Combine from Half Life 2 had the right idea in their society. Crime was at an estimated low as well as violence and no thoughts of terrorism or harm and everyone while angry were very safe (I've learned that no matter what society you're in people will bitch about it). The police of these days are ignorant and incompetent (not everywhere but many of the places I've visited)
Another issue: This country is racially ignorant. A friend of mine in the police department says in their computer system database say there is no middle man besides white or black. No Hispanics, Native Americans or Asians (me). Not only is that just factually wrong its ignorant as well. Don't make basic human rights for just blacks and whites. There have never been Asian, Hispanic nor Native American presidents. What does that tell you?
I hope you've at least read my points. I'd like to hear yours as well
Comments
I'm happy reading your idea. Since I find your ideas unique (and interesting), I shall answer with mine:
Political: Although I also find modern presidents far from good, I dislike the idea of monarchy. Yeah, some monarchs can be cool, but others can be a-holes. Voting may be an illusion in some cases. I prefer universal suffrage for citizens to vote.
So here's my plan, citizens vote for a new Minister of the Federal State, which then votes for the President of the Country (which controls both executive and legislative branch of the country) and, the Minister, votes the Supreme Judge of the State. The President votes the Supreme Judge of the Country. TL;DR: indirect vote, I guess.
Police: I prefer Militsiya/Militia, a composition of non-professional citizens of a country that can be called for a fighting situation, instead of a professional force of full-time police or military personnel.
Another issue: Racism sucks always. To add something more, I'd love that the government build a group of buildings together, making communities, based on the idea that each individual work in accordance with its passions in his or her community. The idea of those communities are known as Phalanstère. I know, it's quite utopic. Also, Social Security, Public Transport, Healthcare and Education must be supported for by the Country.
EDIT: I prefer the President to represent the people and not the country.
Political: Monarchy isn't a very sound idea. Letting someone rule based on birth/marriage does not guarantee that they are qualified. People who run, know that they are qualified. A monarch, while being taught it, is basically handed everything on a silver platter, never earning for themselves, which is one of the things people will are presidents/senators/whatever work for. Someone might be born rich, but there's no guarantee they going to succeed. When it's a monarch, they, no matter their competence, will have to rule. Plus succession if something happens can lead to civil war.
Government and Police: I honestly have nothing to hide, so if they want to go NSA on me, let them. Safety > Freedom.
Another issue: So, here's the thing. Asians make up about 5% of the population, Native Americans are even less than that. Hispanics make up about 15%, African-American 12%. But these numbers don't matter. The race, sex, whatever of a president do not make them any more or less qualified than any other. Just because there hasn't been any Asian, NA, or Hispanic presidents isn't a crime. I'm somewhat confused about the 'middle man' in the police department. Can you explain that a bit?
According to computer programming you're either white or black. You don't see that as a problem. And English history has shown Monarchs work with the exception of King Henry the eighth
Eh, but for every Henry VIII we get, umm, well, (Insert terrible president here)
Simply put, the worst presidents are better than the worst monarchs.
Yeah? Richard Lionheart spent his days fighting wars and conquering, he didn't even rule England most of the time. John Lackland was an inept king and the barons rebelled against him, forcing him to accept the Magna Carta, which curbed his rights severely and effectively turned England for a time into quasi-republic. Henry III was effectively a footnote in history, he's one of the least remarkable kings of England. Aside from him being the father of Edward I, he had little to no noticeable impact. Edward II didn't really bother to rule England, mostly focusing on his favourites, first Piers Gaveston and then the Despenser family. After the relatively successful Plantagenet kings the realm was destabilized by the War of Roses, during which the crown changed hands numerous times. Effectively it wasn't until Henry VII Tudor that England somewhat stabilized, and it took his son, Henry VIII, and his son's exploits to destabilize the realm once more.
I could go on and on about it, but I don't think that the history of England has shown us that monarchs work.
Reagan (at least imo) is the only recent good president. Many things have gotten better as time goes on
Bush Sr. is way underappreciated. But I'm going to disagree heavily about Reagan, and the way a lot of conservatives see Reagan is very different from his actual presidency.
Nixon is another one who gets a bad rap - sure, Watergate was pretty bad, but on the whole he was a pretty good president. Sure he was conservative, but he was responsive to pressure, which is probably why Chomsky called him the last liberal president.
So.... you want an autocratic leadership in a totalitarian society?
I can think of a leader you might like... He had programs to 'bring proper etiquette to younger people' too.
Edit: I'm largely joking, but betweeen police militarization and NSA domestic spying, we're getting there. And while a president may lack the formality of a monarchy, you have to admit, Obama is much more dignified than President 'talks with his mouth full while swearing in front of the British Prime Minister.'
Also, in movies and video games, when you have a group of people in long coats and gas masks, nine times out of ten they're modeled after the Nazis...
Reagan ended the Cold War. He provided weapons and defenses for the Contras when Congress was about to let innocent men, women and children die for a few bad seeds
You mean Iran Contra where Reagan sold weapons to Iran in order to fund Nicaraguan rebels, the funding of whom had been banned by congress? The Contras were far from being 'the good guys.'
They were our allies fighting against communists and terrorists real scum. Only a few were smuggling Cocaine and Congress cut them at the drop of a dime. Reagan and North saved thousands of lives providing them with what they needed
Either that or Reagan was pissed that one of the US-backed dictators in Latin America was overthrown. Plus, when Reagan sold weapons to Iran, it was to help secure American hostages in Lebanon, so here Reagan is working with Iran to negociate with terrorists.
This is from wiki, so take it with a grain of salt if you'd like, but
"As was typical in guerrilla warfare, they [the Contras] were engaged in a campaign of economic sabotage in an attempt to combat the Sandinista government and disrupted shipping by planting underwater mines in Nicaragua's Corinto harbour, an action condemned by the World Court as illegal. The U.S. also sought to place economic pressure on the Sandinistas, and, as with Cuba, the Reagan administration imposed a full trade embargo.
The contras also carried out a systematic campaign to disrupt the social reform programs of the government. This campaign included attacks on schools, health centers and the majority of the rural population that was sympathetic to the Sandinistas. Widespread murder, rape, and torture were also used as tools to destabilize the government and to "terrorize" the population into collaborating with the Contras. Throughout this campaign, the contras received military and financial support from the CIA and the Reagan Administration. This campaign has been condemned internationally for its many human rights violations. Contra supporters have often tried to downplay these violations, or countered that the Sandinista government carried out much more. In particular, the Reagan administration engaged in a campaign to alter public opinion on the contras that has been termed "white propaganda". In 1984, the International Court of Justice judged that the United States Government had been in violation of International law when it supported the contras."
I like the idea of kings and queens that actually do things, but I probably just have all the romanticized bullshit in my head.
Another problem with monarchies is that it's been proven time and time again that the heirs aren't always suitable (or inclined) to be rulers. Kings were thought to be chosen by God, which was their only qualification instead of actual wisdom and leadership.
In Europe most countries are going more and more towards proportional rep. parliamentary systems, any monarch or royalty are just ceremonial and useless really. Basically the opposite to a monarch or president. and in relation to the OP concern with ethnic minorities, the proportional rep. systems are designed specifically to include ethnic minorities and diversity.
But they don't
[removed]
I think experimental homosexuality is good. How do you know what you are if you haven't seen everything? Marriage seems weird but experimenting can be fun. Sometimes you only want to fool around
Prison is way worse then death. You know what other prisoners do with rapists and child molesters? Horrible and awful things. Death just frees those kind of people from punishment in prisions.
Homosexuality is not considered a choice, so it's quite natural. Morally wrong? Morally wrong is not letting others love who ever they want
(except for pedophilia, grown-ups shouldn't "be" with kids). You can't say homosexuallity is as perverse as pedophilia, sadomasochism and nacrophilia. According to Freud, 'all humans are innately perverse'.
Where do we draw the line as to what type of behavior is okay, and what type of behavior is not? Intolerance towards people who don't "choose" what they are (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is not an okay behavior.
I agree totally.
Agreed. I agree that racism sucks but... Wait, what? So, you are against racism and for homophobia? Srsly, where's the line that you drew, because I just see curves. Let me see if what I say in the next paragraph makes sense for you:
A society in which there is no homophobia. Homophobia (a society in which everyone is heterosexual) is nothing but pure hatred, and it is also pointless, because no matter what the sexual orientation of a person is, they're are still a human being like everyone else, with same thoughts and feelings as any other man. Even though I am an heterosexual man, I do not see how my sexual orientacion makes me superior over a man who is Bi, Gay, Lesbian, or anyone else.
So, you disagree with what I just said?
But, never mind, let's stick on the topic. I agree with you that a land without racism is a land with happyness.
Really? How is homosexuality morally wrong? On what basis? I'm not even touching on 'unnatural' because that's just patently false.
Yes, there is a conflict on where moral lines are drawn - that's what philosophy has been debating over thousands of years, and it's the question society has been conflicted with for those thousands of years, not just today.
I'm guessing your lines are those of the BIble, but it's interesting that you somehow in 1. you skipped over 'thou shalt not kill,' 'turn the other cheek,' 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' Especially when you further justify it by the idea that we may actualy have to pay for it *gasp!
Giving a tiny number of people a massive amount of wealth for doing literally nothing other than being born does not add anything of the sort.
Are you talking about an aristocracy or the Walmart heirs?
Er, neither, I'm talking about Monarchy.
Isn't monarchy a form of aristocracy? (aristocracy being hereditary nobles, the king being the highest noble)
But I was trying to make a joke about how many people have vast amounts of unearned wealth simply by being born even under the present system so much so that they're even referred to as a de facto aristocracy.
Yeah, it's a form, but aristocracy usually means lots of different nobles having power with a king as their head, whereas pure monarchy is one woman or man delegating everything at their own discretion.
But yeah, there is a capitalist aristocracy, but we have to tackle real aristocracy before we can even start changing opinions about capitalism :P
Are you saying homosexuals aren't human beings like everyone else, with same thoughts and feelings as any other person?
Also, if homosexuality is unnatural, then why do many animal species have homosexuals? Isn't that a definition of natural?
Also
Don't pretend your (inevidenced!) opinions are unequivocal truths.
What 'fact'? Since when was that a fact?
By the way, calling my relationship with my husband 'sexual perversion' is one of the most homophobic things i've heard on the forum, and a prime example of 'hate speech' (so named in the forum guidelines); as a result, I have reported this post, and if no effort to change it is made by this time tomorrow then I shall complain directly to Telltale about having moderators who allow things like this to be said with no sanction.
Don't both trying to delete it, I've taken a screenshot.
They're going to burn you at the stake for that opinion.
Apparently it's not an opinion Ingen, it's a 'fact'.
And, anyway; they SHOULD. ''Hate speech' is specifically banned here in the forum guidelines, and if calling all gay people immoral sexual perverts isn't hate speech then what the hell is?
Er, how much do you know about english history?
Sure monarchy worked, if you ignore the massive civil war, revolution and countless peasant revolts.
how about no government and just sweet sweet anarchy
Anarchy? No, thank you. Why? Because people are inherently evil.
What type of anarchism do you mean?
Political-Democracy definitely. A president would still be in power. (I actually really like Obama, I consider him a great person and good president, though I live outside of America so maybe I have a differing opinion to those living in America). Also, (really off-topic) I want Hillary to be the next US president (glad she's going on a campaign).
Government and Police-Police officers should be trained much better imo. Instead of having gun-ho, racists who will look for any opportunity to shoot I'd make sure a background check was done, showing their relationship with other sexes and races. Stun guns aren't just decorations for your belt. I'd also keep my country's (Ireland) stance on gun control. Only highly trained officers should be allowed to brandish such weapons, not civilians.
Other Issues-Gay marriage and other LBGT rights are 100% legal, don't know why anyone doesn't agree with it tbh, if you don't you're denying basic human rights. Abortion would also be legal. In regards to race... I'd make it that the society is a perfect mix of men+women, black, white, Latino, Asians, Middle Easterns, gays and straights, transsexuals so on so forth. The more diversity the better!
Well that's my 'perfect' society.
JJ Rousseau type anarchy would be the best, sadly it can't happen because while I think that the whole people are inherently evil thing is inaccurate people are still inherently selfish which leads them to do bad things for their own benefit which doesn't exactly qualify as evil, however I think defining real people with good or evil is kinda stupid even if it's a lot of fun, but morality is just way too complicated to simply do that.
Political : I don't dig the idea of being subject to the whims of some inbred tyrant. Direct democracy is ideal in my opinion, but a country like the US or UK is too big for it to be feasible. It's too bad, because indirect democracy doesn't work anymore. I've never felt as though my vote mattered. The shitheads running the country don't represent me.
Law Enforcement : Cops are getting way too aggressive where I live. Just a few weeks ago, a marijuana bust ended with the perp getting his brains blown out because the cops felt threatened. All cops should be equipped with body cameras and forced to take mandatory 'application of force' training. A lot of crime could be prevented with the right social programs. Too bad the government is in the pocket of greedy 'for profit' prisons.
In my ideal society, people have their fundamental human rights, medical care they can afford and a wage that can support their families. And they don't have to worry about getting shot for being black or treated like shit because they're gay.
This is actually a really interesting topic for me because I've thought a lot about a "perfect" society, but I can't ever really make up my mind. My idea of a perfect society is one that's more center-left on the political scale, with democratic politics but a government there to stand by and make sure nothing goes wrong. Law enforcement would be there more to spectate than to actually enforce laws, as I believe the human race is mostly good and people are capable (most of the time) of choosing right from wrong.
Political: Democratic and just, where everyone has a say, no matter how big or small the issue might be. Minorities would be protected. Would have a center-left point of view, promoting equal opportunity for all and freedom of expression, within reason. No monarchy - everything is provided by civilians through taxes & charities. The government would only be there to regulate the masses and keep everyone from killing each other.
Law Enforcement: Peacekeepers used in place of law enforcement officers. They're given the same rights as civilians so they can't abuse their powers. Trials are fair, suspected criminals are assumed innocent until proven guilty, rehabilitation services are available to anyone who wants help, no death penalty.
Another issue ~ SOCIAL ASSISTANCE: What really pisses me off is the lack of compassion to those of low income in my country. Some people live in poverty for the majority of their lives, struggling to find jobs, not because they're unable to work but because of the simple fact that no one will hire them. Where I live, if you don't make $500 or less a month or aren't cripplingly ill or injured, you aren't qualified for welfare. But what people fail to understand is that the cost of housing in my province is TOO high, and many cannot afford to pay rent and buy food all in the same month. There should be places for these people to live for free besides out on the street, so that they are able to meet their basic human needs without having to worry about being homeless.
Government: I'd like to see a government that doesn't throw it's veterans away.
So many soldiers coming home from war, are often times denied their benefits, because the Government doesn't want to pay for them.
For example, in Las Vegas Nevada, a former airforce pilot was recently sentenced to 10-25 years in prison for the manslaughter of his 1 year old son.
The pilot had flown combat missions in Iraq, and had come home with posttraumatic stress disorder.
According to his testimony, which was supported by his now ex-wife, he tried to get help for his condition repeatedly, and the VA laughed in his face and refused to treat him.
Due to his condition, his son apparently had been fussing so badly, that eventually the poor man snapped and accidently shook his son to death.
In his final testimony, the poor man broke down in tears, expressing deep regret as he related what happened.
His ex-wife described him as very big-hearted and kindly man, who tried to get help, but was denied it.
And blamed the VA for what happened, because of their refusal to treat her husband, even after he implored them many times to do so.
Now if you ask my opinion, the VA bears responsibility for what happened to that child, because they refused to treat a man who needed help.
And these types of things happen again and again, because once these guys come home, traumatized and battle-weary, the government abandons them.
Politics: I'd like to see people in office who are more interested in doing the right thing and helping others, than they are trying to keep their jobs and getting rich while doing so.
Also, I'd like to see marijuana legalized for recreational use in all 50 states.
This story shows how little your government seems to care about people. In a country of over 300 million, they probably think stuff like this isn't significant.
Did you know that the CIA planned to commit acts of terrorism on the American people and blame it on the Cuban government in order to rally support for an invasion? I don't think the government has changed much since then. They see a few thousand citizens as expendable.
I heard that.
And the story was, JFK was not in agreement with it.
This was back in 1961.
Two years later Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.
If the first story was true, does it have to do with why Kennedy was shot?
Who knows?
There are so many theories about the Kennedy assassination, that it's impossible to know keep up with all of them.
Some say Oswald didn't act alone, and that there were two shooters.
Oswald himself claimed he was a patsy!
Over the years, many conspiracies theorists have linked some very big names to Kennedy's death including L.B.J, Gerrard Ford, Bush Senior, and etc.
Who's to say what the truth is?
The reason why these conspiracies keep going is because society in general loves a good mystery.
Also I made an edit to my previous post.
Absolutely right what you added. The government over here does a bit more for Australian citizens. I'd bet it's mostly because our population is less than a third of America's (24 million, I think), but it could also have something to do with the amount of influence Britain has had on us.
I'm not bashing America though. Both our nations have quite a bit in common, but at times our history has caused quite a few differences.