This website has all of the information below and more. Read it if you're interested. http://web.mac.com/martinward/Politics/Welcome.html Competition: Whoever can think of a flashy name for my fascist party, and whoever can make me a nice logo, gets some minerals (quantity of minerals dependent of quality of logo or flashiness of name) The following stuff is only an overview. There are many small details I neglect to mention, but other than that, it is a near perfect form of Government. Well, nearer than anyone else has managed to post. All the figures are true for the UK - but the concepts stand. [COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]Tax[/SIZE][/COLOR] Scrap everything the government does except for three things: Police, Roads, and military (since no one else can really do that). Then, make everyone over 21 pay £1,360 a year, and that will cover all tax. And that includes Inflation - so ZERO INFLATION. This 0 inflation might not be instant though, it may fade out over the years. However, this is very easily changeable to give relief to a certain group of people - for example, the top 10% of earners can pay double, and then the bottom 5% of earners get it free, and then it fades out until anyone above the bottom 15% pays full. Also, it is possible for people to "bind" their ratings - so thier rating is an average. Children are automatically bound to their parents. [B]Children's Ratings[/B] As children are bound to their parents, and their parents own the money, children need a way of being rated. So, children are rated on their school grades (a test is taken at the end of every year). This means that families put pressure on their Children as if they do too badly the whole family (who are most probably bound together) have a higher chance of deportation. University students get rated in the same way. The current TV license system stays the same - because the BBC is great. [COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]Immigration[/SIZE][/COLOR] First, all aspects of "Give everyone something" are gotten rid of, so having people inside the country doesn't really matter since it doesn't cost anything. Then, open borders (well, you still have to sign and become a citizen and everything but we don't refuse anyone). So, you can come in, but if you're useless, then you can't survive, and you are forced to leave (or die). This way, there are plenty of workers (even if they would have to be paid a little more to survive since they don't get a load of services, public services come from money from the rich anyways so it doesn't really matter). That makes the ratings irrelevant. [COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]Law[/SIZE][/COLOR] There are two types of offense you can commit: civil offenses, and criminal offenses. Criminal offenses are things like murder, stealing, rape, etc, and Civil offenses are things like drug taking (selling is criminal), speeding, drink driving, and things like that. If you commit a crime you pay the fine. If you cannot pay the fine, everything you own is repossessed, and you are deported. I guess if what you own is worth more than the bill they'd sell it on your behalf though, let you stay in, and give you the change. [B]The Fine:[/B] First, you have to pay the full damages to whoever was harmed. Then, you have to pay the police bill - they charge you for the costs of the investigation they undertook to find you guilty. But, what if only half of all the police bills get paid? Lets say if $1000 of goods was stolen in a year, but only $500 of the goods was paid for (the criminals who account for the other $500 weren't caught) then everyone who was caught stealing pays double to account for the losses. It works the same for the police bill. And, of course, committing a crime would lower your rating, meaning you're more likely to be deported. Money gained this way is not accounted for in my £1360 per capita over 21 - so the figure would be more like £900 a year. [COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]Court[/SIZE] [/COLOR]Lie detectors are used, at all times in court and police interrogations, and if someone is found saying lies the moment it is detected they are asked to say the statement again, and if it still shows up as a lie on the detector they are automatically fined a large amount - as saying lies in court is a criminal offense However it can not be used to prove someone is innocent, or prove someone else is guilty (as it is possible to fool lie detectors). [COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]“Freedom of Speech”[/SIZE][/COLOR] People are allowed to talk casually against the government, but they are not allowed to do so to a large audience. To do so is a criminal offense. You are allowed to state your disagreement of government policies, but you may not criticize an individual inside the government or a certain case. This means you cannot say you hate the fact that Bob Smith got deported, however you can state that you disagree with the deportation policies, but you cannot say “I hate the deportation policies because Blah” when Blah isn’t true. There are large fines for 'damaging the government'. [COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]“Worker Protection”[/SIZE][/COLOR] Abolish Minimum Wage. If people are only worth 15p an hour to a company, they get paid 15p an hour. Make going on strike illegal. If someone doesn’t like their job, they can quit. Legalize pay cuts. [COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]Referendum[/SIZE][/COLOR] I will hold loads of Referendums - if there is a big decision I want to make that I could win a referendum on, then I will have one. And, I will "rig" them - for example, if I wanted to phase out Inflation, I would have the following selections: Get rid of all inflation. Keep inflation the same. Put up inflation by 1%. Put up inflation by 2%. Though I wouldn't make it that blatantly obvious. In response to some people stating that Lie Detectors are inaccurate, there's a chance you're right - I'm no expert in lie detection.

This website has all of the information below and more. Read it if you're interested.
http://web.mac.com/martinward/Politics/Welcome.html

Competition: Whoever can think of a flashy name for my fascist party, and whoever can make me a nice logo, gets some minerals (quantity of minerals dependent of quality of logo or flashiness of name)


The following stuff is only an overview. There are many small details I neglect to mention, but other than that, it is a near perfect form of Government. Well, nearer than anyone else has managed to post. All the figures are true for the UK - but the concepts stand.


Tax
Scrap everything the government does except for three things: Police, Roads, and military (since no one else can really do that). Then, make everyone over 21 pay £1,360 a year, and that will cover all tax. And that includes Inflation - so ZERO INFLATION. This 0 inflation might not be instant though, it may fade out over the years.

However, this is very easily changeable to give relief to a certain group of people - for example, the top 10% of earners can pay double, and then the bottom 5% of earners get it free, and then it fades out until anyone above the bottom 15% pays full.

Also, it is possible for people to "bind" their ratings - so thier rating is an average. Children are automatically bound to their parents.

Children's Ratings
As children are bound to their parents, and their parents own the money, children need a way of being rated. So, children are rated on their school grades (a test is taken at the end of every year). This means that families put pressure on their Children as if they do too badly the whole family (who are most probably bound together) have a higher chance of deportation. University students get rated in the same way.

The current TV license system stays the same - because the BBC is great.

Immigration
First, all aspects of "Give everyone something" are gotten rid of, so having people inside the country doesn't really matter since it doesn't cost anything.
Then, open borders (well, you still have to sign and become a citizen and everything but we don't refuse anyone).
So, you can come in, but if you're useless, then you can't survive, and you are forced to leave (or die).
This way, there are plenty of workers (even if they would have to be paid a little more to survive since they don't get a load of services, public services come from money from the rich anyways so it doesn't really matter).

That makes the ratings irrelevant.

Law
There are two types of offense you can commit: civil offenses, and criminal offenses. Criminal offenses are things like murder, stealing, rape, etc, and Civil offenses are things like drug taking (selling is criminal), speeding, drink driving, and things like that. If you commit a crime you pay the fine. If you cannot pay the fine, everything you own is repossessed, and you are deported. I guess if what you own is worth more than the bill they'd sell it on your behalf though, let you stay in, and give you the change.

The Fine:
First, you have to pay the full damages to whoever was harmed. Then, you have to pay the police bill - they charge you for the costs of the investigation they undertook to find you guilty.

But, what if only half of all the police bills get paid? Lets say if $1000 of goods was stolen in a year, but only $500 of the goods was paid for (the criminals who account for the other $500 weren't caught) then everyone who was caught stealing pays double to account for the losses. It works the same for the police bill.

And, of course, committing a crime would lower your rating, meaning you're more likely to be deported.
Money gained this way is not accounted for in my £1360 per capita over 21 - so the figure would be more like £900 a year.


Court
Lie detectors are used, at all times in court and police interrogations, and if someone is found saying lies the moment it is detected they are asked to say the statement again, and if it still shows up as a lie on the detector they are automatically fined a large amount - as saying lies in court is a criminal offense However it can not be used to prove someone is innocent, or prove someone else is guilty (as it is possible to fool lie detectors).

“Freedom of Speech”
People are allowed to talk casually against the government, but they are not allowed to do so to a large audience. To do so is a criminal offense. You are allowed to state your disagreement of government policies, but you may not criticize an individual inside the government or a certain case. This means you cannot say you hate the fact that Bob Smith got deported, however you can state that you disagree with the deportation policies, but you cannot say “I hate the deportation policies because Blah” when Blah isn’t true. There are large fines for 'damaging the government'.

“Worker Protection”
Abolish Minimum Wage. If people are only worth 15p an hour to a company, they get paid 15p an hour.
Make going on strike illegal. If someone doesn’t like their job, they can quit.
Legalize pay cuts.

Referendum
I will hold loads of Referendums - if there is a big decision I want to make that I could win a referendum on, then I will have one. And, I will "rig" them - for example, if I wanted to phase out Inflation, I would have the following selections:

Get rid of all inflation.
Keep inflation the same.
Put up inflation by 1%.
Put up inflation by 2%.

Though I wouldn't make it that blatantly obvious.


In response to some people stating that Lie Detectors are inaccurate, there's a chance you're right - I'm no expert in lie detection.

I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.

I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.

[QUOTE]Law There are two types of offense you can commit: civil offenses, and criminal offenses. Criminal offenses are things like murder, stealing, rape, etc, and Civil offenses are things like drug taking (selling is criminal), speeding, drink driving, and things like that. If you commit a crime you pay the fine. If you cannot pay the fine, everything you own is repossessed, and you are deported.[/QUOTE]I have a problem with this. "Drug taking" is done by probably 99% of humans in America. The other 1% has drugs that are exhibited throughout their body naturally at all times in the day. Sex is addicting, tell me its not, and you haven't had it enough. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You meant NARCOTICS. In which case, I'll answer: Any war on drugs is never going to be won. A black market will always exist. People who get drugs illegally who lose their dealer, will find another. This is stupid. Instead, LEGALIZE, REGULATE, and EDUCATE. If you disagree with what I said, you don't know enough on this topic or you are just incredibly naive and have way too much faith in the power. [QUOTE]“Freedom of Speech” People are allowed to talk casually against the government, but they are not allowed to do so to a large audience. To do so is a criminal offense. You are allowed to state your disagreement of government policies, but you may not criticize an individual inside the government or a certain case. This means you cannot say you hate the fact that Bob Smith got deported, however you can state that you disagree with the deportation policies, but you cannot say “I hate the deportation policies because Blah” when Blah isn’t true. There are large fines for 'damaging the government'.[/QUOTE]Very interesting. I'll have to talk to my gov teacher and my civics/activism teacher about this to see what they think. If I understand this view correctly, then only people who dissent against certain acts or people are violating their speech because they may be putting the government in trouble. But, if the government really is doing something wrong, you can dissent to their policy instead, to change it. I have a problem with this: Some horrible legislation comes out of some policy that the country should probably keep. What then? Take away the policy in which they passed the legislation? Or attack the legislation itself? I think freedom of speech (without "") should be ABSOLUTE. What's up with the ratings?? Thats messed up.

Quote

Law
There are two types of offense you can commit: civil offenses, and criminal offenses. Criminal offenses are things like murder, stealing, rape, etc, and Civil offenses are things like drug taking (selling is criminal), speeding, drink driving, and things like that. If you commit a crime you pay the fine. If you cannot pay the fine, everything you own is repossessed, and you are deported.

I have a problem with this. "Drug taking" is done by probably 99% of humans in America. The other 1% has drugs that are exhibited throughout their body naturally at all times in the day. Sex is addicting, tell me its not, and you haven't had it enough.
However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You meant NARCOTICS. In which case, I'll answer: Any war on drugs is never going to be won. A black market will always exist. People who get drugs illegally who lose their dealer, will find another. This is stupid. Instead, LEGALIZE, REGULATE, and EDUCATE. If you disagree with what I said, you don't know enough on this topic or you are just incredibly naive and have way too much faith in the power.

Quote

“Freedom of Speech”
People are allowed to talk casually against the government, but they are not allowed to do so to a large audience. To do so is a criminal offense. You are allowed to state your disagreement of government policies, but you may not criticize an individual inside the government or a certain case. This means you cannot say you hate the fact that Bob Smith got deported, however you can state that you disagree with the deportation policies, but you cannot say “I hate the deportation policies because Blah” when Blah isn’t true. There are large fines for 'damaging the government'.

Very interesting. I'll have to talk to my gov teacher and my civics/activism teacher about this to see what they think. If I understand this view correctly, then only people who dissent against certain acts or people are violating their speech because they may be putting the government in trouble. But, if the government really is doing something wrong, you can dissent to their policy instead, to change it.
I have a problem with this: Some horrible legislation comes out of some policy that the country should probably keep. What then? Take away the policy in which they passed the legislation? Or attack the legislation itself? I think freedom of speech (without "") should be ABSOLUTE.



What's up with the ratings?? Thats messed up.

[quote=AntiSleep] I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too. [/quote] How do you think it would collapse the economy? [ [QUOTE=Viii_iiiV] There are two types of offense you can commit: civil offenses, and criminal offenses. Criminal offenses are things like murder, stealing, rape, etc, and Civil offenses are things like drug taking (selling is criminal), speeding, drink driving, and things like that. If you commit a crime you pay the fine. If you cannot pay the fine, everything you own is repossessed, and you are deported. [QUOTE=yenku] I have a problem with this. "Drug taking" is done by probably 99% of humans in America. The other 1% has drugs that are exhibited throughout their body naturally at all times in the day. Sex is addicting, tell me its not, and you haven't had it enough. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You meant NARCOTICS. In which case, I'll answer: Any war on drugs is never going to be won. A black market will always exist. People who get drugs illegally who lose their dealer, will find another. This is stupid. Instead, LEGALIZE, REGULATE, and EDUCATE. If you disagree with what I said, you don't know enough on this topic or you are just incredibly naive and have way too much faith in the power. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] You're right, a war on drugs will never actually be won - but I'm not going to legalize it because then I would because most of my support would be with the upper classes and they wouldn't like that. Of course, I can still hinder the availability of drugs and [COLOR=#DFA51C]make some money from the fines.... [/COLOR] [QUOTE=Viii_iiiV] “Freedom of Speech” People are allowed to talk casually against the government, but they are not allowed to do so to a large audience. To do so is a criminal offense. You are allowed to state your disagreement of government policies, but you may not criticize an individual inside the government or a certain case. This means you cannot say you hate the fact that Bob Smith got deported, however you can state that you disagree with the deportation policies, but you cannot say “I hate the deportation policies because Blah” when Blah isn’t true. There are large fines for 'damaging the government'. [QUOTE=Yenku] Very interesting. I'll have to talk to my gov teacher and my civics/activism teacher about this to see what they think. If I understand this view correctly, then only people who dissent against certain acts or people are violating their speech because they may be putting the government in trouble. But, if the government really is doing something wrong, you can dissent to their policy instead, to change it. I have a problem with this: Some horrible legislation comes out of some policy that the country should probably keep. What then? Take away the policy in which they passed the legislation? Or attack the legislation itself? I think freedom of speech (without "") should be ABSOLUTE. What's up with the ratings?? Thats messed up. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] Ratings are so that if there is someone educated and qualified outside of the country, and there's a moron who does nothing inside, they get swapped. In relation to your thing about freedom of speech: If a new policy comes out, and they don't like it, they can leave the country. And yes, I am very Fascist. But why should the rich be forced to pay for the poor? If they want to they can donate - but I will not force them to. Edit: Why isn't the quoting working? Edit: Fixed. I blame yenku.

Quote from AntiSleep

I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.

How do you think it would collapse the economy?

[

Quote from Viii_iiiV

There are two types of offense you can commit: civil offenses, and criminal offenses. Criminal offenses are things like murder, stealing, rape, etc, and Civil offenses are things like drug taking (selling is criminal), speeding, drink driving, and things like that. If you commit a crime you pay the fine. If you cannot pay the fine, everything you own is repossessed, and you are deported.

Quote from yenku

I have a problem with this. "Drug taking" is done by probably 99% of humans in America. The other 1% has drugs that are exhibited throughout their body naturally at all times in the day. Sex is addicting, tell me its not, and you haven't had it enough.
However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You meant NARCOTICS. In which case, I'll answer: Any war on drugs is never going to be won. A black market will always exist. People who get drugs illegally who lose their dealer, will find another. This is stupid. Instead, LEGALIZE, REGULATE, and EDUCATE. If you disagree with what I said, you don't know enough on this topic or you are just incredibly naive and have way too much faith in the power.

You're right, a war on drugs will never actually be won - but I'm not going to legalize it because then I would because most of my support would be with the upper classes and they wouldn't like that. Of course, I can still hinder the availability of drugs and make some money from the fines....

Quote from Viii_iiiV

“Freedom of Speech”
People are allowed to talk casually against the government, but they are not allowed to do so to a large audience. To do so is a criminal offense. You are allowed to state your disagreement of government policies, but you may not criticize an individual inside the government or a certain case. This means you cannot say you hate the fact that Bob Smith got deported, however you can state that you disagree with the deportation policies, but you cannot say “I hate the deportation policies because Blah” when Blah isn’t true. There are large fines for 'damaging the government'.

Quote from Yenku

Very interesting. I'll have to talk to my gov teacher and my civics/activism teacher about this to see what they think. If I understand this view correctly, then only people who dissent against certain acts or people are violating their speech because they may be putting the government in trouble. But, if the government really is doing something wrong, you can dissent to their policy instead, to change it.
I have a problem with this: Some horrible legislation comes out of some policy that the country should probably keep. What then? Take away the policy in which they passed the legislation? Or attack the legislation itself? I think freedom of speech (without "") should be ABSOLUTE.
What's up with the ratings?? Thats messed up.

Ratings are so that if there is someone educated and qualified outside of the country, and there's a moron who does nothing inside, they get swapped.

In relation to your thing about freedom of speech: If a new policy comes out, and they don't like it, they can leave the country.

And yes, I am very Fascist. But why should the rich be forced to pay for the poor? If they want to they can donate - but I will not force them to.

Edit: Why isn't the quoting working?
Edit: Fixed. I blame yenku.

[quote=Viii_iiiV][quote=AntiSleep]I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.[/quote] How do you think it would collapse the economy?[/quote] You impose a regressive tax, and export or incarcerate everyone that cannot pay it? Half your workforce would disappear overnight. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if everyone started with the same resources. It would be far more effective and fair to remove sales, income, property taxes for individuals, and replace those taxes with an estate / gift tax(with some exemptions). Your debt to society is settled when you die. Economies work when money gets spent, this is a fact, and taxing the (dead)rich means the money that would sit stagnant, gets spent (because the poor are going to spend a greater proportion of the margin). Also, corporations should not exist. They are imaginary people that unacceptably limit accountability, any services that need an investment in infrastructure are better managed by NPO. This way you reduce debts, and increase the efficiency and standard of living of the entire country.

Quote from Viii_iiiV

Quote from AntiSleep

I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.

How do you think it would collapse the economy?

You impose a regressive tax, and export or incarcerate everyone that cannot pay it? Half your workforce would disappear overnight.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if everyone started with the same resources. It would be far more effective and fair to remove sales, income, property taxes for individuals, and replace those taxes with an estate / gift tax(with some exemptions). Your debt to society is settled when you die. Economies work when money gets spent, this is a fact, and taxing the (dead)rich means the money that would sit stagnant, gets spent (because the poor are going to spend a greater proportion of the margin). Also, corporations should not exist. They are imaginary people that unacceptably limit accountability, any services that need an investment in infrastructure are better managed by NPO. This way you reduce debts, and increase the efficiency and standard of living of the entire country.

The only fair way to tax, is to tax based on marginal utility for standard of living.

The only fair way to tax, is to tax based on marginal utility for standard of living.

[quote=AntiSleep]The only fair way to tax, is to tax based on marginal utility.[/quote] So you think that the rich should pay more than the poor. So you think that the rich should pay for the poor's public services. So you think that the rich should pay for the poor to be happier So you think that the rich should pay for the poor to become richer. So you think that if I changed the word "rich" with "black", and "poor" with "white" it wouldn't be discriminating against black people? Of course you don't - so the statement "That is discrimination against black people" would be true. So if we replace "black" with "rich" and "white" with "poor" then we have: "That is discrimination against rich people" Lets make it algebraic: Money Paid(Black>White)=Discrimination Black=Rich White=Poor So, Money Paid(Rich>Poor)=Discrimination See, its simple math. Even if that math was absolutely crazy, my point stands that the rich should not be forced to help the poor. P.S. What does Marginal Unity mean?

Quote from AntiSleep

The only fair way to tax, is to tax based on marginal utility.

So you think that the rich should pay more than the poor.
So you think that the rich should pay for the poor's public services.
So you think that the rich should pay for the poor to be happier
So you think that the rich should pay for the poor to become richer.
So you think that if I changed the word "rich" with "black", and "poor" with "white" it wouldn't be discriminating against black people?
Of course you don't - so the statement "That is discrimination against black people" would be true.

So if we replace "black" with "rich" and "white" with "poor" then we have:

"That is discrimination against rich people"

Lets make it algebraic:

Money Paid(Black>White)=Discrimination
Black=Rich
White=Poor
So,
Money Paid(Rich>Poor)=Discrimination


See, its simple math.
Even if that math was absolutely crazy, my point stands that the rich should not be forced to help the poor.


P.S. What does Marginal Unity mean?

Nobody has justifiable entitlements. If you want to be rich, you should have to get there on your own merit, without inheriting it from your parents. Skin color is of course a de-facto entitlement, ideally one of negligible utility, but just because you are white or black, does not mean you 'deserve' to be white, or black. Monetary wealth is different, because people that work harder and smarter, do deserve it more. Marginal utility is the additional use you get out of an additional unit resource, If you are stuck on an island with 1 sandwich to last you a week, a second sandwich is of extremely high utility. If you have 100 sandwiches to last you a week, even another 10,000 sandwiches is of little to no additional utility, they just go to waste. With money, there are different types of utility, but the idea is the same. If you want to tax the living, you should take the same utility with respect to standard of living and power. When you are dead, you have no more utility for the money, so it should go where it will be used most efficiently.

Nobody has justifiable entitlements. If you want to be rich, you should have to get there on your own merit, without inheriting it from your parents. Skin color is of course a de-facto entitlement, ideally one of negligible utility, but just because you are white or black, does not mean you 'deserve' to be white, or black. Monetary wealth is different, because people that work harder and smarter, do deserve it more.

Marginal utility is the additional use you get out of an additional unit resource, If you are stuck on an island with 1 sandwich to last you a week, a second sandwich is of extremely high utility. If you have 100 sandwiches to last you a week, even another 10,000 sandwiches is of little to no additional utility, they just go to waste. With money, there are different types of utility, but the idea is the same. If you want to tax the living, you should take the same utility with respect to standard of living and power. When you are dead, you have no more utility for the money, so it should go where it will be used most efficiently.

[quote=AntiSleep]Nobody has justifiable entitlements. If you want to be rich, you should have to get there on your own merit, without inheriting it from your parents. Skin color is of course a de-facto entitlement, ideally one of negligible utility, but just because you are white or black, does not mean you 'deserve' to be white, or black. Monetary wealth is different, because people that work harder and smarter, do deserve it more. Marginal utility is the additional use you get out of an additional unit resource, If you are stuck on an island with 1 sandwich to last you a week, a second sandwich is of extremely high utility. If you have 100 sandwiches to last you a week, even another 10,000 sandwiches is of little to no additional utility, they just go to waste. With money, there are different types of utility, but the idea is the same. If you want to tax the living, you should take the same utility with respect to standard of living and power. When you are dead, you have no more utility for the money, so it should go where it will be used most efficiently.[/quote] For the Marginal utility, my point still stands. And as for the inheritance argument - surely the people have a right to give money to their children? It's not like I could stop it anyway. Come on Wuza, post!

Quote from AntiSleep

Nobody has justifiable entitlements. If you want to be rich, you should have to get there on your own merit, without inheriting it from your parents. Skin color is of course a de-facto entitlement, ideally one of negligible utility, but just because you are white or black, does not mean you 'deserve' to be white, or black. Monetary wealth is different, because people that work harder and smarter, do deserve it more.

Marginal utility is the additional use you get out of an additional unit resource, If you are stuck on an island with 1 sandwich to last you a week, a second sandwich is of extremely high utility. If you have 100 sandwiches to last you a week, even another 10,000 sandwiches is of little to no additional utility, they just go to waste. With money, there are different types of utility, but the idea is the same. If you want to tax the living, you should take the same utility with respect to standard of living and power. When you are dead, you have no more utility for the money, so it should go where it will be used most efficiently.

For the Marginal utility, my point still stands.

And as for the inheritance argument - surely the people have a right to give money to their children? It's not like I could stop it anyway.


Come on Wuza, post!

[QUOTE]I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.[/QUOTE] /me agrees It smells of communism as well.

Quote

I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.

/me agrees
It smells of communism as well.

Nobody has rights, except those granted by force(law is a manifestation of force). Those with power grant themselves the right to keep and control it. The inheritance of property is in principle is no different than the divine 'right' of kings, it is something people accept because they are used to it, not because it is the most effective way to run a civilization(it isn't). What entitles you to be born with more money and power than someone else, instead of earning it?

Nobody has rights, except those granted by force(law is a manifestation of force). Those with power grant themselves the right to keep and control it. The inheritance of property is in principle is no different than the divine 'right' of kings, it is something people accept because they are used to it, not because it is the most effective way to run a civilization(it isn't). What entitles you to be born with more money and power than someone else, instead of earning it?

You're right, nothing entitles you to. It's not perfect to have that system, but how would the people like me to change it? [quote=Akar][QUOTE]I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.[/QUOTE] me agrees It smells of communism as well.[/quote] How dare you accuse me of Communism! This government is the complete opposite of Communism! And anyway, how would it cause an economy collapse?

You're right, nothing entitles you to. It's not perfect to have that system, but how would the people like me to change it?

Quote from Akar

Quote

I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.

me agrees
It smells of communism as well.

How dare you accuse me of Communism! This government is the complete opposite of Communism! And anyway, how would it cause an economy collapse?

It would require a revolution of no greater magnitude than the system you originally posted. A blog would be a good first step, perhaps I should start one.

It would require a revolution of no greater magnitude than the system you originally posted. A blog would be a good first step, perhaps I should start one.

[quote=AntiSleep]It would require a revolution of no greater magnitude than the system you originally posted. A blog would be a good first step, perhaps I should start one.[/quote] Not really. It wouldn't go against biological things that are part of human nature, like loving your children.

Quote from AntiSleep

It would require a revolution of no greater magnitude than the system you originally posted. A blog would be a good first step, perhaps I should start one.

Not really. It wouldn't go against biological things that are part of human nature, like loving your children.

loving your children has less to do with it than the sentiment of tradition, poor people love their children just as much as rich people. Most of the issue is trust and fear of change, convincing the people abused by the status quo to lend you their power to work for their interests.

loving your children has less to do with it than the sentiment of tradition, poor people love their children just as much as rich people. Most of the issue is trust and fear of change, convincing the people abused by the status quo to lend you their power to work for their interests.

Didn't get a word of that. You're still saying my original post is correct, right? Let me explain what you actually just said: [quote=AntiSleep]loving your children has less to do with it than the sentiment of tradition, poor people love their children just as much as rich people. Most of the issue is trust and fear of change, convincing the people abused by the status quo to lend you their power to work for their interests.[/quote] Loving your children has less to do with it ([COLOR=#CE091D]as it refers to the last mentioned thing, it means "Loving your children")[/COLOR] than the sentiment of traditions, poor people love their children as much as rich people [COLOR=#CE091D](no sh*t, sherlock?)[/COLOR]. Most of the issue [COLOR=#CE091D](of rich people loving their children as much as the poor, may I add)[/COLOR] is trust and fear of change [COLOR=#CE091D](Man, we all fear the day when rich people love their kids more than poor people)[/COLOR], most of the people abused [COLOR=#CE091D](it's not abuse, it's simply stopping the poor stealing off the rich)[/COLOR] by the superior status [COLOR=#CE091D](of the rich)[/COLOR] to lend you their power [COLOR=#CE091D](Wtf? Poor people don't have power)[/COLOR] to work for their interests [COLOR=#CE091D](Their Communist interests??? MUST KILLL!!!!!)[/COLOR] Please clarify. You have confused me.

Didn't get a word of that.
You're still saying my original post is correct, right?

Let me explain what you actually just said:

Quote from AntiSleep

loving your children has less to do with it than the sentiment of tradition, poor people love their children just as much as rich people. Most of the issue is trust and fear of change, convincing the people abused by the status quo to lend you their power to work for their interests.

Loving your children has less to do with it (as it refers to the last mentioned thing, it means "Loving your children") than the sentiment of traditions, poor people love their children as much as rich people (no sh*t, sherlock?). Most of the issue (of rich people loving their children as much as the poor, may I add) is trust and fear of change (Man, we all fear the day when rich people love their kids more than poor people), most of the people abused (it's not abuse, it's simply stopping the poor stealing off the rich) by the superior status (of the rich) to lend you their power (Wtf? Poor people don't have power) to work for their interests (Their Communist interests??? MUST KILLL!!!!!)

Please clarify.
You have confused me.

No.

No.

If you acknowledge that people hold unjustified power, why do you want to give them more power?

If you acknowledge that people hold unjustified power, why do you want to give them more power?

It is the poor who hold unjust power, and it is I who wants to take it away from them! It is I who wants everyone to pay equal tax. It is I who want to get rid of all leftism. It is I who believes that the rich>the poor. It is I who believes that if you are poor you shouldn't have the insane right to stay in a country if someone who is better than you wants in.

It is the poor who hold unjust power, and it is I who wants to take it away from them!
It is I who wants everyone to pay equal tax.
It is I who want to get rid of all leftism.
It is I who believes that the rich>the poor.
It is I who believes that if you are poor you shouldn't have the insane right to stay in a country if someone who is better than you wants in.

[QUOTE][COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]Law[/SIZE][/COLOR] There are two types of offense you can commit: civil offenses, and criminal offenses. Criminal offenses are things like murder, stealing, rape, etc, and Civil offenses are things like drug taking (selling is criminal), speeding, drink driving, and things like that. If you commit a crime you pay the fine. If you cannot pay the fine, everything you own is repossessed, and you are deported.[/quote] You seem to really like deporting people. The problem is, who is going to take all your criminals? And is there no difference between not being able to pay a $1,000 fine and not being able to pay a $50,000 fine? Also, how much of a fine is killing someone? How can you put a price on something like this? [QUOTE][B]The Fine:[/B] First, you have to pay the full damages to whoever was harmed. Then, you have to pay the police bill - they charge you for the costs of the investigation they undertook to find you guilty. But, what if only half of all the police bills get paid? Lets say if $1000 of goods was stolen in a year, but only $500 of the goods was paid for (the criminals who account for the other $500 weren't caught) then everyone who was caught stealing pays double to account for the losses. It works the same for the police bill.[/QUOTE] Once again, putting a price on things is not as easy as you seem to think. Your police will spend an awful lot of time counting money, instead of getting things done. [QUOTE][COLOR=#CE091D][SIZE=18]Court[/SIZE] [/COLOR]Lie detectors are used, at all times in court and police interrogations, and if someone is found saying lies the moment it is detected they are asked to say the statement again, and if it still shows up as a lie on the detector they are automatically fined a large amount - as saying lies in court is a criminal offense However it can not be used to prove someone is innocent, or prove someone else is guilty (as it is possible to fool lie detectors).[/QUOTE] Lie detectors ARE NOT as reliab