It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Share YOUR ideas for government

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:32 PM
This thread, in addition to being a monument to the fact that I have nothing better to do, is a place for members who have an idea for some policy or protocol that might improve the function of government (your government, someone else's government, a form of government not currently in use, whatever), even if it's a bit "out there" or if you really haven't got all the details figured out.

My rationale is that since I've noticed that when someone creates a new thread certain such ideas, they are sometimes subject to a pretty overwhelming amount of fault-finding, sometimes strictly on the basis that some consider the idea too trivial or too inspecific for its own thread.

I do think it would be nice however if we tried to stick mostly to member's original ideas- our members shouldn't necessarily be required to compete with MSM figures and national level politicians via posts that feature only YouTube videos.

So, to get the ball rolling, here's a small one that occurred to me recently.

The city I grew up in has been in big trouble (of its own making) for some time, and looking for a way out. Unfortunately, the strategy they've chosen is to put all of their money into expanding the city into the desert on the opposite side of the freeway- essentially to move North and start over again, using my grandmother's property taxes to develop a whole new half of the city while ignoring the condition of roads, utilities, and police protection on the South West end of the city.

And it occurred to me that although this strategy might work and pay off brilliantly, its just not fair to many residents, despite the many others who can afford it and will benefit down the road.

So my thought was simple: why not fund the project with taxes that haven't been paid yet? I'm not talking about a loan or a bond issue though- I'm talking about getting the financially-able citizens to assume the risk on the motive of profit.
Why shouldn't the city have simply sold stock in the expansion project (ideally to local individuals and businesses), and establish a separate fund for property and sales taxes generated in the expansion area which would eventually pay dividends to the stockholders until such time as the city could buy the shares back (in order to resume full control of tax revenues)?
Instead of having the tax payers pay for something they haven't got yet and may not get, have them pay for it on reciept, and let them pay a few percent profit to those who make that possible by assuming the risk.

I see it as a way of forcing the government to obey market forces- a way to carry out necessary government-organized social programs without resorting to socialism.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:51 PM
Our current government is a very tricky one. We have groups of people in different sections of the country that elect an official based on wanting to force their ways of thinking on others. This is called "the majority". People tend to group up based on religious affiliation, ethnicity, sexual preference, or political affiliation.

We are basically all struggling to force others to do like we do. Why not just say foock Big Government and let the states and counties and cities do what they feel like? Isn't that the whole POINT of America?

You like to smoke pot? Move to Oregon! You want to have three spouses? Move to Utah! You want to marry someone of the same sex and raise children? Move to California! You hate guns and only want criminals to have them? Move to New York City! You Love guns and think everyone should be forced to have one in the house? Move to Texas! I always thought that was supposed to be the BEAUTY of this country? We have different areas to live according to what you want? Its like the Burger King of Nations HAVE IT YOUR WAY!

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

Haha! Awesome idea. But what if you fit in more than one group?

I have a good one... no government employee should make more than 150k/year.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:39 PM
My idea for a good government is one that stays as far out of my way as possible.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:43 PM

Originally posted by nyk537
My idea for a good government is one that stays as far out of my way as possible.

South Western


posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:55 PM
government is a hassle. It turns people lame. It puts a frown on ones face.

But I have an idea, instead of government..SELF CONTROL.

Thats right everyone. Do it yourself. Get off your chair. The chair is the reason governemtn exists. You sitting there opinionated, not doing anything but complaining alot, creates an open door to control you, because you are a push over. The reason why the founding fathers of america, created a constitution and declaration, was because they knew that chair sitters were the problem. The internet is perfect for the government backstabber schemers. It can also stab them in the back at times, yet they hold the dominant force of influence, using sound frequency, bad food snacks..etc..

I dont need a nanny state. You dont either. You and I need SELF CONTROL. The nanny state retards need A BETTER SOCIAL TEMPLATE.

America, your fake. Your so fake your really lame arse quit a lot. We need people who are not for one, so melded with wealth or class or cause that it blinds them to reason or practicalty. Having so much money can make one a little drunk with power creating excess, which fits in the hands of enemies trying to ruin us financially.

I say america needs to be what it denies itself now. Churches, and religious people, I ask you to stop accusing people for being gay, or druggies, or whatever you claim your God, whatever that is, hates so much even though he/she/it created all these things you accuse each other of.

You all fighting each other, over money is stupid. Give up money, give up government. I want to see everyone adept at sciences, logical thought and reasonable action, then even a crack head would not be a danger to society. Find reason! Then you will find real governance.

P.S. Im not drug free. And I can say these things with a clear head.
Hows that whiskey

[edit on 18-3-2009 by mastermind77]

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Allow me to suggest an alternative: Performance based pay.

There's a bit of background on this idea: I have an on-going series of thought experiments on government, and pretty much an ever-evolving prototype system in my mind, and my pay idea for the government is based on that theoretical system.

Long story short, imagine a world where the government essentially has 3 forms of revenue only: sales taxes, property taxes (a family's first home exempt), and "confidence fees" which regulated industries and organizations pay to the government in exchange for government regulation and government insurance to the public that the entity in question is operating in a fair and legal fashion. Sales taxes and property taxes would be used to pay for all infrastructure and essential government services, and the confidence fees would fund the actual operation and maintenance and pay of the government, and any projects the government wants to undertake that the people won't vote to fund by special levy. (balancing government pay against government pet projects)

As one tiny example of what I mean on the confidence fee, the government might have a voluntary program, where any used car dealer can pay to be inspected and monitored to ensure that they aren't crooks, and based on that gives an assurance to the consumer in the form of lemon insurance.
So what we have in that industry is that IF the market wants government monitoring, it will give business to the dealers who pay the government to enforce standards (even though those dealers will have to pass the cost on) and IF the government does a good job at regulation, it will turn a profit on the insurance it is offering. But if it does a bad job, it will lose money.

You apply that across many industries and government agencies- the SEC could follow some such pattern.

And here's the performance-based pay part:
Whatever profits are left from the balance of government "confidence fee" reciepts minus insurance payouts for failures, is the fund from which all government pay is drawn. Naturally there will be a paycut heirarchy which ensures that the guys at the top suffer first and the janitors and lower-level employees are the last affected.

Private enterprise can then provide the lower level government employees with pay insurance to avoid breakdown of government when the government screws up, meaning that when the government does well, everyone in the government makes a lot, and some of that goes back to the people who bet on the government by getting invested in the insurance, and when the government does poorly, the first ones to pay for it are the politicians and the investors who were betting on them. (you theoretically even could make a minimum investment in that insurance mandatory for political party affiliation, meaning that registered Republicans and Democrats have to actually be willing to bet money on the people they vote for)

(you may notice that a lot of my thoughts go in the direction of combining a socialist sense of governmental duty with the checks of market forces and decentralized democracy)

Going just a bit further on that subject, necessities of life (minimal shelter, staple foods, basic utilities and sanitation, etc) should be provided by monopolies at a strict profit cap with no sales tax, and with "confidence fees" made mandatory for the monopolies and all such fees from this sector funding welfare for the qualified poor.

The rest of the economy would be 100% and completely lassiez faire- only the market could make industries accept regulation (again via the confidence fee system) and subject to a high sales tax and high commercial property taxes.

This is also envisioned as a more or less confederate system, with the central government being limited to the regulation fo the necessity industries and the provision of optional services based on market forces.

Sorry it's terribly disorganized, I've never really prepped it for presentation- it's just a pipe dream of mine but I thought it might be an interesting avenue for the pay control discussion.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:16 PM
I will flag this thread. but.............

A collection of ideas from some of the most informed people on the planet, (yes that is how I feel about most at ATS) would be a great start to have a stopping point.

There are many threads in Global Meltdown, NWO, etc. that provide an excelent source of information.

ATS is a great one stop shop for like minded people. There are tons of patriots, and most know what is in the Constitution and how bad things really are.

Here is the problem in the form of a question.

What are you going to do about it?
What will you do even if the perfect plan is assembled.

ATS needs to somehow, thru another site, or allowed links to said other site or something, for these idea to go to fruitation.

I can see, the down side of letting it run rampid on ATS.
But it seems like a big waste to have the perfect collection of minds and information, just to let it sit.

With what is going on in this counrty, and the world, and what we all know is coming on ATS, an "I told you so", after the fact would seem like a crime.

Sorry OP, but I had to ask.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:19 PM
I think it's actually to our benefit that ATS does not have a political or social agenda. The fact that we don't have an agenda is the defining difference between ATS and many lesser media. Once you take on an agenda, you take on scrutiny and pressure, from opponents, from allies, from obligations you have incurred in support of your agenda, and that makes it much more difficult to deny ignorance, because you can't be perfect, and that means that there will always be times when your agenda conflicts with intellectual honesty.

"A perfect society would have no philosophers", yet philosophers attempt to plan a perfect society- therefore a perfect society could only arise if a philosopher got it right and philosophy thereafter became extinct, and only then if someone were to enact the teachings of the philosopher who got it right for non philosophical reasons (having philosophical reasons would make him a philosopher).

That is why Greece and Rome had to fall, and the descendents of the barbarians who picked the corpses of those empires had to rediscover Western Civilization in the midst of an anti-religious backlash centuries later.

Some of todays brilliant new ideas are most likely not to be realized by their architects, but dusted off much later by someone less advanced for less noble reasons. Or perhaps by googles' future artificial intelligence in a couple of decades- who knows. The benefit is simply in communicating- in proliferating information and ideas, so that they are available- the better recieved and more repeated the more available.

It's a glacial strategy- it moves at its own pace, but over a long enough timeline the results are, "a historical inevitability".

(and it's not contradictory, it's ironic)

top topics


log in