But i dont think you're gonna like it.

Here's what id do though: (its probably going to be a bit of a dictatorship for a while, just to let you know...)

first i wud detain for questioning or arrest (depending on the allegations against them) many top international bankers/such as rothschilds; and corporation directors e.g. monsanto; drug companies; cia/fbi heads/political advisors - anyone with questionable motives/past/connections - and arrest any for crimes against humanity where required. I would detain anyone at the top of secret societies etc/in the bildebergs/etc for questioning.

then id put all corporations/banks etc under government control/superivision. (no one's gonna like this, but i'll explain why). So that the government has control over and access to all the ways of producing goods and services/producing things essential to run a society. Next i would make money illegal. On the basis that the goal of society should be to make sure everyone has enough of everything, and to improve the human, animal and environmental condition - not to make money for profit or personal gain to put yourself above other people or the natural world.

People would be encouraged to contribute to society. I.e. either you grow food to provide for yourself/family; or if you grow extra -i.e. grow food for others in the society - you can exchange it via a certain govt approved system to get other things you may need from other people - who might be exchanging their goods for food. etc. Everyone is given a block of land to live on and look after - on the basis that they are either providing for themself (self sufficient) or contributing in some way to society. That is where the incentive to work comes in. So everyone works in some way - whether for themself to survive or to help others survive/improve, in order to justify the fact that they are entitled to their parcel of land. There is a recognition, that subject to the duty to provide for yourself or to help others - everyone has a birthright to look after their own portion of land on the planet. I use the word LOOK AFTER not OWN which is important.

I would make wars illegal. I would encourage football/soccer or games like paintball etc as an outlet for aggressive instincts instead. or virtual reality type games as an outlet. (anyone inciting wars or violence cud be arrested for crimes against humanity - sentenced to work on government run food producing places - e.g. growing vegetables/grains/crops for the rest of the population or contributing in some positive way to society. There would be no cruelty, even to prisoners; but failure to work or contribute in a positive way would lead to reassignment to more unpleasant work than before - e.g. from food producing to mining/construction or something. Prisoner food would be allotted on the basis that they work or something. And maybe if people show that they care about society/and want to contribute in some positive way, they are released under supervision and watched for a while to see how they do.)

I would immediately address the issues of world hunger by diverting important food resources from wealthy countries - where they have excess food surplus - to poorer countries who dont have enough. I would outlaw gmo, nano and other dangerous additives in food - like aspartame, immediately. (anyone doing this could be arrested for crimes against humanity/society). Next i would immediately divert building and scientific resources to countries where much of the population has inadequate housing or water supply access. I would fix these problems as a priority, using the knowledge of the best scientists.

I would make it mandatory for each home to be self sufficient energy wise - to have solar power/wind power - or any other innovations to produce its own electricity; and to have a tank or water supply/catchment device - or dam; and whereever possible i would encourage every parcel of land to (or even make it mandatory) have a vegetable garden or to produce at least some food itself - unless perhaps all the occupants of the land were making other important contributions to society - like scientists or doctors - and didnt have time to look after a garden. But most people even if busy can manage at least a small garden i think.

I would ensure that each local district had its own food and water supply and extra energy supply. I would immediately order scientists to figure out ways to convert all cars to green energy first; and next figure out how to get humans off the ground and into airborn vehicles so we can stop building roads everywhere. Tesla had some ideas years ago that have just gone nowhere.

I would put a worldwide limit of one child per person or two children per couple to bring the world population to some sort of stability. I would provide incentives for people who choose not to have children until the world population stablises at a more manageable level for the environment/resources. There would be education/encouragement for whoever didnt want kids to not have them. (until the population shrunk a bit). I would ensure every woman and man had access to contraception and was educated about it.

I would make education the key, and put a vegetable garden in each school with chickens for eggs; and solar power/wind etc and encourage children to learn how to grow food and cook and understand about energy etc. And send them on fieldtrips to nature reserves to learn about the environment - and also maybe learn indigenous ways of living off the land/interracting with the environment/animals in a respectful way. I would encourage all kids to pursue what their passion was but to pursue it as a way of contributing to society/animals/nature - rather than for selfish reasons of personal gain. In other words, to work because they want to work, not becuz they have to.

I would immediately shut down all the brothels and child abuse areas in places like thailand etc and free the children and put them in govt run houses or adopted out by any volunteers who want kids or want to help children recover etc. I would encourage people to adopt children rather than to have their own until the population stabilises - wherever possible.

I would make cruelty to animals a very serious offence, punishable by a long long time of working on farms etc to contribute to society. All animals in situations of obvious cruelty to be freed. to be continued...

so basically everyone who contributes to society in some way or provides the basics for themselves is also entitled to be provided for by the govt run farms etc if in times of need they need help or dont have time to grow enough or make stuff for themselves - e.g. becuz working.

Education in schools to educate kids that consumerism is a bad thing. that they should re-use things whereever possible; and build things to last - not use things once (including clothes) then throw them away. Also to educate kids not to gather more possessions than they really need. Advertising to be severely restricted (not allowed like it is now on tv every night etc)- and subject to very close government scrutiny re: all claims that are made for products.

Basically doctors/businesses providing services to community give them free of charge (well people use coupons or units that they've got on the basis of their contribution to society or self sufficiency); but then are reimbursed by the govt through its exchange policy for certain amounts of whatever goods/services they need - based on their business has provided to the community. Maybe coupon type things could be used. E.g. Business's contribution to society is assessed - and then given a certian number of units etc to use which can be exchanged for things like - travel overseeas; food; clothes; etc.

There would need to be limits on how much /how many coupons any individual landowner/household was entitled to - so that groups of people didnt accumulate too many things at the expense of others. Beyond a certain maximum limit - the services if they are provided are done so out of a desire to help society etc. So no one is allowed to have too much more than others. Including government, the leader/s, prominent members of society etc. (obviously at the start of the reorganisation, the assets of billionaires - where they comprise actual businesses/goods services etc will come under govt control - the 'money' of billionaires will be worthless since no money allowed etc. But if they are providing services to society they can still do so and receive their unit/coupon entitlements from govt but the amount of land they can take care of wud become the same as everyone else. so that excess land will come back under govt control for re-categorization (e.g. as nature reserve) or redistribution.

perhaps a panel of the best scientists and peoples from other discliplines can be arranged to advise whoever is elected as leader. there would have to be strict controls in place to prevent corruption/disintegration of the system. E.g. ensure that all leaders/advisors cannot either accumulate more goods/services than anyone else up to the limit set; and always to be based on contribution to society.

hmmm. thats all for now. i may add more later.

Are you running for office?

Originally posted by rapunzel222

So how would you come to power? You would need access to vast sums of money, the media and the military/industrial complex, which you would propose to destroy once you came to power. Just how are you going to broker this deal?

first i wud detain for questioning or arrest (depending on the allegations against them) many top international bankers/such as rothschilds; and corporation directors e.g. monsanto; drug companies; cia/fbi heads/political advisors - anyone with questionable motives/past/connections - and arrest any for crimes against humanity where required. I would detain anyone at the top of secret societies etc/in the bildebergs/etc for questioning.

You get to decide? I assume that would mean the people who set up and run ATS as well. Who is going to run the world when you arrest all the leaders of our organisations and I see you are looking to target the heads of the FBI, so who would run your security organisation

And secret societies are just that. Secret so how can you be sure that people are members?

then id put all corporations/banks etc under government control/superivision. (no one's gonna like this, but i'll explain why). So that the government has control over and access to all the ways of producing goods and services/producing things essential to run a society. Next i would make money illegal. On the basis that the goal of society should be to make sure everyone has enough of everything, and to improve the human, animal and environmental condition - not to make money for profit or personal gain to put yourself above other people or the natural world.

You have arrested the leaders of our corporations and banks, so who will run them. And historically, countries run under central control have never done well. Look at the Soviet Union and China. The Soviet Union no longer exists and China maintains a balance between state and free market control. Of course, one can make the case that Cuba is a successful state controlled economy but Cuba relies on free market tourists.

Even the most communist of states have money and very few societies have managed to cope with some form of money. And even in Soviet Union, China and Cuba, there are people who are more equal that the rest. How are you going to enforce a fair share for everyone and how can you ensure that every one works equally? As soon as someone sees something getting the same as them for doing else, will breed greed and envy. And how are you going to fund development or pay to run organisations without profit. I assume if you have no money, there will be no taxes, so how are you going to fund Government?

People would be encouraged to contribute to society. I.e. either you grow food to provide for yourself/family; or if you grow extra -i.e. grow food for others in the society - you can exchange it via a certain govt approved system to get other things you may need from other people - who might be exchanging their goods for food. etc. Everyone is given a block of land to live on and look after - on the basis that they are either providing for themself (self sufficient) or contributing in some way to society. That is where the incentive to work comes in. So everyone works in some way - whether for themself to survive or to help others survive/improve, in order to justify the fact that they are entitled to their parcel of land. There is a recognition, that subject to the duty to provide for yourself or to help others - everyone has a birthright to look after their own portion of land on the planet. I use the word LOOK AFTER not OWN which is important.

People would say they contribute to society today. You talk of wanting to go back to a less modern time, when people spent most of their time surviving and gathering food. And how are you going to education the vast majority of people who have no idea how to grow their own food? And if you have a state controlled economy, why would people grow food that is not in line with the state plan? And then you say that people can exchange their surplus food for goods. Would these goods be surplus or will some people under the state plan, not grow their own food?

How much land would a family be given and in some countries there may not be enough land to give each family/person a plot. How do you provide for these people and what about people who can not growth their own food?

I would make wars illegal. I would encourage football/soccer or games like paintball etc as an outlet for aggressive instincts instead. or virtual reality type games as an outlet. (anyone inciting wars or violence cud be arrested for crimes against humanity - sentenced to work on government run food producing places - e.g. growing vegetables/grains/crops for the rest of the population or contributing in some positive way to society. There would be no cruelty, even to prisoners; but failure to work or contribute in a positive way would lead to reassignment to more unpleasant work than before - e.g. from food producing to mining/construction or something. Prisoner food would be allotted on the basis that they work or something. And maybe if people show that they care about society/and want to contribute in some positive way, they are released under supervision and watched for a while to see how they do.)

Doing away with war is a very simple and flippant thing to say bit far harder to implement and giving people sport to solve issues with the neighbours or to release aggressive instincts does not appeared to have worked over history. And how are you going to police disputes? And we all know about weapons. How are you going to stop people from producing them? And what about the huge amount of weapons that exist today?

And while you expand the prison population, who would want to do the less unpleasant jobs like mining/construction?

And if people are watching those release from prison, how will they have the time to grow there own food?

I would immediately address the issues of world hunger by diverting important food resources from wealthy countries - where they have excess food surplus - to poorer countries who dont have enough. I would outlaw gmo, nano and other dangerous additives in food - like aspartame, immediately. (anyone doing this could be arrested for crimes against humanity/society). Next i would immediately divert building and scientific resources to countries where much of the population has inadequate housing or water supply access. I would fix these problems as a priority, using the knowledge of the best scientists.

Some parts of the world will never be able to sustain their current populations, so just shipping food and resources does not solve the problem. You will need to depopulate or move people from high population areas to lower population areas. And food technology is required to ensure you can food all the population.

And how do these scientists get there own food? So you expect people to grow food for others who are likely to be living in better conditions than them. Everyone equal?

Give everyone housing and basic food and commodities and energy and you will get my vote.
I think all the people you suggest being locked up should happen regardless.

I would make it mandatory for each home to be self sufficient energy wise - to have solar power/wind power - or any other innovations to produce its own electricity; and to have a tank or water supply/catchment device - or dam; and whereever possible i would encourage every parcel of land to (or even make it mandatory) have a vegetable garden or to produce at least some food itself - unless perhaps all the occupants of the land were making other important contributions to society - like scientists or doctors - and didnt have time to look after a garden. But most people even if busy can manage at least a small garden i think

.

And how will this be funding? Again these are great sound bites but delivering will take years so what do you do in the mean time? Have you every managed a small garden? You are looking at hours per week to grow enough food to feed a family. And then you add care of animals. With the current population of over 6 billion people, you are looking at huge numbers staving.

I would ensure that each local district had its own food and water supply and extra energy supply. I would immediately order scientists to figure out ways to convert all cars to green energy first; and next figure out how to get humans off the ground and into airborn vehicles so we can stop building roads everywhere. Tesla had some ideas years ago that have just gone nowhere.

Some districts will be able to deliver its own food and water. But some districts will never be able to provide enough food, water and energy for their populations. What do they do? And getting cars converted to green energy will cost and take time.

I would put a worldwide limit of one child per person or two children per couple to bring the world population to some sort of stability. I would provide incentives for people who choose not to have children until the world population stablises at a more manageable level for the environment/resources. There would be education/encouragement for whoever didnt want kids to not have them. (until the population shrunk a bit). I would ensure every woman and man had access to contraception and was educated about it.

And will that be enough. Some would say there are too many people on this planet already. Will you take the hard decision if we need to depopulate? And in some parts of the world, children still do not survive many years and in some cultures, children and grand children support their family so you would look to destroy their culture?

And what is a more manageable level?

I would make education the key, and put a vegetable garden in each school with chickens for eggs; and solar power/wind etc and encourage children to learn how to grow food and cook and understand about energy etc. And send them on fieldtrips to nature reserves to learn about the environment - and also maybe learn indigenous ways of living off the land/interracting with the environment/animals in a respectful way. I would encourage all kids to pursue what their passion was but to pursue it as a way of contributing to society/animals/nature - rather than for selfish reasons of personal gain. In other words, to work because they want to work, not becuz they have to.

And what about those who do not have a passion? Re-education?

I would immediately shut down all the brothels and child abuse areas in places like thailand etc and free the children and put them in govt run houses or adopted out by any volunteers who want kids or want to help children recover etc. I would encourage people to adopt children rather than to have their own until the population stabilises - wherever possible.

Have you seen what happen in Ireland in state funded childrens homes?

I would make cruelty to animals a very serious offence, punishable by a long long time of working on farms etc to contribute to society. All animals in situations of obvious cruelty to be freed.

So no forced farming on animals? How will you feed the population?

so basically everyone who contributes to society in some way or provides the basics for themselves is also entitled to be provided for by the govt run farms etc if in times of need they need help or dont have time to grow enough or make stuff for themselves - e.g. becuz working.

And what happens to these who do not want to contribute?

Education in schools to educate kids that consumerism is a bad thing. that they should re-use things whereever possible; and build things to last - not use things once (including clothes) then throw them away. Also to educate kids not to gather more possessions than they really need. Advertising to be severely restricted (not allowed like it is now on tv every night etc)- and subject to very close government scrutiny re: all claims that are made for products.

So what will be advertised on TV and how will people be able to afford them if people only get what they need. This contradicts the basis tenant of a state run economy without any money.

Basically doctors/businesses providing services to community give them free of charge (well people use coupons or units that they've got on the basis of their contribution to society or self sufficiency); but then are reimbursed by the govt through its exchange policy for certain amounts of whatever goods/services they need - based on their business has provided to the community. Maybe coupon type things could be used. E.g. Business's contribution to society is assessed - and then given a certian number of units etc to use which can be exchanged for things like - travel overseeas; food; clothes; etc.

A coupon is no difference to money if it is based on their contribution. People who contribute more will get more coupons, will be lead to greed and envy. And how can you have business when you stated early on that everything will be state controlled?

There would need to be limits on how much /how many coupons any individual landowner/household was entitled to - so that groups of people didnt accumulate too many things at the expense of others. Beyond a certain maximum limit - the services if they are provided are done so out of a desire to help society etc. So no one is allowed to have too much more than others. Including government, the leader/s, prominent members of society etc. (obviously at the start of the reorganisation, the assets of billionaires - where they comprise actual businesses/goods services etc will come under govt control - the 'money' of billionaires will be worthless since no money allowed etc. But if they are providing services to society they can still do so and receive their unit/coupon entitlements from govt but the amount of land they can take care of wud become the same as everyone else. so that excess land will come back under govt control for re-categorization (e.g. as nature reserve) or redistribution.

So people will never do more than the minimum required to get their coupons and leaders will always have more

perhaps a panel of the best scientists and peoples from other discliplines can be arranged to advise whoever is elected as leader. there would have to be strict controls in place to prevent corruption/disintegration of the system. E.g. ensure that all leaders/advisors cannot either accumulate more goods/services than anyone else up to the limit set; and always to be based on contribution to society.

Why would a leader who is not elected or subject to election listen to anyone?