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.


If we could come up with a new type of government or party what would your ideal kind be? Create a c

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:26 PM
I'm writing this because it seems like the most popular topic is about how bad capitalism is. I personally feel we're living in a capitalistocracy where the only ideals we strive for aren't how we are representing ourselves as images of God or whatever type of moral believes you have, but we are idolizing money instead under the guise of religion. I see this in both parties, where money trumps everything.

Personally I am a libertarian and I believe in limited government (especially against the brutalities of police and prison industrial complex). I also believe that we should be able to choose what we want to do with our own bodies and if drugs were legalized we could tax that and the government would make tons of cash for social programs (even that kind of goes against limited gov). And I feel as long as we're not hurting somebody else or putting somebody elses life in jeopardy then there is no fault. We have the highest percentage of around 1.5% of the pop in confinement with sado-masachists brutalizing and dehumanizing them everyday. But since you must have TONS of money and TONS of financial backing to become president, capitalism by it's own nature will choose which candidate will cause their system less harm...

What I've always found fascinating was the Spanish Civil War, and how the Republic, along with Communist, and Anarchist idealists fought a fascist backed fascist government led by Franco on ideals alone (For Whom the Bell Tolls is a must read book). What also is interesting was the infighting between the side fighting the fascists where the only functioning Anarchist State ever existed in Barcellona for a year. This of course caused infighting among the communists and anarchists giving the Fascists the upperhand as they were backed by Hitler and Mussoloni...

What is also interesting is the fact that "Communists" and "Fascists" seemed like they were sooo at odds with each other. Personally the German National Socialist Workers Party sounds almost identical to Stalin led Bolshevism. I mean for God sakes "Socialist" is a word in the fascist party and they also went against many capitalist systems in the country unless the industry was controlled by a NAZI official. During WW2 all I see is 2 supreme dicatators going to war against each other showing nothing of their mutual parties views but both Hitler and Stalin using their country as Dictators pure and simple, like the kind that used to rule ROME, which was considered a republic as the time! SPQR and all that stuff blah blah blah.

So if you could come up with or make your own political party, what would it be? What kind of ideals would you hold of value and how would it be any different to what's going on now? Call your party anything, combine it with 2 parties, make a new one, hell I don't care I'm just interested to hear your guys different views... I suppose you want me to start with a party I would want to make up. Lemme think about it for a bit and I'll post something soon, but I wanna hear your ideas as well. Feel free to invent a new one, use an existing one, or combine multiple traits of 2 or 3 or 4 parties to suit your need. I have a few ideas right now... but if any of you have something in mind create your own government! Hell make up your own fictitional country if you want to with your own fictitional popuplation with your own resources and strengths and weaknesses! I'm really interested to hear what you guys can come up with!

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:37 PM
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by DarkKnight76

Spend like you have a a family of 6 on a 50k a year budget, and accept everybody as who they are unless they are a twisted hurtful criminal mind.

This is in addition to Darknights quick description of Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberal

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by Swing80s

In my opinion, the complaints thrown around about capitalism are usually as valid as the ones tossed around about communism. Most people only know what they have been spoon fed about the ideology and usually fail to appreciate that because of the nature of the subject; it can be characterized according to one's preference... or bias.

Capitalism (like communism) is just a tool. What makes it bad or good is how it is applied and whether it's used to benefit the society, or to subjugate it. I think we have learned from history that it usually starts out for the former and is eventually transformed to the latter. But the defect is not in the "-ism" as much as it is in us.

When you use the phrase "Money trumps everything." you have to include at least some understanding that "money" is NOTHING. What money represents is the key. Some strongly adhere to the idea that money is a symbolic representation of the labor of people. It is a substitute for wealth. Money is then, a symbol of human activity; effort, endeavors of productivity or creativity.

In our country, money is really a misnomer. We deal almost exclusively in debt. The cash we walk around with is not "money", it is a "note" printed by the treasury at the whim of the Federal Reserve; and it represents "debt."

Our chief mistake as a collective human "civilization" is the tolerance we have for allowing the middlemen (who produce nothing) that manage financial transactions to arbitrarily manipulate the value of such 'debt' to the advantage of those who already have control. It's rather self-serving. Rather than go into a lengthy explanation about fractional reserve lending, the monetization of debt, the control of the supply of notes (currency) to inflate and control wealth distribution, I simply want to say that my opinion is always changing...

Once I believed money was a measure of 'power;' I now view "money" as a measure of "access" to the gatekeepers of prosperity and freedom. This is a flaw in a representative system of governance that relies on celebrity, popularity, and marketing to achieve the level of 'servant' of the people.

I think that we would be less worse off if the positions of representation and administration were chosen by lot, a simple 'draft.' We would be more likely to get sincere well-meaning servants than we are where the object is 'gaming' the electorate and populist pandering with media ownership so tightly controlled (owned) by so few,

The reason we see capitalism fluttering is because it is no longer desirable from the perspective of "keeping" power. The real free market would allow for no special 'coddling' of politically connected corporate empires... which supply us with the celebrities we trust our electoral college to vote for... instead of us.

The Constitutional approach remains the best approach - by codifying the fundamental inviolate nature of personal sovereignty; and by ensuring that the 'wicked' cannot hide from the scrutiny of their masters (us)...

Sadly, the "owners" of the "wicked" are all economic royalty... and their "access" increasingly usurps that of the citizens. So much so that they can now play propaganda games with our nation's fate... all with the impunity of "free speech" measured in dollars.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:01 PM
conservative, and very right wing, does not make me racist as some idiots presume, just mean im very proud of my nationality and heritage, and value it dearly, anyway if i could make any government it would be a total socalist, ruled by one party, only 1 "leader" 4 "patriachs"

fiscally each and any man, would be limited to only making 100 million, any more its taken from you, and given to the system that made you rich in the first place.

this would encourage, new enterprises, but mean each man knows he cannot exceed a certain wealth and so he cannot become more powerful than the state that made him.

i wont go into all the details of how this would work, suffice to say if we had the right men at the helm, this would be the only way to do politcs, and the economy in an individual country.

people talk about capitalism like its good what they dont realise is capatilism makes the world trillions, but only a few see it, capatilism is essentially creates monopolys on markets. because the age old saying of sucess breeds success, rings true those with the most make the most.

not discounting there good in there respective markets, seriously if you dont understand how microsoft and apple and facebook squash everyone else who tries to break through, all they are good for is creating mass jobs, through socalism and a socalist economy, people would have better lives simple.

the only down side to it would be, the people on benefits would want more, this is a tough issue to adress because in my opinion only the disabled should recieve benefits, if youve got two hands you can work,

i wouldnt know how to tackle that issue at all

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:05 PM

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:24 PM
flat tax, term limits, no inside privilege, fair wage, set pay for DC member's, No US mil involvement unless direct attacked by a known lawful country, or force,
Strict immigration laws,your here stay here learn to speak english if not the back you go.
Free health care for the ones that prove they need it, set limits on how long can get food stamps, with exceptions,
No DEA BATF DHS TSA, or NSA. No Fed Res goes back to Dep. of Treasury No reg on GOLD. No fed reg on ed, food or EPA, this is a state issue. Set limits on defense spending. No law to be passed with out gen pop notification spelled out in plain english
edit on 3-2-2012 by bekod because: editting

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:21 AM
reply to post by Swing80s

A great question since everyone is complaining about the old government - I don't think it works.

I think we can start with some kind of joint rule by the people who win their party vote and make it out of the primaries. Even though Ron Paul did not get elected people have proved he has something to offer. People even like Newt...I think for example Obama, Clinton, Romney, Paul and Gingrich could come up with a much better plan than any one of them alone.

edit on 4-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:01 AM
A government where a politician can be [color=gold]BEATEN by angry public mobs if they are guilty of lying, stealing, screwing the people, or selling the country out.

For each violation, the politician will get beaten to near death by angry mobs, and then left to recover in a jail cell. The JUDGE and JURY for this will be We The People Of The United States Of America. If we determine the politician to be in multiple violations in one sentencing, than the cycle is repeated however many times a violation was committed.

I think this would end the BS that they have been GETTING AWAY with for a LONG time now, while LAUGHING at us all the way to the bank.

It would be hard for a SCUMBAG to laugh at We The People if they had a broken jaw or broken skull...
edit on 4-2-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:05 AM
I propose that the perfect form of government is a constitutional republic that does not have elected representatives. The constitution would be much like the current one except expanded to specifically limit the federal government powers and could only be changed by a unanimous vote of the 50 states who appoint a representative. The people employed will be specifically charged that their primary responsibility is to make sure the federal powers do not exceed their defined mandate. Since the central government would be powerless except for specific duties (see original constitution) then the states would decide for themselves how they want to govern. If California wants to become the Democratic Socialist State, that’s wonderful, let them have mob rule and when they go broke and come to the Federal Government to subsidize their failed system it is still possible to get approval from unanimous consent of the other states. If Texas wants to export its oil and gas and devastate its environment then have at it.

Once the ability to buy federal favors from elected representatives (see SEIU, Goldman Sachs, GE any of various special interest groups) no longer exists then the influence buying will be left to the local elections if so decided by the states, but it will be on a much smaller scale.

new topics

top topics


log in