How Would You Organize Society?

[WinePusher]

If you had the ability to reshape and reorganize society in your ideal image, what would you do specifically?

What would your policy be towards economics, religion, social issues, crime, etc.

[marketandchurch]

• Require applicants for immigration to acknowledge that they accept the core values described in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms before gaining status.
• increase the outlawing of chemicals including many pesticides and GMO

I want to add these two to my own charter as well.

[Darias]

If you had the ability to reshape and reorganize society in your ideal image, what would you do specifically?

What would your policy be towards economics, religion, social issues, crime, etc.

I would like to answer this question, but not the way you framed it. If I had the power to recreate society, I wouldn't do so because that would be quite authoritarian of me.

However, if you're asking me how I think society would improve.... ideally, if society wasn't set up today the way it was, this is the way I'd like to see things:

Economics

Austrian Economics

A real free market, not this corporatism and cronyism we see today. (A truly free market could only exist in an anarcho-capitalist society because there's nothing to stop even a minarchist state from subsidizing or benefiting businesses)
No bailouts ever; banks and businesses won't be too big to fail.
Monopolies would not last very long.
Corporations could not have a monopoly on a region, (like private insurance and cable companies do) -- driving down the price.
Gold or silver backed currency, none of this fiat Monopoly money.
No Federal Reserve; no enormous debt, no enormous amount of spending

Voluntary taxation, or in the case of no state -- no taxes whatsoever. In the case of voluntary taxation where it would be possible to opt out of funding certain things -- there will always be moochers in the system; we have that problem now, so it's not really an argument against voluntary taxation.



Religion

Complete separation of church and state is not a problem in the absence of a state. There wouldn't be any public places, just private property and everyone could practice their faith as they see fit, so long as it does not damage the life or property of others or minors. No taxes.

Maximum church state separation, at least as much as the existence of a minimal state could allow. No religious displays on public property -- but ; no proselytization by state employees (no state lead prayer; no state sanctioned Creationism) no taxation of all organizations claiming to be religious (no judgement calls as to what constitutes a proper church for the purposes of deciding whether or not to give them tax exemption).



Social Issues

In the case of a minimal state:

Legalization of abortion, in terms of emergency, life of the mother, etc. (Why? because in the debate over whether or not a fetus is a person, you cannot deny the person-hood of the mother).

Whether a state is around or not, private hospitals could have their own policies, but they cannot refuse medical care (like emergency abortions) if the mother is going to die -- they could fly in a doctor from another hospital to help, or do it themselves.

Legalization of all types of weapons (except for nuclear ones -- which honestly would never had been created were it not for governments in the first place). If you abuse your weapons you will face the full force of the authorities or private protection agencies will take you out or take you to jail. People can donate to charity for free gun safety classes that you can take if you want.

Whether or not a state is around, it wouldn't be involved in your marriage. Private contracts are better. The state has no place in your bedroom to tell you who to sleep with and what type of sex you should have -- unless of course minors or animals are involved, in which case you go to jail (because of the violation of consent and the NAP).



Crime

Private prisons alongside state prisons, or just private prisons. Private prisons could have their own policy on the death penalty, the state must not use the death penalty given the ungodly costs that come with that.

Complete legalization of all drugs, foods, and beverages. Nothing's stopping you from starting a raise awareness campaign on the deleterious side effects of any food or substance, and no one's making you buy anything you don't want to put in your body -- and no one is going to jail for non-violent drug use.

Of course if you abuse any drug or drink that causes you to harm others, then you go to jail -- no different than today really. There could be ads telling you to eat and drink and do drugs responsibly rather than mandates from the government over the radio. Imagine that?

[WinePusher]

No. I would outlaw all abortions unless the mothers health was at risk. I would additionally set up a federal funded social safety net devoted to assisting mothers going through these hardships and a federal orphange system.

What is the value that animates your position on abortion? I ask because I think it is an important note on the divide between Pro life Jews, and Pro life Christians.

Because I believe that the fetus is a human life, and I believe that abortion causes unrepairable psychological damage to all parties involved. I don't believe any good comes from abortion.

Yes and No. Your concern regarding water is misplaced. You wrongly assume that nationalizing water sources would eliminate the problem of shortages. The free market has shown itself to be much more efficient in allocating scarce resources than central planning and nationalization. Water, just like any other commodity, should be allocated through a price system determined by the supply and demand for water. And I do agree with your sentiment that consumers should be in touch with the land that sustains them, however I don't take it to the extreme like alot of people on the left do. The keystone pipeline, for example, would obviously place many fragile ecosystems in jeophardy. However, the benefit would be the thousands of jobs it would create and the cheaper energy prices that would occur as a result.

Additionally, I would not increase the so called 'humane conditions' for animals that are about to be slaughtered if it would increase the costs incurred by the slaughterhouse. If factories can increase the humane conditions by which they slaughter animals in a cost neutral manner, then I'm all for it. But if it is going to place additional financial burderns on the factory that will ultimately be passed along to the consumer in the form of a price increase, then I am against it.

My position on water is not based on economics. I watched a documentary called Blue Gold: World Water Wars, and it made a rather interesting point, that there is only 3% of the earth's water is fresh-water, and of that 3%, the majority of it is so overly polluted, that heavy purification is required to make it drinkable. 75% of the Earth's surface is covered with water, but water only makes up 0.05% of the earth's mass, and according to scientificnordic, over 25% of all earth's water has evaporated into the atmosphere over the course of 4 billion years.

We are working with far less water then we had before, polluting ever greater numbers of it with all sorts of chemicals that don't break down naturally in a wide range of ecosystems, that it makes it difficult for me to defend leaving something so precious, such as our water supplies, to the market. It isn't just a resource for us to use, it is the very life-source of all life, & we cannot abuse it going forward. It is purely a value-judgement, and while I think the market can address poverty, and most environmental issues can be dealt with without the feds nationalizing or subsidizing it, I hold water in a different light.

I live in California where we constantly have issues regarding water resources. All resources, including water, are scare. Humans have infinite wants and needs while the resources that are available to satisfy those wants and needs are finite. Therefore, there has to be a system that efficiently allocates those resources and I think the free market has proven itself to be the most efficient method of resource allocation. This is related to the larger problem of environmentalism and global warming. If we are facing a catastrophic danger being caused by climate change, the solution is not to impose more government regulations. The market will innovate itself and create newer technologies to deal with the problem of things like pollution. If fresh water becomes unbelievably scarce then entreprenuers will invest and create new technologies to deal with the problem.

Environmentalism is the religion of affluent white upper middle class, and Mother Earth is their God, and I cannot worship false Gods. But opposing that, caring for the market demands and the job creation depends on it, is not enough for me to justify every man-centered view I have. In fact, many of my views are a value-judgement. Genesis states it clearly that we are the caretakers of all that is on the Earth. We are to have dominion over the land, and of the animals. But if we ruin it, we ruin it, and if we decide a few jobs today is worth robbing future generations access to it, then we should please do so acknowledging what it is that we are robbing future generations of. We are above animals, but does that make it okay to hunt them into extinction. To disrupt entire bio-systems, that are food, water, and air quality are all so dependent on is to only put our survival at risk, and ruin this finite resource for future generations. It a tough issue to balance without making Environmentalism your God, but we've seen the problems that arise when people don't ask this as a question, in our unethical food system.

I respect your opinion, however I don't necessarily see it like this. From a biblical perspective God gave us the land and animals for us to cultivate and sustain ourselves. If you look at the issue more broadly you would see that all human activity has adverse affects on the environment. So there is clearly a tradeoff between the welfare of humanity and the welfare of the environment. If I were given the option to create a new factory by tearing down a rainforest I would absolutely do it. While the rainforest would be destroyed and the animals that inhabited the rainforest would have to seek refuge in a new ecosystem, creating the factory would create employment and income for thousands of people and increase their standard of living.

[marketandchurch]

No. I would outlaw all abortions unless the mothers health was at risk. I would additionally set up a federal funded social safety net devoted to assisting mothers going through these hardships and a federal orphange system.

What is the value that animates your position on abortion? I ask because I think it is an important note on the divide between Pro life Jews, and Pro life Christians.

Because I believe that the fetus is a human life, and I believe that abortion causes unrepairable psychological damage to all parties involved. I don't believe any good comes from abortion.

Yes and No. Your concern regarding water is misplaced. You wrongly assume that nationalizing water sources would eliminate the problem of shortages. The free market has shown itself to be much more efficient in allocating scarce resources than central planning and nationalization. Water, just like any other commodity, should be allocated through a price system determined by the supply and demand for water. And I do agree with your sentiment that consumers should be in touch with the land that sustains them, however I don't take it to the extreme like alot of people on the left do. The keystone pipeline, for example, would obviously place many fragile ecosystems in jeophardy. However, the benefit would be the thousands of jobs it would create and the cheaper energy prices that would occur as a result.

Additionally, I would not increase the so called 'humane conditions' for animals that are about to be slaughtered if it would increase the costs incurred by the slaughterhouse. If factories can increase the humane conditions by which they slaughter animals in a cost neutral manner, then I'm all for it. But if it is going to place additional financial burderns on the factory that will ultimately be passed along to the consumer in the form of a price increase, then I am against it.

My position on water is not based on economics. I watched a documentary called Blue Gold: World Water Wars, and it made a rather interesting point, that there is only 3% of the earth's water is fresh-water, and of that 3%, the majority of it is so overly polluted, that heavy purification is required to make it drinkable. 75% of the Earth's surface is covered with water, but water only makes up 0.05% of the earth's mass, and according to scientificnordic, over 25% of all earth's water has evaporated into the atmosphere over the course of 4 billion years.

We are working with far less water then we had before, polluting ever greater numbers of it with all sorts of chemicals that don't break down naturally in a wide range of ecosystems, that it makes it difficult for me to defend leaving something so precious, such as our water supplies, to the market. It isn't just a resource for us to use, it is the very life-source of all life, & we cannot abuse it going forward. It is purely a value-judgement, and while I think the market can address poverty, and most environmental issues can be dealt with without the feds nationalizing or subsidizing it, I hold water in a different light.

I live in California where we constantly have issues regarding water resources. All resources, including water, are scare. Humans have infinite wants and needs while the resources that are available to satisfy those wants and needs are finite. Therefore, there has to be a system that efficiently allocates those resources and I think the free market has proven itself to be the most efficient method of resource allocation. This is related to the larger problem of environmentalism and global warming. If we are facing a catastrophic danger being caused by climate change, the solution is not to impose more government regulations. The market will innovate itself and create newer technologies to deal with the problem of things like pollution. If fresh water becomes unbelievably scarce then entreprenuers will invest and create new technologies to deal with the problem.

Environmentalism is the religion of affluent white upper middle class, and Mother Earth is their God, and I cannot worship false Gods. But opposing that, caring for the market demands and the job creation depends on it, is not enough for me to justify every man-centered view I have. In fact, many of my views are a value-judgement. Genesis states it clearly that we are the caretakers of all that is on the Earth. We are to have dominion over the land, and of the animals. But if we ruin it, we ruin it, and if we decide a few jobs today is worth robbing future generations access to it, then we should please do so acknowledging what it is that we are robbing future generations of. We are above animals, but does that make it okay to hunt them into extinction. To disrupt entire bio-systems, that are food, water, and air quality are all so dependent on is to only put our survival at risk, and ruin this finite resource for future generations. It a tough issue to balance without making Environmentalism your God, but we've seen the problems that arise when people don't ask this as a question, in our unethical food system.

I respect your opinion, however I don't necessarily see it like this. From a biblical perspective God gave us the land and animals for us to cultivate and sustain ourselves. If you look at the issue more broadly you would see that all human activity has adverse affects on the environment. So there is clearly a tradeoff between the welfare of humanity and the welfare of the environment. If I were given the option to create a new factory by tearing down a rainforest I would absolutely do it. While the rainforest would be destroyed and the animals that inhabited the rainforest would have to seek refuge in a new ecosystem, creating the factory would create employment and income for thousands of people and increase their standard of living.

Winepusher, I have to disagree. That is true that all human activity has adverse affects on the environment, but what of conspicuous consumption? Amassing products to fulfill one's desires has absolutely nothing to do with survival.

The point of the bible is to say to people, that there are ethics in every facet of life. Just because the bible doesn't cover every single issue, doesn't mean that it's principles can't be applied to it, nor does it mean that it's beyond the reach of ethics. There are many things that the political Left overinflates in this arena, because they worship the Environment. But that doesn't excuse us on the Right from honestly assessing the ethics of our own behavior, that diminishes the shelf-life of the finite resources of this planet. Raising our standard of living doesn't excuse us of the ethics regarding the means we use, to achieve that end. And one can be honest with the challenges of reality, without putting the environment, or animal life, above human life.

I am also curious, and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense. Do you have faith in the markets, as the best means, of addressing most of our problems? In your own personal opinion, is there a major issue out there, such as our food system, or affordable housing, wherein you feel the markets is not adequate, or cannot realistically address the very real issues being presented?

[WinePusher]

Winepusher, I have to disagree. That is true that all human activity has adverse affects on the environment, but what of conspicuous consumption? Amassing products to fulfill one's desires has absolutely nothing to do with survival.

This is actually one of the only things I agree with Institutionalists on. Look, I agree that it's better not to waste resources producing luxary goods that only super-rich people can purchase. The way to solve the problem of conspicuious consumption is to socially shun those people that engage in it and make it a socially unacceptable practice, the same way we as a society shun pedophiles, etc.

However, at the same time, I am a strong proponent of consumerism. We all purchase and partake in things that are not necessary for all survival, and that is undoubtedly a good thing. The goal isn't to have people in society living at the subsistence level, the goal is to increase the standard of living beyond the subsistence level.

The point of the bible is to say to people, that there are ethics in every facet of life. Just because the bible doesn't cover every single issue, doesn't mean that it's principles can't be applied to it, nor does it mean that it's beyond the reach of ethics. There are many things that the political Left overinflates in this arena, because they worship the Environment. But that doesn't excuse us on the Right from honestly assessing the ethics of our own behavior, that diminishes the shelf-life of the finite resources of this planet. Raising our standard of living doesn't excuse us of the ethics regarding the means we use, to achieve that end. And one can be honest with the challenges of reality, without putting the environment, or animal life, above human life.

Perhaps you can be more specific. What do you see to be the problems of the Right when it comes to the environment.

I am also curious, and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense.

If you have something to say derogatory to say to me please go ahead and say it. I have no problem if people are straightfoward, upfront and even rude in a debate so long as what they're saying is substantive .

Do you have faith in the markets, as the best means, of addressing most of our problems? In your own personal opinion, is there a major issue out there, such as our food system, or affordable housing, wherein you feel the markets is not adequate, or cannot realistically address the very real issues being presented?

I am absolutely and unashamedly a free market fundamentalist. I assumed you were as well due to your name marketandchurch.

There is no issue I can conceive of that the free market cannot handle, whether it be food, housing or the environment. And that is because the free market does not actually exist as a physical, tangible thing. The free market is merely a fictitious abstraction that refers to the free and voluntary exchange between individuals. Adam Smith's conception of the free market being guided to positive outcomes by an invisible hand still rings true to this very day, and as been thoroughly reinforced by subsequent research in price theory, utility and supply and demand.

Again, what is the best thing that could happen that would benefit the environment in your opinion? In my opinion, it would be the development of a new technology that cuts back pollution, and the free market Capitalism has an empirical trackrecord of fastpaced technological innovation. Placing draconion environmental regulations on business will do nothing to solve the problem of Global Warming because China and other nations around the world have no intention in doing the same thing. China undoubtedly expells more pollution into the atmosphere than the United States.

[Darias]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

As a libertarian, I wouldn't organize society. If I'm delusional enough to think I have all the answers on how to perfectly organize society, then I am no better than a czar who thinks he and his agency can properly manage the economy.

That doesn't mean I don't have ideas on how society can work, it just means I don't have any insight on what your best interests are, and I'm not about making laws to regulate everyone's lives.

These lists are hilarious. You can have freedom here, but you must be a slave in this regard as it pertains to X. I mean really?

[Darias]

Winepusher, I have to disagree. That is true that all human activity has adverse affects on the environment, but what of conspicuous consumption? Amassing products to fulfill one's desires has absolutely nothing to do with survival.

This is actually one of the only things I agree with Institutionalists on. Look, I agree that it's better not to waste resources producing luxary goods that only super-rich people can purchase. The way to solve the problem of conspicuious consumption is to socially shun those people that engage in it and make it a socially unacceptable practice, the same way we as a society shun pedophiles, etc.

The luxury goods that only super rich people can purchase is relative to the times. A bottle of coke and a cell phone used to be very expensive luxury items, and now they are staples for virtually everyone on the planet.

The poorest person in a first world country lives far better than the richest of kings in times past.

It makes no sense to socially ostracize those who have the means to buy all manner of luxury items, which may, in time, be enjoyed by all of our grandchildren.

The idea that society should ostracize someone who engaged in a voluntary trade just as much as they should ostracize someone who violated someone's rights is a bit grotesque.

This logic teeters on the brink of class warfare dogma.

However, at the same time, I am a strong proponent of consumerism. We all purchase and partake in things that are not necessary for all survival, and that is undoubtedly a good thing. The goal isn't to have people in society living at the subsistence level, the goal is to increase the standard of living beyond the subsistence level.

Virtually nothing people buy and enjoy in first world countries has anything to do with survival. It is neither a sin nor a breach of ethics to enjoy the stuff of life if you can. Just remember that today's high life is tomorrow's subsistence.

Do you have faith in the markets, as the best means, of addressing most of our problems? In your own personal opinion, is there a major issue out there, such as our food system, or affordable housing, wherein you feel the markets is not adequate, or cannot realistically address the very real issues being presented?

I am absolutely and unashamedly a free market fundamentalist...

You're not even a proponent of the free market. You argue for state capitalism with government control of the money supply. Because you have no problem with corporations, you support government influence over the markets in such a way as to grant legal privileges to big businesses that destroy market fairness and stifle competition. Furthermore, you are for government monopoly of certain sectors that you would never allow the free market near. And despite the fact that you've stated your opposition to subsidies and bailouts, the system you support necessitates those things. If a corporation is big enough and if the state depends on it, then the state will take everyone's money to keep it alive, even if it can't make it in the long run. A free market would never allow that.

Of course you're free to call yourself whatever you like. Make believe is fun; you can call me Mr. President.

There is no issue I can conceive of that the free market cannot handle, whether it be food, housing or the environment.

I agree with your sentiment, but I must stress that this is only a view point one of us shares, and it's not you. Given everything you've stated on other threads, you fully support free market solutions, except for when it comes to roads, military services, police and fire, etc. Instead of believing that voluntary interaction is the most moral way things can happen, you defer to a monopoly of force when it comes to key issues, just to keep government relevant. In other areas you are fine with private solutions, so long as government can get involved too -- even though the free market is more efficient and promises better quality, you still want things like mandatory government run education and social security -- but strangely not healthcare, even though that would fit nicely with your logic.

And of course, you don't think the free market can help those who are less fortunate, despite the fact that charities work, and could work better if they had more money instead of it all being wasted on taxes. It is precisely because you don't think the free market can work that you support government, and big government at that. At the end of the day you buy the same logic that socialists adhere to: without the government, it won't get done.

And that is because the free market does not actually exist as a physical, tangible thing. The free market is merely a fictitious abstraction that refers to the free and voluntary exchange between individuals.

Right; there's no magic or faith involved; it doesn't take belief, it's just acknowledging the reality of a process. But, it takes faith to trust that 1 agency or person can manage an economy, or that government coercion and theft is the only way to insure that people won't die in front of hospitals, or that the Earth won't transform into Venus.

Again, what is the best thing that could happen that would benefit the environment in your opinion? In my opinion, it would be the development of a new technology that cuts back pollution, and the free market Capitalism has an empirical trackrecord of fastpaced technological innovation. Placing draconion environmental regulations on business will do nothing to solve the problem of Global Warming because China and other nations around the world have no intention in doing the same thing. China undoubtedly expells more pollution into the atmosphere than the United States.

There's a bit of a contradiction going on here. Yes, state capitalism helps innovate better than communism, and I agree that technology is the only solution for the problem of climate change and pollution. We can't just all become avatars and live half naked in the woods.

However, the corporatist system we have now benefits existing corporations that extract oil for profit. Any new cleaner technology developed by small organizations will have a hard time catching on because it's experimental and oil isn't. There are definite profits in oil, and the state benefits from those profits by having more to be able to tax (not to mention the oil necessary to feed it's war machine, and if the state can get close with big oil companies in exchange for paying less for oil, it will). The state relies on big oil and so they subsidize and protect those companies.

Keep in mind that the worth of the US dollar is tied to oil. Our entire economic system depends on debt and fiat money and the prevalence of the petrodollar.

In a free market system, cleaner alternatives would have replaced oil by now, in much the same way kerosine killed the whaling industry and saved the whales.

But because war is the health of the state, and because the state needs resources to wage that war, and because the dollar is no longer on the gold standard -- well that pretty much means an unnatural perpetuation of the oil industry, unnatural benefits to big oil... making it all the more difficult for small clean energy companies to compete.

Well what about Solyndra, you might ask. That was an example of government proving that it cares about the environment because it subsidized that corporation. The problem was that the company wasn't efficient, and that the government had no right to steal from you and me to prop up a bankrupt business.

It doesn't mean clean energy is a failure or that it couldn't be more profitable, it just means that companies should neither be helped nor hurt by taxes or subsidies or legal protections.

The fact was that china was able to make normal solar power panels for cheaper, and Solyndra couldn't compete.

But the reason China has so much pollution isn't because of the free market. Half of China's industrial companies are state owned. In a free market, people could sue companies that poison their air and water. In China, forming a union to protest working conditions is illegal. Since the state depends on companies that create a lot of pollution, and since the state owns half of them, it's cities are literally immersed in a toxic cloud, and their citizens can't do anything about it.

But people blame the free market instead of the government, when it is in fact the government that creates the problem.

State-owned enterprises control 61 percent of Chinese shipbuilding industry; 76.6 percent of the petroleum and petrochemical industry; 92 percent of the electrical power generating industry; 76 percent of China's air transportation sector; 59 percent of China's coal industry; 96 percent of China's telecom services industry; 74 percent of the country's automobile industry; 17 percent of the steel production sector; 20 percent of the construction industry; and 19.5 percent of the non-ferrous metals industry.