Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

[Guest guest]

I have another idea for government and justice that is based on the Law of Freedom. It is very simple.

No one can order anyone else to do anything, harm anyone else, or infringe on anyone else's freedom or personal sphere. The needs of the many does in this case NOT outweigh the needs of the few or the one, as each individual has absolute sovereignty over and responsibility for his/her own life and veto in any decisions that affect that individual's life.

Political decisions are solved locally first, where each person has a say in any issue that concern them personally. It is not considered successfully solved until every single person is as satisfied as is possible within the limits of everyone's equal right to satisfaction. This way 51 % of any group cannot win over the other 49%. Instead there has to be a little give and take from both groups.

Same on a national level. The government would consist only of volunteers who have the required organizational skills to implement the decisions reached by the negotiations between all the interested parties. It is a question of administration alone, no power whatsoever to decide anything over the heads of the people. Thus, no need for parties and costly elections. No special requirements for getting a say in things that concern one personally, even on a national or global level. And no risk for temptation into corruption and power abuse.

I'd also like to see the economic system revamped, possibly in the way suggested by Margrit Kennedy. http://www.appropriate-economics.org/ebooks/kennedy/kennedy.htm

Possibly, corporations could be owned collectively by those who work in them so that all profit goes back to those who do the work. (Not my idea, but the idea of a South American physician who moved first to the US and then to Sweden, don't remember his name.) May sound a bit commie but note that it is not owned by "the People" = the State, only by the employees of that particular company.

Inger

Re: Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis

, why bother even having parties at all.

This is my simplistic take.

Have a council of decision makers all based on their intellectual prowess.

eg, one hundred and fifty representatives, 3 from each state.

All issues are debated in open forum then put to the test by a vote.

ShaunVISIGOTH@... wrote:

In a message dated 7/26/2005 9:44:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

Ah but and Inger,

Those traits you talk are probably more useful than someone with just a high IQ, but the combination of all facets can be truly awesome.

Shaun.

Shaun,

You are right. The point I was making was that high IQ alone is not sufficient grounds for the franchise.

A quick rundown on how I view this.

The two houses of the US Congress should be for different levels of voters, much like the Houses of Commons and Lords used to be in England.

To vote for candidate or hold office in the Senate, one would have to be in the top 20% income and assets range, have graduated college, have a clean criminal record and pay taxes and, of course, be a citizen. This would be like the house of lords except that it is possible to earn one's way in and one can fall out as well.

The House of Representatives would be more open. To qualify one would only have to be a taxpaying citizen with a clean criminal record.

There would also be an underlying qualifier: one would have to pass a special civics class. This class would meet for one period each day through one's whole scholastic career (meaning 1st through 12th grades). This course would teach about the system and how it works including: Economics, personal finance, the laws of the land, history of the country and the ethical basis and views of the system. This would ensure that all voters had the same basic understanding of how the system works and what it is about,thus making them more qualified to effectively help manage the country.

There would also be some qualifiers there as well.

Regardless of the above qualifications, if someone is living on government money (excluding employees, military, etc.) then their franchise is suspended but not revoked. There could be lenience for a period of say one year to allow for people who fall on hard times. However, the current crop of welfare voters would not have the franchise.

If one's income falls, as might be the case with the elderly: if one had been a citizen in good standing all their life, they could continue to vote in the lower house.

Voting rights for the upper house could be awarded for certain achievements in the sciences or academics, rather like the Nobel Prize but not so restrictive in number. Business and economic success is already rewarded.

The franchise could also be stripped from a person because of: Felony conviction, multiple misdemeanor convictions, association with illegal groups (the mafia, drug gangs, groups whose purpose is to violate nation law like many illegal immigrant lobbying groups, etc.). Other matters like treason, sedition, etc. already count as felonies and carry the loss of franchise.

Just a rough outline.

There would also be changes to government, but that is for another time.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>Inger writes: "I have another idea for government and justice that is based on the Law of Freedom. It is very simple."I would like to take this opportunity to nominate you, Inger, to the position of World Leader. Do I hear a 'second'? If this proved to be a burden to add to your 'real life', perhaps a group of us could share the responsibility.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Inger,

I agree wholeheartedly and its hard to fault the Swedish model that has delivered the highest standard of living by most indexes for their citizens. As a universal model for other countries though it would be found wanting. Swedens social cohesion is based around its cultural homogenity and history and would be on shaky ground in nations that have large minorities of both ethnic and religious makup that have organised themselves into geo political or religious enclaves and blocs and would organise their members to bloc vote giving them more influence than non-aligned voters.

The model you are talking about has already been implemented in recent history by the Transvaal & Orange Free State Boers before they were defeated by the British during the First and Second Boer Wars in the late 1800's.

The corporate model too is highly desirable in that it decentralises wealth and makes stake holders of more in society. Its not commie at all and indeed should be implemented with suitable by-laws to ensure redistribution from failed companies to creditors and capital management strategies

Evan

Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

I have another idea for government and justice that is based on the Law of Freedom. It is very simple.

No one can order anyone else to do anything, harm anyone else, or infringe on anyone else's freedom or personal sphere. The needs of the many does in this case NOT outweigh the needs of the few or the one, as each individual has absolute sovereignty over and responsibility for his/her own life and veto in any decisions that affect that individual's life.

Political decisions are solved locally first, where each person has a say in any issue that concern them personally. It is not considered successfully solved until every single person is as satisfied as is possible within the limits of everyone's equal right to satisfaction. This way 51 % of any group cannot win over the other 49%. Instead there has to be a little give and take from both groups.

Same on a national level. The government would consist only of volunteers who have the required organizational skills to implement the decisions reached by the negotiations between all the interested parties. It is a question of administration alone, no power whatsoever to decide anything over the heads of the people. Thus, no need for parties and costly elections. No special requirements for getting a say in things that concern one personally, even on a national or global level. And no risk for temptation into corruption and power abuse.

I'd also like to see the economic system revamped, possibly in the way suggested by Margrit Kennedy. http://www.appropriate-economics.org/ebooks/kennedy/kennedy.htm

Possibly, corporations could be owned collectively by those who work in them so that all profit goes back to those who do the work. (Not my idea, but the idea of a South American physician who moved first to the US and then to Sweden, don't remember his name.) May sound a bit commie but note that it is not owned by "the People" = the State, only by the employees of that particular company.

Inger

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

LOL, thanks Rainbow! :-)

I actually have a whole host of ideas on how to make this a better world.

First I'd make sure that everyone had food and housing for free so that they only had to work for anything extra they may want.

Then I'd start phasing out everything that is harmful, stressful, ugly, noisy, smelly, unnecessary, complicated & boring and replacing it with things more simple, harmonious, logical & fun.

How does that sound for a start?

Inger

Re: Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

>Inger writes: "I have another idea for government and justice that is based on the Law of Freedom. It is very simple."

I would like to take this opportunity to nominate you, Inger, to the position of World Leader. Do I hear a 'second'? If this proved to be a burden to add to your 'real life', perhaps a group of us could share the responsibility.

Rainbow

[Guest guest]

>Inger writes: "I actually have a whole host of ideas on how to make this a better world.""First I'd make sure that everyone had food and housing for free...."Let's add fresh air and clean water, please.......  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Of course!! That would come when all the ugly, harmful and unnecessary things were phased out. :-)

Inger

Re: Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

>Inger writes: "I actually have a whole host of ideas on how to make this a better world."

"First I'd make sure that everyone had food and housing for free...."

Let's add fresh air and clean water, please.......

[Guest guest]

Inger, no small task you've given yourself, but an excellent start,

I believe the phasing out of petro energy is an excellent start.

Have petro energy for some networks but not others. eg, commuters, city dwellers.

Shaun.Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

LOL, thanks Rainbow! :-)

I actually have a whole host of ideas on how to make this a better world.

First I'd make sure that everyone had food and housing for free so that they only had to work for anything extra they may want.

Then I'd start phasing out everything that is harmful, stressful, ugly, noisy, smelly, unnecessary, complicated & boring and replacing it with things more simple, harmonious, logical & fun.

How does that sound for a start?

Inger

Re: Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

>Inger writes: "I have another idea for government and justice that is based on the Law of Freedom. It is very simple."

I would like to take this opportunity to nominate you, Inger, to the position of World Leader. Do I hear a 'second'? If this proved to be a burden to add to your 'real life', perhaps a group of us could share the responsibility.

Rainbow

Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

[Guest guest]

If I ran the world, I assure you it would be quite different.

I would systematically go through each and every man-made creation

and evaluate it for functionality and artistic craftsmanship. Only

things that function well, last long, and are visually appealing

could be produced going forward.

Items would be sold for cost and slight profit with portions of that

profit invested in reaseach in order to manufacture still better

products.

Houses and buildings would be considered products.

Land use would be evaluated and controled, with fertile land used

for farming and barren land used for building.

Population would be held in check by excessive fines for anyone

having more than a certain amount of children.

There would be a flat tax on all products purchased with people

choosing to have no kids getting a lower tax as a benefit and as an

incentive for others NOT to have kids.

What people do behind closed doors would be their business, but what

they do in public would be the public's business, therefore lots of

things we have now would be prohibitied.

Citizenry would be expected to adhere to certain moral and ethical

standards in public so as to refrain from offending others.for

example.

Advertising would not exist except in the forms of lists of products

so that people knew what was available for purchase.

In terms of office, only those who conformed to the laws of the land

could be elected, and their purpose would be to see that all

existing laws were followed and rules carried out.

A program would be involved where everything that exists on the face

of the earth that is unsightly or not-functional would be

demolished. Ghettos, slums, and whole cities would be scrapped and

replaced with different types of projects where urban greenery and

parkland was at the forefront.

We would have a block of buildings followed by a block of parkland.

We would have canals stretching through cities like we have in

Venice.

Each city would have a different architectural style so everyone's

tastes could be accommodated. One would be ultra-modern, another

Romanesque. One Art Deco, another Prarie Style.

Smaller towns would be molded in the same fashion, many built on

histrical architectural styles, such as victorian, or colonial, and

others all new and modern.

All existing roads would be evaluated for functionality, and those

that are superfluous would be removed and replanted with greenery or

farmland.

All disused and abandoned railroads would be removed, unused ships

in dry-dock would be scrapped, and also, all dumps would be mined

for recycleable materials.

Going forward, everything that is ever built would be made of

something that could and would be recycled.

I could go on, but this is just off the top of my head and i am a

bit pressed for time right now.

Tom

LOL, thanks Rainbow! :-)

I actually have a whole host of ideas on how to make this a better

world.

First I'd make sure that everyone had food and housing for free so

that they only had to work for anything extra they may want.

Then I'd start phasing out everything that is harmful, stressful,

ugly, noisy, smelly, unnecessary, complicated & boring and replacing

it with things more simple, harmonious, logical & fun.

How does that sound for a start?

Inger

[Guest guest]

Tom,

Sounds awesome, electric transportation would be a start.

I heard of this Mayor in Brazil that has a simular sentiment to what you just said.

Need a hand?

Shaun.environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote:

If I ran the world, I assure you it would be quite different.I would systematically go through each and every man-made creation and evaluate it for functionality and artistic craftsmanship. Only things that function well, last long, and are visually appealing could be produced going forward. Items would be sold for cost and slight profit with portions of that profit invested in reaseach in order to manufacture still better products. Houses and buildings would be considered products.Land use would be evaluated and controled, with fertile land used for farming and barren land used for building. Population would be held in check by excessive fines for anyone having more than a certain amount of children.There would be a flat tax on all products purchased with people choosing to have no kids getting a

lower tax as a benefit and as an incentive for others NOT to have kids. What people do behind closed doors would be their business, but what they do in public would be the public's business, therefore lots of things we have now would be prohibitied. Citizenry would be expected to adhere to certain moral and ethical standards in public so as to refrain from offending others.for example.Advertising would not exist except in the forms of lists of products so that people knew what was available for purchase.In terms of office, only those who conformed to the laws of the land could be elected, and their purpose would be to see that all existing laws were followed and rules carried out.A program would be involved where everything that exists on the face of the earth that is unsightly or not-functional would be demolished. Ghettos, slums, and whole cities would be scrapped and replaced with different

types of projects where urban greenery and parkland was at the forefront. We would have a block of buildings followed by a block of parkland. We would have canals stretching through cities like we have in Venice. Each city would have a different architectural style so everyone's tastes could be accommodated. One would be ultra-modern, another Romanesque. One Art Deco, another Prarie Style. Smaller towns would be molded in the same fashion, many built on histrical architectural styles, such as victorian, or colonial, and others all new and modern. All existing roads would be evaluated for functionality, and those that are superfluous would be removed and replanted with greenery or farmland. All disused and abandoned railroads would be removed, unused ships in dry-dock would be scrapped, and also, all dumps would be mined for recycleable materials. Going forward, everything that is

ever built would be made of something that could and would be recycled. I could go on, but this is just off the top of my head and i am a bit pressed for time right now.TomLOL, thanks Rainbow! :-) I actually have a whole host of ideas on how to make this a better world. First I'd make sure that everyone had food and housing for free so that they only had to work for anything extra they may want. Then I'd start phasing out everything that is harmful, stressful, ugly, noisy, smelly, unnecessary, complicated & boring and replacing

it with things more simple, harmonious, logical & fun. How does that sound for a start? Inger__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Tom,

Some goods ideas, some draconian ones, and some I don't think would work.

I would systematically go through each and every man-made creationand evaluate it for functionality and artistic craftsmanship. Onlythings that function well, last long, and are visually appealingcould be produced going forward.

I can see the some of this. Quality items would be better than junk, but quality is more expensive, so a lower grade but better than junk would be good for the majority of people. Functionality is nebulous: there are a lot of things most people would consider functionless but that thing needed by a few other people. Artistic craftsmanship would only add to the cost of some items. A hammer or vacuum cleaner doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to work.

Items would be sold for cost and slight profit with portions of thatprofit invested in reaseach in order to manufacture still betterproducts.

This would not work. A plan like this would have us like the old Soviet Union and would actually serve to stifle inovation. Businesses exist to make a profit, not to produce goods and services. Take away profit and you take away the point of business. The market handles this well enough already. If a firm charges too much for its product, people will buy from a cheaper competitor. Competition also spurs advancement since the companies can't sit still because if they do, another firm might be the first to market with the next big thing and make the high initial profits and secure all important branding (that is to getting people to think of your product when they think about that line of goods, like Kleenex when you need to blow your nose).

Houses and buildings would be considered products.

They already are. This is more prevelant these days than you probably think.

Land use would be evaluated and controled, with fertile land usedfor farming and barren land used for building.

I agree here to a point. Stopping the sprawl would be a great idea and I have always hated seeing good farmland being built over. However, doing this would require stricter building codes for sound protection and laws ensuring the same in the inevitable high rise buildings that would crop up.

Population would be held in check by excessive fines for anyonehaving more than a certain amount of children.There would be a flat tax on all products purchased with peoplechoosing to have no kids getting a lower tax as a benefit and as anincentive for others NOT to have kids.

These are draconian provisions. Population growth is not a problem in the West but rather in the under developed nations. The population problem we do have spurs mostly from the lower classes reproducing more than the middle and upper classes. A better solution would be to limit tax credits to only two children. If people wanted more than two, fine, but it would cost them more because they would not be getting the tax write-offs. The same would apply to welfare and other benefits.

A flat tax is a great idea for everyone. Setting a special sales tax just for people with a lot of kids is bad. It would require everyone to carry ID cards with detailed information on their families. It would also require a large bureacracy to monitor and enforce, and collecting said tax would also have cost. The people with more kids already would pay enough through taxes and additional resources they have to spend on each extra child.

Besides, we will still need a number of people having more than 2 kids to keep the birth rate over 2.1 or replacement level.

A program would be involved where everything that exists on the faceof the earth that is unsightly or not-functional would bedemolished. Ghettos, slums, and whole cities would be scrapped andreplaced with different types of projects where urban greenery andparkland was at the forefront.We would have a block of buildings followed by a block of parkland.We would have canals stretching through cities like we have inVenice.

This is problematic as well. Where are those people going to go when those places are destroyed? What if those people live in a place that is judged "non-functional" but it actually is a functional community? The few cities are going to get REALLY crowded with angry people. Crowding people together usually is asking for trouble, cities have had that trouble since at least the time of Hammurabi.

The lotsof parkland idea has problems too. That would actually increase urban sprawl and fragmentation of the populace. People aren't that inclined to walk, so why would they walk through the park to associate with people, or even more likely, visit restaraunts in shops in the next block or certainly the next block after that? That also wastes valuable building space which would make the other buildings more expensive.

It would be better to have one block in 9 a park. Imagine a square three blocks on a side with the center one a park. Another idea would be to place earthen rooves on the buildings. It would only take about 6 inches of earth to allow grass to grow. This would provide some greenspace, good insulation for the roof and reduce the heat island effect of the cities.

Each city would have a different architectural style so everyone'stastes could be accommodated. One would be ultra-modern, anotherRomanesque. One Art Deco, another Prarie Style.Smaller towns would be molded in the same fashion, many built onhistrical architectural styles, such as victorian, or colonial, andothers all new and modern.

I also see this as draconian and expensive. There are many small towns, neighborhoods and big cities that already have their distinctive style. Refitting them would undoubtedly anger lots of people causing displacement, and cost, as they moved to other locations. That's not counting how much the refitting itself would cost not to mention the loss of architectural heritage.

All existing roads would be evaluated for functionality, and thosethat are superfluous would be removed and replanted with greenery orfarmland.All disused and abandoned railroads would be removed, unused shipsin dry-dock would be scrapped, and also, all dumps would be minedfor recycleable materials.

Again this is not entirely practical unless everyone was rounded up and forced to live in approved cities. There are lots of people who live int he country and like it that way, maybe even living where their family has lived for generations. Tearing up old roads is expensive and creates a lot of waste that made from asphalt and containing years of oil, break fuild etc. This would have to be disposed of somewhere, possibly somewhere secure because of the contaminents in the material. I would be better to leave the roads, especially any smaller ones, in place and let nature take them back. It takes time but I have seen places where this has happened. After 30 years the road is almost gone with trees even beginning to grow through it.

Railroads are often already torn up and the metal sold as scrap. There used to be 2 lines in the 8 miles between Beatrice and Buena Vista but they have both been abandonned and torn up. Some of this though has come back to bite the railroad as they could now use that extra capacity because demand for rail shipping has gone up so much and will continue to rise in the future.

Going forward, everything that is ever built would be made ofsomething that could and would be recycled.

This is the case with most things. Most buildings can be recycled as car cars. Many are as they end up in junkyards where they are pciked over fo parts before being crushed. The problem here is that there is a substantial cost to recycling. Going back to the car, you pretty much have to have a crew take the car apart to remove the various bits the can be resold or otherwise need different recycling methods. Then there is the transport of the lot and the energy put into the actual recycling. Those costs actually make recycling more expensive than using new material and those materials are progressively weaker than fresh material.

The best use of recycling for now would be to convert the carbon wastes into oil which could be used for a great many things. This would reduce waste by probably well over 50%. The metals could then be concentrated in a few dumps, with the more economically viable bits recycled and the rest kept until such time as it would be feasible to use it.

[Guest guest]

>Tom writes: "I could go on, but this is just off the top of my head and i am a bit pressed for time right now."Perhaps you should add a couple of hours to each day?  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

You've got my vote! :-)

Inger

Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

If I ran the world, I assure you it would be quite different.

I would systematically go through each and every man-made creation

and evaluate it for functionality and artistic craftsmanship. Only

things that function well, last long, and are visually appealing

could be produced going forward.

Items would be sold for cost and slight profit with portions of that

profit invested in reaseach in order to manufacture still better

products.

Houses and buildings would be considered products.

Land use would be evaluated and controled, with fertile land used

for farming and barren land used for building.

Population would be held in check by excessive fines for anyone

having more than a certain amount of children.

There would be a flat tax on all products purchased with people

choosing to have no kids getting a lower tax as a benefit and as an

incentive for others NOT to have kids.

What people do behind closed doors would be their business, but what

they do in public would be the public's business, therefore lots of

things we have now would be prohibitied.

Citizenry would be expected to adhere to certain moral and ethical

standards in public so as to refrain from offending others.for

example.

Advertising would not exist except in the forms of lists of products

so that people knew what was available for purchase.

In terms of office, only those who conformed to the laws of the land

could be elected, and their purpose would be to see that all

existing laws were followed and rules carried out.

A program would be involved where everything that exists on the face

of the earth that is unsightly or not-functional would be

demolished. Ghettos, slums, and whole cities would be scrapped and

replaced with different types of projects where urban greenery and

parkland was at the forefront.

We would have a block of buildings followed by a block of parkland.

We would have canals stretching through cities like we have in

Venice.

Each city would have a different architectural style so everyone's

tastes could be accommodated. One would be ultra-modern, another

Romanesque. One Art Deco, another Prarie Style.

Smaller towns would be molded in the same fashion, many built on

histrical architectural styles, such as victorian, or colonial, and

others all new and modern.

All existing roads would be evaluated for functionality, and those

that are superfluous would be removed and replanted with greenery or

farmland.

All disused and abandoned railroads would be removed, unused ships

in dry-dock would be scrapped, and also, all dumps would be mined

for recycleable materials.

Going forward, everything that is ever built would be made of

something that could and would be recycled.

I could go on, but this is just off the top of my head and i am a

bit pressed for time right now.

Tom

LOL, thanks Rainbow! :-)

I actually have a whole host of ideas on how to make this a better

world.

First I'd make sure that everyone had food and housing for free so

that they only had to work for anything extra they may want.

Then I'd start phasing out everything that is harmful, stressful,

ugly, noisy, smelly, unnecessary, complicated & boring and replacing

it with things more simple, harmonious, logical & fun.

How does that sound for a start?

Inger

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

" Tom,

Some goods ideas, some draconian ones, and some I don't think would

work. "

Ah, , you have to think BIG! I'm talking about resorting and

reconceptualizing EVERYTHING from top to bottom. And I think it WOULD

work...

I said...

" I would systematically go through each and every man-made creation

and evaluate it for functionality and artistic craftsmanship. Only

things that function well, last long, and are visually appealing

could be produced going forward. "

replied...

" I can see the some of this. Quality items would be better than junk,

but quality is more expensive, so a lower grade but better than junk

would be good for the majority of people. Functionality is nebulous:

there are a lot of things most people would consider functionless but

that thing needed by a few other people. Artistic craftsmanship would

only add to the cost of some items. A hammer or vacuum cleaner

doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to work. "

My reply...

The idea is to produce an object that will serve it's function so

well and have it last so long, that further development would not be

required until some new technology was discovered that would replace

it utterly. For example, to go back in history a bit, someone would

produce one make and model of phone and then, rather than continuing

to improve it, start focusing on cell phones as a potential

replacement for them.

I said...

" Items would be sold for cost and slight profit with portions of that

profit invested in reaseach in order to manufacture still better

products. "

answered...

" This would not work. A plan like this would have us like the old

Soviet Union and would actually serve to stifle inovation. Businesses

exist to make a profit, not to produce goods and services. Take away

profit and you take away the point of business. The market handles

this well enough already. If a firm charges too much for its product,

people will buy from a cheaper competitor. Competition also spurs

advancement since the companies can't sit still because if they do,

another firm might be the first to market with the next big thing and

make the high initial profits and secure all important branding (that

is to getting people to think of your product when they think about

that line of goods, like Kleenex when you need to blow your nose). "

My reply...

Under my plan, business as such would be eliminated. The idea is to

have the government say " This new product needs to be developed. "

Research teams would develop it. The finished product would then be

manufactured by businesses.

I said...

" Houses and buildings would be considered products. "

said...

" They already are. This is more prevelant these days than you

probably think. "

My reply...

I know that, but in my sense of the word, they would be much

more " kit built " but with much more makes and models than current

houses have so that everyone is satisfied. The idea is to weed out

shoddy craftsmanship and build the newest houses with the most sound

engineering principles, the best products, and in a controlled

faction that minimizes the cost of labor. Thus you'd have high

quality semi-original houses at lower cost, with enough variations in

them that they would not be " cookie cutter. "

I said...

" Land use would be evaluated and controled, with fertile land used

for farming and barren land used for building. "

said...

" I agree here to a point. Stopping the sprawl would be a great idea

and I have always hated seeing good farmland being built over.

However, doing this would require stricter building codes for sound

protection and laws ensuring the same in the inevitable high rise

buildings that would crop up. "

My reply...

You are assuming that it would still be a free market economy. It

would all be government controlled, with the people with the cleanest

records and the best of intentions in government. The government

could be ANY size, but people with a criminal history, or people

demonstrating any degree of corruption would not be allowed to govern

or to vote. That way your average citizen could still be in

government, but your average citizen would still have to be an

enforcer of government policy, thereby spurring patriotism and

instilling the general public with morals and values through his or

her own stewardship, while criminals and less savory people would

have a lesser and lesser role to play in what's happening unless they

themselves reformed or produced offspring that reformed.

I said...

" Population would be held in check by excessive fines for anyone

having more than a certain amount of children.

" There would be a flat tax on all products purchased with people

choosing to have no kids getting a lower tax as a benefit and as an

incentive for others NOT to have kids.

said...

" These are draconian provisions. Population growth is not a problem

in the West but rather in the under developed nations. The population

problem we do have spurs mostly from the lower classes reproducing

more than the middle and upper classes. A better solution would be to

limit tax credits to only two children. If people wanted more than

two, fine, but it would cost them more because they would not be

getting the tax write-offs. The same would apply to welfare and other

benefits.

" A flat tax is a great idea for everyone. Setting a special sales tax

just for people with a lot of kids is bad. It would require everyone

to carry ID cards with detailed information on their families. It

would also require a large bureacracy to monitor and enforce, and

collecting said tax would also have cost. The people with more kids

already would pay enough through taxes and additional resources they

have to spend on each extra child. "

Tom replies...

Regarding ID cards...Not at all. Education would be compulsory, and

kids could be counted when they registered. If a kid registered

under a false name, it would mean that no parent could be found,

which would make the parents liable once they WERE found. And no

childless family would want to claim a kid is their own because they

would be taxed.

The idea would be that if you had more than a certain amount of kids

and wanted to avoid being taxed, it would mean NOT educating your

children, which would make children a liability as they could never

get work, and so there is really absolutely no reason to have more

than the least amount of children that's financially feasible for

each family.

also said...

" Besides, we will still need a number of people having more than 2

kids to keep the birth rate over 2.1 or replacement level. "

Tom replies...

The idea is to lower the population from what it is now to something

significantly less. If you spread the current population over all the

fertile land in the world, the earth would not be able to sustain

them, even if we introduced genetically better crops. The population

has passed the point of the earth's ability to sustain it. It's why

people die of starvation everywhere. This statement holds true IF the

middle classes don;t want to lower their standard of living. Even if

we willingly moved food around the globe to bail out starving

nations, the economic cost would impovrish many middle class people

who are sitting on the fence between middle and lower class.

If you lower the population, you reduce the amount of mouths to feed,

keep the standard of living stable for the middle class, and raise

the standard of living for the lower classes that remain, and also

make them more healthy since there is now the same amount of food to

go around, but fewer people to feed. Where these people find jobs

will be explained shortly.

In a few generations you can significantly lower the population

WITHOUT abortion or killing or starvation simply by limiting the

amount of children everyone can have and by trying to get them to

adhere to the rule through a simple tax law. Birth control would not

be required, but fear of the tax man would cause people to use it

more.

I said...

" A program would be involved where everything that exists on the face

of the earth that is unsightly or not-functional would be

demolished. Ghettos, slums, and whole cities would be scrapped and

replaced with different types of projects where urban greenery and

parkland was at the forefront.

" We would have a block of buildings followed by a block of parkland.

We would have canals stretching through cities like we have in

Venice. "

said...

" This is problematic as well. Where are those people going to go when

those places are destroyed? What if those people live in a place that

is judged " non-functional " but it actually is a functional community?

The few cities are going to get REALLY crowded with angry people.

Crowding people together usually is asking for trouble, cities have

had that trouble since at least the time of Hammurabi. "

My reply...

You begin building the new communities first before you tear down the

old ones, and you build the new communities to be so beautiful that

people would be pleased to move into them. Napolean demolished whole

areas of slums and put boulevards in their place with beautiful

dwellings lining them. The problem was he didn't allow the evicted

people to move into them, only middle and upper class people instead.

said...

" The lots of parkland idea has problems too. That would actually

increase urban sprawl and fragmentation of the populace. People

aren't that inclined to walk, so why would they walk through the park

to associate with people, or even more likely, visit restaraunts in

shops in the next block or certainly the next block after that? That

also wastes valuable building space which would make the other

buildings more expensive. "

My answer...

But with the decreasing population, the sprawl would be LESS over

time, and cars would be unnecessry as jobs were assigned to places

near to where people live. Instead, people in warm climates would be

given mopeds, or covered golf carts, and they could travel to further

destinations through carefully designed and coordinated mass-

transportation systems that stretch from city to city.

said...

" It would be better to have one block in 9 a park. Imagine a square

three blocks on a side with the center one a park. Another idea would

be to place earthen rooves on the buildings. It would only take about

6 inches of earth to allow grass to grow. This would provide some

greenspace, good insulation for the roof and reduce the heat island

effect of the cities. "

I like the gardens on the roofs idea, but I prefer a checkerboard

pattern for urban planning purposes. Further, each block would be

able to call the adjacent block " theirs " and would have some say in

its design and upkeep.

I said...

" Each city would have a different architectural style so everyone's

tastes could be accommodated. One would be ultra-modern, another

Romanesque. One Art Deco, another Prarie Style.

" Smaller towns would be molded in the same fashion, many built on

histrical architectural styles, such as victorian, or colonial, and

others all new and modern.

said...

" I also see this as draconian and expensive. There are many small

towns, neighborhoods and big cities that already have their

distinctive style. Refitting them would undoubtedly anger lots of

people causing displacement, and cost, as they moved to other

locations. That's not counting how much the refitting itself would

cost not to mention the loss of architectural heritage.

My reply...

Draconian? Yes. But given that there are very few houses that are

allowed to stand more than a hundred years anymore in most US

suburban areas, demolishing a whole town or city is hardly a problem,

especially if yuou make what replaces the community better than what

was there in the first place.

Cost?

Not much. All labor that was previously invested in companies that

used to compete with each other developing products could be diverted

into the construction industry. This would keep people employed, and

the manufacture of raw and recycled materials would also be kept

local to reduce shipping costs. Each country would become more

productive without incurring any excessive international trade debt.

I said...

" All existing roads would be evaluated for functionality, and those

that are superfluous would be removed and replanted with greenery or

farmland.

" All disused and abandoned railroads would be removed, unused ships

in dry-dock would be scrapped, and also, all dumps would be mined

for recycleable materials.

replied...

" Again this is not entirely practical unless everyone was rounded up

and forced to live in approved cities. "

My reply...

That's the plan. Except that people would be allowed to select where

they wanted to move to. Is farming your thing? Then we will give you

your own farm. Is a city your thing, we will move you there.

said...

" There are lots of people who live int he country and like it that

way, maybe even living where their family has lived for generations.

Tearing up old roads is expensive and creates a lot of waste that

made from asphalt and containing years of oil, break fuild etc. "

My reply...

It's also costly and inefficient to repair so many roads that are

seldomed traveled. If every continent was planned and layed out, you

could maximize efficient land use and minimize the number of roads

needed.

said...

" This would have to be disposed of somewhere, possibly somewhere

secure because of the contaminents in the material. "

Tom replies...

It would all be recycled, much as they do it today. They rebuilt a

local interstate by using broken concrete as the foundation for the

road bed. They poured gravel over that and recycled asphalt over

that. What was left they used on other nearby projects. No muss, no

fuss.

said...

" I would be better to leave the roads, especially any smaller ones,

in place and let nature take them back. "

Tom replies...

Whats? And let all those contaminents leach into the ground and

ground water?

says...

" It takes time but I have seen places where this has happened. After

30 years the road is almost gone with trees even beginning to grow

through it. "

Tom replies...

But in the meantime, you have miles and miles of road that isn't

being used for anything productive, and it's leaching contaminents

into the ground. If you take it up, recycle it, and plant greenery in

its place, nature gets a head start, there is less contamination, and

you don't have to mine excessive amounts of new material for other

projects.

said...

" Railroads are often already torn up and the metal sold as scrap.

There used to be 2 lines in the 8 miles between Beatrice and Buena

Vista but they have both been abandonned and torn up. Some of this

though has come back to bite the railroad as they could now use that

extra capacity because demand for rail shipping has gone up so much

and will continue to rise in the future. "

My reply...

Yes, they have torn up lines here too. But if my vision would come to

fruition, people would not be consuming as many things because they'd

last longer and so shipping would be substantially reduced.

Additionally, the population would be going down so rail usage would

decrease even more. What would then happen is that some railways

would be converted to mass transit, some would stay as shipping, and

the rest would be removed.

I said...

" Going forward, everything that is ever built would be made of

something that could and would be recycled. "

said...

" This is the case with most things. Most buildings can be recycled as

car cars. Many are as they end up in junkyards where they are pciked

over fo parts before being crushed. The problem here is that there is

a substantial cost to recycling. Going back to the car, you pretty

much have to have a crew take the car apart to remove the various

bits the can be resold or otherwise need different recycling methods.

Then there is the transport of the lot and the energy put into the

actual recycling. Those costs actually make recycling more expensive

than using new material and those materials are progressively weaker

than fresh material. "

My reply...

Yes, but you see, remember that all products would be redesigned

including cars. They would be constructed for easy dismantling after

they cease to function, and the number of materials used would be

minimized in order to minimize time spent sorting them. The idea is

not entirely cost efficiency, but the prevention of mining more raw

materials and restoring the damage we have done to the earth. Also,

to employ those left out of work from closed competitive businesses.

said...

" The best use of recycling for now would be to convert the carbon

wastes into oil which could be used for a great many things. This

would reduce waste by probably well over 50%. The metals could then

be concentrated in a few dumps, with the more economically viable

bits recycled and the rest kept until such time as it would be

feasible to use it. "

My reply...

Agreed. That is the best PRACTICAL solution. My idea only would work

if you could get everyone in the world to agree to my plan. An

obvious impossibility. But it's always been my fantasy regardless.

Tom

[Guest guest]

I found some of this humourous - I give my reasons below :-)

" Only things that function well, last long, and are visually

appealing could be produced going forward. "

This would obviously differ according to personal taste and what is

considered popular at time.

For instance in UK we have a lot of run down old tower blocks for

living that are gradually being pulled down and replaced. At the time

they were built - the 60's I believe - they were meant to be the new

utopia - communities reaching up to the sky - they are now a hot bed

of crime, run down etc.

At one point terraced houses were considered slums and back to back

houses - now these are quite desirable. They were built well and have

stood test of time and have character - unlike the 60's concrete

blocks that have just become so unappealing that it was hard to

believe they ever were.

" Population would be held in check by excessive fines for anyone

having more than a certain amount of children. "

This made me giggle as it reminded me of a time I was in some benefit

agency place and the woman infront of me - very salt of the earth

type person was proclaiming loudly to all that she had had 10

children and the state owed her something. I had to stop myself

saying they owed her sterilisation :-)

The fact that she could have 10 children and expect the state to foot

the bill quite appalled me to be honest - and when I think of people

that desperately want children and could provide good homes for them

without putting a drain on the state - well it just angered me to say

the least - I wondered to myself what her children would grow up to

be - they obviously have a fine example of a mother who thinks

nothing of having lots of children and expecting them to be supported

by the state!

" Advertising would not exist except in the forms of lists of products

so that people knew what was available for purchase. "

Actually advertising can be used for good believe it or not - but

rarely is :-(

There was an expirement many years back where instead of sweets and

junk food advertised and aimed at kids - they used the same

techniques to advertise healthy nutritious foods and guess what? It

worked!

So the power of advertising is a very powerfull tool - but also a

dangerous one - it can and does sway opinion - people do not buy

products through advertising - they are buying into an ideal - a

value of said product/s. Bad press can destroy a product - but they

can and usually do claw back using clever marketing and advertising

campaigns, product image etc - thinking of Shell as one example.

" All disused and abandoned railroads would be removed, unused ships

in dry-dock would be scrapped, and also, all dumps would be mined for

recycleable materials. "

This worried me - some of my happiest childhood memories are walking

along old disused railroad tracks and there was an abundance of

nature there too :-)

I think I have ranted enough now - but there are some good ideas -

but just be careful not to get too power mad - you've heard what they

say about power? it can corrupt and total power - corrupts totally :-)

> LOL, thanks Rainbow! :-)

>

> I actually have a whole host of ideas on how to make this a better

> world.

>

> First I'd make sure that everyone had food and housing for free so

> that they only had to work for anything extra they may want.

>

> Then I'd start phasing out everything that is harmful, stressful,

> ugly, noisy, smelly, unnecessary, complicated & boring and

replacing

> it with things more simple, harmonious, logical & fun.

>

> How does that sound for a start?

>

> Inger

[Guest guest]

,

Regarding the housing, the reasons are very simple. In public housing units, the tenants had no ownership of unit or building so they had no concern for the place. Thus they let it fall apart around them while at the same time demanding the government fix it and give them better things. This happens around the world. The US, UK, Europe, Russia, South Africa, everywhere there is public housing. If the people don't have some stake in the property, they won't care about it.

The woman is also typical. Here in the US, when Lyndon set up the welfare system, there was actually a government approved NGO with over 1,000 offices around the nation that told people about about the benefits available. Part of their mission, also government approved, was to tell people it was their "right" to have these benefits, that the government and society "owed" them this money. This has become so deeply ingrained through sucessive generations that the cycle is hard to break.

Several years ago my house was burglarized by kids from the welfare projects a few blocks away. When I saw them at trial, one of them told me that welfare didn't pay enough to give him all the things he wanted so he was entitled to steal because the system "owed" him but wasn't paying up. He also felt that poisoning my dog was justified because the dog stood between him and my things.

It is also true that the poverty rate in the US was falling by about 1% per year before these programs were put in place. Since then the rate has stayed stable. So much for helping people better themselves. The programs have only trapped generations in poverty and made it harder the break the cycle.

Well, I could go on with more details about this, but I won't.

I have read about similiar advertising schemes. If restaraunts started offering "cool" toys with healthy meals, even vegetables, kids would eat the food for the toys. In time it did indeed change their eating habits. This is what really concerns me about the Brats and other toys like that. Rather than like the old Barbies which showed girls they could become doctors, the Bratz are all about shopping and partying, not to mention lack of personal responsibility. Boys don't have it so bad, but I wonder at the effects of the "Girls Gone Wild" mess on older boys and young men.

[Guest guest]

,

I can see your point about household appliances being nice looking. Having the big appliances blend in and look good is a must. Vaccuums and such for household use, if they look good they are more likely to be used and to sell. I meant more industrial type tools where looks wouldn't matter so much.

Kids can ruin an otherwise nice park. So can hoodlums and other no-goods. My design for a neighborhood we be to have blocks about 1 square mile. Each block would contain clusters of high rise apartment buildingalong the edges every few hundred yards, with each block housing between 1 and 2 thousand people. Each cluster would also have convience stores and maybe small restaraunts. The corners of each block would have more shops and restaurants with one corner being more commercial than the other 3. The interior of each block would be a large park open to all the residents of the block, a total of between 10 to 30 thousand, depending on the number of clusters and the status of each cluster (higher status having few people and more space per person in each unit than lower status ones).

The blocks would be laid out in the township and range system. That is, a set of 9 blocks with the center block being the main commercial, education, medical block. It would be exempt from having park area to allow concentration of development.

Public transportation would be big. Each small block would have slow trolleys, possible automated, running a circuit around the perimeter from cluster to cluster. Larger buses and trollies would pick up people and ferry them to the central commercial block. Also, deliveries of goods purchased could be made straight to the person's home, thus saving them from hassling with it on the bus. Also from the center one could get longer range transport to the still larger centers, figure one big city center for each 9 of these sections.

Private vehicles would still be allowed of course, with spaces allotted at each cluster for them, in parking structures rather than open lots. If you didn't use one or any of your spaces, you could lease them to other people who wanted more spaces. Roads would be designed to favor carpooling and mass transit rather than individual cars. But if you wanted a car, by all means have one, just no complaining about the roads and traffic.

That old ship you mentioned, things like that are done. Some of the towns around here have clubs in the old buildings and a few are being refitted for upscale apartments. The ship though gave me a funny thought. In Alabama a group has a WW2 LST (Landing Ship Tank) that they are repairing. I could see them making a club out of the ship. They could call it "The Tank Deck" and have it centered on interior cavernous tank deck of the ship. They could also have the main deck topside open and there are plenty of other little rooms as well. I don't think they'd go for it though.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:50:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

I don't know if you have mentioned in any of your previous posts the kind of degrading cr*p that young girls are being exposed to via girls magazines comics? - I would suggest all parents be aware of what your children are reading and what ideas they are being exposed to - some of it is bodering on sexually explicit and others just recommending the type of behaviour that just is not nice and could result in trouble.

,

I'm not sure if I did or not, but that is a good point. The magazines aimed at girls these days have very frank discussions about sex. Unfortunately, most of those are more like "how to" guides rather than health discussions.

It is sad but kids are being oversexualized these days. When I was growing up, which wasn't that long ago, the guys were still thinking girls were gross, and the girls thinking the same about the guys, when we were 13 to 15 years old. These days they are dating and "going steady" at 10 and 12. That's too early in my opinion. Let the kids be kids. They've got a whole lifetime to be screwed up by adult problems.

I know what you mean about women's clothing. Haveyou seen the Japanese schoolgirl uniforms? Those were probably designed BY a pedophile. Its not that they are very revealing, but just suggestive I guess is the word I am looking for. Your mention of some guys liking the n gowns reminds me of something else. I was watching a show years back and they were talking to this man who was a lifeguard at a clothing optional beach somewhere in Europe I think it was. He said that after a while the people in clothes started to look good. Maybe the fellows like the n gowns because they cover so much, making it an interesting change from the normal mode of letting it all hang out.

Today while my mother and I were eating out at our favorite restaraunt, I saw two young girls wearing very revealing clothes. One of them was wearing very short shorts and the other this ruffled shirt that also was a bit short, which was accentuated by the ruffles. Both girls were no older than 12 and were with their mothers. Then when I was in the store, I saw a young girl wearing really tight sweat pants with "bootilicious" across her posterior. She couldn't have been 14 and was also with her mother. It makes me wonder about those people and how they are going to feel in a couple of years when that daughter gets knocked up or ends up in a pornographic movie.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:50:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

I don't know if you have mentioned in any of your previous posts the kind of degrading cr*p that young girls are being exposed to via girls magazines comics? - I would suggest all parents be aware of what your children are reading and what ideas they are being exposed to - some of it is bodering on sexually explicit and others just recommending the type of behaviour that just is not nice and could result in trouble.

,

I'm not sure if I did or not, but that is a good point. The magazines aimed at girls these days have very frank discussions about sex. Unfortunately, most of those are more like "how to" guides rather than health discussions.

It is sad but kids are being oversexualized these days. When I was growing up, which wasn't that long ago, the guys were still thinking girls were gross, and the girls thinking the same about the guys, when we were 13 to 15 years old. These days they are dating and "going steady" at 10 and 12. That's too early in my opinion. Let the kids be kids. They've got a whole lifetime to be screwed up by adult problems.

I know what you mean about women's clothing. Haveyou seen the Japanese schoolgirl uniforms? Those were probably designed BY a pedophile. Its not that they are very revealing, but just suggestive I guess is the word I am looking for. Your mention of some guys liking the n gowns reminds me of something else. I was watching a show years back and they were talking to this man who was a lifeguard at a clothing optional beach somewhere in Europe I think it was. He said that after a while the people in clothes started to look good. Maybe the fellows like the n gowns because they cover so much, making it an interesting change from the normal mode of letting it all hang out.

Today while my mother and I were eating out at our favorite restaraunt, I saw two young girls wearing very revealing clothes. One of them was wearing very short shorts and the other this ruffled shirt that also was a bit short, which was accentuated by the ruffles. Both girls were no older than 12 and were with their mothers. Then when I was in the store, I saw a young girl wearing really tight sweat pants with "bootilicious" across her posterior. She couldn't have been 14 and was also with her mother. It makes me wonder about those people and how they are going to feel in a couple of years when that daughter gets knocked up or ends up in a pornographic movie.

[Guest guest]

Mmmmmmmmmm going to have to disagree with some of this, just a

different opinion/point of view though :-)

" A hammer or vacuum cleaner doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs

to work. "

Although I would rate function and form over decoration - I still

believe decoration/design has it's place. For instance of course I am

going to want a vacum that does it's job and it's form is going to

reflect that in some ways - but if I can also get it in a colour and

design that is pleasing to my eyes I'm going to go for it.

It is a matter of personal and individual taste. For example a

luggage case is a pretty standard piece of kit - generally a soft or

hard case - with some design additions such as wheels, locks etc.

Previously luggage cases came in average colours - now I have found

one with a purple tie dye affect :-)

I used to buy very plain things and decorate them myself - to some

extent still do - putting my own personal stamp on them so to speak

:-) and recycling old stuff such as packaging etc to make new things.

" The lotsof parkland idea has problems too. That would actually

increase urban sprawl and fragmentation of the populace. People

aren't that inclined to walk, so why would they walk through the park

to associate with people, or even more likely, visit restaraunts in

shops in the next block or certainly the next block after that? That

also wastes valuable building space which would make the other

buildings more expensive.

>

> It would be better to have one block in 9 a park. "

Some are inclined to walk I know plenty of people who either like to

walk or have little choice due to not owning cars. I would also be

likely to visit out of area places on the search for quieter places -

I seek out quiet places :-) Also it would be good to have more park

areas and also safe places for children to play. Many parks in the

area I live in are now getting run down - at one point they were

maintained by park wardens that usually lived in the house on the

park - there were also more clubs for children previously than there

seems to be now.

" ...unused ships in dry-dock would be scrapped,... "

It is possible to re-use such things if inventive. In Leeds there is

an old boat that is now a pub called 'dry dock'. Also when younger

there was a local park that had an old steam engine in it that kids

could play on and in - it was fantastic - it has since gone :-( but

just think of the potential of old disused things.

> Tom,

>

> Some goods ideas, some draconian ones, and some I don't think would

work.

>

> I would systematically go through each and every man-made creation

> and evaluate it for functionality and artistic craftsmanship. Only

> things that function well, last long, and are visually appealing

> could be produced going forward.

>

> I can see the some of this. Quality items would be better than

junk, but

> quality is more expensive, so a lower grade but better than junk

would be good

> for the majority of people. Functionality is nebulous: there are a

lot of

> things most people would consider functionless but that thing

needed by a few

> other people. Artistic craftsmanship would only add to the cost of

some items. A

> hammer or vacuum cleaner doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs

to work.

>

> Items would be sold for cost and slight profit with portions of

that

> profit invested in reaseach in order to manufacture still better

> products.

>

> This would not work. A plan like this would have us like the old

Soviet

> Union and would actually serve to stifle inovation. Businesses

exist to make a

> profit, not to produce goods and services. Take away profit and you

take away

> the point of business. The market handles this well enough already.

If a firm

> charges too much for its product, people will buy from a cheaper

competitor.

> Competition also spurs advancement since the companies can't sit

still

> because if they do, another firm might be the first to market with

the next big

> thing and make the high initial profits and secure all important

branding (that

> is to getting people to think of your product when they think

about that line

> of goods, like Kleenex when you need to blow your nose).

>

> Houses and buildings would be considered products.

>

> They already are. This is more prevelant these days than you

probably think.

>

>

> Land use would be evaluated and controled, with fertile land used

> for farming and barren land used for building.

>

> I agree here to a point. Stopping the sprawl would be a great idea

and I

> have always hated seeing good farmland being built over. However,

doing this

> would require stricter building codes for sound protection and

laws ensuring the

> same in the inevitable high rise buildings that would crop up.

>

> Population would be held in check by excessive fines for anyone

> having more than a certain amount of children.

>

> There would be a flat tax on all products purchased with people

> choosing to have no kids getting a lower tax as a benefit and as an

> incentive for others NOT to have kids.

>

> These are draconian provisions. Population growth is not a problem

in the

> West but rather in the under developed nations. The population

problem we do

> have spurs mostly from the lower classes reproducing more than the

middle and

> upper classes. A better solution would be to limit tax credits to

only two

> children. If people wanted more than two, fine, but it would cost

them more

> because they would not be getting the tax write-offs. The same

would apply to

> welfare and other benefits.

>

> A flat tax is a great idea for everyone. Setting a special sales

tax just

> for people with a lot of kids is bad. It would require everyone to

carry ID

> cards with detailed information on their families. It would also

require a large

> bureacracy to monitor and enforce, and collecting said tax would

also have

> cost. The people with more kids already would pay enough through

taxes and

> additional resources they have to spend on each extra child.

>

> Besides, we will still need a number of people having more than 2

kids to

> keep the birth rate over 2.1 or replacement level.

>

> A program would be involved where everything that exists on the

face

> of the earth that is unsightly or not-functional would be

> demolished. Ghettos, slums, and whole cities would be scrapped and

> replaced with different types of projects where urban greenery and

> parkland was at the forefront.

>

> We would have a block of buildings followed by a block of parkland.

> We would have canals stretching through cities like we have in

> Venice.

>

> This is problematic as well. Where are those people going to go

when those

> places are destroyed? What if those people live in a place that is

judged

> " non-functional " but it actually is a functional community? The few

cities are

> going to get REALLY crowded with angry people. Crowding people

together usually

> is asking for trouble, cities have had that trouble since at least

the time

> of Hammurabi.

>

> The lotsof parkland idea has problems too. That would actually

increase

> urban sprawl and fragmentation of the populace. People aren't that

inclined to

> walk, so why would they walk through the park to associate with

people, or even

> more likely, visit restaraunts in shops in the next block or

certainly the

> next block after that? That also wastes valuable building space

which would

> make the other buildings more expensive.

>

> It would be better to have one block in 9 a park. Imagine a square

three

> blocks on a side with the center one a park. Another idea would be

to place

> earthen rooves on the buildings. It would only take about 6 inches

of earth to

> allow grass to grow. This would provide some greenspace, good

insulation for the

> roof and reduce the heat island effect of the cities.

>

> Each city would have a different architectural style so everyone's

> tastes could be accommodated. One would be ultra-modern, another

> Romanesque. One Art Deco, another Prarie Style.

>

> Smaller towns would be molded in the same fashion, many built on

> histrical architectural styles, such as victorian, or colonial, and

> others all new and modern.

>

> I also see this as draconian and expensive. There are many small

towns,

> neighborhoods and big cities that already have their distinctive

style. Refitting

> them would undoubtedly anger lots of people causing displacement,

and cost,

> as they moved to other locations. That's not counting how much the

refitting

> itself would cost not to mention the loss of architectural

heritage.

>

> All existing roads would be evaluated for functionality, and those

> that are superfluous would be removed and replanted with greenery

or

> farmland.

>

> All disused and abandoned railroads would be removed, unused ships

> in dry-dock would be scrapped, and also, all dumps would be mined

> for recycleable materials.

>

> Again this is not entirely practical unless everyone was rounded up

and

> forced to live in approved cities. There are lots of people who

live int he

> country and like it that way, maybe even living where their family

has lived for

> generations. Tearing up old roads is expensive and creates a lot of

waste that

> made from asphalt and containing years of oil, break fuild etc.

This would

> have to be disposed of somewhere, possibly somewhere secure

because of the

> contaminents in the material. I would be better to leave the roads,

especially

> any smaller ones, in place and let nature take them back. It takes

time but I

> have seen places where this has happened. After 30 years the road

is almost

> gone with trees even beginning to grow through it.

>

> Railroads are often already torn up and the metal sold as scrap.

There used

> to be 2 lines in the 8 miles between Beatrice and Buena Vista but

they have

> both been abandonned and torn up. Some of this though has come

back to bite the

> railroad as they could now use that extra capacity because demand

for rail

> shipping has gone up so much and will continue to rise in the

future.

>

> Going forward, everything that is ever built would be made of

> something that could and would be recycled.

>

> This is the case with most things. Most buildings can be recycled

as car

> cars. Many are as they end up in junkyards where they are pciked

over fo parts

> before being crushed. The problem here is that there is a

substantial cost to

> recycling. Going back to the car, you pretty much have to have a

crew take the

> car apart to remove the various bits the can be resold or

otherwise need

> different recycling methods. Then there is the transport of the lot

and the

> energy put into the actual recycling. Those costs actually make

recycling more

> expensive than using new material and those materials are

progressively weaker

> than fresh material.

>

> The best use of recycling for now would be to convert the carbon

wastes into

> oil which could be used for a great many things. This would reduce

waste by

> probably well over 50%. The metals could then be concentrated in a

few dumps,

> with the more economically viable bits recycled and the rest kept

until such

> time as it would be feasible to use it.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Some interesting points - certainly on certain views/attitudes that

people hold - pesonally I find it hard to believe that people can

think such a way - but I do know it is unfortunately true of some -

maybe some sort of re-education - perhaps with all tricks of

advertising and branding on board. Possibly idealistic of me and

unlikely to happen though.

As for toys such as bratz and other such stuff - yes it is rather

worrying - makes me glad I have son :-) Still it is a concern - but

one of your earlier posts (I'm still trying to catch up with back log

of posts btw) you mentioned girls dressing in a certain provocative

way. When it comes to peadophiles (sp?) then they can even get some

sort of perverted kick out of school uniforms and I have known some

guys that find white victorian nightgowns - that cover one in head to

foot of flowing material a turn on - so really from a womans/girls

point of view you cannot win on this one.

I don't know if you have mentioned in any of your previous posts the

kind of degrading cr*p that young girls are being exposed to via

girls magazines comics? - I would suggest all parents be aware of

what your children are reading and what ideas they are being exposed

to - some of it is bodering on sexually explicit and others just

recommending the type of behaviour that just is not nice and could

result in trouble.

> ,

>

> Regarding the housing, the reasons are very simple. In public

housing units,

> the tenants had no ownership of unit or building so they had no

concern for

> the place. Thus they let it fall apart around them while at the

same time

> demanding the government fix it and give them better things. This

happens around

> the world. The US, UK, Europe, Russia, South Africa, everywhere

there is

> public housing. If the people don't have some stake in the

property, they won't

> care about it.

>

> The woman is also typical. Here in the US, when Lyndon set

up the

> welfare system, there was actually a government approved NGO with

over 1,000

> offices around the nation that told people about about the benefits

available.

> Part of their mission, also government approved, was to tell people

it was

> their " right " to have these benefits, that the government and

society " owed "

> them this money. This has become so deeply ingrained through

sucessive

> generations that the cycle is hard to break.

>

> Several years ago my house was burglarized by kids from the

welfare projects

> a few blocks away. When I saw them at trial, one of them told me

that

> welfare didn't pay enough to give him all the things he wanted so

he was entitled

> to steal because the system " owed " him but wasn't paying up. He

also felt that

> poisoning my dog was justified because the dog stood between him

and my

> things.

>

> It is also true that the poverty rate in the US was falling by

about 1% per

> year before these programs were put in place. Since then the rate

has stayed

> stable. So much for helping people better themselves. The programs

have only

> trapped generations in poverty and made it harder the break the

cycle.

>

> Well, I could go on with more details about this, but I won't.

>

> I have read about similiar advertising schemes. If restaraunts

started

> offering " cool " toys with healthy meals, even vegetables, kids

would eat the food

> for the toys. In time it did indeed change their eating habits.

This is what

> really concerns me about the Brats and other toys like that. Rather

than like

> the old Barbies which showed girls they could become doctors, the

Bratz are

> all about shopping and partying, not to mention lack of personal

> responsibility. Boys don't have it so bad, but I wonder at the

effects of the " Girls Gone

> Wild " mess on older boys and young men.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was probably part of the last generation to be raised on Lincoln Logs, Tinkertoys and Erector Sets; Lego bricks were just gaining a foothold in the U.S. in the early 1970s, when I was really young. I also was part of the last generation that grew up on the old-style cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Popeye the Sailor, The Flintstones and The Jetsons); I also remember "Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids", with their lessons on life. This was long before "Pokemon" and the "Power Rangers", or even those spoiled rotten Bratz!

[Guest guest]

I was probably part of the last generation to be raised on Lincoln Logs, Tinkertoys and Erector Sets; Lego bricks were just gaining a foothold in the U.S. in the early 1970s, when I was really young. I also was part of the last generation that grew up on the old-style cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Popeye the Sailor, The Flintstones and The Jetsons); I also remember "Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids", with their lessons on life. This was long before "Pokemon" and the "Power Rangers", or even those spoiled rotten Bratz!

[Guest guest]

,

I remember those. The only thing I didn't have was an erector set, but I had Lincoln Logs, Tinkertoys and lots of Legos. A few years ago I found some "nostalgia" sets of Lincoln Logs, so I got some of those. The problem with Legos these days is that they seem all about movie things, like Star Wars. That kind of limits the imagination if you ask me. I used to get the space and knights sets as well as a lot of the general sets.

Another thing I had loads of were the little green army men. I had so many that at one time I put them into platoons, companies and battalions based on WW2 TOEs. Each platoon was kept in a brown paper bag with its number (e.g. 1/1/1: first platoon, first company, first batalion). I was going to label each man, but never got around to it. Later, I modified mass combat rules from Twilight 2000 (a roleplaying game) to use with the troops. A friend of mine and I set them all up in the backyard and had one heck of a wargame that took the fair part of a weekend to run. After that we generally used smaller units, like platoon vs. platoon, because that went much faster and it was easier to keep track of everything.

I also remember those old cartoon shows, though I never really liked the Flintstones or the Jetsons. For last Christmas my mother actually got me the DVD collection of the Fat Albert show. They did have good lessons on that show. Pokemon and the others like it are banal and irritating. Most of the new cartoons on the cartoon network are equally bad.

Tom,

I remember those shows too. I didn't really like Sigmund, but I did like Land of the Lost.

[Guest guest]

,

I remember those. The only thing I didn't have was an erector set, but I had Lincoln Logs, Tinkertoys and lots of Legos. A few years ago I found some "nostalgia" sets of Lincoln Logs, so I got some of those. The problem with Legos these days is that they seem all about movie things, like Star Wars. That kind of limits the imagination if you ask me. I used to get the space and knights sets as well as a lot of the general sets.

Another thing I had loads of were the little green army men. I had so many that at one time I put them into platoons, companies and battalions based on WW2 TOEs. Each platoon was kept in a brown paper bag with its number (e.g. 1/1/1: first platoon, first company, first batalion). I was going to label each man, but never got around to it. Later, I modified mass combat rules from Twilight 2000 (a roleplaying game) to use with the troops. A friend of mine and I set them all up in the backyard and had one heck of a wargame that took the fair part of a weekend to run. After that we generally used smaller units, like platoon vs. platoon, because that went much faster and it was easier to keep track of everything.

I also remember those old cartoon shows, though I never really liked the Flintstones or the Jetsons. For last Christmas my mother actually got me the DVD collection of the Fat Albert show. They did have good lessons on that show. Pokemon and the others like it are banal and irritating. Most of the new cartoons on the cartoon network are equally bad.

Tom,

I remember those shows too. I didn't really like Sigmund, but I did like Land of the Lost.

[Guest guest]

Amy,

That's interesting. I watch those channels from time to time too when there aren't any good documentaries on.

I also find it amazing that old shows like Leave it to Beaver and Gunsmoke are so much better than shows these days. The old movies also tend to be much better. Even though some of the 1950's sci-fi movies were cheesy, they still beat most of what is made today. Too bad mystery science theatre is no longer in production: that really made some of those stinkers watchable.