World crisis? Irresolvable dilemma? No problem! Our crack team of me can handle any difficulty, no matter how convoluted.
Abortion: Outlaw all abortions except in the case of fatal/near fatal danger to the mother, as beginning of humanity cannot be defined and we should err on the side of caution. Instead, put tons of money into birth control research and make safe, reliable birth control available for free to anyone who wants it, with penalties for anyone who prevents another person from using birth control (although you can advise against it all you want). Teach safe sex at school, which can only be avoided if the student can pass a test on safe sex and pregnancy. Work to stress the importance of commitment and responsibility.
Affirmative action: Eliminate it at all colleges and universities. Also eliminate all legacy programs, applicants greased with contribution dollars, and anything else that allows a student entry on any basis whatsoever besides merit.
Death penalty: Should be eliminated if there is the slightest chance the wrong person would be executed. If it is to remain, the death penalty should only be used in cases where proof is undeniable and easily proven through DNA or other recorded evidence. Eyewitness accounts without recorded backup would not be enough.
Drivers license: After age 40, it must be renewed in person with accompanying reflex and eyesight tests.
Gay marriage: Make civil unions legal. Legal partnership as far as the government is concerned then becomes a mini-corporation between two people. Or more, for that matter. Companies may decide for themselves how many dependants to allow for insurance matters, although why it would make a difference between two parents and four kids vs three parents and three kids is beyond me. Marriage as defined by the churches is entirely up to the churches to permit or not. Again, commitment and responsibility should be stressed.
Law: All lawyers to be assigned at random. All of them. When your case comes up you will be assigned a lawyer in your area. You might get someone just out of law school. You might get Johnny Cochrane. Who knows? Juries should be in a separate room and should not see the case presented live. Instead they should see the case after items "stricken fom the record" have actually been edited out so they cannot be influenced anyway. Judges should not have three strike laws or restricted sentencing to limit their options for mercy. However, if the community can get enough votes against a judge who constantly exhibits poor judgement, that judge can be taken down and their rulings questioned.
Legislation: No more riders on bills. Ever. If you have additions to a bill in progress, they'd better be obvious refinements of the gist of the bill. If they are sufficient;y different, make a new bill. All changes to bills in progress must be signed by the person who suggested the change. No changes may be made to any bill that is a week or less away from being voted on, to alow all those concerned to read it and vote with full knowledge of its contents. Bills must be written by an accepted member of the legislative body (no lobbyist-written bills) and must be written in as close to common English as is possible while still remainining precise.
Governmental privacy: Records of government activity should be open and available. Exceptions will be made for sensitive or classified material, but they will be limited to a set amount of time, after which they will be declassified.
Gun control: Firearms should remain available to anyone without a record of violent crimes. Records of their purchases should remain on file forever. If purchasing a gun, the buyer must show proof of firearm safety training, which must be renewed every five years. If purchasing anything more powerful than a handgun, buyer must show proof of safety training for that weapon.
Tort reform: Place a reasonable cap on personal injuries, but on the same kind of sliding scale that insurance companies use, with different payments for different injuries. Place a similar cap on punitive damages, with a sliding scale that relates to the number of times the same complaint has been ignored previously by the company being sued. The cost for suits proven to be frivolous must be borne by the parties bringing the suit.
See? This stuff isn't so hard. PayPal accepted.
[ December 10, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Is the fact that I agree completely with Chris scary or a good sign?
Hobbes Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
If you were running in 2004, I'd vote for you! Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
I agree with enough of the items that I would consider voting for you but not all.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
quote: Drivers license: After age 40, it must be renewed in person with accompanying reflex and eyesight tests.
Oh yes, I definately agree with this one. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Age 40 is a bit early for the driver's license thing, but I think that I would vote for Chris as well.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Addendum to Legislation, if the rider system cannot be removed (why not?) then allow for line item vetoes at every stage of the process. No politician should be forced to vote for a bad idea just because it's attached to something he believes in. If items are attached to a bill, each item must be voted on separately. No more omnibus bills.
I have to admit, I'm leaning towards the ideas Heinlein's character suggested in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Have a legislative body that can remove laws with a 33% vote, but must have a 66% majority to pass a new one.
Government bailouts: The government should not bail out a failing company unless the management can demonstrate that they personally have expended all their own holdings already, and even then there had better be a compelling reason to do so. People convicted of extorting from companies, people convicted of stealing from stockholders and employees must pay back the money. No-brainer, I'm thinking.
[ December 10, 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jacare - I'm just shy of 40 myself, and I'm willing to put up with the annoyance of the DMV if it would get some of these idiots off the road.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'd vote for you too!
AJ
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Chris for president....sounds good to me.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
*agrees* I'd vote for you!
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
About the Heinlein idea- it is brilliant. There are altogether too many laws about any number of things and it would do us good to chop a few.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I suspect my background would get me. Besides, the hours are a bitch. I'll remain an unrequested consultant.
Thanks, though.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jacare - me, too. The idea is that if a law isn't good enough to get more than two-thirds of the vote, we don't need it. And if it's bad enough that one-third of the legislators want it gone, out it goes.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
My problem is that I don't want to give you a dollar. Can you solve this?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
The major problem that I see with the 2/3 1/3 thing is that partisan politics would not restrain itself from trashing the other party's whole agenda simply because they can.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Campaign Financing and Lobbying No entity other than a private individual citizen of the US may give money for any political party or candidate. All such contributions shall be limited to a total of $100 per person per candidate or party. Accepting money (or "gifts" whether of services, material or funds) in excess of these amounts or from a source other than an individual citizen is punishable by immediate 90 day suspension from office (first offense) to impeachment (any subsequent offense).
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
but isn't that same rule one of the reasons the articles of confederacy failed? Cause it was too hard to get laws made? although there were lots of other reasons it failed, and things are different now, so it might be a good thing now.
wu-wei is inaction, nonaction, actionless actions, i'm not really posting, i'm studying.........honest.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Bob - I'd go with that. Consider yourself on the payroll.
Partisan politics: Abolish parties. You run on your own merits, your own ideas. If you want to identify with a group, identify with your constituents. All of them, whether you agree with them or not. Work towards what would benefit your constituents most, not what your party wants to happen. If you can't honestly represent the views of your constituents, don't run. Local politicians would work for the local people (note, not just the local voters). State politicians would work for the good of the state, balancing the needs of the local politicians. Federal politicians would do the same for the country, balancing the needs of the states against each other and against the needs of the country as a whole, by itself and in relation to the rest of the world. Actually I've always thought that's how it was supposed to work.
[ December 10, 2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
jehovoid - Depends on why you don't want to pay me a dollar. If it's because you don't have a dollar, merely come up with your own solution and pass the payment forward. If it's because you just don't want to give me a dollar, then don't use any of my solutions. Problem solved.
[ December 10, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
And now for that answer, he owes you a dollar. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hmm. What worries me is how many of those I don't agree with. *shakes head sadly* So many things are just not that simple. And some I don't even think SHOULD be that simple.
But hey, still a good deal for a buck. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Redistricting: Don't. Divide the state up into five-mile squares. Those are your districts. Some of them may be uninhabited, some may be chock full of people, some (most) on the edge will be less than five square miles. Deal with it, or don't run. That's your district. Parties getting control is less of an issue since (as noted above) I suggested abolishing parties.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Rivka - fair enough. Which ones? And why? Never let it be said I didn't offer tech support for my solutions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, the one that jumps out at me is abortion. I am personally against abortions, but I am also VERY against the government regulating abortions.
Who defines "danger to the mother"? What about the situation a friend of mine was in? The baby was not endangering her health directly; but she was diagnosed with a serious but treatable form of cancer. She needed to have an abortion (and at 5 months pregnant, that was fairly complicated) to get the chemo and other treatments -- both because of the certain damage to the baby, and to preserve her resources for her own survival.
Real life just isn't often simple or neat. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Arguing Against Chris for $2.50
Should I start my own thread for this? Nah.
"Abortion: Outlaw all abortions except in the case of fatal/near fatal danger to the mother, as beginning of humanity cannot be defined and we should err on the side of caution."
Who makes this decision, and how do you define near fatal danger? 30% chance of death? 50%? Medicine does not work with a digital read out that says, "This fetus has a 14.895% chance of fatally killing the mother". What if the mother to be believes her father will kill her if she comes home with a child?
"Instead, put tons of money into birth control research and make safe, reliable birth control available for free to anyone who wants it, with penalties for anyone who prevents another person from using birth control (although you can advise against it all you want)."
Many forms of "Safe Birth control" are considered abortions by many church groups. And how do you prevent another person from using it, hide their pills, put holes in the condoms? Who is going to be the BC Police?
Besides, giving birth control free to children just encourages them to have sex, when all good people don't, well, not until married anyway.
"Teach safe sex at school, which can only be avoided if the student can pass a test on safe sex and pregnancy. Work to stress the importance of commitment and responsibility."
What if I have religious problems with being taught about sex. Are you telling me that I give up my right to freedom of religion in order to pass your test?
And what about drop outs?
They'll still be having abortions by the tons.
And where will this money come from? Will you use my tax money to pay for some 17 year olds condom? Why should I pay for his promiscuity, especially when he is probably enjoying himself more than I am enjoying myself.
How about the hard working dedicated pharmacists in this country. They derive a fair amount of income from selling contraceptives to people. If you give them away free you will be stealing the money out of their pockets, stealing the food from their tables, and then taxing them to pay for what they would have been selling.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My own preferences on abortion lean towards no-question abortions during the 1st trimester, abortions only for serious medical reasons after that, and none at all after the fetus has reached viability unless the mother will die.
But compromises are tricky to manage and will be refought every year. My suggestions are extreme on purpose, and insist on consistency. Since there really can't be a final conclusion on when "humanity" begins, and there is valid reasoning behind wanting to avoid all abortions on that basis, I offered a deal. I'll consider banning abortions (although I'll always insist on exceptions for medical danger) if the pro-life side will consider mandatory sex ed and near-oninpresent birth control, which frankly just makes sense to me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Whee! I'm surprised it took this long to get dissension...
Who makes this decision, and how do you define near fatal danger? 30% chance of death? 50%? Medicine does not work with a digital read out that says, "This fetus has a 14.895% chance of fatally killing the mother". What if the mother to be believes her father will kill her if she comes home with a child? Every doctor that deals with life and death decisions makes judgments just like that. What, in his or her considered opinion, is the chance that this patient will die? As for fearing a father, I suggest children's advocacy programs to protect them, something like a restraining order.
Many forms of "Safe Birth control" are considered abortions by many church groups. And how do you prevent another person from using it, hide their pills, put holes in the condoms? Who is going to be the BC Police? "Birth control" in this instance would be anything that prevents an egg from being fertilized. Anything after that point would be an abortificant. I'm not especially concerned with what various church groups think about them. They didn't pay me a dollar.
Besides, giving birth control free to children just encourages them to have sex, when all good people don't, well, not until married anyway. My wife will be happy to hear that, as we started having sex in our teens and so far, after 23 years together, I haven't noticed any creeping signs of evil. But thanks for the heads-up, I'll know to be on the lookout for it now. Giving birth control to children capable of producing offspring is only part of it. Being taught responsibility and commitment at home by parents who display those attributes will do more than any condom ever would. If parents are unwilling to do this, sex education, the kind that stresses how well birth control works (or doesn't) and doesn't lie to the kids about the responsibilities of becoming sexually active, can fill in.
What if I have religious problems with being taught about sex. Are you telling me that I give up my right to freedom of religion in order to pass your test? Nope. You could group with like-minded people and work against my idea, which means abortion stays as it is. I just suggest the solution, what you do with it is up to you. My point was that if you honestly want a reduction in unwanted births and abortion isn't an option, you need to educate people not to have babies. Whether it's through moral injunctions or freely-available birth control is up to you.
They'll still be having abortions by the tons. Sure. Ultimately it's unworkable. But it's fun seeing what reasons people use against my ideas.
And where will this money come from? Will you use my tax money to pay for some 17 year olds condom? Why should I pay for his promiscuity, especially when he is probably enjoying himself more than I am enjoying myself. So it's not a moral dilemma, but an envy issue? Think of the money saved by the reduction in welfare monies, in money set aside for single mothers, for abandoned babies. And if religious people teach their children not to have sex until marriage (which always works) we save on those, too. We might come out ahead on the deal.
How about the hard working dedicated pharmacists in this country. They derive a fair amount of income from selling contraceptives to people. If you give them away free you will be stealing the money out of their pockets, stealing the food from their tables, and then taxing them to pay for what they would have been selling. Sorry, that argument will never ever wash for me. Otherwise I would set up an abacus company and sue Microsoft, IBM and Gateway for selling computers. The U.S. Government is not required to force people to pay you.
[ December 10, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Am I the only one who though about Calvin (I mean Calvin and Hobbbes) by reading the title of this thread ?
Posted by Jill (Member # 3376) on :
quote: Besides, giving birth control free to children just encourages them to have sex
I disagree. Why would anyone have sex just because they have protection? And when teenagers don't have birth control, they have sex anyway.
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
Education: All areas tax the same percent for education. The money goes to the central government, and it is divvied up so there is a certain amount of money per child. In other words, both poor disricts and more affluent ones would have the same education funding, though more urban districts would naturally have more money than the rural ones.
Ugh. What about this thing, optional schooling for poor kids?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Addendum to Death Penalty: No confessions allowed unless interrogations are videotaped. (some of the people in Illinois who were exonerated through DNA and other evidence gave confessions. They had claimed they were coerced - in retrospect, it seems a likely explanation.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I still wouldn't accept a confession for a death penalty. It's still hearsay, based on eyewitness evidence (in this case, the witness being the alleged perpetrator). Demonstratable evidence or no death penalty, no exceptions.
Posted by V Aaron (Member # 6012) on :
You may as well just eliminate the death penalty, then. What is the point of asking jurors if they believe there is not the "slightest chance" they could be wrong? Sounds like a trick question.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Isn't that what they're asked to do anyway?
Hey, CB, I'm just curious...How would you handle Israel?
[ December 10, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
V - It woldn't be a matter for jurors to decide anyway, the judge is the one who casts the sentence. The jury just decides guilt. If you have videotape, conclusive DNA evidence, or other method of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person committed that crime, then you cna try for the death penalty. If there is reasonable doubt, you shouldn't be trying for it anyway.
SM - Simple. Israel and palestine need to set up a federal republic, just like Switzerland uses, just like Belgium is experimenting with. Israel and Palestine would each be internally self-governing, with the exception of defense, foreign affairs, the national treasury and economic policy. A federal constitution would contain a bill of rights protecting Israelis and Palestinians alike. Over time, Palestinians would be recruited into the current Israeli Self-Defense Forces, as is already the case with Israeli Arabs -- gradually converting it into an integrated federal force like the Swiss, Belgian and Canadian armies. Jerusalem would be the third entity in the federation, and its capital. Both Jewish West Jerusalem and Arab East Jerusalem would have their own democratically elected councils, much like the boroughs in New York City. The federal constitution would guarantee freedom of religion and separation of church and state. By integrating Palestinians into a common defense effort and by ensuring more defensible borders, it would also greatly reduce Israel's vulnerability to attack from neighboring countries. (Chunks of this were adapted from a paper by Andrew Reding.)
There is no way to "solve" the problem, the only way out is to remove it.
[ December 10, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*rubs eyes and looks again*
Did you just use the word "simple" in the same paragraph as a suggested solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
It wouldn't work, anyway. Comparing the situation to Switzerland, Belgium, or Canada is disingenuous at best. To the best of my knowledge, no significant segment of the factions in those countries had a deeply held religious belief that wiping one of the other parties out of existence was required.
Posted by V Aaron (Member # 6012) on :
quote: It woldn't be a matter for jurors to decide anyway, the judge is the one who casts the sentence. The jury just decides guilt.
No, Chris, as a matter of constitutional law, a jury must consider every element necessary to impose capital punishment.
The jury already has to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You suggest some even higher standard (beyond an unreasonable doubt?) in death penalty cases. I say this is pointless. If we decide we cannot accept the possibility of an innocent person ever being executed, we should just eliminate the death penalty.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm pretty sure both of you are wrong, and that who decides the death penalty varies by state.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Entirely possible. And I would just as soon abolish the death penalty, as was implied in my first statement. If banning the death penalty is impossible, then it shouold be reserved only for instances where there is no doubt at all, reasonable or otherwise. 12 people deciding a person is guilty based on what others think is not enough.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Rivka - would it work? A slim chance, and it would require years of hard work by everyone involved. But what other options do they have that won't result in either a permanent state of sniping and fear (what they have now) or else all-out war? A truce? Hasn't worked yet.
I never said my solutions would be easy to implement. But you have to admit, they make sense...
[ December 10, 2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Some I agree, some I disagree... vote for you? (Barring the fact that I live in the wrong country, I'm too young and I'm not a citizen) Maybe, it depends how strongly you felt on the things I disagree with you over....
But then I suspect that compared with a number of other candidates you're practically perfect. Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I don't like the idea of lawyers being assigned at random. You're against punishing the innocent, what if someone's innocent and winds up with a totally incompetent lawyer? I know that rich people get away with too much because they can afford the best, but I'd like to be able to get the best that money can buy, too. Especially if I'm innocent. Also, how would these lawyers be paid? What if you wound up with someone very, very expensive, and you couldn't pay? Or would there be a set fee for all lawyers? Then the good lawyers would never get appropriately awarded, so there would be no incentive to do better.
Everything else I either agree with or am indifferent about, because it has little or no relation to me.
[ December 10, 2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd push for the set fee. Your income should not determine the amount of justice you can afford.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have the solution to the BC problem. At puberty, all men can opt to have a genetic sample frozen before they are sterilized. They have to keep up on payments to maintain the support of the sample. Withdrawals can only be made by women.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I guess I prefer choice and opportunity over equality, then. The justice system was built around the preservation of individual rights, one of which is the right to counsel, which you get to individually choose. Also, the lawyer is just one factor in a series of many. The choice eventually still rests with the jury. And the DA's offices aren't composed of slouches, either. But still, if you think of the lawyer as the only factor, if you think your income shouldn't determine justice, do you think it would be better to toss it up to sheer random chance? The system essentially flips a coin, and you're innocent or guilty?
[ December 10, 2003, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
What do we do about polygamy? Or hate crime legislation?
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
drop the hate crime laws, we already have laws against, destruction of property, assult, murder, etc. We do not need to be punishing people simply for their opinions regardless of how incorrect we think that they are.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Chris, what would you propose regarding those pushing for the legalization of marijuana, or at least the decriminalization of it?
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
why would forced sterilization be okay in this instance? What if someone's sperm sample get destroyed in a accident? What if they want to have more children that the sample allows for? Check outs would have to be made with the conset of the father unless we want to remove an claim that the father has to the child (this would also remove any need to pay child support). Further more there are other benifits to some of the types of birth control.
The last thing this world needs is laws about birth control. Birth Control needs to be the concern of the participants in the baby making exercise. Further more I disagree that BC should be free, I have no idea what anything else costs, however condoms are pretty cheap.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Why are the tariffs on manufactured goods lower than the tariffs on raw goods?
It makes no sense to me that we prefer to give jobs to people outside of the US, while protecting those few in the US who produce raw goods. Can you say, "favoritism to the oil and steel industries"?
quote:In a decision largely driven by his political advisers. President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users.
I'd give you a dollar for the answer, but it's only worth about 65% of what it was worth to my European suppliers less that 3 years ago. So here's a $1.35.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pretty much every economist out there agrees that tariffs and duties are never good for the economy.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
No. Globalization is pretty much inevitable, by liberal standards.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not sure what you mean by liberal standards.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I mean the concept of using the economy as advancing individual standings rather than those of your nation.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Luthe: Unless you believe in the abolition of welfare, I'm betting that the government would save money by giving birth control pills and condoms away. Although, many organizations already make them available for free. The Student Health Center keeps a container full of condoms in the waiting room for people to take, for example. Also, anything that cuts down on abortion as a birth control method is a positive thing in my book.
Chris, what about the social security problem? How are you going to fix that gigantic pyramid scheme, and will I ever see any of that money I'm putting into it now?
[ December 11, 2003, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by V Aaron (Member # 6012) on :
Fugu, every state can create its own system for imposing capital punishment. However, if the system sets up a standard for when execution is appropriate, and does not call for the jury to consider whether that standard is met, then the U.S. Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional. (Ring v. Arizona, I believe.)
Chris, your proposal for having everyone receive a lawyer at random for a pre-set fee would succeed in creating equality of legal representation - everyone would get incompetent legal counsel.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The justice system was built around the preservation of individual rights, one of which is the right to counsel, which you get to individually choose. But can it be said to be truly just when a case can be decided on the skill of the lawyers rather than actual guilt or culpability?
Also, the lawyer is just one factor in a series of many. The choice eventually still rests with the jury. Granted, which is why I favor removing the jury from the live presentation of facts. When a lawyer says "Not like you haven't been accused before" and the judge moves to stroike it from the record, do you think the jury really erases it from memory? Present the jury with the edited version and stop letting the lawyers play them like banjos.
What do we do about polygamy? In what regard? If children were not involved I would allow it as part of the civil unions, and let churches choose whether or not to recognize them. However, because of the certain and wildly confusing divorce/child custody battles that would be sure to arise, I would limit marriage to just two people. Who else might share their bank account and/or bed is up to them.
Or hate crime legislation? Remove hate crime legislation, but add "with malice" modifiers to existing crimes, the same way murder is broken into manslaughter and Murder One. Split "assault" into "assault" and "assault with malice," for example. This sounds similar to hate crimes but there is a subtle difference. It's not meant to protect politically-correct groups but any group named or implied as a target during a crime. Example: a man beats me up. I charge him with battery. A man beats me up, screaming about writers the whole time. I charge him with battery with malice, as he is clearly a threat to anyone in the class of writers. It's not a matter of punishing someone for their opinions, but punishing them for their actions based on those opinions which pose a continuing threat.
Chris, what would you propose regarding those pushing for the legalization of marijuana, or at least the decriminalization of it? Legalize it and tax the heck out of it. Or else illegalize cigarettes and alcohol. I can see no reason to be inconsistent here and hemp has too many other uses. However, I would also make DUI charges tougher. I have no sympathy for anyone who drives under the influence of anything that affects their reflexes, no matter what it is. Take a cab or go to jail.
Why are the tariffs on manufactured goods lower than the tariffs on raw goods? Sorry, I only provide solutions. I don't try to defend other people's wacky ideas.
Chris, what about the social security problem? How are you going to fix that gigantic pyramid scheme, and will I ever see any of that money I'm putting into it now? Social security should be locked, as it is money placed aside in good faith and should not be touched. The govt. can make all the money it can from interest on that money, but it hasn't the right to touch it. People should be given the choice to participate in SS or not. Those who do not will avoid payroll deductions, but they're on their own when they retire. Those who continue should get what they put in. With luck, enough people will choose the larger paycheck so the rest will have enough left.
Chris, your proposal for having everyone receive a lawyer at random for a pre-set fee would succeed in creating equality of legal representation - everyone would get incompetent legal counsel. True. So I suggest an addendum to my suggestion. Lawyers will be tested and assigned levels of skill. Lawyers of minimum ability will be in the list for traffic infractions and minor cases. The better the lawyer, the tougher the case they can try. Payment for the lawyers will be set by the court. If they want more money than that, let them do endorsements.
[ December 11, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Well I am all for the abolition of welfare, but I not going to get into that at the moment.
The fact is it no ones business but my own (and the other party invovled) if I choose to use birth control.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Luthe, I'm afraid it's moved out of context. My original point was aimed more at abortion opponents. If abortion is to be banned, birth control should be cheap, plentiful, and taught.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
I would agree, but abortion really isn't birth control, it is more like, killing the cow that escapes the field because you do not want to deal with the complications of returning the cow to the inside of the fence.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Whether it's actually a cow or a potential cow is the major question there, I think. And there's also dealing with the results of the cow being stolen, or a well-made fence failing.
I, personally, have real problems with those who decry abortion but refuse to allow anyone - including themselves - to teach their children how not to get pregnant, or even what pregnancy is. "Don't have sex," while a valid instruction, does not constitute adequate sex education in my eyes, so I suggested a "put up or shut up" scenario.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)