Does anyone else have any politically radical ideas?

Post Reply New Topic

The idea has been seen multiple times in popular fiction, notably in the 1980's film The Running Man where it is used as a control device for prisoners, and more recently in the video game Fallout 3 where it is used by slavers to capture and control their prey. In reality there was a bizarre incident a few years back when a pizza delivery driver robbed a bank while wearing a pipe bomb locked to his neck that he claimed he was forced to wear at gunpoint and then threatened with detonation if he didn't commit the robbery. He was killed by the device before it could be removed, and it was later discovered that he was an active participant in the crime and it's planning, and that things had gone sideways on him. Anyway, it's not an original idea in and of it self.

I can think of much worse pass times than blowing the heads off politicians.

BTW, I thought of it all by myself.

I will even give you another nifty idea: The Free Kill. Grant to every law abiding citizen one Free Kill in his lifetime. He gets to kill a person of his choice without any legal penalties. He need not exercise the option if he does not wish to.

I guarantee a 300 percent increase in politeness, good manners and careful courteous driving.

ruveyn

I honestly dont beleive there would be an increase in politeness, good manners and careful courteous driving; i beleive people would simply stop caring, knowing that any moment is there last, in fact i see there being an increase in everything consider evil in the world if that were to happen.

Well, I take that back.

Yes. I think an increase in violence would be a much more likely outcome than an increase in courtesy.

I think that there would be a very intense increase in retribution murders. The family and friends of the "free kill" murder victim are not going to sit idly by just because the justice system wouldn't step in. Instead they would use their own "free kill" for retribution against the murderer. If they had used up theirs, they would find somebody who hadn't yet. It would be a never-ending cycle of violence that would guarentee that every single person used their "free kill" and that many turned to vigilante retributive murder if they couldn't get justice through a "free kill".

I have read that the entire concept of "justice system" was invented in societies around the world mainly because it is impossible for people to live together in a society if there is not at least some hope of justice for murder victims. The concept of "justice system" was invented by all societies to stop the cycle of retribution murder that happens whenever murderers aren't held accountable. There have always been people high up enough in the social hierarchy that this didn't apply to them. But it needs to exist for at least the majority of the population in order for a society to survive. Even the pretty well connected Marquis de Sade did jail time for the violence that became his namesake.

Ok then.

I think I put the wrong poll option - I put 1-2 radical ideas because for some reason was thinking 'novel' radical ideas - only after I read other people who had down ideas that considered politically extreme but fairly accepted amongst certain groups in the population (like legalising drugs) that I realised should have probably put more.

My novel radical ideas (not heard from anywhere else as far as I know) are very possibly economically unworkable - I have no idea as haven't studied economics at all and it isn't something that can be worked out with just a bit of logic.

One of my ideas is to abolish inheritance (and I don't mean inheritance tax) as a means of reducing inequality. People are born genetically unequal and not everyone will be successful in life. If success is due to genius and hard work, it should be rewarded (even though these attributes are unfairly distributed). However, a huge amount of wealth is attained purely through inheritance. People born to rich parents already benefit in education and contacts and will be more likely to succeed anyway due to these factors - they are the last people that need financial inheritance. My model would be for all assets to go to the state after death, and then all children would 'inherit' an equal sum at some specified age, which could be put towards buying property, funding extra education, setting up a business etc.

Still havent worked out all specifics such as would the 'inheritance' be freely available to spend on anything (including drugs and drink if so wished - allows freedom but could result in squandering of huge amounts of money) or only on certain 'life enhancing things' (but that is denying people 'choice', not that I believe people really have choice anyway)? Also regulating it would be a huge headache and almost certainly unworkable - people would be trying to get around it by giving gifts to their children before death, or sending money abroad etc., just to give this unfair advantage to their own offspring and I don't know what to do about this. Also, it may have unwanted effects on economic growth in that people would have no incentive to make more than the amount of money they needed for their own personal enjoyment (as few people, even the socially minded, like the government getting their hands on their money and as likely as not, wasting it). I did wonder how about a high inheritance tax rate to fund the universal 'inheritance' (e.g. over 50%), with remaining wealth free to leave to the charity/ies of choice of the individual. Donating to charity generally motivates people a lot more than giving to the state does, and (as long as charities are genuine and not fronts for giving advantage to favoured people) should ideally improve society in the way the individual wishes, rather than in the way the state wishes.

And then there are issues about inheritance of business - few people would be well enough off under my model to be able to buy successful businesses off the government after death of the founder (as they would have only their own life to accumulate wealth in) - my current idea is that maybe after death of the founder they should ideally be run as cooperatives for the benefit of the workers. They could also be floated on the markets or bought outright if a buyer is found by the government. I think this system would rely on a complete lack of corruption though, and I can see that it would be really unpopular as most people think that having earned the money themselves they should have the right to give it to whom they wish - thus perpuating inequality.

The other idea I have been thinking about is a radical shake up of the working week and childcare, which I am not going to go into depth here as this post is already excessively long, but basically aims to reduce the standard working week (this doesn't apply to shift or other unconventional working patterns, but the general one) for all individuals to 4, 10 hour days (should reduce levels of stress and increase quality of life), allow more flexible, but still financially viable working for parents and increase gender equality (all parents, men and women should be allowed and encouraged to work 3 day weeks - allowing each parent to continue a satifying career, spend 2 days a week alone with their child and 2 days with all the family, plus one day for the child in nursery) and help very young children from all backgrounds (in particular deprived backgrounds where parenting is often very poor) to learn basic moral and social values (together with English language for those from non-English speaking families) before they go to school (one day a week of high quality nursery care would not only be free for all families, but obligatory from the age of 1 year - 4 days freeand 1 obligatory for single parents in work), thus hopefully increasing levels of educational attainment and reducing discipline problems overall, in addition to potentially identifying children at risk of abuse more easily). Again, I fear it may be economically unviable, but at least this one would be popular with most individuals - but probably not with business.

If you abuse your own children, you should have your reproductive organs taken away...

Legalise Cannabis and "Coffeeshop" Heroin.

Pretty much all that but then add in fully legal abortion. All stages.

Hmmm how about before people can breed?



I agree..... but wonder why it's ok to abuse other people's children?

I am a big advocate for government enforced sterilization of certain people.

Harvey Danger said it best...
"been around the world and found
that only stupid people are breeding
the cretins cloning and feeding"

Who decides who is unworthy of having children? Who decides who is stupid and who isn't? The Nazis sterilized people they considered undesirable. Its best if we just leave that s**t behind us

Whoa..... don't put words in my mouth. I suppose I should have clarified.
1) If the government steps in and takes your children, and you lose all rights... yeah, sorry.. I don't think you should be able to have more.. even if the state steps in and takes those too.

2) Sorry... I do feel there are people who have no common sense and shouldn't be parents. How do you test for that?... I don't know.

3) Does it piss me off when welfare families just keep spitting out more babies?.. YES.. do all do this? NO

I'm sorry for the stereotype, but unfortunately, the majority of families that I see with more than 2 children are not the ambitious, career-successful, socially responsible people of my community.... except a doctor that I work with who is Mormon who has 8 biological children and 3 adopted children. And no, I don't think that being poor defines your ability to parent.

Do I have defined guidelines for who should qualify and who shouldn't? No... but I'm not opposed to the idea at all...

The question was calling for radical ideas.... and that's it.. just a radical idea, but it's not the first time I've been called a Nazi.... probably won't be the last time.

Sorry BurntOutMom, I wasn't calling you a Nazi or trying to put words in your mouth. The idea of sterilizing people against their will though, was practiced by Nazis, that is all I was saying. I don't much like eugenics. I also don't like the idea of the government controlling who reproduces. There are many people who won't make good parents, but the idea that stupidity from the parents and the choices they made in their lives leading to the children being stupid by default = Lamarckian

Ha, well a politician better have a damn good reason for running for office then.

I was not trying to imply that stupid people breed stupid children.

And I wasn't even necessarily meaning surgical sterilization... (except maybe for child abusers) How about chemical with mandated parenting classes? You pass, here's your Free To Procreate card..

I might, on occasion, be a b***h (even a monstrously HUGE b***h), but I really am not a Nazi... I am not ashamed to say that IN THEORY, I don't believe communism is a bad thing. I have stringent work ethics... and sometimes I think outside the box on certain social issues. Those are things that have led others to calling me "dictatorish" and "Hitlerish"... and whatnot.
I do have to admit that some issues, I'm not looking at it on an individual basis.. I'm not considering the specific human that might be affected.. I'm looking at it as a large scale problem and thinking of a "greater good" answer.... and yes, my idea of greater good might not be the same as yours.

Yeah. How about feck off and leave us alone?