making our new society

Post Reply New Topic

If you had it your way how would you make a society suitable to us aspies and auties? What would you want government to be like? Would houses be bigger or smaller and other stuff like this? Basically just redesign any object or institution you like.

First of all.. Abolish schools! Why must they 'trap' us into things that we are not interested in? lol

Great idea. No sense trying to stuff good sense into idiot brains. Let the smart people gather in voluntary groups and hire teachers with money ordinarily spent on public schools to give them the understanding and training they desperately desire. Then give automatic weapons to all those not interested in learning to be useful and competent and sequester them in uninhabited areas so they can kill each other off. Darwinian principles will much more rapidly improve the intelligence of humanity and those brutes who are smart enough to break out of the isolated areas can either be convinced to act sanely or shot on the spot as a danger to civilized society. It simplifies a great many problems.

If school is not compulsory, we will either see a dramatic increase in crime or widespread child labor once again, or both. These things are not the mark of an advancing society.

If anything we should expand school and separate those who don't care from those who care -- give all our funding to those students who want to learn, and those who don't can be babysat while they learn 7th grade math all four years of high school.

I would want the government to be minimal and the taxes low. People are capable of ordering their own affairs, and the bulk of government should be local and minimal. The purpose of government is to keep order, to protect life and to protect property. Government should not exists to impose Morality on the people or to equalize inequality among the citizens. We are not Equal in the literal sense of the word. The only equality that ought to count is equal protection of the laws.

ruveyn

In a society very much dominated by huge corporations and international provocations the idea that a local government can provide control and protection simply doesn't work. Government should be appropriate to the tasks it needs to perform. And likewise, taxes should be levied upon the appropriate sources at a level to sustain the programs necessary to provide the maximum benefit for the entire nation. No one said it was easy but if it is not done properly citizens suffer.

If you don't like Big Corporations, then don't do business with them. Long before Big Corporations existed, people lived, loved and prospered. If they don't suit you, then dissociate.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 28 Feb 2009, 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

If I was the leader of a society I would ban pornography to combat paedophilia, perversion and decrease the amount of promiscuous people; make all food high in fat, sugar and salt as well as alcohol organic so that people with unhealthy habits have a better mimimum threshold of wellbeing; make it compulsory that fishing had to be done by fishing rod to reduce the decline in fish stocks, protect diversity, increase employment substantially and keep the fishing undustry sustainable; force supermarkets and shops to sell alcohol at fixed prices with no special offers allowed to keep pubs and bars, hubs of communities, open; ban compulsory ECT (electroconvulsivetherapy) for psychiatric patients; and make it illegal to pay for sex with the standard punishment being a night spent in the drunk tank and a fine of $50 with people unable to pay the fine being given the task of cleaning public toilets for a week.

A democracy with universal sufferage has a HUGE flaw in it:

Stupid people screw it up.

Thus free (well yeah, theres taxes), compulsatory schooling.

Not only that, but a majority (through their representatives) will loot the treasury.

ruveyn

[quote="Perambulator"]If I was the leader of a society I would ban pornography to combat paedophilia, perversion and decrease the amount of promiscuous people;quote]

Banning things doesn't stop them happening. Banning porn would only result in it being done illegally, therefore more abuse would happen.

I forgot to add that I would also ban internet dating websites in my country because they are killing romance, the thrill of the chase and turning dating into too much of a meat market. I'd also give local control to psychiatric wards and hospitals as to which methods to use in treating patients so long as cruel and degrading treatment is not involved as well as keep comprehensive statistics on health outcomes and deaths and reward the staff of wards and hospitals with low death rates and positive health outcomes with generous bonuses. Poor performers would be inspected, and if failing to improve, mothballed.

Banning things can stop them happening. It doesn't always go smoothly but it doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. In Amsterdam recently half the red light district prostitutes have been sacked as the city reduces its quota of legal prostitutes and half the cannabis cafes have been forcibly closed. The tolerant Netherlands have had enough of brash tourists turning their country into a hell of greedy pleasures of the flesh. In France the laissez-faire French have just ordered bars to close earlier. The French have had enough of their easy attitude to alcohol, realising that it's making many of their citizens lazy and unproductive.

I think banning porn would not work. I can definitely predict the ban would not last too long and would face much opposition when people realised how restrictive and difficult it could be. It would however introduce a public debate about the damage it is doing at its current high level of popularity. It'd make us reassess how sexual much of our media and lifestyle has become. In the United States although prohibition of alcohol failed to stop people drinking and actually increased bad behaviour during its period in its aftermath American people forever more drank less than their European predecessors. The Americans somehow did gain from their prohibition, it brought a little sobriety to the act of drinking.

Boy! Are you unreal! When a big corporation offers to move into an area and create jobs and new construction and asks for all sorts of tax breaks in return a community rarely tells it to go and stick it. Especially if local politicians are offered all sorts of support for their re-election including huge monetary donations. That's the system that's in operation and if you don't know it you should grow up and look around.

Large corporations are not necessarily bad. The problem is that large corporations have the capacity to "go bad". IF the corporation itself (and they should be judged on their individual merits) goes bad, then cease doing business with them.. the only other thing you can do is elect congressmen that will intiate reasonable and fair regulations.

If one doesn't exercise these two very, very important powers, then one has no room to complain.

The problem with large corporations and huge financial institutions is not that they are bad, it is that they are amoral. The only thing they respond to is their bottom line and the huge amorality of the profit system is overwhelmingly antisocial. It is not a question of their being bad, it is a question that the whole basis of their existence is to maximize their profits. They will bribe officials, sponsor with huge funds those representatives that favor their programs, corrupt information about their activities etc. as a normal part of their basic function and they are frequently far more financially powerful than any civic forces opposing them.

I don't like the thrill of the chase because it allows for mixed messages and mixed signals.




I have a one phrase for this paragraph and that is "Puric Victory."