Personal Politics

[zicada]

HEALTH
I think health care should be heavily subsidised and no person should have to pay more than $40 for a GP visit. Unemployed people (including the elderly and students) should only have to pay half that. And that's without insurance. Children under 5 should get free healthcare. Hospitals should be free.

- Agreed, but this costs A LOT of money, leading to a vast tax increase. You must keep that in mind. I am for disallowing privately funded healthcare institutions. From a US perspective, this should be federally controlled, not statutory.

EDUCATION
Education should be free up to tertiary level, and should also be heavily subsidised at tertiary level.

- Again, agreed,- the other huge cost. You don't mention allowing privately funded schools, but with enough spending on public, there might not be as big a market for it. Personally, I am for disallowing privately funded educational institutions.From a US perspective, this should be federally controlled, not statutory.


TAXATION
This crap with different taxes for different states is just silly. There should just be federal level tax. A straight goods and services tax of maybe 20%. I know, that's high, but that would be offset by significantly lowering of the income tax so it becomes more of a user pays model. Income tax, business tax and a vice tax (more on that later), all federal.

- Income tax would have to increase drastically to allow for your previous statements to succeed. This is a good thing as it leads to class equality, thus limiting crime and large amounts of inner city lower class areas. I agree with you on the idea that 'people should pay for what they do' As such, goods that generally lead to massive costs in healthcare, should be taxed accordingly. Road and gas tax for car owners limits the excessive use of gas, leading to a better environment,- but does not affect people who chose to use other means of transportation.

VICES
I'm all for legalising all vices that do not cause immediate harm to others. Alcohol, smoking, prostitution, soft drugs, hard drugs, petrol (let me explain that one below before you claim that petrol is not a vice). You could even include junk food in there. On top of the goods and service tax, they would also incur a vice tax. Perhaps as much as another 20%. Also, each substance or service could only legally be purchased from a licensed vendor, and only consumed on licensed premises, in the privacy of your own home or set public areas. Licenses would need to be renewed yearly. Let me break down the vices for you here.

Alcohol: Self explanatory. It's pretty much how things are now. Also, I would lower the drinking age to 18.

Smoking: Also pretty much how things are now. Although it would effectly ban smoking from the sidewalk (in Japan, a very heavy smoking population, smoking in public is restricted to certain areas), smoking areas could be set up outside, or it may be allowed to smoke outside if certain conditions are met. If a city or state wished to ban smoking in public buildings, they would just need to refuse to hand out smoking licenses.

Prostitution: Restricting it to licensed properties (AKA brothels) would still leave street walking illegal. I'd make the brothel responsible for the health of the workers and the client. Forcing prostitutes to get registered will just drive them underground, but there should be a non-invasive way to get them to get regular check ups. I'd make that as a requirement for the license anyway.

Soft Drugs: Pretty much the same as smoking.

Hard Drugs: I'd even include heroin in this category, but realistically, I wouldn't recommend that any heroin licenses are issued.

Petrol: Not really a vice, sure. Any vice tax on petrol must be used to pay for the roads, making it a user pays issue. Hopefully this will also have the added benefits of encouraging public transport use and promoting alternative fuel sources.

- Pretty much agree here. The govt has no business limiting personal freedoms of any kind, except issues where the VAST majority is against it, and where it is obviously and seen as morally wrong by most sane people (child marriage, child sexual abuse, etc)

GAY MARRIAGE
I wouldn't make them legal. Marriage is a religious institution and if the church does not want to marry gay couples it should not have to. Instead, I'd remove the legal aspects of marriage and move them all over to civil unions. Anyone would be able to have a civil union with anyone else. Multiple partners are acceptable. It is not for the government to tell anyone how to love. Of course, lines are still drawn with children.

- I disagree. From a US standpoint, being very religious. Marriage itself is a big deal. Coming from the ideal that every person should be treated equally, every person should be allowed the same things. If people WANT to marry, they should,- any way they chose. It should not be up to the state to determine this.
Of course, personally, I would like to remove the idea of a religious ceremony that carries with it real life attributes,- but that's another discussion. Sure you can believe what you want, but it should not have anything to do with the state, or your financial or social situation.

ENVIRONMENT
I am not a fan of the Kyoto agreement. Instead I would like to see an environmental agreement based on the carbon footprint of the country compared to the carbon offset of the country (trees, size of the country, etc), rather than some arbitary "1991" setting. Companies must also be held fully accountable for their polluting.

In favour of Hydro, Solar and Wind Turbine power sources over Coal. Make fly ash Coal burning illegal. I'm a New Zealander, so anti-Nuclear power stations.

Improved public transport. Higher density and electrification. Not necessarily expected to make a profit, as the social benefits can outweigh the fiscal damage.

- I agree with most of this. If you can come up with something better than the Kyoto agreement, that actually works, sure. The main thing is that the state needs to be alot more involved here. The state must be allowed more control over its countries businesses,- even when this means indirectly influencing the economy. This because the environment is a serious issue, that requires serious work to come to a solution.

MILITARY
Cut down the military by a whole lot. Focus more on peace keeping than aggression. Use diplomacy rather than force to avert conflict.

- Completely agree. The current US spending on military is nothing but ridiculous

WELFARE
Welfare should be available for everyone. By letting people keep falling and falling, they are not being given a chance to get back on their feet. I would much rather contribute to a welfare society than allow so many people to be living on the streets who have a much reduced chance of getting back up on their feet and contributing to society. I would consider it a failing of society for anyone to be living on the streets due to circumstances not of their choosing (i.e., the only homeless people should be those that refuse to work or got there through drugs and alcohol).

- Agreed except on the large part. There are in 99% of the cases reasons why people end up using drugs and alcohol and thus end up homeless. Those are people who were let falling and falling already. You sort of contradict yourself here. Welfare by this model though, if you want it to be effective, means another huge tax increase of course.

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY
At the age of 18 a child officially becomes an adult, although they can choose to become an adult at 16 or 17 with the consent of their parents. Once a child becomes an adult, they are no longer eligible for free education. They are allowed to participate in vices, give consent for sex, join the military and form a civil union with another adult.

- "Once a child becomes an adult, they are no longer eligible for free education" I completely disagree here. I don't even understand what possible arguments you might have to support this.

I agree with the rest,- also adding the ability to vote.

LAW AND ORDER
Society is based on people working together for the betterment of all. If people are shown to be unwilling (not including the incapable, such as the elderly or disabled (physically or mentally)) to contribute to society after being given many chances, those people should be removed from society. I'm not talking about people down on their luck and on welfare, I'm talking about people who live on state welfare and refuse to work even when the opportunity is given to them. I'm talking about violent repeat criminals. And I don't mean put them in prison where they would still be leaching off society. Put them on an island somewhere and let them do whatever they like.

Any parents of children that commit crimes must go through appropriate parenthood training.

- This is where you get completely off track from your previous ideas. "those people should be removed from society" is a dangerous and radical idea. In fact, nobody in society would ever fit into the category anyway. You have already established that disabled people either physically or mentally should get help from society. What you dont seem to understand is this: People are not born "bad". They may be born with mental issues, but in most cases, it is society itself that causes people to become who they are. As such, it is society itself that fails when people are allowed to become "bad", and therefore, society itself should take responsiblity for this, by attempting to TREAT the problem, rather than ignore it or "put them on an island somewhere". The focus needs to be on treating the CAUSES rather than the SYMPTOMS.

QUARANTINE
I have been saying this for many years. People with an incurrable and infectious disease need to be quarantineed. And this includes people with HIV/AIDS. To make a long subject short, test everyone, put those that test positive in set communities where they are not allowed to leave, but otherwise have full freedoms and access to treatment. Test everyone who tested negative again six month later. Problem solved. We don't need to lose another 40 million+ people to the virus. I take a lot of flak for my beliefs on this one. Mostly people accuse me of encouraging concentration camps. I see it more as treating the cause rather than the symptoms.

- This is complete and utter insanity. I don't even feel like i need to comment on this,- it speaks for itself. Extremely radical, almost fascist way of thinking. Dangerous to even start considering stuff like this for any enlightened society.
Again the solution to these issues is to treat the causes, not the symptoms, and offer care and help to the people within our society who are unfortunate enough to go through this.

Hope this clears things up a bit for you.

[Nalo Jade]

HEALTH

I think health care should be heavily subsidised and no person should have to pay more than $40 for a GP visit. Unemployed people (including the elderly and students) should only have to pay half that. And that's without insurance. Children under 5 should get free healthcare. Hospitals should be free.

Drug company A, wants more profits, they fund campaigns and voila, the government says we are not taking care of our seniors, they raise what medicare will pay, the drug companies raise how much they charge.

Solution = Eliminate lobbying

Doctor A gets sued for malpractice and needs a huge insurance policy to cover his butt, we get the costs for his salary and insurance passed on to us.

Solution = allow lower cost healthcare for folks that are willing to sign a waiver of liability.

EDUCATION

Education should be free up to tertiary level, and should also be heavily subsidised at tertiary level.

agreed, smarter citizens increase every aspect of the community...though the country will still need low cost labor, and if everyone was really smart no one would be willing to work for low pay.

TAXATION

This crap with different taxes for different states is just silly. There should just be federal level tax. A straight goods and services tax of maybe 20%. I know, that's high, but that would be offset by significantly lowering of the income tax so it becomes more of a user pays model. Income tax, business tax and a vice tax (more on that later), all federal.

I don't have a degree in economics, no comment.

VICES

I'm all for legalising all vices that do not cause immediate harm to others. Alcohol, smoking, prostitution, soft drugs, hard drugs, petrol (let me explain that one below before you claim that petrol is not a vice). You could even include junk food in there. On top of the goods and service tax, they would also incur a vice tax. Perhaps as much as another 20%. Also, each substance or service could only legally be purchased from a licensed vendor, and only consumed on licensed premises, in the privacy of your own home or set public areas. Licenses would need to be renewed yearly. Let me break down the vices for you here.

Black markets would still exist to avoid taxation. However there would be an increase in the vices...so much so that the community as a whole may suffer.

Alcohol:

Self explanatory. It's pretty much how things are now. Also, I would lower the drinking age to 18.

I agree.

Smoking:

Also pretty much how things are now. Although it would effectly ban smoking from the sidewalk (in Japan, a very heavy smoking population, smoking in public is restricted to certain areas), smoking areas could be set up outside, or it may be allowed to smoke outside if certain conditions are met. If a city or state wished to ban smoking in public buildings, they would just need to refuse to hand out smoking licenses.

I am a smoker...but I agree, smoking needs to be restricted to reduce risk to others and make it unpopular.

Prostitution:

Restricting it to licensed properties (AKA brothels) would still leave street walking illegal. I'd make the brothel responsible for the health of the workers and the client. Forcing prostitutes to get registered will just drive them underground, but there should be a non-invasive way to get them to get regular check ups. I'd make that as a requirement for the license anyway.

Same as drugs, black market underground will still exist. No real way to beat this.

Soft Drugs:

Pretty much the same as smoking.

Again this will increase its use, though at least this may get some revenue for the government.

Hard Drugs:

I'd even include heroin in this category, but realistically, I wouldn't recommend that any heroin licenses are issued.

Gotta fight the drugs that are known to destroy a persons ability to be a functional part of society and cause other law abiding citizens to be put at risk.

Petrol:

Not really a vice, sure. Any vice tax on petrol must be used to pay for the roads, making it a user pays issue. Hopefully this will also have the added benefits of encouraging public transport use and promoting alternative fuel sources.

The current cost hikes are enough encouragement for public transportation, this problem seems to be fixing itself, growing pains yes, but it is causing an increase in public transportation as well as forcing auto makers to rethink the way vehicles are made.

GAY MARRIAGE

I wouldn't make them legal. Marriage is a religious institution and if the church does not want to marry gay couples it should not have to. Instead, I'd remove the legal aspects of marriage and move them all over to civil unions. Anyone would be able to have a civil union with anyone else. Multiple partners are acceptable. It is not for the government to tell anyone how to love. Of course, lines are still drawn with children.

Protecting the sanctity of Marriage is a farce. The religious institutions that conduct marriage rites are the only ones responsible for protecting their particular view of marriage. Allowing Gay marriage will not make more people "Gay" which I think is the biggest absurd argument... "they are teaching in grade school that boys can marry boys" ... and parents were upset by this? Why because they still don't understand what "Gay" is, they think its a choice, they are probably the same parents that don't let their boy play with dolls or watch tele tubies because the kid might catch the "Gay disease" ...

I have two uncles that are Gay, and it is obvious to me that they didn't just one day decide that wanted to be Gay...

The government allowing people to marry is a right not a priveledge for only the non-Gay.

ENVIRONMENT

I am not a fan of the Kyoto agreement. Instead I would like to see an environmental agreement based on the carbon footprint of the country compared to the carbon offset of the country (trees, size of the country, etc), rather than some arbitary "1991" setting. Companies must also be held fully accountable for their polluting.

In favour of Hydro, Solar and Wind Turbine power sources over Coal. Make fly ash Coal burning illegal. I'm a New Zealander, so anti-Nuclear power stations.

Improved public transport. Higher density and electrification. Not necessarily expected to make a profit, as the social benefits can outweigh the fiscal damage.

I don't know enough, but I bet the world could put together a hell of a think tank and we should then go along with what they say... think tank should include world economic specialists as well as scientists and engineers from the major "offending" industries.

MILITARY

Cut down the military by a whole lot. Focus more on peace keeping than aggression. Use diplomacy rather than force to avert conflict.

Peace is kept with weapons not words. Maybe in the year 3080 that will change but right now ... not so much.

WELFARE

Welfare should be available for everyone. By letting people keep falling and falling, they are not being given a chance to get back on their feet. I would much rather contribute to a welfare society than allow so many people to be living on the streets who have a much reduced chance of getting back up on their feet and contributing to society. I would consider it a failing of society for anyone to be living on the streets due to circumstances not of their choosing (i.e., the only homeless people should be those that refuse to work or got there through drugs and alcohol).

Nope ... Workfare, we can provide low cost day cares but everyone must contribute something, or else you have some people who will choose to be "taken care of"... not responsible to allow people to do nothing and still survive. Welfare for disabled yes. But even most disabled persons can do something...

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

At the age of 18 a child officially becomes an adult, although they can choose to become an adult at 16 or 17 with the consent of their parents. Once a child becomes an adult, they are no longer eligible for free education. They are allowed to participate in vices, give consent for sex, join the military and form a civil union with another adult.

Don't really care either way...

LAW AND ORDER

Society is based on people working together for the betterment of all. If people are shown to be unwilling (not including the incapable, such as the elderly or disabled (physically or mentally)) to contribute to society after being given many chances, those people should be removed from society. I'm not talking about people down on their luck and on welfare, I'm talking about people who live on state welfare and refuse to work even when the opportunity is given to them. I'm talking about violent repeat criminals. And I don't mean put them in prison where they would still be leaching off society. Put them on an island somewhere and let them do whatever they like.

Any parents of children that commit crimes must go through appropriate parenthood training.

Put them into the military. A foreign legion.

QUARANTINE

I have been saying this for many years. People with an incurrable and infectious disease need to be quarantineed. And this includes people with HIV/AIDS. To make a long subject short, test everyone, put those that test positive in set communities where they are not allowed to leave, but otherwise have full freedoms and access to treatment. Test everyone who tested negative again six month later. Problem solved. We don't need to lose another 40 million+ people to the virus. I take a lot of flak for my beliefs on this one. Mostly people accuse me of encouraging concentration camps. I see it more as treating the cause rather than the symptoms.

Ye-ouch. I can see why you take a bit of flak for this...unfortunately we cannot trust people who have absolute power over other people to not treat them justly... this is proven in our collective history.

Slaves, Jew in WWII, Japanese camps in US during WWII.

The idea is sound, the fault imo is that it would start out okay and then people with the disease would slowly be "devalued" by society and become second class citizens...this creates a dangerous situation that I don't yet trust our society to handle correctly.

It gives too much power to the medical community, and it could very well spiral out of control. Once we create a perception that one type of person is not "worthy" or even worse is "dangerous" to the rest, then we will inevitably look around and start including all other persons that fit that category...

It sounds like science fiction but given the right set of circumstances... Violet, V for Vendetta, ect... one day we could see things change drastically.

Being Gay, will someday be found out to be a genetic situation. What happens when we can test a fetus to determine if it will be Gay or not?

Will we decrease the Gene pool to a point that only the "master race" is allowed to survive?

Is that our job or natures? Natural selection would become Society Selection, and we just don't have the foresight to be allowed to make those choices.

[Mizbiz]

[Rotku]

Peace is kept with weapons not words. Maybe in the year 3080 that will change but right now ... not so much.

Weapons are only needed when someone fucks up. Elect someone with half a brain and they won´t be as needed as they currently are.

[Rotku]

As for personal politics, I´m still hoping for a merge between a Greens Party and a libertarian party. Maybe even something like and Edwards and Paul mix, to use US primary candidates.

[NickD]

HEALTH

- Agreed, but this costs A LOT of money, leading to a vast tax increase. You must keep that in mind. I am for disallowing privately funded healthcare institutions. From a US perspective, this should be federally controlled, not statutory.

I am not against private hospitals. The A&E ward, however, would fall under the same rules as GPs. The main attraction of private hospitals would be queue jumping, instead of waiting for public hospitals. So mostly pre-booked operations typically paid for through health insurance.

Doctor A gets sued for malpractice and needs a huge insurance policy to cover his butt, we get the costs for his salary and insurance passed on to us.

I believe it was Mulu who pointed out that malpractice actually accounts for very little of a doctor's overall expense. Doctors charge a lot of money for 2 reasons.

1. Because they have to paid a great deal of money for their education, which is addressed in my Education policy.

2. Because they can.

(Yes, I do realise that's a gross oversimplification!)


EDUCATION

- Again, agreed,- the other huge cost. You don't mention allowing privately funded schools, but with enough spending on public, there might not be as big a market for it. Personally, I am for disallowing privately funded educational institutions.From a US perspective, this should be federally controlled, not statutory.

As long as privately funded educational institutions meet the required standard and there are sufficient publically funded educational institutions, I do not see an issue with them.


TAXATION

- Income tax would have to increase drastically to allow for your previous statements to succeed.

I disagree. I think a 20% GST/Sales/VAT/Whatever tax in additional to a Vice Tax would bring in a great deal of income. Of course it's all a balancing act, but I believe that it would be possible to reduce income tax to a flat 10-15%. Maybe increase it for very high incomes, but I'm somewhat against the tiered approach to taxation.


VICES

Black markets would still exist to avoid taxation. However there would be an increase in the vices...so much so that the community as a whole may suffer.

Any black market that pops up to avoid taxation would be an insignificant fraction of the overall market. The vast majority of people would rather pay a dollar more for a packet of cigarettes or a beer than risk a criminal record. Prostitutes and brothels would have much more to gain from operating a legal premises than a blackmarket one.

Gotta fight the drugs that are known to destroy a persons ability to be a functional part of society and cause other law abiding citizens to be put at risk.

Ultimately it's the individuals responsibility to ensure they are capable of functioning within society, whether they are having problems with smoking, alcohol, marijuana or LSD. It is not the government's place to tell the individual what they can and cannot put into their body.


GAY MARRIAGE

- I disagree. From a US standpoint, being very religious. Marriage itself is a big deal. Coming from the ideal that every person should be treated equally, every person should be allowed the same things. If people WANT to marry, they should,- any way they chose. It should not be up to the state to determine this.
Of course, personally, I would like to remove the idea of a religious ceremony that carries with it real life attributes,- but that's another discussion. Sure you can believe what you want, but it should not have anything to do with the state, or your financial or social situation.

Protecting the sanctity of Marriage is a farce. The religious institutions that conduct marriage rites are the only ones responsible for protecting their particular view of marriage. Allowing Gay marriage will not make more people "Gay" which I think is the biggest absurd argument... "they are teaching in grade school that boys can marry boys" ... and parents were upset by this? Why because they still don't understand what "Gay" is, they think its a choice, they are probably the same parents that don't let their boy play with dolls or watch tele tubies because the kid might catch the "Gay disease" ...

I have two uncles that are Gay, and it is obvious to me that they didn't just one day decide that wanted to be Gay...

The government allowing people to marry is a right not a priveledge for only the non-Gay.

I think you have both misunderstandimated me. Gay marriage would not be legal, because marriage would have no legal standing. Therefore heterosexual marriage would also not be legal. It would be up to the individual church, temple, synagogue, coven or whatever (but not the state) to decide who they would marry. You could marry your sister (although consumation of the marriage would be illegal for genetic reasons - or should we really stand in the way of mutations? It's the building block of evolution, after all...). You could marry your pet baboon. You could marry Madonna's left shoe. You could marry yourself if you are narcisstic enough and there is someone willing to perform the ceremony. It's just that none of that would mean anything. It would just be ceremony you decide to perform.

Now, marriages between two eligible humans would potentially come with a civil union attached, assuming you have eligible witnesses. All current marriages would fall under a standard civil union contract and there would be all sorts of other things to do with it, including rules on introducing others into the union and include a pre-nup section. Stuff you agree on with your partner before becoming attached.


ENVIRONMENT

I don't know enough, but I bet the world could put together a hell of a think tank and we should then go along with what they say... think tank should include world economic specialists as well as scientists and engineers from the major "offending" industries.

No need to over think it. Output > Input = Bad.


MILITARY

Peace is kept with weapons not words. Maybe in the year 3080 that will change but right now ... not so much.

Peace is kept by stop being dicks to each other.


WELFARE

- Agreed except on the large part. There are in 99% of the cases reasons why people end up using drugs and alcohol and thus end up homeless. Those are people who were let falling and falling already. You sort of contradict yourself here. Welfare by this model though, if you want it to be effective, means another huge tax increase of course.

Sure, but there's only so much you can do for them. Welfare should be there to help people met the basic standard of living - enough for food and rent and power, but not much else - in the hopes that they will one day again be productive members of society. People who spend all their welfare money on drugs and alcohol and refuse help... they are of very limited potential to society.

Nope ... Workfare, we can provide low cost day cares but everyone must contribute something, or else you have some people who will choose to be "taken care of"... not responsible to allow people to do nothing and still survive. Welfare for disabled yes. But even most disabled persons can do something...

See reply to Zicada. Life on the welfare should be enough to live but not much of a life. Sometimes people just need a leg up. In the vast majority of cases it will pay off in the long run.


LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

- "Once a child becomes an adult, they are no longer eligible for free education" I completely disagree here. I don't even understand what possible arguments you might have to support this.

I agree with the rest,- also adding the ability to vote.

I am referring to secondary education (prior to university). Anyone still in secondary education when they are 18 can either op to become an adult later or pay for their education. University would still be subsidised for adults, although I would put restrictions on how long they can continue their studies, to avert "career students".

Ah, voting, of course. I thought I had missed a thing or two.



LAW AND ORDER

- This is where you get completely off track from your previous ideas. "those people should be removed from society" is a dangerous and radical idea. In fact, nobody in society would ever fit into the category anyway. You have already established that disabled people either physically or mentally should get help from society. What you dont seem to understand is this: People are not born "bad". They may be born with mental issues, but in most cases, it is society itself that causes people to become who they are. As such, it is society itself that fails when people are allowed to become "bad", and therefore, society itself should take responsiblity for this, by attempting to TREAT the problem, rather than ignore it or "put them on an island somewhere". The focus needs to be on treating the CAUSES rather than the SYMPTOMS.

No. Society can only do so much. If an adult commits a violent crime and will not manage their violence after their first or even second offense, then society should not be responsible for the continued upkeep of the offender. It is a low cost variation on the three strikes or death penalty options with the requirement that the crimes must be violent in nature to qualify.

It's also not a wild swing from my previous policies, they all follow the same basic premise of "Society is based on people working together for the betterment of all" And helping people get to the point where they prove the most use to society as a whole through decent healthcare, education and welfare.

Put them into the military. A foreign legion.

Too expensive and unnecessary.


QUARANTINE

- This is complete and utter insanity. I don't even feel like i need to comment on this,- it speaks for itself. Extremely radical, almost fascist way of thinking. Dangerous to even start considering stuff like this for any enlightened society.
Again the solution to these issues is to treat the causes, not the symptoms, and offer care and help to the people within our society who are unfortunate enough to go through this.

Ye-ouch. I can see why you take a bit of flak for this...unfortunately we cannot trust people who have absolute power over other people to not treat them justly... this is proven in our collective history.

Slaves, Jew in WWII, Japanese camps in US during WWII.

The idea is sound, the fault imo is that it would start out okay and then people with the disease would slowly be "devalued" by society and become second class citizens...this creates a dangerous situation that I don't yet trust our society to handle correctly.

It gives too much power to the medical community, and it could very well spiral out of control. Once we create a perception that one type of person is not "worthy" or even worse is "dangerous" to the rest, then we will inevitably look around and start including all other persons that fit that category...

It sounds like science fiction but given the right set of circumstances... Violet, V for Vendetta, ect... one day we could see things change drastically.

Being Gay, will someday be found out to be a genetic situation. What happens when we can test a fetus to determine if it will be Gay or not?

Will we decrease the Gene pool to a point that only the "master race" is allowed to survive?

Is that our job or natures? Natural selection would become Society Selection, and we just don't have the foresight to be allowed to make those choices.

Rubbish. If there were an ebola break out, the whole area would be quarantineed. If a human to human bird flu hit, the victims would be quarantineed. Going "Ho-hum, letting these people infect the rest of the world with flu that has a 40% death rate might infringe on their civil liberties" wouldn't surprise me, but it's a good way of killing a whole lot of people. The same with HIV/AIDS. I guess it's gotten so big now that people just can't see the forest for the trees.

Comparisions to Nazis are disingenuous. Being jewish is not a transferrable disease with a 100% death rate that most people picked up by having unprotected sex with someone they obviously didn't know well enough, despite all the education to contrary behaviours.

[zicada]

Rubbish. If there were an ebola break out, the whole area would be quarantineed. If a human to human bird flu hit, the victims would be quarantineed. Going "Ho-hum, letting these people infect the rest of the world with flu that has a 40% death rate might infringe on their civil liberties" wouldn't surprise me, but it's a good way of killing a whole lot of people. The same with HIV/AIDS. I guess it's gotten so big now that people just can't see the forest for the trees.

Comparisions to Nazis are disingenuous. Being jewish is not a transferrable disease with a 100% death rate that most people picked up by having unprotected sex with someone they obviously didn't know well enough, despite all the education to contrary behaviours.

You are contradicting yourself again here. You are saying earlier in your reply that you approve of non-interference with natural selection, which must mean you are likely against medicine, and also treatment of disease, as those individuals would have died out had humanity not intervened. Arguably, by your own rhetoric on other issues, we should not intervene with things like ebola and bird flu, as they are in a quite real way part of natural selection.

Also, you seem very ill informed about HIV/AIDS. In this day and age, it is a very manageable disease, with many dying from old age/other complications rather than the disease itself. The only thing that has a 100% death rate is the human condition itself. Maybe we should quarantine everyone ? Oh wait, that kinda goes against the whole idea.

Again, you seem to miss the point both Nalo and myself tried to make on this nazi-esque thinking. We're not talking about jews at all. We're talking about a certain rhetoric or set of ideas, that quite easily can spin out of control. Quite frankly, considering that fact that you say you have been 'thinking about this for many years' is a bit worrisome,- one would have hoped that people would come to the conclusion that this was a BAD idea after that much deliberation.

Please don't take this the wrong way, and don't answer if you don't want to, this is just to satisfy my own curiosity. Would you by any chance be affiliated with any sort of religious movement ?

On gay marriage, you started out on something i very much agree with, and you're right that i didn't pick that up the first time. Namely the idea that anyone can be allowed to marry anyone, but that it should not carry with it any real attributes in terms of jurisdiction or social standing. But then you suddenly contradict yourself in the very next sentence by saying it should. Please elaborate on this.

On taxes, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. A very common misconception. It is simply not possible to run a healthy public health care and education with a 10-15% income tax. The math simply does not add up,- even if you take away the majority of military spending, AND tax heavily on tobacco and alcohol PLUS the other substances you want legalized. In the real world, one has to make choices politically, there is no way to reap all the benefits from the various political ideologies while at the same time getting around their consequences.

[NickD]

Seriously, it's like you're reading something completely different from what I'm writing...

You are contradicting yourself again here. You are saying earlier in your reply that you approve of non-interference with natural selection, which must mean you are likely against medicine, and also treatment of disease, as those individuals would have died out had humanity not intervened. Arguably, by your own rhetoric on other issues, we should not intervene with things like ebola and bird flu, as they are in a quite real way part of natural selection.

Where do I say I approve of non-interference with natural selection? I approve of self choice, but I also approve of protecting people within society. To a point.

Also, you seem very ill informed about HIV/AIDS. In this day and age, it is a very manageable disease, with many dying from old age/other complications rather than the disease itself. The only thing that has a 100% death rate is the human condition itself. Maybe we should quarantine everyone ? Oh wait, that kinda goes against the whole idea.

Oh please. That's like saying someone survived cancer because they got run over by a bus before they got a chance for the cancer to kill them. HIV/AIDS still is still terminal. Just because people can hold it off for 20-25 years instead of 5 and are still functional doesn't make it a harmless disease. Personally, I'd be rather keen on living for another 50 years than another 20 and not have to rely on expensive drugs to survive those 20 years.

Again, you seem to miss the point both Nalo and myself tried to make on this nazi-esque thinking. We're not talking about jews at all. We're talking about a certain rhetoric or set of ideas, that quite easily can spin out of control. Quite frankly, considering that fact that you say you have been 'thinking about this for many years' is a bit worrisome,- one would have hoped that people would come to the conclusion that this was a BAD idea after that much deliberation.

So quarantine of a terminal an incurable disease is Nazi-eque thinking?

Please don't take this the wrong way, and don't answer if you don't want to, this is just to satisfy my own curiosity. Would you by any chance be affiliated with any sort of religious movement ?

Athiest.

On gay marriage, you started out on something i very much agree with, and you're right that i didn't pick that up the first time. Namely the idea that anyone can be allowed to marry anyone, but that it should not carry with it any real attributes in terms of jurisdiction or social standing. But then you suddenly contradict yourself in the very next sentence by saying it should. Please elaborate on this.

Wut? Marriages could come attached with a civil union for the purposes of convenience. It's the civil union that would have the legal standing, not the marriage. The marriage is a ceremony, the civil union is a contractual agreement.

On taxes, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. A very common misconception. It is simply not possible to run a healthy public health care and education with a 10-15% income tax. The math simply does not add up,- even if you take away the majority of military spending, AND tax heavily on tobacco and alcohol PLUS the other substances you want legalized. In the real world, one has to make choices politically, there is no way to reap all the benefits from the various political ideologies while at the same time getting around their consequences.

IIRC I believe neither Texas nor Florida have State level income tax and Texas has a sales tax of around 8%. At any rate, as I said, it would be a balancing act to get the percentages right.

[Zakharra]

Statement.

QUARANTINE
I have been saying this for many years. People with an incurrable and infectious disease need to be quarantineed. And this includes people with HIV/AIDS. To make a long subject short, test everyone, put those that test positive in set communities where they are not allowed to leave, but otherwise have full freedoms and access to treatment. Test everyone who tested negative again six month later. Problem solved. We don't need to lose another 40 million+ people to the virus. I take a lot of flak for my beliefs on this one. Mostly people accuse me of encouraging concentration camps. I see it more as treating the cause rather than the symptoms.

Rebuttal

Also, you seem very ill informed about HIV/AIDS. In this day and age, it is a very manageable disease, with many dying from old age/other complications rather than the disease itself. The only thing that has a 100% death rate is the human condition itself. Maybe we should quarantine everyone ? Oh wait, that kinda goes against the whole idea.

Restatement

Oh please. That's like saying someone survived cancer because they got run over by a bus before they got a chance for the cancer to kill them. HIV/AIDS still is still terminal. Just because people can hold it off for 20-25 years instead of 5 and are still functional doesn't make it a harmless disease. Personally, I'd be rather keen on living for another 50 years than another 20 and not have to rely on expensive drugs to survive those 20 years.

?? Nick, you are not making the case for putting people with manageable diseases, like HIV/AIDS into what are effective prisons. Unless someone has a communicable disease like Typhoid, Whooping cough or something like that, quarantine should -not- be even an option. It's too likely to be abused.

It's better to treat the disease with medication, and not treat the people like pariahs.

[Nalo Jade]

Okay Real Life examples...

Two people in my family have died of AIDs/HIV ...

1st my Uncle who was homosexual and died in the early ninety's. He spent the remaining years of his life with his mother and his partner as his caregivers. If memory serves me, he lived only 5-8 years (we weren't very close he lived in California...me in Florida at the time, so I don't remember exactly how long.)

In this situation, you would have wanted him quarantined? Why? I don't understand, he and our family were devastated, the least he deserved was to live out the remainder of his life with those he loved and not be treated like a disease himself.

2nd My aunt who was straight, married my other uncle...they had been married 6 years, she became pregnant...

Then she bumped into an ex-boyfriend who said, he had contracted AIDs/HIV...she got checked out and found she had it as well.

It lay dormant in her for over 8 years before contributing to her death when he healthy daughter was 2...

Now this one is the really really big deal.

In your "utopia" would she have been Quarantined while pregnant or after?

Either way the two years she had with her daughter would have been forfeit as far as you are concerned...

The measure of a thinker isn't their thoughts its their ability to change them to meet all the facts available...

I don't think you will one day become the Supreme Dictator of the World and put these thoughts into action...but the fear I have is that maybe you will convince someone else this is a good thing. Its not a good idea.

People can have and pass the virus without knowing it. It can lie dormant for years...even if you enacted this plan it would not work. You wouldn't know to Quarantine someone until they could have already passed it on to others.

Now this is all based on the industrialized world, Africa is having an epidemic, in that situation as much as I don't like to admit it... that may be a reasonable course of action.

[zicada]

Real like examples 2:

My uncle moved from Norway at 16, to London where he lives today. He knew he was gay back then. He is 62 today, and was in the english media a few months ago for being the longest living HIV/AIDS person in britain. He caught it soon after its discovery in 1981, and is still on a goverment pension thing to help be a guineapig to help create better drugs. He is alive today by being on the cutting edge of 80s medicine. Today in 2008, we have medication thanks to people like my fuckin uncle, that treats people (in the west) in a way that they may very likely day of old age at 90.

THe problem arises with the fact that we still do not send these types of meds to places like africa. They still get the old useless crap, because its cheap. If we really want an actual society, we should all be smart enogh to realize that we need to become a world society, and focus on more important things than borders and tiny stupid misgivings. We need to reach for the stars and come together. With better education in maths and science in general we can achieve this. It is too late with the parents, but children can be helped to be able to grow up in a world where THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES.

Religion, destroys this premise, and the dream of any great future that would increase the percentage of happiness per human would radically.
IT holds onto old beleifs that only blind us from the real truth, the factual provable truth of who we are and where we come from, and where we're going. I honestly, without feeling any guilt, say that people who think there is a man in the sky and that they will continue living after they die because of how they "did" when they lived, are the perfect telescopic view of darwinism in practice. I believe there are better ways of increasing global happyness than forbidding women to wear anything but a burka everyday. I beleive there are better moral ideals on how to treat your fellow woman. How to treat your fellow human actually. I think they have had a backlass from what was once a good idea, and today has become a poison,- namely religion. One thing is to have person christian belief, and keeping it to oneself. A quite other thing, is to design bombds to murder random people to prove a point about how there is only one holy god
That is counterproductive towards the ultimate goal all humans share because of genetic morality,- the persuit of happyness,- the meaning of life.

[Killthorne]

zicada, I truly, honestly believe you're generalizing and using religion as your excuse for why everything is wrong in the world.

People have used religion as a tool for their power struggles, greed, and control over other people. Sure there's some really batty religious people out there, and I agree with you on that. Anyone that enforces their beliefs ( and that includes atheism) on someone else, is oppressive and wrong.

I can say, without feeling guilty, is that if you believe that every single living cell and it's orderly systematic design with other cells and systems, every star in the galaxy, every scientific law, and our fascinating intelligence as human beings to question our very existences was all a random chance and just the way things all worked out, reveals a dismissive ignorance and self-important nature that is in ALL humans, religious or no.

What you don't get, is there are people who believe in God, that also believe in science and humanity. I'd really like to see the human race get their shit together. I don't believe however, that the pursuit of happiness is enough meaning to life though.

And yes, bombing random people to prove there is only one holy god is wrong and silly. Again though, it's not religion, it's the need for control ( by way of that good ol' pursuit of happiness you mention) over land, money and power.

Your way of blaming religion is very similar to blaming guns for killing people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Religion doesn't make people stupid and warmongering. Ignorance, the need for control, and greed ( some examples anyways) are what makes people stupid and warmongering. Again, religion is a tool for them which they pervert and distort, and give a bad name.

There are many days I really do not like being considered christian due to the actions of many others, but that does not remove me from what I believe. It's like enjoying a drink once in awhile while a large number of people drink excessively to the point of making drinking look bad.

I hope one day you and others, open your minds a little towards people like me, and realize we're not all bigoted, racist, anti-everyone-else-that-doesn't-believe-in-what-I-do, kind of people...

~Kill~

[Nalo Jade]

If Aliens attack the planet then we will unite...

Till then sit back and enjoy the very very very very very slow change to universal humanity.

The world is getting smaller, but its not going to happen in our lifetimes...doesn't mean its not worth fighting for, just don't expect to see the fruits of your labors.

I doubt that Zic hates "all" religious people... He does have a point...

Group identity that segregates "us" from "them" is a primary reason we aren't living in utopia.

Rich vs Poor
Race vs Race
Religion vs Religion
Republican vs Democrat
Liberal vs Conservative
North vs South
East coast vs West coast
Kiwi vs Strawberry ...

"Give them an ideal to argue about, two candidates to blame, cable TV, the Internets, fast food, and video games...that will keep them busy enough to not notice that we have always had 50/50 elections."

When is the last time a presidential candidate won by more than 15%?

How have "they" kept all of "us" sooo divided for so long?

I would bet that if we took a poll over the world 99% of the population would like to see ...

No more wars.
No more genocide.
Better education.
Better health care.

How is it that the 99% can only sit back and bi%^& about it?

[NickD]

?? Nick, you are not making the case for putting people with manageable diseases, like HIV/AIDS into what are effective prisons. Unless someone has a communicable disease like Typhoid, Whooping cough or something like that, quarantine should -not- be even an option. It's too likely to be abused.

It's better to treat the disease with medication, and not treat the people like pariahs.

Okay Real Life examples...

Two people in my family have died of AIDs/HIV ...

1st my Uncle who was homosexual and died in the early ninety's. He spent the remaining years of his life with his mother and his partner as his caregivers. If memory serves me, he lived only 5-8 years (we weren't very close he lived in California...me in Florida at the time, so I don't remember exactly how long.)

In this situation, you would have wanted him quarantined? Why? I don't understand, he and our family were devastated, the least he deserved was to live out the remainder of his life with those he loved and not be treated like a disease himself.

Yes, because then...

2nd My aunt who was straight, married my other uncle...they had been married 6 years, she became pregnant...

Then she bumped into an ex-boyfriend who said, he had contracted AIDs/HIV...she got checked out and found she had it as well.

It lay dormant in her for over 8 years before contributing to her death when he healthy daughter was 2...

.. would never have happened if everyone with HIV/AIDS was quarantineed in the mid 80s.

Your losses suck, but the second would never have occured if the problem was isolated early when it should have been.

And that, Zakharra, is why just treating the disease with medication will never be enough.

Now this one is the really really big deal.

In your "utopia" would she have been Quarantined while pregnant or after?

Either way the two years she had with her daughter would have been forfeit as far as you are concerned...

The measure of a thinker isn't their thoughts its their ability to change them to meet all the facts available...

I don't think you will one day become the Supreme Dictator of the World and put these thoughts into action...but the fear I have is that maybe you will convince someone else this is a good thing. Its not a good idea.

People can have and pass the virus without knowing it. It can lie dormant for years...even if you enacted this plan it would not work. You wouldn't know to Quarantine someone until they could have already passed it on to others.

No, as I said, everyone would be tested. Waiting until the disease rears its head will slow down the process. Test everyone. Test everyone who passes 6 months later to get those who haven't manifested the disease yet. Then if anyone with HIV/AIDS appears in the future, test everyone they have ever had sexual relations with.

Also, as I have hinted at, anyone could go and live in their communities and as long as you don't have HIV/AIDS, you will be free to leave anytime with the requirement of being tested and again 6 months later. So you could go visit or live with your sick relatives.

[NickD]

THe problem arises with the fact that we still do not send these types of meds to places like africa. They still get the old useless crap, because its cheap. If we really want an actual society, we should all be smart enogh to realize that we need to become a world society, and focus on more important things than borders and tiny stupid misgivings. We need to reach for the stars and come together. With better education in maths and science in general we can achieve this. It is too late with the parents, but children can be helped to be able to grow up in a world where THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES.

Religion, destroys this premise, and the dream of any great future that would increase the percentage of happiness per human would radically.
IT holds onto old beleifs that only blind us from the real truth, the factual provable truth of who we are and where we come from, and where we're going. I honestly, without feeling any guilt, say that people who think there is a man in the sky and that they will continue living after they die because of how they "did" when they lived, are the perfect telescopic view of darwinism in practice. I believe there are better ways of increasing global happyness than forbidding women to wear anything but a burka everyday. I beleive there are better moral ideals on how to treat your fellow woman. How to treat your fellow human actually. I think they have had a backlass from what was once a good idea, and today has become a poison,- namely religion. One thing is to have person christian belief, and keeping it to oneself. A quite other thing, is to design bombds to murder random people to prove a point about how there is only one holy god
That is counterproductive towards the ultimate goal all humans share because of genetic morality,- the persuit of happyness,- the meaning of life.

Apart from this rant being a complete tangent: It's not religion. It's people.