Non-Agenda-Oriented Solutions

[Jewbacca]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

As little government as possible…

[/quote]

And herein lies the rub. How do we determine that quantity?[/quote]

You don’t determine it.

Let every individual state of the USA experment. And let people (and businesses) vote with their feet.

Limit the federal government to the barest Constitutional requirements.

There will be different “quantities” of government in each state, and perhaps in many cities in towns. People will go where they are best suited.[/quote]

I like your idea. What systems/mechanisms would need to be in place to allow this to happen? What would the voting mechanisms look like? Can you give an exact example of how this would work?[/quote]

Simply scaling back the federal government in a controlled fashion to permit State governments to take over (or not, as they so decide).

This is not my idea. The Constiutional Convention of the USA conceived the USA to work this way. The goal was “each state an experiment of democract” with the best ideas being taken by each state, in turn.

If people want a strong safety net, they move to socialist states.

If people are tough and independent, they move to individualistic states.

Of course, the problem with this scenario is entrepenuers and hard workers flee socialist states because they get tired of their work and effort being stolen to support the lazy class, leaving the socialist to sit in the dark.

Hence, why you get things like Obama suing Boeing to prevent Boeing from leaving Washington State for North Carolina.

[ironcross]

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

As little government as possible…

[/quote]

And herein lies the rub. How do we determine that quantity?[/quote]

You don’t determine it.

Let every individual state of the USA experment. And let people (and businesses) vote with their feet.

Limit the federal government to the barest Constitutional requirements.

There will be different “quantities” of government in each state, and perhaps in many cities in towns. People will go where they are best suited.[/quote]

I like your idea. What systems/mechanisms would need to be in place to allow this to happen? What would the voting mechanisms look like? Can you give an exact example of how this would work?[/quote]

Simply scaling back the federal government in a controlled fashion to permit State governments to take over (or not, as they so decide).

This is not my idea. The Constiutional Convention of the USA conceived the USA to work this way. The goal was “each state an experiment of democract” with the best ideas being taken by each state, in turn.

If people want a strong safety net, they move to socialist states.

If people are tough and independent, they move to individualistic states.

Of course, the problem with this scenario is entrepenuers and hard workers flee socialist states because they get tired of their work and effort being stolen to support the lazy class, leaving the socialist to sit in the dark.

Hence, why you get things like Obama suing Boeing to prevent Boeing from leaving Washington State for North Carolina.[/quote]

So the main problem here is that the federal government is taking too much power?

[Jewbacca]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

As little government as possible…

[/quote]

And herein lies the rub. How do we determine that quantity?[/quote]

You don’t determine it.

Let every individual state of the USA experment. And let people (and businesses) vote with their feet.

Limit the federal government to the barest Constitutional requirements.

There will be different “quantities” of government in each state, and perhaps in many cities in towns. People will go where they are best suited.[/quote]

I like your idea. What systems/mechanisms would need to be in place to allow this to happen? What would the voting mechanisms look like? Can you give an exact example of how this would work?[/quote]

Simply scaling back the federal government in a controlled fashion to permit State governments to take over (or not, as they so decide).

This is not my idea. The Constiutional Convention of the USA conceived the USA to work this way. The goal was “each state an experiment of democract” with the best ideas being taken by each state, in turn.

If people want a strong safety net, they move to socialist states.

If people are tough and independent, they move to individualistic states.

Of course, the problem with this scenario is entrepenuers and hard workers flee socialist states because they get tired of their work and effort being stolen to support the lazy class, leaving the socialist to sit in the dark.

Hence, why you get things like Obama suing Boeing to prevent Boeing from leaving Washington State for North Carolina.[/quote]

So the main problem here is that the federal government is taking too much power?[/quote]

Yes. In particular, it is socialist have been intentionally preventing the experiment from working by creating federal laws that should be state laws (at best), because they know they have to prevent entrepenuers from having options.

You can’t let the milk cows leave for greener pastures, you know.

[Christine]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
What original solutions do you have for the problems that exist in our society? [/quote]

What if the solution is already known?

Don’t hurt people. Mind your own business.[/quote]

What’s that a solution too?

Everybody is seemingly throwing random solutions around, but to what?

First, get comfortable with the fact that there will always be problems and many which we cannot control. So what are we trying to fix?[/quote]

Yes. Need to take one problem at a time.

The OP is a bit too open.

[/quote]

I was at that. Repost:

Finally someone who’s willing to play! Here are some current brain teasers: how do you stimulate the economy without giving out freebies, creating jobs that don’t exist, or getting rid of the excess people?

What are some proven strategies for reducing criminal re-offense and how would you recommend incorporating them?

What should we do with the fostercare system, considering it’s currently not working very well?

How can we help a 3rd world country catch up to us without going broke ourselves or creating excessive harm to the environment?

What could we tell atheists that would encourage them to be more altruistic on a regular basis that has nothing to do with religion? [/quote]

But each of these points could easily have their own thread.

Yes, I would love it if we could find solutions that didn’t have a political bias, but I am a simple woman and would like to have each issue separated.

[Christine]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

What I wonder is why you use a pic depicting gold bars placed in the shape of a cross rather than some other non-denominational shape…

[/quote]

Ummmmmm…cuz…I…figgered it might aggravate you?

I do believe I smell an agenda brewing.

I’m trying to remember how good a sense of smell you have…ah yes, it IS a good one as I recall…so I must confess that I have been indeed concocting a grand scheme the likes of which will make your pantyhose roll up and down like high quality window shades.

So when your next fortune cookie reads, “You have a bright future with the 60 Minutes investigative team,” you can take it to heart.

Oh, and we are doomed as a human species for a plethora of reasons. I’m over it. People suck.

I see we agree here.

(Makes me wanna sniff ya)
[/quote]

I’d rather be sniffed than be snuffed.

I think I’m gonna make that into a bumper sticker.

[SteelyD]

I have a solution to the Government spending problem:

Wait for it…

Waaaaaaaaaiiiiiitttt fooorrr iiiiiitttt…

Ready?

STOP FUCKING SPENDING!!!

I know-- bat fucking shit CRAZY!

[Christine]

Stop spending on what?

[ZEB]

[quote]ironcross wrote:
This board is fraught with political and religion argument and I’ve noticed that when someone brings up an idea that doesn’t have a side (such as my idea in the “How to get rid of Jobless people” thread and the lack of response to my response about how it’s true that Atheists do turn into somewhat more selfish people and what can be done about that), no one cares to give it a second thought.

This means that either everyone is just here because they want to fight or they don’t care about an idea unless it was brought to them by their religion or political party. I am scared of that second option and I hope it isn’t true.

What original solutions do you have for the problems that exist in our society? [/quote]

Well I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m here to learn as much as I can from those people who have more wisdom than any other group in the world, 20 something atheists.

So here I sit ready to absorb what ever pearls flow from the posts of such lions of thought.

[SteelyD]

[quote]Christine wrote:
Stop spending on what?[/quote]

Well, I can’t name one or a couple things in particular, because I’d be accused of having an agenda.

Let’s pick a nice round double-digit percentage and apply it across the board.

[Christine]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Stop spending on what?[/quote]

Well, I can’t name one or a couple things in particular, because I’d be accused of having an agenda.

Let’s pick a nice round double-digit percentage and apply it across the board.[/quote]

See, I disagree with that approach.

I would thing the scalpel is needed here.

We could start with administration (in general).

[SteelyD]

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Stop spending on what?[/quote]

Well, I can’t name one or a couple things in particular, because I’d be accused of having an agenda.

Let’s pick a nice round double-digit percentage and apply it across the board.[/quote]

See, I disagree with that approach.

I would thing the scalpel is needed here.

We could start with administration (in general).[/quote]

You could still target areas such as administration given a fixed cut amount. Happens in private sector all the time.

Such an approach would also lead into reducing size and scope of all programs-- part of the spending problem.

When I say ‘across the board’, that’s not to say that the cuts wouldn’t be targeted within each program or department. But, again, in keeping with the theme of no agendas, it seems ‘fair’ (as fair as life can be). I mean, this is a fantasy thread.

[Christine]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Stop spending on what?[/quote]

Well, I can’t name one or a couple things in particular, because I’d be accused of having an agenda.

Let’s pick a nice round double-digit percentage and apply it across the board.[/quote]

See, I disagree with that approach.

I would thing the scalpel is needed here.

We could start with administration (in general).[/quote]

You could still target areas such as administration given a fixed cut amount. Happens in private sector all the time.

Such an approach would also lead into reducing size and scope of all programs-- part of the spending problem.

When I say ‘across the board’, that’s not to say that the cuts wouldn’t be targeted within each program or department. But, again, in keeping with the theme of no agendas, it seems ‘fair’ (as fair as life can be). I mean, this is a fantasy thread.[/quote]

LOL at a fantasy thread.

Finding a good solution to our problems is a fantasy.

Working together is a fantasy.

So sad that is what we have come to.

[orion]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
None.

People who come up with original solutions to age old problems are usually bat shit crazy.[/quote]

Thomas Edison was batshit crazy?

Is bat shit crazy the same thing as analytically creative with extra determination? If so, we need more bat shit crazy people.[/quote]

First, Edison usually found solutions for problems nobody knew he had before Edison invented something to solve it.

Second, I was referring to things like drugs, poverty, prostitution, etc…

[orion]

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Stop spending on what?[/quote]

Well, I can’t name one or a couple things in particular, because I’d be accused of having an agenda.

Let’s pick a nice round double-digit percentage and apply it across the board.[/quote]

See, I disagree with that approach.

I would thing the scalpel is needed here.

We could start with administration (in general).[/quote]

You could still target areas such as administration given a fixed cut amount. Happens in private sector all the time.

Such an approach would also lead into reducing size and scope of all programs-- part of the spending problem.

When I say ‘across the board’, that’s not to say that the cuts wouldn’t be targeted within each program or department. But, again, in keeping with the theme of no agendas, it seems ‘fair’ (as fair as life can be). I mean, this is a fantasy thread.[/quote]

LOL at a fantasy thread.

Finding a good solution to our problems is a fantasy.

Working together is a fantasy.

So sad that is what we have come to.[/quote]

But people work together every day, they are creative, hard working, able to compromise and delay gratification…

And then there of course government run sectors.

[SteelyD]

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Stop spending on what?[/quote]

Well, I can’t name one or a couple things in particular, because I’d be accused of having an agenda.

Let’s pick a nice round double-digit percentage and apply it across the board.[/quote]

See, I disagree with that approach.

I would thing the scalpel is needed here.

We could start with administration (in general).[/quote]

You could still target areas such as administration given a fixed cut amount. Happens in private sector all the time.

Such an approach would also lead into reducing size and scope of all programs-- part of the spending problem.

When I say ‘across the board’, that’s not to say that the cuts wouldn’t be targeted within each program or department. But, again, in keeping with the theme of no agendas, it seems ‘fair’ (as fair as life can be). I mean, this is a fantasy thread.[/quote]

LOL at a fantasy thread.

Finding a good solution to our problems is a fantasy.

Working together is a fantasy.

So sad that is what we have come to.[/quote]

No, to think that a completely altruistic, agenda-less society would exist or that incredibly complex problems can’t be solved with ‘agendas’ is fantasy. Awesome solutions to problems are being solved every day in spite of it.

[ephrem]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
To believe that you can solve a problem by continueing to use solutions that have previously failed, that’s craziness.

Ironcross, unless humankind makes a discovery that releases us from the bondage of fossil fuel and unless humankind unlearns ancient superstition in favour of reason, I think we’re doomed as a species.

There are too many people who believe in lies and those who are in a position to make a true difference; they don’t care at all.

The problems that exist in our society exist because of our society. To solve those problems is to change society at it’s heart and that only happens with war, revolt or cataclysm.[/quote]

Here’s a little something to get your spirits up: 'Inexhaustible' source of hydrogen may be unlocked by salt water, engineers say -- ScienceDaily [/quote]

That’s a start!

[ephrem]

[quote]orion wrote:

But people work together every day, they are creative, hard working, able to compromise and delay gratification…

And then there of course government run sectors. [/quote]

Government run sectors are run by people. The GOVERNMENT is not some kind of nefarious and mystical object that interferes with people’s lives out of shere spite and evil.

The GOVERNMENT is a result of people being people. If you want a change, try to change people.

Good luck with that.

[SteelyD]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Government run sectors are run by people. The GOVERNMENT is not some kind of nefarious and mystical object that interferes with people’s lives out of shere spite and evil.

The GOVERNMENT is a result of people being people. If you want a change, try to change people.

Good luck with that.[/quote]

True. However…

I worked in state government (and now back in prvt sector currently have several government customers)

The people who comprise the government workforce set up bureaucracies and fiefdoms in such a way that the creativity, resources, and speed needed to solve problems efficiently are quashed.

One consistent theme that comes up when I talk to colleagues and friends who have worked in government was the inability for them to effectively do their job and solve problems because of bureaucracy.

That’s not to say that bureaucracy doesn’t exist in the pvt sector, but certainly not to the degree and magnitude it does with government. I have magnitudes more freedom to attack problems in the private sector than I ever did in government.

[orion]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

But people work together every day, they are creative, hard working, able to compromise and delay gratification…

And then there of course government run sectors. [/quote]

Government run sectors are run by people. The GOVERNMENT is not some kind of nefarious and mystical object that interferes with people’s lives out of shere spite and evil.

The GOVERNMENT is a result of people being people. If you want a change, try to change people.

Good luck with that.[/quote]

The government is run by people,yes, but necessarily by people who are drawn to the idea of telling other people what to do at the point of a gun or people who just really, really like power.

That is a completely different selection process than that of the free market where you are ultimately rewarded if you use resources efficiently, i.e, reduce scarcity.

It also turns a problem that is solved in the spirit of competitive cooperation into a zero sum game if you hand it over to government.

So, not only are the people in government different from those that want to actually work for a living, there also is a completely different incentive structure in government.