True. As long as you’re not pulling fossil fuel out of the ground it’s better for the environment. I still consider it a (hopefully) short-term stopgap until we can transition to 100% renewables.
1 Like
It isn’t neccesary to cut down these trees to get the biodiesel. You harvest the seeds, and process them. The trees stay alive and continue to pull carbon dioxide out of the air.
1 Like
Well a whole lot depends on how the fuel is sourced of course, it has to be done in a responsibly sustainable way, and it would have to be alongside other renewable energy sources. I don’t think any one type of renewable energy source, will be sufficient to replace fossil fuels on their own.
1 Like
If I was magically in charge, I’d turn the regressive tax system to at least neutral if not progressive. For example: no more FICA cap. And I’d treat everything you are given by your employer as income and tax it on the spot AS INCOME.
1 Like
Which – if I’m not misunderstanding you – is another way of saying you’d tax everyone such that all paid their fair share. Of course the wealthy are really good at evading taxes and the best way to close loopholes is to not have any in the first place. The problem is that good-intentioned and bad actors alike, over time, layer on exemptions and about 10 seconds later people figure out how to game those exemptions in ways the authors didn’t (or sometimes did) intend.
I’m not sure how to prevent that from happening, though. And tax incentives can be an important tool in the toolbox at times … not sure we could do away with them entirely.
Best we can probably do is to have a societal ethos that treats paying taxes as a civic responsibility, very much including supporting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged among us. That, and probably have a more collaborative form of governance that encourages more universal participation so most people have “skin in the game” and a better understanding of how governance works.
For all that to work, there’d have to be quite a shift in attitude on a number of fronts. In the US. More than most places in the world, we assume way too much of each other. That people experiencing a rough patch must be at fault somehow, and should bear the shame of it and deserve no kindness, empathy or compassion. That employees by default are feckless cheats who want something for nothing and so need to be constantly repressed. Etc.
I also like the concept that “billionaires should not exist”. We can argue about how much is too much, but beyond a certain point, more $ doesn’t incentivize or make anyone happier. This country prospered post WW2 just fine with marginal tax rates exceeding 90%. That is one concept from the imagined “good old days” that we SHOULD return to.
1 Like
I would build a city full of atheist churches and atheist cathedrals, then i would build hundreds of research facilities in all the scientific fields.
Then, I would make it an independent monarchy city-state with his own pope: the atheist pope in the atheist vatican city.
Then the atheist pope will nominate atheist bishops, atheist priests, atheist deacons etc… And then researchers from all over the world will come to work in the research facilities.
The atheist churches, chapels and cathedrals will be decorated with all the symbols of the great men of sciences and the masses will be dedicated to them.
I wouldn’t want to repeat the mistakes of the churches and have institutionalized unbelief. Not sure how that would work, anyway. Large systems like that need a unifying common experience and ethos; atheism is way too narrow of a belief position on a single topic to support that. An atheist pope wouldn’t have anything to do (being as there’s no atheist holy book or dogma) so he’d get up to mischief, making holy books I suppose, and pressing everyone to conform to them. No thanks.
I like the part about building a lot of research facilities and honoring men of science for their accomplishments, though. That neither requires atheism nor excludes private faith. Nor should it.
The role of the atheist church would be to spread the concept of critical thinking in all the corners of the Earth, the gospel of atheism will be announced to all the people of the world in order to make them learn that there is no god.
The atheist church will also fight against pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and scammers who use the supernatural as a mean to deceive their victims.
The third goal of the atheist church would be charity of course, what kind of church doesn’t do charity?
useless to say that I am speaking hypothetically, I DO NOT ACCEPT DONATIONS, SO IF ANYONE COMES HERE ASKING FOR DONATIONS IT’S NOT ME AND YOU MUST NOT GIVE THEM MONEY.
Term limits for congress and Senate.
If I ran the U.S:
I’d ban marriage & property tax, but tax the hell out of religion.
I’d not tax guns, as this might be perceived as violating the 2nd amendment, but the price of ammo and the stuff to make it would cause some consternation. I’d spend the money on helping provide affordable health care for the poor.
I’d name the first hospital built the Trump Musk Memorial hospital, just to show there’s no hard feelings. Then have them shot, with some really…expensive ammo.
And with this, you’ll probably be denied entry to the US, maybe even prosecuted and convicted if you tried. 
They don’t strike me as fans of irony. Luckily I have no travel plans that include the US at the minute.
1 Like
- Restrict investment by elected officials.
- Criminalize lobbyist.
- Tax religious entities that feel the need to dabble in politics.
- Restrict election campaigns to 60 days prior to the election, then a prohibition for the last 72 hours prior to said election.
- or - - Use rock-paper-scissors, best of three to determine who wins
Why tax them only then?
IMHO, if they respect the separation of church and state I have no issue with them. I’ll stay on my side of the fence.
If you chose to dabble in lobbying or political manipulation, then I feel you should be a full fair passenger in the said government you wish to influence.
I think the rock paper scissors idea was the best…could it really be that much worse?
I respect the separation of religion and government. Should I be able to not pay taxes?
I’ve been giving this subject a lot of thought over the last few months and I think we should replace our current system with something like a Westminster parliamentary system. Such a system would have proportional representation that would not be based on a fixed number of seats like our current House is, but would expand as the population expands. Districts would be drawn based purely on population density and gerrymandering for any reason would be prohibited. Voting would use ranked choice or STAR voting (and NOT first-past-the-post).
The party holding the majority of seats would form a government, and if no party achieved a clear majority, it would have to form a coalition with one or more of the other parties in order to form a government. The leader of the majority party would be the head of the government in a similar manner to the prime minister in other countries using a similar system.
Elections would be held every four years, but a vote of no confidence in the current government of 50% + 1 anytime during the election cycle would force new elections. Anyone with a criminal conviction would be ineligible to run or serve. All members would be limited to four 4-year terms. Anyone aged between 18 and 65 and a citizen (including naturalized citizens) would be eligible.
In this system, the executive power is vested in parliament itself, and not in a separate executive branch like we have now.
I’d also reform the judiciary. I’d expand the supreme court to 35 members who serve for 12 year non-renewable terms. Certiorari would be determined by a subpanel of 7 justices. For cases where cert has been granted, another (but not the same panel that granted cert) panel would decide the case. Cases decided by a split panel can be appealed to the entire court sitting en banc. Cases pertaining to major constitutional issues would also be heard and decided en banc. The court would have strictly enforced ethical rules. Justices would not be able to accept any gifts during their tenure on the court and would be required to divest any stocks they owned prior to taking their seat, or by putting their assets in a blind trust for the duration of their terms. Any violation of the ethical rules would result in immediate removal from the court. Members of the court would be chosen by a ranked choice vote of all members of the parliament. All potential members must hold a law degree from an accredited law school and must be vetted by the American Bar Association.
1 Like
As all Americans should be, because our system is obviously fundamentally vulnerable and likely outright broken and not the invincible Final Answer as to what is the best, most humane, fair and equitable governing system.
I don’t fully understand it, but alternate systems of democratic governance exist involving things like “sortation” rather than currently understood voting systems, and it’s my intention to delve into these more participative systems as either an alternative or something that works alongside the more usual systems. Because it seems to me that a big problem with typical governing systems, especially in countries that are geographically and/or numerically larger like the US, is low levels of participation. Some of that is because all available political choices produce way too little substantive change and people have lost confidence and/or deemed the political process irrelevant to their day to day lives.
But some of it is because people have no skin in the game. For most of my life I have found anything involving governance to be an exercise in frustration and very little in terms of short-term results. For the past few months I have served on the board of our non-gated home owner’s association and it has begun to shift my perceptions here. There are things that you can do to make a difference. In a sortation system you have local governing councils that make local decisions, and elect a handful of representatives to the next level up and so on all the way to the national level – everyone who is able-bodied and able-minded is involved, expected to be involved, and has a voice.
Another thing that has to happen if we are not to have this massive struggle to wrest control of our lives from the crackpots and grifters that seek total control right now, and then not just have to repeat this struggle again and again in some inevitable historical cycle way – we are not only going to need to build stronger governing structures that are more resilient to assault and resistant to undermining, but we are going to have to have a national reckoning with things that we as Americans have long avoided admitting to and substantively dealing with.
This is things like our essentially bigoted and exclusionary nature, the great harms we’ve caused to various minorities over time (blacks, native Americans, LGBTQ, the list is long – basically anyone not of reasonably pure white western European extraction and cultural heritage) – these things need to be admitted and in some cases, reparation in some form has to happen to actualize it. Not necessarily direct payments but certainly heavy investments in previously disadvantaged communities.
There needs to be comeuppance for the assholes in power right now – Nuremberg style trials, real biting consequences for the terrible cruelties and harms of this regime. Otherwise they will lick their wounds, go underground, and patiently undermine whatever comes next, until they can do the whole thing again.
There needs to be a fundamental change in the tax system and philosophy. So many of our national needs including healthcare as a human right could be readiliy provided by the simple expedient of the uber wealthy paying heavier taxes and having less say in everyday human affairs. They can still live lives of luxury and indolence if they want, but billionaires should cease to exist; you can live high on the hog with a few tens of millions. One person can only consume so much.
Forgot to say in my earlier post: Voting would be mandatory with a $250 fine for not voting. Election Day would be expanded to Election Week, with the polls opening at 8:00am on a Monday and closing at 8:00pm on the following Sunday. Mail-in ballots will be automatically sent to all registered voters, and voter registration will be automatic. Purging voter rolls will be prohibited, as will intimidation tactics during Election Week. Polling locations, for in-person voting, will be expanded and be based on population density.