Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Political reform - Ed's journal
Political reform
Right, well we've the American elections coming up in november, that's looking like it'll be a shocking stitch up again. I mean, there was fixing going on last time, and Bush won. And it becomes _easier_ when you're already in power and have the supreme court in your pocket.
Iraq held elections, and whilst they were bent as hell, they weren't quite as much of a cluster fuck as the debacle in California 4 years ago.

We've got the European union a bunch of corrupt hacks - the council are fiddling the books, and not wanting to 'play fair' with things like the common agricultural policy, because it favours certain member states.

And so I propose two political reforms.

The first is more extreme. Basically, we hold a coup, and take over the world. Let's start with the UK first, but eventually, dictatorship for all.
But here's the special part. When you become El Presidente, you have supreme arbitration over all issues. Your assets are removed, and merged with the state, guaranteing no outside interests.
And it's your duty to run the country as best you can. Make whatever decisions you like, and appoint whoever you think best.
The only thing that you cannot change is the 'regime change totalizer'. A trust fund-like pot of cash, that people can pay into if they think you're being a bit crap. This totalizer is 'published' once it hits an arbitrary sum, say 0.1% of the GDP (so you can make this point further away by improving the GDP). And it goes to the person who kills you.

So you're doing your good job, but if too many people think that "it's going a bit wrong" and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, you get assassins coming after you. They can of course, change their mind, and retract the amount of money they've placed in the 'pool'.

So you have a job for life. And your job is to safeguard and improve the state of the nation.
Whilst you're in power, you have supreme authority, but if you screw up, then you get capped.

My other, is a little less extreme. It's a solution to immigration and asylum issues.
Don't get me wrong, I think immigration and asylum are important things. It's good for people to be able to improve their lot in life, and have refuge from 'bad conditions'.
But equally obviously, there's a finite limit - you can't support _too_ many people.
And so I propose the "Deport a fuckwit" program. For each incoming person seeking permanant residence to the UK, we deport some worthless scum. Now unfortunately, Australia won't let us do that any more, so I propose Siberian work crews. Averaged over a 5 year period, there'll be an assessment criteria for your worth to the country/community. Your worth will be elevated by paying taxes, doing voluntary work, charity contributions etc. It'll be diminished by claiming benefits, getting criminal records and wearing burberry being antisocial.

And when a new person wishes to become permanantly resident in the UK, from another country, we deport someone to siberia. This person, can of course, make a re-application to return to the UK after a year. Subject to having reformed, then someone else gets deported in their place.

And of course, we do have to refuse applications from people who'd immediately be on the 'deportee' list.

So we get a kind of natural selection, where we start encouraging the 'best' to come to the UK, because the arseholes get deported, so we have less per unit of the population. And we have work crews in siberia, counting trees, taking crash courses in self improvement, because there's only so much tree counting one person can take.
4 comments or Leave a comment
From: feanelwa Date: September 26th, 2004 05:20 am (UTC) (Link)
1) No matter how many trees you count, if nobody ever taught you right from wrong, you're not going to suddenly realise and become a better person unless somebody teaches you. By example being the most valid method

2) How do the disabled fit into this? Some people can't do charity work because they're too ill, and claim incapacity benefit their whole lives, but don't actively make the country a worse place for everybody else to live in.

3) What if somebody wanted to become president and put millions of pounds into the pot so that the current president was killed, and then hired assassins to kill all the other assassins?

4) Wouldn't the exchange a fuckwit for a nice person scheme just make it so that the fuckwits who were left would go around killing immigrants [more than they already do] because they saw it as the immigrants' fault that their relatives ended up in Siberia?
sobrique From: sobrique Date: September 26th, 2004 06:25 am (UTC) (Link)
1) No, probably not.
2) I don't see being disabled having impact at all, except indirectly. Being disabled doesn't mean that you're a worthless fuckwit, but it also doesn't count as an excuse either.
3) We're no worse of than the current political system, where money has a loud voice. The major difference is that if there's a country wide consensus, then there'll be _someone_ prepared to put money in, and risk it.
4) They might decide to pick in immigrants. But that'll be a self limiting situation, since that'll increase _their_ likelyhood of getting deported.
(Deleted comment)
sobrique From: sobrique Date: September 27th, 2004 01:39 am (UTC) (Link)
2) If you can only move your left eye, then you're hardly the kind of scumbag who thinks it's funny to go smashin' cars on a saturday night, after the footie and when you're well lagered.

3) If you oppress 'the poor' then their _individual_ relative ability to deal with it is limited. But the fact is, in a pyramidal structure, they'll also have the weight of numbers, and so only a small amount each is necessary.

OK, so GDP perhaps isn't quite the right measure. Social index? Average quality of life?

I quite agree that death isn't a casual thing. The point of the system is that this way the guy in charge remains so until he dies - there's no fiddling the books, because you _are_ the system, and if he _really_ screws up, then he dies.

4) If people I'd be deporting don't think about their actions, well, OK. Do you really think that someone who doesn't think 'long term' enough to figure that beating people up because they might be responsible for one of their arsehole mates getting deported, then surely they're really high on the list of people we want to get rid of.

And yeah, as you pointed out. The real flaw with 'democracy' (which we don't really have by the way) is that the majority are idiots.

The 'average voter' would like for someone else to pay for them to sit around at home, watchin' TV, drinkin' lager, smokin' faags and maybe goin' cruisin' in their XR3i.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a welfare state, but I also appreciate that it takes money. Lots of it. A certain amount of support from the system is acceptable, but there's a certain amount more who are basically just thievin' bastards who think the world owes them something.

I'm sorry, but the last 50 years of 'informing the populace' have revealed that the majority genuinely don't give a shit. So let's scrap this 4 yearly popularity contests, competing for who has best hair, and turn it into something a little more useful.
4 comments or Leave a comment