Okay I cant sleep. Lets think together if youre bored. Ill start... feel free to add. Topic 1: State law vs general federal oversight Tell me why this isnt a more popular idea; why arent people MORE for states having their own laws within their own state, as long as those laws dont effect the laws of a neighboring state by over-reaching, (i.e. polluting rivers, the air, shared resources extracted in territory that neither can claim as solely their own, etc.) A national military and general oversight would and should still exist to prevent states from ever accidentally or illegitimately legalizing things that all the majorities of states and humanity itself can agree on, like no genocide, conviction without fair trial of peers, or condemning someone to a life of slavery from birth, but ALL inconsistencies (just about everything else) could be abolished and left to the states to determine whether they keep it, reform it, drop it (those laws) or whatever. Especially laws that have to do with controversial subjects obfuscated by opinionated semantics rather than a strong majority consensus (we need to find out at what percentile a strong enough majority exists to impose laws on others, we need to understand that with the utmost respect, as a country and as people these basic things). We dont need to vote to know that killing someone arbitrarily is wrong and more than %50 of people agree with you. But there is some ambiguity in controversies that seem to vary from state to state. Its important to not impose laws at a federal level that infringe on an overwhelming majority in a district that is opposed to that law. And by the way call that district a state w/e. I think stronger district rights within states could also be effective. Potential Benefits: More internal freedom and liberty, more diversity of paths and environments (both socially and physically) for a person to chose from. Provides more baskets for our eggs (although admittedly if we could agree to all do one thing, unity has the greatest potential for effect, but also a greater risk for instability.) More freedom for a state to accept responsibility for an industry it is willing to support. Potential Risks: states with opposing views would be in constant conflict and perhaps find it more easy to blame entire states for perceived lack of progress rather than individuals spread ubiquitously; could lead to civil, state prejudice, due to perceived consensus etc. (possible rebuttal for this is that this conflict already exists but our conflicts would be brought to the table at least with a vote for more state control) Topic 2: controlling power (money) for freedom and efficiency. Why arent people paid for their works or services based on a determined value of that product or service to society? Rather than receiving less pay or more pay than their product or service is worth to society, but rather by arbitrary pay controlled by an individuals acting without coordination, without the rest of society but rather putting all faith in the invisible hand. Why dont we make the invisible hand visible and call it what it is? Our own self interest coupled with an understanding that we can do more cooperatively than we can ever do alone, that by control of force we can create this effect temporarily, but we only achieve the greatest and most enduring success through a certain degree of mutual cooperation for results of different values to different people. Potential Benefits: Massive conservation of time and resources. No more wasting time acting as middle men to each other, selling up to people rather than selling what would come to you through natural acquisition. Or becoming involved in a business you have no business in simply because it creates money for you and there are no alternatives. Youd simply be buying or selling the product on the basis of its qualities alone and its price would be its determined expense to our societies resources, health and sustainability. Its viability as a product would depend on people voting on its value as soon as its created. Unemployment would be less likely with new industries and more unity within communities. Potential Risks: Lack of flexibility for unexplored research. (Solution would be a society that has different states that allocate their own funds differently instead of putting all of our thinking and actions in one basket.) Although undeniably the greatest potential for outlying research is in a completely unregulated market of private interests. however the potential of an unregulated market will always be mitigated at a certain point, by a lack of available resources due to incongruous motivations within a society which relies on the production of each other and without coordination and cooperation these resources are spread to thin to experience the amount of work that a more cooperative society could produce, which would have an abundance to create individuality at different times and with different guesses as to what their priorities should be for the greater good of them all. Multiple currencies would be easy to calculate with a paperless money system. Initial conclusion, Topic 1: Society is like sim city, a video game modeled after it, which can have the simulated world crashing down in a matter of moments if you simply change a variable like tax. Which can be very confusing, but eventually you learn that everything builds at whatever rate to a point of saturated production, then and only for that moment is there optimum balance, sustainability, to tip in either direction is to begin the destruction of society to our undeniable detriment. So i guess the real question is, are we at a point where we need some further degree of separation in order to optimize yield of cooperative efforts? Initial conclusion, Topic 2: Is an argument for states rights similar to asking for independence? Isnt it always no more, no less than that? And yet if we are still there for each other as neighbors, if we still defend each other against an enemy that attacks one of us so that it doesnt happen to the next, arent these the important things of unity? We have to see how these things are interrelated, how respect for the uncertain, and inevitably sustainability all play critical roles in our functioning as states. Yet we have different opinions on how to allocate these resources and how to spend our time. But if we cannot unite the world that seems to stand as our rivals, can we not dissolve the petty opinion which causes disunity within our outwardly united country? Arent the detrimental effects of incongruous action obvious to us all at this point? Can we appreciate the need for this balance, the need to work together, yet in our own fashions? Could we have a country with respect enough to pursue very unique internal societies dictated buy the citizens living there? Yet could we still stand in solidarity as a united states of america for the things we truly can agree on as Americans, such as our enduring desire and respect for freedom and independence.
Posted on: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:15:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015