Could you run your country better?

[Sansha]

First, death penalty. If you take a life and there is overwhelming evidence - not just beyond doubt - that you did it, you will die, that week, by hanging.

OK, so what if it was verified that I definitely killed a man, I confess to every detail... but I say it was self-defence. Would you still have me hang?

What if I killed someone, but it was an accident? I didn't even mean them harm.

What if I killed someone while suffering from a severe mental disorder and did not know what I was doing.

What if I killed someone because I was ordered to - by you - to hang a man you found guilty of murder?

Okay I admit I mistakenly generalized too much in my initial post.

Self-defense: if you can prove beyond a doubt your story is straight, sure. That's a difficult thing to go on but that's what we have an court system for.

An accident... well that depends on the circumstances. Depends on how stupid you and/or the deceased were acting.

Mental disorder is a bit more brutal. You're a danger to society, and generally we'd have to decide whether or not you're beyond therapy. I don't care about you, I care about the people around you, and if I have to protect them by walkin' you up a gallows, so be it.

And for the last part, you're just being silly.

 

[Sajuuk-khar]

Heh as a political science major I'll give you a very political answer: I could, yet couldn't.

I think most of us have big ideas on how to improve our countries. The problem is that many of us have opposing ideas on how to do this. That's where politics come in and compromises having to be made causing nobody to be really happy about the results. Personally I have very clear thoughts on how to improve this country, yet I'm pretty certain a lot of people would disagree on my ideas. I'd like to change some stuff in our (Dutch) constitution for example, but changing the constitution is nigh impossible unless pretty much everyone agrees over a period of time.

Then there's also the problem of the electoral system. Even should I 'win', our proportionally composed parliament requires lots and lots of compromises. It's not easy governing with a three party coalition, even worse if the coalitions majority is really small.

Ofcourse that's talking democracy. To answer OP's question directly: yes, I do think I could do better (or at least that my thoughts on how to run things are). Although I do see the advantages of of the welfare state, I do think it could be less than it is currently. This country needs less rules, less government intrusion (Americans, you have no right to complain heh.), more focusing on 'core tasks' and more longterm thinking (aging of population, natural gas running out). That said I am currently mildly positive on our (Dutch) current government.

 

[intheweeds]

...your 'plan' is nothing more than an elaborate and Machiavellian trap to torture prison inmates.

I could have told you that.

So what you're saying is after all that, you're just a troll who happens to hate prison inmates and everything you said was just a ruse? Above is your last post, where you conveniently snipped everything important.

Here's the whole thing:

-snip-

Wow. really?

So let me get this straight. Just so we're clear:
You're going to attempt to rehabilitate people based on whatever the psychologists believe at the time (i assume you will be getting some info from a professional an this). Then, if you fail, it will be 'hideous screaming nightmare'. That's nice. Then you are going to discolour and cripple whatever 'healing' process you may offer by hanging a giant cloud of fear over the the whole affair, thereby effectively guaranteeing failure. It's a good thing you give the first offense a sentence! A time limit for emotional healing is just what people need to get better! Enjoy your mutinous uprising.

You do realize that we know very little about mental illness right? That there is no cure? You realize science is only absolutely sure about the workings of 10% of our brain matter and the rest is somewhat of a mystery? That the listed mental illnesses change over time as we learn more?

You make huge assumptions about why people commit crimes as well. You assume people commit crime because of some kind of emotional issue. Are you going to 'talk' away someones abject poverty for example? Of course after a good talk they won't live in a ghetto anymore, they'll certainly get a well paying job and buy a house in a nice neighborhood if someone only took the time to talk to them. They only live around gangs and violence because they have emotional issues. If he only had a good talk, that poor father wouldn't need any drug money to feed his kids. He just doesn't understand. Clearly it's a choice people make because they haven't had the chance to talk it out! /sarcasm

How anyone would think this is a good idea is beyond me.

It's call education. Many prisons have resources for inmates to better themselves so they can actually go back to a better life when they get out. In a great deal of prisons, one can get the equivalent of a high-school diploma, and some even have work experience.

Wow! Really? A whole high school diploma? Sign me up!

Seriously - that might get someone in the door at Burger King these days. What your saying is that they already have education in prison. Look how well it's working too, prisons are downright empty and no one ever re-offends! Btw, I make at least three times what a Burger King employee makes and I still live in a shit hole.

You can't magic someone out of whatever fuckup their lives are in. That's the idea of the second part of my leadership plan - to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place.

You really think 'rehabilitation' and 'therapy' is just a sit-down? Get fucking real. The idea of prisons is to get convicts through their sentences and back into productive members of society. Life-termers are obviously beyond that, and frankly I don't see why money should be spent on keeping them alive.
It's only the real 'ghetto for life', if you want to totally generalize that all criminals are ghetto rats, people who are beyond help. I don't want to purge people without giving them a chance, but if they're not interested?

Fuck 'em.

There are a whole lot of factors outside of your ability to rehabilitate that come into play is what i'm saying. You won't stand a chance if you a) surround it with fear and timelines and b) fail to consider that there are a hell of a lot of factors outside a person's ability to change that affect whether they can stay out of prison. You will need to deal with the economic factors that keep certain populations returning to prison in the first place before you expect to 'rehabilitate' anyone.

No of course no one is saying all people in prison are 'ghetto-rats' - as you call it. But your name calling of said individuals suggests a personal bias that leads me to believe you will probably not understand what i am saying.

Regardless, I am of course referring to the obvious ghettoization of certain populations in North America due to economic factors, mental illness or even race. You are confusing 'ghetto for life' as a choice rather than just how they are forced live based on political, societal and economic pressure. If you were stuck in a shitty situation, you would claim whatever made you feel better about it too. Like perhaps showboating that you are happy to be where you are (or maybe tougher than you really are to protect yourself because you live in a violent neighborhood) when you are in fact not. NO ONE wants to have to sell drugs to make a good living and feed their family. That's why when you hear rappers going off about how they're "ghetto 4 life", you don't see them continuing to sell drugs. They don't have to, they make a good living doing something better.

NO ONE wants to live in a shit hole and not be able to afford to get out. There are many socio-economic factors that keep people from getting a better life. The best education is a waste the second you throw that individual back in the wasteland they came to prison from. If you don't like the word 'ghetto', take it up with the dictionary.

Until you fix the rest of the socio-economic problems that cause people to re-offend in the first place, your 'plan' is nothing more than an elaborate and Machiavellian trap to torture prison inmates.

I could have told you that.

Why try and bother with the whole elaborate plan? If that's what you want, why didn't you just say "I could be a better leader because I wanna torture and kill prison inmates". I wouldn't have bothered debating with you in the first place.

 

[Sansha]

Why try and bother with the whole elaborate plan? If that's what you want, why didn't you just say "I could be a better leader because I wanna torture and kill prison inmates". I wouldn't have bothered debating with you in the first place.

My goal isn't specifically the torture of people, I just want to detach repeat offenders from the rest of society and simply house them for as little cost as possible, while making it as miserable an experience as possible to instill fear in the minds of people who'd consider re-offending. They're not in hell for them - killing 'em would be much more efficient - they're there as more of a display.
Repeat offenders aren't the same people as you or me. If they continue to threaten and harm others, they're not people I want in my society, nor do they deserve the same rights as those of us who obey the law and treat each other with respect.
Those who would challenge the rights of others to safety and security do not deserve it for themselves.

I don't see the problem. Offering first-time offenders a chance to atone for their crimes, and providing the resources to help them help themselves out of their fuckups and become prosperous and happy, all the while knowing the nightmare awaiting them if they fuck it up.

What could possibly better motivate people?

 

[puffy786]

Have you seen the Australian government? Or indeed any of our politicians? Practically anyone could do a better job.

I'm from Germany. Our actual gouvernment has absolutely no line, works against each other and is just crawling with idiots. Seriously: Fuck them.

Its not different in the US. Really, the Republican's MAIN goal is to stop the Democrats from keeping power. Its a cut throat system fueled by lobbyists.

 

[Brandon237]

If I were in a different country, I would either say no or sound arrogant saying this, But HELL YES. A PLASTIC BOBBLE-HEAD COULD! Anarchy would be a step up from South Africa. Our president did not matriculate, and supports Gaddafi. The govt. purchased billions in military equipment they could neither pay for nor ACTUALLY USE. They are introducing yet ANOTHER form of road tax, the system they set up cost billions -.- And it will only draw money from the accounts of people who are registered, ie: the ones already taxed to death. 20% of the population pays for everything AND the ministers have the cheek to give themselves expensive cars, mansions and holidays. There is talk of nationalising all our mines, and our Major Trade Union just authorised all the petrol-truck drivers to go on strike. My city ran out of petrol in some places. WTF?! And the labour laws make dismissing an employee virtually impossible, no matter what they do. In a country that needs to encourage more and easier hiring -.-

Oh yes, and prisoners can vote. I really do not need to say more.

I could have my cats run this country better! At least they would not spend all the tax money on BMWs!

 

[intheweeds]

Why try and bother with the whole elaborate plan? If that's what you want, why didn't you just say "I could be a better leader because I wanna torture and kill prison inmates". I wouldn't have bothered debating with you in the first place.

My goal isn't specifically the torture of people, I just want to detach repeat offenders from the rest of society and simply house them for as little cost as possible, while making it as miserable an experience as possible to instill fear in the minds of people who'd consider re-offending. They're not in hell for them - killing 'em would be much more efficient - they're there as more of a display.
Repeat offenders aren't the same people as you or me. If they continue to threaten and harm others, they're not people I want in my society, nor do they deserve the same rights as those of us who obey the law and treat each other with respect.
Those who would challenge the rights of others to safety and security do not deserve it for themselves.

I don't see the problem. Offering first-time offenders a chance to atone for their crimes, and providing the resources to help them help themselves out of their fuckups and become prosperous and happy, all the while knowing the nightmare awaiting them if they fuck it up.

What could possibly better motivate people?

I couldn't disagree with you more. However, I'm glad for this response. I honestly thought you were just being a troll after that last one. I'm glad we are still just having a debate.

Pretty clear we aren't going to see eye to eye though...

 

[Machine Man 1992]

No, because with my luck, I'd have the Senate and House cock-blocking me the whole time.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Have you seen the Australian government? Or indeed any of our politicians? Practically anyone could do a better job.

I'm assuming you don't support Labor then?

When I said "any of our politicians", I meant even the ones not in power. I think supporting a party is a stupid idea. People should vote for whichever party is best for the current time.

 

[uzo]

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley ... now that's a society that would work. It'd be frightening, but once installed (engineered citizens) would be remarkably stable - unless, as depicted in the novel, you have a shortage of soma. Properly dosed up to the eyeballs on soma, enjoying free love without the hassle of relationships, and genetically engineered to 'suit' the society ... it's not freedom, but it's the sure to be the loveliest prison imaginable.

Nineteen Eighty-Four crushes your rebellious spirit; Brave New World seduces it.

lol ... I wrote this almost 15 years ago in my 3-unit English HSC exam.

 

[Funkysandwich]

Having a good idea is one thing - turning it into a law is quite another.

 

[Free Thinker]

It's the United States? How hard could it be? What's so difficult about balancing a budget, bringing the economy back up, telling Iran and North Korea to "suck these nutz", and wear a suit every day? I think the last is the hardest honestly. Ties are like nooses.

 

[ClaptonKnophlerHendrix]

Have you seen the Australian government? Or indeed any of our politicians? Practically anyone could do a better job.

I'm assuming you don't support Labor then?

When I said "any of our politicians", I meant even the ones not in power. I think supporting a party is a stupid idea. People should vote for whichever party is best for the current time.

Agreed,I was referring to the current Labor government.

 

[Treblaine]

Well my point has always been that science RIGHT NOW is not ready to fully take over the running of things. Which I believe is what I initially addressed. Sure in the future maybe, but we've been told for the past 50 years that flying cars are only a decade away, yet every decade that passed...

"And of course we can't prevent countries from suffering economic meltdowns? Where did you get that idea from?"

Well we can do a good job of preventing famine and diseases like smallpox and cholera using science.

You are setting the bar real low if you expect to implement science yet we still have to deal with financial meltdowns? Why not just let the same people run it as before?

Science can at least predict hurricanes with great certainly and give people enough warning to prepare, science as it is used today in economics can't give any warning, no indication until we are right in the middle of a huge crash with everyone losing their livelihood.

You need to know the limitations of things, this is like 18th century scientists debating space travel, the technology and principals aren't even on the horizon.

For now we need a system that works, that is stable and productive.

My point has been that science isn't a thing. It's a method.

You're treating science as if it's some database of knowledge.

Science is a method of attaining knowledge. It's not the knowledge itself. It's the method used to get that knowledge and to verify that knowledge isn't false.

It doesn't matter whether or not you have the technology to get to space or not. If you want reliable (or at least as reliable as it gets) knowledge about space you need to use the scientific method.

We don't use science to prevent disease. We use medicine to prevent disease. We gained that medicine through the scientific method, but the medicine itself isn't science.

Science isn't the same as technology. Science isn't the same as the results it produces. Science isn't a thing. Science is a method.

Read Karl Popper if you want to get an idea of what science is about, he's one of the greatest scientific philosophers of the past century and the man who made the principle of falsification popular.

I know what science means, you are just being pedantic. We couldn't have vaccines or hurricane forecasts as they are today without science.

In the same way science cannot yet create comprehensive theories of civil or economic governance.

No more semantic back-tracking. My will re-iterate my point again of the dangers of trying to run countries and economies by either scientific method or apply theories determined or discovered by scientific method. It is fraught with danger as it is such an extraordinarily complex, fast changing, chaotic system with the added dimension of self-awareness of the millions of individual elements.

This is unlike any other system in the known universe. It's easier to model the first nano-seconds after the universe was born than it is to manage the economy scientifically.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Have you seen the Australian government? Or indeed any of our politicians? Practically anyone could do a better job.

I'm assuming you don't support Labor then?

When I said "any of our politicians", I meant even the ones not in power. I think supporting a party is a stupid idea. People should vote for whichever party is best for the current time.

Agreed,I was referring to the current Labor government.

Well in that case, no party has done anything worthy of my support.

 

[chuckman1]

Yes I would be one of the first american leaders with common sense (in my opinion).

 

[Treblaine]

First, death penalty. If you take a life and there is overwhelming evidence - not just beyond doubt - that you did it, you will die, that week, by hanging.

OK, so what if it was verified that I definitely killed a man, I confess to every detail... but I say it was self-defence. Would you still have me hang?

What if I killed someone, but it was an accident? I didn't even mean them harm.

What if I killed someone while suffering from a severe mental disorder and did not know what I was doing.

What if I killed someone because I was ordered to - by you - to hang a man you found guilty of murder?

Okay I admit I mistakenly generalized too much in my initial post.

Self-defense: if you can prove beyond a doubt your story is straight, sure. That's a difficult thing to go on but that's what we have an court system for.

An accident... well that depends on the circumstances. Depends on how stupid you and/or the deceased were acting.

Mental disorder is a bit more brutal. You're a danger to society, and generally we'd have to decide whether or not you're beyond therapy. I don't care about you, I care about the people around you, and if I have to protect them by walkin' you up a gallows, so be it.

And for the last part, you're just being silly.

Oh depends, DEPENDS he says now. Oh glorious leader, is there not the possibility that you hold strong opinions about something you haven't really thought very hard about?

Beyond a doubt? Almost every time there is a claim of self-defence when someone gets killed there is doubt that their story is true. You have taken the utter inverses of the jurisprudence burden of proof in a court trial from "reasonable doubt of guilt" to simply "any doubt of innocence". Innocent till proven guilty. Court is there to PROVE guilt, not search for indication of innocence.

And are we going to have a double standard for police? Like if a cop shoot a robber will he have to have an expensive, stressful and lengthy trial while a court determines if the shooting was REALLY self-defence? Or will they have Police Privilege to always be given the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous shootings.

Give me an example of "stupidity" (I'd call it negligence) that would be so bad that if it got someone killed that person should then in turn be killed?

Also temporary insanity DOES exist. People can get better and be no longer a threat. But here is the thing, there is no blood test to really know. There is a huge likelihood you will send a man to die who is no threat and lacks any guilty mind, at what point do you say "no more therapy, I'm going to kill him now"?

"And for the last part, you're just being silly."

How is it silly? By your own rules the executioner should be sentenced to death! And an endless cycle of executions till two executioners simultaneously kill each other or something.

What about this example: a cigarette company sells millions of cigaretts that are much more carcinogenic than most, thousands die. Who do you kill? Everyone at the factory? The Boss? The health authorities who failed to stop it? When you are done with it you'll have a truckload of bodies to get rid of.

You are so fundamentally against murder to demand the unconditional death-penalty yet all these exceptions indicate you are not doing this for reasons of the sanctity of life. You seem to make scapegoats out of violent criminals when the world is a lot more complicated than that with so many varying degrees of severity, extenuation circumstances and diminished capacity.

There are those who deserve the death penalty, to be actively killed while they pose no direct threat, and those are the worst of the worst OF THE WORST! I'm not talking about a bar fight where someone though it was a cool move to stab the other guy, the capital punishment, the highest punishment, is reserved for the worst crimes

 

[OtherSideofSky]

No. I have no training in international relations or economics. However, that doesn't mean the people in charge are qualified to be there either.

 

[zehydra]

(US)

No. I couldn't. In fact, nobody can.

Many have come to accept this is the sad truth about a democratic state and that there is no solution but to live with it, because it prevents far worse things from happening.


I have come to the conclusion that it is a sign that we indeed need governmental reform, but not just with who governs. We need reform concerning the SCOPE and METHOD by which our Government governs.

 

[Hashime]

I would like to think I could, but in reality my government is so wracked with debt and retarded promises that I could not do any better than harper.