Absolute Capitalism

[GhostWriter16]

Based on your movie (in your sig) it would be a combination of a republic and oligarchy.

The founding fathers (as i cant think of a better name) would create a list of laws to protect society, those would be final, if any of those laws are to be changed a complete census in the oligarchy to change it or add to it.

As for the militarism, I just say that because I want people to no I am against democracy. I like a military dictatorship where someone appears to have full control of the country, but he is in fact just a puppet, their will be some sort of council who governs the country from behind the scenes. The elite, people smart enough and rich enough to get to the council, will be the only ones who know about it. The requirements would be IQ over 130, and to have gone from rags to riches (raised net worth by at least 20 million and made it go up by more then 10%). That way, the people would be smart enough to know how the system works better then anybody else. It also means no heredity bullsh*t. In short, the ones who join the oligarchy are the elite of the elite, the best choices for the job. That select few and the constitution controls the whole country and decides everything about it.

The main job of the Oligarchy will be to control the military to ensure stability and expand the borders of the country.

The main job of the Constitution will be to protect the common man from an evil done by the Oligarchy.

To guarantee everyone can get a fair chance. Their will be a two tier health and education.

Also on how the Oligarchy is run. There is an upper chamber, and lower chamber. The lower chamber is 1 or 2 hundred (maybe more) people they have minor power but they do get to vote on every issue run through the Oligarchy (just the Lower chamber is worth 25% of the vote, the dictator is worth 25% and the upper chamber is worth 50%). The Lower or the upper can propose a bill (changing a law, declaring war, ect) Once a member of the Upper chamber dies, or gets fired, he is replaced by a member of the lower chamber, I is chosen based on 3 things:

In more then 90% of his votes he has supported the upper chamber
He has never told anybody outside his job what his job is (neither family or friends)
His IQ is over 150 (top percentile)
He has been on the lower chamber for more then 5 years
If their is more then 1 man who is capable of filling the job, then it is the youngest one.
If noone fits the criterea then a vote is taken by the upper chamber on who to choose.
The upper chamber has just 9 people. 1 member is the head of the Military/police force, he is the only member who was never on the lower chamber.
If a bill is proposed by the Upper chamber they first give it a priority. They can choose high priority, where the lower chamber doesn't get to vote, or low priority where they do.

this is loosely how my dream government is run.




I believe in an atheist theocracy, (one of the questions was we should force are religious beliefs on others. I said strongly agree)
I believe in Capitol punishment
I strongly hate democracy
Everyone one of the economic questions I went absolute capitalism
The one place a fault in was I was pro choice on the abortion issue


I mean a strong Military to defend and invade enemy tyrants, so kind of.


One more thing, If my dream government was a Civilization, just to give you a general idea, it would be a:
Police State
Nationhood/Bureaucracy
Emancipation
Free Market
Theocracy

Alright, so I do disagree with you here. So, you're saying you should have to be an atheist. In other words, you want me in prison

According to said video, we need a republic rule by law not any form of Oligarchy.

Also, as far as invading enemy tyrants, I support freeing the oppressed, not invading to add to land.

But, well, we can agree to disagree

 

[ilduce349]

Alright, so I do disagree with you here. So, you're saying you should have to be an atheist. In other words, you want me in prison

According to said video, we need a republic rule by law not any form of Oligarchy.

Also, as far as invading enemy tyrants, I support freeing the oppressed, not invading to add to land.

But, well, we can agree to disagree

1) as this is not a religous debate, assume it is a theocratic Christian state, rather then atheist
2) I said combine the videos definition of a republic and definition of Oligarchy, and that is roughly what I think is the best form of government
3) I support both
4) Other then the Athiest, Tyranny bit, do you agree or disagree with me?

 

[GhostWriter16]

1) as this is not a religous debate, assume it is a theocratic Christian state, rather then atheist
2) I said combine the videos definition of a republic and definition of Oligarchy, and that is roughly what I think is the best form of government
3) I support both
4) Other then the Athiest, Tyranny bit, do you agree or disagree with me?

Well first of all, were you saying religion should be illegal or simply that the government should be entirely secular (I disagree with both but the former more.)

Otherwise, I'll say, I agree with you on economics and freeing of the oppressed, I disagree with a non-elected government and a big government.

So, some yes, some no.

 

[ilduce349]

Well first of all, were you saying religion should be illegal or simply that the government should be entirely secular (I disagree with both but the former more.)

Otherwise, I'll say, I agree with you on economics and freeing of the oppressed, I disagree with a non-elected government and a big government.

So, some yes, some no.

How is it a big government. The entire government is half the size of your senate.

Also The republic but heavily restricts control of the government

economics, we are both elite capitalists

a year ago (when I took the political compass test) I thought that religion should be illegal, but now, just, at school, atheism is taught. However your welcome to practice religion at home, and remember because it is a free market, if some billionare wants to open a church, then he can, just he still will have to pay taxes for it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How is it a big government. The entire government is half the size of your senate.

Also The republic but heavily restricts control of the government

economics, we are both elite capitalists

a year ago (when I took the political compass test) I thought that religion should be illegal, but now, just, at school, atheism is taught. However your welcome to practice religion at home, and remember because it is a free market, if some billionare wants to open a church, then he can, just he still will have to pay taxes for it.

Well, I don't see why anyone should have to pay taxes on anything he/she builds.

I am in favor of one national tax, either income or sales, and no progression, flat rate.

States should be allowed to levy taxes, but there should be some limits so it doesn't become like the current govt or worse.

Fewer people doesn't=less government. Now, to certain extent, it does, because 3 mil working for the Fed programs is a sign of big govt, however you can't just have one leader, you need checks and balances, and people need to be able to elect their leaders on their behalf (Just a note, who would choose the initial council leaders in your govt anyway.)

I would say, I am close to where you are economically (I think I'll take the test again just to reaffirm the numbers, not sure how you got 8+) but I'd be more of a libertarian than an authoritarian (With SOME legislation on morals, but not a high amount.)

 

[Cutlass]

the fact is, currently in real life, with little intervention in the states, their are few monopolies, their are normally 3-4 businesses the control the market, that isn't a monopoly

Only to the extent that the threat of government action prevents them.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Only to the extent that the threat of government action prevents them.

Yes, monopolies should be prevented, but government action on the free market should be limited to ensuring there is freedom to choose.

 

[History_Buff]

Yes, monopolies should be prevented, but government action on the free market should be limited to ensuring there is freedom to choose.

How many choices should there be?

 

[GhostWriter16]

How many choices should there be?

IMO, as many people as want to create a business. If big companies are deliberately trying to lower their prices below profit level just to bankrupt the small companies (Which tend to care more about their customers) this should be regulated. As long as they are attempting to make profit off the free market rather then killing it, this is good.

Ideally, at minimum two choices, and preferably several, but at least two.

 

[sophie]

But that's not absolute capitalism. That's state-mandated competition.

You defined absolute capitalism yourself as NO government intervention, and that's about as interventionist as you can go, short of abolishing all private capital.

 

[ilduce349]

Well, I don't see why anyone should have to pay taxes on anything he/she builds.

I am in favor of one national tax, either income or sales, and no progression, flat rate.

States should be allowed to levy taxes, but there should be some limits so it doesn't become like the current govt or worse.

Fewer people doesn't=less government. Now, to certain extent, it does, because 3 mil working for the Fed programs is a sign of big govt, however you can't just have one leader, you need checks and balances, and people need to be able to elect their leaders on their behalf (Just a note, who would choose the initial council leaders in your govt anyway.)

I would say, I am close to where you are economically (I think I'll take the test again just to reaffirm the numbers, not sure how you got 8+) but I'd be more of a libertarian than an authoritarian (With SOME legislation on morals, but not a high amount.)

As I stated above, Sales tax and Property tax are the only taxes that should be enforced. Both split into Provincial and Federal (State and National in America).

 

[ilduce349]

IMO, as many people as want to create a business. If big companies are deliberately trying to lower their prices below profit level just to bankrupt the small companies (Which tend to care more about their customers) this should be regulated. As long as they are attempting to make profit off the free market rather then killing it, this is good.

Ideally, at minimum two choices, and preferably several, but at least two.

I would disagree with you there. that is the point of the free market. However if a company ever controls more then 90% of the market, It should be forced to split into to 3 or more different companies

 

[Cutlass]

As I stated above, Sales tax and Property tax are the only taxes that should be enforced. Both split into Provincial and Federal (State and National in America).

So you do believe in redistribution of wealth.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I would disagree with you there. that is the point of the free market. However if a company ever controls more then 90% of the market, It should be forced to split into to 3 or more different companies

This is seriously penaltizing people. Simply require that all sales make at least some profit (This doesn't count non-profit obviously) even if that profit is small, that way you are trying to make money rather than put people out of business.

I can see with your theory some company purposely staying at 89% of the market, but the way this works I could be incorrect about.

 

[ilduce349]

This is seriously penaltizing people. Simply require that all sales make at least some profit (This doesn't count non-profit obviously) even if that profit is small, that way you are trying to make money rather than put people out of business.

I can see with your theory some company purposely staying at 89% of the market, but the way this works I could be incorrect about.

In order to stay at 89% he can't put anybody out of business, so therefore has to raise prices

 

[ilduce349]

So you do believe in redistribution of wealth.

The taxes are to pay for government salaries, government spends (which will mainly be on wars) and the public sector (prisons, courthouses, police force, public schools (state schools in england), public hospitals)

 

[Cutlass]

The taxes are to pay for government salaries, government spends (which will mainly be on wars) and the public sector (prisons, courthouses, police force, public schools (state schools in england), public hospitals)

But, overwhelmingly, the benefit of government is to the rich. Ans without an income tax, the rich pay only a trivial part of the cost of government. So without it, the non rich are being taxed to benefit the rich. That's redistribution.

 

[Harbringer]

The taxes are to pay for government salaries, government spends (which will mainly be on wars) and the public sector (prisons, courthouses, police force, public schools (state schools in england), public hospitals)

Which is in essence, redistribution of wealth.

 

[ilduce349]

But, overwhelmingly, the benefit of government is to the rich. Ans without an income tax, the rich pay only a trivial part of the cost of government. So without it, the non rich are being taxed to benefit the rich. That's redistribution.

how? It takes money from the rich slightly more then the poor, and gives to the rich slightly more then it gives to the poor, in no way is this redistribution.

it is if you count government salaries

 

[Cutlass]

how? It takes money from the rich slightly more then the poor, and gives to the rich slightly more then it gives to the poor, in no way is this redistribution.

it is if you count government salaries

In the real world sales tax and property tax are regressive. They take a much smaller percent of the income from the rich than they do from the poor.