A sensible dictatorship. No, not Hitler, not Stalin, not that kind of thing.
I mean, the government/guy in power has total control, but lets everybody more or less get along on their own anyway. Taxes are reshuffled to try and make things easier, ie. the government actually spend the money where it is needed. Higher taxes for higher income could also be altered, so that the ludicrously high earners who get millions upon millions pay the higher tax, but under that everybody pays a lower tax, so only the multi-multi millionaires have the high rate. This would make things easier for the middle and upper middle class, without penalising the working class. It would also protect business.
Also, the working class issue woudl need to be resolved. The policy behidn the Labour party is to help the poor working class, right? Then by definition, there must be a poor working class in the nation, since theyr'e the ones who'll vote Labour. If they are no lnoger poor, they'd vote Conservative. This means that Labour have to make sure there IS a large poor working class so they can always get the vote and get in. The government clearly couldn't be run this way, it would have to not aim to make the poor richer and the rich poorer, but to make everybody rich/reasonably wealthy.
Thus why, though a good idea at heart and in theory, the Communist policy can't work. If you aim to make everybody earn the same income, then nobody will have an incentive for the harder jobs. If a heart surgeon is paid the same as a binman, there is no motivation to become a heart surgeon, so the neccessary areas of the economy will fade away as everybody picks the easy job. Good idea in theory, but regretfully it can't work. There must be a differing pay scheme to provide the motivation for people to go into those required professions. But of course, sportsmen or actors or other non-essential, entertainment professions certainly shouldn't earn the ludicrouslyhigh incomes they do compared to, as I said, doctors or surgeons. Hence why my tax suggestion, or, the government placing a limit on entertainers' earnings to let's say, 4 times the average wage (which, under this system, would be higher than it is now anyway so they'd still be very comfortable. Exceedingly comfortable, in fact, as there'd still be £80-100k a year salaries), and using all those leftover millions to help the economy, such as in national healthcare or education.
Crime is dealt with very harshly- death penalties and such. I am a firm believer that once you become a criminal, if it is one of the severe crimes like murder/attempted murder, assault, theft, rape, abduction etc. you lose human rights as you, by committing a crime, were trying to take away someone else's human rights, so criminals are dealt with severely.
Free speech has to be allowed, but the government can't be allowed to be altered, as vying for power means that politicians are more interested in having power than in doing what's right, so a rota-system government with 1 party prevents power struggles.
Immigration would have to be reduced a little in places like the UK, or cut out completely, since the UK is in a population overload at the moment with immigration. But immigrants would not be treated any differently. However, they would of coruse have to adapt and abide by their new country's laws- no more compensations for different races, EVERYONE is equal, and nobody is more equal than anybody else. This means that Muslims or whatever no longer get special Muslim schools, or Muslim districts, or Islamic-religion based laws, or compensations based on faith- they would be truly treated the same as everybody else, no better or worse. As I'm using the UK as an example, let's continue. Britain would have to be for the British, so immigrants of different faiths would have to adapt to British law. Not lose their faith completely but just adapt to fit in, and no longer have a superiority. Racism by definition isn't insulting a race, it's discrimination, and discrimination can be psotiive (Unfairly in favour) or negative (Unfairly against). Currently, the UK is experiencing positive discrimination towards some immigrant nations- these faiths are given compensation and special treatment over others, thus being over-positively treated. Everybody would have to be treated 100% equal. Don't think I'm being racist or against other faiths. I have Muslim, Sikh, Hindu friends. I'm trying to say that everyone should be treated the same, nobody better than others, and that includes immigrants.
Oh, and finally, benefits. I have to say I'd cut down on them. Obviously there are cases where benefits are neccessary- a disabled single mother in no fit condition for much work who has to look after 4 children ,say. But even then, you'd have to have limits. Disability benefits i have no problem with, but you would have to make sure that the disability is not forged, and that it does DIS-able them. A jammy ankle isn't a disability, for instance. disabilities woudl have to be something that physically prohibits the person from a certain job. THEN the benefit is fine.
Things like unempoyment benefits would have to be re-evaluated. I'd cut WAY down on the money paid out by them, and they would have to be paid only to people actively seeking work whatever the job. peopel who say "Oh I don't fanmc that job" or "I can't do that, i might strain my shoudler" or whatever, or people who just sit around collecting the dole, shouldn't get such benefits. If you actually try to look for a job, then yes, but if not, then no.
Child benefits, another issue. benefits for 1 child, yes. Higher benefits for 2, yes. Higher for 3, yes. Higher for 4, OK, but it's a stretch. Any mroe than 4 children is msot likely due to irresponsibility, so i don't believe benefit payments should keep going up to 10, 12, 15 children. After 4, 1 flat rate. You have too many children, that's your fault, ot the government's or taxpayers'. Oh, and this nonsense about immigrant workers insay, Britain, claimnig benefits to send home to children who live in say, Poland, is ridiculous. That can't be right- it means the tax paying public are paying benefits to people who don't even live in that country. You want to work here, you don't claim benefits for people who don't live here. Hence why immigration wuld have to be radically altered- families of 20, or people with criminal records, can't just be allowed to wander in and claim benefits without getting a job and helping society. Hell, people with criminal records should just not be allowed in full stop. Not fascism, not xenophobia, just preventing unfair positive discrimination.
I'm sure some of you will call me a fascist or right-wing or Nazi for this, but truth is it's not. It's about equality regardless of race, religion, gender, whatever, about logically providing government help, about making sure the government is strong and ttnerested only in the welfare of the people, not in winning the vote, about making sure the nation's money stays in its own nation, about preventing crime and forced taking of human rights, about preventing both negative and positive discrimination, and just generally about running the country logically and fairly.
Like I say, I know there'll be some who flame me and call me xenophobic or a racist, or a fascist or a nazi, but I know I'm not. I may not be articulating what I want to say the right way, but I'm certainly not a believer in fascism. I'm a believer in fair, TRULY fair, and just sensible government. As I say, maybe I've not described it in that way to you, but that's what I'm aiming for.
Kind of the main basis of Marxism, crossed with capitalist free trade and an uncorrputable and unshakeable government . Does that even make sense?
__________________
Fuzzle Guy: Apart from going swimming I've never been more wet in my life than when I went to see Take That.
Last edited by Munch's Master; 05-24-2008 at 06:58 AM..
|
