This QOTW was made for me
So now you lot have to sit up and listen (well, read.) The following would have to take place under a one-world government, obviously, with Rampants as Big King Chutney Trousers (paid at the exact average wage and with no privileges other than that necessary to provide security)

1) Ban economics.

It never fails to surprise me how many people who rightly eschew organised religion as total bollocks on one hand nonetheless take economics seriously on the other. At the base is a belief that the value of everything can be expressed as a numerical value based mostly on what people believe it to be worth. There's neither any real basis for this other than belief, nor any real ackonwledgement of non-monetary value of just about anything other than in a very secondary sense. However trying to rebuild such a money-centric society without money is difficult so in a practical sense the following should suffice:

a) One single worlwide currency (therefore no currency trading - hooray!) This could be linked to the price of a series of essential goods so that everyone on earth would pay the same price for a basket of shopping. That's one way to do it.

b) The running of all banks, share exchanges, insurance markets, other financial industries, healthcare provision, pharmaceutical research, energy provision (automotive fuel, gas, water and electricity) and transport infrastructure (road, rail and air) to be taken over completely by a series of independently regulated, completely transparently run public organisations with the remit to keep costs to a minimum, co-ordinate the minimising of environmental impacts where relevant and generate funds solely for the public benefit. So no bonuses/ outrageous salaries for the bankers / executive and all the money generated to be used to reduce the need for individual taxation. While those managing and running these organisations could be incentivised with a decent (but not outrageous) wage, their jobs should be dependent on the degree to which they can produce a satisfactory performance and reviewed annually.

c) The introduction of a maximum wage, and a maximum amount of money an individual can possess. The maximum wage could be 10 times the minimum wage. No individual should be allowed to retain a personal fortune of more than £10 million quid at the current value, as this encourages them to become self obsessed, to push up property prices (by buying additional homes they don’t need), to horde resources and to contribute as little as possible. It also ruins their children’s chances of living productive lives as if you know you’re going to inherit daddy’s billions, you can run around behaving like an absolute shit to everyone without any fear.

d) The repealing of the laws which allow organizations, companies and other similar institutions to have human rights (i.e. to be able to own property and to sue and be sued.) The owners of these bodies should be directly liable for problems the organizations cause, such as pollution, and all these bodies should rent the properties they require for the body itself to be administrated for a reasonable and sustainable fee from the government; this would prevent companies from buying properties so they lose money and get tax breaks while keeping the property empty and unused. Also stockpiling houses as investments, driving up property prices and denying people places to live. As an aside, I’d also levy such taxes on the ownership of more than one residential property that it wasn’t worth having more than two (the one you live in and one additional one), thereby ensuring that every individual could have an affordable house which they own. Houses are for people to live in, not for companies and landlords to make fortunes from while keeping prices artificially high.

2) The immediate legalization of all narcotic drugs. If you need me to explain why, pick your knuckles off the floor, switch off Jeremy Kyle and listen up:

Criminalisation of drugs doesn’t work. If you object to the legalization of drugs on the basis that you or someone you know has had a problem, this is not an argument against the legalization of drugs but against their continued criminalization, as you / your friend experienced their problem despite drugs being illegal. It’s none of your business what I, a fully informed and cognizant adult, choose to do with my body. Criminalisation prevents addicts from getting treatment and very rarely punishes any large- scale dealers. It also allows criminal gangs to make fucktons of money which they can then spend on guns, as one example. There is literally no argument which holds any water against the legalization of all drugs so if you think you have one, you’re wrong.

Obviously, you have to ensure drugs can only be supplied to responsible, cognizant adults and as such everyone who wants some should have to be licensed to be able to buy them, consumption and trade should take place on licensed premises, and the taxation of the process should pay into the NHS. People who sell drugs to kids or any other non-licensed users should have their licenses removed and face at least a 5 year prison sentence. Which at least wouldn’t be so overcrowded what with probably half the prison population being there for drugs offenses, which by the way are only subject to such severe sanctions because those who profit from drug sales don’t pay tax.

Along the same lines, prostitution should be made legal to protect prostitutes and punters, and restricted to small-scale businesses with a maximum number of employees; this should be structured to ensure that security is provided by employees who work for the prostitutes, not the other way around. Rates should be standardized, pensions and sick pay provided and under no circumstances should people who are not doing the actual prostituting themselves be able to profiteer from those who are.

3) The restriction of governmental activities and powers by a considerable margin, the reduction of numbers of professional politicians by a considerable margin, the prevention of those politicians having any additional jobs or from profiting personally from their position in any way, even afterwards. So if they want to publish their memoirs, they shouldn’t make any money from them personally. Therefore, politicians who want to be politicians should do so because they want to be politicians, not because it’s a gravy train. The role of government should be restricted to basically guaranteeing the public-organisations previously detailed were fairly and correctly run and debating changes to legislation. Meanwhile all legislation should be subject to a review and referendum if a significant proportion of the population votes for it. We should also have any proposal to engage in war (other than defending our own shores from attack) ratified by a national referendum.

4) There should also be some rules regarding media.

a) Any political argument advanced by any newspaper columnist should be done so alongside another columnist advocating the opposing view.

b) Any invasion of personal privacy of anyone must be fully justified against strict criteria and demonstrated to be in the public interest; if this isn’t done, the owners and editing staff should be required to have cameras put into their offices and houses and the footage played (randomly cycled) on public TV, with highlights shows made and broadcast on major networks on a weekly basis (this same punishment should be extended to tax dodging businessmen or corrupt officials, once their assets have been stripped)

c) Any story which is proved inaccurate and requires the publication of an apology should have said apology printed in the next edition on the same page(s) as the original article, taking up the same space and using the same font sizes.

d) News media should be registered as tabloid or non-tabloid. Tabloids should then be exclusively responsible for celebrity news, reality TV regurgitation, pictures of semi-naked people and amusing stories about animals and rudely shaped vegetables. Non-tabloids should be exclusively responsible for reporting on politics, disasters, criminal investigations and other serious stories. The Daily Mail should then be abolished.

5) Citizenship – and voting rights – should be restricted to those who can prove themselves (in a reasonable, written test) capable of understanding the arguments needed to vote in a free democracy. They should also be restricted to those over 16 and either employed, retired from employment or who have paid into the national insurance scheme in the last 3 years. Tests should be taken once every 10 years, with free reapplications for failures every six months as long as the failures wish to participate.

6) Long-term unemployed should be housed collectively with less privacy than is afforded to, say, modern council-house tenants. Monetary benefits should be minimal – capped at around 10 pounds a week – and earned through keeping the commune clean and maintained and cooking. This money should be used as credit to buy goods in the communal shop (including fags and booze, but excluding lottery tickets; and they should be able to all chip in for a Sky subscription). However, great efforts must be extended to help those who wish to get into work, set up businesses and become productive members of society. Discrimination against people in these circumstances (say, for jobs) should be illegal and subject to severe sanctions. Whatever the standard of living here, it must always be far, far better than that of criminals in incarceration. No-one to be allowed to reproduce while living in these circumstances (yes, I’m talking forced abortions and forced sterilizations, including for the men who made the lady pregnant, via a DNA test). This whole policy to be fine-tuned on the basis that the poor should not be ghettoized and opportunity must always be provided, but those who deliberately choose to avoid work shouldn’t enjoy the same privileges as those who work for them.

7) Immigration applications should be granted on the basis of what can be contributed (skills) and proven need, and not prioritized for citizens of any particular country. Assistance for immigrants should include free language lessons for all who need them, but no benefits can be paid to anyone who hasn’t contributed already, and those who arrive with nothing would live in the communal situation described above.

8) Number of places on university and vocational courses should be decided by specialist external bodies on the basis that the correct numbers of skilled workers to fill roles should be trained each year (plus say 5% to balance out those who change occupation, need extended sickness leave or become pregnant); all tuition to be free; all courses to take up the same number of hours each week with more complex subjects like medicine and architecture to take more years to achieve qualification. All courses to include as much on-the-job experience as possible, this work to be paid to help with student’s living expenses. Rent-free communal-style student accommodation to be provided.

9) Free condoms for everyone of any age for any reason (including water balloons). Lowering of the age of consent to 15, but people between the ages of 15 and 18 may only have sex with other people between the ages of 15 and 18.

10) All care homes for the elderly and terminally ill to be provided for free; but everyone to be able to choose their own retirement age as long as they continue to perform their jobs effectively.

11) All responsibilities relating to parking and speeding enforcement to be devolved from councils and to an independent body. Parking restrictions to be enforced only when vehicles are blocking access. Clamping to be illegal. Fines for towed vehicles to be capped at 10% of the vehicles value.

12) The Human Rights Act (and similar legislation) to be replaced with a Human Rights And Responsibilities Act, in which everyone has to recognize the rights of others, punishments to fit crimes and health and safety rules to be limited in two aspects: firstly, that they can never be used to actually prevent anyone from doing anything (just make it safer) and secondly to ensure everyone is responsible for deciding themselves whether anything was actually a sensible thing to do and therefore not to be able to sue anyone if it turns out that any reasonable person would have thought that it wasn’t. Also, reproductive rights to be curtailed so no-one can produce more than two children per couple. Anyone who wants more should have to adopt an unwanted child.

13) Anyone who disagrees with Rampants to be thrown into the core of the earth until the population is down to a more reasonable level (say a billion humans worldwide). Utopia to inevitably follow.
(rampants, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 17:06, 20 replies)

TL
DR
(username failed moderation, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 17:11, closed)

fuck i was gonna do that

(men boles Benea, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 17:38, closed)

My attempt
doesn't seem half as bad now.
(ThatNiceMan thought he was being funny, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 17:19, closed)

Brilliant, so well written!
*click*
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 17:22, closed)

God...
I wish people would start putting a bit of effort into their posts.
(kingnutter, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 17:33, closed)

wrong...
try again
(Peno Lives In a Coal Bunker, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 18:07, closed)

Hilarious.
Although, I'm not sure whether I'm laughing with you, or at you.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 19:02, closed)

You could have used all the time you spent typing
actually thinking about the sheer idiocy of some of your arguments.
( Ghoti Fingers, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 19:17, closed)

and to further elaborate?
seems like a bit of a cop-out response...

What, do tell, are the details of this sheer idiocy?
(dbstpballerina Finally ready. YALDY, Sat 24 Sep 2011, 9:58, closed)

tl;dr

( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Fri 23 Sep 2011, 19:47, closed)

I read a bit, and I disagree with what I read.
Especially the throwing into the earth's core. Do you know how long it would take to drill that?

Longer than it took me to drill your mom, that's how long.
(CactusZack Shaved his coin purse on, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 20:02, closed)

I wish I had a hat as shiny and metallic as yours.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 21:22, closed)

Interesting that the usual chatterbox bunch
came up with the same old sad, sorry responses (after apparently NOT taking the time to read the post). Says a lot about their attention-spans really.
rampants, I agree completely - especially the right to vote stuff. You did however forget chemical castration for mongs and physical castration for rapists and kiddy-fiddlers.
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Fri 23 Sep 2011, 21:56, closed)

I also out of courtesy took the time to read this thoroughly
And whilst I can't say I agree with every point as I feel that some of them were a bit jumbled (e,g, ownership of property by government - veering a little towards socialism; but massive reductions in government control - more of a conservative approach) there were some excellent points in there.

Unfortunately B3TA does have something of a left-wing bias in general and so most respondents will either mock or give it a TL;DR (if it is TL;DR, then why comment?)

The point about economics was brilliant - being in hock to an organised system based on faith, belief and supposition whislt eschewing a system based on faith, belief and supposition.

rampants - your political leanings would indicate that your are somewhere between centre-left & centre-right, but in an extremist way. Congratulations on so vehemently embracing the spirit of our con-dem coalition! You get my vote!
(mongothemagnificent knows where you live, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 23:04, closed)

oh fuck OFF with your smug cuntery.

( janet aylia y'all motherfuckers need jesus, Sat 24 Sep 2011, 10:29, closed)

Sorry Janet
I forgot for a minute there that as I don't hang out in /talk, nor do I invoke the name of Rob, and I don't have an icon next to my name, that my contributions are worthless and thus deserving of withering disdain.

Please accept my sincere apologies.

Cunt.
(mongothemagnificent knows where you live, Sun 25 Sep 2011, 18:05, closed)

tl;dr

( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Fri 23 Sep 2011, 23:14, closed)

yep...
saw that one coming
(mongothemagnificent knows where you live, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 23:28, closed)

Thanks
for reinforcing the stereotype there stuj...
(Hope that wasn't too many big words for you)
:-)
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Sat 24 Sep 2011, 6:45, closed)

ah
another candidate for crayons
(andythepieman Is surfing the waves of indifference on, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 15:59, closed)

TL;DR
What the buggering fuck did I just scroll past?

Winston-fucking-Churchill's memoirs?

Some paragraphs would of been nice.
(fucknugget the third, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 22:48, closed)

"would of"?
My suggestion: people who write "would of" to be forcibly re-educated.
(flimflam_machine, Sat 24 Sep 2011, 7:16, closed)

^this

(square go, Sat 24 Sep 2011, 8:20, closed)

me?
I'd introduce mandatory double-spaces after paragraphs.
(El Fandango carved a big EF onto his nemesis' doublet on .., Fri 23 Sep 2011, 22:48, closed)

loving your work
Click
(OTT, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 23:00, closed)

Um...
1) Ban economics.
Intrinsically there will be a higher value placed on something more desirable aesthetically, in volume or just perceived value. Effectively if you distributed all wealth evenly, within minutes you'd have rich and poor because there would be those who provided a service and those willing to pay for said service - and it's likely that the more aesthetically pleasing people providing said service would likely receive more than those who look like me.

a) One single worlwide currency. NWO lot would love you.
Everyone on earth would pay the same price for a basket of shopping. That's one way to do it. Regardless of delivery and storage costs... really?

b) Ideally a nice idea, commie.

c) Wholehearted agree.

2) I agree actually... but again unified government would have to pass this to avoid drug havens

3) The restriction of governmental activities and powers by a considerable margin - um, whose going to dole out the licences or sort referendums and get this shit passed initially

4) There should also be some rules regarding media. Who by government, or more totally transparent independent groups?

a) Agree.

b) What if falsely accused?

c) Quite right, but tough on the asset stripped

d) What about those who don't have time to read both but want to keep a breast of current affairs?

6) Ah the workhouse... they worked well before!!!

7) Why if we all share the same currency, brother?

8) Ah yes, state deciding on Alpha, Betas etc in this Brave New World.

9) 3 year olds with condoms and relationships shutdown once someone is over 18 (by that I mean if you and your GF/BF got together at 15 what happens when the eldest gets past 18?

10) What about those that don't?

11) i)lots of these "independent bodies" who monitors them?
ii) So a change to restrictions... but how much blocking of access... I could park half on pavement half on in a highstreet - still partial access for pedestrians and traffic?
iii) but shooting in the face OK.
iv) Bit lenient on those who drive clapped out old bangers.

12) What about religious rights e.g. Catholics and contraception or parents who naturally have triplets etc.

13) You want to wipe out 66% of the World's population? Have you got a ticket to the new Denver Airport and/or a Hitler tash?
( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Sat 24 Sep 2011, 2:01, closed)

Regarding point 9; half your age plus seven is the ticket.
(nuffnuff, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 7:51, closed)

Sure, that's a good system - although my grandad told me that when I was 12...
...but that would screw the 19-22 year olds under the proposed system.
( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 9:51, closed)

Why thank you...
... I was really hoping someone would take the time to read the proposals and give some constructive criticism. When all this comes to pass (as it most definitely inevitably will, and you all know it), I shall give you a post as senior advisor, at least until I inevitably go mad with power and devote all my time to hanging cabinet members and awarding myself spurious medals ;-) Anyway, in answer to your points:

1) True; but in the absence of anything remotely resembling a replacement system (answers on a postcard if you can think of one) it's simply not practical or reasonable to actually ban money or expect the idea of "value" to become completely redundant. Therefore my proposals were posited on the idea that we need to reduce the impacts of having allowed global capitalism and economics to get so out of control so it's all-powerful and allows some people to get rich beyond words by doing nothing productive (i.e. currency traders) and others to starve because of the first groups' actions.

a) It's the only way. The trick is to ensure that there is enough wealth redistribution as a result to allow everyone to live in reasonable comfort without anyone becoming unfeasibly wealthy and hogging the resources so they can buy million dollar shoes. This would entail the price of said theoretical shopping basket being a reasonable proportion of the average wage packet. And yes, regardless of delivery and storage costs - this whole task would hinge upon efforts to reverse the impacts of pollution and overfarming in the developing world to enable goods to be produced locally so people can have their basic needs met without needing huge quantities of goods to be imported (eventually).

b) Yes, it's an idea which has mostly been associated with socialist regimes, but they actually tended to nationalise the wrong industries. Marx and Engels never intended communism for agrarian economies like Russia but industrialised nations whose bourgeoise classes were mostly able to prevent it happening, at least for very long periods. Also the model fell down due to the greed / power madness of the leadership, but it doesn't mean that nationalising the financial industries for the benfit of the populace rather than a select class of individuals is a bad idea. As for the railways and road networks, do you know we pay more money in public subsidies to the companies which run the railways than we did to run it when it was nationalised? The transport infrastructure is too important to be used for the political gains of short-term-obsessed politicians and profiteers.

c) Yes, you do.

2) Yeah, unified government, with a full and clear constitution involving the rights of everyone on the planet to have education, healthcare, clean water and air, adequate shelter, sufficient foods and protection of their human rights (in conjunction with human responsibilities), plus complete transparency, a separation from business interests and a barring of any individual who becomes involved in corruption is necessary.

3) That would be the government's responsibility. The key aspects of this model of government are transparency and clear processes for holding probematic aspects to account.

4) Regulated by an independent transparent body.

a) OK

b) Wouldn't happen until the accusations had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Asset stripping is a necessary and justified punishment for the corrupt or avoiders of their fair tax responsibilities.

d) Simple - read one, or the other, or make time!

6) Yes, the workhouse for the workshy, not for those who have genuine reason to be unable to support themselves. I haven't said anything about the infirm, for instance, because though I'd like to see more resources directed towards finding work which fits the skills and abilities of disabled people and better enables them to contribute, I wouldn't suggest that they should have to live under these conditions. Anyway, the current system of giving the workshy free houses, paying them to reproduce kids they don't want and can't be bothered to take proper care of and encouraging them to be unproductive by giving them the same stuff the rest of us have to work to afford works really well, don't you think?

7) Just because we move to a single worldwide currency doesn't mean all inequalities are going to vanish. People will want to move around and in many cases have good reasons for doing so; and can come to other coutries and be productive and contribute.

8) It's not the state which decides; these things would be predicated on exam results, the need for different skills to fulfil the needs of the society, and would be done in a system where everything possible was being done to provide equality of opportunity.

9) 3 year olds can use them as water balloons, but would get sex education as appropriate for their age, irrespective of parents wishes as every individual would have to have responsibility for their own reproductive capacity. For pre-teens, sex education would focus on how to avoid danger from would-be abusers and the abstracts of reproduction. Post 12, it would include relationship ethics and aspects of childcare. Re: those who turn 19 while in a relationship with a younger partner, these relationships would be allowed to continue under license as the age difference would remain the same between the two.

10) Those that don't continue to perform their jobs effectively - this being proved through a peer-reviewed transparent process - would have to be retired. Currently, a lot of people don't get to choose when to retire, and overall more people would be be able to have more choice under this model.

11) i) Yes, you'd need them, but they should not be making judgements on tickets which result in them either getting the money from the fine or not, as councils currently do. Councils and other bodies shouldn't use parking etc as a means of raising revenue.

ii) Access for a wheelchair to pass in comfort on the pavement would be sufficient, as they are wider than bikes, prams and fat people.

iii) Only for companies who illegally clamp vehicles.

iv) Normally, those who drive clapped-out old bangers are poorer and can't afford the fines, especially if the car's been towed and fines have built up. I'm generalising but...

12) Fuck the religious. They can make do with the same rights as the rest of us. In fact, I'll add another rule - a test to be passed by anyone who wishes to practice a religion to prove first that they are of sound mind. Which they'd all fail because believing in a beardy sky wizard is sufficient proof of insanity. This would be extended to include all children. Any child who said they didn't want to attend their parent's church or other place of worship should have their choice respected and parents who made them go would be locked up for child abuse. Re: triplets etc, these are relatively rare, and as long as no fertility treatments had been used exceptions would be allowed. I doubt it would seriously impact the issue of reducing overpopulation.

13) No, those people are all pussies. In more serious terms, I would very much encourage abortion for unwanted pregnancies (and do whatever required to provide access), and not only legalise euthanasia but give inheritance tax breaks to those who choose it. Overpopulation will finish us all off in the end, for sure.
(rampants, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 15:53, closed)

I can't wait!
Although I'll need a month's notice, pompous title and licorice on tap.

In response:

1) Tally sticks?

a) But what about desert regions where resources are scarce and storage of any perishable goods difficult? Relocation of those populaces to Venus project cities (http://www.thevenusproject.com/). Does everyone want to live in a city?

b) I'm with you comrade.


2) Those religious folk will have a ball. But I hear you.


3) The problem is who holds accountability... it is true that government should be servants of the people, and that an independent body should be able oversee that all is done by the current government in a transparent and honest way - but look at the current Stateside system... I wonder whether the Founding Fathers would be happy.

4) Comprised of? Piers, as in the case of the House of Lords. Ex-government officials who may have already had their moral compasses turned?

b) But how much faith do we hold in 'reasonable doubt'... would Amanda Knox be stripped (albeit she's not a corrupt official!). And what would happen to the dependents of those stripped? Equally, who would want to be an investigative journalist given the potential repercussions of not only those exposed by the draconian/1984 punishment.

d) Fair enough.

6) Yes, I agree... and I was brought up in a single-parent council house.

7) But if we are really going to banish poverty and disparity based on geography (because of course you and will be handed this remit any day now), then we have to treat everyone the same regardless of where they originated. If there are holes in the system from the start then they will be exaggerated over time.

8) What about those who are not good under exam conditions or late bloomers? Also would you not get specialist schools based on profession, and therefore an unequal education system. What if say you or I were born to climb palm trees, but going to school in Leeds we were never offered the opportunity. Alternatively, if our school offered Palm Tree climbing classes but I had no inclination to climb trees would I not be better ploughing my energy into something I have an aptitude for?

9) While I agree in principle, "irrespective of parents wishes" makes it sounds very Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World.

10) Seems sensible.

11) i) Again though, I'd ask who would form these independent bodies and review their actions... albeit I think it makes sense.

ii) Ha! OK.

iii) Fair enough - though rapists get off a bit easy.

iv) But those who've let fines built up are generally lazy... that said disproportionate fines are wrong.

12) OK.

13) Why not just get rid of 'the poor' then... strychnine in chicken nuggets? Easier to kill of the middle classes though - you still need jobs done. Isn't that what the NWO, Rockefeller, Rothschild lot, our "lizard masters" want anyway? *gasp* You're a shape shifter aren't you!!!



www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E&feature=player_embedded#!
( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 14:08, closed)

The gospel according to Rampants
I agree with most of your points, especially the drugs legalisation. Why "illegal" drugs are treated differently to tobacco and alcohol I fail to understand, although the enforcement industry would bleat like anything. I look forward to voting for the Rampants Party when your manifesto is fine-tuned.
(Classic Ray, Sun 25 Sep 2011, 5:25, closed)

Needs fine tuning
Otherwise why the hell not
(andythepieman Is surfing the waves of indifference on, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 15:58, closed)