Dear talk_politics members: I render unto you a question:

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

How would you describe your ideal government and its laws and policies?

(Sorry, mods, for making a short post consisting of nothing but a question. I was hoping it could facilitate some interesting and hopefully wank-free discussion ^_^)

Comments

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

"...and hopefully wank-free discussion" Your naïveté is cute. ;-)

My ideal government would start with the one currently in place in the United States (three-branch Executive-Judicial-Legislative with a bicameral Legislature and a robust network of checks and balances). I would prefer that the Executive be directly elected, all positions be elected via range voting (http://rangevoting.org/), and that referendums, initiatives, ballot initiatives, and recall elections be implemented nationally. I would also like to see districting taken out of the hands of humans altogether, via the shortest splitline algorithm (http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html) (or any algorithm that can be shown to work better). Maximum government transparency.

Economic policies

Government as referee through antifraud, antitrust, and safety regulation. Government as shepherd of essential national resources (national parks and the like). Government as manager of public pools of money (unemployment insurance, health insurance, pensions, and the like) to ensure everybody has the basics covered, but with a parallel private sector for those that want to supplement the public coverage. Heavy government investment in infrastructure, education, and primary research. Little (if any) nationalized industry — the government can't make an effective ref if it's also one of the players.

Social policies

Only things harming another person would be illegal or given lower legal status. This would include complete legalization of drugs, but with the caveat that breaking a law while under the influence would carry stiffer penalties and mandatory rehab. Homosexual and even group marriages would have equal status as heterosexual marriages. Cruelty to animals would be illegal, but not harm (e.g. killing for food).

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

It seems we are of one mind. ^_^

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Seriously, though - I agree on every point of your comment, save for the legalization of all drugs (I'd like to see weed legalized, but that's it). Well, you know what they say - great minds think alike! ;)

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

I could accept keeping some drugs legal, provided some rational criteria — rather than just "it freaks out the suits". For example, "anything worse than the the worst currently legal (alcohol) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg)" i.e. methadone, barbiturates, cocaine, and heroin. (Table 3 on page Ev 114 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf) has a linear ranking of the average score on all three criteria groups.) Age restrictions using tobacco and alcohol as guides (anything up through tobacco with the same age restriction as tobacco — 18ish depending on jurisdiction IIRC — and anything from there up through alcohol with the same age restriction as alcohol — 21) would also make sense.

I do agree that pot legalization is a priority, as it's just plain over-prosecuted and used as a political weapon.

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

I think the principal criteria should be the health risk presented by the use of the drug and how much of the drug is required to cause significant impairment. I agree that laws shouldn't be made based on the opinions of philistines. ;)