Dictator for a Day

[Christopherson]

So I think that many people on here are tired of the way things are going in the world. Especially in the USA it seems people are completely fed up with the current political structure. I for one can say that I am. I look at America today and see many things that just don't make sense to me. If I were the dictator of America for one day, where I could make any law or rule I wanted, I know of a few things I would implement that I think would make our country a better place to live. This thread is a place to post them and discuss them. So let's hear it. If you were in charge for one day, and you could make whatever rule you wanted without having to worry about passage in Congress, vetoes, or anything else related to the political machine, what would you do? Here is one of my suggestions:

I would create an excise tax on gasoline. Not a small one either. I would create the tax so that gasoline prices would rise linearly with a final price of $6/gallon by the year 2015. The proceeds from this tax would not go to killing Muslims. It wouldn't go to helping poor people pay for abortions. It wouldn't go towards insuring everyone in America. I would put all of this money towards development of alternative energy sources. I think this would have positive consequences:

1. Auto manufacturers worldwide would be in a race to finally create more fuel efficient cars. High gas prices would force people to search out vehicles with good fuel efficiency to purchase. Supply and demand forces the automakers to create even more and more efficient vehicles.

2. All of the money from the tax can be used to find cleaner, more efficient energy sources. The way it is now, it is hardly feasible to do fund research in order to do these kinds of things. I mean, I've seen the Youtube video of the whole fire from water thing and I want to see it happen damnit!

3. If we were to develop an energy source so efficient that we could feasibly run desalinization plants many of the worlds problems would be solved. Many scientists have fingered lack of healthy drinking water as the main hindrance of development in third world countries. Additionally, just think of the food production the world would be capable of if we were able to desalinate sea water to use for irrigation. This would go along way in curbing hunger worldwide.

That being said, I do want to add one more amendment to my law. I would say that there needs to be some kind of subsidy for commercial use of gasoline. If there wasn't such a subsidy, the cost of any good that had to be shipped across country would skyrocket, forcing many people into poverty.

So anyways, that is ONE of my many many ideas of laws I would create if I were dictator for a day. What do you all think of it? Do you have any ideas of your own?

EDIT: Damn, I wrote too much. Now nobody will bother to read it and respond. Oh well.

[JT_55]

You lost me at "So I think..."

Still, don't you think gas prices are high enough? I don't know about the US, but here it's almost $1/litre (don't know what it transfers to in gallons). But at least people would drive way less with the high taxes. I think the problem is that high fuel efficient cars are a bit more expensive (and hybrids are way more expensive) so people buy the cheap ones while ignoring the long-term effects and costs.



As for me...if I was dictator for a day I would make the law that the present dictator will get to be a dictator for the rest of their life.

[Christopherson]

As an individual consumer, of course I would think it sucks. A law like this has no chance of ever being passes because every individual consumer would think it sucks. That being said, I still think it might be the best thing for our country and our planet, which is kind of the point of this thread, at least in my imagination anyways.

[benji]

Do we only get one law? Because I would have to think about that more.

If I got multiple laws though...

One of the first ones would be to repeal your tax, while eliminating restrictions on construction of refineries and nuclear plants.

Destroying the economy with a massive excise tax is not worth the "benefits". And then subsidizing use of gasoline? Why not just pass tax benefits for companies that develop different forms of fuel? Why instead of punishing people and instituting more state control to force people do to things, instead offer incentives to get them to do things?

Actually, that provided time for my thinking.

If I was dictator for a day, I would eliminate all laws from the books except the ones against murder and theft.

[TheMC5]

If I was dictator for a day, I would eliminate all laws from the books except the ones against murder and theft.

If I were dictator for a day, I would pass a law stating that under no circumstances is benji to be allowed to be dictator for a day.

[benji]

I'm sorry my dictatorship would do too much for freedom...

[Christopherson]

benji, good points. I just feel that we have a real problem in our country. The way it is now, companies are alomst rewarded for not developing new technology. I agree that allowing the production of nuclear energy would go along ways towards solving our electricity needs; however, we also need away to use that electricity to power our automobiles and other things we don't currently plug into a wall. Building more oil refineries is a great way to drop gas prices today. The problem really isn't the oil supply, like everyone would like us to think. The problem is that no refineries have been built since like, what, the 70's? The problem is, that doesn't people to come up with alternative energy sources. In fact, in only encourages them to be more wasteful.

[benji]

You can't just waive a magic wand and demand people discover new technologies and then they do it. They have to have some reason to invest in new technology. There are tons of alternative ways to power cars, but so far none of them are cost-effective. Everyone loves ethanol currently, but it costs three times as much for half the power, and may have a negative effect on food production.

If you raise gas prices, less people buy cars. Less money flows into the car companies. They have less money for R&D, and they also can't put a product on the market until they not only have perfected the technology, but have a means to provide people with this fuel. The only incentive for these companies is that they have to change their products or the government has forced them out of business.

When you introduce a subsidy you introduce a situation where people continue with what they are doing in order to get the subsidy. If the government is going to pay for companies to use gasoline, they will use gasoline as it's free or cheaper for them. It's like colleges, where they raise tuition, the government rushes to help students by providing more aid, so they keep raising tuition to get more government money.

Irregardless of whether or not there is a problem regarding gasoline, the cost is clearly too much. You decimate the economy, in hopes someone will find a fuel that works cheaper. Why not keep things the way they are, provide incentives for new technology and hope someone finds a fuel that works cheaper.

You would also have to index that price control on gasoline (They worked so well in the 70s ) to inflation or it would be ultimately irrelevant.

I also alter my above to read:
If I was dictator for a day, I would eliminate all laws from the books except the ones against physical harm/murder and theft.

[ixcuincle]

If I were dictator for a day I'd remove all the PC rules that have taken over America. Tag will be reallowed in public schools , minor swear words like "suck" and "asshole" would be back on television (did you know the news once blurred out the word "sucks" on the news? Why? And Dennis Green's infamous rant has the word "ass" censored. Why?)

We are offended by the most minor things here in the USA , and when we are offended , we complain to the politicians , who enact legislation based on 3 or 4 complaints from irate constituents. A few bad apples ruin things for the rest of us. Recently , Virginia Tech banned the use of the chant "Stick it in." when the football team's offense is near the end zone. Supposedly Stick it in could be construed in a sexual manner.

So yeah , if I were dictator all that PC crap would be illegal.

[bigh0rt]

I'd probably start killing all the Jews in America... wait...

[[Q]]

I'd do what ever it takes to make myself happy. because that hasn't happened in a really long time.

[Christopherson]

I know you don't like this benji, and I really don't like it either. However, I feel that the ends justify the means. I do not think that it would cripple the economy as much as you might think. Forms of public transportation would suddenly make sense and be used in places they never were before. Hell, take me for example. I live off-campus and I drive to class in my Jeep every day. At the apartment complex where I live there is a sign-up sheet for carpooling to campus. Right now it is blank. If gas were four times as expensive, I could easily find a ride three days out of four.

They have less money for R&D,

That is where the tax money comes in.

When you introduce a subsidy you introduce a situation where people continue with what they are doing in order to get the subsidy. If the government is going to pay for companies to use gasoline, they will use gasoline as it's free or cheaper for them.

I don't see it that way. Take the current situation today. Fuel sold in America has a highway tax on it. This help maintain the roadways in this country. Anyone who uses gasoline on a highway pays the highway tax, same with diesel. Say you have a lawn mower. You don't take it on the highway. You can buy your gas separately for your lawn mower and when it comes tax time, you will be refunded the highway tax for your lawn mower gas. This is a big deal in Ag business since farmers can burn 100's of gallons of diesel off-road a day. They don't have to pay highway tax.

I am proposing an sin tax (I know I said excise, somewhere in my education I swore I was taught they were the same thing). People using gasoline for commercial purposes like shipping goods would be exempt from the sin tax, analogous to farmers being exempt from the highway tax for the diesel in their tractors.

benji, I dig that you are a liberal through and through, no matter what the situation. I just feel that life is more complicated than to allow one philosophy to govern our every decision. We cannot be unwilling to re-evaluate our position and look at something from a different position (not that I am say you should, this is purely just discussion)

As for your law that the only law is against theft and physical harm/murder, you know it couldn't possibly be that simple. It just can't. Our society is much too complicated.

So yeah , if I were dictator all that PC crap would be illegal

So we would all be required to walk around and spew our racists statements and such. Sounds like a good time to me.

[benji]

However, I feel that the ends justify the means.

Why don't we kill off the poor then? There would not be anymore poor. If we kill all Muslims and destroy the religion there won't be any Islamic terrorists. I mean, you think just because we shouldn't use gasoline, we need to impose another set of disasterous government controls on it.

I do not think that it would cripple the economy as much as you might think. Forms of public transportation would suddenly make sense and be used in places they never were before.

And that would not cause economic distress? Public transportation costs would suddenly double, considering how hard it is to get people to use them enough for them to pay for themselves outside of big cities already...

A massive government mandate doubling the price of a good like gasoline, it would not cripple the economy? Really? The shortages that follow from the controls wouldn't?

That is where the tax money comes in.

It is not the governments job to make companies develop and use new products.

I don't see it that way.

That's fine, but this is how subsidies almost always end up. An entitlement. There are reasons Scottie Pippen recieves farm subsidies, and it has nothing to do with anything good.

I am proposing an sin tax (I know I said excise, somewhere in my education I swore I was taught they were the same thing). People using gasoline for commercial purposes like shipping goods would be exempt from the sin tax, analogous to farmers being exempt from the highway tax for the diesel in their tractors.

So the tax is only on citizens? Why should citizens be punished because they use a product companies use? Why is using gasoline a sin? Are corporations superior to people? Corporate state?

benji, I dig that you are a liberal through and through, no matter what the situation. I just feel that life is more complicated than to allow one philosophy to govern our every decision. We cannot be unwilling to re-evaluate our position and look at something from a different position (not that I am say you should, this is purely just discussion)

But we should also not damage the economy on purpose and enforce authoritarian control over people just because we have some strange hatred for a certain good and desire one to replace it.

Life is pretty darn simple. Liberalism is the best form of government. Anything else is detrimental to the nations, societies and citizens under it.

You are betting so much on the hope, that companies will somehow develop some gasoline replacement technology and replace all gasoline in five years, while allowing companies to use as much gasoline as they want for free, but not allowing citizens to have it at a market price.

Price controls are evil. The seventies proved this point.

As for your law that the only law is against theft and physical harm/murder, you know it couldn't possibly be that simple. It just can't. Our society is much too complicated.

I assumed my actions as dictator for a day would continue after my term was over. This would require us to start fresh instead of just adding more disgusting junk to the mess we already have.

Other than minor things and organizational like traffic and voting laws, what laws do we really need?

[Oznogrd]

1. Benji you scare me that you think the governments only job is to protect foreign threat and only enforce theft and murder laws...i think we had already established that you and me dont agree but

2. Dictator for a day? What law would I make? Thats one hell of a question. But I think I would either a)raise the enlistment/voting age to 21 or b) lower the drinking age to 18. It is ridiculous you can be mature enough to vote for president and mature enough to die for your country in war, but not mature enough to have a beer. 21 year olds in my experience are just as irresponsible as 18 year olds. And even though we have a higher drinking age, we have the most alcohol influenced fatalities...hmm...so yeah any laws i made would be to get rid of that sort of dual standard. Be it hate crime legislation, PC legislation (ix, elove man, elove), or a host of others i dont wanna open a can of worms with.

[Sauru]

if i was a dictator i would make new laws to prevent companies from exporting all the american jobs to china and other such places. currently this pisses me off more than anything else in this country


oh i would also reverse the ban on internet poker(cant say it enough)

[TheMC5]

I'm sorry my dictatorship would do too much for freedom...

Even though it's pretty obvious that you're trying to goad me into a debate (note the ellipse at the end, not to mention the implication of me being anti-freedom, which I guess would make me a terrorist, right benji?), I'll still bite. I don't know why, but I'll bite.

Your proposal to repeal all laws but those against theft and murder fails to address all aspects of freedom. Certainly you address the issue of freedom to, for example the freedom to sell whatever you want (meth to 10 year olds?), the freedom to do whatever you want (think Darko would follow through with his proposal to the refs in the Euro Championship?). However, you completely fail to acknowledge the aspect of freedom from, which is crucial, not only to a free society, but also to an individual's freedom to.



First, let's look at some of the ways that your proposal could actually hinder individual freedom. With no minimum wage or workplace standards, employers would be able to pay extremely low wages and deny any benefits, as well as demand unreasonable hours. With no power to unionize and no laws protecting them, the workers would be virtually powerless against mistreatment by employers. This obviously hinders an individuals freedom to seek alternate employment, as with very low wages one might not be able to get by for a period unemployment, and with potentially 2/3 of a day 7 days a week spent working for little money there would be no time to look for another job. Or how about environmentalism? With no laws protecting the environment things like clear-cut logging and drilling for oil would be allowed in previously protected unscathed wildernesses. This infringes on a person's freedom to experience their natural surroundings and commune with nature. So you can see how we're at odds here.

Second, and more importantly, is the issue of freedom from. Freedom from encompasses ideas like freedom from harm, freedom from discrimination, freedom from exploitation, all of which are essential to protecting a person's freedom to. If a husband beats his wife whenever she disobeys him, it is very difficult for her to have the freedom to do as she wishes. Her freedom from harm should override his freedom to hit her, as his actions directly interfere with her freedom. What about a black man living in a heavily racist area? Having the freedom to spread their hate speech whenever and wherever, including taught in school, the racist groups could have widespread influence. How could a black man live free in such an area? He would have a hard time getting a job, if he did it would pay little because he would have a hard time getting into university, if not because of racism from academia, then because of racism from his grade school teachers, who fraudulently gave him low marks. Truly anti-freedom ideologies like racism can become institutionalized very effectively, and to ensure people's freedom to live and prosper protection of freedom from harm, discrimination, and exploitation is necessary.

Freedom as a metaphorical concept is grounded very heavily in the notions of movement and physical space. If your freedom is interfered with, you are said to be tied down, held back, trapped. Freedom, therefor, requires access - access to an object, a location, or space to perform an action. You are not free to obtain these if access is blocked or if there is no path. Freedom, understood in this way, requires not only the absence of impediments but also the presence of access. Abolishing virtually all laws, as you proposed, can then be seen to remove the presence of access to many things (education, justice, health care - though you do live in the States so I guess health care doesn't apply) for many people (the poor, the oppressed, the disabled), as well as facilitate many impediments to access (via unregulated market/business practices, lack of guaranteed rights, lack of legal recourse). Therefor, your proposal would be a threat to the freedom of all who fall under your theoretical day-long dictatorship.

P.S. With no taxes, as you would have no laws to collect taxes, how do you propose infrastructure be maintained?



Disclaimer: Do not mistake any the expressed opinions as signifying support for the way that so-called democratic governments (the US in particular) currently operate. This pertains to everything from social policy, to military policy, to economic policy, to actual administrative practices.






EDITED TO ADD: I find it both funny and disheartening that nobody has yet proposed doing anything to make the governing or electoral process more truly democratic. That's what I would do. I'm not exactly sure how. Presumably I would know in advance that I'll be dictator for a day, so I'd do some pretty extensive research. And it depends where I'm dictating. If it's here in Canada, the first thing I'd do is eliminate party solidarity. The idea that elected officials can't speak either their opinion or the opinion of the majority of their constituents, or vote in parliament accordingly, is ludicrous, and seriously hinders democratic progress. There's many other things I'd like to do (abolish the joke that is the Canadian Senate, for one), but abolishing party solidarity would be priority #1, as it is such an affront to reason and democracy.

[benji]

1. Benji you scare me that you think the governments only job is to protect foreign threat and only enforce theft and murder laws

On a base level, the federal government's job should only be to protect foreign threats and solve disputes between the states. We had not established whether I would be changing state laws or not, I was assuming federal ones only.

Ideally, I would, as stated, eliminate all the laws so that we are pared back to the Constitution and can do it properly instead of inventing new powers for the federal government. Populism, Progressivism and FDR's Fascism led to a 20th Century political culture where the Constitution, and especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are hinderances and not The Supreme Law of the Land.

Assuming I was the only person who became dictator for a day and my mandates continued past my date of dictation, I would give three-five years to rewrite the necessary laws for basic functioning, and after the time, the existing law structure would cease to exist, and the new ones would come into being. If the path to authoritarianism is chosen then, in disregard to the Constitution, I would also mandate Fukuyama has to be publicly flogged and wear a placard that says "I was wrong."

[Riot]

Benji is right...the smaller the federal government the better. The states and people can help themselves. When you start depending on the federal government to help the people only bad things come out of it. That's why I feel the welfare system amongst other things need to be axed.

[TheMC5]

Ideally, I would, as stated, eliminate all the laws so that we are pared back to the Constitution and can do it properly instead of inventing new powers for the federal government.

And what makes you think a similar process of bastardization of laws and introductions of new powers for the feds wouldn't take place following your dictatorship?

Populism, Progressivism and FDR's Fascism led to a 20th Century political culture where the Constitution, and especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are hinderances and not The Supreme Law of the Land.

Care to explain?


Also, FDR's fascism? I love it. Benji's true colors show. A liberal you most certainly are not, at least not by the common definition/use of the word. Libertarian would be more accurate, with conservative fiscal and economic views.

[Christopherson]

A liberal you most certainly are not, at least not by the common definition/use of the word.

That has been obvious for along time.

[Lean]

If I'd be dictator for a day, I'd require all rich kids to give money to the poor. I hate it when I see rich kids go to Starbucks and drink coffee when they could just buy a 3-in-1 coffee sachet.

Back to the topic, if you may.

[Jugs]

Yeah rich kids who drink coffee (Gloria Jean's is like the Starbucks of Geelong) are fagsticks and i rag on them.

[BigKaboom2]

A liberal you most certainly are not, at least not by the common definition/use of the word.

That has been obvious for along time.

benji fails for intentionally trying to confuse everyone week after week, and everyone else fails for not picking up on it:

benji and I and hopefully other people = THIS

Most of the people perpetuating the argument in this thread = THIS

Do I make myself clear?

[TheMC5]

A liberal you most certainly are not, at least not by the common definition/use of the word.

That has been obvious for along time.

benji fails for intentionally trying to confuse everyone week after week, and everyone else fails for not picking up on it:

benji and I and hopefully other people = THIS

Most of the people perpetuating the argument in this thread = THIS

Do I make myself clear?

Notice the words "by the common use/definition". What classical liberalism is now referred to as is "libertarianism". Do I make myself clear?

[BigKaboom2]

I shall continue to respond with links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_ ... rtarianism