TheGZeus wrote:I love cigarettes. I'd wait a while, as the FSC bills passing countrywide will probably cause stock to drop for a while now. Of course, you could start dollar-cost-averaging and slow down when they start to come back when a petroleum-allergic person dies at the first puff, and the laws get voided.
Not a smoker myself, and generally wouldn't invest in a tobacco company anyway because of that, but I have no moral problem if others do.
I would have voted for Ron Paul, I speak out VEHEMENTLY against smoking bans, vice taxes, blue laws, and the like.
Neo-cons and the far left are the exact same thing to me. Two flavours of "I know better than you what's good for you."
Okay, we're more similar than different then. I was not fully in the Ron Paul camp, but I'm pretty close.
I think education on how a corporation works, and 'voting with your wallet' should be in every school's curriculum.That would solve problems without ruining the country with regulation.
I'm for regulation of alot of things, but only small limits. I WANT a limit on the yearly income of execs, because it would be better for the companies.However, I know it would probably do as much harm as good...
Can't agree with you on this one. The problem, as I think you're suggesting, is that it's hard to know when to stop. I agree that many CEOs making wads of money aren't worth it. But the market will figure that out. Just because *I* wouldn't pay a CEO that much doesn't mean that somebody else shouldn't be able to run their company that way.
I'd improve the educational system
I'd do away with government funded education completely, both college and K-12. We homeschool our kids and it was the best decision my wife and I ever made. Most people don't know, but government funded universal education was actually an invention at the time of the industrial revolution, put in place by the robber barrons to create a basic skilled workforce to feed the corporations. IMO, it has become an "indoctrination factory" for every special interest group that wants to influence impressionable young minds without their parents around. I'd suggest reading Dumbing Us Down by John Taylor Gatto
as a good piece on the subject.
call a spade a spade and put lobbyists in jail for bribery(not for long, though),
Can't agree with you on this one. If we're going to have a representative democracy, we need to be able to lobby our congress. More than taking lobbyists out of the system, I'd focus on taking the money out of the system. If the government is stripped of its power to tax, the professional lobbyists will go elsewhere, as there is nothing to lobby for. For instance, you don't typically see large numbers of professional lobbyists at the local level (some, sure, particularly in places like Chicago where the stakes are higher, but none in BFE Oklahoma, for instance).
one bill per issue,
no televised, printed, or audio broadcast political advertising,
Can't agree with you on that. We need free speech to discuss the issues, and that includes political advertising. McCain-Feingold in the USA is blatantly unconstitutional. I'm hopeful it will get overturned here in another few years. Ditto with limits on campaign contributions.
and add a constitutional amendment that for each jurisdiction every 20 years; for a period of 5-10 years, every new law 2 must be repealed(it's illegal to sleep in your boots on some state/town. Eating snake on a sunday is illegal in Kansas... Those would be the first to go, what would come next would be interesting).
I'm not sure I'd do it that way, but I'm with you. I would like to see laws with universal sunset periods of 10 years, for instance. That goes double for any tax laws. If it's really a good law, it should be easy to justify it and people will easily vote for it again. If not, you clear out the obsolete laws of which you speak. In other words, build the system naturally such that we're always being forced to ask, "Does this still apply? Do we still feel the same way about it now?" Further, this whole process would help keep the legislature focused on the really important stuff, because their time would be drawn to re-approving the queue of good laws about to expire, rather than leaving them spare time to figure out how to take away my rights.
I've considered making public office a matter of lottery, but the infrastructure changes needed would be too great.
I would agree with you that the outcome couldn't be much worse.
Still, I think I would keep a representative democracy. A few changes I would make, however, are that the legislature would have a much lower salary and would meet far less often. There is really not a lot of reason to have a full-time legislature, with huge staffs, etc. That, coupled with no term limits, and you quickly get career politicians, which is really the root of many problems. As soon as you have somebody with basically no experience in "real life," with power, close to a lot of money, well, then you start to get some problems. No man is safe. I would force politicians to have another primary job, with being a politician as their second job. If there is no way to get rich and powerful being a politician, the corruption will largely disappear on its own.
I've never generalised corporations as evil, and the only leftist-sounding thing I've actually said was that I thought transfats should be banned. I was then convinced to the contrary. I do think a warning label would be nice, though. Teaching it in schools would work, too, though.
Well, that's what I get for trying to read between the lines and extrapolate. Apologies.
We differ far less than I would have surmised.