How to make a great country

[GuiltyCowboy]

OK, so here's an idea: what are some things that would make a country a genuinely great place to live?

What's important to you? What laws, policies, norms, traditions etc would you advise this hypothetical country to adopt - and why?

My own ideals start with these:

- Media cannot be owned solely by the richest.
I don't believe only rich people should decide which issues are worth highlighting and discussing.

- No person or corporation or entity can donate more than $25 per year to a candidate or political party.
This ensures that elected officials cannot be bought by special interest groups with the deepest pockets. Less corruption, and a level playing field for everyone.

- To receive any kind of tax break, you must first pay your full tax, then go in person to receive your check.
First, everyone should have a clear idea of just how much their lifestyle is subsidized by the government; secondly, this would help crack down on the wealthiest cheats who hide their income in tax havens.

Anyway, come up with a good idea and argue a good case for it and I'll collect them and add them here.

 

[Bray123]

If you political opponent did something and you campaigned against it, it should be a criminal offense to claim later that it was all due to your efforts.

 

[Chernosoth]

Public education starts with sustainable organic agriculture. Without food, nothing else matters.
Advocating nuclear energy is hate speech against the earth. Anyone doing that is immediately buried alive.
Lesser penalties for lesser environmental crimes.

 

[ll74]

Public education starts with sustainable organic agriculture. Without food, nothing else matters.
Advocating nuclear energy is hate speech against the earth. Anyone doing that is immediately buried alive.
Lesser penalties for lesser environmental crimes.

What?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

A great country doesn't protect pedophiles or elect them as president.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Public education starts with sustainable organic agriculture. Without food, nothing else matters.
Advocating nuclear energy is hate speech against the earth. Anyone doing that is immediately buried alive.
Lesser penalties for lesser environmental crimes.

You're a bit of a moron, aren't you?

 

[Saint_Ann]

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787

 

[Chernosoth]

What?

A postindustrial civilization living in our devastation may regard our environmental recklessness as extreme criminal insanity, as worse than any genocide or anything done by the current villains.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing

governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence

OK, so everyone has a just influence in this country and 'a little rebellion now and then' is not to be discouraged.

Solid points. I think we need to pay attention to the ways in which this just (and equal?) influence can be undermined. Which is why you need to make all political donations the same and within reach of anyone, for example.

Lesser penalties for lesser environmental crimes.

I agree that, generally speaking and in an ideal country, destruction of the environment is criminal. It's a solid principle, though obviously the specifics are important and messy. For me, it's mostly about depletion.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Collect a large number of Ashkenazi Jews. They have the highest IQ averages of any race or sub race. They also have low rates of crime and illegitimacy. If you can put them some place where they do not need to defend themselves, like Israelis always have had to, and Jewish immigrants to the United States during the turn of the last century had to do, they will prosper, even if there are no natural resources.

I am not Jewish, by the way. I would not praise Jews if I was. I agree with Charles Murray, who noted this in his essay "Jewish Genius:"

"Since its first issue in 1945, COMMENTARY has published hundreds of articles about Jews and Judaism. As one would expect, they cover just about every important aspect of the topic. But there is a lacuna, and not one involving some obscure bit of Judaica. COMMENTARY has never published a systematic discussion of one of the most obvious topics of all: the extravagant overrepresentation of Jews, relative to their numbers, in the top ranks of the arts, sciences, law, medicine, finance, entrepreneurship, and the media."

"I have personal experience with the reluctance of Jews to talk about Jewish accomplishment—my co-author, the late Richard Herrnstein, gently resisted the paragraphs on Jewish IQ that I insisted on putting in The Bell Curve (1994)."

https://www.commentary.org/articles/charles-murray/jewish-genius/

 

[JohnEngelman]

If you can't find enough Ashkenazi Jews settle for Chinese, Koreans, or Japanese. They are nearly as intelligent, on the average, as Ashkenazi Jews. They may have even lower rates of crime and illegitimacy everywhere they live, even when they are poor.

I am not Chinese, Korean, or Japanese either.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

If you can't find enough Ashkenazi Jews settle for Chinese, Koreans, or Japanese. They are nearly as intelligent, on the average, as Ashkenazi Jews. They may have even lower rates of crime and illegitimacy everywhere they live, even when they are poor.

I am not Chinese, Korean, or Japanese either.

Right, intelligence is obviously worth fostering. Fortunately, it has nothing to do with race per se and everything to do with culture - and cultures are changeable. You can take any group of people and, if you build the right kind of culture, achieve the same level of intelligence as the groups you’ve mentioned. It might take time but it’s doable and worthwhile.

So - how do you build that culture?

What are the ingredients? (Other than a temperate climate, or the need for air conditioning!).

Singapore has some interesting history that’s worth looking at re the changing of culture: go back to the 50s and its port was about as corrupt as all the other ports in the region and then, after independence, it changed its culture and built a reputation for straight dealing, transparency and trustworthiness. Its trade took off; and it became extremely rich compared to all its neighbors.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Right, intelligence is obviously worth fostering. Fortunately, it has nothing to do with race per se and everything to do with culture - and cultures are changeable. You can take any group of people and, if you build the right kind of culture, achieve the same level of intelligence as the groups you’ve mentioned. It might take time but it’s doable and worthwhile.

So - how do you build that culture?

What are the ingredients? (Other than a temperate climate, or the need for air conditioning!).

Singapore has some interesting history that’s worth looking at re the changing of culture: go back to the 50s and its port was about as corrupt as all the other ports in the region and then, after independence, it changed its culture and built a reputation for straight dealing, transparency and trustworthiness. Its trade took off; and it became extremely rich compared to all its neighbors.

Singapore is also full of Chinese.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Singapore is also full of Chinese.

They were Chinese when they were corrupt and poor and they were Chinese when they were trustworthy and wealthy. People's nationalities aren't significant; but the culture that people create for themselves is.

Lee Kuan Yew, who drove these cultural changes, was educated at Cambridge in the UK and worked in London as a lawyer. Britain had a strong culture of the rule of law; this is what he took back to Singapore. Local Malays and Chinese in Singapore adopted the cultural norms around the rule of law and they saw it made them rich.

But, anyway, what do you think these groups of people do that makes them foster intelligence? That's the key.

 

[JohnEngelman]

They were Chinese when they were corrupt and poor and they were Chinese when they were trustworthy and wealthy. People's nationalities aren't significant; but the culture that people create for themselves is.

Lee Kuan Yew, who drove these cultural changes, was educated at Cambridge in the UK and worked in London as a lawyer. Britain had a strong culture of the rule of law; this is what he took back to Singapore. Local Malays and Chinese in Singapore adopted the cultural norms around the rule of law and they saw it made them rich.

But, anyway, what do you think these groups of people do that makes them foster intelligence? That's the key.

A good culture requires good genes.

 

[Chernosoth]

Most of the nation's budget, public and private, is in sunk costs of disgraceful failures: education, healthcare, foster care, etc. Improving what can work and cutting our losses to replace complete failures with something that works will take at least generations, maybe centuries.

Here's one minor tweak: any politician who offers a tax break to a business gets jail after that amount is subtracted from his personal assets. Taxes are low for all or none.

 

[Bn2f]

Most of the nation's budget, public and private, is in sunk costs of disgraceful failures: education, healthcare, foster care, etc. Improving what can work and cutting our losses to replace complete failures with something that works will take at least generations, maybe centuries.

Here's one minor tweak: any politician who offers a tax break to a business gets jail after that amount is subtracted from his personal assets. Taxes are low for all or none.

Putting aside your always bat guano crazy ideas for punishment, as long as you maintain the misguided belief that taxes should be lower for all you will continue to be disappointed in the success of social safety net programs. Our progressive taxing system works, as it does in other industrialized countries, with strong enforcement. There’s a long game being played by repubs in undermining the policing of tax cheats and granting unnecessary subsidies - there’s also a very good reason you don’t see that circle. It’s morally inexcusable to have so many privileged billionaires in a country where there’s a prevalence of poverty and homelessness.

 

[Chernosoth]

It’s morally inexcusable to have so many privileged billionaires in a country where there’s a prevalence of poverty and homelessness.

Standing on a soapbox makes no difference to unsustainable practices and spending becoming unsustained. Corporate bloat and government bloat are on the same sinking ship.

 

[Bn2f]

Standing on a soapbox makes no difference to unsustainable practices and spending becoming unsustained. Corporate bloat and government bloat are on the same sinking ship.

Behind my soapbox sermon is the policy driven messaging of strengthening the IRS and enforcement of laws already on the books, bringing back a thriving middle class, and shoring up of gaping holes for which those of that middle class and lower may fall through. Again, maybe you failed to see that.

 

[Rightguide]

A postindustrial civilization living in our devastation may regard our environmental recklessness as extreme criminal insanity, as worse than any genocide or anything done by the current villains.

Preindustrial humanity lived on the brink of starvation, disease, and extinction, not in harmony with nature, but at its mercy. The “environmental recklessness” you’re weeping over is precisely what dragged humanity out of the mud, doubled life expectancy, and made enough abundance for entire generations to moralize about carbon footprints from climate-controlled apartments. Every civilization burns something to survive, the only difference is that we learned to light the fire on purpose. If future societies want to judge us, they should first thank us for building the world stable enough for them to sit in judgment.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Preindustrial humanity lived on the brink of starvation, disease, and extinction, not in harmony with nature, but at its mercy. The “environmental recklessness” you’re weeping over is precisely what dragged humanity out of the mud, doubled life expectancy, and made enough abundance for entire generations to moralize about carbon footprints from climate-controlled apartments. Every civilization burns something to survive, the only difference is that we learned to light the fire on purpose. If future societies want to judge us, they should first thank us for building the world stable enough for them to sit in judgment.

Sometimes people wonder whether life was better in pre-industrialized societies or in the modern, industrialized one. But we don't actually have to wonder: there's hard data because there are many cases of people who have lived in both types of society. And it's no contest. When given the choice, people almost always choose the pre-industrialized way of life.

You can argue they're wrong to have made that choice but that's what all those people did in fact choose.

They also have given us clear reasons for their choice: they had more freedom, including sexual freedom, but especially freedom from constant toil in pursuit of wealth (people work far more today, in fact, than humans have ever worked before: the modern 9-5 office drone works cosniderably more than the average serf, for example); then there's the reluctance of those societies to let anyone fall into poverty, hunger or destitution; equality of opportunity is also a significant draw, where even outsiders achieve acceptance and prominent positions; but far away the most common reason was the intensity of the social bonds - basically, the security of knowing other people care about you.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

So, here's another idea. Using the kind of inheritance and wealth taxation that was typical in the middle of the 20th century, this ideal country could very easily give every single person in the country $120,000 on the day they turn 25.

The idea is that people 'inherit' this wealth when they are starting out on their adult lives and could really use the money.

It would of course boost collective prosperity by ensuring that money flows into the economic system in far larger amounts - far more than when money is built up and hoarded by a tiny group of wealthy people, and then inherited by that group's children only.

This inheritance for all would be accompanied with stringent laws, and possibly limited to only housing or company creation devoted to social or environmental goals (with a ban on investment in stocks, especially those that pollute, underpay, create weapons etc.).

More than anything, it would give young people choice and opportunity. Which makes for a far richer country. Thoughts?

Personally, I sometimes wonder how we've created such rich countries and yet we don't use that wealth in a really efficient and imaginative way - we just let a small group of people hoard it, especially in tax havens, without putting it to use. There's just so much waste and lost opportunity in that. Giving everyone $120k on their 25th birthday is one fun and meaningful way to address that.

 

[MajorRewrite]

We’ve got fake populism right now. A lot of improvement could come from real populism that focuses on the common man:

• Universal healthcare (save a trillion dollars a year while eliminating medical cost bankruptcy)
• Raise the minimum wage
• Raise the capital gains tax (would have the side effect of discouraging speculation that exacerbates boom and bust cycles in the economy)
• Eliminate the Social Security tax cap (which is basically a tax exemption for the rich)
• Aggressively increase spending on public housing to eliminate homelessness and reduce overall price pressure in the home market through more supply

Trump’s fake populism is the opposite of real populism (tax cuts for billionaires, regressive protectionist tariffs to enrich corporations in favored industries, union busting, eliminating regulations that protect people from corporate exploitation, ignoring the affordability crisis caused by housing and healthcare costs).

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Raise the minimum wage

Why not a living wage?

It’s not difficult to calculate the monthly salary that a person needs to cover the bare necessities of life in any particular region.

And it's not difficult to arrange for it to be recalculated each year automatically. Many countries do this.

With the goal of allowing the people in this ideal country to have the most fulfilling lives possible, I totally agree on the universal healthcare plan.

As for homelessness…it’s both a tricky and simple one: we have a vast amount of empty housing stock already, because we treat buildings as financial instruments and not as just, you know, buildings to be used. So the solution is staring us in the face.

However, there’s a decent minority of homeless people whose problems are not solved by having a roof over their head. Honestly, I don’t think you can ‘fix’ people completely once they become like that - you need to prevent them from turning out like that in the first place. Which means tackling domestic abuse, malnutrition, exposure to pollution, weak social bonds, substance abuse etc. Otherwise, just make those people’s lives as un-miserable as possible, accept them for who they are, but don’t expect them to re-enter society.

But otherwise, I agree, you want a house, you can have a house. That’s not a big deal for this country. It understands that housed people pay for themselves while unhoused are a drain and a moral blight.

 

[Hel_Books]

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787

I'm wondering if the "No Kings" marches are a start of the little rebellion that is a good thing. Madison would certainly have been horrified at the ICE thugs smashing in doors and scooping US citizens off the street and throwing them into unmarked vans, horrified at the Executive branch ignoring the checks and balances of the Legislative and the Judicial branches, horrified at the extrajudicial killings, horrified at a pardon given to a legislator because he voted the way the President wanted . . .