Let's play a game!

0 votes

I imagine everyone is familiar with 6 degrees of seperation, and the game 6 Degrees Of Kevin Bacon.

I also believe that every social, political, economic, or pretty much any problem can be resolved by removing laws.

In addition, I think it is a good idea to change the way we think about and approach these problems in our society.

So how about someone state a problem in a comment, and any replies to that will be how to resolve that problem. The resolution doesn't have to be perfect, we aren't talking about creating a utopia, merely superior to the previous problems, logically consistent, and just.

And the idea will be to come up with a solution to the problem by removing 6 laws or less. The laws stated for removal do not have to be complete (most of us are not lawyers) because usually one big law has 20 supporting laws. Basically, just to get a general idea of which legal concepts must be abolished in order to bring about a better outcome than the status quo.

I'll start with my first comment... Oh, and if anyone thinks this a dumb idea, feel free to express that as well... :)

Edit: I meant to say, laws or subsidies. Subsidies have had just as great a negative impact on society as any law.

“You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away." - Antoine de Saint Exupery

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here is a tricky one... Income Tax.

I already have what I consider to be the answer but I am hoping for better ones...

How do you eliminate the income tax, without immediately abolishing the IRS or tax code? In other words, what *small* changes to our existing system could be made in order to hasten the demise of the IRS altogether?

I believe that the income tax would die in less than 10 years if you made one minor correction to the "laws" associated with it.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

No pay, no benefits, no re-election for all public servants.

No lawyers in any legislative branch; only judicial. One year max for all non-elected public servants. Full legalization for all drugs. All incarcerated must be supported by their families and/or some organization (church, salvation army, philanthropy) as before. Their rooms should have only essentials (bed, composting toilet). Outside room to grow their food. No capital punishment. No exceptions. No presidential pardons. Gold/Silver backed currency. Constitutional state militias. No state or federal treaties.
Juries fully informed to judge the law first. No victimless crimes. No foreign aid. No exceptions.

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

PARDON THE PEOPLE (see below)

Debra Medina for Texas Governor 2010!

Rand Paul for US Senate in Kentucky!

Ron Paul 2012, Join or Die!

DONT TREAD ON ME

AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS

Ron Paul / Rand Paul ...The Taxpayers' Best Friends!
RESTORE AMERICA NOW

AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - Washington's Cruisers
http://www3.villanova.edu/centennial/js1g.htm

Leave Us Alone and Bring the Troops Home

lol...

Never saw them. And that clip was messed up... :)
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

what about fair elections

primaries included. How do we get back to having fair elections, if we ever had them at all? Is there a way to encourage fair reporting from the media? Maybe a new classification for News networks, and networks like MSNBC and Fox would have to change their name. Possibly usher in a new generation of fair journalism. Maybe give the new organizations more access to congress and the white house.

Now for fair elections.

Eliminate the cap on congressional representatives as proposed on lewrockwell (I do not want to take credit for the idea, but it will work).

It will eliminate the artificial incentive to be elected for several reasons.

It is a lot harder to bribe thousands instead of hundreds of individuals so lobbying will become less effective.

It is harder to get that many people to agree on anything, effectively limiting their power to create new laws that are beneficial to the lobbyist thereby eliminating the bribery altogether, potentially.

In addition, having a representative work for fewer individuals, means that he has a chance to know them. Getting elected is easier, cheaper. When he messes up, you can be sure that it is more likely that he will hear about it at the local grocery store from his fellow citizens, etc etc.

It dilutes power. Just like we talk about having more money to represent the same wealth, means that money is worth less. Having more individuals represent the same amount of power, means each individual has much less power.

It makes it less attractive and more of a public service role than anything else.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

I read something about this here

I like it a lot. I also think companies should be banned from donating to candidates and PAC's. This would eliminate a lot of lobbying.

I don't know if this is a correct assumption, but wouldn't the founders want us to do this? Our population has grown exponentially since the inception of the congress, but we allow only a certain number of reps as a whole, it's time to adjust the amount of representatives we have

Yep...

The original intent was an ever increasing congress as the population increased. Somewhere around the depression, they effectively capped it at 435 with the lame excuse that they were running out of office space and couldn't afford to expand... I don't remember the details, but the original intent was not to have the power in a few hands. That one change alone would bring about a vast amount of improvement almost overnight and would make all of the rest of these ideas far more doable. The liberty movement would clean house if we had smaller districts to try and win.

Here is a link I found on the dp to a group supporting the idea.

http://thirty-thousand.org/
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

I'll take the media one first...

Abolish the FCC. At least in regard to media and communications. This would work in one of two ways, which way, I cannot say, but I can say for a fact it would produce one of the following two results, each one would be better than what we have now.

1) First possibility: Unregulated communications results in a subdivision of the listening market. Similar to the internet. Organizations and people would have to adopt a set of voluntary standards for communication to avoid overlap and such. This has been proven effective in the underlying technical aspects of how the internet works. Everything is voluntary registration and yet somehow it doesn't collapse into chaos.

This would mean that, since I know how to build a radio transmitter, I could have my own radio station. Or if I had the money, I could start broadcasting for TV immediately. This would eliminate the "single source" problem, and also make it far less profitable for large corporations to control it.

2) Second possibility: Absolute chaos follows. People refuse to participate in a voluntary registration system and so the overlap makes normal broadcasting virtually impossible. While I am sure that a mechanism would evolve to prevent this, I am leaving it as a possibility because it is the key argument against abolishing the FCC.

Same result, only instead of the audience being diluted into standard broadcast media, the internet becomes the only source of information. Since the internet is already on a volunteer system, it is in no danger if the FCC were eliminated. And once again media sourcing is diluted and people have to think for themselves.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Excellent

I think it would sort itself out, the successful programming would earn advertisers and then be able to market their stations to gain a bigger market share. People would eventually tune out a lot of the noise, and the market would decide who the winners and losers are. The losers of course, would be forced to deep into their own pockets to keep their station alive.

How do we repeal the FCC? Are there big and wealthy forces to help fight towards this? Obviously some companies would be able to capitalize on this new anarchy format, but I don't think they are stronger than clearchannel and viacom who make billions off their buddy buddy system with the FCC. We would need to mobilize thousands of smaller companies.

The pushbacks are going to be "protecting the children" arguments, your airwaves come into my house and I can't prevent that. The public is always going to attempt to control content like this, all it takes is one special interest group angry about Wolfe's remarks regarding decriminalizing drugs and suicide for them to start a campaign for regulation again. The American brain needs to evolve a few steps or we'll keep tripping over the laces that WE tied together

This one would be a tough nut to crack...

I couldn't even begin to fathom what would have to happen in order to bring about the collapse of the FCC.

They can generate revenue at their whim by applying fines and fees and so with an unlimited revenue stream, and a drive for self preservation, I honestly think that it would be the second hardest department to eliminate, right after the IRS.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

This only takes a few...

Repeal the war on drugs. As has been proven in Portugal, it actually removes the dangers associated with seeking treatment, allowing more people that need help to ask for it. It also makes quitting, something that can be worked toward without danger. For instance, I have tried to quit smoking (tobacco) many times, if I ended up in prison because I slipped up, that sure as hell isn't going to make my mental state better or make me want it less.

In addition, the desire for drugs doesn't go away. As was seen in the 80's, huffing, a virtual russian roulette game took the place of weed and other substances. So make it as safe as possible, take it out of the hands of children as much as possible (similar to alcohol) and return a person's right to choose.

And my most extreme argument. You can't save someone from themselves so those people who refuse to get help or treatment are allowed to choose badly, and will remove themselves from society, or turn their lives around. But, it would not be at tax payer expense.

However, for this to work, it needs to be more the decriminalization for consumption. It needs to be full legalization of all drugs so that production of safe products can occur here in the states. By decriminalizing possession and use alone, you leave the Mexican cartels as key suppliers which presents other problems.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Very good but ...

"And my most extreme argument. You can't save someone from themselves so those people who refuse to get help or treatment are allowed to choose badly, and will remove themselves from society, or turn their lives around. But, it would not be at tax payer expense."

The Fabians were successful in collectivizing individual behavior as a means to effect public policy and the expansion of government.

So I give you the ultimate problem which is really at the heart and soul of our problem.

The evil desease of collectivism.

Give me the cure ...

Our founders thought they did a good job with the constitution and the BOR.

Obviously, they did not.

Should there have been a mandate within the Constitution to require a CC every 200 years?

If so, that would be quite scary in my opinion.

Maybe they should have opted to simply repeal the Articles without implementing a Constitution. That would be in line with your game. If that is the case then your game ends in anarchy. Is that where you would like it to end?

I don't necessarily disagree, I just want you to realize where the end game successfully concludes.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

I think...

The answer to this is more representatives. It's the same answer as to another problem, so I guess I am cheating here. But the more people you have on an equal playing field, the closer to individualism you get and the further away from collectivism.

With the absolute end goal of having everyone be their own representative someday. It's the reason that I don't oppose direct democracy as much as other anarchists. Direct democracy, while still democracy, and so therefore still bad, makes everyone equal. If you have a Republic with a strict set of rules, like ours, and implemented with direct democracy, it restricts what the majority can do to the minority, and yet keeps everyone equal in terms of power. While it is not ideal, it would be an improvement.

So, yes, there is a libertarian argument for direct democracy held together by the rule of law. It eliminates the "ruling" class and therefore motivation to power to a great degree.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Your words ...

"I also believe that every social, political, economic, or pretty much any problem can be resolved by removing laws."

At some point we get to zero laws.

At that point will there also be zero problems?

Check your premise.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

I believe that there will be zero unmanageable problems...

The premise is sound. Life has ups and downs and by no means do I mean to suggest that anything would be perfect, but yes, I believe 0 laws is the ultimate goal.

If new laws from the government cause more problems, won't the maximum number of laws cause the most problems, and then isn't the inverse exactly true that the fewer laws we have, the fewer unmanageable problems that we have?

There may be a tipping point somewhere (though I don't think so) where it would be ideal to hold at a certain level, but this gets people thinking in the right direction.

“You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away." - Antoine de Saint Exupery

The key is the direction and not the end goal. If the end goal is no laws, we may never get to that point, and that may even be a good thing, but this IS the direction we need to move in.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Very well put ...

I agree whole heartedly.

I just needed someone to explain to me how I felt.

Thank you.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

birthright citizenship

We are born free. You must give government your consent, or they have no jurisdiction.

Free yourself.

Repent, for the reign of YaHUaH is near!

I suggest we play how to save a country in SIX (6) PARDONS...

1) ...pardon individuals (not corporations and LLCs) from filing federal, state and local income tax forms

2)...pardon individuals (not corporations and LLCs) from paying federal, state and local income tax

3)...pardon individuals (not corporations and LLCs) from all firearm possession laws

4)...pardon individuals (not corporations and LLCs) from repaying loans to any bank or financial institution that took TARP money (otherwise known as income taxes collected at the point of a gun and / or borrowed against their great, great grand children's future).

5)...pardon individuals (not corporations and LLCs) from paying less than minimum wage
___________________________

I'll let you guys pick the last pardon - #6.

I am told that there is not much a President (or Governor) can do without new laws being passed by the legislative branch.

In fact I disagree. New laws are always used to control people.

We need only to look to Jesus Christ as the example as the founding fathers did. Whether you are a believer or not you should be able still to acknowledge that Jesus really had one mission when you boil it all down. He died to pardon us (from sin and from the law that governed sinful acts).

In my view the founders of this country knew this well and so they made sure that our President (and Governors) (the executive) could do the same and save us all without having to put themselves on the cross and die a horrible death in the process.

MR. PRESIDENT... PARDON THE PEOPLE!

MR. GOVERNOR... PARDON THE PEOPLE!

Save us please?

Of course our Presidents are all about law and order, rule of law (control of the masses and of people) and in this they are (whether they realize it or not) opposed to God and Freedom.

So I ask you... Who's work are they (our Presidents) been doing if they have not sought to pardon those who deserve to have Liberty and be Free.

Is it God's work or the devils business which our Presidents seek to pursue?

Do they seek the counsel and approval of tyrants (kings) and dictators or have they purposed to set His (God's) people free?

Correct me if I'm wrong but they have not yet set us Free?

Whether you believe in God or not, you have a right to be Free and to find Him for yourself.

.

.

Debra Medina for Texas Governor 2010!

Rand Paul for US Senate in Kentucky!

Ron Paul 2012, Join or Die!

DONT TREAD ON ME

AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS

Ron Paul / Rand Paul ...The Taxpayers' Best Friends!
RESTORE AMERICA NOW

AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - Washington's Cruisers
http://www3.villanova.edu/centennial/js1g.htm

Leave Us Alone and Bring the Troops Home

I would add...

As the 6th, a pardon to victimless crimes.

Drugs, prostitution, suicide, etc...

But that is kinda utopian. Not sure we will ever get to that point because if we had the above 6 pardons, we might actually start to be free.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

I am not sure if what I say will

work in your game but here goes. I got an email from a lady who lost her job and she is trying to find a way to make income from her skills sewing. I was thinking how great it would be that the out of work people rather than seeking employment become their own employer. If this site could connect unemployed people that could bring their talents together and set up businesses in the free markets. For instance, if that lady could produce items for sale, an unemployed programmer produces a first class website to sell the items and a out of work marketing individual promote and market the items. Three formally unemployed people bringing their talents to the market place and taking charge of their lives. I have a feeling that big brother would have many barriers for these struggling individuals to overcome. Does, any of this make sense if not forgive me.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Some repeals that would

Some repeals that would benefit in that case would be, like wolfe mentioned, legal tender and licensing laws. Others would be tax laws, as in order to comply, even the smallest of "business" needs to keep extensive records, and to spend time and resources filling out tax forms. Not to mention how taxes decreases the amount ones potential customers have to spend on stuff.

Another insidious law making whose repeal would make your plan easier, is the ban on digital currency, or anonymous digital bearer certificates. They would enable cheaper, and entirely anonymous, settlement of trades online. My gut feeling is, in order for us to have a truly free society, this ban will have to go, but these laws are and were being protected and policed extremely vigorously, even before the silly "war on terror" started. But make no mistake, anonymous DBC's are the holy grail when it comes to freedom.

Funny too how what you are describing will likely become more common specifically to get around the much more onerous laws governing employment. Even in non right to work, union, states, people can undermine union requirements and minimum wages by becoming independent contractors, and more and more are doing so out of necessity. They might not make a killing, but at least they make something, which is more than the union rule enforcers would let them.

Yep...

Makes perfect sense. There are indeed a few government barriers to this activity.

It sounds like what you are discussing is a type of national co-op barter system which is fairly heavily regulated.

First thing that would have to go is the legal tender laws. Because you would need a way to exchange services for services without necessarily paying for them. But the problem is turning those "credits" back into cash makes the process a crime.

In addition, because refusing to take cash for services rendered is a crime, so whatever services were provided would have to comply unless the legal tender laws were revoked.

Second, licensing/approval creates an economic barrier. The website example is probably the most likely to work without a change to laws. But suppose someone wants to produce some type of food product - FDA. Or produce a toy, which now have to be specially tested, etc.

Third, freedom of speech needs to be re-instated so that people can make accurate claims about their products without being fined by the various agencies (if the claims proved false, then of course they should be held accountable for fraud).

I think others might have a better answer for this one... But that is my short list... :)
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

High energy costs.

This one is a far more difficult one because there are many facets to it. Energy cost, whether it be gas, or home electricity are rising and becoming unbearable by the middle class, so how do we bring those costs down?
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

End user energy costs, in

End user energy costs, in the case of electricity, can be reduced by getting rid of zoning laws banning stringing wire pretty much wherever one wants, and letting anyone set up any kind of power plant anywhere, again getting rid of zoning laws currently preventing this. This does not need to involve repealing laws preventing neither air nor noise pollution by said power plants, so is not the invitation to turn the world into a soot hell many statists like to picture repealing zoning laws as. Just a recognition that any neighborhood where idling cars are not banned for causing pollution, idling engines turning a generator is really no different.

Also, repealing zoning laws preventing building anything anywhere, as much energy is currently wasted by having single family structures 3 feet or less apart, where a shared wall would save heating energy, as well as give each house more interior space. More privacy too, as there'd be no windows 3 feet from your neighbor. Where I live in SF, the neighborhood is zoned "single family." My exterior wall is 12 inches away from my neighbor on each side, with each house sufficiently shoddily slapped together that I can hear footfall into my bedroom. A shared, well built wall would benefit each of us energy cost wise, but is an illegal upgrade in a "single family neighborhood." Yes, "we" elect Pelosi as our representative too.... so maybe you just can't expect much of us out here :)

Temporarily suspend the

Temporarily suspend the environmental laws protecting the known oil areas for an "immediate" price drop. De-regulate the energy companies as a whole to encourage innovation and competition. Require all new buildings be built with enough solar panels to provide a minimum of sixty percent of the building's energy.

Blessings )o(

Blessings )o(