Yeah Nick but what if the zionist is the tyrant? Now you've got the same circumstances as the countless wars of religion waged by Europeans. There is a reason we have a separation of church and state, and a reason we should also have a separation of secular ideology and state. Mixing the two and trying to impose ideas on people always leads to civil wars because people demand the sovereignty of their own minds.
Conflict is a ratchet that moves us towards centralization, but that is the opposite of the direction you really want to go. A better idea is to have a national election at the county level. First people choose left wing or right wing, then only the ones who chose the category that got the majority of votes, (left or right) gets to choose the next category. So if the majority wins the first round only the people who won get to vote in the second round and maybe there's even a third round.
This is a schism election. It's purpose is not to determine what the majority wants but to carve out countless little city-states of varying political systems. Each of the 3,100 counties and parishes in the United States chooses a political system. Why do this at the county level? Isn't this just a reformulation of states rights? No, it is not. The county level is necessary because the state level is not fine-grained enough. If you do this on a state by state basis you wind up with people trapped in political systems they don't like and that denies them proper representation. The schism election takes place at the county level so that a number of different political systems comes into existence. The schism election asks a bunch of different questions and could be formulated as follows:
First part of the ballot: the social attitudes election: "would you choose a socially left-wing or right wing system?"
If the majority chooses socially left wing then the people who voted in that category and only the people who voted in that category get to vote in the left round. They are asked the following:
Should transgender issues be taught in school?
Should trans surgeries be allowed on minors as young as 15?
Should trans surgeries and healthcare be paid for by the government?
Should hate speech be criminalized?
Should people be required to use a person's chosen pronouns?
Should sex work be legal?
Should topless nudity be allowed?
Should our county be a sanctuary county for undocumented immigrants?
Should access to safe and legal abortion be a right?
Should access to contraceptives free of charge be all right?
Should the government cover abortion costs and make access free of charge?
And maybe some others...
Whatever they vote becomes the mandate of that county.
If the majority chooses socially right wing then only the people who voted economically right wing get to vote in the right round. They get asked the following:
Should abortion be illegal in all cases?
Should abortion be illegal except in cases of rape and incest?
Should teaching trans issues and ideology be illegal in our schools?
Should compulsory speech be prohibited?
Should criminalization of hate speech be prohibited?
Should use of the H-1B visa program be prohibited in our county?
Should all illegal immigrants in our county be deported?
Should pedophiles be given the death penalty?
Should there be a three strikes law where life imprisonment is the consequence?
Should there be school resource officers in schools?
Should violent black criminals be deported to africa?
Should parents be given vouchers to pay teachers individually in schools?
Should public schools be abolished?
Should child protective services be eliminated?
Should requiring a license for a business that does not involve health or safety be abolished?
Should anti-discrimination laws be abolished?
Should non-violent marital rape be legalized?
Should alimony be abolished?
Should women's education end at age 14?
Should women lose the right to vote?
Again, whatever the people vote for becomes the mandate of that county.
Second part of the ballot: there is a simultaneous economic attitudes election. This one does not have a sub-election because it doesn't need it. The people are asked the following:
Should housing be a human right?
Should there be a universal healthcare system?
Should zoning be abolished and replaced with a form based code?
Should the minimum wage be fixed to the cost of rent so that it automatically goes up?
Should companies with 150 or more workers be owned by their workers?
Should all mortgages, student loans, credit card debt, public debt, and all other debt be canceled?
Should mothers be given maternity leave and free healthcare for the delivery of children?
Anyway, the whole point of a schism election is that instead of asking the majority what it wants on each and every issue you are specifically asking a majority within the majority what it wants. First you ascertain who the majority is, then that majority is asked what it desires. You do it this way because without a sub-election the first round losers will continue to influence decisions in subsequent rounds. Maybe you want that for things like economic attitudes but you don't want it for social attitudes. Letting the minority influence the policies of the majority causes those policies to be watered down. A schism election maintains the full strength of how those policies would evolve while creating a multitude of different approaches separated by their locations in space. Each county becomes a specific experiment in the combination of policies that it chose.
There is one absolute rule here that all systems must obey: the right of exit. You must allow people to leave your county. So let's say you oppress women. Well you must allow women to leave, and that means you are going to have the sexual equivalent of a brain drain. You are then going to have to offer compensatory benefits to entice them to stay or relax some of your oppressive rules, or a combination of the two. Exit is the only absolute right. People have the right to exit, but they don't have the right to enter. If there is a county surrounded by other counties that are also oppressive those counties must allow travel through their territory to a county that is not oppressive and willing to accept the refugee. This can be in the form of a bus that does not allow passengers to exit before arriving at the destination or a plane that goes directly to the destination. If necessary the federal government sends buses or planes into a county and aid groups coordinate allowing people to leave. Having a tiny part of your population siphoned off every year it's just the trade-off you have to accept for your radical system. They are not allowed to actively recruit people though, only to passively advertise relocation services, and activists stiring up trouble are jailed.
You need some sort of federal process to enable this. Maybe this is where your king comes into play.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep it civil