Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

If SOnerohi ruled the world, I would be printing unfunny journals from prison and distributing them through the black market.

[sonerohi]

No one would buy them because you are a doodoo head. I think I've just won.

[The Architect]

Seriously, if I ruled the world, I would lock myself away...

Coming this summer.

That one kind of got away from you, didn't it?

Spoiler: my serious answer (click to show/hide)

If I ruled the world, I'd spend a year or so researching and learning with the brightest minds I could gather. I'd then attempt to establish a free market system with a worldwide regulatory service, too large to work for the benefit of individuals, that would be set up in such a way to avoid corruption (bear with me; I know that isn't practically feasible but I did gather all of the world's brightest minds to ponder and discuss it). Simultaneously, I'd ensure that food was a readily available resource worldwide. The only worldwide healthcare program would be one which distributes food. Otherwise, I let natural selection and genetics take their course. And I'd go by the age-old principle that is largely ignored today: adults, if you don't work you don't eat.

That's the groundwork. All healthcare private, all services private and non- "centralized government beaurocracy" oriented (because that is literally the most inefficient, irresponsible and corruption-prone way to do such things). Basic laws to govern humanity, which must be accepted and enforced in all nations and states (who will retain their individual governments and local management, because that's the most effective and efficient way to do things): innocent until proven guilty, fair trial for all, basic rights, law of marriage (for stable social interaction), and freedom of religion so long as it does not impose itself on others (no minarets with arabic prayers resounding, among other things).

That's all that immediately comes to mind. All commerce must of course adhere to the free market system and ubergovernment's regulation enforcing that freedom, and the government's food program must be simple, nutritious, and non-competitive. You can still make money with restaurants serving good food people would want to eat, but no one starves or suffers from malnutrition for lack of some apples and rice.

What do you think?

[Chutney]

I don't like it because you're getting rid of welfare, which is something I'm admittedly attached because without it my entire family tree would have stopped a few years before I was born, and if it didn't I would've starved to death as a young lad.

Stop killing my only benefactor, people. I love welfare, it's like a family member to me

(and before you say "well maybe your family should get jobs", a series of unfortunate events left my mom legally crippled - as in, can't work because of spinal injuries - and my parents divorced, and there are child labor laws so there was literally nobody in my household that could get a job)

I mean if you're gonna collect all the brightest minds to contemplate stuff, how about welfare reform that benefits only the people who need it, and then the rest can go off and die/whatever? Darwinism is very anti-Humanitarian

[Grakelin]

It's also ignorant to think that people with jobs aren't eligible for welfare because they have jobs. This happens all the time.

Don't take food away from people without work. You always want a pool of unemployed people, so you can call on them when a position opens up that you desperately need to fill. I'm sure the brightest minds in the world would agree with this assessment.

EDIT: By the way, since you made the comment 'let natural selection and genetics sort out healthcare', I'm going to assume you've never known somebody who has died of a terrible disease.

[Cheeetar]

If I ruled, everybody who complained about everybody getting welfare wouldn't get welfare.

[RedWarrior0]

Actually, I changed my mind. I would group the world into three groups: Thinkers, Workers, and Specialized Servicepeople. I get the Thinkers to propogate this message and the Workers to make my goals real: We are going to colonize a far-off planet, and we need to use three ships or series of ships: one for each group. The Thinkers need to make sure the launches go properly, and the Workers keep stuff in working order, so the Specialized Servicepeople go first. A technical mishap occurs preventing furthur launches.

[Jackrabbit]

Seriously, if I ruled the world, I would lock myself away...

Coming this summer.

That one kind of got away from you, didn't it?

If by got away you mean I just couldn't stop adding to it, then kinda. But I got exactly what I wanted.

Which was nonsense. And boy did I get it.

[The Architect]

I would've starved to death as a young lad.

You didn't read it? And then you tell me you'd starve under my program? I specifically said that the the only welfare program is one that provides food, and that no one starves.

Spoiler: longer read for the reading impaired and those who want a better explanation (click to show/hide)

 Even adults, if they're willing to work supporting the program while it's supporting them, get guaranteed meals worldwide. No one who refuses to work eats, but that's just in compliance with both natural and moral laws.

It sounds like you have a real axe to grind over welfare; that's definitely the gist of your post. People don't like welfare because it takes from the working and gives to the lazy. Some people are disabled, fine, and can't work. But a significant number (and some say the vast majority) of people on welfare are simply unwilling to work or too ignorant/unmotivated to find a job. Welfare can serve its purpose, and sometimes it does just that.

In my system no one starves, no matter where they live or what their situation, but they're not going to be watching tv and driving a car using tax money. I didn't "kill welfare" if you read the post. Stop grinding your axe. People have a good reason for hating the misuse of welfare. Virtually no one would mind providing it if it weren't misused so much. Just wait until you're actually earning your own keep, and you some person in the grocery store ahead of you in line pay for their beer from a huge roll of cash, then buy their food with food stamps. Statements like yours make you no different from the people who advocate socialism and have never been self-employed or owned any non-consumer assets; they just don't know what actually motivates economics.

I'm not going to jump down everyone's throat who criticizes, but it's just ridiculous to have someone look at a post saying "I'd stop all welfare except free food" and then say "BUT I'D STARVE YOU ASS!" in as many words.

Edit: typo

[The Architect]

It's also ignorant to think that people with jobs aren't eligible for welfare because they have jobs. This happens all the time.

Don't take food away from people without work. You always want a pool of unemployed people, so you can call on them when a position opens up that you desperately need to fill. I'm sure the brightest minds in the world would agree with this assessment.

EDIT: By the way, since you made the comment 'let natural selection and genetics sort out healthcare', I'm going to assume you've never known somebody who has died of a terrible disease.

Oh, I certainly have. My best friend died of cancer in grade school, and my grandmother died of leukemia a few years ago. Natural selection works by more ways than genetics, which I suppose needs a little explanation. Working hard and self-insuring or paying for bills is part of the process. The statement I made was a little oversimplified, but the point is that universal state-funded healthcare is an impractical gigantic bog of economic death that my government wouldn't take on. Free market would always be maintained, and states (read "nations") would always be free to have their own healthcare or welfare programs so long as the free market is maintained and the food welfare program is intact.

You work, you eat. Of course there will be civil service jobs to do. That's how the food gets distributed. My mistake for not being specific enough; I sometimes assume people will fill in blanks better than practical expectations should lead me to.

[Archangel]

9. Adulthood will be determined by a battery of psychological tests rather than age.

I get the feeling that you're a teenager who thinks you'll be able to pass these tests: Rest assured, every teen believes this, and the vast majority are wrong (every teen also thinks they're the exception). Very little would actually change, though the rite of passage test would take up people's valuable time as they study for it.

I am sixteen, and I do not yet feel ready for the full responsibilities of adulthood. I know I am fairly mature in many ways, but I doubt that I am mature enough. However, I would not be surprised of I am an exception rather than the rule.

As for what I would do if I ruled the world, I don't really know. I'd probably encourage vegetarianism by forcing people to kill and butcher animals themselves, and most likely institute some form of communistic governance.

[Nikov]

I always figured underemployment, that is, a lack of workers, was better. It furthers women's rights and improves the lot of the lower class significantly through wages creeping up. I beleive the 20's saw 2% unemployment through some serious government downsizing, only to be ruined by a stock bubble and then an incredibly stupid tariff and a central bank that didn't do its job.

And I side with Architect, only I absolutely would not do free food. Period. Ever. You've no idea how pants-on-head retarded it is to interfere with the small farmer. Food collection centers in urban areas for past-dated groceries, stale bread and donations would be the only government effort and private charity would handle the rest. With luck, a complete lack of a minimum wage will let people just work for bread as street sweepers.

Also I can see nothing more disasterous than a global dictator, except perhaps a global unrestrained democracy. Oh God, that would be horrible. "Well, the votes are in and the count is 2.5 billion to 200 million on Proposition 1, the "Being America Tax". "Russia has been voted for genocide today, largely due to the Chinese block." "The new world religion is now Islam." "Women shall no longer vote. We expect this will influence next week's Mistresses, Concubines and Harems for Indian Men vote."

Also forcing meat eaters to butcher their own kills will just make hunters obscenely rich on the black market.

[Archangel]

I think I should have just said "Encourage vegetarianism."

[Nikov]

I think I should have just said "Encourage vegetarianism."

In other news today, the population of Latin America is now 90% below the UN minimum nutritional intake due to a surge in vegitarianism eliminating staple sources of protein and fats through poultry, eggs and fish. Local farmers struggle to keep up with demand for beans as prices soar and urban workers begin demonstrating for price controls...

[Archangel]

I think I should have just said "Encourage vegetarianism."

In other news today, the population of Latin America is now 90% below the UN minimum nutritional intake due to a surge in vegitarianism eliminating staple sources of protein and fats through poultry, eggs and fish. Local farmers struggle to keep up with demand for beans as prices soar and urban workers begin demonstrating for price controls...

Encourage is a very vague word, and a policy of encouragement does not mean punishment for not changing, merely benefits if you do, and this is based on the assumption that I rule the world and so have access to all the world's resources. Also, vegetarianism, as I know it, permits the consumption of eggs. I will say more when I've thought about it. Maybe tomorrow.

Edit: Besides which, you are nitpicking about vague maybes in an unlikely scenario.