"D.den Otter" wrote:
> Teach rationalism in school (arguments against religion etc.
> should be mandatory classes). If parents try to sabotage this,
> they should receive a stern warning, after which their ass
> would be kicked with appropriate force.
This is a great idea, up until the arguments against religion. First of all, parents have every right to have a say in their child's education even if you think it's the wrong ideas. Although I'm just as against religion as most people on the list I don't think even rationally bashing religion is called for. We have a separation of church and state, and teaching or bashing religion has no place in a publicly funded school.
> Increase funding for nanotech, genetic engineering
> and other (potentially) transhuman technologies.
Who's funding this money? I certainly hope it's not the government.
> Cryonics to receive X billion research budget and
> full legal status (recognized as a potentially life-saving
> procedure, so no more autopsies, delays in hospitals
> or other bureaucratic, deathist nonsense).
Again, who's funding the money? I'd love to see the cryonics field get the billions of dollars it so deserves, but I'd rather do it without a huge tax increase. And I'd rather do it without stealing the money from the religious devote who want nothing to do with cryonics.
> Abolition of work through extensive automation. The aim is
Where's the money gonna come from to fix or upgrade the automations
over time since there are no taxes?
> to have generous standard welfare for everyone, while those
> who want more can have their own (liberal) sub-economy.
> Taxes are gradually abolished as level of automation increases.
> State plays (responsible) pimp and dope dealer (etc.) to
> partially finance the transition from wage slave society to
> automated welfare society.
You want to make victimless crimes legal, yet you want to strong-arm them into paying for a national economy overhaul. Some how I don't think people that are currently evading taxes are gonna want to start coughing up all the money that is needed. Not to mention that fact that you're building a nation of the backs of the addicted, exploited, and poor.
Where's the money gonna come from to fix or upgrade the automations over time since there are no taxes?
> Make tiered voting system; the more tax you pay (or in some
> other way contribute to society), the more voting points you
> get. Actually you'd want to create a kind of meritocracy/
> technocracy. The right to vote is something that has to be
> earned, just like a driver's license.
This idea is just plain crazy. What happens to the great tiered voting system when there aren't any more taxes like you said above? Who gets to decide who's ideas or whatnot "contributes" the most to society, how to do you in tier when the tier's haven't been defined yet.
Your whole plan is absurd. Money comes out of no where, people's freedoms are destroyed just so you can get your "right" ideas to be in the mainstream, and millions of hard working people get on the dole provided by the few addicted and exploited.
Your whole plan is really just a debate about right vs left politics. But all I wanted to do is respond to your rather poorly thought out ideas.
.. Steve Butts