|
On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair.
That's my point.
26 states have filed lawsuits against this bill. This is more dissention across the country over a piece of legislation in the history of the U.S..
Something has got to be wrong with it for so many people to not want it.
|
On February 02 2011 00:47 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
WTF indeed, this isn't brute force?????
quoting myself in the same post....
even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws!
I fail, and fail again, and I suck. Great arguments there.
Government is the guy who has the most weapons, or more specifically who wins the fight. You do know how the current US government came into existence?
exactly you fail.
a government is restricted by those ENFORCED laws... a single person is NOT.
|
On February 02 2011 00:59 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:47 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
WTF indeed, this isn't brute force????? quoting myself in the same post.... Show nested quote + even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws! Show nested quote +
I fail, and fail again, and I suck. Great arguments there.
Government is the guy who has the most weapons, or more specifically who wins the fight. You do know how the current US government came into existence?
exactly you fail. a government is restricted by those ENFORCED laws... a single person is NOT.
Except they also have the power to write and change the laws, so they only restrict themselves.
|
On February 02 2011 00:45 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:38 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 00:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:29 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 00:19 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:08 mcc wrote:On February 01 2011 23:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob. I would like to point out that unless you live outside of society there is no way to implement stable really voluntary system, so complaining that government is baaad without showing workable alternative system is kind of pointless. Government in reasonable countries does not actually use force to extract taxes, because it does not have to, because its authority is based on societal pressure. Yes there is a theoretical threat of force, but the same threat is in any human society even without any government. There is no way to avoid de facto rule of majority, and them forcing you to do stuff other than rule of minority which is not really a better solution, and is not stable in the longterm anyway. Modern governments are pretty decent solutions based on accepting this unpleasant fact of human condition. Really? How do you know this? I could again say the same way you know things you write as you also provide NOTHING in the way of proof. As I said earlier any argument that is available would not be enough for you. Some of it is experience, some of it is historical precedent, others are game theory and biology, they all somewhat point to the conclusion I made. Why should the burden of proof remain with the one who does not wish to use violence? Because that is not how burden of proof is determined ? Burden of proof lies in general on the person stating "positive" statement. Which in this case we both are. In most practical instances burden of proof lies on someone proposing something new, untested, ... which in this case is mostly you. No, we are not both saying a positive statement. You are saying we need government, I am saying we don't. You are the one with the "positive" (action required) statement.
Eh, you were saying a lot of things in this thread that I was reacting to even if I would agree with you saying we don't need government not being positive statement. But we have government, so actually the action requiring statement is yours, to abolish it.
|
On February 02 2011 01:00 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:59 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 00:47 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
WTF indeed, this isn't brute force????? quoting myself in the same post.... even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws!
I fail, and fail again, and I suck. Great arguments there.
Government is the guy who has the most weapons, or more specifically who wins the fight. You do know how the current US government came into existence?
exactly you fail. a government is restricted by those ENFORCED laws... a single person is NOT. Except they also have the power to write and change the laws, so they only restrict themselves.
... you know about judicative and balance of power?
|
On February 02 2011 01:01 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:00 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:59 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 00:47 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
WTF indeed, this isn't brute force????? quoting myself in the same post.... even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws!
I fail, and fail again, and I suck. Great arguments there.
Government is the guy who has the most weapons, or more specifically who wins the fight. You do know how the current US government came into existence?
exactly you fail. a government is restricted by those ENFORCED laws... a single person is NOT. Except they also have the power to write and change the laws, so they only restrict themselves. ... you know about judicative and balance of power?
Yeah, it's a clever scam.
|
On February 02 2011 01:01 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:45 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:38 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 00:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:29 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 00:19 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:08 mcc wrote:On February 01 2011 23:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob. I would like to point out that unless you live outside of society there is no way to implement stable really voluntary system, so complaining that government is baaad without showing workable alternative system is kind of pointless. Government in reasonable countries does not actually use force to extract taxes, because it does not have to, because its authority is based on societal pressure. Yes there is a theoretical threat of force, but the same threat is in any human society even without any government. There is no way to avoid de facto rule of majority, and them forcing you to do stuff other than rule of minority which is not really a better solution, and is not stable in the longterm anyway. Modern governments are pretty decent solutions based on accepting this unpleasant fact of human condition. Really? How do you know this? I could again say the same way you know things you write as you also provide NOTHING in the way of proof. As I said earlier any argument that is available would not be enough for you. Some of it is experience, some of it is historical precedent, others are game theory and biology, they all somewhat point to the conclusion I made. Why should the burden of proof remain with the one who does not wish to use violence? Because that is not how burden of proof is determined ? Burden of proof lies in general on the person stating "positive" statement. Which in this case we both are. In most practical instances burden of proof lies on someone proposing something new, untested, ... which in this case is mostly you. No, we are not both saying a positive statement. You are saying we need government, I am saying we don't. You are the one with the "positive" (action required) statement. Eh, you were saying a lot of things in this thread that I was reacting to even if I would agree with you saying we don't need government not being positive statement. But we have government, so actually the action requiring statement is yours, to abolish it.
Perhaps.
|
On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't. Yep, because people in general are stupid. Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc. In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care. I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them. Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself. I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone. User was temp banned for this post.
Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl.
Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here.
|
On February 02 2011 01:05 MiniRoman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't. Yep, because people in general are stupid. Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc. In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care. I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them. Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself. I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone. User was temp banned for this post. Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl. Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here.
So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid?
You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now.
Wish I was born there, I would be glad too.
|
On February 02 2011 01:02 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:01 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 01:00 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:59 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 00:47 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
WTF indeed, this isn't brute force????? quoting myself in the same post.... even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws!
I fail, and fail again, and I suck. Great arguments there.
Government is the guy who has the most weapons, or more specifically who wins the fight. You do know how the current US government came into existence?
exactly you fail. a government is restricted by those ENFORCED laws... a single person is NOT. Except they also have the power to write and change the laws, so they only restrict themselves. ... you know about judicative and balance of power? Yeah, it's a clever scam.
No balance of power is a recognition that
1. Government (ie use of force) Always exists in any society (in an "anarchy" then the government is just a 'coalition gunocracy'... ie the ones with the biggest guns make the rules, like international politics)
2. Therefore it is necesary to structure the government in a way that the use of force is limited.
(This is the idea behind the balance of power in international politics, MAD in the Cold War and checks+balances+deemocracy in the government of individual nations)
|
On February 02 2011 00:55 Irrelevant wrote:
SS is the biggest pyramid scheme in history, why the hell would anyone voluntarily put a dime in that shit hole is beyond me and as far as walfare and stuff like it goes, it's such a joke, I've been homeless and given the run around on all the reasons why I don't qualify for it, at a time when my wife is working for the county in the same office that approves people for such programs, yet my neighbor was a crack dealer driving an escalade while on walfare/foodstamps/house assistance. The whole system is flawed and needs to be completely redesigned or just removed.
I pay for private insurance, so fuck medicare too.
I used to sell an insurance policy called Medicare Advantage (implemented under Bush's term around 2003 I believe). This is basically privatization of Medicare. The patient opts in to my policy in lieu of the 80%/20% system that the government has, and just deals with copays for doctor visits around $15-$30, sometimes $0 if they are in our HMO plan. The government pays my company a flat-across-the-board monthly premium per patient who opts in to our system. My company then assumes the risk of the major procedures that the patient would have if they come up.
My company is able to turn their profit by setting up contracts with doctors where they join our HMO network. It's sort of like my insurance company shopping in bulk at Sam's Club for doctor services. In the end, the patient pays less, the government loses high-risk patients, my company makes a profit (around 7% last quarter I worked there, which isn't excessive), and the doctors have a steady influx of patients and better rates for procedures than they are able to get from being compensated by Medicare/Medicaid.
You would think the government would be happy about a private company taking the mantle of risk off their shoulders, but every year they try and phase out Medicare Advantage even more. To be fair, some Medicare Advantage policies from other companies are just a worse deal than the 80%/20% plan that seniors normally dealt with using Medicare. The agents in those companies, I'm told, are ripping seniors off and giving better companies like the one I worked for a bad name.
|
On February 02 2011 01:08 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:02 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:01 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 01:00 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:59 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 00:47 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
WTF indeed, this isn't brute force????? quoting myself in the same post.... even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws!
I fail, and fail again, and I suck. Great arguments there.
Government is the guy who has the most weapons, or more specifically who wins the fight. You do know how the current US government came into existence?
exactly you fail. a government is restricted by those ENFORCED laws... a single person is NOT. Except they also have the power to write and change the laws, so they only restrict themselves. ... you know about judicative and balance of power? Yeah, it's a clever scam. No balance of power is a recognition that 1. Government (ie use of force) Always exists in any society (in an "anarchy" then the government is just a 'coalition gunocracy'... ie the ones with the biggest guns make the rules, like international politics) 2. Therefore it is necesary to structure the government in a way that the use of force is limited. (This is the idea behind the balance of power in international politics, MAD in the Cold War and checks+balances+deemocracy in the government of individual nations)
It has nothing to do with balance of violent power, it is a balance of legislative, executive, and judicial powers which are just fantastical constructs of "who gets to tell who what do to". It is all subject to change, and has changed drastically over the last 100 years. In the USA the power to wage war lies exclusively in the executive branch (one person), though technically congress could demand it back, they have little reason to want to or care.
Congress has the bad habit of just passing on their responsibilities to whoever pays the most and has the most convincing argument, so the idea of having representatives govern you is lost. They used to have to vote on war, they passed it off. They used to be responsible to coin money, they passed it off, etc.
All balance of power is congress having the ability to hand power off to the highest bidder.
|
[QUOTE]On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:
[QUOTE]On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.[/QUOTE]
so so so ignorant
|
On February 02 2011 01:11 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:08 Krikkitone wrote:On February 02 2011 01:02 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:01 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 01:00 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:59 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 00:47 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
WTF indeed, this isn't brute force????? quoting myself in the same post.... even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws!
I fail, and fail again, and I suck. Great arguments there.
Government is the guy who has the most weapons, or more specifically who wins the fight. You do know how the current US government came into existence?
exactly you fail. a government is restricted by those ENFORCED laws... a single person is NOT. Except they also have the power to write and change the laws, so they only restrict themselves. ... you know about judicative and balance of power? Yeah, it's a clever scam. No balance of power is a recognition that 1. Government (ie use of force) Always exists in any society (in an "anarchy" then the government is just a 'coalition gunocracy'... ie the ones with the biggest guns make the rules, like international politics) 2. Therefore it is necesary to structure the government in a way that the use of force is limited. (This is the idea behind the balance of power in international politics, MAD in the Cold War and checks+balances+deemocracy in the government of individual nations) It has nothing to do with balance of violent power, it is a balance of legislative, executive, and judicial powers which are just fantastical constructs of "who gets to tell who what do to". It is all subject to change, and has changed drastically over the last 100 years. In the USA the power to wage war lies exclusively in the executive branch (one person), though technically congress could demand it back, they have little reason to want to or care.
True it has changed.. and it is similar to the balance of violent power (ie who does what to who)
Just because it is subject to change does not mean that you don't have a balance, but that the balance needs to be Maintained.
(Violent balance of power changes as well... leading to wars)
The governmental checks and balances need to be strengthened, by breaking power up. Occasionally this happens when people see the problem of power concentrating. (the problem is sometimes they just try and get the concentrated power for themselves)
|
On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair.
Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance.
I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory.
The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights.
From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case?
With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts.
|
Ehhh... this is a pretty complicated issue. Obviously some form of social security reform would help, as a lot of government programs are pretty flawed at present. By no means though should they not exist in the first place.
I will say though that here in the States, we have trouble looking 5 years into the future, much less 55. We very much live in the present.
|
[QUOTE]On February 02 2011 01:13 howerpower wrote:
[QUOTE]On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:
[QUOTE]On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.[/QUOTE]
so so so ignorant[/QUOTE]
Yeah... If you're so charitable, why not do it on your own instead of imposing charity on every other citizen of the nation?
Private charities are SO MUCH MORE EFFICIENT than government-ran entitlements programs.
|
On February 02 2011 01:23 texasjoe1983 wrote:
Yeah... If you're so charitable, why not do it on your own instead of imposing charity on every other citizen of the nation?
Private charities are SO MUCH MORE EFFICIENT than government-ran entitlements programs.
to be honest id listen to the german instead of the americans
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
|
Belgium9942 Posts
On February 02 2011 00:57 texasjoe1983 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. That's my point. 26 states have filed lawsuits against this bill. This is more dissention across the country over a piece of legislation in the history of the U.S.. Something has got to be wrong with it for so many people to not want it.
Oh wow, 26 states. They probably all decided that independently and don't happen to all be republican states do they?
You're acting as if all the people in those 26 states are against the bill, while it's just the Republican party trying to block every bill that the Democrats could label as a success.
Using "Something has got to be wrong with it for so many people to not want it." as an argument is therefor just ridiculous. It basically means that you think because the Republican party is doing everything to stop a bill it has to be wrong.
As for your anti health care argument, it saddens me greatly that people still think like this. Of course a health care system is not always fair, and you always have people profiting from it and people losing money because of it. Much like any state investment in highways isn't equally used among citizens.
However, it's fucking HEALTH we're talking about. If the richest country in the world doesn't have a system that prevents its citizens from dying because they don't have the money to get treatment, where the hell is this world going? Do you think we reached the pinnacle of civilization standards and that humanity shouldn't improve its own general living conditions anymore?
Lastly, despite being "the land of opportunity", the US is still one of the hardest civilized countries for a poor person to get a decent education and leave poverty. The popular opinion that poverty is a result of laziness/stupidity is a retarded one and a result of the very skewed image you get upon receiving all the opportunities the poorer people didn't get.
The reality is, most of the times when a person can't afford his medical treatment it's not his own fault.
|
It would at least be interesting to see what happened if the US conducted this little experiment on it's population! I'd follow it.
My guess; people are going to be as egotistical as ever and especially in such an individualistic society so you'll probably have a very small minority doing extremely well and an ever increasing majority of struggling sick/poor/uneducated trying to get by. At least you'd get good opportunity to start utilizing all those prisons you have for real criminals rather than pot smokers and such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
