DISCORDIANISM: NO SUCH THING

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ratatosk's SuperPoliticalTheory of SuperPoliticalEverything (apologies to Gogol Bordello)

First, I will assume the following 5 points. (OMGZ!)

1. Each person has the right to live as they will. If the Will of one human is forced upon another human (superceding their own Will), that is called slavery for the one person and tyranny for the other.  Further it is equally slavery for 600 people to impose their will upon one person, or for 100,000 people to impose their will upon 100,000 others. That is tyranny of the many, placing the one in slavery or tyranny of 100,000 placing the other 100,000 into slavery.

2. Each human has the right to agree to give up some of their freedom, to create a better social situation for themselves and others. However, ONLY that human has the right to agree to give up  any part of their freedom.

3. It is difficult for ALL citizens of a given nation to agree upon something. Yet any dissenter forced to follow some abrogation of their personal freedom is enslaved to the majority that did agree. It is also difficult to determine who does and does not agree with any particular law. Thus, any governing body that manages the affairs of State for a free people... must necessarily be extremely limited in what they can pass as law. They certianly could not pass a law that threatens to remove the personal freedoms of any citizen.

4. No pure solution seems likely, thus we must seek the best utilitarian option.

5. Even the best utilitarian option is likely to be flawed, but we must press on and strive for a solution that gives the most personal freedom for all, while still maintaining some sort of workable social system.

-------------------------
Based on those 5 positions, I think a much better system could exist than we have at this time. I say this, because we once had a system in the United States that was MUCH CLOSER to the above than we have now. There were horrible flaws (like the social acceptance of chattel slavery), however, with our modern social awareness and the historical example, a better national system could be implemented.


First, any free government must recoginize that each person is free to do as they will, upon their person or within their personal life. The first responsibility of a free society, should be to protect all citizens from having their personal freedoms stepped upon. THIS is the only position that the State should enforce without agreement by all parties. Personal Freedom for all people within their boarders is simply a given. That is, we don't need to get agreement with everyone that we all have personal freedom, because my WILL does not extend to another person. My 'agreement' is no more necessary than agreement that water is wet or fire is hot. I don't have a right to say "No, I don't think everyone should be totally free in their person".

Issues of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation (all popular US arguments against a smaller federal system) fall under this first (and most important) aspect of the State. As long as the actions, words, art, beliefs, thoughts and behaviors of an individual do not impinge upon another person, then it is legal. Any action that does impinge upon the personal freedom of another person is illegal. This position not only guarantees that we are free from the tyranny of our fellows, it also guarantees that we are free of the tyranny of the State. That is, by guaranteeing the protection of our personal freedom, they could no longer pass laws which could abrogate our personal freedom. This reduces the number of laws and issues that we must seek agreement on (for example, the federal government could not make it illegal to smoke pot, because that is an act of personal freedom. They could not make it illegal for two men to voluntarily agree to enter into matrimony, that is their personal freedom... no other person has a right to inflict their Will upon these two men, or the hippie ). This removes many laws from consideration.

The second responsibility of a State that manages the affairs of a free society is to provide common services and those services, obviously must be paid for. However, to force all people to pay for something that only some want is again, tyranny. Thus, we must have agreement from each person on how the tax they will pay, will be used. This is not as difficult or tricky as it may seem. If you give money to United Way, they have a little form. On the back they list every charity, or group that they spread their money out to. The individual then has the choice of simply giving the money and checking a "Use it as you see fit" box, or they can specify that their money be split between some subset of the charities listed.

This seems like a reasonable and utilitarian way of balancing personal freedom and the necessity of taxes for a government to operate. It places new responsibility upon the elected officials... they can pass laws creating all the programs they want, but if those programs aren't funded by the citizens (if the citizens choose not to fund that initiative) then it dies on the vine. This stops a group of activists, or petition drivers or paid consultants from schmoozing politicians into spending our money on what they want. They would be able to protest/sign petitions/give senators free plane rides, in order to get their particular project passed and listed on tax forms... but if no other citizen agrees with their view, their project won't be funded. Rather than getting 10,000 signatures and a paid off senator... they would need to focus their time and effort on the citizens, convincing them that their cause is worth supporting.

I think it would even be reasonable for the Federal government to determine 'operating expenses' which would cover offices, paper, computers, salaries etc. This may extend to any area that they are required to manage for the common good (interstate commerce, national defense). These could be budgeted and made a required spend... say 30% of your taxes go to operating budget/defense etc.

This also reduces the need to go find everyone personally and get them to agree to protect the spotted owl. The State can create a bucket for the poor owl... but each citizen can choose to dump money in, or not as they will.

We already covered voluntary things awhile back, but let us discuss it again. If a free person wants to do something that interacts with other individuals, then they may need to choose to give up some freedoms for that social act. Driving a car on public roads, for example, is not a act of personal freedom, but a act of social interaction (driving your car on your private property or a private road made by you and 20 of your friends is a different matter). Thus, we can require a drivers license and agreement to follow the rules of the social agreement (don't cross the yellow line, go the posted speed limit etc). If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't use the service. If you wish to own and operate a business that employs people, or sells product to the public, you are again leaving the realm of personal freedom and entering a realm of social interaction. You may thus be held to the rules of that interaction (proper business conduct, managing your books etc) This, of course, covers a wide swath of laws as well that would not need to be personally negotiated. The social order is available for you to voluntarily choose to participate in, or not.

At this point, any law passed could be passed by the majority, because it would not impinge upon the personal freedom of any individual. If, somehow a law was passed which did impinge upon their personal freedom, it could be taken to the court systems under the primary responsibility of the State.

This system might require more education on the part of every individual, it might mean its harder to get federal money for your project. It may mean that the people who live next door have a lifestyle you don't like. However, none of that impinges upon your freedom and the extra effort required, would (IMO) be worth the guaranteed freedom of all.

We also have the issue of things like murder etc. which I have opinions on as well, but I think this post will already be tl;dr for some. We can get to 'punishment' once everyone is clear on my position thus far.

[LMNO]

You think every social system is a form of slavery, but you consider the term "Black Iron Prison" to have a bleak outlook?
 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You think every social system is a form of slavery, but you consider the term "Black Iron Prison" to have a bleak outlook?
 

Not at all. A social system that allows a small minority to remove the personal freedoms of an individual that has no say is slavery. A social system that allows a large majority to remove the personal freedoms of an individual that has no say is slavery.

A social system that guarantees the personal freedom of the individual and does not hold them to something they have not agreed to, is not slavery.

It boils down to agreement. If I agree to give up some freedom, in order to gain something, that is acceptable. However, ONLY I can agree to give up my freedom. if someone else gives away my personal freedom, what else could it be, but slavery?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You think every social system is a form of slavery, but you consider the term "Black Iron Prison" to have a bleak outlook?
 

Also, I don't find the BiP to have a bleak outlook... only the BiP interpretation that claims you're stuck in a prison for life.

[LMNO]

A social system that guarantees the personal freedom of the individual and does not hold them to something they have not agreed to, is not slavery.

This system only exists in fantasy, or small, isolated communes of no more than 20 people who have no contact with any other tribes.  Don't make me get the barstool.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

A social system that guarantees the personal freedom of the individual and does not hold them to something they have not agreed to, is not slavery.

This system only exists in fantasy, or small, isolated communes of no more than 20 people who have no contact with any other tribes.  Don't make me get the barstool.

Right, so rather than responding to what I wrote, where I lay out the possibility of such a system, you'd rather just say it doesn't exist? I mean if it was tl'dr for you that's fine... but its difficult to debate, if you're not gonna comment on what I actually said, rather than your interpretation of a single line, out of context.

I doubt such a system would be perfect, but I think it could be implemented in a way that provides much more personal freedom, and voluntary agreements.

Or you can just swing bar stools around if that makes you feel better.

[AFK]

We already covered voluntary things awhile back, but let us discuss it again. If a free person wants to do something that interacts with other individuals, then they may need to choose to give up some freedoms for that social act. Driving a car on public roads, for example, is not a act of personal freedom, but a act of social interaction (driving your car on your private property or a private road made by you and 20 of your friends is a different matter). Thus, we can require a drivers license and agreement to follow the rules of the social agreement (don't cross the yellow line, go the posted speed limit etc). If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't use the service. If you wish to own and operate a business that employs people, or sells product to the public, you are again leaving the realm of personal freedom and entering a realm of social interaction. You may thus be held to the rules of that interaction (proper business conduct, managing your books etc) This, of course, covers a wide swath of laws as well that would not need to be personally negotiated. The social order is available for you to voluntarily choose to participate in, or not.

Isn't living in a society in and of itself "social interaction"?  How do you avoid "social interaction" without being a shut in?  Also, I feel that your system is only creating MORE bureaucracy, not less.  The systems that would be required to manage this kind of system would dwarf what is already in place.  There will have to be some entity in charge of determining what is "social interaction" and that which is not.  And this entity will need to exist at the local, state, and federal levels.  Which basically means, the courts.  So in the end, what really changes in your system?  What laws are you trying to abolish with your system?   

This system might require more education on the part of every individual, it might mean its harder to get federal money for your project. It may mean that the people who live next door have a lifestyle you don't like. However, none of that impinges upon your freedom and the extra effort required, would (IMO) be worth the guaranteed freedom of all.

Are you going to mandate this education?  If not, you've killed off work like mine that many people aren't educated on.  Who will address substance abuse and Mental health? 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I still think the best way would be to allow the State to have its little tyranny fantasies, and counter that with a strong Judiciary that is inherently weighted in favor of individual rights, maybe even to the point that you don't even need a hearing to overturn a law you're charged with breaking if the Government cannot meaningfully demonstrate why that activity should be prohibited in your case. Just fill out a "waiver of prosecution" form and you're free to go.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

We already covered voluntary things awhile back, but let us discuss it again. If a free person wants to do something that interacts with other individuals, then they may need to choose to give up some freedoms for that social act. Driving a car on public roads, for example, is not a act of personal freedom, but a act of social interaction (driving your car on your private property or a private road made by you and 20 of your friends is a different matter). Thus, we can require a drivers license and agreement to follow the rules of the social agreement (don't cross the yellow line, go the posted speed limit etc). If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't use the service. If you wish to own and operate a business that employs people, or sells product to the public, you are again leaving the realm of personal freedom and entering a realm of social interaction. You may thus be held to the rules of that interaction (proper business conduct, managing your books etc) This, of course, covers a wide swath of laws as well that would not need to be personally negotiated. The social order is available for you to voluntarily choose to participate in, or not.

Isn't living in a society in and of itself "social interaction"?  How do you avoid "social interaction" without being a shut in?  Also, I feel that your system is only creating MORE bureaucracy, not less.  The systems that would be required to manage this kind of system would dwarf what is already in place.  There will have to be some entity in charge of determining what is "social interaction" and that which is not.  And this entity will need to exist at the local, state, and federal levels.  Which basically means, the courts.  So in the end, what really changes in your system?  What laws are you trying to abolish with your system?   

Hrmm, good point I should have clarified this initially.

Personal Freedom - The ability to make all decisions concerning your person. This extends to what you believe, what you take into your body, what you want to do in life, you choice in bed mates etc.

Social Interactions - Interactive processes where your actions affect others and go beyond your personal beliefs, body etc.

Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

The most important difference between this and the existing State is that it simply cannot create any laws reducing your personal freedom without your consent. If your actions do not place another person's freedom in jeopardy, then its outside the scope of what the government can mandate. In fact, if we threw out everything else I wrote and simply had that guarantee, we would be much closer to a free society, IMO.

Example:

Maybe society would determine that smoking pot in a restaurant is unacceptable for the same reason that smoking tobacco is. Fine, that's not an abrogation of the smokers personal freedom, because their act is affecting other people directly. However, it would be inappropriate for society to determine that eating a pot brownie in public is illegal, because that does not directly affect other people. It is not a "social interaction" because it does not go beyond your body.

This system might require more education on the part of every individual, it might mean its harder to get federal money for your project. It may mean that the people who live next door have a lifestyle you don't like. However, none of that impinges upon your freedom and the extra effort required, would (IMO) be worth the guaranteed freedom of all.

Are you going to mandate this education?  If not, you've killed off work like mine that many people aren't educated on.  Who will address substance abuse and Mental health? 

Well, thats true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service.

That doesn't mean that they have to know about RWHN program specifically... there may be a national bucket called "Programs in Support of Substance Abuse Recovery" and a national coalition of groups like yours which promote why people should choose to support that series of programs. I would expect those groups to have websites with details of how many people they've helped, what programs they use and techniques they use to help people and their books (income, expenses etc).

Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter? No, because the topic is freedom, not convenience.

it seems unacceptable to me that tax money is being passed out to people that aren't reporting directly back to the public, or even necessarily on the radar for the public. As it stands now, tax money is fought over between useful purposes like yours and bridges to nowhere. If citizens, rather than senators had the say... do you think they would fund a bridge in Alaska, or the very successful Addiction rehab program that they saw profiled on CNN, heard about on their favorite talk radio show, etc? IMO, I think most Americans would probably support the program, rather than the bridge.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I still think the best way would be to allow the State to have its little tyranny fantasies, and counter that with a strong Judiciary that is inherently weighted in favor of individual rights, maybe even to the point that you don't even need a hearing to overturn a law you're charged with breaking if the Government cannot meaningfully demonstrate why that activity should be prohibited in your case. Just fill out a "waiver of prosecution" form and you're free to go.

This also is a very good idea.

[fomenter]

Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

how about owning a restaurant that caters to people that smoke? current law says a restaurant owner cant cater to a the smokers by offering a smoking OK restaurant. is it a restriction his personal freedom to do business as he sees fit or the public's right to stop him because cigarettes are harmful?

[AFK]

Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

That sounds nice but without a law or regulation against it, what stops this person from enacting his vision of personal freedom and going to the restaurant and smoking anyway?  Are you relying upon goodwill of individuals?  Because it would seem to me that the lack of goodwill on the part of individuals is the monster that made laws and regulations necessary in the first place.

The most important difference between this and the existing State is that it simply cannot create any laws reducing your personal freedom without your consent.

Everyone's consent?  So what about the schmucks who can't be arsed to make their voice heard on a particular law or regulation?  So we want to pass a law that says it is illegal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, but some of the 40 year olds don't vote one way or another.  Does that mean they should have free reign to enact their "personal freedom"?  They didn't give their consent after all. 

If your actions do not place another person's freedom in jeopardy, then its outside the scope of what the government can mandate. In fact, if we threw out everything else I wrote and simply had that guarantee, we would be much closer to a free society, IMO.

And who defines what it means to "place another person's freedom in jeapardy"?  Who is in charge of determining what that means?   

Example:

Maybe society would determine that smoking pot in a restaurant is unacceptable for the same reason that smoking tobacco is. Fine, that's not an abrogation of the smokers personal freedom, because their act is affecting other people directly. However, it would be inappropriate for society to determine that eating a pot brownie in public is illegal, because that does not directly affect other people. It is not a "social interaction" because it does not go beyond your body.

It becomes a social interaction when the guy who's consumed a few too many pot brownies trips and lands on somebody's kid.   

Are you going to mandate this education?  If not, you've killed off work like mine that many people aren't educated on.  Who will address substance abuse and Mental health? 

Well, thats true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service.

Yeah, and that requires money to do.  LOTS of money.  Lots more money than we currently have.  Your system will make that virtually impossible.  There is a reason we are called non-profits.  We don't sell goods.  We can't use profits to promote ourselves.  We need funding to get the word out. 

That doesn't mean that they have to know about RWHN program specifically... there may be a national bucket called "Programs in Support of Substance Abuse Recovery" and a national coalition of groups like yours which promote why people should choose to support that series of programs. I would expect those groups to have websites with details of how many people they've helped, what programs they use and techniques they use to help people and their books (income, expenses etc).

Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter? No, because the topic is freedom, not convenience.

I can assure, our issues with our efforts have nothing to do with a lack of effort.  They have everything to do with a lack of funding.  Meanwhile, we have copious amounts of peer-reviewed research to show that our programs DO work and DO have positive outcomes.  But that doesn't mean a lick if we don't have the money to run them, much less promote them.   

it seems unacceptable to me that tax money is being passed out to people that aren't reporting directly back to the public, or even necessarily on the radar for the public. As it stands now, tax money is fought over between useful purposes like yours and bridges to nowhere. If citizens, rather than senators had the say... do you think they would fund a bridge in Alaska, or the very successful Addiction rehab program that they saw profiled on CNN, heard about on their favorite talk radio show, etc? IMO, I think most Americans would probably support the program, rather than the bridge.

You are optimistic.  We've had informational programs we've done for parents on substance abuse in some of the local schools.  Guess how many parents show up to these things?  A good event is when 20 show up.  That's 20 parents in a school that houses 1000 kids.  But, when it comes to a hearing about whether or not to put in a new basketball court, 100s show up.  Helping kids addicted to meth isn't as sexy as a shiny parquet floor.  That's why we need help. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

how about owning a restaurant that caters to people that smoke? current law says a restaurant owner cant cater to a the smokers by offering a smoking OK restaurant. is it a restriction his personal freedom to do business as he sees fit or the public's right to stop him because cigarettes are harmful?

Hrmmm, well I don't know. Firstly owning a resturant (or any business) takes you out of "personal freedom" and places you smack in the middle of social interaction, thus I don't see it as an issue of personal freedom for the owner. Iif you were to run a business that catered to a specific group, like smokers... I would say that the personal freedom of the other patrons would not necessarily be abrogated, because they would have the free choice to enter or not as they Will. However, it is an situation where the majority could decide, because its still a social interaction, rather than personal freedom.

Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

That sounds nice but without a law or regulation against it, what stops this person from enacting his vision of personal freedom and going to the restaurant and smoking anyway?  Are you relying upon goodwill of individuals?  Because it would seem to me that the lack of goodwill on the part of individuals is the monster that made laws and regulations necessary in the first place.

Who says there is no law? It's a social interaction, therefore a law could be passed by the majority. It impacts the personal freedoms of others, therefore it could fall under the primary responsibility of the State. I'm not speaking of a no-laws anarchy, only no laws that restrict personal freedom.

The most important difference between this and the existing State is that it simply cannot create any laws reducing your personal freedom without your consent.

Everyone's consent?  So what about the schmucks who can't be arsed to make their voice heard on a particular law or regulation?  So we want to pass a law that says it is illegal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, but some of the 40 year olds don't vote one way or another.  Does that mean they should have free reign to enact their "personal freedom"?  They didn't give their consent after all. 

Again, this is not the personal freedom of a 40 year old man... its a social interaction between a 40 year old man and a 14 year old kid. If a 14 year old kid isn't considered mature enough to make decisions concerning their own personal freedoms (I'd guess 154 is a bit too young, IMO), then there can be no social agreement and no sex. Any act would be an act of the 40 year old man imposing his will on an entity that could not (at least according to the standards of western civilization) agree to such an imposition.

If your actions do not place another person's freedom in jeopardy, then its outside the scope of what the government can mandate. In fact, if we threw out everything else I wrote and simply had that guarantee, we would be much closer to a free society, IMO.

And who defines what it means to "place another person's freedom in jeapardy"?  Who is in charge of determining what that means?  

The state, its their primary responsibility.

Example:

Maybe society would determine that smoking pot in a restaurant is unacceptable for the same reason that smoking tobacco is. Fine, that's not an abrogation of the smokers personal freedom, because their act is affecting other people directly. However, it would be inappropriate for society to determine that eating a pot brownie in public is illegal, because that does not directly affect other people. It is not a "social interaction" because it does not go beyond your body.

It becomes a social interaction when the guy who's consumed a few too many pot brownies trips and lands on somebody's kid.  

YES it does. Thus it is not 'eating a pot brownie' that could be made illegal, but the irresponsible actions of an individual that assults a kid. Thus, they would be under law. If they want to eat a whole dish of brownies and drink bhang with it... either they should be able to handle their THC, or they should do it at home. It's just like drinking in public... drinking isn't illegal... getting drunk then taking a piss on the table across from yours is.

Are you going to mandate this education?  If not, you've killed off work like mine that many people aren't educated on.  Who will address substance abuse and Mental health? 

Well, thats true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service.

Yeah, and that requires money to do.  LOTS of money.  Lots more money than we currently have.  Your system will make that virtually impossible.  There is a reason we are called non-profits.  We don't sell goods.  We can't use profits to promote ourselves.  We need funding to get the word out. 

Yep, it wouldn't be easy... but I don't really think that any group should have an easy time of getting access to tax money. IMO, I'm not even sure I think rehab is an appropriate use of federal funds. State funds, perhaps...

That doesn't mean that they have to know about RWHN program specifically... there may be a national bucket called "Programs in Support of Substance Abuse Recovery" and a national coalition of groups like yours which promote why people should choose to support that series of programs. I would expect those groups to have websites with details of how many people they've helped, what programs they use and techniques they use to help people and their books (income, expenses etc).

Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter? No, because the topic is freedom, not convenience.

I can assure, our issues with our efforts have nothing to do with a lack of effort.  They have everything to do with a lack of funding.  Meanwhile, we have copious amounts of peer-reviewed research to show that our programs DO work and DO have positive outcomes.  But that doesn't mean a lick if we don't have the money to run them, much less promote them.  

it seems unacceptable to me that tax money is being passed out to people that aren't reporting directly back to the public, or even necessarily on the radar for the public. As it stands now, tax money is fought over between useful purposes like yours and bridges to nowhere. If citizens, rather than senators had the say... do you think they would fund a bridge in Alaska, or the very successful Addiction rehab program that they saw profiled on CNN, heard about on their favorite talk radio show, etc? IMO, I think most Americans would probably support the program, rather than the bridge.

You are optimistic.  We've had informational programs we've done for parents on substance abuse in some of the local schools.  Guess how many parents show up to these things?  A good event is when 20 show up.  That's 20 parents in a school that houses 1000 kids.  But, when it comes to a hearing about whether or not to put in a new basketball court, 100s show up.  Helping kids addicted to meth isn't as sexy as a shiny parquet floor.  That's why we need help. 
[/quote]

Well, then, it seems to me that your job isn't well supported by the public and thus  I am at a loss to see why it should continue to exist off of public funding. I fear we shall have to disagree on this tax issue.

However, the tax bit is sort of secondary to the main focus of personal freedom. I think that if a citizen knew he had to pay $10,000 in taxes each year, and they could choose how the money was spent... then they would either not care (check the "Use how You Wish" box) and you could get funding from there... or they would educate themselves somewhat (or at least be tuned into the media where they could get educated a bit) and I am optimistic that if its THEIR money, they will want it to go to things they see as beneficial. I would like to think that a rehab program would be considered more beneficial than a bridge in Alaska or other pork barrel project.

[LMNO]

Or, they could say, "fuck those junkies," and no money would go to RWHN.

[AFK]

I'm confused.  At this point I'm finding it hard to understand the major difference between the Rat system and the current system.  I have to admit it suspiciously looks like a convoluted way of decriminalizing drugs.  And if that is your main aim, then I would forget about this system and just focus on decriminalizing drugs.  I think what would help this is if you could delineate exactly which troublesome laws you are trying to eliminate with this system.  Because so far your system continues to penalize sex offenders, drunken/intoxicated idiots who cause public disturbances, impacts upon society by businesses, etc.,  I'm having a hard time understanding what is really different other than you can do drugs in your house legally.