Say there was a form of Government where a court created a list of statutes based on 4 primary laws in a constitution. And then there was only police who enforced these laws, and a court of appeals just in case it the police tried to make their own laws. Then the court could order the impeachment of any chief of Justice that did not remove such a law after it was taken to an appeals court. And the court could order the Chief of Justice to remove in individual chiefs who violate the constitution. Then there was a national representative who set a tarriff to collect money for policement and an environmental property protection agency. And then their were city managers who sold land, controlled immenent domain, set aside land for private parks, and lit, cleaned, and maintained streets. And if the court somehow violated the constitution eventhough they are self appointed they police would just ignore their unconstitutional law.

I have always felt utilities must be public, and I have never objected to the city Government's means of producing them, because its means is not coercive. But recently, I read something written by the Mises institute that explained that utilities could be private and competative...and that what we witnessed during the late 19th century was not a free market utilities system. I am no expert on this, but I figure you could have multiple primary sewer and water lines running under the streets, and smaller lines that connect those lines to houses that go over and under eachother, and electricity could be sold by allowing access to a grid that each company runs their electric lines through. WHAT DO YOU THINK? COULD UTILITIES BE PRIVATIZED?

The accident rate was dropping from 1900-1970 (before OSHA)...Laissez faire capitalists credit this to supply & demand, while others believe it was a combination of other factors...what do you think, does supply & demand work on its own to improve things? or does it work on its own to make some things worse, and therefore those things require the regulation of externalities?

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with being lazy, or greedy, for that matter, as long as it doesn't cause one personal or moral failings...I view it as a life style choice, some would rather give their life at what they do and have everything, and others would rather give nothing and have nothing. What do you think? Is there really anything wrong with being lazy or greedy?

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with being lazy, or greedy, for that matter, as long as it doesn't cause one personal or moral failings...I view it as a life style choice, some would rather give their life at what they do and have everything, and others would rather give nothing and have nothing. What do you think? Is there really anything wrong with being lazy or greedy?

I have reached the conclusion that democracy is a system that gives the majority the power to impose its will. That constitutions can't stop that, because the majority only fallows the rules if it wants to. And that each individual not the majority of individuals within a country should govern their own affairs. So I came up with a system of Government that only gives the power to govern their own affairs to individuals. Essentially, it is my understanding that police enforce the law because its their duty, tax collectors collect taxes because it their duty, and appeals courts protect defendents rights because its their duty. So I thought why not have a base set of unchangeable laws govern society? Here's how it would work... You have Eight unchangeable laws: 1) No invasion of person - 2) No invasion of privacy - 3) No fraud - 4) No interference with the property rights of others - 5) You must pay sales taxes (+service taxes) equal to the lowest amount paid by other citisens (to force uniformity), that are written for the purposes of policment, and defense by the central Government, or the payment of education (only assistance based), recreation, or transportation by local Governments (To disallow the expansion of Gov.) - 6) No child abuse or neglect - 7) No animail abuse, creulty or neglect - 8) No neglagence contributing to the harm of other people or their property, without their consent. Then as the definition of these laws evolve, new regulations would be written within the scope of them (vandolism didn't exist 200 yrs ago). Then a council would be randomly selected to write penalties for the new regulations (penalties written for reasons besides retribution would be invalid, so would those unwritten by the council). Also every year a council would be selected to put to a vote what taxes should be to fund police and military. Appeals courts would also enforce limits on police, and courts: They would be 1) Every person has a right to a trial by a jury and 2) Police cannot use excessive force (rules determined by a randomly selected council) ...And for 6 and 7 there would be a special court process to keep to determine "abuse" (its vague) to keep it from exceeding its boundries with a super-majority of jurers not only determining guilt but also whether a what happend should be considered abuse.    

I mean I could cook chicken but McDonalds taste better then my chicken, and I don't have to cook it.

Is that how this works??

Do you think swamp filling should be legal or swamps should continue to be treated special as opposed to forest?

Essentially if people wanted to live in a communist community, all someone would have to do is put the idea out there and naturally with their being a demand for it, investment would fallow...that would get it on the ground, then they could use their profits to expand residence to meet the demand. All it would cost is the interest and profits on an initial small investment to put the community on the market. But yet this don't happen...do you think its because nobody could ever really want to live in a communist community (Because DEMAND=SUPPLY)? Or is there some other reason I don't know about?

The rich would have the power to establish their own type of order, but would be in-capible of agreeing on how to do it, making that possibility nullified. Some rich would wan't to use their power to impose taxes, but wouldn't be willing to take the risk of losing all their wealth, being that they could lose the war that this attempt would bring. And just like the rich, people would not be able to collectively agree on how individual cities should be governed, if they were to gather and try to establish Governance. Also the people alone would lack the recources to police themselves...They would be able to adapt to the chaos though. Their ability to adapt would not satify their needs for security. The demand for security would be high...Knowing this, construction companies would build cities and offer protection to those who move to their cities. As a result of this, a society of cities policed by corperations would be created...many of these cities would probably lack proper justice systems.    

Would there be corperate owned cities (like cities built by construction companies who offer protection as a means of selling homes)? Would there be chaos?Would there be order from people policing themselves? What do you think would evolve from it?

.