If I were in charge ...

[dmm]

OK, we've got some real-world politicos here. So what would you do if YOU were in charge? By "in charge" I mean legally so, not like an SEIV despot. For instance, if you were the President and your party controlled the Senate and the House. (You can comment about other countries also; just be clear which one you're talking about.) So you can't give wacko answers like "I'd make all women my love-slaves."

OK, I'll start:

US Energy Policy:
1. No way would I have bailed out the airlines. There is too much unnecessary air travel as it is. We need to do much more business, including meetings, remotely.
2. I would tax the life out of those gas-guzzling SUVs, muscle cars, and pickups. Same with powerboats and ATVs.
3. I would put a moratorium on building new roads or widening existing ones. However, I would keep the ones we've got in tip-top shape.

US Foreign Policy:
1. I would undermine and isolate the central dictatorship in China at every turn. It is the one country that could easily rise up and contend with us for world power, yet it has no freedom of religion, no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech -- in short, no freedom at all, and no history of freedom. As a counterbalance, I would strengthen the countries in Asia that are democratic or at least trying to get there.
2. I would immediately stop putting up with crappy little terrorist dictatorships like Libya. The military would be sent in to take anything of value as reparations and to destroy anything built since 1900, then would be pulled out. Larger terrorist dictatorships like Iraq would be given notice that they are on our "to do" list, and would be wise to get themselves off of it ASAP.

OK, that's enough of a rant for now. What about you? What if YOU were in charge?

[dumbluck]

I disagree with you on practically everything you have said. First of all, making every woman my love slave is the only worthwhile goal you stated!

Airlines: Well, ok, I agree with you to an extent on this one.

Did you know that every time we (the US) has instituted legistation forcing the auto industry to reduce fuel consumption per vehicle, the total fuel consumption has continued to increase unabbated? All such legistation does is help with emmissions. I don't mind this kind of legistation, per say, but I'm not fond of the side affect: Some lines are dropped due to fuel consumption, but they aren't consumer vehicle. The ones that get dropped are your heavy-duty pickups and the like, which are marketed more towards small construction firms and farm operations.

New roads: ummmm, why would you want to do that????

Foreign policy 1: Ummm, ok. That's awfully heavy handed of you. I'd prefer to let citizens decide their own form of government, not have some outside country decide what government they should have. Now you can argue that without freedoms, they don't decide their own government. Wrong. Through inaction, they allow the current government to continue. If all the citizens of a country rise up, hell if even a majority of the citizens rise up and demand reforms and changes, there is no power (short of weapons of mass destruction, who's use carries it's own unique sets of serious consequences) that the current government can wield to stop those changes.

The only reason government has any authority over people is when those people allow it to. People have absolute authority over their lives. However, it would be total anarchy if everyone did exactly as they pleased. The only way to counteract this is for people to give some of their personal authority to a government.

There are many, quite varied forms of government. The people of China chose this form of government when they instituted it. If they chose incorrectly, it is up to their children, or their children's children, to correct the mistake, for it is their authority which the current government wields. Therefore, it is their responsibility. Not ours. We have no right to tell them which form of government is best for them. It is their lives, their authority at stake here, not ours.

Foreign policy 2. This is really just foreign policy 1 taken to military extremes. The above arguement still applies. However, Crimes against humanity should not be tolerated (but they usually are anyway, a whole other discussion we won't get into here). Military force, however, should always be a Last resort. Although my definition of "Last resort" is a little more leniant than the one used by those currently in power. I follow the "fool me once, fool me twice" philosophy. Fool me once, shame on you. You said you would stop doing what I asked you to do, and you didn't. Shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I asked you again to stop doing that, and you again agreed to stop; and you again failed to stop. Shame on me for believing you. You are now completely untrustworthy to me; if I want your actions to stop, I will have to stop them myself.

[chewy027]

In regards to China DMM, you offer a very realist perspective on your policies. I'm not saying i agree or disagree, but just to play the devil's advocate, why not take a more liberal approach and try to democratize them every chance you get. It is a commonly held liberal beleif(in IR theory) that democracies don't go to war with eachother. If we can further their interdependence on other nations (especially economically) through trade and such and involove them more in world organizations like the WTO then that would reduce the probability of conflict with them on their road to becoming a democracy where there should be a state of confident peace. Again I'm not saying I advocate this approach, I just want to stir the pot a little.

[PvK]

SUV policy - classify as trucks, so they have to obey the truck speed limits, and don't let them park in "economy" sized parking spots. Add a license surcharge to large tall vehicles that block vision, and don't let them park near corners.

Anti-stupid-law policy - create an office for the eradication of stupid and bad laws. Demand public referrendums to abolish automatic traffic fee camera systems, laws that require seatbelt use, and pointlessly low speed limits that don't take into account vehicle type or conditions. Hold public referendums on the right to refuse drug tests without descrimination.

Foreign policy - apply strong pressure to nations that abuse/destroy world ecosystems.

[Mephisto]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
laws that require seatbelt use, and pointlessly low speed limits that don't take into account vehicle type or conditions.

---

You might reconsider that. I have seen to many accidents were the "belted" person exited the vehicle nearly unharmed whereas the "unbelted" person bleed to death despite your best efforts. DOA in hospital and a mess in the ambulance even the "best" splatter films do not imagine.

[Cyrien]

I would carefully apply force where necessary to undermine the public support of the populace of other nations formenting revolution. I wouldn't support any single group however I would support multiple Groups so that once the existing system is out no one can agree on a new system. I would then move forward as the only nation still stable in the world and give everyone a hand up. Those that refused would be destroyed. I would make sure to cause enough public outcry within my own nation and give it enough publicity that everyone knows that many people in my own nation are again my harsh policies but I would continue with them slowly organizing and grouping together world nations in such a way that each view myself and my group as their eventual enemy and coming together with common beliefs to squelch me. I would fund a massive space program and harness resources from the world over in harsh method. Eventually I would attempt to leave on a deep space colonization mission on a ship capable of supporting a population of 10k to 20k people indefinetly and journey to other stars. Hopefully once I was gone with the carefully laid vision that I had been routed from power by the united world people they would all see that they had more in common then not and proceed to demonize myself and those under me and eventually unite in a more peaceful and united and democratic form.

Then maybe someday the Earth people could meet my own removed colonizers and start a great stellar war with each other.

Something like that in an attempt to unite the world. History shows that people unite best when they have a scape goat. Thus I would attempt to make myself the scape goat since I don't have the stomache for the massive genocide that would be required to make someone else a scapegoat. By removing myself I would hope to do so in such a way that sets my despotic rule up as the scapegoat thus ensuring democratic form of government on a more world wide scale.

Not necessarily western democracy. But the form that would work best for each geographic region with something like the UN cept with actual powers and no security council.

[Cyrien]

For an actual policy though in the US... hrmmm

Better education. Free education upto university level. Secondary such as medical would not be payed for by gov however.

Paying down of national debt.

Stop aid to other nations in need.
This one may sound harsh. But here is my view.
If you keep sending the food aid to a starving country for example, what are you really doing? Are you really alleviating the hardships? Or are you making it possible for worse hardships in the long run and wasting your own resources that could possibly be better used elsewhere for your own people? If you keep sending them food and they live in an area that simply can't support that population level anymore and then you stop sending them food at some point, you wind up with greater starvation as in the intervening time they have reproduced more heavily. Thus you get greater hardship.
That is one reason out of many.

Reduction of conventional military forces, and increased emphasis on special forces type units.

Increased development of aerial stealth and drone power and smart weapons technology.

Policy on foreign aggression would be to answer with smart weapons delivered by air using special ground forces to track down, harrass, corner, and target enemy ground locations and forces for smart weapon destruction. Bunker busters for those caves and other hard to reach places.

No compromises for those hostile. No invasion forces. Funding of friendly resistance Groups already in existence that are already popular with a wider grouping of those in the nation.

Emphasis on a stronger and democratic world leadership than the existing UN and it's near powerless state and the allpowerful security council. Emphasis on trade, economic, and internal pressure methods on those countries that pose serious threats without being outright hostile (such as China) to encourage governments and policies more in line with modern times. I would not attempt to start a new cold war with China or even worse a hot one. However do put things such as human rights etc on the table with trade agreements. They DO want these. If they don't give the rights agreements then remove the trade. It might hurt us some but it would hurt them more.

Develop alternative fuels and power sources. Oil is going away fast. Coal not quite as fast but it is still going to go away. Even nuclear fuels. Power sources such as fusion need to be developed despite costs. That in mind I would get the US back into ITER ( www.iter.org ).

Push for global environmental regulation with some leeway for developing nations or alternalty aid programs that fund their usage of new less polluting technologies from the more developed nations.

Maintain a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world once or twice over. Helps keep down hostile wars.

Defense systems... that is iffy. Continue research into area but do not implement anything unless it is reasonably succesful and not to expensive.

Enact policies and restriction on US based corporations that would hold them responsible for own pollution and have strictly enforced national standards, especially for power plants. Increase "sensitivity" to foreign cultures and views in global trade and expansion. Remove the assumption that western is best for everyone.

Along with better education have foreign education that attempts to better educate on world cultures and policies and history. Only by understanding the past can you more fully understand the present.

That is what I would like to do as person in charge of the US... if congress would pass it. Which I tend to doubt.

[PvK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:

You might reconsider that. I have seen to many accidents were the "belted" person exited the vehicle nearly unharmed whereas the "unbelted" person bleed to death despite your best efforts. DOA in hospital and a mess in the ambulance even the "best" splatter films do not imagine.

---

Oh, I wear a seatbelt, and recommend others do too. I just believe that here in the "land of liberty", I should have the right to take my life in my own hands. If the police are so concerned for my safety that they want to pull me over and suggest I wear a belt, well ok. However, if it's really local governments looking for more excuses to fine its people for cash, and insurance companies looking to increase their profit margins, and even well-meaning folks trying to reduce the amount of death on the highways, then I think those are incorrect reasons to legislate away public freedom. If I want to risk my own life, that's my own business, it seems to me.

PvK

[dmm]

dumbluck:
First of all, thanks for your comments.
Re energy policy:
I agree with you about average fuel economy laws. What a crock! But that isn't at all what I would do. I would simply put a big penalty tax on gas guzzling vehicles. If the consumer wants to pay that, so be it. Probably I would also grant rebates to businesses that legitimately need things like pickups, and maybe also to large families. (But maybe not; maybe that should just be the cost of doing business or having a large family.)
Or maybe I would just have a huge fuel tax. This would encourage conservation in all forms, such as living in smaller houses, keeping your house energy-efficient, buying fuel-efficient vehicles, living close to work, carpooling, etc. Refusing to build new roads is for the same reason -- to make it inconvenient and expensive for people to waste energy and pollute the environment by living far from work and taking unnecessary trips.

This is not a matter of personal preference, like I hate rich suburbanites or something. It is a matter of making people pay the true cost of the lifestyle they are choosing. The true cost includes pollution, increased infrastructure, ecosystem destruction, wars over resources, etc. It simply is unfair to force urbanites to pay equally for such things.

Re foreign policy:
It seems to me that some countries already fall into the Category of "fool me twice, shame on you." The only remaining questions are "how much would it cost us to punish them for what they've done" and "are we willing to pay that price." (Totally irrelevant aside: how does one properly punctuate a sentence like that???)

As far as allowing people to choose their own government, I agree with you. I don't care if the Swedes want to be socialist; that's their business. But I disagree that the Chinese people are free to choose. They are living in continual fear. People routinely are sent away to slave camps without even a show trial for "crimes against the people" like worshiping God, earning too much profit, accessing the net without permission, or suggesting that the official way of doing things might not be the best way. I thought we learned during the civil rights struggles that "everyone is free, or no one is free." How can the world be free when 1/3 of its people are in bondage to the handful of people running the Chinese Communist Party? But even so, perhaps you would be right, that we should keep our noses out of it, if it were not for this other troubling fact: the govt of China is expansionist. Not content with despotically ruling their own people, they are intent on asserting their "rights" as the "natural and historical leader and protector" of all Asians. Lastly, they are bigots. They cause their people to be indoctrinated with the idea that Orientals are the superior race. Since the Chinese are mostly cut off from the rest of the world and have never met other races, and human nature being what it is, this idea has rooted itself pretty firmly in their national psyche. Can anyone say "Nazi Germany" or "Imperial Japan?" Except that China has manpower and resources far beyond those tyrant regimes. It lacks only widespread industrialization and modernization.

People talk of "engaging" China and of making them part of the world economy. They said the same things about the fascists prior to WWII. I am amazed that the Last decade has given such ample proof of the success of a cold war strategy, yet now people say it won't work with China.

[Krsqk]

quote:

---

Probably I would also grant rebates to businesses that legitimately need things like pickups, and maybe also to large families. (But maybe not; maybe that should just be the cost of doing business or having a large family.)

---

I disagree that businesses and large families should pay an extra tax for owning vehicles (which cost more anyway) which are necessary for their operation. For that matter, I disagree with the whole proposition of a fossil fuel tax. It would be far better to grant tax incentives to those who develop/utilize alternate fuel sources. This won't happen, though, since it would mean politicos giving back some of their daily diet of pork.

Face it--fossil fuels are here to stay unless someone can develop a cheaper, more efficient energy source (as nuclear is for electricity) as an alternative. Taxing the snot out of everybody just leaves them with less money with which to develop those sources and Congress with more of our money to play with. Both of which most people would agree are bad things.