A huge democratic reform with just three realistic changes can save any country

A huge democratic reform with just three realistic changes can save any country
>Real universal suffrage, meaning kids can vote too, thus giving more power to the families
>People that pay more taxes that what they receibe from the goberment votes twice
>Any law old or new needs an aproval of the three quarters of the parliament

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1GPe_8Qxxvo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Spics have more kids
The tax one is fine but vote should be limited to only those who pay it
>3/4 in Parliament
Jesus Christ, OP. No. Nothing would pass.

>Nothing would pass.
EXACTLY

>>Spics have more kids
Rural whites too
This wouldn't affect only spics you know? By having this the two parties would have to pander to families and most important, you'd see a demographic pattern change inmediately instead of waiting 18 years
Then your policies would be very different

Btw when the spanish goberment was in a lockout that was the best period of the last 40 years
Nothing would get done, good or bad.
Like allowing refugees? Opening borders?
No, you need three quarters

>Jew finds some loophole and can make infinite money because nobody will stop him
I can see how it could be a good thing (as you said in your next post), but ideally I would like a 1 party state that doesn't take bullshit from the start.

>1 party state that doesn't take bullshit from the start.
Me too but I'm proposing laws that could be aproved by the majority of the goberment with the good amount of propaganda like "make families vote" "real universal suffrage" "changing the laws every 4 years is stupid" etc
To have a one party system you would need a coup d'etat

I can see your point here. I guess lock the government down and start a revolution while that happens? Like the oppostite of controlled opposition?

A lock on the goberment would make people more politically active or tolerant as they would not rely in the the goberment to force their views on others.
It would lead to more economic freedom as the goberment should have to manage with the money they got without being able to print more or take more IMF loans, etc
People in general would start solving the problems by themselves and we would have a more realistic society
Right now we have a in all democratic nations a peaceful civil war every 4 or 2 yearsin wich the winner impose their view on the rest just by 2 or 1%
The population divided in every aspect of life and turning everything into a partisan debate
People now don't have allegiance to their nation but their political parties and ideologies
I have no proof of this by the way, Is just what I imagine.

Right now the american elite is pushing for the north american union
If you had a referendum right now in USA most people would go against it
With a three quarters required, all this globalism would be out of the window

N.A. union as in what?
NAFTA? Or all of N.A. as 1 country?

Add this one thing too,

If a person from a family is elected as an official, his children and relatives aren't allowed to run for officials. This will help in curbing nepotism as well. Also term limits as well.

Look at Masstricht agreement, Euro and EU
Firs the trade agreement with no duties
Then one single economic policy
Then hundreds of supranational agencies
Police, cybersecurity, enviromental...
Then one goberment
Then one army
The NAFTA is a prelude of a political North American Union with the Amero and open borders between thre three major north american nations and then some
Maybe even the whole central america would join once the latino population is big enough in USA
The elites knew americans would be against this so they allowed the mexicans to enter to put democrats in power forever and secure this merging

youtube.com/watch?v=1GPe_8Qxxvo

That's a good one
>term limits
Yes exactly if the president have them why not senators and congressmen?

this is the bitter true, the best period in our democracy, when we didnt have the goverment and the police was unveiling one after another the corruption casess

>Retirement is not function of how many bucks you paid in taxes, but of how many kids you had.

Democracies don't work
>From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

Correct. Monarchies are good but it takes only 1 weak ruler to destroy the nation. Reminds me of FMA Brotherhood. Like in it group of kids were train from their childhood and the best among them becomes the fuhrer. That would be the ideal form of government.

From this year, if you don't have 2 kids you don't get retirement
This would solve all the demographic problems
But I was talking about realistic law changes and not about what really should be done

Can laws like this be made? For example, if you want to have refugees and support welfare, you would be charged more tax because you support those policies. As in, when you're about to vote, you're provided a form to fill and see what policies you support and your taxes are decided on that. If a guy doesn't support welfare and refugees etc., he's charged 15-20%. If someone supports socialist policies, they're charged 40-50% on their income.
If this happens, even the most hardcore liberals would become die hard conservatives.

Voting for politicians is the most retarded invention in democracy and also the most popular one. We should be voting for laws, not people who going to employ people who going to establish laws.

this could only be made after a coup d'etat makes a new constitution
but this would never be aproved by the majority of the population and if a politician propose it he would get expelled from the party after the media would present statics about how evil the population see him

It was a mistake to give women the vote. The mothers will tell the kids who to vote for so it will be even worse. Only men who pay more than 40,000 a year in taxes should be allowed to vote.

>welfare
>socialist policies
pick one
Welfare is a conservative policy of wealth inequality where they give you some small cash so you don't go on the street to protest your miserable life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare
>In the Roman Empire, the first emperor Augustus provided the Cura Annonae or grain dole for citizens who could not afford to buy food every month.

Socialism employed everybody anywhere they wanted, there was no need for welfare.

Agreed, I would say majority of new laws passed were not present in any political platform
You just vote for someone to have control over you without him needing to fullfill any promise
Switzerland does this better with constant referendums people actually vote laws like rejecting minarets
If you would have had a referendum of the amount of migrants that the population wanted in any european nation we wouldn't even have 5%

In Spain the socialist won the elections in the 80's promising to vote no to NATO
After a year of wining they joined NATO
This is the power of democracy

But you won't be able to pass a law that prevents women from voting while they can vote
Just like you can't change the electoral voting system because you'd a majority to do it and no party would change the system that allowed them to have a majority in the first place.

Either we make a A4 paper deal with politician where there are bullet points that need to be done or we vote for laws. Everything else is exploitation.

What I mean to say was that if you support those policies, you gotta pay for it.

"Educated" people now believe that everyting public is socialist when if fact socialism means the ownership of the means of production by the workers.
China, the USSR, all of them were socialist and not communist as comunist means no nations.
The ruling parties were comunists but the goberment itself was not.
That fat turk from youtube even said that if you have an army then you are a socialist, this commie propaganda is eating our youth

That's the dumbest idea ever, since welfare is given to people when they need it and you will never collect money to give to people if you ask people if they should pay, nobody will pay not even those who will need it in future. That's like asking people if they want to pay for inflation in future.

government ownership isn't public ownership, since public doesn't manages government, neither it uses government buildings. Public ownership should always be available to public aka all legal citizen, but can also be managed by public, like you ask people how they would like to have their road build or trees cut, such things existed in Socialism, but they don't in capitalism. Each street in Socialism decided how they would like to collect their money, cut their trees and build things. While in capitalism that's all decided by mayor, for who you vote, but don't decide what he does, you only have his promises.

>ask people how they would like to have their road build or trees cut, such things existed in Socialism
wow that was real freedom

>>Real universal suffrage, meaning kids can vote too, thus giving more power to the families

Yeah we know you would want welfare spiclets to vote Pablo.

Of course and the best thing is that i could say they should pull the road down to houses and how wide it should be, since nowadays those illegal employing construction companies cheat on wideness of road and then they ask you if you want road down to your house, which of course costs extra, which money you alone don't have. Good thing about this is also that every town/street/block doesn't needs to be connected to each other on same money reserve, you keep your money reserve between people who pay into it and you take from it when you need it, not like now when mayor just takes money, spend it on mystery nobody knows and then asks for more EU money which he then also spends on mystery and then as result inflation and taxes grow for everybody. They collect money from renting apartment people in capitalism too, but there apartment people don't decide anything and of course they don't own the apartments.

>Real universal suffrage, meaning kids can vote too, thus giving more power to the families

Congratulations, this is the most retarded thing I read on Sup Forums this week.

why? explain

so even fucking babies can vote?

They would vote through their mom or dad if they can't do it themselves.
Didn't your parent let you cast the vote when you were a kid?
It's the same.
Everyone would be able to vote eventually so instead of waiting 18 years for a masive shift you let fathers vote as many times as the kids they have so then you already have the pattern and your polices go acordingly.

Most retarded thing I've ever heard

Is this common in Britain? To call something retarded without even giving an explanation?

I mean how the fuck can you accept that single male votes should be worth the same the same as those with a family to take care of?
Childess people shouldn't even be in politics