How I Would Change The World for the Better
Changing the world...
When it comes to changing the world, we all have big ideas. I can't say that my ideas are any better than anyone elses, or that they are even more original. What I can say, is that I firmly believe each action could change the world for the better. Not just for humans, but for all beings and the earth herself.
After you read my thoughts, if you have your own ideas or you want to rebut my ideas, write another hub and then post it in the comments section here!
No Money - Barter Only
I can't say money is such a horrible thing, but we can already see how people use it. People use it squish those without it, to chastise those that do have it, to enslave people and to regulate everything in the world.
Because it's more convenient than other alternatives and because it makes the powerful more powerful. Without money, we would be rid of many of the social issues that we have currently. There wouldn't be any lobbying, bribing, welfare or monetary taxes. There wouldn't be any stock markets, G20, G4 or G8. Those who control most of the worlds governments would lose their power because the thing that gives them power - money - wouldn't be there anymore.
A person that wanted to seek power, would have to seek it through their actions and resources, not through their ability to stock pile money.
Those who find themselves without resources because they lack money, wouldn't have to worry about that anymore. No longer would we be trapped by the ball and chain of money. Instead, it would be about resources, which is what money gets us and what really matters. Any person could gather the needed resources and it would simply be a matter of doing so, which would be easier because you could get them yourself or barter for what you need.
In a world of bartering, it would be up to each person doing the trading, to decide what the value of each item is. Garlic might be of high value for it's medicinal values, manure would be up there for it's ability to help grow crops. Grass would probably be a less valuable commodity because it really doesn't provide any tangible value other than more oxygen, which trees can produce much more efficiently. Though these things would depend on what area they are needed for, what value each person gives them and how badly they are needed.
Instead of not being able to pay for doctors, dentist or education, people would be able to work it off, trade resources or trade their own services. No one would be left out because of lack of money.
There are definitely some pitfalls to a money free world. Though I feel that the benefits greatly out weigh the risks.
Two Presidents (In America)
I'm not sure how other countries would want to do it, and since I only have experience in America, I don't want to try and suggest what might be better in other countries.
I feel in this country though, everyone could greatly benefit from having two presidents instead of one. They would both have to be from opposite parties. For example: 1 Democrat - 1 Republican or 1 Progressive - 1 Libertarian.
Then each president would have to have a vice president that was from the opposite party, or from a party not represented by the two presidents, and they would need to be the two runners up. So if four people ran for president, two would become the presidents, and those that came in second would be their vice presidents.
This would create a balance in the political system.
Currently, the way it works, is that we get one president and v.p. who are both from the same party. From there, the house and senate battle to get their actions put through and often the party that sides with the president, is the one who gets their way. This creates huge imbalances. We can see from the Bush era, that taxes went up for the poor and down for the rich. During Obama's reign, the rich get taxed more and the poor get more welfare. It's crazy, and has been this way for way to long.
If we were to go with my model, then each president would have to work with the other to take care of the country. I would also change the laws so that the president is more than just a puppet show. The presidents certainly shouldn't have omnipitant powers and should have lots of limits, but they shouldn't just be people placed out there to make promises they can't keep because others behind the spot light are really controlling things. I mean, what point is there in having a president if they can't actually do anything except levy war?
To give you an example, let's say our system changed the way I am suggesting.
In the next race, we could say that Obama, Ron Paul, Hilary, Bachman, Palin, Rand Paul and McCain all run for president. I would say that Obama and Ron Paul would win the two presidencies, which would set up a Progressive - Libertarian set. Hilary and Bachman would come in second, making V.P. a Democrat - Tea Party.
That would mean that we would have 1 Progressive, 1 Libertarian, 1 Democrat and 1 Tea Party conservative in the highest offices our country has. In order to run the country, they would be required to work as a team to do so. Because each person would be from different backgrounds, political parties and beliefs, they would be better able to stand up for EVERYONES rights, values and needs. None of this one-way road for 4 to 8 years at a time before it's turned over to the opposite party to be done the opposite way.
Just like anything, this plan has flaws. Though we can see that our current system is not working. This is at least one route we could take that might have better balance.
No Victimless Crimes
Any crime that could be rendered victimless, would not be crimes. Some of these things might be drinking or doing drugs. Others might be peeing in public, sleeping in parks or putting up really high fences around your home. Using national forests, parks or public lands would be open to anyone and legal, though littering or destroying these places would still be illegal - because there would be victims (trees, earth, people, animals, ect...)
Doing drugs wouldn't be a victim crime, because you can't be both the victim and the criminal at the same time. If you are voluntarily doing something negative to yourself, whether socially acceptable or not, it would be your freedom to do so or not to do so. The same would go for such things as prostitution or child labor. If a man or woman enjoys and is safe in using their bodies to succeed in life, let them. A kid going to work could also be victimless, so long as the child still received a free education, lots of love, protection, benefits, fair jobs and fair wages. If they want to go to work, or can help out by going to work, there is no reason a youngster shouldn't be able to do so. Just because we allow them to work real jobs, wouldn't mean they would automatically be doomed to work in a sweat shop or be forced into working. There are plenty of ways we can prevent any victims if young citizens were allowed to work just like anyone else. In fact, we might be see life changing innovations all over if we allowed such a thing.
It really is pointless to try and regulate everything we humans do in the first place and no actual proof that society would become a horrible thing if victimless crimes were not crimes at all.
The only time a person should be considered a criminal, is when their actions directly hurt another person. Stealing from them, physically hurting them, breaking something that isn't yours, killing others. These are crimes. They create victims and need reparations.
Anything else is subjective and I feel it's silly to make subjective laws.
Locations that no one can own
Forests, bodies of water, the atmosphere, mountains, protected lands. These can all be places that we protect and take care of, but that no one should be allowed to own or regulate.
It's crazy the way we have it now. In order to stop the destruction of forests and endangered areas, we have to "own" them. We have to tax people to take care of them and protect them. Why can't we just protect them from being destroyed, but leave them open for anyone and everyone. Anyone in the world could come and use the land, live on it, grow on it or do what they please so long as they don't destroy the place or create victims (whether plant, animal or human). Even if every person were to come and take a few trees, there is said to be over 9.6 Billion acres of trees on the earth, and in one acre you could plant anywhere from 40 to 40,000 trees - depending on species. There aren't even 7 Billion people in the world. Meaning that we could easily protect and maintain a balance without destroying our earth. Plus, if we planted three trees for every one that is taken, we would have more than we started with and there would always be more in the future.
Is it a perfect plan? No.
Could it change the world for the better? Yes it could.
No Mass Produced Food
In theory, mass producing food is a great idea. In practice, we can see that it helps more than it hurts. It makes people sick, abuses animals, tears up lands, wastes resources and pollutes. If I could, I would make it so that there would be no mass production of large amounts of foods.
There could still be large scale productions for certain areas, but there would have to be limits. There would also have to be different laws and rules to regulate it all. Under our current model, we inject animals with pain killers, vaccines, other drugs and chemicals to make them produce more then they were meant to create. We push land to it's max until it's burnt out. This has to change.
No Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy came into the world with a bang, and it is most likely to leave our world the same way....
Though the idea of nuclear energy is a good one in theory, just like mass food production, I feel the risks outweigh the benefits. Here are some reasons why:
#1. It would be ultra easy for any enemy to drop a bomb into a nuclear reactor and cause havoc that would continue for decades.
#2. As we see from Fukushima, any single or combination of natural disasters can take down even the most sophisticated reactors.
#3. Nuclear energy plants create pollution and waste that can not be gotten rid of for anywhere between 50 and 50,000 years. And yet they say it's "clean" energy....
#4. We have other alternatives for energy. They may not be as convenient as nuclear power, but I would always vote for what is right over what is easier.
The way our world is headed, we are going to end up with a one world president and a group of cronies who control everything all over the world. Oh wait! We already have that, they just haven't made it official yet....
I would like to see that globalism is stopped and reversed. I don't feel there is anyway to protect the freedoms of everyone AND be a global society.
Lowered Voting Age
Some might not agree with me, but I feel there is plenty of value from youths, especially when it comes to voting. They may not have the experience of those over 18, but they do have to live with the consequences of what adults vote for and they usually see things in a more moral and ethical way then most adults do.
Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting we should let our two year olds go to the voting polls. Though we allow 7 year olds to stay home alone, some 10 year olds have been criminally charged as adults, 12 year olds can get free birth control and free health services. They are also considered the perfect age to babysit, which makes them responsible over another human beings life for a period of time. 13 year olds have the right to refuse services even if their parents demand them to partake. By 14 a person is legally eligible to get a job from anyone who will hire them. By 16, a person has reached the age of consent for sex with their peers, get piercings and they can drive an automobile. In many places, 16 is also the age by which a person can legally drink under a parents supervision. By 17, they can see rated R moves.
So why is it that our youth can do all these things, and yet they aren't considered valuable, responsible or capable of voting? I very much doubt they can vote are more stupidly then most of the adults who are voting now....
Homeschool Without Big Brother
At the moment, home school is very over regulated by the federal board of education. I feel this completely undermines the idea of homeschooling. You only ever really choose homeschool in order to get away from the system, not so that you can bring the system home.
Even in areas that allow charter schools, big brother is right there to say what you can and cannot teach your children. They require the same tests and expectations of those in regular schools. I feel this takes away a basic freedom and prevents the world from eventually growing a much better educational system all together.
As far as I'm concerned - if the homeschool doesn't receive federal funds, then the feds have no business regulating them or saying what we are supposed to teach or not teach our children.
Free Ice Cream for Everyone!
Okay! I know this one seems silly, but I had to add it.
I would also add that it should be completely organic ice cream. No chemicals, preservatives, hormones or processed sugar. Just delicious ice creamy goodness for everyone!
This will better the world by making us happy, which produces more endorphins, which makes us more productive in everything we do! Yay ice cream!
More by this Author
I have always felt that personal experiences are very useful, especially in situations where there really are no set signs. Medical professionals of all kinds have done what they can to note what set of symptoms most...
Now that you're addicted to SliceThePie, it's times to make the most of your passionate hours spent reviewing all that music!
How to lance a dental abscess by yourself, as a form of pain relief, before seeing a dentist to cure the basic problem.
No comments yet.