Corrupt Dictatorship Party

I just read an article saying how a state in India now offers women 1 free day of 'menstrual leave' per month and that Spain, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia already do so. And then the article goes on to say how awkward it is for women to come forward and take it because of taboos on public acknowledgement of menstruation.

I think they set the system up wrong. So in our country, we will be doing it differently. Allowing women one free day off but not men is inherently not equal treatment of people. What if people of ANY sex were given one free day off per month, no questions asked. Now everyone is treated fairly. And, would you look at that, now that everyone just gets a day off each month and it's no longer specifically tied to women and menstruation, the stigma for taking the day off because of needing it as a woman for menstruation also disappears, even if that is what it's used for.

It's like those countries tried to do a little good for a single type of person while avoiding letting others receive the same benefit, but with problems. The solution is to equally give the benefit to all people, which is inherently more moral anyway, and, as a byproduct of taking the more moral path, the problems disappear.

If I want to be a baseball star, I reward myself every time I practice baseball. If we want our country to be the best at corn production, we subsidize corn so farmers are rewarded by better profit for growing it.

Subsidies are a powerful tool that allows a place to focus on a facet it wishes success in. However, with lobbying and crazy capitalism stuff, subsidization is less of an intelligent tool withwhich to customize an empire as it is being built, and more a process through which powerful vested interests funnel additional funds in to themselves. When the farmers growing corn form a lobbying group and push for greater corn subsidies, they will always want greater corn subsidies; growth becomes blind. And the more powerful they become, the more powerful they can make themselves.

Subsidization in a subpar framework also destabilizes developing economies. Farmers of many small countries get run out of business because the cost of growing their produce is more than what foreign subsidized goods sell for on the local market. This subsidized goods dumping and destroying of local farmers often is started by foreign leverage coercing local government to accept 'Free Trade', which sounds great because 'Free', but results in local producers of developing nations being unable to compete while the wealth gets siphoned out of the country.

I would do subsidies somewhat differently. I think there should be some thought and direction behind it instead of just monsters insatiably feeding themselves. If there is any group of people that should be beyond election, termlimit, sway of money or bribery, and basically stuck in a room with no outside interference for infinite time, it is the council responsible for determining subsidies. They should be smart people, not politicians, and entirely cut off from lobbyists. They can see what ratios of the population are supportive of each businesstype, but no interacting directly with lobbyists. They can hold to a long term concept instead of switch direction every reelection and, longterm, be stronger wherever they focused. Obviously, they should be aligned with an overall idea of what makes the country special. Ideally, each country would focus it's own niche unless purposely competing to maximize quality while reducing cost of a sector.

And generally the baseline norm of countries should not include perfectly free trade and, instead, not allow import of foreign goods that have been subsidized to costs below what local producers can make. If local producers cannot compete, there won't be local producers long. That isn't, in all situations, bad. For example, a country may produce no clothes, but import clothing from another country cheaper than it would make clothing locally; meanwhile, subsidizing, producing and exporting back something else, like food, for a mutually beneficial exchange. Countries should not be just letting their producers get removed with no plan tho, as has happened historically to places like Haiti and thrown them in to extreme poverty as all wealth gets sucked out and none brought in. So baseline trade rules for countries should account for and protect against this and it only be allowed to happen because of purposely specializing in and exporting out another field.

Land Ownership.

Landlords are a menace. Pricemanipulated scarcity of housing for profits with houses and properties sitting empty while homelessness runs rampant is disgusting and obviously not an attribute of an enlightened society.

I say this with not a solution in mind but seeking a 'best way'.

State Property historically tried to address this. It may be better, sometimes, for homes to be of the government than land held by few wealthy individuals and businesses. But, in all these situations, the home is not really that of the being, it is a property of an overlord. Even buying a property in capitalism does not elevate one to actual rulership of said area. Taxes must be constantly paid to larger monsters to continue to hold the property and it must adhere to the rulings of the county. All of that feels wrong to me.

Imagine if there were no humans. I would just find a place by the river and some natural distance around it, shaped by natural features, is how far I would often be and consider the domain for which I am responsible. It is my responsibility that the beings in this area, creatures and plants, are happy and content and growing healthily as people and, through the communication coming from them, feedbacklooping in to the environment to further improve it's overall emotional energy. So I claim specifically the area I find sacred and would like to be proud of; because it is the appropriate size I can be responsible for.

Somewhere in humans conquering each other, staking claims for profit, and monetizing each other, real reasons for territory, not tied to money and the military power to enforce ownership, were lost. Humans also feel a need to tailor their rules that affect everyone to the worst beings among them. Of course they need to because, otherwise, such 'worst humans' would get away with what they shouldn't.

Land ownership, among humans, has warped far from anything pure and good. So I am lost on how best to structure land ownership in a realm of humans.

For sure the landlords and property scarcity issue needs to be different. Perhaps not full State Property but for the nation to have enough housing in each area that people, with no restriction on income level, can, at baseline, have a home. I personally get government benefits for being a crazyperson and it is just enough to live on with no excess. So I am stable yet am growing myself into and producing things that will get me out of poverty in to a realm of excess and ability to spend on what I choose. I think housing can work healthily the same. Baseline housing for all people should be a reality. People will still work to rise to something better if that is their destiny. Landlords should be optional, and will probably fade except for the rarest actual worthy landlords with properties people WANT to rent for some reason (not NEED to rent).

I see humans far from the ideal. But this is a start.

This is not about foreign trade, of which I am of the mentality of Fredrick the Great and believe producers within should be freed and empowered while restrictions are placed where streams of wealth are being siphoned out of the country. This is also not about abusable federal reserve shenanigans.

Taxes I don't believe in personal or land taxes. I think neither the rich nor the poor actually want to pay taxes; it isn't a worldbrightening activity. Nor should there be negative feedback on improving ones home (as there is with property taxes).

It could, however, be argued that a just nation would have a 1%(or other low) tax across all sectors tieing the prosperity of the government to the prosperity of those within. The government should want for the businesses of the people to be successful and bringing in money and, through that success, be prosperous itself. In that sense I find taxes a healthy placing of positive feedback for the government.

Nationalization of business. What if, instead of taxes for income, a government were to nationalize an industry tied to it's natural resources? I wouldn't say Oil or mention attempts by various demonized countries because I don't want to be assasinated by the CIA. But would anyone beside wealthy execs and corrupt worldcontrolling powerplayers with horrid control over the CIA actually find it bad that a country owns one of it's own industries or resources? The people of the country would like it if the wealth were to actually nullify taxes or otherwise reach them.

Back to the 1% tax idea. An issue with current government is, when they want more money, they raise taxes; when they should be raising the prosperity of the people. If they want 2%, they should not raise taxes to two percent while not raising the prosperity of businesses; that hurts their own people for government's personal gain. If they want 2%, they should be doubling the prosperity of their businesses, and that initial 1% then brings in twice as much. So, should there be taxes, they should be low, to tie government prosperity to prosperity of the governed, and never rise.

Currently, I would do both ideas. Nationalize one or more nationbased industries while also doing a low blanket tax across sectors. I think, to help with positive feedback, politician income from lobbyists should be reduced and replaced by an income stream from the areas they are responsible for improving (with amount dependent on said areas prosperity). Should a politician increase prosperity for those they are responsible for, they receive greater income themself. Political choices should have nothing to do with selling out to the highest bidder.

Upon becoming president, Luigi Mangione is to receive a full pardon and personal apology from the president for being president of a country with such a horrid healthcare system.

Luigi is then to be asked to head a new government department tasked with transitioning American healthcare to be on par, and then better, than the healthcare of the rest of the world.

Afterward, should he continue fighting for the people and wish to branch out in to modernizing other fields, he may.