As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Policies of Your Ideal Government

KamarKamar Registered User regular
edited February 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
The idea for this thread came to me after about 3 hours of laying around trying to get to sleep last night, so here it is.

We all debate and argue, why this is wrong and this is right. In theory, when we argue about politics it is because we want to convince people we are right and eventually make our way of thinking supported by legal structures.

So what policies would you like to see, assuming that one day in the future society agreed with you, that all your ideals became reality?

Let's try to keep this serious, and if you want to bitch about someone else' ideas, make sure you've posted your own first.

Spoilered to reduce Wall of Text
Stuff I'd Definitely Do

-Marriage for all, straight, gay, poly, whatever; will need lawyers at hand to hammer details on certain ones, but people should be able to get basic rights like hospital visitation and shit without fuss.

-Everything else that needs to be done regarding gay rights; adoption, DADT, etc, handled. Make homosexuals a protected class. And maybe some other "deviants" too, if any still need it.

-Trivialize or outright abolish the Senate. We are one country now, not a loose alliance of states with a shared military.

-Expand social programs; bitch about a welfare state all you want. I've got a big monkeysphere, what can I say.

-Reform prisons; emphasize reform over punishment.

-Abolish the death penalty

-Single-payer health care

-Cut the shit out of military spending. Worried about the jobs? I'm sure those companies will figure out useful non-military shit, like new energy technology, to make. Maybe they can get funding for that.

-Get rid of all 'victimless crime' majority-morality shit; Drugs, simulated kiddy porn, you name it I'm legalizing it. We can bring the hammer down on these people when they do something that endangers others, like how drinking is legal but drunk driving is not. Also, we can tax it now, fun times.

-Taxes. Guess what, I'm taxing the shit out of rich people. Maybe 70% of everything over 5m? Consider it something like noblesse oblige, and if that doesn't do it for you consider it a 'self-centered asshole' tax.

-Fix the loopholes that mean Warren Buffet pays a smaller % of taxes than his secretary and cleaner

-No more private schools or homeschooling. Sorry, your cult can duke it out with SCIENCE! if it wants your kid's mind. Also, major schooling reforms and tons more funding; don't know what needs doing exactly, so I'll consult the experts.

-Firearms: You know the extensive classes and checks required by some states for concealed carry permits? That's the new licensing requirement for all firearms; actually, we'll make it work for things like tasers too. Concealed carry will require even more. Oh, and lets get rid of the more useless laws like the 'guns that look scary' ban.

-Campaign reform. Our government should be less...buyable.

-Banking, business, etc reform. They won't do the right thing on their own, so we'll make them.

Things that bug me but I'd need to consult others on

-How kids are basically their parents property, and other age-related things. What makes an 18 year old different from a 14 year old? If we're protecting them from their own stupidity, they shouldn't be adults until their late twenties (I say this as a 20-year-old). Maybe some psychologists can come up with a reasonable testing system for adulthood that those under 18 can take?

-Climate change and energy stuff; I don't know enough about this to make an informed decision about solutions, but I know something needs doing.

-Immigration. I'll tentatively say I'd probably tighten up the border, make it easier to come in legally, and do something to help naturalize those already here. But I'm not sure what the effects would be.

-Jobs. This probably would tie in with the energy stuff, and maybe the business reform stuff; bring more jobs back here? Economics is my weak point.

So how about you, D&D? What would you like to see, in an ideal future?

I am primarily referring to the US government. If you live somewhere else, though, feel free to tell us what you'd do to Canada or whatever.

And this is more about the policies you'd like to see, not the actual form of the government. "How do we treat gays?" instead of "How do we decide how to treat gays?"

Kamar on
«134

Posts

  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Two chicks at the same time, man.

    Tach on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I would simultaneously bridge the separation of powers and engage in the quintessential "two chicks at the same time" dream.

    Oh yes. Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and me. SMATOTUS. One-on-one-on-one in the Highest Court in the Land.

    Robes only, no executive privilege, Final Destination.

    KalTorak on
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Which government are we talking about, here? My state government, the US government, or all the world's governments? That'll affect my answer quite a bit.

    CycloneRanger on
  • THEPAIN73THEPAIN73 Shiny. Real shiny.Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Tach wrote: »
    Two chicks at the same time, man.

    Beat me to it.

    THEPAIN73 on
    Facebook | Amazon | Twitter | Youtube | PSN: ThePain73 | Steam: ThePain73
    3DS FC: 5343-7720-0490
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Good point, I'll clarify which government in the OP.

    Kamar on
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I'd make it legal to shoot a man for looking at me cock eyed.

    Al_wat on
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Let's try to keep this serious

    You didn't really expect this to happen, did you?

    Spaten Optimator on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Let's try to keep this serious

    You didn't really expect this to happen, did you?

    I can dream.

    Kamar on
  • BackstopBackstop Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    For the US government, I would institute
    • term limits for Congress (nothing too short, like maybe 12 years)
    • Assets frozen while in office (no bribes, book deals, or insider trading possible)
    • prior employment must indicate proficiency for appointed officials
    • some kind of educational requirement for voting
    For the last one I am hoping my status as god-king conferred some sort of higher intelligence because as of this moment I can't really think of a good way to restrict dumbasses from voting that wouldn't select out certain views. I was going to say GED required or something but that's no barrier.

    Backstop on
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I would banish all forms of government and law except my own that I enacted on that day.

    The law I would pass on that day would be:

    None shall pass.



    Then I would watch the after-effects in the following days as people try to wrap their heads around the law and make things fit to its decree.

    Lilnoobs on
  • Mr.SunshineMr.Sunshine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Destroy the world and remake it in my own image. (Let fly all nukes!)

    Less people in the world means less things to deal with. The planet as a whole going to live, it survived bigger things than what a mere human can do.

    Mr.Sunshine on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Get rid of all 'victimless crime' majority-morality shit; Drugs, simulated kiddy porn, you name it I'm legalizing it. We can bring the hammer down on these people when they do something that endangers others, like how drinking is legal but drunk driving is not. Also, we can tax it now, fun times.

    The latter is legal by SCOTUS already. The former isn't actually illegal for morality reasons no matter how many times pot hysteria films from the 50s are shown. Before medicine can be sold it must be tested to make sure it a) does what it the manufactures claim b) the side effects are known. "Drugs" are illegal because they either haven't been properly put through the system by the FDA, or have been and have been found to have a large potential for abuse (generally psychological or physically addictive along with potential recreational effects or in the case of steroids/HGH health effects that may seem beneficial but has long term detrimental effects that might lead to recreational use) and are categorized by how much clinical utility exists for the drug. You can quibble about whether pot should be treated like tobacco or alcohol (or vice versa) or rescheduled or whether it should be decriminalized or whatever, but to apply that to all drugs is shortsighted at best. It suggests a severe lack of perspective of the actual effect drugs have. More methheads is not the solution.

    No one would call for the elimination of the examination of meat because of a love of horse meat. Why people apply this to drugs because of the love of pot (most commonly the basis of this position) I have no idea.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    The first thing that springs to my mind is to repeal the Dutch blasphemy law.

    Mind you, there are parties moving to repeal the antiquated thing, but they get constantly blocked by the two Christian parties in power, as well as their centre-left coalition partner (because they want to keep the coalition alive... insofar as this coalition can still said to be alive).

    That's the biggest one.

    WotanAnubis on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Get rid of all 'victimless crime' majority-morality shit; Drugs, simulated kiddy porn, you name it I'm legalizing it. We can bring the hammer down on these people when they do something that endangers others, like how drinking is legal but drunk driving is not. Also, we can tax it now, fun times.

    The latter is legal by SCOTUS already. The former isn't actually illegal for morality reasons no matter how many times pot hysteria films from the 50s are shown. Before medicine can be sold it must be tested to make sure it a) does what it the manufactures claim b) the side effects are known. "Drugs" are illegal because they either haven't been properly put through the system by the FDA, or have been and have been found to have a large potential for abuse (generally psychological or physically addictive along with potential recreational effects or in the case of steroids/HGH health effects that may seem beneficial but has long term detrimental effects that might lead to recreational use) and are categorized by how much clinical utility exists for the drug. You can quibble about whether pot should be treated like tobacco or alcohol (or vice versa) or rescheduled or whether it should be decriminalized or whatever, but to apply that to all drugs is shortsighted at best. It suggests a severe lack of perspective of the actual effect drugs have. More methheads is not the solution.

    No one would call for the elimination of the examination of meat because of a love of horse meat. Why people apply this to drugs because of the love of pot (most commonly the basis of this position) I have no idea.

    Fair enough. I considered adding more to that, but I also realize it's completely arbitrary to allow alchohol and tobacco and ban pot, cocaine, and whatnot. We either need to ban them all or we legalize them all. And I'm not a fan of banning where education can do the job; people smoke far less now because of education of the dangers, and I have a (perhaps naive?) belief that the same will follow with other dangerous substances.

    And I never drink, smoke, or take anything, and pretty much loathe being around people who do, so it's definitely not a for-my-own-benefit thing.

    And simulated and cartoon kiddy porn and its ilk was made illegal again by the PROTECT Act, though I doubt it'll withstand the SCOTUS any better. Though that was just an example; most sex-related laws in general are pretty pointless and retarded.

    Hell, I'd even tentatively allow non-harmful bestiality; animals don't consent to being eaten either, and I doubt they care about sex the way people do. Bust people for animal abuse, not giving Fido a blowjob.

    Kamar on
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Well, let's see. I don't think it's my right to force any kind of broad, sweeping social change on the rest of the country, so I'd limit myself to purely pragmatic issues. There are a few that I can think of off the top of my head:

    1) Rework the nation's power grid. Start phasing-in fission powerplants (instead of coal) as our baseline power source, with as much solar/wind/geothermal as is possible. Update the power transmission grid. I don't want any "construct additional pylons" messages for a long-ass time.

    2) Transportation. It is inappropriate that we move so much by heavy truck in the US; an updated rail network (likely electric) would help. High-speed passenger trains would be constructed in some areas as well.

    3) Greatly increased government support for the sciences, especially cutting-edge or highly speculative work. There is a tremendous amount to be done without immediate, predictable economic benefit that the free market is loathe to fund. Things like nuclear fusion research, construction of new particle colliders, etc. would be funded under this mandate. Genetics research, astronomy, ecology, geology, all this stuff. If I'm going to be God-King, then America is going to lead the world in science. Time to crank that research slider up to 100%. Most importantly this sort of funding would be reliable across multiple administrations—none of this "start working on the Constellation program/SSC/whatever now only to have it canceled in the next administration" bullshit.

    A personal one:
    3) An organized database of all US law, including national, state, local, etc. laws. This database would be comprehensive to the extent that if something isn't listed it's not the law anymore. It should not be a fucking mystery whether any given activity is legal in a given area in the age of the Internet, and it shouldn't take me three goddamn hours to figure out the legality of a certain type of rifle in a state I'm traveling through.


    I'm sure there are plenty more I'll think of as time goes on.

    CycloneRanger on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I would put Glenn beck in charge of one half the planet and try to find a black muslim communist to put in charge of the other half, hilarity ensues while me and the world's 20 hottest scientists move to our moonbase

    override367 on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I believe that any unilateral use of power by what amounts to essentially an unelected despot, such as I would be in this situation, is immoral.

    So I suppose I would do a bunch of shit to illustrate this point. Probably start by nuking Mt. Rushmore (after clearing out the peoples). Then send a bunch of nukes to the moon in a pattern that carves out a giant pentagram or penis shape for all to see.

    Basically large scale vandalism with nuclear weapons so people will know in the future not to ever let someone be a god-king again.

    Qingu on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I suppose putting Boobs and a cock on the moon would force us to reform our prudishness, as there'd be no way to PROTECT THE CHILDREN from it

    override367 on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Fine, then think of it like this Qingu and others of that mindset: Pretend you could convince everyone in the country that X thing you wanted was the right thing, through the sheer brilliance of your arguments. Or maybe for this day alone, everyone in the country is a selfless, kind genius with an eye towards the future.

    The point of the exercise isn't the god-king bit, it's the ideal government changes bit.

    Kamar on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    My first law will be:

    "Be Excellent to Each Other."

    My second law will be:

    "Party On, Dudes."

    GungHo on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Fine, then think of it like this Qingu and others of that mindset: Pretend you could convince everyone in the country that X thing you wanted was the right thing, through the sheer brilliance of your arguments. Or maybe for this day alone, everyone in the country is a selfless, kind genius with an eye towards the future.

    The point of the exercise isn't the god-king bit, it's the ideal government changes bit.
    Man ... I don't want to thread shit. But I have a problem with these kind of hypotheticals.

    If I could convince everyone to think what I think about proper governance then what you're asking me isn't really what I'd do if I were god-king, you're asking me what I think the ideal government would look like.

    And would this include convincing everyone in the whole world? Or just America? Because my answer would be different.

    I'm basically a textbook progressive on almost all issues though. Except I'm probably less respectful of religion than most progressives.

    Qingu on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Fine, then think of it like this Qingu and others of that mindset: Pretend you could convince everyone in the country that X thing you wanted was the right thing, through the sheer brilliance of your arguments. Or maybe for this day alone, everyone in the country is a selfless, kind genius with an eye towards the future.

    The point of the exercise isn't the god-king bit, it's the ideal government changes bit.

    You should probably make a new thread with a similar subject, but require people design the government through a veil of ignorance.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yeah, I should have worded the OP differently to clarify that the point was the ideal government. I screwed that up, think I'll go change it in a minute.

    Anyways, lets keep it to America, although that would include foreign policy as well.

    Edit: That's a pretty good idea, Loren, although maybe I should just retool this one?

    Kamar on
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Yeah, I should have worded the OP differently to clarify that the point was the ideal government. I screwed that up, think I'll go change it in a minute.

    Anyways, lets keep it to America, although that would include foreign policy as well.
    Ideal government or ideal government policies? I do not think they are remotely the same question, and I've mostly been thinking of this in terms of ideal policies.

    CycloneRanger on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Edit: That's a pretty good idea, Loren, although maybe I should just retool this one?

    You could. But it's not like threads are super valuable real estate that must be preserved.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I'm mostly thinking in terms of policies; I'm not so much interested in the form of the government so much as what is happening to the people within it. Although you could certainly make the argument that certain forms of government would be better for the people, the questions I'm really asking here are more of the "How would you treat gays?" type than the "How would you ideally turn the will of the people into law?"

    Kamar on
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I would pass a law to change the legal definition of 'day' to mean 'the period of time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun 100 times'

    then we would enter the golden [strike]century[/strike] day

    Dunadan019 on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    If I could convince everyone to think what I think about proper governance then what you're asking me isn't really what I'd do if I were god-king, you're asking me what I think the ideal government would look like.
    Yeah... the whole god-king for a day implies I'm a god-king for a day. So, I'm going to do godly-kingly stuff for a day. Most of which is going to be extremely perverse and would have nothing to do with what I think is best for humanity. i.e. Universal health care is several bullet points behind the things I want with the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders.

    GungHo on
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    I would banish all forms of government and law except my own that I enacted on that day.

    The law I would pass on that day would be:

    None shall pass.



    Then I would watch the after-effects in the following days as people try to wrap their heads around the law and make things fit to its decree.


    Haha, this is the best.

    Slider on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    (1) My ideal government treats religion the same as any other political or moral ideology. Religion would get no protected status in my ideal government by virtue of it being a "religion," as opposed to, say, communism, pacifism, or white supremacism.

    Religious people, like communists, pacifists, and white supremacists, would be protected by free speech laws. And religious organizations, if they can demonstrate they are nonprofit, would benefit from laws governing any nonprofit organization.

    (2) My ideal government would stop fighting "wars" and start prosecuting "police actions" in hostile zones with the UN's approval. Terrorists are not sovereign states able to declare war, they are criminals. This means giving civilians certain rights, like, at minimum, the right not to be blown up as collateral damage in an attempt to kill criminals. Replace lethal military technology with less lethal technology and invest heavily in this. There would be no "fifth category" of POWs without habeus corpus rights that we can decide unilaterally are "just too dangerous to release or to try in a court." In fact, there would be no more military trials. People we capture would face trial in an international civilian hybrid court.

    (3) Single payer health care.

    (4) High progressive taxation increasing up to 70% or so for multimillionaires and beyond.

    (5) Probably a bunch of other stuff too. With (2) being by far the highest priority.

    Edit: of course, legalize weed. Priority #2. Maybe 3 after single payer, I don't know.

    Qingu on
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Higher level language courses will be a communication/art credit and not a mandatory assignment.

    All schools shall teach from The Joys of Math instead of any other textbook.

    Physics(the kind with math) shall be taught from kindergarten onward in order to shut up the kids who don't understand how long division will help them.

    Major cities will begin rack farming. I'm not paying eight fucking dollars for a bag of mixed veggies.

    The FDA will stop harassing anyone who mentions the words "W ill h e l m Re i c h".

    Anyone who tries to get Catcher in the Rye banned will be tortured to death by an army of pterodactotrons.

    All hospitals will give free immunostimulants to cancer patients.

    Edith Upwards on
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).

    Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.

    SkyGheNe on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited January 2010
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    I would pass a law to change the legal definition of 'day' to mean 'the period of time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun 100 times'

    then we would enter the golden [strike]century[/strike] day

    Look, I don't know if you've read Invisible Man by Ellison, but you do NOT want to enter the Golden Day.

    Picardathon on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited January 2010
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).

    Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.

    Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
    Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.

    Picardathon on
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).

    Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.

    Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
    Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.

    Um, I'm not flat broke. I'm actually far from it. Thanks for thinking, stereotypically, that those who study the humanities are doomed to be poor and also asserting that not having an abundance of money is a bad thing. At least I now know that you buy into "success" or the worth of a person being tied to how much they make.

    But good point. All human beings will be required to take four years of the humanities since high school still doesn't produce decent human beings.

    If you fail at being a decent human being - you get to go back for another four years. Or rehabilitation.

    SkyGheNe on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Exercise in futility. Any and every government will be flawed because it will be designed by flawed people run by flawed people. Anybody that has read the Federalist Papers should understand this.

    All we can do is try to do our best for other people.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited January 2010
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).

    Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.

    Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
    Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.

    Um, I'm not flat broke. I'm actually far from it. Thanks for thinking, stereotypically, that those who study the humanities are doomed to be poor, as if not having an abundance of money were a bad thing.

    But good point. All human beings will be required to take four years of the humanities since high school still doesn't produce decent human beings.

    If you fail at being a decent human being - you get to go back for another four years. Or rehabilitation.

    True, that was trolling, I apologize.

    The real problem is that supposedly liberal arts programs are supposed to foster an open view point on life. You are then taking that supposedly open view point and have come to two conclusions
    1: Former liberal arts students, including yourself, are "good" human beings.
    2: All other human beings are "bad".
    This is, of course, your viewpoint, but apparently you hold your viewpoint in such esteem that you are willing to shove it down everyone's throat, at massive cost which will most likely result in massively increased taxes. I'm pretty sure YOU need to go back to school and figure out what you were supposed to get out of your education.

    The problem with this thread is that it encourages conversations like this, where we all state our most aggressive viewpoints and then yell at each other about it. It's essentially a concern trolling thread.

    As for something constructive, I want universal concealed carry. If you want to shoot someone, prepare to have your head blown off.

    EDIT: Wait a minute, did you seriously say rehabilitation? I suppose this would occur in some sort of camp in the middle of the desert?

    Picardathon on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).

    Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.

    So it takes 8 years to train an engineer/chemist/biologist, and a cool 16? for a doctor. Turn about is fair play then, and I think the engineers would handle anthro/psych 100s much better than liberal arts students would handle chem/bio/physics 100s. Intro to Anthropology vs calc based Statics and Dynamics. Hell just force everyone to take a few CS classes, so they stop bitching about their 'stupid fucking computer'. The scientific illiteracy of this country is much more dangerous to our future than some slightly misogynistic code monkeys.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I will devote all resources to developing a benevolent AI, give it a set of socially liberal guidelines with a focus at keeping society working and healthy, and give it absolute authority.

    override367 on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I will devote all resources to developing a benevolent AI, give it a set of socially liberal guidelines with a focus at keeping society working and healthy, and give it absolute authority.

    Someone is going to forget a semi-colon in the programming somewhere.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Sign In or Register to comment.