Create zones within states in order to achive Utopia - good idea?

Because with that, it will just be the strong pushing the weak around.

 

They would go into the Libertarian zone - because this ideology is right wing.

- - - Updated - - -

The State will then intervene, in order to rectify the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

You will have your Libertarian zone to live in , so what's the complaint?

 

Key to libertarianism is freedom. This whole segregation idea is intrinsically anti-libertarian.

 

Freedom within the zone - or do you want the whole World?

 

What do you mean by the Federal state being socialist in structure? Do they have control of internal policy within the federal bodies (the libertarian and liberal democratic camps)?

Creating all these separate ideological zones is silly. Just create lots of zones and let people vote however they like on internal policy within their zone. The goal should be to have the same system we have now - but to locate sovereignty somewhere other than at the national level; with federal bodies/states. In this way, more people can have the policy that fits their location rather than everyone having a one-size-fits-all national policy.

You'll have to forgive my horrible skills with Microsoft Paint, but this is the basic idea...



[hr][/hr]

This is not a new concept - the Articles of Confederation established a system pretty close to the one I outlined above: states had pretty much full sovereignty.

 

When you say "rectify", do you mean that state may force them to move/relocate?

 

Not as such, but they do have an over-ride power, to use if, or more like when, the Libertarian zone goes tits up.

Bascially the Fed govt sets up the system, maintains the walls, but lets the right wing libertarians slug out their utopian dream, just wait for slavery to reappear IOW

 

When the Libertarian zone turns into a fascist state, the State will leave it, until they come begging for aid - then the State may get rid of the worst offenders and let the process start again, but perhaps in a new area - those who want fascism may be got rid of into the fascist zone etc..

 

So it'd be something like the US pre civil-war? Where States mostly had control, but the national government had legislative powers of its own for (mostly) purely national matters?

That's certainly an improvement. I just don't get why you'd create ideological zones - why not make general zones and let the people within take them in whatever direction they please?

 

Typical liberal response to freedom, build walls around people they don't like to keep them safe from reality.

 

We already have that, and in most places it doesn't work out so well - ie: people always arguing etc.


So, if we put all the like minded folk in their own areas, then utopia can be achieved, in theory at least.

 

freedom? - it's merely a charade.
very few are truly free

Let those who want to exploit others do so, but in their own zone

 

Where? Not in the US, certainly not in Australia. Neither in the UK from what I hear.

Federalism is dead. It was hardly ever alive.

 

You seem to be describing property.

 

you cant with liberalism

 

sure,why not - in Libertarian zone private property can be king - let them slug it out to the death if needs be

meanwhile, the main zone (the socialist one) will be based on the community of public ownership

 

public ownership is a farce
public ownership is nothing but a PC way of saying government owned and divvied out to who the government sees fit to receive it for a political outcome

 

Conservatism is just as much to blame. The right has been just as vehement in their support for central control.

They just claim otherwise. Look at the rise in central spending under conservative governments, they're all the same.

People themselves are a little better, but are generally fine with Reagan accelerating Federal spending, central drug policy, a standing army, etc.

 

your getting republican and conservative confused
many republicans claim they are conservatives but spend like a liberal they are not conservatives

 

That may be true, but surely better than a free for all, like we have now?

And of course, only those that are ideologically pure enough can enter the government in the first place, this can be done with the aid of selective breeding and genetic engineering, and advanced education at kindergarten level, amongst other things.

Plus nowadays we have the use of great computers which can massively help with the redistribution process.

 

As I said, the bulk of individual conservatives support this sort of thing, at least by proxy, but usually directly. They vaguely support cutting taxes, but in effect this support amounts to a 10 or 15% reduction in effective taxation/GDP. They have too many of their own favorite programs like defense, social security and Medicare (sort of split on this one, but propose their abolition and watch the sparks fly), the war on drugs, and all variety of infrastructure projects.

I did not mean to single out Republicans, but conservatives in general.

 

Yeah, that's a real good excuse to limit more freedom. Sheesh.

 

Dude we haven't had truly conservative government since the great Depression. The Dems have held one or both houses of for seventy of the last 80 years and of the ten years when the Reps did control both houses a Democrat held the white house for six and at the end of that six years we were as close to a balanced budget as we'd been since the 1920's.

 

He is right and you are right. There are progressive republicans too. The first progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt, was a Republican.

 

Knights of Ni..............a reference to Monty Python and The Holy Grail