Re (from
Lostatsea):
"As long as things like abuse, neglect, and physical harm is not inflicted on others and everyone is allowed to be who they are of their own free will, then they should do so without fear of judgement for simply being different from the accepted norm."
Some things begin to get complicated here. First, how should we define "abuse?" heck even "neglect?" Does a spanking count as physical harm? Does sado-masochism count as physical harm? What if the masochist is so submissive that xe isn't quite sure whether xe consents?
Also what do we do with someone who says, "Who I am is a person who never has to see or hear about homosexuality." Not that the words in question are faulty, just that at some point we'd have to draw the line between, for example, "who someone is," and, "who someone can't be because it would violate someone else's rights and freedoms." What if "who I am" is a 30-year-old teacher who's romantically entwined with her 15-year-old student? What if "who I am" is a respectable nieghbor who lives in a nieghborhood with houses of conservative colors and appearance? Can I call the cops to stop someone nextdoor from painting their house purple?
In a nutshell, how do we draw the line between where one person's nose ends, and the next person's nose begins?
Next, how similar is your plan to communism? "From each according to hir ability, to each according to hir need." No money, right? How do we then define "ability" and "need?" Who's required to do which work; who's allowed to receive which benefits from which work?
Re:
"Some people believe that if we do away with money everyone will quit working. I don't believe this."
I agree. Most people want to make some kind of valuable contribution to society, however they can. And they are inclined to do work on the things that most interest them.
We are also agreed that there is far too much gap between the rich and poor in the United States (to say nothing of even more corrupt countries).
As for getting on the Presidential ticket, that would take a lot of doing. First of all, there are a battery of tests you must pass to qualify to run, such as being born/raised in the United States, being of a certain age, having certain experience, etc.
Then there is the problem of becoming the official candidate for the Republican or Democratic Party. Because any third-party candidate is virtually guaranteed to lose. Ross Perot came about as close as any third-party can get, largely because he had buttloads of money and connections.
Which brings us to next problem. It's virtually possible to get elected President without buttloads of money and connections. You need serious airtime on TV. And what if you couldn't get nominated as a third-party candidate? Would you try to run as a write-in? I'm guessing no President has ever won as a write-in (but I could be wrong).
You'll need a platform that appeals to enough people to make them want to vote for you. And remember that people tend to fear change. So if you are selling a lot of revolutionary ideas, you'd have to be really skillful at selling them.
I know I sound like a wet blanket, but I only mean to describe the current political landscape as I see it. Lots and lots of obstacles to overcome, that's all I'm saying.
I'd love to have a President who made radical sweeping changes for the good -- such as cooling the military engines and sticking to protecting our own borders. Although, helping the Ukrainian people at this time for example is something that I'd support, and would hope that many nations (not just the U.S.) would pitch in (and brainstorm to come up with a plan that would involve the least violence and the most long-term improvement of people's lives in that land).
A really great President would have both realistic plans for improving things in the short term, as well as realistic plans for improving things even more idealistically in the long-term. And he/she'd be able to sell these ideas convincingly to the American people. And he/she would have a talent for convincing the ever-at-odds Republican-versus-Democratic House and Senate to work together on making these changes happen.
A great President must often balance complicated moral issues as well. When I saw the 2012 film "Lincoln," I was struck by how many "shady backroom deals" Lincoln had to condone in order to get the Thirteenth Amendment passed. A leader's decisions aren't always cut and dry where ethics are concerned.
Perhaps this thread will offer suggestions for future Presidential candidates, even if we're unable to field a viable candidate of our own? What would it take to get the kinds of changes we'd like to see into the White House?