[BartSimpson]

I've been bouncing this idea around for a long time and recently it coalesced and I'm posting it here as a serious proposal to resolve the sometimes fractious differences we have in our countries.

Where I work we have competing unions and your benefits and working conditions vary according to the union you belong to. If you take a different job in the organization you will be represented by a different union.

So what if political parties had collective bargaining agreements with the government?

Your taxes and benefits would be dependent upon which party you joined.

If you want single-payer heath care just join the party that offers it.

Do you want lower taxes? Join the party with the lowest taxes.

You want guns to be banned? Join the party that bans guns and you won't be allowed to own one.

Of course, everyone would have to pay for services that everyone uses but it's the extra things that would be apportioned by party membership.

My only caveat would be that party benefits would have to get paid out of the pool of funds exclusive to that party.

You don't get to tap someone else's money to pay for your Utopian dreams. They also don't get to tap your money to pay for things you don't like.

Does that seem fair?

To me it does because it gives people choices and they can choose what they want on their own and not have to protest what someone else is forcing on them.

[DrCaleb]

I see one spanner in your gears. I like X, and Y and Z - but three different parties offer each of these. How can I get all of the things I have a right to or desire for; join each party?

What if I don't agree with the other things offered by those parties?

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I see one spanner in your gears. I like X, and Y and Z - but three different parties offer each of these. How can I get all of the things I have a right to or desire for; join each party?

What if I don't agree with the other things offered by those parties?

Start a new party.

I imagine even in the USA such a system would facilitate a multiparty system as opposed to the current system in which political power is the only prize for the parties.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I see one spanner in your gears. I like X, and Y and Z - but three different parties offer each of these. How can I get all of the things I have a right to or desire for; join each party?

What if I don't agree with the other things offered by those parties?

Start a new party.

I imagine even in the USA such a system would facilitate a multiparty system as opposed to the current system in which political power is the only prize for the parties.

But then you run into the flaw of 'rights as an a la carte' service. You'd only have rights if you could afford to start a new party, or join an existing one.

It wouldn't be fundamentally different, where you only have freedom now if you can afford lawyers and politicians. So you'd eliminate the politicians getting rich off the lobbyists, and replace them with parties getting rich off selling rights back to the citizens.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If the rights already endowed to the people, paying to access them seems somehow wrong.

Sorry Bart, it sounded interesting at first, but the more I get into it the more it seems flawed.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But then you run into the flaw of 'rights as an a la carte' service. You'd only have rights if you could afford to start a new party, or join an existing one. (

Where in blazes are you getting this from? I never said a thing about rights. I'm talking about services.

You're making this up and arguing against it. I really expect better of you than that.

In short I'm proposing that political parties do for their members some of the things that unions do for theirs. Primarily, that's to use the power of collective bargaining to create a deal for their members.

But just for their members.

Everyone would have the choice not to join that party and get their services. Just like you can choose to work someplace with a different union that gets different benefits.

You'd get a menu of options like this...

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I've been bouncing this idea around for a long time and recently it coalesced and I'm posting it here as a serious proposal to resolve the sometimes fractious differences we have in our countries.

Where I work we have competing unions and your benefits and working conditions vary according to the union you belong to. If you take a different job in the organization you will be represented by a different union.

So what if political parties had collective bargaining agreements with the government?

Your taxes and benefits would be dependent upon which party you joined.

If you want single-payer heath care just join the party that offers it.

Do you want lower taxes? Join the party with the lowest taxes.

You want guns to be banned? Join the party that bans guns and you won't be allowed to own one.

Of course, everyone would have to pay for services that everyone uses but it's the extra things that would be apportioned by party membership.

My only caveat would be that party benefits would have to get paid out of the pool of funds exclusive to that party.

You don't get to tap someone else's money to pay for your Utopian dreams. They also don't get to tap your money to pay for things you don't like.

Does that seem fair?

To me it does because it gives people choices and they can choose what they want on their own and not have to protest what someone else is forcing on them.

The different groups would have to live in separate segregated areas or else it wouldn't make sense. So what you're basically proposing is breaking up the country?

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The different groups would have to live in separate segregated areas or else it wouldn't make sense. So what you're basically proposing is breaking up the country?

No, they'd no more have to live in different areas than union members have to live in different areas from non-union people.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But then you run into the flaw of 'rights as an a la carte' service. You'd only have rights if you could afford to start a new party, or join an existing one. (

Where in blazes are you getting this from? I never said a thing about rights. I'm talking about services.

You're making this up and arguing against it. I really expect better of you than that.

From this:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You want guns to be banned? Join the party that bans guns and you won't be allowed to own one.

I took that as buying and selling of 'rights'. If your second amendment right is up for sale, logically the other are too. A party could be formed that you join and lose your right to unlawful search and seizure, or right to a free press. Or am I mistaken?

That seems backwards to me, you pay to join a party and lose your rights. The way it works now seems to work. You don't believe in owning guns, you don't have to buy any. In your new system, you still might not agree with gun ownership, but you might have neighbours that own guns, so nothing else has changed.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

In short I'm proposing that political parties do for their members some of the things that unions do for theirs. Primarily, that's to use the power of collective bargaining to create a deal for their members.

But just for their members.

Everyone would have the choice not to join that party and get their services. Just like you can choose to work someplace with a different union that gets different benefits.

You'd get a menu of options like this...

I kind of get what you are saying here, but I still think it's trading one flawed system that benefits the few; to another flawed system that excludes many. How much added bureaucracy would be needed to administer it?

For some, like "Legal Drugs" - if you are Republican you can't have any, but they would presumably be all over because everyone else has them legally. Would there be some added bureaucracy just to deny Republicans from walking into a weed shop and buying some? (or other services that others can and cannot access, like Public Schools). Or just some 'party card' that authorizes things?

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Or just some 'party card' that authorizes things?

There you go.

You show your card and you get the services that the card entitles you to.

Not unlike your CAA card, bank card, or etc.

As to how much bureaucracy is needed? Well, whatever that is your party will pay for it. My party will pay for its own bureaucracy.

Funny thing, is I suspect that with this system we'd still end up with fewer bureaucrats.

Why? Because no matter which party you choose you'll have more of a sense of ownership than you do with government services as they are because you'd be paying for what you want. So you'd be a little peeved if your bureaucrats got a raise and the party paid for it by cutting your healthcare.

*and to revist the guns thing if you were a Democrat then your party card would not permit you to purchase a gun at a gun store if the party banned guns.

And Republicans would not be able to buy weed if the GOP banned weed for its members.

In any case I doubt that any party would place restrictions on its users even if it could.

[herbie]

If you think treating parts of the population differently is right why not just make them sew a Star of David on their lapel?
Then you won't have to bake their wedding cakes or treat them at "your hospital" etc?

Your chart is quite interesting, shows Republican as the definition of a total asshole.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The different groups would have to live in separate segregated areas or else it wouldn't make sense. So what you're basically proposing is breaking up the country?

No, they'd no more have to live in different areas than union members have to live in different areas from non-union people.

No but think about it. I vote for the low tax party so pay less taxes than others. I'm used to living in third world country and don't care about potholes or crime or clean water or anything else You're my neighbor and you pay higher taxes because you value those things so vote for a different party. I get to benefit from the services you pay for- police that keep the neighborhood free of crime, the potholes on the street get filled, schools, hospitals, clean water etc. In order for it to be fair the low tax people would have to go live in a low tax ghetto with fewer services.

Also the gun ban concept doesn't work and I don't think you understand what a gun ban is about. What your posted makes no sense. People who want guns banned generally don't buy guns...you think they have some need to be banned from buying something they would never buy in the first place??! Gun haters will never own guns and they they don't want anyone else to either. That's the point of a gun ban, for gun haters to stop OTHER PEOPLE from owning guns because gun haters never would anyway. It makes no sense for a gun hater to ban themselves from owning guns and being totally cool living next to a gun nut. The only way your model would work is if the gun haters could live in one gun-free area otherwise they haven't accomplished anything.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Also the gun ban concept doesn't work

Given that the overwhelming majority of people in jail for firearms offenses are Democrats, yes it does.

[BartSimpson]

herbie herbie:

If you think treating parts of the population differently is right why not just make them sew a Star of David on their lapel?

Everyone you don't agree with or can't understand is a Nazi?

Must be fun being you.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

In order for it to be fair the low tax people would have to go live in a low tax ghetto with fewer services.

That's not what I have in mind but if it were then how would it be any different from what we have now?

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Also the gun ban concept doesn't work

Given that the overwhelming majority of people in jail for firearms offenses are Democrats, yes it does.

Where did you find that little gem?