Friday, December 18, 2009

democracy should be abolished

democracy should be abolished -

it only lasted for a short time in ancient greece -
today it is abused -
a "parliamentary democracy" is not what most folk think of
as democracy -
today "parliamentary democracy" is like an oligarchy -
600 MPs rule us -

so -
what to replace it ? -
how about this -

aged about 24 each citizen applies to vote -
certain categories will be excluded -
criminals, those who have avoided paying their taxes ? etc -
'he sits a test to determine if 'he -
is suitable to vote on world and state issues -
pass the test and 'he can vote ( if 'he wishes ) -

the state is divided into about 100 or more demes -
each deme would have about 100,000 voters -
everyone ( eligible ) who wanted to, could vote on any issue -
using the internet - not all would want to vote every time -

voila - panocracy

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

religion / philosophy

i considered the religions i'd so far come in contact with
the following seems, to me, to be a better alternative
its based on three tenets ( and only three )

no priests
no garments
no books
no hymns
no prayers
no obligations
no buildings
no money
no pictures
no statues
no candles
no meetings
no laws
just the following guide

assume that each of us is an eternal spirit,
in a temporary body, on test, here on earth

expect that when the body dies,
we realise all the harm we’ve done,
and that we suffer disconsolation,
in proportion to the total harm done

don’t harm ( help? )
that is, don’t harm other people, animals, birds,
fish, insects, plants, the environment
or even ourselves

August 1997

Tuesday, March 10, 2009


Proposal to help the homeless in Britain

The initial concept is that
Each council should set up sites for the homeless.
These can be landscaped to overcome some of the objections
that are likely to come from those who already have homes.
The landscaping could include small ‘hills’ to ‘cloak’ the sites.

Councils could then buy, or even rent, portacabins of c. 4m x 10m size
and put them in terraced rows, two high, on the sites.
they could even have front & back gardens.
Later on, the rows could be enveloped with cladding front & back,
brick walls at each end & slate-covered roof trusses
over the flat roofs for a conventional appearance.

If the scheme didn’t work then the portacabins
could be returned or sold back to the company.

I appreciate that the concept is open to suggestion and improvement.

Tony Ryder
01 216 806 832
70 Rowheath Road
Kings Norton B30 2EX July 1997

four-day week

For some time I’ve thought that if most people worked
a 4-day week unemployment could be reduced.

If there is only enough work to fill 80% of the working week
then as many people as possible should work 4 days a week only.
I realise that this isn’t practical, there are some workers
who can’t do 4 out of 5 days. For many, though, it is possible.
For example, nurses and doctors would greatly benefit
from working only 4 days a week and having 3 days off.
(maybe not enough doctors but why make the nurses redundant?)
This seems to me better than sacking hundreds of nurses,
but they would have to choose this option in preference to
some (10% or more?) losing their jobs.
The shorter week would mean less stress and more time to recuperate.

With most of us working 4 days then if, or when,
there was an upturn in the economy and full time work
was necessary we would all be trained and ready.

If most of us worked a 4day week more people would have
self-respect and maybe fewer would turn to crime.
(This cost can’t be calculated!) Would the extra numbers
paying tax and the lower amount of unemployment claims
off-set the loss of some/all current tax income?
Lower numbers of prisoners in jail would also reduce
public expenditure. If you ask a person in their 50’s, or older,
would they be prepared to work 4 days and give up one day a week
so that their child or a relative could have a job
I guess most would say, ‘yes!’

Unemployed folk should be given the opportunity
to register to seek odd days, loosing only one day’s
unemployment benefit (say 25% of a week’s benefit?)
for each workday they gained. They could even be given
a year-or-two’s grace to find up to 4 days, possibly in
different jobs. Relatives and friends might be willing to
give up 1 day a week. Some older folk don’t have such
heavy outgoings as youngsters trying to set up a home.
This form of job-share would enable some to offer
holiday and sickness cover for a week or two.
It may even give some the chance to go on extended holidays
of 3 or 4 weeks. The occasional bonus of work for a week or more
would also give the unemployed the chance to earn a lump sum
(for their holidays?) could special concessions be considered here?

If people in full time work (5 days a week) are willing to give up 1 day a week
then the government should allow unemployed folk to gather
4 days work from friends and relatives who are willing to do this.

Tony Ryder
01 216 931 905
70 Rowheath Road
Kings Norton B30 2EX July 1997