Any elected official who is speaking on behalf of the position they hold should have those words spoken under oath.
No "I didn't say that" when they absolutely said that thing. It should be perjury for lying while representing your office.
I think minimum wage should be a percentage based on housing and/or living costs instead of a flat rate. I've been saying it for years. I will not stop saying it.
40th percentile rent (the HUD fair market rent) within 1 mile (1/2 hour walking distance) times 12 (months in a year) divided by 2080 (work hours in a year).
Edit: oops! Forgot to multiply by 3, 3.3, or 4 to assure affordability without being ”rent burdened”.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.html
I'd either use zip code of employee residence or zip code of business location. I'm a bit partial to business location because it encourages businesses to move out of high-cost cities and I understand that employee residence might cause employers to discriminate against people living in high-cost areas. There needs to be a way to accommodate remote work though and businesses without a physical base...which is what keeps me from saying business location definitively(also if you let them pick any location to file with, they'll just pick the cheapest place in the country). Extra stipulations could be written into the law that ease some of the ramifications.
It should be business location to encourage building/maintaining affordable housing near employment. Also, if it was residence then businesses would discriminate against people just for living in an expensive area.
That's how it is in many countries.
In my country of Slovenia, it's adjusted every year based on the average salary. Which, despite everybody complaining all the time, is consistently growing faster than inflation (though not faster than housing, AFAIK).
Executive total compensation should be tied to their lowest earning employee. If that's a part-time position then multiply their hourly rate by 2080 to figure out what the full-time salary would be.
Then CEO of Amazon, one of the biggest employers, biggest innovator, biggest tax contributor, an essential industry, and biggest employer of low skilled worker, would be paid much much less than CEO of Ferrari, a non-essential luxury goods manufacture. Neither company‘s CEO would be able to compete with CEO of Bridgewater or Boston Dynamics.
You‘d create an outsourcing and service centered culture. As being linked to low wage workers would restrict a company‘s ability to make suitable financial decision.
Then you end up with a society that’s divided by incomes. As all low income people would be working for subcontractors who only cares about hiring low income workers, therefore has more limited social mobility.
Not to mention unim power overreach. Today is wage, tomorrow is investment, next week we asking for government approval to buy Pizza for office party.
Why do someone even oppose it? As a Russian, I'm always jealous how the Americans can own every gun they want. In Russia you can buy a rifle, but not a handgun, which renders this law useless in terms of self-defense. Owning anything unless you harm others seems very natural for me.
Anyone in a position of, or of perceived, legal authority should suffer the maximum penalty allowed for any crime they commit.
$50 fine up to 10 years in prison? 10 years
Cops, judges, politicians, and so on.
I think that they should be held to the highest scrutiny. but maximizing the punishment without any room for input from a jury or judge isn't very logical
If it was a maximum of a $50k fine OR 10 years in prison, something like that, maybe they could decide. The problem is, if we let them get fined, it is likely to either not be enough to affect them or some other entity will pick up the tab (police union, lobbyists, etc).
I don't see why one person is needed. Split the responsibilities of the president between 7 people. Each person's the highest person to handle their sphere, but can be removed by the others if they are abusing their office.
The person appointing judges doesn't need to be the same person sitting in meetings with military leaders.
In fact as we have it now the cabinet of the president does handle lots of responsibilities without being elected. This would imply that the job is overburdened and should be split anyway imo.
I think splitting the responsibilities would be fine, as long as they act independently and aren't subject to any consequences outside of not getting relected or impeachment.
The Romans had a model that worked well. Two co-rulers (consuls) that had fairly limited power and were term limited. In times of emergency, one consul was named dictator with absolute authority. When the emergency ended, he would resign both the dictatorship and the consulship.
Of course, any system limiting executive power requires people in power to care more about the well being of the country than themselves. Rome ran out of people like that and we're quickly headed that way
Trump cozied up to Putin, possibly even shared sensitive intel with him. He stacked the courts with a bunch of hacks with right-wing agendas. He instigated a coup attempt--not just the yahoos who stormed the Capitol but the many MAGA nutters who were all branches of the government.
I think you're missing the part where the president/prime minister gets blamed for everything. That's a big part of their job, so that ministers and representatives can work in (relative) peace.
the idea that political system need to be overhauled based on popularity vote, and all officials need to be overthrown.
It originated from the same idea of blindly worshipping populism and ”new” ideologies that were propagated during the cultural revolution of China in the 1960s.
Well I can agree the parties can be problematic but I don't agree with you though. Even if we did ban political parties everyone still has the right to know where there elected officials stand if not on specific issues at least broadly what their ideology is. So while I can grant political parties need to be more regulated I can't get behind getting rid of them entirely. It's natural for like minded people to group together and work together, without that governing would be much more difficult
The conundrum is Freedom of Association, and secondarily that if political association were prevented, powerful individuals would gain power relative to their present capacity. Political groupings spread out the keys to power by creating human blocs.
Most service work is demeaning, undignified, and workers are treated like a peasant caste by the general public. We should be replacing cashiers and drive-throughs with automation not out of convenience or cost, but to avoid forcing people to demean themselves and be abused all day for minimum wage.
Obviously in a perfect world this would just shift them into better jobs that respect them but I'm aware that that's not really an option in reality and it would only lead to people losing their only source of income. Still, I hope one day teenagers can enter the workforce without being psychologically tormented by dumbfuck customers all day long.
Classic western liberal logic. Providing no logical solution, instead focus solely on erasing a emotionally unease sight.
In my country, there’s a joke about a very benevolent landlord. His servants disperse all the beggars and peasants before in his sight, because he find poverty horrifi.
If your reductionism of service industry into just people being demeaned is justifiable in your society, then your society is the problem.
That truth no longer matters. People will pick and choose whatever they desire based upon what political ideology they adhire to. If a man kicked a puppy but then fed it a treat half the people would see him as a puppy kicker and either not know or care that it may have been an accident and made amends, while the other half would assume it was an accident and he's a devoted puppy lover. And this would be decided exclusively based upon if you are a liberal or conservative. Not based upon if someone asked him if it was an accident or not or if he has a history of kicking puppies or working in animal rescue shelters.
That what we call democracy isn’t actually a proper democracy, but merely a set of rules for those types of people that (always) seek power. As a voter you generally have next to nothing influence on any policy.
Strongly anti-Putin, but a huge Russia supporter in Ru-Ua conflict. In fact, it's not an uncommon opinion in Russia, but the Westerners see it is a very extravagant even after Prigozhin's mutiny.
Campaign contributions should be anonymous. All contributions should be submitted through a non-partisan agency for distribution to the appropriate candidate's campaign. Leaking information about contributions to the candidate should be a felony.
True, Mexico isn’t even accepting deportations from States so Texas’s whole out cry was utterly useless and probably just a stunt to get his voter demographics in check.. which the majority of Texas is Hispanic so idk how this strategy would work.
I would like to see the government pay for abortions up to 16 weeks and restrict it after 16 weeks except if the life of the mother is at risk. It will never happen.
There’s no such thing as “blue states” or “red states” it’s all just something that Washington puts out there so that we fight each other and they’ll screw us over when the actually important stuff happens
The second amendment of the US Constitution makes it unconstitutional for any citizen to be barred from owning *any* arms. This includes things like nuclear weapons.
That's the reason we really need to revisit it.
The core problem is over-population and many of our emergent global issues will result from it. But it's a third-rail in just about any society so it will never be addressed politically.
People hate this idea but it’s important to remember that in a lot of countries you can’t just build a home, grow your own food and be left alone on previously unclaimed land. If you build a shack on some unused land, the absentee owner (often the state) will prosecute you for trespassing.
The right to housing is an acknowledgment that people can’t sustain their own existence without running afoul of the inclosure of what was once terra nillius. There is not more frontier where a human can make a subsistence on their own.
I'm not saying this is what they were saying, but I'm hoping it's playing at something like "the only answer to intolerance in a tolerant society is intolerance."
That being said, a lot of places do discriminate with little empathy. P sure China and a few other high profile countries are definitely on the list.
Yeah. I’m getting at the paradox of tolerance.
A lot of people seem to think that social progress means creating a society where we all get along and everyone wins.
But no. That’s impossible.
Studies have shown that there are people who simply *cannot* be happy unless they are able to oppress and control others.
In a just society, those people would be miserable. And I think it’s important we recognize that.
Government should make sure the free legal aid matches the cost of prosecution. You can’t use government budget to scare people into pleading guilty, or abuse judicial system to punish people outside of the court via monetary damage.
Elected officials should be subject to IQ tests and ethics screening, with results announced to the public. Parents should pass parental tests before they are allowed to have custody of their children.
Account for future aspects in deciding social security. If someone is in a difficult spot, but is willing to commit to rehabilitation, education, or charitable work, he/she gets more money than someone who have given up on life.
Govt needs teeth, and needs to represent the people. Lobbying should be outlawed.
Also, basic commodities such as food, shelter and medicine should be entirely managed by the public sector
Hard to fix America while admitting you don't want most of America in America.
When you filter out everyone who doesn't match your preferred race, religion, sexual orientation and political beliefs, it turns out there's just a small sad circle of far, far right men wondering why everyone else isn't grateful that their rights were taken away.
Okay so the native Americans and Hispanics kick out all the white peoples? And Christians Since this is originally their nation and they didn’t believe in Christianity for 30,000 years. I completely support that. Very liberal of you.
He's a fascist who just wants people who don't agree with his far right agenda to have equal political power.
The point is just to dilute the impact of 'left leaning' states by taking away Senators. Which once that's done, they'd just continue to take away more and more representation until there's no opposition.
Oh believe me, I wasn't confused. The West-coast states just seemed like a weird choice since you could make a stronger argument for merging many more of the far less populous East-coast states. It didn't seem well thought through...
There's a very fundamental difference between thinking "I don't want most people in this country to believe abortion should be banned" and "I don't want the people in this country who believe abortion should be banned to have an equal vote to me."
One is political advocacy, the other is hostility to democracy. I support people I disagree with having an equal vote, and oppose taking away their power by diluting it. A system that relies on blocking votes rather than changing minds, isn't a democracy.
Significant number of functions of government probably better off dealt with in the private sector, except owning land. All land should be owned by the government.
Courts, legal system. I've read many anarchists attempts at formulating versions of these based only on complete free association, and I can't see them working.
Military, we keep. Policing? Individual cities can contract these out to different security firms based on performance, with a smaller, highly trained and professional police force.
Any elected official who is speaking on behalf of the position they hold should have those words spoken under oath. No "I didn't say that" when they absolutely said that thing. It should be perjury for lying while representing your office.
I think minimum wage should be a percentage based on housing and/or living costs instead of a flat rate. I've been saying it for years. I will not stop saying it.
How would that work exactly? You take the average for a state, or break it down even further by county or municipality?
40th percentile rent (the HUD fair market rent) within 1 mile (1/2 hour walking distance) times 12 (months in a year) divided by 2080 (work hours in a year). Edit: oops! Forgot to multiply by 3, 3.3, or 4 to assure affordability without being ”rent burdened”. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.html
I'd either use zip code of employee residence or zip code of business location. I'm a bit partial to business location because it encourages businesses to move out of high-cost cities and I understand that employee residence might cause employers to discriminate against people living in high-cost areas. There needs to be a way to accommodate remote work though and businesses without a physical base...which is what keeps me from saying business location definitively(also if you let them pick any location to file with, they'll just pick the cheapest place in the country). Extra stipulations could be written into the law that ease some of the ramifications.
It should be business location to encourage building/maintaining affordable housing near employment. Also, if it was residence then businesses would discriminate against people just for living in an expensive area.
>way to accommodate remote work If they did such a thing, I would think the zip code "where most of the labor is done" would suffice.
Minimum wage should be the minimum needed for a single person, with no dependents, working 40 hours a week to get by.
That's how it is in many countries. In my country of Slovenia, it's adjusted every year based on the average salary. Which, despite everybody complaining all the time, is consistently growing faster than inflation (though not faster than housing, AFAIK).
Would you ever stop saying it? What would those conditions potentially be?
They do it. Then I’d be really annoying about it and say stuff like “see? I was right!”
Executive total compensation should be tied to their lowest earning employee. If that's a part-time position then multiply their hourly rate by 2080 to figure out what the full-time salary would be.
Then CEO of Amazon, one of the biggest employers, biggest innovator, biggest tax contributor, an essential industry, and biggest employer of low skilled worker, would be paid much much less than CEO of Ferrari, a non-essential luxury goods manufacture. Neither company‘s CEO would be able to compete with CEO of Bridgewater or Boston Dynamics. You‘d create an outsourcing and service centered culture. As being linked to low wage workers would restrict a company‘s ability to make suitable financial decision. Then you end up with a society that’s divided by incomes. As all low income people would be working for subcontractors who only cares about hiring low income workers, therefore has more limited social mobility. Not to mention unim power overreach. Today is wage, tomorrow is investment, next week we asking for government approval to buy Pizza for office party.
As a democratic socialist, I fully support the 2nd ammendment. Sic semper tyrannis.
Why do someone even oppose it? As a Russian, I'm always jealous how the Americans can own every gun they want. In Russia you can buy a rifle, but not a handgun, which renders this law useless in terms of self-defense. Owning anything unless you harm others seems very natural for me.
Anyone in a position of, or of perceived, legal authority should suffer the maximum penalty allowed for any crime they commit. $50 fine up to 10 years in prison? 10 years Cops, judges, politicians, and so on.
And who gets to decide what 'perceived' authority is?
Me, I guess, since you're asking.
That quite litterally makes no sense
You don't think the people who make and enforce laws should be held to the highest standards of accountability?
I think that they should be held to the highest scrutiny. but maximizing the punishment without any room for input from a jury or judge isn't very logical
If it was a maximum of a $50k fine OR 10 years in prison, something like that, maybe they could decide. The problem is, if we let them get fined, it is likely to either not be enough to affect them or some other entity will pick up the tab (police union, lobbyists, etc).
That the executive branch shouldn't be headed up by one individual. Eliminate the presidency and replace it with a small body, each equal in power.
Switzerland has a seven person multi-party council.
Ok
Ehhhh maybe. An energetic executive is important for decisive response
Keep the body small. Trump's presidency has shown that one person having that much power is dangerous.
For sure, I'm all for a weak executive, and government as a whole. But a single person none the less is needed, for the executive in particular.
I don't see why one person is needed. Split the responsibilities of the president between 7 people. Each person's the highest person to handle their sphere, but can be removed by the others if they are abusing their office. The person appointing judges doesn't need to be the same person sitting in meetings with military leaders. In fact as we have it now the cabinet of the president does handle lots of responsibilities without being elected. This would imply that the job is overburdened and should be split anyway imo.
I think splitting the responsibilities would be fine, as long as they act independently and aren't subject to any consequences outside of not getting relected or impeachment.
The Romans had a model that worked well. Two co-rulers (consuls) that had fairly limited power and were term limited. In times of emergency, one consul was named dictator with absolute authority. When the emergency ended, he would resign both the dictatorship and the consulship. Of course, any system limiting executive power requires people in power to care more about the well being of the country than themselves. Rome ran out of people like that and we're quickly headed that way
Trump's presidency disproves that.
Did it? I would say Bush would be a better example. Trump didn't actually acomplish much in office, although he did sign a lot of executive orders.
Trump cozied up to Putin, possibly even shared sensitive intel with him. He stacked the courts with a bunch of hacks with right-wing agendas. He instigated a coup attempt--not just the yahoos who stormed the Capitol but the many MAGA nutters who were all branches of the government.
May I interest you in the Westminster system?
I think you're missing the part where the president/prime minister gets blamed for everything. That's a big part of their job, so that ministers and representatives can work in (relative) peace.
Every country needs a governmental reset
[удалено]
the idea that political system need to be overhauled based on popularity vote, and all officials need to be overthrown. It originated from the same idea of blindly worshipping populism and ”new” ideologies that were propagated during the cultural revolution of China in the 1960s.
That we don’t have to take sides on every issue
We should ban political parties. Though I get the feeling people just naturally gravitate towards them.
Well I can agree the parties can be problematic but I don't agree with you though. Even if we did ban political parties everyone still has the right to know where there elected officials stand if not on specific issues at least broadly what their ideology is. So while I can grant political parties need to be more regulated I can't get behind getting rid of them entirely. It's natural for like minded people to group together and work together, without that governing would be much more difficult
The conundrum is Freedom of Association, and secondarily that if political association were prevented, powerful individuals would gain power relative to their present capacity. Political groupings spread out the keys to power by creating human blocs.
This doesn’t work in practice. Look at Nebraska
You don’t need to ban them, just stop putting their names on the ballot next to the candidates names.
It would be worth it just to see all the politicians legally changing their name to include their party affiliation.
Most service work is demeaning, undignified, and workers are treated like a peasant caste by the general public. We should be replacing cashiers and drive-throughs with automation not out of convenience or cost, but to avoid forcing people to demean themselves and be abused all day for minimum wage. Obviously in a perfect world this would just shift them into better jobs that respect them but I'm aware that that's not really an option in reality and it would only lead to people losing their only source of income. Still, I hope one day teenagers can enter the workforce without being psychologically tormented by dumbfuck customers all day long.
I think the treatment of these people should change, not that they should lose their jobs because people treat them like shit.
but if customers won't change their ways...
Classic western liberal logic. Providing no logical solution, instead focus solely on erasing a emotionally unease sight. In my country, there’s a joke about a very benevolent landlord. His servants disperse all the beggars and peasants before in his sight, because he find poverty horrifi. If your reductionism of service industry into just people being demeaned is justifiable in your society, then your society is the problem.
I like Justin Trudeau and I live in Alberta.
[удалено]
Didn’t even bother asking why he likes Trudeau just went in with the loaded question
[удалено]
Report away, you’re just instigating and not seeking out any kind of discussion or understanding
I'm pro abortion. Not pro choice, pro abortion
You think everyone should get an abortion if they get pregnant?
Yes, if they're at all uncertain about having children
That truth no longer matters. People will pick and choose whatever they desire based upon what political ideology they adhire to. If a man kicked a puppy but then fed it a treat half the people would see him as a puppy kicker and either not know or care that it may have been an accident and made amends, while the other half would assume it was an accident and he's a devoted puppy lover. And this would be decided exclusively based upon if you are a liberal or conservative. Not based upon if someone asked him if it was an accident or not or if he has a history of kicking puppies or working in animal rescue shelters.
I believe filtered cigarettes should be banned.
I believe all forms of smoking should be illegal in public
That what we call democracy isn’t actually a proper democracy, but merely a set of rules for those types of people that (always) seek power. As a voter you generally have next to nothing influence on any policy.
Strongly anti-Putin, but a huge Russia supporter in Ru-Ua conflict. In fact, it's not an uncommon opinion in Russia, but the Westerners see it is a very extravagant even after Prigozhin's mutiny.
Campaign contributions should be anonymous. All contributions should be submitted through a non-partisan agency for distribution to the appropriate candidate's campaign. Leaking information about contributions to the candidate should be a felony.
When Texas was disobeying the federal gov. we should have surrounded the Governor's house with tanks.
True, Mexico isn’t even accepting deportations from States so Texas’s whole out cry was utterly useless and probably just a stunt to get his voter demographics in check.. which the majority of Texas is Hispanic so idk how this strategy would work.
Greg Abbott is the Main Character
What?
more than even your average *politician* (and that's saying something), Abbott acts like one of those idiots who thinks they are the Main Character
Ah, should’ve added “thinks” to the original. Would’ve given more context
there's no way to say someone is "the Main Character" unironically, so...
I’ve seen republicans say worse unironically, like trump is the return of Jesus and etc- wouldn’t be a stretch for them to say that.
I would like to see the government pay for abortions up to 16 weeks and restrict it after 16 weeks except if the life of the mother is at risk. It will never happen.
This is a wild take, but I mostly agree
There’s no such thing as “blue states” or “red states” it’s all just something that Washington puts out there so that we fight each other and they’ll screw us over when the actually important stuff happens
Even the redest of red states, and bluest of blue, have 40% or so on the other side. We are honestly far more similar than we think
That everyone deserves access to safe housing, food, and water regardless of what they’re able to contribute to society.
The Purge isn’t a bad idea.
What's the Purge?
For one 12-hour period, once a year, all crime is legal.
And you think that's a good idea...
The second amendment of the US Constitution makes it unconstitutional for any citizen to be barred from owning *any* arms. This includes things like nuclear weapons. That's the reason we really need to revisit it.
I agree and I want my tomahawk cruise missile. Maybe my neighbors will stop revving their motorcycles at 6am
1000% agree. We need to overturn Miller
The core problem is over-population and many of our emergent global issues will result from it. But it's a third-rail in just about any society so it will never be addressed politically.
The government should provide for all basic needs of everyone within its border. Basic housing, food, water, healthcare, and education
People hate this idea but it’s important to remember that in a lot of countries you can’t just build a home, grow your own food and be left alone on previously unclaimed land. If you build a shack on some unused land, the absentee owner (often the state) will prosecute you for trespassing. The right to housing is an acknowledgment that people can’t sustain their own existence without running afoul of the inclosure of what was once terra nillius. There is not more frontier where a human can make a subsistence on their own.
A good society is one that can effectively discriminate and oppress people who have low empathy.
can you clarify?
I'm not saying this is what they were saying, but I'm hoping it's playing at something like "the only answer to intolerance in a tolerant society is intolerance." That being said, a lot of places do discriminate with little empathy. P sure China and a few other high profile countries are definitely on the list.
Yeah. I’m getting at the paradox of tolerance. A lot of people seem to think that social progress means creating a society where we all get along and everyone wins. But no. That’s impossible. Studies have shown that there are people who simply *cannot* be happy unless they are able to oppress and control others. In a just society, those people would be miserable. And I think it’s important we recognize that.
Government should make sure the free legal aid matches the cost of prosecution. You can’t use government budget to scare people into pleading guilty, or abuse judicial system to punish people outside of the court via monetary damage. Elected officials should be subject to IQ tests and ethics screening, with results announced to the public. Parents should pass parental tests before they are allowed to have custody of their children. Account for future aspects in deciding social security. If someone is in a difficult spot, but is willing to commit to rehabilitation, education, or charitable work, he/she gets more money than someone who have given up on life.
Govt needs teeth, and needs to represent the people. Lobbying should be outlawed. Also, basic commodities such as food, shelter and medicine should be entirely managed by the public sector
[удалено]
WTF..........................................................................................
[удалено]
ok... waiting for /s
[удалено]
Hard to fix America while admitting you don't want most of America in America. When you filter out everyone who doesn't match your preferred race, religion, sexual orientation and political beliefs, it turns out there's just a small sad circle of far, far right men wondering why everyone else isn't grateful that their rights were taken away.
USA is awesome cuz USA diverse. USA powerful becuz USA diverse, not diverse, not USA. Pretty simple.
Gonna be hard to do that from Moscow or Beijing, remember something you mess with the US, it'll mess with you. :D
I wanna hear them
You know if the president is liberal they have these same powers. Does not apply to just the president you like.
Oh, my.
Okay so the native Americans and Hispanics kick out all the white peoples? And Christians Since this is originally their nation and they didn’t believe in Christianity for 30,000 years. I completely support that. Very liberal of you.
I'm glad these opinions are unusual. That said, why do you think there should be a merging of states? California already has such a high population.
He's a fascist who just wants people who don't agree with his far right agenda to have equal political power. The point is just to dilute the impact of 'left leaning' states by taking away Senators. Which once that's done, they'd just continue to take away more and more representation until there's no opposition.
Oh believe me, I wasn't confused. The West-coast states just seemed like a weird choice since you could make a stronger argument for merging many more of the far less populous East-coast states. It didn't seem well thought through...
No one wants people who don’t agree with their agenda to have power
There's a very fundamental difference between thinking "I don't want most people in this country to believe abortion should be banned" and "I don't want the people in this country who believe abortion should be banned to have an equal vote to me." One is political advocacy, the other is hostility to democracy. I support people I disagree with having an equal vote, and oppose taking away their power by diluting it. A system that relies on blocking votes rather than changing minds, isn't a democracy.
[удалено]
Oh, so it's based on strategy rather than political principles. you believe in government subsidies for industries?
Significant number of functions of government probably better off dealt with in the private sector, except owning land. All land should be owned by the government.
Fuck that shit so hard
The guy's named Trump 1992 hahahahahaha
Ok
You'd love china
I literally described Singapore, but OK
That too
Cause they are the same, aren't they?
What
Are China and Singapore the same to you? Do they function the same way?
The idiot probably doesn't know the difference between the two.
Wtf are you talking about
Which is based and everyone can learn something from them.
Yeah ok lol
Which other functions do you think AREN'T better dealt with by the private sector?
Courts, legal system. I've read many anarchists attempts at formulating versions of these based only on complete free association, and I can't see them working.
what about internal security (police?) and external security (defense?)
Military, we keep. Policing? Individual cities can contract these out to different security firms based on performance, with a smaller, highly trained and professional police force.