I think the need to government reform is clear to most people. Our government is ineffective. We've had a succession of bad governments. It's likely that any future government will also be ineffective.

The government hasn't the power to make honest and effective changes, because it is beholden to special interests. It balances its commitments to its allies, with its chances of losing the next election.

So the best policy, the only realistic policy, is to serve the donors and special interests, then do some crowd-pleasing in the election year.

I would argue (though I thing this next bit would be controversial) it is not this government's fault, to work this way. It is the fault of our governance system that compels them to work this way.

Many people have good plans for electoral reform. For example. The ideas are thousands of years old. The structures are well established and proven.

The difficulty is implementing the reform, when the government has no interest in doing so.

So here is a new plan:

1. Establish a sub-reddit which records the policy proposals in the dail and and the voting records of each TD. It will be an accurate record of each TD and party's performance. It must also be easy to read, and in a place where people will read it. It will also be a place for discussion. Accessible information and discussion forums are both required in democracy, and are both lacking. This will also help build support for (2).

2. Convince independent politicians to join a new party. this party will be unique. It should be easy to convince them, because they have little chance alone with the abundance of canditates, and because this new party is a uniquely good opportunity.

It will have specific goals and policy, which are simple and popular. They will address the only important issues (also the issues the current government is underperforming on.

a. Climate change (a real carbon tax)

b. World peace (boycott and ostracize any person, business or territory conducting a massacre)

c. Housing (ban investment funds from owning housing / force developers to build appropriate amenities)

d. Government reform (citizens initiative referendums)

The first three policies are chosen because not only are they the most important things, and also because they are already overwhelmingly popular. Despite this the government has not done them.

The last one which is not well known. But the last one is the whole point. If point (d) is done, every other major change that our society requires can be done quickly and easily. Government will not be able to stop it, no matter what their donors think.

You only need 6 TDs be elected, to propose policy.

1. The new party will be unique, in that the TDs will act as representatives of their electorate. Every dail vote will be passed down to the constituents. In the dail, the TD will vote following the result of this vote. Constituents can also propose new initiatives for the party.

This is a good test case for democracy, to see if there is any major fraud or problems that need ironing out, before this is trialed on a territorial level. It will require some effort to figure out the best way to do this.

When people see that democracy works on the local level, the party can grow in importance and number of TDs, so eventually government can become effective and legitimate.

*** DO NOT READ THIS YET ***

*** IT IS NOT FINISHED ***

Many people have this idea that bicycles should be separated from cars, on the roads. This is an old-fashioned car-centric idea, yet often advocated by cycling advocates. It is informed by the assumption that roads are for cars, and anything else must find its place somewhere else. This was true, specifically, in the 20th century.

The road is for bicycles and other mobilité douce. The question is, under what conditions should cars be allowed to share it?

Bikes are not a single type of traffic, like cars are. There are two kinds of cyclists, which different and conflicting needs.

1. Commuters. Confident mixing with and overtaking cars and buses. Travelling 10-30km/h.

2. Social cyclists and children. Must be isolated from fast traffic. Travelling 0-15km/h.

(1) should only go on the roads with the other fast traffic. (2) should only go on the footpath with the pedestrians. Allowing fast and slow cyclists to mix together is as dangerous as anything on our roads. Just think of the Parc Rives de Seine during summer.

But what about runners, scooters, skaters, wheelchairs, dogs, ambulances? The big criteria is speed. There is an easy rule. Anything unpowered, <1m wide and travelling <10km/h should use the footpath. Anything else should use the road.

If there is a cycle lane, then footpath: <1m & <10km, cycle lane <1m & >10km, road everything else. This is still true for the very wide cycle lanes. The extra width is used for safe overtaking at speed.

So yes, runners should not use the footpath. Mixing with dogs and bins and prams is more hassle and danger than using the road. Yes they will slow down cars. But in this, runners have precedence. From now on, the road belongs to mobilité douce. Cars are only guests.

For some roads, the rule could be relaxed. There are many streets where you would like motorbikes (any powered vehicle <1m wide) to share the bike lane, or buses (any vehicle carrying >6 people). But they must all obey 15km/h.

There favours bus passengers, who are probably in enough stress already, and motorcyclists getting through traffic, who I think should be encouraged for environmental reasons. But 10km/h is glacially slow for them. It's slower than the normal filtering they do in their lane. But it might be valuable to encourage motorcycling and get more people out of cars, those who wouldn't or couldn't take up cycling.

As usual, emergency vehicles like ambulance, gas-repair, can break every rule. In fact anybody can in an emergency. You just might have to explain that to a judge later.

So enforcing the 15km/h speed limit is crucial. This cannot be the job of police. They are not competent at it, and they have better things to do. Cameras are even worse. The solution: A tick mark is painted at 5m intervals along the bike lanes. If there is a spot where people observe dangerous use of the lane, anybody can go out and film the lane abusers, and send the film to the DPP for police. With tick marks on the road, the speed (and the licence number) can be accurately read from the video.

So if people are using the bike lane occasionally, or very considerately or in emergencies, they probably won't be prosecuted. If people are frequently abusing it enough to irk someone into going out and catching them, they will be prosecuted. This is how the law should always work. Rigid enforcement like a robot would do is worse than enforcement only when there is a complaint. Thus the enforcement becomes reasonable and sensible.

The goal is not to stop people using cars, but to provide them a better alternative. Today, people are trapped in cars by circumstance, bad town planning, bad law, or bad health. The goal is to allow as many as possible to move to better forms. Banning cars makes people's lives worse - taking away a tool they depend on. Providing alternatives like convenient bus and bike routes make their lives better. But the outcome - moving people away from cars - is the same.

Never forget the needs of the drivers. They include the pregnant, old, lazy, sick, tired, those with big cargo, doing long journeys, etc. They need to use the roads as much as anyone. But they will be slightly restricted - just enough to encourage them to switch to other transports if they can.

1. All roads are traversible, but not all routes are traversible

2. why traffic lights are a dangerous predicament.

3. Removing traffic lights helps not just cyclists but the flow of all traffic

4. Making buses and bikes faster speeds all traffic - that famous rule.

5. Speed bumps, pot holes, other damage. Bikes/wheelchairs vs SUVs.

Walkable distances. Need for amenities locally. Need for more empty retail space and jobs local to houses. Need for Hausemann-style buildings. Vacant space needed too, to keep rents down and affordable for small businesses. Vacant spaces musst be available for clubs etc.

Fast lanes. Like 2nd lane can be 30-60km/h

can always go through red lights like in Nanterre

Solve a housing shortage or a homelessness, or immigration

Gov/council organises an auction of land and buildings it wants to obtain, by category. For example it might be:

1. Green field sites zoned for housing, >10000m2

2. 10 unoccupied buildings >100m2 which are suitable for occupation, maybe without services but structurally sound.

Land owners are allowed to bid to sell these properties. The lowest prices in each category win the auction. The gov has the option to immediately buy each one (after a survey etc) at the auction price.

A land tax would help here. It encourages people to sell unused property. It also increases the price of food, which leads to less wasteful farming practices. The tax take can fund a UBI which helps people afford higher priced food. So it's beneficial on many levels.

This land will be the unused and useless property in the least populated areas. The government has a challenge to develop it for housing.

Immigrants (and citizens if they want) have the option of living on the greenfield sites in tents. A builder is hired to develop a new town on the site, under contract to hire X percent of the people living there and train them in building trades. Thus a new town gets built. The homeless will build it themselves.

Really it is mad that the homeless exist. They are idle people, who are available for work, for example in building houses for themselves. The only thing needed is organisation.

This greenfield site should probably be fenced in at first, just for the security of children in tents, or just for a feeling of security for the people in tents. The state should organise a log book of people entering and leaving. Anybody setting up a tent in a city can be bussed there immediately. Apart from that there is totally free movement in and out. This is important, because we might find a high demand from natives to live there, which would be healthy for the culture. Journalists can move in too, to check for corruption or other problems.

New people entering are given an ID card and choose a password. Once they have ID, they can get the dole or UBI (probably at a much lower rate than proper residents). This means they can buy a tent, food, clothes, etc. Who knows what else they might find crucial that the state won't think of - religious stuff, musical stuff, etc. Charitable donations are discouraged but not forbidden. The ID card should probably be like a public transport card. You top it up each day in the state services office (probably a prefab on site) and spend it by tapping and entering your password.

So any business is free to plant a tent on site and start selling the things people need, starting probably with soup and tents. The other way, with direct provision, would be chaos. There would be no way to ensure quality. The only serious way to allocate services fairly and with quality is by allocating people money and allowing businesses to compete for it in a free market.

What's the best way to mark it?

There is a problem that sole traders do not pay their taxes. One would be a fool to pay. He'd be putting himself at a competitive disadvantage, raising his costs against his competitors. Because nobody else is paying.

There are two separate issues

• businesses are normally structured as a hierarchy. Co-op are more fair, better for wealth distribution, healthier for workers, probably more successful, and more like the natural form businesses take in primitive societies.
• It would be better for society and for the market if there were more small businesses. Markets naturally develop into monopolies, with one or just a few players, because small businesses cannot compete. This leads to price fixing, bad service, etc. Many areas have one big Tesco and nothing else. That's an obvious example, but this effect is much more pervasive.

Here, a coop is defined as a business where all employees have equal vote on big decisions, not necessarily equal pay or conditions or hours.

All of this can be improved at once.

Create a law, that any business organised as a coop does not pay VAT. This has several effects:

1. Sole traders no longer have to pay VAT. So honest ones are not (or are much less) punished for their honesty. It resolves the VAT non-payment problem, in the only realistic way it can be solved.

2. People starting a business can gain a big advantage against the big players, just by structuring it as a co-op. This helps encourage new startups, and makes them better workplaces.

3. There is a lower tax take, but it is probably not significant. It could be nulled by a small increase in the general VAT rate. The new businesses which start because of this will not increase the VAT income. The societal benefits are not fiscal.

The issue of better regulation for dangerous breeds of dogs is starting to get a bit serious right now in Ireland. This is one where the solution is simple, but might not be easy for governments and councils to see.

Many people cannot control their dogs. But those people still bring their dogs to public places. They don't understand that this is a problem.

They don't have the discipline to train their dogs. Or they don't have the time or interest. And nobody is forcing them to do so.

People propose many solutions, like banning certain dangerous breeds, enforcing muzzling, licensing, etc. These solutions are familiar, but wrong. They punish educated dogs and savage ones alike.

Being a good dog or a bad dog does not depend on breed. It is true that some breeds are harder to train, and some breeds are more dangerous when untrained. But any dog of any breed can be raised to be good or bad, safe or dangerous.

Dogs must be banned from all public spaces, unless muzzled and leashed, or unless they have passed a test. They get a collar of a specific colour and design when they pass.

There could be various levels of exam. The dogs which pass higher levels are allowed more freedoms.

For example:

1. Does not react aggressively to children
2. Does not react aggressively to other dogs
3. Can be pet by strangers
4. Obeys instructions to return to owner, when off lead
5. Can resist eating food left out, when directed to
6. Can resist chasing a small animal like a cat or pigeon, when directed to

No dog is required to do any test, but tests are required to go certain places or do certain things. For example level 5 might be required to enter a picnic area. You could imagine pubs and shops allowing dogs which have level 3. Level 2 might be required to be allowed off the lead in a park. Level 1 to go outside without a muzzle.

Because the collars are visible, the rules are enforceable.

There are a few things that need to be decided. Whether puppies should have collars with adjustable size. Whether the collar should be non-removable by the owner. Whether the collar should be generic, or have identification on it, like owner's name or microchip ID number.

I only heard about this because I know someone who is thinking of availing of it.

Vacant Property Refurbishment Grant

This could be a big part of the reason for the housing shortage, because so many homes are being left empty in order to avail of this grant.

I think most people agree that rugby teams are too heavy. Players are under too much pressure to bulk up, beyond what is healthy. Bigger pack weight does give a big advantage in a match, but it does not make rugby a better game.

There should be a maximum team weight. Maybe 1500kg for 15 players. Teams can still use very heavy players, but they must keep the total team weight under a limit. So being very heavy is a slight disadvantage for a player. The existing incentive will be reversed, to keep below a limit, to a healthier weight.

Very heavy players will still be selected, only if they are skillful enough to be worth keeping, despite the difficulty they create in keeping the team under the limit.

This does reduce the advantage very heavy peoples like the Europeans have over lighter peoples like the Asians. So it might be unpopular among supporters. I think it would instead make things more interesting. It would mean more teams can seriously compete in international events.

The RTE needs money from the public each year to run. But

• Direct funding by the government gives the government too much influence over content.
• Funding from the licence fee is not secure because many people don't want to pay, since they discovered all the money-laundering and theft going on in RTE.
• Advertising does not make the RTE enough money.

The funding model should also give the RTE an incentive to behave better in the future. It must be a source that can shrink in proportion to RTE's continuing misbehaviour.

The best way is to add a an extra charge to everyone's annual income tax bill. It could be 50€ per taxpayer, to replace the existing 160€ per household. People who don't pay tax don't pay the charge. So this is more progressive than the TV licence fee was.

On the tax declaration form, there is a multiple choice. The taxpayer can choose whether his fee should go to the RTE or somewhere else more deserving. If he ticks several boxes, the fee will be split between several beneficiaries. The choices could be, for example

1. RTE
2. Medicins sans frontieres
3. Vincent de Paul
4. A subsidy for theatre companies
5. Funding for artists and musicians
6. A fund for free open-source software developers

For the last two, figuring out a way to fairly distribute the money could be tricky, but still worthwhile.

There will also be an option to increase the payment to the chosen cause, to 100€ or 200€.

Inheritance tax is not working. That's because of a conflict between two needs:

1. Allow people to pass on their property to their wives and children
2. Prevent families from living off old money for generations, and becoming wealthy freeloaders.

This leads to trade-offs and to weak and ineffective taxation. But there is a simple way to achieve both goals fairly with a modified tax.

Someone should be able to leave money to his wife, nearly tax free. If he is estranged from his wife, he should equally be able to leave money to his mistress. If he's not married, he should be able to leave money to a sister, or a friend or neighbour. There is no reason these people should suffer tax, any more than a wife would.

People leaving money to their children should pay a high tax. Grandchildren should pay a much higher tax, because the money is skipping a generation. Really, old money should pay inheritance tax twice to pass down two generations.

Leaving money to a much younger wife or friend. It's debatable whether a high tax should be paid. This argument requires that it should.

The answer is to apply a tax based on the age-difference. For example the tax rate could be 0.5*(deceased_age-beneficiary_age). There should also be a threshold below which no tax is paid. This simple change allows inheritance tax to meet both its requirements, and treat all kinds of relationships fairly.

After reading what Varadkar said about genocide yesterday (“Varadkar rules out joining South African genocide case”), there are many things you could say. I’m going to gloss over whether a man who contradicts himself in mid argument is fit to be in government, and focus on a bigger issue.

Genocide is where somebody selectively kills part of a population because of their race, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.

It is not necessary to kill every member of of the target group, to commit a genocide.

Genocide is a two part process. The target population is first isolated in a certain place, then massacred. If non-target people are first given the opportunity to leave, before the massacre starts, then that is further evidence of genocide.

Common definitions of genocide (and there are several) focus on intent. Intent is difficult to prove. Definitions of crimes only make sense when they focus on the actual act, not on speculation about actor’s intent.

A bombing is not a genocide, nor is a massacre. Isolating a certain population inside a walled off region, and then bombing it, is a genocide. Isolating a people in a certain region, then withdrawing the supply of water, or blocking the importation of medicine, is also genocide. Driving into a town and shooting everyone, is not genocide.

After reading what Varadkar said about genocide yesterday ("Varadkar rules out joining South African genocide case"), there are many things you could say. I'm going to gloss over whether a man who contradicts himself in mid argument is fit to be in government, and focus on a bigger issue.

Genocide is where somebody selectively kills part of a population of a certain race, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.

It is not necessary to kill every member of of the target group, to commit a genocide.

Genocide is a two part process. The target population is first isolated in a certain place, then massacred. If non-target people are first given the opportunity to leave, before the massacre starts, then that is further evidence of genocide.

Common definitions of genocide (and there are several) focus on intent. Intent is difficult to prove. Definitions of crimes only make sense when they focus on the actual act, not on speculation about actor's intent.

A bombing is not a genocide, nor is a massacre. Isolating a certain population inside a walled off region, and then bombing it, is a genocide. Isolating a people in a certain region, then withdrawing the supply of water, or blocking the importation of medicine, is also genocide. Driving into a town and shooting everyone, is not genocide.

So this exists. The goals are

• people get financial security by having more than one employer.
• people can change jobs and careers more fluidly. they can experiment with new careers without risk.

There is also an idea I've written about before, of everybody serving 1 year conscription in the civil service. (I now know this is not a completely new idea.) The goals are

• Give a critical mass of people insight into how the public service really works, what are the weaknesses and problems, what is it like to do these jobs. This could lead to societal improvement
• Allow people to try new careers
• Make corruption more difficult. For example if the police were routinely torturing people or record holders destroying peoples documents, it would be much more difficult to keep it a secret, with new uncorrupted people arriving in the office each year, observing all, and leaving again.

It is debatable if this should be optional. If it is not, it could delay people starting their real careers by forcing them to do a job they resent. Or it could be educational, changing peoples minds about their planned career path.

All of the above is good for individuals, for society, and for employers.

Now combine the two ideas. Like this:

Friday is designated an overwork day. Employees get a legal right to not work Fridays, for any or no reason, with a proportional salary cut.

Employers can hire new people to work Fridays only, with the eventual hope of poaching the employee.

Employees also get the right to 6 months unpaid leave. This can be used to try out working in the civil service or another employer.

This combined policy has even greater benefits.

It looks like the current government will not take action on the urgent issues of our time. The most urgent is climate change but it's not the only one.

Any maybe no future government will take action either. It's the nature of our political system that governments ignore long-term problems.

There is only one way to force them into action.

We must find a single issue with overwhelmingly popular support. Then we organise a national strike over it.

It must be a specific actionable realistic issue. For example

• A fair sales tax on all products which produce carbon dioxide or methane, in proportion to their global warming effect per kilo. This would include concrete, beef, fertilizer, fossil fuels, steel. The money shall be used to fund a cut in the general VAT rate. So these products rise in price and everything else, every less polluting product, drops in price.
• A boycott on Israel until it grants non-Jews in territories it controls equal civil rights.
• A ban on vulture funds owning housing.

First we need a public figure, or anyone influential or persuasive, to spearhead this action.

Who can do it?

It looks like the current government will not take action on the urgent issues of our time. The most urgent is climate change but it's not the only one.

Any maybe no future government take action either. It's the nature of our political system that governments ignore long-term problems.

There is only one way to force the issue.

We must find a single issue with overwhelmingly popular support. Then we organise a national strike over it.

It must be a specific actionable realistic issue. For example

• A fair sales tax on all products which produce carbon dioxide or methane, in proportion to their global warming effect per kilo. This would include concrete, beef, fertilizer, fossil fuels, steel. The money shall be used to fund a cut in the general VAT rate. So these products rise in price and everything else, every less polluting product, drops in price.
• A boycott on Israel until it grants non-Jews in territories it controls equal civil rights.
• A ban on vulture funds owning housing.

First we need a public figure, or anyone influential or persuasive, to spearhead this action.

Who can do it?