This idea is directed at the USA but might have application elsewhere.I am proposing an idea to our government to promote the creation of a nationwide, privately run, rail shipping system that could significantly affect the energy cost and number of interstate trucks. The idea is a cross between the Interstate highways and Federal Express. The infrastructure would be developed and paid for by both the federal and local governments just as the Highways were. Initially it would only connect major transport hubs. Over time it would be extended to cover the same sites our current interstate system covers, possibly by using land contiguous with the highways. A major rail yard being set up outside each transport hub. The trains would only carry truck trailers that would be picked up at the rail yard and delivered to their final destination.Where the Fed Ex idea comes in would be in the charter under which the schedules were run. Trains would leave on-time, whether fully loaded or not. Delivery at the rail yard would be guaranteed by the private firm running the system. This private firm would gain the concession to run the service by bid from the Federal government. They would be held to their schedules, rates and penalties by the terms of their contract and federal law, the ultimate penalty being loss of the concession and a fine. Payment for the concession would be used for repayment of the construction costs. Private trucking firms would supply the delivery to final destination and from source to the rail yard.I suggest this idea for two reasons, although it may have several others. After talking with some friends who were truckers but have left the business, I found they were driven out by rising fuel costs and flat charge rates. The rates set by the major trucking firms make it impossible for small contractors to compete. This is the way capitalism works and eventually, when the competition is reduced, rates will rise again. This proposal would reduce the amount of fuel used for long distance transportation while overcoming the chief objection to rail transport, untimely delivery. Secondarily, it would decrease the number of heavy trucks on the interstates which would increase the safety and structural life of those roadways. I would appreciate your thoughts both on the feasibility of the idea and a method of presentation that might gain some considered thought by our government.Reward: Fewer trucks on the Interstate and less air polution.
This idea is a pop-quiz for all elected and appointed leaders. It would measure the persons leadership skills (integrity, ethics, diplomacy, aptitude) No open books! And the results would be public. Reward: karma
After beating the snot out of each other one day, Stig and I discussed ways of bringing lasting peace to the world. Military deterrents? Forget it. Economic sanctions? Punchless. Public ridicule? Now you're talking...Simply add the following amendment to the UN charter:Should any nation declare war on any other nation, the declared upon nation has the right to officially rename the declaring nation; use of this new name shall be binding for all UN members.Would any nation ever declare war again if it risked becoming permanently known as Suckerland? Would India even dream of declaring war on its neighbor if India would then be called South Pakistan? Plenty of potential here...Reward: World peace. Plus a condo in the South of Briechewerland...
Ok here's my idea. Whenever there is a war declared. The President/Prime Minister/Dictator/King/Whatever you have, has to go and fight in the front lines of the war. During this period of time the Vice President/Whatever will take over the duties of leader of the nation. I believe that this would force our authorities to give diplomacy much more of a chance instead of letting their military might do the talking.
In times where the US are trying to spread their home-made type of democracy all over the world, it's time to think about new forms of government. I'll call my invention "Automatocracy" - the idea is that elections should be abolished, instead the results should be created by a random generator.The most important achievement of democracy (as opposed to monarchy or dictatorship) is the regular rotation of government. Automatocracy would definitely have this advantage - plus a couple of other really great benefits. Just think about it: no more expensive election campaigns, no more stupid election rhetorics, less lobbying, less propaganda, no more manipulation through the media. People could finally start having their own opinions instead of getting brainwashed. Politicians would finally be able to reach unpopular decisions as well, hey, they could even concentrate on their governing duties - chances are that they'll not be part of the next government anyway!Of course this invention still needs a little bit of fine-tuning: the randomized elections need to follow a certain algorithm, perhaps in some statistical relation to real elections. Possibly there needs to be a set of simple rules against government crimes (corruption, embezzlement) - things that are usually punished automatically in elections. Have a test run in some far-away country where it's not so important (Iraq, US, wherever) and we're set!
