I have come to see the gun issue as thenumberone does. It could be possible to have a job for hunters, and have the government perhaps pay them (there might actually be a job for "hunters" but I am not totally sure- I have no knowledge in that area). And besides, we get plenty of meat from livestock raised for the purpose of being eaten. Fish are also a great supply of meat that does not require guns. Killing animals with a gun has become something of a sport, but what sport is in it at all? Hunting is just unnecessary, and guns even more so. 

Izziah, no not an "vegetable government", but a government that have no greed, and I think the research of the human brain will be on their way. So one day we might be able to make a surgery that remove unwanted personal traits as for example too much greed in the people in charge. But then we also need someone who wants to undergo this surgery. lol
BUT also, if we made the thought of having power means something bad, maybe  the right kind of people will take those parts?

About hunting: Hunters are well needed indeed as there is a lot of animals in the forests, and if they grow into to big numbers they will first of all be starving as the natural food supply will vanish. That will probably lead to the animals seeking into areas inhabited with humans and destroy gardens, cause a lot of traffic accidents etc. So hunters are needed to keep a balance between animals and humans(Sad but true)
Another good thing with hunting and then taking care of the meat is that it leads to near produced food. That meat won't have the transport distance as the meat that you buy in the store and might come from the other side of the country. So even if you soil the ground with gunpowder and such, I still think it will compensate for the long transport distance. And with this I argument I have the assumption that the meat will go to those who hunt it down and maybe some friend of those. I have some more arguments, but then I'll write forever about something irrelevant for the topic.
But with a hunting license for guns used in hunt, you won't need those handguns and such, and if we get rid of some of those I think we've come pretty far to become a at least not so lethal community. Or something.

Johnnyflickan :
I really dont think surgery for the brain is a good idea, people need to change of there own will, not by being sliced up. Also such things are next to impossible.
As for the hunting argument
1:areas with too many animals, the predators have been deliberately killed and the animals bred to facilitate hunting, its not a natural balance at all.
If thats the concern theres plenty of animals that are near extinction that can truely rebalance it.
As for the whole at site meat procurement, given the insane polution levels in the US, that is a drop in the ocean.
And hunting deer for example, dosent really do much, most people want to hunt the bucks (males) but in deer, one male is dominant, a surviving male can breed with every single doe.
Its also a dangerous method of control, in nature the strongest is dominant, but bullets have the same effect on all deer. You can end up leaving all the weak males, who will produce offspring that are far inferior, long term that could devastate them.
And if you kill the dominant male, if no other male takes over the rest of the deer can die off.
And in terms of numbers, when you kill them off, there's a lot more food to go around, they end up breeding far faster than normal.
In nature, the weak ones are killed and a balance is met between predators and prey, that's when a real Eco system forms.

Haha, I give in on the fact that it is never good to slice people up.. But I don't think it will be impossible as I said before, research is being made all the time, so one day it might be possible.

Well, I agree on that we kill the natural predators and hence destroy the natural Eco system, so we have to balance what we've screwed up.
And I can also agree that hunting just for sports and shooting down the biggest horn is just wrong. But with a regulated hunt with quotas for how many does, bucks and fawns in specific areas, there will be no "over hunting". That way you can balance out how much deer/any other animal are needed.

Don't you know that every drop counts? And if for example every county in USA would have one less truck with meat a month, it would become a pretty big amount after a while. Plus with less meat produced, there will be less pollution as the meat industry have 18% of the global greenhouse gas pollution. (link to pdf: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM )Plus it is a fact that meat production uses a lot of land for producing food for the animals. So I think you would make much less pollution in the long run if people started to eat more near produced food/meat/become vegetarian.
So another thing I would want my government to work for is more vegetarian food for everyone so we can live longer on this planet. Lol (am I off-topic btw??)

Johnnyflickan : I am still not totally sure that I agree with your hunting sentiments, but you did put up a good idea in the form of your point about pollution reduction. I think a government that had reasonable regulations on how much resources a state can use up has the potential to be a good thing. As it is, humans are using ridiculous quantities of limited fuel, which can only end poorly for both us and the planet. If governments spent more of their budget on researching into better, cleaner, more reliable fuel, it could have a major impact on the future.

ah, but heres the thing. If we switched completely from growth to hunting naturaly, we would need to use several times the land, the amount of land for vegitation for the animals would need to be far larger.
The only way the majority of the pollution could be cut is if we all went veggy. And that wouldnt help the transportation front, since we'd need more veg and typically meat has higher energy density we'd need more of the veg. It would still be less polution overal, but not via transport.
If the us made the same effort as europe, japan, korea etc we'd be looking at green transport much sooner.
As for regulated hunting do you think the average hunter can pick out which deer they shouldnt shoot?and the logistics of enforcing a limitation policy are colosaly complex, i dont know how theyd catch people. Theyd as soon shoot the dominant male as any other, more likely in fact because they dont want the scrawny looking one. That is un-natural selection at work.
Since we're debating a policy, i wouldnt say its off topic no.

The ideal government is one of liberty and pursuit of happiness not the one our country is jamming down our throats that is the new world order I like America and to be free from global elites like the cfr and trilaterial commision and be free from the united nations                                                                           death to the new world order      give me liberty or give me death

Wakan Tanka : First point: make your posts more coherent s'il vous plait. Now, how would you recommend a government go about giving more liberty and pursuit of happiness? I will agree that they are great things to have, but the problem is that the more liberties a population is given, the more liberties they want, and the less control the government has. What you seem to want is something more along the lines of laissez faire, the time before government had much of any regulations whatsoever. But this just promotes insanity in the economy. A few people gain absurd amounts of wealth and power at the expense of everyone else, and the majority of the country suffers. I am sorry if I am completely misunderstanding you. Explain your point.

Izziah : Yes, the more we pollute the air, the worse the world we leave to our children and the future. We might not be able to see the polar bears in the future as the glaciers is disappearing and thus the place for the polar bears to live and hunt disappears. As for now the Russians are out for the oil fields up in arctic sea, it will probably make the glaciers melt even faster.

thenumberone : well, I never said that we should give up on the growth industry completely as it would be impossible with the quantities of meat that we eat today. But if just some more of the population would start eat more near produced food, both animal and vegetable products, it would still make a huge difference. And if everyone started to have one or maybe even two veggie meals every week, the meat consumption would decrease a lot. And I still put emphasis on near produced products that will make the transport distance shorter.

This is how it is pretty much in Sweden.
Well, you have hunting areas where you keep track of the lets say elk population, and regulate how much you hunt based on that. And you only hunt a few of the old bigger bucks, and mostly concentrate on the first years(note that I don't mean the baby fawns). This way you will be able to control the growth pretty good.
As for the hunt you have to own the area that you hunt on, or be in a hunting team with the one who owns the ground. Then every team need a permission from a county administrative board to hunt. You also have seasons for when you are allowed to hunt different animals, so you can't hunt anytime you want. This way the owners of the hunting grounds will try keep an eye out for those who hunt illegally on the grounds(though it is impossible to catch everyone) and they also keep track on how much they can hunt each year.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The Federalist #51, written by James Madison.

AuraBlaze : It is a true tragedy, then, that men are not angels nor do angels govern men. Of all of the brilliant quotes from The Federalist Papers, why did you pick that one, just out of curiosity?

Johnnyflickan : still going back to the gun issue, I am going to borrow Aurablaze's idea and pull a quote from the federalist on arms regulation. In The Federalist #19, Madison says that "We may form some judgment of this scheme of military coercion from a sample given by Thuanus. In Donawerth, a free and imperial city of the circle of Suabia, the Abbe de St. Croix enjoyed certain immunities which had been reserved to him. In the exercise of these, on some public occasion, outrages were committed on him by the people of the city." I will spare you the details, but a force of thousands of men was called with help from the Duke of Bavaria in order to disarm and calm the crowd. You can interpret this as you may, whether it be in your eyes a just revolution or an unjust riot. But to me, it was just a case of kids being handed knives. When citizens are given guns, bad things are bound to happen eventually. But being perfectly honest, as long as the use of guns by the public is regulated to small arms, I don't see much of a problem with it. Sorry for going off of the present discussion, I just wanted to wrap up a previous one.

Izziah : Personally, I use it in the context of my Christian faith. If all of us were to follow the laws God gave us, there would be no need to create a government that tries to decide what is right or wrong.

Izziah : As I'm very unfamiliar with "The Federalist Papers", I'm unsure if I really get the essence of what you want to say.
Why should small arms used for protection against other humans ever be good? Or have I misunderstood something?

ant123ant : i have a few points there.
1.how would that be done?
2.you would need all banks to notify the government if they made another account. If the bank is foreign they may not play ball. And thats technicaly ilegal, its an invasion of privacy, the european court would probably intervene.
3.thats something iv always said needs to happen. Politicians waste money with no regard for value.
4.none of them do... Not really. Each has one vote and by force of numbers can stop the president/prime minister from doing anything.
5.having only 4 partys makes it a lot harder for people to get the policies they want

The dilemma of the ideal government.   It is a time old story, every type of government has its pitfalls.  A true and perfect Democracy is the type of government that is an ideal government.  That's to say that what Democracy was intended to be, is impossible in this day and age in pretty much every country.  The idea is that every citizen in the nation has a vote which goes to every topic discussed, which doesn't involve an elected group to represent people, therefore the worry of a central government who can deny votes is gone.   The problem with it is that there is a limit on the amount of people that could even participate in this pure form of Democracy.  Even socialism is an ideal government; which also has a limit on its pure form.   So we'd have thousands upon thousands of tiny nations to have such a system, not that it'd be a problem. I'd like one of these governments where everyone really has a say, and your votes really counted for something I just don't think it could ever happen though because I can only see it degenerating to what we have in America, pretty much like the Holy Roman Empire without the lifetime reign.

There probably is no 'ideal' government because people will warp whatever concept you throw at them. Having said that, the best government is one that actually looks out for the people it governs... one that truly represents their interests. A good government must take care of its people, yet not try to run their lives. You don't want to punish people for victimless crimes either for petty reasons like "I don't agree with what that person is doing". If it doesn't harm others, it shouldn't be a crime. Governments have tendencies to poke their nose into people's businesses like that. That's not a thing that should happen, I feel.

The ideal Government is a Government that is not involved in society and simply protects the people. The Government today is too involved in people's lives. The entire roll of Government is to protect the people by enforcing laws and protecting the people from other countries.

mystery saiyan warrior :
That never worked so well for the usa.
Crazy Li :
There is probably no possibility of the ideal government becoming reality, but that's why the word ideal is in there, we can all dream.