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 establis

*** 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

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

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 leas

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.

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 seve

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.

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 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 ow

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

The technology exists to have cameras everywhere, and we should. Criminals avoid punishment because there is no evidence, especially when they are politicians or police or soldiers.

The obvious special cases are police body cams and dash cams, where some types of crime would stop of people knew they were surveiled.

The trick is to have total surveillance but also privacy.

HDMI is an existing technology where video data can only be transmitted once a secure key is provided. So video can be recorded by a box and encrypted on internal storage. It can only be decrypted and viewed if the user has a certain key.

This is perfect.

Secure encrypted video camera systems can be built cheaply, using existing technology. In general nobody will ever be able to view the recordings.

If somebody alleges a crime, the camera can be brought to court, where a judge can order the key to be found. The key will only be held by a specially elected group of officials who must all be present for the video

I have proposed a way to control inflation.

1. For the sector of interest, require vendors to advertise price changes from one week in advance. They must also advertise the change for one week after the price has changed. For retail this means changing shelf labels.
2. vendors must also list the markup and the price peer kilogram.
3. any price change greater than a limit, for example 5% per week, requires informing the regulator and paying a fine.
4. Prices must be submitted to a searchable online database.
5. loyalty cards and other discount vouchers are forbidden.

Now for a normal economy, these measures all affect various limitations of a competitive market, discouraging profiteering and inflation. But could this also work to correct runway inflation?

Is there any other plan that could work?

There is this problem that farming is cruel. It's improving, but the improvements may never be really enough to make farming ethical.

Seafood farming is worse. The hunting of fish is devastating to ecology. But farming fish is already difficult and probably cannot be done humanely.

Instead, farmers can provide a habitat for the target animals, without fences. The habitat must be humane to ensure the animals stay. Those that do can be slaughtered regularly for food.

This farm is a net benefit for the environment, providing a habitat and thus helping the wild population. It meets the highest standard of ethics, in that the animals are leading their normal wild lives. It is more expensive than enclosed farming, but in the long run cheaper and more sustainable than hunting.

It would enhance the human diet and health by enabling farming of animals which cannot today be farmed, like octopus, shark. So it effectively stops exploitation of the oceans for these foods.

The only extra requir