Iceland sent all decisions to a vote by all the voters, the 'newly' elected Govt was there to count the votes. Being as some of the old Gov was being sent to jail I would bet the counting was bang on every time. Our original Constitution gave the option for a vote by all voters to take place on issues dealing with constitutional matters. If that was an agreement made by 10 Sovereign Nations (Provinces and Territories) then votes that affect Sovereign Nations should also be taken on a vote by all the voters, War and Bailouts. Given that option would we have the same foreign policy that is in active place today? I'm not even suggesting abandoning the old ones, I'm more in favor of enforcing the old (humane ones), then some updates to keep up with the times could be implemented. If given a choice in which way I want to see everything hit the drain I would rather go the way of Iceland's solution and being able to get away with it as she was an energy producing and exporting Nation. The other way would seem to be the way of Cairo, Revolution with no real change in the status of the poor so one year later another uprising because of a non-responsive Govt'. Let the new Gov take out a loan on 'projected' tourist site once a deal had been signed for all the 'mag-lev trains'. Spend the money now and put wheels under it (so to speak) and the 'grand-kids' only have to do minor repairs to keep it operating. The banks only care about having outstanding loans out.
Canada should declare everybody 18 and over as war-ready and as such entitled to vote on National issues. At 12 they would have a vote on school and community, both groups getting generous grants from 'the Gov/Client ID'. The collateral would be the next generation of 'clients' who start off with that money in their hands (so to speak) and by death they should have spent it all. I doubt very many would vote for 'war' as the preferred method of death, let one 100M in 100 years. That money spent would have gone to other things rather than not have existed.The classic catch-22 of war existing means insanity exists also, then spending twice as much to keep the peace makes better business sense, while sounding as the worst solution. Money and free time don't fit together all that well for a lot of people. having a society where your wallet is still 2/3 full at the end of every day. Once food and shelter are secure most people in that sort of circumstance tend to dwell into the creative arts rather than dreaming up new and better ways to kill the same enemy that is still alive after the last big purchase of the same basic stuff to do the same basic thing. Stuff that never actually got used even slightly, some people would conclude 'then maybe the threat isn't all that real'. Iran/iraq war proved that tanks/artillary ended in a stalemate, the only difference in the drawn lines was the age of the people loading the guns. The longer the war the lower the age, as long as there were shell to be loaded and fired the Gov would have found the people to do just that.
As to which method is best, How long ago did Iceland take the first steps to solving it's financial woes and when is the last time they have been in the World News?
Iceland should qualify for power exports, running the cables would be the expensive part of the operation, plug it into the place the wind generators were at. That would make Icelanders permanent holidaymakers for the most part , as long as Europe lived.(the 1% needed to keep it running were paid really well though) Tesla wireless might even make a retro return. If you had a car and a pair of 6ft antennas you were in business (as rumors have it)
The cops using pepper spray should be arrested for feeding the homeless since FOX declared pepper a food.
