Now I always used to wake up and think to myself, what a good place to be living in. I mean, yeah we got traffic, crime, assholes and enough pollution to literally make a thick cloud of smog over my "fair city" but I'm free, ain't I? I used to say, thank god I don't live in some communist regime of a country.

The more I thought about it, there are some good things about communism, things that capitalism and democracies don't have. So I thought, why not combine the two a create some sort of supergovernment which I think would be the ultimate way to run a country.

One, one leader, for life and we don't elect anyone else. Why and how? Well the problems with politicians in democracies is that they're always worried about two things. Looking good for the public to get reelected and facing off against their opponents. Well that doesn't happen in this government. There's one leader for life who makes the decisions. He doesn't worry about opposition, not about getting re-elected, all he worries about is his country. Two, we have no business telling a man who's job it is to run a country how to do his own job. If he's smart enough to run a countrywhy does he need a second opinion, he knows what's best. Why does he want to do what's best. Because in this government people would be allowed to have firearms. Why is that safe? Because the more people who have guns, the less people get robbed because everyone has a gun and no criminal wants to go up against someone else with a gun, risk his life or jail for 20$. So why can't he just be a tyrant? Well if he is, we've discovered in the past that tyrants don't usually last long against a determined people. Fidel Castro taught us that much.

He also wouldn't do it because we would take that quintessential aspect about communism out of it, everyone is equal. You know what they say, "there is no I, there is only we". Well, that to me is why communism seems to be a better system because if you look at our society we get everywhere with money. If our family has money than we are set, even if we didn't do anything. I don't think that's fair. I think to get a fortune you have to work for it and but even than that fortune shouldn't raise you above everybody else. Everyone is treated equally and fairly. No one in Cuba has to pay for the services of a doctor, even though they have one of the best medical systems in the world, which is the way it should be. No one in Cuba is below to poverty line because everyone has the exact same amount of money.

Now to take the best parts and make the system. One, We have everyone start off on a base salary, which means everyone starts off making the same amount of money once they reach working age. Then as they study and get jobs we give them money based on degree of importance. Like a doctor would make more money than a garbage man but a transplant doctor would make more than a family physician. But we'd also have a salary cap and or top fee for your services or goods. And the leeches of society? People who live off a base salary and contribute nothing to society. We'd make a rule stating that everyone above thrity who does not have a job within six weeks we'll be considered a burden on society. We'd have public works projects to give work and we'd always need a standing army and police force.

Then take all the freedoms from democracies, like the USA, like freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of thought (never really got the last one, they can't stop me from THINKING what I want) and transfer them over to a communist type of government. With one leader a less powerful leader under him. Like Kings and Lords to give a comparable example. And there you have it. A freedom having, money making yet equal society that has one leader and runs it for life. A well armed people, capable of taking down a tyrannical leader, less crime because of a well protected society. But most of all a well respected, well looked after people by their leader.

(While I take ideas from communism I don't codone their oppressive regimes or dictatorships. This whole thing was to prove we could have both but still not be oppressive towards the people)