^All public officials must have degrees in public administration which includes efficiency training and economics. All public officials must pass a psychological examination and lie detector and drug testing every 6 months. No one is exempt including the psychologists.^

How far down does "public official" go? Who's in charge of setting up the psychological examination? Who selects the psychologists? Is it really a good idea to insist that all public officials be shoved through academia first? Does this really improve them? I'm thinking about what gets taught about economics in our higher education system. Not good.

^All funds for elections come from the public trough and have strict limits on them. No one but the candidates themselves and their immediate staff can create or run campaign advertisements. Public officials must work their way up the ladder. If they do their jobs well, they become eligible to run for higher offices.^

Who gets to decide who gets funds and who doesn't? Those deciders, the ones who make the rules, will be the people who end up running the system. "Working up the ladder" sounds good, but it basically selects for professional politicians. Also not good.

^All public officials are proscribed from ever working in the private sector. If they screw up, they become lower echelon gofers.^

This is exactly the opposite of the idea of "citizen legislator." A better idea would be term limits. You WANT people in office who have spent a lot of time in real, live jobs, and will do so again when they leave office.

^Lobbying is illegal and lobbyists are hung at high noon on the public square.^

The right of the people to petition the government is right there in the First Amendment, right after peacable assembly. Who decides who the "bad" lobbyists are? What happened to "banishment?"

^It is a given that government is run for the benefit of the people. Capitalism is fine and earned wealth is great; however, it will not be at the expense of the working Joe and Jill.^

This actually makes no sense. Where do Joe and Jill work? Where did that job come from? Who started the company? There's a long-standing myth that somehow money in this country is "taken" from the poor and middle class and "given" to the rich. In the history of this board, nobody has ever been able to point out an exact mechanism where this takes place. I, on the other hand, have many examples of money being taken from the rich and given to the poor and middle class.

^Minimum health care will be provided to all people and no one will die or have to live on the street because they can't pay their medical bills.

There will be health care available to all. Minimum is guaranteed. Individuals wanting medically unnecessary procedures will either have to pay for them or seek a grant from Medical Foundations.

Medical Foundations will be set up where people can donate (tax exempt) funds to assist those in need of medical care above the minimum guaranteed. I.E. Knee replacement may be needed but is not actually medically necessary.^

I combined these, so there's a bit of redundancy.

In point of fact, in the present day, very few people die because of inability to pay medical bills. A study done by a group that promotes single-payer states that up to 45,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance. Their methodology has some holes, but even if you accept the number, that's like 1 in 1000 of ALL the people who are uninsured. And of course, "insurance" and "access to medical treatment" are not the same thing. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act 1986 commands hospitals to treat emergency patients regardless of ability to pay.

There is already a broad range of charities and organizations aiding people in getting medical treatment. Remember how surprised you were once to find out that this was true? As with many other ideas here, there's no need to construct a government monopoly to do this.

The best thing we could do for our medical system is to create and environment where choice and competition are back in play. This will not be popular in some circles since there is no political power to be had in that situation.

^If someone has to go on welfare, they will work for the government in some capacity, donating their time until they can find a regular job. That way government gains the benefit of their labor and they are guaranteed lives. Disabled workers may perform some kind of work at home if able. If you feed at the public trough, you donate your time to the public trough to help keep it filled.^

That's actually the best idea so far. Of course, a lot of those jobs would be "make work," but it's still a net plus from the alternative of just handing them a check, and may build better habits.

^Criminals will be banished. A large compound will be created for them on otherwise useless land or an island. They will make their own internal government structure and make it work or will suffer the death penalty. Blue collar and white collar criminals will be treated the same. (I'll have to think some more on this. I see some problems here but what we got ain't workin'.)^

Good luck. Liberals didn't even like the idea of psychotic mass murderers kept on a compound on an island. See also: "Escape from New York" and several other SF concepts involving some form of criminal exile.

^All people get a minimum of one month vacation per year and two weeks' sick leave (which can be transposed – total time off annually 1.5 months).^

Who pays when the business can't afford it? Why not two months? Why not three weeks? Who decides? This is one of a number of ideas here that essentially assumes totalitarian control of the economy. Interesting and revealing.

^Retirement. People will work until age 65 or longer. They will be required to put away 15% of their salaries into a retirement fund which will NOT be risked in the stock market. This is so that when they retire, they will have a good nest egg on which to live the rest of their lives. There will be many options available within this but that's the outline. There will be no social security except for disabled individuals or those unable to make a decent minimum wage and again, those will donate time/work to the government.^

"Required?" And if not the stock market, where would YOU put it? Did you read my post on alternative investments? Remember when Republicans tried to create a concept under Bush where just a tiny fraction - like two percent - of Social Security taxes could be placed in private investments instead of dumped into the government maw. And on a voluntary basis. Liberals had a cow like you wouldn't believe. Bet a dollar you were one of them. Good luck with your concept.

^Guns are legal for hunting but for nothing else. You can't carry. All criminals are banished so the crime rate will go down because there will be no repeat offenders.^

If all criminals are banished - somehow - why worry about who's carrying guns among the people who are left. 😁

^Drugs are legalized and taxed. (Shoot, that alone will probably pay for the government and health care! And TB, put away your damn charts, this is MY utopia.)^

I have no real argument with this, but as you already guessed, it isn't going to pay off as well as you think it will. As with the end of prohibition though, you might find it will do more to stop crime than all the gun control laws in the world.

^Pharmaceutical companies will create orphan drugs, too, or they're out of business. They will not be allowed to rape the public with their obscene prices. No FDA doctor is allowed to work for a pharmaceutical company – ever! Past, present or future. They are government workers. Period.^

Pharmaceutical companies already do orphan drugs, helped by legislation from 1983. Between then and 2004, over 1,000 such drugs have been developed and over 200 have been released and marketed.

The obscene prices are directly related to obscene regulatory costs. Fix the latter and the former will improve.

The FDA employee regulation against working for private industry has some possiblities. There are "revolving door" issues in many industries, but those spring from a mixed economy, and good luck fixing it.

Almost everything you know about the pharmaceutical industry is wrong, but since I've corrected you many times already, I don't expect it to stick now.

^A certain number of legal immigrants are allowed each year plus those in need of asylum. Illegals won't be able to make a living because all employers will be so heavily checked and if found guilty of hiring illegals, be subject to banishment so there will no longer be a problem with it. If farmers, etc. cannot afford to hire legals, then there is a problem that should be addresses and SOLVED by government if need be.^

Gosh, wish us conservatives could come up with ideas like this. Except the banishment, which is still a little weird.

^Trade with outside countries is regulated to make sure equity is maintained.^

It's regulated now. This is pretty vague.

^The same government official elected to lead the US domestically shall be separate from the official elected to deal with foreign relations.

The judiciary will be separate. At the head of government will be the President of Domestic Affairs, the President of Foreign Affairs (them foreign affairs can be fun—ooh la la! Wanted to see if you were still awake there, Butch.), and the Supreme Justice.

There will still be a Supreme Court but their decisions will be up for review by the Supreme Justice.
^

Co-presidents? And what does that actually get you? Where did we get the idea that we NEED a "domestic leader?" It was the "progressive" movement that turned presidents from Chief Executives into Emperors of Everything. For a good time, go check out the actual powers a President is supposed to have in the Constitution.

The judiciary IS separate. Supreme Justice? Who picks him? Why have a Supreme Court at all if some dictator can overrule them?

This was fun! You have a lot of creative ideas, and certainly some have stories in them. You have an interesting authoritarian streak. Look at how many of these assume "someone" running the whole damn show. Of course, you left the current Constitution in the dust, but that was part of the initial assumptions.

If you want some entertaining science fiction about a true libertarian/anarchist society, try "The Probability Broach" by L. Neil Smith.