I am quite unclear about where on any 'political spectrum' I reside, and how valid my ideas are in terms of improving the general problems of "Western", capitalist society. Currently, I think I have a unqiue standpoint on politics and economics, and I would like you to a) tell me which group of people I am closest to, and b) Why my ideas are good/bad.

In both the UK and the USA, the seperation between corporations and government is not very defined. Governments form subsidary agencies with independence that act like corporations in terms of attitude to public welfare but aren't limited in expenditure as if they were corporations, because the greater government will pay for their mistakes. As such, inefficiency and corruption is widespread. At the same time, many "free" markets like transport, utilities, telecoms, healthcare (US only) and defence contracting are actually olgiopolies or regional monopolies. The lack of competition allows companies to take advantage of their customers and even evade serious prosecution for illegal activties like antitrust or privacy abuses.

I propose a solution. Essentially, there would be a strict divide between 'government' and 'business'.

All activities which cannot be reasonably competitive (telecoms and utilities, for example, because it is impractical to lay two physical connections to a property and offer a choice) OR are 'essential' needs and should be provided equally to the highest standard the society can produce (education and healthcare) are the domain of government. The government is DIRECTLY responsible for every single activity of this, and transparency and accountability are priorities. If one department is failing, the public and media would immediately be able to notice and can pressure the government to act but not waste their tax money. Politicians themselves would not get 'business' lifestyles: few allowances; no special favours and the minimum neccessary international meetings.

All other activities (notable examples are media, property and financial markets) would be provided only by corporations. The government cannot interfere with this (in order to make it a free market), so trade regulations, content regulation (censorship) and legal "red tape" would be cut to a minimum. However, to make corporations truly free of regulation would lead to rights abuses, so the specific areas of antitrust, abuse of monopoly position, fraud, false advertising, human rights, environmental protection and privacy protection would be STRICTLY regulated and enforced. In keeping with the separation, corporations would be prevented from influencing politics in any way, like campaign donations or defence contracting (Yes, the government would do all military projects in-house). The single exception to this is media (because influencing people's political opinions in this way cannot be prevented if we are to have a free press). Though corporate regulation is largely removed, so are tax breaks and economic protectionism.

One area which both corporations and government will both take part in is science and technology; however; corporations will primarily do it for profit and competition, while the government will invest in "public-interest" science that may not earn money like environmental studies and drugs that pharmaceutical companies don't want to develop. If the outcomes do earn money, the enterprise will be sold off to the highest bidder corporation.

I'd criticise if i knew anything about politics

AHHHH WALL OF TEXT

Some good stuff there. Trouble is I doubt nay gov can afford to so much in house and probably needs to contract it. Still i don't know enough to criticize so well done old chap.

I wouldn't want the governemnt running telecommunications or utilities - because even though it might be cheaper, the implementation and quality of those services would be worse (which is a general rule of thumb to go by regarding any government program - they usually don't work as well as their private counterparts).

Occasional smiting of monopolies and oligopolies is a good thing though...so I guess I agree with you on that point.

Basically your viewpoint isn't bad. In the US being a politician doesn't mean that you don't have some kind of job or company that you run. Therefore it may just so happen that after you become the influential type, you may start legislation motions in favour of the market your comapny resides.

In Poland politicians are required to stop working at their civilian jobs should they be ellected and if you own a farm you are required to use it for non economical purposes only, at last until the end of your election. This way, the politicians have no immediate gains should they try to work things in their favour.

As for the matter of what should the government be responsible for, well Poland is in the middle of privatizing many companies that have been state controlled thus far. This of course is to get rid of expenses that the government had to take for taking care of the facility

Furthermore, this is also to discontinue actions taken by politicians regarding the facilities. Such would compose normaly of hiring your friends and family and giving them managerial posts and the like.

Back on topic: the state should control such things as the Health department, some level of tv (in Poland the state tv station has about 30-40% of the market, while it should have no more than 10% imo) and key economical companies, such as petrol, gas facilities and to a degree mineral mines of all kinds. All facilities maintained by private investors would have to fend for themselves while the state could only help to a certain degree those companies that are controlled by the state.

Capitalism is Capitalism because there isn't a divide between government and business (quite the opposite, government and business are intertwined in that system), so your views are certainly not Capitalist.

Providing common services that are considered "modern necessities" to people on the government dollar is referred to as "social welfare", and is the cornerstone of the socially-minded nation-state. Sweden is a good example of this in practice, actually; though it is technically still a monarchy (albeit one akin to the British one, ie. the king is a figurehead), the governmental body itself operates under a constitutional parliamentary democratic system.

You've more or less described the Swedish political system to a T, on the most basic level. Though I should add that, as a consequence, taxes in Sweden tend to be pretty high to help pay for the social welfare programs.