# Your own country, what would you do?



## mrhnau (Feb 14, 2007)

I've been tossing around the idea of starting this thread for a while. The basic concept is to detail how you would run certain aspects of your own government. I'm going to try and keep the conversation a bit focused, introducing a new specific topic about once a week. I'll present one thread posing a question. If I chose to respond, I'll do that in a different post.

Try to keep flamage to a minimum. I'm just curious to see how people would run things if given absolute control.

I'm going to give a few guidelines to keep it somewhat focused.
1) The country you "own" is a 50 square mile island.
2) population of your country is 10k.
3) You have no direct borders w/ other countries.
4) you have a working economy, but the type of economy is your choice

ok, time for the first question!


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 14, 2007)

What form of government would you create? Monarchy? Total democracy (people vote on EVERYTHING)? Theocracy? Democratic Republic?

What forms of government exist? Would you seperate powers? Keep lawmakers and law "translators/enforcers" (courts) seperate?


----------



## Infinite (Feb 14, 2007)

What is the social culture geographically? Is this tropical / temprate? Asia Pacific, Atlantic?

Will we contend with local religious or can we define the countries religion for the thought experament?

--Infy


----------



## Drac (Feb 14, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> What forms of government exist? Would you seperate powers? Keep lawmakers and law "translators/enforcers" (courts) seperate?


 
NO LAWYERS..let the scumbags represent themselves..
Child molesters caught in the act get the chair...The same with those who prey on the elderly..

I gotta stop...


----------



## morph4me (Feb 14, 2007)

Mine would be a total autocracy, if you don't like the way I run it, get the hell out. 

Drac, I have an opening for the Minister of Justice


----------



## Drac (Feb 14, 2007)

morph4me said:


> Drac, I have an opening for the Minister of Justice


 
*I'll TAKE IT!!!!!*


----------



## morph4me (Feb 14, 2007)

*You're hired!!* 

But no chair, it's too fast, they have to suffer


----------



## Drac (Feb 14, 2007)

morph4me said:


> *You're hired!!*
> 
> But no chair, it's too fast, they have to suffer


 
No problem-o..I'm sure we can come up with ways to achieve that...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 14, 2007)

i'd find an island at the same approximate latitude as southern oregon/northern californa.

i'd set up a modified meritocracy.  democratically elected leaders, but your vote carries more weight for more education, public service, contribution to the society. (example:  a college graduate who volunteers 10 hours a week votes with more weight than a high school graduate who doesn't volunteer, who himself votes with more weight than a high school drop out).

all lawyers would be public servants on salary, not the sharks working essentially on commission we have now.  law enforcement would ignore 'victimless' crimes and focus on the true bad guys.

i'd let religion happen.  no sense in opening that particular can of worms.


----------



## Infinite (Feb 14, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> i'd find an island at the same approximate latitude as southern oregon/northern californa.
> 
> i'd set up a modified meritocracy.  democratically elected leaders, but your vote carries more weight for more education, public service, contribution to the society. (example:  a college graduate who volunteers 10 hours a week votes with more weight than a high school graduate who doesn't volunteer, who himself votes with more weight than a high school drop out).
> 
> ...



FYI I'm a highschool dropout that is better educated than most college grads you meet.

A persons motivation is what defines them not the path they walk for the destination is always the same (death).

--Infy


----------



## Drac (Feb 14, 2007)

Infinite said:


> FYI I'm a highschool dropout that is better educated than most college grads you meet


 
You and I are members of the same club...


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2007)

I would have sorta a corporate controlled free-zone.

Meaning there would be some basic saftey/property laws... i.e. no stealing, no killing, which would be enforced by private police hired by my Corporation, which would basically run a series of casinos, beach resorts, etc... to make money off tourism... but thats about where rule of law ends.  Amsterdam like freedoms... in a tacky vegas-esque envrionment.

No Taxes, the total income of the island would be supported by its Vegas-esque tourism, the live in population would work for the casinos, beaches, etc... in all aspects of the day to day operations... from Entertainment, to labor, to hosts, to croupies... etc.

​


----------



## theletch1 (Feb 14, 2007)

morph4me said:


> Mine would be a total autocracy, if you don't like the way I run it, get the hell out.
> 
> Drac, I have an opening for the Minister of Justice


Same here.  After all it is MY island, right?  Doesn't that infer ownership?  I prefer to think of myself as more of the benevolent dictator though.:uhyeah:

Oh, and if you believe I'm just being flippant or making a joke, I assure you I'm not.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 14, 2007)

Invade the US to liberate it from its opressive gov't!



just joking 

Anyways, I dunno, I guess there is a part of me that doubts a country of 10,000 could function as a independent econonomically country.  In the modern world, that's just not big enough to cover things, it would have to be largely dependant on a larger entity.

That amount of landmass wouldn't have the natural resources necessary to keep a country going in the current structure, which again would lead to economic dependence if not isolated.

Guess I am over thinking the details 

Gov't 10000 people I doubt could really support a republic, and a "true democracy" would be very inefficient, mobs rarely know what is good for them anyways.  Which means it would likely have to go to some sort of dictatorship or a form of communal living.

Technology I think would drop off a fair bit, simply becasue that is not enough to maintain the level of specialization to keep too many things running, let alone make progress.

Eventually I imagine the country would end up looking like a town from 19th century North America, or end up dependant on foriegn countries.


----------



## Nomad (Feb 14, 2007)

Mine would be a democratic dictatorship.  Every 10 years, the country elects an absolute dictator with the power to do just about anything he wants (except change the nature of the contract).  At the end of the term, there is a simple question on the next ballot... did he do a good job or a bad one.  If the people think he did a bad job, he is immediately executed.  If they think he did a good job, he is given 50 million dollars (inflation adjusted) and exiled so that he can't continue to meddle after he's been "retired".

Simple incentives.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 14, 2007)

Why I would be the power mad dictator of the dictatorship of Xue and rule with an iron fist build up my military and try and take over the world

But it is likely I would eventually be overthrown in a revolution so why bother I will just go out and shovel snow and forget it.


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 14, 2007)

Just be there by myself with my family and friends can come visit on the weekends, no-one else around live like hermits and be happy.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 15, 2007)

I would enact a basic rule of law that says that no one can do anything to anyone or interfere with what they do unless the actions of the other have a direct impact on anyone else. This goes for all adults- and only them. If two men want to have sex, no one else is allowed by the constitution to pass any law against it. But unless you are an adult, you can't make that choice to have sex and so a man caught molesting a child is shark bait.:jaws: 

I would set up a system of goverment where people would have to pass a test and do some sort of service to vote. The rights would apply to everyone. The homosexual couple I mentioned do not have to do any service to be left to themselves. But unless someone shows some brains and a willingness to put in some time in the military and the like you can't have a voice in who gets to run the country.

No one would be considered responsible for anyone else. Anyone can help anyone they want. But no one would be forced to shell out money to help someone else and the government would be banned from doing so. People would be quite free to ride motorcycles without helmets. But if they get into accidents and can't pay for emergency care- they would be allowed to die. As a private citizen I would probably ship some of the local kids to the crash site and have them watch a person die by the side of the road in agony to teach them why they should use helmets.

I do not expect that many people would be interested in living in my country. But those that did would probably be the best neighbors you can find.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 15, 2007)

Don, I like alot of your ideas 

Personally, I kind of like the setup we have in the US. Unless there is a divided country (ie states), I see no real need for two legislative bodies. I'd go with just one, with members elected from cities/counties equally divided by population. I'd have short terms for this body (ie less than 4 years). Limited number of terms.

I'm torn about electing president... popular vote is nice, but it might be nice to have someone elected by from the legislative and judicial body. I'd have a bit longer term for president (ie more than 4 years), and limited number of terms.

Judges would not have a life long term. Might increase the duration as they get higher up, but I'd limit the number of levels of judges... perhaps just 2. Local and a form of Supreme Court, and thats it. No limited terms, but a competancy test so that the election does not become simply a popularity test. Also, I'd have severly limited number of appeals and penalties for people submitting frivilous lawsuits.

Don, one idea I like of yours is a test of who can vote. I think you need to pass a minimal test in order to vote. Includes basic  civics, and I'd think about military service. I don't think economics, religion, or anything else like that should influence of course. You know, it might be nice to let everyone have one vote just for breathing and reaching a certain age, but let people who meet certain criteria have more votes. For instance, if you served in the military, you vote counts as two votes. If you passed a basics civics test, your vote value increases again.. Perform some civil service, you get another vote value increase. Gee, I kind of like that  Maybe there should be things to decrease your vote too. If you went to prison for something serious, maybe no vote or a decrease of one vote. So, if you were a crook, you could "redeem" yourself by civil service or military service.

I'd try to enforce some method to limit spending on elections, though I'm not sure how that would work... I don't want people to win simply because they have more access to cash, but that access might be from people supporting that person, so on the other hand, that might be good... but, do you want a lobby dominating votes?

Cryo, I like some of your comments about state run industries. I've thought about that for a while. While it reeks of socialism, having an isolated industry would allow minimal taxation if run properly.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 15, 2007)

Infinite said:


> What is the social culture geographically? Is this tropical / temprate? Asia Pacific, Atlantic?
> 
> Will we contend with local religious or can we define the countries religion for the thought experament?
> 
> --Infy


Location is up to you. If you choose to deal with local religions or even force a religion or lack of religion on the group, its up to you  your country. Though with certain things I'd expect a mass exodus LOL


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 15, 2007)

Something I've thought about for a while... how does one prevent corruption? In alot of countries even judges are corrupt. How does one keep it out of government? I've thought of inserting moles or trying a sting type operation on a regular basis so that politicians have no idea if the potential suitor is real or not. It would be ideal if you could totally eliminate corruption, but I honestly don't know how to totally get rid of it. I don't see how EVERYTHING can be transparent...


----------



## Josh (Feb 15, 2007)

divide the 10 k into 2 teams, each starting on different sides of the island.
we will engage in a gigantic "paint ball war"


the  winning team gets to eat, the losing team gets to be slaves. except for me...i'm automaticly a king. but I still get to play in the paint ball war, except unlike my people who are fighting for their freedom... i'll be playing for fun. muhahhahah muhahhahh *evil laugh*

any dissenters? :shooter:
protests do not exist  in this country do they?.... NO SENSEI.

voting is a thing of the past. this is 100% monarchy..no French revolution ***** either. thats why the punishment for protesting= death by paint ball shots.

All "politics" will be handled by me, in the event that I can't decide how to deal with an issue, I will ask one of my advisers. who will be my advisers you ask? THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE.. *****.
guns are not allowed on my island. we have no "2nd amendment"
we all use swords. oh wait.. we do have a second amendment.. it's you shutting the hell up if you disagree with my policy. :]

The internet is banned. No "freedom of expression/speech/press.
in fact, I run the newspapers...and guess what.. they have PORN!! TAKE THAT NEO CONS.



churches are replaced by dojos. should you choose to have a faith you must do it in your own home. mcdojos will be burned to the ground.

country music is banned. no one cares.

if we get bored we have pre emptive wars.. with ourselves. TAKE THAT LIBERALS.. muhahaha

every six months we write a state signed letter to the united nations telling them to bring it on! I then get my knights ready for battle and scoff for days when they don't show up to sanction us, or our weapons of awesome destruction.


you cant get passports. no one leaves the island... unless they are voted off


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 15, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Don, I like alot of your ideas
> 
> Personally, I kind of like the setup we have in the US. Unless there is a divided country (ie states), I see no real need for two legislative bodies. I'd go with just one, with members elected from cities/counties equally divided by population. I'd have short terms for this body (ie less than 4 years). Limited number of terms.



Well, you have to remember that the reason we have two houses of congress is to prevent large groups from completely screwing small groups. Hence the reason for one house being based on number of people and the ohter just two per state. If you could reduce the amount of mischief a group of people could do to a smaller one I would agree with you. The question is how to do it and still get something done.




mrhnau said:


> Judges would not have a life long term. Might increase the duration as they get higher up, but I'd limit the number of levels of judges... perhaps just 2. Local and a form of Supreme Court, and thats it. No limited terms, but a competancy test so that the election does not become simply a popularity test. Also, I'd have severly limited number of appeals and penalties for people submitting frivilous lawsuits.



The idea behind life long terms is so that the judges do not have to worry if their best judgements are against the latest hysteric ideas. On the other hand, there has to be some way to prevent certain morons from staying where they are until they hit room temperature.



mrhnau said:


> Don, one idea I like of yours is a test of who can vote. I think you need to pass a minimal test in order to vote. Includes basic  civics, and I'd think about military service. I don't think economics, religion, or anything else like that should influence of course. You know, it might be nice to let everyone have one vote just for breathing and reaching a certain age, but let people who meet certain criteria have more votes. For instance, if you served in the military, you vote counts as two votes. If you passed a basics civics test, your vote value increases again.. Perform some civil service, you get another vote value increase. Gee, I kind of like that  Maybe there should be things to decrease your vote too. If you went to prison for something serious, maybe no vote or a decrease of one vote. So, if you were a crook, you could "redeem" yourself by civil service or military service.



Some of the ideas that I have read and thought on come from Science Fiction writers such as Jerry Pournelle and Robert Heinlein. Their basic idea, which I have come to consider very heavily, is that if you are not willing to put yourself in a position to get shot at protecting the country- why in hell do you think you have the right to have a say in the defense of that country? Not everyone who serves sees combat. But there are folks that demand that some of our members face certain risks and sacrifices without ever even the slimest possibility that they will ever have to hear a bullet crack the sound barrier over their head.



mrhnau said:


> I'd try to enforce some method to limit spending on elections, though I'm not sure how that would work... I don't want people to win simply because they have more access to cash, but that access might be from people supporting that person, so on the other hand, that might be good... but, do you want a lobby dominating votes?



How about limiting the power that elected officials can wield? I do not like the idea of the government telling folks how they can spend their money or what they can do. I have no trouble limiting what political hacks can do. So maybe having as a rule a standard that if if a politician gets some sort of support from a group or an individual they are barred from voting or supporting any legislation effecting that group/person. That way you can do whatever you want and it is the politicians that have their freedom to act limited.


----------



## bydand (Feb 15, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> I would enact a basic rule of law that says that no one can do anything to anyone or interfere with what they do unless the actions of the other have a direct impact on anyone else. This goes for all adults- and only them. If two men want to have sex, no one else is allowed by the constitution to pass any law against it. But unless you are an adult, you can't make that choice to have sex and so a man caught molesting a child is shark bait.:jaws:
> 
> I would set up a system of goverment where people would have to pass a test and do some sort of service to vote. The rights would apply to everyone. The homosexual couple I mentioned do not have to do any service to be left to themselves. But unless someone shows some brains and a willingness to put in some time in the military and the like you can't have a voice in who gets to run the country.
> 
> ...



What are your immigration rules, because I could live in a country like this.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 15, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Well, you have to remember that the reason we have two houses of congress is to prevent large groups from completely screwing small groups. Hence the reason for one house being based on number of people and the ohter just two per state. If you could reduce the amount of mischief a group of people could do to a smaller one I would agree with you. The question is how to do it and still get something done.


the power of the bicameral approach in the US is obvious. If you can divide the population evenly, then it would not be an issue. The problem comes in that people like to seperate and form cities/groups that are decidely uneven. It only makes sense to have districts based on population, but it would be strange to have to reassign them every election, which is what would be required. With a smaller population (10k) that would not be -too- hard or too painful. I think one house would help though. Get things done a bit quicker. I'd also make sure there were more than one or two powerful political parties so that silly things don't get passed. Not sure how I'd attempt to enforce it though LOL




> The idea behind life long terms is so that the judges do not have to worry if their best judgements are against the latest hysteric ideas. On the other hand, there has to be some way to prevent certain morons from staying where they are until they hit room temperature.


Perhaps a competency test based on age? I agree that judges should not be strictly influenced by popularity/opinion polls.



> Some of the ideas that I have read and thought on come from Science Fiction writers such as Jerry Pournelle and Robert Heinlein. Their basic idea, which I have come to consider very heavily, is that if you are not willing to put yourself in a position to get shot at protecting the country- why in hell do you think you have the right to have a say in the defense of that country? Not everyone who serves sees combat. But there are folks that demand that some of our members face certain risks and sacrifices without ever even the slimest possibility that they will ever have to hear a bullet crack the sound barrier over their head.


agreed...



> How about limiting the power that elected officials can wield? I do not like the idea of the government telling folks how they can spend their money or what they can do. I have no trouble limiting what political hacks can do. So maybe having as a rule a standard that if if a politician gets some sort of support from a group or an individual they are barred from voting or supporting any legislation effecting that group/person. That way you can do whatever you want and it is the politicians that have their freedom to act limited.



I agree with limited government, but some is still needed. I think the populace in general does not know whats best for them. A certain amount of government is going to be essential (police, military, perhaps infrastructure).

In order to keep things civil, you need a little bit of control, unfortunately. I'd keep it minimal, but it would be hard to figure out the appropriate level. I'd try to keep things as democratic as possible (letting people vote on multiple things), but you can't exactly have people running to the poll every other day in order to deal with current events/problems.

Well, the concept of not voting on topics related to donors is interesting... I'd have to think about that one some...


----------



## Infinite (Feb 15, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> I would enact a basic rule of law that says that no one can do anything to anyone or interfere with what they do unless the actions of the other have a direct impact on anyone else. This goes for all adults- and only them. If two men want to have sex, no one else is allowed by the constitution to pass any law against it. But unless you are an adult, you can't make that choice to have sex and so a man caught molesting a child is shark bait.:jaws:
> 
> I would set up a system of goverment where people would have to pass a test and do some sort of service to vote. The rights would apply to everyone. The homosexual couple I mentioned do not have to do any service to be left to themselves. But unless someone shows some brains and a willingness to put in some time in the military and the like you can't have a voice in who gets to run the country.
> 
> ...




How very star ship troopers of you.

--Infy


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 15, 2007)

Infinite said:


> FYI I'm a highschool dropout that is better educated than most college grads you meet.
> 
> A persons motivation is what defines them not the path they walk for the destination is always the same (death). --Infy




i'd thought of that, and certainly didn't mean any offense.  drac and indy, both of you know by now how much i respect you.

the trouble with any metric is that there will be exceptions and poor assessments.  it's true that completion of formal schooling isn't the only indicator of level of knowledge.  it is, however, the definition of how well educated somebody is.  educated = how much you've participated in formal education.

that said, there is probably a better metric for what i was getting at.  perhaps # of hours of completed training which includes high school and college, but could also include martial arts training, job training, etc.

of course, if i got to design a society from the ground up the education system would be much better than what we have today -- so neither of you would have dropped out in the first place.
all that said,


----------



## morph4me (Feb 15, 2007)

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said " An educated fool is still a fool, just harder to deal with" ( feel free to replace fool with a noun of your choice, I choose *******)


----------



## zDom (Feb 15, 2007)

(LOL Xue... too bad I can't give you rep again yet )

Absolute monarchy.

A legislative body would be formed for proposed legislation, but I would arbitrarily approve or veto each piece of legislation as I see fit.

Voting would be mandatory (can enter an abstain vote, but MUST vote) or citizens are banished.

Very John Locke "spheres of freedom" based.

A free press. Constructive criticism of the King zDom is allowed, but publicly bashing the monarch in print results in 2 two-minute full contact rounds with the King 

Um. I'll make up the rest as I go along. After all, it IS an absolute, arbitrary government. If I don't like something, I'll just change it the next day.

(Shave all the cats!!)


----------



## Steel Tiger (Feb 15, 2007)

I don't see the point in simply being an absolute dictator when I could be a godking!

I have always been fond of the Aztec meritocratic system which is based on ones success in combat (measured by the number of captives one takes for sacrifice).  It would keep people so occupied accumulating their rank that they would not think about trying to become god.

I would probably have to do away with human sacrfice though, its a bit too messy.


----------



## grydth (Feb 15, 2007)

I'd use 2 movies and a book as inspiration: "Moon Over Parador" and "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean" plus Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions"..... it'd be a tropical paradise.

Instead of leading everyone in the palace square in boring calisthenics, it would of course be Tai Chi. I'd be on a new set of postage stamps every week and have a uniform with lots of meaningless medals. We'd mobilize the public for national causes like Yellowjacket Eradication Week, and they'd get medals, too. 

The only offense, but a capital one, would be the crime of Being An A---.
For example, like the guy today who cut across several lanes of traffic, in the snow..... Vehicular A---, shoot that sucker at roadside with a long barrel 44. Some monster like Heinrich Himmler or Mohammed Atta, Aggravated Homicidal A---,   would be dropped into a 3 story blender in our National Stadium.

Liberals could be kept, with a license, as long as there were no more than 3 per square mile; most humorless Republicans would be taken to the beach and forced to swim for home.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 15, 2007)

To give a much more serious answer than before. I have always been intrigued with the brief period in history that Kongfuzi (Confucius) was actually allowed to govern and he did it based on his philosophy and it was rather successful, which at the time made a lot of people very nervous so they put a stop to it. Also if you read Laozi there is an awful lot about governing and ruling in there too. 

I would be very curious to see if either Confucian philosophy or Taoist philosophy (as from the Tao De Qing) would actually work. So I would probably study a lot more of both and try and apply them. Success or failure I would really like to see what happens.

Idealistic maybe, but Im allowed to be idealistic every now and then


----------



## Steel Tiger (Feb 15, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> To give a much more serious answer than before. I have always been intrigued with the brief period in history that Kongfuzi (Confucius) was actually allowed to govern and he did it based on his philosophy and it was rather successful, which at the time made a lot of people very nervous so they put a stop to it. Also if you read Laozi there is an awful lot about governing and ruling in there too.
> 
> I would be very curious to see if either Confucian philosophy or Taoist philosophy (as from the Tao De Qing) would actually work. So I would probably study a lot more of both and try and apply them. Success or failure I would really like to see what happens.
> 
> Idealistic maybe, but Im allowed to be idealistic every now and then


 

I like it.  Maybe I'll immigrate after my people discover I'm not really a god.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 15, 2007)

Build a Navy. Invade the neighbors. Crush them. See them driven before me and hear the lamentations of their women. :EG:


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 15, 2007)

> I'd use 2 movies and a book as inspiration: "Moon Over Parador" and "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean" plus Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions"..... it'd be a tropical paradise.



I was thinking more like "Dark City" as a movie inspiration and "Lord Of The Flies" as a book inspiration


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 16, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I like it. Maybe I'll immigrate after my people discover I'm not really a god.


 
You do of course realize this is only if the whole power mad dictator thing I first posted doesn't work out.


----------



## Infinite (Feb 16, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> To give a much more serious answer than before. I have always been intrigued with the brief period in history that Kongfuzi (Confucius) was actually allowed to govern and he did it based on his philosophy and it was rather successful, which at the time made a lot of people very nervous so they put a stop to it. Also if you read Laozi there is an awful lot about governing and ruling in there too.
> 
> I would be very curious to see if either Confucian philosophy or Taoist philosophy (as from the Tao De Qing) would actually work. So I would probably study a lot more of both and try and apply them. Success or failure I would really like to see what happens.
> 
> Idealistic maybe, but Im allowed to be idealistic every now and then



That is what I was thinking as well..  I tend to lean more to the Confucian way of thinking when it comes to ruling than the Taoist. Which is strange because I'm far more of a Taoist than I am a Confucian philosophically.

Anyone else read these two and can join the discussion? Or would we be hijacking the thread?

--Infy


----------



## Ray (Feb 16, 2007)

Unfortunately I have lost the desire to lord over others and desire to acheive better control over myself.  I would have to sell the Island and move to the US.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 16, 2007)

Infinite said:


> That is what I was thinking as well.. I tend to lean more to the Confucian way of thinking when it comes to ruling than the Taoist. Which is strange because I'm far more of a Taoist than I am a Confucian philosophically.
> 
> Anyone else read these two and can join the discussion? Or would we be hijacking the thread?
> 
> --Infy


 
It could be the translation of the Tao Te Qing I am currently re-reading. I have read others that did not seem as clear. It is a translation I picked up in China that I believe was translated by a Chinese professor from one of the universities there.

And it is certainly much clearer from Confucius than Laozi. 

But with that said it ahs been long time since I have read Confucius. But I do have a translated copy to read that I also picked up in China that I will be reading soon. Should be interesting to see the differences it any. 

I have talked with a few native Chinese that have read copies of both in both languages (English and Chinese) and they all seem to say the same thing, it is better in Chinese. 

And yes I think this may be hijacking the thread so I will stop here.


----------



## zDom (Feb 16, 2007)

I am also considering a "Hapkidocracy" for an elite class.  But I would still want to maintain my position as an absoluate monarch.

Absolute monarchy is the most efficient government, after all.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 19, 2007)

New Topic: Taxation!

If you chose to tax your people, how would you do it? How much would you take? What would you use it for? Who determines how it is used?

Would you have a flat tax? Consumption tax? Scaled based on income? Would you allow deductions of any forms, or possibly credits? Is anyone or any organization immune to taxation? How would you enforce things?



If you want, feel free to continue discussing the old topic a bit


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 19, 2007)

I wouldn't need a tax, the Casino's and whorehouses that are run by the corporate state would have to pay for everything... if they didn't they wouldn't be able to function, and if they didn't function, there would be no profit, and without profit, there would be no need for my country.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 19, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I wouldn't need a tax, the Casino's and whorehouses that are run by the corporate state would have to pay for everything... if they didn't they wouldn't be able to function, and if they didn't function, there would be no profit, and without profit, there would be no need for my country.


I'm torn on state run industries. I think I'd pick some different ones if I were to choose LOL. If the government can control one industry and tax nothing else, there might be merits. It would need to be something everyone uses, such as gasoline, electricity,  water, etc..


seriously though, I'd probably go for a consumption tax. That way, you make more and spend more, you pay more in tax. Spend a little, tax a little. Slap a 20% tax on top of everything. I've seen some studies that eliminating all taxes except for a 20% consumption tax and prices either stay stable or go down (no sales tax, coorperate taxes gone, everything gone, resulting in cheaper prices for production).

I'd consider some exceptions for the consumption tax, based on income and deductions. Paying for school or giving to charity? You get a certain percentage off. Low income? You get a bit off. This would require some kind of national ID card, so when you purchase things you can automatically apply the appropriate tax. That way you could monitor things too (someone with only 10k in income and spending 20k a year in purchases would raise flags). No income tax things to file and coorperations have it easy too  I'd also set a lower limit. You can't get products with no taxes. Maybe make the max 20% and the min 10%. That way everyone is helping out.

I'd also give people some control in how things are spent. You have some minimum background for critical things (police, possibly infrastructure, salary for a few employees, etc), but I'd allow personal control for the rest of it. Just for a number, lets say 50% of it is in your control. Go to your public library, swipe your ID card on a computer and modify where you want your money distributed. Want 20% to go to military? 10% to public schools? 5% to infrastructure? You can do it! Alot more democracy, and you have power to effectively eliminate programs/expenditures you don't like. Get enough support and you can totally eradicate stuff. I'd make a history of expenditures available, so people know about how much is needed for things. I'd also consider making people pass a minimal civics test in order to redirect their taxes, otherwise the government spends it as they see fit.

yeah, I've thought about it a bit  I'd love to have control of how my taxes are spent.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 22, 2007)

First, I would try to limit the amount of things the government can do. That would limit the need for taxes to only needed stuff to prevent society from collapsing.

Next, I would try to post certain taxes on a pay as you go means. For example- if you fly in or dock at a port, you will need to be inspected to insure that you do not bring in anything that could harm the populace at large. You will pay a tax that will cover the expenses of that agency.

A lot of the rest of the taxes will come from a value added tax of a certain percentage. The payment would not be required, but if it is not paid then you lose all chance to take up civil suits in the public courts. If you opt to not get it taken from your paycheck, you can't sue your employer and vice versa. If you pay for a house and do not pay the tax, then any break in the contract is just your own fault. If the builder does not want to pay it either he risks you not paying the full amount and can't force payment. If you don't want to pay the government for something like this, you really do not have the right to scream that they need to step in and set things right for you.

Criminal cases would still be taken up by the authorities. But if you have a dispute over something in the civil courts, there will be an effort to insure that you have paid a kind of insurance to cover the costs beforehand.

Oh, and since I am an evil king (yes- I would be a king in the manner of Sparta's alternating kings with an elected senate, but that is not the subject right now) I would have a secret sting program. There would be a secret agency that would seek out people that would like to find a way to force those that have more than them to pay for the government to do things that might enrich themselves. Once found in these entrapment schemes, their assests would be seized in secret and they would be turned over to a camp where they would labor in a manner that would benefit those that had less than them for the rest of their lives. Some of the wealth the produce would go to the general fund to benefit everyone by supporting defense and things like the EPA to prevent one person from harming another with their actions. Their dreams of the rich benifiting the poor would come true in much the same way as the story of the enchanted monkey paw gave wishes.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 22, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> First, I would try to limit the amount of things the government can do. That would limit the need for taxes to only needed stuff to prevent society from collapsing.


I'd be in favor of that... I really think the role of government should be exceptionally minimal



> A lot of the rest of the taxes will come from a value added tax of a certain percentage. The payment would not be required, but if it is not paid then you lose all chance to take up civil suits in the public courts. If you opt to not get it taken from your paycheck, you can't sue your employer and vice versa. If you pay for a house and do not pay the tax, then any break in the contract is just your own fault. If the builder does not want to pay it either he risks you not paying the full amount and can't force payment. If you don't want to pay the government for something like this, you really do not have the right to scream that they need to step in and set things right for you.


That would be difficult... say you get some builder that knows you are not going to pay the tax. He does crappy work on your house on purpose, knowing you can do nothing about it. The logic says "just pay your tax", but if someone is scraping by, it would suck to have crappy house based on the whim of a builder.



> Oh, and since I am an evil king (yes- I would be a king in the manner of Sparta's alternating kings with an elected senate, but that is not the subject right now) I would have a secret sting program. There would be a secret agency that would seek out people that would like to find a way to force those that have more than them to pay for the government to do things that might enrich themselves. Once found in these entrapment schemes, their assests would be seized in secret and they would be turned over to a camp where they would labor in a manner that would benefit those that had less than them for the rest of their lives. Some of the wealth the produce would go to the general fund to benefit everyone by supporting defense and things like the EPA to prevent one person from harming another with their actions. Their dreams of the rich benifiting the poor would come true in much the same way as the story of the enchanted monkey paw gave wishes.


I think one of the only ways to get rid of corruption is through a sting type program. The problem is in keeping those individuals/procedures hidden. In a few communist countries, there were informants scattered through the nation, involved in every industry and organization. These people would eventually be found out by the people, and often were ostracized. Its hard to keep a very large sting organization hidden for any amount of time.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 22, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> That would be difficult... say you get some builder that knows you are not going to pay the tax. He does crappy work on your house on purpose, knowing you can do nothing about it. The logic says "just pay your tax", but if someone is scraping by, it would suck to have crappy house based on the whim of a builder.



Tough.:vu: 

Live within your means or kiss your chance of getting someone else to bail you out of your stupidity goodbye.

Did I mention I would be an *evil* king?


----------



## zDom (Feb 22, 2007)

Taxes would be completely arbitrarily based on whether I want you to live in my country or not.

Foxey women? Minimal. Maybe zero.

Rich guys who may be good looking enough to compete with me for the foxey babes living on my island? Maybe 75 percent. If they don't like it, they can leave. Good riddance!

Rich people who I find interesting enough (and offer enough flattery) may be eligible for lower tax rates.

Tax rates on others would pretty much be determined on whether I think they are an asset to my community or a detriment, how much they voluntarily contribute to the local economy and standard of living.


----------

