Your own country, what would you do?

[mrhnau]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[mrhnau]

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]

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.

How very star ship troopers of you.

--Infy

 

[bushidomartialarts]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FearlessFreep]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.