NationStates Jolt Archive

Here you can sum up your political philosophy and debate and snigger over anyone else or start up a lovely debate.

I'll start:

SOCIALLY:
I believe the only purpose of a government is to ensure it people - their lives and their rights are not violated. In other words to protects its people and defend their rights and freedoms.

Therefore abortion and euthenasia should not be allowed, as it destroys life. (I am pro-life, but recently I've been pro-choice, because state regulated abortion prevents the dangers of an illegal one)

What happens between two (or more =P) consenting adults as long as it does not injure them is no business of the state. Therefore child porn and molestation is bad, while homosexual relations are no business of the state.

Basically the government interferes none with our person lives as long as no one is being injured and no one's rights are being violated. People hurt/exploit each other. The purpose of goverment is to combat this.

ECONOMICALLY:
I'm left-leaning here also. As corportations can and often will exploit its employees, damage the environment, inhibit the generation of other companies, outsource jobs, et cetera the goverment should be allowed to restrict corporations. This is still a capitalist economy, just businesses have restrictions andd the gov't is free to break up monopolies and set tariffs, et cetera.

Though labor unions, oddly enough, I do have a problem with. They in my opinion don't know when to stop. The corporation has improved their working condition, pays them adequately, and yet they still want more. In Baltimore (my home city) the amount of soup kitchens (correct me if the statistics are a bit off) has increased from 50 to 800 in the past 10 years (?) because of companies like Bethlehem steel leaving.The companies were making profits, but they could make bigger profits in other countries.

Now, that I've summed up my basic political philosophy you can smash it and tear it to shreads and/or post your own!

I was somewhere near Ghandi.
http://politicalcompass.org/

jihad

In A.D. 2101
War was beginning.
Captain: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's You !!
Cats: How are you gentlemen !!
Cats: All your base are belong to us.
Cats: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say !!
Cats: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Cats: HA HA HA HA ....
Captain: Take off every 'zig' !!
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move 'zig'.
Captain: For great justice.

Internationally hawkish ( the world can be a dangerous place), economically middle of the road ( let people expand to the limits of their capabilities, but keep the lions from eating the lambs ), socially liberal ( I don't give a crap what people do on their own time as long as they don't try to force things down my throat that I would be loth to swallow ). How's that??? :)

I think the government should help provide for the common man, helping to better the nation by raising the average person up to a set level. Things like Food, water, and housing should be tax free. The leaders would be paid the average of the nations wages, that way it would be in the best interests of the politicians to work to better the nation, not just themselves. The state governments should run the local laws, and the federal should make sure that things run smoother. They should promote local business and econ, and make the nation strong without the need to rely on other nations.

Mixture of pseudo Trotskyism and Utilitarianism highly sympathetic to third world nationalism.

Conservative, capitalistic, militant, right-winged (ultra)nationalism.

Conservative, capitalistic, militant, right-winged (ultra)nationalism.


I bet you're fun at parties.

Libertarian. Especially on social issues.

Conservative, capitalistic, militant, right-winged (ultra)nationalism.

Those are my political views.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Social Policy: Progressive.

The individual ought to be free to do anything he wishes, so long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of any other individual. That means the government should establish a judicial system to protect the individual's rights from criminal elements, but apart from that, it should not meddle in personal issues and personal decisions. The only active role the government has to play, is to use its taxation revenue to fund social welfare and crime prevention programs.

- For gay marriage.
- For reproductive rights.
- For legalising (but still regulating) drugs.
- For legalising (but still regulating) gun ownership.
- Against all censorship of literature and art.
- Against the influence of organised religion on government.

Economic Policy: Socialist.

The means of production and distribution ought to be run democratically by the workers, just as the state ought to be run democratically by the people. No individual should be allowed to gain private ownership of any industrial or infrastructural property for the purposes of personal profit, just as no individual should be allowed to gain private ownership of any governmental body for the purposes of personal gain. During the interim between the current mode of production and a democratic mode of production, greater social equality should be achieved by implementing a sliding scale income tax system, with the goal of redistributing wealth from the capitalist class to the people.

- For trade unions.
- For increased minimum wage.
- For standardised working week.
- For equal wages for men and women.
- For universal access to healthcare and higher education.
- Against the influence of corporations on government.

Foreign Policy: Liberal/Internationalist.

Man's primary loyalty should be held to his fellow man, not to an artificial nation-state. Foreign policy should reflect that, by working with international institutions to foster fair trade and demilitarisation worldwide. Richer nations should be obliged to assist poorer nations in combating poverty and disease epidemics. The objective being, a world where people are ultimately united by their common freedoms and equal status on the international stage; this is a situation which facilitates the breakdown of national borders, and the eventual dissolution of the nation-state.

- For fair trade.
- For free migration.
- For an international governing body with real democratic power.
- For international social programs and crisis prevention.
- For globalising justice.
- Against globalising corporate power.
- Against international war.

Those are my political views.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

I also believe in the state dictating people's morals and managing the 'national image'.

Pity that you are American and I'm Chinese. I may be conservative, but if I'm in America, I would not be Bush conservative.

I am an epicurean.

Is this a serious thread or a joke one? I can't tell. I'll do both.

Joke
Um... JESUS.

Serious
Socially - Damn Near Libertarian. I, however, do not agree with 'convinency abortion' (IE; "I'm having an abortion because a child will interfer with my life.") I also don't agree with say... making all drugs legal. I don't want the government to baby-sit its own people but in instances of big business made drugs and people wanting to get ahold of them.. eh.. Not a good outcome. I'm okay with pot though. It's safer and less habit forming than booze.

Everything else.. Why not? Gay marriage? Polygomy? Gay Polygomy? Go for it. Want to kill yourself? Do it! Want to blow sh*t up? As long as it is not mine!

Government itself (?) - Most Confusing. I have some weird ideas on things. I think since people are basically buying goods/services from the government, they should have a generalized preference category for with the money can go into. Of course, some money would still have to go to unpopular picks, like the military. However, people would get a say in where the sizible portion of their tax dollars goes. Which is even cooler because the goverment could see the wants of the people and have to adhere to their needs. You can't lose!!!

I also think that sense people are buying things from the government, that there should be privated businesses offering the same services. Transportaion is an example. Why do ALL the roads have to be government owned? If a business can make a road, own all the land the road is on.. then let's have business make roads! The government would have to compete and create better roads instead of monopoly they hold on the roads.

Economics: Because I'm tired and I don't want to stay up any longer, I'll simply say small 'l' Libertarian.

Civil liberties can be used as a cover for promoting immoralities.

It is also a pity to see a scientifically power America slowly being made sterile by the uneducated funadamentalists who cannot comprehend with something as simple as evolution.

I am a pure meritocrat, and I believe that society needs to be reorganised into groups of people who are genetically the best equipped for any one job. Your path should be determined at birth. If you're intelligent, you're educated. If you're talented, you're allowed to explore those talents. One size fits all just doesn't work, that's why we have crime- low IQ people frustrated in the system.

Anyway, yes. Meritocrat Libertarian who believes in state ownership.

Your Right's end where my Right's begin, and vice versa.

Regards,
Gaar

I am a pure meritocrat, and I believe that society needs to be reorganised into groups of people who are genetically the best equipped for any one job. Your path should be determined at birth. If you're intelligent, you're educated. If you're talented, you're allowed to explore those talents. One size fits all just doesn't work, that's why we have crime- low IQ people frustrated in the system.

Except how are we to determine one's intelligence or talent at birth?

The government should work towards a totally efficient society and a totally efficient market. Both go hand in hand and both are both are prerequisites to individual autonomy.

The government should work towards a totally efficient society and a totally efficient market. Both go hand in hand and both are both are prerequisites to individual autonomy.
Try "effective." The Germans were very efficient at slaughtering millions of people. Even kept detailed records on it; the same records which were used to convict the Nazis of crimes against humanity.

Try "effective." The Germans were very efficient at slaughtering millions of people. Even kept detailed records on it; the same records which were used to convict the Nazis of crimes against humanity.

Genocide is the opposite of how an efficient society would operate. Genocide would be like cutting a complete industry out of the economy, it would throw the entire system out of whack and would cause a monumental negative reaction.

Genocide is the opposite of how an efficient society would operate. Genocide would be like cutting a complete industry out of the economy, it would throw the entire system out of whack and would cause a monumental negative reaction.
Extending the example, Germany rebuild its devastated economy ( from the punitive Treaty of Versallies after WWI ) under Hitler at the same time the Nazis were slaughtering the disabled, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

Extending the example, Germany rebuild its devastated economy ( from the punitive Treaty of Versallies after WWI ) under Hitler at the same time the Nazis were slaughtering the disabled, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

This is a gross fallacy, Hitler got Germany's economy back on its feet before he started the genocide in 1941.

Libertarian capitalist.

Society

Do what the hell you like, as long as you don't commit an act of force, theft or fraud on another person without their consent.

Smoke pot, marry members of the same sex, commit suicide.

Economy

Do what the hell you like, as long as you don't commit an act of force, theft or fraud on another person without their consent.

Sell pot, found a for-profit gay-marriage church, be hired to commit euthanasia.

Extending the example, Germany rebuild its devastated economy ( from the punitive Treaty of Versallies after WWI ) under Hitler at the same time the Nazis were slaughtering the disabled, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

Yes, but his ability to drag Germany through a devastating and unjust war just shows what kind of irreparable damages his social policies did to the German society.

Government: I favor direct democracy (which makes me an anarchist). However, something should be in place (a Constitution perhaps) to prevent a dictatorship of the majority.

Social: I am mostly libertarian. If I had my way here in America, I would decriminalize drugs and have convicted users placed into rehab as opposed to jail. In my ideal world, there would simply be a system of communes. I would live in a commune that didn't permit drugs. Euthanasia is acceptable, provided you have a living will or some other form of planning done before you were diagnosed with the incurable disease (such as making a video where you say "if I'm ever diagnosed with incurable cancer, I wish to be euthanized." I feel this should be done before the diagnosis so that a terminally ill person's relatives, etc. can't manipulate said terminally ill person into an unwanted euthanasia. I believe social pressures would prevent this from happening, as well as other things I wouldn't want, such as child molestation.

Economic: I favor complete economic equality, as each job is ultimately equally important. The reasons people should get a particular job are: they enjoy the job, they're good at it, and it helps society. I also favor abolishing money for similar reasons: each good/service produced is ultimately equally important. (If you don't understand this, I'd be happy to explain.)

For the most part, I'm like Mr. Biafra above me. However, I prefer a Socialist government over a direct Democracy. As a good deal of us know, a Democracy is a tyranny of the majority. Of course, you'd still be able to vote and elect, but not on civil rights issues (unless the issues raised were for the benefit of civil liberties).

Yes, it is controlled. But, political freedom doesn't always mean true freedom. True freedom is having the ability to do whatever you want with your life, and the government shouldn't be able to place restrictions on that, not by tyranny of the majority or through its own legislation.

As a good deal of us know, a Democracy is a tyranny of the majority.
True, but I think having a Constitution would limit said tyranny.

Oh, and let me be the first (or Nth) to welcome you to Pittsburgh. :D

Socially: Extremely totalitarain. actually, for both of them i'm extremely totalitarian. except centralization of government, in that i'm for direct democracy, not dictatorship like most totalitarians. I strongly think that everyone should be part of the government. National id cards should be compulsory. Almost all religions should be banned and people following them should be tortured for life. there should be four levels of punishment, special punishments, life in prison, death, and torture(lengths and strengths varying). Special punishments would be things that have an easy way to prevent them. Crime's can't give profit to criminals, an example would be, if one stole(i'll use american currency, since most of you are american, and it's the only other one i know) a dollar, and there was a ten cent fine, they would keep stealing dollars, but if one steals a dollar and they get death, they won't steal again. Draft should be mandatory.




Economically: I think if you don't work for government, you should die, regardless of weather it's your choice or not to not work. Because trying to help someone who doesn't help the government just waists the government's resources, and if they are physically and mentally unable to work, then killing them is good for the gene pool(most of the time), and the government's resources. Advertisements should be illegal. All buiseness should be controlled by the government, and currency should be removed(though i have yet to think of another way that would work succesfully) because it causes much more problems than it solves. Motivation to work would be death otherwise. Can anyone else think of a way that a government could operate without currency?

True, but I think having a Constitution would limit said tyranny.

Oh, and let me be the first (or Nth) to welcome you to Pittsburgh. :D

True, a Constitution would limit said tyranny. However, would a Constitution in a Socialist system not do the same for the government's rulings?

Yeah, I'm gonna like Pitt... When I move there in two years or so :D. Hey, I've still got High School to finish!

Can anyone else think of a way that a government could operate without currency?
I could, and I'd tell you, but I'm not 100% sure that you're kidding about the rest of your post.

For the most part, I'm like Mr. Biafra above me. However, I prefer a Socialist government over a direct Democracy. As a good deal of us know, a Democracy is a tyranny of the majority. Of course, you'd still be able to vote and elect, but not on civil rights issues (unless the issues raised were for the benefit of civil liberties).

Yes, it is controlled. But, political freedom doesn't always mean true freedom. True freedom is having the ability to do whatever you want with your life, and the government shouldn't be able to place restrictions on that, not by tyranny of the majority or through its own legislation.

that's what i'd support, tyranny by majority

True, a Constitution would limit said tyranny. However, would a Constitution in a Socialist system not do the same for the government's rulings?Perhaps, but I think it wouldn't limit it as much as under a direct democracy. A person in a government could be corrupt, but not break the law, and perhaps not corrupt enough to be voted out of office, whereas if an individual in a direct democracy is corrupt, the effects of it aren't as far reaching.

Yeah, I'm gonna like Pitt... When I move there in two years or so :D. Hey, I've still got High School to finish!Oh, coming here for college?

I could, and I'd tell you, but I'm not 100% sure that you're kidding about the rest of your post.

i'm serious about it. i also ment to include government controll of property, no private property.

I could, and I'd tell you, but I'm not 100% sure that you're kidding about the rest of your post.
I don't think Yupaenu is kidding.
From what I've seen, since day one here on the forums s/he has supported authoritarian communism, or something a bit like communism.
Unless Yupaenu is an elaborate joe puppet, which I doubt, then s/he seems to me to be serious.

I don't think Yupaenu is kidding.
From what I've seen, since day one here on the forums s/he has supported authoritarian communism, or something a bit like communism.
Unless Yupaenu is an elaborate joe puppet, which I doubt, then s/he seems to me to be serious.
Yikes. I hope he grows out of it soon. Not because simply having his own opinion is bad, but because fascists and their ilk tend to have similar opinions.

Perhaps, but I think it wouldn't limit it as much as under a direct democracy. A person in a government could be corrupt, but not break the law, and perhaps not corrupt enough to be voted out of office, whereas if an individual in a direct democracy is corrupt, the effects of it aren't as far reaching.

Oh, coming here for college?

It depends on a lot of variables. Representatives would be directly elected to their positions, and can be taken out of office if found to be even the least bit corrupt. And, along with that, there would be no President or Prime Minister.

And yeah, I'm planning on going to Pitt for college.

It depends on a lot of variables. Representatives would be directly elected to their positions, and can be taken out of office if found to be even the least bit corrupt. And, along with that, there would be no President of Prime Minister.

And yeah, I'm planning on going to Pitt for college.
So would there be a set amount of time for a representative's term?

Awesome, hope you like it.

I'm thinking five years per term, with the option for another term five years after that.

Structure:

Representative democracy, as chosen by national elections in which everyone age 16 or over can vote. Matters are decided in Government, except big important things like attacking other countries where referendums are held. System is roughly like the British one except that the House of Lords is replaced with a representative sample of the populace chosen from the census. Large donations to any political party are not allowed. Constitution is written. Records are available to all, sensitive records are available to everyone unless they would compromise national security, in which case they are released when they would no longer do so

Social: Evil Liberal Homo

Same-sex marriage- legal.
Drugs- legal but regulated
Separation of Church and State: Yep
Free speech/censorship: Complete freedom of speech, right up to the point of allowing Nazi rallies etc. Censorship is out, except in extreme circumstances such as child porn and snuff movies.
Polygamy: As long as everyone involved is willing, then yes
No conscription/draft
No death penalty
Free education and healthcare
Public transport etc. at price of production

Basically as long as you are not hurting anyone who doesn't want it, then its legal. Within reason: guns are banned and there is a speed limit etc.

Economic: Evil Commie Homo

Equal pay for sexes, races etc.
Discrimination laws in place
Minimum wage
Maximum work week
Higher taxes on the rich than the poor
Companies based in the nation must use the equivalent wage in outsourced factories (not in terms of money, in terms of goods)
Government-run social security if you cannot work, if you can work you can claim but only for a month until you find work.

International: Evil Limp-Wristed Pinko Commie Faggot Liberal Homo

War only in extreme circumstances
Complete freedom of immigration, as long as you are not a fleeing criminal, known terrorist etc.
No extradition to countries with the death penalty
Trade sanctions on people we don't like
Background checks for arms trade
Aid programs in the Third World

Economy: Conservative to a point.
I basicly see it like this. You can do one of 2 things.
1. Increase minimum wage.
2. Decrease taxes for 2 income familys.

You can do only one, but you cant do none of them.

Military: Conservative
The best defence is a strong Military.

National Afairs: Slightly Right wing but more moderate.

Inturnational Afairs: Fairly Right wing, I dont like all this "U.S.A. sucks" crap that is floating around.

Religion: Fairly Liberal, it dose feel as though Christians are takeing more libertys then they should. JUST LOOK AT FRANCE.


Im strongly anti Nazism, Scocialism, Communism, and Religious Fundamentalism.

And slightly Fascist but not anti any religions.

social:
in my ideal state, there would be no "law", as law is dictated by those in power to fit their needs. in it's place would be a system whereby any citizen can bring their fellow to court and a jury of their peers would a) decide if anything immoral had been done and b) what to do about it (the top punishment would be forced exile to a country of nastiness proportional to the crime, as the state itself should have no blood on its hands).
the police and army would be abolished, in their place will be state-owned companies, that could be hired out on contract (according to their past successes or failures) to perform functions such as liberating a foreign country or counter-terrorist policing. any incursion they commit upon your civil liberties is not sanctioned by the state and the company may be put to the public courts, where if the action was truly justified in the name of state security they would be acquitted.

economic:
part of the problem people have with government is that it's role seems to be take-take-take, so in my state employment would be organised like this:
communes (democratically controlled companies) would all be part of the government.
all the wealth generated by these communes would be generated for the state.
the state distributes the resources according to the value of the work the individual produces. these proportions would be decided by democratically-mandated politicians.
private industry would be possible, in a way. say you want to open a cafe in your town, you would ask the government, and they would give you the right to start a commune, all of your employees would be employed via the state but you would play a much larger part is negotiating your share of the produce.

government structure:
the government would be both minarchist and all-encompassing. it would be elected, but not in the fashion around today where a tick is placed next to a name or party. the ballot would consist of a questionaire, asking people their opinions on the issues of the day, the answers would be analysed and the vote would go to the candidate whose opinions best-matched. this would remove personality politics from voting as people would not know for whom they are voting. there would be many, many candidates, the majority not being attached to a party, so there would be very little cause for legitimate voter apathy.
the government would be supranational in nature and there would be no devolution to local, regional or other such governments, as they are nothing but a waste of funds. however, grants will be given to individual neighbourhoods throughout the domain. these grants would be used to perhaps invest in a communal park or hire an additional policing firm. if these neighbourhoods want to collaborate in the form of a city-wide authority (or so on) they must do so out of their own money.

opposition to the nation state:
i personally believe that the nation state is only justifiable morally if its only action is the betterment of the populace. almost every state on the planet does not comply with this definition, as individuals are often asked to sacrifice for the nation, therefore the nation state must be destroyed completely. in addition to this immigration limits are morally heinous, immigrants should bombard the land to dilute the 'native culture', hence weakening the nation state and introducing 'cultural darwinism', whereby only the best aspects of a culture will survive to propagate.
i would describe this as a revolution state, where the government gains its mandate to rule not from a false claim that they represent the nation, but that they are working towards a society without the need for government, (to this extent the head of state will not hold the title of prime minister or president, rather something like 'chairperson of the committee of the abolition of the state', a rather paradoxical title, but which emphasises the minarchy of my state), and, if a citizen feels this revolution does not suit them, they are free to leave through the fluid borders, in their place many third world workers will leap at the chance to join the state.

social:
in my ideal state, there would be no "law", as law is dictated by those in power to fit their needs. in it's place would be a system whereby any citizen can bring their fellow to court and a jury of their peers would a) decide if anything immoral had been done
So then conceivably juries could determine in two separate murder cases that one murder was moral and the other immoral, right?

I'm thinking five years per term, with the option for another term five years after that.
Any specific reason you chose that number?

So then conceivably juries could determine in two separate murder cases that one murder was moral and the other immoral, right?

yup. i agree that it sounds like that might cause problems, but i think people tend to be disgusted enough by murder to err on the side on immorality.

yup. i agree that it sounds like that might cause problems, but i think people tend to be disgusted enough by murder to err on the side on immorality.
I dunno, the death penalty has its share of supporters, and the only difference between the death penalty and murder is that the death penalty is legal.

Conservative, capitalist and nationalist. Sometimes militaristic. Many of my thoughts regarding social politics are guided by religion.

the police and army would be abolished, in their place will be state-owned companies, that could be hired out on contract (according to their past successes or failures) to perform functions such as liberating a foreign country or counter-terrorist policing. any incursion they commit upon your civil liberties is not sanctioned by the state and the company may be put to the public courts, where if the action was truly justified in the name of state security they would be acquitted.


If the government's military strength is lesser than that of private armies, there's a great chance of a swift coup d'etat. A government with no soldiers or police officers trying to prosecute or punish a private military company which has both arms and men is going to run into some major problems.

Social and Economic little-'l' libertarian.
Foregin policy-wise: Isolationist, pull military out of every country we have outside ours, pull out of most treaties, (exceptions being Geneva) and that's it

Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.95

God, this is horrible. I always thought I was a right wing authoritarian who considers Rush Limbaugh a liberal. Then I take the test and find out I'm between Tony Blair and (ugh) Jacques Chirac. I'm crushed and I guess I'll have to move to the EU. :D

If the government's military strength is lesser than that of private armies, there's a great chance of a swift coup d'etat. A government with no soldiers or police officers trying to prosecute or punish a private military company which has both arms and men is going to run into some major problems.

yeah... this is the flaw in my vision it must be said. the best solution would be to try really hard not to upset anyone enough to cause a coup. however if these private armies are primarily concerned with making money, it is quite simple to bride them from taking control.

I dunno, the death penalty has its share of supporters, and the only difference between the death penalty and murder is that the death penalty is legal.

well if it's really the will of the people that someone should die for their crimes... over here in britain there isn't as much of a support for the death penalty, people don't like life sentences though because they are so expensive. i like my idea of effectively outsourcing imprisonment to totalitarian countries.

well if it's really the will of the people that someone should die for their crimes... over here in britain there isn't as much of a support for the death penalty, people don't like life sentences though because they are so expensive. i like my idea of effectively outsourcing imprisonment to totalitarian countries.
Oh, I see. So it's not quite murder, it's sort of like hiring a hit man, eh? Although the idea of deporting someone does suit me, too, but for different reasons.

Freedom, humor, responsibility, hardwork, helpfulness and no lawyers.

Socially-I believe you can do what the heck you like as long as you don't exploit,steal from or murder others,however i believe in abortion in circumstances where the child is severely handicapped in some way that prevents it from leading any semblance of a normal life but abortion clinics must be strictly controlled by the government.I believe in free health care for all.I believe financial benefits should be given to those instantly who are suffering from diseases that cause them the loss of their ability to be employed however those who are physically and psychologically able to work but are unemployed should do community service to earn government benefits until they have found other sources of employment.

Medicine-scientists should be allowed to use animals to test on to develop cures for diseases,genetic modification should be regulated but allowed to continue.

Economically-the government should try as much as possible to encourage co operation between companies and there staff in order to achieve a compromise without government favouring either one as each is vital towards economic prosperity,though if companies or workers organisations start to make unacceptable demands then the government will bring in strong legislation punishing this though force would be the last resort.

Internationally-I believe international co-operation is neccessary on some issues such the environment which affects everyone on this earth,however i do not believe in forming supra national institutions like the E.U which are fundamentally flawed ,corrupt and undemocratic.i do not believe in declaring war with other nations unless for retaliation for direct attacks on my countrie's people

Government-Voting should be compulsory in order to safeguard the system from low turn out rates,proportional representation would be the norm