NationStates Jolt Archive

Land-Based Fascism
This a political philosophy that I and several companions wrote. All of the land in a particular nation-state is controlled by the central government which is headed by an autocrat. The citizens of the nation-state pay taxes in exchange for use of the land. The citizens may then do as what they wish with the land, which could result in a system similar to a form of state capitalism. However, if another citizen offers to pay a higher percentage of taxes for use of another's land, then the autocrat will decide who shall be the renter. The decision will be based on who will manage the land to its fullest possible use and how much profit will be generated, basically it's utility. Corporations will not be granted privileges over another corporation; the market will be allowed to sort out the profitable investments from those which are not.
However, the citizens of the nation-state will be encouraged to consumer in order to contribute to the national economy. The intent of this must be made clearly seen. The intent is not to raise the average standard of living for the population, though that may occur regardless, the purpose is to generate more funds for the central government. International trade shall be permitted, but of course it will be carefully monitored. Within this framework, the economy may do as it may. There will be a residential tax for the use of the land and there will be a commercial tax which is simply a percentage of the company's profit. Those who do not pay will be sent to work in a state-controlled labor institution until the debt has been repaid. The funding will be used for national defense. This is meant to be the state guard whose purpose is not to protect t the citizen, but to ensure the security and longevity of the state. A military will also be funded by taxes. It will largely serve the same purpose as the police, except it will act as anormal military. Regional police, in the conventional sense of protecting the peple, will be done by private firms whom the citizens will pay for protection
The nation-state will be divided into various geo-political sectors. Each province will be governed by a lord appointed by the autocrat. The local government, metropolitan or rule areas, will be governed by a secondary lord, a mayor, who will be appointed by the provincial lord and approved by the autocrat. Elections will not be held for an office. The autocrat will appoint an heir to his position, not necessarily by heredity.
All social institutions will be controlled by the state. Religion isto be highly regulated by the state as well as philosophy. Rigts will be defined only as state-granted privileges.

It has a alot of kinks, but I'll fix those. I just had to let the authoritarian side of me free for a bit.

NOTE: If anyone has a good name for it, let me know.

That is just so wrong on so many levels.

That is just so wrong on so many levels.
Yes, it does restrict freedoms, but could you point out other objections? I want to perfect it.

Well, I’m fundamentally against this, almost entirely. Basing land ownership on tax? I don’t believe in property tax, period. The government deciding what to do with land? Terrifying. Neo-feudalism? Talk about a step backwards.

I guess it seems alright. I am not sure how well it would work when it comes to housing but there would probably be some way. There do not seem to be any major unfixable flaws that could not be resolved through the actual government being developed and inflicted on a population. When I want to be a dictator I just buy some furry animals, assign rules for how they should live, then kill them every time they break a rule. It is fun! :)

Dang. I was accidentally posting with my Earth NA rping puppet. Those last posts by Charyania were by me, the great Undelia. :D

Yes, it does restrict freedoms, but could you point out other objections? I want to perfect it.
These are pretty much the bits I dislike the most...

However, if another
citizen offers to pay a higher percentage of taxes for use of
another's land, then the autocrat will decide who shall be the renter.

...

Those who do not
pay will have to pay off their debt will be sent to work in a
state-controlled labor institution until the debt has been repaid.

...

Each province will be governed by a lord appointed by the autocrat.
The local government, metropolitan or rule areas, will be governed by
a secondary lord, a mayor, who will be appointed by the provincial
lord and approved by the autocrat. Elections will not be held for any
office. The autocrat will appoint an heir to his position, not
necessarily by heredity.

...

All social institutions will be controlled by the state. Religion is
to be highly regulated by the state as well as philosophy. Rights will
be defined only as state-granted privileges.

For a start, I don't see how the first one and the second one can work together. I don't understand how, when it's a flat tax, there can be a tax "bidding war" for a piece of land.

And I think your philosophy would do nothing to promote science or culture...which, if you're running a dictatorship, are important things to build a sense of national identity.

Yes, it does restrict freedoms, but could you point out other objections? I want to perfect it.
See:Byzantine Empire. :p Okay, they aren't exactly the same, but they're too close for my comfort.

Well, I’m fundamentally against this, almost entirely. Basing land ownership on tax? I don’t believe in property tax, period. The government deciding what to do with land? Terrifying. Neo-feudalism? Talk about a step backwards.
I have two sides, this is only 1/3 of it.

I guess it seems alright. I am not sure how well it would work when it comes to housing but there would probably be some way. There do not seem to be any major unfixable flaws that could not be resolved through the actual government being developed and inflicted on a population. When I want to be a dictator I just buy some furry animals, assign rules for how they should live, then kill them every time they break a rule. It is fun!
I am thinking that the courts would work about the same way as the other parts of the government with the autocrat as the supreme judge.

These are pretty much the bits I dislike the most...



For a start, I don't see how the first one and the second one can work together. I don't understand how, when it's a flat tax, there can be a tax "bidding war" for a piece of land.

And I think your philosophy would do nothing to promote science or culture...which, if you're running a dictatorship, are important things to build a sense of national identity.
You're right, I will work on that. These are only the economic aspects, I am in the process of writing the social ones.

Essentially this strikes me as a cross between Stalinist collectivization and feudalism...it will be burdened by corruption, state-service innertia, utterly dehumanize the individual.


Your idea of forced labor camps for those who "do not pay" is beneath comment.

Also the idea that the rights of the people are subject to the government and therefore the dictator's whim.

Essentially your political ideal strikes me as the enemy of every free society and free person on this planet... reminds me of serfdom actually...bah!

All of the land in a particular nation-state is controlled by the central government which is headed by an autocrat. The citizens of the nation-state pay taxes in exchange for use of the land. The citizens may then do as what they wish with the land, which could result in a system similar to a form of state capitalism. However, if another citizen offers to pay a higher percentage of taxes for use of another's land, then the autocrat will decide who shall be the renter. The decision will be based on who will manage the land to its fullest possible use and how much profit will be generated, basically it's utility. This would need definitions of expected timescales for the return. A person using land to build a factory will make a loss in the first year, almost certainly, whereas someone growing cannabis would make a profit. Thus, according to these guidelines no longterm development could take place.

Corporations will not be granted privileges over another corporation; the market will be allowed to sort out the profitable investments from those which are not. Why are corporations given the market freedom when individuals are not?

However, the citizens of the nation-state will be encouraged to consume in order to contribute to the national economy. The intent of this must be made clearly seen. The intent is not to raise the average standard of living for the population, though that may occur regardless, the purpose is to generate more funds for the central government.
An irrelevant distinction. Any increase in consumption will result in increased state revenue provided that taxation is not purely based on land usage. If it is purely based on this, then the vitality of the economy is irrelevant, all that matters is the tax rate (the land does not expand)

International trade shall be permitted, but of course it will be carefully monitored. Within this framework, the economy may do as it may. There will be a residential tax for the use of the land and there will be a commercial tax which is simply a percentage of the company's profit.
Again different treatment between judicial persons (companies) and physical persons. Why?

Those who do not pay will be sent to work in a state-controlled labor institution until the debt has been repaid. How do you send a company to a labour institution?

The funding will be used for national defense. This is meant to be the state guard whose purpose is not to protect the citizen, but to ensure the security and longevity of the state. A military will also be funded by taxes. It will largely serve the same purpose as the police, except it will act as a normal military. Regional police, in the conventional sense of protecting the peple, will be done by private firms whom the citizens will pay for protection Why the two. Why not just one military?

The nation-state will be divided into various geo-political sectors. Each province will be governed by a lord appointed by the autocrat. The local government, metropolitan or rule areas, will be governed by a secondary lord, a mayor, who will be appointed by the provincial lord and approved by the autocrat. Elections will not be held for an office. The autocrat will appoint an heir to his position, not necessarily by heredity. Feudalism

All social institutions will be controlled by the state. Religion is to be highly regulated by the state as well as philosophy. Rights will be defined only as state-granted privileges.
The practice and open discussion of religion and philosophy you mean. You can not regulate away thinking.

It has a alot of kinks, but I'll fix those. I just had to let the authoritarian side of me free for a bit.

NOTE: If anyone has a good name for it, let me know. Feudalism is what this is called. All you are lacking is the Autocrat and his apointees acting as judges.

(the land does not expand)

unless the government, in a ridiculous effort to increase revenue, starts flattening mountains and hills and dumping the dirt and rubble off the coastline on a large scale

Feudalism is what this is called. All you are lacking is the Autocrat and his apointees acting as judges.

yup

This would need definitions of expected timescales for the return. A person using land to build a factory will make a loss in the first year, almost certainly, whereas someone growing cannabis would make a profit. Thus, according to these guidelines no longterm development could take place.
That depends on whether the autocrat is concerned with the long-term or the short-term. It would be foolish to choose the latter because that will only provide temporary funding. I should make a note of that.

Why are corporations given the market freedom when individuals are not?
This philosophy is about making the state stronger, so the market must be free to act so thnat the economy will grow. With an increase in income there will be an increase in tax revenue.

An irrelevant distinction. Any increase in consumption will result in increased state revenue provided that taxation is not purely based on land usage. If it is purely based on this, then the vitality of the economy is irrelevant, all that matters is the tax rate (the land does not expand)
It is irrelavent, I just wanted the intentions clear.


Again different treatment between judicial persons (companies) and physical persons. Why?
See the answer above the last one.

How do you send a company to a labour institution?
You send the management to the labor camp. It is his business after all so he is responsible.

Why the two. Why not just one military?

Feudalism
I wanted a bit of micro-management.



The practice and open discussion of religion and philosophy you mean. You can not regulate away thinking.
Maybe not, but it is possible to give the people the illusion of freedom. I wanted it to be free and open, but my friend and I diagreed had to come to an agreement.

Feudalism is what this is called. All you are lacking is the Autocrat and his apointees acting as judges.
It has that. Think fo the current judicial system, except that all judges are appointed by the central government and not elected by the people.

I wonder who voted strongly for this philosophy? It's unethical and restricts freedom.

Holy crap! :eek:
I’m agreeing with a communist!
I guess some ideas are just that repulsive.

I don’t believe in property tax, period.

not even if it was used to make sure that every human being either had access to land or was justly compensated for not?

not even if it was used to make sure that every human being either had access to land or was justly compensated for not?

Since I’ve made clear that Charyania is my puppet that I mistakenly posted with, I’m answering.

No, I believe property tax is wrong. It’s effectively like saying the government owns all the land and you are just renting it. The fact that people can never just have a piece of land that is theirs, is repulsive to me.

Since I’ve made clear that Charyania is my puppet that I mistakenly posted with, I’m answering.

No, I believe property tax is wrong. It’s effectively like saying the government owns all the land and you are just renting it. The fact that people can never just have a piece of land that is theirs, is repulsive to me.
In effect their paying for it twice, once for the land itself and then again just to keep it. That is extremely unfair, IMHO.

From what I can see, this system of governance is not even feudalism - under the feudal system, the common class (serfs/peasants) traded a percentage of their production for the right to use their feudal lord's land and benefit from the lord's protection, which your citizens must pay for in addition to having to (it can be assumed) perpetually raising their property tax bids to compete with private companies who might want to bulldoze their homes to use the land for their purposes. A fundamental part of a successful nation-state is having something to offer the populace in order to make them believe in their nationality. Now, your media is obviously going to be tightly controlled, so propaganda is likely to play a big part in society here, but at the very least Stalinist Russia tossed the masses somewhat of a bone, in terms of security and guaranteed services. Unless there is some benefit to the common man for living under this system of government, the common man is almost guaranteed to overthrow it.

From what I can see, this system of governance is not even feudalism - under the feudal system, the common class (serfs/peasants) traded a percentage of their production for the right to use their feudal lord's land and benefit from the lord's protection, which your citizens must pay for in addition to having to (it can be assumed) perpetually raising their property tax bids to compete with private companies who might want to bulldoze their homes to use the land for their purposes. A fundamental part of a successful nation-state is having something to offer the populace in order to make them believe in their nationality. Now, your media is obviously going to be tightly controlled, so propaganda is likely to play a big part in society here, but at the very least Stalinist Russia tossed the masses somewhat of a bone, in terms of security and guaranteed services. Unless there is some benefit to the common man for living under this system of government, the common man is almost guaranteed to overthrow it.
The only benefit I can think of is national defense. I could extend it to education.

I'll admit that national defence has, in history and the present, proven to be a good argument for authoritarian regimes of this style (in that people are willing to stomach a little repression to feel safe and strong). It would require a pretty massive propaganda machine, however, to convince people that they would suffer under comparatively terrible conditions if their benign autocrat wasn't there to protect them from foreign hordes. Or, in classic fascist fashion, stoke the fires of conquest and imperialism in the nation. Education is also a plus... so long as the little ones don't happen upon some inappropriate opinions regarding government and politics along the way ;)

If I might be so bold as to make a suggestion: like I mentioned in my previous post, there's nothing (that I've seen so far, but I might have missed a key sentence or two) to stop a ridiculously huge corporation in this nation from placing a massive bid for a tract of land occupied by, say, a small town that could not be met or beaten even if the entire community were to pool all of their funds and resources together in a desperate bid to fend off dispossession. Scratch that, nothing to stop it from happening save for the good graces of the autocrat or his appointees. Despite the apparent pro-business theme of your state model, why not institute some sort of safeguard to avoid circumstances like this? Otherwise, a nation under this model would suffer from mind-boggling amounts of homeless and impoverished individuals who would be unable to pay their debts or contribute to the economy (other than through service in labour camps).

Of course, private sector corporations might step in to solve this problem for the government by buying up land for employee housing, which might earn them a workforce that would make darned sure they were efficient and an asset to their employer... for fear of getting fired (and in the process losing their property)

Land-Based Fascism
This a political philosophy that I and several companions wrote. All of the land in a particular nation-state is controlled by the central government which is headed by an autocrat. The citizens of the nation-state pay taxes in exchange for use of the land. The citizens may then do as what they wish with the land, which could result in a system similar to a form of state capitalism. However, if another citizen offers to pay a higher percentage of taxes for use of another's land, then the autocrat will decide who shall be the renter. The decision will be based on who will manage the land to its fullest possible use and how much profit will be generated, basically it's utility. Corporations will not be granted privileges over another corporation; the market will be allowed to sort out the profitable investments from those which are not.
However, the citizens of the nation-state will be encouraged to consumer in order to contribute to the national economy. The intent of this must be made clearly seen. The intent is not to raise the average standard of living for the population, though that may occur regardless, the purpose is to generate more funds for the central government. International trade shall be permitted, but of course it will be carefully monitored. Within this framework, the economy may do as it may. There will be a residential tax for the use of the land and there will be a commercial tax which is simply a percentage of the company's profit. Those who do not pay will be sent to work in a state-controlled labor institution until the debt has been repaid. The funding will be used for national defense. This is meant to be the state guard whose purpose is not to protect t the citizen, but to ensure the security and longevity of the state. A military will also be funded by taxes. It will largely serve the same purpose as the police, except it will act as anormal military. Regional police, in the conventional sense of protecting the peple, will be done by private firms whom the citizens will pay for protection
The nation-state will be divided into various geo-political sectors. Each province will be governed by a lord appointed by the autocrat. The local government, metropolitan or rule areas, will be governed by a secondary lord, a mayor, who will be appointed by the provincial lord and approved by the autocrat. Elections will not be held for an office. The autocrat will appoint an heir to his position, not necessarily by heredity.
All social institutions will be controlled by the state. Religion isto be highly regulated by the state as well as philosophy. Rigts will be defined only as state-granted privileges.

It has a alot of kinks, but I'll fix those. I just had to let the authoritarian side of me free for a bit.

NOTE: If anyone has a good name for it, let me know.

so the autocrat, will his title be "Duke" or "Earl"?

Will the autocrat of autocrats be titled "King"?

this sounds a bit like New Age Feudalism to me.

-snip-
I assume you mean institute anti-trust laws. That could work. Education would be sure to make the state look acceptable.

What I wanted originally was to have free and open social institutions and economic ones, with the exception of the feudalist aspect.

not even if it was used to make sure that every human being either had access to land or was justly compensated for not?

are they working to obtain land?

it is not the government's obligation to give people land; it is the individual's obligation to get it for himself, should he desire land.

imo

so the autocrat, will his title be "Duke" or "Earl"?

Will the autocrat of autocrats be titled "King"?

this sounds a bit like New Age Feudalism to me.
The head autocrat could be called Supreme Chancellor with the lower rulers called High Chancellors.

It is feudalism, with a twist.

No, I believe property tax is wrong. It’s effectively like saying the government owns all the land and you are just renting it. The fact that people can never just have a piece of land that is theirs, is repulsive to me.

and how exactly does an individual come to justifiably own land anyway? land wasn't created through the mixing of labor or any such thing.

bump

It sounds very problematic, but it might work as a fictional dystopia.

and how exactly does an individual come to justifiably own land anyway? land wasn't created through the mixing of labor or any such thing.

O_o People work to own their land. They earn money and buy it. They are then allowed to pass it onto their children because, well they own it.