NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.

2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.

3) To deter crime, the death penalty would be mandatory for all persons convicted of 1st degree murder. Not only that, the police would be armed with only the most advanced weapondry(machine guns, ect)

4) All citizens would pay a flat income tax of 10%.

5) The following programs would lose funding by the government
Welfare(100%)
Enviormental Protection Programs(50-60%)
Social Security(Would be privitised)

6) The following programs would recieve more funding
Christian/Jewish Churches
Law and Order
Military
Education

7) Abortion in all cases would be banned. Those who attempt/conduct and abortion will be charged with attempted murder/murder.

8) Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be. If they dont graduate, they will still be citizens, except
-They cant marry
-They cant raise children
-They cant teach / do a job which involves children
-They cant be in the military

9) All public expression of religion would be legal. However, the government will have God in its pledge, on its money, ect.

10) Affermitive action would be banned. It would be illeagle to decided a job/college application based on race.

Well?

Nope. Maybe you'd be at home in Singapore.

I'm going to have to pass on this invite.

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

Well?
You are seriously in need of a bit of, you know ... like ... COMPASSION! :p

Nope. Maybe you'd be at home in Singapore.
Even Melkor turns it down. Geez, now that's right wing for you.

To be honest, I'm glad to see more social conservatives coming out of the woodwork, since I'll get a chance to heckle and berate [i]them instead of the goddamn liberals. I've had about enough of liberal rhetoric for one lifetime.

So bring it on!

You are seriously in need of a bit of, you know ... like ... COMPASSION! :p

I'm with him ^^.

Hmmm... I rarely agree with Eutrusca... or the venerable Melkor Unchained either...

I guess Nazis bring out the best in all of us:p

Wow. Do you actually feel this way about each, individual issue, or do you just feel like being a "straight ticket" U.S. Republican?

You are seriously in need of a bit of, you know ... like ... COMPASSION! :p

He could also use some cold, hard facts. Things like the death penalty to deter crime. Yeah, not so much.

Anyways...nothing could get me to live in his theocracy.

What are your policies regarding business, economics, etc.?

What are your policies regarding business, economics, etc.?
Does it matter?

I guess Nazis bring out the best in all of us:p

Now, now, let's not mix stereotypes.

2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.

I'm not sure, but wouldn't serving in the military be an honor for Nazis, as opposed to a punishment? Does anyone have research on this?

6) The following programs would recieve more funding
Christian/Jewish Churches

Definately, most emphatically not Nazi.

7) Abortion in all cases would be banned. Those who attempt/conduct and abortion will be charged with attempted murder/murder.

Also definately anti-nazi.

10) Affermitive action would be banned. It would be illeagle to decided a job/college application based on race.

Also definately nonzi.

2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.

8) Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be. If they dont graduate, they will still be citizens, except
-They cant marry
-They cant raise children
-They cant teach / do a job which involves children
-They cant be in the military

Yeah. I just noticed that you are forcing nonviolent criminals into the military, but you are not allowing homosexuals to enlist. My "Incomprehensible Bias" detector is blaring.

Yeah. I just noticed that you are forcing nonviolent criminals into the military, but you are not allowing homosexuals to enlist. My "Incomprehensible Bias" detector is blaring.

I think the mental hospitals is the real giveaway.

Yeah. I just noticed that you are forcing nonviolent criminals into the military, but you are not allowing homosexuals to enlist. My "Incomprehensible Bias" detector is blaring.
And this is just one of many glaring inconsistencies and ridiculous policies contained therein. I wouldn't give this platform the time of day in an election booth.

It's just heaven.

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.

Participating in a global economy ensures peace far better than building a wall of soldiers. Let the businesses keep the money and forge private internation ties with it.

2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.

This is absolutely ludicrous, you're military will be full of irresponsible jerkoffs armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man.

3) To deter crime, the death penalty would be mandatory for all persons convicted of 1st degree murder.

Yes, because people who commit murder automatically think, I should do this because I will only get life in prison. That and mandatory sentences are bullshit.

4) All citizens would pay a flat income tax of 10%.

How are you going to afford your ultra powerful military and police force?

5) The following programs would lose funding by the government
Welfare(100%)
Enviormental Protection Programs(50-60%)
Social Security(Would be privitised)

You got one thing right, but judging from your other standards, you have absolutely no idea why.

6) The following programs would recieve more funding
Christian/Jewish Churches
Law and Order
Military
Education

You obviously have no idea why.

7) Abortion in all cases would be banned. Those who attempt/conduct and abortion will be charged with attempted murder/murder.

This isn't worth commenting on.

8) Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be. If they dont graduate, they will still be citizens, except
-They cant marry
-They cant raise children
-They cant teach / do a job which involves children
-They cant be in the military

At least you won't be forcing them into military service as well.

9) All public expression of religion would be legal. However, the government will have God in its pledge, on its money, ect.

This list is very strange. Contradictions abound.

10) Affermitive action would be banned. It would be illeagle to decided a job/college application based on race.

But it is perfectly fine to send people to mental institutions based on sexual preference, and it is perfectly fine for government to offer help to institutions who only deal with Christian/Jews.

Ridiculous.

*sigh*
Liberals...

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.

Well?

Any supposedly ideal society whose defining feature is to have a "very very very" powerful military with the "latest tech" should immediately make one suspicious. Why does your dictatorship consider this aspect of your society above all else?

My suspicion is it has absolutely nothing to do with security. A nation concerned with security would not define their military as the foundation of their society. My guess is you want the military to establish your own autocracy in order to inflict your own conservative, religious and moralistic views on your populous, in other words to establish a totalitarian system. Also you may use it as a way to create an extremely nationalistic and militaristic state.

That being the case, I think your nation is a complete nightmare, a dystopia. Hospitalising people because of their sexual and religious preferences? Charging women for murder for having medical procedures done to them that your theocracy doesn't agree with? State sanctioned religion? Absurd.

Your vision would horrify any person who holds the rights of the individual as even remotely important.

*sigh*
Liberals...

*sigh*

Inability to defend one's half-assed, contradictory idealogy...

*sigh*

Inability to defend one's half-assed, contradictory idealogy...

The worst thing it isn't even original (except most others are slightly more coherent). Basically it's just your typical insane theocratic ultra-conservative military dictatorship. It's been done...

Any supposedly ideal society whose defining feature is to have a "very very very" powerful military with the "latest tech" should immediately make one suspicious. Why does your dictatorship consider this aspect of your society above all else?

...SNIP...

Your vision would horrify any person who holds the rights of the individual as even remotely important.I agree... but I'm a dirty commie so who would listen to me. :)

*sigh*
Liberals...
Think Sie in terms of links oder rechts? Or sind Sie mehr knoweledgable in Politik than that?

The Liberated Ones']I agree... but I'm a dirty commie so who would listen to me. :)

Really? A Communist who values liberal individualist rights? That is strange, as Communists are supposed to be collectivist and communitarian.

But perhaps you're just using "commie" in the jocular sense, to refer to a social democrat, like me? Or maybe you are an anarcho-Communist?

Any supposedly ideal society whose defining feature is to have a "very very very" powerful military with the "latest tech" should immediately make one suspicious. Why does your dictatorship consider this aspect of your society above all else?

My suspicion is it has absolutely nothing to do with security. A nation concerned with security would not define their military as the foundation of their society. My guess is you want the military to establish your own autocracy in order to inflict your own conservative, religious and moralistic views on your populous, in other words to establish a totalitarian system. Also you may use it as a way to create an extremely nationalistic and militaristic state.

That being the case, I think your nation is a complete nightmare, a dystopia. Hospitalising people because of their sexual and religious preferences? Charging women for murder for having medical procedures done to them that your theocracy doesn't agree with? State sanctioned religion? Absurd.

Your vision would horrify any person who holds the rights of the individual as even remotely important.

He is obviously obsessed with controlling people, and apparently extremely distrustful of diversity, so I would imagine that his army would be a measure that would both lead to a sort of isolationism diplomatically, but still extremely manipulative on the foreign scene. A sort of "If you don't want to join them, beat them" attitude that is reflected in his other views.

He is obviously obsessed with controlling people, and apparently extremely distrustful of diversity, so I would imagine that his army would be a measure that would both lead to a sort of isolationism diplomatically, but still extremely manipulative on the foreign scene. A sort of "If you don't want to join them, beat them" attitude that is reflected in his other views.

Sounds reasonable, although I didn't give "Mich selbst und ich" that much credit. I just assumed it was a childish wish to have an "uber army" with police and soliders with "the best tech" because he thinks that is "cool" or something like that (or a similar illogical reason).

In reality, any nation that has low taxes and yet spends inordinate amounts on a military staffed with criminals in order to suppress its own population, is not doing a very good job of governing.

I say let's spike his country's fresh water supply with something amusing. Heaven knows his citizens would need something to cheer them up occasionally, what with such a bleak existence stretching out before them.

Three big Dobbsworld thumbs down on Cretinland, or whatever you wanna call this dreary little backwater of yours.

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech....

Well?

Mich selbst und sich, you aren't by any chance a repressed homosexual, are you?

Sounds reasonable, although I didn't give "Mich selbst und ich" that much credit. I just assumed it was a childish wish to have an "uber army" with police and soliders with "the best tech" because he thinks that is "cool" or something like that (or a similar illogical reason).

I don't think it is the explicit reasoning for the very strong military. I think that he is paranoid, which leads to his controlling ideas, and that same paranoia causes him to reason out ways to effectively wall himself up from peaceful interactions with others who are different.

*sigh*
Liberals...

Don't blame liberals for your country's dysfunctionality, everyone's picking on your whacky Oppressionville.

Don't blame liberals for your country's dysfunctionality, everyone's picking on your whacky Oppressionville.

Well, his ideal country is blatantly non-liberal, so any detractors would be expressing liberal views.

It has been increasingly rare see posters to are completely void of liberal thought though, and this interesting soul is a refreshing change from the growing monotony.

I don't think it is the explicit reasoning for the very strong military. I think that he is paranoid, which leads to his controlling ideas, and that same paranoia causes him to reason out ways to effectively wall himself up from peaceful interactions with others who are different.

Paranoia is part of it, certainly, but there is more. A conservative does not merely dislike other opinions because they fear them, although clearly any perceived danger to the "traditional order" is viewed as a threat.

Conservatives feel that they posses an awarness (always a superior one) of some "objective" moral code, often a religious one (for what could be more objective then some "divine" code handed down by god himself). They feel they have the right to impose this code on others, as if morality is something that can be objectively found, since it is what "ought" to be done. The truth is far from this. Morality is not objective at all, but subjective, being basically a human construct often defined by the individual. A person who believes he or she knows what "true" morality is, and gives himself the mission of forcing his views on others, is a very dangerous individual indeed.

His society is a nightmare because it takes away the individuals right to choose. Like all moralists, our ultra-conservative friend thinks he knows better than anyone else, and that it is his right to force this on others.

Paranoia is part of it, certainly, but there is more. A conservative does not merely dislike other opinions because they fear them, although clearly any perceived danger to the "traditional order" is viewed as a threat.

Conservatives feel that they posses an awarness (always a superior one) of some "objective" moral code, often a religious one. They feel they have the right to impose this code on others, as if morality is something that can be objectively found, since it is what "ought" to be done. The truth is far from this. Morality is not objective at all, but subjective, being basically a human construct often defined by the individual. A person who believes he or she knows what "true" morality is, and gives himself the mission of forcing his views on others, is a very dangerous individual indeed.

His society is a nightmare because it takes away the individuals right to choose. Like all moralists, our ultra-conservative friend thinks he knows better than anyone else, and that it is his right to force this on others.

Yes, you are mostly correct. However, there is objective morality, and it is pretty much exactly the beliefs you expressed. Freedom of the individual from outside harm is an objective morality.

Yes, you are mostly correct. However, there is objective morality, and it is pretty much exactly the beliefs you expressed. Freedom of the individual from outside harm is an objective morality.

Would you say it is objective morality precisely because it allows for the reality of subjective morality? Or would you rather base the statement on the concept of the individual being sovereign and therefore the sole arbiter of "morality". I think both justifications are good.

Would you say it is objective morality precisely because it allows for the reality of subjective morality? Or would you rather base the statement on the concept of the individual being sovereign and therefore the sole arbiter of "morality". I think both justifications are good.

You can't base it on on the idea of subjective morality, because then it tends to undermine itself. How do you deal with vigilantes, for example, they act in ways that they consider moral, but they overstep the bounds of liberty of their target. You have contradictions in your allowance of moral autonomy.

To me it is based on both universality and treating people as ends.

Most of our own morality is based upon ourselves, we are either acting in ways that will avoid retribution, or we are acting upon our empathy by projecting ourselves into another's situation. Either way we are treating others as if everyone were a representation of ourselves. So it is within our own self interest behave in ways that can be assigned universally to all others.

Also, a free man is an end. Any restrictions to a man's freedom is the use of that man as a means, and we should never use man as a means to an end.

Well?

Aside from a couple of decent idea (like points 4 and 5), you're no better than all the left-wing statists who want to control citizens via the government.

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)
Mich selbst und ich, I've seen a lot of "Ideal country" threads and that's getting very annoying.
How about you take some time reading this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418845

BTW, why would anybody want you live in your lunatic, wacko, Jesus-freak country?

Almost the way I like it.

Wow, congradulations. You sir have created a society that I, a Fascist, consider too Far Right.

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

...

Well?
You're every leftists' nightmare!

Even Melkor turns it down. Geez, now that's right wing for you.
"Right wing" is not well defined. When you go into the extremes individualist vs statist makes more difference than left vs right. Melkor (and I) is liberal, just cares more about freedom than the current "liberal" parties. This guy is neoconservative, in my eyes fascist or national socialist. This is closer to socialism than to classic liberalism.

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.


Hmm yes, tech but what about training? I think we should go the Spartan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta) route, what do you think?

Sparta had a really kickass military system.


Sparta was, above all, a military state, and emphasis on military fitness began virtually at birth. Shortly after birth, a child was brought before the elders of the tribe, who decided whether it was to be reared or not. If found defective or weakly, the baby was dropped off a cliff called the Apothetae, or Place of Rejection. In this way attempts were made to secure the maintenance of high physical standards in Sparta.

Until the age of seven, boys were educated at home and were taught to fight their fears as well as general superstition by their nurses, who were prized in Greece. Their training was then undertaken by the state in the agoge system and supervised by the paidonomos, an official appointed for that purpose. This training consisted for the most part in physical exercises, such as dancing, gymnastics, and ball-games, with music and literature occupying a subordinate position. This tireless emphasis on physical training gave Spartans the reputation for being "laconic," short in words, a word derived from the name of their homeland of Laconia. Education was also extended to girls. Both sexes exercised naked. Women, however, could not compete according to the Olympic rules. There were also contests to see who could take the most severe flogging, an ordeal known as diamastigosis.

At the age of thirteen, young men were sent off into the countryside with nothing, and were expected to survive on wits and cunning. This was very probably, in origin, an old initiation rite, a preparation for their later career as elite soldiers.

At the age of twenty, the Spartan began his military service and his membership in one of the dining messes or clubs (in Greek 'syssition' or 'phyidition'), composed of about fifteen members each, of which every citizen was required to be a member and where all meals were taken. The Spartan exercised the full rights and duties of a citizen at the age of thirty. Only native Spartans were considered a full citizen, and needed to undergo the training as prescribed by law, and participation in and contribution to one of the dining-clubs. Those who fulfilled these conditions were considered peers, (homoioi) citizens in the fullest sense of the word, while those who failed were called lesser men, and retained only the civil rights of citizenship.

Pederasty, a social practice common throughout Greece, was equally so in Sparta. The Spartans apparently believed that encouraging the older, accomplished men of the city to have relations with the younger men was conducive to the education of the young men. Another anecdote in Plutarch's biography of Lycurgus relates the story of a Spartan magistrate who was fined by the city because his young male lover had cried out while he was fighting, which was considered to be a sign that the young man was overly effeminate and had therefore not been properly educated by his distinguished lover. Male-to-male relationships served as a way to reinforce the masculine education of the Spartan boys.

Sound about right?

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.Good. So far, no nation has tried to do something like that prolonged for more than half a century and survived with its economy intact.
2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.Just what you need. Criminals in the military. Very clever. I take it you don't think criminals would try and overthrow your government, if given weapons?
3) To deter crime, the death penalty would be mandatory for all persons convicted of 1st degree murder. Not only that, the police would be armed with only the most advanced weapondry(machine guns, ect)And the death penalty deters crime? (additionally, why would a thief care for the death penalty?)
4) All citizens would pay a flat income tax of 10%.OK.
5) The following programs would lose funding by the government
Welfare(100%)
Enviormental Protection Programs(50-60%)
Social Security(Would be privitised)Environmental Protection... Boy, I hope you don't live in a coastal, mountainous, dry, tropical, or any other environment.
6) The following programs would recieve more funding
Christian/Jewish Churches
Law and Order
Military
EducationTalk about religious freedom. Your country would need it.
7) Abortion in all cases would be banned. Those who attempt/conduct and abortion will be charged with attempted murder/murder.So all cases? There's a lot of conservatives I know who wouldn't mandate something that barbaric.
8) Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be. If they dont graduate, they will still be citizens, except
-They cant marry
-They cant raise children
-They cant teach / do a job which involves children
-They cant be in the militaryMeh. I don't believe in doing something like that, to say the least. While I can understand your potential reasoning for the first two and the fourth, the 3rd option stems from your homophobic paranoia. Gays tend to be interested in "men" and not "boys".
9) All public expression of religion would be legal. However, the government will have God in its pledge, on its money, ect.Aha, expression is fine, as long as Judaism and Christianity are superior. :rolleyes:
10) Affermitive action would be banned. It would be illeagle to decided a job/college application based on race.Meh. It wasn't the best idea in the first place. Maybe if a better solution comes around, it can be replaced.

Meh. I don't believe in doing something like that, to say the least. While I can understand your potential reasoning for the first two and the fourth, the 3rd option stems from your homophobic paranoia. Gays tend to be interested in "men" and not "boys".
I think he just wants to make sure they don't get a chance to spread tolerance (by showing that people with different orientations are not fundamentally different).

I think he just wants to make sure they don't get a chance to spread tolerance (by showing that people with different orientations are not fundamentally different).Nah. I'm pretty sure his anti-gay laws stem from his lack of understanding and tolerance than from a belief society could become more tolerant if homosexuality were allowed. If he was totally against tolerance, he'd issue state uniforms so that no one's different.
Besides, we have yet to see any policy on immigration...:p (that would be interesting...)

Nah. I'm pretty sure his anti-gay laws stem from his lack of understanding and tolerance than from a belief society could become more tolerant if homosexuality were allowed. If he was totally against tolerance, he'd issue state uniforms so that no one's different.
Besides, we have yet to see any policy on immigration...:p (that would be interesting...)
I just meant why he doesn't want them to have contact with children.

I just meant why he doesn't want them to have contact with children.But technically they would have been cured of any unpatriotic doctrine, or they wouldn't have been released. "Do a job which involves children" sounds more like an attempt to "keep children out of harms way", since being a janitor at a school is a job that involves children too, though the janitor rarely has an influence on them.

Alas, the great strength of the totalitarian state is in that it forces those who oppose it to emulate it.

I'm being perfectly honest, I expected the votes to be about 50no-1yes, with the 1 being me. 2 other people want to live with me? Wow :-)

2 other people want to live with me? Wow :-)

With your luck, they're probably both gay.

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.

2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.

3) To deter crime, the death penalty would be mandatory for all persons convicted of 1st degree murder. Not only that, the police would be armed with only the most advanced weapondry(machine guns, ect)

4) All citizens would pay a flat income tax of 10%.

5) The following programs would lose funding by the government
Welfare(100%)
Enviormental Protection Programs(50-60%)
Social Security(Would be privitised)

6) The following programs would recieve more funding
Christian/Jewish Churches
Law and Order
Military
Education

7) Abortion in all cases would be banned. Those who attempt/conduct and abortion will be charged with attempted murder/murder.

8) Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be. If they dont graduate, they will still be citizens, except
-They cant marry
-They cant raise children
-They cant teach / do a job which involves children
-They cant be in the military

9) All public expression of religion would be legal. However, the government will have God in its pledge, on its money, ect.

10) Affermitive action would be banned. It would be illeagle to decided a job/college application based on race.

Well?


hello serapindal 2 :D

*Uncontrollable giggling*

Most unfortunately, I must decline your invitaton. It is quite necessary that any head of State - and yours would certainly be a dictatorship - has at least some grasp of the language his people speak.

Then again, I guess America manages without...

I'm getting tired of these "my ideal country" threads....

p.s.

In my ideal country, Melkor would drive around on a moped bonking people on their head with a rolled up newspaper.

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.

2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.

3) To deter crime, the death penalty would be mandatory for all persons convicted of 1st degree murder. Not only that, the police would be armed with only the most advanced weapondry(machine guns, ect)

4) All citizens would pay a flat income tax of 10%.

5) The following programs would lose funding by the government
Welfare(100%)
Enviormental Protection Programs(50-60%)
Social Security(Would be privitised)

6) The following programs would recieve more funding
Christian/Jewish Churches
Law and Order
Military
Education

7) Abortion in all cases would be banned. Those who attempt/conduct and abortion will be charged with attempted murder/murder.

8) Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be. If they dont graduate, they will still be citizens, except
-They cant marry
-They cant raise children
-They cant teach / do a job which involves children
-They cant be in the military

9) All public expression of religion would be legal. However, the government will have God in its pledge, on its money, ect.

10) Affermitive action would be banned. It would be illeagle to decided a job/college application based on race.

Well?

1) War is murder. Therefore, all soldiers would be sentanced to death, mais non?
2)Rehabilitation is a much better plan.
3) Criminals are people who commit crimes. They have family, lives, interests, etc, and should not be robbed of life for a mistake. See previous comments.
4) Low taxes are good, in theory, but they don't lead to sufficient government funds.
5) People and the enviroment are important. Love your citizens, and they will love you.
6) Church: No. Religous organisations need to be self-sufficient.
Law and Order: Only if it means adding more rehabilitation programs.
Military: Abolish it.
Education: Yes, it needs more funding.
7) I don't have strong views on abortion, but I think cases should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Main questions: Did the woman choose to have sex? Was she aware of the consequences of having sex (protected or unprotected)? Will the birth threaten her life? Rather than enforcing abortion laws, the better path might be to increase sex-ed programs within schools.
8) There is a huge difference between homosexuals and sexual predators/pedophiles. As long as the homosexuality isn't directly hurting anyone (we won't count the sharp pains in the chest of Torries), it should be allowed.
9) Church and State should be seperate, unless all citizens are willingly part of the country's main religion.
10) Have to agree with you on that. People of different races need equal oppertunities, but AA isn't the right way to achieve that. Instead, the education and social welfare systems should be modified to help people who are struggling with poverty and racial discrimination.

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.

Cool. But what about #2?

2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.

Military service should not be a punishment, it should be a statement of pride.

3) To deter crime, the death penalty would be mandatory for all persons convicted of 1st degree murder. Not only that, the police would be armed with only the most advanced weapondry(machine guns, ect)

To deter crime, what about public flogging of violent criminals? Take them to their neighborhoods, pull their pants down, and whip their asses. That should do away with the desire of gangsters to go to jail to gain street cred. Hee, hee, hee!

4) All citizens would pay a flat income tax of 10%.

How about 5% instead? And remember all, the lower the tax rates, the higher the revenues collected. That is from real-world experience. Works every time.

5) The following programs would lose funding by the government
Welfare(100%)
Enviormental Protection Programs(50-60%)
Social Security(Would be privitised)

Yeah, let the offending polluters pay for the environmental protection!

6) The following programs would recieve more funding
Christian/Jewish Churches
Law and Order
Military
Education

Please, no money for churches or education. The more we spend, the worse the education becomes, and the fewer supplies the schools have. So no more money down that black hole of education...privatize!

7) Abortion in all cases would be banned. Those who attempt/conduct and abortion will be charged with attempted murder/murder.

All cases? Even if the mother would die? Whew!

8) Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be. If they dont graduate, they will still be citizens, except
-They cant marry
-They cant raise children
-They cant teach / do a job which involves children
-They cant be in the military

But they make great clowns! Let the children laugh!

9) All public expression of religion would be legal. However, the government will have God in its pledge, on its money, ect.

Is this a theocracy or a totalitarian state? Make up your mind!

10) Affermitive action would be banned. It would be illeagle to decided a job/college application based on race.

Fine, lets have a meritocracy instead.


Well?[/QUOTE]

What about the individual right to keep and bear arms? Freedom of the press, freedom of religion? What about economic freedom? What about pornography and prostitution?

Instead of criticizing your country by say things such as, don't you realize that a flat tax puts a greater burden on the poor based on Bernoulli's utiliy of money model, I will ask you a few questions?
What are civil libs like? Is there free speech? What if it possed a potential security threat? Who decides whether it does? Do people have rights against unreasonable searches? Drugs allowed? How 'bout guns for personal security or recreation? Is torture a permissible interrogation techinque? Is euthanasia permissible? Which is stronger the federal gov't or the local gov'ts?

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.
what is it with all these right-wing nutters and their love of the military? :confused: i mean, seriously, i don't get it :confused:

what is it with all these right-wing nutters and their love of the military? :confused: i mean, seriously, i don't get it :confused:
They're compensating for not having dicks. That's also why they hate gays. They believe gays have better sex, so they need to get back at them for it.

Seriously though? I haven't got a clue. You'd think people like him would be dead scared of a strong military, for the simple reason that everyone, including stray dogs, would be out to murder him horribly.

Since I have been seeing a few threads about peoples ideal countrys, so I decided to make my own idea :-)

1) The Military would be very very very strong. I cannnot stress this enough, my military will have all the latest tech.

2) Criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes (thieft,drunk driving ect) Would have to serve in the military for 5/12 of the Maximum US Prison term(Ie, a person who would be sentensed to 10-12yrs in the Us would have to serve 5 years in the military.

3) To deter crime, the death penalty would be mandatory for all persons convicted of 1st degree murder. Not only that, the police would be armed with only the most advanced weapondry(machine guns, ect)

4) All citizens would pay a flat income tax of 10%.

5) The following programs would lose funding by the government
Welfare(100%)
Enviormental Protection Programs(50-60%)
Social Security(Would be privitised)

6) The following programs would recieve more funding
Christian/Jewish Churches
Law and Order
Military
Education

7) Abortion in all cases would be banned. Those who attempt/conduct and abortion will be charged with attempted murder/murder.

8) Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be. If they dont graduate, they will still be citizens, except
-They cant marry
-They cant raise children
-They cant teach / do a job which involves children
-They cant be in the military

9) All public expression of religion would be legal. However, the government will have God in its pledge, on its money, ect.

10) Affermitive action would be banned. It would be illeagle to decided a job/college application based on race.

Well?

I'm surprised you didn't say that pedophiles would be executed, along with a whole bunch of other predatorial offenders.

They're compensating for not having dicks....
Next time, please try to answer without flamebaiting. Thanks.

What are your policies regarding business, economics, etc.?
Who f**king cares?! It's like asking what was Hitler's policy on parking tickets...

I decided to reread this, and I think some people misunderstood policy two of mine, I think I stated it a little vauge, and I am sorry.

In order for criminals to service in the military instead of going to prison, they must
-Be conviced of a nonviolent crime
-will be in the very very last backup reserve corp.

I think that having to go through a stressful, extremly disiplint few month course is more effective at rehabiliting prisoners then just rotting in prison. I mean, if a person had to go to boot camp, he prob would not want to go there again.

I decided to reread this, and I think some people misunderstood policy two of mine, I think I stated it a little vauge, and I am sorry.

In order for criminals to service in the military instead of going to prison, they must
-Be conviced of a nonviolent crime
-will be in the very very last backup reserve corp.

I think that having to go through a stressful, extremly disiplint few month course is more effective at rehabiliting prisoners then just rotting in prison. I mean, if a person had to go to boot camp, he prob would not want to go there again.

What is your stance on other violent crimes, like rape, pedophilia, etc.?

Extreme prison time / death penalty.

Quite honestly I think that the state you proposed is intolerent, disgusting, bigoted, and wrong. I think most posters here can pick out the main problems (aside from the numerous typos) however I'd like to take issue with a pair of more subtle points of the post.

1) "The following programs would recieve more funding Christian/Jewish Churches" As a practicing Jew, I must say I take serious offence to that. Jews don't have CHURCHES, and if you had ever met one you might actually know that. Step outside your box and realize that not everybody is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male, then maybe include in this exhaustive list a couple other religions outside of the Judeo-Christian point of view. Yes, even if they aren't white they do count.

2) "Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be" Well, there's two things wrong with this. First, unlike uncurable bigotry, homosexuality is not a mental disease. But my major problem with this err...proposal is with the part about becoming what 'God wants them to be'. First off, I think we can agree that religion cannot, and should not be applied to those who do not accept your particular interpretation of it, and in your proposal to add funding to Jewish "churches" as well as Christian ones you have more or less stated the same. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to force your opinions of sexual morality on others so long as they do not harm anybody outside their point of view. But more than that, I take issue with the part about this being 'what God wants' for gays and lesbians. Sure, you can pull out a bible verse against them, but if you read the bible line-by-line you can get just about anything out of it, including several contradictory verses. Just as an example, read Genesis 1 and then read Genesis 2:19. The bible was meant not to be read line-by-line, but to be analyzed as a whole for a guideline of how to live a moral life, and just about everbody except for a few modern evangelical christians seem to understand this. If you do that (this might require actually reading it-what a concept) you will find that provisions such as hospitality, respect, "loving your neighbor as yourself", and justice are much more emphasized than religious finaticism.

Quite honestly I think that the state you proposed is intolerent, disgusting, bigoted, and wrong. I think most posters here can pick out the main problems (aside from the numerous typos) however I'd like to take issue with a pair of more subtle points of the post.

1) "The following programs would recieve more funding Christian/Jewish Churches" As a practicing Jew, I must say I take serious offence to that. Jews don't have CHURCHES, and if you had ever met one you might actually know that. Step outside your box and realize that not everybody is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male, then maybe include in this exhaustive list a couple other religions outside of the Judeo-Christian point of view. Yes, even if they aren't white they do count.

2) "Gays would be forced into mental hospitols until they become what God wants them to be" Well, there's two things wrong with this. First, unlike uncurable bigotry, homosexuality is not a mental disease. But my major problem with this err...proposal is with the part about becoming what 'God wants them to be'. First off, I think we can agree that religion cannot, and should not be applied to those who do not accept your particular interpretation of it, and in your proposal to add funding to Jewish "churches" as well as Christian ones you have more or less stated the same. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to force your opinions of sexual morality on others so long as they do not harm anybody outside their point of view. But more than that, I take issue with the part about this being 'what God wants' for gays and lesbians. Sure, you can pull out a bible verse against them, but if you read the bible line-by-line you can get just about anything out of it, including several contradictory verses. Just as an example, read Genesis 1 and then read Genesis 2:19. The bible was meant not to be read line-by-line, but to be analyzed as a whole for a guideline of how to live a moral life, and just about everbody except for a few modern evangelical christians seem to understand this. If you do that (this might require actually reading it-what a concept) you will find that provisions such as hospitality, respect, "loving your neighbor as yourself", and justice are much more emphasized than religious finaticism.

Trust me dude, I grow up in a town where about 50% of the pop is Jewish. I know Jewish people. Trust me. And they dont take any offence when I call their places of worship churches. Secondly, I am a Cathloic.

Thirdly, I hear and read abotu the Bible, and I know what it's about. Yes, I havent read all of it, but, I know that in Genisis, God doesnt say "And the man will love the man".

Trust me dude, I grow up in a town where about 50% of the pop is Jewish. I know Jewish people. Trust me. And they dont take any offence when I call their places of worship churches. Secondly, I am a Cathloic.

Thirdly, I hear and read abotu the Bible, and I know what it's about. Yes, I havent read all of it, but, I know that in Genisis, God doesnt say "And the man will love the man".

I'm not even going to answer the first part of that post, I think that quite honestly it speaks for itself.

However, from the second part it is quite clear that, as you mentioned, you certainly have not read the bible or any part of it longer than the part you heard in a sermon. Exodus and Leviticus are the books dealing with laws, Genesis has virtually nothing to do with laying out laws. Also, I really think you would benefit from googling Genesis 2:19 then checking it against Genesis 1, it gives you a nice perspective on why we don't pick out lines from the bible. If you decided to read the whole thing you would get a much better perspective on these laws, and would be able to understand why many of them are there. Laws such as the prohibition on homosexuality and beastiality were neccesary in the time-period to sustain a small tribe as, without them, you wouldn't have enough people come twenty or thirty years. Others like the laws of kosher eating were meant to protect us from the types food which, at the time, were usually under-prepared and poorly handled and thus were prone to spread disease. Still others such as the complex rituals for animal sacrifice are just so archaic they are universally recognized as unneccesary. Restrictions that are no longer neccesary, or that must be lessened coming into a modern society do exist, and I think it is fair to say that the prohibition of homosexuality is one of these which no longer bears the same life-or-death significance as it once did. Hence, the bible really doesn't require us to prohibit others, or even our own, from homosexual activity, and it certainly does not call homosexuals mentally disabled.

I know that in Genisis, God doesnt say "And the man will love the man".

The Bible also doesn't say "Go into all the earth and force people to follow Biblical laws, even if they don't accept Christianity". In fact, it says (in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13) "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? . . . God will judge those outside." Why do you insist in making homosexuality illegal? Forcing gays and lesbians (or anyone else, for that matter) to follow Biblical laws won't make them any more righteous; only redemption through Christ can do that.

Trust me dude, I grow up in a town where about 50% of the pop is Jewish. I know Jewish people. Trust me. And they dont take any offence when I call their places of worship churches. Secondly, I am a Cathloic.

Thirdly, I hear and read abotu the Bible, and I know what it's about. Yes, I havent read all of it, but, I know that in Genisis, God doesnt say "And the man will love the man".
I suggest reading your Catechism, because you are wondering dangerously close to herasy.

~Advice from your friendly NS Roman Catholic

I decided to reread this, and I think some people misunderstood policy two of mine, I think I stated it a little vauge, and I am sorry.

In order for criminals to service in the military instead of going to prison, they must
-Be conviced of a nonviolent crime
-will be in the very very last backup reserve corp.

I think that having to go through a stressful, extremly disiplint few month course is more effective at rehabiliting prisoners then just rotting in prison. I mean, if a person had to go to boot camp, he prob would not want to go there again.

Don't you think the most effective way to rehabilitate criminals would be, I don't know, a REHABILITATION PROGRAM? You know, with counsellors, and art therapy, and the likes. I'm not just being an idealist, either. Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate, and it's the only province in Canada that focuses it's youth court system on rehabilitating youth, as well as the only province that refuses to try 14-18-year-olds accussed of violent crimes in adult court. Can compulsory military service do that?

Don't you think the most effective way to rehabilitate criminals would be, I don't know, a REHABILITATION PROGRAM? You know, with counsellors, and art therapy, and the likes. I'm not just being an idealist, either. Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate, and it's the only province in Canada that focuses it's youth court system on rehabilitating youth, as well as the only province that refuses to try 14-18-year-olds accussed of violent crimes in adult court. Can compulsory military service do that?

Playing the Devils Advocate here, but military sentances would be far more efficient than a true rehabilitation program.

Playing the Devils Advocate here, but military sentances would be far more efficient than a true rehabilitation program.

By efficient I assume you mean less costly and time-consuming, which I agree with. However, isn't it worth the extra time and money to help criminals become aware of the feelings of others, the consequences of their actions, etc? Therapy did alot for me. It can do alot for many people.

lol. Stereotypical.

Don't you think the most effective way to rehabilitate criminals would be, I don't know, a REHABILITATION PROGRAM? You know, with counsellors, and art therapy, and the likes. I'm not just being an idealist, either. Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate, and it's the only province in Canada that focuses it's youth court system on rehabilitating youth, as well as the only province that refuses to try 14-18-year-olds accussed of violent crimes in adult court. Can compulsory military service do that?
Hmmmm, rehabilitation is the best way to rehabilitate someone? Never would have thought about that. Compulsory military service would not be able to do that. One would serve in the military after they were a youth and would not have the disipline one earns by doing push-ups in the rain until after they have commited crimes as a youth. Rehabilitation programs are still is still better than compulsory military service, IMO.

what is it with all these right-wing nutters and their love of the military? :confused: i mean, seriously, i don't get it :confused:

I'm right wing, and look at my nation, i put no money into defense, i put a bit into law and order, but none to defense...

I'm right wing, and look at my nation, i put no money into defense, i put a bit into law and order, but none to defense...
well i guess you're not a nutter then... at least not by that standard ;)

Next time, please try to answer without flamebaiting. Thanks.
teehee :P

Playing the Devils Advocate here, but military sentances would be far more efficient than a true rehabilitation program.

You know, why don't we just draft the whole population into the millitary? It would stop crime, no?

Just because it solves a crime problem doesn't mean it's right.

I guess Nazis bring out the best in all of us:p

Hes not really a Nazi, he wanted funding for the Jews!

On the subject of this country. It would be a very scary place to live.

And you are also scary (I cant remember your name, and i cant be bothered to go back to teh first page)