NationStates Jolt Archive

Being inspired by the other ideal nations, I've decided to give my own opinion and back it up with an opinion poll. MAS YAY

I'll present this as a list of traits:

Government: Direct Democracy (as close to it as possible)
Market: Restricted/Regulated
Budget Priority: Welfare
Citizen Division: Large States (about 5)
Unitarian (same laws apply to all states)
All strategic industries state-owned
(Communal farms)
Private schools and healthcare outlawed
Private (free) press
Drugs outlawed
Free trade
More funding to health service than fire or police
Positive discrimination outlawed
Education compulsory to 16 but much choice
Adulthood at 16

It's a little bit too socialist for my tastes. Otherwise, I don't mind it.

Legalise Mary Jane and you have yourself a citizen, comrade. :D

Free trade and a regulated market? Wtf?

I don't see anything to do with tax here.... how would you pay for all that state funded stuff? :confused:

What rates are you talking about? They'd have to be pretty high.

Positive discrimination? What is that?

Government: Direct Democracy (as close to it as possible)

Leads to tyrrany by the majority.

Market: Restricted/Regulated
Budget Priority: Welfare
Citizen Division: Large States (about 5)

With you there. Ok.

Unitarian (same laws apply to all states)

I don't like the idea of a national religion.

All strategic industries state-owned
(Communal farms)
Private schools and healthcare outlawed
Private (free) press


Good ... fine .... I can live with that.

Drugs outlawed

:eek: NO POT?!? Viva la Revolucion!!!! *grabs AK*

Ineffective socialism, direct democracy, outlaw medicine(you really need to specify), problems with funding priority.

Overall I think it's a good one. I'm a bit concerned about the idea of collective farms, it gives unwelcome associations with communist famines. I don't think private schools should be banned, but the education system should be good enough that they're no longer needed. As for private healthcare, I think it should be allowed as it could relieve the state of some of the burden. But I agree with the big things like the direct democracy and the state ownership of essential industries such as healthcare, water works, public transport, ect. I also agree with a reasonabley free market, but also being regulated for the good of the people.

Not 100% ideal, but I think a nation like that would be a decent one to live in.

No, thanks. Too far to the left for me.

- Too much power for the people.
- Too right wing.
- Too free.

Being inspired by the other ideal nations, I've decided to give my own opinion and back it up with an opinion poll. MAS YAY

I'll present this as a list of traits:

Government: Direct Democracy (as close to it as possible)
Market: Restricted/Regulated
Budget Priority: Welfare
Citizen Division: Large States (about 5)
Unitarian (same laws apply to all states)
All strategic industries state-owned
(Communal farms)
Private schools and healthcare outlawed
Private (free) press
Drugs outlawed
Free trade
More funding to health service than fire or police
Positive discrimination outlawed
Education compulsory to 16 but much choice
Adulthood at 16

Capitalist economy?
Budget priority: Welfare?
Arg...

Well.. Of the nations listed so far, this is prolly the one closest to my liking, but only because I don't believe the one Capitalist Vikings proposed has a snowballs chance in hell of working. At least yours would probably just evolve into a socialist democratic nation, not a living hell like his probably would.

How do you imagine Direct Democracy would be compatible with real free trade, no positive discrimination, a focus on welfare and unitarian states? That doesn't sound very realistic at all.

Not a chance in hell, Skippy.

I'll systematically bring up all my issues with your ideal state.

Government: Direct Democracy (as close to it as possible)
Market: Restricted/Regulated
Budget Priority: Welfare
Citizen Division: Large States (about 5)
Unitarian (same laws apply to all states)
All strategic industries state-owned
(Communal farms)
Private schools and healthcare outlawed
Private (free) press
Drugs outlawed
Free trade
More funding to health service than fire or police
Positive discrimination outlawed
Education compulsory to 16 but much choice
Adulthood at 16


1. Direct democracy is a really bad idea, despite how good it looks on paper. It leads to factionalism and a really slow democratic process. Furthermore, the average citizen is not going to know how to solve every problem, so any decision they do end up voting on may not be very well thought out. Stick to an indirect democracy.

2. Restricted/regulated market: I'm sorry, that just aint cutting it for me. I have a myriad of objections to the mixed economy, so I'll only illustrate a few. Government intervention disrupts the natural market system by throwing off competition, the market value, inflation and unemployment and does very little actual good. Any good it does do is usually for a small special interest (which leads to corruption).

3. Budget priority: welfare. Considering I think government should abolish all transfer programs, we're going to completely disagree. Needless to say, welfare does not even do what it is supposed to do: help the poorest of the poor. So even arguing that it helps the poor isn't valid.

4. Citizen division. Large states eh? I suppose it may be okay depending on the size of the country. I don't really know how I feel about this.

5. Unitary government: Leads to corruption, authoritarianism, smaller regions don't have their voice heard and those in power are disconnected from the reality of the citizens. Furthermore, different regions have different concerns and needs, and they will be largely ignored in a single unitary government.

6. State owned industries. No! Bad! I am almost tempted to put "lead a rebellion at this point", but I am not a violent person. I do not believe the government knows whats best for the economy (or how to run the economy) better than private enterprise. I strongly disagree with this!

7. Private schools and healthcare outlawed: Doh! Governments are so inefficient, that you are depriving one's citizens with the potential benefits of private entities. Your economy is going to be pitiful.

8. Drugs outlawed. Crime will be rampant...

9. Free trade: Yeah right. :rolleyes:

The rest of your list is pretty much negligable. You leave out a lot of items such as how you are going to run defense, law and order, taxation, what civil liberties (besides no drugs) are you going to allow, etc.

I'm sorry, I cannot find one thing that I can agree on with you. So I'm going to have to vote "no".

Well.. Of the nations listed so far, this is prolly the one closest to my liking, but only because I don't believe the one Capitalist Vikings proposed has a snowballs chance in hell of working. At least yours would probably just evolve into a socialist democratic nation, not a living hell like his probably would.


Aw, c'mon. :p

Just because my country emphasizes liberty and limited government doesn't mean it would be a living hell. If people are pathetic enough to need the government every step of the way I shudder to think what our world is becoming.

I openly welcome any objections to my ideal country (not just complaints--tell me why its bad, etc.) on my thread. I will answer all of your questions to the best of my ability. Back up your assertions.

Leads to tyrrany by the majority.Doesn't Switzerland or somewhere use it?

With you there. Ok.Ditto

I don't like the idea of a national religion.I THINK he means Federalism

Good ... fine .... I can live with that.Not entirely happy, but I could live with that. Essential service (ie telecommunications, water, postage should remain government owned IMO)

:eek: NO POT?!? Viva la Revolucion!!!! *grabs AK*
I'll Join you!


Asside from your anti-mary jane stance I was all ears. I was ready to start a micronation of the coast of Fiji with you... then you go do something like illegalise the herb! Bad ma! Bad, bad man!

I THINK he means Federalism

No, he means a unitary style government. Meaning no state or local governments, but only a strong centralized one. Unitarianism is NOT Federalism.

Please clarify your position on the environment. The rest I feel to be chaff.

No, he means a unitary style government. Meaning no state or local governments, but only a strong centralized one. Unitarianism is NOT Federalism.
I didn't get that feeling. I assumed it was more like Australia where States excist as delegations of Federal power.

I didn't get that feeling. I assumed it was more like Australia where States excist as delegations of Federal power.

Woah... slow down! Australian states do not exist as delegations of Federal power. If this was the case Australia would not be a federation.

Federated nations are where the central and state governments both have sovereign power. In Australia's case, much like the US', the states agreed to surrender part of their sovereign powers to form the federal government. The states still maintain all residual power, in fact an Australian state may legislate on anything pertaining to the "peace, order and good government" of a state, which is virtually anything. The Federal government by contrast only has jurisdiction to legislate on a range of topics agreed to by the states prior to federation, eg. defence and immigration. Since there is possibility for contradiction between federal and state legisilation because of the unlimited legislative jurisidiction of state governments, s 109 of the Constitution of Australia sets out that in such cases the federal legislation is to prevail.

Once again, states do not get their power delegated to them by a sovereign body, like for example local councils. States are sovereign in there own right.

I'll be there...leading the Fascist revolution.

Being inspired by the other ideal nations, I've decided to give my own opinion and back it up with an opinion poll. MAS YAY

I'll present this as a list of traits:

Government: Direct Democracy (as close to it as possible)


By far the most important part of a nation is its system of government but you really have done nothing at all to explain how yours will work. We need more details on how your direct democracy will function before we can judge it.

To put it nicely, I'd launch the coup and the resulting reign of terror.

I don't like the idea of a national religion.
My bad. I forgot that Unitarianism is a religion. I meant that as much regulation as possible is handled by the national government.

Being inspired by the other ideal nations, I've decided to give my own opinion and back it up with an opinion poll. MAS YAY

I'll present this as a list of traits:

Government: Direct Democracy (as close to it as possible)
Market: Restricted/Regulated
Budget Priority: Welfare
Citizen Division: Large States (about 5)
Unitarian (same laws apply to all states)
All strategic industries state-owned
(Communal farms)
Private schools and healthcare outlawed
Private (free) press
Drugs outlawed
Free trade
More funding to health service than fire or police
Positive discrimination outlawed
Education compulsory to 16 but much choice
Adulthood at 16


I'm not an especially big advocate of federalism, but as is I don't really see the point for your state subdivisions if you aren't going to give them any power, authority, or independent jurisdiction. That being said, they probably should have a somewhat more robust power allotted to them, because there are some things that states are much more flexible and adaptible at in meeting the needs of the community.

Secondly, I'm by nature more of a fan of republican/representative democratic forms of government than direct democracy, because they reduce the size of the governing body to manageable levels while simultaneously allowing the best and brightest to lead. Nevetheless, I am a staunch advocate of meritocratic reforms in such a representative body.

I also see a strong problem with your committment both to nationalized industries and free trade: sooner or later, your competitors in other nations are either going to start a trade war with you because you "unfairly" subsidize your business, or you will have to give up nationalization.

All told, however, I think its a promising start to a governmental framework. I'd have to think about it before I could make any other points.

Would you outlaw alocohol, too? It's a drug.

I don't see anything to do with tax here.... how would you pay for all that state funded stuff? :confused:

What rates are you talking about? They'd have to be pretty high.

Probably about 99%, give or take 1%.

I cant make a clear decision, as the three most important issues to me are
Abortion/Stem Cells
Gay Rights
public Religion

Those are 55% of the reason why I consider my self a consertitive, and, I cant make a clear decision without knowing how you stand on those issues.

My country

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9796495#post9796495

I cant make a clear decision, as the three most important issues to me are
Abortion/Stem Cells
Gay Rights
public Religion

Those are 55% of the reason why I consider my self a consertitive, and, I cant make a clear decision without knowing how you stand on those issues.


Abortion is illegal except in cases of mother's health or rape
Stem-cell research is unregulated
Homosexuals and bisexuals have equal rights to heterosexuals
State and religion are separate; freedom of religion

what would all this welfare be spent on we have excellent welfare U.K and it still doesn’t take much of the budget?

although this nation does sound cosy I disagree with:

1) Abortion illegal

2) more funding to health than police and fire (since police and fire help prevent accidents that require healthcare)

3) I don't see a point in separate states if all the laws are the same