NationStates Jolt Archive

EDIT: changing the drug thing around a bit. Complicated issue because I really don't want people doing self destructive things and all in my country, but then again if the stuff was legal it might not be as attractive to potential users.
EDIT: fixed gun control... forgot to fix that at first! Also renovated the media bit.

This below is my ideal country. Based off Capitalist Vikings' board; in fact I took his set of government policies an then just tweaked them to fit my liking.

Government Structure:
1. modeled after the U.S. government
2. on extremely important issues, such as attacks upon other nations, the citizens of the nation must vote on what they would like to do and this vote must be taken into serious consideration and cary significant weight on the decision

Government Function:
2. spending will be allotted for defense, law/order, education, science, and transfer programs. Education, science, and transfer programs will together make up about 48% of government spending.
3. public schools would be set up with the best in mind, and carefully. However, private schools are allowed to compete for students as long as they met government health and education standards.
4. transfer programs will not be privatized by any means but instead improved upon so that they are completely reliable. If a private healthcare company wished to compete they would be allowed to do so but must meet government healthcare standards.

Taxation:
5. income tax is gathered by household. Households earning at least $120,000/year have income tax. Their tax rate is about 20%.
6. there would be a land tax of 2% every five years.
7. there would be a ten-penny sales tax on potentially dangerous items (either to yourself or to others), such as soda, fast food and candy (health-related issues), weapons (security and safety issues), drugs (again, personal health), etcetera.
8. taxes will be collected by the small centralized government
9. any deficit spending must be approved by a 3/4 majority in both the house and the senate

Economy:
9. welfare for those with an income under $35,000 and those whose total income for the past five years has been less than $300,000
10. minimum wage laws will be implimented: those under eighteen must be paid "working wages" of $6.74 per hour or more, and those over eighteen must be paid "living wages" of $11.20 per hour or more.
11. there will be no outsourcing of funds ever, and no outsourcing of jobs unless the government approves. (If unemployment is high, for example, all jobs would stay inside the country.) However, outsourced jobs must pay "outsourcing wages" of $4.23 or more.
12. mandatory payments as recompense for polluting

Foreign Policy:
14. non-interventionalist in most cases (retaliating when OTHERS attack either the nation or the nation's allies is allowed). Exceptions include when the U.N. approves by 3/4, when the nation's citizens ask for help, or when people of a certain racial, religious, gender, etc. category are being discriminated against and the discrimination is of gross magnitude.
15. in the event of a national disaster, governments will raise taxes slightly by whatever means are appropriate at the time, and that money will go toward helping the nation recuperate. The govt. may not force people to pay for relief for international disasters, but govt. organizations may still attempt to help in international relief efforts as long as all work and contributions are voluntary.
16. free trade by "outsourcing wages" and free immigration (provided the immigrants pass the background check; this means not being a dangerous criminal, or affiliated in any way to some person or organization deemed a very large threat to the nation's well-being)
17. no membership to any non-free trade coalition, or any oppressive national body that denies individual rights and freedoms

Domestic Policy:
18. Abortion: legal in all cases--we must put the living mother's rights in front of the potentially living fetus/baby's. Otherwise we are guilty of forcing women to become breeders (thereby forcing them back into a form of slavery). Additionally, babies generally do not develop an awareness or consious mind until after they are born.
19. Capital Punishment: banned except in absolutely EXTREME cases—government has no right to take the life of its citizens unless the criminal is extremely dangerous to the nation's well being and people believe the criminal might be capable of escaping prison
20. Same-Sex Marriage: legal under law; all areas of the nation must abide by this and so must all justices of the peace or persons joining any two people in marriage
21. Euthanasia: allowed
22. Drugs: legal, but may not be mixed with other substances. Drug dealers would have to submit their goods to examination by the government to make sure there weren't any unknown fillers. Anyone found selling drugs with fillers would be prosecuted. Also, government recovery programs for drug or alcohol addicts will be funded in part by the ten-penny tax.
23. Media: there will be one government station of radio, tv, newspaper. Aside from that one station on each type of medium the national government has no influence on media, and neither do major corporations
24. no military draft; military completely voluntary
25. a year of SOME SORT of service after either high school or college is compulsory. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MILITARY SERVICE. This is so that our nation can learn to live in harmony, and so that the government does not have to HIRE people to take care of everything in the country. It will be good for the economy.
25. all weapons must be registered; gun control very strict. People only allowed to have guns if their job requires it.
26. electricity will be derived by the minimum amount of nuclear power required for efficiency. As far as all fuel, government research will work hard to discover alternate fuels and energy sources and if any can be proven reliable, then those reliable sources will be open to the public at large.
27. The rights of all will be enforced and protected regardless or race, religion, sex, and creed
28. Complete separation of Church and State


Feel free to ask questions.

It gets a "meh".

It gets a "meh".

Fair enough. What don't you like about it?


The bright side of living in my utopia would be that I would get along with almost everybody living there with me! :p

Fair enough. What don't you like about it?


I'm a libertarian socialist so i'm bound to disagree on the structure of the economy.

As for domestic policies, they are mostly good except for

19. Capital Punishment: banned except in absolutely EXTREME cases—government has no right to take the life of its citizens unless the criminal is extremely dangerous to the nation's well being and people believe the criminal might be capable of escaping prison

Because I don't understand how someone can be so dangerous as to be guaranteed that they are capable of making an escape from a maximum-security prison (kinda defeats the "maximum security" argument if it's adknowledged that people are capable of breaking out) and pose extreme threat to "the nations well being" while incarcerated...I believe in complete abolition of the death penalty and your argument that "the government has no right to take the life of its citizens".


22. Drugs: legal only in extreme medical instances

I believe in complete legalisation for all drugs (in as far as they aren't able to be prosecuted for it). I support complete legalisation on the sale of all soft drugs but restriction of harder drugs such as opiates - but we shouldn't punish addicts.


23. Media: will be all privatized including radio, tv and any other media source. This means the government has no right to influence the news. Corporations do not have any right to influence the news, either.
-public/community funding allowed granted government doesn’t directly contribute to it

Doesn't really make sense. You believe both government and corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence the news, but you want it all privatised? How are you going to prevent the corporations from influencing the news without restricting freedom of speech unfairly and directly intervening in what they're going to print?

Furthermore, I find government-owned media to often be far more reliable than corporate media, provided that it's independent from any party apparatus - over here, both major parties have attacked our nationally owned media network (ABC = Australian Broadcasting Corporation) as being biased against them. If both major parties criticize it and claim favouritism of the other half, I think that's a sign of good media.


25. a year of SOME SORT of service after either high school or college is compulsory. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MILITARY SERVICE. This is so that our nation can learn to live in harmony, and so that the government does not have to HIRE people to take care of everything in the country. It will be good for the economy.

Depends what you have in mind here. Do you want all young people to fill gaps in road and pick up litter for a year after school without pay, or do you have something else in mind?

25. all weapons must be registered; besides that no gun control

I support licence conditions.

Because I don't understand how someone can be so dangerous as to be guaranteed that they are capable of making an escape from a maximum-security prison (kinda defeats the "maximum security" argument if it's adknowledged that people are capable of breaking out) and pose extreme threat to "the nations well being" while incarcerated...I believe in complete abolition of the death penalty and your argument that "the government has no right to take the life of its citizens".
I know what you mean. But, that kind of case would be extremely rare and, if no such people ever came along, death penalty would never be used.


I believe in complete legalisation for all drugs (in as far as they aren't able to be prosecuted for it). I support complete legalisation on the sale of all soft drugs but restriction of harder drugs such as opiates - but we shouldn't punish addicts. I get that. But, I think that the government should try to do its part in keeping its nation from indulging in self-destructive habits. Same with nutrition--my govt. would take an active role in making sure fast food organizations had little impact.


Doesn't really make sense. You believe both government and corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence the news, but you want it all privatised? How are you going to prevent the corporations from influencing the news without restricting freedom of speech unfairly and directly intervening in what they're going to print?

Furthermore, I find government-owned media to often be far more reliable than corporate media, provided that it's independent from any party apparatus - over here, both major parties have attacked our nationally owned media network (ABC = Australian Broadcasting Corporation) as being biased against them. If both major parties criticize it and claim favouritism of the other half, I think that's a sign of good media.
Very good point. The thing is, what I strive for is bias-free media. I live in the U.S. so there really isn't any media that isn't biased in some way. This makes it kind of hard for me to be sure how I would do this.


Depends what you have in mind here. Do you want all young people to fill gaps in road and pick up litter for a year after school without pay, or do you have something else in mind?
You could work with lower class people, helping to do their groceries and take care of their kids. you could work in an orphanage or a school. You could help with the maintenance of a park. You could work in a soup kitchen. Basically, if the person can think of something reasonable that could qualify, they could do it. It's not like you'd have to work at it every day like a job, but if you did a recurring thing for a year--or even, for a year, different things--it would help the country, etcetera.


I support license conditions
Oh, whoops. I forgot to fix that. I wanted to make it so that there was a lot of gun control, not the other way around.

I fixed the media and gun control bits.

I get that. But, I think that the government should try to do its part in keeping its nation from indulging in self-destructive habits. Same with nutrition--my govt. would take an active role in making sure fast food organizations had little impact.

I disagree. The government should offer support if needed with rehabilitation, but people who smoke marijuana or take party drugs aren't really doing anything "wrong", whether you choose to indulge in it yourself or not - it's hypocritical considering the legality of alcohol especially (marijuana is much less self destructive than alcohol, believe me). With all the money going into preventing drugs from entering the community, you could fund rehabilitation programs that help addicts of harder drugs, rather than attacking them when they are going to use them irrespective of whether it is legal or not. Same thing with nutrition; fast food companies should be encouraged to make their products as healthy as possible, but if a person wants a double-patty cheeseburger with extra sauce...it's not hurting anyone else, so there's nothing that anyone can do about that.

Very good point. The thing is, what I strive for is bias-free media. I live in the U.S. so there really isn't any media that isn't biased in some way. This makes it kind of hard for me to be sure how I would do this.

Meh, it's the same here. Murdoch and Packer together own the vast majority of our media.

You could work with lower class people, helping to do their groceries and take care of their kids. you could work in an orphanage or a school. You could help with the maintenance of a park. You could work in a soup kitchen. Basically, if the person can think of something reasonable that could qualify, they could do it. It's not like you'd have to work at it every day like a job, but if you did a recurring thing for a year--or even, for a year, different things--it would help the country, etcetera.

It's an interesting idea, but forcing that kind of work seems a little wrong. It would be a great thing if a voluntary movement like that sprung up and was popular, but I fear making it compulsory is going to lead to people being disaffected and generally annoyed by the prospect of having to help old people for a day. (for example.)

Oh, whoops. I forgot to fix that. I wanted to make it so that there was a lot of gun control, not the other way around.

OK then, I agree. (except people should be able to get guns even if they don't professionally require them, just as long as there are restrictions and licencing in force. It's a system that works over here, at least)

I particularly don't agree with points #25 and... #25.

It gets a "meh".

I concurr. It doesn't seem too bad to live in, but there are some policies I disagree with, such as the drugs legistration.

I see what everyone means, about the drugs bit.

I've got to realize...

If they were legalized then they wouldn't be as exciting. Then, maybe less people would do them.

I will live in any country that outlaws these FUCKING PERFECT COUNTRY THREADS

My perfect country.

I am the benevolent dictator, you all are my subjects. Sto pscrewing around and get back to work.

I will live in any country that outlaws these FUCKING PERFECT COUNTRY THREADS
What the hell is wrong with them? You don't have to look at them if you don't want to, and they are a good way in finding out other people's views on things. Quit being such a spoil-ass. :upyours:


My perfect country.

I am the benevolent dictator, you all are my subjects. Sto pscrewing around and get back to work.
Niiiice. :p But not on this thread, it ain't!

What the hell is wrong with them? You don't have to look at them if you don't want to, and they are a good way in finding out other people's views on things. Quit being such a spoil-ass. :upyours:


Nice work with the flame, there, champ.

And there is nothing inherontly (hehehehe) wrong with them, but there are rather a lot lately.

inherontly (hehehehe)

You mean "inherently".

I DO see your point, but I still DON'T see why you have to be a spoil-ass about it.

You mean "inherently".

I DO see your point, but I still DON'T see why you have to be a spoil-ass about it.

Congratulations on your humour bypass. I considered pointing out in that post that i can spell inherently, but decided it was funnier without that.

And WTF is a spoil-ass, anyway? Are you just feeling the need to make spoil-sport sound hard and cool??:mad:

This gets a "left-wing!" stamp on it right away, which means I will probably lead a rebellion against you... abortion legal in all cases, eauthanasia legal... taxation 20%, hell no!

taxation 20%, hell no!

Uh...that's actually really low, especially since it doesn't kick in until you earn $120,000 a year.

Just giving this a cursory glance, the most ridiculous part is " welfare for those with an income under $35,000."

$35,000 a year is quite solidly middle class. Methinks you should probably put a little bit more thought into this one.

Uh...that's actually really low, especially since it doesn't kick in until you earn $120,000 a year.

the thing is, why do we need tax anywy, i mean sure, we need a bit, but it should be paid by all and should be a flat rate tax, that way, richer people pay more anyway, and it should not exceed 5%, that way we can tell all the lazy slobs to go **** themselves, then just provide basic neccesityies to the genuinly disadvanteged, like the ill... and the ill is the only example i can think of at the minute, wait no, the elderly as well, everyone else can support themselves. in fact I'm gonna make my own one of these, and then you can see the whole plan...

in fact I'm gonna make my own one of these, and then you can see the whole plan...

Jesus Christ, not another one. Could you at least spell Country wrong when you do it?

the thing is, why do we need tax anywy, i mean sure, we need a bit, but it should be paid by all and should be a flat rate tax, that way, richer people pay more anyway, and it should not exceed 5%, that way we can tell all the lazy slobs to go **** themselves, then just provide basic neccesityies to the genuinly disadvanteged, like the ill... and the ill is the only example i can think of at the minute, wait no, the elderly as well, everyone else can support themselves. in fact I'm gonna make my own one of these, and then you can see the whole plan...

Ugh.

And WTF is a spoil-ass, anyway? Are you just feeling the need to make spoil-sport sound hard and cool??:mad:
Um, yes, actually. Is that a problem?


This gets a "left-wing!" stamp on it right away, which means I will probably lead a rebellion against you... abortion legal in all cases, eauthanasia legal... taxation 20%, hell no!
I'm guessing your household income is more than $120,000 then. Poor families and a hell of a lot of middle class families don't have to pay tax, as you'd know if you paid attention while reading. And even so, tax in a lot of real-life places is higher. I live in the United States, buddy. Don't tell me tax is less than 20% in the United States. Americans don't even get anything for our tax dollars, either.

Unless you call a war in Iraq when they had nothing to do with us at all, a good way to spend billions of dollars and hundreds of lives.


Just giving this a cursory glance, the most ridiculous part is " welfare for those with an income under $35,000."

$35,000 a year is quite solidly middle class. Methinks you should probably put a little bit more though into this one.
Good point. It really depends where you live, too, though. I guess I tend to think of things being more expensive because I live in New York City, where anything short of $100,000 does not go a long way at all.

Before I edit, what would be a good figure with which I could replace $35,000?

the thing is, why do we need tax anywy, i mean sure, we need a bit, but it should be paid by all and should be a flat rate tax, that way, richer people pay more anyway, and it should not exceed 5%, that way we can tell all the lazy slobs to go **** themselves, then just provide basic neccesityies to the genuinly disadvanteged, like the ill... and the ill is the only example i can think of at the minute, wait no, the elderly as well, everyone else can support themselves. in fact I'm gonna make my own one of these, and then you can see the whole plan...
so you're saying that poor people should pay tax? If you're rich 20% will barely TOUCH you--you'll still have plenty. If you're poor 5% might be devastating.

Besides tax is necessary to fund things like welfare, education, scientific research, healthcare, etcetera. No healthcare? Poor people who can't afford privatized healthcare will die. No education? A lot of people who can't afford a private school will end up unemployed later on. No scientific research? Diseases like AIDS will continue to kill large numbers of people. Normally I don't flame people's opinions, but I will if the person is acting a moron.

At least learn how to spell.


Jesus Christ, not another one. Could you at least spell Country wrong when you do it?
Heh, you're funny, and more importantly you're not pissing me off any more.

18. Abortion: legal in all cases--we must put the living mother's rights in front of the potentially living fetus/baby's. Otherwise we are guilty of forcing women to become breeders (thereby forcing them back into a form of slavery). Additionally, babies generally do not develop an awareness or consious mind until after they are born.

Sorry. An insult to common sense and a blatant bias of private property over basic human rights. Say what you will, and this has been argued over and over in the boards and everywhere, but the trend of liberalism is meant to head in the direction of greater extension of human recognition, not less.

20. Same-Sex Marriage: legal under law; all areas of the nation must abide by this and so must all justices of the peace or persons joining any two people in marriage

Get the church OUT of the government! No government recognition of marriages.

21. Euthanasia: allowed

Careful, you have no specifications. Right now you're going to have a massive self-genocide of angst-filled teens.

24. no military draft; military completely voluntary

Even under invasion? Perhaps you're right... just not sure.

Um, yes, actually. Is that a problem?



Yes. Unless you're 10, or mentally deficient.

Careful, you have no specifications. Right now you're going to have a massive self-genocide of angst-filled teens.


God, no! Not the emo kids!

God, no! Not the emo kids!

LOL

Yes. Unless you're 10, or mentally deficient.
Hey, watch it. I told you you weren't pissing me off anymore, so don't blow it, idiot.

Well, actually you're not an idiot and you can be really funny. But... -shameless plug- it's my birthday today and I don't feel like searching for a more appropriate insult on my birthday.

Hey, watch it. I told you you weren't pissing me off anymore, so don't blow it, idiot.

Well, actually you're not an idiot and you can be really funny. But... -shameless plug- it's my birthday today and I don't feel like searching for a more appropriate insult on my birthday.

Happy Birthday! I had a cake, but then I ate it. Was a good cake, too. You'd have loved it.:cool:

And that insult predates the bit where I wasn't pissing you off any more.

Happy Birthday! I had a cake, but then I ate it. Was a good cake, too. You'd have loved it.:cool:

And that insult predates the bit where I wasn't pissing you off any more. .

Actually, no it doesn't. Oh well, I piss damn near everyone else off

Sorry. An insult to common sense and a blatant bias of private property over basic human rights. Say what you will, and this has been argued over and over in the boards and everywhere, but the trend of liberalism is meant to head in the direction of greater extension of human recognition, not less.
But you see, what I think is that (a) the baby is not entirely human until it is born because it has not gained a conciousness, and (b) human rights means keeping us out of the Middle Ages, which means not forcing women to be breeders. If MEN gave birth, believe me, the world's view on abortion would be different... because practically the whole world is run by men.

Nobody ever thinks of that scenario, but you KNOW it's true. The bigwigs would not bother raising ANY money to go against abortion, and if WOMEN were the ones against abortion they would spend money to try and BLOCK what women had to say.


Get the church OUT of the government! No government recognition of marriages.
First of all, a marriage is LEGALLY BINDING, so it has a lot to do with the government actually. The government could end up with MORE money, or it could end up with LESS. Lots of people get married who hate religion. Marriage is not a religious thing unless YOU PERSONALLY want to think of it that way.

Second of all, I probably wouldn't have it on my little constitution if I thought people would just accept same-sex marriage naturally and of their own free will. But there are some ignorant people out there. YES, IF YOU DO NOT LIKE SAME-SEX RIGHTS YOU ARE IGNORANT AND STUPID. With abortion there can be a debate. But with this, there's no debate! Anyone disapproving of homosexuality is a pig. Anyone with brains knows this.

Please, don't tell me you are homophobic. It's not a good way to be.


Even under invasion? Perhaps you're right... just not sure.
Hon, I live in the U.S. I've learned from that in a really important way: Don't start wars. Just don't. Because then you'll have less soldiers, less people signing UP to be soldiers, and all the people who want the war won't bother to sign up.

Following that logic, if I just stick to defensive wars ("speak softly and carry a big stick"), I'll be fine. Yes, that includes invasion. But I won't have drained the pool of soldiers, etcetera, so I'll have all the soldiers I need. The Americans defeated the British with--I believe--MUCH less than half the amount of soldiers they had.

Happy Birthday! I had a cake, but then I ate it. Was a good cake, too. You'd have loved it.:cool:

And that insult predates the bit where I wasn't pissing you off any more.
Sokay. I'll dig it out of your small intestine. Then I'll use my ONG magykul pwerrrzzz to resurrect it into an edible form.

Then I'll eat it. :cool:

Sokay. I'll dig it out of your small intestine. Then I'll use my ONG magykul pwerrrzzz to resurrect it into an edible form.

Then I'll eat it. :cool:

kewl. u R teh uberm4giK1 lolololol1!!1

Just giving this a cursory glance, the most ridiculous part is " welfare for those with an income under $35,000."

$35,000 a year is quite solidly middle class. Methinks you should probably put a little bit more thought into this one.

Just under $3,000/mo.? hmm........

rent: $800
gas bill: $140
electric bill: $150
phone/cable/internet: $130
car payment: $450
car insurance: $150
health insurance premiums: $400
car fuel: $250

2 adults, 3 teenagers and none of us has EATEN or been clothed yet - you do the math :headbang: