NationStates Jolt Archive

We here at NSG are really good at arguing against stuff other people say. But are we any good at producing alternatives?

Here's the challenge to the usual suspects in the politics and economics threads: describe how your perfect society would be organised. If there is a government (and let's face it, something at least a little bit like a government will exist), describe how it works and what it does. If you want, write a little constitution.

My government would basically have two parts:

Public Welfare Administration

No, it doesn't hand out welfare cheques. This administration makes sure that the market can function properly and there is sufficient security and stability in the world for people to live proper lives. It is made up of the following departments:
Public Security & Conflict Resolution
Police and courts are run by this department. One part of the police will be "external security" which will take care of border protection against other governments, the "internal security" will worry about enforcing court decisions and making sure that no one initiates violence against anyone else or their property. The courts take care of sentencing people who do initiate violence as well as settling disputes, enforcing contracts and making sure people aren't conned or defrauded out of their money.
Public Goods Provision
Things that the market wouldn't normally provide by itself efficiently will be taken care of by this agency. It would recognise "yes, we will need a lighthouse there" and put the project up for tender for someone to build a lighthouse somewhere. The same would go for roads (and depending on the road in question it could be a toll road making a profit for the firm that built it or transfer control to the people who actually live by the road).
Market Watch
This agency exists to make sure that the market functions as smoothly as possible. There are three main things to take care of: anti-trust decisions, making as much information as possible public about products, services and markets (to prevent market failures caused by asymmetric or incomplete information) and creating markets where there normally wouldn't be any, particularly to deal with externalities like pollution. Basically it would be a pollution trading scheme that would have to be administered.

National Charity Organisation

You may have noticed that the above doesn't require politicians at all. This second part of government is where politicians can be their usual lovable self. They propose programs (like "free healthcare" or "unemployment benefits"), get them through parliament and onto the tax proposal sheet.

Every citizen will be getting a tax proposal sheet at the start of the financial year. On it will be the flat tax needed to run the Public Welfare Administration (which you have to pay) as well as all the programs which parliament has passed, with a price next to them. You tick the boxes for the programs you like enough to pay for and pay the flat tax plus all the services you order. The trick is: if you don't tick the "free healthcare" box, you won't be getting free healthcare if you get sick. If you end up unemployed and didn't tick the box, you might just have to tighten your belt a bit.

The whole thing will be run by an incredibly strict constitution that limits the things the NCO can actually do. As you see, the courts, police and the politicians are kept away from each other, such that proposals which require the police to work (such as "kill all Muslims!!!111010!, "make war on Iraq!!!!111one1!") are impossible, since the police has no obligation to enforce NCO decisions, especially if they run against the constitution (which would have something about no "killing all ..." or "make war on..." in it). In short, the NCO will be a giant charity organisation which benefits from a national fee-paying system and a wide scope.

How things will be organised

The PWA wouldn't have politicians in it, just public servants. You wouldn't elect anyone, it would be a career choice. People would start with the PWA if they get hired and work their way up if they're any good. The guidelines by which the PWA operates (for example, "how much pollution should the permits allow") are set by the constitution. Every time they might need changing the PWA will appoint a council of experts in the field, get some recommendations and then put them up for referendum (with lots of information material). If the people agree, the changes will be made. There's no policies in the PWA, just set targets to be reached.

The NCO will be the usual parliamentary system. MPs will be elected, where proposals first have to pass the scrutiny of parliament before they can make it onto the tax proposal form. You can see that being an MP isn't quite as important as it is in our world right now, so I don't see a problem with MPs having other jobs as well.

So there we go, I think I covered everything. A government with the discipline of politics being removed from economics. There's as much choice as possible both on a voting- and a personal action level.

Would you want to be a citizen of that country?

None. Or, what we have now. Government is imaginary. All there is, is people. :fluffle:

Federal Government:

The Federal Government provides the following service, only because the private sector does not have the means to provide for it.


Roads
National Defense
Border Security


You can do whatever you want, with whoever you want, where you want as long as it's with a consenting adults, and it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

State/Local Government

State Government provides for the following services, because the private sector does not have the means to provide for it.


Police Department
Fire Department
Roads that only runs in the state/cities/town.


States may also make their own rules, provide other services like Welfare, State Owned Health Service etc. So you can have one socialist state (like California) and have another state be a Libertarian state, it all depends on what the citizens of the state wants.

There will be a Nationwide Fair Tax plan. The Private Sector and Public Sector will not infringe on each other nor control each other. That's all I can think of right now.

Benevolent Dictatorship combined with an Oligarchy of educated people

I forgot one thing, by the way: There won't be citizenship in my country, just residence. If you live there, you vote and you pay taxes just like everybody else. So there won't be immigration or border controls either and everyone is free to come and go as they please.

a government by the people, for the people, of the people

tyranny by majority FTW! (or maybe anarchist communes doing there own thing)

edit: and though I would love to argue in this thread, that would be naughty?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480718

I hear that democracy, equal protection, and the rule of law are pretty neato. Someone should give those a try.

"I think it would be a good idea!"
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi replying to the question "What do you think of Western Civilization?"

edit: and though I would love to argue in this thread, that would be naughty?
It's never naughty to argue. Criticise away!

Absolute authority would rest in my very own hands. Society would be wholly reshaped to ensure justice, equality, blah blah blah...and also the elimination of everyone who has ever even slightly pissed me off. The business class would be dispossessed and forced to earn a living cleaning toilets only using their tongues. All politically orientated websites would be banned (aside from NS:)). A giant electric fence 75 feet high would be built around the territory, with loudspeakers installed to remind the slaves...sorry...citizens how lucky they are to have such a wonderful leader. Racism, sexism, or reference to the gender binary being 'natural' would be punishable for a first offence by public flogging and, for second offences, by surgical implantation into the ears of a device which would constantly play the 'music' of James Blunt at full volume. My government believes that such a punishment far exceeds that of the death penalty.

It's never naughty to argue. Criticise away!

the flaw in your health care is that the rich won't pay it, nor will the poor and the middle class would be blinded by the possibility of another holiday to Corfu and ignore it (and then those who have paid have to get special cards etc)

so you get to celebrate as the health system collapses on all those who have given the money whilst the poor get to live in US conditions

tyranny by majority FTW!

You do realise that constitutions are there to prevent uneducated majorities from running amuck?

One of the truest quotes ever: ""If a nation expects to be ignorant and free [...], it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

As for ideal governments, well... Why do you think this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610) exists? ;)

Out of the way and doing as little as possible.

Out of the way and doing as little as possible.

I like you. :)

You do realise that constitutions are there to prevent uneducated majorities from running amuck?

for that remark the daily mirror has branded you a pervert, an angry mob will be arriving to lynch you at any moment now

This one. (http://www.nationstates.net/linker_niederrhein)

Well, not quite. Slightly lower taxes (And not a flat income tax), and somewhat moe care for the environment. But by and large...

so you get to celebrate as the health system collapses on all those who have given the money whilst the poor get to live in US conditions
If it collapses, that is only because people don't want it. And if that is the case, then there's nothing wrong about it collapsing in my opinion.

In my perfect government, disputes would be settled with Roshambo contests. :)

Democratorship in a democrazy. *nods*

Either that, or we take off and nuke the entire state from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. :D

for that remark the daily mirror has branded you a pervert, an angry mob will be arriving to lynch you at any moment now

Awww. :(

If it collapses, that is only because people don't want it. And if that is the case, then there's nothing wrong about it collapsing in my opinion.

No, it would be because the majority (or a significant minority) do not want it. The majority should not be allowed to strip those in need of their most basic and essential rights. Again, that's why the "will of the majority" needs to have some constitutional and legal limits.

No, it would be because the majority (or a significant minority) do not want it. The majority should not be allowed to strip those in need of their most basic and essential rights. Again, that's why the "will of the majority" needs to have some constitutional and legal limits.
But the beauty of everyone deciding themselves whether or not to take part in a free healthcare scheme is that even if only a minority wants to play ball things could still run just fine.

Remember, next to the box saying "free healthcare" there is a dollar amount, calculated as being the expected cost of providing the service. So everyone essentially pays for their own free healthcare (which technically doesn't make it free, but nevermind that :p), the system should always have as much money as it needs. It's like an insurance, except it's provided by this non-profit government organisation which charges no fees.

I'd opt for a hippocracy. Well, the hippos would probably do a grand job.

Remember, next to the box saying "free healthcare" there is a dollar amount, calculated as being the expected cost of providing the service. So everyone essentially pays for their own free healthcare (which technically doesn't make it free, but nevermind that :p), the system should always have as much money as it needs. It's like an insurance, except it's provided by this non-profit government organisation which charges no fees.
Would you be paying a fixed amount, for health insurance, say, or would it be a percentage of income?

I'm going to deviate a bit from everyone else. I can see how the smallest government possible would appeal to people, but I believe that government is there for a reason. I'm not saying big government is great, what with all the beuracracy, up they need to be able to protect people from outside threats, as well as internal threats. In addition, they need to be able to settle disputes and punish the guilty. I believe that a communistic society would be the best form of government. Not the kind that the former Soviet Union or China practice, but a true communist society, closer to what Marx envisioned. It'll never happen, of course, since human nature is inherently greedy.

Would you be paying a fixed amount, for health insurance, say, or would it be a percentage of income?
A fixed amount would make more sense, I think. But the point is really to have people pay what they want to pay. You choose your tax burden, basically.

A fixed amount would make more sense, I think. But the point is really to have people pay what they want to pay. You choose your tax burden, basically.
The problem I can see with having a fixed amount, basically a poll tax, is that the tax burden would fall disproportionately heavily on the poor. Someone only earning a minimum wage, assuming there is one, would not be able to afford the premium for health, unemployment, police, fire, education, so on and so forth.

But then, if it were a percentage of income, the wealthiest would probably be able to access better private services from health to fire protection, and so wouldn't pay the premiums for state healthcare, which would leave state services the poor rely on underfunded, if they only pay a small amount towards it.

Or am I misunderstanding a part of your government?

In elections every fourth year people vote for general guidelines and goals instead of politicians. Experts in each area such as government finances or foreign affairs suggest various plans for future goals and general changes to their areas and people can choose one plan in each area to vote for.

A government job is a career if you do your job well, if not you get fired. The government must present quarterly reports on it's progress with the elected plans. A one time jury of randomly selected anonymous citizens who may not refuse but will be well compensated for the trouble evaluates the report and decides if the government is following the elected plans or not. If not, the jury must fire the bosses responsible for deviating from the plan and choose who to hire as replacement.

Law is one area in elections. Just below the constitution there is a set of general guidelines that can only be changed by elections and explains what the law's intention is, this includes for example a description of what the purpose of property law is. Government employed legal experts design more specific laws to address specific issues such as trespassing, theft and vandalism. Both courts and the quarterly jury makes sure the experts design specific laws to stay true to the permanent constitution and the current elected intentions.

The government collects high progressive taxes to pay for things the market doesn't pay for or doesn't handle well enough. All education including university is free so talented poor kids get a better chance then rich stupid kids, health-care is cheap enough for everyone to afford it, add all other socialistic welfare. But the government only pays for it, it doesn't run it. All schools and hospitals are private companies who compete for students and patients on a free market, except that the government pays the students' and patients' fees. Perhaps the government could even pay private security companies and detectives to do police work.

The only thing the government does run is inevitable monopolies like tax money distribution, courts, water and roads.

The goal of police work is defined as reducing the damage caused by crime. Locking people up so they can't commit more crimes is one way but other ways to reduce crime are also encouraged. For example with drug related crimes it might be a good idea to legalize and heavily regulate light recreational drugs so people use those instead of the heavier stuff. Any bars or other places that wants permission to serve alcohol or other drugs would be under tight requirements and frequent inspections. To make sure they take steps to prevent problems such as minors slipping in, overdose, violence, rape, addiction (call detox when an addict is spotted) and drunk driving (arrange for guests to get home without driving). To buy alcohol stronger then beer or other drugs to take home you'd have to register and there is a monthly ration/limit on how much a person may buy as an attempt to keep your usage on a reasonable level, reselling your ration is illegal. ...But all that is only if there would be less drug related crimes with the legally regulated places then it is with criminal drug dealers who don't even have an age limit on their wares.

Hmm... it all depends on your view of human nature really. I guess if most people were similiar to me you'd probably be able to get away with anarchy.

Other than that a dictatorship is always good if you can find the right person.

Economically, I would prefer for it to be as hands off as is practical. Though what I consider practical Neu Leonstein or Wilgrove might not.

Measures to dramatically reduce high volume, low profit margin stock and currency speculation.

Natural monopolies and areas where there is significant long term public interest would be wholly or at least partly administered by the government, with no contracting out of services.

Trains would be wholly administered by the government due to how the very nature of how they operate making them natural monopolies.

Education would be partly administered, with a state funded schools, due to the long term public interests in having an educated populace. However, such schools would be very localised and administered by a board of govenors and only have such authority revoked if the school was failling.

Corporations would only recieve government bail outs if it would be in the public interest that they did not collapse; that they would allow a government audit to verify that the amount of money they were asking for was not over inflated; and that there was no evidence of embezzlement. The corporation would then have to agree to how many shares they were willing to issue to the government for such a sum of money. It is in this way that government could take control of vital industry or services to protect the economy. If the economy was moving away from focusing on such services or industry then the corporation would be liquidated and workers offered subsidies for retraining into a new area of work, otherwise if the corporation recovers then government's shares would be put up for sale on the stock market... bleh, I'm bored now.

I'll just finished with a (probably paraphrased) quote from Terry Pratchett.
- The Patrician subscribed to the idea of 'One man, one vote', and he was that man.

Republic on the local levels and authoritarian at the federal level. The authoritarian government does not interfere with the lives of the people and they can vote for their own local leaders. Justice is preserved, corruption is treated harshly, and people have responsibility for their actions.

Government Style: Federal, Constitutional, Democratic
Affiliation: Moderate Liberal
Economic: Regulated Capitalism

That simple.

Essentially America, without all the corporate control and religious tomfoolery.

Even in your own little fantasy world, and no matter what utopian ideal you place upon your government...you still fail to acheive a perfect government, because there is no perfect form of government even a lack of government is ineffective and supremely flawed.
No matter the restrictions, the chances of Governmental abuse, oppression, or suppression is never ruled out of the equation.
Humans are flawed and imperfect, thus all they do is flawed and imperfect.

All a person can really do is choose the lesser of the evils and hope to god they don't send you to the gulags or get caught up in a revolution or a Coup d'état.

Any government with me at the head would see massive industrial interventionism, but also a massive increase in social liberalisation. Basically, my government would engage in a wide-spread nationalisation of industry and produce, though generally keeping their operation intact with a basic wage-cut of the higher-ups and the replacement of the titular CEO with HMG. The commitment of profit of the seized businesses to the treasury would then be use to offset a reasonable tax cut and, at the same time, a process of rapid technological development in the hope of distributing free food, power, water, healthcare and housing for everyone.

The defence budget will largely divert funds from conventional armed forces to military technological research in the hope of developing an actual defense mechanism rather than threatening with a good offense and wasting money on conventional weapons manufacture.

As for international relations, I will personal make a claim on Antarctica, with the promise of sizable research grants for its use in technological development. I will strengthen our relationship with the eastern industrial nations such as Japan, China and India, as well as carrying on our wish to improve conditions for the African people. My government will loosen our immigration controls and eventually gain a population of a huge variety of dual nationalities that we can use to break down the notion of Nation and export our ideas to the global stage.

Then... World Peace. Or something.

Democracy with a very low corruption rate and little support for those who expect everything to fall on their lap.

The problem I can see with having a fixed amount, basically a poll tax, is that the tax burden would fall disproportionately heavily on the poor.
That's because the poor will use it much more.

Someone only earning a minimum wage, assuming there is one, would not be able to afford the premium for health, unemployment, police, fire, education, so on and so forth.
There wouldn't be a minimum wage. It's not necessary since unions would be allowed to do whatever the hell they like, just like businesses. Denmark has no employee protection legislation and absolutely nothing that gives you job security. Germany doesn't have a minimum wage. Neither is a poor man's nightmare.

Police would be covered by the basic flat rate. The other things...well, I'll stick to my guns and say that user pays is the only fair way of dealing with these things. I don't have life insurance because I don't think I will need it, but old people might get it because it's a more appealing prospect to them. Similar with the poor, I think. I don't believe in this "can't afford" stuff, in the real world the people who can't afford stuff are also the ones who buy a hundred dollars worth of alcohol every week. And if the money is taken with your taxes the vast majority of people will be able to make do with the rest.

Make no mistake, my world is certainly not a socialist one. But I think it is the best compromise between people taking responsibility for themselves and total anarchism (which contrary to anarchists I actually think will end up in mass violence).

My perfect government.














Yes, there's absolutely nothing there. That's why it's my perfect government.

Edit: But if I had to choose a government, I'd probably choose an absolute monarchy, like the Hapsburgs, without all the majoritarian bull.

Yes, there's absolutely nothing there. That's why it's my perfect government.
So then let's broaden things a bit for all the anarchists out there:

What would your perfect way of organising society look like?

My perfect government.














Yes, there's absolutely nothing there. That's why it's my perfect government.

Edit: But if I had to choose a government, I'd probably choose an absolute monarchy, like the Hapsburgs, without all the majoritarian bull.



wouldn't no government create chaos? I mean because of human nature.

So then let's broaden things a bit for all the anarchists out there:

What would your perfect way of organising society look like?

Just let everybody pursue the ultimate subjective norm of action- happiness. That's the point of human existence. Use property rights as a system of what is OK and not OK under this system, to avoid conflict, and there you have it. Then you use family, church (or other applicable metaphorical religious edifice), and community as a primary means of association so that people can cooperate with one another.

A benevolent dictatorship following Communist, Socialist, and related ideas, preferably governed by yours truly.

wouldn't no government create chaos? I mean because of human nature.

No. Human nature isn't necessarily evil. Would you cheat a little kid, even if there were no government?

Let's see:

Education
New top priority. This will include higher pay rates for teachers. The 'those who can't, teach" attitude people have about teaching is idiotic and if a reasonable wage is way is needed to begin reverting that, so be it. You still get a handful of good teachers because it is what they want to do, but too many are just there because they couldn't perform in industry.
However, education would also include post secondary too. Trade schools, universities, and colleges would see a rather large increase in government funding. Tuition would be covered by the government. Universities would also see allot more money for R&D; significantly more. More R&D money would be made available to private companies, too.

Welfare Type Stuff
Healthcare would resemble the Canadian system (you pay solely through taxes). The federal government would match whatever the provincial government decided to pay into the system. Part of healthcare is also prevention. Minimum nutritional standards would be set for restaurants. There would be a borderline area, where the food will still be allowed to be sold, but with a tax added.
Welfare would largely be replaced with Make Work projects. Traditional welfare would still exist, but it would require justification. Make Work projects will vary by the region, but could be anything from picking garbage to construction. The point is you work and get paid for it. It usually won't be good pay, it usually won't be glamorous, it usually won't be profitable, but it will usually be something that is needed in the area.

Economic Stuff
The state would be capitalist. Materials property will still be recognized and enforced, but intellectual property would not.The federal government would collect a progressive tax from income, and that would largely be it. The exception would be unhealthy substances like alcohol, tobacco, and low quality restaurant food as they would increase stress on the public healthcare system.
The following would be nationalized: healthcare, education, roads, rail, alcohol and tobacco sales(not production), electrical, water, garbage disposal, and maybe a couple others that I cannot think of at the moment as they service they provide are valuable socially and/or economically even if they do not run a profit. The government would also compete in the free market against companies in hopes of initiating competition and therefore better products. It would typically enter markets where the country is lagging behind much of the developed world (ie the Canadian government would get in the ISP business as the typical internet connection is sad when compared to much of the US and much of the EU).

Military
It would a defense oriented force. It would also be a guinea pig for new, but somewhat proven technologies. People are surprisingly willing to go spend crazy when it is time to kill people, so the government should use that to get newer technology available to people. The military usually requires items in bulk, which can force mass production techniques to be developed earlier in a technologies life, driving its price down for the consumer.

Elections and Politics
The political system would resemble Canada's (you vote for a party, as all the members all vote the same way as the party leader), except it would be a proportional system instead of first past the post.

No. Human nature isn't necessarily evil. Would you cheat a little kid, even if there were no government?
Maybe. It would be hard the first time, but if I was desperate I'd do it. After that, I wouldn't really feel guilty at all and could keep doing it no prob.

Maybe. It would be hard the first time, but if I was desperate I'd do it. After that, I wouldn't really feel guilty at all and could keep doing it no prob.

You lie. It wasn't hard the first time at all.

No. Human nature isn't necessarily evil. Would you cheat a little kid, even if there were no government?

It happens now with government, and even though people are not evil by default, people are flawed and will do anything for anything if need be.

"Perfect government" is an absurd concept.

Civil libertarian policies with a moderate capitalist economy. Simple enough.

My idea of the "perfect government" is made into the form of my NS nation. An iron-fisted dictatorship to keep the population under control and a powerful economy to allow the nation to assert its strengths (ie: military). Emphasis placed on control, power and order.

My perfect government is a rotating dictatorship.

Everyone in the nation capable of passing a basic literacy test in a language of their choosing is placed on a list.

Every day, a name is selected at random from the list. That person is then absolute dictator for the next 24 hours. At which point, a new name is drawn.

Should keep things interesting. :p

Civil libertarian policies with a moderate capitalist economy. Simple enough.
Truth.

Maybe. It would be hard the first time, but if I was desperate I'd do it. After that, I wouldn't really feel guilty at all and could keep doing it no prob.

Yeah, but that's an EXTREME circumstance. Most of the time, you wouldn't do it.

It happens now with government, and even though people are not evil by default, people are flawed and will do anything for anything if need be.

But you can still exclude cheats and other low-lifes from a community in an anarchic society. So, you can control this kind of anti-social behavior.

My ideal government would have this as its capital building:

http://www.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/pics/2001=bucks/meadow.jpg

My ideal government would have this as its capital building:

http://www.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/pics/2001=bucks/meadow.jpg

Powerlines??

:confused:







:p

That's because the poor will use it much more.
Then it begs the question: what is the point of your 'government'? If all its services operate like a private business, with flat-rate premiums to access its services, and compete with private business, then what is the point of them existing at all?

There wouldn't be a minimum wage. It's not necessary since unions would be allowed to do whatever the hell they like, just like businesses. Denmark has no employee protection legislation and absolutely nothing that gives you job security. Germany doesn't have a minimum wage. Neither is a poor man's nightmare.
Well, I wasn't making a point about whether a minimum wage should exist at all. That really would have to be a discussion for another thread.

Police would be covered by the basic flat rate. The other things...well, I'll stick to my guns and say that user pays is the only fair way of dealing with these things. I don't have life insurance because I don't think I will need it, but old people might get it because it's a more appealing prospect to them. Similar with the poor, I think. I don't believe in this "can't afford" stuff, in the real world the people who can't afford stuff are also the ones who buy a hundred dollars worth of alcohol every week. And if the money is taken with your taxes the vast majority of people will be able to make do with the rest.
It might or might not work out for the 'vast majority' who pay taxes. What do you intend to do with the long term unemployed, low-wage workers and perhaps single parent mothers/fathers who it might not work out for? And I somehow doubt that everyone in poverty is there because they spend 100 quid on booze per week. Someone without a wage, or only a very low wage, as would still be at least possible possible without a minimum, is simply not going to have enough money for gas, water, rent, food, plus expensive insurance premiums for everything from fire and health to education. Especially for the poorest who don't pay tax, the amount they would have to pay would increase beyond their ability to pay.

However, unless someone kindly calculates how much insurance premiums for every necessary public service would cost, its quite difficult to work out exactly who winners/losers would be.

Make no mistake, my world is certainly not a socialist one. But I think it is the best compromise between people taking responsibility for themselves and total anarchism (which contrary to anarchists I actually think will end up in mass violence).
It's not a government I'd want to live in, but there you go. I doubt there is such a thing as perfect government.

A decentralized association of leftist (Keynesian to communist, variant) libertarian city-states and anarchic communes.

My ideal society would be more or less communitarian/communism, where the idea of all property belonging to the community is taken for granted. The government's main role would simply be to protect public property the way it protects private property right now. It would also provide education, healthcare, rehabilitation for criminals, etc. Leaders elected by majority vote.

My ideal government would be no government. Just pristine, untamed wilderness thoughout the entire country. People would live in small groups with no overall leader, though one might be chosen in times of crisis. There would also be no economy, industry, pollution, etc.

My ideal government would be no government. Just pristine, untamed wilderness thoughout the entire country. People would live in small groups with no overall leader, though one might be chosen in times of crisis. There would also be no economy, industry, pollution, etc.

Would you consider yourself an Anarcho-Primitivist?

My ideal government would be no government. Just pristine, untamed wilderness thoughout the entire country. People would live in small groups with no overall leader, though one might be chosen in times of crisis. There would also be no economy, industry, pollution, etc.

So no computers or modern medicine?

The ideal society would not be a democracy

The current version of democracy has the president decided upon by the voters of Ohio and Florida, key swing states... so the government is going to come up with any amount of BS in order to get the people of those 2 states to vote for them.
This occurs over here where the ruling party is decided by about 50 'swing' seats appeal to voters in these seats and you'll get power

But then, you get a situation as will happen in the UK in 13 years time, about 30% of our electricity generating stations will reach the end of their servicible life, which means we have to start planning and building replacement stations..... however... in order to appeal to the 'swing' voters this process will be delayed... also it will get delayed by the various green groups protesting against whatever is decided upon to replace them,:headbang: so in 2020 the lights will go out (or more likely, the French will have built a chain of nuclear power stations along the north coast of France in order to sell us electricity )
Democracy is not the ideal solution:(
Benevolent dictatorship is THE only solution to governing countries:cool:.... but after a good dictator... the sucessor usually turns out to be a complete basket case:eek::eek:

Would you consider yourself an Anarcho-Primitivist?

Nope, Eloi:

http://www.occidentalism.org/pic/eloi2.jpg

Apart from a dispotism featuring myself as the tyrant, my ideal system would be...

A parliamentary republic, with strong separation between the three branches of power.

Parliament:
The parliament would have two branches. A national council, elected with proportional law (competing national lists, only one preference allowed, seats given to lists proportionally to the total votes of the list). A council of local representatives, elected with the majoritarian law between local competing candidates.
A law would require approval of both branches to pass on simple majority (1/2 +1 of the total seats). Laws amending the constitution or the electoral system would require a majority of 3/4 +1 of the total seats in both branches.
A "none of the above" option would be included; if the "none of the above" gets the majority of votes, the elections are void and new candidates would be needed.

Cabinet:
The cabinet would be elected with the French system (majoritarian with final ballot between the best two). The whole cabinet team would be elected, not just the head of the cabinet. Number of ministers fixed by constitution. The cabinet would not be able to rule by decree, except in cases of emergency (natural disaster, plague, insurrection, war).
The cabinet could be voted off by a recall vote (in the form of referendum) or by a 3/4 +1 majority of both branches of the parliament. In this case, new elections for the cabinet would be indicted.

Judiciary:
Totally independent from the other two branches; on the general, it would follow the italian system.

Head of State:
The President would be nominally Chief of State, Head of the Armed Forces, etc etc but no power save to suspend parliamentary bills or decrees of the cabinet and sending them to the Constitutional Court for evaluation.
The President would be elected by the Parliament.

Electors:
The electors would be all citizens above age 16. Voting would be compulsive (one can always vote for "none of the above") and secret. Polls would be multiplied by the number of correct answers to 10 questions of general culture - id est, if one is totally clueless, his vote would count 0.

Direct democracy.
Referenda could be indicted by a reasonabily large number of citizens to pass or to reject a law, if the question is approved by the Constitutional Court. No quorum for referenda. 1/2 +1 majority of the votes needed to pass or reject a law. Referenda about the electoral system or the Constitution would require 3/4 +1 majority, anyway no referendum could reject the key articles of the Constitution or change the form of the State (example, to monarchy).

Rights of the citizens:
Apart from human rights (as per international conventions), all citizens would have right to (and the government should intervene to grant the rights to):
freedom of movement, health, personal property, small-scale enterprise (not large-scale capitalism), basical and higher education, access to knowledge and information, housing, work (and state-granted rent for the elderly), holidays, privacy, fair trials, personal safety and security.

Obligations of the citizens:
Defend the republic and the country if the need arises, undergo a draft (let's say 6 months in a lifetime) for military/civilian purposes, partecipate to the government of the republic by voting.

Taxation:
Progressive income tax only. No taxation on consumer goods except luxury goods (yes, cigarettes and alcohol are luxury goods).

Infrastructures:
The state would own all the infrastructures (roads, rails, seaports, airports, aqueducts, electroducts, gasducts etc). 100% state-owned companies would give the citizens the basic services (like water for a "standard" house, or local public transportation, or non-luxury train and aircraft passenger service, basical mail services). Non-basic services would be ok for privatization, provided that there is a strong antitrust authority (no single privately-owned company would be allowed to hold more than 10% of the market of a specifical sector).

Territory:
The territory would be property of the State. It would be given in licence, even for many years (let's say 99 years) to citizens or private companies, with some limitations to the use of the territory and its resources.


Now, stop. My fingers are aching. You got the idea, anyway. A socialist democracy within the institutional frame of a parliamentary republic. This could be not extremely utopistic.

Of course, communism would be better, but I still don't see it coming in the next future here right now.

The ideal system to me is one where there is no official government because everyone takes responsibility for the world around them and acts on the basis that each person should contribute to the world, not just by working, but by making a lasting improvement. There'd be no need for money, because anyone providing a service/product, assuming they didn't have enough for everyone who wants some, would compare the requests to determine how best to divide it among them.

Irrational prejudices and "beliefs" would be abandoned in favour of rational behaviour. Ultimately, the maximisation of the sum total happiness of the human race would be aimed for.

Also, technology would be seen as a key tool in achieving such aims - we would try to reduces instances of the "who needs X more" problem by making ourselves able to provide enough of each thing that everyone who wants some can have some.

No. Human nature isn't necessarily evil. Would you cheat a little kid, even if there were no government?

not me but someone with looser morals might.

not me but someone with looser morals might.

Very, very few have such naturally loose morals.

Very, very few have such naturally loose morals.

And they usually get excluded within a short period of time.

A decentralized direct democracy made up of a series of communities, who may or may not be part of a confederacy. Each community would be communistic. All property rights would be based upon use.
There would be a Constitution for each community, with a few basic rights. All humans would have the right to life. The right to life necessarily includes access to the necessities required to sustain life. Such things like freedom of speech, movement, religion, etc. should also be in the constitution.
The communities could individually decide on things such as drug use, whether or not people who refuse to contribute to the community should receive equal amounts of resources as people who do, and how long the community will have people within it work to receive the benefits of the community. There would naturally be other things, too.
There will be no state, but people will have the rights to self-defense. I'd imagine anyone who is capable of using a gun would learn how to.
Someone who breaks one of the community's rules might receive a punishment. This could be a verbal reprimand, a small loss of resources, or exclusion from the community.

All property rights would be based upon use.

How long does it have to be since the last physical interface with an object before one loses their property right in it?

A constitutional federal, presidential republic that centralizes education, health, and welfare and puts them as top priority.

Has programs to actively build and improve infrastructure (roads, communications, cool satellites, etc.)

That doesn't abuse human rights (or at least, doesn't make them noticeable to anyone outside the highest echelons of government), that doesn't enforce the death penalty, promotes debate and dissent, and has a big-ass military to repel invaders, illegal immigrants, and smugglers...oh and to eventually conquer the world.

How long does it have to be since the last physical interface with an object before one loses their property right in it?
Why does that detail matter so much in such vague overviews in government layout?

How long does it have to be since the last physical interface with an object before one loses their property right in it?Hm. I suppose it would depend on how common the object is. The more common the object, the longer a person can go without using it without losing their usage rights.

Do people have a right to these things? Are they necessary in being a fully functional, responsible human being, or are they perks? Should they be given to all or reserved for select few? What are their benefits? What are their hindrances?

I don't think I can even begin to describe a perfect government, because all peoples are different in their cultural, historical, and political backgrounds, but I can describe the type of government I would like to see put in place in my country, or a similar one.

First of all, It would be democratic, meaning representatives would be voted on by the people and government is responsible to the people first of all.
There would be no chief executive officer at all. Instead, there would be a bicameral legislature. The two houses would be self checking, and their functions would differ drastically, unlike the US house and senate.
The "lower house" would be voted on directly and would represent the people proportionately, much like the US house of rep.s. It's function would be to asses the state of the nation and decide where steps need to be taken to better the nation. They would have the power to suggest legislation, but not to actually draft the law. The "upper house" would then draft an actual law and submit it back to the lower house for majority approval. That sounds a bit unclear so I'll give an example. Take abortion as the issue at hand....the lower house could suggest something to the effect of "limit the legality of abortion." With this suggestion, the upper house could draft legislation anywhere in the range of banning it to criminalizing it in only one specific type of instance. They could not, however, legalize it.
The Upper house would structured so that each state had a certain number of seats....hey let's say 2.....the state could then choose to represent their seats whatever way they wanted. The governor could select one or any number of people to fulfill both votes, they could send every issue to the poles, or anywhere in between. The reasoning there is that it is compatible on a world stage where not every nation wants to pick its leaders democratically.
Oh, there would be a supreme court kind of thing, which would not serve as an actual court at all, but would just review the constitutionality of all laws in effect and being passed. With their order, the legislature would have to repeal a law that was unconstitutional.
That brings in the question of the constitution, which in any government I guess is one of the most defining factors. This constitution would be a simple list of things the government could not do....for example, it could not "pass any law which prohibits the actions of a person, so along as that action does not inhibit the freedom of others to act as they choose" and "No law may be passed on the grounds of human difference other than that of age." This constitution, which ok isn't really a constitution at all I guess, would leave a somewhat open field for what kind of government exactly would be. Certainly it would stipulate the existence of the supreme court and that "no legislative power other than the suggestion of law and the vote for or against any law may be vested in a single person or a group of people not chosen by the people." So there is some wiggle room on exactly how the government is to be run.

You know what, there is more to it but I just decided that outlining the complexities of any government in one post is not even really worth attempting.

Wasn't there a thread similar to this about a month ago or so?

Anyways, my perfect government:
First, it would be important to understand that in my perfect world their would be no nations, governments, or technology, or agriculture.

Understanding this:
People would live in small, self-sufficient communities, and meet with other groups only infrequently. Within the group, there would be no one person above the others. There may be a wiseman, or group of elders to whom people take advice from, but their advice would not be law, it would simply be advice.

Do people have a right to these things? Are they necessary in being a fully functional, responsible human being, Yes and yes.
Should they be given to all or reserved for select few? They're (education and health(care)) human rights, so all humans should have them.

What are their benefits? What are their hindrances?The benefits are that they maximize human potential. Their hindrances are that they require a small amount of resource investment.

A decentralized direct democracy made up of a series of communities, who may or may not be part of a confederacy. Each community would be communistic. All property rights would be based upon use.
There would be a Constitution for each community, with a few basic rights. All humans would have the right to life. The right to life necessarily includes access to the necessities required to sustain life. Such things like freedom of speech, movement, religion, etc. should also be in the constitution.
The communities could individually decide on things such as drug use, whether or not people who refuse to contribute to the community should receive equal amounts of resources as people who do, and how long the community will have people within it work to receive the benefits of the community. There would naturally be other things, too.
There will be no state, but people will have the rights to self-defense. I'd imagine anyone who is capable of using a gun would learn how to.
Someone who breaks one of the community's rules might receive a punishment. This could be a verbal reprimand, a small loss of resources, or exclusion from the community.
I would add government by direct democracy, i.e. town meetings and referenda (where necessary) for each commune to that, myself.

I would add government by direct democracy, i.e. town meetings and referenda (where necessary) for each commune to that, myself.Oh, certainly. If I failed to mention that, I meant to. (Meant to mention it, not fail to mention it.)

The idea government is simple - all I need is to divide everyone into three groups, create four government ministries, and have a figurehead who is seen everywhere. I'm thinking that we take a small part of the population and make them the Inner Government, a larger segment and make them the Outer Government, and the rest can just be, let's see here, I'll call them Trolls.

For the ministries? One will be in charge of making sure the people love each other. The next is in charge of telling the truth. Another is in charge of keeping the peace. And the last will be for making sure there's plenty to go around.

The figurehead should be a handsome fellow with a moustache...perhaps an older male sibling...

What? That's already been tried? Why are you calling me an Oldthinker? My idea is doubleplusgood! Go away, duckquacker; I have to go prosecute some thoughtcrimes.

**head explodes**

Hm. I suppose it would depend on how common the object is. The more common the object, the longer a person can go without using it without losing their usage rights.

What if I am producing and stockpiling some sort of particularly scarce resource, say medicine, in case of some catastrophe? Since I am not 'using' it in the sense of physically interacting with it, does it mean that others can come and take it and do whatever they wish with it, even though I see a better use for it and have created it expressly for that purpose?

What if I am producing and stockpiling some sort of particularly scarce resource, say medicine, in case of some catastrophe? Since I am not 'using' it in the sense of physically interacting with it, does it mean that others can come and take it and do whatever they wish with it, even though I see a better use for it and have created it expressly for that purpose?How much medicine are we talking about?
If it would cover your own future use of the medicine, then that's fine.
If there's more than enough for that, then people can take it.
However, in the process of taking it, they might have to enter your house, which would likely violate your use of your house.
So a better idea would be for them to take some of the materials that you are using to make the medicine and make their own, assuming you aren't also storing them in your house.

Federal Government:

The Federal Government provides the following service, only because the private sector does not have the means to provide for it.


Roads
National Defense
Border Security


Prove that the private sector doesn't have the means to provide for it.

Prove that the private sector doesn't have the means to provide for it.

Because for a firm to come up with the adequate money and to do such jobs to a good standard could take years to find enough investors, efficiency is found foremost in public administration. For example, in my country we have waiting on and off for over 10 years for a high speed cable broadband network (the broadband we have now is slow) and the government has been saying that they are waiting for private investors to magically appear wit billions of dollars are build the network, while also giving internet subsidies to lower income families and also the infrastructure to ensure rural/regional communities have access, which costs alot more money than it would bring back. Now if the government used their surplus to do it 10 or more years ago, we would have it, everyone in the country would, not just those who could afford it as thats what would happen with a private network.

Now we have yet to get this network, and the Labor party says if they come to office they'll use the government surplus to pay for a public network, the problem is, private sector can only be trusted to invest in profit return areas, not all areas of society will give back returns.

Prove that the private sector doesn't have the means to provide for it.

Undoubtedly it does.

But most reasonable people are not interested in living in a society where hired gangs sell coercive power to the highest bidder.

And how do you expect to have meaningful competition between road-builders?

I personally would like a technocratic government (not Technocracy), where the government is comprised entirely of scientists, engineers, and other skilled and educated people. It would be strictly meritocratic and your rank would be solely based on performance in the tasks assigned to you. The society would be free market, with government in control of infrastructure, law and order, and a social security net, and there would be few rules on scientific and technological research. Education funding would be a very high priority, with free college and graduate school for qualified candidates.

Of course, my concern is that it would degenerate in to another dictatorship, so I doubt it could be applied in practice yet.

My ideal government would be a meritocracy where supreme executive power would be determined by an election of potential candidates who have served in at least 2 branches of public service in which their life was at risk. The top dog may only pass federal laws with the approval of a 2/3 majority of the senate. Only those who have completed a term of federal service would be citizens and permitted to participate in elections or hold executive or legislative office, everyone else would be a civilian but aside from voting there'd be no difference between the two. The term would not be less than 2 years but could be extended to meet the needs of the federation. No one would be denied their right to prove they have what it takes, even those in an iron lung could design a gun or test a drug. Considering that it would be more work and responsibility than it's worth to most people government would stay pretty small.

The federal government would have just 3 primary tasks; military, education, and energy. Road construction would be carried out by private companies under local governments to federal standards.

Education positions would be open to civilians with the exception of a class that does not need to be passed, only taken. History and Moral Philosphy would be taught only by citizens. There would also be an annual review of instructors, if an instructor failed the same tests that they administer to their students they get canned.

Energy would come almost totally from fission plants with attached reprocessing facilites to recycle waste.

Freedom of expression would be the first right ensured to each person. The second would be the right of defense. The third would be the right of service, and through that, the right to vote. The fourth would be the right to a swift, impartial, and fair trial. The fifth would be the right to privacy. More could be added with a 3/4 approval from the senate and the C in C.

Drugs of all kinds would be legal. If you steal then you pay it back or work it off if you can't pay, if you destroy property then you work it off, if you kill then you die, if you rape then you die. Assault, drunk driving, etc. would be punished by public floggings. If you go AWOL nobody goes after you and you aren't punished for it unless you commit a second crime later, in which case it gets you 50 lashes, unless the second crime would get you the noose.

There would also be a public forum where civlians and citizens alike could come and speak directly with their leaders much in the same way we converse with one another here.

Undoubtedly it does.

But most reasonable people are not interested in living in a society where hired gangs sell coercive power to the highest bidder.

And how do you expect to have meaningful competition between road-builders?

Don't know. I'm just asking if he can prove whether the market can provide those things.

Don't know. I'm just asking if he can prove whether the market can provide those things.
Well, anyone who's taken even a little bit of introductory economics can do that.

Roads are fairly simple. Since there are material, physical constraints to the way you can put a road from A to B, the number of competitors is limited. Even if you can build more than one road from A to B, they won't be perfect subtitutes.

Of course a private firm could build a toll road and run it (though the question is whether it would be worth it if it's residential and there's just a few cars going there every day) - but there wouldn't be a market.

I suppose there's two types of right-wingers: those to whom it's enough to just have stuff not under government control, and those who actually need some sort of competition. I belong to the latter, because private ownership without competition is not only worthless but even less likely to lead to a good outcome than government.

And public goods...well, since people can't be excluded from using them there's always going to be more demand than what actually gets paid for. That means that in most cases there'll be an undersupply.

As for competition between security services: in my opinion these would become either revenge providers or bodyguards. Neither serves to actually make an area safer or prevent crime, since that function would again be impossible to charge for.

Unless of course you decide that just one firm provides the service exclusively in one area and then charges everyone in the area for it.......