NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure if this has been done before but even if so I still think it is a neat thread. If you could take any country in the world (assuming no other nations would stop you) and mold the system of government what would it be? A totalitarian nazi or communist state? A dictatorship where it would fall apart after you die? A partial democracy where only (for example) males could vote? A full democracy where Every citizen could vote no matter who they are?

I am aware that I did not get all of them. But as you could make any state you can describe what other form of government you would use and why. If it is not obvious what you are talking about please explain what it is.

I think I would go for a Kingdom with a parliament. That way I have the final say on things and the Parliament takes care of the small things. Yes, the kingdom would have massive oil reserves. Most likely I would have a harem too.

Your thing sais sp@mQUEEN advisor so would that be a male harem?

Recreate the Athenian democracy on a large scale.

Your thing sais sp@mQUEEN advisor so would that be a male harem?

Nah, was thinking of this:

http://www.tributeproductions.com/harem%20girls1.JPG

carribean island haven of vice. direct democracy.

Nah, was thinking of this:

http://www.tributeproductions.com/harem%20girls1.JPG

So are you really male? Or lesbian?

A Libertarian State where there's a Tax Payers Bill of Rights which keep the Taxes in check (and it's the Fair Tax), restricted, decentralized government and a government that only pays for police, fire, military, and other stuff that the private sector cannot sustain itself.

It would be like the government I RP.

So are you really male? Or lesbian?

Lol, I am male. The little info under the name is something Jolt does. Has nothing to do with the gender of the poster. It took me a couple months to figure that out when I first joined. :p



Edit: I have nothing against Lesbians.

A Christian state, based on the teachings of Christ, and Christ alone, mixed with democracy, and the allowance of others to live and worship freely among us, and treated equally.

A Christian state, based on the teachings of Christ, and Christ alone, mixed with democracy, and the allowance of others to live and worship freely among us, and treated equally.
So you mean socialism?

A Christian state, based on the teachings of Christ, and Christ alone, mixed with democracy, and the allowance of others to live and worship freely among us, and treated equally.

So a Christian Dictatorship? What happens if one of your citizens convert to another religion?

I would take over the EU, dismantle all its political institutions and leave only the free trade and movement. I would also kill the CAP dead.

I would take over the EU, dismantle all its political institutions and leave only the free trade and movement.

How come you don't like the EU? I'm just wondering, I don't know that much about the EU. All I know is that it's a union formed by countries in Europe to create an economy that can compete with the USA, India, and China.

I don't want this to turn into a flame war so please don't insult others choises. This is about telling us YOUR beleifs not hating each other for it.

I would take over the EU, dismantle all its political institutions and leave only the free trade and movement. I would also kill the CAP dead.

Sorry for double post. But not a union a SINGLE country please.

How come you don't like the EU? I'm just wondering, I don't know that much about the EU. All I know is that it's a union formed by countries in Europe to create an economy that can compete with the USA, India, and China.

Because it isn't just a union formed to further economic goals and cooperation. It has become a sprawling, corrupt, wasteful mass of bureaucracy with a democratic deficit where unelected eurocrats dictate laws to the member states with shockingly little transparency and accountability. It has become a wannabe federation on its way towards a USE and I am not in favour of Sweden being part of such a perversion.

Because it isn't just a union formed to further economic goals and cooperation. It has become a sprawling, corrupt, wasteful mass of bureaucracy with a democratic deficit where unelected eurocrats dictate laws to the member states with shockingly little transparency and accountability. It has become a wannabe federation on its way towards a USE and I am not in favour of Sweden being part of such a perversion.

Why am I not suprised that the EU has become a sprawling corrupt wasteful mass of Buraucracy?

As Keith Larson would say "No really?! Shocking!"

Keith Larson rules. :D

For those who don't know, or don't care, Keith Larson is a radio talk show host where I live.

Because it isn't just a union formed to further economic goals and cooperation. It has become a sprawling, corrupt, wasteful mass of bureaucracy with a democratic deficit where unelected eurocrats dictate laws to the member states with shockingly little transparency and accountability. It has become a wannabe federation on its way towards a USE and I am not in favour of Sweden being part of such a perversion.

You and more then half of the rest of EU citizens. Doesn't sound like it has turned out like they wanted. I half expect it to be shrunken down to what it was meant for in the first place.

Sorry for double post. But not a union a SINGLE country please.

The EU is no longer solely a "union". It has a government, a parliament and a system of courts. The new treaty, if passed, will give it a president. It's clearly very close to a state and if not nipped in the bud will imminently be so.

The EU is no longer solely a "union". It has a government, a parliament and a system of courts. The new treaty, if passed, will give it a president. It's clearly very close to a state and if not nipped in the bud will imminently be so.

Are the EU courts and parliament decisions able to override the member states?

If I could run a country, I would run it as a socialist paradise. In particular, I would take economic socialism to an extreme, and have the government provide all services within the country. Naturally, such a policy would require the populace to give ALL their money to the government, rendering said money moot. So in short, I'd be running a far left of center country with no internal form of money, all things inside the country being free, but having a currency that could be used to trade with other nations.

Why am I not suprised that the EU has become a sprawling corrupt wasteful mass of Buraucracy?

Because that's what one gets when the Centralites and Southerners start politicking.

Yes, in fact EU law is superior to all national laws.

Then you guys are "fucked" already. Having a president is only a formality.

Are the EU courts and parliament decisions able to override the member states?

Yes, in fact EU law is superior to all national laws.

Because that's what one gets when the Centralites and Southerners start politicking.

Or Government in general.

It would be a semi-constitutional confederal monarchy in which the membership of the lower house of parliament is indirectly elected by state legislatures and the membership of the upper house is appointed by the monarch from a list of candidates chosen by indirect ballot. The country would have full reserve banking (fractional reserve banking would be punished as fraud), free trade (not managed trade masquerading as free trade, like NAFTA), a 100% gold standard, no income tax (the national government would instead tax the states in proportion to their populations), no wage or price controls, no rent control, no subsidies, no business regulation, etc. Education would be voluntary. Healthcare, banking, education, infrastructure (even roads), et. al. would all be fully privatized. There would be no standing army; instead, each state would have its own all-volunteer militia. Victimless "crimes" like prostitution and drug use would not be punished. There would be no political parties. Voting would be restricted to those who owned property and could pass a political literacy test. The country would have diplomatic relations and trade with every other country in the world, but no entangling alliances. Every state would enjoy the right of secession. The country would fully secular and justice would be colorblind. Meritocracy would be the order of the day.

You and more then half of the rest of EU citizens. Doesn't sound like it has turned out like they wanted. I half expect it to be shrunken down to what it was meant for in the first place.

And I fear that it will become ever more horrid than it is today, especially if the new treaty passes.

Hey hey hey could you guys please get back on topic?

Or Government in general.

No, not in general.

Hey hey hey could you guys please get back on topic?

Welcome to NSG, where we guarantee to go off topics in 5 pages or less, or your money back!

Hey hey hey could you guys please get back on topic?

99% of topics diverge off into another one eventually. Get use to your posts having 3-4 different things going on at once.

No, not in general.

I'll agree to disagree with you on that.

If you guys would like to nitpick others choices no matter how strange they are. Could you please do it on another thread?

Then you guys are "fucked" already. Having a president is only a formality.

One is only as fucked as long as one is able to sufficiently relax one's sphincter. Once the raping starts, I would hope one leaves this "union". The only thing good about the new treaty is its introduction of an official way of withdrawing from it.

The only thing good about the new treaty is its introduction of an official way of withdrawing from it.

Why are thoughts of civil war coming to mind. I know that wouldn't happen but we all know how "central" governments like to keep their power over "states".

If I created a nation it'd probably end up a lot like my NSG nation (a Left-Wing Utopia). Yes, most religions would be allowed, but there'd be some restrictions (such as speaking out against religious violence in every sermon).

If you guys would like to nitpick others choices no matter how strange they are. Could you please do it on another thread?

Lol, I know you mean well but it is better to just go with the flow.

Hey hey hey could you guys please get back on topic?

This topic is how and why one would like to take over a state and change it. That is exactly what we are discussing. Did you want a thread devoid of discussion where people just spammily post their "state" and have it end at that?

If you guys would like to nitpick others choices no matter how strange they are. Could you please do it on another thread?

Ah, it would seem so. Too bad for you this is a discussion forum and not a cork bulletin board.

It would be a state founded upon libertarian, capitalist values; and a nation based on agnostic theism. And a strong intellectual element.

I think you can extrapolate.

And if it doesn't work, then it will be changed, even if it means going into... socialism... :)

Why are thoughts of civil war coming to mind. I know that wouldn't happen but we all know how "central" governments like to keep their power over "states".

But you do say it yourself - "that wouldn't happen". Alas, give it a half to a full century, and things may have changed enough for the same sort of thing that happened in the USA during the 1800s to happen here - nationalism towards the union. *shudders, especially as he has started noticing the seeds of that already down on the continent*

If I could make a state I would probably chose the northern U.S and canada, manily because I like the weather up there. I would make it a totalitarian state no political freedoms. We would have a president, but he would be elected by party members, it would be a perminent position. In order to get into the party you would have to have exellent grades and have utter loyalty to the state. several other things too but I dont want to get into them. We would have a large police force and a medium-high millitary. In peoples personal lives they would be allowed some freedoms IE being gay isnt illegal. In economics would not be government controlled but they would be slightly regulated. Basically people get freedoms in all areas except political. There is more but I dont feel like posting it now.

This topic is how and why one would like to take over a state and change it. That is exactly what we are discussing. Did you want a thread devoid of discussion where people just spammily post their "state" and have it end at that?



Ah, it would seem so. Too bad for you this is a discussion forum and not a cork bulletin board.

As I was ASKING not demanding or expecting I wont be offended by your more than necicarily rude comments.

But you do say it yourself - "that wouldn't happen". Alas, give it a half to a full century, and things may have changed enough for the same sort of thing that happened in the USA during the 1800s to happen here - nationalism towards the union. *shudders, especially as he has started noticing the seeds of that already down on the continent*

What is scary if you look at it the EU has very similar demographics that the US has if not more pronounced. Given some time there may be a disintegration followed by a armed conflict because powerful member states want to keep control over the weaker ones. It may be a North vs South war as in the United States. Sounds like a plot to a book or movie.

What is scary if you look at it the EU has very similar demographics that the US has if not more pronounced. Given some time there may be a disintegration followed by a armed conflict because powerful member states want to keep control over the weaker ones. It may be a North vs South war as in the United States. Sounds like a plot to a book or movie.

I don't know about that. It looks to me that as more and more muslim immigrants come there will be religous war not political ones.

As I was ASKING not demanding or expecting I wont be offended by your more than necicarily rude comments.

Some one has taken their idiot pill today.

Ah, so when you feign this indignation over imagined rudeness, is it just to hide your own real one, or what?

As I was ASKING not demanding or expecting I wont be offended by your more than necicarily rude comments.

Fass is being mild. There are much harsher things said on here all the time. You have to have thick skin on NSG or you will be offended by everything.

What is scary if you look at it the EU has very similar demographics that the US has if not more pronounced. Given some time there may be a disintegration followed by a armed conflict because powerful member states want to keep control over the weaker ones. It may be a North vs South war as in the United States. Sounds like a plot to a book or movie.

I would imagine it would be more through economic coercion than armed conflict.

Ah, so when you feign this indignation over imagined rudeness, is it just to hide your own real one, or what?

That is taken out of context, the guy I was responding to said that terrorists are less of a problem than evangelicals.

Edit: It was also on a different thread.

A mad scientist technomeritocracy. I would give the brightest, most accomplished and megalomaniacal of scientists and engineers authority in matters related to their fields which they would be encouraged to use to correct and prevent the kinds of governmental fuckups all too common. The structure of power in the society, rather than being a series of traditional top-down pyramids, would contain a swirling morass of variably sized, interlocking circles and seemingly chaotically distributed peaks (of which mine would be rather largest, of cource;)).

The society would recognize that everyone is unequal, and value the lives of people by their accomplishments (not to be confused with wealth) and future potential. Positive as well as negative contributions would be weighted in on a non-linear scale. Should someone do something bad enough to render their value a negative one, disposal - or better yet, productive use of their person - would bring a meager bonus. Up until the point of crossing the zero-value threshold, treatment of whatever magnitude would be needed to be effective, but humane where possible, would be used; upon success, the subject would receive a moderate value boost stemming from the new-found potential.

The greater your value, the less severely smaller negative contributions would be weighted in their resulting deductions. But no matter where you stand, a negative doing of large enough scale would instantly chomp your value down to size, and discovery of severe corruption would thus bring anyone down.

Provided you had a significant value, moderately severe actions of negative consequence would simply be paid off of it, leaving you less valuable but free to continue to contribute positively, allowing you to regain your former value over a longer period of time provided effort dedicated enough and a lack of repetition of such offenses.

To qualify for a position of significant decision-making, people would have to go through mandatory screening to ensure they most likely were sane - not in the common sense definition, but judged through strictly logical deduction - and if needed, undergo treatment to help rid them of whatever delusions they might have.

Fass is being mild. There are much harsher things said on here all the time. You have to have thick skin on NSG or you will be offended by everything.

Yea you are right I don't know why I got offended by this. I deal with jerks on here all the time. Thanks for putting thing in context.:)

Edit: What I mean to say is I normally don't care how rude people are. For some reason this one got to me. The strangest part is this isnt that bad at all.

That is taken out of context, the guy I was responding to said that terrorists are less of a problem than evangelicals.

Edit: It was also on a different thread.

Ah, so rudeness is OK only in other people's threads and only if coming from you? Peachy.

I'm not sure if this has been done before but even if so I still think it is a neat thread. If you could take any country in the world (assuming no other nations would stop you) and mold the system of government what would it be? A totalitarian nazi or communist state? A dictatorship where it would fall apart after you die? A partial democracy where only (for example) males could vote? A full democracy where Every citizen could vote no matter who they are?

I am aware that I did not get all of them. But as you could make any state you can describe what other form of government you would use and why. If it is not obvious what you are talking about please explain what it is.

Complete and total, utter, unmitigated, destruction of the government at the hands of the oppressed. This would ideally result in a completely anarchist society, where "every man and every woman is a star." A.C.

Ah, so rudeness is OK only in other people's threads and only if coming from you? Peachy.

I admit I shouldnt have said that, Im sorry. But what that guy that was just Stupid...

Edit: While I was just ASKING if we could keep it on topic. There were other people who already responded to that and explained things a bit more politely.

As I was ASKING not demanding or expecting I wont be offended by your more than necicarily rude comments.Thats not a necicarity.. (Cocodrile dundee voice)
You want to see a necicarity?

Ill show you my necicarily.. its bigger than his !!! :D
When you see my monster necicarily.. i bet you are going to run hide under your mama. ;)

You want to see a necicarity?

Ill show you my necicarily.. its bigger than his !!! :D

UHH ok.... And anyway is there a state you would make?

Thats not a necicarity.. (Cocodrile dundee voice)
You want to see a necicarity?

Ill show you my necicarily.. its bigger than his !!! :D
When you see my monster necicarily.. i bet you are going to run hide under your mama. ;)

I get it I get it! Sheesh, I spelled necessary wrong don't have a hissy fit.

So a Christian Dictatorship? What happens if one of your citizens convert to another religion?

I would be a fair dictator :p

And if someone converted to another religion, then so be it. Its their choice.

I admit I shouldnt have said that, Im sorry. But what that guy that was just Stupid...

Psst, calling people stupid isn't polite. You really can't help the hypocrisy, can you?

Edit: While I was just ASKING if we could keep it on topic.

We were until you starting going on about politeness and whatnot.

There were other people who already responded to that and explained things a bit more politely.

Why are you so super-sensitive about politeness that you imagine is lacking towards you, but not so when yours lacks towards others?

Psst, calling people stupid isn't polite. You really can't help the hypocrisy, can you?



Why are you so super-sensitive about politeness that you imagine is lacking towards you, but not so when yours lacks towards others?

EH I would have just droped it after the first post about it . You seem to keep wanting to bring it up, not me.

EH I would have just droped it after the first post about it . You seem to keep wanting to bring it up, not me.

I like to do that with such blatant hypocrisy. I find it exquisite.

This n00b's getting eaten alive. It's kinda like a car crash. You just can't stop watching.

And, to be honest, I'm suprised that even some nations in Europe have managed to stay together, and not seperate. Italy is a good example. You can't get much more different then northern and southern Italy. And now this whole thing with Belgium? Make news interesting.

I hope you can destroy threads, this one has turned into a flame war against me. Anyway I have better things to do than sit here fighting with some guy on the internet. If you guys start talking about something worth talking about i'll come back.

I hope you can destroy threads, this one has turned into a flame war against me. Anyway I have better things to do than sit here fighting with some guy on the internet. If you guys start talking about something worth talking about i'll come back.


Don't worry about that guy. Its just Fass. He is a prick towards everyone. We learn to ignore him ;)

I hope you can destroy threads, this one has turned into a flame war against me. Anyway I have better things to do than sit here fighting with some guy on the internet. If you guys start talking about something worth talking about i'll come back.

Dude, you have yet to see a flamewar. When a few (no names) NSers get together... it's like unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide in a washing machine.

I like to do that with such blatant hypocrisy. I find it exquisite.
"blatant hypocrisy"? If I said something so factually wrong(as that guy) I would want you to call me on it. Also your right, I dont really care what some stranger who goes looking through threads to find somthing "bad" about me things.

Edit: Oops i meant "thinks".

Dude, you have yet to see a flamewar. When a few (no names) NSers get together... it's like unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide in a washing machine.

Well I can unfortunatly say I have seen a few.:( I just don't see the point of this guy after me I gave my appology for calling that guy an idiot, yet he keeps going on and on...

Bummer sorry for the double post.

"blatant hypocrisy"? If I said something so factually wrong(as that guy) I would want you to call me on it. Also your right, I dont really care what some stranger who goes looking through threads to find somthing "bad" about me things.

Hypocrisy doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It has nothing to do with factual correctness or not, but everything to do with asking that people behave in a certain way, but then not behaving like that yourself. That's why the word means "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not". You don't behave politely yourself, but bitch when you imagine that others don't. You think that your threads should be devoid of rudeness, while you act rude in other people's threads and call them "stupid" and "idiots". That's blatant hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It has nothing to do with factual correctness or not, but everything to do with asking that people behave in a certain way, but then not behaving like that yourself. That's why the word means "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not". You don't behave politely yourself, but bitch when you imagine that others don't. You think that your threads should be devoid of rudeness, while you act rude in other people's threads and call them "stupid" and "idiots". That's blatant hypocrisy.

I supose that could be taken as hypocrisy. However, I look at it like this. I dissagree about many things with many people on here but most of them are intelligent back up what they are saying and are polite. I treat people like that with respect, even if I dissagree with them. Some people however are just for lack of a better word IDIOTS. I treat them with no respect. I assumed I have been polite and intelligent. If I have not I would like over 3 people who I have debated with to tell me so and in what way I am wrong. If they do I will admit I am wrong and you are wright.

I supose that could be taken as hypocrisy. However, I look at it like this. I dissagree about many things with many people on here but most of them are intelligent back up what they are saying and are polite. I treat people like that with respect, even if I dissagree with them. Some people however are just for lack of a better word IDIOTS. I treat them with no respect. I assumed I have been polite and intelligent. If I have not I would like over 3 people who I have debated with to tell me so and in what way I am wrong. If they do I will admit I am wrong and you are wright.

It cannot be taken any other way, because it is the very definition of hypocrisy. So, next time you imagine yourself to be a victim of illusionary rudeness that is nothing but a figment of your imagination, don't forget your own behaviour.

It cannot be taken any other way, because it is the very definition of hypocrisy. So, next time you imagine yourself to be a victim of illusionary rudeness that is nothing but a figment of your imagination, don't forget your own behaviour.

Not illusionary, I read that comment about you...

Edit: I am not sure where to place you, respect or idiot. I have only seen you flame me. So i couldnt say. Also if you bothered to read I only said that you could have been more polite in informing me. Several other people explained it to me previously as well so your post was unnecessary.

I'm not sure if this has been done before but even if so I still think it is a neat thread. If you could take any country in the world (assuming no other nations would stop you) and mold the system of government what would it be? A totalitarian nazi or communist state? A dictatorship where it would fall apart after you die? A partial democracy where only (for example) males could vote? A full democracy where Every citizen could vote no matter who they are?

I am aware that I did not get all of them. But as you could make any state you can describe what other form of government you would use and why. If it is not obvious what you are talking about please explain what it is.

I wouldn't need to.

One major diff between me and that guy I insulted was I was asking a question he was making a rather IDIOTIC (I take back my apollogy) statement.

Kontor, This is NSG, its the major leagues, Big Boy school.. I dont know if you can handle it..
---
.
if I dissagree with them.hell yeah, you will find an infinite supply of people to "disagree with".
.
..many things with many people ..Yes there is Many people here, and many things too.
.
.. intelligent...yep.. a lot of "Intelligent" here, more than in most Forums. La creme de la creme, Thats why I like it.
.
.. polite...umm... "Polite" is going to happen for a few pages.. But -like I said- Intelligent people with big Egos = sometimes little patience.
So take your umbrella with you. It is going to rain sometimes. guaranteed.
.
..IDIOTS..sure, you can find those too..
.
.. to tell me so and in what way I am wrong. .. people will tell you "you are wrong", you wont have to wait too long
.
..will admit I am wrong and you are wright.do NOT expect that to happen very often.. like I said Intelligent peoples with large egos..
------------
BTW.. Do I have a big ego? of course i do.

Kontor, This is NSG, its the major leagues, Big Boy school.. I dont know if you can handle it..
---
.
hell yeah, you will find an infinite supply of people to "disagree with".
.
Yes there is Many people her, I many things too.
.
yep.. a lot of Intelligent more than in most Forums. La creme de la creme, Thats why I like it.
.
Nope, Intelligent people with big Egos and little patience. "Polite" is going to happen for a few pages.. but take your umbrella with you. It is going to rain sometimes. guaranteed.
.
sure, you can find those too..
.
.. people will tell you you are wrong, you wont have to wait too long
.
do expect that to happen very often.. like I said Intelligent peoples with large egos..

On the last thing I meant more debating politly and intellegently than me being wrong. Edit: Major leagues? HA this is a bunch of people arguing on a online forum because they have nothing better to do.

Edit: Major leagues? HA this is a bunch of people arguing on a online forum because they have nothing better to do.

Lol, how little you know. However you see NSG so far, welcome. New entertainment is always welcome.

This n00b's getting eaten alive. It's kinda like a car crash. You just can't stop watching.

And, to be honest, I'm suprised that even some nations in Europe have managed to stay together, and not seperate. Italy is a good example. You can't get much more different then northern and southern Italy. And now this whole thing with Belgium? Make news interesting.

If you watch the suffering of other in a car wreck you are a pretty disgusting individual.

On the last thing I meant more debating politly and intellegently than me being wrong.I am not saying you are wrong.. No one is saying that.

The posters you are complaining about, they are contributing to this community for years.
You come to our house.. and the first day you start posting you expect us to adapt to you?
Normally the new member tries to adapt to the new environment.

or if you find hard to adapt to new environments.. you should lurk a little bit before your first post.. an lurk a bit more before your first thread.. just to get a feel of the community you are joining.. and avoid a cultural shock.

I am not saying you are wrong.. No one is saying that.

The posters you are complaining about, they are contributing to this community for years.
You come to our house.. and the first day you start posting you expect us to adapt to you?
Normally the new member tries to adapt to the new environment.

or if you find hard to adapt to new environments.. you should lurk a little bit before your first post.. an lurk a bit more before your first thread.. just to get a feel of the community you are joining.. and avoid a cultural shock.

Posters? Poster is more like it. I wasnt even complaining really just asking why he couldnt have phrased the answer to my question a tad more politely. Edit: I wouldnt post, if other people posted a bit more than left-leaning political discussions. I have been here for less than a month and I can can barely stand it. I really may leave soon, so your probably right I don't fit in here.

Posters? Poster is more like it. I wasnt even complaining really just asking why he couldnt have phrased the answer to my question a tad more politely. Edit: I wouldnt post, if other people posted a bit more than left-leaning political discussions. I have been here for less than a month and I can can barely stand it. I really may leave soon, so your probably right I don't fit in here.What do you mean with the part i bold-ed?

I am not saying you are wrong.. No one is saying that.

The posters you are complaining about, they are contributing to this community for years.
You come to our house.. and the first day you start posting you expect us to adapt to you?
Normally the new member tries to adapt to the new environment.

or if you find hard to adapt to new environments.. you should lurk a little bit before your first post.. an lurk a bit more before your first thread.. just to get a feel of the community you are joining.. and avoid a cultural shock.

Yea I guess your right. I don't fit in here. I'm not part of your uniform thread group it is still a fun game though so ill be watching.

Yea I guess your right. I don't fit in here. I'm not part of your uniform thread group it is still a fun game though so ill be watching.NSG is everything but an uniform group..

Difference of opinions? we have plenty.. we are very rich.

If you watch the suffering of other in a car wreck you are a pretty disgusting individual.See? this is what I mean.. Your poor sense of humor coupled with "you holier than thou" attitude.. all enveloped in a very thin/fragile skin.

Like i said.. maybe you dont have what it takes.

See? this is what I mean.. Your poor sense of humor coupled with "you holier than thou" attitude.. all enveloped in a very thin/fragile skin.
.

Recipe for disaster.

If you watch the suffering of other in a car wreck you are a pretty disgusting individual.

Sigh...you won't last on here if you don't go to Home Depot and buy yourself a sense of humor and an ounce of sarcasm.

Here, I have a gift card. Take, and use. My gift to you.

indiginous councils by plurality. everyone votes on issues too.
otherwise mostly service state annonymous, other then to coordinate hobbiest run infrasturcture and keep it environmentally harmonious.

a lot depends on culture of course, under any form of government. but the romantacizing and rewarding of aggressiveness would be discouraged while permitting oneself to enjoy the exercize of whatever intellictual or creative cappacity one may happen to have is highly encouraged.

one main thing though, it would not be based on the arbitrariness and history of violence of virtually all contemporary moder nations on earth. rather, to as great a degree as possible, the tribal elders of ALL indiginous societies. traditional triblet and village boundries would be re-adopted, without however any closing of borders or even permitting of closing of borders.

every rock and tree would be revered and honored, and as few as possible moved to make way for shelter or infrastucture rights of way. and infrastructure rights of way would be the only constitutional application of eminent domain.

there MIGHT be a 'guardianship'; i.e. extended term of service titular head, IF that was what people wanted. but such a guardian, analagous to a constitutional monarch, would serve primarily in an advisory capacity.

brand name flavours of idiology would be pretty meaningless on a national scale. locally, every rural village and district and urban neighborhood would 'roll their own'. preventing anyone from leaving is the main thing the national level would prevent the local level from doing.

=^^=
.../\...

I'd take the US. It would be a democratic elective monarchy.

somewhere with a nice climate and a small population (preferably an Island). there would be direct democracy, but because we're with such a small group there would be mostly consensus. We'd just live of the land and the sea and love of course. Oh, we could also form one of those cults that worship airplanes that drop aid to our little island. I would also be king, but just for ceremonial purposes, and for the harem of course.

EDIT: woohooo, 2000th post. "parties"

I would have a harem too.... the harem of course.

EDIT: woohooo, 2000th post. "parties"me too.. I am all about the Harem. :D

Complete and total, utter, unmitigated, destruction of the government at the hands of the oppressed. This would ideally result in a completely anarchist society, where "every man and every woman is a star." A.C.

"every man and every woman is a star"

what the hell does that mean?

I roughed this out in the Communism thread. Let me see here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13163865&postcount=164 That's a start.

In the absolute ideal, I'd go for anarcho-communism. Everyone does what they can for others, and gets what they need from others. No laws, because people would not need them. However, that would be effectively impossible in practice, so I go for absolute minimalism and an economy based on giving. Think Burning Man, but much bigger.

i would have a fedracy including all islamic states, there would be sharia for muslims and the religous laws for other minorities based on their religon, they former states would be divided up into governates, the capital of which would be the religous city(if there isn't one then the old capital), seats in parliment are based on sectarian lines, as is the governerships, a councial of 7 would run the state, based on their knowledge of politics,economy and subterfuge

If I could create a state, it would be quite similar to Klitvilia as it is now. Sure my country's economy is "Imploded", but Civil Rights are "Very Good" and Political Freedoms are a "World Benchmark". I would probably lower the income tax by a large amount, though, as it's... kind of high :eek:

http://www.nationstates.net/klitvilia

If you could take any country in the world (assuming no other nations would stop you) and mold the system of government what would it be?

It would be a perfect utopia that would never suffer any kind of problem or abuse ever again, because my plan is so divine that such would be impossible.



What, we are talking about states and governments, yes?


I wouldn't need to.


**the sound of one hand**

I don't know about that. It looks to me that as more and more muslim immigrants come there will be religous war not political ones.
That's because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The EU isn't going to descend into some kind of religious war. Leave that to the Balkans, which are hopefully never going to get into the EU due to their incessant bloody bickering, which is something the beaurocracy-choked morass of the EU doesn't need at all. I love the concept of the EU, but lately, it's been a bit "meh".

The new members kind of ruin the point of the EU, which is basically to make the already-wealthy states much wealthier through free trade and open borders. Now that we have a few new members, none of whom can actually stand up to the western European level of competition, it's going to be a complete waste of time.

But there you go.




Anyway, my own state. Pretty much a socialist dictatorship, where if you get uppity, then you either give a really good reason why, and it'll be acted upon, or you can piss right off, because I do not suffer fools gladly, especially selfish fools.

That said, it'd be a bit different from the USSR, mainly because I'd try to establish it in an already-wealthy state, or it just doesn't work. See the USSR, which was spending money on public works that was completely meaningless, and was forced to try and educate a population which, in 1917, was made up principally (as in 80%) by uneducated peasants. Eugh.

Plus also it'd be a mixed economy rather than some moronic planned economy, which is a particularly foolish way to run one.

Yea I guess your right. I don't fit in here. I'm not part of your uniform thread group it is still a fun game though so ill be watching.
... oh, you're such a bloody tool. Get a grip, squire. No point in having a holier-than-thou attitude when you're clearly like the rest of us, just with a slightly different political viewpoint.

If you can hold your own in a political debate without acting like you worship at the Altar of Kontor, then you'll be vaguely respected, although some of the less subtle members of the forums *coughs* UB */coughs* will still be at your heels at all times. That's just a part of the place.

Recreate the Athenian democracy on a large scale.

So that a jury trial would consist of several million people all voting guilty or innocent based on what they see on TV? Or do they all have to show up.

I would create an anarchic theocracy, in which the only law is Faith. In me.:D

I think I would go for a Kingdom with a parliament. That way I have the final say on things and the Parliament takes care of the small things. Yes, the kingdom would have massive oil reserves. Most likely I would have a harem too.

I think I'd go with constitutional monarchy myself, but not parliamentary.

It would have a federalist hierarchy with the nation divided into earldoms, baronies, counties and so on. And noble titles would be degenerative, meaning that the son of a marquis would be an earl, the son of an earl only a count, and so on. Of course, through service to the crown they could be promoted to be the equal of their ancestor. So they would have to earn their titles, not just inherit them.

The nobles would fulfill the judiciary function. It would be their duty not just to uphold the written law, but also national tradition (the constitution).

The legislature would be divided into the widely known upper and lower, both directly elected by the people. The House of Peers, and the House of Commons.

To run to be a Peer of the upper house you need some sort of advanced degree and professional accomplishment, or other indication of wisdom and education. It also requires the signed approval of one's earl. Peers need not represent geographical locations, though many do. Some may represent more abstract subjects like Infrastructure, Diplomacy, and Climate Science. So the number of peers is a variable figure, because not all issues continue to need their own Peer and new issues often need them (there would have been no special need for a peer representing the internet back in the 80's, and through much of the 90's the duty would have fallen to the peer of telecommunications, but now it would require a peer in its own right.)

Creating a new seat in the Peerage requires an act of law from both houses (the commons controls the purse and must be consulted before a new peer is going to draw a salary) and Royal approval.

The lower house requires no particular credential to run for office to be a Viscount (usually viscount is a noble one rank below a count, but here a "vice count" represents a county in the legislature). It does require the permission of one's count, but permission is only withheld when those who would otherwise be ineligible by law are squeaking through a loophole (like how OJ was never found guilty of killing his wife.) All Viscounts represent a geographical location and the people in it.

The executive function would be filled by the Secretariat (secretary of war, secretary of state etc.). The legislature would choose the various secretaries, but require the approval of the nobles. It would otherwise resemble national bureaucracies everywhere.

Places with fewer than 50,000 people participate in direct democracy, voting on laws together. Above this are regional governments, which have a representative for every three localities. The states are under the federal government, which is exactly like the one created by the original US Constitution. I could probably think of ways to improve it, but I'm lazy, and it's good enough for me.

I'd kill all the citizens so I could have the whole place to myself. :p

I would make a highly decentralized true democracy like in Athens supported by a kind of Internet and some really good IT, with the difference that everybody would have the right to vote. Economically, Proudhon ideas aren't bad in principle(sadly human beings always tend to corrupt such ideas when they are put to practice, but lack of hierarchy and a culture where "all actions, values and laws exist to be questioned" is held sacrosanct might reduce drastically the chance of that happening), a free market where no exploitation of the labor of the others occur and where cooperatives where everybody runs democratically the business and share profits equally thinking on more than just $ replace money-hungry corporations and their surplus-value robbery managed by hired employees while the owner is slacking off and making money without any hard work wouldn't be bad. So yes, it would be more or less like the nation I made here. Maybe a little more strict in drug laws though, but more on preventive then prohibitive ways.

I would take America, and get rid of its government in entirety, casting away the rot of statutory law (this includes the Constitution) in favor of customary law. There will be no more Presidency or Congress or Supreme Court; there will only be leadership by natural authority.