So I've recently begun to wonder an interesting thought. This is mostly due to some anarchist views I had when I was younger, combined with some of the things I've seen happening in our government lately.

How exactly does one create a government from the ground up?

There has been talk of our current government falling apart. Talk about revolution, and how quickly a revolution would be stomped out. It seems we're in a downward spiral, but so few people have yet to think about how to start anew. And so I posed my question above.

Here are some supplemental questions to help guide your thoughts:

How much control should the government have?
How much influence should the people have?
How should the government be organized?
How should the people be organized?
What should the government's goals be?
Are there any specific things the government should focus on?

Keep in mind that this is not taking any particular form of government in to mind. This is entirely from the ground up, with no base.

Oh wow. I thought this would be another bad thread. It would seem that I was wrong. I doon't really know the answer to this question. It took 2 tries so far for America to get it's goverment right. Maybe it'll take a third. I personally think it's too easy to make amendments. All of the important ones take to long to get through, if they ever do, and the ones getting passed take all of the power away from the people, along with their basic rights.

The first thing we would have to do is declare a land and people as sovereign, not connected to any existing country or governing body. Assuming the former government fails, this won't be too difficult since there would be no opposition. If another country tries to seize power, however, then there would be combat to take care of first.

Once that is out of the way, there would need to be a declaration of government, and the ratification of some sort of constitution. It would explicitly state all powers granted and responsibilities pertaining to the government. Leaders or representatives would need to be appointed. A currency system would need to be created. Laws to keep order would need to be written and enforced. The government would also need some way to generate revenue, be it through taxation or trade.

The goals of the government should be to maintain the security and welfare of its people. It should be able to coordinate the supply of a society's basic needs: food, water, shelter, sanitation, and so on. Beyond that, the people can pretty much take care of themselves.

i believe that government in this society has the people supressed under the media, keep in my this will sound ignorant to most keep an open mind everyone thinks its wrong to rebelor something i feel that if people in the USA rebeled the government would easily put it dont regardless of the constitution im not saying that, its only if people use violence if people did nonviolently the media would try and make it look bad. and believe if we did like leigha said its too easy to make amendments i find if their was an attempt to try again on the government the current generation in power wont want to let go.

>>2 Your lack of faith in me makes me sad.

So basically all I got from you that pertains to the question at hand: Amendments should be heavily regulated, but passed as quickly as possible if they are of utmost importance.

>>4 On the ball as always, I see!

I feel like you gave me the textbook answer, and I love it. If I may ask, what processes do you believe should be done to get to a functioning point? It seems you have the skeleton finished, but what about the dirty work?

>>5 So... First, use more periods. But this isn't a grammar thread, so I actually tried to see what I could understand from you.

Uhm... Yeah, I don't see much that answers the question. I see that the current government would crackdown on it immediately, which isn't what this thread is about. I see that the media is controlled to heavily, and I like that as an answer to the question. But that's about it :T

>>6 That's hard to answer, even for me. Sometimes I think that the biggest issue the United States faces is that it's sinking under its own weight, and by that I mean it simply has too much territory to effectively govern. The first thing we would have to do is break apart the US into somewhere between six and twelve territories.

Next, we need to focus on strengthening the infrastructure of each territory. We need to restore and cultivate the resources available in each, and once we have enough resources, we need to boost production levels across the board for greater economic growth. We must focus also on educating our citizens to work smarter, not harder, in order to bring the territories away from the brink of poverty. This will require heavy government injections initially, but over time, should pay for itself.

We need to restructure our legal system, rewriting our laws and our tax codes. The prison system is one of the largest bureaucratic money-wasters of our time. By eliminating the red tape, so to speak, we can reduce our waste and eliminate some debts.

You'll notice that some of these ideals are very liberal in nature, while others are completely conservative. The truth is that both sides have great ideas and we shouldn't limit ourselves to one side.

I want to point out that I've noticed how many young people, including those in the Dollars, are quick to point out the flaws in conservative ideology without accepting the flaws of liberalism. In addition, they will praise the strengths of liberalism without praising the strengths of conservatism in tandem. This is erroneous and destructive to our cause and to this discussion. We all should look at every possibility and every idea as having equal possibility, regardless of origin. This gives us the most objective analysis of our situation.

See its this stupid shit that makes me have no faith in the dollars. There has been no fucking talk of the goddamn government falling apart. If it was no one gives a fuck what you think the new government should be like, so why dont you just shut the fuck up, recant this dumbass post, and go die.

>>8 It's just a point of discussion, nothing serious.

Not only that, but there HAS been talk of that. Just not here. I asked the question based on things I heard elsewhere.

I didn't say what I thought the government should be like, I asked for other opinions.

Have you any other silly things to say, or are you quite done hatestalking me? As much as I enjoyed your idiocy in someone else's thread, I'd rather not have it here. Call me self-centered, if you will.

>>8 Wow, someone's jimmies sure are rustled today, aren't they?

Listen, there is nothing wrong with open discussion about a hypothetical situation so long as that conversation is presented in a manner that allows for deep analysis and many differing viewpoints to consider.

Reilyx merely presented a hypothetical situation and some questions to consider. That does not go against the rules of the Main board in any way, whatsoever. Additionally, it's a nice change of pace, considering other threads where the whole point is to incite insurrection. Reilyx isn't doing that here.

So I will ask you this once. Could you calm down, take a second look at the post at hand, and try to be a little bit more open minded? I'm sure, if you put your mind to it, you could present some really interesting ideas for discussion, and that's what the Dollars truly need.

>>11 Duuuuuuude, change your name or delete your posts already!

People can see everything, and I'm sure someone will use it against you.

>>7 I actually really like the idea of splitting things up into more manageable sections. I hadn't thought of that as being much of an issue until you mentioned it. However, how would a group maintain seamless control over all territories in order to ensure proper growth as a whole unit?

I do like the idea of cutting costs where unnecessary things are happening, though. In fact I think that's something that could be implemented now if we took the initiative to get it done.

Another question:

What would you (MKOLLER, or anybody who wishes to answer) think of a totalitarian approach? Absolute control, even if for just a short time to make sure things get started on the right foot.

>>10 Blame me for the whole "incite inssurection." I am just a curious person and like to here what everyone thinks. I like understanding people, how their brains tick, and how their thoughts are put together. I like to see how peoples thoughts are grouped together inside a person. I like to see the minds adn opinions of this group inparticular because you all are so different then most peopel I've met.

>>13 The kicker is that there would no longer be a large unifying government; each territory would consist of the states that formerly made it up, and one central governing board. For example, the west would be made up of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, with the main governing board set up in, say, San Francisco.

Now, to answer the totalitarian point. As I have said, Stalinism fascinates me. Under his rule, he did manage to raise morale and rally millions of his people to fight for the Soviet Union during World War II. It was because of his decisions that the Union turned back the Nazis and pushed them back. He then was able to enact a full scale industrial revolution in five years.

However, this did come at a cost. He had to sacrifice farm labor, and this led to famine. The lack of food eventually caused morale to tank, and it was this drop in morale that led to the weakening of the Soviet Union. It only got worse from there.

That said, if one man could rally an entire nation (through propaganda or force if necessary) to a common goal (such as one of the goals stated in my earlier posts), then can it be argued that the territory would be better off because of it? It sounds evil, but at the same time I feel it's justifiable in the short term. Of that, we are in agreement. I hope that answers the question in enough detail for people to see the viewpoint that is presented.

Honestly, judging by other governments I've seen, and the trial and error of the U.S., iI really like the way our government is set up. I 'do' think it doesn't need as much power as the people in higher places want to give it though.

Also, I think that from a revolution, creating a new government would be a lot of opinions by the resistance factions military leaders. They're the people that 'led' the resistance that overthrew the current government, so the members of whatever revolutionary group it is already place trust in those people. From there it's just meetings until the resistance's leaders decide on a personalized style of government that they all at the very least can live with, and they'll be the first leaders of the new government that they set up.

Bump

Bump because I'm seriously curious to see what more people think.

>>16 It certainly is a process of trial and error, but what do you think happens?

There are many ways to do it, of that I'm certain. MKOLLER is holding down the dictionary answer like a bauss, but I still want to hear some of the less-prominent ideas.

The thing about this is, is that I honestly like the way the U.S. Government is arranged, as far as the separation of powers, the three branches and what have you goes.

However, the current U.S. system is in need of a serious overhaul in my opinion. Abolish the lobbyists and put a cap on campaign spending, for starts. These days, people running for federal offices spend more money campaigning than they make on their federal payroll. In my opinion, if a certain cap was placed on campaign spending, the campaigning would get more competitive. But maybe it's just me.

It also seems to me that once these guys make it into their office, they give the very people that voted them in the middle finger and become the lapdogs of various corporations. I'd like to see that kind of back door dealing with corporations for yea or nay votes criminalized and put to an end. Yet again, it may just be the way I see things.

As for building a government from the ground up, I'd probably end up creating some sort of dictatorship, simply because I am fascinated by the idea of benevolent dictatorship. Although if I were to kick the bucket, some wacko might take power and ruin everything that I, the benevolent dictator had made. So who knows. Every form of government has it's flaws.

As for the goals that a Government should achieve? I believe the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution is a good example: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"

A little fancy, but I suppose that's what I think a government should do, in a nutshell.

You build it from the backs of the people.
Promise them a future, freedom, equality.
Nothing to fear, nothing to be afraid of.
Nothing but prosperity.
Then, when you have them captivated, you allow them to work for you, envision your dreams, and help them realize theirs as well.
You upkeep your promises, and listen to the people, as they are the ones who have created the world which you live in along side them. A king is nothing without his people, a kingdom, without order. As soon as the leader is no longer favorable, then someone else comes along with favorable ideas and tries to implement them along side the previous order, or completely eradicate what was once there, to install new order.

Governments in history, at least I don't think, weren't established purposely. Through trial and error, men found ways to try and promote peace and prosperity, and create ideal living situations for all.
However, man is not perfect, man is corrupt and eventually, destruction ensues.

If a government is going to be "perfect", it must be self-sufficient, and care for those who reside within it, before reaching out to neighboring governments. It must also be able to rely on the people in a time of need, as the people can rely on the leader.
The leader must be pure of heart, of great unbreakable will, and most importantly, be able to listen to the pleas of the people.
Inability to make the people feel safe, or show them the correct path, will cause them to be your greatest enemy.
In a competition VS. executive powers and the people, the powers will lose every time, because the people know what they fight for, and have fought for many things before, time and time again, for the executive powers. When you get sick of fighting FOR someone or something that is not making you happy, or delivering, then you use what you have been taught, against them.

Laws must be just, and have EVERYONE'S best interest in mind. Not those of the few. The laws must also be made by those who follow the laws themselves. Not the lawless.

Because when the lawless make laws, there is no justice, there is no law. Only lies,deception, and hypocrisy. That is not what you build a government on.

You build it on the backs of the people, then give them what they have so deserved in the end.
Trust.
Hope.
Prosperity
Freedom.
Life.
Happiness.

In this, you create a bond with the people, letting them know that not only are you one of them, but you will also ensure that they will always be rewarded for the work they do.
That everything they do to better the government will not go unheard.

Guide them.
Be not only a friend, but a mentor, a father or mother persay, show them why something may be wrong (that they suggest) or why it cannot be implemented at a certain time.
Don't lie.
Show them the truth, those willing to see it will understand.
Those that refuse to look, will be shown eventually or realize why it is the truth.
And always, care for the people as if they are your own blood.

>>20 That was deep 0_0

And I really couldn't agree more on those principles.

Dammit Forte, I like that. ALL OF THAT.

lol I havent been on here in days...thought I would put my words in..lol

I really wish I could be president one day..
but it looks like that era is over..

>>23 Quite possibly, hence the creation of this thread :P

But think about it. Take some of the answers from this thread, and you might very well have the grounds on which to build a successful government.

Spread this information, and we'll be slightly more prepared for what's to come. We're about what, 250 years old now? We're nearing a pretty common end-time for huge empires :T

>>24We need to archive this shit NAO.

>>>24>>25
The government shall soon be taken over by us Dollars. That way we can implement Forte's grand speech.

Can I get Secretary of Defense when we do this lol?

>>25 I most certainly will. The use we will have for this... Yeah, it'll be glorious.

Now, the odds of it being one of US are pretty slim, but who's to say we can't help? :D

>>27
I wish it were possible to somehow create a government via the Internet and it be legalized in someway. Not possible, but it'd be awesome.

>>26 Left up to me, there probably wouldn't be any of the positions you see now. I dislike the current system and the way it's organized - I'd scrap it and start anew.

>>28

...

...

...

You might be on to something. Elaborate.

Well it's kind of like how if you get passed International Waters, and say...take land (empty, obviously) it's legal, and you could, in due time, become your own country/have your own Government. I just wish it were possible with the Internet.

Or so I think with the 'Law of the Sea' thing.

>>31 I think they already do this, buying and selling future land online, and cultivating it for real money.

Well I already know about the Lands part, I was part of a group dedicated in getting land and making a Government. In International Waters, you don't technically have to go to someone to buy land. If it's empty, and in those waters, you can take it.

Even if it wasn't empty, you could, but it'd cause trouble.

>>34 seizing land is a very dangerous thing to do and should be avoided at all cost. its is possible but not a good idea seeing we are not of that land we would cause a problem and start a possible war being taking land of a certain countries by order there arent many "NO MANS LANDS" Chances are even if they arent in appearance the are in actauallity

i reccomend stay away from things of that such

Well, I think if you made flag, and built some ricket little shacks fairly early, you and a group of people could say that land belongs to you... I mean technically, you recognize yourself as a political state, and you do have a civilization there... The hard part would be getting a representative from your "country" into the U.N. so that 'it' recognizes you as a country.

>>35 Your Engrish, so broken T_T

And it's only dangerous if you're taking something that holds valuable resources, or already belongs to another officially recognized group or person. Otherwise, nobody gives a crap. There's nothing in it for them to oppose you.

Besides, in this scenario, I'm not asking about acquiring "new" land at all. In fact, it has very little to do with land, save for environmental issues that the government in question would need to focus on :T

Speaking of which:

How much attention should the government give to environmental issues?

>>37 Well, without the environment, we wouldn't survive... So it should definitely take a conservative stance, and try to protect the environment... But it should have higher priorities for sure.

>>38 I can certainly agree that it needs attention. That much is evident in what's going on with the ecosystem right now.

What kinds of things would you consider "higher priorities," as you put it?

>>39 The safety of the government's populace from foreign threats, crime, ensuring the basic liberties of the people and esnsuring that they're protected, just basic stuff like that. Essentially, make sure that the people have a safe, reliable, healthy place to live. And I think the economy should also be a high priority, but it shouldn't compromise the environment (in cases like indusrialization).

>>40 So, what I'm gathering, is that it should be looked at as a supplemental project? As opposed to focusing on it directly, direct negative interactions away from the environment whenever they occur within sight of the government's main goals.

>>41 No, I think it should be seen as an important issue all on it's own. It's just that The things that I mentioned should have a higher government awareness, and the government shouldn't mindlessly let something compromise the environment if there's another way. If there's an alternative way to do something that prevents the environment from being destroyed, that way should be explored.

We had a long conversation about how much power the Government can have, how each body of Government should be placed out, and when and where voting(s) should take place, and how.

We basically had it like this:

A sort of ladder, if you will.

4 stages.

Stage 1, Law creators.

Stage 2: The people do needed changes, if any, and pass it back down to stage 1.

If stage 1 agree's, it goes directly to Stage 3. If they don't, they change it some more, and pass it onto Stage 2. If they agree, they pass it onto Stage 3.

Stage 3 are the people who decide to scrap it, edit it, or pass it onto the people.

The people would be the 4th and final stage. They would vote on the laws. We decided any and all laws would be voted on by the people. Also it's set up like this, people wise:

Stage 1: 3-5 people

Stage 2: 3-5 people

Stage 3: 4-6 people

Every 2 years, new members are voted in for Stage 3. It can be either people from the 2 previous stages, running, or anyone willing to show they can do it.

Economy wise, they do stuff to gather outside tourists, to get money, but otherwise they have no real currency in their economy. It's more based on a TRUST situation, or wooden chips.

To gain wooden chips, or some special wood only obtainable by the Government, you work. Work gets you chips. Chips get you items.

This way, they get needed items for them to grow on, outside of the 'community'. But inside, it's basically, you work, you eat.

Bump.

>>42 Alright, but in comparison to the other important matters, what level of priority does the environment take? Think of it like an order of operations. IE: I think human life is more important. Therefore I would put protection of the people before protection of the environment.

How would your order of importance go?

>>43 I'm for a more totalitarian perspective, but I can definitely see and agree with most of that. I particularly like the idea of "chips." Rewarding the public for making proper progress and sustaining the economy might be a nice trick, but there is also an opportunity for the system to be extorted. That said, the exists in pretty much everything.

Though: "We had a long conversation about how much power the Government can have"

Who is "we"? Just curious.

>>45
Oh, look up Project Anononia (I think it was spelled that) on Google, and/ or The Freestead Project. Both are the same group, one is just a name/server change.

>>45

Order of importance probably should be a job based thing.
Since this goes hand in hand with the Government, they need Government Offices for both the Human and Wild-Life Environments.

This way it can be evenly split up, and work gets done protecting both, at the same time.

>>45 I'd probably say: people, people's rights, education, and then environment is tied for the next spot with economy.

>>46>>47 I'll check it out sometime.

Also, what other things would you include in the list?

>>48 I like that list :3

Anybody else have an opinion on that?

>>37 To answer the environmental issues question, we need to remember that land, and its resources, are one of the factors of production within an economy. An economy needs all four factors of production to thrive, so if the resources of the land are depleted, then the economy will stagnate or even falter.

The government has an obligation to ensure the welfare of its people, and it cannot do so without satisfactory and sustainable economic progress. That would hold true even in a totalitarian state.

Bumping stupid topic that will be permasaged down.

I think the people make up the gov not the other way around that's what's wrong with the gov they r trying to contral everything from how the rich keep getting more and more mony like the taxes they have the upper and middle class are getting a bigger gap In between them I think the people deserve a right to say what's on his/her mind not where the gov can freely bind the info we get did you know the British news is more up to date with global wormming than us the shit we're fed to change our views on the earth mars hase similer Fluctuating ice cape as us. The gov treats us like we're test subjects did u know the beef in tx is injected with testosterone as they say everything is bigger in tx being a tx kid I'm 6.1 250lb and my unlike from cally is tx where 5.4 120lb big deforence don't u think and u can google it and it will tell u that fun fact as well :)

>>52

Now with proper grammar, please.

Kinda went into rant mode there sorry lol (~_~;)

>>50 Hm... I hadn't quite remembered that the environment also plays a key role in the economy. Which is really sad, because that's so basic. Some days I wish my memory was better!

Here's another thought:

What should be done to fix, replace, or continue the court systems?

Power To The People!!!............. and the environment.

If nothing else, more leniency for petty crimes and harsher penalties for heinous ones. Also, read this:

http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn210singaporeed

Yeah. For me, if I were to make a government, it would be smarter than the one we have in the U.S.A. I mean seriously, one mistake after another.

>>58
How would you BE smarter than them?
We're not saying we will be, and proving nothing along with it. We're saying how we'd go about it. How to create a working, better Government.

The Government should have enough control to ensure that no one person of group of persons can infringe on anothers' rights without punishment, and absolutley no more.
The people should have the power to vote on each and every bill that is put forth just as they vote for candidates.
The government's goals should be maintaining a peaceful and just community and an economy that is always moving forward.

>>57 "The place runs like a Swiss watch."

MKOLLER, if I devour part of your brain, will I retain every link you've ever searched? And possibly think to search the same ones you will?

Seriously, I loved that.

>>59 This.

>>60 An interesting thought... I do wonder how things would run if they were LITERALLY run by the people.

~ ~ ~

Here's another interesting thought. I want you guys to go to MKOLLER's link:

http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn210singaporeed

And read through it. It's a pretty short article, and it's really cool stuff. Once you've read through, riddle me this:

Assume that society is functioning exactly the same as in that article. What should be done in order to find a second non-corrupt leader with the same goals?

After all, what good is a genius system without a consistent supply of genius leaders?

Bump

No goals will truly ever be the same. To find the leader, you vote on the leader.

But we don't need one where THEY choose to run.

The people, would watch out closely for anyone that sticks out.
If they have leadership qualities, the people in that area vote to have them placed in the running.

This way, you won't hear the "I will do this, and this, and this" lies, on people who chose to run (they won't have a choice other than to decide to run after being voted in, or declining it.)

You will already know what they are getting into, ahead of time.

A sort of anonymous system, where everyone watches out, and votes for people to run.

>>63 I think there may be an enormous flaw in that system.

"Extroversion" is often viewed as "leadership," and many "leaders" are chosen as such (This is a broad statement, for various organizations, jobs, systems, etc.).

Extroversion is viewed as "the way to be" in modern society, for no real reason. Despite the lack of any reasoning, those are the people that others tend to agree should be in power.

However, simply being outgoing is not enough to be a leader. A leader must be open to other ideas, and willing to allow them room to grow. This is something that is seen much more commonly in introverts, rather than extroverts.

Extroverts, on the other hand, are more likely to "steal" an idea, or deny it entirely before asserting their own modified version or completely different idea.

So now I want you to imagine a sliding percentage scale.
0-33% = Introverted
34-66% = Hybrid
67-100% = Extroverted

The majority of a population is likely to vote 67% or higher, purely because that's the way society has taught us to think. Keep in mind that I'm not saying Extroverts are a bad thing overall, but probably less healthy for a massive government system.

What are your thoughts on that?

(If it helps you visualize it better, imagine a high school setting. You have people running for student body. Most of them will be extroverts, and a few introverts. The extroverts win out the vast majority of the time, purely because they are attractive to others by simply BEING an extrovert. They might not be best for the position, but they will still get it almost every time.)

>>63 I'd also like to point out that your system isn't much different, if at all, from the current one.

Each election year, several people from different political standpoints will begin doing exactly what you say "won't" happen. These people are chosen by another group of people to run, by popular vote.

Should a person decline, as you said, then they are nothing to worry about.

Should a person accept, and truly aspire to win, they will continue to spew propaganda. This is simply how things happen when an opportunity presents itself; a person will spew whatever nonsense they have to spew in order to get to the position they want.

>>60 What you are referring to is Direct Democracy. There was a period where the Greeks used Direct Democracy, but I heard it only lasted fifty years. The government was conquered and made into a republic. I know not of any other governments that were Direct Democracy.

>>61 To answer this, we have to ask a different question: "Are true leaders born, or are they made?" Will a true leader be born with superior moral standing, or can they be cultured through education to do only that which is just?

>>66 Should that be the case, what your answer to that very question?

As for my own:

I think this lies in two places.

Genetically, nobody is equal. There are those who are born simply superior to others in some ares. IE: One child may be born a musical prodigy. I was also born, but I am not a musical prodigy by any measure of the term. With this in mind, it is entirely possible that there are people simply born as 'true leaders.'

On the other hand, a lot of it lies in the way a person is raised while at a young age. I, personally, was raised under a pretty chivalrous code. I learned the ins and outs of being a djentleman, and have stuck true to them simply because that's what I know. However, some who are taught this might also be inclined to challenge it in their teen years, and then not recover after the hormones settle in. At which point, they may have BEEN a possible leader, but no longer are.

I think the real problems come in when we try to judge who is who.

>>67

You have a valid point. Many reject their upbringing if they find is contradicts their own happiness, be it a good form of happiness (such as helping people or ascending to a higher calling) or a bad one (such as being greedy or wanting power).

My answer is that there's a certain degree of ambition that all humans contain, but it is the upbringing, as well as life experiences (some potentially traumatic) that determine how one's ambition is multiplied and directed.

A good leader could be, for instance, one who has experienced hardship, pledged to fight it, and actively sought to prevent it from happening to others. Some of the great leaders of old were great leaders because of their war experiences. They'd been in the heat of battle, watched comrades die, and vowed to bring forth a gentler world because of it. That's just one example.

bump

>>68 Not to mention information and emotional processing that's unique to the individual. Two children can be raised in extremeley similar ways, in similar environments, and grow up to be two very very different types of people.

Rebump to the top because

oh my GOD the number of idiot posts on Main today :D

Bump

bump for discussion

Alright, this has been bumped a few times with no new discussion topics, so I guess I will create one.

In my article about Apple's grip on the market, I commented saying that Apple could pretty much buy their own country at this point, with all the wealth they have amassed. And it's no secret that some celebrities indeed own private islands (the value of the wealthiest being close to $45 Million). So let's take this idea a step further...

What if the Dollars were to somehow seize control of an island and develop a sovereign nation on it?

There are some things we need to consider, such as funding for the initial investment, as well as returns on the investment. How will the nation develop a profitable economy? Will it be possible to provide food, water, shelter and other amenities for up to 10,000 people? Will it be possible to provide jobs? Will this nation be able to communicate with other nations in the form of trade or diplomacy?

And if we wanted to make the scenario even more complex...Will the island be natural or man made?

Here are some real world artificial islands. The cool thing about them is that technologies can be built into them to supply power, water and other resources that a natural island wouldn't otherwise be able to accomplish.

So what do you guys think? If we were to build a government on a deserted island, what would it be like?

Re-bumping this, because Sleepology is mean.

bump

　 ／l、
ﾞ（ﾟ､ ｡ ７
　l、ﾞ ~ヽ
　じしf_, )ノ

'Been too lazy to write something here. And I've been off getting my ass kicked, not much time for intelligent posting :P

>>74

Well, if this particular website made a sovereign nation... I'm fairly certain I'd have found a way to behead half of the members that can't type a solid sentence. Wordsandstuffandthings.

I think that some of us would do great in such an environment, but the rest would fall out. Unless we can come to a genuine agreement beforehand, it's entirely impossible to create such a thing. We're all too different, and too opinionated.

Except I agree with everything MKOLLER says, because she's a bloody genius.

~ ~ ~

Now, if a nation were just 'formed' out of the blue, ignoring any particular group of interest, I'd imagine it would be created in a way similar to how the U.S. was created. A group of people that didn't like [X] trait of their current nation, that moves out to create their own living space where [X] trait doesn't exist.

It'd basically be like a revolution, except without the violence. Create a government from scratch, as the main question of this thread suggests :P

>>78 What you refer to in your latter statements is a self-proclaimed exile, I guess you can say. Truth be told, I got much of my ideas from the Code Geass anime, in which the Japanese exile themselves to an artificially made island: Horai Island. The cool thing about this island is that it uses tidal power to generate electricity, and can use the entire circumference of the island to do so! I feel that's incredibly efficient. And of course, in the anime, the only rule is to do that which is just. You can say it's almost an anarchy, which reminds me...

Of Banlieue 13, a movie set in Paris that I suggest you take a look at. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_13

Read a bit of the plot, and you'll see what I'm inferring.

Bump

Bump

>>79 If I may ask, how would one acquire the funds to commit to such an insane feat? I don't think it plausible without proper funding. Not in the world as it stands today, anyhow. Far too focused on 'wealth' to care about much else.

So how would a group of ordinaries go about starting this?

>>82 You are correct in your assertion that funding would be required for such a feat, and therein lies one of the problems. It would require a benefactor, perhaps multiple benefactors. Perhaps if Apple or Google were to sponsor a group with a plausible business plan. That, or we'd all have to enter the criminal underworld to acquire the funds.

01001001001000000110011001100101011011000111010000100000011101000110100001100101001000000110111001100101011001010110010000100000011101000110111100100000011100110111000001101001011000110110010100100000011101000110100001101001011100110010000001110101011100000010000001100001001000000110001001101001011101000010000001101101011011110111001001100101001011100000110100001010000011010000101001001000011011110111011100100000011101110110111101110101011011000110010000100000011110010110111101110101001000000111000001110010011011110111000001101111011100110110010100100000011100110111010101100011011010000010000001100001001000000110011101110010011011110111010101110000001000000111011101101111011101010110110001100100001000000110011101100001011010010110111000100000011101000110100001100101001000000111001101101001011001000110010100100000011011110110011000100000011000010010000001101101011000010110101001101111011100100010000001100011011011110111001001110000011011110111001001100001011101000110100101101111011011100011111100100000010101110110111101110101011011000110010000100000011010010111010000100000011100100110010101110001011101010110100101110010011001010010000001110011011011110110110101100101001000000111010001110010011000010110011101101001011000110010000001100101011101100110010101101110011101000010110000100000011001110110111101101111011001000110111001100101011100110111001100100000011011110110011000100000011010000110010101100001011100100111010000111111

>>84, Really? Rrrrreeeeaallllyyyyy?

>>84 MFW: http://i44.tinypic.com/o947ra.jpg

Yf

BAMP

TRI-BUMP

Alright. I have been dying to comment on this thread, but I didn't have the guts since I'm not very educated in this type of thing. However, I gave into the temptation. You can suffer through my ineducated opinions. My opinions come from the possibility of the government completely falling apart, to the point where it's easily described as anarchy. Perhaps America's complete situation was bad enough at that point, the head honchos died, and the government just completely collapsed.

Warning: I switch tenses a shattload in this :V /toolazytofixit
_____________________________________________________________

After the government has fallen apart, I believe there should be a small group which works to assign everyone to their places. This way, it's not complete tolitarianism, but we're not trying to manage an insanely large government from the bottom up, either. Status shouldn't matter; whether you worked for the past government or not shouldn't matter. Anyone who can manage things and isn't corrupt and had the proper skills and ideas could be in it. However, there need to be a few dispensible figure-heads to convince people to follow.

The first thing to do would be to separate the US into more managable territories and set up some sort of council in each area, perhaps even in each state. The first matter of business once this is set up would be to make sure the police forces are still acting properly. The second the word 'anarchy' gets around to the general public, people will get in a panic-stricken frenzy. There will be looting. There will be killing (both out of panic and by all of those who wanted to kill but were stopped by the law). There will be heart attacks. There will be just general panic everywhere. Everyone will be trying to start their own little governments, and gangs may become an opposing force. The police need to continue doing what their doing, even if they can't get paid for it.

My next major concern would be border security and the economy. The existing army would need to be split apart and stationed properly to bring border control to its height. The remaining military/milita would need to be sent to calm people down. We would really need just an obnoxiously large thumb to be put down on everyone and everything. All flights would need to be canceled, and there would need to be immediate rationing of food, water, and (especially) oil/gas. We would have to cut off trade for a while to get the economy back together; outside influence would be like suicide when the country is that unstable. Because of this, we need to collect as much oil and gas that we have in case we need it. If we start to get attacked, we're going to need plenty of it.

My ideal government would be a barder and general trade system where paper money isn't overly relied upon as it is now. At the very least, it would be the best system to start getting the country back up on its feet. People would need to trade something other than money, because it will not be commissioned until the rest of the country aspects are together.

In the meantime, banks would need to be shut down. People would be given a one week period of time to get all their money from the bank, and then the banking system would be shut down until further notice.

While collecting the firearms and weapons may be good for rationing weapons and keeping the citizens from killing one another, it could backfire, so I wouldn't suggest it. Many would oppose. Having a gun may give them a sense of safety, so anyone who isn't comfortable with the situation isn't going to want to give it away. Also, if they're attacked by anyone, they won't have the protection they're used to. Nonetheless, I would stop the sale of firearms and similar weaponry.

Similarily, it would be useful to cut off the internet connections with other countries, but everyone would get themselves into a tizzy about it. I can't say whether it should or shouldn't be done at this point.

Farming and manufacturing would need to be increased at that point. The government should put the little money and materials they have into building factories and farms.

Having separated the country into territories, there still needs to be a larger, governing body to make sure that there is little to no corruption. Extensive reports on everything would need to be handed in. For the meantime, the country would go by its old laws, but lawsuits and other major court issues would be cut off. Less money would go toward the jails; inmates would have to grow their own food like everyone else. No free food anymore, fuckers. Either work or starve to death.

Branches of control, a new law system, et cetera, et cetera would need to be set up at this point. All currency would need to be cut off regarding government spending. We would need a new currency, as well as an exchange rate determined by the amount it costs to make it so we can restart without inflammation. The banking system would be re-wired and re-opened. At the new banks, people would be able to exchange their old currency with the new currency. The government would collect the old currency and spend it quietly until very little of it was polluting our commerce. A low tax rate would need to be set to start once the economy got going.

The main thing left would be to work on the educational and health systems. Obviously, throughout this whole situation, free clinics would need to be set up everywhere. Once the government is set up, it would need give a flat rate to the hospitals that stayed open during this time. (They wouldn't get paid back in full from a newly made government, and we wouldn't promise to pay them back in full to avoid getting in even more debt than we would be in by the end of the anarchy.)

The educational systems would have been closed during this time. Although small schools could offer classes and services and such, they would not get compensated, nor would they get tax money. Once the previously stated issues are worked out, the educational system would get ripped a new one. It would be disemboweled and completely reworked to fit the situation. Everyone would be fired and rehired during this process. Schools would be made and demolished. Corrupt officials wouldn't have a chance at this point. Once the educational system is all nice and shiny, we would move onto international affairs.

At this point, a majority of the internal affairs would be dealt with. However, before transportation and international commerce is re-opened, we would have to send representatives to all the major countries we dealt with and/or will deal with, explaining the situation of the new government, its new intentions regarding international relations, information on the new commerce/exchange rate, et cetera. We would formally show/declare whatever documents we had (things similar to the Constitution/Declaration of Independence/yougetwhatImean.jpg) to these countries and make them sign whatever treaties we can get. At the very least, we need to make sure the more fearsome countries approve of our actions.

It is around now that we may have to compromise some of our past actions for the sake of not getting nukes dropped on us... Or, at least to avoid getting our asses kicked... Or, at least not lose all of our major forms of trade. I think you understand me by now.

Also, throughout our reformation, we would have to have had a Declaration of Intent, which would explain what we intended to do with the new government. We would need shaky treaties at the beginning, as well, to see if we could get protection in case of a national emergency, terrorism, or a war breaking out. It's always good to have another nation on your side, even if it's nto definite yet. (I should have said that earlier, I know.) But, regarding my last paragraph, that is where the more solid treaties and trading intentions would be set up.

Once we are more steady internationally, rations would slowly get larger until they are no more. National flights would open first, and then international flights, and then boating and such. The internet and w/e else would be uncensored at this point. However, border control would need to still be strict. It couldn't become lenient for a while. Ships coming into harbor and planes from overseas would have very strict security. Basically, you can travel, but it's going to be a huge pain in the ass.

Things will become more lenient as the government works out its military and national security even further. At this point, we would work out how to vote new people into/out of office to bring the country back to a slightly more democratic government. Too much freedom at the start would have put it on shaky ground, so it such systems wouldn't have been set up until everything else was stable.

And, yeah. That's my long-winded opinion whose ideas can probably be shot down in a millisecond. Anyway, uh... Enjoy.

>>91 continue doing what they're doing*

You know what, fuck it. Don't mind the various grammatical errors in those posts >|

>>91 >>92 >>93 Very extensive post. I do need to nitpick it though.

>separate the US into more managable territories

I agree. We can't have the nation crumble under its own weight, so it needs to be divided.

>The police need to continue doing what their doing, even if they can't get paid for it.

That goes back to the second amendment of the US Constitution, and the right to form a militia. Personally, I would extend that to "Anyone who wishes to do what is just can join the law enforcement."

>All flights would need to be canceled, and there would need to be immediate rationing of food, water, and (especially) oil/gas. We would have to cut off trade for a while to get the economy back together

Again, I agree. A protectionist stance is important for a developing country. Not sure I like the idea of rationing. If demand surges then we need to attempt to increase supply by any means necessary, which means running all farms and factories at full output. You did address that later on, which I'll take note of, but rationing should be a last-resort.

>People would need to trade something other than money, because it will not be commissioned until the rest of the country aspects are together.

I'm not sure how you would implement this effectively. The reason we have a currency system is because it allows for one set of money that is accepted EVERYWHERE. If you initiate a barter system, you run the risk of not having equivalent items for trade and thus becoming trapped without resources.

>Having separated the country into territories, there still needs to be a larger, governing body to make sure that there is little to no corruption.

I am strongly against this. What you are suggesting is another Federalist system. Personally, I think a Confederacy would be a better approach (everything decentralized and the territories having all of the power). But that's my opinion.

>No free food anymore, fuckers. Either work or starve to death.

If it were me, I would ship them off to the Mojave desert, build a giant wall, give them some resources to start with and tell them to build a city as a form of reform.

>Seperate the U.S.
- We're already seperated. Citizen > Mayor > Governer > Congressman/Senator > President.

>Police eligibility
- There are problems with that. Such as people joining to be contacts for organized crime. And you'd have to make sure everyone is qualified for their job, or else they'll just get in the way and cause more harm than good.

>>95

>Seperate the U.S.
"- We're already seperated. Citizen > Mayor > Governer > Congressman/Senator > President."

That is not what they meant.

>>96 Then what did they mean? Because that seemes fairly manageable to me...

It may be, but it was not what they meant.

I think they meant each section Governs themselves.

If need be, higher person could step up. Like how Reltair does on here. Otherwise, they do nothing.

If each section governed themselves (which is essentially what we do already) more independantly than we do now, I think a civil war is too likely. Just my opinion though.

Any question about creating a perfect government is impossible to answer. Each person has different values, beliefs, and guiding principles, and nobody can create a system which would force all people to act in the way they consider right. That being said, creating such a utopia is an interesting thought experiment, allowing one to examine their own character as well as allowing others to gain a glimpse of their personal beliefs. At the risk of being pretentious, I shall proceed to outline what my idea of a perfect government is, and what I would consider a utopia.

My perfect government would be democratic in nature, consisting of multiple levels of power within the government. At the top would be the international level, or level A for short. This level would consist of representatives from every existing territory, as nations would no longer exist. Representatives would be chosen by popular vote, but would also have to take multiple tests to determine aptitude including IQ tests, divergence tests, psychological stability exams, practical examinations in diplomatic and crisis situations, and other exams of that nature. Elections for all candidates would be open to everyone around the world, in order to minimize the effect of regional bias. Leaders at the A level would appoint one of the members of the A level as the head of this council, although this leader would act only as a moderator in addition to his or her regular duties, although they could assume command of the entire world if necessary under martial law. In such a circumstance, the commander may not pass any law which would increase his or her term of heightened power, which would vary depending on the situation. The A level's first, or at least one of their first, priorities would be to create a list of different categories of events in which one person would have to assume command under martial law and the time period in which they can do so. The duties of the A level would be to manage earth's resources in order to ensure an equal distribution of said resources, improving infrastructure, ensuring everyone is able to receive the best education possible, sponsoring scientific research, acting as patrons of the arts, and making sure that all of the basic needs of the global population are met. Next, at the B level, the general population would elect committee members to govern each territory, each of which would be the size of an average sized nation today. These governing councils would act much in the same way as the A level, but focus more on regional issues. This will ensure that no one area is looked over by mistake. The C, D, and E levels, each of which act the same as the A and B levels but on a smaller scale, will be created and operate in the same manner as the A and B levels. Campaigning, at least in the manner in which U.S. presidential candidates campaign, will be illegal. To those not familiar with campaigning techniques used by American politicians, it can basically be described as advertising on a social scale, with billions of dollars poured into television adds and rallies in order to make the public "buy" a particular candidate. This method leads politicians to bow before corporate interests instead of acting for the good of the people, as can be seen with the Citizen's United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Each candidate will instead be given numerous opportunities to publicly debate with other candidates and appeal to voters, thus eliminating money as an issue. Terms of office will last for 4 years, with each person able to have only two terms. However, if over 95% of the population votes for a candidate who has already served two terms, without that candidate running for election, said candidate is given a choice of whether or not to serve another term.

The purpose of this united world government would be twofold. First and foremost, this government would see that the needs of all people in the world were met. This includes, but is not limited to , ensuring that adequate food, water and shelter is available for every human on the earth. It also encompasses education, making it the government's responsibility to ensure that all people receive an equal and top class education and are given opportunities to use the knowledge gained in this education. School reforms will also be necessary, but these will be too numerous to list here. If anyone is interested, simply ask and I shall create another post on necessary education reforms needed in my perfect world. The second purpose of my government would be to sponsor scientific research, support the arts, and in general finance and reward scholars in any field who contribute scientifically, socially, economically, any combination thereof, or in some other way which was not mentioned but benefits society. Humans, as history has shown, tend to only unite in the face of a common enemy or in pursuit of a mutual goal. This government seeks to create such a goal; the continued improvement of the arts and sciences which will enrich humanity and make it both more intelligent and capable of functioning on a universal and even dimensional scale as well as enriching culture and bringing humanity into a higher mental state as a whole. If all of humanity can unite itself in the pursuit of knowledge and creativity, than my utopia shall truly be complete.

I realize that this system is subject to the whims and desires of humanity, a greedy and selfish race which seeks only to improve oneself at the expense of others. It may well be that this system becomes corrupted like Communism, Democracy, and every other form of government until it becomes completely unrecognizable, a mere shadow of its former self corrupted beyond recognition. However, I have faith that humans will one day see the error of pure selfishness and start to think of others as well as themselves. Indeed, it is already happening. If it could happen on a global scale, imagine the vast human potential that could be unleashed and channeled into improving humanity, instead of destroying it.

I realize my theory is idealistic, naive, and flawed. I understand that as the world is now, it is nothing more than a dream. I simply refuse to give up hope, selfishly clinging to it to prevent a complete hatred of humanity and myself consume me. If you could please post any comments, questions, concerns, improvements, or ideas for a greater system, it would be most appreciated. I apologize for using so many words to convey my ideas and sincerely thank all of you for reading this through to the end.

>>97 It means breaking up the US into six to twelve territories with a different capitol in each. Has nothing to do with the hierarchy of the government.

>>100 I will tell you that what you are describing is impossible, unless the Water Problem is solved. If we can get past that hurdle, then we can cultivate all deserts on this planet and increase our resources to a point of full global output.

>>94 "I am strongly against this. What you are suggesting is another Federalist system. Personally, I think a Confederacy would be a better approach (everything decentralized and the territories having all of the power). But that's my opinion."

I personally disagree. Again, we're both going on opinion here. I think it would be too dangerous to have many separate nations on one plot of land in such a new environment. In Europe, the set up was formed over many years and after many wars. Here, however, having several small nations would run the risk of wars later on, and it would also increase the chance of political corruption within the individual nations. I believe that there needs to be something other than a giant treaty to tie these nations together, and I therefore feel it would only be right to have a body above which regulates everything, even if each territory generally governs itself. I feel they should have a lot more freedom, but also something that makes sure they follow a guideline which is set up to ensure equal stability and protection.

>>102 I also feel that the higher governing body should be mainly in charge of military affairs and international disputes.

I'm pro-government but the complete disillusion of the government solves nothing.
A simple reset might be most effective. Corruption and money has wreaked the system. The system it's self is a working model. There is no reason to divide territory or create more governmental structure and even doing to is likely foolish.
Things I would change:
I would restore congress to its original model where the senators were elected by state governments due to wisdom and schooling, this as well is supposed to be how the elector college works. If the college was restored thus I would have them elect the president as they were supposed to.
I would outlaw political parties and reform campaign finance.
I would reform lobbying systems to allow for equal voice regardless of money.
I would reform education with a focus on the education of the people in civics and their duty to be informed and understand their government.
I would outlaw career politicians.
I would have standards of education and achievement to be allowed to hod office.
Things we should never abide:
The military should never be part of the government and should remain civilian run.
A truer republic should be maintained once the system is reset.


The goal of government domestically should be simply to provide "rules to the game". It should not be the government's job to ensure the happiness and health of every person. The goal of government in foreign policy should be to secure the national interest which should be defined as the securing of power and wealth or maintaining that power and wealth it has. If you're the most powerful player in the game you should strive to maintain that power.

>>105 I see you are a conservative. More power to you.

Many countries use a more socialized system than the US. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Places where it works: Japan, UK, Germany. Places where it doesn't: Italy, Spain, Greece. That's just an example.

Now, dividing the country into territories would morph the United States into a confederacy. This would weaken the governmental hierarchy as opposed to strengthening it. I figured that'd be something you'd be more accepting of.

Also, the Congressional System has not changed without reason. The seventeenth amendment (which made it so the people would elect senators instead of the government handling it) was to decrease the level of corruption in politics. It continued the tradition of keeping the United States a Democratic Republic instead of a Traditional Republic. Your mileage may vary on whether or not this was a good idea, but I thought much of this was common knowledge.

I ignore this thread for ONE night, and look at all the reading I have to catch up on 0_0

Bump

Bump.

Please people stop bumping this, no ones going to start a new government, no one one here even knows how to run a government so what the fuck are you idiots talking about?

Lol right, n theyre definitly going to listen to you, an idiotic person who intentionally chose that name so they could hide behind it
Its a topic of discussion you sack of shit, so how bout you shut up

Might I ask that people refrain from cursing or attacking others in this thread? Such a response to a purely hypothetical situation is both rude and uncalled for. Thank you.

>>112 One what the fuck are you talking about, "intentionally chose that name so they could hide behind it"? Whats your Username? Secondly, im the idiot, but you people really think your gonna get make a new government? How about you think about what you say.

>>112 How about you suck my dick, Thank you.

>>113 Way to be rude.

Before you start flaming shit, you might want to actually read. No really. Your post in >>110 is just ignorant.

First things first, nobody here is creating a new government. The OP was wondering how a government formed and what an "ideal government" would be like. Had you read said thread or maybe even the OP, you would've noticed this.
Secondly, this is a discussion thread. For discussing. If people are bumping it, they're either bumping off sages/bad threads or looking for more input/opinions. People can bump whatever they want, so who are you to come in here, call these people idiots and curse them out?

At least have the courtesy to educate yourself on a matter before bitching about it.

>>112>>114

Thanks for the support, guys, but I'd like to suggest we merely ignore Jon Doe altogether. I dunno about you guys, but I think it's blatantly obvious that he's trolling.

And if he isn't, then he's too idiotic to even be worth our time.

So how about we continue with the discussion? As soon as I catch up on the last 20 or so posts, anyhow ^_^'

>>115 I implore you to address mine soon.

OR I WILL EAT YOUR SOUL!

>>116 I'll adress yours in the mean time :D

I agree with you that seperation our government into a confederacy would indeed weaken us. We tried it once, and had a war over it because it divided us so much, that the south thought it might as well be it's own nation.

>>117 I don't claim to be any sort of expert when it comes to history, but I'm fairly certain that's not at all what the U.S.'s civil war was about.

>>118 It wasn't about slavery if that's what you mean. And it never ended slavery either.

>>117 I think you misunderstood me. I suggested the idea of a conferacy to weaken the central government. I personally believe in a decentralized system, as a way to combat corruption. Also, the Confederate States of America was its own nation. For the entire extent of the Civil War. It had its own founding document. The United States of America never became a confederacy.

>>120 I mean the southern half of the US being a confederacy. My bad. And I do think I misread your post. But I still agree with decentralizing the government (at least a little anyways).

Like I said, your mileage may vary. I'm not the most well versed in politics myself so I'm unsure how well weakening the government would play out. I could very well be wrong in my own assumptions.

Bump

Bump

Bumptastic.

Alright, I've got my morning Froot Loops, toast, and some free time. I suppose I'll catch up on this now.

>>91 MKOLLER covered pretty much everything I would have said, save for one huge thing:

You suggested shutting down the banking systems, and temporarily eliminating common currency.

That, in of itself, will singlehandedly eliminate your system and put the country into an economic hellhole so deep that we'd do the world better just getting nuked off the face of the earth.

The banking systems are what allow a capitalist economy to grow. Removing that system completely eliminates growth, and you will soon have nothing but a bunch of extremely poor citizens really pissed at you for destroying their business. The small businesses of the country will die within weeks. The big businesses will have outsourced entirely by the time any extreme damages come around - and you will have lost their trust entirely. They will not return to your country once you have done something like that.

I pretty much dismissed your plan as having failed entirely at that point.

~ ~ ~

>>100

I mostly just disagree with your first statement :P

Otherwise, more power to you for hoping to have that perfect system. DON'T STOP BELIEVIN'!

~~~

MKOLLER, what of yours are you imploring me to respond to?

~~~

I may have to put up my outline for review next... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........

>>126 I was referring to >>94 but I believe you pretty much summed it up with "MKOLLER covered pretty much everything I would have said."

"That, in of itself, will singlehandedly eliminate your system and put the country into an economic hellhole so deep that we'd do the world better just getting nuked off the face of the earth.

The banking systems are what allow a capitalist economy to grow. Removing that system completely eliminates growth, and you will soon have nothing but a bunch of extremely poor citizens really pissed at you for destroying their business. The small businesses of the country will die within weeks. The big businesses will have outsourced entirely by the time any extreme damages come around - and you will have lost their trust entirely. They will not return to your country once you have done something like that.

I pretty much dismissed your plan as having failed entirely at that point."

I find it rather rude (and slightly egotistical) that you think you've broken down two whole posts by giving a short description on what you think will happen due to one point. Meanwhile, allow me to show you why your description doesn't fit.

Business are going to have to be destroyed and rebuilt either way. Our currency is so inflamed, it would be economical suicide to create a new nation and keep the same currency. However, unless the banks were closed down, you would have no easy way to stop the flow and bring in a new currency. The whole point is that the entire economical system is going to be disemboweled and recreated. Of course businesses aren't going to stay the same. Do you think small businesses would have survived it anyway? No. And I'm not saying that rudely, either. I was the co-owner of a small business for several years, and I know how it works. Many large businesses would be destroyed, too. There's no stopping it. Instead, then, why not cut it off completely and make the best out of the time you have?

>>128 Yes, it was a tad harsh, but I think that the point of it still stands.

Without a functioning economy -even for a short time- a nation cannot survive in the current world.

A big point you're missing is the fact that we, in your scenario, are coming from a Capitalist economy. Capitalism runs itself - you don't need to destroy it in order to have it function. Destroying it merely destroys the economy.

The United States, being a HUGE world power, losing its economy entirely, even for minutes, would cause irreparable damage to the entire world economy.

Part of why our economy has been so successful is because we have so little interference. And before you try telling me we're in a recession, we're not. The DOW has more than doubled since our last definite recession, and we're just about fully recovered. Right now we're just being suckerpunched by outsourcing, and other similar methods of maximizing profits.

~

TL;DR - Our economy doesn't need to be rebuilt. Destroying it will cause more damage than anything else.

Not to mention the world powers that would likely get involved to stop us from screwing their economies as well.

MjhfMjhfe

>>129 We're not going to be the US if the whole country is destroyed and rewired. The world's economy would be screwed the second the current US gov't gets dissolved either way. This has to happen in a total anarchy situation for the sake of our country. It wouldn't be safe to continue trade with other countries when our country is broken apart and liable to be taken over at any moment, either. We would be in such a ridiculous amount of debt if we continued as we are through the rewiring of the gov't, it wouldn't even be funny. A new nation won't be able to pay that back for far too long, and if we (to avoid being in a war, mainly) decide to take on the last country's past debts, we would be evern further screwed. I highly doubt that the new government would last long if we continued trading and kept the same currency and banking system.

Obviously, the economy isn't taking care of itself if we're in the situation we're in. Something has to be changed. We can't just restart in the same way and hope it will never go bad again. Everything will just repeat itself if we go back to using the old economic methods. It will crash no matter what method you use, but it would be better to start anew rather than use a system that we already know fails.

New currency is a given. Do you at least agree with that? We can't keep using USD. The inflammation is ridiculous, and the economy would crash faster than before.

And... This may sound like a really selfish thing to say, but if other countries collapse following our own crash, it is less likely that they're going to try and take us over. Rather, they'll be focused on taking care of their own countries. Then, the world would work itself back up together. At that point, the less affected groups and countries will be the ones that we really need to worry about, as well as the usual terrorists and gangs and such.

>>131 I really think you must have skipped over the part where I pointed out that the current economic system works. It has been, and recovers every time it gets screwed.

Inflation, (not inflammation, I'm pretty sure that's a respiratory thing) is caused by the continued printing of a currency; and after a little impromptu supplemental research, that's the only thing that damages an individual currency.

Product prices may inflate, and for mostly common-sense reasons. Lending and borrowing cause inflation in taxation, but not the dollar itself.

If you want to stop inflation, stop printing the dollar itself. Force the current amount to circulate better - killing it altogether will do nothing but reduce whatever value it does have to zero.

On another note, the inflation of our dollar isn't as terrible as everyone seems to think. We're doing better than many countries; one of which is our good neighbor Canada.

Next point:

Another reiteration -- Capitalism pretty much runs itself. The government sets regulations, and that's all a government really does in a capitalist economy. If a capitalist economy is failing, it's because the regulations need to be reworked, NOT because the system itself is a failure.

Note... 3?:

The new government would almost assuredly have to take up the debt of the previous nation. Other people want their money, and the options are one of these two:

1) Don't pay it, have fun with the full-scale invasion.
2) Pay it, maintain positive international affairs.

~

So, no, I don't really agree with anything you're saying :T

I feel, from everything I've learned in my little life, that your method would completely screw the rest of your plan over. Which is sad, because I actually like everything else you said. But the economics portion just looks like a heap of nitroglycerin with a 150lb weight hanging over it, and your plan being the scissors about to cut it.

So I pretty much only 100% disagree with your economic standpoint. Shall we agree to disagree, or continue? I don't see myself swapping sides at any point :T

>>134 Sorry about that. Typo. Other than that, I don't have anything else to say. You know my standpoint, and I know yours. It's a hypothetical situation, and depending on the conditions, either of us could end up being right.

>>134 >>135 Both of you have really valid points. Barabi, I understand that you feel the Keynesian model (which the United States has used for the past century) is failing. You are not the only one to believe this. If I were you, I would look up economist Friedrich Hayek and his book The Road to Serfdom. You'll find it most compelling.

Reilyx, I agree with many of your points, but I won't be the first to admit our beliefs may be the wrong ones. There's a saying that your mileage may vary and it holds true to economics like it does with everything else. One of FDR's policies to help combat the great depression was to enact a "Bank Holiday," in which all financial activity stopped for a day. It was essentially a defibrillation for the monetary system.

Both of you are free to believe what you think is the best course of action; neither of you are "wrong" in your ways of thinking. The only way to know for sure what the best course of action would be in the scenario we've created is to run some sort of market simulation. Of course, none of us have that level of technology available, but if we did, perhaps we could start to see what options there truly are.

Methinks I shall start piecing together my full sketch of how I'd like things to go; I've spent a lot of time participating but I've yet to post anything I consider 'finished' :P

Then y'all can tear me apart ^_^

You know, this is bothering me. Thank you MKOLLER, but I have to nitpick some things, too. I'll take a look at that book, though.

>>134 "I really think you must have skipped over the part where I pointed out that the current economic system works. It has been, and recovers every time it gets screwed."

I needed to point this out really bad. No, I didn't "skip over" anything. Despite what your ego tells you, I don't think that everything you say is fact. I read it, but I disagree, as MKOLLER said. I don't feel that this is a functioning system. Something that fails often obviously isn't something you should keep, in my opinion, whether it bounces back up or not. It's not stable.

"Which is sad, because I actually like everything else you said. But the economics portion just looks like a heap of nitroglycerin with a 150lb weight hanging over it, and your plan being the scissors about to cut it.

So I pretty much only 100% disagree with your economic standpoint."

By saying this, it leads me to believe that you didn't read my plan very well. I said to completely shut off outside trading. That, in itself, would shut down economy both inside what was the US and in the countries that trade with it. Whatever we do with the inner economy from there won't affect outside trade anymore than that until we re-open outside trading and communications.

Anyway, I'm done for now. To bed.
I just needed to say those two things :V It bothered me that I didn't point them out to avoid an arguement.

(BarabiSama...avoiding an arguement? Shocking, right? ...Alright, I just wanted to sleep. :T I admit it.)

>>138 I really, really didn't want to bite on this the first time, but could you do me one favor?

Leave the word "ego" out of your statements. This isn't a personal attack, this is a calm debate. If you'd like it to be personal, you have my email ^_^

Now, on topic:

- I'd rather have a system that we know can recover, than a system that will tank the moment a large problem occurs. Perhaps that's just preference, in which case that argument is essentially done.

- I figure I read through everybody's plans just fine. I didn't mention shutting off outside trading simply because it didn't matter; either point I addressed would yield the same results.

1) Nerfing the economy to zero pretty much screws us, AND gets everybody else pissed off.

2) Cutting off foreign trade pretty much screws us, AND gets everybody else pissed off.

They both have nearly identical results, the difference being how. Combining the two doesn't appear at all to me like it will do good, but rather be twice as bad.

I would have targeted the latter, but I was focusing on the economy specifically and trying to stray away from foreign affairs. I did still mention a bit of foreign involvement, but it's difficult to talk about the economy without involving the entire world.

~

My apologies for not addressing all of your points simultaneously, but I'm sure you can understand why I failed to do so.

Is there anything else that's got you irked about what I said, or are we just at a standstill of opinion?

>>140 No, I can't really leave it out just yet. I want you to know that it's affecting your statements and that it is offending to others. It would be an insult to just let it go by, honestly, and you should learn how to leave it out of a debate.

I gave my opinion. I have nothing else to say.

>>141 I apologize that my abrasiveness has offended you. However, it's just that. Abrasiveness. There is no ego involved. In fact, I haven't done anything that you haven't done yourself. Save for not calling you egotistical; that's the one thing you've done that I haven't.

~ ~ ~

Since it's just been between me and Barararabi, I figure I'll invite the rest of you in on this little niche.

How do you think the economy should be handled with the new government?

This may be in the same scenario Barararararararararabi has pitched: The United States government has failed, and has been replaced by (insert your ideal system here).

Or think of it as a blank slate. You're starting everything absolutely fresh, not replacing an older, failed government.

P.S. Still working on my outline. It'll be a two-parter, the first will be a "blank slate" response, the other a "United States failed" response.

>>142 Abrasive? No. Be careful with your choice of words. Ego. People never notice it themselves - someone has to tell them. Hence why I told you. End of subject.

>>143 Give it a rest. Reilyx was not being egoistic.

>>144 Did I say end of subject? I like to think so.

Reposting this, since Barararararararararararabi so rudely pushed this off.

~

How do you think the economy should be handled with the new government?

This may be in the same scenario Barararararararararabi has pitched: The United States government has failed, and has been replaced by (insert your ideal system here).

Or think of it as a blank slate. You're starting everything absolutely fresh, not replacing an older, failed government.

>>146 Why all the "ra's"?

>>146

All governmental systems are doomed to fail. There is no perfectly effective strategy that will perpetually work.

The Economy is most often dictated from a governmental standpoint. The problem here is that no economic style, like the governmental system, is a catch all success. They are tools.

Each tool has pros and cons to it - You wouldn't use a hammer for a screw, a nail is beyond the capabilities of a screwdriver, and chisels are a different matter altogether.

These economic styles of governing will all, at some point, fail or become ineffective. This is because they are best used during certain financial conditions in a country - And those conditions never remain the same.

The simplest answer is to realize governing styles and economic policies for what they are - Tools to be used. For a successful craftsman, there is no favorite tool which will solve the entire construction: Every piece has its place, and he will change tools as the situation requires.

If the US government has failed it is simply because they haven't adapted to the changing situations which require different tools. Unsurprising, considering most changes in governmental practice is preceded by members of the current regime going "NO, WE LIKE IT THIS WAY" until war happens.

In this way, you can arguably say that our political tool for achieving success and fluid adaptability is to beat up the old fucks obstructing progress and then go make up some new, equally stupid thing that will eventually become obsolete but happens to work better at the time.

Eventually the new guys will repeat the process, and we don't actually get a revolution of people going "hey, you guys notice how we keep refusing to change and it keeps failing? I see a connection."

Of course, this is just naivety speaking. I don't profess to know much about needlessly complicated shit like politics and economic handling. At least with other topics you can apply logic and common sense... Those things are just the playground of stubborn and irrational people - Too caught up in their own ideals.

For people like that... The only things they respond to are repeated public humiliation and physically being removed from their high horse.

bump

Discussion bump

Bump for organization.

Bump for my wish to hear more on this subject.

I'd say Ayanavi's point needs to hold true: the system (which is composed of both the government and the economy in some way, shape or form) should be dynamic in its ability to reflect the needs of a changing culture and a changing environment. While I dislike repeating myself, I will recap some of my own thoughts.

• In the case of the United States, power is currently centralized and then radiated outward across the landscape. In this manner it is spread too thin. Therefore, the US would need to be decentralized and power given to its individual territories or states. This ensures that power is used most efficiently and effectively; instead of "One Size Fits All" solutions, each state can tailor individual answers to their problems.


• A government's top priority is to provide the basic needs for its people. A place to grow food, collect water, build shelter, provide sanitation, and so on. In a technologically advanced society, power and medicine would be added to this list, as well as certain luxuries such as a regional wireless access grid.


• The government should maximize production levels in the most efficient manner. Emphasis on education, smarter manufacturing, R&D, and greater exports where necessary are all good ideas.


• The Judicial System could use some fine tuning. There should be elimination of unnecessary laws and tax codes, as well as an overhaul of the prison system. The degenerates of society should contribute to the system as a whole, since it is only fair.


• A good leader can be a dictator. Just look at Signapore. As long as he exhibits honor and commitment to his people, then he is qualified.


• In the event of developing another nation from the ground up, be it in a natural or artificially built territory, then the above still applies, with minor changes here and there.

Maybe the government should be refined with some ideals of other major governments

>>155 What are some that you would have in mind?

Very interesting , a brother of mine always wanted a utopian society to take place eventually but the idea depended on NANO robots (the whole idea that death would become pointless, therefore murder would too. And most of humans problems.)
But we are quite along way from that, so my counter idea was this : start with a underground revolution make the one thing thats hardest to control your best weapon of defense (the internet) create your own web (not website but partial world web network) there are already some in existance such as the onion its mostly invisible (but its mainly used for secretly downloading pedoporn (ewww gross) ) and i think theres one called the black web , but thats like way underground.

But anyway start with that make it where you offer reward points for things that are needed and those points could be near to currency for downloading or promotion of internal ranking .Make your point clear of where it would all be heading ( actual revolution ) .
After this make sure to have some type of offense (your own form of holding the world hostage) . yawda yawda or else . simple and to the point . if your group cant live the way they want , well what would be the point .
Now you have the world under your heel . Its playing god time now . you can have a monarchy (very one sided) , or maybe you would want pure chaos to take the place of government , personally I like the whole idea of elder council leadership . Ya know like Judge Dredd .
And there you are now, head of the world. congrats, que the fireworks . :D

>>156 Well, I've been researching and thinking that some of the original government ideas could be rewritten and adding some ideas from asian governments along with some old government ideas. America is a very young country and we need to re organize our ideas every other century or two ya know

Bump

bump

bump

bump over saged

bump over saged

>>164 Please fuck off and die. This man is a troll. Do not join this group; it isn't the official group.

I believe a government should be flexible in it's security, organization and everything else. In a way, we need a chaotic government, where little order is shown.
Now hear me out, it sounds dumb. But too much order isn't helping, because chaos swoops in sooner or later. Either that, or the people will revolt. If a government starts out as like a "let the flow of the wind take you" kind of thing, we start to learn what we need to do and need to change and adjust as we go, but keep teh chaotic foundation in place, we'll start to change teh worl like we need to.
What I'm trying to say is, we need to start completely fresh.

Bump

Other opinions?

Bump

>>166 I somewhat agree with this. In a way, it's like people won't feel as controlled and will feel like they actually have freedom, so there's less chance of rebellion. The thing that doesn't work is, lets face it. Humans are fucking cruel. >.< If they have the opportunity and freedom to bring chaos upon whatever the fuck, they will.
I completely agree with the fact that there is a such thing as too much order, but it would really be hard to find a median where all is well. "/

bump

bumping for organization.

Bump.

Personally, if I was to try and create a new structure of government, I'd go with a district system, similar to the Hunger Games. However, I'd want all districts to be governed in a decentralized manner, and for all of them to share resources and work, instead of one district reigning over the others. If everyone had to work, but nobody had to work /too/ hard, it would probably work. To have each district have its' own governing body, and each governing body have one representative at a council who make the decisions for the entire nation...

Something like:

- Head governing body: Made up of representatives from each district. 12 or 13 members.

- Council for each district. Roughly 20 members, representing each city, for example? They make overarching decisions for the district.

- Local councils. Just like currently, they manage minor things, like planning permits and local issues.

- People. Each district has a specialty of production and/or organization, and people are free to move districts depending on what they can or cannot do. Supplies are shipped between districts via something like a bullet train system.

What do you guys think? Close to communism, but there is still a system of payment for goods...

^

Bump

With every government comes its flaws. Instead of having a select few people represent everyone's opinion it should be everyone as a collective deciding on a majority vote of action. If everyone has a say so in the decision no one can be blame for shortcomings or problems other than the people who caused them.

Exactly. If everyone takes responsibility in decision making, then the people of that nation would be much more prosperous and have their individual needs catered to much more often. Actual needs that some people cannot live without.

If everyone took responsibility then nothing would get done. Imagine this: Every citizen in the US coming together to put together a vote. A simple thing. How to redistribute taxes if you will. Now a majority of these people would be uneducated on how to do this. How would they come to their decision? They would follow someone else who sounds like they know what they're doing.

And even after everyone has chosen sides the weeks or months to actually organize this into an actually plan and THEN apply it would leave people with no idea about what it is about. Why? Because they have better things to worry about.

Not even mentioning the fact that no one could be catered to. How would they if it takes so much time to get together the idea's and wishes of everybody? Votes? Who will propose the bill?

Now lets think of how to just push aside any all these idea's. Start fresh. Who will know what to do? A government wasn't built overnight. Hell centuries have taken place just to get to where we are today and its still not perfect.

I believe that the people should have the right to choose their officials. And we do. We gave them the responsibility and eligibility to lead and do what we don't know how to.


TL;DR Government isn't perfect. Can't have everything all shits and giggles.

SO Many good questions. VERY few answers XD

>>181 I don't see you putting forth anything better.

>>181 I already gave my answer. Building a government doesn't happen as simply as you'd believe. It took a lot of trial and error to get where we are today.

Building from scratch would take decades...CENTURIES!

Etc...

Yet its falling down like a rock thrown into the sea....

I didn't say it was perfect~

Personaly i think the government we have is not good, because there is alot of corruption and there are alot of greedy people.But if we were to take and break apart the nation into smaller parts then we would have numerous civil wars because some parts would try to bully others.But if we were to go into communism or dictatorship there would be revolts due to the leader's choices.They could do whatever they wanted and we would be helpless.You normally dont know alot about your leader until they go into office. At least now if we all hate our leader we can get them throw out. As for the cutting out all trade, i dont think we can do that either because not only do we owe alot of money to other people but they survive because we buy their products and we thrive because we buy their products. AlOT of things we have are from other places. Now to the initial question, what kind of economy could we construct that would be effective enough to fix our currency problem?

>>180 "Now lets think of how to just push aside any all these idea's. Start fresh. Who will know what to do?"

Congratulations on understanding the main question of this thread :P

>>186

My suggestion to you: One in which no money is printed, and laws are enacted to force high-value companies/people into spending X% of their excess profit, or face some ridiculously over-the-top "Your lawyer can't save you now" prison sentence, with the immediate forfeiture of their business and money.

That's my over-the-top method to it, anyhow. There's a much kinder way to go about it, and the above mentioned tactic will certainly cause absolute hell, but I think it'd be fun to watch :3

BBump

>>187 I was wasn't I. I clap one hand for how amazing I was on topic. Keep reading that post and see how I basically just told you that giving birth to a government can't happen from scratch.

Bump

bump.

>>189 "Can't happen from scratch"

That, good sir, is a rather ignorant statement. Government had to start somewhere, no? It's not like one just kind of, oh, existed, without any input from anybody. People had to think it out first before they could implement one.

We had to think out our democracy before we could put it into effect.

Communist countries have to think out how they want to go about making it work; especially considering the ridiculously high rate of failure.

Groups that rebel against their government have to have their own ideas to implement.

Sure, some ideas may come with bases from other ideas, but in that case, what doesn't?

~ ~ ~

But really, one COULD potentially create something from scratch. That(those) person(people) would have to be really effing intelligent though, and take hundreds of things into account.

Difficult? Yes.
Impossible? No.

And to finish this -what feels like- long winded post: >>183 The U.S. Government has been around for 250(ish) years, and is still not perfect. It still needs to improve. And so does every other government ever. Nobody ever claimed that to be false. And, nobody claimed this would be easy. It's a simple question of how one would go about it - not a challenge of difficulty or time.

>>192
This, and..

I do believe the NTC that is now governing Libya is a modern example of the "government from scratch," no?

>>193 Yes, yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council

>>192 You obviously misunderstood what I meant and clearly missed my point.

I was stating that if anyone one person just thought "Oh hey. Lets govern people cause they're fucking shit up. LETS DO IT THIS WAY!" <-- does not simply happen on its own.

I was stating by 'scratch' that a government that is actually effective does not simply appear out of nowhere. Forms of governments firstly come from the need of the people and secondly come from the problems that are currently going on.

America's government was something filled with crap load of problems. Try and remember history for a bit and remember how America was previously a colony of Britain. Did they treat us fairly? No. Did we make a government so that we would all be treated equally under the law? Yes.

Governments don't simply happen. A reason has to come up to have it actually be needed. I'll use Nazi's for another example. Hitler was not listened to in the beginning. He wrote a book and tried to get other's to listen. No one did. UNTIL the Great Depression. This affected everyone and they were all looking for their own solution. Hitler appeared to have said solution. So they followed him.

Reasons are the birth of government, ergo governments don't happen by simple "OH DERP DERP I MAED A GOVERNMENT".


"Sure, some idea's may come from bases from other idea's, but in that case, what doesn't?" <--- Not by scratch.

Nothing is based off of nothing. To create a government you need reason, people, and means. Without reason who would want to join you? Without people who would you have to listen to you? Without means how would you pull this off?

Weak means like "The government sucks" or "There are a lot of greedy people who are corrupt" simply can't spark any thoughts on creating a REAL government. The system of government that the US use ALLOWS for greed. Capitalism bro. Government official corrupt? Actually research your shit and vote.

Though, I notice that I really am getting off topic of this thread. I wouldn't know how I would make a government because I have no reason too. I'm living contently with the what I have. Government messed up? Well sucks for you then. There's a reason we vote. You want to make a new government because this government is corrupt? Try and get the mandate of heaven back into fashion and you can do just that.

With the level of intelligence of a majority of the people here, creating a government IS impossible.

>>195

- Your point was -very clearly I might add- "giving birth to a government can't happen from scratch."

- You're merely stating common knowledge in the first few paragraphs. I'm not an idiot, I have both common sense, common knowledge, and several government/economics courses and debates under my belt.

- The purpose of this thread is NOT to create a new government. Get that thought out of your head if you wish to continue talking on this thread. This is a discussion thread for how one would do it themselves, if given the chance. The thread doesn't exist to argue WHY we would create a new government, but HOW. Stop asking "why" or I'm going to crack your head open with a lead pipe, understand?

- ""Sure, some idea's may come from bases from other idea's, but in that case, what doesn't?" <--- Not by scratch.

Nothing is based off of nothing. To create a government you need reason, people, and means. Without reason who would want to join you? Without people who would you have to listen to you? Without means how would you pull this off?"

Let me know when you're done being nitpicky about the usage of the word "scratch." This is not a thread about absolute truths of words in the English language, but rather content involving how one would go about building a government. Again, this tracks back to the question of "How?" not your "Why?"

- "Weak means like "The government sucks" or "There are a lot of greedy people who are corrupt" simply can't spark any thoughts on creating a REAL government. The system of government that the US use ALLOWS for greed. Capitalism bro. Government official corrupt? Actually research your shit and vote."

I'm not even sure where this fucking fits. Did you just decide to ramble here? That's what it looks like.

- "Though, I notice that I really am getting off topic of this thread. I wouldn't know how I would make a government because I have no reason too. I'm living contently with the what I have. Government messed up? Well sucks for you then. There's a reason we vote. You want to make a new government because this government is corrupt? Try and get the mandate of heaven back into fashion and you can do just that."

Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Bother. Posting.

If you have nothing to contribute, get the fuck out. Got it?

- "With the level of intelligence of a majority of the people here, creating a government IS impossible."

Congratulations, you've successfully insulted the intelligent figures that have posted here, and have promptly turned your own opinion to dust in doing so.

Have a nice day, get the fuck out, and would somebody with an actual opinion post? I need something to cleanse my mind after dealing with this asshat.

bump.

i love being on the dollars what sucks is that we don't live in japen in that city but still really fun!!!

>>198 How does this have anything to do with the thread?

>>199 ya i know sorry listen im just new to the dollars

I've got something else to add. This is going somewhat with the lack of a monetary system reilyx alluded to in >>187.

This is the backside of my driver's license. Some things are omitted for security reasons.

Notice two things about it. The first is that there is a magnetic strip. It could easily be used to store numeric information, such as a person's financial assets. This is essentially how the monetary system in Cowboy Bebop works.

The second thing to notice is that is also has a barcode. Only recently have barcodes been added to driver's licenses. Barcodes are a more digital system of data representation, compared to the analog of a magnetic strip. There are an infinite number of ways these can be used, and could possibly be a foolproof way to get rid of fake ID's/Identity Theft. For instance, you can make it so that transactions are fingerprint sensitive. The fingerprint information is stored on the ID. Both the ID and your finger must be scanned to approve a transaction.

Sorry if that's more of a technological tangent, but it could be very applicable in a new legal situation.

Whoops, I should clarify what I said in >>187

I meant that we should no longer continue to print currency. That's one of the negative effects on the value of our dollar, so simply stopping print and forcing more of the current total to flow would help dramatically with our financial issues.

~

However, the lack of a physical dollar would be interesting. I'd be worried about "credit manufacturing," though. Computer programs and code are a lot easier to manipulate than a series of highly specialized printing machines. Using a digital currency would open up the country to a lot of fake money, and that could potentially cause more harm than help.

Those are just my initial thoughts, though.

>>202 Since there are two parts to your post, I shall answer them separately.

Yes, what your suggesting does work, but only in theory. For one thing, forcing a company to relinquish its net yield is considered by the masses to be distribution of wealth and thus highly opposed. You're left to take it on "good faith" that a company will turnover its profits, but economic principles have demonstrated this rarely happens. As the amount of income increases, the Marginal Propensity to Consume decreases rather quickly. Basically, as a company gets richer, it uses smaller and smaller percentages of its earnings. There are very few exceptions, and they generally only occur if a company is planning a high-risk venture (think Apple's 50% reinvestment strategy or Google's "Planetary Resources" financial backing).

For years the idea of digital currency has been full of speculation from all sides (be them for or against). Now we have a system in development (BitCoins), but it's only been around a few years. Already we've seen attempts to manufacture currency; some successful, some failed. BitCoins have also been used to launder money. So yes, digital currency has its flaws. However, I don't want to rule it out just yet. Right now the Euro is sitting rather precariously, and the US Dollar isn't much better. The Pound Sterling seems to be doing acceptably, as is the Yen. That just leaves the Yuan, the other major form of currency, which has become artificially inflated due to China buying up a lot of the US Public Debt. The BitCoin happens to be stronger than all of these, combined. If worse comes to worse, I think it should become the international currency. But that's just me.

>>201 >>202 >>203 Honestly, I don't agree with electronic currencies in any situation. Technology just isn't stable enough for that yet. Even with a thousand precautions, something can always go wrong, whether it be a problem with people hacking or a problem with the machinery itself. Even with normal computers, I've seen it. Technology has a lot of quirks, especially as it gets more and more complex, and there are a lot of problems that make people go, "Wtf?" Electronic/computer based machines/networks/et cetera have too many quirks to depend on for a stable monetary system, in my opinion.

>>204 I would have to say I see what you're saying. I do a lot of buying online (because I have no other choice in most cases) and I always worry that I'll either double-purchase or have a transaction not go through for some reason. That can cause serious problems.

bump

bumping shit off

bamp

bump.

One last thread to kick off

Bump

hey guys bye

bump.

I am going to bring this topic back since, honestly, this was my favorite topic to discuss.

Anyway after a long delay, my above post regarding stages of voting may be similar to how it is now, and/ or how it used to be in other regards. But one thing remains clear. Our current system needs to be done away with and/ or altered to better fit the rising numbers of people we do have. Back in the day the Electoral Votes were there to help compensate for the fact that we were still a small nation. That is no longer the case.

My thought, though, is how would the world be if the Government was kind of like Anonymous? In the sense of being a sort of online entity, where everything is run via the ways of internet and technology. No 'central' capitol for the Government. People are chosen, and can do their job from their own house via the net.

Actually thats a great idea. We have no need for grand capitals anymore or symbols of government. Having our officials work online might be a hell of a lot more efficient, and it could be designed so that while the officials are making decisions it would be constantly updated online so that the people could immediately express their opinions on a medium that is sent directly to the government.

We could sort of test that out. Now it wouldn't be long term or anything, or even large scale. But what it would be, is testers testing out how a "semi-Governmental "online" entity would act out. Get people who would agree to states rules, regulations, and who would agree to base their life (without going against their current government) around the rules of the online entities, that those people firstly vote on before they start anything up.

Stated*

I think we should check out the self-government of the internet.

Meritocracy - the closest thing to a form of self-government we have. We are "The United Meritocratic Nation-States of the Internet", with those who can do, do do, and do rule this "nation". Those who wish to rule, they learn to rule. (Everyone else watches from the stands.)

I'm not even sure how one would go about starting a sort of probationary period for an online government (even if it's just a test which is for a short termed period, to say the least) and actually have people being interested to test it out. Again, like a beta-testing period for it.

For one, a whole web site must be created that follows all of the rules and regulations, that in which we discuss about on here. But who here has the time and money, that would be willing to help us design the site?

Secondly we must basically vote on those who run the site (IE the "online politicians".)

We can use this topic to discuss it in more detail. It seems like a really cool thing to at-least test out.

Those who join the beta will have to agree to terms following their registrations. What would those terms be?

>>222 Meritocracy is the closet thing to a government we have, whether we do have it or not (I think we do).

"1.Government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability
"2.A society governed by such people or in which such people hold power
"3.A ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people"
http://tinyurl.com/boprgmm

I'll wait to see if you understand what I'm saying. I don't feel like explaining it to you (school work is a bitch TTwTT.), since, to me at least, (and I don't mean this in a mean, asshole way) pretty obvious how it works. Just think about how an admin chooses mods and other admins, and how mods can upgrade or downgrade other users ('cept for admins, in most cases).

>>223

I get what you're saying, but that isn't what I'm talking about. Yes, this is like a Government in and of itself, but that isn't what I mean. I meant to host a sort of testing period, and have people base their life around what the "online" Government has done, where they still follow their actual Government rules, regulations and whatnot so nothing is too noticeable by outside groups.

Bump.

Homnestly there's not gonna be World Peace even if the government try to achieve it it is uncertain. The coming of world peace only means the elimination of humans, this is because conflict is humans instinct so take that away = taking away humans.

Having a good knowledge of history helps, seeing where other countries went wrong and such. I personally think that a democratic sociocapitalist government is good, but I do live in America and so I am a bit bias. The biggest issue in America I think is non-voting, because anything else (like gun control for example) is only going to happen if most of the country wants it. I personally don't think complete infinite world peace is possible, but I don't think that means we shouldn't get as close as possible. With things like the UN we are actually reasonably close to widespread peace. I think conflict is not a human instinct, I have a more Confucian belief about human nature. Our initial reaction is to avoid conflict, but that is canceled by other emotions or beliefs.

OTB

Well I think the people should be more influence to know what going on around them and how the goverment is running and maybe later on the can point out the wrongs in the goverment help the the society they live in easier and maybe inpeach the president we have right now in the U.S. =_=

>>229

You make no sense...

bumping over loads of shit

To create a new government, you'd have to:
1. Have a reason to cause a great social movement.
2. Have a leader
3. Have supporters willing to give money

bump

^

^

BUMP

>>236
Dude, if the FAQ is at the top of the page, there's no need to bump anything else. Come on. A member of "your time" here should know this.

>>236 HomePage->About->Faqs

>>238
I'm well aware how to get to it the alternate way, thanks.
New people aren't necessarily and we all like to keep it at the top of the board if possible.

Fair enough

Recently, there has been the bankruptcy of the government of Syria. In terms of that situation, what happens to the people and how would you address this particular problem in your "country" if it was not an agriculture or trade economy?

adfadf

bump

I am working on the rough draft of the documents for Dèvrün now.

Here's a small preview of it, extremely summarized

Directors are elected every five years. They appoint Administrators who meet certain criteria to each of the Districs.

The Administrators appoint Moderators who meet certain criteria to each Shire.

The people come up with the laws, while Moderators and Administrators pass, edit, or reject them. The Director can only pass or reject them.

The money's largest unit will be called a Detan. It will be worth 128 Pons.
1 Detan = 128 Pon
8 Pon = 1 Noc
4 Noc = 1 Dor
2 Dor = 1 Qut
2 Qut = 1 Detan

School and education will be set up roughly the same as in the United States, with Kindergarten being first grade and be required. Sex Ed will be in ninth grade (what we now call eighth). Classes will be held from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM on Monday through Saturday.

Taxes will be a 12.5% (2 Noc per Detan) income tax, a 6.25% (1 Noc per Detan) sales tax, and a utility tax, the amount of which will be defined by the supplying companies.

That's an extremely summarize version of what I have done since last night.

Yes, I did stry writing all of that in a document last night. In more detail.

>>245 summarized* try*

I still haven't completely recovered from passing out and hitting my head, it seems.

bumping up good threads

^

Bump.

^

^

^

555555

^

^

Oh, wow. This thread is awesome!

I know this thread is about how we'd go about creating a government, but there have been posts about how we might avoid the problems that our current government has, and about leadership. I thought those were particularly interesting, especially the former, and I'd like to address those issues (at least the first one) from a different angle.

Several different thoughts came to me while reading this thread (yes, I did read ALL the posts, though I'm certain I don't remember all of them), so I apologize if that leads to my post being all over the place in terms of topic. In addition, it's 6:30 in the morning here, and I am TIRED. But I'm not going to remember half of what I want to say if I sleep and then post. So, sleep will have to wait a little longer.

Note: When I say "you", or any variation of it, I mean it in the generic sense.

Anyways, on topic:
In the scenario of creating a government from scratch (either because of the current government collapsing or from buying land and starting a government there), how do you convince people to support your ideas over the ideas of others? Many people will have their own ideas of what the new government should be like, and some of them have much greater resources to enact their vision (in the case of starting a new government on an island or something like that, I don't think it would be as much of an issue) than any of us would. What can you get people to rally around? Depending on how many people support a given idea (e.g., if there is a sizable minority), how can you prevent tyranny of the majority? If you think that you have a much better idea than most, and that the majority of people don't really know what they're talking about and don't know what's best for themselves, at what point can you legitimately and justly say that you know what's good for other people?

I guess a general solution to those questions would be discussions and dissemination of information on a very large scale. But, even then, how do you convince people to accept your information over someone else's? How do you convince them to take an initial look at it? I do think that many people would be willing to engage in a cursory discussion, especially if something like government collapse was actually imminent or happening, which could lead to many of them more thoroughly looking at the information you'd present. But many people are inclined to be stubborn about even hearing or considering ideas that are different from what they know. How could you convince them to take that initial look?

I know I asked a lot of questions (I've got more; please bear with me), but I at least tried to come up with some ideas for a solution, even though they are incredibly general.

Switching topics to the discussion about leadership, I have an initial question: What kind of person do you think is ideal to be a leader? My personal answer is a philosopher king. Even though someone like that may not always be very decisive initially, I think that the understanding, the ability to step back from your own perspective and see something with a more complete view, and the ability to get over knee-jerk reactions that comes from thinking about something for a relatively lengthy period of time are immensely important for making wise, rational, informed decisions.

I saw a post at some point that asked how, if our government was like Singapore's (I read the article that was linked), would you ensure a continued succession of leaders who would keep to the ideals and practices of the current leader. I think the obvious answer is the selection and grooming of promising individuals, just like how people are groomed for various leadership positions today.

I'm switching topics again, this time to the topic of avoiding problems in our current government when trying to create a new one. I think it's more practical to look at this from the angle of making changes in our current government with the intent of improving it. I know that's technically off-topic, but I think it's a worthwhile angle to take. Anyways, there are all sorts of things that you could argue are wrong with our government. And those things would be different depending on where you're coming from. But, generally speaking, for a reform of government to be effective, I think it would have to take place in the form of numerous, small changes over time. People generally have an easier time accepting change when it's just a little bit, rather than a massive overhaul. Over time, you gradually implement numerous small changes that could do things like set term limits for congress or eliminate the ability of business to contribute to political elections or whatever else that could be improved. Since this takes the perspective of having our current government existing as it currently is, it's easier to reform it in bits and pieces than to try to tear the whole thing down and build something new in its place.

Additionally, I read (and agree with) the notion someone posted that over time, cracks will appear in any form of government, not matter how solid it seems initially, and this is simply because people are people. Given that reality, I think it would be far better to make small, gradual changes as needed to mend the cracks that appear, than to consider waiting until the breaking point at which the current government would collapse and you'd build up a new one. I think that would allow our government to be relatively stable over a long period of time, which would allow it to acquire wisdom.

I've read multiple articles by Stratfor that deal with various current geopolitical affairs, and some of them make the point--in reference to how Obama has handled various things in the Middle East--that our foreign policy is maturing in wisdom. The one specific point that I remember is that the U.S. (or at least those who deal with our foreign policy) is realizing that our influencing (or lack of) of events in other countries should be dependent upon how much it is in our country's interest to do something (e.g., if conflict in a particular area is not very relevant to our national interest, then there's not much point in getting involved, and it's best to let the involved parties settle it for themselves). The other part of that realization are the learned lessons from places like Iraq and Afghanistan that: 1) Ousting a regime that has done terrible things to its people doesn't necessarily mean that something better will follow; and 2) It's not worthwhile for the U.S. to continue to get involved in foreign conflicts for solely moral reasons. This is based on the reality that our resources are finite and that it is most practical to not intervene heavily when the U.S. has little or no interest in a given area. (I'm sure I did a less than stellar job of expressing that. If anyone is confused, I'll try my best to clarify.)

These are realizations that have come about gradually and through experience. I'm using that as an example to illustrate how a government as a whole can grow in wisdom with time and experience. If making gradual changes over time to mend cracks in government as they appear allows the government to be effective and stable over a long period of time, it stands to reason that it will be able to become much wiser as a result of its experiences over its long life. That's not something that can happen to a very great extent if government repeatedly collapses and is rebuilt anew.

(Continued in the next post, because my character count was too high to include everything in one post.)

Finally, there was another post, which I absolutely loved, that looked at this thread from the perspective of creating a utopia. I think the post was by kimimaro, around post 100 or so. The post was incredibly idealistic, and looked at the world from a perspective of a truly global community, without our current national borders, boundaries, and restrictions. kimimaro realized that currently, humanity as a whole is not that good. I agree with that, which then led me to ask the question (I'm also posing this question to anyone who wants to try their hand at an answer) of how can we make progress toward that goal?

I recognize that humans are imperfect, and as such we cannot create a perfect society. But, I believe our ability to strive for a goal can yield great progress, even if we never completely reach that goal. There's only thing that's come to mind so far, and I'm unsure of whether it could be useful in the long term. It's something I read about in a positive psychology class I took. I don't remember what it's called, but essentially, if someone does a good deed altruistically, and people see it, some of them feel very uplifted, and they are more likely to do their own good deeds, even if it's something as simple as holding a door for someone. Theoretically, if this process were to continue, it would create a sort of ascending spiral of goodwill. At least for the short term, this could be useful in motivating people to not give in to their baser tendencies and to nurture their more noble qualities.

>>61 This post and the one it connected to, were left more or less unanswered by almost everyone else whose replies I read.

I think there is no perfect way to pass on the traits of a good leader. Take a farmer's family, for example. Succinctly; the 3rd generation has not been raised on the same values as the first. Higher education and wealth will allow them to choose different paths than their predecessors; the family business will fail. This is likely to happen.

Succinctly; Someone said something about good generals forged by war. This is true.

On "The Singapore Argument" leadership, I have this to say: THE-WAY-OF-THE-OPEN-PALM, control freak version. Beautiful, but fleeting; what comes next is anyone's guess. Likely, a more stereotypical dictatorship. Also, having models is a great thing. If Singapore became the head of the pack, would it's leader seem less wise? And after Switzerland, then what? Succinctly; "Conflict[or a goal] forces one to better oneself. It forces change, growth, adaption, evolution… or death."

>>149 Succinctly; Every government is doomed to fail as it's founding principles become outdated in face of new problams. Or, there is no magic number. Yes, indeed. Also, corruption is ever present regardless of system and in human nature. Combating it's spread is an imperative, eradicating it is impossible. And the bigger bubbles are less stable.

On the "Economy Debate" I'm surprised to discover that few breached the topic of MNC's. Companies do not control the world. They rely upon the buying and selling of goods. (And upon pressuring gov't into allowing them to exist, when needed.)

>>50 On Environment, MKOLLER says it all. Succinclty.

Succinctly; On Decentralized power as I understand it the dilemma is that the Gov't lead can either assume direct control or allow it's subordinates to stray from the intended morality of the nation. I cannot agree with the latter. What we have now (In Canada) is a compromise for the sake of efficiency. Can we have ethical, efficient, empathetic federal control? Can we allow our minions to make their own decisions but in a way that follows the will of federal leadership? The latter seems like a contradiction in terms.

^

^

^

^

Bump.

^

^

^

^

^

Bump.

^

^

Bump. Any opinions?

^

^

if you have ever read the constitution it explains what a perfect government should be. it answers every single one of your questions. it was written by some of the greatest political minds in history. the only reason it seems like it is falling apart is because people are trying to push the boundaries of the constitution, an its both political parties who are doing it. we dont need a new government, we need just need to reset our political veiws back to when this country was first born.

when man is scared of disorganization, he tries to organize that chaos, a goverment is a big OCD hotpot. some are more paranoid than others but sometimes the paranoid tendancies can keep the citizens of that goverment safe.

>>275 One person's idea of perfection is not the same as another person's. Also, I don't believe the Constitution is perfect, simply because it was created by humans, who are imperfect (remember, the Constitution was their second attempt). I do think it's a very good template, and I think it was very wise of our founding fathers to leave it as vague as they did because it's impossible to predict the future.

I don't think the Constitution should be taken as gospel, and I don't think it should be disregarded as out-dated either. Rather, I think that what is important to understand are the principles that are embodied in the document. Those principles are the core, the essence, of what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish by creating the United States. In that sense, the Constitution should be seen as a guide, and not as an absolute final word or as something that is irrelevant to the current world.

I also don't think it's possible to "reset" our political views. I don't think that's a good idea either, because it ignores the reality that things change. Even if the entire population of the United States were to "reset" their views to how they were back in the late 1700s, the world is very different now than it was back then. To try to force your worldview to stand still won't do any good in the long run. Change is inevitable, whether we like it or not, so a much more practical methodology would be to learn from the past and the present, and then take what you learn and apply it in a meaningful way to make the best out of the future.

I came cuz I know the dollars are here for good. Not many people where I live know about it so its good to be apart of something that many people from here aren't in. :)

I believe the government should stand to protect and keep peace, the control should be kept to a minimum.

I believe that violence should be kept away, and that should be done by separating the country, people who crave destruction and war can be put on one side and they can fight to their hearts content.

People should vote, and actually be counted not ignored.

Organization is hard but it needs to be built with honesty, and good heart, not Malicious intent and Power mad Corporations
The Goal over all, have a healthy (green) society, and hopefully have One World, not Separate Domains or Territories that all thrive for power and control.

I think One "Faction" should stand up and take control, and force people to act right.
with good people leading this "Faction" the world would be a great place.

that's just a little part of my idea.

Honestly, from my point of view, the governments job is not to "prop up" it's country. People today are lazy, an our government allows that laziness. Being from another country before I moved to America, my view on working and earning you keep is slightly different than most people in America. Where I was from, if you don't work you'll starve unless someone around you takes pity on you. Although most people had no pity for laziness.

Violence will always be present whether you believe it or not and whether or not there are knives, billy clubs, guns, cars or anything else. Why is it the governments problem to quell violence when most of the time they don't care because criminals make them money in the long run? Personally, I wish that there were a type of "Civil Law" like back in the old days where people took care of themselves.

^

----

----

^

^

^

Bump

----

^

......Do not understand.

^

^

----

^

bump for actual discussion. I may eventually wade through this debate and contribute.

^

bump for order

asdf

^

----

^

asdf

hey

hey

The thing is that most government plans are not faulty by any means. The problem lies in who is running the government. People are not perfect by any means but governments that elect presidents and other representatives tend to elect them via popularity vote and that leads to a faulty representative.
1) How much control should the government have? well it should be that any desision that the government wants to make should be pass to a national vote.
2) ^
3) How should the Government be organize? 4 branches 1- Vote count (for when desitions need to be made. 2- Dessition priorities (to see which desitions should be place for vote first) 3- dessition maneging (people that would work in order of any desition passed to be completed in the shortest amout of time possible.) 4- dessition creation commitie (name says it all)
What should the government's goals be? to improve living contitions wich in turn will lead to a stonger nation.

hey

hi

Almost there.

I think that through some type of revolution one can actually seek to take over a government which would be far more easy and simplistic rather than having to build up a political party from scratch. Many claim that revolutions can be quenched like a flame quickly but I think the key to it is through the mind of the strategist that runs the whole show. If they use their pieces carefully enough, including thinking all the possible outcomes of each move they make then a revolution is in fact successful.
Though some people might not be so keen on revolutionising, I suppose you could craft your own government but currently, this time we live in has its own prejudices and problems so in order to do something like that, connections really are key because if you sought to build one up alone and without any support from some existing parties or organisations then you have little chance and you'll probably end up getting ignored.

bump

bump

bump

bump

bump

^

up

I think that the first step is to delete the money because it controls people. Then, you can create a new government based on consensus.

But people must be controlled. We r not animals, we have our own way to fight without claws and tooths. Btw. anarchy? its the most stupid idea for 21st century human race

It's true that the people must be controlled, but nowadays the money is god and I think that it shouldn't be so.

Ok u have right

asdf

It is true that people need to be controlled, but when it comes to controlling there is one word that seems to always pop up: POWER.
How much power should we give to people?
Should we focus power on war? on economy? on domestic or foreign affairs?
The government exists as a way to regulate power. People may or may not like it, but this balance of power is what is keeping a nation united. After all, the definition of a government is that it is the agency that decides the course of a nation.
In a way, (going back to the question), every one could be their own government. A household could be a government. A neighborhood could be a government. A classroom, a retail office, a bank could be a government. You could be a government. As long as decisions are made and there is power to exercise it, it is a government.

^

Another good topic for the front page. Also, anyone know where ReiRei went? I remember when he made this thread.

^

I would say that governments continuously fail because they follow the same economical model as the previous. If a system is not working, you can't improve it by changing the people but not the positions of those people, because their interest will eventually be the same as the previous one. Although back to your concrete question creating one, if you mean from ground zero, in short you would want to plan the circulation of resources between people using the monetary system's rules and adjusting governmental actions in order to use the people's mutual resources more effectively for their mutual goals. Also a government (to insure efficiency so it's actually covered by the previous statement) should ensure their citizens safety.

Going through the questions down below:
#1&2 I think the best system would be a modular one, the less control a central organization has,the better. The more a system can serve the individual needs of it's people the better.
#3 It could be organized by areas of expertise, where experts with the most experiences and most clear critical thought process would architect the whole country's maintenance and development while specialists and generalists would work together on the localized portions of problems.
#4 The more platforms people have for communication and self organizing, the better.
#5 To improve the quality of life of people with using resources of a bigger group of people more effectively than people could individually.

^

As always, the main is filled with shitty threads again, and I'm gonna clean it up!

Bump!

^

^

Don't "bump" it he has a point

as long as people have a mind of their own and can work together to achieve their goals there is no problem we are bot being opressed and the point of the dollars is to provide the communication to acieve the peoples goals in all countries and maintain balance between people and government

Wow that's really interesting and thought-provoking.
There have been countless of philosophers who have tried to solve that issue. Plato, Aristotle, Marx, Nietzsche, Ortega...

I think it depends on the final objective/goal that government is supposed to achieve. That should be the basis upon which start building (and answering the other questions).

What I do think is that our leaders should be really prepared. In some countries most of politicians don't have even a BA degree, don't know any languages except their own and aren't suited at all to fullfil their duties.
For example, I can't see the logic of a lawyer being the head of the Ministry of Health or Defense.

^

Bump

^

^

Oyasumi Nasai.

^

The government and politics were made to keep people in control and organized. However it ended making a territory division, and so lots of countries ended forming, causing lots of them to be in war against each other. But in most of this countries the government doesn't show everything to the population, just what they want, so in other words it ends being controlled in some way. Population doesn't know if what they say it's true or not. But if everything would be lighten up the population would shock or react violently to most of the situations. So here your questions
How exactly does one create a government from the ground up?
How much control should the government have? All. Absolute control is the only thing that would keep people in calm and stop them from having any sudden reaction that wouldn't let the government to repair it
How much influence should the people have? I don't know. But if it has too much influence in the government then it'll end breaking and collapsing. A group of people with different ideas who wouldend fighting with each other for the control and power of decisions once the government has nothing it can do. And so it can be the born of new countries, sections or territories because of their political ideologists. In this case the only answer would be from a foreign government
How should the government be organized? It would depend on the type of country, population and people that is in the government. It can change. Democracy, anarchy, dictary, monarchy, etc. The government with the population's agreement should be the one choosing it when the situation appears, based on the context around them
How should the people be organized? I think people should give their opinions to the government only if this one agrees to take it in consideration. In other words, it should be just a small force whose voice should be spread around the rest of the territory and world by the hands of the government
What should the government's goals be? Again, it would depend on the country we are talking about. It can be echonomic, politic, control and power, it would depend so I can't help you much with this one
Are there any specific things the government should focus on? In don't loosing the control. Example, the government is the jockey and the population the horse. If you hold the reins too tight it'll be uncomfortable and might have a big complain from the horse soon or late cause you are limiting its freedom too much. If you loosen the grip on the reins too much you are giving the horse too much power and will do what it wants. AThe same goes to the government. So if it keeps the control on the piopulation in a level it can satisfy most of it and don't throw it all to the ground, things would be easier

^

^

(oh god, why did I decide to bump. I forgot how annoying captchas are.)

Lol. Well to know how to build a government from the ground up, you need to learn from other's mistakes and things that worked. Also looking at it contextually will help one more aware not to repeat mistakes. I'm talking about studying Political Philosophy - aka. NOT just history, but the question on "why have governments in the first place".

In order to have a government you need ppl that have control and that's not what the dollars is about

Bump

BUMP!!

Government was formed by civilization. Government exists even in nature (ex. Wolves). It is the need for social animals to depend on one another for survival that pushes us to make organized systems to attain our goals. Even if government completely vanished from the planet and anarchy ruled, governments would soon begin to form from packs to tribes to towns to cities to countries and to empires.

Government is simply a system of control. We need structure not force. A structure that functions among the people. In order for that to happen you need to awaken the sovereign act from within. People aren't aware that we have control over the government in whether to build it up or knock it down. True they have guns and mass media. Manipulation from within the masses. Its for the sake of ridding the power we have. Knowledge; acknowledging their power as holographic and ours as a whole. You want a new government? re-evaluate the definition and rebuilt its origins first, and then we can start a revolution.

bump because this is a perfect example of what is acceptable on the main

this seems a good Main-worthy thread.. so Bump

i think all people should have

-food ect.

-shelter ect.

- and agreeable rights

>>352 Stop fucking bumping shit. It's old as fuck and done so just. fucking. STOP.
/Sage

Welp, I like what I read here..
Even if its old.. >>354
It still exists..

>>354 not only salty on that other post but here too, dang im happy i found this website.

>>355 Don't worry, Robo is just a little salt monster who just hates on everything that gets posted on main

Bump

^

sometimes watching(reading) you people piss each other off is amazing.

^

Bump^

Related discussion question: Does anyone here believe a totalitarian government could succeed if it was designed with the intention of helping the people over itself? Do you believe it would be sustainable, or even possible to create in the first place, or too contradictory to the concept of totalitarianism in the first place?

bump. (interesting question raised)
Let's think about it.

>>363 I don't think that would be totalitarian then (or maybe it is). Even if it was, I don't think it would work because no opposing parties would be tolerated. Considering human nature regarding power, it would be very possible to become corrupted, and since no other parties would be accepted, the only way to change this would be another revolution