Your Ideal Country

[Eric]

Politcally speaking what would be your ideal country?

My ideal country would a socialist/capitalist centrist democracy run by a Liberal Government. There would be three groups of people who decide on issues of the country, the Woman's Parliament, a parliament for making decisions in the interest of women and a Man's Parliament, a parliament for making decisions in the interest of men. Select individuals from each group would form the National Council, a group of men and women who decide upon national issues. Presiding over the Grand Council would the the Prime Minister, an individual elected annually by the Council. The Prime Minister makes the final decision in any national matter but can be kicked out if a Council member introduces a no-confidence vote to the Council. If the Council votes 'yes' on the no-confidence vote, then the Prime Minister is removed from power and a new one elected. The Government will be based on democracy and liberalism. Individual Freedoms will be given freely to Men and Women. Both sexes will be treated equally in all matters except on female Military Service. Female Military Service will flat out not be allowed for the obvious reasons. Social Programs such as Universal Healthcare will be set up to offer services like Medical Care, Literacy Courses, etc, to poor citizens who could not afford such services if the government did not pay for them. The Military will be given good amounts of money for equipment, ect, to keep protecting the country. Women will be allowed to perform services such as computer operation and medical care in the Military but will be barred from Combat Roles.

Yeah, that would be my ideal country, what would be yours?

[MaximiIian]

My ideal nation is one where I rule with absolute power and control over the military, state, and economy.
What, were you expecting something else?

[Nerwen Carnesîr]

One where I'm in charge.

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

One where I'm in charge.

bingo

[Kanaric]

One where I'm in charge.

I definately agree.

My ideal country would be one where I am "emperor" or whatever you would like to call it. I would have a senate that could control almost all matters of the country, however if their is any specific issue that I wish to weigh in on I would have final and absolute say. Regional areas, such as states, would be allowed almost complete control, more so than in the US however they would not be able to drift far from the government.

If I were leader of a country it would be funny, to say the least. Any views that people think I may have when I talk on this board would be thrown every which way. I would probably be more like a fascist leader than anything else. However I do believe in a democratic process, not just with government. I believe government itsself should have LONG TERM goals which is impossible with a completely democratic form of government.

I guess the country would be VERY simular to China except the politbuerau would allow other political parties to become involved. And no I would not be communist, as China is communist only by name.

[leeho730]

Countries like Switzerland, or Norway... I'm a leftist (Greenie) but I generally support center-left government.

[Darth Wong]

In my ideal country, there would be democracy but not of such an extreme populist form as we have now. Instead of every person being guaranteed the right to vote, people would have to answer some basic questions about the political platforms of the two largest parties before being allowed to cast a vote. Someone who doesn't even know what he's voting for should not be allowed to vote. Voting should be considered a responsibility.

In a similar vein, a "jury of your peers" would be replaced by professional juries: people who are paid to be jurors, who are part of a professional association and whose conduct is subject to periodic review, unlike the yahoos we so often get on juries nowadays. Juries would be selected randomly from this professional group, and lawyers would have no say in the matter.

In short, it would be a somewhat more elitist version of democracy than the one that is popular now, based on the premise that, quite frankly, stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote or judge guilt.

[leeho730]

Well in my country, people will have to receive a mandatory education and sit an exam to have a child or start a family. And all the prisoners will have to serve their terms in cryogenic tanks or similar , if that is technically feasible (you know, the one shown in the movie Minority Report)...

And legalise cannibis!

[Ahiga]

Ah well, to begin with a joke, mine would be located at the island of Lesbos.

In seriousness, I would lean towards a republic, and eliminate the looming presence of religion imposing itself upon politics, thereby having a greater division of church and state (none of the inueddo towards God held within the decrees of marriage's sanctity). It would not be an atheistic Government - merely an agnostic government. You can hold in your heart any faith you wish, but it will not effect the rule of the people, we don't give a flipping crap about it but will not allow you to impose that upon others. Also, upon the most major of issues, such as declaration of war (Unless attacked by a foreign power, or other circumstances), there would be a census-esque truly democratic vote, instead of letting it be left to only the representatives of a state (Congress) or a sole individual (president). The majority vote would decide the answer, but perhaps the ratio of votes would vary the effect. If it were fully in favor of war, then it would be taken with a gusto attitude like Iraq. If it were far more mixed, then other options would be attempted before gathering a coalition.

I dunno about the last part, but it was an idea.

That's really only the passionate subject that leaps to mind on the issue.

I guess I would say that some of the Northern European Countries, like Switzerland or Norway or Sweden or Denmark would appeal to me.

[Publius Scipio]

I guess I would say that some of the Northern European Countries, like Switzerland or Norway or Sweden or Denmark would appeal to me.

You have no idea wich states are northen-europen, heres a list(west to east): Iceland, Norway, Dennmark, Sweden, Finland.

[Decimus Equitius]

My ideal country would have no government at all. Every person for himself.

Sounds nice but I know every control freak would ruin it.

[Denny Crane!]

One where the government and business are seriously monitored for corruption. Capatilisms biggest weakness in my opinion is the relations between business and government and the ensuing corruption and waste. But at the same time I think laissez faire is the way forward, just so long as the two institutions are kept seperate.

How about for the three years the government are in power they lose all possesions and earn very little money (£10000PA) while in power but have identical lodgings food and transport available. They are allowed no other jobs whatsoever even if they are voluntary. Make sure no profiteering goes on and only poeple in politics for politics go into it. Extreme? Yes. Fantasy? Yes.

[leeho730]

One where the government and business are seriously monitored for corruption. Capatilisms biggest weakness in my opinion is the relations between business and government and the ensuing corruption and waste. But at the same time I think laissez faire is the way forward, just so long as the two institutions are kept seperate.

How about for the three years the government are in power they lose all possesions and earn very little money (£10000PA) while in power but have identical lodgings food and transport available. They are allowed no other jobs whatsoever even if they are voluntary. Make sure no profiteering goes on and only poeple in politics for politics go into it. Extreme? Yes. Fantasy? Yes.

Why is it so hard? We just need to make sure that no politicians accept any form of donation from corporate bodies (parties can, but no individual politician), and there's a limit to each candidate can spend during election campaign.

OK, in NZ regulations are very tight regarding corruption. Election campaign, for example, must be carried our with limited amount of fund, which is provided by the government and supplemented by donations from party members. In addition to that, each electorate has set limit, and any candidate found guilty of overspending will have their electorate seat thrown away if they've won. It's quite sensitive here, about the connection between the government and business. One member of parliament was criticized heavily because he had a dinner with an executive officer (the executive paid the dinner) from maritime business company!

But I agree with you that MPs should not have any job during their term.

[Darth Wong]

On political corruption: I would ban all radio and television political advertising. The cost of mounting a modern political campaign ensures that only the very wealthy and well-connected will ever run for any kind of high office, and do you expect those people to suddenly act as if they have no connections or favours to repay when they get in?

Besides, radio and TV ads are designed for the idiots of society. Anyone who can't be bothered to buy a newspaper, seek out information, and read about politics in-depth should not be allowed to vote anyway. If you are the type to sit there and passively receive political propaganda during the commercial breaks that interrupt your favourite TV show without any other form of political research, you don't deserve to vote.

[leeho730]

Leehoo

The problem we have here is the people who would make the rules against corruption and close ties with business are all lining their packets so would never countenance such rules. We have gone so far that supermarkets are getting laws passed in their favour for no other reason than it will benefit them (no one else). The NZ rules sound pretty fair, I was planning on emigrating their shame it never came off.

Ah well... it's a country ruled by leftists, and nobody is allowed to become hideously rich. :wink:

On political corruption: I would ban all radio and television political advertising. The cost of mounting a modern political campaign ensures that only the very wealthy and well-connected will ever run for any kind of high office, and do you expect those people to suddenly act as if they have no connections or favours to repay when they get in?

Besides, radio and TV ads are designed for the idiots of society. Anyone who can't be bothered to buy a newspaper, seek out information, and read about politics in-depth should not be allowed to vote anyway. If you are the type to sit there and passively receive political propaganda during the commercial breaks that interrupt your favourite TV show without any other form of political research, you don't deserve to vote.

Why not? I've seen some truly funny TV ads during election campaign... it was just hilarious! The slogan like 'Don.Key (to mock right wing national party leaders Don and Keith)' or 'Thank you vey much for your high taxation' jingle used in national party TV ad made me laugh. I actually liked that jingle so I sang it quite often but my friend was like 'hey, stop it, some labour supporters are gonna hear that!'

Even mainstream politicians seem to have a good sense of humour... :wink:

[Denny Crane!]

Ah well... it's a country ruled by leftists, and nobody is allowed to become hideously rich. :wink:

Sounds fandabbydozy to me so long as they don't over regulate/tax and spend/implement nanny state that would be fine by me.

Is it true you also have anti legislative laws? Ie. No frivolous law suits (I can provide a hundred hilarious examples you probably wouldn't believe were true from Britain eg. burglar sues man for tripping over his carpet while robbing his house). Just something I read, where compensation is regulated by government on an application basis.

[leeho730]

Sounds fandabbydozy to me so long as they don't over regulate/tax and spend/implement nanny state that would be fine by me.

Some of us worry that we're becoming a welfare state. So I believe it's healthy to have two main party system, one centre-right and another centre-left.

Is it true you also have anti legislative laws? Ie. No frivolous law suits (I can provide a hundred hilarious examples you probably wouldn't believe were true from Britain eg. burglar sues man for tripping over his carpet while robbing his house). Just something I read, where compensation is regulated by government on an application basis.

Yep, we do. It's called ACC (accidental compensation companies). Basically, the government will cover for part or full fees for medical/dental treatments due to accidents. It will also cover any medical misadventures, so it's no-fault organization (unless the case is so bad the court wants to make an exemplary case).

I've treated many accidents, for example, cases like a man got his tooth snapped off when the sheep hit him in the head, high-shcool boy with dead front tooth (do you enjoy root canal?) due to bar brawl, and an old lady with a her tooth broken off while eating a muffin because there was a walnut shell in it (frankly I thought that ACC wouldn't cover that case but they did... I guess election period did a magic :wink: ) The system relies on honesty of the clients, but they generall are.

Yes, I've heard some comic lawsuit cases over there in US or UK (are they real?) but it doesn't usually happen here.

Mind you, the price of such luxury is high tax rate...

[Darth Wong]

Why not? I've seen some truly funny TV ads during election campaign... it was just hilarious! The slogan like 'Don.Key (to mock right wing national party leaders Don and Keith)' or 'Thank you vey much for your high taxation' jingle used in national party TV ad made me laugh. I actually liked that jingle so I sang it quite often but my friend was like 'hey, stop it, some labour supporters are gonna hear that!'

Even mainstream politicians seem to have a good sense of humour... :wink:

The fact that you might enjoy some TV political advertising does not mitigate the very serious concern that the cost of radio and TV advertising has made politics the exclusive realm of the very wealthy and well-connected, hence it has essentially removed much of the democratic element from the process. There is now a de facto aristocracy in place, and outsiders have as little chance of participating in high-level politics as peasants had of joining the nobility in 1500 AD.

[Last Roman]

center-leftist republican government with a regulated capitalist economy. Popular presidential elections (no electoral college) and no two party system. Flat tax rate by both central and local government. Also I think a vote of no confidence should be allowed. Clear seperation of church and state, with freedom of religion. My constitution would clearly be "activist" or allowed to be changed with the times. Tough on crime but no executions. Education would be a top priority. All volunteer military, no draft except in times of direct invasion.

[Farnan]

There is a vote of no confidence in the US, its called impeachment...