On the Creation of a Country

[jellywerker]

I hope I am not overstepping my bounds by creating a thread as my first post.

I have read these forums for a little over a year now and think that I might know enough about the structure and government of them to register and not be turned directly around and banned. I am quite impressed with the views of many here on our decaying society and the many issues with it, so my question to them is:

Do you think, that in this modern-cum-orwellian culture that it would be possible to create ones own country, using knowledge gained from research of previous countries? Is it reasonable to believe that with enough like minded people one could create an economically viable and self-sustaining politically isolated state of educated citizens?

Of course one could not expect to create a utopia, free from sheeple and the corrupt, nor could one expect to be able to get the masses to educate themselves well without outside help and a willing mind,to help themselves to recognize when something was intruding on the liberties set down in the lands (extremely explicit with no room for "reinterpretation") constitution.

I will not go into the details of governemnt or economy till I see the reaction to this question, but I have many thoughts on said subjects, ranging from an immigration system to how it should handle trade.

[Sausagemit]

It allready exists, it's called amish country. :D

But on a serious note, I don't think a country like this could sustain itself properly. You allways have to have grunts to do manual and tedious labor. And well educated people don't really want to do this type of labor except for the well educated ones who were raised in a "you make a mess you clean it up" style of household or something along those lines.

Now If one were to assign said well educated person a different job each month (preferablly one that they were good at or had previous experience at). I think that might work.

Like I have experience in oil field work, construction, general automotive stuff, and I am currently going to school for mech engineering. So I would be more than happy to build a house for 1 month and then design an integral part for said house construction the next.

[pearlcrash911]

It all depends on the type of country you are trying to establish. It could possibly work with a socialist society, because equality would be more easily attainable when the people are intellectually equal from the beginning.

You could split up labor without too many problems by having all jobs in the country have equal pay, leaving workers more motivated, therefore increasing production.

With extra production there's room for producing luxuries, and with luxuries comes increased population.

The country would expand, and soon establish itself as a stable country.

That's one route.

The other you could take would be to create a country dependant on a super power like US, GB, etc.

You could leave out manual labor and leave everyone to developing technology for the super power. In return the country would recieve supplies from the super power. The residents of the country would have the best of both worlds, luxurious lifestyle and freedom to set your own laws.

[jellywerker]

Perhaps well informed might have been a better way to have stated that, not well educated, whilst a basic educational framework needs to be present in all citizens (and not taught to them like the god-awful U.S. schools system, something more like ancient Greece) Every country does need manual laborers and such who do not require specialist education in misc. topics. But that group of people does need to be aware of what is happening in the country.

In a very small state we could just use robots! In all honesty though, a robotic workforce is rather close to becoming a reality, it is just very expensive. Think of a paper mill or car factory. Almost all of the work is done by robots, with human operators to watch if anything goes wrong. The reason they are cost efficient in these places is that they work nonstop and are rather simple compared to what other industries would need.

[jellywerker]

To Pearl:

One of the main rules I would say in trying to create a country successful in the long run would be to not have any overly strong ties with any of the present superpowers, to prevent political influence and to hopefully be spared their fate when they tumble.

[knowledgehungry]

How in the world would having all jobs be equal paying make someone more motivated to work hard?

What truly motivates someone to work hard is a) fear of consequences for not working hard and b) desire to better your position. Neither of which would be present if everyone was paid the same.

[Jome skanish]

How about this:

First, get rich.
Second, move a bunch of like-minded people to a uninhabited part of some poor bumba-country in, like, Africa. Most goods and food will be inexpensive, and all the manual labour can be left to the locals for a relatively small pay. If enough money is invested and enough know-how present some form of refinement industry could be established, using locally producer raw-materials.

Legally it would still be Bumban land, but why would the local authorities mess with the private affairs of your isolated village/town? You'd be supplying hundreds, perhaps thousands of people with work and be one of the few stable sources of tax-revenue the bumban government has.

You'd be free to do what you want unless it'd be really extreme. Selecting among the most useful 5-10% of the western population (and of course using your "values" as another criteria :cool: ), the economy could actually develop quite well. No morons, no sheeple, no religious people, noone against guns and vigilance...
I'd be on. I should have a Ph D (if thats the right word) in Chemistry in four years.

The other alternative, is populating a uinhabited part/colony of some european country. Like moving to south georgia and becoming britons. Economically, those zones are often tax-havens, and you could live on research, part-time work in other places and "moving money" in other countries. And of course there would still be the possibility to use cheap labour from the developing world for the more mundane tasks. From the point of view of a third world farmer living only of his land even 10% of a western wage is BIG MONEY, and a great way to spend the non-farming season.

Forming a whole new country otherwise would require at least a few billion dollar, perhaps tens of them. We'd have to go to space to find land unclaimed by others.

[Storm on the Horizon]

How about this:

First, get rich.
Second, move a bunch of like-minded people to a uninhabited part of some poor bumba-country in, like, Africa. Most goods and food will be inexpensive, and all the manual labour can be left to the locals for a relatively small pay. If enough money is invested and enough know-how present some form of refinement industry could be established, using locally producer raw-materials.

Legally it would still be Bumban land, but why would the local authorities mess with the private affairs of your isolated village/town? You'd be supplying hundreds, perhaps thousands of people with work and be one of the few stable sources of tax-revenue the bumban government has.

You'd be free to do what you want unless it'd be really extreme. Selecting among the most useful 5-10% of the western population (and of course using your "values" as another criteria :cool: ), the economy could actually develop quite well. No morons, no sheeple, no religious people, noone against guns and vigilance...
I'd be on. I should have a Ph D (if thats the right word) in Chemistry in four years.



Remember South Africa.... and that area was mostly uninhabited when Whites settled it.

If you were sucessful, it would still be doomed to failure. Every subhuman ape from across the land would swarm to your country to get their "fair share". You literally would be living right smack dab in the middle of "the planet of the apes".

The local headhunter/"authorities" would most definately mess with you and your affairs. Sure the existing establishment would be getting some revenue from you.... but that would never be enough. They will always want more. As they (being African niggers) could never dream of building and developing what you could in a million years.

[pearlcrash911]

How in the world would having all jobs be equal paying make someone more motivated to work hard?

What truly motivates someone to work hard is a) fear of consequences for not working hard and b) desire to better your position. Neither of which would be present if everyone was paid the same.

Well look at it this way. Why would you work hard for a crap job when you are getting payed less than people who work half as hard as you.

When I was a teenager I would spin signs for many housing developments. I hated spinning signs, but I worked my hardest because I felt obliged to the company because of the incredible wages I was being payed.

I did not fear consequences of not working hard because there was no supervision, so if I wanted to I could have just ditched every day of work.

Also I was never motivated by improving my position, because there really was nowhere to advance to, and raises were given based on seniority not skill.

In a situation where equality is properly executed, motivation is created by two things: Obligation, and Prestige.

People naturally feel an obligation to the company as I mentioned before. Also I had a friend from Norway who told me that in the socialist system in place there people don't get lazy because it won't change their pay, they in fact work harder for prestige.

That's why equality doesn't prevent motivation, but instead creates different kinds of motivation.

[Jome skanish]

Remember South Africa.... and that area was mostly uninhabited when Whites settled it.

If you were sucessful, it would still be doomed to failure. Every subhuman ape from across the land would swarm to your country to get their "fair share". You literally would be living right smack dab in the middle of "the planet of the apes".

The local headhunter/"authorities" would most definately mess with you and your affairs. Sure the existing establishment would be getting some revenue from you.... but that would never be enough. They will always want more. As they (being African niggers) could never dream of building and developing what you could in a million years.

You could be right. It would suck to loose years of investments because local fools voted a mugabe (mug-ape) into office. That leaves the other option. But perhaps it'd be better first to define what kind of people you'd want in the city, and/or who you dont. I'd use these criterias:

1. Intelligence
2. Mental health (sorry, no EMOs)
3 Atheism (perhaps this should go under 2 :rolleyes: )
4. Relative physical health (keeping oneself fit, not smoking or drinking heavy)
5. Values, such as:

a. family (no fucking soap-opera style-fuckaround-till-37 or gay marriages)

b. group unity (what else?, after all, greater numbers is stronger)

c. freedom (that is, ability to master ones own life. Prosperity in the form of ex. money or property is an extension of this)

d. rationality. With this comes views like: There is no god, and us humans are still in the jungle. Knowledge is power, power is good. The day technology can make us gods, we shall take the step, and so on.

This could probably be developed quite a bit. If its off-topic, please delete these last sentences, but I would like to ask:

What defines the non-sheeple?

[Docca]

3 Atheism (perhaps this should go under 2 :rolleyes: )
4. Relative physical health (keeping oneself fit, not smoking or drinking heavy)
5. Values, such as:

a. family (no fucking soap-opera style-fuckaround-till-37 or gay marriages)

b. group unity (what else?, after all, greater numbers is stronger)

c. freedom (that is, ability to master ones own life. Prosperity in the form of ex. money or property is an extension of this)

d. rationality. With this comes views like: There is no god, and us humans are still in the jungle. Knowledge is power, power is good. The day technology can make us gods, we shall take the step, and so on.


What defines the non-sheeple?

Ok, here goes;

a. If you're an atheist, what value system do you go by? (refer to "5.")

b. Does every atheist get to make up their own value system? If not, why not?

c. Ummm, you don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do (with apologies to Adam Ant)?

d. Ummm, you have a problem with 37 year olds "fucking around"?

e. Group unity? I think we'd be better off with "rugged individualists", though the family unit suffers there (probably not a good thing).

f. So much for "ability to master ones own life". No drinking, no smoking, no fucking around, but I guess it's ok so long as you get to set off a little AP once in a while.

g. Please let us know when you have all the answers (like the answers to cancer, alzhiemers, etc). Knowledge and power are great, but I don't think technology is ever going to make you or I a god.


Not a slam, just a few thoughts...

Docca

[Jome skanish]

Ok, here goes;

a. If you're an atheist, what value system do you go by? (refer to "5.")

b. Does every atheist get to make up their own value system? If not, why not?

c. Ummm, you don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do (with apologies to Adam Ant)?

d. Ummm, you have a problem with 37 year olds "fucking around"?

e. Group unity? I think we'd be better off with "rugged individualists", though the family unit suffers there (probably not a good thing).

f. So much for "ability to master ones own life". No drinking, no smoking, no fucking around, but I guess it's ok so long as you get to set off a little AP once in a while.

g. Please let us know when you have all the answers (like the answers to cancer, alzhiemers, etc). Knowledge and power are great, but I don't think technology is ever going to make you or I a god.


Not a slam, just a few thoughts...

Docca

a. A value system based on reason and purpose. Some basic values are more or less omnipresent, the rest, well, you chose to follow when you chose to follow the group.
With reason and purpose I mean, designed to give the followers the maximum ability to reproduce, prosper and stay un-fucked with by "circumstances".

If you want to destroy yourself, that fine with me (:D I'd rather insist) but I dont want to pay your health expenses or get mugged when Im old by your misadapted offspring. Alcohol is a waste of money, time and energy that could be better spent. Same thing goes for all drugs. A menace to society.

b. You one of those christians beliving everything good in the western civilisation has come from that disgusting religion? Wake up. If not, see above.

c. There is more to life than drinking and smoking. I study and work out, and one day I'll live in a big house with a fine lady and our 11 evil lil kids. By far outbreeding the fuckaroundtill37s.

d. Yes. If they are women, they have like 1 year left of fertility, and they should've been married long ago, long before their skin turned gray and bussum turned too long. If you're a man, It might be slightly easier to get things going, but its still at least TEN YEARS after graduating from university, and I think one could do better.

e. One can have both. Im not advocating hundreds of brainwashed people screaming the same bs and hailing the leader, Im advocating more of an "alliance" like relationship between those who share the same values and ideas. And, of course, it's always nice to know that there will always be someone supporting you. It's easier to mess with one than with a thousand.

f. Well, if those things are what you want out of your life.. Its not a "change society" (political) idea, its something different. One could say, esoteric instead of exoteric like politics, abrahamitic religions and so on. Nothing would be imposed on anyone, the majority would live just like before, the difference being this minority not having to live like the majority with their teaching religion before science in school, equality that does not exist and celebration of weakness and ignorance.

g. No, definately not you, one step at a time. :p

[knowledgehungry]

Well look at it this way. Why would you work hard for a crap job when you are getting payed less than people who work half as hard as you.

That is exactly my point. Why work hard at a hard job if someone working easy at an easy job is making the same as you. Being a doctor is much harder than working in a factory, regardless of the physical toll of manual labor.

I agree that obligation to the company should motivate you, but in this age of entitlement you and I are the only people who are motivated by that. The prevailing opinion is that since the bosses are making more than you, you are getting screwed over by the company. "The CEO is making 400,000 a year and I'm only making 75,000 as a janitor, thats not fair."

[Chris The Great]

I'd argue about Jome skanish's points, but lack the motivation. It's not like he'll get rich and make his country. I, in the meantime, will get drunk with my christian girlfriend and then maybe shootup some opiods afterwards. :D

Knowledgehungery, you have a good point, in this day and age people do not seem to feel any obligation to anyone or anything, and to be fair, the employers are no better. The employees see the employer as nothing more than a temporary thing and definately not something to work as hard as they can towards, while the employer sees it's employees as disposable and wouldn't hesitate to fire them all and replace them with cheap Indian labour if it would save money.
Exceptions exist but are very rare.

"The CEO is making 400,000 a year and I'm only making 75,000 as a janitor, thats not fair."
True sheeple thinking of entitlement without earning it.

[pearlcrash911]

Very true knowledgehungry. The only way to insure equality would be to eliminate heirarchy.

There is a leftist cafe in my area that uses joint ownership to eradicate any forms of heirarchy.

A similar system could be put in place in a new country to guarantee that every has equal rewards as well as equal responsibilities.

[nbk2000]

Anywhere where a CEO is making only 5 times what the janitor is making is damn-near Utopian. The norm is for CEO's to make at least 100x what their lowest paid worker makes, sometimes a 1,000x or more.

Employees may have more loyalty for companies that treat them like valuable contributors, rather than expendable drones. I have yet to work at a place where I wasn't treated like (and told) that I was easily replaceable by hordes of pimple faced brats for the same or less money.

Cogs don't care about the machine. :p

Pearlcrash911, what you're suggesting sounds very much like communism. Failure is its own proof. :)

[herfnerder]

How in the world would having all jobs be equal paying make someone more motivated to work hard?

It wouldn't.

What truly motivates someone to work hard is a) fear of consequences for not working hard and b) desire to better your position. Neither of which would be present if everyone was paid the same.

I would disagree on both counts. For a) there are plenty of people that work at the margins and below and they do fine. You also need to define "hard." Some of us work 80 hours a week, but we aren't lifting bricks so it may not be "hard." We do what we do because we like it.

b) is a more interesting scenario. There is the concept of failing up. You reach the highest level you can and can not progress (because you're bad at that task) so you stay at that level. I would imagine that rule applies to this forum as well as others (count your fingers).

In any case the best performance occurs when the person doing the work is actually interested in the work. Tough thing to do.

For jellywerker, humans have been working on the politicial question for a long, long time. The best we've come up with so far is a democratic republic which sucks slightly less than everything else.

[pearlcrash911]

Communism is just the economic system in place. I think what you are referring to is an Oligarchy that uses Communism. As we all know Communism is very successful economically (China). What causes all of the suffering is the corrupt Oligarchy in place.

What I'm referring to is Anarcho-Communism, as publicized by the 1900's thinker Peter Kropotkin. Now I know when you see the word "Anarcho" you may jump to the term "utopianist", but his system isn't the classic "no rules" kind of society.

Instead it is based on individual communities with their own rules, but no central government in place. The communities would govern themselves in a democratic way, and because of the small population of each community everyone's vote actually makes a significant difference.

The system is based on "mutual aid" which is the corollary to Darwin's "survival of the fittest". Mutual aid is common among species of animals living in small groups with limited resources. Those animals would not fight with other animals, but instead share food and shelter with them to help the community survive the winter.

Based on Peter Kropotkin's observations of mutual aid he concluded that it must be a natural part of human nature.

Therefore, this small population of intellectuals could be one of those theoretical communities and lay down its own standards, and then use social production to support itself.

[Docca]

a. If you want to destroy yourself, that fine with me

...

g. No, definately not you, one step at a time. :p

a. Fair enough, you don't have to pay for my healthcare, and if any of my misadapted offspring try to mug you ever, please shoot them (lethally).

b. Nope, just wanted to see if everyone got to make it up as they went along.

c. I can see you've never been married, and probably haven't done much breeding. That's ok, just realize that reality is going to bite most of us (and probably you). Outbreeding probably won't work out for you the way you imagine...

d. Yep, one can do better, most won't.

e. Agreed.

f. Fair enough.

g. Good luck becoming god one step at a time. Yes, I gave up on it some years ago...

[knowledgehungry]

The problem with the idea of small social groups groups that function communally without a centralized government is that they will always be in conflict with similar groups. Native American tribes, African tribes and modern gangs all function how you say and were/are constantly fighting each other.

If the population of the earth was so small that groups of people could live in isolation without coming into contact with other groups your theory would work, as it did when the earth had a smaller population.

[Jome skanish]

No, total equality does not exist in any group of social mammals, there is always hierarchies, even among higher apes. Everyone will get their share, but the one at the top of the hierarchy will get more.

And that's what I consider to be natural. Artificial systems like the ones devised by marx and the socialist thinkers have never worked; why would the ones who gained the power just let it go once the revolution is over, when instead you can maintain your spot in the sun and get your bigass share of others labour?

Communism is a failure for a number of reasons, this being one of it's more severe faults. And I'd consider the "like outcome" thinking to be cuckoo and gripped out of thin air. You simply do not "deserve" things just by existing, through most of human history this would have been called insanity, but apparently not any more.

Justice IMO is when you get what you've worked for, and everyone (in theory) gets the same chance to work. In reality, people are not equal and not everyone can be a CEO, even if given the chance. Some people will, no matter how much money spent on their education, not reach higher than mopping floors. Should they be given the extra money (added to their calculated productivity as defined by the market) to live by the same standards as those who become engineers, scientists, teachers? I say no.

Im thinking as follows - Let the market decide everyones worthy wage, but let noone starve and keep all the kids in schooling. That is fair.

Stealing money by threat of state violence (using libertarian clichés:o ) for anything else than just keeping the heads of the poor above water is WRONG by my standards.

A society of only full-educated people (now not using my above standards of people, but the thread-starters) would like fare very welll, provided they had the money-input both to build houses and infrastructure and to actually start producing stuff.

Food, soap (!) and other low-tech stuffed produced in bulk by chinese chicks could be imported, and since productivity in general follows education with simultaneous, but slower decline in costs the economy would likely work well. So no one in our hypothetical society would be near the lowest percentile in US/western europe standards of living.

[Misanthropologist]

nbk/pearl

Sorry to argue semantics but the idea is much older than that, as in classic greek democracy. This lasted quite a bit longer than communism, and equates roughly to the system of anarcho-communism of Kropotkin. I thought this was going to turn into a rant, but that's all I have to say.

[Misanthropologist]

I'm sorry. that was off topic. What I meant to say was that yes, I believe that true nonrepresentative democracy/anarchocommunism/whatever name you want to give it, would in fact be the best model. However, this still puts the enlightened individual at the mercy of the typically ignorant masses.

And, of course, such a society would not last for long without some sort of sizable military power behind it. The Powers That Be do not like independant states, not one bit. If you've noticed, any countries not under the "protection" of a world superpower are completely impoverished, and contain warring military elements within them that have at least loose ties to said superpowers.

The Cold War still rages, there's just more players now.

The New Democracy in action.;)

[jellywerker]

I left this thread for a while and come back to find it somewhat blossoming :D

An ideal state to me would be something structured like, and relatively similar in size, to a Greek city state. But the Greek city states fell apart due to the lack of a sense of duty and patriotism in their citizens. But a similar system would work very well I think.

Everyone 18+ gets a vote, the person voted into office holds it for one year, there is a yearly council (of all citizens, not representatives) and something like a monthly summary of all the political proceedings, along with a ballot for your vote or ideas on each. As I said though, this would only work in a small country (~5k people)

As for a sizable military force, I don't know, I think a system like Israel has in which everyone serves 2 years in the military would be a good thing, but that won't keep a superpower from annexing you.

[Jacks Complete]

Same thing goes for all drugs. A menace to society. So not true. Drugs are valuable. Antibiotics save lives, provigil keeps you awake without side effects so you don't snooze and let that 747 go astray, alcohol makes you warm and fuzzy, and more prone to singing silly songs.

As for government, well, I'll lead for a while, I don't mind, but once things are stable, it should be a meritocracy. You turn up, you get no vote unless you bring something to the table. A few years national service, a large company that brings in foreign cash, getting a good score in your SAT/A-level tests, voting, etc. all count towards your citizenship. Getting arrested for flashing kids in the park loses you them, as does not being at all involved in the public process.

Lose them all, you get a few options. Go negative, and you don't get any choice but to leave or do something of the state's choice to redeem yourself. Actual custody is expensive and wasteful – even a half-mad killer is useful for some things, even if it is just training your troops against someone who doesn't really feel pain and will keep attacking until pulled off.

There shall be no law enacted that bans a thought. Laws where possible harm is determined after the fact shall be illegal. This means that if you own a gun, that's fine (as long as your points are above zero) and you can own a few if you have a few more points. Drink driving won't be a crime, and nor will speeding, as long as you get there safely. But if you hit someone, then your sentence will be massively larger due to speed or alcohol. Simple possession of almost anything will be fine, but as they say, "points make prizes". Non-citizens will not get dole or other benefits, just as you should not expect to turn up at the UK and expect a free bed and three meals a day while you rob and breed. You *will* be put to work, and you will get a bed and a place to stay. Try to rob us blind, and out you go.

Bail will be postable by those with the points to spare, as this will be a form of vouching for a person, along with money. The poor will be able to work for the state, and gain points like that, then sell them to the rich, who can, perhaps, use it to buy justice, on a more formal level than currently.

Location is difficult. The post-industrial society needs few factories to produce heavy weapons or other goods, as these aren't now produced in many places worldwide anyway. Pharma is a high tech, high profit industry, and would be well suited to our skillset. High-tech weapons don't really require much mass these days, as they are silicon based in the main - which ties in neatly with the other high profit area, computers and IT hardware. Beyond those, most manufacturing is already dead.

Non-physical profit generation would come from our loose regulatory attitude and (perhaps strange) military strength, and we could expect high end hosting services and software developers to flock to us, along with any who are enormously rich, and are seeking citizenship in a stable and nice tax haven. This covers both people and companies, and the few percent they don't save will, of course, enrich the government highly, allowing low taxation, and subsidy of citizens.

Location is the issue. I've been working on it for years, but I've got one. The downside is, it is at sea. The upside is there will be a lot of ocean front property, and the ranges will stretch for miles! In theory, of course, a large ship would do, but there was this "international law" signed some years ago, which stated that the signatories would not recognise any man-made structure as a nation state. Thank the fucking UK government for that - they couldn't handle Sealand, so they messed with the rest of the world instead! (Just like the gun laws!)

There would be almost no police force. Everyone would be a part of the militia, and it would be the duty of everyone to keep the peace. Justice would be by judges, and detectives would police things. However, there would be few beat cops, and it would be arranged more like a sheriff department. IT would be used, too, to determine what happened after the fact – not for us the displacement of CCTV crime and the gangs of hoodie thugs who play to the cameras. Those, you get to defend first and ask later...

Points would, of course, go to those who helped out, and the fact that your heavily armed neighbours will be richly rewarded should they form a posse under the direction of the sheriff and come get you for being bad might well keep a lot of people on the straight. I'm not going to say "narrow" though, as I feel, like most here, that the main issue these days is too many laws and not enough basic enforcement of good laws. As long as you mean no harm, things should always end quietly and nicely, without long jail spells for setting off a few grams of ANFO or AP, or even, god forbid, a bottle rocket!

Of course, setting them off at night in secret might get you trouble, but mostly because you should do that sort of thing at the range, where others can assist you in not blowing your own head off, and can (try to) patch you up should you.

How to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" is something I have wrestled with. A solid and coherent constitution, and a system of independent states under a federal system, unlike the UK, with federal power being strongly limited.

Population density should also be kept low. This will remove/reduce the issues caused by high-rises and a lack of knowing who your neighbours are - peer pressure to not mis-behave are key. We all know where the boundaries of politeness lie, and we don't really need a law to tell us, nor a policeman, unless we are someplace else and drunk. And that shouldn't be the end of the world, either!

Anyway, quite an essay I've typed. I look forward to the (constructive) criticism and suggestions that will be forthcoming.

[Docca]

A. alcohol makes you warm and fuzzy, and more prone to singing silly songs.

B. Getting arrested for flashing kids in the park loses you them, as does not being at all involved in the public process.

C. Actual custody is expensive and wasteful

D. Dr[u]nk driving won't be a crime, and nor will speeding, as long as you get there safely. But if you hit someone, then your sentence will be massively larger due to speed or alcohol.

E. Location is difficult

F. High-tech weapons don't really require much mass these days, as they are silicon based in the main - which ties in neatly with the other high profit area, computers and IT hardware.

G. Non-physical profit generation would come from our loose regulatory attitude and (perhaps strange) military strength ... any who are enormously rich, and are seeking citizenship in a stable and nice tax haven. This covers both people and companies, and the few percent they don't save will, of course, enrich the government highly, allowing low taxation.

H. and subsidy of citizens.

I. Location is the issue ... Thank the fucking UK government for that - they couldn't handle Sealand, so they messed with the rest of the world instead! (Just like the gun laws!)

J. There would be almost no police force. Everyone would be a part of the militia, and it would be the duty of everyone to keep the peace.

K. I feel, like most here, that the main issue these days is too many laws and not enough basic enforcement of good laws. As long as you mean no harm, things should always end quietly and nicely.

L. How to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" is something I have wrestled with. A solid and coherent constitution, and a system of independent states under a federal system, unlike the UK, with federal power being strongly limited.

M. We all know where the boundaries of politeness lie, and we don't really need a law to tell us, nor a policeman, unless we are someplace else and drunk. And that shouldn't be the end of the world, either!

A. I'm glad someone else here appreciates the inherent good of (the right to) having a few and (occasionally) making an ass of yourself. THERE IS NO HARM IN THAT!

B. I think the response to that should be death or BFL.

C. Agreed, my pet plan is that offenses net "caned", "caned within inches of your life", or "death". People GENERALLY come out of prison more useless than they went in (I think we have a mod who is an exception to that rule).

D. Great plan. Consider the penalties offered under "C".

E. See "I".

F. Ummm, I disagree. I think "high tech" weapons (carriers, fighters, bombers, tanks) are the weapons of tyranny, and serve mainly to encourage / enrich the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower wisely tried to warn us away from. "Low tech" weapons are more reliable and empower the masses (read that "militia"). There is plenty of profit to be made (and plenty of wars to be won) off low-tech weapons.

H. Charity is a dangerous business to get into with someone else's money (i.e. tax money). There is no end to it, another worthwhile charity will ALWAYS present itself.

I. The biggest problem with location will be obtaining official recognition and international courtesy from other governments. In example, Kuwait - had this been a newly formed (and against the norm) nation, would you have had a multinational force to liberate it from a stronger neighbor's aggression? I think not.

L. Sounds like EXACTLY what the framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned. Pity the damage (endlessly) creeping socialism can do.

G., J., K., + M. You're on the right track, as far as I'm concerned.

[nbk2000]

Every form of government eventually develops a parasite class of governmental 'workers', since government jobs tend to attract those too stupid or lazy to make it in the free-market.

And the parasites become ever more numerous and entrenched until, eventually and inevitably, they become such a drain on the economy that the system collapses from its own bloat.

[zeocrash]

If you want to destroy yourself, that fine with me (:D I'd rather insist) but I dont want to pay your health expenses or get mugged when Im old by your misadapted offspring. Alcohol is a waste of money, time and energy that could be better spent. Same thing goes for all drugs. A menace to society.

c. There is more to life than drinking and smoking. I study and work out, and one day I'll live in a big house with a fine lady and our 11 evil lil kids. By far outbreeding the fuckaroundtill37s.




Ok fair, you wouldn't want to pay taxes to fund my health expenses because i use drugs. Well lets say i don't want to pay taxes to fund the healthcare expenses of you bringing 11 children into the world. With good reason too, i personally believe that 11 kids is too many to provide for financially, and too many to be able to spend time with them and fulfil your role of parent.

To generalise so broadly and say that "all drugs" are "a menace to society" is grossly ignorant. For starters, what do you classify as "all drugs"?? Would caffeine count as one of these drugs?? How about things like Mushrooms and LSD?? Do those count?? Have you ever heard of someone being mugged by a man on shrooms?? Is Weed one of these evil drugs you speak of?? Do you even know anything about the drugs you're demonising or are you just spouting what the media tell you.

For trying to start up a country where people are "free to do what they want", your rules seem incredibly oppressive.
I suggest you go out and see the real world for yourself before you try and change it.

[c.Tech]

"All drugs" isn't counting ones like caffeine, just the illicit ones.

But some of the illicit ones don’t turn people into money dependant criminals, as zero mentioned "Mushrooms and LSD", which just fuck with people’s heads.

Weed is less extreme to drugs like coke and ice, but I have seen what it can do.

A person I use to smoke with is now jumping many people around my area, desperately trying to gather some money, I even once herd he beet his brother to near death.

Jome skanish, your views on drugs are overexagerated, an your basing them on the stereotypes of people you think use drugs.

I use drugs, rarely and in moderation, rarely drink and I’m not a menace to society am I? You probably wouldn’t be able to pick me from a non-drug user.

Its all in the frequency of use, and most people who start using drugs get carried away and end up those fucked up menaces that you speak of.

[akinrog]

I know many Americans shall hate what I say since I shall mention about the Netherlands.

However, although I'm not a drug user (but really ultra-heavy smoker), I believe countries must adopt soft drug policies of the Netherlands.

Think for a moment, what these drug bans actually create? They actually create drug lords and all scumbags working for the drug lords who are killing, robbing and raping decent people, since the drugs have to be procurred illegally.

If soft drugs are allowed, then they could be got at the decent prices and there shall be less drug lords and much less number of scumbags working for them.

What past liquor ban of US actually achieve was to creation of rich and influential gangsters (mafia / mobs), who have a lot of dirty money to spend on their pleasure (which such pleasure includes mostly illegal activities).

Anyway this is my two cents. Regards.

[Jome skanish]

"All drugs" isn't counting ones like caffeine, just the illicit ones.


Yes, that I shall clarify. By drugs I mean non-medicine chemicals used for pleasure by it's effect on the CNS.


Jome skanish, your views on drugs are overexagerated, an your basing them on the stereotypes of people you think use drugs.

I use drugs, rarely and in moderation, rarely drink and I’m not a menace to society am I? You probably wouldn’t be able to pick me from a non-drug user.

Its all in the frequency of use, and most people who start using drugs get carried away and end up those fucked up menaces that you speak of.

Well, that last sentence is just why I mean it should be illegal. If 90% (even 10 would be hell of a problem!) of all users of a certain drug end up being "carried away" and addicted/badly affected then it should not be legal, because it leads to increased criminality and horrid expenses even for those who does not use dope.

If it can be proved that only idiots abuse some drugs, and its no problem for others? Well, then you'd just have to invent a way to tell there idiots from everyone else, and you'd be free to use the shit.

When it comes to "hard drug policies leads to organised crime", this is partly true, but the small state im thinkin of would have a number of advantages in dealing with this:

1. It's smaller. Economies of scale makes drug-selling much more of a hazard in comparison to what one could make.

2. The citizens have chosen to move there and thereby accepts the basic rules, thereby there wont be much "drug-promoting culture" to begin with. And if someone becomes and addict and a menace, he/she can be thrown out. Making medical checks legal on suspicion of drug-use could also be used, and, most importantly, the kind of fuckups that usually end up doing drugs and making mess (the underclass) would to a 95% likeliness not be considered intelligent enough to be allowed in, not to menting sharing the basic value of "my" society.

3. Organised crime is mostly a "habit" of certain etnic groups, of certain social classes in society. If they're banned from living in the state, the problem quickly becomes smaller.

Proof? Well, one example is crime in the scandinavian nations, where ALL the bigshots are of non-scandinavian origin. Normally cultures where clan or "familia" mentality is stronger than (common sense) "morale" and in groups where "tradition of education" is absent. Like serbs, albanians, somali, arabs, kurds...

Perhaps it takes family/relatives to be reliable enough that you dont have to finish everyone of to be on the safe side in a RTPB-way after every major job.


And, even if some crimes (like breakins where eight crimmies get to share 4M£) could be considered more or less "bold" rather than "foolish/stupid", there is no reason why a person living in the city-state would commit it against the others. The city-state people aint the sheeple, the city-state people will fuck you up if you're shooting boogers at them.

Im quite surprised that everyone seems to regard my state as being "un-free" because it prohibits drugs and forces people to take care of themselves. Wouldn't you not consider crime something that takes away freedom of those hurt? Is a sloppy-state where criminals thrive really free?

Is it freedom when half of those money you pay to get decent medical care when needed goes to fat idiots who cant take care of themselves?

Freedom is when you know the state is putting your tax money to good use, good use like healthcare, infrastructure, schools.... Minimizing what goes to administration, and banning most other uses (no ugly work of art in the public square for 1M£)
And when you know that nothing but real income is taxed.
And also knowing that your kids will not be "empathy trained" and come home one day from school referring to jesus, the "golden rule" or how homosexuality is completely normal and ok, that everone is of equal worth or some brainwash like that.

Rather they'll come home enthustiastically talkning about experiments on lab-rats, and the other proudly talkning about that revolver s/hes working on in the metal craft lessons.

When you know that you can keep fit, ready and dangerous without anyone complaining, and feeling the security of having thousand of like-minded neighbors. And one day that clinic will offer cleansing from bad genes for your offspring-to be, and addition of new abilities. Whinings from christians, socialists and other egalitarists unheard of.

Now that'd be freedom. Unlikely perhaps, but a man must have dreams...

More clarifying:
The state would have a steel-hard constitution, giving politicians much less room mess things up. That'd be one of the most important goals of politics, not only taking good decisions, but also striving to keep political rule at minimum. Most things concerning the average citizen should be decided by the average citizen, most other like infrastructure is best done by those who understands it and work with it for a living. Politicians would work mostly with directive policies and other minor tasks, and the few major things that has to be steered that way.

The state would be ruled by a small group of politicans, and another larger chamber consisting of experts and professionals divided in the different areas of stately concern like education, infrastructure, healthcare and vigilance (defense is not the righ word for such a small state). The larger chamber would only asseble when considered necessary, only one spokesperson per "piece" would be permanently employed for this purpose.

The working population would then be allowed to vote from age 18 if they were employed and passed the tests in general knowledge. The voting system would elect people, not parties.
As an acknowledged professional in healthcare or such (doctor, I belive they call it) one would also have the right to vote for the spokesperson among those other proffesionals willing to do this. These spokespersons would sit in five or ten year terms, but it would be possible to vote them out of office at anytime.

How about this? Sort of cross-over with some elements of common parlamentarism with cooporativism.
More edit later.

[Ygarl]

Every form of government eventually develops a parasite class of governmental 'workers', since government jobs tend to attract those too stupid or lazy to make it in the free-market.

And the parasites become ever more numerous and entrenched until, eventually and inevitably, they become such a drain on the economy that the system collapses from its own bloat.

Hello,

Ideology aside:
When was the last time any country worth the name's economy or civilisation collapsed due to "parasites" leeching off governent jobs?

People site Rome, but the reality is that its collapse was caused by the provincialisation of its military: i.e. all the federati/centurions in Great Britain recruited locals - making the Legions Britons with Roman citizenship, the Saxon and Goth legions became effectively just Saxons and Goths in Roman legionaire armour. Then the Goths/Visigoths/Saxons, etc etc invaded internally, after becoming disgruntled with the Emperor and Senate's treatment of the provinces.

The modern equivalent would be to use the US military in Iraq - say - and then take the local populace and grant them citizenship and make their army part of the US Military...Then they would just pull out all the US-based military and say to the world "This is part of America now...", and hope that there isn't any civil war...
Never a good long-term strategy. Though, in its defense, the Western Roman Empire existed for about 450 years all told - the longest reigning continuous Empire in human history.

The last "empire" or country to collapse, per se, was the Soviet Union. The main reason they collapsed is they went from a position of severe technological inferiority, directly into a technological Cold War footing - exacerbated by the fact they chose to renege the agreements they made with Poland in WWII. This pitted them against Nazi Germany and caused the almost total devestation of their Western technological and cultural centres. If they had the good sense to stay out of contact with Nazi Germany, there is every chance that the UK would be a German state, the US and Russia would never have had a Cold War. Whether Germany would still be in the beginning of the Thousand Year Reich, or not is open to debate.

However, the "brain drain" of Soviet Scientists to the West would never have taken place. The huge resources of the Soviet Empire, along with the fact that the huge industrial devastation would not have taken place means it is likely that it would still be around...

And there's no realistic chance of the US competing with anything like an even basis with that.

Particularly as until 1939, the USSR and Nazi Germany were actually allies - ideologies notwithstanding! Their ideologies were actually very simply almost identical: rule mercilessly with an iron fist; punish crime mercilessly; divert the masses' attention with entertainment, internal suppression of minorities and foreign wars; ideolise workers as the basis of society via the press and public recognition of public service to the government. The fact that one was NATIONAL Socialism, and the other was SOVIET Socialism was in fact immaterial in the execution of day-to-day government.

Therefore, the Nazi atomic program would have carried on regardless as the Allies would have never been able to win a war with Germany fighting on only one front. The entire Eastern Front would have been nonexistent, and London would have fallen within weeks. With the Allies effectively 3500 miles from Germany, they would be left to run things pretty much how they wanted... Japan attacking America and Kamcatchka in Russia didn't help things either. They would have been far better off just leaving it well enough alone and been satisfied with their Pacific, Korean and Chinese empire. They would have been left with the third largest empire in the world - far larger than anything America achieved.

Odd. The Saxons/Goths/Visigoths would again own Europe...

I digress...

So, the Soviet Union fell because they got greedy and invaded Eastern Poland. NOT because they were beuracratic inbreds - which they were. They had a pathetic governement structure, admittedly, but without a Cold War they would still be there - bumbling along like the giant inefficient thing they were.
The US however would not even be concerned with them. Their concern would be the OTHER nuclear superpower with vast resources, an expansionist and imperialist structure, and a highly technologically developed infrastructure: The Third Reich.

Sure: The government makes a rubbish employer. It's corrupt, lazy, inefficient, power-mad etc. However, the alternative is anarchy based on firepower, paranoia and isolationism. Simply put: a big electric fence and minefield up in every house, with one of those nifty self-targetting mine/rocket systems, arm everyone from 10 years old and body armour all around - because there won't be anyone else to stop someone who wants your stuff/wife/beer/land from taking it.

Simply put - if you have a big country you are going to have a big government. SOMEONE will always want to be in charge. We're evolved apes, and someone is going to be genetically predisposed towards becoming an Alpha male/female. Whether it's because their bigger, or more driven, or more clever, or - and this is historically the most likely option - just the most willing to do things to other people to gain control or simply annhialate anyone who argues, it will happen..They will do this by banding up and using stealth, superior firepower, terror, deception and/or that perennial favorite - willingness to do horrible things to large numbers of people to impose control (a la Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, George Bush). I would rather have an inefficient bunch of imcompetents with no personal contact with myself who can't find the broad side of a barn. I can outsmart them on things I don't want them to know about, dodge things I want to dodge, and just generally carry on my day-to-day existance as I want.

A drug-free, booze-free, non-swingin', non-premarital sexin', atheist society running on the honour system sounds great. In fact, it sounds like an atheist Amish Nation (like someone else said...). Unfortunately they have a very, very strict set of laws where breaking the law = committing sin, all based on religion. Without religion, or an overbearing government too big to effectively oppress anyone properly something will fill that void of power.

Absolute Democracy or Socialism without religion are great theories. Let me know when anyone creates a good example so I can check it out, because as far as I've never heard of any government NOT going corrupt which is in charge of more than about 20 people - especially when issues like sovereignty, national defense, and some sort of actual power over systems, people or groups are mentioned.

[Chris The Great]

The main problem everyone is having is that your free country has rules on what people cannot do to their bodies, or what they can or cannot believe. It's nothing to do with the society being proposed, rather that there are rules on what beliefs you need to be part of it.

As for the history lesson- Germany invaded the USSR. The USSR would not have gained anything by not moving into Poland as per the Nazi-Soviet pact, Hitler would have rolled right over eastern Poland, Soviet controlled or not. Stalin at least had the sense to move his primary industrial base into the heart of Russia to prevent it from being destroyed when Hitler invaded- although Hitler gained a lot of ground, he did not cripple the USSR industrially. Japan was not satisfied with her empire because she had no source of oil to run it after the US cut them off.

[Hirudinea]

Not that I want to jump over the philosophical discussion here but I'ed like to point out that no country on earth has ever given up an inch of territory to a non-state without war at the very least, so if you want to set up a country forget doing it on somebody elses land (and every inch of land on earth is owned by somebody, even if its Antartica which is "owned" by the U.N. defacto.) My idea would be to set up a large oil-rig type platform on a seamount near a population centre (some seamounts off the California coast might be nice) import 3rd would workers to to the grunt work for pennies a day (and if they give you shit you can toss them over the side, hey its your country) and then provide "unique" services, durgs and medical services unsanctioned elsewhere, prostitution, confidential banking and internet services, internet gambling, etc, at reasonable prices (the people who provide these services would be attracted because of the relaxed enviroment would pay your nation taxes, this would be the source of our wealth) and hopefully your country would prosper, but remember being an upstart "nation" that any nation who dosn't like what your doing (or says what your doing) and has the ability (like Uncle Sam) could take you over any time it wants, so don't hold out much hope.

[nbk2000]

My country would be real simple:

The only punishments for crimes are Death (by whatever means suits the Judges whim), Exile (with or without mutilation), or "Eye for an Eye". Sentences to be carried out immediately after sentencing by a secret Judicary that has absolute authority.

No juries, no prisons, and very few police who operate with no restrictions on them, other than as a fixed ratio of cop-citizen of 1>500 or more. This prevents an oppresive police state while still getting things done.

The only crimes are:

A) Insults against a person body.

Murder, assault, rape are crimes. Screaming obscenitites and flipping them off are not.

Shooting at someone is not a crime if you miss. (No harm, No foul)

So much as scratching them with a bullet is.

If someone wants to slash their own face to ribbons, kill themselves in public, sell their ass, or do drugs....have fun. :)

As long as it's done to themselves, by themselves, anything goes.

B) Forgery of my nations money (Precious Metal coinage) or attacks against its economy.

People must have absolute faith in the vailidity of a nations financial stability if that nation is to prosper. Anything that subverts that is an attack akin to war against that country.

C) Breaking a contract. (ALL contracts are legal, as there's no such thing as illegal contracts)

Since my country exists as a free-trade zone, business is the lifeblood of my economy, and contracts are the backbone.

You make a deal, you stick to it.

If both parties agree to the terms, then both parties are equally liable.

If, for instance, one party agreed to trade 10 pounds of weapons-grade anthrax for a neutron-initiator, and the anthrax turned out to be flour, then that person forfeits whatever the judge deems fair.

Their life, their continued ability to reside and trade in my country, or the goods.

D)Endangerment of the public health and welfare

People must know that they're not likely to be killed by the stupidity of their neighbors if they're to build a stable economy.

Prostitution is not a crime. Drugs (useing, making, selling) is not a crime. Counterfeiting is not a crime (as long as it's not my money), cons and scams are not crimes (as long as there is no contract, or breaking of a contract, involved).

Possession of any weapon is legal. Use of that weapon against a person is illegal. Destruction of personal property is not a crime.

The only thing the state (me) is going to do is provide a stable economic framework for you to succeed or fail in, and provide the barest essential social infrastructure for you to live in.

You have to provide for you own security against theft or destruction of your property, your own privacy, your own health, your own housing, your own food, your own welfare, your own everything.

I've various thoughts on how to finance the country, which would be a minimal expense compared to a nanny-state, but how to do it without taxes? Buy in? Service equals citizenship?

As for defense, there is no real military per-se, as we'd be too small to fight against even a 3rd world nation. Instead, we depend on nuclear deterrence.

A single enhanced radiation nuclear device, of sufficient size to destroy a major city, would be the only weapon we'd possess. It would be a 'dirty' bomb, in that the weapon is designed to deliver a persistant fallout of long-lived radionuclides that'd render a sizeable portion of the attackers country into a long-term wasteland.

The weapon is in a perpetual shell-game, where neither we nor a potential attacker knows where it is at. Only thing an attacker knows is that, at some future time, one of his population centers (with the leadership in it) will disappear in a flash of light. :)

[GibbsFreeEnergy]

3. Organised crime is mostly a "habit" of certain etnic groups, of certain social classes in society. If they're banned from living in the state, the problem quickly becomes smaller.


To put forth such a brash assessment of organized crime is completely absurd. The allure of organized crime sees no boundaries of race, sex, color, status, or any other socially classifying term one could suggest. There has been corruption in literally every facet of every society at some point in time or another. Labeling a certain ethnic group or race as the "habitual" offenders of organized crime is completely racist and fundamentally illogical. So according to your assessment, Enron and Worldcom executives are some low class, high minority groups in Western society?

This trend of skewed logic continues in your assessment of "non-medical, pleasure" drug use. The division between medicinal drugs and recreational drugs is not a clear line but rather a blotchy gray area. Drugs that are used for recreation today were once largely employed in medical practice, and oppositely drugs that are used in pharmaceutical applications today are also today used as devastating recreational drugs. Many of the "medical" drugs pose a far more serious threat to their users than the so called evil recreational drugs you have mentioned. Countless cases of persons using pharmaceutical drugs either by prescription or illicitly have found those persons severely and permanently damaged by these drugs. For example, amphetamine was widely prescribed during the late 50s right on through to today, but today it is in a far narrower prescription range. This drug was accepted by the typical sheeple as a fantastic creation of science, giving its patients the power to stave off grogginess and achieve endless reserves of concentration. A few years later, pharmacologists began finding out that amphetamine was, in fact, posing severe problems in whoever it was administered to; they decided maybe Americans should not be popping down these wonder pills like candy.

This is one of many perfect examples of large scale, socially permeated ignorance in Western society. Lastly, labeling drug users as "menaces to society" is quite illogical as well. The main reason for drug-related crimes is the fact that drugs are illegal. As many have stated in this thread, the government can not legislate morality; it should be up to each individual person what they can or cannot ingest into his or her own body. On top of that, many great things in modern society have come about by influence of drugs and their culture. Countless authors, one of my personal favorites being Aldous Huxley, had their imaginations expanded wildly by the use of psychedelic drugs. Others would be Allen Ginsberg, Edgar Allen Poe, William James (AKA Father of American psychology), Richard Feynman (Considered a pioneer of quantum mechanics), Albert Hoffman, Jonathan Ott, Alexander Shulgin (Massive contributions to synthetic organic chemistry and pharmacalogical research into previously unsynthesized organic compounds); Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have both admitted to LSD use in their college days.
This list is far from exhaustive and I am only attempting to emphasize the lack of logic you have expressed in explicating such an argument against drugs and their users.



Forgot to add one pivotal piece of information about the most modern research into psychedelics. This is a study from the journal Psychopharmacology which shows that under rigorous scientific conditions (which is generally viewed as something bad by trippers) participants in their study of the effects of psilocybin had profound, life changing mystical experiences that improved their quality of life. This study was carried out at John Hopkins Medical University. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v2175688r1w4862x/
It has also been featured on hundreds of news sources and one can easily google it to see a sheeple suited abstract.

[Chris The Great]

My country would be real simple:

**********

As for defense, there is no real military per-se, as we'd be too small to fight against even a 3rd world nation. Instead, we depend on nuclear deterrence.

A single enhanced radiation nuclear device, of sufficient size to destroy a major city, would be the only weapon we'd possess. It would be a 'dirty' bomb, in that the weapon is designed to deliver a persistant fallout of long-lived radionuclides that'd render a sizeable portion of the attackers country into a long-term wasteland.

The weapon is in a perpetual shell-game, where neither we nor a potential attacker knows where it is at. Only thing an attacker knows is that, at some future time, one of his population centers (with the leadership in it) will disappear in a flash of light. :)

NBK, I desire to live in your country. Utopia, IMO.
I'd imagine most of the court would be judged on common sense- ie shooting the motherfucker coming at you with a knife is not a crime. Etc etc


As for defense, if the country was made up with a large portion of forum membership (even if not made for that purpose, I have a feeling most of the forum would rapidly migrate to it), I think we could do quite well. I'm sure our dirty bomb won't be the only thing they find themselves hit with. Sure, it might be the only government weapon, but I have a feeling the forum membership would be sending a nice big fat load of explosive, chemical weapons and biological weaponry from their basement labs... :eek:
Or for those entrepeuners in the home-made nuke thread, a 10MT fusion bomb guided by a magnetic dip-turn count sensor (I think that was the same, I am very tired) :D

[c.Tech]

nbk, your country looks good on first site but I wouldn’t trust the legal system.

One of the many reasons we don’t have the death penalty in Australia is because the courts can make mistakes.

I'm sure not all evidence would stand out, much could and would be hidden/destroyed.

Innocent people would occasionally be put to death and criminals let off.

“An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.”

As for your enhanced radiation nuclear device, it would protect you from other nations until bush blames an attack in his beautiful free country on your weapons, invading you, killing your people and calling it "another logical attack in the war against terror and the next step towards America’s freedom being awarded back to the people", that’s how the world works these days right? :rolleyes: ;)

[Jome skanish]

My main objection against pleasure-drugs is not their effects, or even themselves, hell, as you point out some drugs are used both illegally and legally, f.ex last year when I was anesthetised they used fentanyl in the hospital.

It's not in them makning people commit crimes to be able to afford them either, most drugs can be produced much much cheaper than their present "street price".

My major two objections concern the fact that they quite often make people with only slight mental issues go fruitcake, and that drug-abusers often quickly starts neglecting their work, their kids or their duty. Messing with the brains reward-system is foolish even when you know what you're doing. And do you really think those scientists, CEOs and writers wouldn't have done the same things without drugs?

Stronger psychadelics are partly a different story, they're not known to be addictive, but even if we could somehow test people to be 100% sure they're not mentally hurt by them, I would not release it completely into society.

Death penalty I wouldn't have in my state, but that's only because as prevoious stated "legal system sometimes do mistakes". Otherwise there would be death for every major crime.

I'd place my state on an artifical island in some remote reef, or in a large boat cirkling the planet. Placing it just outside the US would be begging for trouble, I'd say it wouldn't even be finished. Tax revenue would come from general trading, refining raw materials, research...

The main benefits of my system would be:

1. The state would be safe enough to invest and live in.

2. You'd be able to raise your family clear of the sheeple-propaganda.

3. Everyone would enjoy freedom under responsibility. Most other systems migh have freer laws, but they'd also force you to pay for your neighbor being an idiot and messing his own life up, either by taxes (as in Sweden) or by crime.

4. The immigration policy would not accept morons, excluding the least productive 20% of the population, or even perhaps exclusively accepting only the best 20% would lead to benefits for the economy and also make things run smoother. The ban on religions would leave religious people and their continous work to force everyone else to follow the rules of their idols outside. The ideals of my state might seem "conservative" to some degree, but they're designed to build a well working atheist society.

Family values f.ex, thats something thats shared with all other major traditional culturs (christans, muslims...), but there is a reason for this - a society whose citizens does not reproduce (even if 11 kids might be an exaggeration), WILL end up in economic and social ruin. Thats why traditionalist views have survived despite its people being anti-progessive and zealous conformists, christians and muslims REPRODUCE, and liberals and others does not, at least no to the same degree. Hence, they end up being evolutionarily superior to your high-held "western culture", despite being sheepifying and despite being against technological progress.

Look at how have the power balance for middle-east/maghreb muslims versus secular europeans tipped in the last forty years? We used to be twice as many as them, and technologically superior. Now they're twice as many, and we'd be fucked if we would not still have some of that technological edge.

But for how long will this last? Europe are seeing millions of immigrants from these regions, and in two generations, in some western european countries even one, they will be the majority, and then both you and I can kiss our asses goodbye. America is seeing the same problem, with secular, "free" people with values resembling those of yourselves simply not reproducing, while blacks, hispanics and deep religious whites are literally spitting out offspring. How many generations before YOUR freedom and your wealth are naught?

And why is all this happening? Because those fucking hippie-generations went to far. Bible-recitation and beatings was excluded from schools when the idea of freedom won, to major benefit for society. In a short period in the fifties we got the best of both worlds and at the same time science reached major breakthroughs.

Then things started to fuck up, women was taught by feminist theorits to prioritise "careers", and both the would-be parents today would rather buy another TV than bring babies to this world. Are you seeing my point? You are getting replaced by crap. My idea involves both reliance on science and rationality with family values to promote long-term survival and growth. One has to think ahead.


So, there it would be:
Jomeia

Government: Liberal minimalist, cooperative branch-system.

Culture: Atheistic neo-conservatism with some naturalist traits (no, not naturist, at least not for the men), promoting education, self-reliance, vigilance and family values and a morale based on naturalism and cooperative society.*

Location: Remote reef, in a number of ever-moving boats or perhaps on Mars.

*That is, going from the original naturalist "only the fit survives" to "only the fit society survives", IMO this leads to both individualism and those individualists cooperating for good of each other and oneself.