Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you were responsible for founding a Nation, how would you set it up? The founding document, the structure of government?

And if you're an anarchist you can describe how your ideal patch of anarchy would be set up and structured for functioning.

I would set mine up in a very similar structure to that of the way the Founding Fathers established the US government in the constitution, with a three branch government, separation of powers, checks and balances etc.

One thing I would do differently is have a more extensive Bill of Rights so to speak, a more expansive array of protected rights and liberties than was present in the constitution. Obviously women and black people etc. would be able to vote from the beginning and slavery wouldn't be a thing. I'd obviously keep things like the first and second amendment and stuff like that, but I would have protections for the civil liberties of the citizens further expanded and enshrined on that level so it'd be more difficult for politicians to erode them, people's right to their own labor and entitlement to be able to sell or not sell to whoever they wish, more restrictions on the ability of government to tax its citizens and engage in reckless spending, limitations against the government nationalizing healthcare, etc. that kind of thing.

As far as the purview of each branch of government, separation of powers and the checks and balances there, I'm largely fine with the way the Founding Fathers structured the US government. I'm also down with the Bicameral Congress (a senate with two senators from each state, and a house of reps with proportional representation), etc.

And when it comes to state vs federal power, I'd give the federal government more power to rule over the state governments when passing policy for the protection of civil liberties (such as... if the federal government were to say weed is legal), but the state governments more jurisprudence than the federal government as to policy that relates to the restriction of liberties (such as say gun control) or taxpayer funded programs so that policies passed in areas that would require spending on entitlement programs or the restriction of civil liberties would be closer to home and more limited to the areas in which people actually want them as opposed to spread across the whole nation.

Basically, the system I would propose would be a tweaked version of the American system designed to ensure the maximum protection of individual rights in a representative democracy, with individual rights more heavily enshrined in the Constitution, the federal government having more top down power specifically in regards to decisions that prevent state governments from restricting or requiring certain things from the individuals, but the power to tax people for social programs or pass socially restrictive policy more devolved to the states.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I would set mine up in a very similar structure to that of the way the Founding Fathers established the US government in the constitution, with a three branch government, separation of powers, checks and balances etc.

One thing I would do differently is have a more extensive Bill of Rights so to speak, a more expansive array of protected rights and liberties than was present in the constitution. Obviously women and black people etc. would be able to vote from the beginning and slavery wouldn't be a thing. I'd obviously keep things like the first and second amendment and stuff like that, but I would have protections for the civil liberties of the citizens further expanded and enshrined on that level so it'd be more difficult for politicians to erode them, people's right to their own labor and entitlement to be able to sell or not sell to whoever they wish, more restrictions on the ability of government to tax its citizens and engage in reckless spending, limitations against the government nationalizing healthcare, etc. that kind of thing.

As far as the purview of each branch of government, separation of powers and the checks and balances there, I'm largely fine with the way the Founding Fathers structured the US government. I'm also down with the Bicameral Congress (a senate with two senators from each state, and a house of reps with proportional representation), etc.

And when it comes to state vs federal power, I'd give the federal government more power to rule over the state governments when passing policy for the protection of civil liberties (such as... if the federal government were to say weed is legal), but the state governments more jurisprudence than the federal government as to policy that relates to the restriction of liberties (such as say gun control) or taxpayer funded programs so that policies passed in areas that would require spending on entitlement programs or the restriction of civil liberties would be closer to home and more limited to the areas in which people actually want them as opposed to spread across the whole nation.

Basically, the system I would propose would be a tweaked version of the American system designed to ensure the maximum protection of individual rights in a representative democracy, with individual rights more heavily enshrined in the Constitution, the federal government having more top down power specifically in regards to decisions that prevent state governments from restricting or requiring certain things from the individuals, but the power to tax people for social programs or pass socially restrictive policy more devolved to the states.

I would setup a similar government but our constitution would spell out more no-nonsense basic human rights such as the basic human right to Internet Access and Healthcare (That's right, UHC). We'd also have UBI.

Also, my nation would be better than yours and your people would leave your nation and join mine.



I did write a 20+ page paper back in college about the type of government I would setup. I send it to Bardock42 and we both agreed that it was a great concept but rife with clear pie in the sky issues.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would setup a similar government but our constitution would spell out more no-nonsense basic human rights such as the basic human right to Internet Access and Healthcare (That's right, UHC). We'd also have UBI.

Also, my nation would be better than yours and your people would leave your nation and join mine.

I did write a 20+ page paper back in college about the type of government I would setup. I send it to Bardock42 and we both agreed that it was a great concept but rife with clear pie in the sky issues.
I definitely don't agree with you on guaranteeing positive rights in the constitution, but I appreciate the bit of banter and the time you took to respond to my thread

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I definitely don't agree with you on guaranteeing positive rights in the constitution, but I appreciate the bit of banter and the time you took to respond to my thread

Yes, I was clearly joking about my nation being better.


But facts are not a joke so I digress...

Similar to the US, cept I'd outlaw religion from having any power/sway over government and make it legally ironclad so there would be zero or as close to zero loopholes.

I'd cap political donations at $1,000.00, per person/entity/corporation per term.

I'd lower a presidential term to 3yrs but allow three terms. I'd do similar with congress. No matter how "good" ones intentions start off, career politicians always turn to shit as the decades creep by and imo, no one should be in politics for more than a decade or so. Though I'd consider maybe four 3year terms for congress, maybe.

I'd make a mandatory three strong party system, as I feel a strong third party here would help make both the Rep and Dem parties hold to their promises more, as it is now, they basically know they both have a large percentage of the votes and they have to do practically nothing for them, some people will always vote for the R and some people will always vote for the D.

DDM's healthcare being a Right would be included. Not sure about the UBI, but it has some decent points, so I'd have to look into it more thoroughly. I'm not a fan of giving lazy bums who could work but decide it's easier to milk the system a free ride.

edit: I'd look into working the penal system into being rehabilitation oriented and not the punishment oriented system we have. Seeing if that lowers recidivism rates.

Would try a flat tax rate, where everyone pays say 25-30% on their income/earning etc. Though maybe make exceptions for the very poor, if you're at a destitute income, you pay less.

First off, I'm assuming you mean nation-state, and not just nation.

In an idealist world where it can be assumed that everyone is as self-disciplined and knowing as myself, I would go for what DMD proposed.

But because modern-day humans are helpless, stupid pieces of shit, in addition to me being an elitist, I'd elect for confederacy of states. Working within the physical lands of the United States, I'd divide up a new map of states based mainly on demographics. I'd mesh together the midwestern states into their own mega-state, the south-west would get its own, etc, but I'd be sure to carve the state-lines based on race as much as possible.

Each mega-state would get its own benevolent dictator which would be assigned by a global elitist group (oligarchy).

A corporatocracy system would be implemented.

Civil rights would be granted on merit of knowledge (a standardized test would be administered in tiers in each grade level--those who don't pass are given second-rate citizen status however they can reapply for civil rights by taking the test or after military assignment.

Oh and physical state boundaries would need to be mega-strong and enforced strictly. The free movement of people would be limited and tracked.

Rating of 5/7 Edgelords right there

Originally posted by Robtard
Rating of 5/7 Edgelords right there Weak-willed neo-hippies like yourself wouldn't survive in Arstotzka

Wait, I thought I was a socialist which is basically the same thing as being a communist in KMC. So wouldn't I fit right in Arstotzka?

Originally posted by Kurk
First off, I'm assuming you mean nation-state, and not just nation.

In an idealist world where it can be assumed that everyone is as self-disciplined and knowing as myself, I would go for what DMD proposed.

But because modern-day humans are helpless, stupid pieces of shit, in addition to me being an elitist, I'd elect for confederacy of states. Working within the physical lands of the United States, I'd divide up a new map of states based mainly on demographics. I'd mesh together the midwestern states into their own mega-state, the south-west would get its own, etc, but I'd be sure to carve the state-lines based on race as much as possible.

Each mega-state would get its own benevolent dictator which would be assigned by a global elitist group (oligarchy).

A corporatocracy system would be implemented.

Civil rights would be granted on merit of knowledge (a standardized test would be administered in tiers in each grade level--those who don't pass are given second-rate citizen status however they can reapply for civil rights by taking the test or after military assignment.

Oh and physical state boundaries would need to be mega-strong and enforced strictly. The free movement of people would be limited and tracked.

It's depressing that I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

I'd have an elected chamber and a meritocracy based chamber with appointed experts from different fields like the sciences, economics, the arts to scrutinise and amend legislation for the elected chamber to vote on. I'd ban parties getting above a certain size. Limits on donation sizes with full transparency and published yearly to see who takes money from who. I'd have legislation to ensure media impartiality.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'd have legislation to ensure media impartiality.

Well shit, there goes every single major network and news website lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well shit, there goes every single major network and news website lol.

Exactly. Maybe people would get some truth for a change instead of bipartisan hackery and sycophantic garbage.

I agree that I'd really rather the media just reported the facts and was impartial and unbiased but freedom of the press is also a thing to consider.

It disgusted me before our election when I glanced at the news stand and saw papers just outright telling their readers who to vote for however.

Originally posted by Nephthys
It's depressing that I can't tell if this is a joke or not. I will go down in KMC's history as the greatest edgelord/troll of all time

I would take things from Jaden's nation and DDM's and take credit, there would be no trademark or copyright laws in my nation.

Interesting. Would you mind laying out more specifically what powers (if any) Congress would have outside of the ability to establish protections? And--assuming the states would be the ones holding the purse--how would the national government enforce those protections? How would foreign affairs (be they diplomatic or military) be conducted and funded?



This isn't necessarily how I'd go about it, but more checks on corruption/money in politics would definitely be my #1 addition to the constitution as it is.



Is there any reason you'd specifically limit it to three, as opposed to more? Not saying I disagree, just curious.



Then what about something along the lines of a negative income tax system?



Couldn't you just have a flat rate with the caveat that a specific amount (what is needed to cover basic necessities) is non-taxable, regardless of how much you make?



So who would be appointing these experts?

Originally posted by Robtard
Similar to the US, cept I'd outlaw religion from having any power/sway over government and make it legally ironclad so there would be zero or as close to zero loopholes.

i dunno man, we have separation of church and state right at the beginning of the bill of rights. how do you make it more clear than that?

Originally posted by NewGuy01


So who would be appointing these experts?



Their peers in their respective fields.

I don't know how I'd set up an entire nation, but one thing I know for sure: there would be a mandatory cuckoldry clause.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I don't know how I'd set up an entire nation, but one thing I know for sure: there would be a mandatory cuckoldry clause. So how would those like Robtard be dealt with?

Originally posted by Kurk
So how would those like Robtard be dealt with?
Is he a cuckold? Because in my glorious nation every person who's officially involved in a relationship would have to be cuckolded at least once a year.

Originally posted by jaden101
Their peers in their respective fields.

...so we'd essentially hold elections that only people of certain occupations can participate in, and then have the winner voted on by congress? Or would we have some government-backed "Society of ____" that would be in charge of selecting representatives?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Is he a cuckold? Because in my glorious nation every person who's officially involved in a relationship would have to be cuckolded at least once a year. He lets other men bang his wife, so yes.

Would cuckolding be outlawed? Or a requirement?

Originally posted by BackFire
Would cuckolding be outlawed? Or a requirement?
A requirement.

Well it'll keep the population humble I guess.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well it'll keep the population humble I guess.
Yes, it's a kind of an Orwellian demoralization tactic to keep the cuc- the people in line.

Didn't work out so well in Braveheart, though.

Originally posted by BackFire
Didn't work out so well in Braveheart, though.
That's because the English didn't have telescreens installed in every Scottish household and didn't have a team of these guys ready to spring to action at any sign of dissent.

Speak for yourself.

Originally posted by BackFire
Speak for yourself.

Alright then

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Interesting. Would you mind laying out more specifically what powers (if any) Congress would have outside of the ability to establish protections? And--assuming the states would be the ones holding the purse--how would the national government enforce those protections? How would foreign affairs (be they diplomatic or military) be conducted and funded?
I'm not an expert on policy, and I wasn't intending to say it as a black and white thing, but moreso with the government set up so the balance of power is more in those directions on those specific types of issues. There would still be a federal tax, I'm just saying entitlement programs like welfare and the like would be devolved to the states rather than federalized. Obviously taxes for things like infrastructure, military spending, federal government expenditures etc. would still get taxpayer funding. I'm definitely not saying no federal taxes.

As far as foreign affairs, I'm a fan of free trade, but I'll admit to a certain level of ignorance on military or diplomatic engagement so I don't really have a well informed opinion to offer there.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
...so we'd essentially hold elections that only people of certain occupations can participate in, and then have the winner voted on by congress? Or would we have some government-backed "Society of ____" that would be in charge of selecting representatives?

No. Because I already said there would be an elected chamber. It'll effectively be like the UK system. The House of Commons that is elected and The House of Lords which is currently a mix of appointed Lords and hereditary peerages. Hereditary lordships are now scrapped though so current Lords who had their position handed down to them will no longer be able to pass theirs down the family line. The appointed ones are currently chosen by the sitting government (although other opposition parties can submit recommendations) but typically they are picked under a guise of how much "public service" they have done which in truth means how much money they have donated to the ruling party.

So instead of a House of Lords I'd have a House of "Minds". A chamber full of people with expertise in all manner of fields. They won't write policy or legislation. That will be the job of the elected House. They will scrutinise it and recommend changes and point out potential consequences of proposed legislation. The elected chamber can then vote on legislation and whether to adopt it with or without the changes.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If you were responsible for founding a Nation, how would you set it up? The founding document, the structure of government?
like all good nations are set-up, with the judicious use of slaves

If I created my own nation.
First Step.

NOT LET ANY OF YOU INTO IT!!!

Altruistic Dictatorship, I would even wear epaulettes and a flamboyant hat. I would have my own royal guard to protect me which would be bigger and better armed than the national guard. I would also pay the Army well.

I'd build a nation based on security.

There would be an officer on every corner, and a wall surrounding each state. Guard towers would surround the wall.

There would be zero crime, and uprisings would be dealt with swiftly and brutally by wiping out entire communities for the crime of a single representative.

I'd also, of course, need to wipe out all competing nations.

Similar to the united states in terms of the unified states. Money within the nation would be a non factor. Citizens would have to pull their own weight through society based off of contribution. Which means knowledge, education, and skill would be a necessity if you want to have a comfortable life style. Gold would be the currency used outside of the country because it's worth more than paper currency. So citizens can travel from country to country, and not have financial difficulty. The amount of gold an individual receive will be based off of a point system of what he or she has contributed to society.

The school system will teach from the lower grades into young adult hood how to carry themselves with dignity, and respect, how to treat others around them in the same manner, the necessary skills needed to make the nation prosper, basic education skills, and a advance curriculum in morailty.

Their will also be a zero tolerance law against criminal activity. Outcasting those out of society depending on the nature of the crime. Racism towards others will also be considered a crime as well. If convicted that individual will also be banish to live alone for a number of years. The prison system will be a island far off shores from the nation itself, deep under the ocean. So escaping will be a sure death without the proper equipment to do so.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'd build a nation based on security.

There would be an officer on every corner, and a wall surrounding each state. Guard towers would surround the wall.

There would be zero crime, and uprisings would be dealt with swiftly and brutally by wiping out entire communities for the crime of a single representative.

I'd also, of course, need to wipe out all competing nations.

Israel then?

Why do you think that would be hard to do? Simply allow each candidate a maximum amount of money from donations given by citizens (not pacs, unions, corporations.) Get rid of debates on cnn, fox etc put them on cspan. Allow each canidate a certain amount of air time per candidate..........something like this isn't perfect but it's a damn spot better then what the US has going on currently.

It's not hard to do.

It seems to me capitalism shouldn't run elections even in a free market economy, that is actually the govt's job, solely to represent the will of the people.

Nice to see how all our Lefty Posters pretty much admit that if they got to be the True Power, They would go Full On Fascist!

Imagine a Country being run like it was KMC and its Moderators.

Put Mao, Poll Pot and Stalin to Shame they would.