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.
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... 😖hifty:
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 [have little to few civil rights] 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.
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 [have little to few civil rights] 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.
I would base on the US constitution, but add a few things. Anything not essential to living, ie internet, computers social media, are not protected.
You can protest, but the second you become a mob, your arrested and charge. 3 strike you go to prison long term.
Terrorism of any sort gets no leeway. You have your trial, your found guilty, death penalty. No reason wasting money to keep you alive.
Rapist. And I mean a real rapist, death penalty.
False rape accusations or any kind. If it’s discovered you maliciously false a report. You will go to jail for a minimum of ten years. Plus you’ll own the country X amout of money.
There will not be 100 genders.
No religion.
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, 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.
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?
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.
👆 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.
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.
Is there any reason you'd specifically limit it to three, as opposed to more? Not saying I disagree, just curious.
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.
Then what about something along the lines of a negative income tax system?
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.
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?
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.
So who would be appointing these experts?
You can protest, but the second you become a mob, your arrested and charge. 3 strike you go to prison long term.Terrorism of any sort gets no leeway. You have your trial, your found guilty, death penalty. No reason wasting money to keep you alive.
Rapist. And I mean a real rapist, death penalty.
False rape accusations or any kind. If it’s discovered you maliciously false a report. You will go to jail for a minimum of ten years. Plus you’ll own the country X amout of money.
There will not be 100 genders.
No religion.
😆
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?