If It Were Up To You...

[ShaneEnochs]

I thought this would be a fun little thought exercise for us. If you were to create a country, what type of government would you set up? You can go as simple or complex as you like. One rule, though. You can't make it exactly like the United States.

Then we can discuss the pros and cons. We'll say that the fictional country has a hundred million people.


As for me, I would have a Republic. At the Federal level, I would have an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a people's branch.

The executive branch would do absolutely nothing except protect the country from attack. The head of the executive branch would be limited to five two-year terms. He or she would make the median income of the country.

The legislative branch would constantly change in size. I would have on representative per one hundred thousand people. At a hundred million, you'd have a thousand legislators. They would meet one week per quarter, and would be paid absolutely nothing. This, however, would be the most powerful branch of government. It would take 2/3 agreement for ANY bill to pass. There would be no term limits.

The people's branch is to throw some democracy in the mix. Anyone who wished to participate could go to the polls once per quarter and vote to overrule any law. It would take 2/3 vote to overrule a law. These are every day citizens, and wouldn't hold any kind of elected office.




That's about all I've come up with so far. Anyone else wanna play?

[donnay]

The one that founders set with complete transparency--no conflicts unless someone draws first blood!

[ShaneEnochs]

The one that founders set with complete transparency--no conflicts unless someone draws first blood!

The rule was you can't have the US's =P

[low preference guy]

The one that founders set with complete transparency--no conflicts unless someone draws first blood!

There are many different countries that satisfy your criteria. Some founders set up the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation. Other founders imposed the Constitution, over the opposition of some of the other founders who supported the AoC.

[Eryxis]

I'm more ancap, but if I were to set up a government... I would set up something very similar to our government (before 17th ammendment), with an added house that required only 1/3 vote to reject/repeal legislation, and cause the houses to promote legislation to require a 2/3 yes vote.

[Knightskye]

I thought this would be a fun little thought exercise for us. If you were to create a country, what type of government would you set up? You can go as simple or complex as you like. One rule, though. You can't make it exactly like the United States.

Then we can discuss the pros and cons. We'll say that the fictional country has a hundred million people.


As for me, I would have a Republic. At the Federal level, I would have an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a people's branch.

The executive branch would do absolutely nothing except protect the country from attack. The head of the executive branch would be limited to five two-year terms. He or she would make the median income of the country.

The legislative branch would constantly change in size. I would have on representative per one hundred thousand people. At a hundred million, you'd have a thousand legislators. They would meet one week per quarter, and would be paid absolutely nothing. This, however, would be the most powerful branch of government. It would take 2/3 agreement for ANY bill to pass. There would be no term limits.

The people's branch is to throw some democracy in the mix. Anyone who wished to participate could go to the polls once per quarter and vote to overrule any law. It would take 2/3 vote to overrule a law. These are every day citizens, and wouldn't hold any kind of elected office.


That's about all I've come up with so far. Anyone else wanna play?

What are the consequences to the legislature passing laws that violate individual rights?

[donnay]

The rule was you can't have the US's =P

Okay a free and open society, with rules written so that the government knew that people have unalienable (un-aleen-able) rights. I would allow a totally free market economy where people could buy, sell or barter goods and services. I would set up a judicial system where it were simple to understand, no legalese or mombo-jumbo. People would be required to do civic duty, and be on juries, who are fully informed. Monetary policy would be on a system of competing currencies where gold and silver would be used to back up these currencies.

There would be voting by paper ballots only, and hand counted with citizen monitors. If some states took a week to count them so be it.

There would be no police forces, and very limited standing army. Sheriffs would enforce the laws.

That's a good start.

[dbill27]

The problem with setting up a "limited" government is that history has taught us that it will not stay that way. Constitutions are but pieces of paper. The smaller the government the more prosperous the people will be, the more prosperity, the more money for that government to ultimately take and become larger.

[BamaAla]

Monarchy.

[BattleFlag1776]

Monarchy.

Beat me to it! If it's my choice, I'm going all in; everyone works for me! I may wind up hanged, drawn and quartered, but at least "my people" did it to me!

[SL89]

Sorry, I am having a hard time with this. I am leaning toward donnay's comment. I think all power needs to be derived from local representation. The federal government is just there to provide for a national defense and to protect the contracts signed, as separate State's, a common constitution that protects the SOVEREIGN individual from violations against personal liberty. We have to be a nation of laws. I know, that sets us up for all kinds of failure, it is inherent. I always thought the constitution could be set in a way where it can't be mis-interpreted. I'll go back to my pipe dream now.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Kludgarchy.

Although, the people must remain vigilant lest kingdom fall into this....

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cmJshwPXvBs/0.jpg

[Xenophage]

I'm more ancap, but if I were to set up a government... I would set up something very similar to our government (before 17th ammendment), with an added house that required only 1/3 vote to reject/repeal legislation, and cause the houses to promote legislation to require a 2/3 yes vote.

Sounds like you've read some Heinlein!

I've always like this idea of requiring a 2/3 super-majority to pass any new law, and a 1/3 minority to repeal it. Straight from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

[Rosenzweig]

None, or at the very least, voluntary and decentralized.

[gerryb]

I choose an Idiotcracy. Eventually, the population will be too dumb to effectively infringe upon the rights of those sufficiently intelligent.

[ShaneEnochs]

What are the consequences to the legislature passing laws that violate individual rights?

Hmm... Imprisonment?

[pcosmar]

Monarchy.

Yup, but with a free and open society.
The success or failure would depend on whether I could walk among the people and drink in local bars without bodyguards.

[No Free Beer]

a King...

[hazek]

I'd make every person king.

[Eryxis]

Sounds like you've read some Heinlein!

I've always like this idea of requiring a 2/3 super-majority to pass any new law, and a 1/3 minority to repeal it. Straight from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

You caught me. I was a liberarian/an-cap before I ever even knew it. I love Heinlein. Every time I re-read some of his story some new tidbit or anti-government thing pops out to me. He's probably the most influential person on my political ideas and I never even knew it.

[Miss Annie]

I already run a socialist leaning dictatorship! My house! LOL

[Pericles]

The problem with setting up a "limited" government is that history has taught us that it will not stay that way. Constitutions are but pieces of paper. The smaller the government the more prosperous the people will be, the more prosperity, the more money for that government to ultimately take and become larger.

The Constitution is nothing more than giving notice to the government that we have rights that we will enforce whenever we so choose to do so.

Political parties are prohibited in my utopia.

[Xenophage]

You caught me. I was a liberarian/an-cap before I ever even knew it. I love Heinlein. Every time I re-read some of his story some new tidbit or anti-government thing pops out to me. He's probably the most influential person on my political ideas and I never even knew it.

Heinlein was the best :) His stories really deserved better treatment in the cinema. Starship Troopers was only watchable because of Michael Ironsides and the few good lines he had, and The Puppet Masters was a travesty all around.

[A Son of Liberty]

Yup, but with a free and open society.
The success or failure would depend on whether I could walk among the people and drink in local bars without bodyguards.

I'm going to make a serious reply to this thread, but for now I wanted to take a minute to laugh out loud at this post. :D

Well done, sir! +rep

[A Son of Liberty]

If came across a piece of uninhabited, ungoverned land, I wouldn't establish any kind of government at all. I'd mix my labor with a plot of it, and declare it my own. If others came into this area, I'd endeavor to live peacefully with them; I'd defend my land from them if there was a threat of encroachment, in any way (I would refuse to allow their government to be imposed upon me), and I'd never seek to impose myself upon him or his property (enforce my government upon them). Where the opportunity for trade presented itself, I'd engage in it, and if it did not, I'd continue to live otherwise.

[Johnny Appleseed]

theocratic agrarian