If you had an entire country, let's just say it's already a developed nation, and it's a dictatorship. You are the dictator. What are the laws you impose on your land? Let's just say your country replaces the united states of america.

I'm thinking one major law would be: Your freedoms end where they impose on another's. So that covers a large variety of things, including theft and murder and such. Another law would be that you cannot be denied a fair trial and a lawyer, of course. And of course, I'd need a few laws for the democracy that I would impose at the end of my reign. Like, laws cannot specify any ethnic groups unless dealing with biological factors. Another law would be that abusive actions will result in a mandatory session of therapy and depending on whether it was verbal or physical, prison time according to the type. For immigration laws, I'd just make sure they didn't have any past criminal behavior. If someone illegally entered the country, they'd be sent back out into the direction they came, and given a chance to enter legally. If they tried to enter illegally again, I'd say they should be barred from entering legally and should be placed in the middle of the country they each respectively came from. This way, everyone gets two chances and if you fuck both up you get turned away. I'd make it illegal for professionals to scam, considering their credibility would help them to an enormous extent. Another thing that would have to be addressed, would be taxes. I'd have maybe a percentage of tax that would be miniscule, but still enough to keep the government running. I'd probably pay some professional programmers, mathmaticians, and psychologists to make a program that would flag words with an abusive nature, and if those flagged words came from inside the country, it would simply observe them. If they repeated, the severity would be judged and proportionally the intensity of the observation would increase with the severity of the repetition. If the program found out they commited a crime, it would be flagged and the police in the area would be notified of the IP.

But this is just my idea of a perfect country. I'm sure there's some stuff I missed, and I'm sure that something I said won't be agreed with, but hey, opinions am I right?

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
If you had an entire country, let's just say it's already a developed nation, and it's a dictatorship. You are the dictator. What are the laws you impose on your land? Let's just say your country replaces the united states of america.

I think I would copy the german law system with some small changes. (I don't know another one in practice)

First laws are the human rights

Second law would be a social security system (for healthcare,retirement benefits, and people that are out of work)

Third law: As much democracy as my dictatorship allows to work

I would make the nation into a meritocracy (besides my position as Dear Leader, of course). Anyone can make it anywhere within the government as long as they demonstrate the appropriate skills and talents. Education would be a priority, and compulsory for everyone, with fines for parents who refuse to send their children to school. Fines themselves would be proportional to income. All government aid will only be in the form of subsidies (reduced healthcare, food and utilities costs for example), never in the form of actual cash/cheques. Firearms would be heavily restricted, and must always be locked in a certified range (cannot be brought back home). In a similar vein to my country's actual system, I'll take a small portion of any workers income along with another paid by their employer and keep it in an account for them until they retire, upon which it is given back to them (basically a forced retirement fund).

That's all I can think of at the moment. It all sounds so nice and idealistic. It's a shame humans don't work that way.

Well...
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=conoistre

Genjar said:
Well...
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=conoistre

Oh yeah I got one of those too dude

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lemonadeandcows

I would devote the entire economy to making me the first man on Mars and declare myself Emperor of Mars

I would refer to my countrymen on earth as Martian ambassadors

Eventually we would all leave for redder pastures

As I grow old, I would create a death cult obsessed with bringing about the destruction of all who dwell on earth
My empire would return with Rods from God

I'd try to set up a system that wouldn't collapse upon my death. The Scandonavian countries seem to be doing pretty well, so I'd model the system after theirs, and then try to minimize my own influence.

However, I'd remain the equal rights dictator. Issues relating to equal rights I would still make proclamations on. Hopefully, in my lifetime, the population would adjust to those things I ruled on such that after my death my proclamations would not be repealed. Beyond that my role would be at best advisory.

I thought of creating a country where everybody is equal and helps each other, the government willing to spend fortunes for the people, people who commit murderous crimes be banished or sentenced for life.

Then I realized, that was Communism.

Really though, the best thing you could do would be to give up your absolute power.
A benevolent dictatorship is probably the best form of government... but as history has shown repeatedly, the problem is that they never stay benevolent for long...

aurel said:
@Fenrick

better than democratic government, they only stay benevolent at elections :D

That's still some incentive. A dictator whose power will never be at stake? They have no reason to consider the desires of their populace except to discourage rebellions and, maybe, their own personal values.
And even if you're lucky enough to have a dictator who truly means well, as they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Free street tacos for everyone!

Death for everyone except animals, that way everything would be peaceful. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Fenrick said:
That's still some incentive. A dictator whose power will never be at stake? They have no reason to consider the desires of their populace except to discourage rebellions and, maybe, their own personal values.
And even if you're lucky enough to have a dictator who truly means well, as they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

That's true. However, a dictator also is more able to get things done (although whether what is done is a good thing is still debatable). With a dictatorship, Dear Leader snaps his fingers and his laws/edicts etc. are put into place. Democracies, however, are so much more inefficient. They must vote on whether to vote on what they want to vote about and all sorts of other red tape, you have political parties opposing others just because they can, and all this simply results in nothing ever getting done (or just taking a long time to do so). It's a trade off, as with everything. Dictatorship? Things happen fast, but you sacrifice your freedom for it. Democracy? Things happen slowly, but at least you have a say. Decisions, decisions...

So I'm the only one who would recreate Motherbase and be the Big Boss of my USA sized PMC?

Are all the lands in the same universe? Can we work together? or take over other lands?

Kataphraktarii said:
All government aid will only be in the form of subsidies (reduced healthcare, food and utilities costs for example), never in the form of actual cash/cheques. In a similar vein to my country's actual system, I'll take a small portion of any workers income along with another paid by their employer and keep it in an account for them until they retire, upon which it is given back to them (basically a forced retirement fund).

Thats how the german system actually roughly works XD (besides that the retirements for retirees are paid by the actual working population and their employers.) [quote]TheGreatWolfgang said: I thought of creating a country where everybody is equal and helps each other, the government willing to spend fortunes for the people, people who commit murderous crimes be banished or sentenced for life. Then I realized, that was Communism. [/quote] Communisim in theory isn't bad, it just seem to fail whenever somebody tries to lead a nation with it. [quote]Kataphraktarii said: It's a trade off, as with everything. Dictatorship? Things happen fast, but you sacrifice your freedom for it. Democracy? Things happen slowly, but at least you have a say. Decisions, decisions... [/quote] [I]It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. [/I] - Winston Churchill

I actually read somewhere that Marx intended for communism to be introduced slowly across the world, in a sort of proto-communism, before becoming the real thing. Lenin, however, ignored that and simply thrust Russia into full communism in a span of a few years, which was a huge shock and created all sorts of problems which ending up costing millions of lives.

Even then, I doubt communism would ever work. It's function is based on the assumption that humans would be willing to share and be equal with another, which has rarely been the case throughout history. Yes, we sometimes share, but more often with people we know like friends, family, lovers etc. However, in a communist state why would you want to work so hard to toil in the fields and factories just so the results of your hard work can be shared with complete strangers? No one would want to do that. It doesn't help that communist governments all over simply accuse those unwilling to do so of sabotage or treachery or whatever and imprison/execute them, when at it's base this selfishness is a basic human instinct.

Unless the way humans inherently behave changes, the communist utopia will always be a pipe dream, and no amount of gulags will change that.

I'm going to sound crazy but, this is what I would do:

- Like everyone else, it would have equality (rank/status, race, religion or not, gay/straight/bi/trans, etc. doesn't matter) everyone is equal and treated equal cause in the end we're all humans.

- No money, we are all one big community funding/helping each other

- Education is free. Everyone goes to a school to learn base off of their interest, then they get a job that helps the community from their interest.

- Raw food ingredients are sent to homes of people. (There's also food shelters, every person is given a calories checker.)

- The community gives back to the environment (planting, reestablishing animal population, cleaning, etc.)

-There are gyms for people to be active

But yeah, there'd be more. I just feel like I would be wasting your time. Anyways, I know there are some major flaws in my country.

Lenin was bad in his job, but it was more Stalin who really fucked the situation up.

D4rk said:
Lenin was bad in his job, but it was more Stalin who really fucked the situation up.

Hell, say what you will about Lenin, but even he knew that Stalin should not have been allowed to take control of the USSR.

The fact that someone like Stalin was able to take over at all just shows a tremendous flaw in that system.

Since the topic has come up a few times here, it's worth mentioning that communism's largest failure is due to the size of countries. Small communist communities have existed and continue to exist effectively. I don't know. Not entirely relevant I guess, but it is interesting, considering that the usual perspective is to say communism fails, with no caveats.

I would hypothesize that there may be some relation between the maximum size of a communist community and Dunbar's Number. That would be a fascinating study to me.

Lenin was responsible for imposing communism too quickly. Stalin was simply the one who carried it out. Stalin himself was a very interesting person. He did completely mess up the country in the initial stages (1920s to 39), but I think it's less of him being incompetent and more of a complete disregard for human lives and suffering. It's true though, that Lenin disliked Stalin and didn't want him to take over but it happened anyway. And in a way, Stalin was successful, albeit at massive and probably unjustifiable cost.

Communism isn't sustainable. Sure, it may be successful initially, but past that it eventually starts to decay from within. Stalin did thrust the USSR to superpower status, but eventually it collapsed as well. The only thing really holding it together was Stalin (or rather, the fear of him), and a few of his successors, rather than any desire from the people to exist in a communist 'utopia'. Communism is a denial of human nature, that we look out for ourselves and those we love, and not some strangers.

Clawdragon mentioned small communist communities that still exist. I'm not sure about that, I don't know enough to say anything, but on the national level I'm fairly sure no country is actually truly communist anymore. China is ostensibly still one, but it's quite obvious they're really not. North Korea is less 'communist' and more 'personal kingdom of the Kims'. If there are any others that are still communist let me know, that's all I can think of atm.

Everyone always forgets about Laos....but it's probably because the Pathet Lao were more amenable to vietnamese influence that it remains so. If Year Zero planning actually took hold throughout as it were with the Khmer Rouge it's doubtful it could maintain any semblance of stability

The burmese junta tends toward the same isolation and social engineering though its quasi-theocractic leanings are clearly distinct from communist ideology; it's kind of funny to see how far buddhist tenets can be perverted to justify ethnic cleansing

One where capitalism, privacy and freedom reign. Give as much power as I can to the people and limit that of the government. I don't know, I don't like politics.

Or create a warmonger state. Every citizen is trained in the ways of combat and death on the battlefield is the only accepted form of death. Unleash my legions and nuclear arsenal on all of your countries. My plan? Either we conquer the world....or destroy it! and create a mad max utopia of chaos! WITNESS ME! I AM THE ONE WHO GRABS THE SUN!

aurel said:
I am amazed that not one country plan imposed a law to force everyone to always wear a fake tail/animal ears/animal mask at all times.

I thought it was implied😉

Rustyy said:
One where capitalism, privacy and freedom reign. Give as much power as I can to the people and limit that of the government. I don't know, I don't like politics.

THE SONS OF LIBERTY?!

Or create a warmonger state. Every citizen is trained in the ways of combat and death on the battlefield is the only accepted form of death. Unleash my legions and nuclear arsenal on all of your countries. My plan? Either we conquer the world....or destroy it!

OUTER HEAVEN?!

Fenrick said:
THE SONS OF LIBERTY?!
OUTER HEAVEN?!

A WEAPON TO SURPASS METAL GEAR?!

After re-reading everything in this thread, this is the only conclusion I can draw

Very complicated yet interesting topic.

For me, the best course is some sort of transhuman technocracy.

Im too lazy to give you the whole story.
My english gets worse every day ~.~

Phylax said:
After re-reading everything in this thread, this is the only conclusion I can draw

The songtitle is wrong. Hell no I wouldn't wanna rule the word. All that work to keep peace, solve the several 3rd world problems and many other stuff I would have to work on.

I'm happy with an office job :)

________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DxeItdxwAM

(Especially around 1:20 would catch it right)

I'd have 1 rule regarding laws:

Do no harm: Unless it can be shown it tangibly harms another person, it's legal. If a person is shown to be consenting in the fullest form (aka of sound mind and knowledge of the full agreement at the point of consent), a person may waive some rights to their protection of self to another party, hence making said harm likewise legal.

Lyokira said:
I'd have 1 rule regarding laws:

Do no harm: Unless it can be shown it tangibly harms another person, it's legal. If a person is shown to be consenting in the fullest form (aka of sound mind and knowledge of the full agreement at the point of consent), a person may waive some rights to their protection of self to another party, hence making said harm likewise legal.

Short rules like that seem simple, but can end up being quite complex.

For instance, spraying deadly chemicals in the face of another person clearly would harm them. Illegal. Spraying deadly chemicals into the air would probably harm a lot of people. Illegal. Spraying non-deadly but life-shortening chemicals, still would be harmful. Illegal. Spraying chemicals in order to create a beneficial product - that's not so easy. Does the benefit of the product outweigh the harm of the chemicals? What if we aren't quite sure how dangerous the chemicals are? What if the chemicals don't harm humans - are animals people? And if we do make a law against it, should we outlaw it altogether or try to mitigate the harm?

Most real issues tend to exist in that last group. The issue I was driving at was pesticides. There's debate about how harmful they are, who they harm, if the benefits outweigh the harm, and what, if anything, we should do to lessen that harm.

Just saying, in concept, I like what you're driving at. I think many people try to apply that sort of thinking, but it can get so messy so quickly.

Clawdragons said:
Short rules like that seem simple, but can end up being quite complex.

For instance, spraying deadly chemicals in the face of another person clearly would harm them. Illegal. Spraying deadly chemicals into the air would probably harm a lot of people. Illegal. Spraying non-deadly but life-shortening chemicals, still would be harmful. Illegal. Spraying chemicals in order to create a beneficial product - that's not so easy. Does the benefit of the product outweigh the harm of the chemicals? What if we aren't quite sure how dangerous the chemicals are? What if the chemicals don't harm humans - are animals people? And if we do make a law against it, should we outlaw it altogether or try to mitigate the harm?

Most real issues tend to exist in that last group. The issue I was driving at was pesticides. There's debate about how harmful they are, who they harm, if the benefits outweigh the harm, and what, if anything, we should do to lessen that harm.

Just saying, in concept, I like what you're driving at. I think many people try to apply that sort of thinking, but it can get so messy so quickly.

Exactly. It's impossible to get a perfect system, a perfect set of laws, because the world is so full of grey that any such thing is impossible. Many have tried to create the perfect system before. All have failed. Because there isn't one. Whatever you do, whatever you set down in law, someone has to be at the bottom, someone is getting screwed over no matter what. Nothing in this world is ever one way or the other, choice A or B. All we can do is make the best with what we have.

What we need is a collection of anarcho-syndicalist communes

The Venus Project

I guess I should've just said a Utopia is how I'd want my country to be.

Btw I do not want to rule the world, if anything, I'd give up my power.