Sankaku Complex Forums » General

Think Tank Thread: If you could found an Otaku nation, how would it run?

Started 6 years ago by LunarSD, currently has 60 posts - latest post is by Sorrior

Tags:
- idealism
- mindfuck
- paradise
- Politics
- think tank
- tl;dr
- Utopia
- wishful thinking
Feed for this topic

LunarSD

This thread is for people to discuss how they would run their own Otaku-friendly nation, were they given the opportunity ^_^

You can be serious, or not, it's up to you.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
LunarSD

I am about to post an insanely long and largely unfinished TL;DR on this, by request. It's a Political Manifesto (part Constitution?) of sorts, detailing a unique system of Government not previously seen in human history. It briefly addresses most of today's drama-causing Information Age issues such as our fundamental liberties, property rights, freedom of expression, rape, abortion, business/economy, prostitution, murder, drug use, dependency, consent, copyright/P2P, etc.

I wrote this 3 years ago, but abandoned it soon after, as I had too many other more practical pet projects to get on with. I didn't have quite the same narrative voice back then as I do now, and there are probably spelling/gramatical errors here and there. Oh well, I lack the time to proof-read these days.

So if you actually do willingly skim through it, and you find something that makes no sense, keep in mind that I wrote it when I was 3 years more green than I am now. I still think most of the ideas are sound, and at the very least MUCH more fair to its people than most current political ecosystems.

I post it now in the dimly lit hope that it can in some way aid the course of our species' sociological evolution in a more rational direction, if only a little.

Feel free post your own ideas on how you would run your own Otaku-friendly nation as well!

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Loryhae

Into the ground.

I'm horrible with political power.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
LunarSD

Here goes then -_-;

-----

Government would be handled by the Scientific community. Rather than elected public officials, people who have spent decades researching the fields and statistics related to where they would like to hold power, would join the panel that makes the final decisions.

Such officials could posit revisions of current laws to their peers for discussion and final decision. But a certain percentage of the revisions/etc they submit for peer-review must originate from requests sent by any Citizen of the populace.

They would be one voice among the rest of their peers in the field. It would be similar to how the Supreme Court works.

(as long as we’re on the topic of utopic ideals this world will probably never get to test, might as well say I would prefer the Government to be populated 50% by very carefully constructed AI’s rather than 100% human beings; consider it similar to if even more rational versions of the US’s Founding Fathers could have remained alive and maintained a remote semblance of authority to help see to it the system wouldn’t become corrupted)

—–

_~Fundamentals~_

*There are no public figureheads or representatives, no national symbols, colors, animals, etc. save for the national flag. I suggest a flag that is solid sky blue. Thus if the flag is to be raised, it will appear boundaryless, as indistinguishable from the freedom symbolized in the sky as can be hoped for.

This is to represent a social and cultural evolution beyond nationalism. Within these boundaries, there is only the proliferation of governmental objectivity, tolerance to private subjectivity, and above all, a nurturing “gentle touch” environment for science, art, and progress.

*This system is intended to make laws that account for the most objective perspectives to issues, and are therefore worth following. In the present dawn of the information age, people are still generally confused as to how to handle data and subjective ethics in the governing process.

The following is intended as an exhaustive solution to the long-term issues of an informed, objective, technologically and scientifically dependent society regarding matters of business, law, governmental boundaries, and personal liberties.

*The core of any good government is its capacity to identify the entire spectrum of subjective opinion on a matter, and actualize at least the min, median, and max of that spectrum into isolated State laws.

In this way, citizens who lean toward a conservative view, liberal view, or extreme liberal view all have unsuppressed locations wherein they will be more likely to exist peacefully with similar minds.

*The system is designed to always favor the most objective view, which is presumed will encompass a rational and informed hybrid balance between any and all majority and minority subjective opinions.

This is aided by clearly isolating views into (at least) three degrees of governmental interference, ranging from the most governmental interference that is still objectively rational, to the least governmental interference that is still objectively rational.

*Conservative State = 20% of the Nation’s land; Liberal State = 60% of the Nation’s land; Extreme Liberal State = 20% of the Nation’s land.

*Having min, median, and max restrictions (restrictions referring to: economic, law, consent, expression, property, business, health care, liberty, indulgence, sexual/chemical/etc.) completely eliminates a society’s need for an Underground, legitimizing a substantial and equally viable community within their economy. Yet simultaneously ensuring those who wish no proximity to such lifestyles are equally accounted for (both extremes 20%/20% accounted for).

*When you’re on public property, you respect the conservative, liberal, or extreme liberal State law of the State you are standing in. When you’re in private property, if you break the property owner’s “private ruleset”, the property owner has the right to evict and/or ban you from further private property entry. This is discussed in detail in section “Property”.

_~Government~_

*Firstly, government is to be a beacon of scientific objectivity, free from any form of subjective constraint.

It is believed that majority/minority opinion polling is a form of subjectively derived law making, which can only ever give favor to popular opinion at the cost of completely ignoring minority concerns. There is to be no single president, king, or dictator.

Thus, rather than govern through subjectively-derived majority opinion, Laws which already have min/median/max spread among the States are generally never changed except in cases where it is judged there is extreme cause to change them. A change/addition can only be made after first passing the below constraints written up in the Law section, and secondly must be shown to have overwhelming evidence from the scientific community to prove it is an objective enough Law for it to be passed.

Also, we must ensure that the proper min/median/max range of the new Law is divided among the conservative, liberal, and extreme liberal States appropriately, with the intention that no one subjective perspective will be suppressed because of this new Law.

_~Property~_

*State laws only apply to public property. Inside the bounds of a person's private property, they get to have their own private ruleset to live by, regardless of State law. National law still applies, so here we emphasize that when it comes to a person's private property, the absolute lowest rational governmental interference is always preferred.

*To make private rules easier for guests to be knowledgeable of, we'll have an easily accessible government registry of popular private rulesets that hopefully many people will want to share. That way a guest can simply look up a private residence's private ruleset code, and know exactly what they're getting themselves into by visiting the private property. If a person has no private ruleset clearly legible on their premises then it doesn't count and both State Law and National Law apply, but they still have every right to evict/ban their guests and file charges against intruders.

For instance, if you have your private residence's private ruleset code somewhere people can't easily find it, rather than, say, on your door, then it's not legally binding. Thus, in the Liberal State, a guest can reasonably assume Liberal State Law applies with a private residence that does not clearly list their own private residence's private ruleset or ruleset code.

*Extreme conservative views have complex rules and restrictions that are too variable and unique to isolate into any one State-scaled community. But people with extremely conservative views, such as the very religious, can still own property within which they have the legal right to enact private rules, so long as they understand their only recourse for guests who break private rules is the legal right to evict and/or ban them from present and future property entry.

*In this way, a person's private beliefs, no matter what they are, whether they involve religion, sex, drugs, etc., all are given equal legal standing on a private property basis. That's something you literally can't see happen in traditional democracies, where only the majority get their views legally enforceable.

*This flexibility allows for Extreme Liberal or any shade of Extreme Conservative beliefs to be legally enforceable in a private residence, wherein the guest always maintains their right to leave private property at any time without hindrance, and their right to life. Legally enforceable means, if the property owner sees a Guest breaking a private rule, they can ban/evict them or treat them verbally/physically/etc. according to their private rules as long as it doesn't break National Law. But National Law is even less restrictive than Extreme Liberal law, so sexual contact, any form of expression, drug-use, non-major physical violence, etc. isn't prosecutable.

For instance, to pick an extreme case, if one's religion states that people must be punished for blasphemy, as long as the Guest doesn't exercise their right to leave a private residence at any time before or during the punishing, and as long as the punishing doesn't at any time break a Guest's National right to life, it is within the Law. This is very important, as it ensures that any subjective perspective, regardless of other subjective opinions of it, can be had and legally maintained by people in the privacy of their own homes. Again, Guests can, at ANY time, choose to exercise their right to freely leave private property without being hindered in ANY way. So once their desire to respectfully leave is communicated, they become IMMUNE to private property rulesets while they are escaping the premises. At that point any further treatment between Guest and Owner is governed according to their State Law and National Law.

Therefore it is extremely important that Guests know what they're getting themselves into before walking into a private property, and that Owners clearly express their personal rulesets. It's also important that a Guest entered the premises Consensually (Consent described below) for private property rulesets to count. Non-Consensual entrance grants private property ruleset immunity to the "Guest" (thus, when dealing with people who are "Dependents", only State Law and National Law can ever apply). Likewise if a Guest at any time decides they wish to leave the premises, they must be allowed to unhindered. But anything else, regardless of State Law, can legally occur within private residence boundaries. So by becoming a Guest of a private residence marked with a ruleset, a citizen is giving up their State Law rights in favor of the private ruleset they are inside the boundaries of.

'Private residence rulesets' frequently look something like the follow (in quotes):
"please keep in mind that as per National Law, all Dependents must treated according to the Conservative State Laws of this Conservative State which we are in, so none of the following private residence rulesets apply to Dependents; regular Conservative State Law applies within these premises, EXCEPT we choose Liberal State Law for all forms of Expression and Sexuality; all Residents [owners, guests, etc.] are also allowed minor physically harmful contact when offended, such as slapping; please do not disrespect our religion, or we may slap/evict/ban you."

But more open minded people will have the simplest ones (in quotes):
"Extreme Liberal State Law applies within. That is all."

*The only limits to private property rulesets are National Laws, which include destructive activity the consequences of which could expand beyond the boundaries of one's private property. Here are some clarifications to that statement:

For instance, if you're a hobbyist chemist, and you're conducting an experiment that has even a remote chance of exploding in such a way that it wouldn't be contained within the boundaries of your private property, that's rational to be viewed as being very inconsiderate to your neighbors. If it involves well-researched materials that are benign enough to not have destructive effects beyond your property boundaries, then do what you want.

Environmental concerns are very important. If you're dumping hazardous waste that can leak between private and public property bounds, those are consequences that trouble others needlessly, and will be penalized.

A person owns up to 10 feet below their lowest housing ground.

A person's own body is their most protected private property. But if a conservative-minded person wanders willingly into somewhere that has clearly legible private rules of extremely liberal art/speech/sexual/etc. views, private property rules and National Laws are all that legally matter.

-----This brings up the National Law points that a person always has:
1) a citizen's right to freely leave private property at any time,
2) a citizen's right to choose life.

Inhibiting either of these most basic rights is considered an act of aggressive prejudism, one of the most serious criminal offenses any person can engage in.
-----
We also follow most International law conventions as long as they're not provably gratuitous and overextending; as long as the International law is objectively rational and can't be proven to oppress someone's peaceful, subjective beliefs, then we follow it. So, no one gets a legal right to build or maintain weapons of mass destruction. For instance, if you're trying to build a death-ray, and someone learns of this and reports it, expect a knock on your door; accumulated reports can become enough evidence to warrant police or military entry as needed, preferably with the aid of International policing agencies. If you want to do death-ray research, academic institutions are the 3rd place to go, beyond private rules or State law. In this technologically and scientifically progressive society, the well and truly large scale hazardous stuff is a protected right to be handled by the scientific community. That's not to say a business or individual can't engage in their own experimentation and research, in fact this is applauded. Policing is restricted to work that can be hazardous to one's neighbors and community. Potentially hazardous work that's not massively destructive is limited to one's private property is up to the individual's or business's chosen ruleset.

If something can be stored as information, it is considered part of the Communal Library of the Data Frontier, meaning it is freely shareable public property. We do not follow International licensing laws that limit data sharing and observation, whatever the data may be. It is believed that for any technologically and scientifically progressive society, unrestricted information access must be considered an inalienable public right. If it is a form of storable information, it can legally be stored in any place, at any time, regardless of its interpretable content. This is true whether information is in the form of binary numbers, DNA, or any other format.
-----
This leads us to the one and only exception. Any boundaries of DNA-based storage, binary-based storage, etc. that contain the original copies of the recorded memories of a living intelligent sapient lifeform require the sapient lifeform's consent in order to access, view, replicate, and so forth. In other words, if the data at present has enough intelligence to possess one or more Selves that can want privacy for any of their stored original personal memories, they have the unquestionable right to said privacy. This is a person's protection against thought policing; the right to originality, intended to avoid non-consensual thought/memory viewing or copying.

Whether they're a Homo sapien, a digital computer, etc., if they possess a Self that's capable of wanting privacy, then consent is always needed before data access. It should be noted that persons or businesses may become interested in creating AI's to house sensitive materials inside of, or asking AI's to house sensitive materials for them, to ensure strictly punishable legally binding data protection. This would be considered a matter requiring the consent of the AI/person. If the AI/person is not intelligent enough to eventually grow without further outside assistance to possess a Self that can want to give Consent (Consent is described below), it is not a protected data space.

Please try to use firewalls, other security software and hardware solutions, or offline storage for sensitive materials. While data itself is a freely shareable entity, storage devices are material goods, and their physical theft is a crime, even if the offline storage device is only physically stolen for the duration that the thief copies data from it. Data sharing/copying/etc. that is done without physically capturing a storage device, such as internet downloading, is the exercising of a citizen's protected right to accessing and contributing to the Communal Library of the Data Frontier.

After data has first been made subject to a shareable state, regardless of where it came from or what it contains, the data is considered to be within the public bounds of the Communal Library of the Data Frontier, and can be proliferated endlessly. Therefore it is the responsibility of the data creator to protect the storage device they have their data in if it is truly their intention to keep such data private. For absolute clarity: the Law can punish the original person who unlawfully invaded property and stole a storage device, but cannot punish others for sharing or storing any leaked data for their own uses, as data itself is always immune to property ownership, but storage devices, being material goods, are entities subject to property ownership. Of note, as a person's body is their most fundamentally owned property, it is legally considered to be a storage device for original copies of recorded memories, and as such the contents of a person's body that store their memories require the informed consent of the body owner (a Self) to access, view, replicate, etc.

If someone connects their stored data to the internet, or sells their data, it is assumed they are not interested in maintaining data privacy.
-----

_~Business~_

*Business and law go together just fine; but neither of them should ever have anything remotely to do with physically harmless forms of expression such as art, speech, or sexuality. They can certainly make and sell material goods that contribute to the expression of art, speech, or sexuality. If their goods are non-material, such as software/art, then they can also register as a State-recognized Artist to collect taxes for their contributions to the Nation's Communal Library of the Data Frontier. But as with all non-material entities, even if they wish to charge for them, it's essentially a donation-based system. If they sell a storage device with data on it, such as a data disc, they are essentially just selling the physical disc, with any additional profit being considered good faith donation patronage for the data contents on the disc.

*Business is primarily intended to be limited to material goods.

*Data is a non-material entity. Some examples of Data include digitalized text, image, sound, and software logic routines. Business who wish to charge for such Data despite the Nation's Communal Library of the Data Frontier policy, are free to do so. However, users are always free to share data, so this business strategy is essentially a donation-based system. Thus it is recommended that businesses either politely request donations for data they have assembled and wish to profit from, apply to register themselves as governmentally recognized Artists/Inventors to collect media/patent-conservatory tax moneys, or do both.

_~Economy~_

*It is recognized that people spend small fortunes on the rights to view creative media, and the rights to license and benefit from copyrighted data. By having video, art, books, software, patents, etc. free in digital form to everyone who can think of a way to use them, citizens suddenly have ample piles of disposable income they can spend to bolster the economy with. And most importantly, the money will be being spent on actual physical resources that have meaning in being purchased, rather than spending money on purchasing the rights to use, distribute, or consume ideas.

_~Law~_

Law is primarily limited to:
-----
1) Punishing cases of physical harm or murder.

2) Enforcing rules set by property owners as to whom they chose to allow or deny into their premises, using either a person-by-person basis, or the more general affiliation-by-affiliation basis.

3) Penalizing the non-consensual theft of material goods from a legal owner.
-----
Physical harm: If there is no victim capable of experiencing physical suffering, there is no crime. For example, a cow genetically engineered with no nocireceptors cannot experience physical pain. Psychological (emotional, non-physical) suffering is recognized to be caused by the suffering person theirself, and is therefore not punishable.

Murder: Any entity whose limits on intelligence allow them to currently possess a concept of their Self, whether DNA-based or otherwise, cannot ethically be permanently destroyed. In both Liberal and Extreme Liberal States, termination is allowable only when at least first obtaining a person's informed consent 3 times, each spaced several months apart. Naturally, they may opt out at any time, even during their chosen means of termination. In the Liberal State, psychological counseling is required during the waiting period. The Extreme Liberal State must always have psychological counseling available upon request. Medical staff and psychological aid must be present and accessible at all times during termination. Also, there must be 3 or more witnesses actively observing for any possible sign that the person has changed their mind during termination.

Prostitution is illegal in the conservative State, but legal in liberal and extreme liberal States. It is, however, strictly governmentally regulated to ensure sanitary standards are met and kept in the liberal State. In keeping with the min-median-max philosophy, and as with most such controversial issues, the Extreme liberal State has the minimum governmentally-enforced National regulations.

Drug Use: For liberal and extreme liberal policies on drug usage: First of all, it is important to, at all times, offer objective, scientifically backed information to all citizens before, during, and after their attempts to obtain potentially hazardous substances. This includes all pertinent information people could find useful during their decision making process. Examples are: drug usage statistics (for instance, data showing IQ tests before a drug was begun, frequency of usage, and subsequent IQ tests months and years later), dangerous interactions, and regular editorials describing user philosophies. It can be reasonably anticipated that a community will ultimately benefit from legitimizing traditionally Underground activities as long as we maintain community awareness and freedom to access shared knowledge of what drugs are more dangerous than others, how and why, contraindications, databases of user experience reports, ubiquitously available treatment & psychological aid clinics (most especially for users who still choose addictive substances, despite all community attempts to inform them of the self-inflicted sufferances their usage ultimately causes), and an ample distribution of S.A.F.E. members and resources to handle drug usage emergencies on the spot. These organizations are detailed in the "Medical" section, though we will note here that they are partly tax-funded, and partly donation-funded.

Zero-tolerance lethal weapon control is common in the Conservative State. The Liberal State focuses more on severely, severely punishing a person who abuses the non-consensual use of a potentially lethal weapon on non-consenting victims. The Extreme Liberal State still punishes murder and all form of pointlessly excessive physical harm that cannot be proven to have been warranted.

-----
*Consent: First of all, States do not use age of Consent. It is believed that Homo sapiens and other forms of intelligent entities all have the capacity to mature their decision making capacities at different rates, absolutely not constrained to a single blanket "average age" (such as 18). States define people as either Dependents, or Independents (for instance, children vs. the average 18 year old, the developmentally immature or disabled vs. those who can pass their State's "capacity for intelligent decision making IQ" exam). Anyone, any age or status, can decide to move to a different State at any time. However, they will not be accepted as a citizen of that State until they pass that State's "capacity for intelligent decision making IQ" exam, and receive Independent status. Dependents cannot alone given consent for anything requiring consent. They require both the agreement of Consent from their legal guardians, and their own consent or apparent indifference, however informed or uninformed it is at the time. This is so that guardians cannot force Dependents to do things they are absolutely sure they do not wish to participate in. The only thing a Dependent can alone give consent to at any point in their lives regardless of age or status is to take their State's capacity for intelligent decision making IQ test. Dependents who manage to escape one of the stricter States in order to take an IQ test of a less strict State, assuming they pass, will be granted Independent status inside the bounds of the State they took and passed the test within. A State's legal definition of what makes a person a Dependent, or an Independent is their ability to pass the "capacity for intelligent decision making IQ" test. Anyone who can pass it and is also a member of the Nation, can from that point on own private property and exist as an official citizen of the State they passed the test in. As usual, conservative, liberal, and extreme liberal States each represent the min, median, and max of what the criteria for passing the capacity for intelligent decision making IQ test is.

If a person in born in the Extreme Liberal State or the Conservative State, it's within legal bounds for their legal guardian to subject them to potentially very atypical lifestyles. This is part of the reason why the Extreme Liberal State has such a simple to pass "capacity for intelligent decision making IQ" exam. If a person growing up in a very conservative community begins to feel oppressed for their developing liberalism, they can always take the exam for citizenship to the Extreme Liberal State, which they will likely be capable of passing at early ages such as 11 or 12. Likewise, if a person growing up in the Extreme Liberal State begins to feel too oppressed for their developing conservatism, they have several options. First, they can apply for a new legal guardian in the Conservative State, where there are no doubt plenty of happily conservative family-minded folks wishing for more Dependents to care for. Or they can also take the exam inside their Extreme Liberal State and become an Independent at an early age and get into government housing, where they can exercise conservative private property rulesets until they are intelligent enough to pass the Conservative State exam and get into the Conservative State as an Independent.

"Nationally inalienable Dependent rights" are a Dependent's rights to at any time switch legal guardians for reasons of changes in their developing views on religion, conservatism, liberalism, or sexuality.

The ability to at any time be allowed to take any State's "capacity for intelligent decision making IQ" exam is also one of a Dependent's "Nationally inalienable Dependent rights".

So yes, even Dependents can move between States, but it will take a National court battle between potential legal guardians. The National court always makes its legal guardian decisions based primarily on what the Dependent wants most and National governmental investigations into Dependent abuse. In the Conservative State, Dependent abuse is very strict and punishable, similar to America's modern child abuse restrictions. However, in the philosophically, physically, and sexually less hindered environment of Extreme Liberal State Law, religious brainwashing, minor physical harm, and any sexual contact with Dependents is not considered Dependent abuse. But if the Dependent decided at any point for any reason to apply for alternative legal guardianship, expressing a desire to move to, say, a less sexually liberal State (from the Extreme Liberal State, to the Liberal State or Conservative State) they are given the right to do so upon request. It is a Nationally inalienable Dependent right that cannot be denied. The previous legal guardians, as long as they violated no State Laws, only lose/transfer their guardianship status and that's the end of it.

The system is set up like this because religious, conservatism, liberalism, and sexuality are all subjective issues which depend entirely on people's equally valid perspectives. Dependent raising/caring to one day become Independent is therefore a subject of great complexity, as anyone can be contributing to the development of a Dependent into an Independent.

The mentally ill: classified as Dependents unless they can express a desire to take and subsequently pass any State's "capacity for intelligent decision making IQ" exam.
-----

Marriage: There is no Nationally or State-wide recognized status of anything beyond Independent status (Artist, unemployed, poor, etc. statuses are all sub-status states within being Independent). Any number of people are able and even encouraged to engage in whatever symbolic practices they wish to within organizations, religions, etc. that they are members within. But to the Nation and State levels, everyone is their their own Independent or Dependent entity.

Lawsuits: Most importantly, lawsuits proven to have been frivolous can give the suer either fines, community service, or institutionalization depending on the quantity of purported frivolous law suits in their history, as well as the judged degree of frivolousness.

-----
Property Boundary violation:
This is the one area where people are allowed to prosecute charges of Psychological damages.

Everyone has a "Right to Reasonable Boundary Defense". If a person's property is invaded non-consensually, they have the right to request that law enforcement immediately intervene. An Invader is bereft of all their State and Nation given freedom of speech and expression rights. Any offending action they make can later be prosecuted as a Bigotry charge, for aggressively not respecting the private views of a person in their private property. Someone is only classifying as an Invader AFTER they have been informed by a property owner that they are no longer allowed on their private property. From the moment on, the potential Invader is given a reasonable allotment of time to escape the premises without legally attaining Invader status. During this interim, they still maintain all their State and Nation given freedoms of speech, expression, and so forth. If later deemed necessary, the Nationally allotted time to leave someone's private property before being asked to leave is dependent on the starting distance of the Guest to the nearest exit, also factoring in Guest mobility disabilities if any are present.

-----
A property owner gets to choose who they allow in and who they don't allow in through several means:

*Person-by-person basis* Exactly what it sounds like.

*Affiliation-by-affiliation basis* Violent discrimination is, as always, to be a heavily punished crime. But all form of nonviolent discrimination is a supremely important and protected right. Those who wish to engage in Affiliation-by-affiliation discrimination, such as by only allowing members of their religion into a premises, have every legal right to do so.
-----

Theft: if entities are infinitely available, such as with data, they are non-material and therefore can be copied indefinitely. As such, they cannot be explicitly owned or stolen, and are considered an entity within the publicly shared property known as the Communal Library of the Data Frontier.

Monetary crimes such as tax evasion cannot be punished by any means other than fines, property repossession, or non-voluntary community labor to work to make up the cost of what was stolen.

_~More Detailed Law Examples~_

*Murder: In the information age, it has been proven through our scientific understanding of sentience and sapience that a developing fetus has no concept of Self until much later in their developmental cycle, but can experience pain if its nocireceptors have already matured. However, without the ability to perceive a Self, there is no one to suffer, thus sensorily intaken pain in such cases is not a form of suffering. Therefore, having an abortion before or after the formation of nocireceptors is considered ethical.

*Rape: At its most benign, it is treated as a charge of Property Boundary violation, because one's body is always considered one's own property. So, only if one chooses to prosecute, they may charge the assailant with Psychological damages resultant from an Invader discriminating against someone's private property ruleset. Who a person chooses to allow to contact their private property is an inalienable right, whether it's their home or their body. However, it should be kept in mind that someone CANNOT be legally classified as an Invader until AFTER they have been asked to remove themselves from the premises (in this case, withdraw their physical contact with someone's body), and even after that they must be allowed reasonable time to withdraw before achieving Invader status. How this reasonable time is defined, especially in body contact cases such as these, depends, once again, on the three isolated State zones. The Conservative State requires immediate withdrawal. The Liberal State, first of all, gives incontrovertible legal immunity to all instances of non-persistent, physically painless body contact, regardless of consent. However, possible infective acts such as non-consensual mucous membrane touching like non-consented kissing or non-consented physical contact between genitalia (but NOT sneezing, displaying other sick symptoms, etc.) can allot Invader status to any involved party, depending on who communicates their consent and who communicates their non-consent. If a disease is proven to have actually been transferred, additional very serious charges apply. allows at least several seconds to ensure requests are fully and completely understood by both parties, but also makes ample use of one's "right to reasonable boundary defense". Meaning that a person can be judged legally immune to or given reduced charged for inflicting reasonable defensive harm to a potential Invader; clearly, cases rely heavily on context, equally including the degree of prejudice felt by the victim, and the degree of communication uncertainty perceived by the alleged Invader.

--As with all Property Boundary violations, the victim is given "Right to Reasonable Boundary Defense". If a rape victim chooses to prosecute someone with a charge of physical harm, there must have been physical harm at some point for physical harm charges to be valid.

_~Expression~_

*Thorough and meaningful "freedom of information" must also include "freedom of information use" and is basically an abolishment of the concept and practice of corporate AND private Licensing.

*This system is designed to take the ownership of art and inventions away from Big Corporations, and assure that the individuals who actually hold the patents for art and inventions or any innovations thereof receive adequate government taxpayer-funded compensation for their works every year. This is meant to remove the creative restraints artists and inventors face in traditional democracies, where they have long been forced to whore their talents out to Corporations that can aid, drop, or alter their works at will to help them make bigger profits.

*It's thought that reliance on profit as motivation for art or invention seriously devalues the subsequently produced art or inventions, limiting the options of the artist or inventor to whatever are the most popular cliches at the moment and is thereby guaranteed to sell more and make bigger profits. This, as a trend, forces art content and invention research to always lean on Business profitability and generic industry-proven molds to form a person's work with. It is believed that such an environment is the antithesis of creative freedom, and does nothing but hinder the progress of art, science, and technology in any culture.

*Artist's can apply for Group affiliations. From then on, the panel of judges who oversee the Group will judge how many Stock points an Artist has earned, given the balance of quality and quantity in their collected publicly available works. The judges will also determine appropriate Stock point compensation to the Artist for the amount of effort and resources claimed were spent to create the work.

*Stock points represent the percentage of one Group's media-conservatory tax pool that will be paid to the Artist on a yearly basis. The Artist/Inventor shouldn't have to worry too much about paperwork, so any forms for them to fill out must be minimalist. The more points of Stock an Artist has been allotted for that year, the greater percentage of the media-conservatory tax pool they get paid. Stock points are reviewed and altered yearly for all living Artists to match the relative quantity, quality, and popularity competition of fellow Artists. Deceased Artists are regrettably no longer part of the Stock pool (fans are encouraged to financially and psychologically aid bereaved family and friends, especially if the Artist left without preparing to do so themselves). After a living Artist has been accepted into whichever Group they applied for, they then receive Stock points dependent on the judged quality, quantity, and popularity of their works. The Judge's decisions only make up 50% of any given Artist's earned Stock points. The rest is determined from Artist popularity statistics, both of the popularity of their work, and of the popularity of the Artist theirself as a celebrity.

*Judges are, in one sense, "cliche cops". They're there to represent the "informed" populace, to help weed out generic popular approaches that have been done before, and help feed new and innovative approaches, regardless of popularity or majority opinion. They're balanced out by popular opinion polls, which represent the other 50% of which Artists get accepted into Groups and how many Stock Points they're given.

*Artists/Inventors are also encouraged to have donation instructions on their websites or physical merchandise, for additional livelihood aid if necessary.

*It is believed that this system is ideal for media distribution in the information age. It reduces artist's expressions being monitored, suppressed, altered or limited by corporate and majority-rules reliance.

*INVENTORS ARE ALSO ARTISTS, and holding patents on inventions, theories, and so forth, are all bargaining chips a citizen can use when applying for Artist (or Inventor) status and being given Stock points within a Group. Thus, the only benefit to creating songs, algorithms, invention patents, scientific theories, etc. is that the government will fill your pockets with taxpayer money! If someone uses your ideas for their own inventions, songs, etc. it's still recognized that you are the original inventor of those aspects of their "innovation" that utilizes your "original invention". And in fact, that your invention is finding use within the artistic and scientific and technological communities is used to give you even MORE Stock points for your works (via popularity statistics)! So this is a system where the government, through taxpayer money, is essentially the main support for the livelihood of artists and inventors, be they popular/unpopular, innovative/stale, or so forth. As usual, all decisions favor objectivity over subjectivity, no matter how popular subjective opinion may be. This is all part of living in a society that recognizes how Corporate licensing issues inhibit the progress of technology, art and science.

*So we prefer a system that lets anyone use any patent for any purpose without having to pay impractical licensing fees; the traditional Patenting system is recognized as a monetary burden on creativity itself, inhibiting the options available to new artists and inventors by punishing them for building upon previous ideas that were patented and require licensing and financial murder to further innovate upon. By removing the concept of corporate patent ownership in favor of taxpayers funding their preferred Group-classified inventions and art, inventors and artists are given a broader range of freedoms to continue pursuing their noble endeavors, whatever they may be.

*Basic idea: The original patent holders get Inventor and Artist Stock points, to contribute to how much tax payer money they get every year (relative to their competition) for how valuable their inventions and art have been.

*You can re-label "Groups" as "Guilds" and "Guild Factions" inside of "Guilds". So, the Physics Guild has a separate "Inventor's Physics Applications Faction" inside of it. As with most factions, there's one with an emphasis on creative innovations of the field it represents, and one with an emphasis on conserving and maintaining the historical and practical work within the field it represents. A "Conservatory Faction", or an "Innovation Faction".

*A Citizen's tax form can look like "please check the Guild(s) or Guild Faction(s) you wish for the majority of your [Inventors and Artists Conservatory Fund] taxes to support".

*No spoken or written word on its own can cause physical harm. Therefore libel, slander, racketeering, etc. have zero legal recourse. Threats of violence do warrant temporarily lifted police restrictions in terms of surveillance techniques, within reason.

_~Medical~_

*S.A.F.E. is partly government funded (part of the [variable]% tax universal health care system), preferably mostly donation-based distributed squad of medically certified members and governmentally OK'd medical supplies. Having S.A.F.E. members and resources ubiquitously available is of absolute importance in a community where recreational usage isn't completely prohibited. There are also free clinics, AND after-the-fact welfare registration (for people who had an emergency but no insurance, they can later apply for retroactive financial aid and will be given it if their case is legitimate enough).

[Bookmark... continue from here]

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
chie

I live in otaku nation.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
basilio

It would run... with its legs. Wearing running shoes, of course. And no, I won't let it run with scissors.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
JimmyLuong

Sorry but it just me or i haven't see your 'insanely long' post yet si i'm not sure what to say.
As for the idea.....i don't think an Otaku nation is going to exist cuz every 1 would be into 2d and giving no birth.No one would want to go doing farm work and everyone would die of starvation,i can imagine a nation full of hikikomori make me scare for life
But if it was Otaku-friendly then maybe yes,but what exactly do you mean 'friendly'?Is not like our current world ban otaku culture or anything so what do you want to improve?

Edit
oh i see it now,it didn't appear when i first saw...but that is one hell of a post..don't know if i can read it all

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
LunarSD

JimmyLuong said:
Edit
oh i see it now,it didn't appear when i first saw...but that is one hell of a post..don't know if i can read it all

Yeah I ended up actually fixing the spelling/grammar because I'm that kind of personality type >_> so it took some time...

Blame SaruDa for requesting it ^^;

Moral of the story: remember it is always unwise to deliberately request a lot of text from a tl;dr person.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
sycamore

JimmyLuong said:
i don't think an Otaku nation is going to exist cuz every 1 would be into 2d and giving no birth.

learn the definition of otaku, and learn how to not stereotype.

Also lunar what would your stance on immigration be?

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Huey

sycamore said:
learn the definition of otaku, and learn how to not stereotype.

"people with obsessive interests, particularly anime, manga, and video games"

obsessive - An unhealthy fixation.

fixation - A state of mind, involving obsession with a particular person, idea or thing.

The guy has a point, If a otaku is already neglecting real women.
then a nation would perish easily. you would prolly have 10-15% who would mostly mate. You see japan already having "real" problems because of their low birth rates.

Now to Delete all that said above you would have to re-define otaku for a nation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for SD, whats your military? seems like you would become a victim nation easy. And if your going with A.I prolly have already lost - considering a well placed E.M.P bomb would do you in. Not a lot of shielding for E.M.P it also will depend on who builds the bomb to destroy your nation. So humans will always be the best choice for war, even tho its cruel.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
maga

If I ran it it would largely resemble north korea, china or cuba only more anime themed.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Diorte

Wooooaaaa, that's big enough to have a plane flown into it O_O

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
LunarSD

sycamore said:

Also lunar what would your stance on immigration be?

Oh why did it have to be this question... This is one of the more vexing issues I struggled with philosophically until deciding the only rational course to take in life is to work towards eschewing ingrained human limits via AI research.

This whole comment pile (that eventually pushed me into posting the above governmental pipedream to make my point) pretty much addresses your question.

Any attempt at an organized government for human beings means having to deal with people who want to raise kids in their own image, which is, in my view, the central core of all cultural turbulence. Species with tribal-derived social instincts are generally more sapient/intelligent that other animals in part because of their hierarchical ways. Our drive to dominate/repress is a major component of what makes us able to learn at all, just as it is what makes so many of us militant/controlling jerks.

To deal with this, I ended up growing some pretty extreme views on Population Control... but with only the best intentions in mind, reaching the conclusion there really is no other way.

Brainwashing is a silly word, but it's the basic currency of family-minded cultures. I'd rather evolve away from child rearing being handled by parents and pop-culture. Additions to the population are best handled by the government, and the populace can be genetically tailored as sterile from birth.

I got so much flack for arriving at this conclusion, and put forth my best attempts at rationalizing that stance (if you read through the hyperlinked thread inside this post, you'll see how things went down).
-----
This whole system essentially can't work until technology improves. But when technology catches up to it, I think it's a safer blueprint than what countries are up to these days.
-----
Test tube births for the organic lifeforms, then a boarding school social environment, with open boundaries so they can interact with the entire public community at large.

As the family dynamic doesn't exist, Authority comes from teachers, older students, guardian role models and so forth. Friendship and brotherhood/sisterhood are essentially now the same concepts.

They can take the Independency test at their personal leisure, at any age. When passed, they've legally developed enough intelligently and socially to make their own decisions from then on (search for "*Consent" to find that section in the above TL;DR).

It's a primarily academic society. Education housing/classes are available to everyone at any age, should they ever wish to pursue it.

So it's pretty much the usual time-tested "should I further my education, try and become a government-sponsored artist/inventor (search for "_~Expression~_" in the TL;DR), get job or become a bum?" personal dilemma.

This would, I really feel, be ideal, were it not for the maternal and paternal instincts of humans... that necessary instinct among animals who've had to endure the trials of evolution for millenniums.

AI's will be much more flexible in how they enter society and integrate/share knowledge resources.

Open doors for immigrants who voluntarily are willing to be rendered impotent to join the Nation (yeah... I know what that kind of sounds like, but if you want in, you've got to "take off your shoes first" ^^;).

As for the innate populace, AI for digital life, genetic manipulation for organic life. Leave in sexual urges because of how well they do at giving people mutual happiness, and sex would evolve into a consequence-less act of friendship. If it's possible, remove paternal instincts. Marriage would be unnecessary, but in a government as described above, if they want to and they're intelligent enough to make their own decisions, why stop them?

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
LunarSD

M I N N said:
Now for SD, whats your military? seems like you would become a victim nation easy. And if your going with A.I prolly have already lost - considering a well placed E.M.P bomb would do you in. Not a lot of shielding for E.M.P it also will depend on who builds the bomb to destroy your nation. So humans will always be the best choice for war, even tho its cruel.

Yeah... allies? Japan's kind of a sitting duck too. But then allies force policies on each other, and I doubt we'd be very popular with the power-nations anyway, given the atypical moral standards...

I'd been fantasizing about an inertia-dampening Dome covering the entire artificial country, and comprehensive psychological examinations for whoever wants in.

If we emphasize we are non-aggressive with technological priority on defense (real defense, not "missile control system" kind of 'defense'), that could help?

Androids could be constructed Organically (even today there are already existing technologies for organic programming, using Amino Acids / Proteins and so forth instead of Silicon/Hafnium/whatever), so that would be one way to avoid E.M.P hysteria...

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Nochegame

-My first order would be break relations with USA, Canada, UK and Australia.
-My second order would be receive all the citizens of those countries that hate their place of origin.
-My style of governance would be a dictatorship and I would punish the dissidents with the exile(for not spending in bullets).
-The media should only talk about anime, manga and "my good deeds".
-the television will transmit Anime and pornography in the nights obligatorily.
-The prostitution will be legal from the 10 years onwards.
-Schools should have uniforms like in the animes(preferably Hentai)
-Every citizen shall have the right to do what they want in his home(Orgys, drugs, etc except rape and murder).
-I will delete the restriction of "only 18 years".From now on minors may have access to any kind of material considered for adults.
-No Rats and Moralfags allowed.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
LunarSD

Nochegame said:
-My second order would be receive all the citizens of those countries that hate their place of origin.

This is pretty much a requirement.

I'd try and open negotiations to transfer prisoners convicted of victimless crimes (who have clean non-violent histories) from the suppressive country they've been wrongfully imprisoned in to our little dome, if they wanted to come.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
sycamore

M I N N said:

"people with obsessive interests, particularly anime, manga, and video games"

obsessive - An unhealthy fixation.

fixation - A state of mind, involving obsession with a particular person, idea or thing.

The guy has a point, If a otaku is already neglecting real women.
then a nation would perish easily. you would prolly have 10-15% who would mostly mate. You see japan already having "real" problems because of their low birth rates.

Now to Delete all that said above you would have to re-define otaku for a nation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for SD, whats your military? seems like you would become a victim nation easy. And if your going with A.I prolly have already lost - considering a well placed E.M.P bomb would do you in. Not a lot of shielding for E.M.P it also will depend on who builds the bomb to destroy your nation. So humans will always be the best choice for war, even tho its cruel.

Alot of otaku fail to get to the stage where they lose all interest in women. Also there is EMP shielding avaliable, to my knowledge we have the technology to at least with stand the EMP from a nuke.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Tzion

@Lunar:

Wait, so separating children from their parents and raising them completely independent of family values where teachers and government leaders are the only authority figures is brainwashing? I severely disagree there. Unless citizens are forced to breed by the government, I see no reason why their willfully created offspring should be stolen from them. Now, I'm not a parent, but I consider children the PROPERTY of their guardians (biological parents unless otherwise stated), even after they turn 18, or whatever the age of independence is in one's home. It's the parent's DNA that spawns his child, and if one's most important right is their right to life and property, as you stated, then the government would be absolutely wrong in taking that child from from his mother and father.

And regarding certain aspects of the Conservative/Liberal/Extreme Liberal states, why is there zero-tolerance gun control in the Conservative state? Are these conservative/liberal lines economic or moral? And you still didn't outline military. If you do have an organized military/police force for the entire nation, the whole separate states thing is almost an illusion.

And you never addressed taxes either. You said that artists get paid by the government with taxpayer dollars, but who says anyone wants to be a taxpayer?

The whole manifesto really looks like a form of neo-communism that divides people by both skill AND belief.

Oh, and you need a national anthem. The only good thing the USSR ever did was commission their anthems.

@Topic:

I prefer dynastic monarchies held in place both by military might and loyalty to the sovereign. Loyalty and admiration to the Throne is cultivated through generosity toward the populous, including food, shelter, and work for anyone who needs it (though lazies get nothing). Laws and morals are decided solely by the King/Emperor/Lord, though he of course considers what is best for the people, and what they want. Nationalism is maintain by constant shows of dominance over neighboring lands, with the eventual goal of controlling every realm Man can inhabit (though it will never be achieved of course, because then you lose your purpose).

The state of the nation does, of course, depend on the wisdom and efficiency of the King and his advisors, but this nation is conceived with me in mind, so I'm discounting that aspect.

Eventually, and assuming technology progresses at a fair clip, the kingdom will expand into space and continue its growth into other worlds.

But that's just a pipe dream. Though it might be fun to take over Sealand someday.

Oh, and my kingdom has two anthems. One for me and one for everyone else. The War Anthem is just the general one played louder and with more drums.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Icy-nee-san

TO MUCH TEXT D:

Id run my own otaku country by making everyone the same skin color, thus eliminating racism :D

Then I would make Homsexualness legal, because i dont give a fuck

Then I would ban speak of religions unless it is a religion from a anime, thus eliminating those ppl that come up to your door and talk about jesus, because i dont give a fuck, i just wanna masturbate/watch anime/play video games

Then I would make the offical languages English/Japanese, which would eliminate the need for anyone in the country to download illegally fansubs, thus solving part of the problem for illegally downloaded anime :D

Then I would make parents give the sex talk at the earliest age possible, so people don't become fucked up and think sex is bad, because its not, its good and masturbation is awwwwright....

Then I would legalize shota and lolis, only 2D ones, 3D will still be bad, if underage (btw the age limit will be 16)

Finally I would invade other countries, force these rules on them, and conquer the world ;3

And thats how I would make the world shut the fuck up, because IT REALLY NEEDS TO SHUT THE FUCK UP

:D

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
JimmyLuong

Huh after skimping some part of it i think i'm getting a headache....
Other than that from what i have seen some key word so far(since i haven't read it all) thing like AI gov,genetic birth,android......sorry to say but it seem to Sci-fi to be pratical

If you take the idea and make a novel,film or epic game then perhaps is ok and might score smt.

And really the more i hear people posting about their dream otaku-contry the more i freak out...i know it just joke(I REALLY HOPE YOU ARE JOKING) but with my current common sense i can't seem to accept those kind of idea that children should be expose to ...porn as early as possible
Ok is late now i'm going to sleep now tomorrow if i can take the right pill i will go to read all your post,perhaps then i would be able to give more constructive comment

Posted 6 years ago # Quote

Reply »

You must log in to post.

Sankaku Complex