Cagliostro Cosplay by Rat Sakura Quite Crimson
“First Yakuza War in 30 Years” Breaks Out
Valkyria Chronicles Remastered Revisits BLiTZ System
Fight! Iczer-One Censored: “They Don’t Even Care Anymore!”
Oxford University Textbook: “Miku = Cultural Appropriation”
I'm assuming the role of someone born into your nation.
Sankaku Complex Forums » General
-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Tzion said:
I'm assuming the role of someone born into your nation.Locals can emigrate too.
Also, I'm not benefiting from Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, Disability, School taxes, etc. yet I'm still being taxed for them...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Which is why those institutions should be abolished.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Tzion said:
Which is why those institutions should be abolished.I'm also not personally benefiting from the DEA, 90% of the Military, the constantly re-interpretable vague wordings in the Constitution, or 2/3rds of the Supreme Court Justices. Even though there are plenty of people who do feel they're benefiting from that list, can we abolish all these things next too? Whose Ego should an entire Nation cater to?
The problem with subjectivity inside the political system is wherever the ruling party draws the lines, everyone not in the ruling party gets screwed.
But we needn't argue it out, because you are, of course, correct (for yourself and within your peer circle).
For someone with your views, sticking to some place that actually serves a close approximation to that view is the best solution you can hope for. If you want kids/family, then there's another reason to stay in the USA (or wherever you are). Just don't bomb my nation for trying something new ^_^
Posted 6 years ago # -
That's not really my problem with it. It's just inherently unstable. You have different factions that are actually enforced by the government, but certain policies clearly favor one faction or the other. There will be inevitable civil war.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Tzion said:
And here's the main reason your nation wouldn't work: Equals don't get along. You don't want anyone in charge, but someone's going to be. And with so many radically different "states," there's going to be fighting. And your military won't know who to protect. This isn't government, it's anarchy. And that's not a nation at all.
...
That's not really my problem with it. It's just inherently unstable. You have different factions that are actually enforced by the government, but certain policies clearly favor one faction or the other. There will be inevitable civil war.Sounds like you're looking pretty deep into the crystal ball there.
Also, Anarchy? No. Not that I blame you for not reading the tl;dr, but come on. That was not a piece on gypsies living in a forest.
...but certain policies clearly favor one faction or the other.
What actual solid motivation would there be for equals to suddenly want to start a civil war? Boredom from being allowed to chose the system they want? Sounds like you're grasping at thin air to me.
If they aren't satisfied with the degree of conservatism where they are, then they just move to where it does satisfy them.
I think civil war is far more likely in a place like America, where we get stuck with presidents starting holy wars in foreign lands O_o Where if your view differs too much from the current ruling party's, they send you to prison even when there are no victims. This place is itching for a better solution, but that's still not enough to cause a civil war, like you're raving about.
*yawn* Prophecies always made me sleepy.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Who controls the military in your nation? What are their rights within and without the borders of each state and the country itself? What's to stop one of the states from militarizing and attacking another state? It's happened in every one of today's leading nations.
I did read the whole thing, btw, before I posted my first comment in this thread. You emphasize protecting individual rights, but you give people very few outside of their own homes, and the legal system isn't detailed at all. How does the country progress politically? Or is it conceived as a perfect state, content to remain stagnant?
This is all hypothetical anyway, so it's not a prophecy when I say your country wouldn't last. It's just a logical conclusion based on the nature of human beings. When a group of equals share a room, there is tendency for one or several individuals to direct the flow of interaction within his perceived area of influence. Your nation goes to great pains to protect the individual, but not that much to stop him.
All I'm saying is, it wouldn't take a Napoleon to topple your nation. Your citizens should be very wary of televangelists.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Tzion said:
Your citizens should be very wary of televangelists.An Academic Nation, ruled by the Scientific community... should be wary of televangelists?
Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Religion and academia can coexist. You can't just kick citizens out because they believe in God. Unless I missed some clause in there.
Posted 6 years ago # -
My point is, your premise for a "free" nation has a lot of holes. Instead of arguing that it doesn't, try fixing them.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Tzion said:
You emphasize protecting individual rights, but you give people very few outside of their own homes, and the legal system isn't detailed at all.I did neglect comprehensive detail outside private residences (apart from a couple basic, obvious national laws, and some of the fundamentals like murder, weapon control, prostitution, consent is by State Law so that counts... I guess there were a few at least).
It is, as stated, unfinished after all.
I'd imagine if you picked a point in the spectrum of State Law most closely resembling the current legal state of the US, that's what it would be like outside the door there.
Posted 6 years ago # -
And I must say I'm rather humbled to have a gotten a studied critique from you specifically, as I've read several of your posts and found them to be very well constructed and rationalized.
*blushes*
Regarding your post-scriptum: For some reason, I'm not all that startled to learn that you know him...
---
This is getting interesting.
- As Tzion's attitude demonstrates, a nation based on letting its inhabitants categorise themselves by their level of tolerance would inherently exclude the less tolerant individuals from it.
I feel compelled to prove a more simplified division could suffice, and help avoid the categorical prejudice that too much separatism would probably result in
- Tolerance is an extremely abstract concept; for example one can "tolerate" homosexuality while being "intolerant" of abortion and vice-versa. And where is the border between "tolerance" and "intolerance"? By this I wish to illustrate that each individual has its own level of tolerance, and that the only division that would be truly "fair" would be either to have the same laws everywhere or to push the division to each and every person. While the latter is quite obviously impractical, the first would exclude both extremes from the nation. But again, is it truly imperative to include those to our society?
The less one is willing to accept that (non-aggressive) beliefs are all objectively viewable as equal, the more they are likely to negatively impact society.
- This implies that the "conservative" are the most likely to have a negative impact on society, doesn't it? In this line of thought, I would suggest that in addition to using only one set of rules, that it would be as libertarian as possible. Then, individuals could live according to their own additional rules, while the opposite would be logically impossible. Incidentally, they would sort themselves according to their levels of tolerance, as perfectly as possible: to the individual level!
This is interesting on several levels:
A) I named this the "Prolifian Manifesto" (awfully similar sounding to "proletarian")
B) I'm a dreamer, not a Poly Sci Major, having only sponged tidbits of politics from general life/family/articles/culture/news and personal insights; This is my first time hearing about the proletarian dictatorship.
C) If I was Karl Marx in a previous life, reborn to attempt to revise and revive communism, that would be pretty weird.- The "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is, according to Marx, but a transitory state between capitalism and communism, and thus closer to socialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat)
Some have mentioned similarities to a "neo"-form of communism... but if the tax-payer has the flexibility to choose which fields of science/art their moneys are being funneled into, isn't it more like the difference between ordering a pizza or eating at the salad bar (lol)? You are supporting the fields you would normally put your money into anyway, and everyone benefits from "all you can eat" free access to (non-sentient) data ^_^
- I entirely agree to using such a system, but a minimal amount - proportional to one's income - would have to be set. As a consequence, and once more, the "conservative" (or more accurately these with right-wing economical views) would be frustrated from ever being part of such a nation.
So, to outline the overall aspect of the "constitution" (guess what I've used as a canvas...):
Preamble: In response to an ever growing level of injustice and disparity in the world nowadays, we authors of this document have outlined the characteristics of what we believe would be a truly free society. Based upon mutual acceptance and support of its members, it is designed to be as objective as possible, taken into account that it was created by human beings.
Article 0: Individuals can belong to one of two groups: "Dependent" or "Independent". The Dependent can freely choose a single thing: to take the aptitude test that can allow them to become an Independent. The rest is left to the discretion of the Independent that has legal charge of him/her.
Article 1: Independent people have the unalienable right to choose life at any moment, and installations to terminate it, as well as counselling and mental health care professionals, will be provided by the state, as well as medical installations.
Article 2: The governance is to be be assumed by a number of scientists, artists, workers, etc. proportional to what we find in the society as a whole. Everyone can be chosen, as each independent is a volunteer de facto. The mandates do not last over one quarterly, and the nation's authorities are therefore in constant rotation.
Article 3: There is to be no national anthem, symbol or representative. The national flag is pale blue, a symbol of freedom as it blends with the sky.
Article 4: No language, religion or tradition is considered that of the state or the nation. Everyone has the freedom to choose the vehicle in which they wish to see information travel.
Article 5: Holders of private property are required to state clearly at the entry of the aforementioned property the house rules that apply inside. These will stand as laws, while a breach of them will result in the visitor having to either leave the property or accept the punishment decided beforehand by the owner. The rules of the State apply at all times and places. Any citizen has the right to leave private property at any time.
Article 6: Intellectual property is that of the State, and therefore of everyone, while paternity of works is still retained. Artists, inventors and other individuals that live on the revenue generated by such earn their remuneration from the tax payers, with the government as an intermediate.
Article 7: While the total tax money to be paid for each domain is absolute, each individual has the right to choose in what particular section of the domain he/she wants the money to be invested (e.g. In the artistic domain, for which artist).
Article 8: Non-consensual physical harm, murder or theft are to be punished by imprisonment for a period recommended by a jury composed of randomly selected people, and revised by a judge appointed by the State. The same crime will attract the same punishment. The focus will be put on rehabilitation and prevention rather than prohibition.
Article 9: The Dependent have the right to ask the State to take them into custody, or to get a new person to have legal charge of them. However, the final decision will be left to the State after a thorough evaluation of each case.
Article 10: If a jury judges one to harm the environment deliberately, it will result in either forced work or imprisonment, depending on the gravity of the offence.
Article 11: Tolerance is a prerequisite for life in society, and acceptance is imperative to live along with other human beings. Acts that are judged intolerant by a jury will be punished by forced work or imprisonment.
...have I missed anything?
P.S. I'll translate - to French - a summary of the "project" and forward it to a few of my friends. It will certainly get back to me reviewed and improved.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Tzion said:
Religion and academia can coexist. You can't just kick citizens out because they believe in God. Unless I missed some clause in there.No of course not, violent public discrimination is the most important kind of transgression to penalize.
But keep in mind I'm an AI programmer. This was made with AI in mind from the start, and regardless of who accomplishes it, AI will have its day.
Presuming one builds a neural architecture that can withstand the all-too-human allure of belief without proof, and realizing that one digital AI is capable of being copied ad nauseum, a nation such as I proposed would fit much more cleanly with the majority of its populace assumed to be AI. Not to mention humans follow role models, which AI could also serve as, I'd like to think, admirably. Built primarily for AI's and rational, non-aggressive minds in general, raised outside of the family environment where religion and prejudice is passed from generation to generation... well, you can see how much power faith in the immaterial would hold in such a place, culturally speaking.
I agree with you that human nature would make a system like this difficult to upkeep. And that it has holes (sorry if I've sounded contrary, been awake over 21 hours now, another work shift in 3 more hours). As I think I did mention above, conflicts with the average human is part of why I left that political idealism unfinished. Hopefully, it (or another system similar to it) will also have its day though... if only for the sake of progress through experimentation.
Hmm. Feel free to posit solutions to the missing specifics.
As you do seem intelligent, passionate and informed, I would be honored to hear your best shot at the elusive Utopia...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Azarius said:
This is getting interesting.
2nd'd!..._〆(゜▽゜ )
And you are quite the adept consolidater/organizer. My long-windedness was no match :(
(Nice to see your own views in there too, I'd like the opportunity to see them phrased in greater detail, if ever you are inclined)
Though it pains me to say, I need to pass out and claim the
2.51.5 hours of potential sleep remaining before my next work shift strikes -_-;But I have several days off immediately following. You can PM me via my tiny, undistinguished channel on YouTube.
Always up for a good chat, I am.
Posted 6 years ago # -
**I skipp"s all the long comments ^^; **
I think no matter what society is created there will be a need for bottomfeeders.Posted 6 years ago # -
LunarSD said:
And you are quite the adept consolidater/organizer. My long-windedness was no match :(Thanks! Although as a writer and ghostwriter, this is close to what I do for a living.^^
LunarSD said:
(Nice to see your own views in there too, I'd like the opportunity to see them phrased in greater detail, if ever you are inclined)Which articles are you refering to? All the personal views that I have put in there, I had already discussed in my precedent posts.
Of course, I will certainly precise my thoughts if you wish me to do so. Just specify which passages of the post you want me to further explain.
Oh, and please do not post pictures of Alpha... they remind me of the admin of HF...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Now, move to stage 2: Getting a country.
Posted 6 years ago # -
muteKi said:
Just make me the king.Lol Eden reference
Posted 6 years ago # -
*Necromancy
hehehe ^^;Posted 6 years ago # -
Well well for me i would start with 3 basic laws
1. No imntentional killing unless yoour life or anothers was at risk
2. No stealing unless it was for food to survive
3. No intentionally injuring a person
Now those are the only 3 laws all else is golden. As to the political structure i'd say a philosopher king or benevolent dictator now part of this is that the next leader is chosen by the prior leader. Also the people are encouraged to rebel should the leader obviously be corrupt or try to change laws.
Now the education system i would want to vary by person and probably have a variant on the apprentice system set up. I believe i would also set up a primary building with data with all forms of knowledge from all over the world for free all someone has to do is go their in person. So it would have say all anime that we could get all version including different languages as well same for games music and technology no form of knowledge or art would be left out.
If androids were developed their rights would vary by their intelligence so if someone made a perfect ai it would have equal rights to any human if someone say made a android or gynoid with no data except sex then it would have no rights however should it's progamming evolved then it would gain human rights.
I know theirs more but i'm tired and trying to fnish my dragonball boxset.
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.