What if you owned your own country...?

[suncrafter]

Lets say that a large tropical island (about the size of Cuba) formed overnight in the middle of international waters. You were the first person there and you claimed it as your own. Your claim is uncontested, so now you have your very own country that is completely independent from any government. At this time you are the only person who lives on the island, but many people want to move there because it is a tropical paradise. You now have the opportunity to establish your own set of laws prior to anyone immigrating to your new country.
Assuming you WANT people to EVENTUALLY move to your island nation - what laws would you establish and why? For example:

1 - What would you make the legal drinking age?
2 - Driving age?
3 - Age of sexual consent?
4 - Voting age?
5 - At what age would someone become an adult (free from parental control)?

6 - What types of recreational drugs (if any) would be legal?
- Pot
- Tobacco
- Cocaine
- Alcohol
- LSD
- Caffeine
- Heroin
- Other?

7 - Can people have guns? (if so - who and what kind?)

8 - What would be the name of your country?

9 - Would you have the death penalty?

10 - What would be the speed limit?

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted?

Which of the following would be legal:
12 - Porn?
13 - Prostitution?
14 - Polygamy?
15 - Homosexuality?
16 - Stem cell resurch?
17 - Human Cloning?
18 - Cock Fighting?
19 - Slavery?
20 - Hunting?
21 - Fishing?
22 - Eating meat?
23 - Littering?
24 - Unisex bathrooms?
25 - Suicide?
26 - Gay marriage?
27 - Abortion?

28 - What types of sexual activity (if any) would be illegal?
29 - Would your county be clothing optional or clothing mandatory?
30 - Would you have obscenity laws? If so - how would you define "obscene".

31 - What system would you set up for collecting taxes?
- Income tax? (how much?)
- Sales tax? (how much?)
- Import/Export tax? (how much?)

32 - What criteria would someone need to pass to become a citizen?
33 - What types of people would you allow (or not allow) into your country?

34 - What type of government would you establish?

35 - To what degree would your government be allowed to censor or restrict the media?

36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand.

[Mari]

Interesting question!

This is probably going to be way~ to idealistic, but still.

First of all, I would put a quota on the amount of people who can move to my island. Actually I have no idea how big Cuba is, but let's just suppose it can't support that many people. With quota meaning that everyone from every country can enter, but only in equal numbers.
So there won't be 100 Dutch people and 1 from Belgium.
Preferably I would have only 1 or 2 families from each country come here, so there won't be too much groupings.
I would not allow cars, but have a great public transport network.
Drinking age would be 16 for low-alcohol drinks, 18 for high alcohol drinks.
Recreational drugs... I think I would ban them
Guns definitely not allowed.
Voting at 18.
Children will be adults at 21 with complete responsiblity for their own acts and the parents are not expected to support them.
Religion would be free, BUT (public) expression of that religion will also have to be conform to public morales. Thereto I would establich a religion council, with 1 person from every religion present on the island whose votes all have equal weight.
I would give this council an advisory position in the government.
The government itself would be a democratic monarchy (is that the right term?) with the monarch not being able to make new laws, but being able to give official advice and suggest new laws and stuff and the right to reject a new law, rule or whatever, if he/she can get more than 50% of the population over the age of 18 to agree with him.
The government would be in the form of a council with 1 person from every area of the island present, that person being chosen by the people living in that designated area. Then the council would choose 6 possible leaders for the council and the public would have to make the final decision on who will be the 3 leaders. These leaders would have equal rights and duties.
In this council, everyone would have equal voting power. The religion council will also have 3 votes in total. Every 5 years there will be a new election.

Legal age for marriage: 18. However in special circumstances it would be possible to apeal to the monarch to give his/her blessings in which case it would be possible to get married at 16.
Public nudity is not acceptable. The religion council will also have to handle cases of public morality.
Marriage between 2 people of the same gender is allowed as is adopting children. Their treatment will be equal.
The official language will be English as it is likely most people allready know the language.
I don't know about the coinage yet, but there will definitely not be 1 cent or 2 cent pieces.
The selling of porn would be illegal, as would the possesion of pornmaterial with children be.
Prostitution will not be allowed.
Animals will be protected and the selling of meat will be regulated.
There would definitely not be a death penalty, but the government would have the ability to banish someone from the island. This off course only in extreme circumstances.
Clothing would be more or less optional. People in public functions would have a uniform, with room for personal touches.
Gambling would be allowed, but the number of casinos etc. would be regulated and there would be a limit on the amount of money that can be used in a bet.
The architecture would be such as that buildings would more or less blend in with the surroundings. Only in a few areas designated for urbanisation can buildings be taller than 2 or 3 floors.
Furthermore, there will be a strong emphasis on preservation of and living in harmony with the existing nature and wildlife.
One of the values I would want people to believe in, is that is easier to destroy something than recreating or rebuilding it. To prevent is better than to try to fix it.
School would be mandatory untill 16.
There will not be an army.
When it comes to immigration: the government is allowed to discriminate in the sense that it prefers well-educated people or complete families. Discrimination against ethnicity, gender, looks, religion, etc. is not allowed.

I'll continue this soem other time, I have class now

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Lets say that a large tropical island (about the size of Cuba) formed overnight in the middle of international waters. You were the first person there and you claimed it as your own. Your claim is uncontested, so now you have your very own country that is completely independent from any government. At this time you are the only person who lives on the island, but many people want to move there because it is a tropical paradise. You now have the opportunity to establish your own set of laws prior to anyone immigrating to your new country.

First, the land belongs, exclusively and forever, to the government It's a mostly benevolent dictatorship.
It's operated according to the single tax principles of Henry George. Visitors, who have the status of "resident alien", pay a land rent based on the size of their leasehold, which they are free to develop in accordance with the ecological principles of the country. Their improvements are transferable, the natural assets of the land are not. Service to the government may be recognised by access to a privy council.
Assuming you WANT people to EVENTUALLY move to your island nation - a dubious assumption what laws would you establish and why? For example:

1 - What would you make the legal drinking age? 200
2 - Driving age? no cars
3 - Age of sexual consent? no age. take and pass a test
4 - Voting age? no voting.
5 - At what age would someone become an adult (free from parental control)? no age. by examination

6 - What types of recreational drugs (if any) would be legal? none extracted, caffeine as occurs naturally
- Pot
- Tobacco
- Cocaine
- Alcohol
- LSD
- Caffeine
- Heroin
- Other?

7 - Can people have guns? (if so - who and what kind?) no
8 - What would be the name of your country? haven't decided

9 - Would you have the death penalty? no
10 - What would be the speed limit? however fast you can run

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted? any

Which of the following would be legal: It's not that kind of country
12 - Porn?
13 - Prostitution?
14 - Polygamy?
15 - Homosexuality?
16 - Stem cell resurch?
17 - Human Cloning?
18 - Cock Fighting?
19 - Slavery?
20 - Hunting?
21 - Fishing?
22 - Eating meat?
23 - Littering?
24 - Unisex bathrooms?
25 - Suicide?
26 - Gay marriage?
27 - Abortion?

28 - What types of sexual activity (if any) would be illegal? non-consensual
29 - Would your county be clothing optional or clothing mandatory? optional
30 - Would you have obscenity laws? If so - how would you define "obscene". Sure. We inspect your suitcases. violators deported

31 - What system would you set up for collecting taxes? as above
- Income tax? (how much?)
- Sales tax? (how much?)
- Import/Export tax? (how much?)

32 - What criteria would someone need to pass to become a citizen? be related to me, and on good terms with me
33 - What types of people would you allow (or not allow) into your country?
no boring or smug ones allowed
34 - What type of government would you establish? dictatorship
35 - To what degree would your government be allowed to censor or restrict the media? completely
36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand.

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Lets say that a large tropical island (about the size of Cuba) formed overnight in the middle of international waters. You were the first person there and you claimed it as your own. Your claim is uncontested, so now you have your very own country that is completely independent from any government. At this time you are the only person who lives on the island, but many people want to move there because it is a tropical paradise. You now have the opportunity to establish your own set of laws prior to anyone immigrating to your new country.
Assuming you WANT people to EVENTUALLY move to your island nation - what laws would you establish and why? For example:

1 - What would you make the legal drinking age? 21
2 - Driving age? 16
3 - Age of sexual consent? Marriage
4 - Voting age? 18
5 - At what age would someone become an adult (free from parental control)? 20

6 - What types of recreational drugs (if any) would be legal? Caffeine and Alcohol (wine and beer)
- Pot
- Tobacco
- Cocaine
- Alcohol
- LSD
- Caffeine
- Heroin
- Other?

7 - Can people have guns? (if so - who and what kind?) Yes. Strict rules set for people who qualify.

8 - What would be the name of your country? The Shire. I don't know.

9 - Would you have the death penalty? Banishing is funner.

10 - What would be the speed limit? 65 on highway/freeway; lower for other roads.

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted? Roman Catholicism would be the country-religion. People from other religions not out to convert everyone allowed.

Which of the following would be legal: Hunting, fishing (within reason, of course), eating meat.
12 - Porn?
13 - Prostitution?
14 - Polygamy?
15 - Homosexuality?
16 - Stem cell resurch?
17 - Human Cloning?
18 - Cock Fighting?
19 - Slavery?
20 - Hunting?
21 - Fishing?
22 - Eating meat?
23 - Littering?
24 - Unisex bathrooms?
25 - Suicide?
26 - Gay marriage?
27 - Abortion?

28 - What types of sexual activity (if any) would be illegal? Anything outside marriage. No birth control, contraceptives, etc.
29 - Would your county be clothing optional or clothing mandatory? Mandatory!
30 - Would you have obscenity laws? If so - how would you define "obscene". Yes. No stripping, obscene kissing, etc.

31 - What system would you set up for collecting taxes? Don't know.
- Income tax? (how much?)
- Sales tax? (how much?)
- Import/Export tax? (how much?)

32 - What criteria would someone need to pass to become a citizen? Good morals, no criminal/drug history, etc.
33 - What types of people would you allow (or not allow) into your country? No criminals, criminal record, drug/alcohol addicts, mass murderers, murderers in general, etc.

34 - What type of government would you establish? Somewhat of a Theocracy/Democratic Republic with a president at the head (me) who has more power than the president of the U.S. The Pope would definitely be influential.

35 - To what degree would your government be allowed to censor or restrict the media? The government could censor anything they deemed shouldn't be shown.

36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand.Good manners, no swearing, no suggestive comments.

[trolls' bane]

Lets say that a large tropical island (about the size of Cuba) formed overnight in the middle of international waters. You were the first person there and you claimed it as your own. Your claim is uncontested, so now you have your very own country that is completely independent from any government. At this time you are the only person who lives on the island, but many people want to move there because it is a tropical paradise. You now have the opportunity to establish your own set of laws prior to anyone immigrating to your new country.
Assuming you WANT people to EVENTUALLY move to your island nation - what laws would you establish and why? For example:

1 - What would you make the legal drinking age? See below.
2 - Driving age? See below.
3 - Age of sexual consent? See below.
4 - Voting age? See below.
5 - At what age would someone become an adult (free from parental control)? See below.
Answers to 1-5: All of these factors would be determined by extensive psychological examination and frequent tests. Each is granted when the individual is seen fit for any one of them.

6 - What types of recreational drugs (if any) would be legal? Anything not considered to be lethal, and only used in certain national holidays. Laws do not need to be enforced for this, for reasons explained later.
- Pot
- Tobacco
- Cocaine
- Alcohol
- LSD
- Caffeine
- Heroin
- Other?

7 - Can people have guns? (if so - who and what kind?) Only certified members of the militia/law enforcement (both considered to be the same thing).

8 - What would be the name of your country? Zeta Neapoli, or the formal name: The Democratic Brendonianist Empire of Zeta Neapoli.

9 - Would you have the death penalty? No. All criminals would be exiled to asteroid forced labor camps, where they would spend all eternity harvesting minerals from asteroids and comets, unless, of course, highly invasive psychological and physical tests determine them to no longer be a threat (if mentally insane, the problem is corrected by surgery, and as much of their non-affected brain is saved as possible, thanks to nanoprobe technology.

10 - What would be the speed limit? It varies widely depending on the vehicle type and the road/track/area in question.

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted? Religion is completely open.

Which of the following would be legal:
12 - Porn? No.
13 - Prostitution? No.
14 - Polygamy? Yes.
15 - Homosexuality? Yes.
16 - Stem cell resurch? Yes: mandatory
17 - Human Cloning? Yes: this is allowed so long as the clones are allowed to live as any other free human, and also must go the most advanced genetic screening possible
18 - Cock Fighting? No.
19 - Slavery? Yes: legal insofar only criminals can be slaves, and even then only if meeting the following provisions: 1) treatment must be completely humane, and be basically the same as those who are not criminals, 2) they can cease to be slaves pending the provisions mentioned in the section on the death penalty listed above.
20 - Hunting? Yes: Only if the animal is either stunned or is eaten.
21 - Fishing? Yes: Only if the fish is either thrown back or is eaten.
22 - Eating meat? Yes.
23 - Littering? No.
24 - Unisex bathrooms? There should not be a problem; people would be brought up to take no notice of others, and should more than likely be accustomed to this. (Please reference the state of affairs in RGB Mars.)
25 - Suicide? No.
26 - Gay marriage? Yes: Again, only pending advanced psychological tests. It has been proven as it is that homosexuality is a mental disorder (for various, usually acquired reasons. Therefore, all attempts will be made to treat it, but if it is simply the nature of the person, they will not be considered different from others.
27 - Abortion? No.

28 - What types of sexual activity (if any) would be illegal? Very little is strictly forbidden, but people will be brought up to frown upon certain acts. The only one expressly forbidden is anything non-consensual or considered "statutory rape", where the "victim" has not yet been approved capable of making a rational decision regarding sex.
29 - Would your county be clothing optional or clothing mandatory? Mandatory, barring only limited public facilities (bathhouse, etc.)
30 - Would you have obscenity laws? If so - how would you define "obscene". Yes, pending anything mentioned above.

31 - What system would you set up for collecting taxes? Income taxes would not be collected. People work for the greater good of society.
- Income tax? (how much?) Income taxes would not be collected. People work for the greater good of society. All infrastructure and necessities are paid for by the government, whom also determines the salaries based on the description below.
- Sales tax? All profit will go to the government, who will assign a certain set re-payment based on the principles below.
- Import/Export tax? (how much?) Very little.

32 - What criteria would someone need to pass to become a citizen? Extensive physical and psychological examination (not barring anyone with a physical or mental problem, but it will be the initial priority of society to correct this at no charge at the individual's consent), an advanced knowlege of the workings of the country's government, a pledge of allegiance to the country, and a grueling written test.
33 - What types of people would you allow (or not allow) into your country? Criminals would be exiled. Those who have a criminal record and are planning on moving in would be granted enterance pending the proceses listed ut supra both in regards to the citizenship requirement and prisoner release evaluations. All others depend on the evaluations.

34 - What type of government would you establish? A direct, socialist, quasi-bureaucratic democracy. It would have a strong central government posessing all of the power, but this in turn would be determined by popular vote of everyone using an advanced computer voting system (thus eliminating the need of a legislative branch). The executive (Prime Minister) would possess certain powers required to run a country, and no more. The Judiciary branch would be part of law enforcement and the militia (trials would be held by a jury of twenty of varying backgrounds, and all psychological or other data required would be available). The Worker's Council, the third branch, protects the interests of the workers (all citizens) and prevents government exploitation, yet also works with law enforcement to prevent the people from exploiting the government.

35 - To what degree would your government be allowed to censor or restrict the media? The government would control the newspaper. Advertisements would be abolished, and it would be required to put forth all news that concerns the people, as long as the display of the news will not cause further harm to the populace, at which censorship of certain sensitive information would be allowed.

36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand. All are brought up to consider everyone equal, and that the people arethe government. Nonlethal drugs are allowed during certain holidays, which take place in a plaza in the center of the city (the plaza would contain theaters and opera houses and lecture halls and the like). Everything else is determined by the laws above.[/QUOTE]


It is important to note this before I close: The people are given their basic necessities and all additional luxuries are paid for by salaries dependent on a yet undetermined basis combining the amount of work, the difficulty/unpleasantness of the work, and the benefit of the work for the community. Hence, eco-economics. Here's an example: You have a garbage man and a doctor. Both are considered equal in value, as they both perform services that improve or maintain the overall welfare of the people.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*memo to self. Check if Troll's bane has happened across "Walden Two" and "Twin Oaks"*

[Rían]

One problem with the garbage collector = doctor is that the doctor has years of studying to go thru and pay for, in time and money, while the garbage collector can be merrily doing whatever he/she wants. I think part of the reason why the doctor usually gets paid more is that they are getting paid back for their massive amounts of time and effort spend previously.

[trolls' bane]

I've never heard of either, Sister.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

One problem with the garbage collector = doctor is that the doctor has years of studying to go thru and pay for, in time and money, while the garbage collector can be merrily doing whatever he/she wants. I think part of the reason why the doctor usually gets paid more is that they are getting paid back for their massive amounts of time and effort spend previously.

I've got that all figured out, too, or at least mostly. Sort of... Well, it could definitely use a little awful lot of work...
But no, I was thinking about this on my bus ride/walk home from school today. They would be considered equal still, but those who spend time and money (actually, college would be nearly free, by means as yet unknown) will be rewarded. Say, for example, the garbage man is active in state functions, and is found to make an excellent orator, or is on the Worker's Council. He then could possibly be considered in higher regard (though still equal in everything but esteem) than the doctor who quit trying to better himself once he left college.

The problem with communism in the past is that it is oppressive and corrupt, and there is no incentive to create a good product when you could have impervious job security and get paid exactly the same if you made something you just threw together. My system, including capitalism, mixes the polar opposites and neutralizes them (giving incentive to to good, even more so than regular old capitalism), and combines both with direct democracy.

It's as simple as that. Just a few kinks to work out (like computer hackers messing with the international voting systems, minute details, and specific policies, etc.), but practicable in reality without great trouble (besides the stressful, near-constant involvement of people in the government).

[BeardofPants]

1 - What would you make the legal drinking age? 18
2 - Driving age? 18
3 - Age of sexual consent? 12
4 - Voting age? 18

5 - At what age would someone become an adult (free from parental control)?
16

6 - What types of recreational drugs (if any) would be legal?
- Pot
- Tobacco
- Cocaine
- Alcohol
- LSD
- Caffeine
- Heroin
- Other?
All

7 - Can people have guns? (if so - who and what kind?)
Yes, but there would be strict checks and balances in place, and no hand guns, unless pertinent to work

8 - What would be the name of your country?
New BoPLand

9 - Would you have the death penalty?
No

10 - What would be the speed limit?
I dunno

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted?
No restrictions, as long as the law isn't broken

Which of the following would be legal:
12 - Porn
13 - Prostitution
14 - Polygamy
15 - Homosexuality
16 - Stem cell resurch
17 - Human Cloning
20 - Hunting
21 - Fishing
22 - Eating meat
24 - Unisex bathrooms
25 - Suicide
26 - Gay marriage
27 - Abortion

28 - What types of sexual activity (if any) would be illegal?
As long as said activity occurs between consenting parties above the legal age, none

29 - Would your county be clothing optional or clothing mandatory?
You can do whatever you want, man

30 - Would you have obscenity laws? If so - how would you define "obscene".
No

31 - What system would you set up for collecting taxes?
- Income tax? (how much?) scaled based on income
- Sales tax? (how much?) flat rate on goods & services
- Import/Export tax? (how much?) free trade agreements

32 - What criteria would someone need to pass to become a citizen?
... the standard sort?

33 - What types of people would you allow (or not allow) into your country?
No restrictions unless criminal record

34 - What type of government would you establish?
oligarchy

35 - To what degree would your government be allowed to censor or restrict the media?
no censoring

36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand.
Freedom of individual within own abode, otherwise separation of church and state

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

TWELVE BoP? Really?

Oh, must discuss.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Wll, this is certainly interesting

1 - What would you make the legal drinking age? 16
2 - Driving age? 16, but private ownership of motor vehicles would be limited for environmental reasons
3 - Age of sexual consent? 16
4 - Voting age? 16
5 - At what age would someone become an adult (free from parental control)? 16

6 - What types of recreational drugs (if any) would be legal?
- Pot not pot, but weed - pot is not pure marijuana, often contains melted plastics, and other more disgusting things
- Tobacco yes
- Cocaine no
- Alcohol yes
- LSD no
- Caffeine yes
- Heroin no
- Other? none

7 - Can people have guns? (if so - who and what kind?) no

8 - What would be the name of your country? Romulus

9 - Would you have the death penalty? for high treason, premeditated murder, rape and paedophilia

10 - What would be the speed limit? depends on the type of area, but generally what it is in UK, except 85 for motorways

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted? no religion would be banned, but all (esp. the 3 abrahamic) would be monitored for any sort of prejudice/hate-preaching

Which of the following would be legal:
12 - Porn? yeah, why not
13 - Prostitution? no
14 - Polygamy? no
15 - Homosexuality? yes
16 - Stem cell resurch? it depends on the purpose of research
17 - Human Cloning? not sure yet
18 - Cock Fighting? no
19 - Slavery? no
20 - Hunting? no
21 - Fishing? no
22 - Eating meat? no
23 - Littering? no
24 - Unisex bathrooms? yeah
25 - Suicide? well you can't really make it illegal, "hey you! you just killed yourself, your comin' to prison!!"
26 - Gay marriage? yes
27 - Abortion? in certain circumstances before a certain stage in preganancy

28 - What types of sexual activity (if any) would be illegal? anything between two(+) consenting adults in privacy of their home
29 - Would your county be clothing optional or clothing mandatory? mandatory in public, but i'm sure nudist beaches etc would be fine
30 - Would you have obscenity laws? If so - how would you define "obscene". obscene would be anything designed or desired to cause offence in other persons

31 - What system would you set up for collecting taxes? straight from wages
- Income tax? (how much?) [b]i guess about 5% of wage would be fine
- Sales tax? (how much?) sales tax? like VAT? if it's like VAT then i guess what we have now, 17.5%
- Import/Export tax? (how much?) 15% of sales value

32 - What criteria would someone need to pass to become a citizen? for first generation, then you would need to be of good health, sound mental judgement and possess a skill or craft in which the nation's populous has a deficit or need for, after that you would need to be born here, you can't marry one of my citizen's to gain entry
33 - What types of people would you allow (or not allow) into your country? people allowed would be those as citizenship law, those not allowed would be criminals in their home nation, or any other nation, or anyone not fulfilling the criteria set out as before

34 - What type of government would you establish? monarchy, nation divided into 10 provinces, governors of each province chosen by head of state. each province divided into 10 counties, Mayors of each county elected by those living in the county. the 100 mayors, 10 governors and the head of state form the upper house of parliament. for the lower house of parliament, the people vote for whichever party they want, and the 250 seats are divided up by whatever party gets what percentage of the vote, i.e if you get 50% of the vote, you get 50% of the seats...you must gain 15% of the vote to get any seats. leader of party with most seats is then head of government. both houses must ratify any bill for it to become law

35 - To what degree would your government be allowed to censor or restrict the media? full censorship would be in effect during times of national emergency, otherwise free press

36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand.well, no vulgarity in public, listening to rap/hip-hop etc would be severely frowned upon, and it would be unusual for men to have short hair

[Miss Cassandra]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

it would be unusual for men to have short hair

Ahah, now thats my kinda country! lol

[Nurvingiel]

And now, to catch up in the thread...

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

25 - Suicide? well you can't really make it illegal, "hey you! you just killed yourself, your comin' to prison!!"

The reason suicide is often illegal is so the police are allowed to do things normally not allowed, such as violating someone's privacy, in order to prevent them from killing themselves.

That is why suicide is illegal in Nurvingieldonia. If someone commits suicide, that means they have died from a mental illness - a tragedy which we will avoid at all costs.

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand.well, no vulgarity in public, listening to rap/hip-hop etc would be severely frowned upon, and it would be unusual for men to have short hair

Would many women have short hair? What cultural factors made men want to mostly have long hair? Do the most rebellious men shave their heads?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

4 - Voting age? 18 . . . if we have a democracy. I'm not sure a democracy is the best form of government, and am not sure about this.

Who is it that said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other kinds?"

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

31.5 - Gender differences? Gender should be taken into account in the country's laws. Women and men should have somewhat different roles in government and society because the genetics of the different genders are different in brains as well as in bodies. Neither is less than the other, but each is equally valuable and essential while simultaneously different. So I'd probably keep most women out of certain areas of politics and the military, though I might allow some to slip through the cracks on that. Women, on the other hand, might have advantages over men in getting into jobs that require communication and relating to other people.

What would you do if there was a man or woman who really didn't fit in with the prescribed gender roles? Would they be the ones who "slip through the cracks"? If women and men are as different as you say, then why would you need to enforce the gender roles? For example, in Canada both women and men are allowed to join the army, but the army is composed mainly of men.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The government will absolutely be somewhat theocratic, though.

Somewhat theocratic? You've outlawed all religions but one!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There's just one thing I'd like to change here immediately. Currently it is good manners to have one's fork and knife on the left side of one's plate, a system that dates to old English eating habits. It's dated! I'm not left-handed, and neither are the majority of people! I'd have culture place it on the right hand instead of the left for practicality's sake. If people want to arrange it differently, of course this is not a law. Just a cultural tradition I wish existed.

As a left-handed person, I love this tradition. It means I never have to switch the places of the knife and fork to begin eating like the rest of my family does. Suckers!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oh yes, a few other things. I'd want to bring back some good old fashioned manners to society! In the past, in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, gentlemen and ladies were far more polite to one another than they are now. They treated one another graciously and saw one another as highly valuable individuals who deserved great respect. I'd want to bring back wholesome Victorian manners, and the modern desire to neutralize gender "stereotypes" is no excuse for eliminating good manners.

I mostly agree with this. I wouldn't go Victorian since they were too anal-retentive and had that horrible "children should be seen and not heard" thing going on. However, I would hope that people in my society would be very respectful of each other. For example, people would pick up litter of they saw it, people would hold the door open for the person behind them, "please" and "thank you" would be used liberally, and it while rap music would be very popular, it would be almost unheard of to head someone talking about women as "hos" or employing racial slurs. (It wouldn't be illegal, but artists would avoid writing lyrics like this as there would be few listeners.)

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

I'm a bit surprised by yor country, Lief. This is a fun silly thing, but still. I'm not sure if you meant yours as a joke - but many could find it offensive. Not being christian, I find it mildly offensive.

just the top stand out things:
All religions but christianity illegal?
Illegal to have sex out of wedlock?
Homosexuality illegal?
Cursing illegal?
Women mostly kept out of politics and military?

Being Jewish, it would be illegal for me to become a citizen. Perhaps even illegal to visit since ALL non-Chrisitan religions are banned?

I agree with HOBBIT. How would you enforce this? How could you prove someone isn't Christian? What happens if one of your citizens who was Christian decided to convert to another religion? Would he have to leave? What about people who are Christians, but really stink at it? Would they have to take remedial classes? What's the punishment for someone openly being non-Christian? Don't you think it's kind of ironic to force someone to accept Jesus's love?

I know this is all for fun, but these questions are interesting. Feel free to debate my own laws, especially my more controversial ones on the voting age and addictive drugs.

Also, I like your environmental laws. I would enact similarly stringent laws, and have an environmental tax based on pollution it causes or was caused in making the product. Gasoline and diesel will be expensive.

Originally Posted by Tessar

Which of the following would be legal:
12 - Porn?
13 - Prostitution?
14 - Polygamy?
15 - Homosexuality?
16 - Stem cell resurch?
17 - Human Cloning?
18 - Cock Fighting?
19 - Slavery?
20 - Hunting?
21 - Fishing?
22 - Eating meat?
23 - Littering?
24 - Unisex bathrooms?
25 - Suicide?
26 - Gay marriage?
27 - Abortion?

NOT. ON. MY. WATCH.

Wait, all that stuff is illegal? Even the fairly benign stuff like eating meat?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But be that as it may. I'm rather curious about how some of you would respond to sisterandcousinandaunt's question about how your countries would respond to education.

Education in my country would be compulsory until you graduate or turn 18. The government would run the education system. Homeschooling and private schools are allowed, but both types of schooling would have to meet government standards for their students to be exempted from public school. All students would write government exams in order to graduate.

Upon graduation from secondary school, education is optional. If someone turns 18 and hasn't graduated, they can choose to leave school. If they later want to upgrade their courses and graduate, this will be free and they can do so at any time. There will be separate classes for these late graduates so they can have class in evenings to work around jobs and they don't have to sit in science class with people half their age.

We won't have those stupid Fraser Institute rankings of schools, but the government will examine the pass rate of government exams to determine if a school needs some extra help.

Originally Posted by sistercousinandaunt

Interesting POV for an aspiring theocratic dictator.

For The Win!

Originally Posted by Meriadoc Brandybuck

As far as education goes, in public schools, none of that anti-Christian "we don't want to offend non-Christians by having prayer, but Islamists can have whatever they want" nonsense. Preschool NOT mandatory, not supported by the government/wacky Hollywood actors. Catholic private schools teach basic Latin. Colleges have actually sane professors, etc. Homeschooling highly supported and recommended.

This brings up another good point. In my country, there won't be any restrictions on religion anywhere. Christians and Muslims can pray wherever they please, Sikhs can carry the kirpan (ceremonial daggar, though if it's more than 6" it will still have to be licenced), people can wear headscarves, yamulkas, birkas, crosses, Tom Cruise T-shirts, or whatever.


And more possible questions...
What would your national anthem be? National flower? National bird? National mammal? What would be on your national flag? (Don't answer that one Brownie! j/k ) Would education be compulsory, and if so, to what age?

So far my country is most like Legoles's country.


Edited for syntax.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief

The government will absolutely be somewhat theocratic, though.

Oh, ya think?! But, wait - absolutely theocratic, or somewhat theocratic... Things that make you go "Hmmmm...."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Oh, ya think?! But, wait - absolutely theocratic, or somewhat theocratic... Things that make you go "Hmmmm...."

Reminds me of the Aristocrats line, "you either are or you're not." Brings back images too of all the grammar debates my family (including me) have.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Who is it that said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other kinds?"

To me, this really depends. Monarchy can be absolutely a better form of government. If you have a wise and good sovereign, then while he or she is in power, a democracy isn't going to beat it. The trouble is all of those bad sovereigns. But democracies can produce very bad results too, because "the people" can be bad, just like "a person" can be bad. So I don't anymore have a strong belief on it right now. I'm still trying to work through this issue.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What would you do if there was a man or woman who really didn't fit in with the prescribed gender roles? Would they be the ones who "slip through the cracks"?

The cracks would exist for them, yes. I don't know how those "cracks" would be organized.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If women and men are as different as you say, then why would you need to enforce the gender roles? For example, in Canada both women and men are allowed to join the army, but the army is composed mainly of men.

Well, we already have something of a gender split in law right now: the draft. The draft still calls men up to active military duty, but it doesn't call up women yet.

But there are other places where having gender laws might be a good idea. For instance, the extremely touchy subject of voting. In all the wars in the US that have been fought during which women had the right to vote, substantially more women have voted against the wars than men. And women have been observed in polls over and over again by the Political Science branch throughout many cultures, nations and societies to be less aggressive than men and more opposed to war wherever they happen (according to "Essentials of American Government" by Tim Chevernak, and "International Politics on a World Stage" by Rouskin . . . or Rouskin's name was something like that- I could find it for you if you want it). So there's a case where pulling down a gender related law might not have been within our national security interests. We might have lost some of our resolve to stick out wars because of it. I note that we've lost wars far more frequently in the 20th century than we did in the previous two centuries.

But then, men also don't have the natural social talent that women have anywhere near as often as they do. Men don't tend to have feminine talent as much as women as women don't tend to have masculine talent as much as men. Both genders decidedly have talents and qualities in greater amount than the other, and trying to blur or remove that biological line between the two is not helpful to our Western societies.

This is my opinion, anyway. It's not that one gender is any better than the other. Both are decidedly equally necessary to the wellbeing and survival of the human race and equally valuable. And neither is less talented than the other- they just tend to be differently talented.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Somewhat theocratic? You've outlawed all religions but one!

Yes, it's "somewhat" theocratic because it isn't specifically governed by priests. The leader or leaders do have to be Christians, but they don't have to be clergy or church leaders. A theocracy, according to the World English Dictionary, is a government ruled by priests or God. So mine doesn't quite fit. Technically .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As a left-handed person, I love this tradition. It means I never have to switch the places of the knife and fork to begin eating like the rest of my family does. Suckers!

Lol!

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I mostly agree with this. I wouldn't go Victorian since they were too anal-retentive and had that horrible "children should be seen and not heard" thing going on.

Well, that's not altogether a horrible idea. I think it has some value. In my family, I've seen a lot of dominance of dinner conversation by the younger people in the family who chatter about all sorts of trivialities and sometimes interrupt their elders (or have done). I'd definitely like a tradition in my country of greater respect of parents from children. That needn't go so far as to cut children wholly out of the conversation at the dinner table, but it would limit the nonsense and increase the respect.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with HOBBIT. How would you enforce this? How could you prove someone isn't Christian?

Are they spouting heresies? Do guests happen to notice they're keeping idols in their home? There could be various evidences found. It wouldn't always certainly be possible to tell, but if it is detected, action would be taken.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What happens if one of your citizens who was Christian decided to convert to another religion? Would he have to leave?

GrayMouser asked me the same thing, and I told him I don't really know. Maybe they'd be banished. Maybe some other punishment would be implemented. I haven't thought about punishments that much, though I know they'd have to exist.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What about people who are Christians, but really stink at it? Would they have to take remedial classes?

If some Christian is violating laws he or she will be punished. If he or she is being very socially disorderly, there may be a reprimand. It all depends what the offense is. If the person is just not really practicing, but claims to be a Christian, I don't really know how one could make judgments much about the person's commitment to God. Hard to legislate that. But at least false ideologies would not be openly propagated by the person. That's important.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's the punishment for someone openly being non-Christian?

I don't think such a person could live in my country, or at least not as a citizen.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Don't you think it's kind of ironic to force someone to accept Jesus's love?

I don't think anyone can do that. Someone who is being a Christian because he or she has to be is not likely to be a very faithful Christian or a true one. On the other hand, if those people are openly non-Christians, they may take other people away from Christianity too. The truth that that happens has been seen time and again in history.

Aside from that fact, I think that the situation of pretending Christianity's existing for some people is better than the alternative, the granting of equality to all forms of religion and therefore to all forms of morality. Which is license in society for immorality to abound. That alternative is a despicable one, in my eyes. It is a precedent for unjust laws to spread all of the place, as indeed they have, almost all of them justified in the name of freedom of religion.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief

Well, we already have something of a gender split in law right now: the draft. The draft still calls men up to active military duty, but it doesn't call up women yet.

O.K., you're right, regarding the fact that the U.S. does not draft women, but allow me to just POINT THIS OUT, for EVERYONE to READ, if you all would please - yes, maybe I'm digressing from "What country would you make" but whatever I don't care, I am representing for the woman soldiers of this nation.

Please read this you guys, just so you know...


"One more casualty of the war in Iraq brought home to Decatur, Illinois, last weekend. In this case, the soldier's vehicle was hit in Baghdad on June 21st by a rocket-propelled grenade. But this death is one of those that makes this war unique, for it was a woman, 22-year-old Army Specialist Karen Clifton.

She is one of the most recent of more than 80 women who have so far been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a figure nearly double the number of American military women killed in Desert Storm, Vietnam, and Korea, combined. Some 500 have been wounded, many grievously.

American women are serving in the U.S. military today in ways and numbers unthinkable a few decades ago. They are now eligible to fill more than 80 percent of military jobs, 250,000 different assignments, often serving side-by-side with men.

So far, women have served some 167,000 tours of duty in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than four times the number in the first Gulf War. They are not assigned to infantry units, to tanks or submarines, and Pentagon policy officially precludes them from serving in so-called "combat occupations." But in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where no clear frontlines exist, such distinctions are often hard to make.

Women in both theaters today drive Humvees and trucks, escort military convoys, serve as military police, even pilot helicopters and planes on the battlefield, all of it done under the very real -- and constant -- threat of attack. And like men, many women of the U.S. Armed Services have by now served several tours in the war zones. "

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...men_07-05.html

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But there are other places where having gender laws might be a good idea. For instance, the extremely touchy subject of voting. In all the wars in the US that have been fought during which women had the right to vote, substantially more women have voted against the wars than men. And women have been observed in polls over and over again by the Political Science branch throughout many cultures, nations and societies to be less aggressive than men and more opposed to war wherever they happen (according to "Essentials of American Government" by Tim Chevernak, and "International Politics on a World Stage" by Rouskin . . . or Rouskin's name was something like that- I could find it for you if you want it). So there's a case where pulling down a gender related law might not have been within our national security interests. We might have lost some of our resolve to stick out wars because of it. I note that we've lost wars far more frequently in the 20th century than we did in the previous two centuries.

Im confused on a number of levels here…

Are you saying we as citizens often get to go to the polls and vote on if we should go/stay to/in a war or not? Because that doesn’t happen. And it really sounds like that’s what yer saying.

Or are you saying that the officials women tend to elect are more likely to be against conflict then the officials men elect? If so then you are making a false conclusion that it’s the ONLY issue females vote on. Whats much more likely is that they vote on many others and the officials they elect may have a tendency to look more toward mediation of conflict than use of force as an only option. But that’s not a direct cause and effect situation. If you are going to start barring people from voting based on indirect consequence then youll wind up with no one voting because you can make the statistics show you whatever you want. So that reasoning doesn’t work. Better ban blacks and the poor and liberals and people with less then three vehicles etc etc.

OR are you talking about female elected officials and saying they tend to vote against conflict situations? If so then first off its not really true enough to matter (ie: its not like you are talking about 95% of females). And I hardly think that’s a reason to disqualify them from being elected officials just because they vote for peace more often then men? As above youll need to take this logic to all groups and divisions if you insist on justifying it this way. Youll need to ban all vegetarians. They probably vote for peace in much higher numbers then omnivores.

Either way you are basically saying because you don’t think like us we wont allow you to have any say in how things go in your society. You reduce females (and any other group you don’t agree with) to the level of children in effect. This would cause so much more harm then good. And frankly being LESS militant some 5 years ago would have been a better thing for our society in the long run which just shows you that force is not ALWAYS the best choice over peace in every situation. So its good to have a certain segment that is inclined toward reason and mediation mixed in with your war mongers. Like everything in life a balance is best. Even if they do think with their ovaries…

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

To me, this really depends. Monarchy can be absolutely a better form of government. If you have a wise and good sovereign, then while he or she is in power, a democracy isn't going to beat it. The trouble is all of those bad sovereigns. But democracies can produce very bad results too, because "the people" can be bad, just like "a person" can be bad. So I don't anymore have a strong belief on it right now. I'm still trying to work through this issue.

This is probably one of the most important decisions for your new country.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The cracks would exist for them, yes. I don't know how those "cracks" would be organized.

But why organise the "cracks" at all? Why not just let people decide for themselves what their aptitudes are?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, we already have something of a gender split in law right now: the draft. The draft still calls men up to active military duty, but it doesn't call up women yet.

This is one of the reasons I oppose the draft. Someone of a certain age shouldn't be forced to join the army just because he has a meat and two veg.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But there are other places where having gender laws might be a good idea. For instance, the extremely touchy subject of voting. In all the wars in the US that have been fought during which women had the right to vote, substantially more women have voted against the wars than men. And women have been observed in polls over and over again by the Political Science branch throughout many cultures, nations and societies to be less aggressive than men and more opposed to war wherever they happen (according to "Essentials of American Government" by Tim Chevernak, and "International Politics on a World Stage" by Rouskin . . . or Rouskin's name was something like that- I could find it for you if you want it). So there's a case where pulling down a gender related law might not have been within our national security interests. We might have lost some of our resolve to stick out wars because of it. I note that we've lost wars far more frequently in the 20th century than we did in the previous two centuries.

Are you suggesting men and women have different voting rights!?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But then, men also don't have the natural social talent that women have anywhere near as often as they do. Men don't tend to have feminine talent as much as women as women don't tend to have masculine talent as much as men. Both genders decidedly have talents and qualities in greater amount than the other, and trying to blur or remove that biological line between the two is not helpful to our Western societies.

I firmly believe that women having more "social talent" than men is a product of culture. In your system, you would restrict the natural evolution of culture overtime by imposing restrictions on your citizens who might otherwise institute change in your country.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is my opinion, anyway. It's not that one gender is any better than the other. Both are decidedly equally necessary to the wellbeing and survival of the human race and equally valuable. And neither is less talented than the other- they just tend to be differently talented.

If you believe genders are differently talented, then fine. But if you believe that genders should exhibit nothing but the different talents you feel they generally have, then there's a problem.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, it's "somewhat" theocratic because it isn't specifically governed by priests. The leader or leaders do have to be Christians, but they don't have to be clergy or church leaders. A theocracy, according to the World English Dictionary, is a government ruled by priests or God. So mine doesn't quite fit. Technically .

That makes sense, in a strange way.

So you're the Christian version of Iran (without the Ayotollah) then? Do you find this as ironic as I do?

You're always talking about Islamist extremists, and to be fair, the only countries I know of that only allow one religion are ones who only allow Islam. However, the supreme irony of all this is as soon as you're given the opportunity to create the ideal country, you do the exact same thing. Maybe you shouldn't be too hard on the extremists, since you are exactly the same, just with a different religion.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, that's not altogether a horrible idea. I think it has some value. In my family, I've seen a lot of dominance of dinner conversation by the younger people in the family who chatter about all sorts of trivialities and sometimes interrupt their elders (or have done). I'd definitely like a tradition in my country of greater respect of parents from children. That needn't go so far as to cut children wholly out of the conversation at the dinner table, but it would limit the nonsense and increase the respect.

Teaching your children not to all talk at once and make sure everyone at the table has a chance to contribute to the conversation is respectful of both children and adults. It is something I will do with my own future children as soon as they're old enough to understand. This is a lot different than the Victorian idea of "children should be seen and not heard," a by-product of the Victorian attitude that children were subhuman and should basically behave like tiny adults at all times.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Are they spouting heresies? Do guests happen to notice they're keeping idols in their home? There could be various evidences found. It wouldn't always certainly be possible to tell, but if it is detected, action would be taken.

If you think enforcing a one-religion country would be this easy, I can see why you picked it. Unfortunately for you, it is not.

With respect to idols in the home, an idiot guest might mistake art for an idol. What does an idol look like? Will this be explained in your laws?

Secondly, people who do possess idols will most assuredly not just have them lying about the house. Since non-Christian religions are illegal, they will meet in secret and hide any religious affects, just like the early Christians did when Christianity was outlawed by the Roman Empire. And look how well that worked out for them.

Thirdly, there are a lot more ways to be a non-Christian than to have idols and spout heresies. And I do mean a lot. You had better train your Inquisitors or whoever is going to enforce this law to recognise them all. Also, they should be trained to tell different Christians apart. The only Christian things in my fiancé and my appartment are:

• A Bible, belonging to my fiancé.
• A small Greek Orthodox painting of Mary and Jesus, belonging to both of us.
• A small wooden cross which belongs to me, and sits in a drawer somewhere. (I really should find it. I have no idea where it is at the moment.)

You'd never hear either of us spouting heresies. So, which one of us is Christian? The answer is, me. My fiancé, the owner of the Bible, is most assuredly not Christian. The only people who know that are people who we've happened to mention this to.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

GrayMouser asked me the same thing, and I told him I don't really know. Maybe they'd be banished. Maybe some other punishment would be implemented. I haven't thought about punishments that much, though I know they'd have to exist.

This is sensible.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think anyone can do that. Someone who is being a Christian because he or she has to be is not likely to be a very faithful Christian or a true one. On the other hand, if those people are openly non-Christians, they may take other people away from Christianity too. The truth that that happens has been seen time and again in history.

I agree that you can't force anyone to accept Jesus's love. Therefore, what's the point of making all your citizens be Christians? The only "real" ones are the ones who actually want to be Christians, so why not let people who don't want to be Christian follow their own beliefs?

What purpose is served by forcing Christianity on someone? Are you hoping that after years of going to church, they will come to want to be Christian? Also, by repressing other religions, you won't be able to eliminate people's knowledge of said religions. The media exists, and people have a pesky habit of using it to find things out.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Aside from that fact, I think that the situation of pretending Christianity's existing for some people is better than the alternative, the granting of equality to all forms of religion and therefore to all forms of morality. Which is license in society for immorality to abound. That alternative is a despicable one, in my eyes. It is a precedent for unjust laws to spread all of the place, as indeed they have, almost all of them justified in the name of freedom of religion.

Granting freedom of religion is not the same of granting equality to all forms of morality. You can of one set of morals in your laws, and you don't have to have a state religion to do this. What do you mean by unjust laws spreading all over the place? How does this correlate to freedom of religion?

They are not assigned to infantry units, to tanks or submarines, and Pentagon policy officially precludes them from serving in so-called "combat occupations."

(from the article Lotesse posted) What the hell have they been doing, knitting tea cosies? I don't think so.

By restricting the deployment of soldiers based on something irrelevant like gender (as opposed to something relevant like combat fitness) you're potentially holding back very good soldiers and therefore reducing the quality of combat units and by extension, needlessly wasting lives. Armies should be making every effort to preserve the lives of their soldiers, and this means updating strategy and policy to reflect the nature of any conflict in which they are currently involved.

Of course, what logic has to do with the military is anyone's guess.

[Tessar]

I wanna go live in BoP's country!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I wanna go live in BoP's country!

Oy.
I'm not going to pay taxes for resolving the public health issues in ANY of these countries with majority at 16. or younger

Or buy insurance. *shudder*