Let's come up with our own government!

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:14 am

As it turns out, a large continent of (for whatever reason) green land has sprung up in the middle of the Atlantic. By some inexplicable means, I happened to be there and have claimed it in the name of Transfans.net. Possibly while nipping into the Guinness a bit, possibly not. That part of the great discovery has been lost to history.

As it turns out, our continent is pretty well self-sufficiant. It'll be awhile until we need to turn to help from any neighboring nations. Possibly, we won't at all. I discovered this land, I brought you all here, but I am a fair man. I have decided that we shall, as a group, decide how this country is to be run.

For starters, let's come up with some laws, eh?

Let's start us off by saying that MURDER should be outlawed. We can't have people running around killing one another.

Any objections or additions that should be made to NO MURDER as a law?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:02 am

ooooooh fun fun fun! n_n

Naturally any laws made must be abided by at all levels. i.e. there is no presidential power to ignore laws, laws govern everyone. Rich, poor, educated and illiterate.

So, murder is illegal therefore it is illegal for the state to commit murder- hence no capital punishment. The only exception should be self defence- if absolutely necessary you should be able to defend yourself lethally if the alternative is death or serious bodily harm.

The guilt of an individual will be decided by a jury of their piers and the individual will be considered innocent until the state has made a convincing case otherwise. Lawyers will all be paid a flat rate regardless of the duration, scale or content of a trial (to stop the rich buying their freedom by hiring the best lawyers).

All people will be treated equally by state agencies and public bodies regardless of personal status, wealth, gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality, appearance, health or any other factor.

Those are a few bones to throw around for some more laws.

How about for some parliament:

The system should be a democratic republic with an elected President accountable to the electorate every four years. Governance is by two bodies: representatives from individual counties within the country making one body (elected every three years) and one made up of elected councillors from each county (elected every four years).

Laws must be ratified by both bodies to be entered into national law. Representatives should come from a non-political background (i.e. not assigned to a party or agenda) with the sole accountable purpose of being a voice for the people who elect them. Councillors may be aligned to a particular governmental party.

A president may serve two terms usually but may serve a third if they win a majority of 50% in the election after their second term (including abstinations/non-voters) to avoid a lame-duck second term certainty.

All government figures are published yearly such that they may be scrutinised by the public and media.

A vote of 66% in each house is necessary to being impeachment proceedings against a president (two thirds of each house).

And for social policy, how about a minimal government primarily concerned with protecting the rights of the individual and upholding the law with a minimal welfare state; people generally expected to look after themselves in terms of healthcare/insurance, pensions etc. unless they are genuinely unable to secure these things through poverty or unusual mitigating personal situation (someone with a spinal cord injury for example would have difficulty working and paying such bills

)

oooh so many ideas :3

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:37 am

I like how you think Karl, but I have one suggestion. The President could serve a single 10 year term. This prevents the final few years of his or her term from being spent trying to get re-elected. 10 years is long enough to get some work done.

While we're on the subject of MURDER, I suppose abortion should be brought up:

Anything a person wants to do to their own body is alright. This includes abortion as well as suiciden and any drugs that a person may wish to consume. Of course, while under the influence of such mind-altering drugs, you will be prohibited by law from operating a motor-vehicle or other heavy machinery. You may do as you wish to your own body, but the line is drawn when it can hurt others.

Let's say that a murder is commited, though. What is a reasonable punishment?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:26 am

Professor Smooth wrote:I like how you think Karl, but I have one suggestion. The President could serve a single 10 year term. This prevents the final few years of his or her term from being spent trying to get re-elected. 10 years is long enough to get some work done.

I like that idea- it also means a government has a reasonable chance of enacting valuable policy rather than short term election winning goals.

Maybe we should therefore loosen the terms for impeachment though, such that a really lousy President can still be removed?

While we're on the subject of MURDER, I suppose abortion should be brought up:

Anything a person wants to do to their own body is alright. This includes abortion as well as suiciden and any drugs that a person may wish to consume. Of course, while under the influence of such mind-altering drugs, you will be prohibited by law from operating a motor-vehicle or other heavy machinery. You may do as you wish to your own body, but the line is drawn when it can hurt others.

Sounds good to me. That removes power from drug overfiends too, and it's something which could be regulated by the state. Naturally if you become a crack addict and commit crimes to fund your habiits you are punished for those crimes like anybody else but the government will not supply you with drugs in Prison, only support to go through the drying out phase.

I'd suggest only late term abortion be illegal, anything up to about 4 months is still pretty much just a growing hunk of meat with no personality imo although I'd offer that maybe they have to provide a good reason for it at that point. Say anything up to 2 months if fine, no questions asked, we all make mistakes etc. but after 2 months you actually have to have a good reason since contraception if freely available and you've had two months already and done nothing and it's my understanding that abortions in that later stage are more traumatic for the woman, so it's something it might be nice to make an attempt to discourage although not outlaw.

Let's say that a murder is commited, though. What is a reasonable punishment?

Hm, depends on the severity of the murder...

I suppose you have premeditated, calculated murder. Then spur-of-the-moment murder. Then accidental murder and finally some class of indirect murder (where by a series of events a person is killed but you did not directly kill them).

Maybe 10 years for the first, 7 for the second, 3 years for accidental murder and a variable term of prison sentence between 1 and 5 years and/or a fine for indirect murder?

Might I also propose a system of justice which would run as follows-

Say a person commits a crime, they go to prison. In prison they are there to be punished (by being denied the normal freedoms on the outside), to be kept away from law abiding people for a set term regardless of redemption and finally to have access to rehabilitation (a criminal must naturally be allowed to learn a skill, a trade or to be educated if they wish that's obviously a good endeavour).

However should they come out and reoffend within 10 years then it's obvious that prison has not served it's purpose of acting as both a deterant and a means for miscreants to learn how to function without resorting to crime. Therefore they return to prison again to serve out their original sentence plus the sentence for their newest crime.

If they then come out of jail and reoffend again, they go back in again for their original crime, their second and their newest crime.

That way people who genuinely go straight are allowed to, reoffenders are discourages, constant reoffenders are punished on an exponential scale and the public are kept safe (although with a potentially large prison population). Consider, a murdererous thug would only be able to commit 1 or 2 crimes in his life before it became apparent he'd be spending most of his life in prison- and if he's demonstrated he has no intention or will to go straight, I suppose that's the best arrangement.

Prisons themselves don't have to be cruel naturally, but they are generally simple. You go in, you have two square meals, your cell is clean. You're allowed five books from the prison library a week and a radio. Misbehaviour removes those privelliges. Whilst in prison you can go to the prison gym twice a week, and you are also expected to work for the state for your upkeep. Nothing cruel or inhuman, but you are expected to do work (digging roads, printing car licence plates etc.)

Might I also propose segregation in prisons? Such that minor offenders are kept away from big time offenders who are kept away from mass murderers? That way they don't all learn bad habbits from one another, in theory you don't get psychopaths go medieval on their room mates quite so much (as in theory the psychopaths can be kept away from the more mundane prisoners) and it means the more serious prisoners can be given extra care/guarding as appropriate.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:46 pm

*takes over by force*

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:07 pm

Once again, I like your thinking. I dislike long-term prison sentences. They are extremely costly for the taxpayers and seem counter intuitive to just about everyone involved. 10 years for the most severe of murders seems about right. Any longer and that person may have quite a bit of trouble re-adjusting to the outside world. Imagine people incarcerated for 20, 30, even 50 years. That person's not going to function properly after he or she's released.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:17 pm

What about people who are still a demonstrable danger after the 10 year period?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:36 pm

Best First wrote:What about people who are still a demonstrable danger after the 10 year period?

Good question... I'm not sure, can we or should we lock people up if they've served their dues and haven't yet commited another crime? I suppose one would have to... maybe throughout a person's prison stay they should be routinely assessed, anybody who is a total danger to other people should be dealt with differently maybe? Or when they are released, released into some form of secure care depending on their mental condition?

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:52 pm

In matters where the court system is involved, can we please keep the names of the accusers/accused private until an outcome has been reached (and even then, only if really necessary)?

Nothing makes my blood boil like people being named and shamed for something they never did, whilst the accuser still gets to enjoy full anonymity.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:56 pm

Pissin' Poonani wrote:In matters where the court system is involved, can we please keep the names of the accusers/accused private until an outcome has been reached (and even then, only if really necessary)?

Nothing makes my blood boil like people being named and shamed for something they never did, whilst the accuser still gets to enjoy full anonymity.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:18 pm

Sounds good to me.

Can we get the Divine Comedy to write our nationl anthem?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:21 pm

Best First wrote:Sounds good to me.

Can we get the Divine Comedy to write our nationl anthem?

Oooooooooooooh! Karl likey :3 only if they write it to the tune of "Come Home (Billy Bird)"

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:22 pm

I don't think as a forwrad thinking nation we should stifle the man's creativity.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:29 pm

How does this new goverment feel about downloading music, movies and pr0n?

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:37 pm

well, that lends itself to the question are we assuming we are operating a form of capitalism?

if not, what is proposed instead?

if so are we to have an interventionist government that involves itself in the manner in which companies and organsiations act or do we favour minimal state involvement and 'self regulation'.?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:46 pm

Best First wrote:well, that lends itself to the question are we assuming we are operating a form of capitalism?

if not, what is proposed instead?

if so are we to have an interventionist government that involves itself in the manner in which companies and organsiations act or do we favour minimal state involvement and 'self regulation'.?

Good question. Free markets left to their own devices may fall foul of monolithic companies owning everything and then screwing customers over. Businesses are there to make money imo not necessarily to worry about best practice and ethics...

I suppose that means watchdogs are necessary to keep track of and if necessary fine and impose other sanctions on business acting in unethical ways, making decisions harmful to the consumer or to the economy etc. Yick. I hate watchdogs... beaurocratic incompotence mostly. Endless inquiries and then bugger all resulting from them

Unless we could invent a complicated system of taxation and legality concerning takeovers, shareholders, market share, advertising, shop floor space and mergers such that the state wouldn't have to interfere- just make sure the paperwork and expenses were all completed appropriately.

Will our public services be National or Private? Nationalised services can't fall foul of cartels or the need to generate profits for shareholders but are liable to be inefficient and an expense to the taxpayer. Private services tend to be run for profit rather than the good of their consumers and don't necessarily act in the public interest but aren't funded by the state and tend to be more streamlined.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:53 pm

wel, that depends, as citizens do we want to pay high taxes or not (assuming againa capitalist system)? Or i guess, i should say, are we willing to, and under what circumstances?

i mean if we don't then everything has to be private, doesn't it?

Are we more concerned with the wealth of the individual or the infrastructur eof the nation (for example i can afford a BMW 3 series but if i am not taxed a ta certain level then there is no public transport for the guy who earns a fifth fo what i do).

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:57 pm

Best First wrote:wel, that depends, as citizens do we want to pay high taxes or not (assuming againa capitalist system)? Or i guess, i should say, are we willing to, and under what circumstances?

i mean if we don't then everything has to be private, doesn't it?

Are we more concerned with the wealth of the individual or the infrastructur eof the nation (for example i can afford a BMW 3 series but if i am not taxed a ta certain level then there is no public transport for the guy who earns a fifth fo what i do).

Well, I generally tend to favour situations where people are responsible for managing themselves- though I'd imagine that breaks down at corporate level unless we have strict guidelines and laws for legitimate business interaction.

So do we all pay a share and take some resources out, or do we keep our money and just pay for things as we need them? Hm, what if we had some form of compromise where people pay a smaller rate of tax which goes to the upkeep of the roads and public places etc. but also towards the less fortunate, such that necessary transport (for example) would be available perhaps for a disabled individual to travel to see their physician? A body in times of poverty or trouble could then make use of these public services, but the rest of the time are expected to help themselves if possible.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:18 pm

Each member of parliment must be subjected to intesive screaning tests to determin if that when they vote for somthing in parliment they are voting with brain and for the good of the land and law to be passed and not something else.

No religon please.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:21 pm

what if people want to have a religion? what do you propoe we do about it?

in terms of self management i would say responsibility should be taught but not relied on.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:24 pm

If ppl want to have a religon then they should be sent back to school.

Seriously tho I belive that we should have Religous Education in schools and the FSM should be taught alongside all religons...

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:44 pm

How about personal freedoms?

The obvious candidates are freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of movement, freedom of demonstration. Would we add some riders onto these about certain limitations on these freedoms or would we allow people to do as they wish but make certain actions based on these beliefs illegal?

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:20 pm

To me, it depends on how large our country is.

To a certain degree, (I think the number is 150, if anyone has read The Tipping Point (highly recommended book)), socialism/tribalism is the best system, IMO.

But when it gets to big, you have to go to something else.

If people want to have a religion, that's cool, but these religions should be inclusive.

And what will be do about the HORRIBLE male to female ratio? lol

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:24 pm

Shanti418 wrote:

If people want to have a religion, that's cool, but these religions should be inclusive.

what do you mean by that exactly? Scue my pignorance.

i vote faith is considered a private matter and laws and rights should be based on rational idsscusion and study and not wolly beliefs.

i.e church and state seprated by a giant impentrable legal mars bar. or some such.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:34 pm

Shanti418 wrote: And what will be do about the HORRIBLE male to female ratio? lol

Not sure but I'm reasonably certain we can have fun in the mean time

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:01 pm

what about the economy?
we'd need some sort of export in order to import all the alcohol we'll be consuming... unless of course, we start producing our own? *ponders*

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:12 pm

we spend money on making anew energy source like particle reactors or somthing - and then export energy! we can take over the world...using giant robots of course.

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:04 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Let's start us off by saying that MURDER should be outlawed. We can't have people running around killing one another.

Any objections or additions that should be made to NO MURDER as a law?

OBJECTION!!

Objection your honour! You cannot take away the livelyhood of me and many others!

I want to kill stuff and sacrifice them to Shaitan damnit...

As a matter of fact, I think the whole notion of laws is corrupt and detrimental to the immense urge of many of us settlers to be completely free in both mind, spirit, and body.

I believe that the economic needs can be done by growing large amounts of hamp, and then selling it to the outside world. Hamp has many uses.

Karl Lynch wrote:All people will be treated equally by state agencies and public bodies regardless of personal status, appearance, or any other factor.

OBJECTION!! Why do we need the ugly people??

The system should be a democratic republic with an elected President

Nooo! Why do we need a president?? A president always have more power than a Prime Minister! Just look at USA or Russia for this foul play in place! I say we only need a Prime Minister, and we will leave any representative job to the actual diplomats and ambassadors.

oooh so many ideas :3

Yes, yes, yes!

I have so many great ideas!

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:16 pm

This brings up another valid question. Do we allow criminals from other countries to be removed from ours? On the one hand, we don't want to become a haven for international criminals. On the other, if they haven't broken a law in OUR country, should they still be punished?

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:56 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:This brings up another valid question. Do we allow criminals from other countries to be removed from ours? On the one hand, we don't want to become a haven for international criminals. On the other, if they haven't broken a law in OUR country, should they still be punished?

My gut reaction is that we should be in favour of extradition, however, as is usually the case it isn't that straight forward.

I know I'd be pissed if, say, someone who'd killed members of my family got off free because another country gave him asylum, but I wouldn't want to be sending someone to get their hands lopped off because they stole a loaf of bread in order to feed their family. As with most things, I'd say review them on a case by case basis.

We need to keep up good relations with other countries, but I feel it's also important to retain our integrity.

Anyone who has aided and abetted the careers of Celine Dion, Brian Adams and Jon Bon Jovi gets shot as soon as they set foot on our soil though.

TransFans.co.uk

Let's come up with our own government!

Re: Let's come up with our own government!