A new nation with no government. What would you suggest?

Play Tropico 3 or google it and I think every single person on this forum will have a field day (lol, it's cute because an open field is relevant )

 

may I ask, what do you do for a living?

polscie

 

You might not have to. Who'd want to be part of that society...?

 

I tried playing that game, it sucks.

 

awww, i love that game

 

You can't have tyranny without tyrants.

 

I disagree with this. There can be a so-called "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy. It would be a matter of semantics to call all the people in the majority "tyrants," especially when they're just everyday people with their beliefs. The majority can hold rule over a minority, suppressing its rights, even without evil or tyrannical intent. This has been true throughout the history of the U.S., for example, in the suppression of African-Americans' rights before the civil rights movement, or in the suppression of Asian-Americans during World War II through the use of interment camps. One could argue that the majority today tyrannizes over LGBT people by disallowing same-sex marriage in most states.

A tyranny only requires ignorance and a majority, not necessarily a tyrant.

 

Though I am sure this will demean my status I will answer your question in saying that I am in high school and work at gamestop and write in my spare time ( Don't ask about anything I write xD I only get like 40 pages in before I can't seem to find where to go from there and move on to the next story. I am sure some of us can relate )

However I am very educated in political, philisophical and moral issues.

 

Corporate Oligarchy (Corporatocracy)

 

A dictatorship with myself as supreme ruler.

 

Something that is being omitted is the establishment of the ideals upon which this new sovereign nation is to be established. The type of government is secondary to the ideals upon which that government is founded. The design of the government should always be that which best accomplishes the ideals for which it was created.

 

What would you suggest? That is the point of this thread.

 

It was far more eloquently expressed by others than I could possibly hope to achieve.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

The protections of the unalienable Rights of the People is paramount in my political beliefs. The only fault I find in the above is that it only expresses three of the many unalienable Rights that are inherent in all individuals but it does qualify the statement by stating "amoung these" implying the existance of many others.

Few understand the foundation of unalienable or natural Rights and some even dispute the existance of these Rights because they are not inviolable. There is a fundamental difference between unalienable and inviolable that many seem to ignore. An unalienable Right can be violated but that does not dispute the fact it exists.

When we address the formation of government we are addressing national sovereignty but that national sovereignty originates with the sovereignty of the individual. It is individual sovereignty that creates national sovereignty.

The actual form of government, whether a monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, republic or whatever is secondary to the ideals that establish the foundation for that government. If the primary goal of the government is to protect the unalienable Rights of the individual then it's form and structure are relatively unimportant. This is also true if the government, regardless of whether it is a monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, or republic violates the unalienable Rights of the Individual. If it violates the ideal then it is the right and the duty of those living under it to overthrow that government and replace it with one that safeguards the Rights of the Individual.

The founders of America choose a Constitutional Republic and it made sense. We are a nation where government originated with the towns and communities that were a part of a sovereign State. The States joined together to establish a federal government where some, not all, of the roles and responsibilites of the States, that was delegated to the State by the People, was delegated to the federal government. The US Constitution reflects a contract between the States that can be altered and even abolished by the States. Our Constitution reflects the sovereignty of the People and the States are the ultimate government of the People, not the federal government which exists solely based upon the will of the States.

Many in America seem to forget this simple fact. The States, not the federal government, are supreme in the United States as the federal government's very existance is ultimately controlled by the States which have the authority in the US Constitution to call for a Constitutional Convention at any time and could desolve the US government if they chose to do so.

Back to this hypothetical question. If we establish the protection of the unalienable Rights of the People as the primary goal of government then we would have to address other factors. The size of the proposed nation and the scope of the authority of the government needs to be addressed. This could address anything from a "city-state" to a large nation comprised of numerous individual States. In all cases the sovereignty of the Individual is the foundation for the government.

I would propose that a Constitution would be necessary to expressly limit the authority of government regardless of it's ultimate structure. The greatest threat to the unalienable Rights of the Individual always exists where the government's authority is not expressly limited.

 

Inalienable rights are natural rights from our Creator. Are you alright with that?

Life, Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness are among those rights. Agreed?

The power of sovereignty is vested in the people and is exercised by the people, directly, or through some form of representation which is chosen by the people, nd to what limit those powers are delegated.

The contract, testament or constitution would be the foundation of our society and the people are supreme, and any government implemented would be to help secure these rights.

Any argument so far?

 

Anarchist Catalonia.

 

As long as "our creator" is mother nature as there is no evidence of supernatural beings while we do have extensive and indisputable evidence of evolution and natural selection. Unalienable Rights are "natural" rights inherent in all individuals that are not dependent upon religious beliefs. That clarification needs to be made as religion represents one of the most tyrannical entities historically.

The definition of unalienable or natural Rights is that which is inherent in the individual that does not infringe upon other unalienable or natural Rights of others. They are established based upon the sovereignty of the individual.

 

You wish to worship Mother Nature rather than Father God. It is still religion and should not be favored over any other faith. Evolution is faaaaar from an indisputable fact as you know. The intensity of religious fervor Darwinists exhibit is equal to the faith in any belief.

So recognizing people are endowed with natural rights is agreed to, but since we differ in our faiths of who represents the Creator, from where these natural right emanate. That is a matter of respect and tolerance for the other person's faith and belief. Religion may have facilitated some evil/misguided individuals to harm other's, it has also been a supreme force for good in the world, so not regulating the religion of anyone would seem to be the best course. A system to punish and remove from society the evil-doers is essential.

Agreed?

 

An interesting proposition but "consent of the governed" isn't necessarily "representative of the governed" as the two are different concepts.

I agree that ultimate sovereignty does reside with the individual as the People can always rise up and overthrow any form of government but that does not imply that the government must represent the people per se. So long as the government protects the ideal of unalienable Rights it meets the criteria established and that may very well contradict the "will of the people" as might be imposed by representation.

A perfect example could be the issue of abortion where the sovereignty of the woman takes precedence over a fetus which has not yet obtained individual sovereignty. Many can oppose abortion but based upon the unalienable Right of Sovereignty of the Woman her unalienable Rights must be protected. This unalienable Rigtht could be violated by representation but it would violate the ideal to do so. Many do oppose abortion and they have every Right to do so but they do not have the Right to impose their personal beliefs on others.

 

... and neither do those that oppose abortion have the responsibility to pay for abortion.

 

I do not worship "mother nature" and have no religious beliefs. Unalienable Rights, as noted, are completely separate from any religious beliefs. The unalienable Rights of the individual exist because the individual exists and for no other reason.

We could literally take the hypothetical example of a cloned individual. Those identical unalienable Rights would exist for the clone even though the individual was created by an act of man. The origin of the individual is completely irrelevant to the natural or unalienable Rights of the Individual.

 

No argument from me on this one as no one has any responsibility to pay for any medical services or any other services for someone else. That violates the Right of Property of the Individual. We might choose to do that but have no responsibility to do that.

 

The Founding fathers disagree with you "We are Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights..." But at the least we can agree on inalienable rights, and religious freedom.

The hypothetical cloned being would still have a soul.

 

I would copy the US system with a few minor modifications. Like getting rid of the electoral college and making the President directly elected.

The US has the best political system in the world. It is very well balanced overall as far as checks go.

 

The election of U.S. Senators returned to the states and not a popular vote.

I am wondering now why, the U.S. Representatives were elected by popular vote, the Senate by the states and the President by Electoral College? Three different methods. I understand the states electing the Senate and the popular vote for the reps., but what advantage did the FFs understand about an Electoral College?

 

Because the people who created those systems were largely experimenting. It was all new at the time.

We can change it because we know more than they did. We've had many years to observe the flaws in those systems and can correct them.

The original idea, as I understand it, was to avoid mob rule. The electoral college represented people with more informed opinions than the masses.

And technically, it isnt out of the control of the masses anyway. Contrary to popular belief. The electors are appointed by the party that wins the state. And the rules for appointing electors are defined at the state level anyway. The masses do not have direct control, but the do have control.