PDA

View Full Version : What Sort Of Government Do You Wish Your Country Had?



The Dragonslayer
11-15-2008, 04:57 AM
Whether you're European, American, Canadian, etc., this question is for you. If you had a choice, what sort of government would you want your country to have, such as a republic, a monarchy, a dictatorship, a province in an empire, etc.?

Oresai
11-15-2008, 05:04 AM
An Independant one, most probably leaning towards a dictatorship because I feel that would be needed to sort out many of the problems Scotland faces today, not least from indiscrimate immigration.
I firmly believe that one cannot play a wider role in the world until one comes from a place of strength and security. At the moment Scotland doesn`t have anything like that. It is fed the myth that we are dependant upon the coffers of the English, nothing is further from the truth and the appalling fact that we were coerced into signing away our oil rights to the English ad infinitum simply to procure Devolution, which is a farce, proves as much.
I never have bought into the Utopian dream that there will be any government, no matter how well intentioned, that won`t make mistakes. But at least, we Scots deserve to make our own mistakes, and not suffer at the hands of a government that is essentially bleeding us dry whilst fostering their own underhand brand of ethnic hatred as they refuse to disclose just how untrue the notion of the `dependant Scots` is.

Below is an old article but, I feel, still relevant.


'While Gordon Brown fumes in the Treasury, 'wee Angus', as the Finance Minister Angus McKay is affectionately known, has been trying to work out the numbers. Official sources cannot confirm that his first reaction on looking at them was 'Oh, shite'. He is caught between Henry's spending spree and the Barnett squeeze. Something has to give.'
Iain MacWhirter in the Sunday Herald, 4 th February 2001.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Big Lie - Scottish Revenue Taxes
by Niall U'Aislainn
For countless years, the British Unionist Parties have been telling the people of Scotland, that they are subsidized by the English Taxpayer and that Independence is the certain road to ruin. Just recently some senior members of the Labour party have repeated this statement. Mr Trevor Philips in his Election Manifesto for the Lord Mayorship of London called for this subsidy to stop and the money be given to London instead Even from February 1990 in the days of the handbag wielding Margaret Thatcher quote `We English, who are a marvellous people, are really very generous to Scotland.' She was not alone in this, Scotland is constantly being sniped at by ignorant Tories who accuse Scots of having an inordinent level of funding. London's Evening Standard Newspaper has labelled the Scots `subsidy junkies' on innumerable occasions.

For nearly 300 years Scots have endured a barrage of such rhetoric which has sapped our innate Vitality and optimism. However I am asking the question 'Is it True?' Do the English Taxpayers really subsidize the Scots?

Those of us old enough to remember Josef Goebbels, (Hitler's infamous propaganda chief), know the quote he made:'If you tell a big enough Lie, and keep on repeating it, in the end people will come to believe it.' The big lie of Nazism is still believed today by deluded people, still taken in by his lies. It would appear that no serious research into this Subsidy Claim has been done in the past, due in no minor part to the excessive cloud of Secrecy coming from the Civil Service Establishment. The Information was there, but had to be ferreted out of the Stationery Office and Office of National Statistics. Before much of the Government paperwork was put on the Internet, this would have taken a researcher at least a year to extract the figures.

Thanks to the Internet, and the digging done by Colin, Eric, Frank, Neil, Niniane, Peter and Ozzie, whose labours helped to provide many pieces of the Jigsaw, this task has become easier and I personally spent over 400 hours in research to finally put this huge jigsaw puzzle together. Accurate information up to and including the 5th April 1999 (The cut off date selected for this research) was used and only the Governments own figures are used to preserve accuracy. North Sea Oil revenues were difficult to track down as the UK Government regard these as special resources of the UK (Extra-Regio Territories) and not Scottish, even though the Oilfields are in Scottish waters, are policed by Scottish Policemen and supported by an Infrastructure, at Scottish Ratepayers and Council Tax payers expense. Without financial support from Westminster. Following this convention, North Sea Revenues are EXCLUDED from the allocation of revenues to Scotland. When the Scottish Parliament was established, the UK Government annexed 3000 square miles of Scottish Waters rich in Oil, Gas and Fish and transferred them to English jurisdiction. In these cases, I have charged the Tax revenues to the Scottish Tax account as I have also charged the Corporation taxes paid by the Oil Companies based in London for their Scottish operations.

I am not satisfied that I have the true picture of North Sea Oil and Gas revenues as I feel some of these have been allocated to the Gross operating surplus and Crown Estates Income. In this event, they may well be understated for the Scottish Tax revenues, but I have found it impossible at present to penetrate the wall of secrecy that surrounds this heading. (Perhaps a SNP MP might ask a Question in Westminster?) The U.K. Government use the figure of 8.6% to express the percentage of Scottish Populace to the whole U.K. Population and I have used this percentage in Annex A where it was impossible to ascertain the correct percentage per Annex A. (Tables of Taxation Revenue and Percentages). It should be Noted that the least ambiguous sites were those of the Customs and Excise, followed by the Inland Revenue. The worst site being the Treasury.

GENERAL NOTES and OBSERVATIONS
It was interesting to note the disparity between Income tax receipts in Scotland and those of the S.E. of England. Scotland's Share of the Income tax and National Insurance Contributions is 7.4% which reflects the lower Incomes of Scots in general. Inland revenue figures strongly suggest that there are a higher proportion of Scots, whose earnings fall below the minimum Tax level and therefore pay no tax at all, than in the rest of the U.K. A pointer to the relative levels of poverty in Scotland.


Another anomaly is the number of people of pension age who continue to work, this would naturally be expected of Hill Farmers and Crofters whose incomes are desperately low, but it extends right across the board. In the U.K. the average number of Pensioners working is 6.6% of all pensioners. However in Scotland the ratio is 9.4%!.

Also Included in the figures are Council Tax and Business rates, as quite properly these are taxes to be taken into account. Council Tax at 9.3% is much higher than the population percentage of 8.6%. Business rates are even higher at 16.1%. In Fraserburgh one high Street shop has a rates bill of a similar sized shop in Regents Street in London! One would expect Rural areas to have higher charges than Urban areas, but this does not account for the difference, which may occur to the high costs of providing the infrastructure for the Oil Industry on the East and North East coasts, but is more likely in the Central belt, to be the result of Labour Councils Bad Management, inefficiencies and profligacy.

TAXATION TOUR
Before we reach the concluding part, it would be a good idea to acquaint oneself with the various taxes and so would you please turn to APPENDIX A at the back and I will take you on a quick tour.

We start first of all with our old friends from Customs and Excise and the most easily recognized Tax of all: Value Added Tax. Scotland's share being £4.957 Billion or 8.9% of the Total. One would expect it to be lower than this due to the lower levels of personal spending, or at the very most be 8.6% in line with the Population, but is in fact a distortion due to the fact that VAT is charged on Bottled Whisky and Fuels as soon as they leave the Distilleries or Refineries. And Scotland has a higher production ratio in these commodities.

Hydrocarbon Oils at £2.478 Billions or 19.9% is more properly not a Tax but an Excise duty. Excise Duty is payable when the Fuels leave the Refinery and the high percentage reflects the dominant position of the Grangemouth Refinery in the UK.

Tobacco Duty at £0.672 Billion or 8.1% is a little less than the national average, but reflects the reduced level of imports and manufactures in Scotland.

Alcohol including Whisky. This duty is quite high at £2.515 Billions or 39.3% This reflects the high output of Whisky distilling in Scotland.

Betting and Gaming, Air Passenger Duty, Insurance premium Tax, Landfill Tax and other Excise Duties are lumped together. It has proved impossible to apportion them by actual revenue raised in Scotland, so the Population percentage of 8.6% has been applied.

Our old nemesis Hector the Inspector holds out the Inland Revenue collection plate and takes £6.712 Billions from our hip pockets or 7.4% of all UK Income Taxes. As mentioned earlier, this is an indicator of the relative Wealth of Scotland compared to the UK as a whole. If we take the Treasury Population figure of 8.6% as being accurate, then this would indicate that wages and Salaries are some 16% lower in Scotland than they are in England.

Non North Sea Corporation Taxes follow on at £2,739 Billion pounds or 9.1% of the UK Total. This is higher due to the relative profitability of Scottish Companies and firms and is especially true of Banking, Finance and Insurance.

North Sea Companies Corporation Taxes are next at £3.301 Billions or 97.1% of the oil and Gas Sectors. The Corporation tax figures are those taken from Companies House Annual returns for Companies with registered interests in the Scottish Oilfields.

Petroleum Revenue Tax at £0.777 Billion also represents 97.1% as being the Scottish Sector. Due to the Secrecy and arcane treasury accounting policies, I was unable to find out what this item in the accounts stands for. It is possible that this is a surcharge made when prices go over a certain fixed limit.

North Sea Revenues at £2.525 Billions is also reckoned to be 97.1% Scottish Sector. Again it has proved virtually impossible to find the source of this heading.

Capital Gains Taxes, Inheritance Taxes and Stamp Duties are all lumped together at around 8.4% actual which is slightly below the average, reflecting lower house prices in Scotland and that Scots have fewer opportunities for amassing wealth.

Now we come to the other Taxes and Government receipts which will complete this tour, taxes such as Vehicle Excise Duty of £0.445 Billion Pounds reflects the Duty paid on a New Car and Road Fund Duty.This Duty is probably the main reason why Cars cost more to buy in Britain than anywhere else.

Oilfield Royalties of £0.388 Billion pounds or 97.1% which reflects the cost of annual royalties on existing Oilfields still being worked in the Scottish Sector.

Business Rates of £2.257 Billion Pounds or 16.1% are a regressive tax on profitable businesses. They are abnormally high in Scotland, because the local Authorities have never implemented the Standard Business Rate Laws brought in by the Last Conservative government. Too many Labour Councils regard the Business rates as a milk cow to be exploited ruthlessly to make good their shortcomings, and this has led to far too many companies shutting up shop and moving south or onto the Continent where Rates or Land taxes are much cheaper. Scotland has the unenviable reputation of having the highest Business rates in the western world.

Social Security Contributions of £4.159 Billion pounds or 7.4% tells the same sorry story of the disparity in earning power of Scots and English.

Council Taxes of £1.190 Billion pounds or 9.3% reflect the higher costs of Council services in Scotland and also the Water charges which are almost double the English norm.

Other Taxes and Royalties and Interest & Dividends of £1.Billion Pounds or 8.6% have been allocated pro rata to the Scottish population average.

Finally Gross operating Surplus and Crown estate rents and Income of £1.582 Billion or 8.6%. The population ratio was applied even though I suspect there is an Element of North Sea Oil contained in this figure. Treasury Secrecy foiled me and I have had to leave it as is.

This brings us to the totals and at this point the figures have a story to tell. The Total UK Taxation Revenues for the year to the 5th April 1999 were £356,800.000 Million pounds (356.8 Billions) let us assume that figure is 100% of the total Taxation. Scotland with 8.6% of the population contributed £41,346,600 Million Pounds (41.346 Billions) or 11.6% of the total UK Tax revenues. In return, under the Barnet Formula, Scotland received £12.2 Billion Pounds or 3.4%!

Far from England subsidizing Scotland, the reverse is true. Scots are subsidizing the South East of England, and in particular London Which received £89.7 Billion pounds of Government expenditure or 25% and this does not include health, Education or Defence. No wonder the Treasury wishes to keep it quiet! This has been going on for years.

In Conclusion. There is no reason at all why Scotland could not go it alone as an independent nation just as Norway has done. We can give our citizens a higher quality of life whilst investing part of the Oil revenues into an Oil Fund for future generations to come. Our pensioners can have pensions on which they can live in Dignity without poverty. Schools that can invest in new buildings and teachers. A Health Service, free to all which does not ration healthcare by postcode or age. Housing Associations that can build the type of houses people want to live in, not Labours Stalinist monobloc concrete deserts. Crofters and hill farmers can receive aid which stops the depopulation of our rural areas. Fishermen can rely on properly funded Fish conservation measures which will preserve stocks for their sons to fish in the future, protected by a small but efficient Navy, Army and Air Force. Businessmen can look forward to a vibrant economy with lower rates and small taxes and in turn can increase the wealth of the nation as Adam Smith envisaged. Ladies and Gentlemen of Scotland, the Future lies in your hands. The BIG LIE is revealed, do YOU still believe it?

APPENDIX A
UK Treasury Taxation Figures 1999
UK Whole Percent Scotland Percent
Description of Taxes £ Millions % £ Millions %
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Added Taxation £ 55,700,000 100 £ 4,957,300 8.9%
Hydrocarbon Oils £ 22,500,000 100 £ 4,477,500 19.9%
Tobacco £ 8,300,000 100 £ 672,300 8.1%
Alcohol Inc Whisky £ 6,400,000 100 £ 2,515,200 39.3%
Betting & Gaming £ 1,500,000 100 £ 129,000 8.6%
Air Passenger Duty £ 900,000 100 £ 77,400 8.6%
Insurance Premium Tax £ 1,400,000 100 £ 120,400 8.6%
Landfill Tax £ 400,000 100 £ 34,400 8.6%
Other Excise duties £ 2,100,000 100 £ 180,600 8.6%
TOTAL Customs/Excise £ 99,200,000 100 £13,164,100 13.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Taxes Net of
Tax Credits £ 90,700,000 100 £ 6,711,800 7.4%
Corporation Taxes
Non-North Sea £ 30,100,000 100 £ 2,739,100 9.1%
Corporation Taxes
North Sea Scotland £ 3,400,000 100 £ 3,301,400 97.1%
Petroleum Revenue Tax £ 800,000 100 £ 776,800 97.1%
North Sea revenues £ 2,600,000 100 £ 2,524,600 97.1%
Capital Gains tax £ 2,400,000 100 £ 199,200 8.3%
Inheritance Taxes £ 2,000,000 100 £ 168,000 8.4%
Stamp Duties £ 6,100,000 100 £ 512,400 8.4%
TOTAL Inland Revenue £138,100,000 100 £16,933,300 12.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Excise Duties £ 4,900,000 100 £ 445,900 9.1%
OilField Royalties £ 400,000 100 £ 388,400 97.1%
Business Rates £ 15,700,000 100 £ 2,527,700 16.1%
Social Security £ 56,200,000 100 £ 4,158,800 7.4%
Council Taxes £ 12,800,000 100 £ 1,190,400 9.3%
Other Taxes/Royalties £ 7,500,000 100 £ 645,000 8.6%
Interest and Dividends £ 3,600,000 100 £ 309,600 8.6%
Gross Operating Surplus
and Crown Estate Rents £ 18,400,000 100 £ 1,582,400 8.6%
TOTAL Other Taxation £119,500,000 100 £11,248,200 9.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTALS £356,800,000 £41,345,600 11.6%

SCOTLAND RECEIVES FROM TREASURY £12,200,000 3.4%
Treasury Estimate of Scottish Population is that of 8.6% of UK Total.

APPENDIX B
List of Sources used in researching the 'Big Lie'

Scottish Parliament / Publications / Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1998-1999 Section 7 : Revenue.

HM Customs and Excise

Pre Budget report November 1999 annex B

CSR White paper Chapter 22.

Crown Estates Financial Highlights 1999-2000

Inland Revenue

Arrow Cross
11-15-2008, 07:59 AM
A healthy, rational autocracy with one single leader and a clear and defined ideology that lifts the hearts of the masses. Anything similar to Fascism or National Socialism, as long as it's well-managed and keeps the mistakes of the past in sight.

Death to self-righteous demoCrazy!

Saksenland
11-15-2008, 10:54 AM
A folkish, based on the ideas of National-Socialism, but without militarism, but with the Nuremberg Raciallaws.

The Dragonslayer
11-15-2008, 04:18 PM
I appreciate all the response. It's been great reading what sort of government you would like in your own country. Here in the United States, I would love to see a small federal government. There are some things, such as natural security, that need to be taken care of with a centralized government. Many other powers should be given back to the states. The Founding Fathers would not even recognize the United States today. I do wonder though sometimes if it would take a dictator or some leader of the sort to clean up the mess before this would be able to happen. My only fear would be if that person wouldn't relinquish his power, but held on to it.

Oisín
11-15-2008, 04:35 PM
Something along the lines of Éire Nua (http://www.rsf.ie/eirenua.htm).

Skandi
11-16-2008, 02:48 AM
A monarchy with pretty much absolute power, it would be possible to gain a place in the aristocracy through merit but the benefits would mainly be for your children not you. We think to much of the present and not enough of the future at the moment.

Whiteboy
11-18-2008, 08:59 PM
I think a hybrid Government is in order. One that is a Republic, a Monarchy and Nationalist. One that has very clear laws for white Europeans that ensure no non-white can ever work, live of have any rights within the country. (They can only be visitors and for a limited time.) Jews would be forbidden to ever enter. :thumbs up

The Dragonslayer
11-19-2008, 03:29 AM
I think a hybrid Government is in order. One that is a Republic, a Monarchy and Nationalist. One that has very clear laws for white Europeans that ensure no non-white can ever work, live of have any rights within the country. (They can only be visitors and for a limited time.) Jews would be forbidden to ever enter. :thumbs up

Are you talking about something like a constitutional monarchy?

Oisín
11-19-2008, 12:37 PM
I think a hybrid Government is in order. One that is a Republic, a Monarchy and Nationalist.
:confused:
If you have a monarchy then by definition it is not a Republic.

WhiteHaven
11-19-2008, 03:24 PM
National Socialist Government, If any of you have ever read the Northwest Trilogy Books of Harold Covington one of those covers the government i would want. 1 Party State, More freedom than Straight up NS offers at least more than Hitler's germany had More free speech,freedom of the press etc etc.

Whiteboy
11-19-2008, 06:09 PM
:confused:
If you have a monarchy then by definition it is not a Republic. That is why its a hybrid government. It would be new and take time to build and work out the kinks but it would work as long as the right checks and balances were in place.

Oisín
11-20-2008, 12:47 PM
That is why its a hybrid government. It would be new and take time to build and work out the kinks but it would work as long as the right checks and balances were in place.
Well it's either one or the other really. If you have a monarchy then it is in no way Republican.

Whiteboy
11-20-2008, 06:16 PM
Well it's either one or the other really. If you have a monarchy then it is in no way Republican. Yes i understand that, I'm talking about something New.

Albion
09-19-2011, 06:13 PM
A authoritarian republic. No nonsense is tolerated in them - immigrants, multiculturalists and eco-terrorists can all get out.

Also a country free from the shackles of the rest of the UK, a independent England.


At the moment Scotland doesn`t have anything like that. It is fed the myth that we are dependant upon the coffers of the English, nothing is further from the truth and the appalling fact that we were coerced into signing away our oil rights to the English ad infinitum simply to procure Devolution, which is a farce, proves as much.


Bull shit, England saved your country when it was facing a third world situation. It thought it could get one up on England by stealing a shitty swamp from Spain and the proceeded to blame England for it's failure. (even though protectionism was wide spread at this time, Scotland had as good as declared war on Spain by invading it's territory and England trading with them might have provoked Spanish wrath).

"Thanks for bailing out our country after the Darien Scheme but you can fuck of now..."

Besides, much of the territory should be returned to Norway, it's rightful owner.
And as discussed in another post, The sugestion that the teenie weenie Scottish economy in anyway subsidises the English economy is really quite laughable and shows you to be a utter fool with their facts wrong.

London alone has a bigger economy than Scotland.

Burgomaster
09-19-2011, 06:16 PM
In perfect seriousness? A totalitarian nudist government would suit me perfectly! :D

Rochefaton
09-19-2011, 06:21 PM
A small one.

Kataphraktoi
09-19-2011, 06:40 PM
A strong though semi-constitutional monarchy. Where the Monarch rules through and with consent of parliament though with certain privileges and prerogatives such as unilateralism, parliamentary veto, dismissal of government ministers, and control over the armed forces. I support a balance and division of powers in a tricameral system like the traditional parliament in England or the Three Estates in France consisting of Monarch, hereditary Lords, and Commons. Basically, something like the government under Elizabeth I.

nvrennvren
09-20-2011, 06:54 AM
conservative liberatarian AKA republican

Saturni
09-22-2011, 10:42 PM
America started out well, but that was ultimately undone by Lincoln, who turned the Republic into a Dictatorship.

It would be nice to see a return to the state's rights tradition and a massive curtailing of Federal power but I doubt that will ever happen.

Graham
09-22-2011, 11:27 PM
You may as well argue with a wall, because Oresai doesn't post here now and can't defend what she has posted.

I wont slag off England on this forum either, don't see the point.

Troll's Puzzle
09-22-2011, 11:35 PM
an Anarcho-Stalinist Agrarian Commienazi regime, of course :)

(with me in the 'Stalin' role :thumbs up)

_______
09-26-2011, 09:50 PM
an Anarcho-Stalinist Agrarian Commienazi regime, of course :)

(with me in the 'Stalin' role :thumbs up)

i wish you were serious! :p

Troll's Puzzle
09-26-2011, 09:52 PM
i wish you were serious! :p

yes, sadly only half of my post was serious :(

... I could never be in the Stalin role

I haven't got enough facial hair :(
http://design.origami.free.fr/halle/Photos/VIP%201/Stalin.jpg

poiuytrewq0987
09-26-2011, 09:57 PM
I am actually satisfied with Serbia's current government. Just got to assimilate the pesky Shiptars and reunify Macedonia and Montenegro and Serbian Bosnia with Serbia and paradise is alive. :D

The Lawspeaker
09-26-2011, 11:13 PM
Constitutional republic. Basically a mixture between the (early) United States and Switzerland but vastly more social towards it's citizens. Keep the Polder Model though.

Policy-making should, where possible, be decentralised so there should be a tendency towards provincial rights (a.k.a "State's rights"). The president should have little to no power though (following the Swiss model).

askra
09-26-2011, 11:20 PM
i wouldn't change the actual system of goverment, the "Parliamentary Republic System"

Flintlocke
11-03-2011, 12:31 PM
A racial-fascist version of the Most Serene Republic of Venice with some elements of D'Annunzio's Fiume in it.

HungAryan
11-03-2011, 12:33 PM
I'd like my country to have Christian Fundamentalist and National Socialist government within a Constitutional Monarchy.

Unurautare
11-03-2011, 12:40 PM
Something very militaristic that invades other places often,I miss the Roman Empire.

Albion
11-07-2011, 08:35 PM
Something very militaristic that invades other places often,I miss the Roman Empire.

I miss the British Empire. Invading a quarter of the world with one of the smallest armies of any of the empires at the time, just ace. Controlling the world by messing about with ships... just awesome.

;)

Queen B
11-07-2011, 08:42 PM
The one who has guts.

bticker
11-09-2011, 07:41 AM
Well democracy is really good but if implemented wrongly, you are looking at something that is a tougher battle to climb. In a way, a democracy could turn into an oligarchy where people who are rich, continue to get rich while those are marginalized, stay the same throughout. I would really push for dictatorship as long as there is the keen sense of making everything stay fair.

Contra Mundum
11-09-2011, 07:45 AM
National Socialism at first to clear out the undesirables and to secure the country, then afterwards a liberal democracy with a constitution similar to the US, but with specific instructions on race, immigration and citizenship.

rhiannon
11-09-2011, 09:39 AM
One NOT run by corporate lobbyists.

Boudica
11-09-2011, 09:42 AM
A Boudicatatorship.

Absinthe
11-09-2011, 09:50 AM
Speaking exclusively about Greece and its peculiarities,

I believe some kind of an authoritarian and military-backed government that would do a massive societal and economic reform:

enforce the laws (for real, for the first time in Greek post-junta history), abolish the privileges of the public sector and significantly downsize it, fight tax evasion, suppress riots and continuous, unjustified strikes, abolish the public sector syndicates and their leaders, encourage small greek businesses, equate working conditions and payments for public and private sectors, kick out all of the illegal immigrants, entirely re-invent education and health services, emphasize on tourism and good services and re-introduce industry and agriculture in Greece.
Oh, and urge decentralization so that the major urban centers will become viable again, and so will the provinces of Greece.

What kind of government could be able to do that? Only an alien dictatorship, I presume :rolleyes: It seems the Greeks themselves don't want their own good. There's no hope.

Flintlocke
11-09-2011, 11:49 AM
Here you go Absinthe http://xtremerightcorporate.blogspot.com/2011/11/basic-principles-of-xtreme-right.html

Tabiti
11-09-2011, 11:54 AM
I wish we had no government.

Caeruleus
11-09-2011, 11:58 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IApAKwLt8-s/Tj1MNjKnjHI/AAAAAAAAA6k/eglNVzqtPqI/s1600/thegreatdictator.jpg

Dictatorship ... but only if I get to play the dictator :D

Barreldriver
11-09-2011, 01:39 PM
Confederate with ties to the UK (would have been natural anyways had the CSA won as the Brits were the makers of our weapons. The British Enfield 1853 was the standard arm for example, and they built and operated our blockade runners). :D

Svipdag
10-09-2012, 01:50 AM
A Constitutional Republic as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and embodied in The Constitution of the United States of America, cleansed of the pernicious accretions of the succeeding centuries.

This would entail the abolition of governmental agencies whose regulations have illegitimately been given the force of law, and that of Presidential abuses such as Executive Orders, for which there is NO Constitutional authority, appointment of government officials whose offices are not provided by the Constitution, such as "czars", and the arrogation unto the Executive Branch of government of Constitutionally unauthorised "Executive Privilege."

Our Constitutional Republic as thus reformed and thus purged of the abuses of Executive power, comes as close as I can imagine to an ideal government.


"MALE IMPERANDO SVMMVM IMPERIVM AMITTITVR" - PVBLILIVS SYRVS

Absinthe
10-09-2012, 11:23 AM
On a second thought, no type of centralized government could ever succeed in Greece.

Greece is (still) a clan-based society, and the clannish mentality pertains to every aspect of life. It is impossible to rule such a people successfully via means of a government when individual citizens don't respect and accept the authority of anyone outside of their clans.

This type of society can only thrive under localized forms of administration and decentralization, a more primitive form of ruling, if you may.

Sultan Suleiman
10-09-2012, 11:32 AM
Check bellow my avatar :P

Archduke
10-09-2012, 11:48 AM
Constitutional monarchy.

Piparskeggr
10-09-2012, 12:15 PM
As Svipdag wrote above, but with the addition of a Head of State elected for the quality of their character and wisdom, with the President as Head of Government.

I'd also like to see term limits built in, plus all legislatures becoming part time with only travel expenses allowed the representatives themselves, no salary so they would have to be producing members of society, with no benefit to them from laws they pass, while in office.

I'd also ban lawyers and clergy from elective office.

Kemalisté
10-09-2012, 01:48 PM
A fully sovereign government, not receiving orders from Washington, trying to build a literally social state which would only take care of the citizens, not multi-national companies.

The Lawspeaker
10-09-2012, 01:55 PM
A fully sovereign government, not receiving orders from Washington, trying to build a literally social state which would only take care of the citizens, not multi-national companies.

Hear hear ! I want a government independent from Washington, the stock exchange, Brussels, Jewish, Turkish or Armenian lobbygroups or any other foreign group. There should be welfare for it's citizens but no cooperate welfare.

Graham
10-09-2012, 02:02 PM
Decentralised Nation. All Revenues & taxes raised by Counties & spent by Counties. Would also like the Government, to encourage more community buyouts.

Independence from the UK & the EU.

Albion
10-13-2012, 09:21 AM
Decentralised Nation. All Revenues & taxes raised by Counties & spent by Counties. Would also like the Government, to encourage more community buyouts.

Independence from the UK & the EU.

If that were the case in England then my county would have a GDP per capita probably akin to Austria whilst Lancashire would be more like Poland. :p

sean
03-30-2020, 09:57 AM
A Heinlein-style meritocratic republic with a constitution that is non-negotiable and much further entrenched than the American Constitution (unamendable protection of rights), of strict limited franchise to adult males, with provisions for innately embedded incentive toward funding for genetic eugenics programs and ethno-nationalism.

No non-whites, retards should breed less, smart people should breed more, men run things, do what you will in general, but you want power you serve to deserve.


A monarchy with pretty much absolute power, it would be possible to gain a place in the aristocracy through merit but the benefits would mainly be for your children not you. We think to much of the present and not enough of the future at the moment.

I think, ideally, an absolute monarchy would be great if the monarch in question was effective and knew how to rule. There are many great absolute monarchs in history, like Henry V of England. Only a Monarch has to live with their decisions for their entire life. Politicians make out like bandits during their short stint in power. Monarchs also get to use logic. Group rule is all about emotion and rhetoric, logic is weak in a group setting.

However, for every absolute monarch that was great, there was probably at least one monarch that was mediocre or outright disastrous (people like the various inbred Habsburgs of Spain, or Louis XVI of France for example).


A strong though semi-constitutional monarchy.

I think a constitutional monarchy like England is the best government form currently. It's less stagnated than America when you have an executive head of state that can dissolve government when it's ineffective, but there's also a framework that allows the people to have a voice in their own government, as well as protect a country from a bad ruler (George III was weak for instance, imagine if he had full control over your country), if the king is an idiot or ineffective, there is still that parliament in place to maintain order.

JamesBond007
03-30-2020, 10:05 AM
Actonite Libertarian !


Actonism: The Next Logical Step for Libertarians



The way we customarily look at the organization of society is defective: We think of it as government plus 'the people' which it 'controls'. The reality, however, is that there are many sources of power, the formal government being just one. For example, in our society big business is a major influence, as are the rich, the CFR, the powers that be in the Democrat and Republican parties, and various organized power blocks, such as labor unions, oldsters (AARP) and Organized Jewry. Needless to say, this is not taught in Civics classes, because it might confuse our children's little minds with facts.

Lord Acton is well-known for his remark that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Perhaps a better way to render the statement is to say, "The more power, the more corruption", or, more clearly, "The greater the concentration of power, the greater the corruption." But whatever way you say it, the truth of Lord Acton's remark abides in the fact that, the less power that others have over you, the more you tend to do whatever you want, which is generally for yourself alone and without consideration for the wishes of others.

In former times I called myself a libertarian in recognition of the fact that the most destructive power in society is Big Ugly Government (BUG), and that most present-day social problems could be easily solved by 'de- BUGging' society, i.e., by following the libertarian principle that, when it comes to government, 'small is beautiful'. The ugliness of BUG, of course, stems from the fact that it represents a large concentration of power -- a fact which not only means that this power will likely be abused, but that it will grow more and more abusive because its size permits it to overwhelm almost any competing power.

In the present day, however, I no longer consider myself a libertarian, because libertarians evince no recognition of the fact that (to use the terminology of early physics) nature abhors a vacuum, and particularly a POWER vacuum, so that if government were cut back, other powers would grow up to replace it which might well be more sinister, and in any event would not even pretend to be under the control of the democratic process. But it is not just that libertarians cannot become 'free' -- as they so naively believe -- by getting rid of BUG; it is rather that the problem confronting them is to maximize freedom in spite of The Powers That Be, or more precisely, in spite of The Powers That Fill The Power Vacuum After BUG Is Dead. And, given that power is ugly and dangerous according to the degree that it is concentrated, then the 'problem of freedom', as we may term it, is to create a system which makes this power as diffuse as possible, while at the same time leaving it strong enough to defend itself.

For some time I have called myself an Actonite, in recognition of the fact that the most critical difference in types of government or society is how the power is distributed, and in particular whether it is concentrated into few hands, or distributed among many. Thus in a monarchy, a dictatorship or communist government, power is concentrated into a very small number of hands; while in a representative government -- a democracy or republic, as they are usually known -- the power is -- in theory, at any rate -- held by an electorate which vests its representatives with this power.

The philosophy of Actonism, then, as a general rule, is to oppose concentration of power, and to seek a structure of government and society that will keep a concentration of power from infecting the system and corrupting it. But avoiding concentration of power is only half the problem; for there are times when a society is required to concentrate its power in order to preserve itself and act effectively against its enemies; and thus it becomes a problem for the Actonite to determine how power may be concentrated in time of need, but diffused when the threat to society is over. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, as Benjamin Franklin, HL Mencken and many others have observed, one of the games politicians play -- and indeed have played from time immemorial -- is to present their constituents with a constant succession of bugbears with the view of getting people to trade liberty for security. Thus the Actonite must not only determine how to distinguish a false crisis from a real one, but he must also find a way to scale back power that has been granted for a crisis when the crisis is over. This latter is a particularly sticky problem; for those who have acquired power often use that power to keep from having to give it up.

But the real difficulty for the Actonite above all others is what I call the Golden Rule problem, i.e., the problem that "He who has the gold makes the rules." This, it may be noted, is a problem for any political system; for when key people are bought off, this can turn the system on its head. It is less of a problem in an Actonite system, however; for in having the power dispersed -- where 'power' obviously includes money -- then it is more difficult for one individual or group to assemble the kind of money that will subvert the system.

So how, then, to solve the problems which Actonism presents us with? These include the following:

* Avoiding a concentration of power in normal times
* Summoning a concentration of power in a crisis
* Re-diffusing power after a crisis
* The Golden Rule problem

The solution to these problems, in a general way, is to make people, or at least small communities, as independent as possible, so that no central power can control them. In a sense this may seem to go against the great secret of industrial productivity that arrived with the Industrial Revolution, namely, specialization, aka 'division of labor': When men specialize, their production far outstrips men who are forced to be jacks of all trades. But there are some intervening factors now: First, the advancements of technology; and second, the need for redundancy. These are explained below:

* Technology -- or more generally, human knowledge -- has now made it possible for only a few men to accomplish what a large number of men were once required for. I speak not merely of computer technology, but of the knowledge of health, farming, transportation, and indeed just about every technology or branch of knowledge which exists. Technology, then, enables small groups of men to be independent of a central authority without suffering the inefficiency of the jack-of-all-trades situation. Thus it seems that the real battle for freedom is a race between the technology of freedom and the technology of totalitarianism -- will the elite succeed in using the mass media, mind control, spycraft, nonlethal weaponry, and similar technologies to turn us into slaves and robots before we can develop the technology to not only become independent, but to defend ourselves from the incursion of the totalitarian technology? On this question, the answer is still very much open.

* In the current world of specialization, an important danger is that the experts who keep the technology operating will somehow get wiped out; and because of our dependence on technology, this will throw mankind back into a primitive pretechnological state. This could happen if Luddites bombed Silicon Valley and a few other techno-critical places. But if technology is spread around in different populations and communities, as it would be in an Actonite system, this then provides a kind of redundancy or 'backup system' which makes technology far more stable than what specialization would otherwise subject us to.

The above factors, however, are insufficient in avoiding the dangers of government which Actonism shows us to be critical. In particular, it is essential that accumulation of wealth by individuals or organizations beyond some liberal maximum is needed to solve the Golden Rule problem -- or if not to solve it, then at least to mitigate it. Analogously, the taxing power of the government must be strictly limited, so that it does not grow into a BUG. A third consideration is media control: Because control of the media offers such a powerful way to shape the views of the populace, there must be significant ways of opening up the media to alternative voices. In particular, there is need of a feedback channel to keep the mechanism of government stable -- like an overheating steam engine, there must be ways not only for the people to blow off steam so the system will not blow up, but also there must be a way of letting the rulers know where they are going wrong so that errors which are causing the people to get steamed can be corrected.

The insights of Actonism will probably take years to sink into the public consciousness, and even longer for them to make a difference in the political systems of the world. But if men are slow learners, we can always hope that a new generation will grow up that will not be beholden to the prejudices of the old, and will recognize that the Actonite principle is a major key to the development of both a just and an efficient society.

Zeno
03-30-2020, 10:30 AM
Well, for me, it's the following:

Direct democracy for the native citizens only. Ancient Athens style.

Every single decision about the land should be made only by the native people, who constitute the vast majority of the population of each country. That can be made possible now, in the age of the Internet, where almost everyone can log in and cast their vote in the successive referendums that will be made for any decision, from municipal to nationwide level.

No rights to illegal immigrants. None. They came, as the term blatantly says, illegally in the country and no rights should be passed to them. Because they think they can get clear while all others are obeying the laws.

Rights should be given to legal immigrants, but the legal immigrants even, have to be the smallest number possible. And the right to vote shouldn't be given to them, as they don't know what's happening in the country they have settled in adequately and they might act against the interests of the native population who constitutes the vast majority. The only instance in which legal foreigners should be allowed to vote is when the country they are hosted in is about to negotiate with their home country of origin an issue of whatever nature. Because it then matters them.

A really small state sector, defined by meritocracy. Greece before 1981, when Socialists came in power, had this. It's time we re-established that. Because then was the time when our state was efficient with everything.

As a consequence of a small state, then comes as limited bureaucracy as possible.

Then, absolute freedom of speech and thinking. No one should be persecuted, or killed even, for expressing his thoughts on various matters.

Guns should be possessed by every citizen. Because the armed forces shouldn't be the only ones who ought to be armed. It's also the citizenry, in order to protect itself and to offer voluntary help to the armed forces in the wake of a national crisis.

Halgurd
03-30-2020, 11:56 AM
Marxism-Leninism

Duffmannn
03-30-2020, 11:57 PM
Democratic parlamentary monarchy by single constituence voting system, and elective succession of the monarch to prevent the arrival of retardeds to the throne.

Vote limited to adult white males older than 25, with a certain academical degree and that pay a certain amount of taxes. Liberals, comunists and other subversive movement would be forbidden and persecuted.

The ideal would be an absolute monarchy or a facist dictatorship, but at the long term it fomentates corruption and political-endogamy.

PaleoEuropean
03-31-2020, 12:03 AM
I like our system, the electoral college keeps us from getting screwed.

Teutone
03-31-2020, 12:13 AM
A government limited to infrastructure,education and security.

Minimalistic as possible.

KirillMazur
03-31-2020, 12:22 AM
An idealized version of a socialist society based on people self-government instead of party power.
Such a society was described in the works of Soviet science fiction writers - Ivan Efremov, Kir Bulychev and some others.
A society where every person is brought up in the spirit of collectivism, but as a strong personality and creator, not a consumer. A society that does not try to suppress the manifestation of the best human qualities.