A Government.

Before you read this, I was going to put it in collaborative writing but it said I wasn't allowed, so I'm hoping that this would be the correct place, or atleast have some sort of relevance.

Now if lets say there was a new government to be formed and the people were actually able to choose it's policies. What would you the people choose? Think of it as a fresh start.


ACT 1: Freedom Of Speach.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by SpiritHipHop]

Just an extra post, if this gets big. For more policies.



[edit on 4-2-2010 by SpiritHipHop]

Now, it's up to you the people to choose what you want be careful though.
Imagine this as a simulation for a real government, I just started it off with the most important act, the one we need.

Now, begin.

Is there nobody that wants to share there ideologies to make a perfect government?

Oh yes I would.

But i'm new to this forum and checking out if someone travelled trew time. To steal my thread and post it before i do.

It's not funny. Every thing i get exited on is already here.

I really have some strong believes and the need to explain myself.
So want to start a thread including discussing it.

If I fail in my quest, I'll be back !

For now a flag for you

Ok !
My thread is already on mentioned so. Here I am.
I hope you still want to write ?

My first rule in place will be, free will. Only limited with a restriction, causing pain to your fellow humans.

I thought about this and I reasoned, it is the way it's supposed to be.

Free will, does that mean no television or radio?

reply to post by SpiritHipHop


No no no !

The freedom to make you're own choices in life. Without acceptance !
Only limiting, the act of violence against our fellow human beings.

This includes , freedom of speech and any other freedom possible in life.
Less regulations, means less regulators. ( police force ) and less crime !
Less rules to break.

I think, if it where to be a Representative Democracy of sorts, there has to be 1 person for every 5,000, instead of the 500 something we have that is nearly 1 for every 700,000. I don't agree with Representative Democracies, because they don't put the power in the hands of the people, but if it had to be that way, I would want more representation.

Freedom of Religion is a given.

Keep the separation of church and state.

Allow religion no mixing in politics. Fine by me if someone thinks abortion is an ethical issue, but if it is a religious reason someone is against it, it shouldn't be allowed to be banned. Same with Gay marriage and Gay rights.

There's by two cents.

I don't like the idea of seperation of church and state but this is all you.
Keep it going. just remember when you post NO CONTRADICTIONS please.

Ok guys.

I think my first rule of free will, covers both your options.

The problem will be. Are people prepared to accept, tolerate and respect.
Different believes and live in peace with it ?

Yes, lets say they are prepared for that.

Well this is the government that means what you want, you get.. So you have the option to cover up what you want but will you take that risk of anarchy in this country?

As an individual particularly enjoys considering the ideal and whether it will always be relative, a moving target, or something that can only be strived for, or if we do in fact possess the capability of realizing said ideals, I take a pragmatic approach in assessing the basic conditions required for the facilitation of a transition into what would be described as "utopian" existence. The most difficult task is to acknowledge that one ultimately projects subjective values onto fellow beings who espouse a vast array of values of their own. Nonetheless, it is my aim to make the case for a political ideology which could very well attend to the ailments which currently bear the greatest sense of urgency: the argument here is for Nationalism.

Nationalist societies specify a context toward ethnicity: each group must be autonomous and rule itself according to its organic culture, instead of through the simplistic systems of popularity (democracy), profit (capitalism) or political dogma (liberty, equality, fraternity). National civilizations organize themselves by ethnicity, but do so in the context of culture, which enables them to promote the best of their own people and rule themselves justly. They are not designed for the purpose of racial superiority, except that to say in each civilization, the indigenous group is superior to all others. In a nationalist world, there is no superior race above all else, but many ethnic groups working in parallel, organically, toward producing that which is rarest in all civilizations, which is people and culture of excellence.

I believe in the organic state, the existential human, and a design philosophy that unites naturalistic realism with heroic idealism. This philosophy brings meaning to life, where all others take meaning away and supplant it with cheap substitutes like money and mass popularity.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


Do you mean like mankind accepting they split up into a groups based on a common ideology. and give all these seperate groups a peace of land to live according it.
Always respect others and be satitsfied with what they have.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


I would advocate the revitalization of the political agenda, emphasizing the practical value of attending to domestic affairs. It does not intend to impress upon other nations any of its own values, whether or not it would appear favorable for the intended recipient of goodwill. Nationalism understands that "form follows function," and moreover, that "function follows values." As values differ, so do political structures. Only an internally-oriented motivating force can result in accepted change. Thus, nationalism proffers that it is the duty of the citizens of each respective country to work towards bringing about effective change in their homeland, advocating thorough constraints on immigration -- another benefit of a culturally homogenous population is that the sense of community and responsibility for one's actions within their community is held in higher regard.

Consequently, corporations which expand beyond borders would be unfavorable; they depend on the exploitation and outsourcing of labor, which is meant to maximize profit for the company while doing little in the way of benefiting society. Smaller companies would result, which would be checked by its employees whose stake in economic and managerial matters will be given greater voice once this association with the locale is established. An unruly business would not be sustained when it relies on the satisfaction members of a surrounding community. This paradigm may be applied to the State.

As part of a desire to place culture first, nation-states would be redivided into nations, or organic populations defined by commonality in language, culture and heritage. These cultures still exist despite a century of onslaught by mass media and corporate interests, but can be enhanced and reconstructed slowly over time by putting more emphasis on culture.

Each culture, whether Jewish or Swedish or Basque or Tamil, would be granted its own historical grounds to rule as it sees fit. That rule would not be subject to oversight by any other groups, or even critique. Each group would be allowed to exist in isolation for the purposes of keeping its people together on the notion of culture and heritage and language as an organic bond that compells individuals toward the same goals and values.

The first step in forming an alternative to modern society is to restore leadership by values and not utilitarian principles (popularity, profit, democracy). We can use utilitarian methods toward this goal, but the highest goal must remain culture, and for culture to exist, it must be isolated in its parallel versions. This form of "blood and soil" government connects people to each other, to tradition and to the land they occupy.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


Thank you !

You explained yourself perfect and easy to follow. I really appreciate it.
I think i'm with you on this.

I'm 100 % for bringing communities back to basic values and their own live by their own laws and believes on politics and everyday life.
Most of all the end of international corporations ! Because of the same arguments and opinions in your post.
No more stealing the ability to be a self sustainable economy. This is by any means an act of evil doing. leaving a community powerless to taking care of themselves when disaster strikes. Like drought, failed harvest etc. The opportunity for a disaster is far greater because a community relies on others for their need of basic products for nutrition and other live giving necessities.
It is on it's one important enough to close local economy to big corporate business. the result of closing our borders will also end the influence and a decrease of power to gain and the use of it.
I'll give a party if I'm so lucky to see this happening.

The multicultural society is also an issue. As I see know how Islam is taking a firmly grib on everyday life. When there are more of them spreading their ways and less of us fighting to keep our cultural and political values. They will take over and they will force their ways on us, as their believe and culture will not make a respect an tolerence their way to act to us as we will not be very cooperative to a suppressed way of life.
I don't agree for ending the mixing of cultures all together. As there is also much to gain and learn from other ways of living and seeing life pass by and taking place.
The end of corporates power will also cause this to happen. They are almost always responsible for migrating big number of people t where they are needed as a work force.

I do applaud the resurfacing of loyalty and love for tradition, fellow countrymen and to put this all in front. T be and show your proudness, as you are also responsable for your countries goals and achievements.
These feelings have a tendency for a higher risk of going to far and feeling superior to other countries an their inhabitants.

The first step in forming an alternative to modern society is to restore leadership by values and not utilitarian principles
Here in Europe there is a problem. We have always being ruled by aristocratic families. What has resulted in they are almost all related by blood and thus merging and ending of societies by changing it to 'the liking of the current ideas of the power.
Only France, killed of theirs and the Netherlands were for a time a republic.
Until the same French had a little breakdown letting their freedom again be taken by a ruler. Napoleon Bonaparte. This F*ck wass also responsible for the end of the Dutch Republic when he assigned his brother to to rule and be king.
Present day monarchy we have now. Does not have any reason for being in power. Their journey was and power was taken with lies, fraud and force. Their bloodline filthy after some bastard child of a related German aristocrat. because there were no more of them left to follow up in line, after the king died. King Willem 3 also lacked to create a next generation. and married Emma. who gave birth to our queens grand mother.
There is said king Willem was sterile do to an infection of a sexual decease.

Very stinky family we got in power.
I'm sorry for flowing of topic but these would be difficult to simply return to old ways. And acquire some original solutions I think to be in need of reaching our new way of life.

The new way of living will be a problem for free will I'm ai favor of. Maybe you know some way to making it more present in the community.

Anarchy is over the top but how far can we go ?

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


We are an organic entity as a whole composed of individuals. We respond to rulesets that promote some over others much as we respond to natural selection. When we are thinking of the future and of what beauty can be created, we aspire to a higher standard (ascendancy). When we lack this, we seek to avoid challenge and to affirm more of what we are, even though it may be mediocre, and create a public standard of illusion to protect us (intraversion). Some will use "human nature" to justify stagnation and mediocrity, but in reality, human nature is specific to the individual (some will always try to do what is right, others never will, and most in-between) and human nature can change in a healthy social environment with strong values.

Some people may never change, but these tend also to have other problems adapting to reality itself. At this juncture, we must ask ourselves whether we design a society to produce ever-better people (as we hope to do with our own children), or whether we want to humble us all by focusing on those who are not doing well and put our resources into them instead of rising as a whole. When we set aside our own emotional and fear-driven responses, we see that we would rather exist in a society striving for the better. As such, we will with values systems lead people toward a better way of living instead of wallowing in justifications of inaction and failure like "human nature," a degraded norm, and the like.

Many who are afraid will claim that no change can take place, not realizing that change occurred to bring us to our current state, and that we are agents of choice can make any change we want. What people who express such a belief are communicating, subconsciously, is that they distrust their own ability to make a beneficial change. Much as when we run or ride a bike we steer away from obstacles and toward our path, we are in control every second unless we choose not to be, and in a single second we can create victory or tragic defeat. (Existentialists will note that this variability is what gives meaning to life, in that by avoiding the empty and creating the beautiful, we gain a sense of achievement in conquering not only our own deficiencies but those things we can better in life, feeling the greatest sense of autonomy -- what Crowdists distill to an inferior substitute, "freedom" -- and self-worth in that we have acted not just for ourselves but for a more lasting principle. Crowdists fear death more than anything else, and so are served a life of inconsequential self-pleasing, while heroic and other intelligent personalities seek to overcome the fear of death to do what is rewarding.)

reply to post by concernedcitizan


Nicely said !

I do believe change is possible.
My own values are a simple reminder, why !

If I can have values, I even failed to discus them with some.They just did not understand up to a point when I was called liar.

There are probably a lot of people with the same ideas.
Well... I,m not a goody two shoe. A few flaws make up for the changed for the better ones. I f they are even better.

The balance is way of but. still mainly self centered.
As some say narcism is a flaw. However by deffinition it it has nothing to do with me.

Maybewe are indeed on a breaking point in evolution.
New age crap. Is still all about a higher state.

Who knows ?

As for human flaws. A perfect human doen't exist !
So.

I like what you're doing, keep going on with it.

But remember , you have to stay on topic.