Designing A Nation

I know that this wording might sound unusual - Usually one designs clothes, a rocket, or a new room. But with the childish behaviour of the Establishment, it is becoming necessary for us to get together, and design a new society - no, design the next society.

Canada was built upon a Constitutional Monarchy, and of course, up here, I wish to change that to a direct democracy. Still, my question remains. You have the power to design a society. You are a people. And so, I feel that as a single person, I cannot possibly have all the answers. I find it always amusing when politicians (I know I am technically a politician, however I wish not to conform to that box) come on stage, and start enumerating all those policies they decided will be best for the people. To me this is hilarious. You as a people as the best placed to know what is good for you. Should not those politicians consult you, instead of boasting the superior wisdom they actually lack?

And so I ask you the question, now: We have the chance for a do-over. I am leading this do-over. In your opinion, as a people, what should a nation look like? Taxes, or no taxes? Monarchy, or democracy? Welfare programs, or not? Abortion, or life?

P.S.

I wish not to be dramatic, but I feel this thread might become of historical importance, depending on the ideas and points proposed.

a reply to: TaninimLong
You are wrong. No country in the world (with a couple of exceptions that I will relate) was Built to be anything. They evolved their governments and constitutions, even the USA. AND, it was NOT done by the people (even thought the US constitutions says "we the people") it was done by the people with the power.
A couple of exceptions of a do over was the USSR from Russia and China from warlords to communism. You might think that was accomplished by the people but it wasn't. It was done by people in power who used the populace to gain ultimate power and alter their country.
If any country thinks that they need a re-do it'll be done by the powerful not the people, even though your falling for the BS of "the people hold the power".

a reply to: TaninimLong

Whatever system is chosen, if it it does not hold transparency and accountability paramount ... it will be distorted by bad actors to their own gain.

Cheers

a reply to: crayzeed

Good points. However, without a people, I would be leading over barren rocks. The people can get organized. The people can decide on a new leader.

Those that cower in their prisons of glass, in their rabbit holes, or in their airplanes, they are certainly not power. They are customers. They request something from the true people, and the people is expected to serve. This, to me, is an upside-down system. The people should be expecting services from the government, not the other way around.

A leader should not bathe in his/her own power. This power is borrowed from the people. It always belongs to the people, even if dictators try to convince you otherwise.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Another fair point. You are right, indeed.

a reply to: TaninimLong
Yes, the people could do it. It's called a civil war.

a reply to: crayzeed

Indeed, a troublesome situation that the Establishment learned to fear. Of course, it is hoped that the Establishment realize there are more peaceful arrangements, benefiting both parties, both the old and the new.

That is why we now have, as a people, the Montevideo Convention at our disposal.

But the question I wish to address in this thread is, how should a Nation be, ideally?

I would prefer a decentralized government that exists only as a structure to protect personal liberty. Centralized government is always corrupt, inefficient and stands in the way of free commerce and the rights of the individual.

a reply to: TaninimLong

Well, if you are going to design it as a direct democracy then there is no real need to hash out specifics.

Because it will fail.

Because... human nature.

You know what I would like to see as a US citizen?

I would like to see all the states become their own. Where all states have the same level of voting power regardless of population size and cannot interfere with other states elections. Also no federal level type of government except for maybe a standard currency, transport, communication, and means of protection from other countries..

Hmmm sounds kind of familiar just can't place it

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Would a common Constitution, regulating the federal services and their extent of power, be acceptable?

a reply to: Lumenari

Could you expand on this?

Would you suggest a form of monarchy, instead of democracy?

a reply to: TaninimLong

One thing to think about are the levels of government.

As an example, the extent of many of the early-established counties in the USA was the distance a man could ride on a horse in one day from the town that was the county seat. In other words, the extent was determined by the practical requirements of the day.

Would your country even need a state or province level? Perhaps just a few counties and "free cities", the extent of which are determined by what makes sense physically and economically? Maybe the extent of a "modern county" is the distance a person can travel via light rail in four hours or so?

Cheers

a reply to: TaninimLong

Maybe, but I'm no expert. Honestly probably wouldn't work and just end up the same way the US government is now.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Well, I have actually proposed, in my nation, to allow for "States". These States can make their own rules, they can even decide on their own leader. The only requirement is that these states respect the Constitution (especially regarding Rights standards and freedoms standards), and the authority of the elected President. Those states would be like semi-autonomous entities, probably the size of a city. I have thought about giving the States absolute power and independence, but then our nation would become nothing but a federation of cities that would probably be disputing territories with one another - I feel it necessary to provide a platform, in the form of the Constitution, to enforce mutual respect, but also (and to me this is very important) people's rights.

Interestingly, our Constitution is unique in the fact that it allows States (or any large group) to secede from our model nation, provided a few reasonable criterion are met. The thinking is that if a States becomes somewhat truly dissatisfied with either my Presidency, or a future Presidency, then allowing it to secede is the most peaceful solution for everyone. And so our States are semi-autonomous but, if so desired, can become completely autonomous.

I feel this is a reasonable provision.

a reply to: TaninimLong

Just wait a couple of hundred years after you've died, and amendments will have been made to the constitution that allows for career politicians and corporations to monopolize entire industries, and utilize loopholes to maximize dividends while making sure the people who make it happen make just enough to scrape by and argue amongst each other why they should be happy getting scraps in exchange for being mispropotionately utilized.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Interesting. So you trace many of the problems in the American government system back to the fact that your Constitution can be amended. I actually find evidence to support your conclusion; it is true that taxing, in America, was made constitutional only a hundred year ago, through an amendment.

What would you propose, as a solution, to solve that possible problem?

We could lock our Constitution after a period of, say, 50 years after its founding, causing it to be compatible with the development of the nation, but preserving it from future corruption? It is interesting to note that in our emerging nation, our own Constitution require the approval of the people for amendments to be passed, not merely the approval of government members. It is proposed that this would defend against future corporations that would try to pass amendments that do not benefit the people.

a reply to: Metallicus

How would a decentralized government look like? Are there any functional examples in the world, from which to learn or draw inspiration from?

a reply to: TaninimLong

Hi TL.
Was watching this thread, and hopes that it would gather a little more attention.

And so: shall we endeavor to design a nation ?

'One for all, and all for one', kinda stuff ?

Have you considered: permaculture options; Disconnecting from the poisonous systems; other online info ?

Seen the Owned and Operated, or the TROM series ?

Did you see the part about the open-source homesteading machinery ?
Does that relate to your ideas ?