If New Free Country existed would you move?, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 09:52 AM by rikriley

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by GhostR1der

I'm a kiwi myself and if the opportunity arose I don't think even 100 acres of free land would be enough to get me to become a citizen of the new country . I very regard the Republic or rather the US political model has being very unsound because it puts the country future in the hands of a minority by design .

Give a parliamentary democracy with Proportional Representation or in the very least a step away from First Past the Post and I would be on my way . Since the majority of people on this thread favour a Republic I guess I would have to help found another nation elsewhere making me a "Founding Father. "

I know living in New Zealand is wonderful and you live in one of the most beautiful places on this great Earth. The actual government to be implemented in Freedom Land is still in discussion with the pros and cons of each type of limited government. Rik Riley

Here are a few more Quotes by Thomas Jefferson.

[Quote] A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

[Quote] Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

[Quote] Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by rikriley]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 01:36 PM by BradKell

reply to post by rikriley

So you are not oppossed to corporate taxation (neither am I, just looking to clarify). If not oppossed to corporate taxation, I see no problem in Freedom profitting from it, taking Big Business money to better the lands and lives.

The No Taxes you refer to are of Income Tax being placed on INDIVIDUALS. This would be nice, to see all of our paycheck.

This leads to a few questions, but of less importance. Is a Rental Property subject to the Corporate Tax? What is the Tax Percentage (I assume a flat rate unless things like Pollution or other such things come into play).

So, all land must begin as State land. If given for a business it stays State Land (i.e. the mines, where a Lease is done) and the Business gets tax to help support Freedom. Trades outside (Exports) are also charged. (This leads to double taxation, Boston Tea Party) but if done right where it does not impact the citizens of Freedom's price at the store this can be done.

If land is given to an individual to develope then his 'home area' is HIS LAND, as is all undeveloped land.

Is that about right, and if not please clarify.

I know there are many things that must be done, as you state. This is why many great minds are needed. However, the plan must preceed the action, and as we are already engaged in this lively discussion and have many great minds here at ATS... why not flesh out the plan now? Let me know how I can help. Creating Nations from scratch, great fun. Like a board game.

(Not to make light, things can be pivotal and important and still be fun).

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:07 PM by GradyPhilpott

reply to post by Ironclad

Where are your guns?

Can one be truly free without the means of effective self-protection?

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:43 PM by Extralien

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

Guns = control = less freedom.

Such issues have to be organised well before you even start your free country.

Most of the worlds citizens get by without the need for guns. If your free country has weaponry then you are setting the wrong example.

The world would see you as 'prepared'. Preparations is a good cause to be invaded. Others would not like your 'freedom' and would do anything to gain a financial/political hold over you... selling you guns or invading you for being militarily prepared would be a great excuse.

If the citizens of the free country had guns, and there was an argument between two individuals. One carries his gun, the other left his at home. The gun carrier shoots and kills the unarmed. Effectively he has the right as it's a free country, but the unarmed had rights to freedom too.

As with the idea of money being involved in a new free country, you also have to get away from the ideas and practices tat your old country maintained.

The right to bear arms is mostly an American ideal. The rest of the world doesn't really follow that theory and add to that the amount of gun related violence the world has suffered, particularly in the USA, how can anyone see the point of having guns in a free country.

If you were to be invaded by anyone else, your guns would almost be useless anyway. Say, for example, the USA invaded you. They know you've got guns so instead of sending troops in they just nuke you from a distance.

End of story.

The idea of a free country must involve the basis that no control could be had over any free citizen. All are equal. A weapon in your hands emphasizes the basis of installing fear to gain control.

The only thing guns may be allowed for is hunting, but that would depend greatly on what animals you are hunting for or if any animal is an immediate threat to you and/or livestock. Guns for this manner must be highly regulated to keep the guns from causing harm to humans.

Most farmers are allowed guns to protect livestock, but today, most areas of the world have very little threat from dangerous animals as we've mostly killed them all already or have very good fences to contain our livestock.

In a free country, you will want to promote the complete idea of freedom and show the world that we can live another way, free of tyranny, threats, corruption and other damning devices

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:48 PM by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Extralien

Guns = control = less freedom.

If the citizens of the free country had guns, and there was an argument between two individuals. One carries his gun, the other left his at home. The gun carrier shoots and kills the unarmed. Effectively he has the right as it's a free country, but the unarmed had rights to freedom too.

Your equation does not stand up to data and your second statement is so out of touch with reality that it does not deserve comment.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:57 PM by menguard

Sure why the hell not, as a matter of fact I am already there.

There is no Greater Nation that accomadates torture as a means of pleasure, lol, sadistic or just down right pleasurable.

lol.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:30 PM by Extralien

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

And what data are you referring to?

I seriously can't see how having guns in a free country would make you any more free.

If one person has a gun and another doesn't, then the one with the gun has a far greater ability to control the one without. That is not a very sensible idea in a country that promotes freedom for all.

If everyone was free, you would not have a need for guns to defend yourself as , hopefully, the ideals and past methods of running a country and thoughts of personal gain and wealth would have been dismissed.

With respect, there are a lot of people here from the USA and post their thoughts/opinions accordingly. Although most speak in favour of American rights and freedoms and constitution they tend to forget that this site is a global site and there are others who live differently and do not believe or live by the ideas of America.

So passing the American issue of the right to bear arms onto a free country populated by people from around the globe, is, IMO wrong.

Just what do people really want from a free country?
Do you really want to be seen as a possible military threat to others? Do you really want guns on your streets at all times?
Who do you expect to have to protect yourself from anyway?

Switzerland did very nicely during WW2. I do not recall any information about the Swiss needing guns to defend themselves from invasion by anyone at that time.

It amazes me that Germany or Italy never decided to invade, but that could be because the Swiss were handling the financial side of matters between the UK, USA and Germany during the war.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 07:31 PM by xpert11

Originally posted by rikriley
. The actual government to be implemented in Freedom Land is still in discussion with the pros and cons of each type of limited government

Well in that case I will see you at the Constitutional Convention.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Umm that would be opposed to five percent of the population controlling a country direction and two party or rather one party rule no thanks . There are ways to ensure that a democracy doesn't become a two party state in name only . Since today it possible to have a politically diverse(SP?) democracy Jefferson argument no longer holds as much weight as it use to .

Anyway you would soon run into the same problems in Freedom .
For example how would you prevent special interest groups from in effect buying elections via the the highest donations ?

[edit on 15-5-2008 by xpert11]

[edit on 15-5-2008 by xpert11]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 07:58 PM by rikriley

Originally posted by BradKell
reply to post by rikriley

So you are not oppossed to corporate taxation (neither am I, just looking to clarify). If not oppossed to corporate taxation, I see no problem in Freedom profitting from it, taking Big Business money to better the lands and lives.

The No Taxes you refer to are of Income Tax being placed on INDIVIDUALS. This would be nice, to see all of our paycheck.

This leads to a few questions, but of less importance. Is a Rental Property subject to the Corporate Tax? What is the Tax Percentage (I assume a flat rate unless things like Pollution or other such things come into play).

So, all land must begin as State land. If given for a business it stays State Land (i.e. the mines, where a Lease is done) and the Business gets tax to help support Freedom. Trades outside (Exports) are also charged. (This leads to double taxation, Boston Tea Party) but if done right where it does not impact the citizens of Freedom's price at the store this can be done.

If land is given to an individual to develope then his 'home area' is HIS LAND, as is all undeveloped land.

Is that about right, and if not please clarify.

I know there are many things that must be done, as you state. This is why many great minds are needed. However, the plan must preceed the action, and as we are already engaged in this lively discussion and have many great minds here at ATS... why not flesh out the plan now? Let me know how I can help. Creating Nations from scratch, great fun. Like a board game. (Not to make light, things can be pivotal and important and still be fun).

BradKell, where I need you most at this point is my check and balance buddy on issues and governing specifics for Freedom Land. In other words exactly what you are doing questioning the validity of my thought process.

Rental property would not be taxed from income derived from rent collected whether that be from an individual or corporation. A permit would be issued for rental property and only would be renewed if another tenant moves in said premise. This would be viewed as a minimal tax in the form of a permit to offset income lost by not collecting income derived off of rental property in other words give and take.

This double taxation is in the form of a duty tax or export tax only for the minerals being mined inside Freedom Land and shipped overseas or across Freedom Land borders. The reasoning behind this specific double taxation is to keep our mineral wealth inside the country since it is one of our most valuable resources and assets to build internally. Crops and manufactured goods are exempt from duty or export taxes inside Freedom Land crossing the border.

Yes the land is originally owned by "Freedom" and will be given away, sold, or leased. The object is to build a Nation of productive individuals that are willing to put forth an extraordinary effort to make Freedom Land work and to be a model to what ever world we are located within.

The 100 acres of land given to qualified settlers who become citizens between the ages of 20 and 70 is their rightful titled land ownership that can be sold, leased, rented, traded, given away, or willed in part or whole given all zoning regulations are complied with.

A flat tax would be implemented and would be caped off at 5%. Items such as food and natural medicines, homeopathy would be exempt from the flat tax.

Absolutely no genetically engineered or modified crops allowed to be grown on Freedom Land soil and if genetically grown food is caught within the borders of Freedom Land or being sold or grown this is considered a felony and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Rik Riley

[edit on 16-5-2008 by rikriley]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 09:00 PM by star in a jar

One way ticket for me please, Our leaders are criminals and thieves.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 09:45 PM by BradKell

reply to post by Extralien

Freedom is giving, not taking. To take away firearms would be against the principal of freedom itself.

It's very simple. If you take the right to bear arms away from your citizens, the only ones with guns will be criminals.

If you read our Constitution (I know, everything in Freedom need not be an American ideal... though it being modeled on the reveloution of our forefathers it very well may have shades of America) the reason for bearing arms is for the POPULATION to defend themselves in cases of TYRANNY. It gives we the people the right to rise up with weapons to defend ourselves if every our Government comes corrupt. We simply have choosen not to do so (or extremist groups who have decided such have had many other immoral acts attached to them so as not to be trusted or followed).

The right to defend yourself is universal (or so should be, as a human being) and Freedom will stand by that right.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 10:00 PM by rikriley

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by Ironclad

Where are your guns?

Can one be truly free without the means of effective self-protection?

Yes the citizens will be given the right to bear arms in Freedom land. All citizens of Freedom must join the armed forces of the Nation from the age of 18 to the age of 38 years of age. If individual is unable to perform in combat do to a disability they will be assigned to other duty. All citizens male or female must perform 2 years of duty in the Civil Guard or armed forces. We ask our Creator to protect the citizens of this Great Nation Freedom Land and to not go to battle or war only with it being the last resort to do so by the people and limited government.

All citizens will be schooled in the use of hand guns and be required by law to have a pistol, rifle or shot gun. Crime stops before anyone enters the gates or borders of Freedom Land and the citizens will be here to back up the promise. Many will say this will be come like the wild west years ago in The United States Of America. I say Freedom land will be the safest country on any planet. Rik Riley

(Thomas Jefferson Quotes)

[Quote] The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

[Quote] The care of human life and happiness, and not destruction, is the first and only object of a good government.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 10:02 PM by BradKell

reply to post by rikriley

Taxation is a neccessary evil, as it drives the economy of the Government. The Government must have the funds to do things that the society itself falls short on. (Should people put up money to help fund roads? Yes. Must they? No. The State should step in and perform works.)

In fact, even High Taxes (like in Switzerland and other places) is very acceptable if such services and provided.

The thing we DON'T want to do is to take out of peoples pockets. Tax Business, perhaps tax Goods, don't tax Pay. And make any tax a Flat Tax, that's fairness.

Infastructure is very important, you must build your model. Municipal merged with Civic. Will education be State or Private? Medicine? Law, Military?

Start with this. What are considered the Pillars of Civilization? We'll start there. The things Freedom wishes to hilight most about humanity.

In fact, I have a fun little exercise here. All governments are created, they all came from an idea. You should pick a councel, a Senate if you will, to either choose or create a style of Government for Freedom. I'm sure there are many here on ATS with the ability to help with such decisions that you can choose from, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to participate in such a study. What say you, Friend? Ready to apply some of these ideals? Volunteers?

[edit on 15-5-2008 by BradKell]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 10:06 PM by rikriley

reply to post by BradKell

How about that BradKell I posted this about the right to bear arms without reading your last post this tells me we are on the same wave length.Rik Riley

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 11:05 PM by rikriley

Here Ye, Here Ye, a Grand Constitutional Convention has been called on July 1st, 2008 first Tuesday of that month. Place, the mythical country of Freedom Land and the location for discussion will be on ATS specific time to be announced. The National Capital will be called Independence City where the Grand Constitutional Convention will be held.

The Constitution of Freedom Land will be tailored after The United States Of Americas Constitution. Each appointed delegate or delegates will represent a designated area or Region of Freedom Land. The delegates will be so named to help in the writing of the New Constitution, articles and Bill of Rights of Freedom Land.

Delegates male and female both will be so represented as the designated formal delegates and writers of the Constitution of Freedom Land. A panel will be chosen to pick the formal delegates to the Grand Constitutional Convention. A press Release should go out to let the world know that a mythical Constitutional Convention is being held in Independence City in Freedom Land.

A map must be drawn of the New Nation of Freedom Land. Remember it is the size of Alaska, California, Texas and Montana combined with room to expand. A Freedom Land flag must be drawn, painted or made all entries will be reviewed and the best flag chosen with recognition. Let it be written let it be done. Rik Riley

[edit on 15-5-2008 by rikriley]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 11:35 PM by BradKell

reply to post by xpert11

xpert11, I call you on your statement. You state you will see RikRiley at the Constitutional Convention... and now he has called one! LOL! Will you grace us with your prescense in the building of Freedom?

reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 03:35 AM by xpert11

Originally posted by BradKell
xpert11, I call you on your statement. You state you will see RikRiley at the Constitutional Convention... and now he has called one! LOL!

I am so there .

Will you grace us with your prescense in the building of Freedom?

That depends on the final outcome but I reckon myself and any other supporters of democracy could extract enough of a comprise(SP?) to make it worth while .

I would put this model forward for the sake of discussion.

The Bill of Rights is Supreme Law and 75% support of Congress is required before any changes can be made . The Supreme Court can strike down any Bill that Violates the Bill of Rights and has been approved by the attorney general .

Congress and Presidential elections are held every four years . The President requires a majority in Congress to govern .

Separation of the Church and the state .

Freedom wouldn't be a true parliamentary democracy but it would seem to be a good middle of the road option. I'm not a huge fan of wide spread gun ownership but also for the sake of discussion I will say that I would gun ownership being a part of the Bill of Rights in exchange for anti discrimination cause . No person should be discriminated against on the basis of sex , sexuality , race and religion.

reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 03:47 AM by Extralien

As a citizen of freedom I disagree with the proposals to call the capital Independence. I disagree to have a government in the form of the old ways. I disagree on taxation and strongly, completely and totally disagree on forced armed service training.

That is not freedom. There is no choice allowed there. The people are immediately being governed and forced into things they may never ever wish to do.

Basing the entire principal on the American principal is one of the biggest mistakes. It has failed already. It has not stood the test of time.

The native Americans had 'pow wow's where everyone had the chance to speak until a decision was mutually agreed upon. As far as I'm aware, they did not have ballots or votes to elect a party of officials into power.

I will not be ruled by one man or party. Everyone is equal in their rights and position. I refuse to carry your weapons on the principal that any weaponry is a declaration of readiness for war.

You cannot use the ideas of failed or corrupt or 'tried-and-tested-and -still-no-good-' governments. You will have to come up with something completely different that will please all the people of all the different nations, cultures, religious beliefs, stereo types, genders, etc etc that will be joining this free country.

I am not saying my ideas are the right way to go but please do take a look at my first post in this thread. I feel i laid down some good ideas that have potential for any new country hoping to make a stand away from the faults of our forefathers.

Abolish money.
Abolish taxation.
Abolish enforced military service.
Abolish the practice of training to kill other human beings.
Abolish the idea of personal gain and wealth through property and possessions.
Abolish religious education in schools. That's a family thing and children will learn whether to believe or not. it's their freedom of choice.

Another thing we will have to agree on is spelling and language. I will not spell colour as America does, color.
I will call my mum, mum and not mom.
I will correct my children of any other spelling mistakes your government controlled education system decides to impose on my children.
I will not call rubbish, trash.

If I remember correctly, India is the only nation on the planet never to have invaded another country under their own steam. They may have joined forces with other countries, but, if I'm correct, they've never actually individually invaded another. That there is a lesson we can all learn from.

So, these are just a few of the problems you're going to have setting up your new freedom country. You haven't even started and I've rebelled already.

reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 05:50 AM by xpert11

reply to post by Extralien

Abolishing money would be pointless people would just barter . Aside from the fact money would re stablish itself eventually you would still end up with people who have a greater access to the products that are in demand . If you even make an attempted to prevent people from making a profit then you remove any incentive to produce .

I with you on the fact it would always be Mum and not Mom .

reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 10:28 AM by Extralien

reply to post by xpert11

In a free society, abolish money to reduce the thought of greed and want. Everybody works or teaches or provides something toward the society for which they have the right to share in the fruits of everyones labour. This way we all get what we need first. Food, clothing, shelter and fuel are needful things rather than wants.

Even if you had money, are you going to base its value on the current worthless stuff we have now or are you going to base it on gold or some other natural resource that might benefit mankind rather than be stuck inside a massive holding room to ensure your financial wealth?