It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Define this type of state.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:40 PM
I'm just curious, what would anyone even call a nation that opperated as this. I mean we have "communist" nations where everything is supposedly owned communally, socialist nations where the government supposedly takes care of its workers, capitalist nations where there are free-markets. We have Republics like America, totalitarian governments like China...

So what would a government be if it were described by the following characteristics:

1) Only a small percent of the population were citizens, being the "elite" who are mostly free to do whatever they want.

2) Mandatory enlistment of all male citizens at the age of 7 to the age of 30 where they retire to the reserves. At the age of 7 they begin physical training continuing with education, at 14 they begin unit tactics, at 20 they have completed basic military education and are allowed to pursue higher education (mandatory) and choose a career path in the military if they are graded high enough or assigned where needed. At 30 they retire to reserves allowing to have more time with their families. Women would be educated to do jobs that men obviously can not do until at least their 20s when they are released from full-time to part-time unless activated. Women and Men in the work force would be relatively equal except emphasis would be that a married woman not work as to raise children due to the time-constraining commitments of the men.

3) All male citizens have ownership in some area of production of the nation, lands for farming or companies, industrial investments and so forth.

So far it is very much like ancient Sparta but here is where it takes a brutal and drastic detour.

4) All non-citizens are born, work, live and die in prison.

5) Massive prison complexes are opperated by security forces of the citizenry where-by large portions of lower-industry, military industry, processing of raw materials and so forth are handled.

6) Prisoners live in small cells either individually or communually and organized into sealed cell blocks where several cell block partake in a shift of labor or instruction to produce goods and materials for further processing outside the facility or completed products for use by the citizenry.

7) All prisoners are fed 1 meal a day.

8) When laboring they are locked down in the manufacturing or processing facilities, when in transit they are locked down grid-to-grid before being placed in their containment facilities where they are locked down for sleep. Small allotments of time for refreshments and perhaps some gymnastic activities.

9) Forced conjugal visits to replace more and more of this imprisoned population.

10) The prison population is not comprised of prisoners, but of a "slave caste" that will have never known the outside world, to them the only world is walls and small windows and massive air-sealed doors that constantly close behind them as others open before them. That and the sweat of toiling in factories and processing facilities with minimal education to allow communication just enough to get the job done.

11) Citizens who have comitted crimes would go to seperate prison systems so as not to be allowed to better educate the enslaved portion of the population (as much as 3/4ths the total population) of their predicament.

I was just trying to conceive the "worst possible environment" to humanity. Or the most "evil" of states.

So far I can not think of a single nation on earth who has been so brutal as to form a prison-society like this. The Nazis come the closest. But their "prisons" were relatively moderate compared to what I'm describing, the difference being they used utter brutality to work the Jews to death rather than simply work them. In the system here they are worked just enough to be far weaker than their over-lords however they are controlled by more automated methods and by more non-leathal methods such as tasers and rubber bullets and heavily armored security units with batons and such.

*Just thought of a possible problem* One problem that would be rectified easily would be to have no doors with handles...all doors in containment facilities would be pressurized or magnetically opperated to slide into the wall or outward so that the prisoners//slaves could not barricade themselves in their rooms.

So yah, I don't even know of a book that has written of such a hell, hell for the enslaved at least. Even 1984 to me was not so bad as the system in 1984 was horribly inefficient (hence the dirt and slums and pathetic proles everywhere). Which is of course because Orwell was writing about real situations in eastern Europe not hypothetical hells for humanity.

To kinda go beyond this, anyone want to discuss such a society?

Does anyone think that if this type of society were to be established, that it should ever fall from anything but invasion by another society? I see no way that this type of government could ever come under internal crisis that would bring down the "system". The citizens would be too fearful to let go of their slaves and the slaves would never be coordinated enough to threaten the security of the citizens.

I mean if such a society were to be established (it could only work in the industrialized world) we'd better hope they don't get Nukes or there'll be pretty much no way to ever defeat them, they'd be completely secured from internal revolt (Soviets//Americans usual preference for getting around the other super-power when toppling pro-enemy governments) and the Nukes would deter any foriegn aggression.

Say the Soviet Union for instance, had they established an institution that was class divided such as this, then they'd exist today. The citizens would live too well and be too easily able to maintain a huge and nearly free work force. Just 1 meal a day per-person is all it'd really cost...that and waste management and minor health care so on.

So in a way, this does have some pertinence, it's pretty morbid but should it ever occur, how would it ever be destroyed?

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:29 PM
It wouldn't have to be destroyed, because humans are not stupid enough to give up so much freedom in turn for being dominated by such a crap government system. That's why we haven't seen this type of filth in our species's entire known history.

Define this type of state.


Anyway, like all nations it would fall if it ever came to be. Every nation will eventually make a mistake which will bring about its demise.


[edit on 19-6-2004 by Attero Auctorita]

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 12:40 AM
Uhh Attero, people aren't this stupid to give up so much freedom?

You haven't heard of a little thing called the Apartheid have you?

The Apartheid did EXACTLY this, 4 million whites ruled 20 million blacks, forcing them to live in shanty towns.


Average life-span - high 60s.
Infanty mortality per 1,000 births - 2
Ownership of land - 88%


Average life-span - low 40s.
Infant mortality per 1,000 births - 250
Ownership of land - 12%

Unlike the Southern American Seperate but Equal, they made no effort to conceal the inequality. For a black to enter into a white area, they had to have passports, if they didn't, savage beatings. Any violation of the Apartheid resulted in savage beatings.

It was only through the deaths by age of those who established it, that new minds with less hate eventually wore down that system from within.

But for such racism against blacks, in of all places, Africa, I think you should respect the level of intollerance that can be forced on one people by another.

"why we haven't seen this type of filth in our species's entire known history."

I beg to differ, I think we haven't seen this type of filth because only America has such an efficient prison system. If South Africa had the resources, it very well would have become this version of a state.

If Nazi Germany had the resources to build such an efficient prison system, automated and industrial, they'd definately have done it. This level of efficiency has never existed in a totalitarian or intollerant state, at the time of their intollerance.

I think Attero that nations like the one I have described have existed, only they did not have the resources to fulfill such a vision, rather they were forced to just kill those they hated, or put them in inefficient camps where they were to die swiftly or rebel.

new topics

log in