If you could form a new country....

[zenith15]

I would choose where we are, but not as we are. The USA that I was born into in the first half of the 20th century was a land of opportunity. God, family, marriage commitment (between one man and one woman) were the norm. Abortion was not an option for the average person. Homosexuality was considered an abomination, or something not to be paraded in public. We spoke with love and pride of our country. We knew that if we set our minds and hearts on something, with hard work we could achieve it. Maybe I’m a whiner, but that is no longer the country that I live in. We are growing into a nation of dependents, waiting to be taken care of. Oh to see us shake off the need for handouts and stand proudly on our own again. This is not to say that we shouldn’t help the needy, but also to show them a way out of their dependence. America in the first half of the 20th centuty went from poverty and dependence on government aid, to a proud self-reliant nation – the leader of the world. That’s the country I yearn to see again.

How does one take someone crippled by, say, MS, or severe COPD, or chronic severe pain, or who has had multiple heart attacks, etc and “show them a way out of their dependence”?

How does one take a young, single mother who has been persuaded by pro life workers to have her several children, but who now has no real education, no realistic work prospects because she has a criminal record from when she took a phone call for her abusive boyfriend regarding a drug deal which made her an accomplice in “organized crime” according to the law, and no low cost daycare for her three preschool aged children, and “show her a way out of her dependence”? Any job she might get would be minimum wage at best, likely provide either no insurance or none she can afford the premiums for, and pay around $300 a week for full time work, an amount which would easily be eaten up in full by the cost of daycare for three children. She may not have relatives at hand for free long term daycare for three. She may not have rich parents who are willing to fund the cost of schooling for her and daycare while she attends school. She may not have the grades from high school, if she even graduated, to get into a college if she DID somehow have the money for it. Climbing out of poverty is much harder than people seem to think it is for such folks who have no assistance from family, or who have criminal records, no matter how old they may be, or who have serious health conditions.

 

[Della]

The first monarch could be selected by asking a Catholic royal to join the community and reign or a lottery could be held among the existing colony. But, all would be considered of equal rank to the monarch in dignity. It would only be the monrach’s duty to watch over the good of the whole country, not judicate minor matters among family groups. And family groups wouldn’t necessarily be related by blood, but by voluntary association. Can you tell I’ve given this a bit of thought?

 

[CollegeStinks]

My husband and I often fantasize about emigrating to one of the constitutional monarchies of northern Europe (Belgium, Denmark, etc.). Universal health care, affordable higher education, functioning social safety nets, environmentally and socially progressive, good cheeses…

Luna

Why in the world would you want socially progressive? You do know that means abortion and homosexual marriage right?

 

[jmcrae]

Why in the world would you want socially progressive? You do know that means abortion and homosexual marriage right?

Why would it need to mean that?

I honestly don’t get the connection between human rights and caring for the poor, and abortion and homosexual marriage. They have absolutely nothing in common.

In fact, abortion seems like the opposite of human rights, and homosexual marriage is - there isn’t even a category for that - it’s even beyond hedonism; it’s like, hedonists who have no concept of the concept.

 

[Della]

Please don’t turn this into yet another political argument. I specifically asked us not to do that. This is about what kind of country you would create not what is wrong with any form of government. Thank you. :tiphat:

 

[GEddie]

I do not like monarchy because, historically, that has led to one person or family living in the lap of luxury on the shoulders of everybody else.

(I know that our LORD is called King of Kings. But, HIS human life was the antithesis of the reign of a classical monarch.)

Absolute monarchy has the further problem of holding everybody hostage to the laws of biology, as succession questions can trigger civil war or foreign invasion.

Sadly, representative government has in modern times likewise proven to be a gravy train for its members on the shoulders of everybody else. That is why I favor either direct democracy (which will require a very small population), or a revised Papal state.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Della]

I do not like monarchy because, historically, that has led to one person or family living in the lap of luxury on the shoulders of everybody else.

(I know that our LORD is called King of Kings. But, HIS human life was the antithesis of the reign of a classical monarch.)

Absolute monarchy has the further problem of holding everybody hostage to the laws of biology, as succession questions can trigger civil war or foreign invasion.

Sadly, representative government has in modern times likewise proven to be a gravy train for its members on the shoulders of everybody else. That is why I favor either direct democracy (which will require a very small population), or a revised Papal state.

ICXC NIKA

I know what you mean, which is why I propose a limited monarchy in which the monarch isn’t above anyone else in dignity or property. He would have to work in his chosen vocation/profession just like everyone else. It’s like St. Paul making tents. At the time, no Jewish man made a living from being a rabbi alone, but every man learned a trade so that he wouldn’t be a burden, so he would know what it means to work, and so he couldn’t lord it over others. It seems the ruling Pharisees and Saducees may have violated that principle, which is one of the reasons Jesus was so hard on them. But, I understand your concerns. As it turns out, any human government can be subject to corruption and power grabs, sad to say. Elections don’t necessarily give us the best and a Papal state really isn’t feasible–besides how would that work for a new country? The Papal state is in Italy–just curious, not being contrary.

 

[GEddie]

I know what you mean, which is why I propose a limited monarchy in which the monarch isn’t above anyone else in dignity or property. He would have to work in his chosen vocation/profession just like everyone else. It’s like St. Paul making tents. At the time, no Jewish man made a living from being a rabbi alone, but every man learned a trade so that he wouldn’t be a burden, so he would know what it means to work, and so he couldn’t lord it over others. It seems the ruling Pharisees and Saducees may have violated that principle, which is one of the reasons Jesus was so hard on them. But, I understand your concerns. As it turns out, any human government can be subject to corruption and power grabs, sad to say. Elections don’t necessarily give us the best and a Papal state really isn’t feasible–besides how would that work for a new country? The Papal state is in Italy–just curious, not being contrary.

Curious, how would you prevent violent outcomes in succession issues?

And obviously a Papal State with HH directly at its head, is undoable outside central Italy; my idea is that the Papal Nuncio is head of governance.

ICXC NIKA

 

[centurionguard]

I do not like monarchy because, historically, that has led to one person or family living in the lap of luxury on the shoulders of everybody else.

(I know that our LORD is called King of Kings. But, HIS human life was the antithesis of the reign of a classical monarch.)

Absolute monarchy has the further problem of holding everybody hostage to the laws of biology, as succession questions can trigger civil war or foreign invasion.

Sadly, representative government has in modern times likewise proven to be a gravy train for its members on the shoulders of everybody else. That is why I favor either direct democracy (which will require a very small population), or a revised Papal state.

ICXC NIKA

Historically if your speaking of an (“Absolute Monarchy”) there really hasn’t been a ruling Head of State Monarchy in the Western World in the last 200 years. The U.K., Australia and Canada all share the same Figurehead Monarchy amongst other countries in the British Commonwealth. The term Figurehead may sound dimunitive to some but they’re really a ceremonial head of state with no ruling political powers.

 

[jmcrae]

The whole point of a Monarchy is that the Monarch owns everything, and lends the use of it to his subjects - this is why Jesus is called “King” - because He literally owns everything that exists (since He created all of it) and lends the use of it to us, His subjects.

The Monarch’s work is to govern the country; he wouldn’t have time for a regular job.

 

[Della]

Curious, how would you prevent violent outcomes in succession issues?

All families would be equal in rank, so they would do as they did when the country was founded–decide by lottery. Hopefully, the country would be united in intentions from the get-go. And there’d be a constitution to ensure everyone understands who is to do what and when. I can’t imagine a 1000 families starting a new country not wanting it to work when they had to leave everything behind to invest in it. To stave off anyone thinking they have more rights than another, it would never be revealed who invested how much, either that or everyone would invest the same amount to be part of it at the beginning so no one could make that claim. How I’d hate to have the kingship be based on mere money. Yikes!

And obviously a Papal State with HH directly at its head, is undoable outside central Italy; my idea is that the Papal Nuncio is head of governance.

ICXC NIKA

I’m not sure a Papal Nuncio could take the job. I believe our religious are forbidden from governing countries or even representing them in political matters. I’m sure someone could cite the proper document, but I’m pretty sure that’s case.

 

[tabycat]

Likewise, my monarchy would follow Salic Law, women would not be able to ascend the throne.

You may have just lost the female half of the human race.

As for where to put the new country, why not Mars and the astroid balt? You would have plainty of resourses.

 

[Della]

The whole point of a Monarchy is that the Monarch owns everything, and lends the use of it to his subjects - this is why Jesus is called “King” - because He literally owns everything that exists (since He created all of it) and lends the use of it to us, His subjects.

The Monarch’s work is to govern the country; he wouldn’t have time for a regular job.

The king would not own everything in this case. He would own his own property and tend to his own business. He’d only be needed in an official capacity for general meettings of the family heads, held annually or as needed in emergencies–one of his few and limited duties would be to decide to call such a meeting, if he deems it necessary. He’d also hear only the most egregious cases of breaking the law–only capital cases, of which, hopefully, in a small island country would be few. I think most folks here are thinking of large countries. My idea is to keep it small–smaller than England–more like the size of Rhode Island or even smaller. Perhaps there could be more than one such island country somewhat close to one another but autonomous.

 

[jmcrae]

The king would not own everything in this case. He would own his own property and tend to his own business. He’d only be needed in an official capacity for general meettings of the family heads, held annually or as needed in emergencies–one of his few and limited duties would be to decide to call such a meeting, if he deems it necessary. He’d also hear only the most egregious cases of breaking the law–only capital cases, of which, hopefully, in a small island country would be few. I think most folks here are thinking of large countries. My idea is to keep it small–smaller than England–more like the size of Rhode Island or even smaller. Perhaps there could be more than one such island country somewhat close to one another but autonomous.

You would have to call him something else then - words have meaning, and a “Monarch” or “Lord” is the owner of the property, which is leased from him by the serfs in return for their work.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

You may have just lost the female half of the human race.

As for where to put the new country, why not Mars and the astroid balt? You would have plainty of resourses.

I don’t think so. Salic Law is very prestigious and goes to legitimize a monarch further.

 

[Della]

You would have to call him something else then - words have meaning, and a “Monarch” or “Lord” is the owner of the property, which is leased from him by the serfs in return for their work.

Yes, I’m not really happy with the word king or monarch. I thought about High Lord, with all the other people being Lords and Ladies. Do you have any suggestions that would fit the bill?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, I’m not really happy with the word king or monarch. I thought about High Lord, with all the other people being Lords and Ladies. Do you have any suggestions that would fit the bill?

I’ll give it some thought. It’s not a new concept - egalitarian societies have been thought of before - “Elder” might work, or “Chief,” since those are terms that don’t connote ownership.

“Brother” or “Sister” might be terms used among the leadership council, as among Quakers.

“Chief Councillor” or “Chairman” could also work.

 

[Mar044]

Empire, Emperor, Bible is the law of the land, no abortions or gay marriage, family values, equal land and medical care, free beer night, nobody works on sunday.
cut everything in two if a dispute arises

 

[ValPal]

Empire, Emperor, Bible is the law of the land, no abortions or gay marriage, family values, equal land and medical care, free beer night, nobody works on sunday.

No free beer night? How unreasonable!

 

[ValPal]

I’d base any new country on the U.S. Constitution, except this time specifically spell out limits on government: Must have balanced budgets, cap taxes, no Ponzi-funded social programs, one-term in office, etc.