If you could form a new country....

[LilyM]

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?

A lottery? So the people of England held a lottery in which Wiliam the Conqueror’s name just happened to be drawn out of a hat? Uh, no. Monarchical dynasties win the throne by force - either conquering foreign territory or disposing of domestic rivals to their power.

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.

One-term limits do not encourage long-term thinking or planning in governments, as they know they will not reap the kudos for it.

Unless you make that one term a long one - ten years maybe? But have something like a recall system - if enough people get fed up with a government then they go back to the polls

 

[epan]

A lottery? So the people of England held a lottery in which Wiliam the Conqueror’s name just happened to be drawn out of a hat? Uh, no. Monarchical dynasties win the throne by force - either conquering foreign territory or disposing of domestic rivals to their power.

One-term limits do not encourage long-term thinking or planning in governments, as they know they will not reap the kudos for it.

Unless you make that one term a long one - ten years maybe? But have something like a recall system - if enough people get fed up with a government then they go back to the polls

I don’t see any mention of ponies or ice cream in this plan.

 

[Della]

A lottery? So the people of England held a lottery in which Wiliam the Conqueror’s name just happened to be drawn out of a hat? Uh, no. Monarchical dynasties win the throne by force - either conquering foreign territory or disposing of domestic rivals to their power.

I later clarified (you may not have read it–the thread is pretty long) that I think of the leader as more of an Elder over other elders who are heads of their family groups. A further clarification–that head could be a woman as well as a man, depending on who is the eldest/deemed the elder by each family. The lottery would only be held to determine the family with the Head Elder at the beginning of the country. His/her duties would be quite limited. Still, if the other families objected to whoever won, another lottery could be held. Of course, the lottery process would also have limits. Whoever the pope named as bishop would have say over spiritual matters, but the practical matters would be decided and governed by the family elders.

 

[Sarcelle]

Funny how the Catholic Church for centuries supported such social hierarchy, nobilities, and monarchies.

Only now, in our post-modern, post-enlightenment love affair with liberalism do we object.

For those who are in favor of nobilities and monarchies, would you be willing to live in any of these kingdoms as a peasant?

 

[Sarcelle]

I’ve always dreamed of creating my own country so here’s what I would like it to be.

It would probably be a theocracy based on the Vatican, but on a much larger scale. It would be governed by the Pope, and would be located around Texas, upper Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi Arkansas, Alabama, Florida pan-handle, Georgia, Tennessee, and South and North Carolina.

Though it would have a constitution similar to the current United States, but more emphasis on personal liberty and responsibility and having church and state together, along with having everyone with a gun, though with some restrictions.

I’d like to explain more in depth, but I think I would have to write a book in that case.

That sounds good.

I would also add that the poor and the down on their luck would also be taken cared of not with the top down approach but at the grassroots and community level.

 

[Sarcelle]

Any reason why? Do you just want to see that women are left in a 2nd class citizen/subservient role?

I don’t think the Salic law equals women in 2nd class citizen or subservient role.

However I did remember a blog where the author, a conservative Catholic declared that an ideal nation would not allow women to be financially independent of men. Now that is one who would like to see women in a 2nd class or subservient role.

 

[jmcrae]

For those who are in favor of nobilities and monarchies, would you be willing to live in any of these kingdoms as a peasant?

In mine, the peasants would do quite well. There would be employment for everyone, housing for everyone, and the work would be divided among the workers in such a way that they all had time to spend with their families, as well as enough to live on. If someone were found to be unsuitable for their current occupation, they would be evaluated and retrained for something more suitable - they wouldn’t just be put out on the street to fend for themselves.

There would be support for single parents so that they could raise their children at home, and there would be support for those who were too ill or aged to work, but every able bodied person would have work to do and the just reward for their work. There would be two rates of pay - salaries for those in positions that don’t directly produce goods, which would be evaluated according to how they treat other people and according to how well they steward the responsibilities entrusted to them. Those who produce goods directly would be paid according to their productivity, rather than by the hour, in order to directly reward hard work. Productivity would not only be the quantity of items produced, but the quantity of usable items produced - nobody would get paid extra to mass-produce junk.

 

[epan]

In mine, the peasants would do quite well. There would be employment for everyone, housing for everyone, and the work would be divided among the workers in such a way that they all had time to spend with their families, as well as enough to live on. If someone were found to be unsuitable for their current occupation, they would be evaluated and retrained for something more suitable - they wouldn’t just be put out on the street to fend for themselves.

There would be support for single parents so that they could raise their children at home, and there would be support for those who were too ill or aged to work, but every able bodied person would have work to do and the just reward for their work. There would be two rates of pay - salaries for those in positions that don’t directly produce goods, which would be evaluated according to how they treat other people and according to how well they steward the responsibilities entrusted to them. Those who produce goods directly would be paid according to their productivity, rather than by the hour, in order to directly reward hard work. Productivity would not only be the quantity of items produced, but the quantity of usable items produced - nobody would get paid extra to mass-produce junk.

I would also have clouds of cotton candy, and rivers that flowed chocolate, in addition to free ice cream, and ponies for everyone.

 

[Bill_7154]

/-]

…what form of government would you want and where would you want it to be?

I ask this in the SJ forum because it is a social issue and to ask if it would be justified?

Please, no discussions about any current country’s failings/benefits. And let’s not get overly worked up, either. Let’s keep this a straight up discussion of options. Thank you. :tiphat:

Nof sure, I’m smart enought o know i’m not smart enounh oto invent ande run a country.

 

[GEddie]

/-]

Nof sure, I’m smart enought o know i’m not smart enounh oto invent ande run a country.

Well, one person can’t run a country; even absolute monarchs have ministers and courtiers etc; this is just a game

ICXC NIKA

 

[LINVS]

I often think of this question. It would be great to found a country in a safe area of the world such as between the USA and Canada, or New Zealand. The state of Washington or Oregon would be ideal. For a government, I’d be a benevolent dictator to start with. After I pass on, I would have a government led by a leader who was voted in for a four year term by a small senate. I’d have strict restrictions on voting. Only Catholic male citizens who owned property could vote; property owning Catholic veterans’ vote would count twice. Our President would have to be a veteran and a Roman Catholic. I suppose the government would be a Theocracy of sorts since no laws could contradict Catholic teachings. I’d have a strict Bill of Rights that would protect everyone’s rights. Religious freedom, racial equality, right to bear arms would all be protected. Taxes would be very low and people would basically take care of themselves. The only big expenditure would be education. For talented and/or motivated students education would be free and excellent. Our national cathedral would be the worlds finest.

 

[epan]

In addition to free ice cream, ponies for everyone, and cotton candy clouds, my world has unicorns who are very friendly.

 

[LightBound]

I often think of this question. It would be great to found a country in a safe area of the world such as between the USA and Canada, or New Zealand. The state of Washington or Oregon would be ideal. For a government, I’d be a benevolent dictator to start with. After I pass on, I would have a government led by a leader who was voted in for a four year term by a small senate. I’d have strict restrictions on voting. Only Catholic male citizens who owned property could vote; property owning Catholic veterans’ vote would count twice. Our President would have to be a veteran and a Roman Catholic. I suppose the government would be a Theocracy of sorts since no laws could contradict Catholic teachings. I’d have a strict Bill of Rights that would protect everyone’s rights. Religious freedom, racial equality, right to bear arms would all be protected. Taxes would be very low and people would basically take care of themselves. The only big expenditure would be education. For talented and/or motivated students education would be free and excellent. Our national cathedral would be the worlds finest.

I sincerely hope you’re joking!! “Only Catholic MALE citizens that own property can vote”? I’ve read some misogynistic comments on CAF before, but buddy, this takes the cake!

Let me guess that the free and excellent education you are speaking of would available only to males, as well???

 

[XRU]

I would prefer to take over a country with plentiful natural resources, but if not, then an island somewhere.

The USA has a great Constitution but I would need to make sure there was no progressive income tax and I would clarify the 1st amendment so that there would be no question of a false separation of church and state. The 2nd amendment would stay, and in fact, I might require everyone to have a gun, be able to use it, and keep it in good condition (like Switzerland). No income tax and no general election of the Senate. Divided government is good but the President might have to be more limited.

Obviously we could not fund a large army, but we wouldn’t need to. There would have to be a strong immigration policy and the first generation founders would be the only unlimited citizens. Others coming after that would have to be vetted.

I guess we could take over parts of Canada…

Wait . . . don’t we already OWN Canada? What have I missed

 

[XRU]

I often think of this question. It would be great to found a country in a safe area of the world such as between the USA and Canada, or New Zealand. The state of Washington or Oregon would be ideal. For a government, I’d be a benevolent dictator to start with. After I pass on, I would have a government led by a leader who was voted in for a four year term by a small senate. I’d have strict restrictions on voting. Only Catholic male citizens who owned property could vote; property owning Catholic veterans’ vote would count twice. Our President would have to be a veteran and a Roman Catholic. I suppose the government would be a Theocracy of sorts since no laws could contradict Catholic teachings. I’d have a strict Bill of Rights that would protect everyone’s rights. Religious freedom, racial equality, right to bear arms would all be protected. Taxes would be very low and people would basically take care of themselves. The only big expenditure would be education. For talented and/or motivated students education would be free and excellent. Our national cathedral would be the worlds finest.

Boy catholic.com attracts all kinds!!!

 

[epan]

I often think of this question. It would be great to found a country in a safe area of the world such as between the USA and Canada, or New Zealand. The state of Washington or Oregon would be ideal. For a government, I’d be a benevolent dictator to start with. After I pass on, I would have a government led by a leader who was voted in for a four year term by a small senate. I’d have strict restrictions on voting. Only Catholic male citizens who owned property could vote; property owning Catholic veterans’ vote would count twice. Our President would have to be a veteran and a Roman Catholic. I suppose the government would be a Theocracy of sorts since no laws could contradict Catholic teachings. I’d have a strict Bill of Rights that would protect everyone’s rights. Religious freedom, racial equality, right to bear arms would all be protected. Taxes would be very low and people would basically take care of themselves. The only big expenditure would be education. For talented and/or motivated students education would be free and excellent. Our national cathedral would be the worlds finest.

Interesting that vets have more say in elections, but you have no military.

Since non-catholics and women are second class citizens in your country, women should probably all dress alike, maybe in burkas, and non-catholic males could wear an identification patch.

 

[austenbosten]

I sincerely hope you’re joking!! “Only Catholic MALE citizens that own property can vote”? I’ve read some misogynistic comments on CAF before, but buddy, this takes the cake!

Let me guess that the free and excellent education you are speaking of would available only to males, as well???

Funny you’re upset that only men can vote…but you ignore the whole part about the nation being a dictatorship for the first part.

You also fail to realize that’s how it was in the United States before the 1820s. Only property-owning males could vote.

Regardless, this is all fantasy, no need to get your knickers in a twist over it.

 

[epan]

Oh. I forgot to mention. My country has a motorcycle lane on all highways, which cars may not drive in, and which has no speed limit.

 

[SalesianSDB]

It would consist of a government who’s only role was to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property). It would leave citizens to live their own lives without much (if any) interference. The only services provided by said government would be roads, police and courts. All through the local levels.

The first president would be Andrew Napolitano…or Murray Rothbard if he were still alive.

 

[epan]

It would consist of a government who’s only role was to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property). It would leave citizens to live their own lives without much (if any) interference. The only services provided by said government would be roads, police and courts. All through the local levels.

The first president would be Andrew Napolitano…or Murray Rothbard if he were still alive.

My country sounds a lot better. So far, we have free ice cream, ponies for everyone, unicorns that are very friendly, and a high speed moto lane on every highway.