Tie in with EP163: Revolution Time - The nation of Forvik and your new country

[Chodon]

I got an interesting link this morning about a gentleman that found some legal precedent for declaring independance from the UK and the EU in the Shetland Islands.  I'm not sure about the legalese, or the 600 year old precedents (English law is fantastic that way), but it seems like this guy has done some homework on the subject of the Shetlands. 

http://shetlandconversation.squarespace.com/forvik/

So my question to all my fellow EP-ers and EP-ettes is: what would you do if you had your own country?  Everyone on here seems to be pretty politically motivated, so I'm sure we would have some fantastic ideas.  What would the tax system be like?  What laws would there be?  What would the requirement for citizenship be?

EDIT: The tie-in has to do with the communist theme from EP163...just to clarify.

[Listener]

I see only two valid ways to run a small country: complete enlightened-self-interest or complete and total monarchy.

Feudal systems were crap for some people, but they worked.  The lord was in charge of everything, and it was his job to make sure everyone was fed and clothed and doing his/her job.  Yeah, there were no chances for advancement for some people, and the slaves and vassals were treated poorly, but that was then.  I would think a new country would keep in mind that everyone needs to be comfortable to be happy.  And hey, if you have to work in the fields, at least you can listen to EP on your iPod, right?

The other option is a commune or kibbutz, and that means enlightened-self-interest, which to me is the ultimate system.  It's also the hardest.  Everyone has to work for the common good because they want to help everyone do better.  I can't find a citation, but commune sounds to me to be the root word for communist; a commune is the ultimate communist system where everyone does what they're best at for the purpose of furthering the greater good.  If the farmer didn't farm, the poultry farmer wouldn't have seed for his chickens, and then the homebuilders would grow ill from lack of protein, and no new homes would be built, so new citizens would have no place to live... it's a precarious system, but if it works, it's awesome.

I would have to go with a feudal system, with someone at the top.  Maybe me, maybe not.  Then there are ministers who carry out the orders and generally enforce the rules.  You could have a provision to vote for the lord (call it a "president" if you want) and the loser in the race would become the VP, kind of like in the old days of the US government.  They would each get to appoint half the ministers.

And, of course, taxation would be the Fair Tax (fairtax.org).  The chief industry would be data storage -- make the country a data haven for Torrent sites, banks, what-have-you.

I could go on, but it's lunchtime.

[Holden]

Fun to think about. Here's a few random thoughts on the topic, in no particular order:

1. Gold and silver would be the only legal tender; no printing money out of thin air.
2. You keep the fruits of your labor; no tax on income. In fact, my government could easily subsist on a minimal tariff alone.
3. No standing armies, but the citizenry would be armed and able to form militias if necessary.
4. The government would recognize God's existance and authority.
5. Free trade with all nations; alliances with none.
6. No public education system. Children are educated by their parents or by any organization voluntarily formed by citizens.

[Russell Nash]

A corporate tax haven like Lichtenstein.  That would fund an incredible education system and standard of living.

[Chodon]

Fun to think about. Here's a few random thoughts on the topic, in no particular order:

1. Gold and silver would be the only legal tender; no printing money out of thin air.
2. You keep the fruits of your labor; no tax on income. In fact, my government could easily subsist on a minimal tariff alone.
3. No standing armies, but the citizenry would be armed and able to form militias if necessary.
4. The government would recognize God's existance and authority.
5. Free trade with all nations; alliances with none.
6. No public education system. Children are educated by their parents or by any organization voluntarily formed by citizens.

I'm pretty much in line with Holden except:
1. I think printed tender would be required for any modern economy, but would be related to the GDP of the country.
2. Agreed!
3. There would have to be a small, but highly trained and well equipped regular army.  Militias are good in concept, but poor in practice against a hostile invader.
4. Government doesn't need to recognize God's existence.  They do, however, need to recognize a universal right and wrong and basic human rights.
5. Agreed!
6. I think public education can go a long way in ending ignorance perpetuated by families.  However, the parents would be able to choose what type of school their kids go to and what they do/don't want them to learn (evolution, sex ed and contraception, etc).

This makes me want to write up a constitution for my new, imaginary country...maybe I'll post one if I get a chance.

[Russell Nash]

This makes me want to write up a constitution for my new, imaginary country...maybe I'll post one if I get a chance.

Don't make the mistake the EU made.  Many EU countires put the ratification of the Constitution on the ballot.  The Constitution was over 700 pages long (I think, if someone knows the exact number, please correct me, but it was loooonnnggg).  There was no way a regular person was going to read it and understand it.  They ended up with groups making announcements of what was in the constitution and why everyone should or shouldn't vote for it.  Very few of the claims were actually true.  It was along the lines of the people in the States who say the goal of the UN is to take away American sovereignty.

The American Constitution is a piece of brilliance in that it really only describes the form of the government itself and leaves the laws to be argued out seperately.  Three pages plus the amendments.  K.I.S.S.- Keep it simple, stupid.

[eytanz]

Fun to think about. Here's a few random thoughts on the topic, in no particular order:

1. Gold and silver would be the only legal tender; no printing money out of thin air.
2. You keep the fruits of your labor; no tax on income. In fact, my government could easily subsist on a minimal tariff alone.
3. No standing armies, but the citizenry would be armed and able to form militias if necessary.
4. The government would recognize God's existance and authority.
5. Free trade with all nations; alliances with none.
6. No public education system. Children are educated by their parents or by any organization voluntarily formed by citizens.

Using this as a template is a good idea, because in many respects, I'd want the opposite country:

1. I agree, assuming you mean a gold/silver standard, rather than actually using minted coins.
2. Nope. Taxation on income will be the biggest source of income for the government. Property/sales taxes will be reduced - you shouldn't get taxed for using your money, but you should get taxed for acquiring it. I would have a very strict tax code that makes it very difficult for people to find loopholes, and make sure that investments and interest are taxed so that the wealthiest members of society are funding most of it, while still maintaining the benefits of their wealth.
3. I will have a strong, standing police force that can function as an army in the time of need. Private citizens will not be armed.
4. The government will recognize no-one's authority but its own. God does not need overt recognition to direct the world. The government will not be allowed to apply or recognize any moral or ethical criteria except the wellfare of its populace, defined in clear narrow term that leave little room for ambiguity as to what rights people have and what obligations the government has towards them.
5. Agreed in principle, though probably an unattainable goal if the country is to survive.
6. Only public education, which will be entirely uniform. Parents should be encouraged to supplement the public education system, but everyone gets the same baseline, modulated only by their cognitive abilities. The public education will be designed to teach the children skills and knowledge. Ethical/social indoctrination is unavoidable in any education system, but it will be kept to a minimum and be taught transparently so that children know that they don't have to accept it.

Two more important principles that I'd like that I'm sure Holden will object to :
7. The only absolute freedom is the freedom of thought. All people are equal, and have the right to the pursuit of happiness, personal safety, and transparent government. Everything else is a privelage, and may be revoked, through a fair and transparent process, if you fail to live by the laws. If you are a law-obeying citizen, you also have the right to leave. If you think your personal freedoms are more important than a fully functioning society, go somewhere else.
8. People have a (limited) right for privacy, but organizations (including the government and corporations) do not, except for a very narrowly defined range (e.g. proprietary trade secrets). Full disclosure is the norm, and citizens will have the ability to receive any and all information that pertains to them at their own convenience.

[Chodon]

3. I will have a strong, standing police force that can function as an army in the time of need. Private citizens will not be armed.

That's an interesting idea.  It seems like the role of military and police are getting more and more blurred.  The military is forced into "police actions", and the police is using more military style equipment and training.  Why pay for both?

[stePH]

...
4. The government would recognize God's existance and authority.
...

At risk of thread derailment, I must ask: which God?  And how exactly would the government "recognize God's authority"?  What would this mean to the citizenry?

[Darwinist]

...
4. The government would recognize God's existance and authority.
...

At risk of thread derailment, I must ask: which God?

Whatever god the people with the most power believed in.

I'd go the opposite direction.  I'd focus on science and get rid of all mention a of god, period.  If people want to worship go for it but keep religion out of government.     

[eytanz]

3. I will have a strong, standing police force that can function as an army in the time of need. Private citizens will not be armed.

That's an interesting idea.  It seems like the role of military and police are getting more and more blurred.  The military is forced into "police actions", and the police is using more military style equipment and training.  Why pay for both?

Note that I was assuming a reasonably small country. Large countries - whether geographically or population-wise - probably need to seperate the police and army functions for their own security.

[wintermute]

...
4. The government would recognize God's existance and authority.
...

At risk of thread derailment, I must ask: which God?

Whatever god the people with the most power believed in.

I'd go the opposite direction.  I'd focus on science and get rid of all mention a of god, period.  If people want to worship go for it but keep religion out of government.    

But then, after 200 years, you'd get people arguing that you obviously didn't mean that people should be allowed to go around not being Christian...

[eytanz]

But then, after 200 years, you'd get people arguing that you obviously didn't mean that people should be allowed to go around not being Christian...

Wait, is this a comment about Holden's proposed (semi-)theocracy? Or is it that you are saying that any secular state will inevitably go down the road of America?

I should point out that I grew up in a country (Israel) where religion is very much a part of the government, and at the same time there is (to a considerable degree) freedom of religion. Not, mind you, the freedom to choose your own religion - the state tells you what religion you are, and you need to go through quite a few hoops to change it if you have a change of faith - but the freedom to practice your officially recognized religion, whatever it may be. Indeed, people of minority religions (like Christianity) often have more freedom than those born to the majority religion (Judaism), as the Jewish religious authorities are far stronger and have more abilitiy to interfere in the daily lives of their constituents.

[stePH]

I was replied to before I had a chance to edit and clarify my post, so I repeat: what does the government "recognizing God's authority" mean to the citizenry?

[eytanz]

I was replied to before I had a chance to edit and clarify my post, so I repeat: what does the government "recognizing God's authority" mean to the citizenry?

You'd have to wait for Holden to reply as to what he meant by that. For me, that means that the government would be limited to only having laws which are consistent with the relevant religion's commandments, and that religious law would have some status (not necessarily equal status, but non-negligable status) in courts.

[Holden]

Some responses to your responses:

1. Yes, I am referring to a gold/silver standard. Any paper currency would be representative of specific weights of gold/silver, which would actually exist in support of the currency. This would make my country's currency among the most stable in the world. Gold and silver have had some short term fluctuations, but have maintained the same relative value over the past 4000 years.

3. In defense of my 'no standing armies' position, I submit some quotes from my favorite US president, Thomas Jefferson:

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814.

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800

source: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm 

4.  It seems like most everyone respectfully disagrees with me on this one. A question for you: Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all? For example, the US Pledge of Allegiance has the words "Under God", our fiat legal tender has the words "In God we trust", some US government buildings have a monument to the ten commandments, our congressional sessions are often opened with a prayer in the name of Christ, etc. Would such references to God not exist in your government?

I was replied to before I had a chance to edit and clarify my post, so I repeat: what does the government "recognizing God's authority" mean to the citizenry?

It means that the government cannot override God. The Bible would be recognized as the Word of God and would be the final authority for all legislation, much like the Iraqi constitution recognizes the Qur'an as the final authority. For example, any law created by man that contradicts the law of God would be found by the courts to be no law (such as the alleged 'laws' created by Hitler's government for the use of committing genocide against the Jews). If anyone wishes to discuss 'God and government' further, I humbly suggest starting a new thread. I see that this topic could easily take over the thread.

6. Did you know that a public education system is the tenth plank of the communist manifesto? I don't mean to say that everyone who supports a public education system is a communist, but public education is a communist ideal. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto

Two more important principles that I'd like that I'm sure Holden will object to :
7. The only absolute freedom is the freedom of thought. All people are equal, and have the right to the pursuit of happiness, personal safety, and transparent government. Everything else is a privilege, and may be revoked, through a fair and transparent process, if you fail to live by the laws. If you are a law-obeying citizen, you also have the right to leave. If you think your personal freedoms are more important than a fully functioning society, go somewhere else.

Not sure what you mean by this one, but it sounds frightening.  What are some examples of 'revokable privileges' in your country? Could your government revoke it's citizens' privileges to read certain controversial books, attend religious services, smoke cigarettes, or eat pork?

8. People have a (limited) right for privacy, but organizations (including the government and corporations) do not, except for a very narrowly defined range (e.g. proprietary trade secrets). Full disclosure is the norm, and citizens will have the ability to receive any and all information that pertains to them at their own convenience.

I agree with this one. People have a right to privacy, and the government does not. Corporations may be a moot point in my country, though. With my tax system (or lack thereof) there is not much motivation to incorporate your business. Proprietorships would likely be the norm.

[eytanz]

3. In defense of my 'no standing armies' position, I submit some quotes from my favorite US president, Thomas Jefferson:

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves.

No disrespect intended to Jefferson, but that's a gross oversimplification. It's true that early on, Rome didn't have a standing army, but by the time of Julius Caesar, it did, and it kept it for the rest of its existence. Not sure about the Greeks, but given that they were a hetrogenous society (rather than a single state) that lasted centuries, I'm sure you could find times/city-states that had standing armies, and others that did not.

4.  It seems like most everyone respectfully disagrees with me on this one. A question for you: Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?

No. You don't need to take care to not acknowledge God. Take the US government. Nowhere does it recognize the fact that all US citizens are subject to the physical law of gravity. They still are - no US citizen is exempt from gravity. But the pledge of allegiance doesn't mention it, nor does the currency, and no government building commemorates it. I happen to believe in a god that affects all our lives. I don't see why it's my governments job to address that.

Put in other words, I believe that government gets its authority from one source only - the people which it governs. That is the only authority it is required to recognize. The fact that those people answer to other authorities as well is irrelevant and not something that's any business of the government.

Note that as a non-Christian, I have no interest in living in a country that codifies Christian law. I am Jewish, and I was born in a country that codifies (some aspects of) Jewish law. I found that oppressive, and it was one reason I left.

6. Did you know that a public education system is the tenth plank of the communist manifesto? I don't mean to say that everyone who supports a public education system is a communist, but public education is a communist ideal. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto

So what? The communists had a lot of bad ideas, but that doesn't mean that everything they believed in was wrong or somehow tainted. I have a lot of issues with the American constitution, but it has some really good ideas in it as well.

Two more important principles that I'd like that I'm sure Holden will object to :
7. The only absolute freedom is the freedom of thought. All people are equal, and have the right to the pursuit of happiness, personal safety, and transparent government. Everything else is a privilege, and may be revoked, through a fair and transparent process, if you fail to live by the laws. If you are a law-obeying citizen, you also have the right to leave. If you think your personal freedoms are more important than a fully functioning society, go somewhere else.

Not sure what you mean by this one, but it sounds frightening.  What are some examples of 'revokable privileges' in your country? Could your government revoke it's citizens' privileges to read certain controversial books, attend religious services, smoke cigarettes, or eat pork?

Let me point out, first, that all governments in the world have the ability to revoke the privelages, and indeed the so-called rights, of its citizens. If you commit murder, the American government - ostensibly dedicated to your freedom - will revoke your right to free conduct by imprisoning you, revoke your right to free speech by regulating who you can speak to and when while you are in prison, and, if you're in a state with the death penalty, potentially revoke your right to live. All I'm saying is that my country will not be built on the pretense that people have rights and freedoms that never go away. It's not a question of practice, it's a question of outlook.

[Darwinist]

4.  It seems like most everyone respectfully disagrees with me on this one. A question for you: Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all? For example, the US Pledge of Allegiance has the words "Under God", our fiat legal tender has the words "In God we trust", some US government buildings have a monument to the ten commandments, our congressional sessions are often opened with a prayer in the name of Christ, etc. Would such references to God not exist in your government?

They would certainly not exist in my government.   I would try to keep supernatural, unprovable ideas out of the government as best I could.  I don't care what the founding fathers thought about this, their views and understanding of the natural world and science were quite different from what we understand now.   I like their ideas about governing but can't subscribe to any supernatural beliefs they may have had.     

[wintermute]

6. Did you know that a public education system is the tenth plank of the communist manifesto? I don't mean to say that everyone who supports a public education system is a communist, but public education is a communist ideal. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto

Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? I'm not saying that everyone who avoids meat is an antisemitic fascist, but you know. It's out there.

[stePH]

6. Did you know that a public education system is the tenth plank of the communist manifesto? I don't mean to say that everyone who supports a public education system is a communist, but public education is a communist ideal. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto

Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? I'm not saying that everyone who avoids meat is an antisemitic fascist, but you know. It's out there.

You tread dangerously close to Godwin's Law with that one, but it is an excellent counter-point.

[sirana]

6. Did you know that a public education system is the tenth plank of the communist manifesto? I don't mean to say that everyone who supports a public education system is a communist, but public education is a communist ideal. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto

Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? I'm not saying that everyone who avoids meat is an antisemitic fascist, but you know. It's out there.

You tread dangerously close to Godwin's Law with that one, but it is an excellent counter-point.

Using a reverse Reductio ad Hitlerum while avoiding Godwin's law. well played, wintermute...

[Holden]

That's hogwash.

Vegetarianism is not an ideal of antisemitism or fascism.
Public education is an ideal communism.

And hey, maybe that's not a bad thing to you. Maybe you like a few communist ideals. Maybe you like most of them. Maybe you support all ten planks of the manifesto. Maybe you're planning a big communist cakewalk in Washington DC this summer. More power to you. But if so, you probably shouldn't make plans to move to my pretend country. I'm heavily libertarian on many issues so you probably wouldn't like a government I design.

[Russell Nash]

That's hogwash.

Vegetarianism is not an ideal of antisemitism or fascism.
Public education is an ideal communism.

And hey, maybe that's not a bad thing to you. Maybe you like a few communist ideals. Maybe you like most of them. Maybe you support all ten planks of the manifesto. Maybe you're planning a big communist cakewalk in Washington DC this summer. More power to you. But if so, you probably shouldn't make plans to move to my pretend country. I'm heavily libertarian on many issues so you probably wouldn't like a government I design.

An ideal of commuinism was also that people should have enough to eat.  Is any government that believes in their people eating also communist?  Will your government be opposed to eating?

Also as someone who deals with ex-Soviets on a regular basis, I can tell you that the only reason the old USSR was able to stay as close as they did was because of their education system.  Microsoft agrees with me.  30% of their programmers are native Russian speakers.  Also most every company in the US with a research or engineering department employs ex-Soviets.  Their problem was that they could never give their smart people the resources they needed not that they couldn't produce them.

[wintermute]

And hey, maybe that's not a bad thing to you. Maybe you like a few communist ideals. Maybe you like most of them. Maybe you support all ten planks of the manifesto. Maybe you're planning a big communist cakewalk in Washington DC this summer.

Look, it's all very well to claim "I don't mean to say that everyone who supports a public education system is a communist", but it's becoming increasingly clear that you do mean to insinuate it very strongly, and not terribly subtly. I mean, what other reason did you have for making such a statement in the first place?

Will your Bible-supporting government have a law against bearing false witness?

[wintermute]

You know what confuses me about Libertarianism?

There are currently over 200 organisations offering government services to a total of six billion consumers. They offer different degrees and types of services with different pricing models. There is no super-government regulating what types of governments can exist, or how much they're allowed or required to tax (well, the UN theoretically requires a minimum level of service, like not torturing people, but that's not really enforceable). While some of these governments are less keen than others to take on new customers, and others do their best to lock in existing customers, there's a significant degree of freedom in your ability to choose which government you want to live under. Especially for those with money, but mass migrations are certainly not unknown even amongst the poorest citizens of the world.

So, your choice of governments is about as close to a perfect free market as anything we're ever likely to see. Which means that, according to Libertarian economic theories, every system of government that people actually want and is economical to provide should exist. And yet, discounting warzones like Somalia, I'm not aware of any Libertarian countries.

Which suggests that either people don't actually want them, or they can't sustain themselves, or Libertarian models of the free market are deeply flawed.