What if you owned your own country...?

[Jonathan]

30 years ago, children's book writer Astrid Lindgren discovered that her marginal tax had risen to 102% and, like the Beatles wrote a song the Taxman, Lindgren wrote a children's story on the subject

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Thanks, GM. That would have been a 95% taxation rate! BJ!

Well, that isn't what it's like in the US. I don't think the top tax rate would have to be anything over 50% to improve things like education, and probably not even that high.

But, back to Britain, even with such a high rate, their economy did not collapse, and neither did their entertainment industry output.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

30 years ago, children's book writer Astrid Lindgren discovered that her marginal tax had risen to 102% and, like the Beatles wrote a song the Taxman, Lindgren wrote a children's story on the subject

Always thought Pippi was a bit of an anarchist.

Not to mention Snufkin

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Apostates would be punished in some way. Maybe banishment, maybe something else- I don't know. I know it matters, but I also haven't thought through punishments for all the different crimes.

I know that I'm suddenly a wierd specimen, something for people to gawk at because my views are so strange to the modern psyche. That's why I'm getting questions (from BJ, you and HOBBIT so far) about specific punishments I'd have meted out for specific crimes, "crimes" that are presently legal and considered to be wholly acceptable in modern culture. It's a kind of spectator sport, a fascination with the strange, unusual and dangerous. It's very natural. My views will naturally be considered to be dangerous by most here and are so unusual that there is a fascination I have seen. People have that fascination for some bizarre criminals or dangerous zoo animals. I have that fascination for Great White Sharks. I love Great Whites . It's a combination of the unusual and the dangerous that fascinates people in that way.

Absolutely true- though that's why you generate such respect- from me at least, anyway. I know I've come screaming harshly down on you in the past, and you've always stood steady as a rock. You have the absolute courage of your convictions, and the strength to resist modern thought and follow them where they lead.

I can easily picture you facing the rack, branding irons, and red-hot pincers and calmly saying "Here I stand, I can do no other."

OTOH, it's no great stretch to imagine you sitting behind the bench looking down at the heretic in that same position.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I
Meanwhile, I view the views most people here hold about religious freedom to be dangerous. However, I'm not fascinated by the idea of religious freedom in spite of the danger I see it as posing, because for me it is not "unusual." I understand the view very well having grown up and reached adulthood holding to it and being surrounded by a culture that holds to it as one of the central pillars that much of its past, present and planned future are established upon.

I can see that, and from the Christian PoV it can be seen as more consistent.

Let's say there's a plague sweeping the land, and people are dropping like flies. You know you have the cure, but meanwhile there are a thousand counterfeiters out there not only pushing their fake nostrums but preventing you getting the facts out. Shouldn't fakirs and pedlars of quack medicine be banned?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know that I'm suddenly a wierd specimen, something for people to gawk at because my views are so strange to the modern psyche. That's why I'm getting questions (from BJ, you and HOBBIT so far) about specific punishments I'd have meted out for specific crimes, "crimes" that are presently legal and considered to be wholly acceptable in modern culture. It's a kind of spectator sport, a fascination with the strange, unusual and dangerous. It's very natural. My views will naturally be considered to be dangerous by most here and are so unusual that there is a fascination I have seen. People have that fascination for some bizarre criminals or dangerous zoo animals. I have that fascination for Great White Sharks. I love Great Whites . It's a combination of the unusual and the dangerous that fascinates people in that way.

I don't know about "a wierd specimen". I've had relatives and one friend who belong to religious groups that are a whole lot more restrictive than many of your views.

I just think that, in general, orthodox systems (be they religious or social in foundation) tend to say, "we must get society to this specific moral point no matter how we go about it". I was curious if you took that hard of a line.

It's the difference between encouraging a given morality and enforcing one.

[inked]

?So, BJ, a fifty percent taxation rate is encouraging a moral view or enforcing one?

?How about a 95 - 102% tax rate? Encouraging a moral view or enforcing one?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by inked

?So, BJ, a fifty percent taxation rate is encouraging a moral view or enforcing one?

?How about a 95 - 102% tax rate? Encouraging a moral view or enforcing one?

Inked, are you really that arrogant? That you'd think you could possible know what to do with your own money morally?

[inked]

HB, I clearly need an elite who is that arrogant to tell me what to do with my money and to shut up when I protest their use of my money. I am only a fiscal conservative, after all. What do I know? Clearly however the use of taxation to finance government endeavors is violence of the crudest sort...taking from the producers to give what gets votes for the elite to the non-producers.

The old golden rule with a little ersatz communism/socialism and some people just love it. In later Rome it was known as bread and circuses. But I digress into reality rather than fictional self-stimulation about how good I am because the government takes the money instead of bandits.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't know about "a wierd specimen". I've had relatives and one friend who belong to religious groups that are a whole lot more restrictive than many of your views.

I just think that, in general, orthodox systems (be they religious or social in foundation) tend to say, "we must get society to this specific moral point no matter how we go about it". I was curious if you took that hard of a line.

I definitely do not. I think that many Islamic extremists do, but I prefer non-violent means to an end. Violence is sometimes necessary to enforce good laws. For instance, we'll use violence to resist drug lords when we must. Or other criminals too, depending on the circumstances. If the legitimate government or people reject good laws, though, I don't believe that it's a good thing to try to violently force my way on society. Except in the rare instance where revolution is necessary.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's the difference between encouraging a given morality and enforcing one.

I believe in enforcing good morality in our laws, but I don't believe in forcing good morality into our laws.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Absolutely true- though that's why you generate such respect- from me at least, anyway.

Thank-you . It is an odd feeling to be a zoo animal . Not presently a bad feeling or a good one, really, just distinctly odd.

I'm getting to your theoretical plague question. Thinking about it .

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by inked

The old golden rule with a little ersatz communism/socialism and some people just love it. In later Rome it was known as bread and circuses. But I digress into reality rather than fictional self-stimulation about how good I am because the government takes the money instead of bandits.

Inked, thay may be the funniest thing I've heard on Entmoot this whole year...

[Nurvingiel]

What a great idea for a thread Suncrafter!

1 - What would you make the legal drinking age?
16 (Also applies to buying pot and cigarettes)

2 - Driving age?
16, with graduated licencing such as in BC.

3 - Age of sexual consent?
16 (however, you can't have sex with someone who is over 19 and also 5 years your senior)

4 - Voting age?
12 (Parents can vote by proxy for those children under the age of 12.)

5 - At what age would someone become an adult (free from parental control)?
19

6 - What types of recreational drugs (if any) would be legal?
Pot (small amounts, which I would get some Dutch scientists and policy-makers to advise me on) and alcohol would be legal for a business to buy and sell, but they would be licenced. The licence could be revoked if certain conditions were not met. Anyone can buy or sell caffeine, though minors would be encouraged not to consume it.

Tobacco would be legal, but cigarettes, tobacco, chewing tobacco, snus and other tobacco consumable products would be regulated severely as to what chemicals could be added. You can put tobacco in cigarettes, but you cannot add nicotine (only what occurs naturally in the tobacco are allowed), you can't add formaldehyde, battery acid, tar, and all that other crap in cigarettes. Cigarettes would contain the paper, filter, tobacco, and any substance that also meets my Food and Agriculture Act. The same applies to other tobacco products.

It would be illegal to buy, sell or possess cocaine, LSD, heroin and ecstasy. It would not be a crime to use the drug, but there would be bylaws against it. Addiction to these drugs would be treated as an illness, and addicts would receive necessary medical treatment. The bylaw exists so that drug users can be forced to go through a treatment program if necessary, but won't land in jail with hardcore ciminals. Convicted drug dealers would go to jail.

7 - Can people have guns? (if so - who and what kind?)
People can have sporting handguns and shotguns if they have a licence for the weapon and have passed a government approved gun safety course. The course must be renewed every two years. You can own a gun with out the safety course if it's licenced, but you can't use it (mainly collectors would use the licence this way). No automatic weapons, explosives or other military weopens would be allowed to be owned by anyone except the military.

8 - What would be the name of your country?
Nurvingidonia (later, the Federation of Nurving*).

9 - Would you have the death penalty?
No

10 - What would be the speed limit?
30 km/h near schools and playgrounds
50 km/h on residential/city roads
60 to 80 km/h on larger roads (as appropriate)
100 - 110 km/h on highways (as appropriate)
120 km/h on the freeway, if I build one

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted?
All would be permitted. We wouldn't even keep an eye on those Scientology cultists like Germany does.

All charities will be tax exempt including ones operated by the religious institution.

Which of the following would be legal:
12 - Porn? Yes
13 - Prostitution? Yes
14 - Polygamy? Yes. Polygyny would also be legal.
15 - Homosexuality? No. Haha, just kidding! I really got you guys. It would, of course, be legal.
16 - Stem cell research? Yes
17 - Human Cloning? No
18 - Cock Fighting? No (also no dogfighting or bullfighting)
19 - Slavery? Absolutely not.
20 - Hunting? Yes
21 - Fishing? Yes
22 - Eating meat? Of course!
23 - Littering? It wouldn't be a crime, but I would have a bylaw against it.
24 - Unisex bathrooms? Sure, why not.
25 - Suicide? No.
26 - Gay marriage? Yes. It would be the same as straight marriage.
27 - Abortion? Yes (but only doctors can preform it)

Notes: Marriages of any kind are only allowed between adults. No exceptions. Only government officials can legally marry people, but religious institutions are of course free to have any celebration they want.

28 - What types of sexual activity (if any) would be illegal?
What adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is up to them.

29 - Would your county be clothing optional or clothing mandatory?
Clothing mandatory, but we're not going to be anal about it. There would be nude beaches, but you wouldn't be allowed to walk around in a playground without any trousers on. Common sense will be enforced here.

30 - Would you have obscenity laws? If so - how would you define "obscene".
We would have obscenety laws, defining "obscene" as: material or behavious unnecessarily offensive to the public at large, and since this is vague, a list of exactly what those materials and behavious are would follow. People can challenge this law in court, and future rulings would be precedent-based. This would allow the law to evolve over time as our society's attitudes change. Anti-hate laws would be separate, and much less flexible.

Things restricted under the obscenety act would include:
You must be 16 or older to buy porn.
Only adults can solicit and buy sex.
Nudity is only allowed in designated areas.
Porn, since it should only be available to adults, cannot be displayed publicly.
You must be 16 or older to see a movie with a violent rating.
Etc.

Swearing is allowed on public radio, and it is up to the discretion of the DJ to decide what will or will not offend his target audience. (As an aside, our copyright laws will include a note that you can't censor lyrics in a song, simply because that pisses me off. If you don't like songs with swearing in them, then don't play that song.)

31 - What system would you set up for collecting taxes?
I'll just copy what Canada does, because why re-invent the wheel, eh?

- Income tax? (how much?)
It will be based on how much people's income is relative to the cost of living in the country. Cost of living will be reassessed every year. People below what we define as the poverty line won't pay any income tax. People earning above the poverty line will pay a proportion of that amount based on how much it is.

Eg.
Annual earnings ($1000s)/% collected in tax
<15/0
15 - 25/5
25 - 35/7
35 - 45/10
45 - 55/13
55 - 65/17
65 - 75/22
75 - 90/26
90 - 110/31
110 - 150/37
150 - 200/44
200 - 250/50
>250/55

If you made $50'000 per year, your taxes would be $1850. The actual percentages would depend on the cost of living and also how much services the government provides.

- Sales tax? (how much?)
5% Federal sales tax. Provinces can decide if they want a provincial one, and if so, how much.

- Import/Export tax? (how much?)
5% export tax, 10% import tax, on top of federal and provincial taxes. (The higher import tax is to encourage a good balance of trade. Both taxes might change depending on the scarcity of the material being imported or exported. Some imports will be banned, including noxious weeds, exotic or endangered animals, products harvested from endangered animals, etc. Only animals bred in a licenced facility will be allowed to be exported.)

32 - What criteria would someone need to pass to become a citizen?
They either would need a good reason to leave their old country or show they have good skills to add to our country. We'll have quite a liberal immigration policy since we will really need people to come live in our country.

33 - What types of people would you allow (or not allow) into your country?People who have criminal records in other countries would not be allowed. I'm looking at you Conrad Black, excuse me, Lord Black. However, if the person is fleeing hardship in that country (persecution, discrimination, they will be allowed in regardless. We decide what is persecution

34 - What type of government would you establish?See footnote.

35 - To what degree would your government be allowed to censor or restrict the media?Only to not allow libel. The rest is up to them.

36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand.I'd like to promote an active and outdoorsy culture where people support sports and the arts, and there are many interesting newspapers and newsmagazines. People will be well-educated, well-informed, independent-minded, and caring and active members of society.


*Unfortunately for me, my intelligent, hard-working and free-thinking citizens will not stand for any dictatorship no matter how benevolent. There will be peaceful protests, and I will step down, giving up most of my lands except some prime ranchland and forest to which I will retire. I will live to a ripe old age, much loved by the people and remembered fondly in history. The main leaders of the revolution will establish direct democracy in the country, changing our name in a symbol of the total rejection of dictatorship. However, people will decide to keep most of the laws I wrote since they are sensible and fair. I will be kind of like Nepoleon, except without the wars, defeat and exile.


Edited to change the age of sexual consent. Society's attitudes do change!

[Nurvingiel]

And now, to catch up in the thread...

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

25 - Suicide? well you can't really make it illegal, "hey you! you just killed yourself, your comin' to prison!!"

The reason suicide is often illegal is so the police are allowed to do things normally not allowed, such as violating someone's privacy, in order to prevent them from killing themselves.

That is why suicide is illegal in Nurvingieldonia. If someone commits suicide, that means they have died from a mental illness - a tragedy which we will avoid at all costs.

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

36 - Aside from laws - what sort of unofficial (and unenforced) cultural rules and traditions would you like to establish? For example - taking shoes off before entering someone's home. Or not eating with the left hand.well, no vulgarity in public, listening to rap/hip-hop etc would be severely frowned upon, and it would be unusual for men to have short hair

Would many women have short hair? What cultural factors made men want to mostly have long hair? Do the most rebellious men shave their heads?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

4 - Voting age? 18 . . . if we have a democracy. I'm not sure a democracy is the best form of government, and am not sure about this.

Who is it that said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other kinds?"

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

31.5 - Gender differences? Gender should be taken into account in the country's laws. Women and men should have somewhat different roles in government and society because the genetics of the different genders are different in brains as well as in bodies. Neither is less than the other, but each is equally valuable and essential while simultaneously different. So I'd probably keep most women out of certain areas of politics and the military, though I might allow some to slip through the cracks on that. Women, on the other hand, might have advantages over men in getting into jobs that require communication and relating to other people.

What would you do if there was a man or woman who really didn't fit in with the prescribed gender roles? Would they be the ones who "slip through the cracks"? If women and men are as different as you say, then why would you need to enforce the gender roles? For example, in Canada both women and men are allowed to join the army, but the army is composed mainly of men.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The government will absolutely be somewhat theocratic, though.

Somewhat theocratic? You've outlawed all religions but one!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There's just one thing I'd like to change here immediately. Currently it is good manners to have one's fork and knife on the left side of one's plate, a system that dates to old English eating habits. It's dated! I'm not left-handed, and neither are the majority of people! I'd have culture place it on the right hand instead of the left for practicality's sake. If people want to arrange it differently, of course this is not a law. Just a cultural tradition I wish existed.

As a left-handed person, I love this tradition. It means I never have to switch the places of the knife and fork to begin eating like the rest of my family does. Suckers!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oh yes, a few other things. I'd want to bring back some good old fashioned manners to society! In the past, in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, gentlemen and ladies were far more polite to one another than they are now. They treated one another graciously and saw one another as highly valuable individuals who deserved great respect. I'd want to bring back wholesome Victorian manners, and the modern desire to neutralize gender "stereotypes" is no excuse for eliminating good manners.

I mostly agree with this. I wouldn't go Victorian since they were too anal-retentive and had that horrible "children should be seen and not heard" thing going on. However, I would hope that people in my society would be very respectful of each other. For example, people would pick up litter of they saw it, people would hold the door open for the person behind them, "please" and "thank you" would be used liberally, and it while rap music would be very popular, it would be almost unheard of to head someone talking about women as "hos" or employing racial slurs. (It wouldn't be illegal, but artists would avoid writing lyrics like this as there would be few listeners.)

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

I'm a bit surprised by yor country, Lief. This is a fun silly thing, but still. I'm not sure if you meant yours as a joke - but many could find it offensive. Not being christian, I find it mildly offensive.

just the top stand out things:
All religions but christianity illegal?
Illegal to have sex out of wedlock?
Homosexuality illegal?
Cursing illegal?
Women mostly kept out of politics and military?

Being Jewish, it would be illegal for me to become a citizen. Perhaps even illegal to visit since ALL non-Chrisitan religions are banned?

I agree with HOBBIT. How would you enforce this? How could you prove someone isn't Christian? What happens if one of your citizens who was Christian decided to convert to another religion? Would he have to leave? What about people who are Christians, but really stink at it? Would they have to take remedial classes? What's the punishment for someone openly being non-Christian? Don't you think it's kind of ironic to force someone to accept Jesus's love?

I know this is all for fun, but these questions are interesting. Feel free to debate my own laws, especially my more controversial ones on the voting age and addictive drugs.

Also, I like your environmental laws. I would enact similarly stringent laws, and have an environmental tax based on pollution it causes or was caused in making the product. Gasoline and diesel will be expensive.

Originally Posted by Tessar

Which of the following would be legal:
12 - Porn?
13 - Prostitution?
14 - Polygamy?
15 - Homosexuality?
16 - Stem cell resurch?
17 - Human Cloning?
18 - Cock Fighting?
19 - Slavery?
20 - Hunting?
21 - Fishing?
22 - Eating meat?
23 - Littering?
24 - Unisex bathrooms?
25 - Suicide?
26 - Gay marriage?
27 - Abortion?

NOT. ON. MY. WATCH.

Wait, all that stuff is illegal? Even the fairly benign stuff like eating meat?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But be that as it may. I'm rather curious about how some of you would respond to sisterandcousinandaunt's question about how your countries would respond to education.

Education in my country would be compulsory until you graduate or turn 18. The government would run the education system. Homeschooling and private schools are allowed, but both types of schooling would have to meet government standards for their students to be exempted from public school. All students would write government exams in order to graduate.

Upon graduation from secondary school, education is optional. If someone turns 18 and hasn't graduated, they can choose to leave school. If they later want to upgrade their courses and graduate, this will be free and they can do so at any time. There will be separate classes for these late graduates so they can have class in evenings to work around jobs and they don't have to sit in science class with people half their age.

We won't have those stupid Fraser Institute rankings of schools, but the government will examine the pass rate of government exams to determine if a school needs some extra help.

Originally Posted by sistercousinandaunt

Interesting POV for an aspiring theocratic dictator.

For The Win!

Originally Posted by Meriadoc Brandybuck

As far as education goes, in public schools, none of that anti-Christian "we don't want to offend non-Christians by having prayer, but Islamists can have whatever they want" nonsense. Preschool NOT mandatory, not supported by the government/wacky Hollywood actors. Catholic private schools teach basic Latin. Colleges have actually sane professors, etc. Homeschooling highly supported and recommended.

This brings up another good point. In my country, there won't be any restrictions on religion anywhere. Christians and Muslims can pray wherever they please, Sikhs can carry the kirpan (ceremonial daggar, though if it's more than 6" it will still have to be licenced), people can wear headscarves, yamulkas, birkas, crosses, Tom Cruise T-shirts, or whatever.


And more possible questions...
What would your national anthem be? National flower? National bird? National mammal? What would be on your national flag? (Don't answer that one Brownie! j/k ) Would education be compulsory, and if so, to what age?

So far my country is most like Legoles's country.


Edited for syntax.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief

The government will absolutely be somewhat theocratic, though.

Oh, ya think?! But, wait - absolutely theocratic, or somewhat theocratic... Things that make you go "Hmmmm...."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Oh, ya think?! But, wait - absolutely theocratic, or somewhat theocratic... Things that make you go "Hmmmm...."

Reminds me of the Aristocrats line, "you either are or you're not." Brings back images too of all the grammar debates my family (including me) have.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Who is it that said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other kinds?"

To me, this really depends. Monarchy can be absolutely a better form of government. If you have a wise and good sovereign, then while he or she is in power, a democracy isn't going to beat it. The trouble is all of those bad sovereigns. But democracies can produce very bad results too, because "the people" can be bad, just like "a person" can be bad. So I don't anymore have a strong belief on it right now. I'm still trying to work through this issue.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What would you do if there was a man or woman who really didn't fit in with the prescribed gender roles? Would they be the ones who "slip through the cracks"?

The cracks would exist for them, yes. I don't know how those "cracks" would be organized.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If women and men are as different as you say, then why would you need to enforce the gender roles? For example, in Canada both women and men are allowed to join the army, but the army is composed mainly of men.

Well, we already have something of a gender split in law right now: the draft. The draft still calls men up to active military duty, but it doesn't call up women yet.

But there are other places where having gender laws might be a good idea. For instance, the extremely touchy subject of voting. In all the wars in the US that have been fought during which women had the right to vote, substantially more women have voted against the wars than men. And women have been observed in polls over and over again by the Political Science branch throughout many cultures, nations and societies to be less aggressive than men and more opposed to war wherever they happen (according to "Essentials of American Government" by Tim Chevernak, and "International Politics on a World Stage" by Rouskin . . . or Rouskin's name was something like that- I could find it for you if you want it). So there's a case where pulling down a gender related law might not have been within our national security interests. We might have lost some of our resolve to stick out wars because of it. I note that we've lost wars far more frequently in the 20th century than we did in the previous two centuries.

But then, men also don't have the natural social talent that women have anywhere near as often as they do. Men don't tend to have feminine talent as much as women as women don't tend to have masculine talent as much as men. Both genders decidedly have talents and qualities in greater amount than the other, and trying to blur or remove that biological line between the two is not helpful to our Western societies.

This is my opinion, anyway. It's not that one gender is any better than the other. Both are decidedly equally necessary to the wellbeing and survival of the human race and equally valuable. And neither is less talented than the other- they just tend to be differently talented.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Somewhat theocratic? You've outlawed all religions but one!

Yes, it's "somewhat" theocratic because it isn't specifically governed by priests. The leader or leaders do have to be Christians, but they don't have to be clergy or church leaders. A theocracy, according to the World English Dictionary, is a government ruled by priests or God. So mine doesn't quite fit. Technically .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As a left-handed person, I love this tradition. It means I never have to switch the places of the knife and fork to begin eating like the rest of my family does. Suckers!

Lol!

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I mostly agree with this. I wouldn't go Victorian since they were too anal-retentive and had that horrible "children should be seen and not heard" thing going on.

Well, that's not altogether a horrible idea. I think it has some value. In my family, I've seen a lot of dominance of dinner conversation by the younger people in the family who chatter about all sorts of trivialities and sometimes interrupt their elders (or have done). I'd definitely like a tradition in my country of greater respect of parents from children. That needn't go so far as to cut children wholly out of the conversation at the dinner table, but it would limit the nonsense and increase the respect.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with HOBBIT. How would you enforce this? How could you prove someone isn't Christian?

Are they spouting heresies? Do guests happen to notice they're keeping idols in their home? There could be various evidences found. It wouldn't always certainly be possible to tell, but if it is detected, action would be taken.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What happens if one of your citizens who was Christian decided to convert to another religion? Would he have to leave?

GrayMouser asked me the same thing, and I told him I don't really know. Maybe they'd be banished. Maybe some other punishment would be implemented. I haven't thought about punishments that much, though I know they'd have to exist.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What about people who are Christians, but really stink at it? Would they have to take remedial classes?

If some Christian is violating laws he or she will be punished. If he or she is being very socially disorderly, there may be a reprimand. It all depends what the offense is. If the person is just not really practicing, but claims to be a Christian, I don't really know how one could make judgments much about the person's commitment to God. Hard to legislate that. But at least false ideologies would not be openly propagated by the person. That's important.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's the punishment for someone openly being non-Christian?

I don't think such a person could live in my country, or at least not as a citizen.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Don't you think it's kind of ironic to force someone to accept Jesus's love?

I don't think anyone can do that. Someone who is being a Christian because he or she has to be is not likely to be a very faithful Christian or a true one. On the other hand, if those people are openly non-Christians, they may take other people away from Christianity too. The truth that that happens has been seen time and again in history.

Aside from that fact, I think that the situation of pretending Christianity's existing for some people is better than the alternative, the granting of equality to all forms of religion and therefore to all forms of morality. Which is license in society for immorality to abound. That alternative is a despicable one, in my eyes. It is a precedent for unjust laws to spread all of the place, as indeed they have, almost all of them justified in the name of freedom of religion.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief

Well, we already have something of a gender split in law right now: the draft. The draft still calls men up to active military duty, but it doesn't call up women yet.

O.K., you're right, regarding the fact that the U.S. does not draft women, but allow me to just POINT THIS OUT, for EVERYONE to READ, if you all would please - yes, maybe I'm digressing from "What country would you make" but whatever I don't care, I am representing for the woman soldiers of this nation.

Please read this you guys, just so you know...


"One more casualty of the war in Iraq brought home to Decatur, Illinois, last weekend. In this case, the soldier's vehicle was hit in Baghdad on June 21st by a rocket-propelled grenade. But this death is one of those that makes this war unique, for it was a woman, 22-year-old Army Specialist Karen Clifton.

She is one of the most recent of more than 80 women who have so far been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a figure nearly double the number of American military women killed in Desert Storm, Vietnam, and Korea, combined. Some 500 have been wounded, many grievously.

American women are serving in the U.S. military today in ways and numbers unthinkable a few decades ago. They are now eligible to fill more than 80 percent of military jobs, 250,000 different assignments, often serving side-by-side with men.

So far, women have served some 167,000 tours of duty in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than four times the number in the first Gulf War. They are not assigned to infantry units, to tanks or submarines, and Pentagon policy officially precludes them from serving in so-called "combat occupations." But in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where no clear frontlines exist, such distinctions are often hard to make.

Women in both theaters today drive Humvees and trucks, escort military convoys, serve as military police, even pilot helicopters and planes on the battlefield, all of it done under the very real -- and constant -- threat of attack. And like men, many women of the U.S. Armed Services have by now served several tours in the war zones. "

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...men_07-05.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

O.K., you're right, regarding the fact that the U.S. does not draft women, but allow me to just POINT THIS OUT, for EVERYONE to READ, if you all would please - yes, maybe I'm digressing from "What country would you make" but whatever I don't care, I am representing for the woman soldiers of this nation.

I think that all of us honor all of the women who serve in our military (or militaries) for what they are doing and have done, and especially those in Iraq for the risks they are taking on behalf of our country.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

?So, BJ, a fifty percent taxation rate is encouraging a moral view or enforcing one?

?How about a 95 - 102% tax rate? Encouraging a moral view or enforcing one?

Taxation has nothing to do with morality. It's simply a method for countries to support necessities for survival that the market doesn't provide.

National defense is a great example. No country would be able to support an effective national defense force without taxation. Vacination is another, something which benefits everyone.

Markets work very well on short and intermediate term needs, but not so well on the very longterm ones. Education falls into this category. If it was purely private, the top 25-30% of children would get great educations, and the lower 25-30 would get almost none at all.

This makes sense from a business point of view. Why invest in poor children from uneducated families that have a very low probability of being major assets later in life? What the markets are missing are the longterm problems that undereducated adults bring: more crime and social issues, more disease, more social unrest.

The goal of public education should not be to make everyone an Einstein, but to keep anyone from being a complete social failure.

As far as taxation to provide for this. It makes little sense to tax those who have no disposable income to begin with, and little sense to tax any group so much that making more money is meaningless. So I'd start at around 1% at whatever income level was deemed adequate for providing for one's familiy without any disposable income and gradually bring it up to around 50%, which still leaves incentive for the ultra rich to get a bit ultra richer.

I'd also spend much much less on defense and corporate subsidies than our current government does.

[brownjenkins]

Here's some interesting info about who really pays taxes in the US.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But there are other places where having gender laws might be a good idea. For instance, the extremely touchy subject of voting. In all the wars in the US that have been fought during which women had the right to vote, substantially more women have voted against the wars than men. And women have been observed in polls over and over again by the Political Science branch throughout many cultures, nations and societies to be less aggressive than men and more opposed to war wherever they happen (according to "Essentials of American Government" by Tim Chevernak, and "International Politics on a World Stage" by Rouskin . . . or Rouskin's name was something like that- I could find it for you if you want it). So there's a case where pulling down a gender related law might not have been within our national security interests. We might have lost some of our resolve to stick out wars because of it. I note that we've lost wars far more frequently in the 20th century than we did in the previous two centuries.

Im confused on a number of levels here…

Are you saying we as citizens often get to go to the polls and vote on if we should go/stay to/in a war or not? Because that doesn’t happen. And it really sounds like that’s what yer saying.

Or are you saying that the officials women tend to elect are more likely to be against conflict then the officials men elect? If so then you are making a false conclusion that it’s the ONLY issue females vote on. Whats much more likely is that they vote on many others and the officials they elect may have a tendency to look more toward mediation of conflict than use of force as an only option. But that’s not a direct cause and effect situation. If you are going to start barring people from voting based on indirect consequence then youll wind up with no one voting because you can make the statistics show you whatever you want. So that reasoning doesn’t work. Better ban blacks and the poor and liberals and people with less then three vehicles etc etc.

OR are you talking about female elected officials and saying they tend to vote against conflict situations? If so then first off its not really true enough to matter (ie: its not like you are talking about 95% of females). And I hardly think that’s a reason to disqualify them from being elected officials just because they vote for peace more often then men? As above youll need to take this logic to all groups and divisions if you insist on justifying it this way. Youll need to ban all vegetarians. They probably vote for peace in much higher numbers then omnivores.

Either way you are basically saying because you don’t think like us we wont allow you to have any say in how things go in your society. You reduce females (and any other group you don’t agree with) to the level of children in effect. This would cause so much more harm then good. And frankly being LESS militant some 5 years ago would have been a better thing for our society in the long run which just shows you that force is not ALWAYS the best choice over peace in every situation. So its good to have a certain segment that is inclined toward reason and mediation mixed in with your war mongers. Like everything in life a balance is best. Even if they do think with their ovaries…