What if you owned your own country...?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Hmm, really? "All of us?" Perhaps all of us, excluding yourself. It is glaringly obvious that you feel very strongly that women are inferior to men in amost every aspect - except "nurturing," and you go so far as to assert that women be denied the right of the vote. This snarky little response of yours to my post about women in the military just reeks of hypocrisy and tongue-in-cheek patronisation. God help us all if the bulk of his followers are anything at all like yourself in mind and spirit, Lief.

At present, as far as I know I'm one of a kind.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

If there be a God, I hope he or she delivers us all from spiritual and social would-be terrorists such as you demonstrate yourself to be. I beg you to take a clear, hard, straight, honest look at the things you believe and wish to force upon the rest of the world whether they like, believe, need or want it themselves.

I'm not trying to use force of arms to push these ideas into government. If they were established in law, though, I think they should be enforced. Just to clarify that.

I have been looking very hard at these things I'm now talking about, and I hope I'm looking at them in a clear, straight and honest way. I know you believe I'm not, and I thank you for your warning.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The God and Jesus I grew up knowing and studying is not a god of hate and intolerance and bigotry and judgement and hypocrisy. Can you even see this? Can you see? Jesus, the Jesus you believe in and hope to emulate, would be ashamed and horrified and deeply saddened by one of his followers being so destructively and shamefully waylaid in mind and spirit.

I don't know what to say to this.

[hectorberlioz]

Lief, it's the old "Jesus was a hippie" card.

[Mari]

Perhaps we should merge this thread with the "Gender issues" thread. It's starting to get the same
Interesting though that there are hardly any completely new kind of governments people want to establish, but mostly based on an allready existing example. (I didn't read everything, so I'm sorry if this comment is not correct anymore )
I wonder in this owning your own country situation: would you promote cooking yourself or going out for dinner and would work be mostly full-time or part-time?
How about health and work? Would there be laws to force companies to make sure their employees are healthy?

Which brings me to think about how far the companies should influence the private lives of their employees, but that's a different thing.

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Mari

Perhaps we should merge this thread with the "Gender issues" thread. It's starting to get the same
Interesting though that there are hardly any completely new kind of governments people want to establish, but mostly based on an allready existing example. (I didn't read everything, so I'm sorry if this comment is not correct anymore )
I wonder in this owning your own country situation: would you promote cooking yourself or going out for dinner and would work be mostly full-time or part-time?
How about health and work? Would there be laws to force companies to make sure their employees are healthy?

Which brings me to think about how far the companies should influence the private lives of their employees, but that's a different thing.

I predict that you're destined to be a moderator.

Mine is original, isn't it? I went to extensive lengths to ensure that it was.

Those are interesting questions. I'd like to answer for my country later.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

I predict that you're destined to be a moderator.

That would be fine by me . Mari would make a great Entmoot moderator.

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That would be fine by me . Mari would make a great Entmoot moderator.

I think so too.

[hectorberlioz]

Uh oh...a new cause for me This could be the one I win...

Mari for Moderator!!! (why didn't I think of it before?)

[Nurvingiel]

The only really unique thing about my country is the voting age (of 12). Mari, I agree that it's interesting that most countries are quite similar.

You're right though Mari, mine and Lief's debate certainly could move to Gender Issues.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yeah, but there is a whole lot of liberalism there and adherence to the kinds of immoral principles I listed in my previous post that would have definitely been cracked down upon under a Christian government. Much of the practice of Christianity today isn't really sincere and does cater a lot to modern political correctness and immorality. People in our public schools, and I think that goes for Canada too, are becoming more and more liberalized as time goes on. Many have become relativists.

What is a relativist, and why is it bad?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Their existence in my realm would likely influence some of my people to convert to them. Though Judaism historically hasn't presented this kind of problem, for the Jews generally don't try to convert anyone.

Why not allow Judaism then? (Though I suppose there's no room for the idea that Jesus was not the Son of God in Liefland eh?) But still, they aren't going to try to convert the Christians, so where's the harm in allowing them? I'm sure your citizens are intelligent enough not to join any random religion that they hear about - just by having Jews around you won't be losing members of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that there would be a religious basis for law, but that does not mean that the laws would be the same. So although you're right that there is a valid comparison in that we'd both use a religious text as a basis for law, those laws wouldn't come out the same, so saying that this would be a Christian Iran is not accurate. That kind of label presumes that the same laws are in place, but everybody is just Christian instead of Muslim. Contrary to Unitarian belief, all religions aren't the same.

I don't think all religions are the same either.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

<snip>

My country would be willing to attack and conquer other countries if the circumstances required it. For instance, we would have fought Hitler in WW2 and we would have engaged in the Cold War against Russia. That is not the same as an Islamic jihadi who wants to impose his own religious world order upon everyone else through the means of military conquest and terrorism.

Many Muslims feel that the West is attacking them, and are acting to defend themselves, even some who commit terrorists acts. That doesn't mean terrorist acts are right, but how is their feeling different from yours?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No. We would not use torture. And it would not, I think, be necessary. A lot of the abuses of the Inquisition were completely pointless and counterproductive anyway. They made people confess under torture or threat of torture and they even got some witnesses to accuse people through the use of torture. The Inquisition was also used as a political instrument for people in the secular government to attack their opponents with. Charge someone with being a heretic and the Inquisition may crack down on them horribly, eliminating a personal enemy for you. Judges who worked in the Inquisition also knew that confessions extracted under torture were virtually worthless and so did not give them much credit. So there wasn't even any point in sending those people through those horrific abuses from a judicial perspective, though it was often done anyway. It was a sloppy, sloppy, horrible and wicked business.

I agree, with emphasis on "horrible" and "wicked".

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The first Inquisition also only emerged in the 13th century AD. That means for about 900 years before that, Christians managed to maintain ideological purity without an Inquisition. So I don't see that as necessary or helpful- or at least not an Inquisition that uses torture. The Inquisition didn't even originally use torture. I don't think it used it for the first 20 years of its existence, but it rather functioned as a judicial system that was generally more lenient than the secular court.

Fair point about the Inquisition, but how can you be sure pre-900AD Christians were ideologically pure? How can you be sure anyone is ever ideologically pure?


Slavery

It was once acceptable, but is it acceptable now? I say absolutely not, no matter what.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Not necessarily. It wasn't throughout most of the Medieval Ages. It existed for a while as a carry-over from Roman times but petered out and then ascended again in later centuries. In one of the Epistles, the Bible says, "there is neither slave nor free, but all are one in Christ Jesus." So that scripture eliminates any natural right people might see to having slaves. It says masters are no higher than slaves. There might be economical situations where slavery is preferrable to freedom, though. Sometimes people were enslaved in times of war. Free, the people would be enemies. Slaves, they would no longer be launching raids and would be able to earn their keep rather than absorbing aid in prison. I've not thought much about the morality of that kind of situation, though I can't offhand think of any better alternatives as to what those people could be done with.

AFAIK the first country to outlaw slavery was England in 1102 [link]. Slavery was revived during the Rennaisance and was practiced until the 19th century. Slavery still exists in the world today, mostly in Africa.

Are you saying that in certain circumstances in your country, you'd allow slavery? That would be... unique.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There also was temporary enslavement where someone would enslave himself to someone else for a while to pay a debt.

That still happens in India. (Though usually the person is not choosing to be made a slave.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There also were cases where it would not be economically possible for an employer to take on somebody else as an employee, so the only way he could afford to take care of the person would be if the person working without pay. So both people might desire for the one to be slave to the other.

Are you implying that this is acceptable?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There are a number of complex situations involving slavery. I suspect that in some cases, it's wrong and in some cases it's right. So the fact that there isn't any outright condemnation of slavery in the Bible makes sense. Though Paul does condemn "kidnappers of men," which applies to slavemasters who do what the Portuguese did and steal Africans from their native homes to serve as slaves.

Are you saying slavery is okay sometimes? (Historically and/or now?)


The rest of this post can be found in Gender Issues.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What is a relativist, and why is it bad?

Relativists tend to hold to the belief that all religions are equally valid, that absolute truth either doesn't exist or can't be known, and that all belief systems are equal since no one can know the truth. Things like that. It allows an enormous variety of behavior to all be acceptable. Right and wrong are wholly dependent on perspective and have no absolute meaning that is independent of humans. Therefore people can make up their own ideas of right and wrong. That inevitably results in a lot of behavior that I see as wrong and a lot of looseness about moral principle, since anyone can make for themselves whatever principles they wish and those principles have no absolute value independent of our limited, temporary and entirely fallible (and equal) human judgment.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why not allow Judaism then? (Though I suppose there's no room for the idea that Jesus was not the Son of God in Liefland eh?) But still, they aren't going to try to convert the Christians, so where's the harm in allowing them? I'm sure your citizens are intelligent enough not to join any random religion that they hear about - just by having Jews around you won't be losing members of Christianity.

Yes, I think we probably would allow Judaism.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Many Muslims feel that the West is attacking them, and are acting to defend themselves, even some who commit terrorists acts. That doesn't mean terrorist acts are right, but how is their feeling different from yours?

Self-defense is understandable. Revolution to depose an oppressive regime is understandable. However, what I see as a huge difference between what I would attempt and what they are trying to do is that I would not try to force my vision into law. I might use legal means, or I might try evangelism, or conversations with people. Peaceful means, turning the other cheek and such. I would not try to violently overthrow people in order to force them to accept my view. Their use of violence to spread their vision of a godly state is not acceptable to me. To use violence to enforce laws that have been established in the state and which you believe to be right is understandable, but to use violence to force those laws into the state in spite of the wish of the other people or of the legal government is not something I see as valid.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Fair point about the Inquisition, but how can you be sure pre-900AD Christians were ideologically pure? How can you be sure anyone is ever ideologically pure?

Actually the date the Catholic Inquisition started to be used was in the 13th century, so they were able to maintain ideological purity without it for about a thousand two hundred years or so. I just wasn't counting the time period before they gained political power in my reckoning. I calculate a lot from the time of Constantine the First. That's not a big deal.

Anyway, the Catholic Church set out its beliefs and published them. There are records of their stated beliefs, so it can be seen how things have changed over time and how they have not changed. When the popes made decrees, those were recorded. Basically there were a lot of records and there is a good deal of history available on how they acted. We also have the scriptures and many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Catholic teachings are based upon those writings, those of tradition, the Bible and the decrees of the Church councils, if I'm not mistaken. Gwaimir would know more about this than I do. But one can see from the statements, records and decrees they've made in the past whether or not there have been significant changes.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Slavery

It was once acceptable, but is it acceptable now? I say absolutely not, no matter what.

AFAIK the first country to outlaw slavery was England in 1102 [link].

*Examines it and then goes and researches for a bit.*

Hm. Looks like you're right.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Slavery was revived during the Rennaisance and was practiced until the 19th century. Slavery still exists in the world today, mostly in Africa.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Are you saying that in certain circumstances in your country, you'd allow slavery? That would be... unique.

I don't think I'd have it allowed in my country at all. Modern technology and economic strength make it unnecessary. I don't see it as always, regardless of the circumstances, completely immoral, but for the above reasons I wouldn't have it allowed in my country. And I would reject some forms of slavery because I see them as immoral.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Are you implying that this is acceptable?

Yes. The one person might want to avoid starving and the other person might be unable to afford feeding him if he doesn't earn his keep by working without pay. So in that circumstance, certainly slavery could be acceptable. Economic conditions in past centuries or millenia (depending on where you were located) were much harder than they are now.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Are you saying slavery is okay sometimes? (Historically and/or now?)

Historically, yes. In some Third World countries today, maybe. Not in countries that can afford other, better systems, though. For instance, we can afford to take people prisoner and hold them in cells. People in the past may not have had the food resources to keep feeding them in prison all the time, though, and might have needed to have them work to earn their keep. Simultaneously, they could not release such people because they may have been criminals or prisoners of war. So in those situations, slavery seems logical and I don't see an alternative. Economic conditions and technology make this no longer necessary, though.

Also, this is not an excuse to kidnap people and make them work for your own economic profit. That is disgusting. Prisoners of war is one thing, as is a situation where someone is unable to pay a debt if there is not an economic situation in the country that can cope with it in a better way.

There are many forms of slavery and reasons for slavery. Some are bad while others are acceptable, in my view.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We might allow Judaism .

Really, and why? Because HOBBIT voiced concern about you excluding his religion from yyour terrrifying utopia? So, now you wanna sound diplomatic, since this is, after all, his board? Well, good on ya, mate, but if you do allow Judaism, why ot Islam as well, seeing as all three religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam stem from the same original God-idea? Why not Islam, as wel, if Judaism is now a religion "we might allow?" Curious to know. Neither Jews nor Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, the same God all 3 religions believe in, but they both (Jews & Muslims) do accede that Jesus was a prophet inspired by God. So, why only cjhristianity in your country, Lief, why not all religions stemming from the same biblical God from whence the big three come?

And by the way, Lief, do you do anything at all besides post essay-lenght posts here in a minimum of 2 threads DAILY which I assume must take you at least a good forty-five minutes a piece to compose - don't you have a social life? School? A job? I'm just wondering, 'cause my god but you go on and on and on in these threads at ALL hours of the day and night, no matter the time, and at such great and careful length... How come you refuse to post a picture of yourself in the Entmoot Photo-album? You were accusing Sistercousin&aunt of being "someone else," etcetera, and accusing her of all kinds of creepy subversive stuff, yet you yourself after a good three years here have not once ever conceded to telling your own true first name or showing anyone any kind of photograph of yourself, at all.

But the main thing I am calling you out on right now is how suddenly you are saying that in your ScaryLiefLand now all of a sudden Judaism might be allowed, whereas before it was strictly verboten, and I am wondering why your litttle change of heart now, and if this is the case, why not allow ALL religions stemming from or influenced by the bible, which by the way contains text that many religions adhere to and follow?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Really, and why? Because HOBBIT voiced concern about you excluding his religion from yyour terrrifying utopia? So, now you wanna sound diplomatic, since this is, after all, his board? Well, good on ya, mate, but if you do allow Judaism, why ot Islam as well, seeing as all three religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam stem from the same original God-idea? Why not Islam, as wel, if Judaism is now a religion "we might allow?" Curious to know. Neither Jews nor Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, the same God all 3 religions believe in, but they both (Jews & Muslims) do accede that Jesus was a prophet inspired by God. So, why only cjhristianity in your country, Lief, why not all religions stemming from the same biblical God from whence the big three come?

HOBBIT never threatened me, and I'm not adjusting position as a result of pressure. What I told Nurvi on this was the truth, that Judaism has never focused on gaining converts, so it wouldn't likely be a threat to the religious stability of my nation.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

And by the way, Lief, do you do anything at all besides post essay-lenght posts here in a minimum of 2 threads DAILY which I assume must take you at least a good forty-five minutes a piece to compose - don't you have a social life? School? A job? I'm just wondering, 'cause my god but you go on and on and on in these threads at ALL hours of the day and night, no matter the time, and at such great and careful length...

I do spend many, many hours here. Often many hours a day. Right now, I'm enjoying what may very possibly be a one-of-a-kind summer with no job or school, and with a very large amount of free time. When I'm involved in a debate, Entmoot becomes an obsession for me. It becomes impossible to tear myself away from a debate or to pass the computer without checking if I have a response. When I'm not in a debate, the obsession goes away. I wish I wasn't so obsessed.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

How come you refuse to post a picture of yourself in the Entmoot Photo-album? You were accusing Sistercousin&aunt of being "someone else," etcetera, and accusing her of all kinds of creepy subversive stuff, yet you yourself after a good three years here have not once ever conceded to telling your own true first name or showing anyone any kind of photograph of yourself, at all.

I was accusing sisterandcousinandaunt of lying about his identity, and I remain convinced that he is. I presented a number of evidences from his posts that indicated that to me. I feel sure he's not trying anything creepy or subversive, though. That's not my perspective on it. I find it very annoying but not subversive.

A small handful of people here know my name. I sign my name in PMs to a few people. I haven't released a picture of myself on this website because I don't know how to use our scanner. There's another reason, too, why I'm not posting a picture, and if you like I'll tell you it over PM.

[OldHippie]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

. There's another reason, too, why I'm not posting a picture, and if you like I'll tell you it over PM.

Wait, I know, Your really Jimmy Hoffa?????????

[Lief Erikson]

What? Who's he?

*Looks him up.*

Oh. Interesting . . . uh, no, that's not me . Lol.

[OldHippie]

I guess thats alot funnier if your over at least 40.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes. The one person might want to avoid starving and the other person might be unable to afford feeding him if he doesn't earn his keep by working without pay. So in that circumstance, certainly slavery could be acceptable. Economic conditions in past centuries or millenia (depending on where you were located) were much harder than they are now.

Historically, yes. In some Third World countries today, maybe. Not in countries that can afford other, better systems, though. For instance, we can afford to take people prisoner and hold them in cells. People in the past may not have had the food resources to keep feeding them in prison all the time, though, and might have needed to have them work to earn their keep. Simultaneously, they could not release such people because they may have been criminals or prisoners of war. So in those situations, slavery seems logical and I don't see an alternative. Economic conditions and technology make this no longer necessary, though.

This sounds more a payment in natura than as slavery. Actually when I have to do my internship, I get "paid" in a roof over my head and meals three times a day and "education in real business life" (whatever ), but I don't get any money and this situation for interns can be found in all kind of fields (mine being Hospitality Management --> in a hotel)
I know it's different in Switzerland though, so I guess it might also be different in America.
Slavery had indeed a very bad sound and almost everyone immediately thinks about people kidnapped from Africa and taken to work elsewhere while treated badly and inhumane, but as Lief and Nurvingiel have pointed out there are more things that can be seen as slavery. How about children slaving on shoes for a few cents while those same shoes are sold here for say 100 dollar?
There was some big news here in the Netherlands about there being slaves in China. China said they would try to take care of it before the Olympics. In India next to nothing is being done to the slavery practices.
Oh, but I'm getting a bit off topic.
Anyway, considering the things said by Lief and Nurvingiel and my own experiences, I would allow payment in natura under certain conditions (the offered roof can't leak for example and the three meals a day have to be edible and there should be something more given like my education in business/ valuable experience)
To answer my own questions posted earlier,
I would have a dual system which allows for both full and part-time work, for as far as possible. I would try to make high-pressure jobs part-time, or at least less high-pressured. Companies interfering in employees private lives is not my ideal, but it certainly has its advantages and therefore I would make some basic laws forcing companies to have varied food in the cafeterias (not banishing junkfood entirely, but just making sure there are things besides junkfood ) and regarding sick and maternityleave etc.
By making your employees go to the company gym at least once a week for an hour or have health check-ups or house visitation would work for some people to keep clean and healthy. Especially in a company with different cultural identities it might work to reduce the amount of differences (not saying cultural differences are bad!) and thereby establishing a more cooperative environment.
It is a creepy thought though that you'd have to adhere to what your company thinks is best for you.
Also I would promote cooking at home, but would also try to ensure that the dinerplaces had mostly healthy food and not just junkfood (No MacDonald around every corner I now live in walking distance of 3 MacDonalds, 1 KFC and at least 10 other junkfood-selling-establishments excluding the non-pizza and french fries selling junkfood places)

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by OldHippie

Wait, I know, Your really Jimmy Hoffa?????????

Hhahahaha!!! No, he's Elvis!

[Ingwe]

Capitol City: Tol Ingwë.
Population: Elves, particularly Vanyar, by this time the population is 120 million.

1 - What would you make the legal drinking age? Any age, we don't get drunk that fast.
2 - Driving age? 16 (we're (usually) smart enough then
3 - Age of sexual consent? 18
4 - Voting age? 18
5 - At what age would someone become an adult (free from parental control)? 18

6 - What types of recreational drugs (if any) would be legal?
- Pot
- Tobacco
- Cocaine
- Alcohol Sure!
- LSD
- Caffeine Why not!
- Heroin
- Other? Pipe Weed

7 - Can people have guns? (if so - who and what kind?) NO...unless it's issued by a military order, or if we're under attack. Well that won't happen, Aman is lifted from the misery of Morgoth. By the way, how's old Morgy doing anyways?

8 - What would be the name of your country? The Undying Republic of Ingwë, led by The Golden Council

9 - Would you have the death penalty? If it's bad enough, yeah. If you're a true threat to society, like an orc, troll, Ungoliant, or evil wizard, we'll try to imprison you first, and if that doesn't work, we'll break your staff or yes, unfortunately, we may authorize the death penalty. It would not involve torture, unless you're a troll or orc or something that came from Utumno or Angband and you're holding information that we need to know.

10 - What would be the speed limit? 161 kph (100 miles per hour).

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted?

The you're either with Eru Ilúvatar and the Valar or you're not, aka Valartani.
You're allowed to believe in anything, as long as you respect the authority of the Golden Council.

Which of the following would be legal:
12 - Porn? The Noldor and Teleri like this one and they'll be allowed in the city so we'll legalize this.
13 - Prostitution? NO.
14 - Polygamy? NO.
15 - Homosexuality? If it's monogamous. It's not my thing personally but it'll be legal.
16 - Stem cell research? Hmmm...let me think on that one. Well it's not necessary here so it's neither legal nor illegal.
17 - Human Cloning? Humans? Okay, we'll allow some of them here. Afterall they helped out the Noldor. I think we should give them a chance to come here. But no, no human cloning here. We'll already be up to 240 million population by now.
18 - Cock Fighting? Wow, brutal. Nope. Won't allow it.
19 - Slavery? Hmm...nope. Is that how one treats the Children of Eru? Now a troll or orc, yeah.
20 - Hunting? Yep.
21 - Fishing? Yep.
22 - Eating meat? Yep.
23 - Littering? NO.
24 - Unisex bathrooms? Eh, neither legal nor illegal. We'll see about that one. I won't care either way.
25 - Suicide? Well that's neither legal nor illegal, but I would STRONGLY advise against it.
26 - Gay marriage? If that's what's you're into, it's not illegal here.
27 - Abortion? Nope.

28 - What types of sexual activity (if any) would be illegal?
Cheating on your lover, prostitution, anything generally considered to be extremely insane or extremely dangerous.
29 - Would your county be clothing optional or clothing mandatory?
Mandatory.
30 - Would you have obscenity laws? If so - how would you define "obscene".
Keep swearing to a minimum. It's irrelevant and is a very inefficient style of speech. Words by themselves hold no harm. If the Humans come here, don't welcome them by telling them they're short-lived, or generally short to begin with. It's not illegal, but racism, sexism, etc, is still something that will be met with a warning in most cases. If it's a joke and it's not meant to be offensive, don't declare war. A warning is the best thing to give.

31 - What system would you set up for collecting taxes?
- Income tax? (how much?)
- Sales tax? (how much?)
- Import/Export tax? (how much?)
It's Aman, no taxes. Our economy is fishing, hunting, and exchange of technology and information. Kinda like Star Trek, except without the ships and not in space.

32 - What criteria would someone need to pass to become a citizen?
Not an orc.
Not a half-troll.
Not a spider.
Not a traitor.
Not Morgoth, Sauron, or a Balrog, dragon, or evil wizard.
You should be an Elf, but humans are allowed as long as you were faithful in life and came back to the Halls of Mandos in return for doing something awesome.
Not a wraith or Nazgul, not a fell beast or of Ulfang's line. Not an Easterling or Southron, unless you were a good guy (we'll know the difference).
Must not have an evil laugh when we present you with the "how many Balrogs does it take to subdue Ungoliant" joke.
The rules can be interpreted beyond their written version. I like that rule. In fact that applies to everything from now on.

33 - What types of people would you allow (or not allow) into your country?
We don't discriminate. If you were Avari or Nandor and you were unwilling to come here by the Second Summoning, you will simply have to pass the citizenship exam. If you answer the first question right, you're exempt from all other questions.
Question: What is the name of the country you are attempting to gain citizenship for?
Answer: The Undying Republic of Ingwë.
If you answer "Utumno" or "Angband" you will automatically be driven into the void with your buddy Morgoth.

34 - What type of government would you establish?
Pretty much Paradise. That's how we think of it here.

35 - To what degree would your government be allowed to censor or restrict the media?
Let them say what they want. If the people are happy, that's all that matters. The power is in the people, not the leaders and certainly not the media. Happiness is what you came here for, after going through hellfire in the mortal lands (see Middle Earth for more information).

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.
Hopefully you learned some manners. If not, we'll put you through courses to improve your manners. When myself, Galadriel, Celeborn, or Cirdan, or the last of the originals, are present, make it look like you know your manners.

[Lief Erikson]

That's a fun country . I particularly like this part:

Originally Posted by Ingwe

9 - Would you have the death penalty? If it's bad enough, yeah. If you're a true threat to society, like an orc, troll, Ungoliant, or evil wizard, we'll try to imprison you first, and if that doesn't work, we'll break your staff or yes, unfortunately, we may authorize the death penalty. It would not involve torture, unless you're a troll or orc or something that came from Utumno or Angband and you're holding information that we need to know.

Disagree about the torture bit, but this is very amusing .

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hhahahaha!!! No, he's Elvis!

Darn! I guess I was too obvious in my posts in this thread . . . now he's guessed it . . .

[Mari]

Ingwe, I like your country.
But how come the population is growing so fast?
And how in the world are you going to put them all on a Cuba-sized island?

By the way Elvis, or should I say Lief: aren't you supposed to be dead?

[Ingwe]

Originally Posted by Mari

Ingwe, I like your country.
But how come the population is growing so fast?
And how in the world are you going to put them all on a Cuba-sized island?

Very tall buildings. Built sort of like Tirion or Gondolin, except more modern.