..really

most of that wont work. making the constitution the overruling document is stupid as all people need to do is amend it to change laws.

Also, without any gun control, there would be a spike in offences where a gun is the weapon, a very steep decline in tourism as noone will want to visit a nation where you can buy a gun at any store no questions asked. not to mention the black market would swarm there to buy weapons there, after all, there is no gun control so why would it be illegal to move guns out of the country. making gambling illegal would bankrupt the state of nevada in weeks and lead to the rise of many illegal casinoes (remember, illegal casinoes form because of a lack of legal gambling, not the presence of it.).

Also, what drugs would be legal, all of them. If that was true, then the U.S. would replace Columbia as a haven for arms and drug smugglers ad it would be legal to do all those things.

Yup. I can't pretend I know how to fix it, but something needs to be done about the current state of parties 'sticking together' even when that means that half of the people in them are unhappy with what's going on. Governments should be constantly challenged.


Indeed. I'd generally want a consensus that anyone can do whatever the hell they want with their lives as long as they're not harming anyone else.


Yes yes yes.


I'd prefer none, but we don't live in a perfect world, so this makes a touch more sense.


What's GST?

I think the fact that wages seem to rise almost exponentially but with no relation necessarily to the effort or skill of the person receiving them really needs to be sorted out. There is absolutely no way that any sports star (even Thierry Henry!) deserves to earn £50,000 a week. Nobody is that talented. All the legal tax breaks that the rich can take advantage of sicken me. I would like no income tax until atleast £20,000 a year, then a system of a flat tax of all your earnings up to a certain amount, and anything above that taxed more, then more etc.


Agree with those bits. I'd like more of an emphasis on exploring the relevance of subjects at secondary/high school. My science classes nearly killed all my interest in the area. A 15 year old really doen't need to know how to use a bunsen burner unless they're going to do a science degree, but there are a multitude of fascinating, accessible things that can be taught at that level which will allow teenagers to decide what they want to do with their lives. The current thing over here of trying to get everyone into university is absolutely ridiculous. Not every job requires a degree and £15,000 of debt. Everyone should have the opportunity to stay in education, but that doesn't mean everyone should.

I was going to go into the differentiation and integration thing, but it's nearly 3am and I can't think. Wikipedia has a good explanation.

Come on people. Ninja's!

The perfect government would be one ruled by
thus eliminating the need for taxes, samurai, social security, and Corporate Scandal, because everyone would be dead.

I think citizens, not government, should be able to choose and follow their own sexual orientation. But, how would you resolve the issue of homosexuality?

I mean, if AIDS hasn't solved it, what will?



Yeah, I can't believe that guy lost $50 at a casino. He should have been buying cocaine instead.

Huh. I'm surprised to discover that of all the governments proposed here, I like Pagewizard's the best. Government -- any sort of government -- works best on a small scale. Socialism, for instance, works very well on the small kibbutz scale of things, or at least without the rampant corruption that is inevitable on the larger scale. Not that I'm in favour of socialism, mind you. I enjoy my autonomy.

I think the majority of government should be decided on the municipal level, with only a few overarching rules on the federal level (like, say, the Constitution?). It takes a very powerful government to rule over a large amount of people, and power breeds corruption.

So in summation: decentralisation where at all possible. Centralised government only where necessary.

Page's governemnt sounds simialr the the original Articles of Confederation, which didn't really work.

Australia.



Agreed. I'm hoping they're sarcastic...



Do we have a "eyes and mouth agape" smily here? Because, *eyes and mouth agape*



Goods and Services Tax. IE, you pay an extra 10% on stuff you buy in stores. Since rich people do not buy appreciably more than poor people (at least taking into consideration the difference in the wealth they generate) this unfairly hits the poor and gives the rich a free ride.

Thank God, I thought I was the only one who thought those were terrible.

Alpha1: Referring to your post against Obi_Kwiet: STFU. This is a thread about ideals, it doesn't have to fit what you say. And writing off his entire post as "ignorant stuff" is extremely rude.


Folks, I don't think we should pick apart what other people say they want for their country, except for the intelligence test people's ideas.

FTR, I like Matthew's best. I kind of like states though.

Sterilization isn't the answer, but something has to be done to limit the population.. 100 years ago, the population of the world was 1 billion people. If that trend continues, we'll likely live to see it tripled to 18 billion. I like the Chinese legislation regarding children, aside from the unfortunate circumstances that can bring (such as treating the girls like crap).

There isn't really anything we can do about overpopulation. Maybe allowing abortion so at least unwanted babies aren't born.

Overpopulation is what happens when living conditions improve as much as they have. Who would be stupid enough to advocate not saving sick people?

There are a couple things we can do to limit overpopulation. First, discourage child-rearing in densely-packed areas like China and India. This has already been done through legislation. Next, create incentives for people to inhabit areas of lesser density.

Also, a point: The world can't support the people it has now, at least comfortably. Useless factoid: If you were to comepletely equalize all wealth in the world, every person would only have a salary of 11,000 USD. That number only continues to shrink.

quoted for truth. no booze to age 25 is insane, its bad enough to have to wait to 21 here before you can legally get wasted. The rest of the world has it at age 18 or lower.

and banning porn.... geez....

.. wait, who's government is that? I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but is this Obi we're talking about? Wouldn't surprise me. Hey Obi, there's a reason prohibition didn't work. Banning porn would have the same effect. Why are you trying to create an oppressive police-state?

Holy moses, I just saw the whole list. What the #%@(@#$ man. Just wtf. That's insane. Just insane.

Because he doesn't trust himself to do the right thing, I guess...

I'm afraid I'm not as well-versed on early American history as I could be (being a Canadian and all), at least not the part you're referring to -- what happened with the original Articles of Confederation? I only have a vague idea of the details involved -- why did they not really work, as you say?

I've always liked the earlier versions of America, back when it was more a union of distinct states than a single entity divided into sections. Closest thing I've been able to find to my ideal Shire-style government, which I'll admit wouldn't really work as well with humans as it did with hobbits.

It wasn't Obi. It was jesseg88.
Holy ****. Jesseg88, just out of curiosity, why do you have an 88 in your name?

The newly won independence of the colonies still had resentment for what England did to them. Afraid of establishing a governement like that, they drafted the Articles of Confederation. Turns out that didn't work so well. Colonial money was worthless. It wasn't until Shay's Rebellion did the Colonists realize "hey, these Articles suck. Back to the drawing board" And so they toiled and toiled until they brought up the Constitution. Of course some states felt it did not clearly state roles of government. So the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. And finally all the states jumped on the Constitution bandwagon and thus the United States.

yes, but what obi is suggesting is making a government that is a place that will just support a number of illegal industries as he has been far too vague. it will give a number of people the opertunity to illegaly smuggle weapons and they can claim immunity if they are caught selling to foriegners as it would be legal where they are.

Evolution maybe? hehe, shoot the dumb people then we can improve the species

Its only around 3/4 of Earth's populus that need to be 'purged'....

Absolutely. Nobody should be allowed to have power over 300 million people, the sorts of government decisions that actually affect your everyday life should be made by somebody who is actually capable of thinking about everybody involved.

Yep, that's the one!

(In that panel to the left :))

Just struck me as funny: We shouldn't disagree with anyone, apart from this person I disagree with. :p

But aside, the thing that struck me as funny was 'no booze till 24 - but allowing children to have guns with parental consent'.

I'm fairly happy with what we've got in Britland, apart from our extorsionately expensive yet crappy public transport. Guns for the police and forces, education needs a good kick in the arse, but generally does ok.

Oh, and there should be chips and gravy/curry in the South. You don't know what you're missing,

I still say just take the warning labels off everything.

Krig: Expanding on the flaw of the Articles of Confederation. The AoC gave most power to the states, with almost none to the federal government. The federal government couldn't tax, raise an army(at least effectively), coin money, regulate justice or commerce, etc etc. The only way the federal government could raise funds was to be donated money by the states. Every state had only one representative in the government(which alienated the large population states) and in order to amend the AoC, there had to be a unanimous vote(which has never happened in even Constitutional America, to my knowledge). Almost everything was left to the states and this proved problematic what with 13 different kinds of currency, trade disputes and the threat of states seperately allying themselves with Europeon powers. "The United States of America" was quickly splintering and were likely to become seperate countries.

Seems to me that the "splintering off to become separate countries" is exactly what some states want..

You should play crimson skies.

Want and Need don't always coincide. Yes, the states wanted their autonomy. But they knew if they were completely independent from each other, they would be severly weakened and European powers would retake them over through political, commerical, or military means. So, in order to create a strong nation with individual state autonomy, the founding fathers adopted the idea of a federalist system.

I know, I kind of realized that. I tried to reword it, but couldn't, so I just figured: screw it.
Actually, I guess we can disagree with each other, but don't write posts off as ignorant.

You still have to graduate from high school to have a gun with or without parental consent.

So children can't own guns.