The optimal way to rule a country

adolf512

Re: The optimal way to rule a country

Post by adolf512 » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:16 am

My goals is
-the system should be easy to understand for ordinary people.
-the system should have low probability go fail.
-the best of our population should have the power

I do not currently have a suggestion that meet my goals, here is some of my ideas:

suggestion0 http://docdro.id/f3Q57Nv
suggestion1 http://docdro.id/AB7Mafk
suggestion2 http://docdro.id/5k0Zd2s
suggestion3 http://docdro.id/5muKGZM
suggestion4 http://docdro.id/i045K3a
suggestion5 http://docdro.id/QZNI58p
suggestion6 http://docdro.id/gYI5Xn2
suggestion7 http://docdro.id/57suIi4

suggestion3 should be more stable and hence less dangerous for the individuals that is ruled, it unfortunately comes with the prize of less flexibility which is a bad thing. Suggestion0 is a later idea i got where all the official power of all A-citizens is the same(it is still likely to result in leaders emerging), the danger with a single tier system is that simple majority will be enough to do almost anything and it will be impossible to stop it or appeal.

I recently saw this about Justice Scalia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7sN2jqpNs where he stated that you should judge according to the constitution/laws and not according to what is desirable, i of course does not agree with that.

Only because someone wrote something down hundreds of ears ago(constitution/bible) doesn't mean it is correct, i do understand why a lot of Americans like their constitution(free speech and the right to bear arms) but the system it self is flawed.

In USA the supreme court judges is appointed by the president will sit on his spot for the rest of his life, this system has only bought the Americans time but the supreme court eventually became filled with traitors/nonwhites.

Martin Graves

Re: The optimal way to rule a country

Post by Martin Graves » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:14 pm

adolf512 wrote:I am writing a paper now(why democracy sucks).

Swedish http://docdro.id/Uq6GY9X
English http://docdro.id/NmtQUqu
Re: citizen classes:

Those 100 people who have A0/A1 citizenship would be above the law, and that is undesirable (at least to me). The sheer amount of corruption and temptation at that level would be too overwhelming for all but the most wholesome man.

Also, your "D" class of citizen is just asking for trouble. With segregation, you'll eventually get miscegenation.

That said, it's a very interesting paper. You certainly have a creative mind!

adolf512

Re: The optimal way to rule a country

Post by adolf512 » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:07 pm

Martin Graves wrote: Those 100 people who have A0/A1 citizenship would be above the law, and that is undesirable (at least to me). The sheer amount of corruption and temptation at that level would be too overwhelming for all but the most wholesome man.

Also, your "D" class of citizen is just asking for trouble. With segregation, you'll eventually get miscegenation.
I did change the paper to only have class D for non-citizens allowed within the borders, the non-citizens can also be white.

The advantage of allowing non-whites within the borders is
-it may provide economic benefits
-the people to race-mix tend to be the worst among the population, hence allowing racial foreigners is a good way to weed out the worst elements among the population.
-the stupid masses is more likely to support a weaker policy on race.

The disadvantage of allowing non-whites within the borders is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmJLh3QCNgM

About being above the law
leaders always tends to be above the law, it is simply hard to avoid. With my proposed system a corrupt individual can always be replaced. With my system a senator can always request a change of government such as replacing a bad senator or downgrade citizenships, unless the entire senate gets corrupted bad senators can be replaced.

I actually increase the legal protection for the elite(A and B citizens), i believe limiting the power of the government is more important and i actually like the idea of anarchy.

adolf512

Re: The optimal way to rule a country

Post by adolf512 » Tue May 10, 2016 6:32 am

Some maths
If the probability of a senator ending up as corrupt is 30% the risk of the entire senate ending up as corrupt will be 1 in 70 million, the risk of a corrupt majority will be 5%.

An unsolved problem
I am very unsure how to best organize the police and how to implement the law best. I guess the best is to look at history and look how different forms of government has worked. We can have everything from a totalitarian police state to a libertarian state where the citizens alone is responsible for their security, my belief is that a compromise is the best here. You should be allowed to defend yourself but you should also be able to rely on the state for protection.

I am now trying to read http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince.pdf is there any other books you(anyone) would recommend?

adolf512

Legislation

Post by adolf512 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:02 pm

The idea behind the system in the us is to make legislation difficult in order to limit the power of the government well that did not really work out, the power of the central government is also limited by the constitution and that did not work either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMnwAvn8H4M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXbD7f5xmU

I prefer a system where it is easy to change laws, especially local laws. Jury nullification and if a much more effective way to limit the power of the government.

There is no need for a central legislative parliament, it is enough to have local parliaments, they can agree on federal rules(if you have some form of democrazy/republic). I think it is best to have one local parliament for each state and let citizens of class C0(or higher) vote.

The us supreme courts is appointed by presidents and the supreme court rarely goes against the federal government, it is even worse in other countries. I also dislike that it is impossible to legally get rid of a supreme court justice in the us, in my system that is fully possible, it only required one senator and enough support among A-citizens.

USSR and china under mao also had constitutions giving citizens 'rights', that did not work out either https://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose

Unlike libertarians or anarchists i do not agree with the "non aggression principle", instead i believe in not permitting other to violate you. I did change my proposal and added the ability for a senator to appeal a conviction of a citizens, non citizens(non whites) was not given any more legal protection.

In my system we could end up with several set of laws/rules
-A0 laws(the rules the senate decided to follow)
-A1 laws(how A1-citizens vote).
-A laws(how A-citizens vote).
-senate rules(enough A-citizens and senators to change how the country is ruled).

With this system there will not be huge discrepancy between the laws and how the judicial branch of governments.

Emily Henderson

Re: The optimal way to rule a country

Post by Emily Henderson » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:36 pm

It's very difficult to maintain freedom(s) and order. In the USA, our forefathers made a wonderful attempt to do exactly that-to never allow one entity too much power, to allow citizens to maintain their autonomy if the wanted by forming local communities in keeping with their particular values, and so on. Corporations were not given the same rights as individuals in the beginning, and there would always be an armed local militia trained and ready to defend when needed.

The anti federalists did not want the US Constitution, as it took away too many individual rights and rights of local communities. Were the Bill of Rights not added, the Constitution is much more of a power grab than many people in the United States realize.

Now, even the Bill of Rights has been twisted by the ever powerful Federal Govt. to be used to impose certain values on people that they should be able to reject, like hiring people they don't want to hire, giving educational opportunities to people who don't deserve them, and so on.

I totally agree with the Govt Universities basing their funding on ability as you cite in your paper-but I would add that if that natural talent is not coupled with hard work, you lose the benefits of a burden-free education.
We should have apprenticeships (especially family owned businesses who allow their children to work) make a major comeback imo. I think of course there should be child labor guidelines, but like anything the Jews draft, the child labor laws we have in America have actually made it difficult for families to pass trades on to their children, as that requires a great deal of work in some instances (depending on the trade/profession).

adolf512

Re: The optimal way to rule a country

Post by adolf512 » Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:46 am

I have notices that it is very hard to construct a flawless system, for this reason it should be possibly to immediately change the constitution(without any time delay), even if mechanics of your system of governments are perfect it can still be ruined if the wrong people end up with power. I recently changed how the legal system would work, now with my system a senator can appeal when a citizen citizen loses in the senate(unless losing with a margin of 9 to 15 votes, higher for B1, B0, A4).

Allowing for change of the system itself is of course dangerous, in my proposal changing the system will be easy, it can immediately be done with the support of one senator and 71% of the A-citizens, the system can easily be changed into a communist dictatorship if enough A-citizens want it. Also with my system if every senator agrees to do something the other A-citizens will be powerless to stop it.

Even with a democracy you still have the issue about who will be allowed to vote, unless you let every person in the world vote there is a selection made, having an iq or income requirement is very sensible. IQ and income is if anything more objective than the process of determining who will be allowed as citizen.
Emily Henderson wrote:It's very difficult to maintain freedom(s) and order. In the USA, our forefathers made a wonderful attempt to do exactly that-to never allow one entity too much power, to allow citizens to maintain their autonomy if the wanted by forming local communities in keeping with their particular values, and so on. Corporations were not given the same rights as individuals in the beginning, and there would always be an armed local militia trained and ready to defend when needed.

The anti federalists did not want the US Constitution, as it took away too many individual rights and rights of local communities. Were the Bill of Rights not added, the Constitution is much more of a power grab than many people in the United States realize.
I think it was a huge mistake to construct a powerful central government and not allowing states to leave(some tried but lost the war), one good thing with EU is that a country is allowed to leave the union. If states are allowed to leave they can just abandon dysfunctional unions in favor of something much better, hopefully this will happen to the EU.

I guess the first us constitution was less bad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kygf6m5ZnKE

I see a lot of problems with the way US is governed, the executive branch(especially the president) is too powerful, i guess it would have been better to instead let the house of representatives chose the president and also control the rest of the executive branch.

Instead of a senate you can simply allow states to veto federal legislation, not sure where to set the limit but i think between 2 and 5 states should be enough to veto federal legislation. The "bill of rights" is a good excuse for giving a lot of power to the supreme court. Instead of letting the president appoint supreme justices it would have been better to let them chose their own successors, the rules for changing the justices should be the same as the rules to change the constitutions.

I think medieval iceland is the most successful example of a free country https://mises.org/library/medieval-icel ... government you do not need a state but it is a good way to impose your preferences upon others.

adolf512

Re: The optimal way to rule a country

Post by adolf512 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:05 am

I totally forgot about my paper, i just edited it http://docdro.id/5k0Zd2s

It is possible that my original idea to have the senate as the higher judicial power was better, with my new proposal 43 A1 citizens has to approve that in order to prevent appeals from being possible. The nice thing about my proposal is that the system can be change if enough A-citizens and senators agree to it, flexibility is very important. What works today might be a terrible system in 50 years.
Emily Henderson wrote: I totally agree with the Govt Universities basing their funding on ability as you cite in your paper-but I would add that if that natural talent is not coupled with hard work, you lose the benefits of a burden-free education.
We should have apprenticeships (especially family owned businesses who allow their children to work) make a major comeback imo. I think of course there should be child labor guidelines, but like anything the Jews draft, the child labor laws we have in America have actually made it difficult for families to pass trades on to their children, as that requires a great deal of work in some instances (depending on the trade/profession).
Well if you are not willing to work hard you will fail eventually and have to start something easier, i do not like the system in Sweden where you cal fail and still continue to study. I personally wasn't able to finish some of my physics courses since i wasn't willing to invest the time needed to complete all moments(there was a lot of reports i never wrote). I decided to switch to pure maths and i am almost done now(just have to finish the report).

I have gotten diploma twice but i got no monetary benefits from it, only a book i never bothered to read in mathematics.

btw: i really hate bullshit regulations, there is nothing wrong with children working early. The idea that you should be cared for by the state/parents until you are 20...25 is just pure insanity, people when free will be able to contribute to the society much earlier, at least the best of our race. I have personally chatted with a 16 year old girl(17 in december) that escaped the "care" the state forced upon her(locking her up for BS reasons, etc) when she was allowed to visit Spain with her family, never heard from her so i assume she is ok now.

In Sweden the government can force you into their care until you are 21 (against your will), it's a bit scary how much power these social social 'welfare' authorities have in my country. Not sure if CPS in usa is much better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX32rLywfXQ

Not many people can handle power and giving power to actors such as CPS is very dangerous, the same is true for police and mental health institutions.

State power in general is dangerous, humans are not perfect, we often do mistakes(i noticed that when i was trading). Even if the probability for an individual senator to vote 'correctly' is 90% the senate will still vote wrong 1/29740, we also have the problem to determine what is right and wrong, i do not believe in any absolute morality.

btw: i have done a lot of thinking about my proposal and the risks involved, i am not too happy about it but it was the best i previously could come up with, i recently got an idea for a different system that will be more bottom-up instead of top-down. My new idea is to let each region/state appoint on justice to the supreme court(what i call senate) and require a big majority to replace a state senator(otherwise they will appoint their own successors).

Post Reply