What do I do with my Imaginary Town?

[EmeraldPhoenix]

A few months ago, I was in my US History class, zoning out, when I had this strey thought: I bet I could come up with a better government than ours.
So I scribbled some things down, and came up with the Free Voter Government.
About two days later, also in my US History class, I had another thought: Well, right now Capitalism isn't working so well, but the opposite, Communism, also has problems. So what would happen if there was a sort of compromise?
So I took out my scribbles about the Free Voter Government, and changed it a bit, then I tacked on an Economy plan to the end.

This sort of thing went on for a while.
So, by now, I have this big plot (complete with map!) for a town that does not exist, and I have no idea what to do with it. It covers everything anybody would ever need to know about my town, from government, to economy, to transportation, to education, the agriculture, to law, to police. :smalleek:

Does anybody have any ideas on what I could use this for? It's not doing much good in my head and in my notebook.

[BritishBill]

well you have to run some kinda rp game with it hands down... duh!!

[Sneak]

A story? An essay? Raise a private army, invade a country, take control, and use it as the basis for your new government?

[EmeraldPhoenix]

A story? An essay?

I could fill pages and pages with it, but it might get a little boring. I would essentially be writing a fictitous history book


Raise a private army, invade a country, take control, and use it as the basis for your new government?

Now THERE's an idea.:smallamused:

[Sneak]

I could fill pages and pages with it, but it might get a little boring. I would essentially be writing a fictitous history book



Now THERE's an idea.:smallamused:

Well, when I said a story I meant you could use it as a part of a story. Say, make it the government of the fictitious nation in which a story takes place. Then make politics a major part of the story.

As for an essay, you could first talk about capitalism, communism, and the current US government, point out the problems with them, introduce your government idea, and talk about why it's better/doesn't have those problems. I dunno what you'd do with it, but it could be interesting.

But yeah, I'd still choose the third option. :smallamused:

[Hazkali]

A lot of important literature has been an exercise in "what if..."- stories like Starship Troopers, 1984, Brave New Worldetc show new and different systems of government.

I n-th the motion to write a story about your Town; if anything, the process of tracing characters through your utopia will help you iron out any inconsistencies or problems.

Of course, being a cynic I would wonder if your town would be the utopia you imagine it to be; if you choose to take it in that direction, the story of the failed utopia is a powerful one.

[EmeraldPhoenix]

Here's a real, no joke, section of my notes:


The Free Voter Government is almost completely voter based, although a small group of trustworthy volunteers work at Town Hall, counting votes and doing other assorted file-work (see Economy, Police, Religion, Constitution, and Education Sheets for more details.)

Yes, I do have actual sections devoted to each of those bolded subjects.:smalleek:

[Mercenary Pen]

Now, I shall give you advice in the form of one of the first rules of espionage- if the enemy finds out, eat the evidence.

Alternatively, you could follow the generally more sane advice of other posters and use as some sort of creative setting, whether this be for a book, a roleplaying game or whatever.

May I also point out that any form of supposed perfection that is developed usually proves to be less than perfect the moment human beings get involved.

[Wizard of the Coat]

Here's a real, no joke, section of my notes:


Judging from the section the government will get bogged down with bureaucracy pretty quickly (if trustworthy people can be found at all). You might want to take a look at the Swiss democratic system, they seem to vote on everything.

Also how do you prevent dumb people from taking dumb decisions or the smart ones from caring about every small detail. Education will only get people so far, especially since you seem to value freedom thus making use of educative propaganda (a favorite of democracies) might not be a good thing.

Still I'm interested to know about what the core values of this government are? Afterall what are you trying to archieve for your nation? Happiness, freedom, security, wealth, productivity? In what order and what are acceptable losses? (I'm used to thinking goal oriented, as usually this allows for a proper set of criteria for the selection of the acceptable solutions)

[EmeraldPhoenix]

Now, I shall give you advice in the form of one of the first rules of espionage- if the enemy finds out, eat the evidence.

Alternatively, you could follow the generally more sane advice of other posters and use as some sort of creative setting, whether this be for a book, a roleplaying game or whatever.

May I also point out that any form of supposed perfection that is developed usually proves to be less than perfect the moment human beings get involved.

Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, not by a long shot. But it would fix the problems that Capitalism has, (A lower class, poverty, false advertisement, corruption,) without resorting to the problems Communism has. (No real ownership, no sense of originality, no motivation to work harder towards anything.)

I like to think of it as a sort of compromise.

Also, maybe I should stop talking about the problems with Communism and Capitalism before the mods, like, ban me or something.

ANYHOW!

I guess I like the idea of writing a book, but I can't see how I would start. I have lots of notes on the place, but no plot ideas of any sort. If anyone has any suggestions on THAT...:smallsmile:

[Sneak]

Also, just out of curiosity, will the volunteers be compensated in any way? If so, then they're really just regular ole government employees, aren't they? And if not, wouldn't that leave the government in the hands of the rich, who can afford to spend time working for the government instead of working in a paying job?

[EmeraldPhoenix]

Also, just out of curiosity, will the volunteers be compensated in any way? If so, then they're really just regular ole government employees, aren't they? And if not, wouldn't that leave the government in the hands of the rich, who can afford to spend time working for the government instead of working in a paying job?

The volunteers will not be paid, and they are voted for by the general public. (Although, to keep the system from becoming corrupt, the Town Hall does not count the votes in this case.) The volunteers usually work at the Town Hall in addition to other jobs.

Also, there is not "rich". The reason behind this can only be explained by a quote so large it has to be in a spoiler.


Economy:
• Individuals:
o Houses are supplied to anyone who asks. Legal age for owning a house is 10.
o Every day, 100 Capras (see Currency Sheet for more details) are given out to every citizen over the age of 9. This is exactly enough to buy basic food and necessities for the day.
o Nobody can take away the housing/food you have, unless you are convicted of a crime.
o To get more than the basics, you can work at one of the many jobs available.
o The easiest way to find out who is and isn’t hiring is to go to Town Hall, where a large corkboard has a map of the town, with thumbtacks of White, for empty building, Red, for hiring, Blue, for being set up, and Green, for not hiring.
o Wages are distributed thusly:
1. If you hindered work, you can be fired by the Employer.
2. If you did no work, (for example, you didn’t show up that day) you get no wages for that day.
3. If you did sub-par work, your Employer has the right to give you a lower than average wage for that day.
4. If you did an average amount of work, your Employer is required to give you the “Base Pay” for the business. (see Business Form Attachment for more details.)
5. If you did an above average amount of work, your Employer has the right to give you a higher than average wage for that day.
o Everyone in a business is on the same “level”. No supervisors or bosses. The Employer is the only person with more sway in the business that the average worker.
o Everyone has the same “Base Pay”, it is up to the Employer to say who gets higher/lower.
• Businesses:
o How to Start a business:
1. Acquire a Business Form (see Business Form Attachment for more details.) and an Establishment Form, (see Establishment Form Attachment for more details.) both readily available at the Town Hall.
2. Fill out both, and turn them in to Town Hall for a deed to the specific building set out for your use. You are now the Prospective Employer. Your business will be added to the map and list in Town Hall.
3. Anyone wishing to apply for a job must fill out an Employment Form. (see Employment Form Attachment for more details.)
4. They then turn the form in to the Prospective Employer. (You.)
5. The Prospective Employer looks it over, then either accepts or denies it. (Note: it is illegal to accept or deny a person a job because of race/gender/religion/age discrimination. The only reasons for denying a job are these: they do not have the necessary experience, they do not seem capable to work with other members of your business, or you do not believe you would be able to employ them indiscriminately. See Law sheet for more details. )
6. When the Prospective Employer has gathered the desired number of employees, he or she must fill out a Supplies Form. (see Supplies Form Attachment for more details.) This is to be turned in to Town Hall.
7. The Town Hall will process this form and send you all available specified supplies.
8. The Prospective Employer is given one month to get his or her business set up, and then it is pronounced “Open” by the Town Hall.
9. At this point in time, the Prospective Employer becomes the Employer.
10. After six months, the business is analyzed by the Town Hall. Some questions they might ask are:
• Is it successful?
• Is it unnecessary?
• Is it convenient?
• Is it honest?
• Is it paying the 10% Tax?
11. If they decide to close the business, they give the Employer and all registered Employees one month’s notice, to pack up and sell what’s left, and return all supplies to the manufacturers for re-distributing.
If they decide to keep it open, it will stay a business. All businesses that pass this 6 month check are still looked over every year, just to make sure they still meet requirements. They may be checked sooner if someone registers a complaint.
o How to end a business:
1. Acquire a Business Removal Form, (see Business Removal Form Attachment for more details.) readily available at Town Hall.
2. Fill it out and turn it in to Town Hall. They will process it, and if everything checks out, they will give you and any Employees one month’s notice to pack up/sell what’s left.
• Necessity Businesses:
o These businesses are different from ordinary businesses. They cannot be closed, and don’t have to pay taxes. They are defined as either a business that manufactures supplies for other businesses, or a business that does manual, necessary labor. Some examples are: Mining, Steel or Plastic Manufacture, Fishing, and Hunting. The businesses that count as Necessity Businesses are on a list in Town Hall, and to get a new Business added to the list, the people of the town must have a majority vote for it.
o To work for a Necessity Business, you must first fill out a Necessity Employment Form. (see Necessity Employment Form Attachment for more details.) This is to be turned in to the Employer of the specific Necessity Business you wish to become an Employee of. If you are accepted, you must take a week-long training course to learn the skills necessary to join.
o You cannot start a Necessity Business, you must start a normal Business, and have the people of the town vote as a majority that it is worthy of being a Necessity Business.


Well, truthfully, I probably could have shortened it a bit. But this will also answer any other questions about the economy you might come up with. :smallbiggrin:

I have WAY too much free time.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Short version - 95% of it wouldn't work because of human psychology. If there's a way to exploit the system for personal gain, you can bet that someone eventually will. If there isn't a way to exploit the system for personal gain, you can bet most people won't care enough to work beyond the bare minimum they need to survive.

If, the employer doesn't have very much say in his business, why would he want to start a business in the first place?

Who builds the houses? Are they nice houses? If so, how exactly do you pay for all of it? What if I want a very, very nice house and I'm willing to work for it?

If you can make tons of money, what do you spend it on? Believe it or not, this was the major economic problem in the USSR - pretty much everyone, even janitors, made pretty good money. But there wasn't really anything to spend it on besides food and vodka. Nice clothing, cars, nice electronics, etc, were pretty hard to come by.

Unless your town is set a long time ago (e.g. 1000 AD) when it could conceivably be self-sufficient, how do you take care of things that require a very complex infrastructure, like heavy industry or electronics design/manufacturing?

PS: voting by the general public on everything won't work either. Most people just don't care enough about 99.5% of issues to go through the pain of voting on something if they are okay with it going either way. In fact, they would very much prefer if someone else made the decision and let them be. Seriously, I don't think most people really care which kind of pens (blue or black) should be used by city hall employees and whether the new bar should be at point A, or at point B five houses down.

[lobablob]

A business won't work if everyone is on the same level, the idea of having different levels and positions in a business came about because it was necessary for organisation. You have supervisors because the owner can't supervise every single employee. You have managers for departments and such because they have greater expertise in that area and are more capable of making decisions relating to it than the average employee.

You will need greater knowledge on how a business is run before you start setting about the rules they should be bound by.

[EmeraldPhoenix]

Believe it or not, all this criticism is really, really helpful. Keep it coming.

I need awesome people like you telling me what's wrong with this so I can fix it. You guys are great. No joke. :smallsmile:

[EmeraldPhoenix]

A business won't work if everyone is on the same level, the idea of having different levels and positions in a business came about because it was necessary for organisation. You have supervisors because the owner can't supervise every single employee. You have managers for departments and such because they have greater expertise in that area and are more capable of making decisions relating to it than the average employee.

You will need greater knowledge on how a business is run before you start setting about the rules they should be bound by.

Isthmus Engineering (http://isthmuseng.com/aboutus/workerownedcoop/workerownedcoop.aspx)

Alvarado Street Bakery (http://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/coop.html)


There are many "worker cooperatives" in the United States, companies which are run democratically by the workers, who also own the company and share equitably in the profits. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/capitalism-love-story)

[Don Julio Anejo]

Well, the most important thing I can tell you is that you need some kind of a carrot on a stick. Like, for example, that in Capitalism you can eventually be the next Warren Buffet if you try hard enough. Or in democracy you can run the country if you put enough effort into it. Etcetera.

People need to work towards something. Otherwise there's no point in working at all beyond having enough food to eat. In an individualistic society (like ours) it means personal success. In a collectivistic society it means success of the group as a whole (e.g. my Imaginary Town will be bigger, better, more advanced and will launch more stuff into space than your Imaginary Town). But it's a goal.

You also need at least some form of free market, if only so consumers' needs could be served. For example, back in the USSR they only sold ketchup in giant glass 3 Liter bottles (about 80% of a gallon). Imagine having to buy that much ketchup... Imagine needing only something like a pint a year... What are you going to do with the rest? Also, how the heck are you going to carry it? See, that's the downside of a planned economy - people planning it can't plan everything consumers are going to need, nor can they plan it very well because they don't really care. They just have to make it available (if available at all) - anything else they will probably half-ass.

[Sneak]

I don't have time to read your links right now, but the point is this: your framework (constitution, whatever) calls for the Employer to make a daily assessment of each employee's work to decide each employee's daily salary. This just isn't practical—in a large company, there's no way the Employer would be able to do that.

[EmeraldPhoenix]

Short version - 95% of it wouldn't work because of human psychology. If there's a way to exploit the system for personal gain, you can bet that someone eventually will. If there isn't a way to exploit the system for personal gain, you can bet most people won't care enough to work beyond the bare minimum they need to survive.

If that was true, nobody would ever volunteer for anything. There would be no such thing as Non Profit Organizations.
Also, people are greedy. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that this would almost definately lead to a market and need for material possesions. Plus, what's the fun in just sitting in a house doing nothing but eating, sleeping, and going to the bathroom? Boardgames, puzzles, Rubix Cubes; there are huge industries just based on the human need for enjoyment, and enjoyment isn't covered in the "The Government Pays For The Basics" plan.


If, the employer doesn't have very much say in his business, why would he want to start a business in the first place?

On the contrary, he has a lot of say in his business. He chooses what he makes, how much of it he makes, who he employs, who he fires, how he competes with other businesses that sell products similar to his, etc.


Who builds the houses? Are they nice houses? If so, how exactly do you pay for all of it? What if I want a very, very nice house and I'm willing to work for it?

The government provides a very basic, one story, bedroom-bathroom-kitchen house. If you save up your Capras, you can buy a deed to a larger, nicer house. :smallwink:


If you can make tons of money, what do you spend it on? Believe it or not, this was the major economic problem in the USSR - pretty much everyone, even janitors, made pretty good money. But there wasn't really anything to spend it on besides food and vodka. Nice clothing, cars, nice electronics, etc, were pretty hard to come by.

Any of a large selection of businesses. Anything from furniture to a new house to a boardgame to a new watch to new clothing, so long as there's a store for it. (And if there isn't, why not start one?:smallwink:)


Unless your town is set a long time ago (e.g. 1000 AD) when it could conceivably be self-sufficient, how do you take care of things that require a very complex infrastructure, like heavy industry or electronics design/manufacturing?

Actually, this is probably my biggest problem. I was wondering when somebody would point it out.
In a best-situation scenario, the town would either be isolated (on an island, on the moon, in some futeristic place, etc.) or would be/ be part of a country that has the same setup.
A portion of this does depend on self-sufficiency, yes.


PS: voting by the general public on everything won't work either. Most people just don't care enough about 99.5% of issues to go through the pain of voting on something if they are okay with it going either way. In fact, they would very much prefer if someone else made the decision and let them be. Seriously, I don't think most people really care which kind of pens (blue or black) should be used by city hall employees and whether the new bar should be at point A, or at point B five houses down.

A previously written up Constitution would iron out a lot of the issues right off the bat, so only new ones (that enough people cared about for it to be raised as a votable issue) would be put to vote.
Town Hall can buy it's own pens, and the owner of the new bar gets to decide which space he wants, too.:smallamused:

[EmeraldPhoenix]

I don't have time to read your links right now, but the point is this: your framework (constitution, whatever) calls for the Employer to make a daily assessment of each employee's work to decide each employee's daily salary. This just isn't practical—in a large company, there's no way the Employer would be able to do that.

But why would a company have to be overly large? What's wrong with small businesses? If a certain business gets too big to handle a daily once-over, why not split it into a few different parts, (Creation, Shipping, etc.) and have an Employer for each?:smallsmile:

[Lupy]

^ What about a company like... IBM.

It's massive and it works. It works because it is massive. This wouldn't work under your system of no supervisors.

Also: Why do 10 years olds need houses? Why do 9 year olds need wages? I think that to prevent corrupt parents from taking money intended for their children and blowing it on booze and cigarettes (which I think is what you were trying to prevent with your system) you ought to give them food/clothing/book/whatever coupons. This way they can only buy food, children's clothes, and books for their children.

Ex:

http://i38.tinypic.com/10pzihh.jpg

[Don Julio Anejo]

^ What about a company like... IBM.

It's massive and it works. It works because it is massive. This wouldn't work under your system of no supervisors.

Also: Why do 10 years olds need houses? Why do 9 year olds need wages? I think that to prevent corrupt parents from taking money intended for their children and blowing it on booze and cigarettes (which I think is what you were trying to prevent with your system) you ought to give them food/clothing/book/whatever coupons. This way they can only buy food, children's clothes, and books for their children.

Ex:

http://i38.tinypic.com/10pzihh.jpg

The funny thing... I can see some adults using up all of their "adult" money/coupons to get booze and cigarettes and then trading it for food originally designated for children.

[Moff Chumley]

One of the Necessary Businesses could supply free food and water, another could supply other necessary items, et cetera.

[EmeraldPhoenix]

One of the Necessary Businesses could supply free food and water, another could supply other necessary items, et cetera.

Exactly! Great idea!:smallsmile:

Here's another section I've typed up from my notes, about the original scribbled plan for a government.


The Free Voter Government:
• Every time a law is pending or a problem has occurred, a vote is held to pass/kill the law.
• In times of military or emergency-based need, a temporary leader is elected for up to 20 days at a time. If there is still a need at the end of the 20 days, another vote takes place. The same person may be elected as many times as the public demands; there is no maximum limit on continuous leadership.
• There is no death penalty, but if a crime is committed that is rated “Red” or above (see Law Sheet for more details) the criminal is deported.
• The Free Voter Government is almost completely voter based, although a small group of trustworthy volunteers work at Town Hall, counting votes and doing other assorted file-work (see Economy, Police, Religion, Constitution, and Education Sheets for more details.)
• Taxes: Businesses pay 10% of all earnings to the Town Hall for various programs. (see Economy Sheet.)


Now; GO AT IT! Tell me what's wrong! Keep it up! This is awesome!:smallbiggrin:

[EmeraldPhoenix]

^ What about a company like... IBM.

It's massive and it works. It works because it is massive. This wouldn't work under your system of no supervisors.

Also: Why do 10 years olds need houses? Why do 9 year olds need wages? I think that to prevent corrupt parents from taking money intended for their children and blowing it on booze and cigarettes (which I think is what you were trying to prevent with your system) you ought to give them food/clothing/book/whatever coupons. This way they can only buy food, children's clothes, and books for their children.

Ex:

http://i38.tinypic.com/10pzihh.jpg


No, no...Ten years old is the minimum for owning houses. You don't HAVE to move out of your parents house at ten, it's just your choice. I based this on how, at ten (and the years following up until now, I'm 14,) I would have loved to get away from my parents. Not too far away, but maybe just up the street, just to be more in charge of my life. Teens, especially, I think, really would rather live near their parents than with them, where their lives can be controlled so much more fully.
Also, everyone OLDER than 9 can receive wages. As in, 10 is once again the minimum. You misread.
To recieve wages, actually, you have to fill out a form for Town Hall, so they know that you want to recieve them. (Also, you can't receive wages unless you have your own house, because then people would take advantage of their children's wages.) When the form is turned in, all the wages that were previously going to your parents as a kind of benifit in addition to their own wages will now go to you. (Your parents got an extra 100 each day because they had a kid to look after, and now it's yours.)

Also, booze is mostly illegal (there are a few legal brands), if only because I'm a strong supporter of the temperance movement. (I guess that's one less thing my parents have to worry about, their teen drinking.):smallwink:

One more thing; why would people willingly squander their food money and starve themselves? :smallconfused: If there is somebody actively paying for you to never go hungry, why would you just throw that away? Only people with eating disorders would see logic in that.

[Lupy]

The funny thing... I can see some adults using up all of their "adult" money/coupons to get booze and cigarettes and then trading it for food originally designated for children.

What if you only let people have a certain amount of alcohol and make them go to a bar to get it. Give them a scannable card that will show how much they've had. As for cigarettes, have smoking areas that work the same way.
---
I think that if you let children and teens have their own houses:
- Underage sex will be a huge issue
- Child molestation rates will be much higher than in the real world
- Restricted materials will be much easier for Teens to get and use
- People won't have family values as strong as they otherwise could

EDIT: I also happen to be 14. Welcome to the exclusive club of 1995ers. :smalltongue:

[Sneak]

First of all, you talk a lot about voters and votes being held, but you never discuss the qualifications for voting—who gets to vote? Everyone? Children? 18 and up? You should specify.

In any case, don't you think a national vote for any and every piece of legislature is a bit excessive? Think of the hassle and the controversy—national elections as we have them now in the United States are a big deal. There are always controversies and problems: vote counting, absentee ballots, machine problems, etc.


In times of military or emergency-based need, a temporary leader is elected for up to 20 days at a time

I think you're operating under the assumption that an election is an instantaneous process (or that it can be made into such a process). Let me say it right now: FALSE. Elections take forever. Think about it. The voting process itself is relatively simple, but think about how long campaigning takes, how long it takes for the president to assume power once he becomes the president-elect, etc.

Also, you definitely need to talk about the enumerated powers of the leader. What is he capable of doing? Is he essentially a 20 day dictator? Does he have a cabinet? It'd be a bit difficult to set up a functional and effective cabinet in 20 days.


There is no death penalty, but if a crime is committed that is rated “Red” or above (see Law Sheet for more details) the criminal is deported.

So the most severe criminals get deported? To where, exactly? I assume most foreign countries wouldn't want our worst criminals roaming free throughout their cities. And if you're thinking of setting up some sort of penal colony, well, that might be a bit difficult—think of the sheer number of criminals in the USA. Where could we keep them all?

[EmeraldPhoenix]

What if you only let people have a certain amount of alcohol and make them go to a bar to get it. Give them a scannable card that will show how much they've had. As for cigarettes, have smoking areas that work the same way.
---
I think that if you let children and teens have their own houses:
- Underage sex will be a huge issue
- Child molestation rates will be much higher than in the real world
- Restricted materials will be much easier for Teens to get and use
- People won't have family values as strong as they otherwise could

Or, on the other hand...
- Teens would learn responsibility at an earlier age from being on their own, doing their own chores, working to get nice things, etc.,
- Families will be closer because teens don't spend as much time with their parents to disdain them,
- Teens will have more motivation to do things, because sitting in an empty room chugging Mt. Dew and eating Cheetos gets old really fast,
- I'm a teen and know that not all of them are as irresponsible as you imply. I have friends who plan on becoming freaking doctors. It's insane. They get perfect grades and it drives me nuts. They're annoyingly responsible.:smallsigh:

Also, 1. What restricted materials are you reffering to, :smallconfused:and 2. I don't understand the child molestation one.:smalleek::smallconfused:

[EmeraldPhoenix]

First of all, you talk a lot about voters and votes being held, but you never discuss the qualifications for voting—who gets to vote? Everyone? Children? 18 and up? You should specify.

10 and up. Yeah, Ten is the magic number for me. Sorry. It's just that that's the year I got interested in politics. (Yeah, I'm a freaking nerd.)


In any case, don't you think a national vote for any and every piece of legislature is a bit excessive? Think of the hassle and the controversy—national elections as we have them now in the United States are a big deal. There are always controversies and problems: vote counting, absentee ballots, machine problems, etc.

Yes, but don't forget that this is a town, and the leader is only a temporary leader. The town would have...what, maybe a few thousand people at the very, very most?
The process is simple: you go to town hall on the day of the vote, take a peice of paper, fill in the blanks. If you're not there, too bad. One vote per person who shows up.


I think you're operating under the assumption that an election is an instantaneous process (or that it can be made into such a process). Let me say it right now: FALSE. Elections take forever. Think about it. The voting process itself is relatively simple, but think about how long campaigning takes, how long it takes for the president to assume power once he becomes the president-elect, etc.

In an emergency, people could make a fast decision. Maybe a day's worth of picking out candidates, who give five minute speeches on what tactics they feel would be best to navigate through the emergency, everybody sleeps on it, and there's an election the next day.


Also, you definitely need to talk about the enumerated powers of the leader. What is he capable of doing? Is he essentially a 20 day dictator? Does he have a cabinet? It'd be a bit difficult to set up a functional and effective cabinet in 20 days.

I'll rifle through my notes, I'm sure I wrote it down somewhere...


So the most severe criminals get deported? To where, exactly? I assume most foreign countries wouldn't want our worst criminals roaming free throughout their cities. And if you're thinking of setting up some sort of penal colony, well, that might be a bit difficult—think of the sheer number of criminals in the USA. Where could we keep them all?

...Canada?:smallredface:

Ok, yeah, that might be a bit of a problem. But I'm heavily against governments with god complexes, and also don't want murderers roaming the streets, sooooo...
Hmm.

I'll get back to you on that.

[Sneak]

10 and up. Yeah, Ten is the magic number for me. Sorry. It's just that that's the year I got interested in politics. (Yeah, I'm a freaking nerd.)

Don't you think it's likely that most (not all, but most) ten year olds would just vote for whatever their parents say they should? Wouldn't this be an unfair advantage, essentially giving people who have more kids more votes?



Yes, but don't forget that this is a town, and the leader is only a temporary leader. The town would have...what, maybe a few thousand people at the very, very most?

Oh. My bad. Despite the fact that you repeatedly emphasize the fact that it's a town (you even use it in the thread title!), I seem to have overlooked that small but important detail.

That brings me to a new question, though—if it's just a town, isn't it still governed by federal law? Or is it some sort of city-state type deal? In a world of nations, how successful do you really think a city-state type town would be? Wouldn't the closest full nation just come by and take over?


In an emergency, people could make a fast decision. Maybe a day's worth of picking out candidates, who give five minute speeches on what tactics they feel would be best to navigate through the emergency, everybody sleeps on it, and there's an election the next day.

Do you really think one day, with five minute speeches, is enough to make a full educated decision and hold a truly democratic election? What about debates? And who would be responsible for picking candidates? Would you have to have a vote to decide who to put on the ballot? :smalltongue:

Just some more thoughts. :smallsmile:

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: This is okay in the abstract but drawing references and parallels to real world politics is not. If this can continue without reference to real world governments and such great, but if not, it'll have to be locked.

[EmeraldPhoenix]

Don't you think it's likely that most (not all, but most) ten year olds would just vote for whatever their parents say they should? Wouldn't this be an unfair advantage, essentially giving people who have more kids more votes?

Well, it's not fair to let them have houses and not let them choose a leader, is it now?:smalltongue:


Oh. My bad. Despite the fact that you repeatedly emphasize the fact that it's a town (you even use it in the thread title!), I seem to have overlooked that small but important detail.

Eh, easy to overlook. The way I talk about it, to the untrained eye it would look like, not only was I talking about a country, I was talking about a real place.


That brings me to a new question, though—if it's just a town, isn't it still governed by federal law? Or is it some sort of city-state type deal? In a world of nations, how successful do you really think a city-state type town would be? Wouldn't the closest full nation just come by and take over?

Again, isolation is a big aspect. Still loving the island idea.


Do you really think one day, with five minute speeches, is enough to make a full educated decision and hold a truly democratic election? What about debates? And who would be responsible for picking candidates? Would you have to have a vote to decide who to put on the ballot? :smalltongue:

Anyone who wants to be included and asks to be included is included.
The speeches would be five minutes, but then the candidates would take questions, and there might be a debate, I guess. I think a day is enough time. It's not like they're the new US president and gets to control everything for four years.

[EmeraldPhoenix]

Sheriff of Moddingham: This is okay in the abstract but drawing references and parallels to real world politics is not. If this can continue without reference to real world governments and such great, but if not, it'll have to be locked.

:smalleek:Ok, we'll be good. :smallredface:

[Sneak]

Well, it's not fair to let them have houses and not let them choose a leader, is it now?:smalltongue:

Well, I missed that too. I'm not sure how wise it is to let 10 year olds live alone, either. I know I couldn't have lived alone at 10. But I guess that's another discussion.


Again, isolation is a big aspect. Still loving the island idea.

Ah, but too much isolation is a problem. The thing is, if the town is close to an existing nation, the nation would probably just take over. But if it's completely isolated, that's a problem too—with a population of 2000 and no ties to a preexisting nation, importation and exportation of goods would likely be difficult. A significant amount of the population would likely have to turn to subsistence farming.


Anyone who wants to be included and asks to be included is included.
The speeches would be five minutes, but then the candidates would take questions, and there might be a debate, I guess. I think a day is enough time. It's not like they're the new US president and gets to control everything for four years.

Say the town has an adult population of 1500. Next, say every adult (10 and up) decides to run for "leader." Unlikely, but possible. Those five minute debates really do add up, don't they? :smalltongue:

[EmeraldPhoenix]

Well, I missed that too. I'm not sure how wise it is to let 10 year olds live alone, either. I know I couldn't have lived alone at 10. But I guess that's another discussion.

Again, they don't have to live alone at ten, they merely have the option.


Ah, but too much isolation is a problem. The thing is, if the town is close to an existing nation, the nation would probably just take over. But if it's completely isolated, that's a problem too—with a population of 2000 and no ties to a preexisting nation, importation and exportation of goods would likely be difficult. A significant amount of the population would likely have to turn to subsistence farming.

Well, what if it was near a nation with no large history of taking over towns, (America is out, I guess.) and an agreement was made between them?


Say the town has an adult population of 1500. Next, say every adult (10 and up) decides to run for "leader." Unlikely, but possible. Those five minute debates really do add up, don't they? :smalltongue:

Just one thing...would YOU want to be in charge of leading thousands of panicked people in a state of emergency?:smallamused: I think whatever problem left them in need of a leader would make the volunteer group shrink a bit.

[Randel]

One idea:

Have all government officials required to wear collars with microphones and cameras built in that send everything they say and do to a town website like Youtube or something. That way, the voters know exactly what their government officials are like at all times of the day.

Also cameras and microphones set up all over public places and hooked up to the same publicly available system. Its like Big Brother but everyone can see what everyone else is doing at all times (or at least in public areas or wherever the govenrment officials are at that moment). That way crimes can be reported quickly and nobody can abuse it for their own purposes.

[EmeraldPhoenix]

One idea:

Have all government officials required to wear collars with microphones and cameras built in that send everything they say and do to a town website like Youtube or something. That way, the voters know exactly what their government officials are like at all times of the day.

Also cameras and microphones set up all over public places and hooked up to the same publicly available system. Its like Big Brother but everyone can see what everyone else is doing at all times (or at least in public areas or wherever the govenrment officials are at that moment). That way crimes can be reported quickly and nobody can abuse it for their own purposes.

The biggest problem I see with this is that it could very easily deteriorate into a Extras (http://books.simonandschuster.com/Extras/Scott-Westerfeld/9781416951179)-style society.

[Ripped Shirt Kirk]

@ Randel

Are you talking about cameras in every politicians home? Because if you are, then can everyone watch went someone wants to, *ahem* "Get jiggy widdit"?
:smallamused:

@ Phoenix

Here are a couple things I see wrong with letting 10 yr olds live alone:


1. They are TEN YEARS OLD. You don't know what kind of stupid sh*t they might do!
2.If they are ten years old, then what are they gonna do if someone robs them? Or kidnaps them? They are not physically or mentally strong enough to live alone.

Which brings me to my next subject.


Letting criminals off with getting deported. You are saying the worst of the worst, should get off with being deported? What if a guy, kills 20 people, mugs 100 people, violates women and children, and gets off scot free with being deported?



P.S. When I was 10, well, I was 10. I would scream at my mom I hated her and I wanted to live somewhere else for the smallest of reasons.



P.P.S If you give free food and shelter to anyone who can walk into a building and write, then what is your motivation to do anything? I mean, if I get everything I need, I would work for a short a time as possible, get everything I could want for entertainment, and then I got everything I need.

[UnChosenOne]

P.P.S If you give free food and shelter to anyone who can walk into a building and write, then what is your motivation to do anything? I mean, if I get everything I need, I would work for a short a time as possible, get everything I could want for entertainment, and then I got everything I need.

She doesn't seem to understand that Person could basicly live like next.
Day 1. Go to work
Day 2. Buy something
Day 3. Sit in home and have "fun"
....
Day 11. Go to work
Day 12. Buy something.
Day 13. Sit in home and have fun
...
I personally wouldn't have any problems with that sort of life. Though I must say that I wouldn't like to live in your town.
One more thing; why would people willingly squander their food money and starve themselves? If there is somebody actively paying for you to never go hungry, why would you just throw that away? I know few of persons who basicly just live to drink alcohol. They sell their food stamps (ones that they get from goverment) to single-parents/university students and use the money which the got from it to buy more alcohol. In your town it would lead to next sort of thing.

Day 1 Get money ----> Buy vodka
Day 2 Get money ----> Return your vodka bottles (ones that you bought yesterday) to shop (sorry I don't know right term to this system) to get money and buy vodka
Day 3 Get money ----> Return your bottles to shop and buy vodka.

You could always end that by rising the price of alcohol but in that case thet mostlikely would start to make their own alcohol and posibly kill,maim or blind themselves in that project (Do I need to tell, how you an blind or kill yourself simply by drinking alcohol).

[Zincorium]

I've been working on my own imaginary small country for a while now, and unless I can conquer Somalia or some other place where literally anything would be better than what they have now, I doubt it'll go anywhere.

details:

The theoretical country, referred to as Zincoria for ease of reference is reliant on two things:
1. Transfer of resources to security groups for protection of self and property, with the caveat that security groups will rescind protection upon violation of rules regarding self and property of other customers.
2. Acceptance of regulation by security group regarding contractual agreements with others in return for enforcement of terms of contract on both parties, with penalty being forfeiture of all contractual benefits with all parties agreeing on enforcement, including number 1.

Now, the degree of protection acquired by each person is up to them, but people with children or vulnerable relatives, or who are just paranoid, are generally going to pay more to acquire more protection, like more patrols, security cameras, and so forth, and as with an insurance policy will be compensated to various degrees for any failure of protection. They spend more resources on behalf of themselves and others than individuals who are willing to take greater risks, but for specific, clear benefits.

Any hostile action towards another customer, as defined by rules agreed to upon initial payment, voids all protection. Any person can then, without repercussions, do whatever harm to you they desire and not face any consequences from the security company. Thus, people will be unwilling to face the consequences of violating their agreement and avoid hostile action towards each other.

Multiple security companies can easily coexist if an agreement is reached to provide mutual enforcement and protection. Example if customer A's company will rescind services when customer A attacks customer B, even though customer B has a different company, and vice versa, both companies gain the benefit of the other company's customers refraining from attack with only minor enforcement action on their part. Companies without mutual agreements will offer less overall benefit for the same cost and thus will be rare or nonexistant.

Enforcable contracts must be made in a security company location, observed by security company personnel. Contracts between customers of different companies must be made in two locations to be considered valid. Both parties to the agreement must be present to create or to terminate a contract, and the participants are considered willing provided no immediate threat to their person exists.

Once a contract exists, violation of the contract will, after giving the other participant the option to nullify the contract outright, result in the enforcement of all contracts the person has created with the company or companies that the contract is on record with being rendered unenforcable. This includes the agreement for security.

Failure to fulfill the terms of any official contract is therefore an unacceptable to most participants. Many less important activities will thus be performed without an official contract, with the understanding that no redress is available in the case of failure.


Essentially, the point is to render an overarching goverment unneeded. The only manner someone can decide what you need, or limit your activities in any way, is to pay for it themselves upon your agreement to let them. Commerce and daily life can generally go on as it needs to under the protection of entities that are voluntarily associated with.

Too much Ayn Rand for Zinco?


I think the key problems, and I think they are theoretically solvable, with the OP's idea are as follows:

1. Ten year olds are neither suited to do most jobs that benefit the country, nor is it fair or reasonable to hold a ten year old (or a fifteen year old) to the same degree of responsibility that they can demand under this system. The age requirement seems incredibly low. Possibly a test, like running a basic business of some sort, should be substituted for a strict age requirement, to ensure all who have sound decision making skills can take advantage of those and people who do not aren't given responsibilities they cannot handle.

2. Elections are not some flawless system for determining the most capable and beneficial leader- at best, they find someone who is not offensive to a large segment of the population and seems interested in doing a good job. Several very nasty dictators were re-elected simply because they didn't seem as bad as an unknown alternative. There should at least be some low level leadership system from which candidates for upper level positions can become known and scrutinized prior to giving them supreme executive authority.

3. The goverment will need a massive buffer of currency and supplies to deal with the fact that a great many people can and will end up out of work at the same time, even though they will most likely have a job of some sort soon, because there is no incentive for them to form a personal buffer. Lack of cashflow could cripple all operations and lead to riots as people are not given their 100 semolians. Ensuring that this treasury is not raided for politically popular projects (or personal use) will be a major issue.

4. There is an unchecked potential for bureacratic red tape in the system as shown. Having someone personally double check everything consumes vast amounts of time if done right, and is worse than no supervision if done wrong. It's essentially a massive quality assurance department, and training and winnowing out unacceptable candidates will make each position more like a doctor or college professor than a DMV clerk if you want to keep corruption and waste to acceptable levels.

[UnChosenOne]

Few questions about your town/citystate: How does your city keep it citizens fed? Make the citizens work in fields? Soylent Green solution? Hunting? Buy food from other countries? How does your town make sure that it get electricity? Does it have power plant or does it buy the electiricity from somewere? How does your town get water? Does it buy water or does it have water resources? Does your town have any industry or does it raw materials that it sells to other countries?

[Pocketa]

Wikipedia hoax maybe? Or create a wiki/site/etc.? Make it viral?

[Lupy]

I think you'd need a sort of Vatican/Italy relationship for this to work. Italy takes care of the Vatican, the Vatican runs the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise you'll need permanent farmers if you want to eat, a power plant if you want light, drilling equipment if you want wells; etc.

Next, while you may have been a super ten-year-old, most ten year olds are not capable of taking care of themselves. The reason successful countries have an age of majority at 16 or above is because that's when a person is mature enough to have a job, do it every day, and use the money to take care of themselves.

You also have to consider what happens in government changeovers, the country is vulnerable and incompetent-er than normal. If this happens every 20 days you'll never get anything done. What happens if a person who hates religion takes power right after someone who is very religious? There will be huge amounts of tension and probably violence between their supporters.