If you were a dictator .....

[ku]

If you were a dictator of a country (e.g. you purchased a country) would you make homosexuality legal? Why? Would you have freedom of religion? Why?

 

What will be the primary principle you will adopt when running your country, liberty, order...?

[Glider]

1) Yes. Because homosexuality harms no-one and legislating against homosexuals won't make them not homosexual, it would simply be an attempt to suppress their behaviour which, as it is as much a part of them as skin colour is to different races, and as harmless, it would be stupid and pointless to make it illegal, nor is there any reason to try.

 

2) Yes, because You can't make people not believe something by making it illegal. The caveat here would be that whilst people have the right to believe, people who choose not to believe have an equal right. So, I'd let people believe what they chose, until their beliefs (or subsequent behaviours) began to impinge the (equal) rights of others to believe something else. A kind of "your right to swing your fist ends where somebody else's face begins" thing.

 

I think the primary principle would be equality. At the moment, I think we're too hung up on 'rights'. Everybody thinks they have a 'right' to this, that and the other. The focus is so narrow that people have lost sight of the fact that their right to anything depends upon the resonsibility of those around them.

 

The focus on 'rights' has grown so narrow that it's coming to the state where a person's 'right' to have something blinds them to another person's 'right' not to be robbed of that thing. A person's 'right' to believe a thing blinds them to the 'right' of the person next to them to believe something else.

 

So, item one on my country's constitution would be "What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander". Here, you have the right to do what you like (concomitant with the responsibility to pay for it), but that right applies to everybody equally. If the exercise of your right impinges upon the same right of anybody else, the penalties will be swift and harsh.

[In My Memory]

If I ran a country, my core principles would probably be welfare (as in minimal suffering, poverty, hunger, etc.) and pluralism (accomodating all points of views within their rational limits).

 

Economic issues:

- allow people the option to opt out of social security

- abolish government agricultural subsidies to commericial farmers

- abolish protectionist trade policies against third-world nations

- reduce the scale of the monolithic bureaucracy that makes up government. I know "small government" is a cliche, but one of things I notice is that committees and large bureaucracies often spend more time and effort highering staff and trying to keep organized that they have a hard time producing results. I like to use the analogy of Microsoft vs. Apple, Sun, Oracle, etc.: Microsoft employs hundreds of programmers to work on a single project, but they can never turn out anything without bugs, on time, or for a reasonable price. Compare to smaller companies like Apple and Sun Microsystems that use a few programmers, but all of their software is delivered bugfree, on time, and cheap. I find this exactly analogous to the way the real world works.

- I'd probably try to do what Clinton did and reduce the size of the military, because it is extremely wasteful

 

Social issues:

- strong emphasis on gay rights

- marriage would be secularized

- strong emphasis on animal rights (including making it illegal to hunt animals for sport, use them for food, experiment on them, etc.)

- strong emphasis on separation of church and state (i.e. not single out any religion for preferencial treatment)

- encourage multilateralist foreign policy (I know the UN is a boogey man of the American conservatives, but they dont understand that the UN helps amplify US overseas rather than impede them)

- combat poverty and famine in third-world nations by setting real goals and trying to attain them, not just raising awareness. Its not enough to "raise awareness" or rely on charity donations - we've been doing those things decades, but poverty and famine are still problems.

- I'd pay special attention to the environment buy encouraging conservation projects, requiring manufacturers to meet more strict emissions and pollutant standards, promoting the use of ethanol in place of gasoline.

- I'd consider ending the pointless war on drugs, perhaps allowing the government to regulate drug consumption in the same way as alcohol and cigarrettes. The problem with the criminalization of drugs is that it puts drug trade into the hands of the black market peddlers which is more dangerous than drugs themselves.

- and finally I'd put Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and other pundits who are polluting rational political discourse into a cannon and fire them into the sun.

 

So, those are things I'd do as dictator. IMM for president '08!

[Nevermore]

No way, you'd take away my mutated anthrax. Its for... uh, protecting my family.

[Mokele]

All moot points. Why would I want to keep my country infested with destructive, bald monkeys? Except maybe a few to feed the indigenous crocodile population....

 

Mokele

[Hellbender]

If you were a dictator of a country (e.g. you purchased a country) would you make homosexuality legal? Why?

Of course. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, does it?

Would you have freedom of religion? Why?

Sure. But freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

What will be the primary principle you will adopt when running your country, liberty, order...?

Social tolerance and sustainable environmental ethics, for starters.

[Pangloss]

- I'd probably try to do what Clinton did and reduce the size of the military, because it is extremely wasteful

 

A nice platform, but this is a common misperception (above). The defense budget increased by something like 50% under Clinton, IIRC. (Or were you referring to the physical downsizing that took place?)

[AzurePhoenix]

would you make homosexuality legal?

No. All rights of there's would be equal to those of the heterosexuals, with the possible exception of adoption rights. I would have to see the result of a lot of long-term studies before I could decide that.

 

Why? Would you have freedom of religion? Why?

I would, but I wouldn't allow them to send missionaries out to convert others. They could advertise, but wannabe followers would have to go to them. Also, it would be entirely separate from my govenrment,meaning no tax-rebates or such, with the exception that high schools would be required to offer classes in World Theology, Historical and Contemperary, from a completely scholarly point of view.

What will be the primary principle you will adopt when running your country, liberty, order...?

-------

What will be the primary principle you will adopt when running your country, liberty, order...?

I say an equilibrium between order and chaos is necessary. I would eliminate pointless bureaucracy, and place more direct power in the hands of local "Judicary Counsels" composed of several individuals with varying backgrounds, such as class, race, theology, and education. I would replace lawyers and juries with investigatory teams, with a number of specialists trained in a number of fields, trained to eek out the facts scientifically. The judges would then rule based on the suggestion of this "Jury." I would maintain order through a nation-wide military force that would operate under similar guide-lines as a police, simply eliminating more bureacratic processes.

 

Others

 

-equal rights for sentient and protected species

-Hunting would be restricted to that necessary to game management, or as a

source of food.

-Strict environmental protocall, and ever increasing use of non-fossil fuels

-intensive environmental restoration projects

-strict standards of living in the meat industry

-nothing is given to the poor. They can earn food, housing and minimal pay

working in government industries.

-ease drug laws, but would make the penalties for abuse severe (DUI, public disturbance, abuse, etc)

-existing taxation wouldn't apply to fundemental needs (housing, water, food, clothing, education, medicine, etc)

-marriage strictly ritualistic. You both mutually claim to be married? Fine with me.

-Free medical for all necessary procedures

-intensive Space Program, and other sciences

-scientific research funded by government

- Greatly reduced taxation supplemented by "capitalist" Government industries.

-leadership and all govenrment offices would recieve no special treatment (beyond protection against threats) and standard-level pay.

-all citizens must have their DNA, finger and palmprints, retinal IDs, and dental/medical records updated annually. Kinetically-charged tracer beacons would be placed in the spines of convicted criminals who have served their time. (we have stuff like that, right?)

-my most controversial plan would entail a slow reduction of population by sterilizing violent criminals, multiple-time-drug-offenders, and those with severe genetic problems. A 2 to 3 child-limit might be implemented.

 

--- There's more, but I'm operating on a sugar-low, and really don't care, plus it's too long already

 

Human life is more precious than animal life, and I refuse to see humans hurt because certain people have the unrealistic notion that animals are our equals. Bottom line, we're sentient and they are not.

Essentially, the only support you have for that is the fact that we are humans, and they aren't. Which is fine, but it's only your opinion. One could easily argue in favor of there being a fair number of sentient non-human species, and could argue in favor of the value of an individual of another intelligent species, or from a species threatened with extinction, intelligent or not. Just because someone else's morals are different from yours doesn't mean they're wrong or unrealistic.

[flyboy]

1. hunting is fun

2.guns are fun

3.lots of people love both of these and would be extremely mad if u took them away........like me

[AzurePhoenix]

In regards to my nation

 

hunting is fine, under the proper circumstances, such as when a population has to be controlled to maintain natural balance (such as most places where predator species have been eliminated or severely reduced, or when it can be shown that legally obtained meat will be consumed), and it must be carefully regulated. Species deemed sentient could not be killed except under special circumstances such as self-defense. I might even offer rewards for bringing in non-native destructive invasive species that threaten indiginous species.

 

Guns are fine if properly controlled and distributed. This would include annual mandatory inspections of the weapons, a registry of their distinct feature, and an annual weekend-long refresher course. Also, no unneccessarily destructive could be sold or owned, and gun owners would be tracer-chipped.

 

Any citizen who would disagree with such rational yet leniant control of such things can argue all they want as long as they follow the rules.

[john5746]

If you were a dictator of a country (e.g. you purchased a country) would you make homosexuality legal? Why? Would you have freedom of religion? Why?

 

What will be the primary principle you will adopt when running your country' date=' liberty, order...?[/quote']

 

I would appoint 10 very intelligent people to a think tank to come up with a democratic system of government. I would stress individual freedom and small, efficient government.

[-Demosthenes-]

I would appoint 10 very intelligent people to a think tank to come up with a democratic system of government. I would stress individual freedom and small, efficient government.

I didn't think our little party in Phili was all that bad all those years ago

Without animal experimentation we have no biomedical science. I think it's silly to forego the future benefits of biomedical research which has the potential to save countless human lives just to save the lives of animals. I mean, bottom line, if someone made me pick between killing a human and killing, say, a thousand gorillas, I'd save the human every time. Human life is more precious than animal life, and I refuse to see humans hurt because certain people have the unrealistic notion that animals are our equals. Bottom line, we're sentient and they are not.

I'd have to agree with bascule.

 

But anyway my country would be a square mile of land with a castle in the middle. Every Saturday all the citizens would each pich in 5 bucks for some pizza, and we'd have a party in the castle!

[Pangloss]

Without animal experimentation we have no biomedical science. I think it's silly to forego the future benefits of biomedical research which has the potential to save countless human lives just to save the lives of animals.

 

But no political platform is perfect. If IMM will forgive me for speaking of her in the third person for a moment, I have a problem with her "animal rights" and her agenda to legislate animal morality on us, but I'd probably vote for her anyway.

 

 

I would appoint 10 very intelligent people to a think tank to come up with a democratic system of government. I would stress individual freedom and small, efficient government.

 

And then impose it upon them, whether they wanted it or not! (grin)

 

Just kidding.

[Nevermore]

Geeze, how the hell is Pangloss 2,957,341 people?

[Pangloss]

Geeze, how the hell is Pangloss 2,957,341 people?

 

 

If I told you that, I'd have to kill you.

[YT2095]

1. Beer and BBQ day once a month

2. free trade, money not essential (goods for goods)

3. national Science fair ever 6 months

4. specified areas for testing of such Science projects

5. no restrictions on matarials allowed for use

6. any monnies gathered from other nations goes into one big bank to get tech supplies

7. acts that are harmfull to others wouldn`t be tollerated

8. agriculture and farming would be actively encouraged, and other "homemade" craft skills

9. national identity and teamwork would be our goal

10. a First name basis for all, non of this Sir/Madame garbage

11. best Homebrewed beer and wine competitions too.

 

I could continue, but you should have the general idea by now

[SorceressPol]

1. Freedom of religion until they start complaining or killing people. After that, they get to worship whatever comes into my mind.

2. Why in the world would I make homosexuality illegal? How could I possibly enforce that? Send agents to fog up some poor guy's windows to see if he's boinking another man? That's a waste of resources. People could marry whoever they want to as long as it's one person, who's 18 and up, and isn't forced into it.

3. The country is going to have an official language, and you have to learn that language before you come into the country.

4. Overcrowding of prisons leads to whining, so I would have to apply the death sentence to rapists and child molesters.

5. If I go on vacation I'm gonna go to a place on hunting grounds. So if protesters show up and end up getting shot, that's not my fault.

6. Fox will never be allowed to cancel anymore shows unless it's crap like Johnny Zero.

[-Demosthenes-]

People could marry whoever they want to as long as it's one person, who's 18 and up, and isn't forced into it.

What happened to the great "concenting adults" crusade?

[SorceressPol]

Because if I let them marry multiple people at once, they're going to have 50 children, and then decide to get a divorce just to annoy me. I am way too lazy to sort that crap out.

[MolecularMan14]

I would appoint 10 very intelligent people to a think tank to come up with a democratic system of government. I would stress individual freedom and small, efficient government.

...just 10? Why, some kind of intelligence cap in your nation?

 

In regards to the topic, Im still thinking on that; might post later

[Skye]

If I were setting up a nation I'd probably just write a constitution that sets out the powers and procedures for the government, and then let the elected officials sort it all out.

[Maioux]

If I were a dictator....hmmmm. I would definently have freedom of religion, as long as none were trying to convert others. The main principle wouldbe freedom of everything (as long as everyone remained civil). Free speech, homosexuality would be okay, no censorship. Punishment would be the worst part of living their. Eye for an eye. Maybe a little torture, if deemed necessary.

[Douglas]

What will be the primary principle you will adopt when running your country, liberty, order...?

I would promote anarchy for the first 5 years to weed out the weaklings. I would then determine if the remainder were butchers or builders, then develop a strategy based on my observations.