Conquer Club

saxitoxin wrote:no elections

a highly decentralized state in which all governing powers were held by districts that were redivided every 20 years to keep their populations under 5,000; each district would be run by a legislative council selected by a lottery

a central government above all the districts responsible for arbitrating disputes between districts, redividing them and protecting individual rights from overzealous councils ... the central government would be managed by a 9-member Board of Control composed of randomly selected attorneys, chartered accountants and retired military officers of the rank of Colonel or better

the police composed entirely of men; the army composed entirely of women

Just curious, why the gender division for police and army?

Baron Von PWN wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:no elections

a highly decentralized state in which all governing powers were held by districts that were redivided every 20 years to keep their populations under 5,000; each district would be run by a legislative council selected by a lottery

a central government above all the districts responsible for arbitrating disputes between districts, redividing them and protecting individual rights from overzealous councils ... the central government would be managed by a 9-member Board of Control composed of randomly selected attorneys, chartered accountants and retired military officers of the rank of Colonel or better

the police composed entirely of men; the army composed entirely of women

Just curious, why the gender division for police and army?

In the words of Frank Herbert:

A male army is ultimately self-destructive in peacetime, turning the violence normally directed towards an enemy on the civilian population through political anarchy moderated only by military force. Women, however, serve society in the role of wife and mother, and serve to nurture that society - as such, when turned to war, they would serve because doing so serves society, while in peace, they returned to their natural roles as wives and mothers.

saxitoxin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:no elections

a highly decentralized state in which all governing powers were held by districts that were redivided every 20 years to keep their populations under 5,000; each district would be run by a legislative council selected by a lottery

a central government above all the districts responsible for arbitrating disputes between districts, redividing them and protecting individual rights from overzealous councils ... the central government would be managed by a 9-member Board of Control composed of randomly selected attorneys, chartered accountants and retired military officers of the rank of Colonel or better

the police composed entirely of men; the army composed entirely of women

Just curious, why the gender division for police and army?

In the words of Frank Herbert:

A male army is ultimately self-destructive in peacetime, turning the violence normally directed towards an enemy on the civilian population through political anarchy moderated only by military force. Women, however, serve society in the role of wife and mother, and serve to nurture that society - as such, when turned to war, they would serve because doing so serves society, while in peace, they returned to their natural roles as wives and mothers.

plus, they could dress up in sexy amazon warrior costumes

Canada's and the United Kingdom's respective governments are ideal in both structure and premise. We have an elected House of Commons and an appointed Senate (House of Lords). A solid, non politically correct Constitution in alignment with moral principles and the common law system would be ideal. The Senate should be appointed directly by the Queen to abolish Senate loyalties to a party, and perhaps they should be a combination of (10%) clergy, military veterans (10%), "retired" civilians (40%), working civilians (40%). The old regime should be cast out entirely, (start afresh) and all taxes or extraneous laws not created to protect the encroachment of property or person and not in line with the concept of jurisprudence would be abolished. Provincial and Municipal governments would continue to exist, but they likewise would be overhauled.

That would be the perfect governmental system ruled by the majority.

General Brock II wrote:Canada's and the United Kingdom's respective governments are ideal in both structure and premise. We have an elected House of Commons and an appointed Senate (House of Lords). A solid, non politically correct Constitution in alignment with moral principles and the common law system would be ideal. The Senate should be appointed directly by the Queen to abolish Senate loyalties to a party, and perhaps they should be a combination of (10%) clergy, military veterans (10%), "retired" civilians (40%), working civilians (40%). The old regime should be cast out entirely, (start afresh) and all taxes or extraneous laws not created to protect the encroachment of property or person and not in line with the concept of jurisprudence would be abolished. Provincial and Municipal governments would continue to exist, but they likewise would be overhauled.

That would be the perfect governmental system ruled by the majority.

My government would also somewhat follow the Westminster structure . However the senate would be a technocratic body made up of a mix of engineers,doctors, lawyers ect. Appointed by bodies of their peers (for example members of the bar association would pick its representatives). The monarch would be elected by members of both houses, but cannot be a member of either house. Candidates for the monarchy would be required to acquire a certain amount of signatures (say 5% of the population). The candidates would then be narrowed down to 5 selections by the general public and then voted on by parliament. They would be elected for a 10 year term. The commons would be elected by their riddings, however it would be by Single Transferable Vote.