Empire-like Stateform.

a empire is close to a perfect stateform, imho.

No President, no nothing on the top. Only the Imperator, and even he is only their when something goes fucking wrong in the country.

Basicly it's like this/should be like this:

No fucking Partys(forbidden).
People-->Directly elect Senat.
If their is a crisis-->Senat votes if their should be a election for a Imperator or not. If Yes-->People elect Imperator(Can be anybody except a Senator). Imperator stays on top of the state till he dies(NOT till the crisis is solved because this would cause trouble[Why? Well, because nobody can say when the crisis is over!].). Then the Senat has to revote if a new Imperator has to be elected.

When their is a Imperator election, people can chose to "Anti"-Vote. If their is a majority of Anti-Votes, their is no Imperator elected. This Anti-Vote should be available at every election.

oh, and i forgot:

murder has to be legal, but only when it happens durring a duell. for a duell to be legitim, someone from the state has to watch the duell, and both sides in have to agree to the duell. also, the imperator HAS to accept every duell.

also, everybody HAS to vote. everyone who won't vote would have to go into jail till the next election. then he can vote... or stay in prison.

oh, and befor i forget:

discuss.

3GET

Spelling and grammar checkers come with most word-processing software.

>>4

well... THIS IS THE INTERNET, GET USED TO IT, GODDAMN. -.- nobody is going to type in Word just for you, and most people aren't native english speakers.

>>>>Imperator

LOL

>>6
You're an idiot.  Imperator is a suitable synonym for emperor.

I liked it except for the dueling. That's just stupid. If I'm a dissident I will just have 50-60 people constantly issue duels to the Imperator to paralyze his ability to govern.

>>5
This is the internet, its entire purpose is communication, goddamn!

>>7
MAYBE IN ANCIENT ROME

GB2/YUGOSLAVIA

As much as I'd like an Empire, there are always rebellions.  Even with enough failsafes in place, there's no guarantee of safety.  If you had a self destruct mechanism triggered when you die, some disgruntled security guard might pop you with a rifle and end it all.  How do you know your henchmen are as loyal as you assume them to be?  How do you prevent an uprising within your own ranks?

I'm studying the US army to see how they run themselves stabily.  Much of it has to do with tabacco, booze, and whores.

are you chinese>>11

Um... no... why?

>>8

well... the duelling thing is idioticy-control. all idiots that have something just plain stupid to complain about with each other would just kill themself off in most cases. also, well... hmm... maybe say you can't challenge the emperor directly but can get into a election. all challengers have to meet and select one of em to duell with the emperor. this duell happen every two weeks, then a new fighter would have to be selected if there are challengers again. would cut down the problem with that and if their IS a problem with the emperor he'd be just killed off(now why would one want to kill of the emperor if he fixes everything that could be considered a crisis[which would be why he has been elected in the first place. i.E. some viral thing like the spanish influcenca was{god i hope i translated that one right...}.]? Plain stupidy? Well, most plain stupid people would have killed themself off anyway in a normal duell at that point.).

>>10
stfu or i'll report you to AOL Internet Police. no wait, what i meant to say was the Mods, not AOL Internet Police.

oh, and befor i forget it. no guns would have to be allowed in the duells, of course. would be too easy/random.

That duel thing is fucking stupid. I'm sorry there is just no way that can work out. I guarantee to you that some fucker in the deep south will order a duel because he is offended that the emperor hasn't re-instituted slavery, or some hippy in the west coast is pissed he said "god", or some psycho in the bible belt wants to kill him with holy vengeance because he isn't absolutely for criminalizing abortions. You seriously underestimate the capacity of idiots to wrongly fuck with the system because in their ignorance they perceive otherwise perfectly functioning social institutions to be defective.

Otherwise, without the dueling, which is fucking stupid beyond belief, it's a decent idea. Drop the duel thing.

That duel thing is fucking stupid. I'm sorry there is just no way that can work out. I guarantee to you that some fucker in the deep south will order a duel because he is offended that the emperor hasn't re-instituted slavery, or some hippy in the west coast is pissed he said "god", or some psycho in the bible belt wants to kill him with holy vengeance because he isn't absolutely for criminalizing abortions. You seriously underestimate the capacity of idiots to wrongly fuck with the system because in their ignorance they perceive otherwise perfectly functioning social institutions to be defective.

Otherwise, without the dueling, which is fucking stupid beyond belief, it's a decent idea. Drop the duel thing.

Ok - put an age limit on the Imperator retiring, at least.  I don't want a fucking 90 year old senile coot running a country.  Also, enforced voting is stupid - what about people that don't know shit about what's going on, and know they don't know shit, and don't wanna fuck up the country by doing something stupid?  Voting sucks, you're always going to have 49% of the population below average intelligence.

damn, had a realy long answer here, then firefox crashed. i'll cut it short.

>>17

see >>14, then think about it again.

>>18

hmm... Well if you think that voting sucks, maybe you shouldn't discuss here. But i'll answer anyway: A team of medical doctors would have to look after the Imperator of course. If he's to senil to reign, their would have to be a voting if a re-election of a Imperator is needed or not(=If a Imperator is needed anymore.). Also, the Imperator would have the right to retire of course. Also, enforced voting would make people think more + force politicans to make the people listen more. If you can't bring your message to everyone, how can you bring new laws/orders(NO, this isn't a dig at Law & Order.) to the people? Also, you still can chose to not vote. You just go to jail for it till the next election. ;) Or you place a "Anti-Vote"(Anybody got a better name for it?) which is just like saying "All the canditates are stupid/this election isn't needed, who ever made voted that this election was needed in the senate: gtfo my goverment!"(well, or something like that.).

...

I'm absolutly dumbfounded by the first post...

Really, I am. What the hell is this kid on? Does he have any idea what he is trying to do?

He is porposing that you can elect someone until they die...

Honestly, as much as I hate doing this, all of you who hate Bush, you only have to put up with him for 8 years tops. This kid is saying he should be around for a life time...

On my side, if someone like Clinton got into power... for his entire life?!

Honestly... I'm voting to castrate this boy... the stupidity must not be allowed to "taint" the human gene pool worse than it already is.

I mean, come on, what a dumbass.

-Tarage

Now, the direct voting of the Senate idea I like. But the rest....

"No fucking Partys(forbidden)."

"also, everybody HAS to vote. everyone who won't vote would have to go into jail till the next election. then he can vote... or stay in prison."

That's fucking stupid, and quite possibly constitutes oppression of free speech. If you don't want to vote, you have the right not to vote. Being forced to vote and being told that if you don't you'd go to jail for a period of time greater than some people spend for worse crimes is retarded. And does this happen when the Imperator election comes? People stay in jail until the Imperator dies because they didn't vote? Please.

And, of course, there's the party-banning thing. Again, the party system allows freedom of speech and consideration of all sides. Banning them could quite easily constitute oppression.

This sounds vaguely reminiscient of good old Weimar Germany, where the Chancellor could take emergency control if a crisis was declared. The thing is, nobody was stupid enough to LET the Chancellor continue ruling. Why? a) it's dumb b) as the Imperator gets old he could quite easily become set in his ways and resistant to change, c) eventually, you'll get someone who abuses this power and messes everything up (Hitler and Germany, for example) and d) the world changes often. The best way is to change with it. Changing leaders with our democratic system so far allows this.

Finally, the duel system, as said before, is retarded. I don't even need to say why, it already has been said.

How old are you? I'm guessing not very, because this idea is  oppressive, doomed to failure and outrageously ill-conceived. You'd need to put a huge amount of work in just to make it not retarded, and even then I'd take our democratic system any day.

Um, we're talking about an EMPIRE here.  Basically, an elected dictatorship.  Applying democracy and personal freedom is irrelevant.  In this case, personal freedoms are more of a "perk" or just a fun diversion.  Ultimately this is despotism with the hope that the guy in charge can lead effectively without causing revolt. 

I automatically lose respect for someone talking big but using small language; poor diction, shotty grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. It makes things hard to comprehend and it lessens the desire to comprehend.

Aside from all of that proper writing elitist shit, take a U.S. History or Government class. I'm not sure if you're wishing for a combination of a Republic such as Renaissance Florence or Rome or maybe that and a mixture of Renaissance Europe. o_O

And, uh. Okay, who would say there was a crisis? The Senate? When the crisis is clearly over, and there is no use for the Imperator (did you mean emperor?), what does s/he do? Murders legal? Nevermind, this is pointless and horribly thought out. There are plenty of reasons despotism never worked out for the people.

>>23
>I automatically lose respect for someone talking big but using
>small language; poor diction, shotty grammar, spelling,
>punctuation, and capitalization. It makes things hard to
>comprehend and it lessens the desire to comprehend.

i want to notice that english isn't my primary language. So please send your complains to the english teachers in my country.  Being from another country, i can't take a U.S. History Class that easily, and i don't go to High School anymore(Well, i never did since there are no highschools here because we have a non-U.S. education system, but that doesn't belong here). I'm already trying my best to make my postings as readable as possible. And yes, i meant emperor. Although imperator is a suitable synonym just like >>7 said. About the Murders legal thing: I said only in duells to which both sites have to agree. Allmost nobody would be willing to agree. But the REALY stupid people would kill themself off. Not quite a bad thing. Befor complaining about something like my language, grammar etc., read exactly what i write.

>>22
well not completly. rome had - till the permanent use of a dictator - only in times of a crisis a emperor. then people got lazy.

>>21

banning partys prevents the build up of organisations that leave no chance at all for new ideas(Look at the U.S.. 2 Partys(well ok there are more, but they are so small that they have nothing to say at all.). Not much of choice that you have.). If you look at antic greece, it worked pretty well, even without partys. Also, the jailing shouldn't be till the next election that is from the same kind you got in jail for, but for ANY election. I think most people don't realize how many elections are held in every state, in every country, every single day. Also, don't come with freedome of speach to me. If there would be any true freedome of speech even a 2 year old could watch porn. That wouldn't be good for a child? Well so think about freedome of speech again then. Oh, and here we notice: If two dumbasses want to fight a battle of life and death(=duell) and we say "no you can't", wouldn't that be against freedome of speech(yes i know it says freedome of speech, but you know what i mean.) as well?

Also, i'd like to quote Winston Churchill, goes to all the "yeah democracy!!!11one"-guys(Nothing against democrazy[no, thats no a typo], its good and fine, but it has its errors. I dont say what is said is perfect. It's just something i'm working on. Thats why i posted it. To fix things in it.):

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

and:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."

see as an empire there is nothing stoping throne assasinations, and hiers to be corrupt, this goes for "sort of communism" because of the fact when one man leaves (lenin) another man can take the place (stalin) and be quite evil, regardless of trying to improve the nation for the many over the sacrifce of the few. This would go for an empire because an emporor can be subjected to greed, corruption, influence by outside leaders, or he could just be a big pussy and fuck it all up, mind the laguage, but tis quite true.

>> banning partys prevents the build up of organisations that leave no chance at all for new ideas(Look at the U.S.. 2 Partys(well ok there are more, but they are so small that they have nothing to say at all.). Not much of choice that you have.).

Yes. Let's abandon the party system because OBVIOUSLY it limits freedom of choice, and replace it with - and this is the clever bit - a ONE PARTY SYSTEM! That way you can choose all you want, as long as you choose one party! Oh, there are Anti-Votes, you say? Well, that's sure as hell completely different from a two-party-centric democracy where most people choose one of two things, isn't it!

>> Also, the jailing shouldn't be till the next election that is from the same kind you got in jail for, but for ANY election. I think most people don't realize how many elections are held in every state, in every country, every single day.

>> On one hand, that sounds a bit less extreme, although really you should have mentioned it before. On the other... jailings for every single election, no matter what the importance? Isn't that a little extreme? I mean, what's wrong with just a fine?

>> Also, don't come with freedome of speach to me. If there would be any true freedome of speech even a 2 year old could watch porn. That wouldn't be good for a child? Well so think about freedome of speech again then.

He can, if you've got bad parents. That's not freedom of speech, though. Freedom of speech is about being able to voice your opinions, not deciding whether or not you want to watch porn. I can come with it to you all I like. In fact, I should come to you with a dictionary, so you can look up what things mean before you talk about them. It could help with your atrocious spelling and grammar too.

Voting is a form of freedom of speech, as you are expressing your view by voting for whatever particular party you want, or not voting at all.


>> Oh, and here we notice: If two dumbasses want to fight a battle of life and death(=duell) and we say "no you can't", wouldn't that be against freedome of speech(yes i know it says freedome of speech, but you know what i mean.) as well?

Well, I know what you mean. You mean something that the term "freedom of speech" has little to do with.

Duels have been banned in most countries because they are an incredibly stupid, violent and extreme way of solving disputes. You said it yourself: "two DUMBASSES want to fight a battle of life and death". A duel is over the top, is a terrible way of solving disputes (awarding victory over a matter to someone not by who has the best argument, or who is right or wrong, but who dies first), and also run the risk of causing severe psychological damage to relatives of the deceased (especially children). It's pointless and dumb.

>> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."

Democracy isn't perfect, yes, but one huge plus is that it generally stops elitist idiots like you from getting into power. It is one of the fairest systems we have, even if it isn't perfect. Your system guarantees the eventual electing to power of a power-abusive tyrant who would do far more damage to the country than democracy could ever do. Like I said, if you posted this to fix things in it, you need a HUGE overhaul of this badly thought-out garbage.

i want to notice that english isn't my primary language. So please send your complains to the english teachers in my country.
[...]
then people got lazy.

lol

>>24

You are trying to say the people are too stupid to think on their own, so lets think for them...

Yeah... thank <insert higher power> that you will never have a chance to enact your stupidity.

I keep saying this... Democracy isn't perfect, but damnit, its outlasted most of the other crap out there. Until you come up with a better system, enact it, prove it works, and find your "nirvana", don't try to talk about changing something that works.

Please, go back to your own country and preach this crap all you want. Unless of course, you have no "freedom of speach". Wouldn't that be a bitch.

-Tarage

>>26

Who said something about a one-party system? You seem to be overseeing the fact that with no partys, there can't be even one party. See it as idependent-candidates only principe.

Ah, touche. I was thinking along the lines of this:

If an Imperator is elected, and rules for life, there is quite a large chance that the majority of time will be spent being ruled by an Imperator (especially if the death of the Imperator causes - guess what - a crisis!). With the Imperator having absolute power, then many people, particularly those who were too young to vote when the Imperator got into power, will go through a large portion of their lives having absolutely no say on who does the ruling for them - it's the Imperator until he dies or goes senile or something. In that case, it's worse than the two-party-centric system he's moaning about, because you don't even have limited choice. You have to go with the Imperator whether you like it or not.

Another problem is the "anybody can be an Imperator except the Senators" thing. What criteria is there? Is there a selection process for nominations? Or can someone just nominate whoever they damn well please? If it's the last one, you'll end up with about half the country nominating themselves.

I see a lot wrong so far. Rather than gunning you down, I'll list the problems I see so you can work on them. :)

- Jail sentencing for not voting too extreme and could cause problems, with trials of people who didn't vote slowing down the legal system and jails becoming more crowded. You also risk pissing people off by punishing them too harshly, and putting decent people in contact with criminals, both of which may cause an increase in crime rate.

- "Anybody can be Imperator" ideal does not mention any form of prerequisite people have to fulfil first. There ARE some people who, through mental disorders or complexes etc., should not be able to be nominated Imperator. If anyone can be Imperator, there must be a process by which all the nominations are narrowed down to find the best candidate.

- Duelling is stupid and based on the elitist idea that only stupid people who deserve to die will go through with it. Other things you've said give the idea that you think most people are beneath you and someone should be thinking for them.

- "Imperator only there when there is a crisis" idea is negated by the fact that he stays in power for life, and the Senators can vote for a new one upon his death. By that time they will probably be so used to the Imperator that they will vote a new one in. Even if they don't, a crisis will happen eventually. Over a long period of time the state will be mostly ruled by Imperators.

- Forced voting, abolishion of parties and absolute rule by the Imperator causes a limitation of personal freedom. Granted, as said above, these things don't come with the system anyway, but that's the point. Eventually you'll get dissent and revolts against the Imperator.

- The entire system is also based on the one huge gamble that no Imperator will be corrupt. All it would take is one Stalinesque dictator, or an Imperator who decides to change the system so his next of kin become Imperator on his death, for the whole system to come crashing down one way or the other.

-yes... thats the point of that. if everybody can nominate himself, there is a big likelyness that many will just say to their friends "hey, vote for me!!!11one". With that, a canditate must be realy brilliant to even get people to listen. i'd say more about that now, but i'm tired(it's 05:25 am here...).

-Well thats why I said someone from the state has to watch over the duelles. That requires people to register. Then there would be a time delay between that and the duell itself in that many people would tell the two persons that want to duell that it's fucking stupid etc., which would cause many duells to be canceled. I just noticed a real evil weakness in that btw., the comercialising of the duells would have to be illegal. else there would be enough people that would go all like "GLADIATOR! YEAAAAH!!!".

-Hmmm... I see your point now. *bangheadagainstwall**takesouthiscalculator* The Senate sets the goverment time at the time they vote for a election for a emperor with a maximum of 21 years goverment time. The senate would have to be re-elected every year and if a the govern time of a emperor is over, also.

-Possible fix, instead of jail, domiciliary arrest(Now i hope that's what its called in english. *smashesdictionary*).

-Near to absolute power for the emperor, not absolut. The basement of the law shouldn't be able to be changed(Every officer, soldier,, judge, official etc. is trained to that. If the emperor trys to change something in the baselaw, he'll have to leave. If he doesn't want to, well, thats why everbody must be trained for it.). There is of course the problem that you would have to have a more then rock solid basement. Corruption is also cut down by the duelling fact.

i think democracy is failing...at least in U.S.  Hey,  George W. Bush got re-elected!  You CANNOT say that, he was the best candidate.  Yet he got re-elected.  Hell, even before that he fucking beat Gore.  Gore!!!  Obviously better choice than Bush.  He still fucking lost.  How can you say democracy is working?  U.S is too fucking big and powerful and organized and all that shit in my opinion.  Everything is so much easier when its small.

>> yes... thats the point of that. if everybody can nominate himself, there is a big likelyness that many will just say to their friends "hey, vote for me!!!11one". With that, a canditate must be realy brilliant to even get people to listen.

It'll be hard, though. Could be interesting to watch.

Duel still seems kind of pointless, but that works better.

>> -Hmmm... I see your point now. *bangheadagainstwall**takesouthiscalculator* The Senate sets the goverment time at the time they vote for a election for a emperor with a maximum of 21 years goverment time. The senate would have to be re-elected every year and if a the govern time of a emperor is over, also.

That works. It would be easier if the given time of the emperor always ends on the day of that year's Senate election. (if the Senate election and the emperor's resignation were two seperate events in one year, some Senators wouldn't be there long, see :P)

>> Possible fix, instead of jail, domiciliary arrest(Now i hope that's what its called in english. *smashesdictionary*).

House arrest, yeah. It works better, at least.

>> Near to absolute power for the emperor, not absolut. The basement of the law shouldn't be able to be changed(Every officer, soldier,, judge, official etc. is trained to that. If the emperor trys to change something in the baselaw, he'll have to leave. If he doesn't want to, well, thats why everbody must be trained for it.). There is of course the problem that you would have to have a more then rock solid basement. Corruption is also cut down by the duelling fact.

Oooh. So if the emperor can't make drastic changes. What if it's an important change but possibly acceptable (I don't know, maybe like adding an extra Senator or something). Is there a vote?


>> i think democracy is failing...at least in U.S.  Hey,  George W. Bush got re-elected!  You CANNOT say that, he was the best candidate.

Depends on point of view. Personally I think Bush is a complete incompetent. Then again, people can come up with convincing arguments against the other politicians, and I respect that. The problem with democracy in the US seems to be that most of your politicians are... what's the word.... douchebags. Then again, could be wrong.

>>32
Well, part of it is the fact that we have a democratic republic rather than a true democracy. But, even then Bush would have been elected (Though, voting patterns might have changed). Besides, democracy does NOT pick the BEST choice, it merely picks the most POPULAR choice. We just pray that the most popular choice is the best one. There's a reason democracy has been called "Three wolves and sheep deciding what to eat for dinner." (Anyone have a copy of the much better definition of democracy from Transmetropolitan?)

>>33

i don't have time now to type a lot(work etc.), maybe i'll add some more later, but, about things like adding a senator... The Number of Senators would have to be in direct connection to the population. i.E., for every x of people, there have to be y Senators(there would be some kind of limitation for that thought, else you'll have a much to big senate after a few centurys.). you can use that kind of solution for many things. The law would have to be like a Computer-Program, you have a core element that you won't(in that case, CAN'T) change anymore, but you can play around with the rest of it. Maybe, changing core elements would have to be only possible if 2/3 of the people and 72,91%(how i come to that value? 1/16=6,25% 2/3=~66,66%, 66,66+6,25=72,91 or 1/16+2/3=72,91. Well it's not the exact value[more exact, but still not totaly exact value: 72,916666666666666666666666666667], but exact enough.) of the senate vote for it(Why a bit more then 2/3 of the Senate? Backup against corruption and similiar things. If the need for a change in the law-core is realy that important, even some of the senators that normaly don't agree with the others will agree.). Had a Idea now about the Senate. You need somebody to watch the Senate, because we all know how politicans like to get offtopic in debats("Todays topic #1 on the order of the day is the need to fix §[numberhere]"-->Politican 1: "Befor we start to discuss about §[numberhere], i'd like to say that the acting of..." etc., you get what i mean[i hope]) Not watch it like "Hey thats wrong, we'll not allow this and put a veto against it", more like "Hey guys, your are getting off-topic, STFU and get back to topic or we'll take a break and continue in 30 minutes so you can cool of get to control your anger." and similiar stuff. A group of 5 people, chosen by the Senate, out of the Senate self. This people would loose their vote-right in the Senate, of course. They would do things like the order of the day(i hope thats the right word/phrase for that what i mean. if not, blame my dictionary.), breaks, setting speachtimes etc.(5 people because thats the best number for such a group. 1 is to powerfull, 2 could stop everything by not agreeing[same with 4], and 3 are to easy to corrupt, anything bigger is to bloated.). And now i'll go back to work and hope that i didn't fuck up anything in my posting because i didn't quadruple check it.

bump