A new nation with no government. What would you suggest?

Having not read most of the posts because after the first two pages they were getting boring and predictable, I would suggest an oligarchy based off IQ to be the primary leaders, with a PR team based off those who have the greatest people skills. Probably a 25-person government, with individuals selected at age 20 to be trained and prepared to take their position, whether has one of the oligarchy or the PR/HR team. I'm thinking 10 IQ people and 15 HR/PR people, so that each IQ person has a representative who can explain what they're doing, plus 5 more who will present the decisions of the island to other nations. I personally am not a fan of the emphasis on states rights; in such a small island I feel like the states would be, by necessity, too small. I feel that there should be no elected leaders- each oligarchy member retires at 75, or when they become incapacitated for whatever reason. They will be brought on board whenever they are ready- whatever age they are prepared. The people can vote to remove someone from office- it has to be a 75% majority. There are no political parties, and the military budget is solely for homeland security- no foreign wars. The people can create businesses, rent resorts out, and everything else, but they have no power to change government policy.

 

So basically this is the proposition that 25 dictators should exploit the entire population for their personal benefit? I don't believe many people will move to this nation as proposed and there will be 25 dictators with virtually no citizens.

 

No...that's just the point people don't get. The problem isn't the number of people leading- the problem is that most countries keep electing charismatic idiots. The whole goal behind an intellectual oligarchy is that the leaders will know how to face each economic and political challenge correctly according to empirically proven and theoretically sound theory. People can still request changes and protest and all those things- but momentary fads, bipolar and partisan politics, and general chaos will be avoided. With 10 leaders there will be fairly frequent shifts in power as old leaders retire and new ones are chosen. This also escapes the constant campaigning that occurs in the electoral system- these people can spend their time making the decisions that need to be made, without having to spend all their time keeping the approval of a political party or worrying about how their image is holding up. I personally would rather be in an economically flourishing society where I know that provided I use my skills correctly I can get a well-paying job and have a life where I can buy the things I want, go where I want, and be who I want, rather than in a society where my life is constantly changing due to the bipolar swings of a broken political system, and never knowing for sure whether tomorrow my job would still be there for me to go to.

 

There were few corporations at the time of the founding and those that did exist were tightly constrained by their state charters. As such the founders saw no reason to even mention them in the Constitution.

In the days of the founders there were two types of corporations, limited liability companies which were strictly limited to the construction of ships and unlimited liability corporations that were chartered for a single purpose only and for a limited time period, usually 40 years for the construction and operation of things like iron foundries, mines, ferries and canals. After that time the corporation was disbanded, its assets sold off and the proceeds distributed to shareholders.

Unlimited corporations were granted charters by specific acts of state legislatures, were invariably required to operate in the public interest and failure to do so was grounds for revoking the charter. Shareholders bore unlimited liability.

The status of corporations today was something entirely unimaginable by the founders. I am sure they would be appalled and horrified that corporations have usurped so many rights for themselves while shedding the power of governments to control them.

 

There are several issues addressed above so let me take a moment to address some of them.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27321.html

A small group as proposed would unquestionable lead to corruption. The "turn-over" based upon mandatory retirement would be inadequite to prevent this corruption from occuring as it would be decades between when a person was selected and when they would be forced to retire.

I agree with the position that the government makes adverse economic decisions and that is simply based upon the fact that the government is involved in the economy at all. The government should be excluded from any interventionism in the economy except for minimal regulations to protect the Rights of the People. The economy does not belong to the government, it belongs to the People. This pits Keynesianism, which has shown itself to be a complete failure for the average person while benefiting the wealthy and the bankers, against Laisse-Faire capitalism which respects the fact that the economy belongs to the People and not the government. A primary foundation for the economy is "species" money where the labor of the individual, which is expended in exchange for a commodity, is stored in a commodity (gold and silver coins). This money is exclusively for use within the country and all international exchanges would be based upon "promissory notes" for commodities that can only be redeemed with commodities and not money.

I would address one more major issue. A Constitutional government is only valid if the Constitution is followed. In ensuring this I would mandate that the "Supreme Court" which has ultimate authority related to the Constitution must be required to unanimously agree that any law which is challenged in court is Constitutional. If there is any doubt whatsoever related to the Constitutionality of a law it should be struck down as unconstitutional. All Supreme Court decisions would have to be unanimous that a law is Constitutional and if even one Justice believes the law is unconstitutional it would be struck down. We do not need laws of questionable Constitutionality which is what we have in the US based upon "majority rule" and can live without them.

 

No government, no monetary system, a social contract based on free market voluntary systems in which people produce what they need off the neutral land and use or trade it for another good or service. The one rule is don't hurt other people. If you do, you get exiled.

 

Not very well thought out.

Who is going to exile the individual that harms other people? Who is going to ensure or define what constitutes harm? Who is going to assume responsibility for the protection of the People in the nation to prevent a take-over by a foreign nation? Who is going to ensure that products that are being exported are not stolen by pirates in route to their destination. What commodity is going to be used as a common commodity for any exchanges? What prevents the owner of land, which is temporary as all people eventually die losing owership, from contaminating the land preventing its future use? What prevents a person from contaminating a stream with toxic chemicals on their property which flow downstream and can harm or kill others?

I'm an absolute supporter of laisse faire caplitalism but it requires government to ensure the regulatory protections of the RIghts of the Individual and governments must be supported by some financial means and that is always referred to as taxation.

Capitalism, which is founded upon contract law, also requires a commodity based money which is a common commodity used to faciliate the barter system. For example a person can contract their labor to a company that produces ping pong balls but the individual does not want to be paid in ping pong balls so they will accept a common commodity that can be exchanged for the commodities they might desire either immediately or in the future. That is all money really is. It is a common commodity where labor is exchanged for commoditieis.

 

That's a good point.

I sort of got stuck on how to enforce rues. My original thought was to have a court and police system literally made up of all the people who get a vote. The victim prescribing the punishment and the people either agreeing or recommending something less severe. Now that I think about it again, that's a much better plan.

Government can exist without money or taxation as a council or democratic panel. If your population is small enough, everyone can take part in it, which I think it idea. A great man once said that the opinion of the People was the basis for government.

I still think a Trade and Barter system avoids the trouble often caused by money.

But if money is used, it should at least have value, in itself. People used to use salt as money, which isn't a bad idea.

 

How about "Break a deal, face the wheel" (Mad Max Beyond Thunderdoom) LOL

The example provided was based upon a hypothetical island of about the same size and population of Ohio so the population would be about 11 million.

I believe what should be addressed is "legal tender v money" as money can exist without legal tender existing. Money is merely a common commodity that is used in a barter or trade system. It doesn't need to be "legal tender" but should be identified and certified as far as weight and composition. It should be something that retains relative value with other commodities, portable, and basically indestructable or as near so as possible.

 

The US, and Ohio, actually have a long experience with privately issued money since the government did not issue money until the Civil War. It was privately issued money that financed the huge expansion of the US economy during a time when legal tender, i.e. gold and silver coin, was scarce and inadequate to meet the demands of territorial expansion and population growth.

You should read the book "A Nation of Counterfeiters". It is a history of the realities of privately issued money, legal tender, and the relationship of these to economic growth.

 

Mad Max is sort of how I imagine the world will be in a hundred years.

They can't break off into small, self-regulating villages?

It should also be something that can be mined or discovered on the island, right?

Gold, silver or diamonds, perhaps.

 

Funny, I think I know my answer to that with quite some precision:
technocracy/positivism

No instrument has allowed more people to agree, work together and reach prosperity than science.
The wealth of a nation can be easily predicted by their technology and science, even some countries with massive amounts of oil are poor - but no scientifically advanced nation is poor.

Just running a normal company I would invest a lot in research.

 

We already have a country in the world without a government Somalia. It's a horrible place to live and a problem to the rest of the world.

 

No annoying bickering Goverment...Would be like living in Figi.

An unsean-unheared from Goverment. People living there, don't even know the Presidents name.
Except....If he or she screws-up. Theres a rope on a tree waiting.

Awesome

 

That is just stupid, brutish, and ignorant. 'Fiji' does have a government, by the way. And don't forget in all your incredibly transparent bravado that a rope fits on everyone's neck - including (theoretically of course) yours.

 

But Somalia doesn't and it reflects what happens when there is no government.

I believe we always end up with the proposition that "Government that governs least, governs best" as some wise sage put it.

 

The President sets foreign policy. Congress can pass a resolution recognizing a nation if they so choose, but it would not be official US foreign policy, it would only be a statement that the US congress supports the prospect of nation-hood. It is up to the President to determine whether or not we treat an entity as a nation. To set it in law, typically, you would have a treaty, which is signed by the President and ratified by the Senate..

Business Development Program

 

Start off with a democratic kibbutz. As things grow, turn into a representative free market democracy with a permanent bill of rights in the Constitution.

 

In a commune, properly set up, all work because of shame and peer pressure. That's why communes don't work much beyond a couple hundred people.

 

I would take our US constitution as a base. I would add to it to fix the problems we are having in the USA now.

 

Outlaw political parties right off the bat, and only allow issues to be decided or determined based on the actual facts.
　
　
I also like the way ancient Greek's did it. Everybody is required at one time or another to represent their sector as a Senator. As a representative their duty was to debate issues and choose which issues would be voted on a ballot and at the end of their term (say 6 months except of course in emergency situations), the people would vote and determine which laws go into effect and/or have either become antiquated and are eliminated.
　
　
Also as a representative in the government, you would "ALWAYS" (just like in a court of law) be sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, be honest, and be held to the highest standard, so if you broke the law during your term upon conviction you would automatically receive the maximum sentence when ever you broke a law or committed a crime. Stealing/embezzling Or any other treasonous act against the state and/or the people you represented would automatically result in full forfeiture of all personal assets and eternal banishment or execution depending on the level of corruption the individual was involved in.
　
　
Politicians would be held responsible and accountable for their actions as employees of the state or it could/would kill them. Literally.

 

Somalia has a government, possibly a number of governments. The big problem in Somalia is not the lack of government so much as the vast amounts of weapons and ammunition and continuous and continuing outside interference that makes it difficult for any government to gain control. Somalia was a particularly contentious place during the cold war and was flooded with a continuous stream of weapons and ammunition from all sides for over 40 years. It was estimated in the late 1990s that Somalia contained enough weapons and ammunition for 30 years of continuous civil war and many tons more have flowed into the nation since then.

Interestingly, Northern Somalia has seen little internal strife despite the lack of government. Perhaps it is because they were an independent nation for centuries before being incorporated into greater Somalia. They would prefer to not be a part of Somalia but the world ignores their pleas to separate themselves from the fractious tribes in the south who do not have the same beliefs as them. Perhaps it is because they are mostly Sufi, who are not big believers in solving problems through violence. When the Shabab moved north and started burning their mosques and persecuting villagers they reluctantly took up weapons and chased them away after the Imams gave them absolution for committing violence. Even so, it was reluctant warfare on their part.

The Somali pirates started out as fishermen taking a proactive stance on local fishery protection by attacking foreign fishing vessels raiding the fisheries and depriving them of their lively hood. The persistence of the world in refusing to differentiate the north of Somalia from the south has a lot to do with continuing Somali piracy around the Horn of Africa. With no recognition the ad-hoc government there is unable to take steps to consolidate power and get the tribes and villages to take it seriously, especially since piracy has become such a boon to the fishing villages.

They are not doing this without the collusion of many financial interests. It does not surprise me that the situation in Somalia has gone on for so long since so many western interests are making huge profits from it. Day charter rates are higher and insurance rates of shipping anywhere near the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, and Suez Canal have skyrocketed. The price of crude oil has increased.

It only takes one destabilized nation in one critical place for financial interests to profit at the world's expense. It would be important for a new nation to avoid placing itself in such a position by having a government strong enough to stand up to that sort of pressure. Somalia could not, it is an important lesson.

 

I have an issue with the question.

If I am part of a group of investors then surely we would be looking for a return on investment.

I am assuming then that we are a group of benevolent despots, looking to create a better life for anyone who wants to come.

Also the resources to be sold, what are they and how much do we have. It would be dramatically different if the resources were Uranium and Oil to Bananas and Coconuts.

I am going to assume it's not oil or uranium which means the US will have no interest unless it has strategic implications. I am going to assume it does.

I am assuming a significant number of people came on the boat with us all looking for Shangri-La, approximately 1000 people of mixed race and occupations.

I would first create a parliament, it would consist of the 50 eldest people. I know that doesn't guarantee they are the smartest, but neither does winning an election.

Those 50 would ratify the constitution which would be based on the following principles.

The nation would be an independent nation, having no allegiances.
The people have the right to free speech, without fear or prejudice.
There is freedom of religion and sexuality.
That the nation develop a defence act, to protect the sovereignty of the parliament.
That the parliament draw up basic set of legislatures regarding business regulations, trade regulations.
That parliament overseers the day to day operation of the financial matters of the nation, ensuring a fair and equatable distribution of wealth, providing for the needs of all citizens equally, without favour.
That the parliament ratify common law principles.
That no individual has the right to arm themselves, no individual has the right to force, coerce or otherwise influence another except where there is mutual and informed consent.
That the parliament select a person who they feel would represent them the most, as a nominal leader.
That all meetings of the "Elders" would be totally public, open and transparent.
That all members of the community have a right to address the parliament at any reasonable time.

I know it's pretty vague, a lot of variables need to be considered, but basically it is run by a series of committees. Growth would be restricted and lateral growth encouraged whilst vertical growth discouraged. Big is not better.

 

How that land is virgin. I would create a communal system. And the people would decide.

 

This would sort of kill "Freedom of speech and association" and I would recommend against it. It sounds good but in reality it's not. Of course removing the power that major political parties have in determining the outcome of elections, such as controlling who is allowed in the "debates" for the office is something I'd advocate. For example, if a candidate for "president" has a mathmatical possibility (not probability) of being elected they should be included in the debate and given equal time.