Utopia Round 3 – The 3 questions

[Karakris]

Originally Posted by GCoyote

I'm just tossing in pet ideas I've had for years to see how they stack up in terms of both feasibility and desirability.

Hmmm - I have got my own kind of Utopia running in this Site.
Some of my pet ideas I use for running that State / Nation / Dominion.

The kind where adoring millions bow down and cheer whenever I go past - not really, but I AM a Popular President.

I also get to make sure every one else conforms to my "green" ideals - but I am trying to be fair and realistic though.

This only works because -

1) It is in the 2130's - 2137 now. So new Technology allows Fast FTL - much faster than light travel, modified cloning to produce many unique individuals, cheap clean fusion power, rapid building of lots of things which take a long time in 2011, much better medical and learning techniques.

2) We have a whole Galaxy to explore, and set up new Colonies on new Planets - where population and overcrowding are not issues. Where mineral and metal resources are much less limited, where we can set-up idealised eco-systems ( only where there is NO eco-system already ).

3) We are at War - admittedly a very indirect War - one which could last for a hundred years or more. But one which provides the spur of greater cooperation, detemination to succeed, the "pulling together" against an ever-present and potentially overwhelming threat.
Like the THREAT of an Alien Species like the one in "Independence Day", who want to conquer, exploit and enslave everything in this Galaxy.

Still - even a Fictional Universe where I am a Popular President gives me a big kick - sort of fun. Like in that song which always makes me roll up - "Everybody Love Me, Baby" by Don McLean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjKGQqy_tYM

Best Wishes to all of you Good People.

[Comrade|Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Karakris

Hmmm - I have got my own kind of Utopia running in this Site.
Some of my pet ideas I use for running that State / Nation / Dominion.

The kind where adoring millions bow down and cheer whenever I go past - not really, but I AM a Popular President.

I also get to make sure every one else conforms to my "green" ideals - but I am trying to be fair and realistic though.

This only works because -

1) It is in the 2130's - 2137 now. So new Technology allows Fast FTL - much faster than light travel, modified cloning to produce many unique individuals, cheap clean fusion power, rapid building of lots of things which take a long time in 2011, much better medical and learning techniques.

2) We have a whole Galaxy to explore, and set up new Colonies on new Planets - where population and overcrowding are not issues. Where mineral and metal resources are much less limited, where we can set-up idealised eco-systems ( only where there is NO eco-system already ).

3) We are at War - admittedly a very indirect War - one which could last for a hundred years or more. But one which provides the spur of greater cooperation, detemination to succeed, the "pulling together" against an ever-present and potentially overwhelming threat.
Like the THREAT of an Alien Species like the one in "Independence Day", who want to conquer, exploit and enslave everything in this Galaxy.

Still - even a Fictional Universe where I am a Popular President gives me a big kick - sort of fun. Like in that song which always makes me roll up - "Everybody Love Me, Baby" by Don McLean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjKGQqy_tYM

Best Wishes to all of you Good People.

If only somebody would make some sort of Wargame, based on this concept!

[Karakris]

Originally Posted by Comrade|Ogilvy

If only somebody would make some sort of Wargame, based on this concept!

Aye - Touche - my Friend - you got me !!

Sorry for Spamming - bit the more the merrier in the Game - I reckon.
BTW - look in sometime - Persephone has joined.

[Khryses]

ELDERLY



1. How does your Utopia deal with the elderly citizens? At what age are they allowed to go into retirement and is there a pension?

'Elderly'? Sanctuary doesn't really recognise a given age as a sudden cut-off point where its citizens are suddenly regarded as 'frail' and 'incapable of taking care of themselves'.

Given the strong technological bent of the PPS, physical strength and/or resilience is only required in a relatively small segment of the workforce - as such, citizens are welcome to work until whatever age they see fit or wish to. At such time as they choose to stop working or find themselves unable to do so, they are welcome to retire - be it 25 or 105. Any number of physical or mental skills are valued within Sanctuary society - anything from basket-weaving to historical military tactics and game design can be and is parlayed into a valuable economic asset (yes I'm looking at you Jason ).

There is no state-required contribution to a superannuation fund, though there are over a dozen large 'retirement fund' institutions operating through the two valleys (most government-backed) which citizens are welcome to contribute to throughout their lives. In a worst-case (rare) occasion where a citizen is forced to (or chooses to) retire without any fall-back retirement fund, their upkeep and wellbeing becomes the responsibility of their extended family, or 'clan'.

The government will step in against the clan if mistreatment occurs (vanishingly rarely), but generally rules that an individual's extended family has the best notion of whether said individual is attempting to 'rort the system' or is in genuine need, and will offer sympathy and support as appropriate.

CONSCRIPTION



2. Does your society rely on conscription and if so at what age can a person be drafted? How long must they serve and under which arm? If no conscription, how will your society defend itself against foreign aggression?

The People's Protectorate takes the Swiss Model - a (very) small highly trained (very) technically advanced standing army is the core of the society's defence, reasoning that a land-locked country the size of two valleys (potentially) fighting solely defensive wars has no business having a navy or an air force.

This however is backed by a citizenship requirement of two years national service upon reaching the age of majority for all citizens prior to receiving full citizenship. Led by a 'boot camp' and operating with military discipline, after Servicemen and -women are trained to at least Reserve Army standard they do spend most of the period conducting National Works (infrastructure maintenance, national disaster relief etc) but the end-of-term war games are always a good way to wrap things up.

Upon completing their national service, citizens are encouraged to purchase an 80% government subsidised personal weapon - the exact model they trained with (generally the HK416). If they choose to take this option, the requirement for government subsidy is that they present their weapon and the clip of rounds issued with it to a local firing range once a month, where they fire off said 'free' clip in target practice - being issued a replacement as they leave.

Interestingly, with on average 1.72 assault rifles per private home across the PPS there is an amazingly low instance of home invasion.

<Yes, of course there is gun control. Strict gun control. I dearly hope I'm still in the competition when that question comes up >

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT



3. How does your Utopia deal with criminals and what are the basic judicial sentences? Is capital punishment supported?

Crime is fairly rare in the People's Protectorate of Sanctuary. This is partly due to the nation's laissez faire 'Do as thou wilt, only harm none' policy - as such, any private citizen is perfectly entitled to do what they like provided it doesn't infringe on any other citizen's right to do the same or act as a detriment to another citizen's well-being. Everyone has the right to go to hell in their own way if they feel the need - there is certainly no rule against smoking, for example.

Just forcing others to smoke second-hand.

The legal system is harsh but fair, based upon the effect the 'crime' has upon another citizen. The simplest case is theft, where the perpetrator is simply compelled to repay the monetary value of the item stolen plus any legal costs in establishing their guilt (generally fairly low given the nature of Sanctuarian society).

Beyond this, the legal system attempts to balance the scales while reducing the perpetrator's ability to re-offend. A drunk driver will have his license withheld for 6 months. A drunk driver who reoffends will have her license stripped and be forced to reapply for it after no less than one year - and their car will be crushed (to reduce their ability to reoffend). A drunk driver who hits and kills someone will be judged a murderer and placed in prison for 10-15 years. A murderer who kills again is executed (to eliminate their ability to reoffend). You get the drift.

As you'd expect, under this system a rapist will be castrated.

---------------------------

Well, that ended darkly. Probably the result of far too many 'if I ruled the world' discussions over drinks with friends - plenty of 'but what if' questions answered

Vote for me if you'd like to hear more - but if I don't get through this coming round I can retire (very) happily on my seven votes

[Comrade|Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Khryses

Crime is fairly rare in the People's Protectorate of Sanctuary. This is partly due to the nation's laissez faire 'Do as thou wilt, only harm none' policy - as such, any private citizen is perfectly entitled to do what they like provided it doesn't infringe on any other citizen's right to do the same or act as a detriment to another citizen's well-being. Everyone has the right to go to hell in their own way if they feel the need - there is certainly no rule against smoking, for example.

Just forcing others to smoke second-hand.

This confuses me. How can you claim to be laissez faire (literally let do), when you HAVE to have rules and regulations in place- and have outlined them above. for example: "there is certainly no rule against smoking, for example. Just forcing others to smoke second-hand." how do you police that sort of thing? are there places in which people can smoke and smoke free areas? if so, that is not laissez faire- as the people can't actually do whatever they want.

I dunno- this just appears contradict itself to my eyes- thought you may want the chance to clear it up.

A question- where does the PPS stand on Narcotics and other drugs?

[Khryses]

Quite simply you can do anything you want provided it doesn't harm other citizens. To this end, 'smoked' narcotics that cause no health risk to second-hand inhalation can be smoked publicly.

Public venues are not required to have smoking rooms, but most would for commercial reasons if nothing else.

I guess the sense I'm trying to explain (poorly it would seem) is a balance between great personal freedoms not obviating an individual's responsibility for how said freedoms may impact those around them.

Make sense?

[Karakris]

Originally Posted by Khryses

Quite simply you can do anything you want provided it doesn't harm other citizens. To this end, 'smoked' narcotics that cause no health risk to second-hand inhalation can be smoked publicly.

Public venues are not required to have smoking rooms, but most would for commercial reasons if nothing else.

I guess the sense I'm trying to explain (poorly it would seem) is a balance between great personal freedoms not obviating an individual's responsibility for how said freedoms may impact those around them.

Make sense?

Seems perfectly logical to me - some of that I might use for Attica - only SOME of that, mind.

[Comrade|Ogilvy]

Yeah, makes sense- not laissez faire by definition though.

[Super Six 4]

Originally Posted by Khryses

Quite simply you can do anything you want provided it doesn't harm other citizens. To this end, 'smoked' narcotics that cause no health risk to second-hand inhalation can be smoked publicly.

Public venues are not required to have smoking rooms, but most would for commercial reasons if nothing else.

I guess the sense I'm trying to explain (poorly it would seem) is a balance between great personal freedoms not obviating an individual's responsibility for how said freedoms may impact those around them.

Make sense?

Originally Posted by Comrade|Ogilvy

Yeah, makes sense- not laissez faire by definition though.

So you would prefer anarchy in his utopia?

[Khryses]

I was just describing the 'do as thou wilt' part of the law as laissez faire.

I'll concede that the threat of capital punishment does not fall under the strictest interpretation of the term, yes.

[Comrade|Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Super Six 4

So you would prefer anarchy in his utopia?

better than having something both listless and boring...

matters of personal taste aside, since when did a laissez faire system involve anarchy? Anarchy certainly doesn't feature in Collumbia- if you wan't to do something, you can do it- nobody will tell you not to, unless you piss somebody off. at which point 99.99% of the time a compromise is reached that is lucid and suits everyone, rather than the rigidity imposed on people by conventional law- the status quo is the greatest and fairest lawman.

[Super Six 4]

Originally Posted by Comrade|Ogilvy

matters of personal taste aside, since when did a laissez faire system involve anarchy? Anarchy certainly doesn't feature in Collumbia- if you wan't to do something, you can do it- nobody will tell you not to, unless you piss somebody off. at which point 99.99% of the time a compromise is reached that is lucid and suits everyone, rather than the rigidity imposed on people by conventional law- the status quo is the greatest and fairest lawman.

So if a serial killer kills a dozen people, then they shouldn't face any punishment, and a compromise will be found and everything's ship shape and Bristol fashion?

[Dashy]

Originally Posted by Super Six 4

So if a serial killer kills a dozen people, then they shouldn't face any punishment, and a compromise will be found and everything's ship shape and Bristol fashion?

Serial Killer gets caught and shot?

How is that Different from New Amer ... Guernsey?

[rebpreacher]

Stop being a dork Scott.

[Khryses]

I realise this is a dangerous phrase, but the PPS is trying to look at the 'Greater Good' - so a murderer could theoretically reform and repent and become a valued member of society. But if they kill again - for whatever reason and in whatever fashion (ie, hit-and-run) they're judged to be a continuing risk to other citizens and are simply removed from the equation.

Surely a better call than having their existence funded by taxpayer dollars for the rest of their natural lives?