WA Delegate: The Archduchy of Aexalla (elected 235 days ago)
Founder: The Kingdom of The Ice Bears
Regional Power: High
Today's World Census Report
The Shortest Average Lifespan in Arctic
Citizens of nations ranked highly tend to die earlier, whether from poor health, crime, accident, or government encouragement.
As a region, Arctic is ranked 16,669th in the world for Shortest Average Lifespan.
|1.||The Free Mountains of The Snow Shield||Anarchy||“хайа босхолооһун”|
|2.||The Arid Industry of Scramden||Anarchy||“Oh well”|
|3.||The Kingdom of The Ice Bears||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Created November 14, 2004 ”|
|4.||The Commonwealth of Yayna||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Hello John got a new lens?”|
|5.||The The Uncharted Coordinates of Laffin Island||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“first honesty, then industry, then concentration.”|
|6.||The Engis of Rengis||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Middle-sized happiness is within reach, some reach it”|
|7.||The Armed Republic of Northern Penguin||Democratic Socialists||“A free land for free followers”|
|8.||The Colony of Eastern Penguins||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“For freedom and for liberty ”|
|9.||The Allied States of Greenertopia||Democratic Socialists||“Green is not a color. It is a lifestyle.”|
|10.||The Republic of Langrick||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“ Take it easy”|
- 5 hours ago: The People's Republic of First Technocratic arrived from Balder.
- 19 hours ago: The Empire of Lost Cascadia arrived from Balder.
- 3 days 23 hours ago: Corruption beyond imagination ceased to exist.
- 4 days ago: The Republic of Korcako departed this region for Magnalucia.
- 5 days ago: The Republic of Korcako arrived from Magnalucia.
- 5 days ago: The People's Republic of First Technocratic ceased to exist.
- 6 days ago: Kong frederickson land ceased to exist.
- 6 days ago: The Empire of Tranquillitas Animi departed this region for The Communist Bloc.
- 8 days ago: Neplandia ceased to exist.
- 9 days ago: Corbironne ceased to exist.
Arctic Regional Message Board
I'm fine, just minor damages on my house. No one was hurt, and we get tornadoes around here every year. A few farms on the outskirts of town were destroyed, but no one died. Trouble is, my town with only a population of 600 gets second-rate attention every year, so roads are a death-trap with downed power-lines and trees everywhere.
Anyway, yes true it would take a lot of work to set up the sorts of system I talk about, I think it may be more viable in the near future as we begin to move into space. Since we'll be moving very large distances, we'll have to look into new methods of moving fast, which may supplement inter-global travel and make it easier to get from one place to another. I think some level of nationalism is okay, as in a global society it may call attention to troubled areas which need help. It may also encourage people to choose better leaders, as a nationalist will likely be more willing to try to help their own land than just leave if someone they don't like is chosen.
The purpose of splitting CEO level work into two jobs would be to give one person the job of overseeing the well-being of the workers and the other to care about making money. Corporations by nature are more concerned about making a profit than anything else, which often leads to CEOs to sacrifice what is good for the worker just to make some extra money. Having two separate people to run the company would create a balance of powers, and the money lost on it would be minimal since they'd still be on government payroll.
Referendums could be made easier if they were done electronically. While true, unfortunately too few people care about what is happening in the government, enough people do that they'd make it known, and I think apathy could be remedied if referendums were brought directly to the people. Say you got a notification over the phone or through email saying that the government had arrested someone without giving a reason, I think if everyone in the vicinity saw this, at least 70% would do something about it, especially if all that was necessary was to push a button. A dictatorship of the proletariat is what I consider the ultimate goal of a Socialist society, as even though the average person can be manipulated in many ways, I feel the government's ultimate job is to service the majority of people, as that is one of the prime reasons exist in the first place.
Tell me about it. In my country, we had unprecedented floods up north a few years back, and with the amount of attention our gov gave us, might as well write us off the map. Just because it's not as densely populated doesn't mean we don't exist, right?
The world has had nationalists before. It didn't end well. Nationalists are usually too far out there, their egos are far too inflated, and their prejudices come as a detriment rather than an aid to their people. One can't unite people and can't present a good image when they're a definite chauvinist and a likely xenophobe. I would rather have anarchy than a nationalist government. Of course, I'm not talking about regular old patriotism, because that's different.
Oh, is that what you meant. That's already in place. That's what managers are there for, usually in the HR department.
I am a staunch opponent of clicktivism. It's already a trend online, just hit "like" and all the world's problems will be solved. Nope, I don't believe that. I'm positive that people won't do anything about it if it requires actual effort from them. There are so many ways this system can be abused that even considering this as a real option is absurd to me.
The government's job, ultimate or not, should be to govern all people fairly, even those who aren't the majority. That is why, even though I support democracy as the best plausible political system, I oppose direct democracy, because it allows for mob rule, and mob rule is bad for social cohesion.
This would make way, again, for a dictatorship. Those watching the body cameras you referred to earlier would be the dictators. There will always be a leading party in a country. Making that leader be democratically elected like in capitalist states is the best way.
I do not believe that it is nationalism that is the problem, but the side-effects of nationalist society that causes what we've seen in the past. Xenophobia would likely happen regardless in any event of mass migrations of people to where there are strong sources of labor, but could be remedied by carefully placed international laws against forms of discrimination. Even still though, I don't believe it is possible to ever completely stamp out xenophobia, along with any other form of political rhetoric, and so in regards to freedom of expression, so long as it does not physically harm an individual and so long as said person is capable of moving away from where these laws apply, regions be allowed to democratically decide on local laws, even if they are inspired of some fear of 'foreigners'. This ties in with your very last response, in that even though the government should consider the majority to be the ones whom they are most interested in aiding, minority's decisions be considered as well, particularly when regarding specific regions.
Human resources has indeed been an overall benefit to the workplace, however, I think it should be taken to the next level in that they should oversee the direct distribution of wealth in the company and be democratically elected by workers at the company to ensure popularity.
I understand the fear of such things as electronic elections, but I also fell its merits are too much to give up on fears that it may become abused. One possible solution I've thought of is instead of using things like personal computers or personal phones, that people may be given handheld voting devices by the government to be used at their own leisure. These devices could keep track of how many votes are given by the single system, and prevent double-voting. Yes, voters may not do everything in their power to ensure their will is pressed, but I think, especially regarding the recent rioting that has been going on, that there are significant amounts of people who are willing to fight to see to it that they are heard. On Greenland's comment, because of total transparency, I think those body cameras as well as election results should be seen by everyone as they are happening through computer live-streams, so that it would be obvious if there was any government tampering.
Even so, you don't need socialism to keep society in check. Also, regions can and do decide their local regulation in representational democracies. To give a few examples, the mayor's office and municipal administration in some countries or the governor and regional administration in others fulfill that role. They also hold referendums on important issues and carry out polls to see what direction they should be going. Of course, it's up to the people to care enough about what is actually being passed in order to act accordingly. For instance, although the governor of New Jersey Chris Christie is a 100% corrupt scumbag who goes against his own constituency, he still gets elected, because enough people don't care, and those that do care are benefited by his policies. But you can't remedy apathy by giving people more responsibilities, you can only do that by raising a culture of civic awareness. Nowadays we have too many distractions in order for us to be responsible citizens. Socialism won't fix any of this.
How popular does one have to be in order to get the job? 2/3 or maybe 3/4 of the workforce? If current popularity contests such as the US presidency are anything to go by, it's an ambivalent process that exploits peoples' emotions rather than reason. You're gonna have more of the same pandering, scaremongering and false promises that you have in politics. What I think is better is if the hiring or promotion process is made transparent so that it's more difficult for the position to be given away without fair competition.
There are no benefits to electronic voting that would justify implementing it in its current state. All you need is a skilled hacker to enact grand scale fraud that could fundamentally change figures, and if he's good enough nobody would be able to backtrack it. And when that happens, provided someone actually knew that it happened, you have to redo the whole thing, because you can't recount electronic votes, which is the second (or maybe even first) biggest problem with this system. Aside from that, even if it was fair, and everyone was diligent, all you need is one error in the calculations and you might get Dick Dastardly to be your chairman.
I'm not saying fraud or errors don't happen with paper ballots, but it's much easier to track and gives you the possibility of an actual recount in case something happens.
To the USSS, an elected CEO would have to hand out frequent pay rises to stay in power, to the point where anyone in such a company does earn more money from government CEO handouts. Another likelihood is that the CEO would change often, which is guaranteed to have a highly detrimental effect on the company, and therefore the economy.
In terms of the transparency of voting systems, what will transparency do? The security could always have a referendum on changing that...
Welcome back F T and L C