![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cloudy_one[Error: unknown template qotd]
Ruling a country isn't easy. I don't think I could rule a country all by myself. I do happen to believe in a functional monarchy though (RE: "Does this job come with a crown?"). Any sort of leadership I think is about public awareness, at least if I'm in that position. I don't usually talk about my political beliefs, but maybe this would be a good place. For the sake of simplicity ("too late for that," I hear you say) I'll answer the question really quickly before blathering on: the United States of America.
My idea is that there needs to be an overhaul of how the country is run. Of course there is all of the corruption in the politics and the corporations with which they are so inextricably entwined. I would look at eliminating that. Find the people who make up the various communities and start at a ground level re-imagining. Leave the greater government fluttering in the wind for a while. I'm not even against the idea of shrinking things a bit. The fact that America is so big doesn't help matters really. The misuse of resources, the abuse of the citizenry, these things are exasperated by all of the land mass that the government is in charge of. Maybe break into five (Northeast, South, Midwest, Southwest, Northwest) separate countries, loosely tied by the cultural association. I can't break myself into five people, but then I don't think I'd make a great leader of a country and people at this point in time anyway. Make the governments more people centered. The role of government is protection that a small community cannot manage (standing army) and general outlines which are to be enforced (example: Bill of Rights). Higher courts don't hurt a whole heck of a lot either, for extreme circumstances. Otherwise it should be a localized system.
I don't see a problem with helping to spread ideas that can work for the greater good. The monarchy comment above is based on the idea that power is more easily corrupted the more it's spread out. Sure, if the monarch is corrupt we're screwed, but you put in an adequate (if not outstanding) king or queen who honestly cares about the people and you're all set. With power spread throughout multiple bodies (and more accurately more individuals) it's a constant tug of war between those people who care about the nation and those people who care only for themselves. In that case the folks who care for themselves tend to come out with at least a little something, while the nation suffers because those who fight for them require an all-or-nothing victory which they cannot attain. I also believe in the power that people as a whole have. If you do not have a satisfactory monarch, the people can remove him or her. It's easier to replace a single leader than it is to overhaul a system tied down with red tape.
I guess all in all I did little to answer the question, but the place was chosen at least, even if I didn't accept the job.
Ruling a country isn't easy. I don't think I could rule a country all by myself. I do happen to believe in a functional monarchy though (RE: "Does this job come with a crown?"). Any sort of leadership I think is about public awareness, at least if I'm in that position. I don't usually talk about my political beliefs, but maybe this would be a good place. For the sake of simplicity ("too late for that," I hear you say) I'll answer the question really quickly before blathering on: the United States of America.
My idea is that there needs to be an overhaul of how the country is run. Of course there is all of the corruption in the politics and the corporations with which they are so inextricably entwined. I would look at eliminating that. Find the people who make up the various communities and start at a ground level re-imagining. Leave the greater government fluttering in the wind for a while. I'm not even against the idea of shrinking things a bit. The fact that America is so big doesn't help matters really. The misuse of resources, the abuse of the citizenry, these things are exasperated by all of the land mass that the government is in charge of. Maybe break into five (Northeast, South, Midwest, Southwest, Northwest) separate countries, loosely tied by the cultural association. I can't break myself into five people, but then I don't think I'd make a great leader of a country and people at this point in time anyway. Make the governments more people centered. The role of government is protection that a small community cannot manage (standing army) and general outlines which are to be enforced (example: Bill of Rights). Higher courts don't hurt a whole heck of a lot either, for extreme circumstances. Otherwise it should be a localized system.
I don't see a problem with helping to spread ideas that can work for the greater good. The monarchy comment above is based on the idea that power is more easily corrupted the more it's spread out. Sure, if the monarch is corrupt we're screwed, but you put in an adequate (if not outstanding) king or queen who honestly cares about the people and you're all set. With power spread throughout multiple bodies (and more accurately more individuals) it's a constant tug of war between those people who care about the nation and those people who care only for themselves. In that case the folks who care for themselves tend to come out with at least a little something, while the nation suffers because those who fight for them require an all-or-nothing victory which they cannot attain. I also believe in the power that people as a whole have. If you do not have a satisfactory monarch, the people can remove him or her. It's easier to replace a single leader than it is to overhaul a system tied down with red tape.
I guess all in all I did little to answer the question, but the place was chosen at least, even if I didn't accept the job.
