Government

Would it be:
Dictatorship - If so, who would be the dictator? How many dictators?
Totalitarian - If so, what would the political party be? Who would be in the council?
Theocracy - If so, who would be ruling, and under what religion?
Monarchy - If so, who would be the king or queen?
Parliamentary - If so, who would the representatives of the people be?
Republic - If so, who would be president?
Anarchy - No government.

Brush up on your Types of Governemnt:
http://www.stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/WorldAffairs/typesofgovt.html

Anarchy.

Regardless of the type of government, (except anarchy) a constitution would be necessary to prevent abuse of power. Possibly with a small group of trusted individuals to oversee that the government would never breach it; and remove/replace them if they did. The greater question is, what rules would we need to have set in advance; as this will determine which type of government would be best. What would the main ideals behind the country be, what sets it apart from other countries and what would it stand for.

Another view of anarchy is 'no leaders'. Some functional organization is necessary no matter what. With a small enough population, citizens directly representing themselves is an option. I am of the oppinion that leaders will end up commandeering power rightly belonging to the populace.
Really, as said above, it comes down to this: What rules are necessary to allow this society to function?
Here's my suggestions:
-an outline of citizens rights and liberties
>What you are guaranteed in this society
-minimal government interference;maximum liberty
>More specifically, the few things you can't do
-restrict the personal liberty and rights of other citizens
-definitions of property
>personal, private, and public
-which are legitimate in this government?
-functional
>What is necessary to make this organization, which serves the function of our society, work?
-citizens required to devote resources to the government?
>time, money, goods? (a facilitating organization requires all of these, in interchangeable portions, usually)
-defense?
-currency?
>to avoid the banking problems which have been the downfall of the modern world, and governments in general, I suggest a hard currency, like gold, or at least being backed by a hard currency; such as a 'gold standard'. The downfall of this is that physical items can be stolen. Literally having a shit ton of gold sitting around is probably a bad idea. Gold can be stored, or banked, somewhere else. Somewhere that it becomes someone else's problem of guaranteeing and defending it. Who really needs physical currency anymore anyway? Hell, you can convert directly between any major world currency when you withdraw with your debit/credit card.
That, or do the opposite. Be a barter based society. At least internally. Let anons trade and barter outside of our nation and manage currency however the fuck they want. If we want minimal government, minimal red tape and bs, minimal hassle, this is the simplest and most effective form.

*edit* I personally it's very important to provide for citizens being able to have a vote of 'no confidence' in their government. Basically a reset button, when people realize things have gotten too far away from what everyone as a whole wanted. Any honest government should have this.

I think that regardless of what we choose, a two party system would be chaotic. It generalizes many issues, and many people get stuck in the middle of deciding which they want. Their decisions usually don't perfectly reflect their opinions.

I vote for a council, maybe a form of parliament, where there are many people with different issues that they are in charge of. This way every issue could be addressed, you wouldnt have to pick and choose, and many more people could be active in the government.

Maybe the people could be the government? I'm not very involved in politics so I'm not sure if there's a name for it, but something where anybody in the country can make a political or decision in general and have the rest of the country vote on it, and if theres not a minimum 51% vote for said persons decision it won't go through..

Direct representation like that used to be called Democracy. I don't know if there is even a name for it anymore.
General votes have been historically inefficient to hold often. With modern data networks like the internet you could have a whole population votes all the time though.
Sometimes you want just one or two experts evaluating things instead of every person in the population (who don't know anything about it).
For example; I'd rather have an electrician run my electrical wires instead of 6 people who don't know anything about electrical work.
Citizens nominating people they know to form 3 person review panels for job proposals might be a good approach.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. people could nominate issues that need to be handled. a group of people from that profession or something could be voted upon by everyone, and that head of whatever would be a part of a big committee, discussing the issues and how they relate to each other until a compromise is made. The problem with some laws is that many people's opinions are not heard and nobody realizes how it impacts other people.

Yeah, I totally agree.
Here's the way I'd envision it. Every so many people, say 50 or 100 (or any random number depending on the population size), nominate someone they actually know (aka someone not a dumb ass). Three representatives get chosen at random from the nominees. Whatever task needs to be done, these people will review the proposals of the professionals applying to do the task. Their review would be based on cost, benefit, effectiveness, and credentials. A two out of three vote choses a proposal to go with. This could be used on a whole nation scale, or just for decisions affecting a small group (say your street).
To keep it honest, I would say that representatives can't be chosen for two decisions consecutively.

I like it, especially the last part.
Maybe within the representatives that are chosen, they chose among themselves a select few of maybe 13 to give the final decision about something? I think that for a long term thing this would not allow a certain group to rule with any more power than anyone else. A 9 to 4 vote would be the minimum number of votes from them to pass something, because after they take into consideration everything that has been said, there should be an almost unanimous agreement if its a good law that should be created.

I think laws that need to be made, outside of a well planned founding document (this is key; everything necessary for the basic function of the society has to be simply laid out already), should be made by general vote of the citizenry. Big changing laws that effect everyone should be made by everyone. Once the important things for society to work are planned in a constitution, when you start altering that you change what you get out of it. Maybe a 2/3rds majority vote needed for huge changes? Make certain things in the constitution not changeable?
Everything else is the day to day procedural, logistic, details.
I think three people can be just as smart, and more efficient than 13 people for that sort of thing. I also think it's important to leave random selection from the nominee pool. That eliminates some power grabs.
We're not going to have 100,000 people in this nation for a long time. Keeping it as small and close to the people as possible is the most efficient way that I can think of.

Yes, the constitution should be more specific than the U.S one in my opinion. The judicial system has become one of finding loopholes and exploiting technicalities. Not referring to any case in particular, but being set free from prison because of a paperwork flaw just isn't right. But if we are to settle upon a constitution of any kind, it would be best for (insert names here) to meet in person. we would need some important people who are enthusiastic and concerned about this to meet and discuss the content, while being able to collaborate and argue if needed. the final version would be chosen by the citizens. ( we would need a genuine list of who that would be, since we have to make the constitution before anything else could be done, i don't think we could even start building anything before this).

You know, the way Anonymous functions.. it is a bit chaotic, but it works. surprisingly well at that.

8-Bit Ben wrote:You know, the way Anonymous functions.. it is a bit chaotic, but it works. surprisingly well at that.

It's amazing, ain't it?

Yes, with only 1 rule ( no cp, even though it occasionally happens anyway), it somehow manages without any leaders. Possibly due to the fact that EVERYONE CAN BE A LEADER. They possess all the power available to anyone else on the website, and without any more to want they are satisfied with not being limited on anything.

I have kinda designed a new form of government that is KINDA anachronistic and kinda a democracy. I don't like taking to much credit in the idea since it is very simple.

My idea also involves a technological aspect to it as well. It involves satellites and the internet.

Okay basically you'd have something like this. A series of satellites that provides basic, to high speed internet all over the nation also broadcasts a secondary signal that is not unlike an internet, but more of a nationwide intranet. This intranet hosts the cornerstone of this new government, which won't really have much in the way of leaders. This intranet also allows for people to communicate with everyone in their country as a device of some kind will be allocated to the citizens of this nation that allows access to said intranet. This intranet will then be used for things like communicating ideas for bills, voting on said bills, and spreading infrastructure information instantly to all corners of the nation.

Now the voting and creation of said bills needn't entirely be shelved onto the citizens themselves, but I feel things work best if the responsibility for the laws themselves rest entirely on the citizens. It forces said society to be acutely aware of what it does and what it cares about. Each new law/bill/whatever-the-fuck needs a 75% majority to pass also forcing the citizens to have to be able to have a cohesive, well thought out idea for a bill before everyone else in the nation does decide to pass it. A simple majority just would not do in this situation. This also forces the laws/mandates/ect to be simple, methodical, and few ... letting the nation have the maximum amount of personal liberty, while eventually probably having a pretty smart, sleek health care/whatever social reform/benifits/ that sorta thing eventually. Its nation building done the linux way.

Now the military would be nearly autonomous, only acting in the interest of national defense, unless in an emergency or under the will of the people. Not only this, but after they reach a certain size, the military has to start supporting itself by creating patents and offering goods/and services that its people can use and thusly have the money to run.