Originally Posted by carve
So, where are you moving to?
Your ideal country sounds a bit like utopia, and a bit like fascism. How do you exile the undesirables? The only way I could see something like that work is in a large nation with a VERY minimalist federal and state government. Then, each city could run itself, almost like a city-state like Singapore or the old Venice. That way, one city could be communist, another Libertarian, another agrarian, another anarchist, another socialist, etc. etc. I don't see the communist ones surviving very long unless they're under, say, 150 people. The nucleus of these city states would have to be a wealthy rich guy who buys a huge swath of land, or a corporation of individuals who pool their resources to do the same. Competition would bring all the producers to the more free, libertarian city states for the most part, but then you'd have barbarian hordes made of the stupid and the criminal roaming the frontiers and hinterlands. Of course, they would probably turn to violence and pillage, in which case nearby city states threatened by the barbarians would probably band together, regardless of political affiliation, to put 'em down. You wouldn't want them to overthrow a city and have them use their resources and weapons against you.
Sounds like an interesting movie plot.
New Zealand is probably top of the list. There are others but NZ has been the one I've done the most research on immigration.
It is utopia, and it is impossible. I'm sure if we quantify "a bit" as a small relation, then any government is like any other government. I assume you either mean fascism's history of racial purity, or the notion of complete control over who is allowed in the country as authoritarian. Now for the former, I thought that the idea of racial or ethnic purity was only a part of the governing body's government, not necessarily a part of fascism. For the latter, I suppose any broad spectrum law is authoritarian. Still, I think I understand what you're getting at.
Since it is an ideal, and ideals can never be reached (not that I'm aware of), I didn't layout details of how this magical government would exist. It's only what I wish the world were. You are absolutely correct in noting that large governing bodies are the obvious result of human nature. I do like the idea of anarchism, at least the high level type -- pure anarchy implies no structure whatsoever which is impossible. While I like the idea, I would not suggest it now. There has been far too much advancement in weaponry, that dissolving all governments would most likely result in the destruction of the human race.
As an ideal, it implies that the problems you mention aren't there. So you don't have people competing and forming hordes (although, yes, it would probably make a blockbuster). The issues of running the society would be resolved by having the brilliant scientists not work on war, but on those issues. Working out the finances is the worst part of it, but assuming we are all logical, rational, selfless people, we assume that the work we do supports these goals. Assuming we had the "moral" intelligent people, we still should have a very good commodity for selling to the stupid people :P I'll wait for someone to bring up logic vs morality I suppose -- figured someone would have by now.
Honestly, the closest thing to my ideal in this world is to buy an island, perhaps from the island people who aren't "owned" by any government.
Another utopia is the omnipotent, beneficent dictator (an ideal you could say the Christians fell in love with). It would work perfectly. If you have someone with absolute power over everything who commands everything and is a "good" person who makes the right decision in any scenario, you have a perfect society.
People are lazy, selfish, and complacent. That is what creates oppressive, bloated governments.
I should say enables
the creation of oppressive so and sos. The power hungry people who wish to control and use others is what creates them.