Clearly you know what's best in life.
Politics make strange bedfellows.
Indeed, it is a dangerous path, but due to the advances in technology one that is easily solvable. A list of the traits of a great leader could be put in a list. The candidates would be given a quiz of sorts to answer whilst being directly hooked onto a lie-detector. The questions would be directly linked to the traits. After all candidates have been screened, their result would be run in an automated program which would compare them to the desired/optimal results. Anyone caught being untruthful would be disqualified. From those that pass the screening shall be allowed to run for office.
Now, there is still the chance of corruption so there would be a need for a way to avoid it. From my personal observation and research, the best way to avoid corruption is by the "carrot and the stick". Dangling high wages (protected via the constitution) of the select few that will be running the system and at the same time the punishment for any form of corruption on their part being the capital punishment as well as the stripping of any wealth and privileges their families might hold. It is indeed as brutal as it sounds, but it is effective. If the reward is high and the punishment severe enough, the breaking of the rules is avoidable.
Yes, I am aware that is not very "freedom" of me, but for some things a tight grip is required.
I am aware this is not a perfect sollution, but to be honest, it's like dealing with toddlers. Once the really naughty ones get put in their place, the others will follow suite.
I for one think there should be a girth minimum to be president
Who determines what traits make a great leader?
Lie detectors aren't very accurate and are easy to manipulate
Programs are only as good as what people programmed them to be. What determines how answers fit into traits?
You're constitutionally giving more money to the rich? One can't feasibly run for office without having money to burn on the campaign trail
Define corruption. Who defines corruption?
Death penalty doesn't prevent people from committing crimes
If my uncle is a conman, why should I lose my life's savings? Penalizing innocent people because of the actions of another person they had no say in is absolutely abhorrent and if you think that's a good way to run a government, I don't even know where to begin with you.
let the western isles prevail
Yeah letís just bring back the monarchy.
Segentova and Royle kingdom
God save the Queen! (or King depending on where you live)
In Nhoor that would be Gods save the King (although I wonder if that particular expression will be used).
I'm not sure what it would be in Serpens Land. I'm sure it would just be God save the King. Where I actually live it is definitely God save the Queen.
Obviously, accomplished academics will make the test and the great leaders of the past will be taken as a reference. Another way is to have multiple great leaders of the past as references.
That's why it's important to have modern technology, when I said lie detector I meant monitoring the brain waves. Such a lie detector is exponentially more difficult to trick that a conventional one. And, as it is monitoring the electric impulses of the candidate, they can be told that it's running a diagnostics on their health. Yes, just lie them about it.
That's why it's important to have reference points.
I never mentioned rich people. Why do Americans always think that for someone to be able to do anything in life they need to be rich!? That's why is said Merit. To have Merit one does not have to be rich. And I said to give high wages to the people that maintain and operate the screening system, not the candidates.
Corruption is when an individual or group of individual forsake their duties in favor of their own interests. The most typical form of corruption is bribery, hence the high wages for the 30-ish people that will maintain the system, if they have money they won't be so willing to accept bribes.
It does put fear in the other would-be criminals. If they know that there is a severe punishment, people are less likely to commit said crime. It's like the military, if a recruit disobeys a ranking officer they are punished and yelled at, thus instilling the fear of punishment and yelling in the other recruits.
It is not meant to punish the family, people are less likely to commit a crime if it brings heavy consequences to their own family. The family will still be able to build from the ground up. They will not be left out on the street. And again, it's not meant to punish the family. It's meant to instill a sense of responsibility for one's actions. As I said before, one is less likely to commit a crime if it's consequences effect their family. The family will be left with left with a median-wage. Think more of them having 1000 gold coins and needing only 15 to live a quiet and yet relatively comfortable life, 985 of the 1000 gold would be confiscated and freed-up for the wider economy rather than sitting in some bank vault/account. Now, for regular families having a median-wage would not be a problem, but for a family accustomed to extravagance it would be devastating. That is what is taken advantage of in this situation. If one or two extremely wealthy families experience what, to them would be a great dishonor and hummiliation, the rest will not risk such a fate. That is especially true in the USA where the richest 1% hold 30% of all the wealth (the bottom 50%, that's half the country, holds just 1.9% of the wealth. something explained via this graph: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png).
This is not about bringing in a monarchy or communism, it's about putting rampant corruption and anarchy under control. It is about teaching people (powerful and not) that there are consequences for their actions. A more extreme form of punishment is required as prison sentences have proven to be ineffective when combating corruption, something that is easiest to observe in the Eastern European countries.
Everything should be done in moderation, even freedom itself. A society with "nominal" punishments rather than "effective" punishments is a society waiting to fall into anarchy, something the USA is experiencing currently.
Many societies throughout history have managed to be successful by implementing a system of actual responsibilities and consequences for one's actions.
Another way would be reforming the education system so it infuses the next generations with a sense of honor and responsibility, but that would take decades at the very least.
So Denmark? :p
Close. (Greenland is Denmark right?)
Yes, Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark
Politics is the name of the game lol
There is this wonderful parody on informative messages from the Dutch government from a few years ago: "From 1 February the Netherlands will be a dictatorship. What does this mean for your work, your family, and your opinion? For citizens loyal to the regime, hardly anything will change ... By abolishing the constitution and fundamental rights the amount of rules and regulations will be drastically reduced. / 'Thanks to the totalitarian regime I don't need to think for myself anymore' / The Netherlands a totalitarian state ; because it's so much easier!"
Or something like that; too bad I couldn't find a version with English subtitles...
See I realize piracy and privateering isnít exactly something that fits in the modern day setting, yet I donít want to completely restructure my country, so what should I do? I find it difficult to come up with a way to combine piracy with not getting war declared on me by every country...
To like what extent? I donít feel like deleting my Factbooks... if I donít have piracy then Iím just a religious nation, how do I preserve elements of it, without you invading me. I also donít want to change my beautiful flag...