National Capitalism rooted in traditional Christian morality would be my ideal form of government.
Essentially free market capitalism except with regulations designed to ensure the Nation benefits. If you're paying attention, you'll note that seems to be fascism or similar. It is. The main difference is that in Fascism the State is first and free market enterprise is second. In National Capitalism, free-market enterprise is first and the State is second. This is opposed in this national sense to international neoliberalism (what most of the west follows now). Christianity is recognized as the State religion and its inclusion is everywhere rather than the "neutral" stance taken today.
As for changing the constitution. The only real major change is that I would probably only include the original constitution plus amendments and get rid of all the later amendments. I would also add some sort of line regarding how equality must not be pursued at the expense of justice. I haven't thought about it enough to write it down properly but essentially I would want to create a line in the constitution that would make affirmative action clauses, critical race theory, hiring or university quotas and any legal ruling that made segregation (of men and women or whites and blacks) illegal. That should not be illegal.
I'd also define in the constitution who could vote which would be the following: Must be naturally born in the country to citizens of the country. Must have served 4 years of voluntary military service. Must be male. Must have biological children. Must have a net positive tax contribution to the society. Must own land of minimum value equal to 10x the average salary without a lien against it.
I'd change the wording so that Christianity is the recognized religion of the State but that freedom of religion is allowed however whereas Christianity given its status of State religion can superimpose itself in the teachings at say a public university (though ideally my State wouldn't have public universities), there is no requirement by the government for other religions to be allowed to superimpose themselves and these religions cannot claim they are being discriminated against in favour of Christianity by the State because that would be allowed.
I would codify in the constitution the ten commandments as law with punishments for breaking them, including adultery.
I would also change the definition of treason to be more broad to include anyone aiding a foreign country, even in peace times, to the detriment of their own country.
I think that about covers it...
Edit - Maybe one last thing. I would potentially put a clause in there where the country is not allowed to bring in more immigrants per year than the number of new domestic childbirths subract the total amount of domestic deaths. Essentially, the domestic people must be the primary driver of population growth not immigration.
Hmm, okay maybe one more thing... something that would essentially make welfare, public education and public healthcare against the constitution. I wouldn't know how to frame it but socialist policies like these should not be allowed.
That's precisely why. I think much of our problems in society stem from universal suffrage. Hitler actually said it best...
"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread."
"Democracy, the deceitful theory that the Jew would insinuate - namely, that theory that all men are created equal."
Yes, I know, no one likes Hitler but he was right about universal suffrage democracy and Marxism. Everyone on this website despises Cultural Marxism, wants to give helicopter rides to marxists and hates all the democratic socialists in the democrat party but many here refuse to understand part of the underlying problem which is universal suffrage. Only let people who've proven themselves in your society the privilege to vote and you'll get a much better society all around. This was understood by the founding father and understood by ancient rome and greece. You don't let everyone vote, otherwise you run into problems. Universal suffrage codifies the idea of equality into your government system and this equality is false. If people recognize that a doctor's opinion on health is likely greater than a carpenter or that an engineers opinion on bridge construction is likely greater than a actor, why is it hard to fathom that one person's opinion on how to govern the State might be better than another? Well, the fact of the matter is that this is true, it's just a matter of trying to discern what process by which to limit voting leads to the best outcome for society. I would bet my life on it that my system would lead to a better outcome than universal suffrage. The purpose of voting shouldn't be some eternal right that everyone believe they deserve, the only purpose of voting should be to ensure the best outcome of the society and if that means you and I both lose our privilege to vote for our own betterment, then so be it. It also creates a nice achievement for many to work toward
Never thought of it that way. But I was thinking highly regulating citizenship like Rome did and giving it full rights. Too many Americans don't deserve their citizenship. They are a shameful reflection on this country. There should be a mechanism to strip people of it
National Capitalism rooted in traditional Christian morality would be my ideal form of government.
Essentially free market capitalism except with regulations designed to ensure the Nation benefits. If you're paying attention, you'll note that seems to be fascism or similar. It is. The main difference is that in Fascism the State is first and free market enterprise is second. In National Capitalism, free-market enterprise is first and the State is second. This is opposed in this national sense to international neoliberalism (what most of the west follows now). Christianity is recognized as the State religion and its inclusion is everywhere rather than the "neutral" stance taken today.
As for changing the constitution. The only real major change is that I would probably only include the original constitution plus amendments and get rid of all the later amendments. I would also add some sort of line regarding how equality must not be pursued at the expense of justice. I haven't thought about it enough to write it down properly but essentially I would want to create a line in the constitution that would make affirmative action clauses, critical race theory, hiring or university quotas and any legal ruling that made segregation (of men and women or whites and blacks) illegal. That should not be illegal.
I'd also define in the constitution who could vote which would be the following: Must be naturally born in the country to citizens of the country. Must have served 4 years of voluntary military service. Must be male. Must have biological children. Must have a net positive tax contribution to the society. Must own land of minimum value equal to 10x the average salary without a lien against it.
I'd change the wording so that Christianity is the recognized religion of the State but that freedom of religion is allowed however whereas Christianity given its status of State religion can superimpose itself in the teachings at say a public university (though ideally my State wouldn't have public universities), there is no requirement by the government for other religions to be allowed to superimpose themselves and these religions cannot claim they are being discriminated against in favour of Christianity by the State because that would be allowed.
I would codify in the constitution the ten commandments as law with punishments for breaking them, including adultery.
I would also change the definition of treason to be more broad to include anyone aiding a foreign country, even in peace times, to the detriment of their own country.
I think that about covers it...
Edit - Maybe one last thing. I would potentially put a clause in there where the country is not allowed to bring in more immigrants per year than the number of new domestic childbirths subract the total amount of domestic deaths. Essentially, the domestic people must be the primary driver of population growth not immigration.
Hmm, okay maybe one more thing... something that would essentially make welfare, public education and public healthcare against the constitution. I wouldn't know how to frame it but socialist policies like these should not be allowed.
Fascinating. Curious why you'd institute that criteria for voting? Seems very difficult to attain...
That's precisely why. I think much of our problems in society stem from universal suffrage. Hitler actually said it best...
"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread."
"Democracy, the deceitful theory that the Jew would insinuate - namely, that theory that all men are created equal."
Yes, I know, no one likes Hitler but he was right about universal suffrage democracy and Marxism. Everyone on this website despises Cultural Marxism, wants to give helicopter rides to marxists and hates all the democratic socialists in the democrat party but many here refuse to understand part of the underlying problem which is universal suffrage. Only let people who've proven themselves in your society the privilege to vote and you'll get a much better society all around. This was understood by the founding father and understood by ancient rome and greece. You don't let everyone vote, otherwise you run into problems. Universal suffrage codifies the idea of equality into your government system and this equality is false. If people recognize that a doctor's opinion on health is likely greater than a carpenter or that an engineers opinion on bridge construction is likely greater than a actor, why is it hard to fathom that one person's opinion on how to govern the State might be better than another? Well, the fact of the matter is that this is true, it's just a matter of trying to discern what process by which to limit voting leads to the best outcome for society. I would bet my life on it that my system would lead to a better outcome than universal suffrage. The purpose of voting shouldn't be some eternal right that everyone believe they deserve, the only purpose of voting should be to ensure the best outcome of the society and if that means you and I both lose our privilege to vote for our own betterment, then so be it. It also creates a nice achievement for many to work toward
Never thought of it that way. But I was thinking highly regulating citizenship like Rome did and giving it full rights. Too many Americans don't deserve their citizenship. They are a shameful reflection on this country. There should be a mechanism to strip people of it