Types of Governments (Little Upsilon)

There was a suggestion, number 85 exclusive, that said that there should be senators, judges, and a president. I wondered if Simcountry could have different kinds of governments available. Each one has it's own strengths and weaknesses. It's probably an awful idea, and the specifics I've laid out are probably worse, but here goes.

In an Anarchy, the federal government doesn't provide schools, hospitals, roads, railroads, offense, defense, or strategic forces; it doesn't tax; trade, or create corporations; it doesn't exist. Instead, the cities of a country build their schools, roads, railroads, offense, defense, and strategic forces; they tax, trade, and create corporations; and they can confederate their offense, defense, and strategic forces. But if one city doesn't wish to participate in a war, they may take their forces out. They also have to confederate to build road and railroad networks so that transportation keep

No effects are to be added to Forms of Government. They are simply for show, they are simple tags.

Why would these systems have preset unmodifiable tax rates?
If its a communist state how are you ment to achieve high house value if everyone is paid the same?
Why would a communist state not have 100% tax rate yet a socialist state (a step down from communism) would have 100% tax rate?
A kingdom would have no preset modifiers, as basically your a dictator that is more legitimate. UK is a kingdom yet the people are free.
A dictatorship would have low welfare (which should really be called stability) which can only be increased by military.

When it comes down to it, in real life the direction of a country is dependent most on the leader, not the system of government. Would be cool if depending on your country the form of government changed, though I don't know what settings would produce your country to become Aristocracy or Kingdom.

Democracy:
Contributions decrease if you are in a war, or have high offense.
Contributions increase if you have high defense, or strategy.

Taxes will be low.
Corporation taxes will be at least 30%.

Welfare is normal.

Social Democracy:
Contributions decrease if you are in a war, or have high offense.
Contributions increase if you have high public services.

Taxes raised if you have high strategy, or raised with penalty to welfare if you have high defense.
Corporation taxes will be at least 50%.

Welfare decreases much more if you have low public services.

Socialist State:
Contributions decrease if your wars suck.
Contributions may fully pay off public services.

Taxes are normal.
Corporation taxes will be at least 67%.

Welfare decreases more if you have low public services.

Communist State:
Salaries are equal.
Contributions pay for publ

I said more legitimate then a dictator. Because there is tradition and a general sense of who will replace them, unlike the fall of a dictator where every power monger will try to replace them (though can happen in any form of government). Kingdoms can be quite democratic and free, also the opposite. The same applies with any other form of government, there are just some forms that can keep the leader in check better.

My assumption was if everyone's wages were the same then the majority of houses would be the same value, if the value of houses were to increase it would have to stay constant with increase in wages otherwise no one in the country would be in a position to buy houses and the value would drop anyway.

Also I thought in communist and socialist governments that public services were fully funded, so why would there be any contributions? Whats the point of those forms of governments if you have to pay for your own edu

If contributions take care of costs, then they are fully funded; so what's the issue? Contributions, taxes, little difference. The product to give to teachers and doctors has to come from somewhere. The way I mentioned is a way of enforcing good public services because there will be a penalized tax if, A)public services can't be paid with contributions, ie, not enough physical production to have services and decent living, and/or B)Public service indexes are not good enough. Notice that by doing this, public services will be paid off; the goal of a communist/socialist state. Although, this probably could be done with taxes; so in conclusion, whatever works. Either way pays for it. The tax system can be made just as tiered as the contributions system.

You're narrowing the definition of a dictator. It just means a single ruler. So my conclusion is that a dictatorship should be the player deciding how they want to run their 'v

Yeah...

I like the basic idea you have... I would like the fact that I run a kingdom to be more then a tag.

I would like my pop taxes to reflect that. Also my military to do what I say when I say do it instead of when they feel like it.

I have Supply units that never do anything when I have units waiting on gasoline and supplies...

The United Kingdom has a figurehead with, I believe if she can only vote, a little power above that which a United States citizen has; where "a little power above" means "yeah, she is a political figure with some influence."

Err... my poliSci teacher once made a point, that goes directly against what you stated there:
The discussion was about "impossible war combinations"; what he suggested for the "funniest" one was a war between Canada, Australia, and UK.
Why would it be funny? Well, simply, each of those cases, the military is controlled/commanded by one person, and one person only. The Queen. So, what would happen? She'd take UK for Monday & Thursday, Australian Forces for Tuesday, and Friday, and Canadian Forces (whatever that means) on Wednesday and Saturday. Sunday is a day of rest.
So "some influence" is a kind of understatement.

On the topic under discussion, pe

The point I was trying to make. Unelected leaders does not have to equal tyranny, it usually does because of opposition of the population or other leaders. And no your mistaking hereditary rule with feudalism. Hereditary rule would be tyranny of the bloodlines, feudalism is the legal system which enforced this rule. Feudalism would resemble the stereotype of Italian mafia organization.

Also Democracy is no where near 51% rule, since not 100% of the population is eligible to vote, and there is not 100% turnout. 122,294,978 people voted in the 2004 US election, if everyone voted for the same candidate its only 40% rule if you count the entire population, and 55% if you want to get technical cant discount people that aren't eligible to vote. 62,040,610 people voted for Bush thats only 20% rule if you count the entire population or 28% rule if you only count people eligible to vote. Then you get into the electoral colleges where a persons vote has

I was being overly general angus, and trying (I guess I failed) to make a joke buy equating all the governments.

Personally, I think of democracy as, well, herd mentality. While you can vote split whichever way you want, the simple matter is, democracy is the rule of the majority. People-rule: demos cratus. Since people are the majority, you get the above. Couple of problems, how do you decide on voting right? You could have a democracy, where voting age starts at 121. Then what? Is it still a democracy?

wow what an awesome thread this is, extremely stimulating ideas !!!! i agree 100% that the types of government ought to have some real in-game effects.