Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

...which one would you pick?  It seems so simple, until you start thinking about all the stuff that would go into actually ruling a country.  I honestly have no clue which one I would go for.  Maybe Monocco?  Though small does not imply simple to rule...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Absolute rulership or permanent head of state?

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Absolute rulership or permanent head of state?

Depends on its current governmental state.  Latter for Republics and Democracies, former for autocratic, oligarchal, or anarchtic states.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The People's Republic of China, if we're counting that as autocratic or oligarchical.

[Baffler]

If I'm permanent head of state, I'd choose Great Britain, because the Royals (the nominal heads of state) get everything handed to them, live in massive luxury, and don't have any actual responsibilities.

If I'm the absolute ruler, I'd choose Madagascar because, while shitty, it's pretty peaceful (and rebels and other bullshit from neighboring regions is far less likely to come around if it has to swim across the channel than if it can just waltz across the border in the middle of nowhere) and has a fairly clear way forward as far as development. Plus if there's ever more global trouble I can just close the port.

[BFEL]

If I'm permanent head of state, I'd choose Great Britain, because the Royals (the nominal heads of state) get everything handed to them, live in massive luxury, and don't have any actual responsibilities.

If I'm the absolute ruler, I'd choose Madagascar because, while shitty, it's pretty peaceful (and rebels and other bullshit from neighboring regions is far less likely to come around if it has to swim across the channel than if it can just waltz across the border in the middle of nowhere) and has a fairly clear way forward as far as development. Plus if there's ever more global trouble I can just close the port.

This has the added benefit of making you entirely immune to disease.

[Grimlocke]

Hmm, in my own country it is really very hard to get anything done without plenty of support of the larger political parties.

In other countries it would be hard to get anything done for knowing far less about them. Added to that many places would very quickly depose-or-worse me, especially autocratic countries rely on the loyalty of the elite to a specific person, rather than to the legal system. I imagine if a random stranger were to suddenly and inexplicably replace Putin, that the Putin-loyalists making up most of the important government functions would be less than cooperative. Being ruler for life is less meaningful if your life suddenly becomes very short...

Ah heck, too much thinking, I'll just pick Malta.

[FearfulJesuit]

I'll make America great again by throwing everything west of the Mississippi into the lake of fire. Nelson Rockefeller will return in glory and splendor to defeat Reagan in a cosmic battle and institute an eternal kingdom of benevolent Northeastern aristocracy.

[i2amroy]

If I'm permanent head of state, I'd choose Great Britain, because the Royals (the nominal heads of state) get everything handed to them, live in massive luxury, and don't have any actual responsibilities.

Go even farther and become emperor of Japan, who actually has a true purely ceremonial role. Heck, it actually states that his main role is to be "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people" while "not hav[ing] powers related to government".

[George_Chickens]

China, nuke everyone, die.

[mainiac]

Dibs on pope.

[feelotraveller]

Bhutan. 

Ruling a place where Gross Domestic Happiness > Gross Domestic Product = more fun!  (Being called 'Thunder Dragon King' is just pure bonus.)

[Insanegame27]

Straya m8

[Starver]

If I'm permanent head of state, I'd choose Great Britain, because the Royals (the nominal heads of state) get everything handed to them, live in massive luxury, and don't have any actual responsibilities.

Personally, I'd only chhoose GB if it was the other way round.

As Queen King I would not be able to keep up with the 'voluntary' schedule of appointments and ceremonies, would not know the best way to get anything done that I want to get done and would end up falling way short of the approval rating of the current monarch, or any of her relatives (even Fergie!) and thihgs would fall ti pieces quite quickly, no matter how much 'luxury' I lived in for the duration.

But, as PM... Presumably the automagical method of my assuminng the position means I'm not in hoc to either parliament or public for at least the foreseeable future and I can actually Right Some Wrongs and delegate other things to people I actually think can do a good job at them, and I won't be living in any less (useful) opulance whilst I'm doing so.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

If I'm permanent head of state, I'd choose Great Britain, because the Royals (the nominal heads of state) get everything handed to them, live in massive luxury, and don't have any actual responsibilities.

Go even farther and become emperor of Japan, who actually has a true purely ceremonial role. Heck, it actually states that his main role is to be "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people" while "not hav[ing] powers related to government".

What I had meant by Head of State was more the Prime Minister/President/etc. than King/Queen or Emperor.