My country would be successful

1. I never implied the freedom of action I said "threatening to kill the president, murder, rape . . ." If you believe it is legally acceptable to threaten, or sexually harass people verbally, then my point stands.2. No issue3. " Your property is your property. You should be able to do whatever you want on that property. How will being able to kill the people that trespass on my property erode the country into societal turmoil." Because I gave just one example of how your distant relatives could show up at your door uninvited and you can legally blast their brains out. How would it not erode the society into turmoil? You never refuted that point.4. I'm saying discriminative policies lead to hatred, just look at the racial intolerance of blacks in U.S. history to see what this would lead to. Hatred leads to murder, beatings, crime, ect.5. No issue6. The U.S. budget for defense is 20% of GDP. Your 35% of GDP is almost double that. The funding is not similar and this proves your first point wrong. Operating a military for the sake of "running it like a business" to plunder foreign oil is a terrible idea. Every allied country would hate you and destroy you in war - especially with this country's economic instability and corrupt military policies.7. You have admitted you weren't clear on this point and changed the criteria. Forcing mentally and physically capable people to have mandatory military service would lead to internal corruption and AWOL soldiers.8. It is very expensive. Especially since those just above poverty would have to pay a 23% tax on all goods and services. This hurts the poor the most - and they wouldn't be able to survive.9. You are still limiting certain races to thrive and others to struggle. You are promoting racial tension and discrimination - my point stands that this will erode your country morally. This is exactly what began to happen in Nazi Germany when people promoted the white race.10. a 23% tax is high. The workforce is distorted since everyone need to have mandatory military service, leaving a huge gap of age in the workforce.11."I said that the government would not get in the way of other religions just like it already does, the difference is that Protestant Christianity would be able to be promoted. Besides, the states in my country are all part of the Bible Belt so they are already predominately Protestant Christian." Promoting one religion shows intolerance for other religions. This fosters hatred within people who aren't christians. This will further erode your country morally. There is a separation of church and state in the U.S., so that's the difference you aren't seeing.12. admitted fault and changed the criteria. "I meant no unemployment, food stamps, healthcare, or any other system like this." So those living just above poverty will be taxed at 23% for groceries, gas, clothing, ect and get no federal assistance or healthcare. Wow. The crime rate would skyrocket as people would turn to theft and violence.13. "The economy would not be a command economy." but in the previous round you said "The government will be autocratic and I will be the Commander". An autocratic government is: "An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person . . . http://en.wikipedia.org... is a blatant contradiction.14. Ensuring basic human rights is a major purpose of the UN, which you don't adhere to. Foreign countries will not respect you.15. You have shown it sustainable? How?