Let's Write a Constitution for a Hypothetical Nation

Deboss is partly right: The owners and managers of a corporation can make whatever use they wish of corporation's resources, but are accountable to their shareholders for those uses. Misappropriation can be an extremely serious matter. If Larry Page chooses to put some of Google's resources toward advocating for net neutrality, he has the legal authority, as CEO of Google, Inc., to do so. He'll have to answer for it, but he can do it. Oh, and when we speak of getting a corporation's permission, or indeed of a corporation doing anything, that actually means getting permission from the relevant officers, or the relevant officers directing their subordinates to do things. Corporate entities are pure abstractions.

I personally just think of them as property. As with plots of land, the stuff on top of the land is included unless special licenses are created.

Oh great, my question just got ignored

If Cow Owners just claim they speaking for their cows, its just exercizing their free speech right as citizen, nobody would actually believe they got that right because they own cows.

Just give them the same rights as other Citizens. If Cow Owners start demand more vote or longer airtime because they 'represent their cows', you know they exceed their rights.

It is easier on corporation, the money are tracked and documented. If Sergey Brin use dividend he receives for advertising for EFF, it is his rights as citizens. If any google employee donate his wage to EFF, it is his rights as citizens. If Google start pay advertisement for EFF, that is advert/commercial speech, and not protected by free speech. political contribution and lobbying can be tracked the same way.

I'd also favour a seemingly minor but extraordinarily important principle being enshrined in the law of our hypothetical nation: A publicly traded company may be required to take any reasonable actions to maximize its revenues.

This is important, because in many countries, a publicly traded company can be required to take any action to maximize its revenues. Changing "any" to "any reasonable" gives the courts a lot more room to say to a stockholder who bring suit against a corporation for not performing a legal but reprehensible action, "No, this action is not reasonable. Suit dismissed."

Bumping to mention: would it be a good idea to include a "no confidence" vote for public elections? Essentially, with things like the current situation, congress in general is unpopular but individuals are seen as okay within their districts. Would a simple majority vote held at the same time that bars all current office holders from running again the coming term help prevent such issues?

Well, so far we are using a Parliamentary system. I am not as familiar with those as I am with the US Congress, but don't most such systems have a "no confidence" vote build into them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "no confidence." In my experience, that means "You haven't done anything actually illegal, but we want to get rid of you anyway and are not willing to wait for the next election." What are you using it as?

This.

Electoral toilet flush. Essentially, I wish to discuss the possibility of forcing the entire body of elected officials in our Parliament out of office at the same time through a single majority vote.

Are you sure that the cost in terms of disruption to the legislative process isn't too high? Also, we have a directly elected executive. Were this possible, and I was the prez, I would be looking for ways to cause this to happen, so that IT could effectively rule with much less hindrence.

What costs would be incurred? For the most part, the day to day stuff shouldn't require any sort of intervention by Parliament. The main issue I'm thinking of is something like what's happening in the US, where the vast majority of people hate the current congress, but aren't willing to vote against their own candidate. Make it 51% of the population voting against the current congress (rather than a majority vote) would be a pretty clear message that the congress in question is a pile of shit.

At least I think so, we should have the constitution on a Sandbox page so we can link it at the top of every page.

New scum will just replace the old scum.

isn't that breaking democracy promise ? Candidate elected by his constituent, then couldn't finish his term because non-confidence vote from people outside his constituency.

The two main costs that I can think of are the Machiavellian political battles that will occur whenever the executive or a party out of power decides that they don't like the ruling coalition, and tries to find a way to get them kicked out, and the problems that will arise while there is no legislature to address them (mostly related to on-going budgetary issues). We have all seen how inefficient the government becomes when partisan politics prevents anything from getting done. How much worse will this be if there is no legislature at all? (which is ironic to consider since the reason so many people are fed up with the Congress is the partisan logjam). I think you are assuming that a new legislature will be more cooperative than the previous one, which discounts the reality that it's the American people who are divided, not just the legislature. The partisanship is reflective of a lack of broad social consensus on certain hot-button issues. I think what you really want is another branch of government, independent of electoral politics, that can get business done irregardless of who is in power. Our constitution has two of them: the consensus-based Citizen Councils and the Dept. of Public Welfare, which consists of various professionally staffed Bureaus.

I would be happy to post a copy of the Con if you tell me how to create a sandbox page.

Go hear: Proposed Constitution.

While true, I'm thinking of the current issue where the majority of citizenry has incredibly low faith in congress, but most citizens are unwilling to vote against their candidate. I thought it might do some good in that since.

That we do have a professional group who should continue working is a good thing, I couldn't remember if anybody had suggested it. Perhaps a business as usual policy where the budget continues as before unless changes are made?

edited 4th Oct '12 7:08:16 PM by Deboss

Done. It sure was interesting to go over all this stuff again. Since I helped you guys write all that, I became involved in the movement to repeal the Citizens United decision, so I have opinions on corporations and political speech (ie, they shouldn't have any), but I wont write that in until I see some consensus on that.

I have incorporated all the suggested edits up to Deboss' post 983. I think we still need to discuss the suggestions that came after that.

What I see as the most pressing issue now is a budgeting system. This is our chance to design something really innovative. I'm personally a fan of Performance Based Budgeting.

Oh- and is it too late to apologize to Cassie? I think you just got lost in the cracks back there- for what it is worth, if you still want to write a constitution for another entity I would start a new thread, it's just likely to get lost here.

I'm not sure I trust that article to discuss the actual mentality, it reads too much like a sales article.

Based on the way it sounds, it sounds like "doing well gets your budget increased, doing poorly gets it cut" or that thing where running under budget gets your budget cut.

Based on the fact that you recommended it, I'd guess that it's supposed to be a budget where the expense vs gain is anticipated and the budget is allocated accordingly. The main problem I see with that is the whole "expected gains" aspect.

My preference would be to divide things into a running and one time budget, in addition to requiring everything in real dollars. So things like the military, education or science would fall into running budget and would require congressional action to raise or lower the budget requirements, and the money allocation should be done by the department that does said work. An individual project should be a one time (or fixed increment) budget expense where the department or council of people from the department(s) control the allocation of the money.

Party loyalty is much less of a problem in countries with proportional representation, and gerrymandering is reduced by a good margin as well.

Any thoughts on the bribery-based loyalty that makes all political parties in places like Spain equally financially destructive? I can't see a way ambition can be used as an engine to avoid this, and that's the go-to strategy for any political system.

So some suggestions: I propose that we design a budgeting system that minimizes opportunities for corruption and managerial incompetence by strictly limiting the use of targeted tax exemptions, government contracts, and special purpose grants.

Features that I would like to see included are: Mandatory performance targets per department and program, a "Pay as you Go" system that requires that increases in spending be accompanied by specific tax increases or other spending cuts, managerial authority to request borrowed funds be used only to prevent certain types of fiscal crises, and open-competition contracts only. Basically the idea is to open government to public accountability as much as possible.

By way of contrast, here is the US process. Notice the respective roles of the President and the Congress, and where the spending authorization comes from. The difference between mandatory and discretionary spending is also important.

@Doma: Can you be a little more specific? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

edited 9th Oct '12 8:33:44 AM by DeMarquis

My only real issue with attaching specific tax increases to a purchase bill is that it'll turn our overall tax system into something of a mess. I'd prefer a simpler system if at all possible, a "everything goes in the pot unless it's an earmarked donation" type of thing.

I've been thinking, and I believe out proposed nation would be better off without a judicial system in the usual North American sense. I really think that a non-adverserial system based around magistrates is a better way to go. There is no presumption of innocence, or of guilt, because the system is not adversarial. Basically, both sides prevent their case to a magistrate, who can then question anyone he wishes, on either side or both. Also, court costs should be split on the basis of the parties' ability to pay, to minimize the currently-popular use of SLAPPs^* Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. by large vested interests to silence inconvenient small groups.

edited 9th Jun '13 5:47:46 PM by Whitewings

How do you have a non-adversarial criminal system?

Fairly simply: The speaker for the state and the speaker for the accused are doing their best to convince the magistrate of what happened, but they're not attacking each other's presentation, and the magistrate is expected to step in to keep things civil. Also, the magistrate isn't required to accept *either* version as fact. He's expected to listen to both sides, and decide, based on the evidence, what most likely happened and act accordingly. He's also expected to actively participate in the hearings.

You're describing the so-called "Napoleonic" system, as opposed to the English Common Law tradition the US currently has. I think that there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. How would you encode a "non-adversarial" judicial system in "Constitution Speak"?