TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Let's Write a Constitution for a Hypothetical Nation

Go To

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
lordGacek Since: Jan, 2001
#652: Oct 29th 2010 at 5:18:29 AM

I'm all in favour of biometric weapons, but it's too minute a thing to stuff it into Constitution.

@Raw and these guns restrictions on poor of yours: yeah, and make voting also dependent on income, since the poor tend to have less time, or worse education, to debate the philosophies of social contract and particularities of economic systems.

Why do I feel that your ideal voting system would involve a check of knowledge of Big Y's and rest of the lesswrongs' quotes. :P :P :P

edited 29th Oct '10 5:50:21 AM by lordGacek

RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#653: Oct 29th 2010 at 6:50:12 AM

^ No. Just... No. You cannot put on equal grounds the right to own a weapon and the right to vote. This and that are two entirely different things. Owning a weapon does not allow you to defend your rights. It does not allow you to speak up. To fight for your interests. A weapon only allows you to kill or maim, and to threaten to kill or maim. The only way a right to weapons is conductive to the process of democracy is through revolutionary action. Which we want to avoid at all costs, so the electoral system is set up for that purpose. Again, I am in favour of NO ONE being allowed to have a gun. Strict regulation is an acceptable (if still abhorrent) compromise, only due to the fact that the country shares borders with the USA and Mexico, which sucks hard. Which is why I'm in favour of putting it in Atlantis: an insular country would really give us much more freedom on what to do.

While poor people tend to be less educated and intelligent, that is the point of free health and education up to 16 (although if we had it my way I'd make it free up to graduation... still, university fees are 80% funded by the Spanish State, sot that's that). And if the society, as it would be ideal, becomes a pure meritocracy, then no-one will be poor but the stupid, the lazy, and the useless. Which is how things should be, according to American hard-work philosophy, right? Nevertheless, even the stupid, the lazy and the useless should have a voice in all social conflicts, simply because there is much at stake for them.

Again, if I had it my way, I'd make voting compulsory on some elections, especially national ones, and have the voters pass a multiple-choice-question test before voting, to make sure they know what they are voting for. Your score at the test will determine the relative value of your vote. Or you may vote white, which is always worth 1, and which is a vote against the political system as it is set up and a call for the formation of a faction you can get behind,

Rgh. I feel so conflicted about this. There must be a way to prevent people from voting stupidly-

And while I am a big fan of Yudkowsky's fiction, and share a lot of his values, and find his bloggings insightful, I am not a fanboy of his, or of anyone else for that matter, and that comment [Left-Fielder seems to come entirely from left field.]]

edited 29th Oct '10 7:19:17 AM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
lordGacek Since: Jan, 2001
#654: Oct 29th 2010 at 8:32:08 AM

What I find abhorrent is the classification of people into differently-privileged castes on the basis of wealth.

And yeah, the location and the initial inhabitants make a big difference over the whole affair we're here into.

Mweh heh heh. Heh eh heh heh heh. You suggested this caste system not because you don't like the poor - you assumed they're statistically more likely to commit violent crime. In other words: it's SCIENTIFIC! It's RATIONAL! SCIENCE says you can't get a gun! And this attitude, buddy, y'know, makes it not as Left-Fielder as one may think.

edited 29th Oct '10 9:56:27 AM by lordGacek

RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#655: Oct 29th 2010 at 9:52:33 AM

Well, yeah, it's called the Pareto Principle: you deal with the stuff that has the most net effect, not the stuff that is fairest. And I have nothing against the poor (in fact, I find the rich slightly more repulsive... I'm a middle classes dude, those are tamer, more reasonable people): I was poor once, I know how it feels, and I know that back then I shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a gun (I mean, I was poor AND a teenager.

Well, wealth is very easy to measure and is a decisive factor in how people behave. I'd love to discriminate based on intelligence, or even better competence, or even better sanity, but all hell would break loose as all groups of interest would want the definition that suits them best.

edited 29th Oct '10 9:54:27 AM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#656: Oct 29th 2010 at 11:26:51 AM

EDIT-spree: As much as I like the idea of Egalitarianism, no. They pass a safety course, they pass a background check into any criminal or mental instability issues, and they get to permit to buy something. There's enough of an uproar over racial differences in IQ test scores (or the lack of difference) that I'd rather not use it as an objective factor for anything. Soon, we'd have employers using it to screen job applicants, or something, and we'd end up with an underprivileged class just because they're not as intelligent as everyone else.

Anyway, about rich vs. poor and gun ownership:

That's why I'm opposed to anything besides a nominal fee for B-Class. C and D-class wont' even have a fee, but they'll still be more than enough for home-defense needs, and hunting. You want something military-looking, you pay a nominal fee. The price difference between that of a semi-auto Armaline AR-15 and an old Mosin-Nagant bolt-action will pretty much differentiate who can afford what, regardless if we put a licensing fee on them or not.

Maybe I should just become the Minister of Defense (we have that position, right?) and worry about it later, though.

edited 29th Oct '10 11:38:45 AM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#657: Oct 29th 2010 at 12:03:55 PM

Now, I confess that I'm a bit overwhelmed at this point and havnt been following the conversation as closely as I should. So if I have missed some point of consensus I apologize and expect to be corrected. But here goes, this gets appended directly to the end of the last installment:

Article V continued:
I. Each level of government shall be responsible for organizing such police and security forces as are deemed necessary to ensure public safety and security. Police and security forces are administered as agencies of the executive branch of government. Such forces shall have sole power of arrest within their respective jurisdiction. Police and security forces shall be armed at the discretion of their governing authority. All persons arrested shall be charged with crimes and given to the charge of a prosecuting authority, which shall be executive agencies of government to be administered entirely separate from Police and other security forces. Persons charged with a crime shall be rendered to trail by the appropriate judicial court within a reasonable time as defined by law. All police, security and prosecuting authorities, and their personnel, shall at all times act within the constraints established by law. Police and security forces shall be deployed across jurisdictional boundaries in accordance with appropriate agreements between jurisdictions, and in accordance with regional and national laws. Nothing in this constitution shall be deemed to prevent the governing bodies at the various levels from sharing revenue, personnel, equipment or other resources, or from establishing common standards of performance and procedures.

J. A Bureau of Public Health and Safety shall be commissioned at the national level to provide regulation of activities, substances and other such items as may constitute a threat to the health and safety of the general public. Regulations may include, but are not limited to, items such as substances that are proven to be addictive, debilitating or toxic, commercial products that may be used dangerously, weapons, explosives, and public media. Regulations may extend to such requirements as licenses, fees, criteria of ownership, possession or participation as are necessary to minimize the rate of death, injury, debilitation or other dangerous outcomes. Outright banning of such activities, substances or commercial products is to be undertaken only in response to overwhelming evidence of a direct and present danger to the public.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#658: Oct 29th 2010 at 12:19:49 PM

Can you define security forces? Separate from the military, just another name for the police, are they cops that actively go and arrest people versus traffic cops, what?

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
Chalkos Sidequest Proliferator from The Internets Since: Oct, 2010
Sidequest Proliferator
#659: Oct 29th 2010 at 1:16:39 PM

There was also a question regarding the reason for including provision for elected judges, given that general principle holds that the position of assessor of justice should be as apolitical as possible.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#660: Oct 29th 2010 at 3:22:40 PM

"Security Forces" is a general catch all to include anything that might be needed in addition to traditional police: Coast Guard, Judiciary Marshall Service, Customs, etc. Short def: anyone who can arrest somebody.

Well, the judiciary thing was written up by Bon Sequitor, just before he got himself banned. I understand it's based on the Brazilian model. Since he isnt around anymore, feel free to write up an alternative and post it.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#661: Oct 29th 2010 at 3:32:06 PM

^ sounds like Federal Marshals, Do D Police, and stuff, cool. Although if we have too many agencies trying to accomplish the same ends, we may have infighting between departments, or even within departments.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#662: Oct 29th 2010 at 3:41:20 PM

I'd still prefer something that makes it harder to ban something beyond simple tradition. The run by MADD is what I'm thinking of. Perhaps approval by the the SC equivalent? Also, I'd say that any drug should be usable once someone is above the age of consent.

Fight smart, not fair.
ConversationStarter Interesting Conversation from A Discussion Since: Aug, 2010
Interesting Conversation
#663: Oct 29th 2010 at 5:05:28 PM

My proposal is that those substances should be very heavily taxed. That will discourage people without violating rights.

YOU! ARE! INSAZNE!
RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#664: Oct 29th 2010 at 5:28:56 PM

Again, selection by money. This means only the richt can do drugs...

...

Which is completely fine by me... except not, that'll make the stock market even more insane than it already is.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#665: Oct 29th 2010 at 6:59:43 PM

Well, that brings up another question, and that is - how will our commerce be handled? Will we even have a stock market? Since we're in the Atlantic, will we tie our stuff to some other market?

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#666: Oct 29th 2010 at 7:31:23 PM

If "SC" means "Supreme Court" I would say no, but what about a panel of experts? The idea here is to tie policy directly to scientific research.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Roman Love Freak Since: Jan, 2010
#667: Oct 29th 2010 at 9:09:07 PM

[up][up][up]Raw, I find you really endearing in a great many ways, but I hope no one ever votes into an office higher than dog catcher.

You're not doing a very good job of making your classism seem logical at all. It just sounds like base bigotry.

[up][up]Not our job.

edited 29th Oct '10 9:10:48 PM by Roman

| DA Page | Sketchbook |
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#668: Oct 29th 2010 at 9:57:02 PM

I'm cool with that.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#669: Oct 30th 2010 at 1:56:42 PM

Welcome to the conversation, Roman.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#670: Oct 30th 2010 at 4:38:15 PM

The reason I suggested the SC was that a group can't threaten to kick them out because they don't like the result of their findings. And the law and science don't mix well if somebody has something to gain or has a bug up their ass.

Fight smart, not fair.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#671: Oct 30th 2010 at 7:32:59 PM

There are two different ways to promote objective neutrality in a group of people: appoint them for life, as in the SCOTUS, because they are mostly beyond petty politics; or use temporary volunteers, paid little or nothing, because they have little to lose by making an unpopular decision. Our citizen councils rely on this second strategy, and I think our Bureau of Public Health and Safety should as well. The people making the ultimate decisions about what to ban or not ban should not be career bureaucrats, but a panel of recognized experts from outside government, who serve one or two years and move on. Their decisions can be reversed by the next panel to serve, taking more recent findings into account. Or rather three or more panels, one for commercial products, one for chemical substances, and one for anything else.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#672: Oct 30th 2010 at 8:14:00 PM

Ah, I was unclear on the specifics of the council system.

Fight smart, not fair.
redrosary We are as one. from Res Publica Philippinae Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: Cigarettes and Valentines
We are as one.
#673: Oct 30th 2010 at 11:37:10 PM

Personally, I think the SC should be open to objective, meritorious, and apolitical members of the legal community. After all, a judiciary above petty politics is good, don't you think?

The Southpaw has no brakes!
deathjavu This foreboding is fa... from The internet, obviously Since: Feb, 2010
This foreboding is fa...
#674: Oct 30th 2010 at 11:52:25 PM

^That's what we (the U.S.) are supposed achieve now, and I wouldn't exactly call our supreme court any of those things. The problem, of course, is who chooses what's "objective and apolitical"-in this case nomination by the president and passage by congress, which almost guarantees a lack of neutrality. Which I'm pretty sure is why Bon Sequitur was advocating elected judges. Of course, as has been pointed out that has the problem of judges that are too easily swayed by the current trends...

I've been lurking this thread for a while now, but I've been to busy to construct a post. This is interesting stuff here!

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.
RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#675: Oct 31st 2010 at 2:15:59 AM

The problem with councils that don't pay you is that, unless anonymity is guarranteed, you WILL be peronally pressured by the groups of interest involved, and if there is nothing for you to gain, you might decide it's not worth it to resist them.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Essential: Government
20th Apr '10 12:00:00 AM

Crown Description:

These are the series that help a person get rolling with Animé. Vote up the ones you think are more essential and vote down the ones you think are less essential.

Try not to duplicate entries. It will split the voting.

Total posts: 1,065
Top