New government for the 21st Century

[Iota]

You can copy, edit, and make another post.

 

What does that mean?

[Icecreamcon3]

What does that mean?

I think he's referring to when I said I cannot edit the OP.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Icecreamcon3

[Phi for All]

 

They already do.

 

They may organize for voting purposes, but that's not illegal. If you tax them, they become eligible for all kinds of federal aid, they get to bid on government contracts, and most important they get to preach for a candidate in their sermons. That's not informing, that's indoctrinating.

 

We should be strengthening the separation between church and state, not trying to eliminate it. We should do away with faith-based initiatives on principal as well.

[EdEarl]

 

They may organize for voting purposes, but that's not illegal. If you tax them, they become eligible for all kinds of federal aid, they get to bid on government contracts, and most important they get to preach for a candidate in their sermons. That's not informing, that's indoctrinating.

 

We should be strengthening the separation between church and state, not trying to eliminate it. We should do away with faith-based initiatives on principal as well.

Amen.

I think he's referring to when I said I cannot edit the OP.

Yes

[Iota]

I'll firstly just state for the record that my original comment :

 

 

Christianity and Islam especially with their billions of members worldwide, I'm sure if they all chipped in a little to their community they'd manage alright.

was said in order to implicate my agreement with the principle that was being given in icecream's quoted statement; rather than a literal suggestion that we naively do away with the current church/state coexistence model without considering any of the implications of doing so.

 

...Said principle being that if such a large community wants to exist, for purely non-business motives and for no real gain or purpose, they should fund themselves, because it's their project and should not expect force everyone else to rescue its continuation by means of unwilling contribution.

 

 

If you tax them, they become eligible for all kinds of federal aid...

 

What makes federal aid worse than tax payers funding, out of interest?

 

 

 

We should be strengthening the separation between church and state, not trying to eliminate it. We should do away with faith-based initiatives on principal as well.

 

Strengthening to the point of elimination, I would hope?- if when you say state, you mean; all governing bodies of the state, and in the bigger picture i.e. a given country's central government.

 

 

In the UK the CoE is tax exempt, yet Church members still have seats in the House of Lords where they can be part of the debate on decision policies which affects everyone in the UK. I'd far prefer it if the Church funded itself AND kept its nose out of influencing politics. It has absolutely no place at all in politics.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Iota

[Phi for All]

What makes federal aid worse than tax payers funding, out of interest?

 

Federal aid is taxpayer funding. Right now, churches get an exemption on property tax and donations are deductible. They get no other aid from the government, and they aren't allowed to get mixed in politics.

 

If they chose not to claim the exemption, they'd be like any other private citizen group, only with a church's organization capabilities. They could donate to campaigns, they could back specific campaigns and talk about them from the pulpit. I think the only thing that keeps them from doing this is that they don't want the government in their books.

 

Strengthening to the point of elimination, I would hope?

 

Well, no. I want to strengthen the separation between church and state. Why would I want it eliminated? I don't want religious influence on the government. They have their own schools, they have their own tax-exempt churches, it should be enough. The government should stay out of the People's religion, and the religion should never try to affect the way the government is run.

[Iota]

 

Federal aid is taxpayer funding. Right now, churches get an exemption on property tax and donations are deductible. They get no other aid from the government, and they aren't allowed to get mixed in politics.

 

If they chose not to claim the exemption, they'd be like any other private citizen group, only with a church's organization capabilities. They could donate to campaigns, they could back specific campaigns and talk about them from the pulpit. I think the only thing that keeps them from doing this is that they don't want the government in their books.

Alright thanks for explaining, I agree in that case. I don't know to what extent, but things work differently in our countries, so that might not be the case here. Federal aid needs to exempt religious organisations is all I can say.

 

 

 

Well, no. I want to strengthen the separation between church and state. Why would I want it eliminated? I don't want religious influence on the government. They have their own schools, they have their own tax-exempt churches, it should be enough. The government should stay out of the People's religion, and the religion should never try to affect the way the government is run.

 

I'm 100% against faith teaching in any schools... the line should be drawn further. It interferes with the learning of science and it's cruel to make children believe something, which is purely belief, such as religion. School is a place to be educated and that's as far as its duties should be made to go. Preaching should be banned from all schools, and if they refuse to stop- the schools should be re-defined as specialised churches which educate non-faith subjects on side of indoctrinating.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Iota

[Phi for All]

I'm 100% against faith teaching in any schools... the line should be drawn further. It interferes with the learning of science and it's cruel to make children believe something, which is purely belief, such as religion. School is a place to be educated and that's as far as its duties should be made to go. Preaching should be banned from all schools, and if they refuse to stop- the schools should be re-defined as specialised churches which educate non-faith subjects on side of indoctrinating.

 

While I agree that school should be religion-free, you can't stop people from choosing to pay for private religious schooling for their kids. There should be no religious teaching in public schools, ever, and that the taxpayers should have the ability to enforce.

 

I look at it this way. Learning involves being able to discern between what is being taught as mainstream and ideas that challenge the mainstream with better explanations. You have to be able to question the answers, and I just don't think most religions are willing to have sacred tenets questioned that way. If you can ask questions, and challenge your teachers, you're being educated. If you can't, you're being indoctrinated.

[Icecreamcon3]

I'm for the ABSOLUTE separation of church and state, but I just think they should pay their fare share to the society that fosters them.
As for what I think we need to do with education I'll quote myself from another thread:

We basically need to copy Finland's education system AKA better qualified teachers that are trusted to be autonomous, longer recesses (There is a reason children evolved the desire to play...), a more balanced curriculum , and NO standardized tests!

Although a few things I would add: Children should move through grades not based off age but ability. science classes should be split into 50% lectures and discussion and 50% experimentation and not "preplanned" experiments, but things more like "Hey look at this phenomena how do you think this is caused?" and then the children would design and test an experiment to figure it out (and they would be taught how to interpret data and to peer review each others conclusions, ect.) and thirdly foreign languages would be taught from an early age, maybe a choice of the 5 most common languages on earth so the parents won't feel as if they're having someone else's culture pushed onto them.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Icecreamcon3

[Iota]

 

While I agree that school should be religion-free, you can't stop people from choosing to pay for private religious schooling for their kids. There should be no religious teaching in public schools, ever, and that the taxpayers should have the ability to enforce.

 

I look at it this way. Learning involves being able to discern between what is being taught as mainstream and ideas that challenge the mainstream with better explanations. You have to be able to question the answers, and I just don't think most religions are willing to have sacred tenets questioned that way. If you can ask questions, and challenge your teachers, you're being educated. If you can't, you're being indoctrinated.

 

Indeed. I think the law needs to be more involved in the regulation of education, and to outlaw the child abuse that is faith teaching. I guess my vision is that in the same way there aren't schools dedicated to indoctrinating a particular political view, economic theory, or whatever; one day there will cease to be schools dedicated to the indoctrination of a particular idea as to how the universe came about, especially ones that fall back on zero supporting evidence.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Iota

[Delbert]

All it means is no drafts, you know like Vietnam... you are still perfectly permitted to volunteer!

 

So what happens when there are no volunteers?

 

And you can't just volunteer the day - or the day before - the enemy is on your doorstep; an army has to organised, equipped and it's recruits trained. All that needs money, personnel and time.

 

Simple question: do we need a defending force of army, air-force and navy?

If you agree we do then why should it be that you have the luxury not to take part at the same time as apparently being quite happy for others to place their body parts on the line to protect your 'rights'?

 

A limited direct democracy... key word there. Direct democracy would be used on a few permanently assigned, fixed set of political economic issues of central importance, while the current representative democracy would cover the rest(or preferable we would design an alternative system.)

A limited democracy. What on earth is a limited democracy? Seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.

 

Perhaps it simply means that said incumbent has limited powers as you appear to describe, so who decides what those limited powers are? Presumably some sort of supreme leader, mayhap. Unencumbered by plebiscite. But if you're thinking of it being a committee, I think we all know about committees. Makes me recall someone who likened a committee to a dog with four back legs.

[Icecreamcon3]

So what happens when there are no volunteers?

 

And you can't just volunteer the day - or the day before - the enemy is on your doorstep; an army has to organised, equipped and it's recruits trained. All that needs money, personnel and time.

All it means is NO DRAFTS. I bolded "volunteer" to connect the dots with your words "willing" from the post I was replying to. Do you realise that right now this is how the military is...

 

If you agree we do then why should it be that you have the luxury not to take part at the same time as apparently being quite happy for others to place their body parts on the line to protect your 'rights'?

 

And you think it would be fairer to have a draft where your picked at random to fight in some goddamn war while others who haven't been drafted "have the luxury not to take part"? Please explain your logic, how is any more fair to be picked at random rather than volunteering??

 

 

A limited democracy. What on earth is a limited democracy? Seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.

I'm impressed with how many times you can miss the point! Good job!

Do you even know what DIRECT democracy is??

You would think the name would give it away, but apparently not...

 

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)^[1] is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.

The reason it would be limited in the first place is because you can't have the majority taking away the rights of minorities AKA mob rule, that's why it should be limited to a fixed set of things.

 

Perhaps it simply means that said incumbent has limited powers as you appear to describe, so who decides what those limited powers are? Presumably some sort of supreme leader, mayhap. Unencumbered by plebiscite. But if you're thinking of it being a committee, I think we all know about committees. Makes me recall someone who likened a committee to a dog with four back legs.

We decide what those limited powers are ... the ones designing the system, and there can be a mechanism to add or remove powers but only if the people consent. Obviously (Well evidently not for some..)

 

Edited August 9, 2013 by Icecreamcon3

[Phi for All]

Let's all make sure to keep those panties unbunched, ladies, and your replies civil.

 

 

 

I was always intrigued by Senator Stuart Symington's proposal for a unified military. After fighting to have an Air Force separate from the Army, he realized that dividing the troops this way led to a lot of internal rivalries and excesses. Every dollar Congress appropriates for the military has four hands reaching for it, each hand with a staff of admins trying to justify why that dollar should go to them.

 

Symington later argued for a unified military, where defenders trained and specialized, but we'd have soldiers who can fly planes, soldiers who can drive tanks, soldiers who can sail ships, instead of separate Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. Much more efficient, more flexible, less apt to make redundant purchases, tighter chain of command, there would be lots of advantages.

[Icecreamcon3]

Let's all make sure to keep those panties unbunched, ladies, and your replies civil.

 

 

 

I was always intrigued by Senator Stuart Symington's proposal for a unified military. After fighting to have an Air Force separate from the Army, he realized that dividing the troops this way led to a lot of internal rivalries and excesses. Every dollar Congress appropriates for the military has four hands reaching for it, each hand with a staff of admins trying to justify why that dollar should go to them.

 

Symington later argued for a unified military, where defenders trained and specialized, but we'd have soldiers who can fly planes, soldiers who can drive tanks, soldiers who can sail ships, instead of separate Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. Much more efficient, more flexible, less apt to make redundant purchases, tighter chain of command, there would be lots of advantages.

I'm all for efficiency, but why is it divided in the first place? What advantaged does being divided give?

[Delbert]

All it means is NO DRAFTS. I bolded "volunteer" to connect the dots with your words "willing" from the post I was replying to. Do you realise that right now this is how the military is...

If there's no drafts then it must be voluntary by default.

 

And as for what it is now, have you considered what would happen if they didn't have enough recruits? It seems to me that for the defence of the realm there would then be a draft.

 

So for the protection of what we all love and cherish there has to be conscription, even if it's in the background and only brought out or enacted when necessary. It cannot be any other way if we a serious about defending the country.

 

 

We decide what those limited powers are ... the ones designing the system, and there can be a mechanism to add or remove powers but only if the people consent. Obviously (Well evidently not for some..)

 

I think I know what you mean by direct. I didn't reply directly because it seemed so impossible as not to warrant comment.

 

Presumably individuals or parties would propose a set of rules which would then seek a plebiscite. The winning group or individual would then enact said rules. So what's different to what we have today, one might ask? I suppose the difference would be that following election said undertakings will be inscribed in law such that any diversion would be subject to due process of law - because that's deemed to be the will of the people. And any change or the need for new rules occasioned by the due process of time would require further plebiscites. But perhaps we just take a list of 'rights' like your list as a basis, but how they would deal with the unfolding events we see every day, I don't know.

 

I think you're forgetting the house of commons (UK) whereby decisions and rules are debated by elected individuals, and voted on.

 

I'm sorry, but this direct business is ridiculous and fraught with problems, governing with hands tied for starters possibly descending to the rule by mob. Unelected groups who shout long enough and loud enough get there way - perhaps something we see a bit of these days.

 

No, a government has to be free to make decisions and rules from day-to-day during its period in power. And promised undertakings may well have to be dumped by new and unforeseen situations rearing their ugly head. The decisions made during this period of power will then be laid before the populous at the next election. It's up to us to see though any dross; if we elect the wrong one it is our fault.

[Phi for All]

I'm all for efficiency, but why is it divided in the first place? What advantaged does being divided give?

 

I think current division is marked by specialization, but a unified force can still specialize. The only real advantage I see is compartmentalization of knowledge, with a central command (JCS) that disseminates information on a need-to-know basis. There may be valid security concerns here, but I think the savings in time and money would allow us to address those concerns better.

 

I always think about the A-10 Warthog, the jet that the Air Force designed to be a forward scout capable of leading other air assets to ground targets. The Army loved the A-10 for its close support capabilities for infantry, and began requesting them as support in many missions. The Air Force fighter jocks thought such grunt work was unglamorous and squabbling led the Army to request its own version of the A-10, flown by Army pilots who would favor infantry support over flashier missions. We spent a lot of money commissioning the same basic jet for two branches; that would have been eliminated with a joint force unified towards effective solutions instead of diluting their efforts trying to justify ever-growing budgets.

 

Honestly, I think tradition keeps most countries from unifying their military. What keeps the US from unifying is most likely all the contracts and lucrative deals that can happen when you can't even find a computer system capable of keeping track of your expenditures. Yet another area where the US spends a great deal more than anyone else, albeit with markedly more success than our healthcare system.

[imatfaal]

I'm all for efficiency, but why is it divided in the first place? What advantaged does being divided give?

 

Apart from efficiency and tradition as Phi mentioned - I think the original and current reason is that division of forces means that a large monolithic power centre is not created. Government (of whatever flavour) has always been wary of too much power potentially in another's hands - and for good reason; most coups need to get the armed forces on board. Even in enlightened democracies with division of powers (and I type that tongue in cheek) the power vested in the Joint Chief of Staff - or whatever name - has been shown in recent years to be quite substantial when he decides to get involved in an overt manner.

 

Separation of the arms of the military service mean that competition is preserved between services, that each acts as a check on the other, both hawks and doves can be accommodated at the highest level of command, and that the scope of any one service is curtailed.

[Phi for All]

Apart from efficiency and tradition as Phi mentioned - I think the original and current reason is that division of forces means that a large monolithic power centre is not created. Government (of whatever flavour) has always been wary of too much power potentially in another's hands - and for good reason; most coups need to get the armed forces on board. Even in enlightened democracies with division of powers (and I type that tongue in cheek) the power vested in the Joint Chief of Staff - or whatever name - has been shown in recent years to be quite substantial when he decides to get involved in an overt manner.

 

This is the most likely answer, of course. I can see where it would be difficult for one separate branch to mount a coup on the rest; there are good checks and balances there. But I think deterrents can be built into a unified system also.

 

Separation of the arms of the military service mean that competition is preserved between services,

 

Please elaborate. "Competition is preserved between services" can also be read as "interservice rivalry causes tension and mistrust". This happens a LOT, and not only in the military. Our FBI is notorious for not sharing information with local police authorities, and between FBI, CIA, NSA and other initialed groups there is too much non-cooperation, to the point where they have to set up special initiatives to curb the problem. Interservice/interagency rivalry is a real problem.

 

that each acts as a check on the other, both hawks and doves can be accommodated at the highest level of command, and that the scope of any one service is curtailed.

 

It would be more difficult for a commander of a separate service to go rogue than one who could conceivably pull from defenders in multiple skills and roles. I have to think that there is a way to structure a unified defense force to allow for adequate checks and balances to the added power. But I'm far from knowledgeable about the intricacies of modern military command. It just seems like unification would help us stay strong by eliminating a lot of administrative redundancy, gaining some needed flexibility to deal with ever-changing modern warfare and saving the fighting for the enemy.

[imatfaal]

This is the most likely answer, of course. I can see where it would be difficult for one separate branch to mount a coup on the rest; there are good checks and balances there. But I think deterrents can be built into a unified system also.

More check more balances are always good - and simply put, whatever you have for a unified system you can add another layer with a diversified system.

 

 

Please elaborate. "Competition is preserved between services" can also be read as "interservice rivalry causes tension and mistrust". This happens a LOT, and not only in the military. Our FBI is notorious for not sharing information with local police authorities, and between FBI, CIA, NSA and other initialed groups there is too much non-cooperation, to the point where they have to set up special initiatives to curb the problem. Interservice/interagency rivalry is a real problem.

I think you hit upon a very important point - intelligence agencies are not military services; far too often the boundaries are blurred. For the military there is a need for esprit de corps; servicemen and women can only go so far for their pay, their patriotism, and honour - when push comes to shove it is the bond between individuals that can often provide that crucial edge. Competition and a terrible "playing-fields of Eton" mentality helps this bonding. Some of the amazing exploits of the US in SEAsia in WWII seemed to me to be built to an extent on wanting to do better than the army / the marines etc.

 

In the intelligence services - there is no need and it would seem to be almost entirely counterproductive.

 

It would be more difficult for a commander of a separate service to go rogue than one who could conceivably pull from defenders in multiple skills and roles. I have to think that there is a way to structure a unified defense force to allow for adequate checks and balances to the added power. But I'm far from knowledgeable about the intricacies of modern military command. It just seems like unification would help us stay strong by eliminating a lot of administrative redundancy, gaining some needed flexibility to deal with ever-changing modern warfare and saving the fighting for the enemy.

 

Yes that would make sense. However in Blighty we spend far too much on admin and have far too many civil servants - yet we have a joint Ministry of Defence that does the bureaucracy for all services. Also - so much expenditure is on materiel , especially poorly sourced stuff.

[Gees]

Interesting thread with lots of ideas. Although I did not read the whole thread, I do have some reservations about the original post, which were also pointed out by Petur and Delbert. What about responsibilities?

 

I am not a lawyer, but studied then worked in law for many years before retiring. This does not make me an expert in government, but it gave me a good grasp of law and how bad law can affect people. Studying law also gave me some insights into just how difficult it is to write a good law, as the law is essentially the words of the law. As an example of this, consider the problem below that we studied in Family Law.

 

This case was in California in the 70's, I think, and I don't remember the case name of this matter, but it goes like this: A married man and woman were on the brink of divorce. The woman told the man that she would take half of his home, money, property, and business, then because she was pregnant, she would also make him pay for the next 18 or 19 years for her child. California law would allow her to do this, as it was all within a married woman's rights. Apparently, the husband did not take this well and decided to mitigate his damages, so he intentionally beat her until she miscarried. I believe that there was some question as to whether or not the child was his, which would not necessarily be relevant to the law as they were married, so the child was legally his.

 

Of course, people were horrified. This man had cold-bloodedly premeditated the murder of a fetus. But when they went to charge him for this "murder", it was discovered that there was no law against a man murdering his own potential offspring. It was not a crime, and no Civil Court could make him sue himself, so all that he could be charged with was assault and battery. This would never do, so the Legislature called a special session and wrote a law to prevent this from ever happening again. Problem solved. Right?

 

Then the real trouble started. Pregnant women started to die from accidents and traumas that the emergency rooms, hospitals, and doctors refused to treat. Apparently the medical community was accepting of the possibility of being sued if they made a mistake and a fetus died, but they were damned reluctant to be charged with the crime of murder and go to prison if they made a mistake. So they refused treatment, as was their right. This law has, no doubt, been rewritten over and over in attempts to make it more feasible, but it is still not perfect.

 

What we can glean from this case, and many others, is that intent can not be written into law. We can allude to intent and try to prove intent, but we can not write a law that discerns individual intent. We can not create a government that dictates or presupposes intent. The only thing that we can do is define and establish rights and responsibilities, and these must be matched. Many legislators confuse crime and punishment with rights and responsibilities, but crime and punishment is the result of a failure to understand rights and responsibilities, it is not a replacement for them.

 

Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. I can not be held responsible for something that I have no authority and rights to, just as I can not have rights to something that I refuse to be responsible for. This is a simple truth. If you look to law and governments, I think that you will find that where rights and responsibilities match, it works. Where rights and responsibilities do not match, or are artificially divided by law, it does not work and eventually falls apart. So it is my thought that this would be an important aspect of considering any new form of government.

 

Checks and balances are also important, and can stop a government from turning on itself and us. The Constitution does encourage mob rule, but the Bill of Rights is there to check some of that mob rule. It is somewhat awkward that the Bill of Rights does not extend to other countries, so our businesses and government seem to have rights that they should not have when dealing with, or working within, other countries. This is an unexpected and unplanned aspect of democracy.

 

Because I see a lack of wisdom and continuity in my government, if I were to create a new form, I would probably choose something close to the democracy that we now have, but would Constitutionally limit the power of said government with tax curtailment and an advisory council. This advisory council would be made up of three representatives from each of the disciplines; science, philosophy, and religion--like a group of elders. These advisors would be appointed and chosen by the disciplines that they represent and would answer to no other. It would be their responsibility to advise government about the needs of the people in relation to their specific discipline. This council would be supported by a set percentage of the tax base and would have little authority except to veto any law or war on the rare occasion that all three disciplines were in agreement.

 

My thought is that religion, science, and philosophy would routinely check each other, and since they are rarely in agreement, they would not cause too much disruption with their influence. They would have no real power otherwise except to advise. Because we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, it is my thought that we need science, philosophy, and religion to keep tabs on each other and us, and provide an equal consideration of our needs in this regard.

 

G

Edited August 15, 2013 by Gees

[Delbert]

Very well described.

 

Democracy is all about the voters accepting the outcome of their decision. Of course, the ones that voted the other way will be disappointed and the ones that voted for will be disappointed by promises not kept. And there will be promises not kept, especially if they are unrealistic or not financially viable. Unrealistic promises are the stock-in-trade of politicians; it is up to us as voters not to be taken in by unrealistic promises. One persons promise is doubtless someone else's financial burden.

 

If we don't like the lot in power then we have to vote accordingly next time; if we want democracy that's what we have to accept. Following due process of time the outcome of such a process will be an acceptable level of duties and responsibilities. And yes, the luxury of a few rights.

[Icecreamcon3]

I'm not going to be able to post on this as frequently because summer vacation has ended for me but hopefully that means I will be able to learn more.

[somanymike]

Hi as a law student I salute your effort but a mere reading of your list of rights troubles me to no end sir.

 

In order for you to understant my point, I will tell you that most of what you got here is already a human right. Human rights international pacts from all over the globe allready give most of this to you.

 

The actual problem is that: is hard to find a correct system to actually demand this rights with effectiveness, not only configuring, because is it not weird in the constitucional law to observe paper constitution that by establishing the most overpowered way to protect its population rights only manage to lower the level of protection they actually have. (YeS !! IT DOeS HAPPeN!)

 

Second a simple declaration of right with a total lack of content and strict dogmatic about the sheer limits of each of this rights will do nothing but direct us to a path in wich each judge will decide in each case what right is being broken or wich right should be prefered over the other if they ever clash (easy examply your right number 8 and 9, they will clash, simple because we are diferent, example if a men has the exact same protection than a women,a man will be chosen everytime because they do not get pregant neither you have to worry about sexual harrasment in the workplace (most of the time), so in the end you are not providing the same oportunities for all.

 

And finally, and this is for your list is that law is a precise discipline*, wich word you chosee IS IMPORTANT: "the right to have A children", that means you only get to have one, if you have another then... do you go to jail? do you have to kill your children? or maybe the child is not protected by the law since it is a second child. I can already see me reading a case in wich a father asked a national jury to force her ex-girlfriend to abort their child since he already has a son.

 

See scary stuff happens in a single miss used word.

 

Anyway good luck, nice try, live happy

 

 

*Can you feel the irony of this when I cannot even use words properly (hope you forgive me, this is my second language).

Edited September 8, 2013 by somanymike

[Icecreamcon3]

I have a dream. That one day Mankind will grow out of its infancy and peacefully expand to the stars. In order to ease our transition from a type 1 to a type 2 Kardashev civilization I believe we need a society and form of government more up to task. As Carl Sagan once wrote "Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works." I would like to take ideas from many nations but also explore organizational models such as sociocracy that the world has yet to really hear of, but that may have great potential.To be clear I am not trying to design a perfect government... just a better one. So who would be willing to help?

My goal is to design a better educated, more free, more involved, and more fair and just democratic society using the tools of sociology, psychology, political science, behavioral biology, philosophy, economics, and the knowledge of the past ten thousand years of human civilization.
Some of the specific goals I have for this design are:

• The ABSOLUTE separation of church and state.
• Assuring that those in power are kept from too much concentrated power, to prevent feedback loops.
• An egalitarian political system where, all things being equal, the poorest person in the country has the same chance at a government position as the richest.
• Creating an academic system where intellectual progress can thrive disproportionately more-so than other countries.
• A better system for transmitting knowledge and expertise to the next generation.
• The most government transparency feasibly possible.
• A system that can move along a spectrum between a socialist economy and a capitalist economy based on the contemporary needs of the society.
• And if at all possible a system where "green" technologies have an inherent advantage.

I think the equivalent of the Bill of Rights should be divided into two parts, First degree rights (bare essential human rights; unchanging), and Second degree rights, which would be things that are not necessary to having a healthy society but they would be beneficial. (Things like a right to all scientific knowledge).

First degree:
1. Everyone is free and we should all be treated in the same way.
2. Everyone is equal despite differences in skin color, sex, religion, language for example.
3. Everyone has the right to life and to live in freedom and safety.
4. No one has the right to treat you as a slave nor should you make anyone your slave.
5. No one has the right to hurt you or to torture you.
6. Everyone has the right to be treated equally by the law.
7. The law is the same for everyone, it should be applied in the same way to all.
8. Everyone has the right to ask for legal help when their rights are not respected.
9. No one has the right to imprison you unjustly or expel you from your own country.
10. Everyone has the right to a fair and public trial.
11. Everyone should be considered innocent until guilt is proved.
12. Every one has the right to ask for help if someone tries to harm you, but no-one can enter your home, open your letters or bother you or your family without a good reason.
13. Everyone has the right to travel as they wish.
14. Everyone has the right to go to another country and ask for protection if they are being persecuted or are in danger of being persecuted.
15. Everyone has the right to belong to a country. No one has the right to prevent you from belonging to another country if you wish to.
16. Everyone has the right to marry and have a family.
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.
18. Everyone has the right to practice and observe all aspects of their own religion and change their religion if they want to.
19. Everyone has the right to say what they think and to give and receive information.
20. Everyone has the right to take part in meetings and to join associations in a peaceful way.
21. Everyone has the right to help choose and take part in the government of their country.
22. Everyone has the right to social security and to opportunities to develop their skills.
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and medical help if they are ill.
26. Everyone has the right to get an education.
27. Everyone has the right to share in their community's cultural life.
28. Everyone must respect the 'social order' that is necessary for all these rights to be available.
29. Everyone must respect the rights of others, the community and public property.
30. No one has the right to take away any of the rights in this declaration.
31. Any government official or group of officials who attempt to take away these rights without the full consent of the people are subject to immediate impeachment.
(This is just a simplified version of the rights the actual rights are listed here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

Second degree:
1.The right to knowledge of all government activities (as much as feasible)
2.The right to be free of involuntary military service
3.The right to all scientific knowledge (verified within reasonable certainty)
(Others will more than likely added be added.)

The rest of the constitution will be written later, as it requires the system be basically finished so that it is know what responsibilities go to whom.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Icecreamcon3

[Delbert]

Well, there's a lot there. Most of which I think is in the Magna Carta, but I defer to others if I'm wrong.

 

But as I think I've mentioned previously, item 2 of the second degree I suggest render all the others meaningless. Armed forces have to be trained and that takes time. We have to have a system of recruiting. It may appear voluntary at the moment, but I think it is the case that conscription is only suspended while there is enough volunteers. But an absolute voluntary right of choosing to leave it to others to put their body parts on the line to protect the ideals of those who choose not to, I find quite disturbing. If one is not prepared absolutely to defend what you consider fundamental axioms, then those axioms are not worth writing down. If you want disharmony and insurrection then I suggest such an absolute right will create it. For example, just imagine a situation whereby solders are returning from defending the country with some of their comrades in bags, meeting those who were too submerged in their 'rights' not to bear arms?