 Author
|
Topic: Some ideas to fix the constitution... (Read 9439 times)
|
|
an1m3n00b
|
Max Amendment: Any public official found to have twice violated any provision of this Constitution, and the enumerated rights of any Citizen of any state in particular, after a specific warning by any court in the land, shall be removed from office immediately. Any pending pension shall be calculated in proportion to the amount of time actually spent in public service prior to the second violation.
It's a good idea, but who would enforce it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Guess their problem remains unsolved? Sounds like they'd have an incentive to pick one. A sensible technique would be to each pick one, and then have them pick a third to actually hear the case.
Regardless, can't be worse than the current system. If the case goes unsolved, the defendant wins by default, so I wouldn't really call that ok. And as for the third pick thing, it sounds almost as complicated as todays legal system... Um, I take it you've never been involved in a legal case? It's quite literally possible to have hundreds of motions, responses, objections, etc. etc. etc. going back and forth, before the parties even set foot in a courtroom. Once. No one will ever hire that arbitrator again, though. Plus, who would go to an uninsured arbitrator? If he actually does just arbitrarily pick a side, contrary to the facts, the wronged party would have a large claim against him, and his insurance would have to pay it. Hence, he would never again be able to get insurance without paying a massive premium, since he's high-risk. if the arbiter always picked the same side however, that side would naturally want that arbiter, garnering him illegitimate business. No one else would ever consent to arbitration with an arbiter known to be biased. Takes two to tango. And what type of insurance are you referring to? Professional liability insurance. The sort of thing that any professional carries. And actually, here's an idea: Have dual "government" One government (a streamlined version of american government) and make it a fundamental non-amendable right of citizens to peaceably opt out of that government and in exchange forfeit all government services, choosing to become peaceful anarchists. This would let the people decide which they prefer on an individual level. Indeed. Except it doesn't have to be "this one or that one." There can be dozens of entities in each field, providing true competition. The competitive forces of the free market ensure the best value for the customer. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
an1m3n00b
|
Indeed. Except it doesn't have to be "this one or that one." There can be dozens of entities in each field, providing true competition. The competitive forces of the free market ensure the best value for the customer. Anarchy could provide alternative governments. It's more of a "this one or anything else" If an entity had a strong case for providing government at a certain cost to its subjects/citizens/customers/subscribers (what would be the proper term? lol) and individuals decided to support and be involved in said government. The single primary government entity would be required to protect its citizens from the offending anarchist "citizens", and to hand jurisdiction of its offending citizens to the anarchist population. So effectively, criminals would be at the mercy of the government of those whom they had offended. And this includes private enforcement. as a side note: I'm kinda wondering if it would even be possible to arrange a small scale social experiment to test the validity of anarchy. It's a very tempting idea, but at this point it's ONLY an idea. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 05:05:46 pm by an1m3n00b »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Indeed. Except it doesn't have to be "this one or that one." There can be dozens of entities in each field, providing true competition. The competitive forces of the free market ensure the best value for the customer. Anarchy could provide alternative governments. It's more of a "this one or anything else" If an entity had a strong case for providing government at a certain cost to its subjects/citizens/customers/subscribers (what would be the proper term? lol) and individuals decided to support and be involved in said government. The single primary government entity would be required to protect its citizens from the offending anarchist "citizens", and to hand jurisdiction of its offending citizens to the anarchist population. So effectively, criminals would be at the mercy of the government of those whom they had offended. And this includes private enforcement. There's still no justification for some "primary government." Why would one entity get "default" status, versus other entities? as a side note: I'm kinda wondering if it would even be possible to arrange a small scale social experiment to test the validity of anarchy. It's a very tempting idea, but at this point it's ONLY an idea. Actually, it's been done, numerous times. Medieval Iceland was pretty much anarchic, for over three centuries - longer than the US has been around. Pennsylvania was anarchic for around a decade during the 17th century. The "Wild West" was mostly anarchic, and the more-anarchic areas did better (more prosperity, less crime - denying the "wild" view which is a media invention) than those less-so, or the settled East. No anarchy has ever fallen due to internal strife, whereas Statist governments collapse on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
an1m3n00b
|
Indeed. Except it doesn't have to be "this one or that one." There can be dozens of entities in each field, providing true competition. The competitive forces of the free market ensure the best value for the customer. Anarchy could provide alternative governments. It's more of a "this one or anything else" If an entity had a strong case for providing government at a certain cost to its subjects/citizens/customers/subscribers (what would be the proper term? lol) and individuals decided to support and be involved in said government. The single primary government entity would be required to protect its citizens from the offending anarchist "citizens", and to hand jurisdiction of its offending citizens to the anarchist population. So effectively, criminals would be at the mercy of the government of those whom they had offended. And this includes private enforcement. There's still no justification for some "primary government." Why would one entity get "default" status, versus other entities? Simple, people don't trust anarchy. It has a really horrible media reputation (whether invented or not). The best solution is therefore to provide people the option, and slowly phase out government. IMO, it's the best chance of getting people to agree to at least trying it. Plus it gives people the option of crawling back to the govt if it turns out we're all wrong  as a side note: I'm kinda wondering if it would even be possible to arrange a small scale social experiment to test the validity of anarchy. It's a very tempting idea, but at this point it's ONLY an idea. Actually, it's been done, numerous times. Medieval Iceland was pretty much anarchic, for over three centuries - longer than the US has been around. Pennsylvania was anarchic for around a decade during the 17th century. The "Wild West" was mostly anarchic, and the more-anarchic areas did better (more prosperity, less crime - denying the "wild" view which is a media invention) than those less-so, or the settled East. No anarchy has ever fallen due to internal strife, whereas Statist governments collapse on a regular basis. In recorded history at least... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Simple, people don't trust anarchy. It has a really horrible media reputation (whether invented or not). The best solution is therefore to provide people the option, and slowly phase out government. IMO, it's the best chance of getting people to agree to at least trying it. Plus it gives people the option of crawling back to the govt if it turns out we're all wrong The State is a jealous god. It brooks no competition. Statism and anarchy cannot coexist. Those who want controlling government can have one. As long as all participants are voluntary members, it's still an anarchy. No anarchy has ever fallen due to internal strife, whereas Statist governments collapse on a regular basis. In recorded history at least... That's all we have to work with. But it makes sense. A voluntary society works by negative-feedback, rather than the positive-feedback system of central control. In all other situations, negative-feedback provides a stable control system, whereas positive-feedback requires increasing levels of control in order to prevent destructive oscillation, until the level needed exceeds the level available from the control mechanism, and the system self-destructs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
an1m3n00b
|
Simple, people don't trust anarchy. It has a really horrible media reputation (whether invented or not). The best solution is therefore to provide people the option, and slowly phase out government. IMO, it's the best chance of getting people to agree to at least trying it. Plus it gives people the option of crawling back to the govt if it turns out we're all wrong The State is a jealous god. It brooks no competition. Statism and anarchy cannot coexist. Those who want controlling government can have one. As long as all participants are voluntary members, it's still an anarchy. My point is its a huge step from a controlling govt to anarchy, and most people wont know how to act. No anarchy has ever fallen due to internal strife, whereas Statist governments collapse on a regular basis. In recorded history at least... That's all we have to work with. But it makes sense. A voluntary society works by negative-feedback, rather than the positive-feedback system of central control. In all other situations, negative-feedback provides a stable control system, whereas positive-feedback requires increasing levels of control in order to prevent destructive oscillation, until the level needed exceeds the level available from the control mechanism, and the system self-destructs. I'm just a little concerned that i have yet to hear a single semi-convincing argument against anarchy. Even for things that I really truly believe in, there's always compelling reasons against it. BTW: You probably already know this but Bitcoins are a wonderful example of how anarchy can work. Granted it's only one industry but it's a start. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bazil
|
I think direct election of the president would be a big mistake. Many socialists today are trying to manipulate people into thinking that democracy=freedom. It doesn't. They want you to think this because most of the population is pretty ignorant and easy to manipulate. So the fewer barriers you put between ignorant people and power the easier it is to game the system. All you need is lots of money.
Some of your wants would require a complete rework of the government. There is an idea that has been floated by some libertarian types of using a form of government similar to, but not quite, Democracy called Demarchy. Where by you have a large body or bodies of representatives who are selected by sortition like a jury. Seems risky at first glance, but it would knock a few of the things off your list. It would take money out of elections, since there would be none and it would fix the problem with parties.
My idea would be a tricameral system. A body where representatives are selected by population/population density like the modern congress. A second (probably smaller) body where representatives are selected by area (that way cities don't stomp on the rights of the rural communities). Finally a third (and probably the smallest) body where representatives are appointed by the state legislatures like the original Senate.
The president (if one existed) obviously couldn't be selected randomly. The president would have to be nominated and selected by the three congressional bodies. I like to look at nations like they are people. Where the congressional branch is the brain and the executive branch is the reflex system. The executive branch would only be there to make immediate twitch reactions that the congress doesn't have time to act on. Nothing the president does should have a permanent effect on laws or regulations. The President would be more like the "boss" of the executive branch managing all the departments.
The most glaring problem with this system I see is it still allows for lobbyists to corrupt the system. You can't really make lobbying illegal either since people deserve the right to try and change their representative's mind on things.
how would you ensure the selection (or election) was entirely random (or representative)? It seems like there's too much room for corruption... Lotteries do it pretty well today without too much corruption. I don't think this would be much of a problem. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" - a friend
|
|
|
|
an1m3n00b
|
So basically:
1. Repeal 16th amendement
2. Victimless Crimes Amendment
3. Max Amendment
4. Right to Individual Secession
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
Max Amendment: Any public official found to have twice violated any provision of this Constitution, and the enumerated rights of any Citizen of any state in particular, after a specific warning by any court in the land, shall be removed from office immediately. Any pending pension shall be calculated in proportion to the amount of time actually spent in public service prior to the second violation.
It's a good idea, but who would enforce it? Max Amendment: I. (everything I said below) II. The Courts shall remove from office any official having been proved to have violated the Constitutional rights of any person if, after having been found guilty by a prior Court, said person has been made aware of the prior conviction. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
an1m3n00b
|
Max Amendment: Any public official found to have twice violated any provision of this Constitution, and the enumerated rights of any Citizen of any state in particular, after a specific warning by any court in the land, shall be removed from office immediately. Any pending pension shall be calculated in proportion to the amount of time actually spent in public service prior to the second violation.
It's a good idea, but who would enforce it? Max Amendment: I. (everything I said below) II. The Courts shall remove from office any official having been proved to have violated the Constitutional rights of any person if, after having been found guilty by a prior Court, said person has been made aware of the prior conviction. Why would said person (or general populace in most cases) need to be made aware? If I'm not aware I was robbed of does that make the robbery and less illegal? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TJames
|
A lot of this seems to be based on democracy but I don't think democracy is that big of an issue. Look at how many anti-freedom issues get passed democracy. Smaller government in a federation is a mix between democracy and an oligarchy, hence small government is a multi-house republic. The only reasons democracy works for freedom in Switzerland is because the people think and because it is a very small country. Over here democracy would lead to death.
Banning political parties will not help. It won't stop ignorant people from voting to block immigrants and eat the rich.
Online searches for libertarian constitutions are quite different. Have a look.
The american constitution is an almost perfect example of republican/federalist government, where did it go wrong? (or for that matter the articles...) Well for one thing the way we elect senators is populist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Max Amendment's problem is defining the constitutional parameters.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 09:12:02 am by John Edward Mercier »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
There are some Constitutional provisions that are either gray or involve setting the occasional precedent.
The point is reminding public officials that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. If it is not enforced, then how can it be Law?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Because in each new case you could set precedent... the author/supporter of legislation would not know until the Court decision whether they were within or outside the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
