Constitution of Mankind

[Mavorpen]

No thanks.

I was more concerned about the death penalty.

I read that part wrong. I read it as you keep the right to life. I thought it was suspicious at first, but didn't think anything of it.

[Norsklow]

No sarcasm. Jolly good,just like under Charles II. Or Billy Clinton, for that matter.

...

I..

No. I'm not even going to bother.

Good idea. Now us sensible people can get on with coming up with sound traditional Constitutional practises to implement.

[Divair]

Because a 7 billion person election would be a procedual nightmare.

I mean, who really wants to count 7 billion votes?

Electronic voting, dude.

Not to mention each cultural/regional group would vote in its own interests (if there even are elections) at the expense of others. Thus the only way to solve this would be forced migration or brainwashing. Both of which are morally questionable.

Or we could just use a federal system.

[Old Tyrannia]

Then His Majesty is the lawful authority.

OIC:

OOC: My Traditionalism is better than yours. I've combined High Toryism with Carlism.

I like Carlism. If I were Spanish, I'd be Carlist. But I'm not Spanish, so I'm a High Tory, without actually being a member or supporter of the contemporary "Tory" party. In fact, I'm generally more of a Labour supporter. Take that logic!

[Yewhohohopia]

Way too vague and open to abuse. Imagine if a party like the GOP only had to abide by a rule like that.

Its supposed be constitution.
Further laws can be passed while remaining within boundaries set out by the constitution.

Every single possible law is both allowed and not allowed in a "non-consenting individuals don't deserve to be harmed" thing, because what constitutes the consent of the ruled/affected in any society is always up for debate. This is without tackling the 'directly harming or damaging interests of' issue.

If what you mean is "420 get high errday" then yeah whatever.

[The Laughing Goats]

I'd abolish the world government, and work towards restoring all the countries back to the way they should be.

Yeah yeah "the ends are so noble " fucking whatever.

Yeah, another Pol Pot in the waiting.

[Norsklow]

No sarcasm. Jolly good,just like under Charles II. Or Billy Clinton, for that matter.

The single reason why we performed decent in any way was because of compromise. You know, because the Democrats actually cared about making the country better, unlike the GOP today.

I a a Democrat supporter btw... but what is your point? Compromise does happen, eventually.
Unless you are talking about ancient Egypt, and I do not think you are raving nuts.

[North California]

Because a 7 billion person election would be a procedual nightmare.

I mean, who really wants to count 7 billion votes?

Electronic voting, dude.

Not to mention each cultural/regional group would vote in its own interests (if there even are elections) at the expense of others. Thus the only way to solve this would be forced migration or brainwashing. Both of which are morally questionable.

Or we could just use a federal system.

With Earth being made of many nations, if you happen to live in a dictatorship, you can always flee to a free nation, or have a free nation liberate your country.

With Earth being a one-world government, and it happens to be a dictatorship. Where do you flee to? Who liberates you?

[Yewhohohopia]

Why?

Because a 7 billion person election would be a procedual nightmare.

I mean, who really wants to count 7 billion votes?

Luckily we don't have to make computers want to do anything in particular. They just get told to and are like "BEEP BOOP OK THEN 1011101 ETC."

Not to mention each cultural/regional group would vote in its own interests (if there even are elections) at the expense of others. Thus the only way to solve this would be forced migration or brainwashing. Both of which are morally questionable.

Unlike in countries, right?

[Divair]

Electronic voting, dude.


Or we could just use a federal system.

With Earth being made of many nations, if you happen to live in a dictatorship, you can always flee to a free nation, or have a free nation liberate your country.

With Earth being a one-world government, and it happens to be a dictatorship. Where do you flee to? Who liberates you?

Prevent it from becoming a dictatorship in the first place.

[Mavorpen]

The single reason why we performed decent in any way was because of compromise. You know, because the Democrats actually cared about making the country better, unlike the GOP today.

I a a Democrat supporter btw... but what is your point? Compromise does happen, eventually.
Unless you are talking about ancient Egypt, and I do not think you are raving nuts.

My point is that I'm pretty sure when he said the GOP, he meant the modern GOP, not the one during Reagan's time.

[The Laughing Goats]

Why?

Because a 7 billion person election would be a procedual nightmare.

I mean, who really wants to count 7 billion votes?

Not to mention each cultural/regional group would vote in its own interests (if there even are elections) at the expense of others. Thus the only way to solve this would be forced migration or brainwashing. Both of which are morally questionable.

Honestly, technology would make tallying the 7 billion votes somewhat trivial. Election fraud is what you'd have to worry about.

[Norsklow]

OIC:

OOC: My Traditionalism is better than yours. I've combined High Toryism with Carlism.

I like Carlism. If I were Spanish, I'd be Carlist. But I'm not Spanish, so I'm a High Tory, without actually being a member or supporter of the contemporary "Tory" party. In fact, I'm generally more of a Labour supporter. Take that logic!

OOC: Not a problem. Compass-wise, I'm still to the Left of Labour, even with the Divine Right of All Christian Kings included. And the Inquisition.

[Old Tyrannia]

The single reason why we performed decent in any way was because of compromise. You know, because the Democrats actually cared about making the country better, unlike the GOP today.

I a a Democrat supporter btw... but what is your point? Compromise does happen, eventually.
Unless you are talking about ancient Egypt, and I do not think you are raving nuts.

What's wrong with ancient Egypt?

[Norsklow]

I a a Democrat supporter btw... but what is your point? Compromise does happen, eventually.
Unless you are talking about ancient Egypt, and I do not think you are raving nuts.

My point is that I'm pretty sure when he said the GOP, he meant the modern GOP, not the one during Reagan's time.

The last time, it happened, in the dark days of little Shrub, the GOP still had to compromise with Democrats in Congress.

In my view, one very essential thing to do is to pick mechanisms that force whoever is in power to come to some kind of consensus with the largest minority that holds different views. Consensualism, in one word.

[North California]

With Earth being made of many nations, if you happen to live in a dictatorship, you can always flee to a free nation, or have a free nation liberate your country.

With Earth being a one-world government, and it happens to be a dictatorship. Where do you flee to? Who liberates you?

Prevent it from becoming a dictatorship in the first place.

How's that? Through voting, which, as America has shown, doesn't mean shit, or through armed revolution.

But then how are we able to continuously keep it from turning dictatorial? It would require constant warfare and revolution. Not ideal.

A one world government would answer to nobody.

[Norsklow]

I a a Democrat supporter btw... but what is your point? Compromise does happen, eventually.
Unless you are talking about ancient Egypt, and I do not think you are raving nuts.

What's wrong with ancient Egypt?

Intermediate periods between Dynasties with famine ravaging in what should have been a very bountiful land. A total breakdown of civil society is rather annoying... and it does happen when you have those wild swings between ideologies and cliques of power rather than smooth, stately and slow transitions.

[Divair]

Prevent it from becoming a dictatorship in the first place.

How's that? Through voting, which, as America has shown, doesn't mean shit, or through armed revolution.

But then how are we able to continuously keep it from turning dictatorial? It would require constant warfare and revolution. Not ideal.

A one world government would answer to nobody.

Checks & balances. Fairly easy. The USA's federal checks & balances system isn't half bad. We could adapt that.

[Old Tyrannia]

What's wrong with ancient Egypt?

Intermediate periods between Dynasties with famine ravaging in what should have been a very bountiful land. A total breakdown of civil society is rather annoying... and it does happen when you have those wild swings between ideologies and cliques of power rather than smooth, stately and slow transitions.

I don't know, a few periods of insecurity out of a 3,000-year history of power, prestige and security doesn't strike me as such a bad record. And ultimately, Egypt did recover, where other nation-states of the time collapsed as a result of similar difficulties. Basically Egypt was a bastion of stability, peace and security. It was a highly succesful civilization.

[Norsklow]

Intermediate periods between Dynasties with famine ravaging in what should have been a very bountiful land. A total breakdown of civil society is rather annoying... and it does happen when you have those wild swings between ideologies and cliques of power rather than smooth, stately and slow transitions.

I don't know, a few periods of insecurity out of a 3,000-year history of power, prestige and security doesn't strike me as such a bad record. And ultimately, Egypt did recover, where other nation-states of the time collapsed as a result of similar difficulties. Basically Egypt was a bastion of stability, peace and security. It was a highly succesful civilization.

I don't think it was a few periods of insecurity, I think it was about half of the time.
If you live in that time, you may not live long enough to see the stable times again.
These days, we manage to keep it to down to a few weeks every 5 years or so.

[The Laughing Goats]

I don't know, a few periods of insecurity out of a 3,000-year history of power, prestige and security doesn't strike me as such a bad record. And ultimately, Egypt did recover, where other nation-states of the time collapsed as a result of similar difficulties. Basically Egypt was a bastion of stability, peace and security. It was a highly succesful civilization.

I don't think it was a few periods of insecurity, I think it was about half of the time.
If you live in that time, you may not live long enough to see the stable times again.
These days, we manage to keep it to down to a few weeks every 5 years or so.

I think historically speaking, dynastic periods were times of peace and stability. A stable ruling party almost always means the nation itself will be stable as well, unless the government itself is too weak to effectively rule. The US itself has a system where the bureaucracy itself essentially limits what a single administration or President can realistically accomplish. The gears of politics in the US were intentionally designed to be slow.

I suppose I should add that while the US system effectively eliminates the possibility of change occurring too quickly, it also creates a government and election process that's extremely wasteful and inefficient.

[Delanshar]

If the planet was going to unite into one massive country I wouldn't be writing any constitution, I'd revolt.

[Norsklow]

I don't think it was a few periods of insecurity, I think it was about half of the time.
If you live in that time, you may not live long enough to see the stable times again.
These days, we manage to keep it to down to a few weeks every 5 years or so.

I think historically speaking, dynastic periods were times of peace and stability. A stable ruling party almost always means the nation itself will be stable as well, unless the government itself is too weak to effectively rule. The US itself has a system where the bureaucracy itself essentially limits what a single administration or President can realistically accomplish. The gears of politics in the US were intentionally designed to be slow.

I suppose I should add that while the US system effectively eliminates the possibility of change occurring too quickly, it also creates a government and election process that's extremely wasteful and inefficient.

Those are trade-offs that come with the whole package.
Thus far, people are discussing feature but very slow on generating overall design parameters.

*pokes OstroEuropa*

Mr Speaker... what about those considerations about who is a person under our Constitution?
Until we decide that, even the phrase 'We the People' means nothing at all.

[Strykla]

I don't think it was a few periods of insecurity, I think it was about half of the time.
If you live in that time, you may not live long enough to see the stable times again.
These days, we manage to keep it to down to a few weeks every 5 years or so.

I think historically speaking, dynastic periods were times of peace and stability. A stable ruling party almost always means the nation itself will be stable as well, unless the government itself is too weak to effectively rule. The US itself has a system where the bureaucracy itself essentially limits what a single administration or President can realistically accomplish. The gears of politics in the US were intentionally designed to be slow.

I suppose I should add that while the US system effectively eliminates the possibility of change occurring too quickly, it also creates a government and election process that's extremely wasteful and inefficient.

It's not the US system: It's democracy. While elections and all that crap sounds fine and high and in good morality, I have found that as of late, elections boil down to one candidate out-patronizing the other. People aren't likely to vote for someone who says he'll raise taxes all across the board, even if it is, in the end, good for them.

[Great Nepal]

If the planet was going to unite into one massive country I wouldn't be writing any constitution, I'd revolt.

No, write a constitution with guaranteed right of revolution. Then legally rebel; when army comes to crack down on rebellion: sue the state.