Constitution of Mankind

[Christian Democrats]

Equality under the law from conception until death.

[Divair]

Equality under the law from conception until death.

No.

[Samuraikoku]

Equality under the law from conception until death.

I see what's that coming for. No.

[Ceannairceach]

Article One: No gays. *nod*

[Ostroeuropa]

Equality under the law from conception until death.

No.

I'm fine with it.
There is a perfectly rational way to justify abortion even if you accept that life and even humanity begin at conception.

[Raeyh]

No.

I'm fine with it.
There is a perfectly rational way to justify abortion even if you accept that life and even humanity begin at conception.

Murdering violinists, right?

[Ceannairceach]

No.

I'm fine with it.
There is a perfectly rational way to justify abortion even if you accept that life and even humanity begin at conception.

Self defense and the right to bodily sovereignty come to mind. The latter can be included in the constitution.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm fine with it.
There is a perfectly rational way to justify abortion even if you accept that life and even humanity begin at conception.

Murdering violinists, right?

It isn't murder. It's assertion of bodily integrity.

[Raeyh]

Murdering violinists, right?

It isn't murder. It's assertion of bodily integrity.

It's an assertion of bodily integrity AND murder at the same time.

[Samuraikoku]

It isn't murder. It's assertion of bodily integrity.

It's an assertion of bodily integrity AND murder at the same time.

For reasons of public domain, it isn't murder.

[Ceannairceach]

It isn't murder. It's assertion of bodily integrity.

It's an assertion of bodily integrity AND murder at the same time.

Only if its illegal.

[Raeyh]

It's an assertion of bodily integrity AND murder at the same time.

Only if its illegal.

You could argue it's involuntary manslaughter.

[Ceannairceach]

Only if its illegal.

You could argue it's involuntary manslaughter.

Only if it is illegal. Both "involuntary manslaughter" and "murder" are legal concepts, and only apply to abortion if abortion is illegal.

[Ostroeuropa]

The word you are looking for is justifiable homicide.

[Raeyh]

The word you are looking for is justifiable homicide.

No, it isn't.

[Ostroeuropa]

The word you are looking for is justifiable homicide.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. That's what it'd be under the law if you recognize a fetus as a person, but don't make it a crime.

Self-Defence means an act of killing someone becomes
Justifiable Homicide.

Same as executions, military personelle acting on duty, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide


"Why did you abort that womans baby? It isn't self-defence!"
"Justifiable homicide."

"Why did you bomb the rebels? They weren't shooting at you!"
"Justifiable homicide."

[Norsklow]

Again,you're all talking outcomes before you have determined mechanisms and actors.

I don't believe it is going to get any better.

[Ostroeuropa]

Again,you're all talking outcomes before you have determined mechanisms and actors.

I don't believe it is going to get any better.

Any entity which is a citizen (Unsure how we'd define citizens. Likely sapient creature who has completed an application process, or who's parents were citizens etc.) exists in a state of anarchy.
There is a standing agreement among the citizens that an attack on one should be responded to as an attack on all.
To attack another citizen or their property etc, should be regarded as an attack on the state as a whole, and as such the police shall be brought in to intervene on one side or the other.
(To quote Mr. peel "A policeman is a citizen who is paid to excercise the duty encumbant upon all citizens, his payment is for him to perform this duty 24/7")
In order to determine what constitutes an attack, the citizens shall either select a lawmaker for them or do so themselves, and by common agreement come to a consensus on what is and is not a violation of the agreement to live together in harmony.
The government shall have no powers that a citizen does not have.
Self-Defence
Defence of Others, etc.


Under this interperatation, a law is just the a piece of paper declaring the agreement as it currently stands between citizens.
Violation of the law is thus violation of the agreement to exist in harmony, and is a de-facto declaration of hostility against the citizenry.
Rights are things which the citizenry has agreed not to abridge, and to regard any attempt to abridge them and such as a violation of the agreement.
The state exists as a ceasefire between the entities. Violation of the ceasefire triggers a war of society VS the violater.
As to what to DO with the violater, that depends. Prisoner (of war) makes some sense, and in another sense since they have declared war on society by breaching the law, they have forgone all protections thereof.
HOWEVER.
Laws MAY exist stating clearly what the citizens will and will not do in the event of captured enemy personelle, so as to clear up any ambiguity as to what is and is not a proper action, and to maintain harmony amongst the citizenry.
I would propose that they be regarded as property of the state (de-facto) for a particular duration, seeing as they are now captured, and have thus lost the rights the state afforded them. Once they re-enter society, it is as if they never left.
Or it should be. A clean slate.
As the de-facto property of the state the state should have no qualms about shoving them in a box for X years against their will, and upon release re-admitting them to society.
Or, as I'd prefer, sendign them off to mental health clinics.
Prisoners do not have rights. They have welfare. (By this interperatation anyway.)
And welfare exists to ensure that they don't suffer disproportionately, purely because malice is pointless.


Likewise, such an interperatation completely justifies taxation as "Self-Defence/Defence of others" provided the tax money is spend on very particular items.
Healthcare for example. it is self-defence to steal money from someone in order to continue living.
Basic welfare.
etc.

[Raeyh]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. That's what it'd be under the law if you recognize a fetus as a person, but don't make it a crime.

Self-Defence means an act of killing someone becomes
Justifiable Homicide.

Same as executions, military personelle acting on duty, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide


"Why did you abort that womans baby? It isn't self-defence!"
"Justifiable homicide."

"Why did you bomb the rebels? They weren't shooting at you!"
"Justifiable homicide."

It shouldn't be considered self-defense. Self defense requires clear and present danger. The only exception should be for war, but that's why war should be avoided at all costs.

[Chinese Regions]

Geneva should be the capital of the world.

Switzerland wont be a part. Take my word for it.

Exo-territorial capital? The UN had a hq there before the Swiss joined them.

[Ceannairceach]

It shouldn't be considered self-defense. Self defense requires clear and present danger. The only exception should be for war, but that's why war should be avoided at all costs.

Pregnancy is a clear and present danger. Pregnancy removes you from the workforce, practically makes you inept at many mundane tasks, infects you with several debilitating troubles, and can lead to illness, or even death in some cases.

Though bodily sovereignty allows you to remove the fetus anyway.

[Norsklow]

Again,you're all talking outcomes before you have determined mechanisms and actors.

I don't believe it is going to get any better.

Any entity which is a citizen (Unsure how we'd define citizens. Likely sapient creature who has completed an application process, or who's parents were citizens etc.) exists in a state of anarchy.
There is a standing agreement among the citizens that an attack on one should be responded to as an attack on all.
To attack another citizen or their property etc, should be regarded as an attack on the state as a whole, and as such the police shall be brought in to intervene on one side or the other.
In order to determine what constitutes an attack, the citizens shall either select a lawmaker for them or do so themselves, and by common agreement come to a consensus on what is and is not a violation of the agreement to live together in harmony.
The government shall have no powers that a citizen does not have.
Self-Defence
Defence of Others, etc.


Under this interperatation, a law is just the a piece of paper declaring the agreement as it currently stands between citizens.
Violation of the law is thus violation of the agreement to exist in harmony, and is a de-facto declaration of hostility against the citizenry.
Rights are things which the citizenry has agreed not to abridge, and to regard any attempt to abridge them and such as a violation of the agreement.
The state exists as a ceasefire between the entities. Violation of the ceasefire triggers a war of society VS the violater.
As to what to DO with the violater, that depends. Prisoner (of war) makes some sense, and in another sense since they have declared war on society by breaching the law, they have forgone all protections thereof.
HOWEVER.
Laws MAY exist stating clearly what the citizens will and will not do in the event of captured enemy personelle, so as to clear up any ambiguity as to what is and is not a proper action, and to maintain harmony amongst the citizenry.
I would propose that they be regarded as property of the state (de-facto) for a particular duration, seeing as they are now captured, and have thus lost the rights the state afforded them.

Whose creature? Legal entities? 'homunculi' born out of stemcells? Whales?

Is a deliberate act of vandalism an act of war?

What are the Organs of State? you mentioned things like 'police' and 'military' and 'lawmaker'?
Where do they come from? Where are they? Who appoints them?

History is watching us in rising suspension!

[Raeyh]

It shouldn't be considered self-defense. Self defense requires clear and present danger. The only exception should be for war, but that's why war should be avoided at all costs.

Pregnancy is a clear and present danger. Pregnancy removes you from the workforce, practically makes you inept at many mundane tasks, infects you with several debilitating troubles, and can lead to illness, or even death in some cases.

Though bodily sovereignty allows you to remove the fetus anyway.

So does sneezing on someone when you have a cold, especially if that person has an immune deficiency. Should you be allowed to kill people who are sneezing on you? Of course, not. It's not really a clear and present danger. If the fetus/violinist were currently attempting to kill you, it would be different.

[Zweite Alaje]

Equality under the law from conception until death.

Yes, this should be the 1st thing on a world constitution.

[Ostroeuropa]

Any entity which is a citizen (Unsure how we'd define citizens. Likely sapient creature who has completed an application process, or who's parents were citizens etc.) exists in a state of anarchy.
There is a standing agreement among the citizens that an attack on one should be responded to as an attack on all.
To attack another citizen or their property etc, should be regarded as an attack on the state as a whole, and as such the police shall be brought in to intervene on one side or the other.
In order to determine what constitutes an attack, the citizens shall either select a lawmaker for them or do so themselves, and by common agreement come to a consensus on what is and is not a violation of the agreement to live together in harmony.
The government shall have no powers that a citizen does not have.
Self-Defence
Defence of Others, etc.


Under this interperatation, a law is just the a piece of paper declaring the agreement as it currently stands between citizens.
Violation of the law is thus violation of the agreement to exist in harmony, and is a de-facto declaration of hostility against the citizenry.
Rights are things which the citizenry has agreed not to abridge, and to regard any attempt to abridge them and such as a violation of the agreement.
The state exists as a ceasefire between the entities. Violation of the ceasefire triggers a war of society VS the violater.
As to what to DO with the violater, that depends. Prisoner (of war) makes some sense, and in another sense since they have declared war on society by breaching the law, they have forgone all protections thereof.
HOWEVER.
Laws MAY exist stating clearly what the citizens will and will not do in the event of captured enemy personelle, so as to clear up any ambiguity as to what is and is not a proper action, and to maintain harmony amongst the citizenry.
I would propose that they be regarded as property of the state (de-facto) for a particular duration, seeing as they are now captured, and have thus lost the rights the state afforded them.

Whose creature? Legal entities? 'homunculi' born out of stemcells? Whales?

Is a deliberate act of vandalism an act of war?

What are the Organs of State? you mentioned things like 'police' and 'military' and 'lawmaker'?
Where do they come from? Where are they? Who appoints them?

History is watching us in rising suspension!

Any creature. Any sapient creature. Certain assumptions should be made, but the process of application should allow for any suddenly sapient dogs or robots or clones to apply if needs be
Whales could be citizens if they fill out the appropriate forms etc.

Yes, it is. It is akin to bombing a building on the macro level. The act is smaller in scale, but equivalent.
To issue a missile strike against an empty building in your neighbours country would be an act of war.
It would also be a deliberate act of vandalism.

The Lawmakers are representatives the people have chosen to represent their views on what precisely the law should consist of.
The organs of state are dependent on those lawmakers and how they write the law. (Yes, there must be certain limits as laid out in the constitution. Powers that a citizen does not have obviously cannot be given to the state, since where did they come from?)