Theoretical Constitution for Utopia

[yevkassem72]

Seriously, let's hold a convention here and draw up a constitution for an ideal commonwealth if we can. What would it look like when done? Better or worse than those of the USA, France, Italy?

 

[cloudy]

There's really nothing wrong with the Constitution of the U.S. The problem lies with the government adhering to it.

 

[yevkassem72]

There's really nothing wrong with the Constitution of the U.S. The problem lies with the government adhering to it.

True. That was also the problem in Lebanon. People started trying to scrap it. I have noticed that most governments pay more attention to the regular laws that they pass than the more fundamental or supreme laws. I wonder why this is.

 

[FatDino]

Just let Dino rule the place. Everything will be just fine.

 

[rgraham666]

Until humans are perfect, no society they create will be perfect.

And our searches for perfection always end up in the gulag. Perfection is a demanding master that allows no deviance whatsoever. And it demands imperfection be destroyed.

 

[yevkassem72]

Until humans are perfect, no society they create will be perfect.

And our searches for perfection always end up in the gulag. Perfection is a demanding master that allows no deviance whatsoever. And it demands imperfection be destroyed.

Interesting points. Rather like pure capitalism or pure socialism. They both tend to be a bit tragic in the end. Or Robespierre. He meant well, with his Reign of Virtue, but it became the Reign of Terror instead.

 

[yevkassem72]

Just let Dino rule the place. Everything will be just fine.

I'll say the same about myself, but I doubt that my ex would concur.

 

[FatDino]

I'll say the same about myself, but I doubt that my ex would concur.

Hey, that's why you broke up, isn't it?

 

[TheEarl]

IMHO, with laws, less is more. Murder, assault, rape, theft, destruction of property and their subdivisions are the major crimes that come to my mind as worthy of criminalisation. A lot of law in England seems to be very petty, which leads to people ignoring it, which leads to everyone thinking the law doesn't apply to them, which leaves them screaming about their rights when they're nabbed. Cf. the furores over the 'cash-cows' of speeding cameras.

The Earl

 

[yevkassem72]

Hey, that's why you broke up, isn't it?

Well, we both wanted to rule the roost, so in a way, that was part of it. Talking about being incompatible.

 

[FatDino]

Well, we both wanted to rule the roost, so in a way, that was part of it. Talking about being incompatible.

...or too compatible, since you both were so competitive and ambitious, in a way.

 

[yevkassem72]

IMHO, with laws, less is more. Murder, assault, rape, theft, destruction of property and their subdivisions are the major crimes that come to my mind as worthy of criminalisation. A lot of law in England seems to be very petty, which leads to people ignoring it, which leads to everyone thinking the law doesn't apply to them, which leaves them screaming about their rights when they're nabbed. Cf. the furores over the 'cash-cows' of speeding cameras.

The Earl

More laws, more crime, I suppose. The police are stretched thin and law is regarded as a petty tyranny, so why respect it? A long and dangerous cycle.

 

[yevkassem72]

...or too compatible, since you both were so competitive and ambitious, in a way.

That, too.

 

[rgraham666]

Interesting points. Rather like pure capitalism or pure socialism. They both tend to be a bit tragic in the end. Or Robespierre. He meant well, with his Reign of Virtue, but it became the Reign of Terror instead.

Perfection is an ideology. And ideology is a flight from personal responsibility.

By adhering to a 'perfect idea' a person never again has to say, "It was my decision and I'll abide by the consequences of it."

Instead it's, "We must have children working in our factories. Capitalism demands that we use cheap labour." Or, "We must drive the kulaks from their land so that the land can be shared by all according to the tenets of Marxism."

So a human can gain power and inflict pain with that power without the slightest tinge of guilt. It's not their fault, you see.

 

[FatDino]

That, too.

*snicker*

Seriously, though, there can never be a perfect legal system. Each individual has unique demands and most of the times, there are contradictions within a very small group. Take a family of four for example. Dad wants an SUV for its macho look, mom might like it because she can drop off her kids easier. The boys will brag about it with their friends but soon will hate it since they're not allowed to drive.

Now there's not enough money to buy each one their own dream vehicle, so whoever has the most "power," in this case, mom and dad, will get to decide.

It works the same way for a country. The majority, the rich (and the politicians) get it all.

 

[yevkassem72]

Perfection is an ideology. And ideology is a flight from personal responsibility.

By adhering to a 'perfect idea' a person never again has to say, "It was my decision and I'll abide by the consequences of it."

Instead it's, "We must have children working in our factories. Capitalism demands that we use cheap labour." Or, "We must drive the kulaks from their land so that the land can be shared by all according to the tenets of Marxism."

So a human can gain power and inflict pain with that power without the slightest tinge of guilt. It's not their fault, you see.

What did Bruce Greenwood say Thirteen Days, when playing as JFK, "You know, there's something immoral in abandoning one's own judgment."

I think that sums it up well. Blind adherence to an ideology was a trap for me, too. Until I recently realized that anarchy wasn't going to be an answer, for the really fact that it wasn't ever going to happen. Better to find actually practical solutions.

 

[yevkassem72]

*snicker*

Seriously, though, there can never be a perfect legal system. Each individual has unique demands and most of the times, there are contradictions within a very small group. Take a family of four for example. Dad wants an SUV for its macho look, mom might like it because she can drop off her kids easier. The boys will brag about it with their friends but soon will hate it since they're not allowed to drive.

Now there's not enough money to buy each one their own dream vehicle, so whoever has the most "power," in this case, mom and dad, will get to decide.

It works the same way for a country. The majority, the rich (and the politicians) get it all.

Some truth in that, I gather. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[FatDino]

Some truth in that, I gather. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yee-up. Sadly.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There's really nothing wrong with the Constitution of the U.S. The problem lies with the government adhering to it.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. (Madison, Federalist 51.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Simple rules for a complex society.

 

[yevkassem72]

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. (Madison, Federalist 51.)

He was no fool, that man.

 

[gauchecritic]

Taking a law and applying it indiscriminately is a sad thing for society. (If they can have it, then so can I)

Creating a constitution runs into similar problems. Free speech except..., killing except..., even freedom except...

A constitution is a very binding thing, which prohibits instead of releases.

Anybody can do anything, providing it doesn't harm (in any way) someone else.

Is injurious to my sensibilities harmful? Is distaste harmful?

 

[rgraham666]

Is injurious to my sensibilities harmful? Is distaste harmful?

According to the anti-smokers, yes, it is.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Taking a law and applying it indiscriminately is a sad thing for society. (If they can have it, then so can I)

Creating a constitution runs into similar problems. Free speech except..., killing except..., even freedom except...

A constitution is a very binding thing, which prohibits instead of releases.

Anybody can do anything, providing it doesn't harm (in any way) someone else.

Is injurious to my sensibilities harmful? Is distaste harmful?

It is some of that, but it's more. It creates institutions and forms.

The setting: Institutions of democratic governance

Democratic political life is ordered by institutions. The polity is a configuration of formally organized institutions that defines the setting within which governance and policy making take place. An institution is a relatively stable collection of rules and practices, embedded in structures of resources that make action possible -- organizational, financial and staff capabilities, and structures of meaning that explain and justify behavior – roles, identities and belongings, common purposes, and causal and normative beliefs (March and Olsen 1989,1995). Institutions are organizational arrangements that link roles/identities, accounts of situations, resources and prescriptive rules and practices. They create actors and meeting places and organize the relations and interactions among actors. They guide behavior and stabilize expectations. Specific institutional settings also provide vocabularies that frame thought and understandings and define what are legitimate arguments and standards of justification and criticism in different situations (Mills 1940). Institutions, furthermore, allocate resources and empower and constrain actors differently and make them more or less capable of acting according to prescribed rules. They affect whose justice and what rationality has primacy (MacIntyre 1988) and who becomes winners and losers. Political institutionalization signifies the development of distinct political rules, practices and procedures partly independent of other institutions and social groupings (Huntington 1965). Political orders are, however, more or less institutionalized and they are structured according to different principles (Eisenstadt 1965).
from The logic of appropriateness
James G. March Johan P. Olsen
http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp04_9.pdf

 

[yevkassem72]

Taking a law and applying it indiscriminately is a sad thing for society. (If they can have it, then so can I)

Creating a constitution runs into similar problems. Free speech except..., killing except..., even freedom except...

A constitution is a very binding thing, which prohibits instead of releases.

Anybody can do anything, providing it doesn't harm (in any way) someone else.

Is injurious to my sensibilities harmful? Is distaste harmful?

Isn't that the point of "Equal Justice Under The Law"?