Page 1 of 2

Write your own constitution

Posted: May 1st, 2021, 10:01 am
by marigold_23
Hey, I'm writing my own brief hypothetical constitution for a world society. Anyone who wants to can join in. Present your constitution, or specifically mention some legal measure you'd like to introduce, and we can all hash it out in the comments. I'd love to see what you all might have in mind and where we might agree / disagree.
Consider Laws regarding sex, nudity, marriage, abortion, free speech, crime, social debt, social contract, property, value, draft, education, etc...

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 1st, 2021, 10:38 am
by LuckyR
marigold_23 wrote: May 1st, 2021, 10:01 am Hey, I'm writing my own brief hypothetical constitution for a world society. Anyone who wants to can join in. Present your constitution, or specifically mention some legal measure you'd like to introduce, and we can all hash it out in the comments. I'd love to see what you all might have in mind and where we might agree / disagree.
Consider Laws regarding sex, nudity, marriage, abortion, free speech, crime, social debt, social contract, property, value, draft, education, etc...
If there is going to be a world government, the first law should be that there is NOT a world religion.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 1st, 2021, 5:28 pm
by marigold_23
LuckyR wrote: May 1st, 2021, 10:38 am
marigold_23 wrote: May 1st, 2021, 10:01 am Hey, I'm writing my own brief hypothetical constitution for a world society. Anyone who wants to can join in. Present your constitution, or specifically mention some legal measure you'd like to introduce, and we can all hash it out in the comments. I'd love to see what you all might have in mind and where we might agree / disagree.
Consider Laws regarding sex, nudity, marriage, abortion, free speech, crime, social debt, social contract, property, value, draft, education, etc...
If there is going to be a world government, the first law should be that there is NOT a world religion.
Agreed... separation of church and state needs to be strictly enforced. I also believe religious belief is a disqualifying factor (one of many) for higher social representation... i think we must screen officials for absolute, selfless loyalty to no other God or doctrine than the survival and highest possible contentment (in life, not in death) of the group of people being represented. An active (spoken) religious agenda impedes the capacity of an official to carry out that very specific function...

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 1st, 2021, 5:45 pm
by Ecurb
marigold_23 wrote: May 1st, 2021, 5:28 pm
Agreed... separation of church and state needs to be strictly enforced. I also believe religious belief is a disqualifying factor (one of many) for higher social representation... i think we must screen officials for absolute, selfless loyalty to no other God or doctrine than the survival and highest possible contentment (in life, not in death) of the group of people being represented. An active (spoken) religious agenda impedes the capacity of an official to carry out that very specific function...

Why not disqualify people based on race or gender, instead? It would be equally bigotted.

How about allowing only flat-earthers to serve in the government? Or, perhaps, only those who share every belief with marigold? Except then only bigots could serve in the government.

Trivia question: who is more blindly sure of his or her own beliefs, marigold, or a Fundamentalist? Answer: It's a dead heat!

The separation of Church and State would clearly make marigold''s suggestion unconstiutional, as well it should.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 1st, 2021, 5:58 pm
by Alias
If there is a world government, you can do worse for its constitution than the UN declaration of human rights
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights

Beyond that, abolish all standing armies, except the peace-keeping force to which all member nations contribute proportionately to their GDP. (Save a manure-wagon of resources on all that arms manufacturing, that you can use for hospitals!)
Totally agree on churches: just treat them like any other corporation: subject to law and taxation, with no power over the children.

As for governance, build from local upward in five or six tiers, and with money playing no part in the process of representative selection. My first choice would be an arrangement very much like jury duty, where all able adults are eligible and chosen by lot to serve for a short period - say two years. Obviously, their regular position would be occupied by a temporary substitute, so they don't lose anything. Nor would they handle funds or funding directly, but make policy decisions and relegate the implementation to a well trained professional civil service. Thus, no entrenched power bloc, political appointees or undue influence.
In addition, disengage the judiciary and the education from politics: keep them independent and self-governing, like the scientific and medical communities.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 1st, 2021, 7:05 pm
by Ecurb
Alias wrote: May 1st, 2021, 5:58 pm If there is a world government, you can do worse for its constitution than the UN declaration of human rights
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights

A quick glance throught the UN declaration of human rights reveals this: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others."

Isn't that anti-communist? The history of communism is not admirable, but the principles are reasonable.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 1st, 2021, 7:59 pm
by Alias
Ecurb wrote: May 1st, 2021, 7:05 pm
Alias wrote: May 1st, 2021, 5:58 pm If there is a world government, you can do worse for its constitution than the UN declaration of human rights
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights

A quick glance throught the UN declaration of human rights reveals this: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others."

Isn't that anti-communist? The history of communism is not admirable, but the principles are reasonable.
Where and when did we commit to purely communist principles?
Plus which, whether it's anti-, counter-, non- or insufficiently- communist kind of depends on the degree of commitment we haven't made, as well as how 'ownership' and 'property' are defined.
Plus, plus which, when I say "you can do worse than", I do not mean "you must adhere verbatim to".
Other than that, you're probably right.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 2nd, 2021, 12:25 am
by marigold_23
Ecurb wrote: May 1st, 2021, 5:45 pm Trivia question: who is more blindly sure of his or her own beliefs, marigold, or a Fundamentalist? Answer: It's a dead heat!



Hello Ecurb, thanks for responding,

If you'll indulge me, I'd like the opportunity of explaining my reasoning here, even though it may never be possible for us to agree... If I were religious I believe I would be indignant at the idea that I was not qualified to serve in a position of high authority over my society for that reason alone, and no argument would be likely to change my mind about that. I do not believe with any certainty that the religious are not correct in their particular religious belief (though admittedly I doubt that they are)... My personal skepticism towards any religious doctrine(s) is, I believe, irrelevant to this evaluation.

As I stated earlier, I consider the role of a representative official as a job, much like any other in that there is a prerequisite to a person's qualification which is that they can (and will) do the job. If a job requires that a person must be able to aim and fire a gun and they cannot, though they may have good intentions in applying for the job, they are objectively unable to serve in that capacity...If a person is required to lift over 100 pounds in order to perform the duties of a job and they can't, then they are unable to serve in that capacity. It is not meant to insult or disgrace the applicant, it is just an objective fact.

In society, applicants are screened for their qualifications... Generally, for the most important jobs with the highest stakes, the screening process is more rigorous... there are more qualifications, and the number of people in society who are qualified for the particular position shrinks dramatically...
Furthermore, the screening process of any occupation is not randomly carried out by anonymous people, it is specific and carried out by experts who are familiar with the job being applied for.

So, if more important jobs require more screening, then the most important job should require more screening than any of the others, and a higher bar for qualification... I'd imagine you and I do not disagree that the most important job, in a hypothetical world government, would be the execution and regulation of the government in tandem to those other people with that same job or above all others in the case of an executive like a president.

So what are the qualifications? That is subjective, as it depends on what functions you have assigned to the job of executing the will and/or interests of a society...If you have not disagreed with me so far, then our disagreement may be in our subjective definition of the function(s) attached to the job of a representative official...

These are the main three functions I ascribe to a representative of any society

1st function:
(What should go without saying) To prioritize the job(or the function) above everything else.
----in the most important job in the society, it has never been so important for any job in that society that the person to whom we give the job is devoted to it in an absolutely zealous manner... they must be willing to die rather than to betray their objective... they cannot be selfish, under any circumstances. So, whatever functions we add after this, it is important that we are certain that the first qualification of the person is that they are able, willing, and absolutely determined to carry them out. They must be selfless.

2nd function:
-----To preserve the physical existence of the society over which he or she presides... No ideology of society, no moral injustice or cost to its comfort is so great as to forfeit the physical survival of the society altogether rather than to suffer that cost.

3rd function:
-----Within the limits of the second function, to increase and preserve the liberty and freedom of all the individual members of society... it is only the requirements of the second function that should (and will) limit the 3rd function, such that no one in society will ever have limitless liberty as long as they exist relative to others. We can only increase liberty through higher efficiency and sustainable material growth.

The first three functions here describe the intentions I would require of a person before I would say that it is possible that the person could ever be considered perfectly "qualified" to be a representative of a society. To be a representative of all society, the primary candidates must pass the screening process and come closer than anyone to meeting these first 3 functions

And the rest is a determination of whether they can carry out those intentions... Essentially just education and experience in the duties of a leader over society... Generally, a vast political, economical, historical, ethical, philosophical, and logical education and a proven record of success...

A true follower of religion (or a shared, exclusive doctrinal ideology), is prevented from meeting the first two of my qualifications... given a choice, a true believer will (to the extent they are loyal to their religion) prioritize the spiritual ideology of society over its physical survival, as they believe that their specific ideology will correlate to an eternal, non physical survival after death which they prioritize over the impermanence of physical survival... therefore, should the general physical survival of a society ever become exclusive to the ideology of that person's religion, they will be bound by their loyalty to their religion to abandon the cause of physical survival for "spiritual" survival, which they always thought was more important... the religious tell us this quite often.

I would ask a person applying for representative leadership who is religious this hypothetical question:
"would you prefer that all of your society were physically destroyed tomorrow and everyone went to your version of heaven, or that your society were preserved physically for millions of years and every generation of that society went to your version of hell?"
If they can answer with the second option, then I'd say they are a terrible adherent of their religion and a vicious person but, nonetheless, a potential political candidate. Though I would find them personally dislikable, as (according to their belief) they could only possibly carry out their function (according to this hypothetical) of preserving physical survival as they desired everlasting suffering for everyone to follow...they would be unlikely to carry out the third function...

In any case, even if there are some religious ideologies that could potentially allow a follower to pass the qualifications (if they could prioritize the physical wellbeing of society over an ideology of non physical wellbeing), it is dangerous to pick favorites with religion, because we would could bring about a "world religion" which would be a terrible risk to society should that religion (whatever it may be) evolve over time into a less sustainable form which contradicts the function of a representative official.
The separation of Church and State would clearly make marigold''s suggestion unconstiutional, as well it should.
Really? In what way?

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 2nd, 2021, 12:08 pm
by Alias
Marigold_23
(geez, I hope that's not your age, because this level of cogency and articulacy in one that young would be frightening.)
I like your explanation. And, in fact, I agree with the logic of it - more, I was damn near stoned by a meeting of Humanists for saying I wouldn't vote for the present leader of the NDP because he wears a turban. I'd happily talk with him, hire him as an immigration lawyer, invite him to dinner, but I would not feel that, in Parliament, he can effectively represent my point of view. A vote is not something to which a candidate is entitled; it is the voter's gift to bestow or withhold, for whatever reason.

I don't have a great problem with MPs' religion of record, so long as they can separate it from the interest of their constituency. I'm willing to extend the benefit of doubt until their actions indicate otherwise. However, if they feel impelled to display a visible symbol of their religion, I take it as a declaration that their commitment to the faith supersedes their commitment to the diverse community they claim to represent.
In any case, even if there are some religious ideologies that could potentially allow a follower to pass the qualifications (if they could prioritize the physical wellbeing of society over an ideology of non physical wellbeing), it is dangerous to pick favorites with religion, because we would could bring about a "world religion" which would be a terrible risk to society should that religion (whatever it may be) evolve over time into a less sustainable form which contradicts the function of a representative official.
I think you can solve both problems of exclusion through inclusion. Make sure that the governing body is reflective of the population it governs; that all of the people are always represented - by age, gender, ethnicity, education, occupation, domicile, income, physical ability, religious affiliation, cultural background - everybody serves; everybody matters; everybody contributes.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 3rd, 2021, 3:15 am
by marigold_23
Hey Alias, thanks for the response!
Alias wrote: May 2nd, 2021, 12:08 pm Marigold_23
(geez, I hope that's not your age, because this level of cogency and articulacy in one that young would be frightening.)

Thank you very much!
I like your explanation. And, in fact, I agree with the logic of it - more, I was damn near stoned by a meeting of Humanists for saying I wouldn't vote for the present leader of the NDP because he wears a turban. I'd happily talk with him, hire him as an immigration lawyer, invite him to dinner, but I would not feel that, in Parliament, he can effectively represent my point of view. A vote is not something to which a candidate is entitled; it is the voter's gift to bestow or withhold, for whatever reason.

I agree that an elected representative political official is never objectively entitled to power... in fact they should be allowed only as much liberty outside the exercise of power as they need to function with maximum efficiency in their duties. We should have no concern for their entertainment, their incentivization, their liberty, their rights... only for their usefulness towards their function... They must become an unhuman tool, unworthy of any glory or celebrity status....unworthy even of a name or an identity ... the role of high representation and great influence should be advertised as (and equivalent to) a role of low slavery for the individual... so that only truly selfless zealous people will be able to pass the screening and no narcissists or agreesive "alpha" style primates will claim power as they have always sought to do...
As you may have inferred (by my first and primary qualification), I believe, ideally, that those who apply for positions of influence; those who would be willing to impose their will in the constraint of other's liberties, must prove to us that their will is incorruptible in its servility in order for us to even consider selecting them... They must meet the first primary function of selflessness and true devotion by this total annhilation of their inherent rights and any identity they may have had prior to their identity as a functional representative.

We should never learn their names or their face... they should have titles and orders, such as President, #47 , so that we will never be able to think of them as celebrities, idols, or Gods. they should never expect glory, or some beautiful painting of them to stand forever in antiquity... And to remind them of what they have chosen in this disgraceful unavoidable position of authority over others, we should sever one finger for the inauguration of each term they serve... if they still want to serve another term, they must always submit to this ceremonial proof of loyalty to the first 3 functions... and if they are capable and devoted, they may run out of fingers before society is done with their services. And, if they are genuine zealots of human wellbeing, they will always beg to loose just one more finger in the service of what they love, because they couldn't live with themselves if they could have made a positive difference but they didn't.

A truly good leader who loves his or her people will beg to be enslaved to them... even if it means being dehumanized and materialized by them. To be destroyed without glory in their service must be an honor... if it is not, then that is not the ideal candidate.

A person must prove they have no creed above their duty as a representative... a religious identity is unlikely to pass such a screening.

The more efficient our systems of social organization become, the less liberty and autonomy should be allowed to an elected representative, so long as they no longer need that autonomy to carry out their role... idealy the role of a representative would become less demanding of any kind of autonomy as the organized society gradually develops towards a higher unified state which naturally operates as it's own governing force... but this is unlikely to happen, and until it does (if it ever does) we must always have lowly capable leaders in authority at each level to maintain the 2nd and 3rd function by way of the 1st.
I think you can solve both problems of exclusion through inclusion. Make sure that the governing body is reflective of the population it governs; that all of the people are always represented - by age, gender, ethnicity, education, occupation, domicile, income, physical ability, religious affiliation, cultural background - everybody serves; everybody matters; everybody contributes.
I would be fine with this if that "identity" necessarily shared between constituency and representative were not permenantly exclusive and contained, or prevented from (or opinionated against) social cohesion and as long as the identity in question did not present a risk in any instance to the actual wellbeing of society (defined by my 2nd and 3rd function)... A suicidal society for instance shouldn't be represented by a leader who is also suicidal... or, even by a leader who endorses and facilitates their decision of suicide... a leader must follow the 2nd function of preservation, even if it means a total denial of that society's liberty. That's how I see it.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 3rd, 2021, 9:56 am
by Ecurb
I'm off in the wilderness and I hate typing in my phone. So I'll respond in 9 days. The separation of Church and state forbids demanding religious affiliation as a qualification for governance. So banning Myslims (for example) from serving would not be acceptable.

Your reverence for governance is frightening, although I'm sure Nazis and Stalinists would agree.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 3rd, 2021, 11:37 am
by Alias
marigold_23 wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 3:15 am [A -- A vote is not something to which a candidate is entitled; it is the voter's gift to bestow or withhold, for whatever reason. ]

I agree that an elected representative political official is never objectively entitled to power...
I didn't say anything about power. I said the candidate put forward by a party - even if it's a party whose platform I support - is not automatically entitled to my vote. He or she gets my vote only if I'm convinced this is the person who best represents my views and convictions, and is most capable of enacting legislation that's in my interest.
in fact they should be allowed only as much liberty outside the exercise of power as they need to function with maximum efficiency in their duties. We should have no concern for their entertainment, their incentivization, their liberty, their rights...
Hold on! Enetertainment and incentivization (if that's even a thing) don't belong in the same box with liberty and rights. While I don't feel responsible for the first two, I have no desire whatever to curtail anyone's legal or personal autonomy.
only for their usefulness towards their function... They must become an unhuman tool, unworthy of any glory or celebrity status....unworthy even of a name or an identity ... the role of high representation and great influence should be advertised as (and equivalent to) a role of low slavery for the individual... so that only truly selfless zealous people will be able to pass the screening and no narcissists or agreesive "alpha" style primates will claim power as they have always sought to do...
Again, that takes 'public service' a very long way beyond my parameters. Point by point:
- unhuman tool - no: a thinking, feeling, responsive individual who can empathize with the constituents, face logistical problems and adapt to changing situations
- unworthy of any glory or celebrity status - absolutely: it's an administrative position, nothing more
- unworthy even of a name or an identity - no. I mean NO! We must never do that to a fellow citizen. We must never even consider anyone unworthy, or a non-entity, not for any reason.
- the role of high representation and great influence - why? How's it higher than other jobs? What makes her influential?
- advertised as (and equivalent to) a role of low slavery - Isn't that taking public servant a tad too far? Also, wouldn't you want your representative to exercise their initiative, creativity, diplomatic skills, strategic ingenuity, courage and perseverence in your behalf? If you want a slave, hire a computer with waldoes.
- truly selfless zealous people - NO! The third last personality type I want steering my ship of state is a zealot. (The second last is a demented demagogue; the very last is a sadistic one.) Besides, I don't believe in selflessness and certainly wouldn't trust it. I trust people who are self-aware, self-controlled and self-sufficient.
As you may have inferred (by my first and primary qualification), I believe, ideally, that those who apply for positions of influence; those who would be willing to impose their will in the constraint of other's liberties, must prove to us that their will is incorruptible in its servility in order for us to even consider selecting them... They must meet the first primary function of selflessness and true devotion by this total annhilation of their inherent rights and any identity they may have had prior to their identity as a functional representative.
Wouldn't it be simpler - never mind more nearly possible - to have normal human people doing it and eliminate as many of the opportunities for corruption as possible?
We should never learn their names or their face...
Makes accountability problematic, no?
How about, just pull down those godawful glowering statues and name the schools, hospitals and libraries after the street they're on instead of dead prime ministers? It's okay if the streets keep the old names - nobody recalls who Albert and Caroline were.
they should have titles and orders, such as President, #47 , so that we will never be able to think of them as celebrities, idols, or Gods. they should never expect glory, or some beautiful painting of them to stand forever in antiquity... And to remind them of what they have chosen in this disgraceful unavoidable position of authority over others, we should sever one finger for the inauguration of each term they serve... if they still want to serve another term, they must always submit to this ceremonial proof of loyalty to the first 3 functions... and if they are capable and devoted, they may run out of fingers before society is done with their services. And, if they are genuine zealots of human wellbeing, they will always beg to loose just one more finger in the service of what they love, because they couldn't live with themselves if they could have made a positive difference but they didn't.

A truly good leader who loves his or her people will beg to be enslaved to them... even if it means being dehumanized and materialized by them. To be destroyed without glory in their service must be an honor... if it is not, then that is not the ideal candidate.

A person must prove they have no creed above their duty as a representative... a religious identity is unlikely to pass such a screening.

The more efficient our systems of social organization become, the less liberty and autonomy should be allowed to an elected representative, so long as they no longer need that autonomy to carry out their role... idealy the role of a representative would become less demanding of any kind of autonomy as the organized society gradually develops towards a higher unified state which naturally operates as it's own governing force... but this is unlikely to happen, and until it does (if it ever does) we must always have lowly capable leaders in authority at each level to maintain the 2nd and 3rd function by way of the 1st.
Methinks thou dost protect us from ourselves far too much!
(And I have to wonder whether that bump in your cheek is bubble gum or a tongue..... )
I would be fine with this if that "identity" necessarily shared between constituency and representative were not permenantly exclusive and contained, or prevented from (or opinionated against) social cohesion and as long as the identity in question did not present a risk in any instance to the actual wellbeing of society
I don't see how that could happen, with randomly chosen citizens serving short terms in office, then returning to their normal lives.
(defined by my 2nd and 3rd function)... A suicidal society for instance shouldn't be represented by a leader who is also suicidal...
What is a suicidal society? What are its identifying characteristics? Why does it want to die? What is the etiology of its suicidal tendency? Anyway, the risk is minimal, as long as no one administrator represents an entire society and no administration can accumulate or consolidate power.
or, even by a leader who endorses and facilitates their decision of suicide...
Easy fixed: don't create "leaders"!
a leader must follow the 2nd function of preservation, even if it means a total denial of that society's liberty.
Did you parse that sentence? A leader must follow; one who has been denied liberty must deny liberty to others....
I'm not moving to your world - but you're still welcome in mine.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 3rd, 2021, 12:03 pm
by chewybrian
Alias wrote: May 1st, 2021, 5:58 pm If there is a world government, you can do worse for its constitution than the UN declaration of human rights
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights
That is pretty solid, and I especially like the part we sorely need here in the U.S.:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
I would pay for this with taxes, of course. I would have an unavoidable tax of 50% on gifts over a modest amount (say $5,000/year), and on inheritance. Without this, we effectively have a loose caste system right now, where past wealth virtually guarantees future wealth across generations. We should be able to pass on some wealth, but also obligated to return some of it to society. All other tax revenue would come from sales tax, and every adult would receive a small stipend each year (about $10,000) to make that part of the system progressive.

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 4th, 2021, 5:49 pm
by marigold_23
Hey Alias,

(Thanks for your response, sorry for this delayed one)
First, thank you for your thorough examination of my wording and everything I said in my last post… it was very helpful to have another perspective, and in retrospect I believe you are right in your disagreement with most of it.
(While I didn’t make it nearly clear enough to begin with, of course much of it was hypothetical, but even so it was unforgivably careless wording. My tongue was in my cheek, it wasn’t bubblegum).

But, if you’ll indulge me (and that may be asking a bit much at this point) I’d like to clarify some of what I said and hopefully, salvage anything there that’s worthwhile. First, let me address and apologize for all the things I said which I believe are unsalvageable...

My main mistake and one that I regret completely was the idea that leaders should be anonymous...that we shouldn’t know their names or their faces….honestly I hate that I wrote that… this was with the intention of preventing the symbol of a leader from becoming iconic or deified… but the anonymity is a far greater advantage to the official who, as you correctly say, would be safe from accountability. And, the active dehumanization of public officials (that we somehow re envision them as a tool to be used by society) is a terrible idea, not just for the unethicality of it, but because this dehumanization is historically used by leaders to hold themselves as superior over the humans they serve. We should see our representatives as being fallible and the best way to communicate that is by officials honestly presenting themselves as they are…to whatever extent possible, we should nurture a genuine bond between representatives and their society... and my use of the term “unworthy” was absurd.

Now, an explanation for the things I said which I still agree with

All of the theoretical trials I suggested, such as leaders in high positions of authority being required to have a finger severed prior to serving a term in office, (while perhaps this specific example is too barbaric and outlandish) was meant to serve multiple functions, all of which are generally positive….

The symbolic importance

We can never exact the amount of suffering that a high level official will likely cause (even if they were truly representative) back on that official…A single individual would be unable to endure the disenfranchisement of millions or billions, even if the extent of that disenfranchisement was generally very slight per person… While we live in a world where inequality and discontent are random, circumstantial and unintentional, they become non-random and intentional when they are systemic relative to a government and as we put an authority in a position to manipulate those circumstances…
there will almost always be a minority or groups of minorities in every effectual decision, and there will necessarily be decisions (although made by an elected official) which do not immediately represent certain individuals in society as that official prioritizes what I described as the 2nd function of society’s physical survival, which will generally favor utilitarianism…For example, if in an evacuation from a tsunami, more lives would be saved by an ordered movement out of a city, the official is obligated to facilitate this kind of ordered evacuation. Those people farthest from the ocean have the best chance of surviving and so do the majority of people in the interior of the city… however, those people living near the coast will likely be held behind the ordered line of people moving out of the city, and more of them will die then the people living in other parts of the city… they would have had a better chance of survival in a chaotic scenario where they were able to move away from the coast by pushing and shoving and avoiding the lines of cars, but in total, more people would have died... in such instances, those individuals in society who suffer as a result of official, systemic decisions are disenfranchised, and they will likely blame the official or they will blame the structure of society itself for their suffering, and they are, in a senese, right to do so. And the official, being imperfect, will necessarily make mistakes in his or her attempt to represent the interests of society, for which they must be held accountable… But, we shouldn’t want to sacrifice society itself or replace representative authorities with randomness if we desire to survive.
So, the constant insistence of an elected official not to appear as “care-free” in that occupation is oddly helpful for preventing unnecessary disatisfaction by the populace… the appearance of an elected official golfing or taking a vacation is corrosive to the wounds which disenfranchised groups in society already suffer (particularly if there is hunger or real material deprivation). Any material superiority by the elected official over the most impoverished people he or she represents when seen, is felt as an insult. The willingness of an elected official to experience pain or material deprivation… to sacrifice… this will endear him or her to the populace and, over time, will radically improve the general relationship between people who are constrained by society and the social structure itself which the people experience as the decisions made by their representative.
There is no more likely cause of an internal destruction of society by a popular revolution than suffering along with the sentiment that a fat, happy, carefree king or queen is responsible for society’s discontents. We should prevent that reality, and prevent that sentiment in the population as much as possible for the sake of long term social cohesion.
And to remind them of what they have chosen in this disgraceful unavoidable position of authority over others
This is why the occupation of a representative official in authority over people becomes “disgraceful”... it is disgraceful that our survival ever depends on the intentional facilitation of (or failure to prevent) suffering for some people by a person or a small group of people in order for the whole of society to be preserved.
However, it is also at the same time the most important occupation and we must relegate it only to the most qualified people.
The hypothetical removal of an elected representative’s finger shows the population that they have empathy for the suffering of society, that they are acutely aware of the disgraceful nature of their occupation, and that they will strive to reduce that disgrace wherever possible. It also proves to the populace that they love people, because they won’t gain anything by applying for this job.
(it is important that the material position of the official not increase after their term, but either remain the same or decrease so that the population is never led to believe that elected officials are selfish in their decision to apply as a candidate, seeking wealth or glory).

You may say the removal of a finger is not the best way to illustrate this… perhaps, but there is truth to the saying: “actions speak louder than words.” And, people are historically obsessed with self sacrifice… it has a symbolic importance which in turn has a real tangible importance in the relationship between people and representative leaders.

Actually, I first heard of this from a NYT story about a peaceful protest against the Japanese government by 20 South Korean men who each cut off their little finger in retaliation to Japan’s failure to teach an accurate history of its own militaristic colonialism.

It is peaceful, but brutal at the same time… a great way to communicate a gravitas statement to a large group of people.

Of course the need for this sort of material deprivation on the part of an elected official may decrease as whatever their job description is has less of an influence over the liberty of large numbers of people

The screening

(I would suggest it be an operation with anesthesia)
The removal of a finger as a requirement for the candidate who receives a majority of votes would dissuade many people who would otherwise desire to have the position from running in the first place. Others it would not dissuade. It would not dissuade people who have no fear for their own wellbeing or no fear of pain… the insane or psychotic (for which other screening methods would be used to disqualify them)... It would of course dissuade people from running who have only a passing interest in society’s well being and are afraid of losing a finger. Those who don’t think it is worth it

It would not, effectively, dissuade those who consider the cost of losing a finger as well worth it in order to serve their obsession for the wellbeing of society. This person is not insane or psychotic any more than a lover or a devoted mother or an obsessive artist or craftsman… this person is “zealous” for an object above him or herself.

Now regarding my use of the word zealotry
I think you’re right not to believe in true zealotry, that a person is ever truly selfless for the sake of some person(s) or cause above the reduction of their own discontent. But few would question that a person can’t become so close to selfless that they genuinely act selflessly, such as the self immolating monk in Vietnam. A parent or a lover may act effectively self-less, and they are not dehumanized as a result because they are genuinely obsessed with the object of their affection. Their creativity and empathy increase as a result of this obsession...they don’t lose functionality. And this is all that is important for my purposes… in other words, (aside from being capable) that a candidate in a high position of authority believes and acts as if they are selfless with regard to their interest in the second and third function… Their actions, after all, are the only things that interest us, and this apparent selflessness becomes more important as the stakes of the position for society increases.
Alias wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 11:37 am
I would be fine with this if that "identity" necessarily shared between constituency and representative were not permanently exclusive and contained, or prevented from (or opinionated against) social cohesion and as long as the identity in question did not present a risk in any instance to the actual wellbeing of society

I don't see how that could happen, with randomly chosen citizens serving short terms in office, then returning to their normal lives.
all of the people are always represented - by age, gender, ethnicity, education, occupation, domicile, income, physical ability, religious affiliation, cultural background - everybody serves; everybody matters; everybody contributes.
I can see problems with selecting people randomly… it would be less likely to select an insidious or insane character than the typical sort of person with good intentions, but it wouldn’t be impossible… and it would be unlikely that the person you select randomly is qualified without having formal training or.... Well there’s actually a lot that could prevent any random person from being qualified… Are you suggesting random selection from within a selected group of qualified candidates?
There are cultural characteristics which are disqualifying. Cultures are often nationalistic and exclusory… their existence as a “separate” culture is also an existence which has a long history of isolation and often distrust… we should deconstruct cultures into one another, seeking the most immersive culture of a non exclusive society… that includes the very gradual movement towards general racial and cultural uniformity.

I would consider economic incentives for inter racial couplings

It’s not particularly possible for age below 16 or above 95 to be represented directly except by other age groups. I do believe generations of people born in the same 5 or 10 year period should always be thought of as an exclusive political party, from age 16 until death. Different generations have different interests after all.

Not everyone can contribute to a society (relative to the cost of their own survival) and not everyone who can will contribute… As long as we agree to take care of the ones who can’t and generally rehabilitate or banish those who can but won’t.
Alias wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 11:37 am
(defined by my 2nd and 3rd function)... A suicidal society for instance shouldn't be represented by a leader who is also suicidal…
What is a suicidal society? What are its identifying characteristics? Why does it want to die? What is the etiology of its suicidal tendency? Anyway, the risk is minimal, as long as no one administrator represents an entire society and no administration can accumulate or consolidate power.
I should really have been more specific here,
I meant to refer to a hypothetical suicidal society as one one in which the majority of people want to enter into a lethal course of action (intentionally or unintentionally) for the entire society...not to leave the society but to use it in a way which will destroy all or even most of it’s popuation, even if it is not their own generation… in the hypothetical case of a world society, it is one in which the majority of people want to enter into a lethal course of action for the human species (again, even if it is not their own generation).

It is a hypothetical with many possible specifics, but in my view of the three first functions of social representation, I don’t believe it matters. If the elected representative believes the action will be lethal to the population, they are obligated not to facilitate that action and even to actively prevent the population from carrying it out… because liberty is less important (for obvious reasons) than the ability to experience liberty or the lack thereof in the first place.

In my opinion, the method of such a determination shouldn’t be just the opinions of the officials but of a qualified board of trusted qualified experts to first inform the opinion of the elected representative or board of representatives… that’s how it should be, but even if it is just the opinion of one elected representative and they were elected without the qualifications to make such a determination (which is the fault of the system and the populace that elected them) it is still their responsibility to act according to their own determination from their own perspective… even if we find out later that their determination was a bad one… this is one of the reasons we should have boards of elected officials rather than any one person with executive power
Alias wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 11:37 am
or, even by a leader who endorses and facilitates their decision of suicide…
Easy fixed: don't create "leaders"!
Yep, that’s definitely a conversation and a very interesting one... Are you an anarcho syndicalist? / Anarcho socialist? Or neither?
Alias wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 11:37 am
a leader must follow the 2nd function of preservation, even if it means a total denial of that society's liberty.
Did you parse that sentence? A leader must follow; one who has been denied liberty must deny liberty to others....
I'm not moving to your world - but you're still welcome in mine.
I wouldn’t say I believe that, however I do think that how we determine an individual's positive influence over the wellbeing of society should generally correlate to our determinations of social status and the extent of a person’s representative influence, or power.
I think incentivization and class are potentially beneficial to social growth, so long as we are intelligent in our determinations of incentivization… there is material incentive which isn’t going anywhere, but I think a general per capita material “cap” and a cultural disdain for frivolous individual material wealth and non-social endeavours can be used to reconcile a sustainable class system, where the selfish and lazy have the least influence and the charitable and hard working have the most influence… I think influence and a kind of status as a person of high moral standing (combined to a ruthless disdain of greed) can allow us to survive without capitalism without diminishing the benefits of social mobility and competition… but it should become competition for status, devoid of material, which would be a sort of feat of cultural engineering.

I truly don't believe there is a lasting alternative to a central government...And I think the government should control the production and distribution of important resources, which is why it is so necessary that officials are rigorously screened for a high level of intelligence and selfless qualities, and a love of human wellbeing... and of course (after screening) that they be elected by the populace

Re: Write your own constitution

Posted: May 4th, 2021, 8:17 pm
by Alias
No problems. I suspect much of the rhetoric was a sort of abreaction: we've had some pretty awful leadership and they've had far too much celebration. I sympathize, but caution you not to swing over to the other extreme. That, too, is a very natural human tendency.
marigold_23 wrote: May 4th, 2021, 5:49 pm Now, an explanation for the things I said which I still agree with

All of the theoretical trials I suggested, such as leaders in high positions of authority being required to have a finger severed prior to serving a term in office, (while perhaps this specific example is too barbaric and outlandish) was meant to serve multiple functions, all of which are generally positive….
Still no good. You'll get stuck with martyrs and masochistic zealots.
Why overcomplicate things?
Just don't have leaders at all.
..... there will almost always be a minority or groups of minorities in every effectual decision, and there will necessarily be decisions (although made by an elected official) which do not immediately represent certain individuals in society as that official prioritizes what I described as the 2nd function of society’s physical survival, which will generally favor utilitarianism…
Maybe so, but if you organize the society and governance fairly to begin with and write a sound constitution, the representatives don't get the hot potato passed to them for every decision; a great many functions are carried out routinely by the various departments that have the requisite expertise and resources to do so with minimal damage.
When damage is done, it's rarely done by the leadership directly: they make some decisions - often not even of their own policy - and then lower ranks either carry out the orders, or fail to, or botch the operation or refuse, or a mixture of all those things. Administration is a biggish team effort, in which the citizens themselves have an effective role.
For example, if in an evacuation from a tsunami, more lives would be saved by an ordered movement out of a city, the official is obligated to facilitate this kind of ordered evacuation. Those people farthest from the ocean have the best chance of surviving and so do the majority of people in the interior of the city… however, those people living near the coast will likely be held behind the ordered line of people moving out of the city, and more of them will die
Wouldn't it be smarter to prepare an evacuation plan, in case of one kind or another of foreseeable emergency? For instance, leave one major artery open from the edge of the city to the coast, and two coastal peripherals, for the sole the sole use of those living and working at the waterfront. Reserve the first major road on either side of that central one, and two routes leading in either direction away from the center, five blocks inland, for use of the people in that five-block swathe - and so on. (Orderly doesn't have mean one specific pattern - if you don't believe me, watch an ant colony sometime.) Educate the population on preparedness, so that everybody knows their assigned route and rules of procedure: what vehicles have right of way, who's assigned to traffic control, who helps the juveniles and infirm, and so on. Humans are naturally co-operative: given a chance to participate in something well organized, they perform very well.
... And the official, being imperfect, will necessarily make mistakes in his or her attempt to represent the interests of society, for which they must be held accountable… But, we shouldn’t want to sacrifice society itself or replace representative authorities with randomness if we desire to survive.
I do not see those as the only alternatives.
So, the constant insistence of an elected official not to appear as “care-free” in that occupation is oddly helpful for preventing unnecessary disatisfaction by the populace… the appearance of an elected official golfing or taking a vacation is corrosive to the wounds which disenfranchised groups in society already suffer
Okay, I get it already! T***p was a symptom of a very deep and old canker in the body politic. Most elected representatives don't behave that way; most heads of state don't even behave that way. But if you took power and prestige and grandstanding opportunities out of governance, it wouldn't attract that kind of personality at all. Of course, party systems need to be abolished. as well, and the majority-rule delusion.
Have you ever been called to jury duty? It astounding how, people who appear superficial, careless, even silly, quite suddenly become serious, focused and attentive. Responsibility to and for our equals inspires the very best in us. But first, of course, we have to be equals in truth, not fantasy.
Any material superiority by the elected official over the most impoverished people he or she represents when seen, is felt as an insult.
Hardly ever! Most peoples in history have not only been quite accepting of material disparity between themselves and their rulers, but proud of a king who could put on a good show. Happier, of course, with a pharaoh who kept the granaries full and clean, ready to dispense in lean years, than one who squandered it on foreign wars, but they mostly go along with that, too - as foot-soldiers, a lot of them.
The willingness of an elected official to experience pain or material deprivation… to sacrifice… this will endear him or her to the populace and, over time, will radically improve the general relationship between people who are constrained by society and the social structure itself which the people experience as the decisions made by their representative.
I seemed to work for the Mayans https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-maya- ... als-171588 - until it stopped raining, and wouldn't resume, no matter what. Sacrifice - the showy, symbolic kind - is superstition. People need it if they believe it appeases the gods.
The British royal family has been hugely popular, long past the age of royalty, notwithstanding their immense wealth and privilege. All they have to do is show up, show an interest, show sympathy.
There is no more likely cause of an internal destruction of society by a popular revolution than suffering along with the sentiment that a fat, happy, carefree king or queen is responsible for society’s discontents.
There are at least three causes more likely: financial ruin (usually brought about by an ill-conceived war), a religious schism and extreme repression of personal liberties.
And to remind them of what they have chosen in this disgraceful unavoidable position of authority over others
There is no unavoidable position of authority over anybody.
However, it is also at the same time the most important occupation and we must relegate it only to the most qualified people. The hypothetical removal of an elected representative’s finger shows the population that they have empathy for the suffering of society, that they are acutely aware of the disgraceful nature of their occupation, and that they will strive to reduce that disgrace wherever possible.
It may be a show love and devotion (and a firm conviction that they'll be called upon to do skilled labour) , but it's no indicator or administrative competence or fiscal responsibility or prudence - or any of the qualifications i look for in a representative.

Too long. I'll have to take it in sections as i have a block of time.
TBC