Quote:
In th' commonwealth I would by contraries ...All things in common nature should produce / Without sweat or endeavour. Treason, felony, / Sword, pike, knife, gun, or need of any engine / Would I not have; but nature should bring forth./ Of it own kind, all foison, all abundance, / To feed my innocent people.
[i]The Tempest, II, i, 153 ff.
William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
|
I studied that play in my senior year of high school. And I have thought about what it represents--creating your own
"commonwealth"--ever since.
After alot of thought and deliberation, I have come to the conclusion what an ideal state should consist of. Naturally though, my ideas probably have alot of my own personal opinion written into them:
[list=1][*]Instead of the American three branches, with the burdensome and unusually independent presidency executive branch, my ideal state would have only two branches: a legislature and a independent judiciary (i.e., supreme court). This is what they have in Canada and Australia. And it seems to work well for them. (More on the supreme court later.)[*]My charter of rights would be based loosely on the
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with all its extensive economic and social rights, along with basic civil and political rights too. The only difference in my charter of rights is that I would
omit the word
"morality" from
Article 29 Sec. 2:
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." (Emphasis mine.) Thus my charter of rights would be based on the maxim that you act as you will as long as the exercise of your rights doesn't interfere with other people's same enjoyment of those rights.[*]Now the main difference between my system and most democracies of today. In my ideal state, the supreme court would have the main measure of power. And the legislature would only act as a check on their power. You will notice in most modern democratic states it is the other way around: the supreme court acts as a check on the legislature's power. Why? You might ask. Well, I think democracy is a wonderful idea. And my state would certainly be democratic. Don't worry about that. But I have come to the conclusion that democracy in its worst form is just mob rule, sadly. I'm sorry. So thus, in my ideal state, if the supreme court feels the legislature is moving to slow, say, in securing a good universal health plan for its people, it can just take more affirmative steps in crafting its own health plan. Thus my state would incorporate the best parts of both
democracy, and an
aristocracy in its original sense--
government of the best citizens.[/list=1]
Well, this isn't Great Debates, but I certainly woul appreciate anyone's critique of my plan that they would like to offer. Please also feel free to post your own ideas for an ideal state here. Remember this is just a thoughtful mental exercise--so don't take it too seriously
.
05-06-2003, 09:10 PM
Linear Mode
