What projected population are you thinking of? How many people?
What do you mean by “elected directly”? How is that different from other forms of election?
Sorry for all the questions.
So it seems that “Esdeemba” has stuck
Xtisme, whats the difference between what you are saying and what Captain Amazing is saying. Can you see any major advantage in your side? Because it seems to me that you are saying basically the same thing.
A military should be formed for the express purpose of defending Esdeemba but not allowed to leave the boundary waters. The military should also act as the national police force.
I agree with the do no harm laws and have no problems with open gun control laws but I would suggest that guns be strictly defined by projectile weapons without explosive projectiles that are hand held.
I think that a single elected body will suffice as long as they are elected by a proportional system and consisting of a 100 seats and with 1-year terms. This may cause a slow down during the change over but will afford more political accountability. In addition, these elected officials will be paid a salary commensurate with the median salary of CEOs nationally. The leader of the military/police force will be appointed as well as all other department heads to one years terms but there will be a two week period annually that all appointments must be made so that is does not distract from other duties.
In order to become a full citizen you must be able to pass a high school exit exam testing the basics of literacy, economics and history to ensure competent voters. Until this test is passed, no rights are granted until the age of 18, when all nonvoting rights are fully vested, if test is passed before 18 then full rights are gained immediately including voting.
I’m sure I’ll have more later but I think this is a good start.
If we are past the ‘you are going to give Children drugs and machine guns!’ thingy I’ll answer those questions from the OP (I’ll let Scuba_Ben answer himself):
I was thinking of a small population of a couple of thousand…maybe 10,000 at most.
I used direct election to. To me this means a popular vote, as opposed to using something like the EC and having delegates and all that. If we are talking about a relatively small population (or a very high tech one who isn’t suspicious of anything that smacks of technology and has to scream DIE BOLD at ever opportunity) then direct democracy is best IMHO. I like the idea of an executive branch balanced by a house of lords/commons/senate branch with a long term judiciary to balance the short limited terms of the other two branches. In fact I might go for a house of lords who have very long terms balanced by a house of commons with shorter terms (both to only get the one shot at it before having to retire from public service afterward) and balance who gets the purse with who writes the laws. And a long term judiciary similar to the USSC today…though perhaps a some different way to nominate and appoint should be found.
-XT
Fine with me. I’m not living on the island. You can set it up however you want. Just remember, there’s going to be stuff that’s clear to you, but that, 200 years from now, when Brainglutton’s independent judiciary will have to rule on a citizenship case, that they might end up with a different intrpretatation than you intended.
I have always thought the idea of legislature by lottery to be interesting.
When you register to vote, you enter your name in a pool of potential representatives. Staggered throughout a 5 year period the numbers are drawn, and when you are called up you serve a 5 year term as legislature member.
Salary to be the average pay level of the society as a whole, no exceptions.
Lobbying to be illegal. If the people want something, they can use the standard channels of petitions and the office of their legislator. Of course, the legislator is required to put forth bills comitant with the will of the people.
I have no problem with the rules on firearms as posted above. The vast majority of legal gun owners are usually VERY much on the side of the law.
That being said, crimes that are done with the use of a firearm are to be punished in the strictest means available.
Also, while there is absolute freedom of relgion (and from same), churches are to be taxed. I can’t figure out any reason why churches are tax exempt.
Nothing really…they are busting my chops for sloppy language mostly. I’m not exactly known around here for my razor sharp and concise language at the best of times and I’m writing this in between doing work and 10 other things at once so…
ETA…
Good point. They’ll be interpreting what I say to mean whatever they want it to mean…but then, they’ll do that anyway when they don’t agree with what I originally intended.
Don’t want to live there, ehe? My concept is pretty scary I guess? Oh well…I would like living somewhere they don’t constantly nag me to wear a seat belt, put on a helmet or whatever. I do all of those things anyway (and I’m sure it will be a big surprise to most here but I don’t actually keep any fire arms in my house)…I just want the right to choose for myself what risks I want to take. And have the responsibility for my own decisions.
I’d put in a bit more of an iron clad way to amend this propose Constitution so that if anything like what has happened to the 2nd Amendment happens they will HAVE to amend the Amendment…not just interpret it down a slippery slop to oblivion.
-XT
10,000 people seems like an extremly small number of people. Harvard University has more Postgraduates than that, with an area approximately 160789.5 sq km smaller than this island. Remember, Esdeemba won’t only be populated by dopers, it will get a population boost as soon as it is founded.
Well, YMMV…but what are all those people going to do for a living? Assuming the island isn’t already got a thriving industrial base, infrastructure and all that other stuff. I think 10k is actually on the high end…that would probably be everyone on the 'dope (most of which wouldn’t come to my island anyway from the looks of things…the very thought of guns in the hands of citizens would make them run screaming for the hills) AND a whole bunch more.
-XT
That is a very good point, xtisme.
Lets make this island more appealing. How 'bout the organization thats letting us found Esdeemba will also use magic to build some infrastructure. What would we need?
Also, what resources could/should Esdeemba have? Because it doesn’t exist, he can give it all sorts of stuff.
I don’t think your concept is all that scary. I just don’t want to live on the island.
You requested people stop mischaracterising your position, I now request the same courtesy of you. I am not running screaming for the hills, neither is your concept scary (after all, places like you describe do actually exist on this earth right now). I just don’t fancy living in such a place.
Fair enough. I was a bit annoyed at the early nit picking…but in fairness my original post was pretty disjointed and not very well fleshed out either. I was (and am) writing in between doing other things, so they weren’t exactly shining examples of posting.
-XT
As to the creation of laws, I have always admired Robert Heinlein’s suggestions in the novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. He proposed that no law could be enacted without the approval of two thirds of the voting public. Further, any law could be repealed by one third of the voters.
I think this is a bit extreme and gives too much power to the opposers of the legislation. I think sixty percent of the voters could pass the law, and to prevent “yo-yoing” of laws, a repeal of a law would require the act to have been in effect for at least five years. Then a forty percent repeal vote would put the law up for further consideration by the voters at the next election, say two years away. At that time a simple majority would result in a repeal.
You did.
You see, any substance include sarin gas. And “any weapon that can be carried on a citizens person” include grenade launchers. It’s right there in your own writing.
Look, I’m pro-gun personally, but what you propose is anarchist utopia that would end in bloodshed, as history showed us again and again.
Hmmm, I work in Philly and there’s something quite unsettling about the thought of people around here owning whatever type of weapon they choose. Perhaps if you could ensure my safety from the crackheads that our new country is sure to have, I could be swayed more to your pro-gun ways, but I really don’t see it panning out so well. Also, I’d kinda like our new country not to be the number one black-market arms dealer in the world.
Sloppy language on my part. This section was SUPPOSED to be about currently controlled substances…i.e. drugs…alcohol, tobacco, etc. It wasn’t supposed to be about toxic weapons or the like.
As to the grenade launchers and such, again I was sort of in a hurry and my language was sloppy. To (briefly) expand on that, I would have weapons characterized into classes…those of military only use, mixed use, and civilian use. Military only use weapons would include things like 1920’s style death rays, rocket launchers, mini-guns, doom style chain saws, automatic weapons, tanks, sarin gas (though I think we could do without that even for the military), etc etc. Those weapons would be proscribed for civilian use.
I’m not proposing anarchy by any stretch of the imagination. I’m proposing a less intrusive government where the individual citizens take more responsibility for their own actions.
-XT