Hypothetical: We're Starting From Scratch...Or We The Dopers

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

So here is the scenario…somehow, an empty city (for lack of a better term) has become available. Picture a floating city in the ocean, a floating city orbiting the earth, a domed city on the moon, or on mars.

The posters on the SDMB have been chosen as a group to inhabit this city…there are no rules, no leaders, no nothing. Just us, and we all gather around to create our new Constitution.

I would like to offer the basis for the first five amendments to begin discussion on how society would function, before starting to add new ones.

The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (this does not include freedom of press and religion) - The Freedom to speak ones mind freely will not be infringed upon.

The Second Amendment: Guns. Thou shall not be allowed to bear arms outside of sanctioned firing ranges, hunting grounds and military use. No one is allowed to come in with guns, so no one will have a gun.

The Third Amendment: Religion. You are free to worship in any way you wish, wherever you wish, with as many people you wish. However, religious groups as a whole, or as their teachings, shall not have any bearing on any societal laws.

The Fourth Amendment: Press. The Press will be run by society, and there shall be no restrictions on what is reported on societal issues, however individual privacy must be preserved over the societal issues.

The Fifth Amendment: Elected leaders. There are none. All citizens will be required to watch the daily news for the facts on the issues, and all citizens will be required to take a test on the facts of the issue, and all citizens are required to vote on the issue.
So please help me fine tune the about, and start thinking about the following:

Healthcare
Education
Immigration

Let the games begin…

2

Amendments are changes or additions to an original document. Those proposals the OP has made should be part of an original governing Constitution.

3

The Immigration part will have to include provisions for when the City gets full.

4

Required to watch daily news? Ugh. Count me out.

Unless the news isn’t ratings driven. By that I mean no fluff pieces about kittens in trees, or sappy human interest stories. Although I DO want many many descriptors to the weather system. Like “LIVE MegaDoppler ABC7000 HD”. BUT I want the meteorologists to have real, human names, not stupid fake names like Dallas Raines or Johnny Mountain.

5

Somehow the OP reminds me of the saying “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Problems I spotted on a quick read-through–

#1 and #3 potentially conflict. What if, contrary to expectation, a religion gains numerous adherents–enough to vote in a certain candidate that promises to amend the city’s laws, and govern according to that religion?

#2: I take it that every single entrance into the city has guards and metal detectors? I further take it that it is impossible to gain entry any other way? Because if either of those fall down–poof! There goes your gun-free city.

#4: Internally contradictory. To give just one example–a very great many people feel that it is a “societal issue” to report the identity of criminals, especially robbers, murderers, and child molesters. That runs right smack into your privacy constraints. And what about when well-known people are arrested? Doesn’t the public have a right to know?

#5: That’s a recipe for persecution and tyranny under the guise of majority rule. What happens if somebody convinces a majority of voters that homosexuals should be executed?
And on a more elemental level–there are an awful lot of niggling decisions that need to be made on a routine basis to keep society running. Who gets assigned to what job? Who gets hired? If multiple streets need to be repaved, which one gets done first, and what are the criteria for deciding that? For that matter, who decides on the criteria? Etc, etc. Who makes all those decisions? It would be utterly unworkable to vote on all those.

6

I think Freedom of the Press is at least as important as Freedom of Speech.

I don’t think there should be a constitutional right to own and carry guns. But I don’t think there should be a constitutional prohibition against it either. Leave it open as a subject of legislation.

Saying religion shall have no influence on societal laws is nonsense. People are going to guide how they vote based in part on their religious beliefs. Accept it.

And are you sure you want to say people are free to worship as they wish? Does that include human sacrifice (we’ll assume the chosen offerings are members of the faith who are willingly volunteering for death)?

How would a press “run by society” work? Would we elect people to edit the media? And you don’t see a problem with one government-run media and no outlet for dissenting views?

Who will write the tests and determine what the correct answers are?

Requiring all citizens to vote is generally an undemocratic system. Most people are too busy earning a living and managing their personal life to spend hours each day on legislating. If you don’t allow people to choose representatives, the only people who have political power are those who can afford to spend their time in the assembly.

7

As far as religion goes, I’d like it to say essentially, the government does not recognize religion in any way. There are no religious exceptions. So church property is not tax exempt. If they perform charitable activities that part can be if it would be for a non-religious organization. Confessor privilege is out unless you write the law so that anyone can be a confessor whether religious or not.

8

[ol][li]Someone has to enforce the laws. If there are no leaders, then no one enforces the laws and it doesn’t matter what the laws are. If someone enforces the laws, that person or those persons are in charge. [/li][li]Did I read it right - there is no freedom of the press? But people are supposed to get their facts from watching the daily news? Who decides what the “facts of the issue” are, and who compels everyone to vote? Again, if no one does, then it doesn’t make any difference what the law is, and if someone does, the person who compels the news to be whatever he wants is in charge.[/li][li]Everyone has to vote, but religious groups aren’t allowed to influence social policy. How do you prevent religious people from voting on social policy to bring about whatever ends they want? E.g 55% of us are fundamentalist Islam and vote against gay marriage. Who gets to override that (assuming someone does)? And again - whoever can do that is in charge, and it makes no difference what the vote is.[/li][li]How are budgets handled? Does somebody put together a budget and everyone does an up-or-down vote, or do we collect everyone’s suggestions and somehow compile a budget, and then put that to an up-or-down vote? [/li][li]Related to #3, if 55% of us decide that we want guns, can we vote to allow them? Who overrules us?[/li][li]How often do we vote? I for one have other things going on in my life than to vote every day, or every week, or even every month. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to choose somebody to represent me and have that person do the day-to-day, but subject to choosing someone else if I don’t like what they are doing>[/ol][/li]Regards,
Shodan

9

True, there is no way to tell people how to vote, but I’m thinking more of the church itself endorsing candidates, and the like.

Well, this is the reason why the “city” is set in a place not easy to get to. Remote island, settlement on the moon, or mars…etc…

10

I certainly see your point, (and despise the fluff pieces…“Look at the latest viral videos”) and I would think the news requirement would be just centered around the issues reported in a factual way. There would be access to the crappy fluff pieces, but those wouldn’t really be part of the news.

11

So far, I’m enjoying these responses. Thank you.

I’m interested in seeing what it would be like to start a society from scratch in present time, or another way to look at it would be, if the American founding fathers were setting the foundation for a new society today, what would the thought process be?

Please feel free to re-write, or suggest re-writes, or add you own…

12

The 5th proposal is actually multiple items and as stated sucks ass.

  1. No elected representatives. Fuck no. There are jobs which I’d like to elect, and to have the ability to delegate certain tasks to them.
  2. Compulsory voting. Again, fuck no. People’s right to vote include the right to not vote.

Now, having more stuff be decided by popular vote than is common in most current democracies I’m up for (for example, anything initiated by a popular movement), but let’s not get carried away. I have zero interest in needing to study sewer design for example.

There seems to be missing all that stuff about civil and criminal law. Oh… and taxes.

Guns and other ranged weapons should also be allowed for hunting, police forces, the armed forces. Contact weapons should also be regulated - not banned, we don’t want to end up tossing people in jail for owning a knife :stuck_out_tongue:

13

You’re never going to have a consensus on what the important issues are much less what facts apply to those issues. That’s why you need a free press so people have access to competing ideas.

14

Legislature by a jury system. Citizens appointed at random to sit in the legislative assembly. No elections. I’m also toying with the idea that the assembly elect a President (either from within or without) who would have veto power over a less-than 3/5 majority. Up to 20% of the jury members can be removed peremptorily by 2/3 majority vote, to weed out the nut cases and obvious incompetents. Amyone may refuse to serve.

15

I think we need to weed out the nut cases and obvious incompetents upon entry to the city.