A New Constitution

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
TimTimothy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:30 pm

Re:

Post by TimTimothy »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:46 pm I get 'consent' but there's ambiguity there, and where there's ambiguity there's a jackass to exploit it.

I like the constitution 'as is', mostly cuz it makes for inefficent and (sometimes) ineffective government (government too busy with itself to be worryin' much about 'me').

But, if I had to draft a new one, the following works (for me)...

Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself...or else.
Of course there's ambiguity. It's language, which is imperfect.

There would be rules to clarify:
1) What is consent?
2) Who can give it?
3) Who can't give it?

But your short constitution is not much different than mine.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10434
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"your short constitution is not much different than mine"

Just less ambiguous... ;)
User avatar
TimTimothy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:30 pm

Re:

Post by TimTimothy »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:27 pm "your short constitution is not much different than mine"

Just less ambiguous... ;)
Actually, not really. In mine, you'd have to define and implement rules around a single concept.

In yours, we need to define "mind" "your" "business" "keep" "hands" "or else."

Changing constitutions tends to be much more difficult than changing rules to implement constitutions. So, since your Constitution has more moving parts, mine would be less ambiguous and much easier to manage.

Plus...the inherent violence suggested in yours doesn't inspire me.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10434
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Consent: years spent in committee with shysters workin' hard to redefine it, restructure it, limit it.

Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself...or else: so clear and plain even a cave dweller can get it.

As for violence: government is violence. It has to be or of what use is it?
User avatar
TimTimothy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:30 pm

Re:

Post by TimTimothy »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:38 pm Consent: years spent in committee with shysters workin' hard to redefine it, restructure it, limit it.

Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself...or else: so clear and plain even a cave dweller can get it.

As for violence: government is violence. It has to be or of what use is it?
If you have such little confidence in governance, then why even comment on a thread about a form of governance?

We seem to be in much different places relative to our understanding on these issues. And that makes it unlikely this can be a productive conversation.

Thanks for engaging.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10434
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"If you have such little confidence in governance, then why even comment on a thread about a form of governance?"

I see, having little confidence in governance is synonymous with having no interest in governance.

#

"We seem to be in much different places relative to our understanding on these issues."

Nope. We seem to have different levels of confidence in governance: mine, low; yours, high.

#

"And that makes it unlikely this can be a productive conversation."

If easy conversation is what you want, fine...just stay the hell out of the actual political sphere, is my advice...here, you'll be great...among the sharks... :cry:

#

"Thanks for engaging."

And that's that.
User avatar
TimTimothy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:30 pm

Re: A New Constitution

Post by TimTimothy »

Look, I'm fine with having hard conversations. But talking to someone who's baseline response is "it'll never work" for anything related to governance just isn't a conversation I'm interested in.

And after 25 years in political consulting work and intensive study in political philosophy, I can wade in as deep as you want to go. ;-)

Having faith in governance simply isn't an open question: we have to have governance. There's no alternative. Arguing against governance is like arguing against air.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10434
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Where, in the thread, did I argue against governance?
Impenitent
Posts: 3322
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: A New Constitution

Post by Impenitent »

TimTimothy wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:14 pm
Impenitent wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:03 am
artisticsolution wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:20 am
You are confusing what is "right" with what is "destined".

I don't think Jesus or God would think it was right to crucify an innocent man...even if the majority thought so...do you?
if it was destined, then it must occur regardless of right or wrong

I wouldn't presume to think for god; I'm simply going from what is recorded that he did

-Imp
Ah...a god believer, now I understand.

Anyone who accepts the bible and god's power without question has a much different value system than I do. And therefore, it's unlikely we can have a productive conversation. It's just a gap too far. Cheers!
thanks for the accusation; however, I do not accept the bible... it at best was a translation of a forgotten language into an unspoken language into a another forgotten language...

but you are probably right about the gap

-Imp
artisticsolution
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: A New Constitution

Post by artisticsolution »

Impenitent wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:56 pm
artisticsolution wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:17 am
Impenitent wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:03 am

if it was destined, then it must occur regardless of right or wrong

I wouldn't presume to think for god; I'm simply going from what is recorded that he did

-Imp
If you say, 'might makes right', then there is no right and wrong, because everything could be right or wrong depending on how the majority swayed.

And as far as God goes...and whether or not he wants us to think about his words...of course he does. If he didnt he wouldnt write a book of rules regarding what he thinks is right and wrong.
exactly, there is no right or wrong except for what the "victor" claims it to be, and no, not the majority, the mighty

he wrote the book? which original text?

-Imp
Thats ridiculous. The "victor" nor the "mighty" tells me what to do.

I "do" because its the right thing.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: A New Constitution

Post by FlashDangerpants »

TimTimothy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:43 pm Let's boil the entirety of the Constitution down to a single word:

Consent
What about the stuff that a constitution is for such as deciding how rules are to be made, circumscribing the powers of those who create and enforce those rules, and dealing with how and how often to replace such people?

A single word without context is not useful for that sort of thing. If I kill somebody without their consent, I have presumably committed a crime deserving punishment. But if I withhold my consent for that, then the punishment is unconstitutional. Not that it matters because the cop who beats me black and blue can refuse to consent to his punishment too? Or would you like to add a couple of words.
TimTimothy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:43 pm after 25 years in political consulting work
This is disturbing, who is paying you for this stuff?
Impenitent
Posts: 3322
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: A New Constitution

Post by Impenitent »

artisticsolution wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:55 pm
Impenitent wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:56 pm
artisticsolution wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:17 am

If you say, 'might makes right', then there is no right and wrong, because everything could be right or wrong depending on how the majority swayed.

And as far as God goes...and whether or not he wants us to think about his words...of course he does. If he didnt he wouldnt write a book of rules regarding what he thinks is right and wrong.
exactly, there is no right or wrong except for what the "victor" claims it to be, and no, not the majority, the mighty

he wrote the book? which original text?

-Imp
Thats ridiculous. The "victor" nor the "mighty" tells me what to do.

I "do" because its the right thing.
thus you claim victory and are exercising your might

or did you not choose to do?

-Imp
artisticsolution
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: A New Constitution

Post by artisticsolution »

Impenitent wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:48 am
artisticsolution wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:55 pm
Impenitent wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:56 pm

exactly, there is no right or wrong except for what the "victor" claims it to be, and no, not the majority, the mighty

he wrote the book? which original text?

-Imp
Thats ridiculous. The "victor" nor the "mighty" tells me what to do.

I "do" because its the right thing.
thus you claim victory and are exercising your might

or did you not choose to do?

-Imp
Im not exercising my might, for if i were i would demand the majority exercise My might as well.

I am exercising my right to be/do the right thing....and i put alot of rational thought into fairness of the problem at hand.

Might doesnt exactly translate into fair and balanced as the bible demonstrates over and over.

But then again one has to be able to discern certain concepts in order to understand.
User avatar
TimTimothy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:30 pm

Re: A New Constitution

Post by TimTimothy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:05 pm
TimTimothy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:43 pm Let's boil the entirety of the Constitution down to a single word:

Consent
What about the stuff that a constitution is for such as deciding how rules are to be made, circumscribing the powers of those who create and enforce those rules, and dealing with how and how often to replace such people?

A single word without context is not useful for that sort of thing. If I kill somebody without their consent, I have presumably committed a crime deserving punishment. But if I withhold my consent for that, then the punishment is unconstitutional. Not that it matters because the cop who beats me black and blue can refuse to consent to his punishment too? Or would you like to add a couple of words.
TimTimothy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:43 pm after 25 years in political consulting work
This is disturbing, who is paying you for this stuff?
A Constitution is not a set of laws...for example...you are aware that the US Constitution says nothing about murder, right? A Constitution is a set of principles.

So, if the primary principle is "Consent" than all governance must flow from that principle. What's the best way to obtain consent of the governed? Structure governance in that way.

As for your example...violation of consent (your murdering someone) proven at a trial voids your claim to violation of your consent. This isn't significantly different than saying you have a right to "life" and "liberty." Both of which can be forfeited by breaking a laws. You only have redress to consent to the degree that you respect the consent of others.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: A New Constitution

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Primary principle? You said it should it only have a single word - where's the space for secondary principles there?
Whose consent, measured how? Doesn't the constitution have to cover that stuff?

My understanding of the US constitution is that it is effectively a document with lots of stuff left unsaid, and a huge body of supreme court ruling for and against specific legislations that represent the official interpretation of that document, causing untold confusion given that the original document is often a little vague.

Your proposal seems to offer all the straight-jacketing problems inherent with a singular constitutional document but with exponentially greater degree of interpretive mayhem.
Post Reply