You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2701 Re: Not So Free Chat » Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?) » 2004-02-23 15:58:57
Overall I'm with Cindy on this one. Immigrants, no matter how long they've lived here, can't have the same "American experience" as natives. I have absolutely nothing against immigrants, in fact I think in general they have a much better work ethic than native-born citizens, but I'm just not comfortable with the idea. On a deeper level, the constitution was written the way it is for good reasons, changing it on a whim whenever it suits us invites bad happenings.
The American Principle, for Foreigners: You may join. You may have your say. But you may never lead the way.
How much opportunity do you think we should offer? Should we allow foreigners to run for President after living here for 20 years? 10, 5? Why not just let them run right off the boat, let the voters decide? Hell, why even require citizenship, or residency for that matter?
bin Laden/Kucinich 04! 
If we're gonna start changing the rules, where do we stop?
But then one could also ask why we're even debating it, since the interpretaion of the constitution has been somewhat flexible of late.
#2702 Re: Not So Free Chat » Race and Culture - A Changing Europe - Opening a mighty can of worms... » 2004-02-22 10:14:56
Good post, Byron.
I certainly was not trying to suggest that other cultures are worthless, but socially not one has moved away from authoritarian rule on its own, for example, aside from our own. Some have had "progress" imposed on them by "whitey," who has always been rather good at such things. I wonder how secure our western social and political framework is in other cultures. While civilzation will certainly continue, will it be in a desireable manner? Will the resulting culture and society be one worth fighting for or against? I don't claim to know, but there are legitimate concerns.
So with the rise of the Muslims / Chinese / Indian / other 3rd world nations/blocs, the "white man" as we know it could very well be highly marginalized over the next century, especially with globalization of trade, the shift of jobs to lower-cost regions, etc. While this may benefit the world overall (like reducing proverty), this may very well lower living standards in the U.S. and Europe, especially with our own demographic buldge to deal with (Boomers.)
There's another factor to consider. While competition between "blocs" is a natural part of human history and good in many respects, what we are seeing now is not only the rise of competeing "blocs" but the systematic erosion of our own. It is not simply that the traditionally white European population is losing influence, but that is being displaced by other peoples.
In modern times, which is to say the last two centuries or so, how many times have the Enlightenment ideals or something comparable took hold? The American Revolution was the first real effort to realise to these ideals. That one example inspired others, the French effort took quite some time to work itself out. England wasn't too bad to start with, the rest of Europe needed still more time. Germany had to have representative government militarily imposed on it twice before it took hold. No where else in the world were such concepts born or nurtured. They have been exported forcibly to many corners of the world with varying success, but are alien elements within the culture. Take Japan for instance, their present western system of government is in marked contrast to everything in their history and culture. We have deluded ourselves to believe that everyone wants "democracy," but it may not be anywhere near true. If we lose the people who created the culture, we may very lose the culture as well and all that has been achieved socially could revert back to other, far more established forms. The type of society we take for granted is an exceedingly rare anamoly in human history.
What is it about this topic that makes everyone write such monster-sized posts?
Oh, historical tidbit. What we refer to as "Arabic" numerals were actually invented by the Hindus of India, not by Arabs. Europeans first learned of the system through Arabs using it, and assumed it to be of Arab origin. No one bothered to correct them...
Post Edit....As for convicting someone for blowing up an IRS building, I side with Cindy on that one too. Destroying things is simply that...destruction, and it's a very serious crime. That's not what we want, regardless of how much we all despise the IRS..lol.
Yeah, I suppose. Maybe one of those EM Pulse bombs that just fry the computers and wipe the data. Computers are cheap. Then we could go audit them!
#2703 Re: Not So Free Chat » Race and Culture - A Changing Europe - Opening a mighty can of worms... » 2004-02-21 19:17:51
I suppose what I'm really concerned with is that much of the progress made in this last 500 years, more depending on your perspective, is the result of European civilization. Liberty, government for the people rather than the rulers, human rights, to a large degree science... all are spawned from the culture of, let's face it, white Europeans. It's a tiny slice of human history and I don't see any reason to assume it's permanent. Losing it would be a tremendous loss. Allowing it to be lost when we don't have to, that would be a profound crime. A Taliban-esque Germany or Britain isn't totally outside the realm of possibility in the next century or two if we just ignore the situation. Maybe our best days are behind us, but we don't have to just accept it.
There are other issues at stake (as regards Western culture and democracy) here as well...like militia gun nuts (ala Timothy McVeigh) "home grown" here in the U.S.A., who think the Feds are always out to get them (paranoid dingbats) -- who will bomb buildings packed with civilians, babies and children to "get back at" the Feds.
While I'm saying things that offend, I've always wondered what the outcome of the trial would have been if McVeigh had bombed an IRS office, after hours. I don't think I'd convict.
P.S.: Cobra, what the heck does "Carpe Terra" mean? I've always wanted to ask, never got around to it.
Carpe, Latin for "seize" or "grab." Terra, "Earth," "land," "ground" depending on your translation.
So it's open to interpretation. "Seize the land" or "Seize the world," depending on how imperialistic you feel at the time. 
#2704 Re: Not So Free Chat » Race and Culture - A Changing Europe - Opening a mighty can of worms... » 2004-02-20 22:03:06
I'll probably regret doing this but... I happened to be watching Dennis Miller's show on CNBC last Night, and they had actor John Rhys Davies (Gimli, LOTR) on, who recently made some rather un-PC remarks regarding Europe's changing demographics. Among them are such nuggets as:
"I mean? the abolition of slavery comes from Western democracy. True Democracy comes from our Greco-Judeo-Christian-Western experience. If we lose these things, then this is a catastrophe for the world.
And there is a demographic catastrophe happening in Europe that nobody wants to talk about, that we daren?t bring up because we are so cagey about not offending people racially. And rightly we should be. But there is a cultural thing as well.
By 2020, 50% of the children in Holland under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent. You look and see what your founding fathers thought of the Dutch. They are constantly looking at the rise of democracy and Dutch values as being the very foundation of American Democracy. If by the mid-century the bulk of Holland is Muslim?and don?t forget, coupled with this there is this collapse of numbers ... Western Europeans are not having any babies. The population of Germany at the end of the century is going to be 56% of what it is now. The populations of France, 52% of what it is now. The population of Italy is going to be down 7 million people. There is a change happening in the very complexion of Western civilization in Europe that we should think about at least and argue about. If it just means the replacement of one genetic stock with another genetic stock, that doesn?t matter too much. But if it involves the replacement of Western civilization with a different civilization with different cultural values, then it is something we really ought to discuss?because, godammit, I am for dead white male culture."
In essence, I think he's right. This is a conversation that westerners need to start having. I expect people are probably going to call me all sorts of nasty things for saying I agree with the sentiment and that's fine, but I'm interested to hear other viewpoints on this.
#2705 Re: Not So Free Chat » Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals » 2004-02-20 21:44:17
Tell ya what Cobra, I'll support your personal view of world conquest if you can do it without killing anyone.
Oh, there are ways. It's more expensive, but there are ways.
#2706 Re: Not So Free Chat » PRT's the way to win the war against terror? - Promising new strategy in Afghanistan » 2004-02-20 16:54:52
It looks the US military finally might be getting the hang of this occupation stuff.
There's probably more coming....
#2707 Re: Not So Free Chat » Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals » 2004-02-20 16:50:47
I'm an extremist when it comes to the death penalty, I don't believe there is room for comprimise on the issue.
All you damn not-killin'-people extremists!
Nah, I'll leave this one alone.
#2708 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bill O'Reilly » 2004-02-20 16:45:18
My Freshman year in my Tennessee Public Highschool, during orientation, the principal declared "This is a Public High School"
I had been disciplined countless times in that school for having books in my posession about Jewish Mysticism, Hinduism, and Mythology.
I did not see anyone attacking christianity there.
Oh. Then the whole point is invalidated. Never mind. :;):
In trying to be fair (all the way around): As a kid growing up in an intense Christian environment (fundamentalist), I do know that *some* (not all, of course) Christians like to cry foul and "persecution!" when they are simply not getting their way about something, others aren't seeing it from their point of view, etc. Those sorts really hurt the Christians who aren't alarmist, reactionary, etc. I've essentially shut myself off from the Christian world altogether for many years now, so it is obviously difficult for me to gauge what is what within the *current* Christian realm (never mind all the various sects, denominations, etc...Christianity is so complex).
Yes, some Christians can be extremely hostile to differing viewpoints. Particularly when you don't want to be converted or otherwise be force-fed the religion. But sometimes there really is persecution to a degree.
Every Christmas I run into at least one of those "Jesus is the reason for the season" types. I retort with "actually the modern Christmas holiday is the result of the Roman Catholic church co-opting the traditional Celtic and Germanic winter solstice festivals turned into an orgy of consumerism by retailers."
They hate that.
A good friend of mine is a fairly recent convert to one form of protestantism or another, I'm not really familiar with all the doctrinal variations. He's done some missionary work and tells me that the hostile attitude toward Christians, which he may slightly exaggerate, is a peculiarly American trend. Europeans seemed either "believers" or indifferent. Of course the question "who the hell sends missionaries to Austria?" has yet to be answered. Mexico I understand. Three centuries ago! I think they've already got all the takers they're gonna get. but I could ramble on this all day...
I am wondering how Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is going to fuel all this. There's already bombastic reaction all over the place (as most folks know).
I'm kinda looking forward to this, despite my somewhat rusty Aramaic
Actually, yesterday I heard about Mel Gibson's father's recent comments on the radio and couldn't help but chuckle. The reporter comes on in the typical metered, serious newscaster voice "...has stated that Jews are conspiring to (pause) take over the world and that no Jews were killed during the holocaust, they all just (pause) got up and left."
And Christians complain about persecution...
#2709 Re: Not So Free Chat » Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals » 2004-02-20 16:23:33
Ah, Byron. Clinton was not as good, nor is Bush as bad as you describe. Each had their strengths and their collossal failings. To enumerate them all would take days. The real problem is deeper, but that is a conversation for another time...
Good link, Bill. :laugh: "I'm putting that message on my yacht and taking it all the way across America."
What, politically speaking, is a "moderate?" Well, it seems reasonable that it would be a "middle" position between two extremes. Okay, if we assume the Republican and Democratic parties are the "poles" than what is a moderate?
Well, what are the two parties? One, the Democrat Party, isn't really a party in the proper sense at all, when you really get down to it. It's a collection of various interest groups aligned together in common cause against the other "extreme," in this case the Republican Party, which is on it's way to becoming a fractured mess itself. So, is a moderate anyone who doesn't align themselves with either "party?" Well, no. There are many people with very strong convictions who reject both parties, myself among them. I've been called many things, but never "moderate."
The whole model is flawed due to over-simplification. We place too much currency in the labels we create. The label does not define the subject.
A quick review of the thread brings up Prometheus' quote:
If the national partys always pushed ideology to the forefront, there would be a whole lotta more partys to support the broad range of public opinion.
Precisely. if every political force had its own proper Party we would have dozens of Parties to choose from. In some countries it is done this way, but we have grown accustomed to our two-party system, whatever those two parties may be.
Okay, my point. The political landscape has inexorably been moving Left for more than a century. We may be witnessing a "lurch" that way right now as the Republicn party steals traditionally Democrat issues, thus taking some of their more "moderate" voters. We could very well see the demise of the Democrat Party within the next decade, though it's principles would live on in the newly diluted Republican Party. Conservatives would be forced to migrate elsewhere, just as some "moderate" to conservative Democrats are venturing off the Democrat Party plantation with greater frequency. They haven't changed, but the political landscape around them has. This has happened before, it's a normal part of American politics over the long-term. Ever voted Federalist? Today's moderate is yesterday's commie symp.
What this will mean is hard to say. Some days I think we are about to plummet off the craggy cliffs of socialism onto the jagged rocks below. Other days I think we're on the verge of turning this country around and being better for the experience. Only time will tell. Maybe the Libertarians or some similarly conservative, self-reliant, Constitutionally minded party will fill the vacuum. Maybe we'll just have two leftist parties, one socialist and one flaming commie. Either way, I'm never gonna see that Social Security money again.
#2710 Re: Not So Free Chat » Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals » 2004-02-19 16:42:38
Cindy's "ideological Civil War" reference has a great deal of merit, while being a bit oversimplified. Most major conflicts in American, if not world history, have involved three distinct factions. It generally distills down to one BIG issue that overshadows the others with one faction for IT, one against, and one that just kinda is, little more than witnesses to the events.
Guess which group moderates are.
Not that I'm attacking moderates, a good middle-of-the-road, don't-get-too-worked-up attitude has its place. But it rarely if ever initiates change.
As for the current Left/Right split in America today, its severity depends largely on who you talk to. If you associate with alot of moderates, it's blown out of proportion by the media. But then there's the other two groups. The hostility between them is at times palpable, it seethes. I know liberals who hate George Bush like Hitler hated Jews. Lots of them. Some of these same people would jump on my use of "George Bush" and "Hitler" in the same sentence as a defense of Bush's "Nazi imperialist policies."
Conversely, I know conservatives who get extremely defensive when I don't entirely agree with their take. Abortion, for example. The mere mention of "extenuating circumstances" draws dirisive charges of "murderer." Actually "baby-killing pinko" is more common.
Both sides are wrong some of the time.
One side is wrong most of the time
But they are the moving forces. Moderates react to them, they are like the superhero sidekicks of modern politics. Without the other two sides fighting, they are meaningless.
This applies to true moderates. Many who claim the title are actually strongly inclined toward one side or the other, but don't want the association for whatever reason. This fine, but when push comes to shove, they take a stand with one side or the other, usually one far more frequently, and they become part of that faction. Moderates come in two forms, those who just don't care or know enough to participate and those whose choices are swayed by campaign ads and those people outside of polling places handing out pencils and frisbees. Anyone else isn't really a moderate, in my oh so humble opinion of course. We all have our definitions of what words mean. Just look at the left's interpretations of the constitution...
Not that I think that anyone who doesn't "pick a team" is copping out, far from it. I rant against the Republicans almost as often as the Democrats. Particularly of late. Tricksy, false But I have my own ideals and I work with the options available to me to realise them. I'd drop GW without hesitation if a better option was apparent, but John Kerry ain't it.
In short, not being affiliated with either side doesn't necessarily make one a moderate. Unless you consider Libertarians, Anarchists, Communists and Fascists moderate
No slight intended toward any of the above named groups. Well, except the Communists.
#2711 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bill O'Reilly » 2004-02-19 16:04:00
Just because his own opinion deviates from the GOP party line, does not mean that he is fair or balanced. He is simply voicing his own opinion.
Isn't that all anyone can do, voice their own opinion? We all have our biases, anyone who claims otherwise is a liar or a fool. Even the most "fair and balanced" analysis will be rejected by those determined not to accept it.
Now to get back on point, after watching some of the O'Reilly Factor last night I see some of the religious aspects Cindy mentioned, and a few inquiries of more regular viewers confirmed the recent trend.
As for my own take on the subject, many of the charges attributed to O'Reilly (among others) have varying degrees of truth. There is an active hostility toward Christianity in particular among certain Leftward elements. I'm not lamenting this, I have no love for the various sects of Christianity, but clearly there is an active and vicious effort to purge religious elements from public life and denigrate it in private life. One must ask why Judge Moore (Alabama, Ten Commandments) was so villified for his flaunting of the law while other judges and officials do the same as a matter of course and are praised, see the current brouhaha in San Francisco for one of many examples. I would argue that it is in fact the judiciary itself that is the priesthood we should be attacking, but that is beside the point. There is a sharp religious divide in this country and it isn't even religion vs. secular but a focus on Christianity. Any other religious practice is praised as an expression of diversity and tolerance, while Christianity is the creed of closed-minded, racist, white oppressors bent on the destruction of everyone, and this isn't a new development though it has recently grown more hostile. I recall one day early in my experience of the public school system, first grade perhaps, yes, I wasn't always an obnoxios ranting right-wing goon. Well, I probably was, but shorter, anyway, while prayer in school was off-limits, a general introduction to other religions was deemed "good." We were instructed, among other things, to pray to Mecca! You must repeat the pillars of Islam and know what Ganesha represents, but if you pull out that King James Bible you'd better get your butt down to the principal's office. At the time I didn't know any better, but in retrospect it had some important lessons. Among them, don't expect consistency. "Authority" and "hypocrisy" are intertwined was another.
Personally I find this offensive, and I am not easily offended. It isn't the attacks on a particular religion that bothers me, I really couldn't care less if one superstition or another disappears forever, but those who attack Christianity on all sides deny that it is their intent, rather some other motive is invoked. it's dishonest and dishonorable, casting more shame on themselves than their targets. If there is a hell, they're goin'. Save me seat in the back, I'll bring the brewskis.
Hmmm...maybe we shouldn't trust people *under* 30.
But we're still such novices at the art of deception, why start trusting us when we've learned all the tricks?
#2712 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bill O'Reilly » 2004-02-18 19:15:42
Now I remeber why I quit watching. He never asks the questions I blurt out during his interviews. Damn frustrating.
#2713 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bill O'Reilly » 2004-02-18 17:18:27
I actually haven't watched O'Reilly for awhile, but I'll probably tune it tonight now that we're discussing it. I'm starting to miss the way he rips into his guests, and rips on those who refuse to go on the show. While he can be an arrogant blowhard at times, sometimes that's what it takes to get a straight answer.
I'm sure I'll have some more substantive to say after tonight's show, it has a tendecy to irritate me at times. The guests' waffling more than anything.
#2714 Re: Not So Free Chat » geeks, how long can be a PC before it crashes ? - spam virus and other threads » 2004-02-17 15:51:16
So maybe Microsoft should sale Windows with an unlimited number of activation.
A friend of mine was recently struggling with the same problem. My solution:
Bootlegged XP pro with the corporate license. Just type in that serial number, good as often as you need. less of a hassle too.
Hey, I paid for it once, so it's not really piracy. ???
#2715 Re: Not So Free Chat » geeks, how long can be a PC before it crashes ? - spam virus and other threads » 2004-02-16 17:23:24
It's threads like this that remind me how nice Linux really is.
Oh, right. There is the whole "won't run any of my software, need another computer and pretty soon have the friggin' batcave" thing.
In my experience, reinstalling Windows every 6 months or so is just par for the course.
#2716 Re: Civilization and Culture » Exchange Mediums - Martian Currency-A few thoughts » 2004-02-16 17:13:15
A barter system only works in the very early stages of a society's development. Given the complexities of Martian colonization, it may bypass that stage altogether.
Whatever the medium of exchange ends up being, I would hope that it is at least based on something real.
Until it gets worked out, I'll be the guy wandering around the red plains with a rifle and a sack of Krugerrands.
#2717 Re: Terraformation » Projected Marsian Population? » 2004-02-16 16:54:11
Likewise with the population issue: the claim of overpopulation is glibly made by "experts" and we just accept said "facts" because, A) we aren't experts and, B) most of us live in cities and seldom think about just how rural this planet really is.
One thing that has astounded me in the course of driving trucks around the US is just that: the US is almost totally rural -- no, let me amend that: at least half of the US is almost totally forested, or desert wilderness, or empty coastal plains, or isolated mountains.
Good point. As it pertains to desireable population levels though, we still have the same choice before us, namely how "free" versus how urbanized we would prefer. I realise my phrasing implies that "city folk" have less freedom than those who live in rural areas or relative wilderness, and while arguable I agree with this basic sentiment.
Which brings up Don's point:
Freedom isn't only to do what you want whenever you want.
Doesn't variety of things you choose to do rely on the many people working to produce your computer, your movies, the books you read, the car you drive, the TV programs you watch, the food you eat, the artwork you like, the highways you ride on ?
Is the opportunity to go to the movies, or read a book, or download who knows what on a computer freedom? Certainly they are all opportunities available because of a technological society, but we are hardly more "free" than our ancestors for having these things. We have more options on how to spend our time perhaps, but modern society imposes many restraints as well. The more tightly packed a population becomes, the less real freedom the individual will have. The ideal population number depends on what balance we intend to strike between the two.
Another thing to consider, not everyone wants to be "free" in this sense. There are people out there, probably some right here on this board, who actually desire the constraints placed on them, find them comforting. This opens the possibility of a sparsely populated Mars in which the citizens have all the benefits of a technological society (from Terran imports, made by those who prefer that lifestyle) without all the urban/industrial baggage.
Back to the wide expanses of nothing in North America, they have another lesson for Mars. While this land is open, unused, and often fairly cheap; the situation is very different from the sort of "colonial" circumstances of early America or that a terraformed Mars could offer. Namely, if you wanted to lead a band of persecuted dissidents into the wilderness where you can make a better life fo yourselves, the authorities will be right there. It is impossible to go far enough to escape. You'd no sooner have a few huts put up before some rotund bespectacled government bean-counter would start nagging you about property taxes and building permits and any number of other damn things. All in a country with so much empty land that abandoned cars sit on the highways for weeks! Sometimes because no one much cares, sometimes because it takes that long for anyone to notice!
Rambling again, must collect thoughts into something more coherent...
#2718 Re: Terraformation » Projected Marsian Population? » 2004-02-14 09:48:32
Discussing such a topic is going to require a lot of assumptions, starting with successful and "complete" terraforming. If we take that as a given, the question of desirable population will be directly proportional to how free we want the society to be. The more crowded, the less freedom the individual has. If one person has the entire planet to themselves they can do whatever they want within their physical capacity, as the numbers rise more restrictions become necessary.
Ideally, I would think each person having their own lage "plantation" of sorts, maybe 60-80 acres or so, something expansive but not utterly beyond the capacity of a single person to cover on foot, similar to what Rxke suggested. Something capable of supporting the occupants independently if they so choose, yet close enough that travelling to others is not too difficult.
This would severely limit the population. To give a meaningful number I would have to do some calculating, which I'm not inclined to do on Saturday morning, but it would be low. Perhaps as low as one million, depending on enviromental and other factors.
This arrangement would be more practical if we assume a more advanced technology ("robots," I hear Josh muttering) but that is not necessary if the planet is terraformed. People could live like the Amish on Mars, but probably wouldn't want to.
But then if we assume that people live there before terraforming is complete it's a completely different game. Then we have a history of cowded cities filled with all manner of controls on "freedom." If this is the starting point for Martian society, it's going to have all the limitations and irritations of Earth living even with a small population. When terrafoming is complete the Martians must be driven from their cities into the wilderness! There to spend the rest of their days living like free humans, not cogs in an urban machine.
The long-term implications of this "plantation" approach to colonization is that we would be forced to continually expand to new planets, otherwise we are forced to either crowd people together or forcibly control population growth. Either way, in a few generations we'll have a society whose people are no longer free but who pretend to be because they've been educated to believe it is the case. Which brings us back to where we're starting from.
Well, that was odd.
#2719 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Yet another Martian Constitution - An alternative to Euthenia » 2004-02-06 15:19:52
Well last things first:
Or a stupid budget cruch can screw with your life like it did with me yesterday (sorry for the rant, got some built up anger).
No need for an apology, Pendragon, I know the feeling all too well, usually the direct result of overzealous or incompetent government hench... er, employees.
BoR states that they have the right to not be deprived of life without due process, While BoNR states that there is no right to life. This would allow forced sterilization and abortion (depending on the governments and courts view of when life begins) under a eugenics program like you mentioned.
But you are not being deprived of your life. To say that the "no right to life" clause as it pertains to sterilization/abortion violates the "due process" clause implies ownership of the potential offspring in question. On a more basic note, even if one considers life to start at conception, under this constitution Citizenship does not.
having said that, I must confess to a little mischief on my part in the writing of this document. While the Triumvir/Tribune/Senate relationship has merit, not to mention (as Gennaro pointed out) a certain class, and perhaps with it respectful authority, this constitution as a whole has inherent flaws, should one choose to push the issue.
Let's look ahead from the day this constitution is ratified...
The news, 200 years later...
The Senate is locked in debate over whether non-vegetarians can be tried for murder, citing that the constitution does not specify willful killing of a particular species under Article IV.
The Grand Tribunal ruled that the Breeding Certification Program is constitutional. In a pyrrhic victory for the eugenicists, the Tribunal also ruled that government-run sterilization clinics are legal but that citizens can not be forced to undergo the procedure. They can, however, be tricked into it; citing the precedent of the Fifth Right and the use of confessions obtained through deception.
Opposition Senators met to condemn the Triumvirate's decision to break off negotiations with the Cydonian Union. The Triumvirate unanimously agreed to use whatever measures are necessary to protect the terraforming facilities from the "Red Menace." Chancellor Daschle expressed "concern, regret, and deep concern" over the decision.
The Triumvirate vetoed the "Senate Serving Society Act," calling it a "cynical ploy to enrich themselves at the expense of the nation and saddle future generations with asinine laws solely to get themselves re-elected." The bill's backers blithered unconvincingly in response before being locked out of their offices. Government spending immediately dropped 17% and there was much rejoicing.
Public outcry over the exploitation of Euthenian slave labor reached its peak when the Grand Tribunal ruled that the constitution does not protect the rights of non-Citizens. BEMC chairman Bruzin commented "is it our fault these people didn't have the means or inclination to protect themselves? We take care of them just as well as their former masters, but we're honest about it."
No charges were filed in the Marineris Uprising, on the grounds that constitutional rights can be exercised in unison. As no one was actually harmed, the participants were within their rights to peaceably assemble bearing arms to express their outrage over job losses they blame on the Martian Alliance for Free Trade Agreement, or MAFTA.
Okay, some of that was just to be funny, but some of it represents serious flaws. This constitution should be good for another century or so before it collapses. So much for the Thousand Year Constitution. Maybe something simpler is needed.
Article I
Bill of Rights
1. No law shall be enacted abridging the freedom of speech, expression, or the freedom to peaceably assemble.
2. No law shall be made prohibitng ownership of weapons which can be practically used for personal defense. Further, the ownership and carrying of such weapons shall not be subject to permits. All people have the right to keep and bear arms, this is not a collective right, every individual has the right to be armed, this means you. In case of confusion, it means exactly what it says.
3. All people shall be secure in their persons, homes and personal effects.
4. All people shall be free from forced servitude, whether through physical or economic compulsion. People shall be free to emigrate or otherwise separate themselves. None may lay claim to the fruits of another's labor without just and agreed upon compensation. No taxation shall be imposed upon property, income or wages.
5. No one shall be compelled to testify against themsleves, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. All Citizens accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. Those who wish to be left in peace shall be, provided they leave others in peace. Government shall not interfere in the lives of its people without just cause.
(Article II is "Colonial Law" section from previous)
Article III
Executive, Legislative, Judiciary.
All authority shall be vested in a Supreme Planet Lord. The Supreme Planet Lord shall rule in whatever manner deemed appropriate, so long as it does not violate the provisions of the preceding Articles. See Right 2.
Hmm. No one taking me seriously now, eh? There's a moral in here somewhere. ???
#2720 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Yet another Martian Constitution - An alternative to Euthenia » 2004-02-05 20:00:27
To those who have read this document, my condolences. You'll never get that time back.:D
Well, I like the Spirit of the thing-but I do have a problem where you use the words "Shall be punished by"
I think you ought to word it, "Shall be punishable by."
That was intentional. "Shall be punishable" implies that the punishment described is allowed or recommended. "Shall be punished by" leaves no room for doubt.
Bleh, stupid constitutions...
It's fun to read, although 5 of the Rights contridicts number 2 of the non-Rights (and potentially 3 and 4, but I'll leave that to you to work out).
BoR 5 guarantees that you won't be deprived of life (by the government) without due process. BoNR implies that you have no inherent right to have life maintained. There is no contradiction between BoR 5 and BoNR 2, unless you argue that death through the natural course of things or as the result of one's own decisions is a violation of due process, which I suppose one could argue but it would put one in the absurd position of arguing against the universe for violation of constitutional rights. Wait until the lawyers get into that one. Presumably, there are constitutional grounds for suing God. But first you have to prove his existence and deliver the summons, assuming the Almighty recognizes the jurisdiction of this government over the entire cosmos.
As for BoNR 3 and 4, it's arguable. But more on that later.
1) I notcied that under the legislative article there is no mention of ensuring trade. Considering that your constitution is designed for the early phases on colonization, don't you think this might be necessary?
This is either an oversight resulting from lack of sleep and proof-reading, or the express intent of the framers (in their infinite wisdom ) to deny the government authority to interfere in trade. Aside from the specifically allowed taxation of sales, they can't do anything. Which is it? This could go all the way to the Supreme Tribunal.
2) How many members sit on the Supreme Tribunal?
I envisioned three, but it could be almost any number. The problem here is that if the Tribunal were expected to rule on a case in a manner opposed to what the Triumvirate desires, constitutionally there are no obstacles to the appointment of new members. They could pull an FDR.
3) The list on Non-rights seems to be just a list of things you are frustrated about. And while I agree in part, a few just sit wrong with me. In #3 you have in a sense declared with your government that forced abortion/sterilization is allowed. If procreation isn't a right, then it is something than can be taken away.
Your assesment of the BoNR is correct. As for 3, this sinister little nugget was intentional. But it doesn't allow forced abortion or sterilization as this could be taken as a violation of BoR 5. What it does do is allow the government to set up a sort of eugenics program to allow only the best specimens to breed. While I do not find this particulalrly desireable, it may be a wise policy given the limited resources available.
But there is more to be said on this another time.
#2721 Re: Not So Free Chat » Challenging America's superpower status - is it possible? » 2004-02-05 17:17:18
Quote (Cobra Commander @ Feb. 04 2004, 19:41)
In addition to the few glimmers of this in Mein Kampf, the idea is stated more bluntly in his "Second Book," (just recently available in English) which he was wisely advised not to publish. This was in 1928.*I've never heard of this "Second Book" before.
I read parts of _Mein Kampf_ years ago (study requirement).
The "Second Book" is a rather obscure piece of history, to the extent that usually when I mention it to someone they think I made it up. It's a very revealing read, even more so than Mein Kampf, though the somewhat clunky writing style persists. Couple that with the fact that it was never really finished or edited and you get a volume of interest to very few.
P.S.: Cobra Commander, I read your "Constitution" post in the new thread you started. You neglected to inform the reader that I, Cindy, own Olympus Mons. Thank you (and please don't forget that again).
Doh! My plan to usurp Olympus Mons is foiled! The Martian Colonial Authority cedes it back, as soon as we defeat Emperor Scott and his claim to the whole planet.
#2722 Re: Not So Free Chat » Challenging America's superpower status - is it possible? » 2004-02-04 18:41:42
Gennaro, I must say that was one of the most well thought out, objective, and accurate summations of the topic I have ever read. Or I might just be in shock to learn that someone else actually read the "table talks" ???
One little point I'd like to add. While Hitler did not want to "conquer the world," he did believe that eventually the Greater Reich would be forced to fight a war for world dominance against America. In addition to the few glimmers of this in Mein Kampf, the idea is stated more bluntly in his "Second Book," (just recently available in English) which he was wisely advised not to publish. This was in 1928.
Of course on Hitler's timetable, he would probably not have been alive to see it and therefore it may well have been avoided by his successors, but who can say?
#2723 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Yet another Martian Constitution - An alternative to Euthenia » 2004-02-04 16:37:18
In response to a post by Scott G. Beach from his "Constitutional Amendment" thread, specifically
if you believe that you know enough about political science to draft a constitution that can endure for 1,000 years then please do so. Post it here for us to see.
Well, It was a slow day at work this morning and I had to look busy, so here it is.
Constitution of the Martian Colonies
It is hereby decreed that the Martian people claim ownership and sovereignty of the lands on which they reside and the surroundings for a radius of twenty-five kilometers from the landing site. This land shall be held in Stewardship by the Martian Colonial government described herein until such time as this colony is functionally self-sufficient. Citizens of the colony shall reside in habitats on this Stewardship land until such time as they are able to relocate into privately owned habitats. Land claims beyond the Stewardship boundary shall be honored provided the claimant can demonstrate intent and ability to develop it. Disputes shall be arbitrated by the Triumvirate until such time as a municipal authority can be constituted.
Article I
Executive
The executive authority of the Martian Colonial Government shall consist of a Triumvirate elected from the colony's population at large. The first Triumvirate, being in place at the time of colonization and preceding the enactment of this constitution, shall preside until the first election. Their Class shall be determined by lot, resulting in First, Second, and Third Triumvirs. Class shall have no bearing on relative authority of a Triumvir. Consensus of two Triumvirs shall be sufficient to exercise executive authority.
Triumvirs shall serve six (Earth) year terms with elections staggered every two (Earth) years, First Triumvir standing for election first, followed by Second Triumvir two years after and Third Triumvir two years after Second. The first election shall take place no sooner than two (Earth) years after the founding of the colony and no later than five (Earth) years, such as determined by the Senate and popular referendum.
Triumvirs shall be elected by a combination of popular vote and Senate vote, each counting for half of the total. A simple majority of total aggregated votes shall be sufficient to elect. (For example, twenty percent of the Senate vote coupled with forty percent of the popular vote wins the election if no other candidate exceeds this combined total percentage. One hundred percent of the popular vote plus one percent of the Senate vote wins, and vice-versa)
To stand for election to the Triumvirate one must be a naturalized Citizen from the founding of the colony or for a period not less than twenty years, or born a Citizen of the colony. No one under the age of thirty-five Earth years shall be eligible to serve as Triumvir.
The powers of the Triumvirate are as follows:
The power to enforce the laws of the colony.
The power to raise military forces adequate to the defensive needs of the colony, subject to Senate review every Martian year.
The power to summon the Senate when deemed necessary.
The power to negotiate treaties with other sovereign entities.
The power to veto legislation passed by the Senate.
The power to appoint judges.
While the Senate holds sole authority to declare and commit the colony to war, the Triumvirate may in time of need respond to attacks on the colony or its interests.
Article II
The Legislative
The legislative authority of the colony shall be wielded by the Senate. Senators shall serve terms of four (Earth) years. Senate elections shall coincide with Triumvir elections. None shall serve in the Senate who have not attained the age of twenty-five (Earth) years and also have been a Citizen of the colony for not less than ten (Earth) years.
Senators shall be elected by direct vote of the Citizen population. The Senate shall consist initially of twenty-five members. The numbers of the Senate and the method of apportioning may be amended twenty (Earth) years after the colony's founding in a manner agreed upon by the Senate at that time and the Triumvirate, so long as changes are not in a manner which contradicts this constitution.
The Senate shall elect one of their number to serve as Chancellor of the Senate. The Chancellor shall remain in the capitol year-round, regularly meeting with the Triumvirate.
The Senate shall hold session only:
Within one month of a Senate election.
When summoned by the Triumvirate.
When summoned by the Chancellor.
By request of not less than five percent of the Senate for purposes of debating legislation pertaining to a specific issue.
By petition of not less than five percent of the Citizen population for the purpose of debating legislation pertaining to a specific issue.
Senators shall not hold session year-round. Senators shall only be compensated while the Senate is in session. This is specifically intended to prevent the Senate from making law except in cases of necessity. Ideally, the Senate should only meet once each term.
The powers of the Senate are as follows:
The power to make law within the sphere of influence granted to it by this constitution.
The power to over-ride a Triumvirate veto with a four-fifths majority vote.
The power to declare war.
The power to levy taxes on the sale or import of goods. Taxation of income, wages or property is prohibited.
The power to propose, approve or deny funding of scientific, military, or domestic spending; provided spending does not exceed the income of the colonial government.
The power to approve or reject judicial nominees. A simple majority is sufficient to approve a nominee.
Article III
The Judiciary
The Judiciary shall consist of a Supreme Tribunal appointed by the Triumvirate and as many lower courts as the Citizen population may create through ballot initiative or referendum. Supreme Tribunal members serve for eight (Earth) years. Triumvirs are not eligible to serve on the Tribunal for a period of ten years after leaving office.
A ballot initiative to create a lower court must include the region for which it will have jurisdiction, the organizational form if not following the same arrangement as the Supreme Tribunal, and be approved through petition by not less than fifteen percent of the Citizen population in that jurisdiction to appear on the ballot. Voting on such initiatives shall take place only together with Triumvir and/or Senate elections.
The Triumvirate or Senate may propose to create a lower court. Such a proposal must be decided by referendum of the Citizen population who would fall under the new court's jurisdiction.
The purpose of the Judiciary is solely to interpret existing law. "Legislating from the bench" shall be grounds for dismissal and/or legal sanctions at the discretion of the Triumvirate and rulings in such cases shall be void. Only the creation of law shall constitute such offense, striking down existing law is within the purview of the judiciary.
Article IV
Colonial Law
"If an action brings no direct, quantifiable harm to another individual nor infringes upon the rights of another it cannot be criminal." This shall be the foundation of the law. Laws which do not conform to this principle are invalid. As incarcerating criminals is not economically viable under present Martian conditions, penalties other than incarceration are mandated. Following this principle, the following crimes are recognized and penalties prescribed. The following shall not be construed to constitute the entire body of law, but rather a guiding core. The laws shall be simple and clear, a force to protect the people rather than bind them.
Vandalism of public property, punishable by fines sufficient to repair the damage and public flogging of not more than five lashes, except in cases where facilities or equipment vital to life-support are damaged. In these cases the presiding tribunal may impose harsher penalties at their discretion.
Vandalism of private property, punishable by fines sufficient to repair the damage paid directly to the owner of said property and public flogging of not more than five lashes.
Theft, punishable by fines in excess of the value of the goods stolen paid to the victim if a private Citizen, or fines sufficient to replace the stolen goods paid to the controlling authority in cases of public property. Additionally, the offender shall endure public flogging of not more than five lashes.
Home invasion, punishable by the installation of video cameras and microphones in the residence of the offender and exterior screens for public viewing, or otherwise making "transparent" the residence, for a period of not less than one month. No room shall be exempt from this, including sanitation facilities. In addition the offender shall be punished with public flogging of not more than five lashes.
Murder in the third degree, as defined as unintentional death directly caused by the actions of the offender, punishable in a manner to be decided by the presiding judicial tribunal taking into account the circumstances of the event.
Murder in the second degree, as defined as willful killing not premeditated, shall also be punished in a manner decided by the presiding judicial tribunal taking into account the circumstances surrounding the event.
Murder in the first degree, as defined as premeditated willful killing, shall be punished by execution in a manner appropriate to the crime, at the discretion of the presiding tribunal.
Rape, punishable by execution in the following manner: The offender is to be impaled vertically on a sharp stake approximately waist high to the offender. The offender shall be denied food and water until such times as they expire, then to be disposed of in an undignified manner.
Killing in self-defense shall not be construed as murder. Further, a special case shall be made regarding the last two offenses as follows, if an individual commits murder in the first degree against one who is then proven to have committed rape against a victim known to the individual who stands accused of murder, that murder shall be treated as murder in the second degree for legal purposes and subject to lesser penalties, details of which shall be decided by the presiding tribunal.
All those charged with a crime shall not be convicted absent a unanimous decision of a jury of their peers possessing an understanding of the specifics of the case, the law, and being generally of sound judgment. All relevant evidence is to be presented prior to determination of guilt.
Article V
Citizenship
All colonists of the first settlement shall be Citizens under this constitution from the moment they set foot on Martian soil. Citizenship may be granted to newcomers in a manner to be prescribed by the Senate and ratified by the Triumvirate. Children born of a union of which one or both parents were Citizens shall be Citizens at birth. Merely being born within the boundaries of the colony governed by this constitution shall not confer Citizenship. Citizenship cannot be revoked by the colonial government.
Article VI
Martian Bill of Rights
Addressed to the people of Mars
The following are rights of every Citizen and are inviolable under this constitution.
1. No law shall be enacted abridging the freedom of speech, expression, or the freedom to peaceably assemble.
2. No law shall be made prohibiting Citizens from owning weapons which can be practically used for personal defense. Further, the ownership and carrying of such weapons shall not be subject to permits. All Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, this is not a collective right, every individual has the right to be armed, this means you. In case of confusion, it means exactly what it says.
3. Citizens shall be secure in their persons, homes and personal effects. Searches shall only be carried out by duly constituted authorities presenting a warrant specifically describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. A warrant must be approved in writing by a judicial tribunal with constitutional jurisdiction. Assets seized from a Citizen must be returned if the Citizen is not convicted of the crime in question, or the Citizen's immediate family if convicted. No government agency may make use of seized assets.
4. Citizens shall be free from forced servitude, whether through physical or economic compulsion. Citizens shall be free to emigrate or otherwise separate themselves. Neither a Citizen nor government may lay claim to the fruits of another's labor without just and agreed upon compensation.
5. No Citizen shall be compelled to testify against themselves, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. All Citizens accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The enumeration of these rights shall not be construed to negate others not listed. The purpose of this constitution is to limit the power of government, not to grant power to the people in whom power naturally resides.
Article VII
Martian Bill of Non-Rights
Addressed to the people of Mars
1. There is no right to a forum for an individual's free speech or expression. No one has to give you broadcast time, no one has to print your writings, no one has to listen to you.
2. There is no right to life. Your life and health are your responsibility. Consequently there is no right to medical care, housing, food, clothing, employment, etc.
3. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a right to procreate.
4. Just as the fruits of your labor are your own, so do the fruits of another's labor belong to them. It is not unfair and no one is a victim. No one is obligated to take care of the lazy.
The enumeration of these non-rights shall not be construed as granting others not listed. Granting such would not be rights, but entitlements which are the wages of slavery. If you want to be taken care of and controlled, move to New Euthenia.
#2724 Re: Not So Free Chat » Kurdistan? - Do it right! » 2004-02-02 17:17:50
Hmmm. . .
Wouldn't this require nuance?
Indeed it would, of the sort I doubt democratic nations are capable of.
Besides, Turkey has already offered troops and we have already said "No" because of Kurdish concerns. That shows such ideas were not in the minds of our planners. Breathtaking naivete' - - especially in Condi Rice.
Just one of many examples of America's military weakness. We are superb at pummeling an enemy into submission with minimal civilian casualties, but when it comes to occupation and manipulating the population of that occupied nation we're blundering amateurs. This is something I fear we will have many opportunities to improve on in the coming years.
#2725 Re: Not So Free Chat » Kurdistan? - Do it right! » 2004-02-02 16:40:06
When I first got word of plans for Turkish troops to be used in the occupation I was baffled at the magnitude of such a blunder, given the history between them and the Kurds, but now that I think it over more it could work out well if played right.
To (over)simplify, we have the Kurds flirting with independence, but also that nagging fear of Turkey seizing their land, fairly likely given that an independent Kurdistan may prompt Turkey's Kurdish region to try joining them. The presence of Turkish troops may help to influence them to seek a stronger position as part of Federal Iraq.
Some may see through this, but it isn't our fault. We're acting unilaterally, remember. it's that damned UN doing this to you. Or so the subtext would be.
The Kurds are offered independence, but out of their own security concerns decline.
These kinds of games can backfire, but if done well it could be exactly what the situation calls for.
Of course we're talking about the same Administration that didn't think firing the entire Iraqi army would be a problem. ???