Constitutions, Laws and Rights - Implications and consequences

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-17 18:01:30

For the purpose of this post I'm using the US Constitution as a loose template for future Martian law, as a familiar document should keep this at least somewhat locked in reality.

soph · 2003-01-17 18:14:13

None. List the few that are absolutely necessary, and then let the society decide the rest. Certain rights (freedom of X) are obvious, but others are determined by the society.

I say we make a loose constitution like the US, and leave the unlisted rights as subject to the interpretation of the listed rights.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-17 18:27:09

A is good. I think it's necessary to have a constitution that is clear. But the only way it would be like tax code, is if people were given tons of ?rights.? The more rights you ?have? the less rights you potentially have due to certain circumstances... ie, resource appropriation or what have you. If I have the right to have a monopoly or whatever, then I can say, use that right to abrogate someone elses right to assemble (if I own all the parks, and so on). Does this make sense?

When we speak of individual rights, less is more. Perhaps a preclusion right which says that any right not explicitly given within the constitution is not expressly denied unless that right goes against the rest. Is that fair?

B is equally good, though. Although it would put the interpretation of the constitution in the hands of a judicial system. Though an inefficient government is a good one in many ways, a government which is constantly interpreting its own laws is bad, since judges can change it one day to the next.

Under guise of C, we could technically attempt to overthrow the government or a colony, in a coup or what have you, then when we're captured or accused of treachery, we can merely say that we're ?expressing our rights as individuals!? We have guns, we have free speech, we have a whole crapload of people. Hey, we resemble an army! But we're not an army, we're peacefully assembling people exhibiting our free speech. Don't mind the guns, they are happy friendly guns.

D is, well, no worse than C. Both are extremes of the conditions.

All in all, I think a clear, simple, constitution is best. Less is more.

Mainly due to the fact that constitutions really aren't going to be the mainstay with regard to things like this. It's how the individuals within the society act themselves.

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-17 21:29:53

When we speak of individual rights, less is more. Perhaps a preclusion right which says that any right not explicitly given within the constitution is not expressly denied unless that right goes against the rest. Is that fair?

That seems like a good approach, assuming that the distinction between "rights" and "entitlements" is clear. For example, Zubrin's "Rights of Mars" contains many of the latter, which tend to create a poulation of dependents rather than free citizens.

Under guise of C, we could technically attempt to overthrow the government or a colony, in a coup or what have you, then when we're captured or accused of treachery, we can merely say that we're ?expressing our rights as individuals!? We have guns, we have free speech, we have a whole crapload of people. Hey, we resemble an army! But we're not an army, we're peacefully assembling people exhibiting our free speech. Don't mind the guns, they are happy friendly guns.

That's essentially what I was getting at. If a group of armed people actually barricade or attack something, they are obviously trying to accomplish something outside the accepted legal process, but if they don't obstruct access to anything and don't discharge a single firearm or use a weapon in an overtly threatening manner it gets a bit fuzzy. The "threat" exists entirely in the minds of those who are the object of the protest. To acknowledge a private "right to bear arms" implies that arms can be borne in public, otherwise it's just a right to "own, store, or use arms in regulated enviroments, but not carry or allow to be seen in public".

Can we prohibit individuals from exercising a right because they might abuse it or commit a crime? If so, then it could be argued that people can be arrested for responding in a disagreeable manner to the State of the Union address. While I was in a kinda goofy mood when I posted this thread, I'm now finding myself increasing drawn to Option C.

All in all, I think a clear, simple, constitution is best. Less is more.

Agreed. Under certain conditions (such as colonial Mars, perhaps) a bill of rights reminiscent of that in the US (minus amendment ten, of course) may be all that is required. Basically, "The government has authority to do whatever is necessary as long as it does not violate these basic rights..."

It's either practical anarchism or some form of benign fascism ???

soph · 2003-01-17 21:41:38

Except that you vote for your rulers. And there is a big difference. Usually, republican/democratic republican government implies a capitalist economy. This will be necessary on early mars, because by making a profit, the colony will be able to bring in more goods.

We could try out new economic concepts from scratch (flat tax, etc...not new economic systems ), and right the failures of our congrssional system (bills should be in plain language, with no unrelated pork, and the budget should be written in plain language for everybody to understand...congressional terms should also be limited...we dont want strom thurmond on mars.)

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-18 00:17:13

That seems like a good approach, assuming that the distinction between "rights" and "entitlements" is clear.

Well, I know what you're suggesting, and I agree (surprise). Any good constitution won't go so far as to define entitlements. Ideally, the only rights given would be individul rights over self. For example, free speech, free religion, free assembly, the right to have possessions, the right to protect ones self in a manner consistant with that which it takes to defend ones self.

Okay, wait, I know what you're thinking. No guns, eh? Well, don't you think it's better to simply say that you can protect yourself in consistant way? A person could have a hand gun, and a colony could have larger weapons. If we say people can carry weapons, we have the dilemma of, ?How big and how nasty of a weapon can you carry??

The so called ?right to bare arms? negates the sovereignty of a colony. Say there's a colony which does allow weapons, but doesn't allow certain kinds of weapons (this is absolutely no different from a country allowing handheld guns, but not being to friendly to WMDs), perhaps high powered plasma guns or what have you. Constitutionally, they would have to allow these people to bring their weapons in, if we explicitly said that they had a ?right to bare arms.? However, a right to protect ones self doesn't endanger the individual rights of others, because you could still bring in your knives, or billy clubs, or whatever. In a colony where high powered weapons were banned, though, I couldn't imagine what in the hell you'd have to be afraid of.

An interesting thing, is that the preculsion right I spoke of could go so far as to abrogate your own rights; as long as those actions don't harm others, of course. So I don't know if this is a good thing or bad thing.

To acknowledge a private "right to bear arms" implies that arms can be borne in public, otherwise it's just a right to "own, store, or use arms in regulated enviroments, but not carry or allow to be seen in public".

Oh, well, it is preceeded by the whole, ?well regulated milita? bit ain't it?

No, really. You have a valid point, but I think that you uphold the right to bare arms too much. Weapons inherently imply that you have something to be afraid of. That you feel that your well being is above anothers. It would be infinitely hard to interpret a march upon a city with weapons as anything other than a rebellion of some sort. Indeed, when was the last time you saw a peoples armed in a third world country march upon cities peacefully?

Can we prohibit individuals from exercising a right because they might abuse it or commit a crime? If so, then it could be argued that people can be arrested for responding in a disagreeable manner to the State of the Union address.

Well, why do individuals deserve a right that is inherently abusive? Peacefully assemble, remember? If someone gets arrested for doing something disagreeable at the State of the Union address, like, say, pull out a megaphone and start blaring out complete drivel (even if it was about an issue I agreed with), I can't say I'd pity them. And I'd be surprised if you did. (Obviously I would have an issue with them being arrested, for say, holding up a non-obstructive sign, or perhaps, turning their back in slient protest; I don't think those things are ?disagreeable? to a large majority of sane people.)

While I was in a kinda goofy mood when I posted this thread, I'm now finding myself increasing drawn to Option C.

Personally, I'm going with a mix between A and C. The difference, though, is that I think rights should be completely and utterly limited to the individual. This way, if an individual creates a big bomb (how can one justify protecting the individual with a big bomb?), he can get in trouble for it, but if an individual wants to carry a regular handgun for protection, he will be fine from a legal standpoint.

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-18 01:03:06

a right to protect ones self doesn't endanger the individual rights of others, because you could still bring in your knives, or billy clubs, or whatever.

Overall I agree, but individuals need to have weapons equivalent to those of the people that they are protecting themselves from. If a gang of thugs is running around with shoulder fired plasma cannons, some kind of projectile weapon with equivalent range is needed by the public.

It would be infinitely hard to interpret a march upon a city with weapons as anything other than a rebellion of some sort.

Yes, but a march with harshly worded signs also qualifies as a rebellion of some sort.

Indeed, when was the last time you saw a peoples armed in a third world country march upon cities peacefully?

I can't think of an occasion off hand. But then, I can't come up with an example of an uncorrupt election in the third world either. Doesn't mean it can't happen. I'm really not trying to advocate allowing private armies to march down public streets, but I just can't see justification for prohibiting it. It seems wrong, but sometimes common sense... doesn't really make sense when you examine it.

Well, why do individuals deserve a right that is inherently abusive? Peacefully assemble, remember? If someone gets arrested for doing something disagreeable at the State of the Union address, like, say, pull out a megaphone and start blaring out complete drivel (even if it was about an issue I agreed with), I can't say I'd pity them. And I'd be surprised if you did. (Obviously I would have an issue with them being arrested, for say, holding up a non-obstructive sign, or perhaps, turning their back in slient protest; I don't think those things are ?disagreeable? to a large majority of sane people.)

Ah. I should have been more clear, by "disagreeable" I meant any response that showed an unfavorable opinion of what was said.

Personally, I'm going with a mix between A and C. The difference, though, is that I think rights should be completely and utterly limited to the individual.

I think that all true rights are limited to the individual. If it's something you can just do, it can be a right. If it requires some institution or outside body it can't be a "right." A interesting thing to come from this interpretation is that there is no "right to vote."

This way, if an individual creates a big bomb (how can one justify protecting the individual with a big bomb?), he can get in trouble for it, but if an individual wants to carry a regular handgun for protection, he will be fine from a legal standpoint.

Right. A bomb can't be used defensively. If someone tries to rob you, what good is pulling a bomb on them? Unless you anticipate a robbery and plant the bomb preemptively, Bush Doctrine style.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-01-17 18:01:30

Re: Constitutions, Laws and Rights - Implications and consequences

#2 2003-01-17 18:14:13

Re: Constitutions, Laws and Rights - Implications and consequences

#3 2003-01-17 18:27:09

Re: Constitutions, Laws and Rights - Implications and consequences

#4 2003-01-17 21:29:53

Re: Constitutions, Laws and Rights - Implications and consequences

#5 2003-01-17 21:41:38

Re: Constitutions, Laws and Rights - Implications and consequences

#6 2003-01-18 00:17:13

Re: Constitutions, Laws and Rights - Implications and consequences

#7 2003-01-18 01:03:06

Re: Constitutions, Laws and Rights - Implications and consequences

Board footer