The foundations of your ideal government

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

Congratulations! You have just been granted sovereignty. As the interim leader of your people, the masses look to you for guidance on how to proceed with the rigorous process of building your government. The parchment and quill pen are in your hand - what will you do?

A building should have a strong foundation, and a government should have strong founding principles. If you had to draft a constitution for your own nation today, what would be the core values that you would base it on? What rights would you guarantee your citizens, and what would you restrict? What would be the role of your government - its rights and responsibilities? What parts of your constitution would be adaptable, and what would be consistent?

Blah blah health care socialism town hall astroturfing birth certificate. Now none of you can say this post didn't get through your search filters, so let's see some ideas.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The foundation of my ideal government would be one that accepts the necessity of leadership that protects the weak and the vulnerable and yet also answers to the masses as the fulfillment of their will.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And that's the crux of the problem right there. To protect minorities implies restrictions on the rights of the majority, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. To respond to the masses also limits the perogative of the rulers, including the ability to protect minorities possibly....it's the tougher part to make ideals reality than it is to have them.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except the question isn't "How would you rule a better government" it's about an ideal government.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I don't think even an ideal government could pull that off. An ideal world, maybe.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

The problem I see is you can end up with a tyranny of the minority, which in a sense leads to a revolt of the majority, and minority rights become restricted again.

"To protect minorities implies restrictions on the rights of the majority"

I would submit that this is a sweeping generality, and not necessarily applicable to most basic rights (I do concede that there is a rather broad definition of the term basic rights :D and my contention can easily be dismissed with a few specific examples)

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

That's a good principle. Very similar to mine.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's pretty sensible if you want to avoid mass revolt....

[redheadrat.livejournal.com]

and then we get a smartass who asks you to define every weak and vulnerable person

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

We do?

Where?

Smartasses R Us?

[redheadrat.livejournal.com]

largely depends on the population

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

Perhaps your constitution would be more malleable in order to adapt to the needs of its people, then.

[redheadrat.livejournal.com]

Its not as much needs based, as needs of all humans are about the same adjusted for climate.

It is about the cultural aspects.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

A constitution written by one man is not a constitution worth having.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

A constitution ratified by one man is not a constitution worth having. I see no problem with one person writing it, so long as the people feel it suits their needs.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

The process means something, it is important. Anyone can write a constitution, but it takes a society to adopt a constitution, and that takes compromise, consensus, amendment, etc. If all you are saying is, "what document would you present to a constitutional convention for amendment and adoption by a society," then you aren't saying anything much different than I.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what I asked for - a draft.

So what would yours look like?

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't answer my own questions, so here goes:

My underlying foundation can be summed up in one sentence: The role of the government is to protect the basic well-being of the people, as long as the people are willing to accept and support it. (I had intended to use the word "welfare," as it was used in the U.S. Constitution, but I didn't want to confuse anyone.)

The basic rights would be:
1) Freedom of opinions, ideas and beliefs. As long as the physical actions of the people do not violate law, they will be free to express any opinions they want. All censorship of "indecency" will be handled completely on a local level (so that those who wish to have may live in a locale with like-minded individuals), while national media will be protected from censorship on the national level (locales may choose to ban publications or stations at their discretion).
2) Informed participation in government. The government will be a republic, but more democratic in style, with the ability to vote on a regional level for major proposals made by the national government. Representatives may still choose to ignore the majority opinion of their constituents and vote the way they feel is best, but doing so would be grounds for impeachment by public vote. In an effort to ensure that the system is advanced by those who care enough about an issue to understand it, citizens must be able to prove a basic understanding of the text in the bill they are voting for or against in order to cast their vote. Elections for representatives are open to all citizens of voting age, and voting records of candidates will be easily accessible. Debates would be held and regulated so that candidates would actually have to discuss their ideas on important issues, rather than attacking each other.
3) Protection of life, liberty and property (yeah, I stole this from the original U.S. ideals). There will be laws against the physical harm, wrongful detainment, or abuse of another person against their will (with burden of proof on the accused to show that it was not against their will), or the dishonest swindling or theft of property and money (which includes laws protecting consumers by regulating information on the products and services they buy). Citizens will be allowed to arm themselves, so long as any have a permit showing they are trained in the use of any firearms they own and each firearm is registered. Citizens will also be allowed to defend themselves, their families, and their homes through the use of force, but the burden of proof will be on the citizen to show that the threat existed (so people cannot simply shoot guests in their home, but can shoot someone breaking in).

(continued)

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

4) Clear understanding of the law. Laws may be drafted and passed in legal terms when necessary to prevent loopholes, but should also be "translated" into layman's terms so that any citizen can easily understand them. There will be an official language, but only to make it easier for the government to participate in clear communication with its people; the people will not be required to use it, or even to understand it, as long as they are able to follow the law regardless. All laws must be easily accessible to the public, and any amendments to existing laws must be made to the original laws. Proposed laws must have a main purpose, and all sections of the law must conform to that purpose; "piggybacking" is not allowed.
5) A fair trial by jury in cases where sentencing involves prison time.
6) Protection from abuse. Police will be required to have their actions recorded at all times while on duty.
7) Protection from foreign invasion. A standing army will be kept to be used for purposes of homeland defense and international conflict.
8) Safety nets for employment and health. An unemployment program will be established in order to help support those who lose their jobs, but for no longer than one year, in the case of those who are able to work. For the disabled who can no longer work in their previous field of employment, funding will be provided on the basis of need in order to re-train them in a field they can participate in, so that they will be able to return to the work force. All citizens will have access to a basic, but limited, health plan, so that the possibility for the private sector to provide better coverage at a higher cost remains.
9) Basic education. Education will only be forced through grade school (or primary school, as you may call it), and only to legal age. Further education through high school (secondary school) would be funded by the government, but would not be forced - if guardians and child all agree, a child will not have to continue past basic education, and may choose instead to learn a specialized trade as an apprentice. Parents cannot force a child to quit school, and a child cannot quit without the permission of the parents (unless the child is of legal age and emancipated). All testing will be somewhat standardized to ensure that children are learning the things they need to know, and if they do not pass, they will have to repeat - children will not be pushed through the system without learning enough to help them in the real world.

This is just what I've got right now. I'm sure it would need a lot of work to become a viable system. Still, it's my starting point.

[xpiscesgrl227x.livejournal.com]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I personally believe your rights end when you infringe on someone else's, but I'm not sure how I'd write that up and enforce it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A plain-English version of the current Constitution with current vernacular (to eliminate "confusion" around terms like "well-regulated" and "general welfare"):

* Clearer protections against racial and gender discrimination by the government.

* An explicit ability for the Supreme Court to intervene on legislation that does not meet Constitution muster.

* An explicit, easy way to remove members of the government who act in ways that are not in accordance to the Constitution.

* A clear and precise note that the document, as it does today, assures limited government and passes along rights to the states and the people.

The US Constitution is one of the better, if not the best, foundational document in the world. The only problem with it is the people who insist on distorting it, so that's the major stuff that needs to be addressed.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I think that clarifying the U.S. Constitution would be a pretty good idea for the actual U.S. government.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I like it - follow the Constitution we already have with a bit more emphasis on accountability. Or else:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Why the Hell not?

Aliens ruling us couldn't be worse.....

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

That's the best thing ever.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'd certainly start with that. No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Works for me. With the possible exception of your Supreme Court idea.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because? Genuine curiousity.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Possibly because I may not understand what you mean.

I kinda think they have too much "power" now, without any real checks and balances. Since too many times what is actually constitutional depends on the make up of the court. Or am I just too cynical?

[mcpreacher.livejournal.com]

the universal declaration of human rights is far superior to the u.s. bill of rights, so i'd probably start there and maybe add a "mcpreacher is awesome" holiday so we can celebrate life and hotbox it up with ambassadors of other countries to try and hash out our differences

[caernarvon.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'd include all the rights that people wanted, except that they would be labelled privileges instead of rights.
Also, each right would have a corresponding duty; if the duty is not performed, then you do not have access to that right. You get what you pay for.

I'm just curious as to what would that look like...for example, what sort of duty would you have for the privilege of the Free Exercise of Religion? or the privilege against Unreasonable Search and Seizure?