A Utopia

JustHalf

I was wondering about what would need to be in the constitution of a country to ensure the freedom of it's people. A Utopia.

So far I have come up with what I have below. I'd like people to discuss these, and show any flaws in my results if there's one there.

RIGHTS
1: All citizens shall have the right to free expression.
2: All citizens shall have the right to freedom of thought.
3: All citizens shall have the right to criticise the government of this country if they so see fit.
4: All citizens have the right to have freedom of movement in designated public areas and on their own property.
5: All citizens have the right both to vote and stand for election, once they have reached 18 years of age.
6: All citizens have the right to life. This is a fundamental right that no person or agency can remove.

ELECTIONS, POLLS AND REFERENDUMS
1: All citizens over the age of 18 are entitled to 1 vote each in any and all national polls; and 1 vote each in any and all local polls.
2: All citizens who wish to run for election must perform a minimum of two-hundred hours public service. They will then be granted a standard electoral allowance for their campaign.

I'd like everyone to read (and debate) these and add as much as possible.

C B

As a constitution should aim to outline the nature of the state I think it would be more worthwhile to list the duties and responsibilities that the state owes it's citizens.

e.g. While the state accepts the primacy of individual liberty it also recognoises that liberty is achieved through positive intervention rather than passive abstention. In order to balance these often conflicting objectives the burden of proof should remain with the State to expain how it's action will positively enhance the liberty of the citizenry.

Shinji

Most first world nations do not miss out on Utopian status through flaws in their constitutions, they miss the whole "Utopia" thing because so many of the citizens are selfish, stupid, ignorant, greedy, cruel or inhumane.

Hell is other people. Which would be all very well, except that HEAVEN is other people as well...

amp

No matter what system of government that has been tried it's always involved corruption at some level. Democracy at least provides a few safe guards against this by asking the people every half a decade or so who they want their leaders to be.

The theme of Utopias often appears in sci-fi shows and it almost always invlolved some serious downsides, like the population is brainwashed or robots or something.

As a species we need to evolve mentally before a Utopia can be achieved and to be honest I think I'd find it to be incredibly boring.

I mean there be nothing to moan about.

---

Lunacy Abounds! GLminesweeper RO><ORS!
art is everything and of course nothing and possibly also a sausage

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
4: All citizens have the right to have freedom of movement in designated public areas and on their own property.</font>

This would limit freedom of movement to whereever the government designated! my 2 eurocents

---

Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

Bluehair

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by amp:
No matter what system of government that has been tried it's always involved corruption at some level. Democracy at least provides a few safe guards against this by asking the people every half a decade or so who they want their leaders to be.

The theme of Utopias often appears in sci-fi shows and it almost always invlolved some serious downsides, like the population is brainwashed or robots or something.</font>

Democracy seems to have failed too. Witness the "florida vote" debacle and even read the 'Coke' thread here to see democratic justise in action.

The irony is the victors in our 'democracy' are those who can brainwash us the most and believe the retoric.

I can't help feeling Shinji may have hit the nail on the head by suggesting that; "so many of the citizens are selfish, stupid, ignorant, greedy, cruel or inhumane".

Any Utopian society or government must evolve from and acknowledge these base characteristics of humans. Others have failed because they ask too much of the ordinary man (marxism?...)

What interests me though is the potential of the internet in this discussion. Any thoughts?

---

When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to ask is if they ever press charges.

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bluehair:
The irony is the victors in our 'democracy' are those who can brainwash us the most and believe the retoric.</font>

[subliminal message] Victor doesn't brainwash [/subliminal message]

[subliminal message] Victor doesn't brainwash [/subliminal message]

[subliminal message] Victor doesn't brainwash [/subliminal message]

...

---

Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

[This message has been edited by Victor (edited 25-06-2001).]

Manach

I'd add a few points to the made up of the military.
One needs an army, if only to keep a certain type of personality in check.
The ruling government should
a/ give a fixed part of the GDP to it.
b/ tell which external enemy to wage war upon.
All other decsions must be under the control of the armed forces with the tacit understanding that they will never interfere in the civilian government.

Oh, and don't forget, a royal family for the same reson the king is the weakess and the most valuable in chess.

<brainwashed and dry-cleaned>Must send Victor my piggy bank </brainwashed and dry-cleaned>

GreenHell

No such thing as a Utopia face it we'd all get ****ed off with its perfectness after a few years.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by amp:
No matter what system of government that has been tried it's always involved corruption at some level. Democracy at least provides a few safe guards against this by asking the people every half a decade or so who they want their leaders to be.</font>

I was looking into further ways of safeguarding the people from undue interfence from the state, and the state undue interference from corporations.

I've got nothing against the idea of a corporation, but I have serious questions about the behaviour of several. Nestle, Microsoft, and Coke in particular.

In the states, the oil companies have undue influence atm. President Bush's campaign was run (partly, but with a considerable proportion) on oil money. Now, he plans to devestate the Alaskan wilderness, a wildly unpopular move.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Victor:
This would limit freedom of movement to whereever the government designated! my 2 eurocents</font>

I think this ties in fairly close with the system we have today... we're allowed in public places, our own property, and we can allow others onto our property. We're not allowed go anywhere in every government building.

This enshrines it as a *right*, which it is very important. It means that the government could not take it away without referendum.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by GREENHELL:
No such thing as a Utopia face it we'd all get ****ed off with its perfectness after a few years.</font>

Would such a place be perfect though? No!

[This message has been edited by JustHalf (edited 25-06-2001).]

scutchy

>>1: All citizens shall have the right to free expression.

I concur - although some might argue that arson is a form of free expression. A good principle, but open to semantic debate.

>>2: All citizens shall have the right to freedom of thought.

Absolutely.

>>5: All citizens have the right both to vote and stand for election, once they have reached 18 years of age.

Slight gripe with this one - why 18? by not allowing children responsibility when they are young, we limit them. I'd prefer if everyone was allowed a vote, provided they could prove a rudimentary grasp of the issue at hand - some sort of test.

>>6: All citizens have the right to life. This is a fundamental right that no person or agency can remove.

Depends on your definition of life, and personally I'd like to see a euthenasia clause.

>>1: All citizens over the age of 18 are entitled to 1 vote each in any and all national polls; and 1 vote each in any and all local polls.

I prefer proportional representation myself - I find it fairer on minorities.

>>2: All citizens who wish to run for election must perform a minimum of two-hundred hours public service. They will then be granted a standard electoral allowance for their campaign.

I like it ;-)

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
I think your ideas are flawed, (JustHalf) because there are times when the rights of individuals or the state can clash.</font>

So are you saying that no-one should have rights? I never said they *wouldn't* clash, but these are rights that I would to discuss, to add to or remove from an idea of a Utopia.

I think you're confusing what my idea is. My idea is to build a state (or change a state) to as near a Utopia as possible, where citizens are safe to live out their lives without unwarranted influence from the State or Corporations (which should never have state-like powers, they're only a company).

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
For instance if I use my freedom of speech to incite others to attack you or your property, you right to safety and life is affected.</font>

Equally, I could use my right to freedom of expression to calm the group with some mellow music.

There will be conflicts between people's rights, but if someone directly causes a riot they have committed a criminal offence, as an accessory to the crimes involved in a riot.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
This is an extreme case.</font>

You betcha.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
An individual would like to continiue to live in their nice housse, but the state needs to build a new motorway, so that people can commute to work, but live in a nice out of town area.
This kind of compulsory land purchase order is common enough.</font>

Can you explain this further? I don't think this is fair.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
For a Utopia to work , you would just need 1 law, but better people
"Love one another" (Jesus Christ)
</font>

You can't make it *law*. You can't force anyone to love anyone else.

JustHalf

In addition to the previous post... it should probably be added that: these rights bring with them responsibilities. Actions have consequences, and all citizens must accept the consequences of their own actions.

scutchy

>>"Love one another" (Jesus Christ)

Surely you aren't suggesting a Christian Theocracy as Utopia?

Something about putting a group of people in charge who believe that everyone outside their clique is going to burn for all eternity in hell... worries me.

scutchy

Just a thought, and I highly doubt anyone will agree with me on this one:

Get a piece of paper.
Write on it:

People shall live according to their instincts, make judgements according to their experience and live life as they see fit.

Once this is in place, burn the piece of paper.

This depends on people being raised properly though - to take the example of hunger:

Each of us is born with an innate sense of hunger. We know when we are thirsty, we know when we need more vitamins, and we know when to stop eating. If we listened to this sense of hunger, we would all live happier, healthier lives.

However, through our childhood, we are rewarded for good behaviour with sweets and chocolates and begin to associate happiness with high sugar and high fat foods. We are told to finish all that is on our plates and loose the ability to tell when we are no longer hungry. We also eat at set intervals, not when we are hungry, but when it is convenient. Our natural sense of hunger is lost, leading to eating disorders, obesity, malnourishment... plus the media tries to con us into believing that there exists an 'ideal' body type we should all aim for - not true.

As children, we are raised without responsabilities to make us grow and mature. Some religions teach us that man is inherently evil, and that we should not give in to the temptations of our natural instincts - so some start to supress them - with dire consequences for society. (Brother Ambrose springs to mind.)

In other words, if we didn't mess people up from day one, everyone would get on reasonably well. Society is based on an imbalance, if we remove it, we will not need rules to live by.

Xterminator

Quote

I think you're confusing what my idea is. My idea is to build a state (or change a state) to as near a Utopia as possible, where citizens are safe to live out their lives without unwarranted influence from the State or Corporations (which should never have state-like powers, they're only a company).
There will be conflicts between people's rights, but if someone directly causes a riot they have committed a criminal offence, as an accessory to the crimes involved in a riot.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You can't make it *law*. You can't force anyone to love anyone else.</font>

In your utopia, the right of individuals will often clash. also there are times when the good of the whole comes into conflict with the rights of an individual.(eg porn is banned in some societies,for the good of the many) Not always in criminal ways.
eg. I want an extension, you want to be able to get sunlight in your back garden. my extension will block your light.
This cannot be perfectly resolved,under any rules, because those in power can abuse the system. Thus utopia is a dream, not a reality.

However if we all followed the addage "Love one another" we would not want to offend /impose on our neighbours.
We would respect their different views.
We would love their habits, and find them endearing, not irrirtating. We would be willing to sacrifice what we want , to see others be happy, and this would in tourn make us happy.

Of course you cant force people to love one another , hence my point, we need better people, not better laws.
Communism was a good idea in theory. People ****ed it up.
Capitalism can be a good idea, people abuse it.

[

Originally posted by Xterminator:
For a Utopia to work , you would just need 1 law, but better people

Finally in our world, most people try to make other people better, in the ideal world, we will just try to be better people ouselves.


[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 26-06-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 26-06-2001).]

Xterminator

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
>>"Love one another" (Jesus Christ)

Surely you aren't suggesting a Christian Theocracy as Utopia?

Something about putting a group of people in charge who believe that everyone outside their clique is going to burn for all eternity in hell... worries me.</font>

I dont know if you are accidentally misunderstanding my message or deliberately misrepresenting it!

Jesus taught about tolerence. Where did he advocate anything like what your describing?
Jesus ministered to the lepers and the prostitutes.
Jesus helped the people who most needed him, and when asked why, he replied does a doctor come to those who are well, or to the sick?

If you loved someone, you wouldn't burn them, attack them or exclude them because the are a different creed/culture.
That is hate, and your right, just as we have made a mess of Democracy, Communism, and 20 other forms of govt. we have made a mess of attempts of theocracy.
But that re-enforces my argument.
It should be possible to have an open tolerant theocracy ,democracy, corporate state, or communist state, where those who were different were cherished and loved.

But i am not advocating any form of government, just saying i think that striving for Utopia is a good thing, but without facing the real reason why other systems have failed, you won't get far.

scutchy

>>Jesus taught about tolerence. Where did he advocate anything like what your describing?

Christianity is HARDLY a tolerant religion - Jesus himself said "No man shall come to my father except through me". The premise of this religion is that only those who are Christians (accepting that Christ died for their sins) get to heaven - all others go to hell.

I don't find that in any way tolerant.

As for the Judeo-Christian God: "I the lord thy God am an angry and jealous God..." lovely chap.

As for Christianity, it has long seen fit to destroy other cultures and spirituality - not tolerant.

>>If you loved someone, you wouldn't burn them, attack them or exclude them because the are a different creed/culture.

Unlike the history of Christianity?

>>we have made a mess of attempts of theocracy.

A Christian Theocracy cannot include non-Christians in a tolerant way.

>>It should be possible to have an open tolerant theocracy ,

I disagree.

Sorry - gotta run.

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf re: "freedom of movement":
I think this ties in fairly close with the system we have today... we're allowed in public places, our own property, and we can allow others onto our property. We're not allowed go anywhere in every government building.</font>

I still think that you hav eit phrased wrong - the way you have it, the State could designate tiny areas as 'public' and effectively ban freedom of assembly or recreation and confiscate lands. Nice sentiment - wrong words.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
>>"Love one another" (Jesus Christ) Surely you aren't suggesting a Christian Theocracy as Utopia? Something about putting a group of people in charge who believe that everyone outside their clique is going to burn for all eternity in hell... worries me.</font>

OK, without wanting to be overly flippant, what if he said "Love one another" (hippy chick a the start of the orgy)?

---

Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

[This message has been edited by Victor (edited 26-06-2001).]

scutchy

>>Jesus taught about tolerence. Where did he advocate anything like what your describing?

Matthew 10:21 -

Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name's sake.

Luke 14:26 -

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18:22 -

And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

If you want to sell all that you have, great! But in a Theocracy, I'd have to sell all I have too... hardly tolerant.

Mark 7:21 -

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

Doesn't even sound tolerant of humans! I don't like that attitude and think it's responsible for most of the world's ills.

Mark 7:26 -

Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoeni'cian by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

Referring to Gentiles as dogs is hardly tolerant.

Matthew 10:5 -

Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans

another great example of tolerance...

Matthew 15:22 -

And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Matthew 11:23 -

And you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.

Nice and tolerant to non-Christians, eh?

>>Jesus helped the people who most needed him,

See Matthew 15:22 and Mark 7:26.

Please give me ONE instance of Jesus preaching tolerance, or retract your comment.


>>If you loved someone, you wouldn't burn them, attack them or exclude them because the are a different creed/culture.

You might want to take a flick through the old testament mate

Are you saying that a Christian Theocracy would be tolerant of gays, satanists, wiccans, witches, atheists, polygamists or naturists?

And what happened to the sodomites?

>>We have made a mess of attempts of theocracy.

Even the religious will tell you that the state should not mandate a religion. Here's a test - name the best ever Theocracy.

Karl Hungus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:

1: All citizens shall have the right to free expression.</font>

Great... Now I can wear my "Jesus Is A C**T" without being arrested...

Xterminator

I think your ideas are flawed, (JustHalf) because there are times when the rights of individuals or the state can clash.
For instance if I use my freedom of speech to incite others to attack you or your property, you right to safety and life is affected.
This is an extreme case.
An individual would like to continiue to live in their nice housse, but the state needs to build a new motorway, so that people can commute to work, but live in a nice out of town area.
This kind of compulsory land purchase order is common enough.

For a Utopia to work , you would just need 1 law, but better people

"Love one another" (Jesus Christ)

JustHalf

I think what you are trying to discuss is interesting Scutchy, but it is beginning to get out of topic. Would you mind starting a new thread?

I ask as I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion about whether or not Jesus was tolerant. This is a subject best given its own topic.

Just my opinion.

Ri-ra

I have to agree with JustHalf. the topic of Jesus' self-referential inconsistencies could easily fill the trolls board to bursting...

Xterminator

Originally posted by Xterminator:
It should be possible to have an open tolerant theocracy ,democracy, corporate state, or communist state, where those who were different were cherished and loved.
But i am not advocating any form of government,

i agree this thread has moved from the original topic.
To restate my position, in my words (not those supposed by others) I believe that to have a Utopia, we simply need better people.

The framework of laws we have in Ireland is not perfect, but it could be made to work, and the imperfections solved though existing framework, but only if everybody fulfilled their moral obligations.

I think instead of trying to frame better laws, we need better behavior.

scutchy

hy

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
I think what you are trying to discuss is interesting Scutchy, but it is beginning to get out of topic. Would you mind starting a new thread?

I ask as I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion about whether or not Jesus was tolerant. This is a subject best given its own topic.

Just my opinion.</font>

No probs - actually, I think I might just drop it. On reflection, I think I agree with Xterminator's goals, but not his methods of getting there. I feel humans have an innate ability to work together if allowed to do so - in a sense being "better people". I feel where Xterminator and I disagree is in our methods of getting better people.

My apologies for going off topic - it started off as a slight tangent in my mind, and then I went and wrote what appears to be the longest post in the thread ;-)

If anyone wishes to discuss Jesus' morals and ethics, please feel free to start a new thread. I should be online this evening or tomorrow morning, and in future.