Ludicrous extrapolations or common sense?

[yondyr]

The Bill of Rights...that beautiful, laudable, hopelessly flawed instrument of justice. Laudable for its ambition and rarity among countries - flawed because the ultimate test of its clauses rests with its comparison with the norm at any point in societies' development. Ideally the concepts should be applicable over millennia.

Being a philosophical libertarian as opposed to a political libertarian...politics being the art of compromise, satisfying none, I would like to hold a set of beliefs that all situations could be tested against without having to make exceptions.
I'm simple minded, I like unwavering laws, like 2 plus 2 always is 4 (and dont mess me up with base 8). So let's take free speech, embodied in the first amendment.
One cannot print a lie, defame, nor can one speak a lie, slander, in public, but amazingly, still the gossip gets around, making a mockery of those two laws.

We cannot shout 'fire!' in a theatre. Another abrogation of free speech that most people approve of. But consider, should all and any public utterances be permitted? The consequences - not the immediate one of a stampede over dead bodies for the exits with the mischievous one watching in glee at the terror, but the inuring of people to such situations, could be beneficial. The very reason fire drills are practiced elsewhere. While initially there would be loss of life, people will become accustomed to waiting for evidence of a fire, or an official announcement and will have learned to proceed to the exits in an orderly manner.
The greatest inconvenience would be having to view the screen around the movements of the untrained or gullible. Right now, all fires cause a stampede because there have been no practice fire drills...
One might actually say those fire shouters were doing a public service.....

[Hdier]

We need to throw away the constitution and write a new one.

Also, if an apartment building is burning, the fire alarms are out, and somebody shouts fire but no one moves becuase they won't believe it until they see it with their own eyes (are you sure you're not an S?) then twice as many people will probably die.

[yondyr]

Were I an S, then I might angst over loss of life...

[prometheus]

We need to throw away the constitution and write a new one.




But, only if individuals get a choice to personally adopt it.

[Bossy Mom]

We need to throw away the constitution and write a new one.

Also, if an apartment building is burning, the fire alarms are out, and somebody shouts fire but no one moves becuase they won't believe it until they see it with their own eyes (are you sure you're not an S?) then twice as many people will probably die.

Could you please give us a detailed description of a constitution you would write? I'm very curious.

[Hdier]

I am a 14 year old freshman in High School, and I would leave that to wiser heads. I will give a few examples, though.


The way we have the government set up (legeslative, executive, and judicial) doesn't work. We need to have the people vote for representitives for what we do, then decisions will go on vote to the people, with each side making it's argument.
We need to fix immigration laws. If we did it right, we should be able to allow the majority of people in, without to much hassle


And so on, and so forth. As I said, I am a freshman in High school, so I don't know enough to offer solutions. I'll leave the two honest politicians to that.

[OneBadMother]

Were I an S, then I might angst over loss of life...

Nay, were you an F you would. Were I not an INTP I might not have corrected you. <_<

[yondyr]

Were I not an INTJ I would have minded being corrected.

[rocksteady]

I am a 14 year old freshman in High School, and I would leave that to wiser heads. I will give a few examples, though.


The way we have the government set up (legeslative, executive, and judicial) doesn't work. We need to have the people vote for representitives for what we do, then decisions will go on vote to the people, with each side making it's argument.
We need to fix immigration laws. If we did it right, we should be able to allow the majority of people in, without to much hassle


And so on, and so forth. As I said, I am a freshman in High school, so I don't know enough to offer solutions. I'll leave the two honest politicians to that.

hmm, when you get older you may see why letting "the people" vote on every issue is a bad idea..."the people" cannot be trusted to make rational decisions.

[Hdier]

I'll assume that you're saying 'you're inexperianced, let me explain this to you' rather than 'he's young and must therefore be ignorant'.

Maybe if we had everyone vote on the big stuff, such as war, and have officials decide on the smaller stuff, such as legal drinking age. Then if a set percentage of people wanted to do a vote on something then it would go on vote.

Also, that argument can be used to justify the Borg. Er, I mean a dictatorship,

[MichaelH]

Hdier, what you're describing is almost exactly implemented in California. Public referendums mean that if enough people are passionate about a law or government issue, they can have it put on the ballot to be voted on directly by the people. The whole legislature is side-stepped in creation of the new laws. The courts still have judicial review powers, but it allows the people to express themselves more-or-less directly.

I do have some recommendations for expanding an understandably naive (we all started there!) vision of democracy:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Tyrany of the Majority" - the group can crush minority interests inappropriately; see gay marriage or segregated drinking fountains for an example of this.
The fact that 50% of the population, by definition, is under 100 IQ, and 100 IQ isn't really all that sharp.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Doppelbock]

Could you please give us a detailed description of a constitution you would write? I'm very curious.

And also a justification for why we need to throw it out and write this new one? What, other than the fact it's being largely ignored, is wrong with the Constitution?





Doppelbock added to this post, 1 minutes and 38 seconds later...

And also a justification for why we need to throw it out and write this new one? What, other than the fact it's being largely ignored, is wrong with the Constitution?

Oops, I should have read ahead; looks like you already answered.

[Kirkaine]

The system is slow enough without having every bill go to public vote.

There are only a few, very minor things in the Constitution I would change, given the choice (thing like Presidential elections will be held the tusday after the first monday of november every 4 years. Seems strange to me).