DISCORDIANISM: NO SUCH THING

[fomenter]

Who decides what an "adult" is?

the age of consent is a social interaction and determined by the majority/politicians?

to sell as he will so long as it does no harm beyond the harm the purchaser does to himself the purchaser assuming full responsibility for his own actions,   it sounds good but it smells of tricky territory

Okay, so in this system, what is the punishment/penalty for the adult who buys the meth for someone underage who then dies after ODing on said meth? 

this is the tricky territory
                                                         
it will still require government, enforcement,taxation, educated and informed people voting etc. i don't think it will work much better than what we have without a whole lot of educated and informed voters "then maybe"

[AFK]

Who decides what an "adult" is?

the age of consent is a social interaction and determined by the majority/politicians?

to sell as he will so long as it does no harm beyond the harm the purchaser does to himself the purchaser assuming full responsibility for his own actions,   it sounds good but it smells of tricky territory

But hold up, I thought the point of this new system is that there isn't a majority or politicians imposing their will on the minority.  Or have we changed that now? 

Okay, so in this system, what is the punishment/penalty for the adult who buys the meth for someone underage who then dies after ODing on said meth? 

this is the tricky territory
                                                         
it will still require government, enforcement,taxation, educated and informed people voting etc. i don't think it will work much better than what we have without a whole lot of educated and informed voters "then maybe"

Call me crazy, but the more and more this is discussed, the closer and closer we get to the system that is already in place.  Am I imagining this? 

[LMNO]

I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

[Cainad (dec.)]

I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

[fomenter]

Perhaps I need to refine this concept of social interaction into two subsets... Social Interactions where all parties agree (such as "I agree to sell this rabbit. I agree to buy this rabbit" ) and social interactions where someone may interfere with the personal freedoms of others ("I got stoned off my ass and accidentally hit your car when I was parking" or "I will blow smoke in your face while you eat"). The former would be an expression of personal freedom of two individuals and the latter examples of someones actions impinging upon the freedom of others.

Of course, this brings up situations where the goods were produced in a way that infringes on the freedom of others (blood diamonds, sweat shop clothing etc). Obviously such things would be illegal to produce in the US, as any infringement on some persons freedom would be covered under the first rule. Imports would have to be managed through the State anyway (tariffs etc) so perhaps a utilitarian solution would need to be found here. Tricky tricky...

more tricky territory the need for regulation and responsible enforcement doesn't go away or the need for an educated and informed consumer i don't want to buy slave labour goods but how will i know if they are?

[fomenter]

I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

this plus a much better informed ,educated voter/consumer

[LMNO]

"Full Disclosure" only works if you know what questions to ask.


"Was this toy made in a sweat shop?" is much different than "Will this toy explode in a ball of fire if I use it on a Tuesday?"

[AFK]

I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

this plus a much better informed ,educated voter/consumer

I would also add "active".  Activists are activists because they enjoy being activists as much as they believe in their cause.  But so many more get mad but just sit their on their couch and take it.  I think if you could fix THAT situation somehow, you'd get better results.  And you may mobilize a substantial army of Americans who do believe marijuana should be legal.  Or that some of the other laws that you believe restrict individual freedom should be lifted.  This whole Bailout provided the most heat on Congressmen I've seen in quite some time.  But it needs to be moar and moar often. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm pretty sure that when we started this discussion I stated:

I think a much better system could exist than we have at this time. I say this, because we once had a system in the United States that was MUCH CLOSER to the above than we have now. There were horrible flaws (like the social acceptance of chattel slavery), however, with our modern social awareness and the historical example, a better national system could be implemented.

The MAJOR difference between this and what we have now:

The first responsibility of a free society, should be to protect all citizens from having their personal freedoms stepped upon

Yes, its tricky territory. Its not simple and clear cut... I'm not a tenured professor of politics and I don't have all the answers. I think you all have done a great job of pointing out issues with the examples and theories I've thrown up. I think this is the right direction; a government that guarantees personal freedom, but I don't think I've got the right implementation as you all have shown.. Much more work yet to be done.



Unfortunately, I'm heading out for the New Years night of drinking and Partying and can't continue further now. Perhaps tomorrow, depending on how much alcohol I consume

I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

this plus a much better informed ,educated voter/consumer

I would also add "active".  Activists are activists because they enjoy being activists as much as they believe in their cause.  But so many more get mad but just sit their on their couch and take it.  I think if you could fix THAT situation somehow, you'd get better results.  And you may mobilize a substantial army of Americans who do believe marijuana should be legal.  Or that some of the other laws that you believe restrict individual freedom should be lifted.  This whole Bailout provided the most heat on Congressmen I've seen in quite some time.  But it needs to be moar and moar often. 

A good point... but it still seems backwards. The government should not have the right to pass laws restricting freedom, then face the citizens if they happen to not be distracted by whatever Viacom is puking up on the television

I think perhaps Vexati0n's post was much closer to something implementable than mine, and it would cover both the government (free to pass what the Will) and the citizen:

I still think the best way would be to allow the State to have its little tyranny fantasies, and counter that with a strong Judiciary that is inherently weighted in favor of individual rights, maybe even to the point that you don't even need a hearing to overturn a law you're charged with breaking if the Government cannot meaningfully demonstrate why that activity should be prohibited in your case. Just fill out a "waiver of prosecution" form and you're free to go.

Perhaps I need to reconsider my thoughts with this included...

[AFK]

Have fun.  I'm out until probably Monday or Tuesday, but I'll try to digest whatever happens between now and then and add wherever appropriate. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

here's the actual solution:

The power to enact the law is vested in a body of officials elected by convicted felons;

The power to enforce the law rests with an armed force of volunteers, is a part-time job that pays in the six-figure range, and lasts no more than three months (consecutive or cumulative) per person, ever, except for the Executive who receives no pay at all and whose term is never shorter than four years and never longer than ten, but always ends with a surprise assassination;

The power to interpret the law is given to old people who can prove they are reasonably good at Chess;

All criminal charges, regardless of how "insignificant," result in a jury trial, jurors are paid no less than five hundred dollars per day they are sequestered, and the jury has the power to overturn and nullify the law on a case-by-case basis. In jury trials, there is a judge, but his only function is to nod his head thoughtfully. In the event that the Defendant is found guilty and sentenced to execution, it is the Judge's duty to go-go dance naked in a cage for the criminal's amusement.

[fomenter]

i am all in favor of a more thelmic interpretation of the system we have now. stupidity, lack of understanding of freedom and what it means, and of course the inevitable corruption of government are the biggest stumbling blocks to making it happen, the details  (there are many) could be worked out based on the laws we have already. the hard part is preventing its corruption (good functioning checks and balances) and getting an educated/Wise public.

if i was to suggest a first step in this direction it would probably be to get education out of the hands of government, if people who "learn to think" do better in this world and the education system was profitable to teachers based on success, the  successful schools would teach students to think and within a generation or two  these changes in favor of personal freedom would become far more likely

[P3nT4gR4m]

Nice dream but it's never going to happen I'm afraid. Too many extremely powerful fuckheads with a vested interest in the status quo.

Rights will continue to be afforded to those who seize them, in spite of, not because of any government or reforms thereof. All the rest of humanity can sit on their asses and wait or get all bolshy and campaign for change. In the meantime I'll be doing whatever the hell I please.

[the last yatto]

"I doubt such a system would be perfect, but I think it could be implemented in a way that provides much more personal freedom, and voluntary agreements."
seems almost like common sense...

"Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter?"
seems to allow status quo of the good boys club

"Well, that's true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service."
takes money to make money. could this instill a survival of the fitness for government resources?


"Alaska"
I dont know if they are a good example here, they like to behave like a state in of itself even going as far as some people having the state flag in the blue spot reserved for all 50 stars not just their dipper and north star. but wonders if states held the funding for themselfs instead of sending it up to dc for allocation how different would our taxes be?

"This also reduces the need to go find everyone personally and get them to agree to protect the spotted owl. The State can create a bucket for the poor owl... but each citizen can choose to dump money in, or not as they will. "

so basicly a general lotto and then donation bins to pick up the slack. whats to limit companies from donation to using their machine of operation from using their resources to basic keep doing what they are doing now>? what happens when city councils and mayors or other senate n executive branches butt heads? could funding vanish almost overnight due to aggressive PR campaigns?

what happens when groups run into each other in this system, peta bread vs hummer logs
what to stop public roads and other infrastruction from going into private hands and requiring things like a toll

[bds]

"I doubt such a system would be perfect, but I think it could be implemented in a way that provides much more personal freedom, and voluntary agreements."
seems almost like common sense...

"Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter?"
seems to allow status quo of the good boys club

"Well, that's true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service."
takes money to make money. could this instill a survival of the fitness for government resources?


"Alaska"
I dont know if they are a good example here, they like to behave like a state in of itself even going as far as some people having the state flag in the blue spot reserved for all 50 stars not just their dipper and north star. but wonders if states held the funding for themselfs instead of sending it up to dc for allocation how different would our taxes be?

"This also reduces the need to go find everyone personally and get them to agree to protect the spotted owl. The State can create a bucket for the poor owl... but each citizen can choose to dump money in, or not as they will. "

so basicly a general lotto and then donation bins to pick up the slack. whats to limit companies from donation to using their machine of operation from using their resources to basic keep doing what they are doing now>? what happens when city councils and mayors or other senate n executive branches butt heads? could funding vanish almost overnight due to aggressive PR campaigns?

what happens when groups run into each other in this system, peta bread vs hummer logs
what to stop public roads and other infrastruction from going into private hands and requiring things like a toll

lrn2quote.