Legal Basis of GG

[Metal Bunny]

Due to a slump in the world of university debating, and a thankful end to my internship, I have some free time left and I wish to sharpen my mind.

I figured that my sense of philosphy, law, logic, ethics, economics, psychology, pragmatism, social interaction, the state, legitimacy, trias (or maybe four... mmmh) politica, etc... could use some practice.
I also figured that because we have no king anymore who does not enforce rules, nor are his rules actually existent, as there is no legitimate basis for it.
This leaves room for only the in-game rules and the in-game judiciary, executive and legislative branch of murness leave a lot of ambiguity and are based on an intuitive sense of fairness - of only a few people.
Don't get me wrong, we do the same thing as well, as we superimposed the rules and the way we govern this alliance.
Also, don't get me wrong, I don't think there is something fundamentally wrong so far, as with so few people, there is no pressing need for this thinking about things such as checks and balances, etc.

It's just that I want to practice, breathe some life into this forum and basically create something new in MD which could also be handy for some weird emergency later on or something.

So.. let's write/give thoughts about
1) Constitution (and everything that implies)
2) Branches of government
3) Checks and balances (actually, this is in everything already, if we do it right.)


A warning though, I do intend to use this as practice for my university debating career, so while you may give suggestions, improvements or questions, I myself will go very deep with my analysis and reasoning as well as possible implications and consequences, while treating both real world (because we still interact as humans) and MD issues. And when I say I'll go deep with my reasoning, I mean, I'll go deep as a prisoner who's getting desperate.

Also, jokes

So yeah.. let's try constitution first? If we got something nice, then I'll put it in a new forum without typo's and crap, just regard this as the notepad.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Metal Bunny

[Metal Bunny]

Also, apparently, I have done this in the public forum. Didn't really care about the difference, as I actually wanted to make a charter for the alliance of GG, not the land, but, meh. This works fine as well. Maybe even a bit more challenging as some of us might actually propose for elections for the executive branch (which might hold the citizen activation stuff and access to the WPCodes etc).

*edit*

Aah, crap. This is the public forum of the GG alliance.. Could someone move this topic to the public forum of GG the land?
Thankies

Edited January 27, 2012 by Metal Bunny

[Chengmingz]

Branches of government with what power over each other? Is there going to be judicial and legislative? Which one would be given more power to influence each other?

C

[Metal Bunny]

Well, beyond the fact that this is about topic 2, and not 1 (constitution), I do believe it is debatable. (yay debating).
In the netherlands the emphasis is on the house of representatives, the legislative branch. In the US it's more of an executive branch (president) and then senate, before house of representative.

So.. really, you decide, how do you want to see the branches of gov work out? Emphasis on legislative or executive? or dare I say it, judicial? (or maybe a fourth power, scrutiny (press, checks and balances, independent civillian mechanics, etc).

Also, thanks for moving the topic.
Also, I will write down my suggestions for the constitution tomorrow. My argumentation will be lengthy (or handily sparsed with wiki links) and will thus be posted later

[Grido]

Forgot to say I moved the thread about 2h ago to the public land forum section

I've been looking at constitutions lately, they're long and boring. But unfortunately/annoyingly necessary at times.

I'll post properly later tomorrow.

[Burns]

While being happy for you that you're bored enough to worry about that, i've still got exams ahead. I'll throw in random lines every now and then, but don't expect any more before next weekend.

Bah!

[Metal Bunny]

[b]*Edit* I realize that for a lot of people this is tl;dr and don't worry, I will make my legalese clear in seperate, handy posts with reasoning and examples.[/b]

OMG, I pressed backspace and it went back and deleted all my text! AARGh!

Anyway, could someone put this topic back in the golemus forum? It is useful and not offtopic. Constition.. important, no?

Oh god, I have to rewrite all of this.

I am going to write down the articles and put the argumentation in here later. If people want, we can divide the articles and vote for them, though we might need a hidden forum where only GG citizens may enter. (reasoning for that later).

Article 1: The sovereignty of the individual is to be treated as equal before the law and the state. There is to be no discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics such as religion, race, species, RL nationality, age, gender, and others.

Article 2: The power of the state is to be divided, to prevent tyranny and safeguard the sovereignty of the individual that has been entrusted to the state.
2.a: The first branch is the executive, they hold the power of the people and must ensure the safety of the sovereignty of the individual.
2.b: The second branch is the legislative, they hold the will of the people and must pave the way of the state and impose limits to safeguard the purpose of the state and the sovereignty of the individual. (this means I am promoting collectivism and order)
2.c: The third branch is the judiciary, they hold the reasoning of the people and must arbitrate and deliberate upon what is right or wrong. They curb the other powers and must ensure order on the basis of reason. (so if the people democratically decide to impose a tyranny, the court must rule this as stupid and say no.)
2.d: The fourth branch is the press, they hold the scrutiny of the people and must remain decentralized to ensure the prevention of the possibility of collusion or corruption of the other three powers. The state holds the obligation of protection, but not of regulation of this power.

Article 3: The people may exercise their sovereignty through direct execution of their will by way of voting, or enter into one branch of government.

Article 4: The sovereignty of the state and of the people, along with the execution of their sovereignty, is to be held as an execution of the subsidiarity principle and holds itself as dependent, contingent and continuous upon the rules of the world and its creator, [b]unless the judiciary and the press[/b], decide not to on the basis of popular will and reasoning.

(this may spark some debate... want to join us Mur? )

Article 5: The subsidiarity principle holds true to the case of already established and future to be established, entities of the state. This means that the sovereignty and the power of the state is to be divided into levels where they are best applied. This will not be on the basis of territory, but on the basis of official alliances and guilds.

Article 6: The people hold right to have their sovereignty protected and as such have right to a fair trial. This also stands on the subsidiarity principle and as such holds true to article 4.

Article 7: The people, as they gain protection from the state, are also to be expected to protect the state and hold a civic duty to its people.

Article 8: As territory holds only sentimental value, the rights of the individual and the powers of the state extend upon the citizens of the state and not its sovereign territory. (this is already status quo, and really, the other lands have no legal basis, nor do we, as none of us have kings...)

Article 9: The state and its branches will hold the difference in value of the sovereignty of territory and of individuals to be standard in practice and shall thusly only hold the rules of the land and territory itself, applicable only to the possibility of the enforcement of those rules in GG territory.

*edit* (can't believe I forgot this one)
Article 10: The state shall perform in duty only according to the people's will, based on their reasoning, not on their attributes nor personal attachments.
(secularism)

This is a really rough first draft.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Metal Bunny

[Metal Bunny]

I'll work like this: (I'm going to edit this constantly, because I don't want a repeat of the backspace incident.) If something is unclear, try wiki first

1: The article
2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
3: Intended effect
4: Examples
5 Implications and consequences

So...

[b]1) [/b]Article 1: The sovereignty of the individual is to be treated as equal before the law and the state. There is to be no discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics such as religion, race, species, RL nationality, age, gender, and others.

[b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
[spoiler]While this may be an absolute truth to many of you and completely self-evident, I myself, do not find this to be naturally so.
I will defend it, especially because if you do say that it is self-evident and say that all men are created equal, like a certain famous person, you might forget something because your reasoning has not been fully thought out. You might forget, for instance, slaves.

Anyway, the creation of equality, on the basis of Moore's and his contemporary's reasoning, is a great way of reasoning to ensure cohesion in a fledgling state and make sure that protestants and catholics and anglicans don't go all happy tree friends on each other as they did in europe, and to make sure that no single Tyrant would rule alone, unaccountable. They were also believers, be it Deists or Theists, and believed that they were all made in God's image or some rational derivative thereof.

I however, lay the foundation of equality on a different form of reasoning. Go and wiki "Veil of Ignorance". In essence, none of us got to choose the majority of attributes in life, nor the situations in life, including the parameters that decide which attributes are important.
For example, we didn't get to choose to be born smart or strong, nor to be born into a world that values smart or strong people.
Luck then starts to play a factor and luck does not play into our own sense of fair, nor justice.
In essence, if luck would be allowed by the state to play a factor, then the law would uphold a 'might makes right' position and this would be detrimental to the order of society itself and against cohesion as men would turn upon men, feeling justified by happen stance. Tyranny would be imposed, almost on the basis that one would deserve one's lot in life and that the weak deserve oppression and the strong adoration.

But this luck and might makes right, violates a couple of great ideals.
Let us start with the sovereignty of the individual and how this is just awesome. The sovereignty of the individual is the person itself, along with his or her will. It is in a way, one's integrity; one's body and mind; one's power and will. To argue why this is and should remain awesome, we should try and see what happens if the right of the strong is allowed to supersede that of the weak.

When this is the case, the weak are at a disadvantage. Not only are the strong to be pulled ahead, given advantage upon advantage (Only smart people should get education), whereupon you maintain the strong and impoverish the rest, this could lead to a different ruling of the law (he couldn't have been wrong, he's strong), or a situation whereupon the disenfranchisement of the weak allows the strong to manipulate society so that they could effectively be in such a position.
(smart guy wins a court case wherein the smart guy says that the dumb guy broke a contract, but the dumb guy couldn't even read the contract, because there was no education to teach him to read, and the smart guy made sure that only smart people get to learn how to read).

Once this situation sets in, the mindsets of people may change. Some may feel this is righteous and fair, others will disagree. But in essence, the people who feel this is righteous and fair, will feel vindicated by the fact that there are differences between people and that some simply are [i]better [/i]than others in some things. This predicates the belief that they are better in everything. If you wish to see the most entitled or arrogant people, look at the aristocracy of old, or the oligarchy of today.
Men will believe that they are superior, when in reality, they were simply lucky enough to be born with an attribute that fits this world better.
This, then, ultimately results into a process that is disturbing in itself, as the 'might' will believe itself so superior, that equal treatment will become unfair in their eyes.
This results, in thanks to the already advantageous position of the strong, into the institutionalization of the impoverishment of those born unlucky.
Slavery comes to mind.

When this is the case, two objections come into mind. The sovereignty of the individual of a person born unlucky, is fated to be oppressed in a fastidious, structural way, day after day, year after year, with no chance of improvement, no end of suffering in sight, nothing to lose.
When the sovereignty of the individual is to subject to a sense of 'nothing left to lose', nothing but outright violent rebellion is justified, as the individual itself, rationally speaking, simply has no other choice.
To quote Captain America: "Rebellion becomes Self-Defense"... .

This is an objection because
1: This is deplorable in itself. The state is to facilitate the happiness of all its citizens, why else would they become citizens?

(The citizenship of GG is a conscientious choice, but that happiness is the goal of all living beings is a given as it is the way one obtains happiness that is the point of contention amongst all of mankind. (Since this isn't necessary for me to explain in the realm of MD (because one is not born into the world of MD without choice), I won't explain further why happiness is the goal of all living beings (it depends on your definition of happiness though), but it essentially means that the state's objective remains the same because rather than choosing for citizenship if the state complies, you now actively renounce citizenship if the state doesn't, for more see social contract and veil of ignorance.)

Such grievous unhappiness is not necessary and counters the purpose of the state.

2: The state is to maintain order in order to maximize happiness opportunities. Rejecting the opportunity for happiness is deplorable and results in rebellion by the oppressed, creating chaos or even anarchy. Without such order, the state cannot function and it's citizens may as well have been, de facto, not in a state.
Combining this, the state can only function successfully if it upholds to it's purpose and the demands of the individual, and mitigates factors such as luck, as no individual would [i]beforehand[/i] agree to a state in which the laws are made such that if you were unlucky enough to be 'weak', that you would continuously be oppressed.
In reallife this means that no one would wish to be born, with such a grievous risk in being born weak, and in MD, this means that no player would choose to be a GG citizen, when the chance of oppression would be real and insurmountably high.
[/spoiler]
In summation: to not do this would be unnecessarily stupid and self-destruct the state.


[b]3)[/b] Intended effect:
That all branches of the government will use their own respective powers with equal will, pursuit and discretion for all its citizens and upon all its citizens.

[b]4)[/b] Examples:
... really? No crap like; this court finds Metal Bunny guilty of being an awesome bunny, but the fairies and knights get to live peacefully. There is your example

[b]5[/b][b])[/b] Intended effects and consequences:
If circumstances are equal for all citizens, then all citizens are to be treated the same, without regard to their innate characteristics.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Metal Bunny

[Metal Bunny]

[b]1) [/b]Article 2: The power of the state is to be divided, to prevent tyranny and safeguard the sovereignty of the individual that has been entrusted to the state.
2.a: The first branch is the executive, they hold the power of the people and must ensure the safety of the sovereignty of the individual.
2.b: The second branch is the legislative, they hold the will of the people and must pave the way of the state and impose limits to safeguard the purpose of the state and the sovereignty of the individual. (this means I am promoting collectivism and order)
2.c: The third branch is the judiciary, they hold the reasoning of the people and must arbitrate and deliberate upon what is right or wrong. They curb the other powers and must ensure order on the basis of reason. (so if the people democratically decide to impose a tyranny, the court must rule this as stupid and say no.)
2.d: The fourth branch is the press, they hold the scrutiny of the people and must remain decentralized to ensure the prevention of the possibility of collusion or corruption of the other three powers. The state holds the obligation of protection, but not of regulation of this power.

[b]2) [/b]Argumentation:[spoiler]
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is mostly due to the process I described earlier, in which the person with power will appropriate to him or herself that power and internalize it.
Face it, we don’t like to lose or leave out on power, even if we know it is the right thing to do. For we are creatures to whom power is the ultimate tool of obtaining individual happiness, which is of utmost importance to us.
As such, we have no real incentive to stop gathering more power and as we internalize this power more and more, we will have made power into its own goal, subjecting ourselves on a higher basis than others.

As stated earlier, the goal of the state is to provide happiness, in the form of order and protection.

But protection and order cannot come if an older generation has difficulty releasing power onto the next, for reasons described above. If that is the case, then unrest and eventually chaos may ensue.
To prevent this, power must be limited in the sense that it is obvious and permanent. Once power is limited, it is far easier to remove that power and to transfer it onto another.

As for the division of power, this is simply to prevent collusion and conflicts of interest. The division is made such that accountability remains an issue for all involved in the political factor. If there is no accountability, then there is no pressure or incentive to abide by the people’s will. Once you deviate from that unrest and chaos may ensue once more.



Reasoning a:
The executive is there, because someone has to do it. It’s an obvious branch, but it’s mainly a branch to ensure that it can and should be held accountable to the other branches in order to ensure maximum democratic mandate. It is this branch that has the greatest potential for abuse and should thus be isolated, in order for accountability to come to the fore.



Reasoning b:
The legislative is there, because it’s a direct way of showing the executive branch of what the people exactly want. By creating this branch and letting it direct, or limit, the executive branch, you will replace a lot of personal ambitions and motivations with the will of the public, which is what the state should do. If there were no legislative branch, the executive could simply do as it desired, without accountability to the people.



Reasoning c:
The judicial branch is there to arbitrate each case and each suspect by the law and test them with reasoning and keep the executive and legislative independent.
If this branch were to not be independent of the executive, the executive could, as an example, steal from a citizen and then say that they didn’t actually break a law.
If the judiciary was not independent of the legislative, then the legislative could vote for a silly rule and implement a law that says that all humans should be the property of the Bunny Empire, and then immediately call it constitutional and force the executive to abide by the law.
Naturally, the branch is here to ensure that the two other branches don’t lord over each other.



Reasoning d:
In some cases it is possible that despite the division of the branches, they still work together in secret. Where instead of the above examples, where you would have one branch still being tyrannical, if there were no judiciary, there would now be two (Hungary) or even all three branches working together in order to remove accountability, so that they may pursue their own ideals and preferred policies.
The press is the last stand, and is the last possibility of the people to show their will and desire.
Some may say that de facto, not much changes if you put it in the constitution.

I argue however, that the moment something is law, people will internalize it more and give it more respect. By enshrining it into the constitution, the entire state internalizes its importance and is thus more likely to respect its boundaries.
But, by instating also that they should remain decentralized and protected only and not regulated, you ensure that each individual may protest peacefully in any way they so desire, whenever and however they so desire. To allow this ultimate expression of the sovereignty of the individual is paramount to the success of the state, for if there were none, then the opportunity for the individual to express their desire and thusly for the state to act upon it, would be smaller, which would mean less happiness and more unrest.
(This article also implies freedom of speech btw... in case you didn’t understand my babbeling).[/spoiler]
In summation; if we don't do this article, tyrants may become a reality and the people and the individual sovereignty of the people will be oppressed.

[b]3)[/b] Intended effect:
No more kings, no more dicatators, no more tyrants. Rule by the will of the people.

[b]4)[/b] Examples:
President Bunny wants to invade.. I dunno, the air or something, and the judiciary says it's stupid and removes him, the press applaud the action and the legislative pass a law that ensures that nutjobs don't get to be president.

[b]5)[/b] Implications and consequences:
It would mean a republic by popular will. A real consequence to this could be that for example:

- Legislative passes a law that makes murder a criminal act.
- A GG citizen is murdered
- President (or General or whatever) collects evidence and testimony and pursues and prosecutes the suspect.
- Judiciary then decides if the suspect is guilty or innocent.
- if innocent, the executive pursues and prosecutes other suspects
- if guilty, the judiciary sentences the criminal and the executive jails/fines the criminal.

According to Mur's standard, this would still be a land rule and as such, the king, now replaced by the executive, has the [b]right[/b] to jail the criminal.
No need for that non-transparant and unaccountable Council, no need for Mur, no need for anyone to [b]intervene[/b].
We would have taken care of our own problem, in the way we think is best, this saves time on council and mur's side and makes us happier.

What's not to love?

[Pipstickz]

[quote name='Metal Bunny' timestamp='1328063233' post='103037']
According to Mur's standard, this would still be a land rule and as such, the king, now replaced by the executive, has the [b]right[/b] to jail the criminal.
No need for that non-transparant and unaccountable Council, no need for Mur, no need for anyone to [b]intervene[/b].
We would have taken care of our own problem, in the way we think is best, this saves time on council and mur's side and makes us happier.
[/quote]
Is this not exactly what Yrth tried to do when he made Eon a citizen* and jailed him? I am assuming that the murderer is not a GG citizen, therefore GG land laws would not apply to them, therefore what right would the executive have to jail them, or even to call them a criminal? Unless your court is meant for internal affairs only, then it's not much of my business what you do to each other. Apologies if you've addressed this already, I haven't actually read everything you've posted.

*See here: Ann. 1969 - [2011-08-09 16:37:28 - Stage 10]

[Master]

The land's Judiciary,President (or General or whatever),Legislative ....etc. will be formed of players which don't abuse power, which are Objective to almost everything and will pass FAIR judgement and calls.

If so is the case then I agree !
Count my vote in !

[Mallos]

To be honest I like Kings better.

[ChildOfTheSoul]

I agree with Falronn. Having one leader for each land just makes sense.

[Chengmingz]

I do favour Kings and Queens personally but what's to say that we cannot have other types of governments. Perhaps each land could have their own distinct type.

C

[Metal Bunny]

@ Falronn, ChildOfTheSoul... Why?

I gave enough reasoning as to why you should disperse the powers that a king has, and you just dismiss it with 'I like it better'?
Your opinion is valued, but your reasoning should decide. Remember that.

@ Chengmingz
This is in the Golemus forum for a reason.. I don't really care how the other lands form their governments

@ Pip, no, you're absolutely right. Only internally. I planned on writing that later.
Unless of course, the government of, for example, Loreroot and GG agree to a treaty and agree to 'extradite' the criminal.
If no such thing happens, then diplomatic ties would sour, but it wouldn't be cause for war, so really, it's like how nations handle criminals in the real world.
If the nations are allies, then why would there be a problem (US & EU) , if the nations are enemies, then it would be a cause for tension (US & Iran)

But also, in the case of Eon, the legislative would naturally pass a law that says: A player may only become a citizen with his or her approval.
In this case, you'd be the press, pressuring the executive and the legislative to not do such abusive things.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Metal Bunny

[Brulant]

So far I like it. It seems pretty fair, but I'm sure I'll find something to nitpick over if I read it enough.

Two things that may have already been addressed. (I can't remember, I just woke up.)

1. I think it's vital that the judiciary does not have the power to decide how a law is interpreted for forever and always. If a law is unclear, it should return to the policy makers for clarification/reevaluation and not rest solely on that one case's precedence.

2. Are there enough people in GG to populate such a system effectively? I honestly don't know. The way I see it now, you're going to end up with about 12 "leaders" and 2 "non-leaders" unless you have a person serving multiple roles, which is moving back towards monarchies.

It's all well and good to pen an extensive, balanced constitution, but that's all worthless if you can't properly fill its shoes, yeah?

Edited February 1, 2012 by Brulant

[awiiya]

Just wondering, I'm no GGan- when has a constitution this extensive been written for a group of... 10 or so active people?

I would imagine that some form of organization really is helpful. But this? I question it. Does it really take this many words to organize such a small collection?

I would, I think, form something far more loose and dynamic.

Awi

[Pipstickz]

[quote name='Metal Bunny' timestamp='1327630637' post='102583']
Due to a slump in the world of university debating, and a thankful end to my internship, I have some free time left and I wish to sharpen my mind.
...
It's just that I want to practice, breathe some life into this forum and basically create something new in MD which could also be handy for some weird emergency later on or something.
[/quote]
I assume that if it turns out unnecessary or unwanted, it can not be used. Though it is an awful lot of stuff, I agree.

[Metal Bunny]

[quote name='Brulant' timestamp='1328113132' post='103101']
So far I like it. It seems pretty fair, but I'm sure I'll find something to nitpick over if I read it enough.

Two things that may have already been addressed. (I can't remember, I just woke up.)

1. I think it's vital that the judiciary does not have the power to decide how a law is interpreted for forever and always. If a law is unclear, it should return to the policy makers for clarification/reevaluation and not rest solely on that one case's precedence.

2. Are there enough people in GG to populate such a system effectively? I honestly don't know. The way I see it now, you're going to end up with about 12 "leaders" and 2 "non-leaders" unless you have a person serving multiple roles, which is moving back towards monarchies.

It's all well and good to pen an extensive, balanced constitution, but that's all worthless if you can't properly fill its shoes, yeah?
[/quote]
I like point 1, I'll keep that in mind.

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1328141689' post='103125']
Just wondering, I'm no GGan- when has a constitution this extensive been written for a group of... 10 or so active people?

I would imagine that some form of organization really is helpful. But this? I question it. Does it really take this many words to organize such a small collection?

I would, I think, form something far more loose and dynamic.

Awi
[/quote]
[quote name='Pipstickz' timestamp='1328142730' post='103127']
I assume that if it turns out unnecessary or unwanted, it can not be used. Though it is an awful lot of stuff, I agree.
[/quote]

As for everything else. Well, yes. But it's like I said before and Pipstickz pointed out, I'm doing this for practice.
Also, I do believe that any legal establishment should be based on certain fundamentals. If I don't argue for that stuff.. you kinda leave open the way for egregious abuse. Also, I dislike the idea of having to serve a King I didn't choose, who is allowed free reign, without real accountability after or before the act of abuse.

Also, I never specified the total number of participants. It's not like this is the real world, where you can have 2 houses of representatives filled with hundreds of people, whom each is chosen by thousands of people, in their respective sovereign states.
In GG, it would mean that only GG people would get to propose and vote for laws.

Also, grido said some stuff about the example of 5) in article 2. About all sorts of practicalities. Such as, what about the defendant, or the time it would take for a judicial sentence.
I leave it out, because its not really relevant for the constitution (as a constitution should be basics only, where everyone agrees upon). And the practicalities could be decided upon later, in the form of law proposals. (Such as law nr. 12345: everyone has a right for an attorney. Or the right to remain silent, whatever).

And so what if it's just 10 people?
That just limits the size of the government, not as to how it should function.


When you form something loose and small, much like the rules of MD itself, see what happens. You may argue that some kings have ruled well. But did all of them do so? At all times? Did everyone agree with the rules or do some people rage and scream? Do some point at the abuse of some kings and scream with fervour, only to meet with futility?
What about the church of the Savellites? What about the GG civil war?
Even if you can claim that they were chosen democratically (which they were not), then they were still [b]unaccountable[/b], which still holds open the door for tyrants.
You may argue even further and say that Mur has instated the reputation points and that this is accountability. I scoff at this. How is a points system a good system? No reasoning was given and I see no merit on its behalf when compared to an actual system that I'm trying to argue for.
for instance, the points are based upon Mur's judgement. Now, I'm sure Mur is great, but again, is Mur accountable or transparent? Is Mur a legitimate representative of our desires or of justice?


I'll do article 3 some time tomorrow.. and let me remind you, practicalities are not there for a reason and examples are just that, examples.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Metal Bunny

[Metal Bunny]

1: The article
2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
3: Intended effect
4: Examples
5: Implications and consequences

[b]1) [/b]Article 3: The people may exercise their sovereignty through direct execution of their will by way of voting, or enter into one branch of government.

[b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
Sovereignty of the individual cannot be known if it is not expressed. It is expressed through the people already in the government and in the press, however, due to the fact that each individual is unique and that others are naturally predisposed to be able to express themselves better, it will lead to a skewed result and with possible avenues to manipulation or unfair advantages. Because the constitution recognizes that each and every individual is to be [i]treated [/i]equally, they should also be able to express their will in an equal manner, so as to maintain this equilibrium. Their voting power reflects the fact that this level playing field is and should only be the case in grave matters of great concern, such as elections.

[b]3) [/b]Intended effect:
No King, no President, no General or otherwise, while more powerful than others, shall bear no greater right to express their desire in the formation of the government. 1 player, 1 vote.

[b]4) [/b]Examples:
When voting starts each player has one vote. That's it.

[b]5)[/b] Implications & Consequences:
The implication of voting power pulls power to the established order, without clear reason as to why, as there is no definitive reason as to why the established order deserves permanent advantage. This means that GG will open itself more to new players, new ideas and respect the equality of every player, essentially going against the idea that... time... could even be considered as a factor that decides voting power, or other factors for that matter. It also makes a clear distinction between the expression of the will of the individual and the fact that if one achieves a position of power due to merit, that one should only [i]remain in that position if one maintains their merit [/i][i]accordingly[/i].

[Metal Bunny]

Woooh, rested from finals week , it continues!

1: The article
2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
3: Intended effect
4: Examples
5: Implications and consequences

[b]1) [/b]Article 4: The sovereignty of the state and of the people, along with the execution of their sovereignty, is to be held as an execution of the subsidiarity principle and holds itself as dependent, contingent and continuous upon the rules of the world and its creator, [b]unless the judiciary and the press[/b], decide not to on the basis of popular will and reasoning.

[b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
To not do this, would be kind of silly. The scarce and few rules of the world, are not hard to justify and are already largely laissez faire in nature. Only when the people disagree, as expressed by the judiciary as by way of delicate reasoning, or by popular demand, via the press, will the government break through these laws. The expectation however, is that this will probably not be necessary.

[b]3) [/b]Intended effect:
Same overarching rules of the game apply to the land.

[b]4) [/b]Examples:
No bad language or cybering or other inappropriate behaviour in busy sections, etc.

[b]5)[/b] Implications & Consequences:
Basically, Status Quo, in the sense that people generally agree to the rules of the game and recognize the sense of it, unless they are ridiculously unjustified, though I think not only the people of GG would protest, but the rest of MD as well.

[Metal Bunny]

1: The article
2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
3: Intended effect
4: Examples
5: Implications and consequences

[b]1) [/b]Article 5: The subsidiarity principle holds true to the case of already established and future to be established, entities of the state. This means that the sovereignty and the power of the state is to be divided into levels where they are best applied. This will not be on the basis of territory, but on the basis of official alliances and guilds.

[b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
Again, not doing this would make no sense. It is adapting to the world of MD. Meaning that future rules of MD will automatically be article 4 compliant. It also means that all tasks will be performed on the level it is best suited to do so. Meaning that bug abuse etc, is best left to MD and not the country of GG. It also means that court cases between a GG citizen and someone else, is best handled as in status quo. But a court case between GG citizens, about a law that is only applicable to GG citizens, will naturally be handled by GG. It also means that, due to the subsidiarity principle, GG alliance matters will be handled by GG alliance, Kelle'tha matters by their own, MRfraternity by MRfraternity, etc. It also means that this federalism based on institutions, shall remain as such and not be bound, founded or limited by territory.

The subsidiarity principle should be.. intuitively logical.If not, I'll try and explain if someone asks.

[b]3) [/b]Intended effect:
Same overarching rules of the game apply to the land and will remain as such. It also means that all matters will be handled by those who are best [i]suited[/i] to handle it. The land will then become officially, as it already kind of is, federal institutionalism. It means that the executive and judiciary, possibly, could also be subdivided to make this distinction. It also creates a subdivision between rules of MD, rules of GG and rules per each federal institution.

[b]4) [/b]Examples:
... See argumentation or below.

[b]5)[/b] Implications & Consequences:
Nothing that is currently already being done. It does create the necessity of deciding when a rule should become federal or institutional.
For instance, the neutrality of the Drachorn Guild, should remain as such, meaning that it could create a major debate if GG were to be invaded. Or if only the drachorns were targeted and not the other institutions.
This article means that the country will maintain the federal relations of the institutions, and if not decided on a national basis, cannot [i]force[/i] the institutions to do something against their will.

[Metal Bunny]

1: The article
2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
3: Intended effect
4: Examples
5: Implications and consequences

[b]1) [/b]Article 6: The people hold right to have their sovereignty protected and as such have right to a fair trial. This also stands on the subsidiarity principle and as such holds true to article 4

[b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
Each person gives up freedoms that come with power that each individual has, in order to partake in an orderly society which grants protection. But if a person cannot protect him or herself, then the remaining freedoms and protections can easily be taken away, inevitably leading to discontentment and disorder, as that individual has no other recourse.
In essence, if one agrees that a person has the right to self-governance, then one automatically has to right to have that sovereignty protected, as without protection, the sovereignty would naturally be eroded and destroyed, or left to the whims of others, which is counter-intuitive to the point of self-governance.

[b]3) [/b]Intended effect:
To harmoniously (non-violently) allow the people to uphold their right to self-governance and defend it. In order to allow it, while still upholding the principles of an orderly society, one requires a compromise. This compromise is then to allow the individual to fully allow them to defend themselves, while remaining non-violent, thus ensuring concepts such as a fair trial, freedom of speech, etc.

It is still subservient to the subsidiarity principle, which means that if there is a transgression against the realm, the trial would be based upon Mur's rules, which are probably a fair trial, are not limited to the same restrictions as our trials.

[b]4) [/b]Examples:
Fair trial.
It also means that people have a right to actual protection of sovereignty, such as, I don't know, patrols? People who address complaints where it concerns real and relevant harm.


[b]5)[/b] Implications & Consequences:
Assured protection, making this society orderly, in every sense of the word, to allow a full defense of the sovereignty of the individual on the basis of the laws of the society. Meaning a fair trial and all that it includes, such as unbiased judges, a professional defence if desired, etc.
.

[Metal Bunny]

1: The article
2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
3: Intended effect
4: Examples
5: Implications and consequences

[b]1) [/b]Article 7: The people, as they gain protection from the state, are also to be expected to protect the state and hold a civic duty to its people.

[b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
Let's assume some certain premises, some of which have been defended already. The premises being that an orderly society is better than none, especially if one is allowed to maintain one's own sovereignty and the means to express it and defend it.
To promote this order, one requires that all people give up certain freedoms, in return they receive protection and rights.

But sometimes, even with freedoms, there will not always be enough protection, as 2 cases may occur, mayhap even simultaneously.
1 is that there are not enough people who voluntarily choose to defend these protections and uphold those rights.
2 is that there are emergency situations in which defence is paramount, as all may be lost otherwise, creating the necessity for an 'emergency-response', such as war.

While many may dislike the words 'draft' and 'conscription', I don't necessarily mean those concepts exactly, as the exact specification of this measure itself can be formed in a legislative process.

A more compelling reasoning perhaps is that if there is no such duty, that complacency may set in and that people will become too expectant on the government to protect them, while in essence, their self-governance and the necessity of self-defense are not transferred, but merely transformed. The government, in much the same way as it cannot lay claim on the right of self-governance of the people, can neither lay claim on self-defense. These two rights are simply facilitated into a more orderly and efficient manner, by the government.
As society and the government itself has the explicit purpose of increasing the opportunities for happiness, it is in the best interest of the people themselves to defend that which society provides.

This defence requires the utmost focus. To prevent leeching, as well as complacency, a duty arises. This duty is also maintained by the fact that a debt is incurred by the freedoms and protection/rights the civilian rationally consented to.


[b]3) [/b]Intended effect:
Maybe a draft in case of war, maybe that people must help people in need, rather than being a useless bugger and abandoning fellow citizens in need.

[b]4) [/b]Examples:
Draft (maybe), a tax in cases it is really important (for instance if there is uh.. an item or something, that magically gives everyone in GG a bonus, then, naturally everyone must pay), it really depends on how the legislative branch covers this.

[b]5)[/b] Implications & Consequences:
A self-sustaining society in the sense that it should in principle not ever allow a hostile incursion of its' freedoms and rights.
So yeah, self-defense of society and its freedoms/rights, basically.

[Metal Bunny]

1: The article
2: Argumentation (Points below will flow from this point naturally).
3: Intended effect
4: Examples
5: Implications and consequences

[b]1) [/b]Article 8: As territory holds only sentimental value, the rights of the individual and the powers of the state extend upon the citizens of the state and not its sovereign territory. (this is already status quo, and really, the other lands have no legal basis, nor do we, as none of us have kings...)

[b]2)[/b] Argumentation:
This may be kind of obvious, but still. The fact remains that the realm of MD is simply different and we must be different as well. While territory is existant, it cannot be enforced, as we don't have mechanisms for that. But more importantly, even if we do get those mechanisms in the future, it is more important to focus on that which is the purpose of society and government; the people.
As such, this article tries to instil a sense of duty towards the people and not useless scraps of land. It emphasizes the goal of the government and establishes it as one of utmost importance.

[b]3) [/b]Intended effect:
While we would still frown on people being disrespectful in GG lands, we would not necessarily do more than that. However, if there is an offence against a GG citizen in, for instance, no man's land, it would be warrant more action by the government. In essence, the sovereignty of the government and the land, and breeches thereof, now extend to its' people.

[b]4) [/b]Examples:
A non-GG offense on GG lands is not our problem, an offense against GG people in for instance, Loreroot or Necrovion, would.

[b]5)[/b] Implications & Consequences:
Self-evident? Basically, people are important and territory is less so.