I personally think everybody, even the worse criminals, should be able to vote, but I think a system barring people to vote on the basis you give can work.
Lizard250 wrote:A completely non-totalitarian system would have to meet all of the following criteria:
1. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold it's subjects' fundamental right to self-ownership (their right to have complete sovereignty over their own bodies and minds, from their birth until their death).
It must protect this right from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate this right have been tried first).
2. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold all individual rights and liberties which stem from the right to self-ownership (right to life and physical integrity, right to liberty / freedom from slavery, right to freedom of thought, right to freedom of belief and conscience, right to preserve life and liberty / right to self-defence, ...).
It must protect these rights from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate these rights have been tried first).
3. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold all individual rights and liberties which serve to counterbalance the power of authority (right to petition, right to freely disseminate and access information / freedom from arbitrary censorship, right to criticize the government, ...).
It must protect these rights from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate these rights have been tried first).
4. It must prioritize the repeal of laws, or parts thereof, which are discovered to violate rights and liberties unnecessarily (either from the beginning or due to having become obsolete) and/or disproportionately.
5. It must acknowledge that criminal laws are no more than socially sanctioned violence and oppression used to compel certain behaviours, and that they must thus;
- Be considered a necessary evil, to be kept to a minimum.
- Serve liberty and civilization rather than the moral codes of bigots.
- Apply equally to all persons, regardless of race, gender, wealth, ...
6. It must prevent the creation of impulsive, knee-jerk legislation.
7. It must make the Law accessible to all;
- All laws must be written in layman's terms. The use of "legalese" by authorities, whether public (i.e.the state) or private, should be banned.
- It must prevent the establishment of elitist legal professionals.
8. It must produce strong leaders.
9. It must be subject to rationalism and the rule of law.
So here are your rights, liberties and values. I see you have a much higher requirement than me for your perfect system. I'm generally content that the right to participation is uphold, and I leave the rest to the people, since not doing that could make it difficult for them to live together. Seen like that, I am the champion of bland democracy.
Just to recapitulate your criteria :
1. No problem with that, understood in the way I understand this, which is : no slavery (and I'm not talking about wage, as I see this as perfectly adequate).
2. Well, in the general idea, I agree with you until now, but I wouldn't try to make a system which prevents someone to hurt those values. I would rather try to make it so that people wouldn't want to hurt them. Or else I would be imposing my views.
Lizard250 wrote:It must protect these rights from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary
There is the Pandora's box... Once you said that, your rights are inevitably violated, because every reason to do so can be seen as "necessary". In order to fight against "terrorism", your government can arrest people because of what they think, for example.
3. I very much agree with these, but again the limitations you put, while they are very honest and done in good will, reflect that those values aren't that protected after all, except by people awareness of them.
5. So you think criminals are who they are because of the situation in which they have been put and that people shouldn't be punished because they did wrong, but because they unfortunately violated social norms? Me too.
6. I guess your Board of Regulators could try to prevent these, but keep in mind that those people are also subject to mob movements.
7. Interesting, but I wonder what is "legalise" and what is not. I can see the picture, and I agree with you on principle, but if a law is written badly because it "suffered" many amendments, it would be difficult to say that it is easily readable.
8. I don't understand this requirement at all. Collegiality can certainly be good. Of course, for that you must have a certain organization, but not necessarely a leader which put shadow on everyone else.
9. What this sentence means is very nebulous. Many people pretend to be rational and you would probably disagree with them. Historical materialism is apparently objective and rational for some people, for example.
[quotee="Lizard250"]My point is that the only system which can provide liberty and justice to all it's subjects would be a benevolent dictatorship which;
- Consists of a large number of individuals with various world views, selected based on the merit of their ideas.
- Is restricted in it's ability to make laws and regulations.
- Is completely accountable to a rationalistic, non-partisan institution.[/quote]
I like that you take into account the input a large group can have. About restriction... by whom? The judges? They are part of this system too. As soon as you have a mildly "negative" view of humanity, you cannot say that they will auto-restrict themselves. I think what you can try to do is to divide the power in order for each body to limit another one, which multi-cameralism and federalism can do. But even then, if an overwhelming majority of your people, and thus your institutions, want to make a certain change, this change will happen. Then, about "reason and non-partisanship", I doubt very much this is achievable. As soon as "reason" pushes to action, the body which manage accountability will no longer be non-partisan.
Lizard250 wrote:Arizal1 wrote:Lizard250 wrote:Policies are illegitimate when they limit the rights and liberties of those subjected to them in an arbitrary (i.e. subjective and irrational) or disproportionate (i.e. excessively harsh) manner.
Democracy, by it's collectivist nature, fosters an "us vs. them" mentality. Such an "us vs. them" mentality is worsened by partisan politics, to the point where the main objective of politics eventually becomes "we must hurt them at all cost" rather than "we must help ourselves".
I disagree again because you could say much rights and liberties are subjective and don't exist in all cultures. Arbitrary, subjective, irrational, disproportionate and harsh can mean different things to different people, so legitimacy of policies is also changing depending of the person who think about those, if we follow this line of reasoning.
Which is why I am anti-multiculturalism. I believe that cultures who exert less control over the bodies and minds of their members are inherently superior to others.
I think I answered poorly to your affirmation. You said that policies were illegitimate when x. I just tried to say that "x" are indeterminate, and once you recognize this, it is really tough for you to determine what is legitimate and illegitimate.
Now, you said, in answer to my first sentence, that you are anti-multiculturalist because you want cultures who '"exert less control over the bodies and minds of their member". What I want to know is : does that mean that you would favorize such cultures (by making them official, for example) or that you would repress the others. If you repress other cultures, then I fear you are trampling on the rights you said you wanted to enforce to your citizens (of physical integrity and of free toughts). If you do not repress them, then there is a chance that some people would still follow their faiths, as happens in France despite its official secular policy. If those people exist, there would be, in effect, many cultures in your country. How would those people be treated?
Lizard250 wrote:True, but I believe that there is a way to control it.
Quite simply put, how?
Lizard250 wrote:I believe that objectively good ideas are those which would provide the highest level of liberty, justice and progress according to the currently accepted scientific paradigm.
What if freedom contradicts what you believe is just? For example, if it is just to have a social ladder helping people to go from poverty to wealth, but "liberty" would require for this ladder to be scrapped because of whatever reason, then you would have an ethical choice to do between to of your final values.
Lizard250 wrote:Arizal1 wrote:The questions could be written in such a way that only supporters of the regime as it is would be allowed to vote and to be represented in all your bodies.
Unless the questionnaire must be approved by at least nine-tenths of Parliament, with a quorum of at least three-quarters of each party, to ensure it's neutrality.
I don't know how you can make a quorum per party, as those are not fixed institutions in your system. If a party has 4 mps, and another 100, and those 4 mps don't show themselves, then the legislation wouldn't pass. Those quorums are also a great mean to paralyse the institution.
But about the main subject : 9/10 of the Parliement. That is great... but all of those people already have the right to vote and are elected by people who have this right. They might not care about the vote of those who currently don't have the right and reject it. I agree however that this scenario is not that believable. With 9/10 requirement to change the questions, they would probably stay the same during a long time, but at least some people would want universal suggrage... depending on the country's culture.