[Discussion] Laws of the future society

[Tilia]

This theory is based on the example of philosopher John Rawls:

Imagine you are a member of parliament, which decides the laws for a future society. Right after you finish it you will die. However right after you die you will be reborn as a member of the society you made the laws for. You will be unaware of your own characteristics, place in society, class position or social status, fortune, abilities, intelligence, strength, health state, ***...

So my question is: What would your laws look like?

John Rawls assumes that such society would be completely equal and fair.

(„But maybe laws are not the solution for such problems as scarcity, unemployment, crime, violence, greed, debt, race hatred, war etc… because we have thousands of them and they are constantly being broken…“)

So what are your thoughts about it? Don't forget that your suggestion of law has to be accepted by other members of the parliament (by the majority). You can think about the laws for a certain nation or you can think global. Maybe you live in such righteous and socially fair society.

one of my suggestions: I would give home to everyone. It could be only a small room with bed, bathroom and cooker, maybe fridge, electricity of course. This way you don't have to worry you become homeless and you don't have to live on debt. It would be only something to start with. Everybody should have right to dignified way of living with access to drinking water and own bed. (global suggestion)

 

[kakashi owns all]

This theory is based on the example of philosopher John Rawls:

Imagine you are a member of parliament, which decides the laws for a future society. Right after you finish it you will die. However right after you die you will be reborn as a member of the society you made the laws for. You will be unaware of your own characteristics, place in society, class position or social status, fortune, abilities, intelligence, strength, health state, ***...

So my question is: What would your laws look like?

John Rawls assumes that such society would be completely equal and fair.

(„But maybe laws are not the solution for such problems as scarcity, unemployment, crime, violence, greed, debt, race hatred, war etc… because we have thousands of them and they are constantly being broken…“)

So what are your thoughts about it? Don't forget that your suggestion of law has to be accepted by other members of the parliament (by the majority). You can think about the laws for a certain nation or you can think global. Maybe you live in such righteous and socially fair society.

one of my suggestions: I would give home to everyone. It could be only a small room with bed, bathroom and cooker, maybe fridge, electricity of course. This way you don't have to worry you become homeless and you don't have to live on debt. It would be only something to start with. Everybody should have right to dignified way of living with access to drinking water and own bed. (global suggestion)

i would never agree to such communist idea, as someone voted in by the tax payers i will not make them pay for people that have done things to go broke/ not live in there means

my idea

capitalism and free market get a job and buy a house thats goes with you skill level

 

[Tilia]

i would never agree to such communist idea, as someone voted in by the tax payers i will not make them pay for people that have done things to go broke/ not live in there means

my idea

capitalism and free market get a job and buy a house thats goes with you skill level

ok so this law would probably not pass...

 

[Dribbles]

My law is that MegaQueef is to be worshipped by at all times.

MegaQueef's Reincarnation is to be worshipped at all times.

When MegaQueef dies, his next reincarnation is to be worshipped

Rinse and Repeat. ​

 

[kakashi owns all]

ok so this law would probably not pass...

it may i am just saying how i would vote

 

[Tilia]

it may i am just saying how i would vote

it is always good to have someone who opposes you what would you suggest?

 

[kakashi owns all]

it is always good to have someone who opposes you what would you suggest?

just for a law?

any murder proved 100% will result in death penalty, unless proved crazy.

 

[Yo pappy]

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3. No quartering of soldiers.
4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6. Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7. Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9. Government cannot infringe on the rights of it's citizens that are not listed.
10. Powers reserved to the states.

I would add to this a law that states that no outside form of government can remove, nor change any law that has already been put into place by it's people. Whether that law already exists or not matters not. I would also add another law that does not allow any branch of government to change any of the pre-existing amendments, nor add anything that will intrude with their said functions.

That's about it, the Constitution for the most part has it all together. It's when it's not being held up that shit starts to fall apart.

 

[kakashi owns all]

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3. No quartering of soldiers.
4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6. Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7. Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9. Government cannot infringe on the rights of it's citizens that are not listed.
10. Powers reserved to the states.

I would add to this a law that states that no outside form of government can remove, nor change any law that has already been put into place by it's people. Whether that law already exists or not matters not. I would also add another law that does not allow any branch of government to change any of the pre-existing amendments, nor add anything that will intrude with their said functions.

That's about it, the Constitution for the most part has it all together. It's when it's not being held up that shit starts to fall apart.

so you would remove the 21st to keep the 18th

 

[Tilia]

just for a law?

any murder proved 100% will result in death penalty, unless proved crazy.

I don't agree with death penalty... there is always a reason behind a murder (unless proved crazy)... don't you agree that such behavior could be prevented by better education or surroundings in which there would't be a reson to kill someone else?

 

[|Apathy|]

Hmm...I don't like the idea, for my reasoning is similar to K.O.A.'s.

 

[|Apathy|]

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3. No quartering of soldiers.
4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6. Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7. Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9. Government cannot infringe on the rights of it's citizens that are not listed.
10. Powers reserved to the states.

I would add to this a law that states that no outside form of government can remove, nor change any law that has already been put into place by it's people. Whether that law already exists or not matters not. I would also add another law that does not allow any branch of government to change any of the pre-existing amendments, nor add anything that will intrude with their said functions.

That's about it, the Constitution for the most part has it all together. It's when it's not being held up that shit starts to fall apart.

+Rep. The latter is very true.

 

[Yo pappy]

so you would remove the 21st to keep the 18th

Read before that, I clearly stated that no outside form of government can change laws that have already been put into place. We as a people would still be allowed to present bills to change or add to an amendment just as long as it does not interfere with the first ten.

 

[kakashi owns all]

I don't agree with death penalty... there is always a reason behind a murder (unless proved crazy)... don't you agree that such behavior could be prevented by better education or surroundings in which there would't be a reson to kill someone else?

no i dont, people find reasons the smartest man will kill his wife for the insurance money even if they dont have finical problems. and it has a coast of 40,000 us bucks per person per year in jail i dont want to pay for that i want them to die

 

[Tilia]

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3. No quartering of soldiers.
4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6. Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7. Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9. Government cannot infringe on the rights of it's citizens that are not listed.
10. Powers reserved to the states.

I would add to this a law that states that no outside form of government can remove, nor change any law that has already been put into place by it's people. Whether that law already exists or not matters not. I would also add another law that does not allow any branch of government to change any of the pre-existing amendments, nor add anything that will intrude with their said functions.

That's about it, the Constitution for the most part has it all together. It's when it's not being held up that shit starts to fall apart.

society is constantly changing due to technological improvements, clima changes etc.. isn't is unreasonable to follow rules which were made for instance 100 hundred years ago? they should be changing as well, shouldn't they?

 

[Yo pappy]

society is constantly changing due to technological improvements, clima changes etc.. isn't is unreasonable to follow rules which were made for instance 100 hundred years ago? they should be changing as well, shouldn't they?

That's what amendments are for, you can always add amendments to the Constitution to accommodate for major changes within society. The first ten should never be tampered with though as they are the "meat and potatoes" if you will of what it means to be a free nation.

 

[kakashi owns all]

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3. No quartering of soldiers.
4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6. Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7. Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9. Government cannot infringe on the rights of it's citizens that are not listed.
10. Powers reserved to the states.

I would add to this a law that states that no outside form of government can remove, nor change any law that has already been put into place by it's people. Whether that law already exists or not matters not. I would also add another law that does not allow any branch of government to change any of the pre-existing amendments, nor add anything that will intrude with their said functions.

That's about it, the Constitution for the most part has it all together. It's when it's not being held up that shit starts to fall apart.

Read before that, I clearly stated that no outside form of government can change laws that have already been put into place. We as a people would still be allowed to present bills to change or add to an amendment just as long as it does not interfere with the first ten.

you said the branches so like i said your rule would not have had the 21st happen over the 18th

 

[Yo pappy]

you said the branches so like i said your rule would not have had the 21st happen over the 18th

When I said any of the pre-existing amendments I was referring to the first 10, not all of them. Sorry about that.

 

[Tilia]

That's what amendments are for, you can always add amendments to the Constitution to accommodate for major changes within society. The first ten should never be tampered with though as they are the "meat and potatoes" if you will of what it means to be a free nation.

I get it now

no i dont, people find reasons the smartest man will kill his wife for the insurance money even if they dont have finical problems. and it has a coast of 40,000 us bucks per person per year in jail i dont want to pay for that i want them to die

so if you killed someone by accident or because of some crazy reason, I think you would take the full responsibility for your action, that's mean you would accept death penalty.... what should be done that all people would feel the responsibility for their actions?

 

[kakashi owns all]

I get it now



so if you killed someone by accident or because of some crazy reason, I think you would take the full responsibility for your action, that's mean you would accept death penalty.... what should be done that all people would feel the responsibility for their actions?

lets do some math a 21 year old drug dealer kills a man a get life in jail

say he lives till 80 thats 59 years in jail it coast 40,000 a year to house/ Gard them so that one person is a 2,040,000 ya thats million dollar fee, there are a lot of people that do that and over 2 mill each, i dont want my money going to housing them

also if it was not intend thats involuntary manslaughter and you dont get death for that.