|
 Miriam Godwinson You would have the right to vote for representatives like any other. I'm sure you would have people supporting your cause in the lower house. Or, if we went with my system, you would have people in the upper house representing Cape Zakharov.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 07:23 |
|
|
So long as the ultimate goal of the Believers remains a theocracy, I cannot support turning both chambers over to who can reproduce more. Institute a 1% limit if you must, but the Upper House must have all factions as equals. So far, I support General Santiago's work
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 07:31 |
|
|
Miriam Godwinson Once again when Zakharov's "legitimate" criticisms are refuted, he falls back onto his prejudice against Conclave Christianity. Not surprising.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 07:43 |
|
|
I'm sorry, but a fundamental and publicly visible facet of Believer society does not qualify as mere prejudice. I appreciate that you have been willing to put on a Democratic face of late, but the fact remains that the Lord's Believers have always intended an eventual theocracy. It's a fact, canon to Planet history you could say. Trying to deny it now is pointless.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 07:48 |
|
|
 Corazon Santiago The university is small but contains some of the brightest minds on the planet. We consent to a population limit but will set it at 1%. quote:1. All citizens have the right to bear arms. Base-division could cause disenfranchisement so we'll divide seats based on vote share.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 08:16 |
|
|
 Arthur Donaldson A combination of General Santiago and Sister Godwinson's suggestions for the upper house seems best. Two Senators from each colony over 5000, with smaller colonies voting in their nearest larger one, and one from each faction of 1% or more is a sensible, middle-of-the-road solution. It does not overrepresent minor factions, as those who lack a base in local communities will still be limited to just one - essentially, just a voice. The entire point of an Upper House, after all, is to limit the advantage of population. The idea of corporate citizenship, however, is nonsensical. Corporations are not people, people are people! Grant them rigts as legal entities, certainly, so they can be represented in court, but do you intend to give businesses the vote? That's absurd. Citizenship is for humans, and I don't see how their parentage is relevant. Furthermore, I see all these rights focused extremely on negative freedoms. This resembles the original American Constitution closely, and while that is certainly an admirable model and quite progressive for its time, the United States don't exist any more. We are on Chiron, and society has advanced since then. I propose two further amendments: "Citizens have the right to education, housing, health care and protection from poverty." "Planet upholds a mixed economy, where private, public and cooperative property are treated equally, and the government formulates economic policy for the good of the people." It an obvious point to make sure that overt slavery and servitude are banned, but without these provisions, I fear a repeat of Earth's social ills. People could be forced into servitude no different from the plantations of old, not by conquest and the lash, but by the specter of hunger. The government must outline its duties in the Constitution, not just announce rights.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 08:34 |
|
|
Miriam Godwinson Once again you show the short-sighted myopia of "men of science", Zakharov. Your attitude is so typical of your kind, those who build up walls of 'rules', and 'logic' used primarily to "explain the world" and shield yourselves from the truth. You build up a system of how things "do" and "do not" work which exist simply to reinforce your worldview -- one which is inherently biased not just against Conclave Christianity but against faith and emotion entirely. I would argue with you and tear down the clear inconsistencies in your logic, but as fast as I could destroy them you would build new ones to achieve the same goal. This is what men without Faith do to uphold their belief. The prejudice against Conclave Christianity which I point out is not just something which I observe in one statement. It is something that is clear in your attitude as a whole. Each additional thing you say makes that more and more clear.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 08:38 |
|
|
Dierdre Skye There are aspects of this draft proposal that are troubling to me. It seems that, in addition to bringing the best ideas of Old Earth with us, we have also brought some of the worst. First, what does it mean when you say "Corporations count as independent citizens?" Count how? Certainly, the members of corporations are independent citizens. But corporations seem to be by their nature, not independent. They are fully the control of their owners. And they are the creatures of law. Could I create 20 corporations, all owned by me alone, and thereby multiply my power, my voting, my influence, 20 fold? What exactly does this proposal mean? Why should it be enshrined in our constitution? I am also concerned by the proposal "All citizens have the right to own native life." What does this mean? We still know so little about this planet and its life, and yet we want to divide it up between us? Are we so short sighted as to take such actions without understanding the effect they will have? Do we consider ourselves the masters of Planet, and it ours to do with as we will? Let us understand it first, and the lessons it has to teach us, before we do to it what we have done to Earth. I also suggest adding "sexual orientation" to the list of protections. It would be immoral to allow such discrimination of those who have done nothing but love someone of their same sex, and contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter. I also suggest other provisions. 10. Caring for the planet is the responsibility of all citizens. All development of the plent should be done in such a way so as to minimize negative environmental effects and protect the planet for future generations. 11. The government shall have the right to enact reasonable regulations to protect the health, safety, well being, and quality of life of individuals, and to protect the environment.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 08:56 |
|
|
The Lord's Believers are against Democracy and Secular Totalitarianism. The Lord's Believers are against Democracy and Secular Totalitarianism. I will repeat this fact so long as you try to deceive the community at large with sweet sounding words. Act as you will, but I will not stop reminding the community of a foundational belief of your movement. No immediate objections to Lady Skye or Foreman Domains concerns and suggestions.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 09:06 |
|
|
Arthur Donaldson Lady Skye is right, for the most part. The good of Mankind must come first, before eco-utopian fantasy, but in any case we are not currently in danger of overdeveloping. What is dangerous is the privatization of native life. We do not know its capabilities, it could well be used as a tool of private armies, oppression and disenfranchisement. And though it should be subservient to the needs of the populace, Chiron must be treated as a common good, in the stewardship of all society, not parcelled out to the highest bidder. I would support this 10th point as long as the proposed 11th passes, as it is entirely in line with my suggestion. Government must not disavow its right, and its duty, to regulate the excesses of the market economy. Yo, Sniper, fluff thing: my guy hasn't taken on the identity of "Foreman Domai" in this timeline
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 09:12 |
|
|
OOC: My apologized, Mr. (?) Domain - I haven't yet given your dossier the attention it deserves.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 09:20 |
|
|
OOC: In the original SMAX backstory, Arthur Donaldson was originally a moderate who lost his memory due to brain damage, and then gradually reasserted himself to eventually assume the mantle of Foreman Domai aka Violent Space Lenin  Presumably here that didn't happen, so it's just Mr Donaldson I guess.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 09:28 |
|
|
Miriam Godwinson And now we have a few more proposals from the left, which seek to expand the role of government. They would have us care for the planet and for the poor. But if we are to make our government a caretaker which is responsible to serve our needs, what about the needs of the soul? If the government exists to keep us from poverty, should it not protect us from spiritual poverty? If the government exists to protect the land which God has given us, should it not also protect the souls God has given us? Is pollution of the soul not dissimilar from pollution of the land? Plagues of the land are things delivered unto us by the Lord, after all. These are complex questions, which of course I do not expect either Mr. Donaldson or Ms. Skye to agree with me upon. But they are things which are important to bring up. We can't just ignore them if the government seeks to support the common good. And yet if we even mention them, they are things which bring the atheists of our planet to a screaming, frothing rage. This is the political climate of our world at this time. I am not opposed to a government which provides for the common good, but it probably is not so wise to try to set one up just yet. Of course, it should be mentioned that the Lord's Believer's will absolutely not stand for any constitution which protects the sin of homosexuality. You can speak of hollow ideals such as love and equality, but we will not be swayed one bit. Don't try to push for it. You will not succeed.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 09:33 |
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:OOC: In the original SMAX backstory, Arthur Donaldson was originally a moderate who lost his memory due to brain damage, and then gradually reasserted himself to eventually assume the mantle of Foreman Domai aka Violent Space Lenin Quite so, quite so. Minister Godwinson, we live in the 22nd century, not the 12th. LGBT individuals are productive members of society in all areas, and they deserve the same rights as anyone else.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 09:51 |
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:
 Nwabudike Morgan My good sir, once again you and your people put too much faith in the ability for bureaucracy to anticipate your needs and provide the most optimal living for everyone on Planet. Sadly, that wasn't the case on Earth and it isn't the case on Planet. The only thing that can truly provide for the masses is the invisible hand, the free market. Putting the government into things only exasperates the risk of an economic tragedy occurring. I'm afraid that in this reality I must vehemently disagree, and put forth my considerable resources to protecting the people from your trickery in this sector. Everything else I'm ambivalent about.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 09:59 |
|
|
Miriam Godwinson As many of people have said, the fact that we bear the blessings and the burdens of the past. Just as we have inherited the best of Earth's virtues, we also still bear the shadows or Earth's sins. It is our duty to not repeat the mistakes which lead to Earth's destruction. Let's not forget the decline of the world that occurred around alongside much of humanity's abandonment of traditional values. Just as the transition from the twentieth to the twentieth century marked the start of the fall of mankind, it also marked the rise of sin, atheism, and gay rights. Do you think this is a coincidence? Let us also not ignore the fact that the largest faction on this planet is opposed to "homosexual rights".
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 10:04 |
|
|
Arthur Donaldson Mrs. Godwinson, you seem to have gone mad with power. You seem to believe that heading the largest faction gives you the right to You have refused to budge an inch on a single issue, but simply throw accusations of "persecution" to anyone who goes against you. Your absolute refusal to compromise may very well undermine the cohesion of Planetary society. And the idea of fighting "spiritual poverty" is a ridiculous rhethorical figure that you know very well to be dishonest. How do you intend to measure the spiritual poverty line? Will you institute a system of prayer welfare, or perhaps redistribution of salvation? I can only assume you are opposed to systematic fighting against poverty so that you can use "charity" to make yourself look good. But if you are determined to make this a fight, then fine. I suggest a modified and comprehensive proposal, that I believe will appeal to those of us who seek a foundation of genuine human rights, reason, and democracy, or as Miriam Godwinson calls us, "the left". quote:Preamble I believe at least Lady Skye and Governor Lal will be willing to get behind such a proposal. However, unlike Sister Godwinson, we understand that we do not necessarily speak for all, so we are willing to compromise for the good of the colony and to avoid splitting the vote. We can get behind a more moderate constitution, as long as worker's rights are protected. In any case, a tyranny of the plurality must be avoided. To turn Miriam Godwinson's words against her, if the Believers think themselves able to obstruct progress, we must dissent.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 10:17 |
|
|
Corazon Santiago Any constitution should include the framework of the government and the rights of citizens. While we agree that some duties of the government may be productive now, responsibilities change and the government should respond pragmatically, unchained by positively worded rights. Things like ecological policy and regulations are questions of policy, not questions of constitutionality. Morgan's claim that the free market's competition will improve the colony is supported by many, and we've added that to the constitution. At the same time, trade groups and environmentalist organizations have the right to gather. After talking to unions and corporate representatives, we think this is agreeable. This colony-house stuff needs to be clearer. It makes more sense to determine elections by percentage of the population voting, and the upper house by factional seating. quote:1. All citizens have the right to bear arms.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 10:30 |
|
|
 Academician Prokhor Zakharov I apologize for my earlier voice-only communications, I have since returned to my proper facilities. I am no foe of the free market, and indeed look forward to new research opportunities with Morgan Labs, but must ask for clarification on Point 8. If a corporation is now a citizen, can it be put on trial for murder? Can it vote? What does it mean to give a corporation the rights of an individual citizen? It seems unnecessarily vague, and perhaps be amended, or at the very least further discussed. All other points of General Santiago's constitution seem agreeable enough. quote:As many of people have said, the fact that we bear the blessings and the burdens of the past. Just as we have inherited the best of Earth's virtues, we also still bear the shadows or Earth's sins. It is our duty to not repeat the mistakes which lead to Earth's destruction. Let's not forget the decline of the world that occurred around alongside much of humanity's abandonment of traditional values. Just as the transition from the twentieth to the twentieth century marked the start of the fall of mankind, it also marked the rise of sin, atheism, and gay rights. Do you think this is a coincidence? The most dangerous and deadly event of the 21st Century, the Crusader Wars, was directly spawned by religion. Letting two people of the same sex marry didn't bring death and destruction to Earth, blind, unchecked faith did. We cannot allow it to happen here. A Friendly Reminder on the Facts posted:Godwinson and her Believers are the faction most strongly committed to a theocratic state. They hold both democracy and atheistic forms of totalitarianism in disdain
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 10:39 |
|
|
Nwabudike Morgan By "Corporate Personhood", we refer to the fact that Corporations should get the same constitutional protections as a person would. We don't suggest anything silly like Morgan Industries voting as a person would, but protection from government harassment that wouldn't be done to a normal citizen is vital for a functioning and thriving economy. It could be amended to something such as 8) Corporations will act as independent legal entities that have the full constitutional rights of citizens, though not the privileges of such. I trust that this is more clear and agreeable to all.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 10:49 |
|
|
Arthur Donaldson I suppose we require a minimal baseline of some sort, so General Santiago's proposal is largely acceptable except for two points. First of all, the mention of a "free market" should be amended to "market economy". While the Free Drones are not opposed to the market per se, as the basis of an economic system, it must not be treated dogmatically, and must be regulated at least to some extent. This "free market" clause could be used by private interests to unnecessarily restrict the ability of government to pass any economic legislation at all. Second, I am categorically opposed to the idea of corporate citizenship. This opens up the potential for plenty of abuses. The right to form corporations and other private business ventures should be folded into the current Article 11, guaranteeing any citizens' organizations protection under the law - including corporations as well as labor unions like our own, political organizations, and others. I see no reason why corporations should enjoy special privileges that other organizations do not.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 10:53 |
|
|
Miriam Godwinson I am insulted, Donaldson. You seem to completely misunderstand me and what I stand for. I am not a dishonest charlatan like many of the people here; I believe in everything I say. Spiritual poverty is something which affects mankind deeply at both a personal level and a societal level. The need for a healthy soul is just as important as the need for food, shelter, rest, or love. Do you think I am joking when I speak of the needs of the soul? As ridiculous as you seem to think they are, all of the things you speak about can be done. We can define a spiritual poverty line, using the Conclave Bible as a reference. We can create spiritual welfare programs through the funding of our churches and other religious programs. Don't you know that there are many Christians who dedicate their lives to helping others? And as for redistribution of salvation, that is exactly what Jesus Christ did when He died for all of our sins. I don't see why you think that I am determined to make this a fight. Perhaps you should take a suggestion from Jesus and learn to turn the other cheek. Also, I have made a couple of small changes to my proposal. Here it is again: Miriam's Constitution posted:Section I. Bill of Rights
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 10:54 |
|
|
Corazon Santiago After more discussions, I've changed free market to market economy and substituted the old corporate personhood clause for Morgan's new, revised version. To ensure institutions like the Church are not forced into gay marriage, we've added a twelfth clause that exempts private establishments from public suits. We also removed the phrase restraining sedition under the free speech point. quote:1. All citizens have the right to bear arms.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 10:59 |
|
|
Supporting.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 11:26 |
|
|
Nwabudike Morgan I lend my full support to Mrs.Santiago's constitution. We can add more things later, but right now we need to push something onto the table, and this seems to be as agreeable and comprehensive as we can make it.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 11:27 |
|
|
Dierdre Skye I am still confused by the corporate citizenship clause. What does sort of government harassment does Mr. Morgan fear corporations will be subjected to? I also wish to again express my concern with proposition 3. What native life do you suppose people would want to own? We can not eat the native life here. It is poisonous to us, and allowing the full scale hunting and harvesting of native life without first knowing more about it is dangerous. The results could be disastrous. Let us at least study the life here and see how native life fits into the ecosystem before tampering with it. You risk damage to the planet and danger to us if you do not.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 11:28 |
|
|
Epicurius posted:Dierdre Skye Nwabudike Morgan I don't see how I could be more clear. My greatest fear is the government bullying job creators and abusing the mechanisms of the market through legal channels if not stopped, and granting corporations unalienable rights under the law would stop this. I don't expect corporations to have more rights than the average citizen, I simply wish for a free society where the government remains mostly out of all aspects of ones life.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 11:32 |
|
|
Dierdre Skye Bullying job creators HOW, Mr. Morgan? What specific government actions are you afraid of? Pollution controls? Safety standards?
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 11:54 |
|
|
Corazon Santiago 3 revised.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 11:59 |
|
|
Epicurius posted:Dierdre Skye Nwabudike Morgan Government men illegally seizing records, intellectual property, barging into corporation owned property, the list goes on. The fact of the matter is that a government unrestrained is a government that has a staggering amount of ways it can ruin you.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 12:03 |
|
|
Arthur Donaldson The rights of government to do this are already restricted, thanks to Articles 11 and 12. What is a corporation, but a grouping of citizens acting collectively for a purpose - in this case, profit motive? I presume these articles to imply that the State would not be permitted to barge into a union office, a church or a faction committee and seize their papers for no reason either, but it does not, and should not, protect us from basic legal oversight. If this is in fact unclear, then corporations should not be singled out, but legal personhood should be granted to all organizations, whether they act for profit or not. The Free Drones cannot in good conscience support a constitution that grants corporations privileges over other, equally valid forms of citizens' collective action.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 12:11 |
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:
Corazon Santiago Revised.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 12:33 |
|
|
Thank you, General. Free Drones members will be encouraged to vote in favor of this constitution.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 12:36 |
|
|
 Richard Hitchens While our leaders debate the constitution around us, The Believers show their true colors as they threaten to shoot down any amendment which would grant equal rights to all sexual orientations; a right which was already protected by most of the governments on earth. I can only hope our future representatives fix this mistake as soon as possible once a constitution has been agreed on.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 12:55 |
|
|
 Dr Gafur Banerjee If I might make a small side note. Just in case, it might be worthwhile to add 'non-intelligent' to the right to own native life. We have found these monoliths. In the last decades we have not found any trace of the ones who made it, but we cannot discount the possibility there might still be intelligent native life around, and that it simply chooses to hide from us with technology we are unfamiliar with. Perhaps deep underwater, perhaps with psionic abilities. Regardless, we would not want to be in a situation where the right to own these hypothetical beings would be constitutionally protected. On that note, The Lady Skye and I have worked on the blueprint for a device which would protect explorers, formers and other people encountering mindworms from their psionic attacks. But we are in need for resources to further construct it. I believe strongly that knowledge of this magnitude is beyong any price, and has to be spread as far and wide as possible to inspire new minds. As such, we have made the knowledge publicly available.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 12:57 |
|
|
Richard Hitchens I agree doctor but I believe we should simply erase that article from the proposed constitution as its proven to be a complicated issue that cannot be solved with a simple absolute. I believe that we should at this time make no definitive statement on the legality of native life. It should be up to the future senators to decide the legality of any native life with help from the scientific community which has been studying and documenting life on this planet since we arrived.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 13:25 |
|
|
Stalin-Chan posted:
Corazon Santiago Look at what happened to Earth. Stalin-Chan posted:
Zakharov's for it, and he's twice the scientist you are. Shogeton posted:
Good point. Revised.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 14:02 |
|
|
Academician Prokhor Zakharov Um, I repeatedly said I'd rather it be struck and replaced by legislation from an upcoming session. Ultimately I didn't super care.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 14:17 |
|
|
Litos posted:
Richard Hitchens That's a very interesting theory. So you believe that sexual orientation equality led to the destruction of the earth? Is that your official position? Are you familiar with Correlation vs Causation?
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 14:30 |
|
|
Academician Prokhor Zakharov Earth was destroyed in large part due to the Crusader Wars, a fanatical religious conflict. I support every measure to keep religion out of our government, and in the privacy of the homes of those who choose to believe.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2013 14:34 |
|
