JREF Constitutional Congress

[stilicho]

I have read often on JREF that purely rational nation-states would be innately pacifist and liberal. Here's our chance to put that to the test.

Let's write our own constitution.

The basic assumptions ought to be (correct me if I am wrong) that all the other nations still exist, current opinions and political philosophies are still present, and the "nation" we are writing the constitution for is not necessarily composed only of the people on this forum.

Some ideas to start:

Who would preside? Oliver might be a logical choice.

Would we need a bill of rights? Rational people ought to know what their rights and obligations are already (cf Kant).

Would we need a democratic selection process?

Would freedoms need to be defined? If freedom of expression is included, would that include freedom of religious expression?

Are there some basic assumptions that would have to be delineated?

[CFLarsen]

"our"?

[Rob Lister]

First, to repeat post 2...

Our?

Also...

I have read often on JREF that purely rational nation-states would be innately pacifist and liberal. Here's our chance to put that to the test.

Let's write our own constitution.
...


How does that put the stated premise to a test?

[Cain]

I don't think states are inherently rational, let alone nation states. You want to see how members of the JREF cope with creating an "ideal society"? See the thread on the creation of property in a hypothetical, heretofore unowned island abruptly inhabited by ship wreck survivors. That thread contained some of the most witless, harebrained ideas I have ever encountered.

[stilicho]

I don't think states are inherently rational, let alone nation states. You want to see how members of the JREF cope with creating an "ideal society"? See the thread on the creation of property in a hypothetical, heretofore unowned island abruptly inhabited by ship wreck survivors. That thread contained some of the most witless, harebrained ideas I have ever encountered.
Well, I didn't expect even a nibble, really.

To the person who asked what the test is, I left that flexible.

I have seen a lot of what I consider nonsense tossed about on this "educational" and "rational" forum, too. One of those that frankly irks me is that somehow religion is a "less rational" form of expression--even of political expression--than atheism. And this is coming from someone who is a confirmed atheist or at least an extreme agnostic.

I also find worrisome the emergence of "authoritative experts" here that simply loot Wiki and often repeat exactly the errors found there. I like to think that I know my limits.

Any chance you could post the link to this "Utopia" thread? Sounds like something I might enjoy.

[brodski]

Whats so great about codified constitutions anyway? Wouldn't a dynamic pragmatic constution better serve a truly rational state, (if such a state could exist) as solutions could be tailor made to the situation, and not forced through a rigid, possibly unsuitable, framework?

[Dr Adequate]

Wouldn't a dynamic pragmatic constution better serve a truly rational state, (if such a state could exist) as solutions could be tailor made to the situation, and not forced through a rigid, possibly unsuitable, framework? It's what made Britain what it is today!

[ImaginalDisc]

It's what made Britain what it is today!

A pale shadow of its former wealth and power?

;)

[brodski]

It's what made Britain what it is today!

I'll thank you not to pith all over me!

[Dr Adequate]

As a skeptic, I feel that there is not enough information nor a sufficiently sound theoretical basis to decide the question a priori. I therefore suggest that we divde our nascent state into small autonomous superstates, assign them populations and constitutions on a randomised basis, and then pick whichever one turns out to work the best.

[Darth Rotor]

As a skeptic, I feel that there is not enough information nor a sufficiently sound theoretical basis to decide the question a priori. I therefore suggest that we divde our nascent state into small autonomous superstates, assign them populations and constitutions on a randomised basis, and then pick whichever one turns out to work the best.
I'll offer to do on site analysis for the "Swedish Supermodel Bikini Team" governmental experiment. Taking one for the team, that's me. :cool:

DR

[Cain]

Any chance you could post the link to this "Utopia" thread? Sounds like something I might enjoy.

Regrettably, I cannot track down the original thread. So far as I can tell the original poster is no longer a member and that particular thread (from approx. 4 years ago) has vanished. I think there are holes in the recording keep system for writings that old; some have been preserved, others have not.

[ConspiRaider]

All JREFers are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Love your JREF neighbor as you would have JREF wimmin neighbors love you.

The right of JREFers to arm bears shall not be infringed.

JREFers shalt not bring false bear witnesses against newly wifeless and very cross and extremely grizzly silver-backed male neighbors.

The JREF Ursuline Grizzlette shall be the state newspaper.

The polarizers of bears from rival political factions shall be trapped by the JREF Senate. They shall be sent to bed without icebergs, and then to spend 15 years in YellowJREF National Park stomping out forest fires.

The Chicago Cubs and Chicago Bears are the official state sports teams.

All JREF houses must contain only a single room: A den.

All state money shall be issued as bearer bonds.

Cub Scouts are not authorized to camp with she-bears unless they have a shiny coat.

The Pooh Bear is the official state toy. They must be played with. Fun must be had.

[stilicho]

The Chicago Cubs and Chicago Bears are the official state sports teams.
And, I suppose, the Boston Bruins?

[Earthborn]

I have read often on JREF that purely rational nation-states would be innately pacifist and liberal.Really? I never read that here, and I've been around here for quite a bit longer than you have. Can you quote someone saying such a thing?

[stilicho]

Regrettably, I cannot track down the original thread. So far as I can tell the original poster is no longer a member and that particular thread (from approx. 4 years ago) has vanished. I think there are holes in the recording keep system for writings that old; some have been preserved, others have not.
That's a shame. I was really looking forward to seeing some hare-brained ideas!

[stilicho]

Really? I never read that here, and I've been around here for quite a bit longer than you have. Can you quote someone saying such a thing?
Just use the search function and look for "antiwar" and similar tags. You will discover a trove.

[ConspiRaider]

And, I suppose, the Boston Bruins?
Ah, of course. Good one.

UCLA Bruins are the state official college team.

Memphis Grizzlies are the state official NBA team.

And of course the Bad News Bears are the state official Little League team.

[Charlie Monoxide]

May I propose this tired chestnut ....

Charlie (first we kill all the lawyers) Monoxide

[Earthborn]

Just use the search function and look for "antiwar" and similar tags. You will discover a trove.Okay, I searched for "antiwar" but I did not find any similar claim. I don't know which tags are similar. Why don't you just quote who you think made a claim that "purely rational nation-states would be innately pacifist and liberal" ?

[stilicho]

Okay, I searched for "antiwar" but I did not find any similar claim. I don't know which tags are similar. Why don't you just quote who you think made a claim that "purely rational nation-states would be innately pacifist and liberal" ?
Keep searching. You are getting close. I can tell.

[stilicho]

And, very well, Earthborn, here's a recent sample:

6th August 2007, 11:16 AM #429
Fnord
Graduate Poster



Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dyscordia
Posts: 1,112
Diggs: 0 Politics is the method by which one group oppresses another without resorting to acts of violence.
Repression is bad.
Religion is the politics of faith.
Religion is bad.
Yeah, I know it's flawed, but it works for me.
BTW: I have faith in the existance of God, and I believe in the inherent toxicity of religion. Go figure.
__________________
Shawn Hornbeck Lives!
STOP SYLVIA BROWNE!

Fnord
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Fnord
Quote this post in a PM to Fnord
Find More Posts by Fnord
Add Fnord to Your Ignore List
Add Fnord to Your Buddy List

This is only an oblique yet recent sample. There are literally thousands like that here. I am shocked that you've never encountered them.

[CFLarsen]

stilicho,

What do you mean with "our"?

Do you think that only skeptics make up the membership on this forum?

Do you think "we" need a democratic selection process?

Do you think freedoms need to be defined?

Do you think that if freedom of expression is included, it would include freedom of religious expression?

Do you think there are some basic assumptions that would have to be delineated?

[Gurdur]

I don't believe that quoted post backs up your claim, Stilicho.
________

Another point:
Would we need a bill of rights? Rational people ought to know what their rights and obligations are already (cf Kant).

You think so? Cf. Hume, how can you derive rights from reason?

[Gurdur]

Do you think freedoms need to be defined?
Nothing quite as useless as an undefined freedom.
Do you think there are some basic assumptions that would have to be delineated?
If only to be able to discuss.

[Earthborn]

I don't believe that quoted post backs up your claim, Stilicho.I don't think so either. In fact I don't know what that quote is supposed to prove, except perhaps that Stilicho doesn't know how to post link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2837586#post2837586)s.

[Undesired Walrus]

All JREFers shall put on a hat written on existential poetry of the 18th century, on tuesdays.

Except on tusedays, when they will do no such thing.

[Dr Adequate]

stilicho,

What do you mean with "our"?

Do you think that only skeptics make up the membership on this forum?

Do you think "we" need a democratic selection process?

Do you think freedoms need to be defined?

Do you think that if freedom of expression is included, it would include freedom of religious expression?

Do you think there are some basic assumptions that would have to be delineated? Look, I mean this as a friend, you've gone completely mad, you need a holiday. Go and take one, 'cos otherwise T'ai Chi's "organised skeptical movement" needs you about as much as a hole in the head.

[CFLarsen]

Look, I mean this as a friend, you've gone completely mad, you need a holiday. Go and take one, 'cos otherwise T'ai Chi's "organised skeptical movement" needs you about as much as a hole in the head.

I asked stilicho the same questions he asked us. Nothing bad about that.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It's what made Britain what it is today!

I thought it was Mercentilism... and tea cozies.

[UnrepentantSinner]

{snip bear references}

You do realize when we appoint Stephen Colbert as Secretary of the Interior this is going to create some problems right?

[brodski]

You think so? Cf. Hume, how can you derive rights from reason?

Are “rights” really a useful concept? Would not a mutually flexible social contract of freedoms, privileges and obligations be a more rational approach?

This is providing, of course, that we posit a totally rational state and population.

[Darth Rotor]

This is providing, of course, that we posit a totally rational state and population.
A necessary assumption, but I cannot find it in me to deem it valid. Assuming away humanity's inherent variability and chaotic, emotional tendencies strikes me as the sort of mistake most Utopians make.

DR

[brodski]

A necessary assumption, but I cannot find it in me to deem it valid. Assuming away humanity's inherent variability and chaotic, emotional tendencies strikes me as the sort of mistake most Utopians make.

DR

I agree, but the point of this thread is to design a government for a “perfectly rational state”, as we’re already indulging in fantasy politics….

Or perhaps one of the requirements for a “perfectly rational state” would be that it had no human inhabitants ;)

[Darth Rotor]

I agree, but the point of this thread is to design a government for a “perfectly rational state”, as we’re already indulging in fantasy politics….

Or perhaps one of the requirements for a “perfectly rational state” would be that it had no human inhabitants ;)
Yes, an ant colony is a fine metaphor. ;)

DR

[Gurdur]

Are “rights” really a useful concept?

Yes, they are. Incredibly useful.

Would not a mutually flexible social contract of freedoms, privileges and obligations be a more rational approach?

Same thing. You cannot have a concept of "privileges" or especially a concept of "freedoms" without a concept of "rights"; and all such concepts such as "freedoms, privileges, rights, obligations" etc. are all the same arbitrary basis.

This is providing, of course, that we posit a totally rational state and population.
No such thing; a contradiction in terms. Cf. Hume again and also cf. Kant, Gödel and Wittgenstein. Any time you start with higher abstract concepts such as the ones named, you can use reason to think about higher abstract concepts as those named, but there is no way on Earth you can logically derive ethics from reason. Category error; ethics (which includes all those named) and reason occupy two totally seperate categories.

[Beerina]

Keep in mind politicians gain the power from abridging rights, which is to say, passing laws. Hence 99 of 100 politicians tout the joys of democracy, and very few speak of freedom itself. Many think the greatness of a nation derives from being a democracy, rather than being free.

Freedom of mind and freedom of action are the natural state of a person. Democracy derives from that as a voluntary interaction of said people. But to many politicians, freedom is a gift from democracy, not the other way around. First comes the mob, and might-makes-right, then comes the mild abstraction of it called democracy. And from that comes the mob voting itself freedom. A truly sad thought process. :(

[Gurdur]

Keep in mind politicians gain the power from abridging rights,

Which is why it was Federal politicians who ended slavery and who ended segregation in the 1960's.

Or IOW it was Fed politicians who have done far, far more for real freedom than you ever have or ever will.

A truly sad thought process. :(

Libertarianism? So right. So Orwellian, in so many different ways. Do actually read some Orwell, he didn't like Libertarians and corporatist shills much at all. Do try reading his essays on the English language too. Quite relevant to politics.