>>>1: Congress shall make no rule solely for the sake of having rules.
>>
>>First objection - no congress
>
>Good thought.
>
Although that does mean having something else instead
>
>>Too much thinking inside the box. If we're making our own island, then
we're
>>making our own government.
>>
>>Nellis Island will be small, so we will have basic, original democracy,
>>where all adults sit around and decide what we want to do and who does it.
>>If anyone doesn't fit in we decide whether to let them stay or make them
>>leave.
>
>Um, could we do something that doesn't smack of that s**t-stupid TV show,
>"Survivor"?  Please?
>
Since I've never seen the show, I do not know what association you're
making. All I know about the show is that people competed for 1m dollars and
every week voted someone off until there was only one left. I'm not talking
about any kind of competition or game, I'm talking about a small community
having to live together happily, and the inevitability that there will be
people who will disrupt that.
Everyone from Bardroom and Writing is welcome, and anyone else brought in by
Bardroom and Writing. However, if anyone doesn't fit in, the "punishment"
will not be jail or anything like the traditional responses,  but on Nellis
Island it would be a matter of "do we want him/her here?" if no, then (s)he
is gone. If yes, what are is (s)he going to do about the behaviour we can't
live with?

>>I propose that in our Bardroom World Order we have bases of 100. Each 100
>>forms a political group, called the Hundred. You prefer to belong to the
100
>>of your neighbourhood, but if it's full you have to join the nearest 100
you
>>can find.
>
>Interesting concept.  Might, in neighborhoods like ours, even make
>neighbors have to speak to each other (most don't, around here).
>
It could not be introduced into a society where everyone is so disconnected
with everyone else. Full participation and genuine democracy can only work
if it's built in to the very roots of society. Western society has had
generations of "don't get involved" and "what's in it for
me" and "it
doesn't matter, if voting made any real difference, it would be illegal"
which means that most people won't participate unless they have an axe to
grind, which would prevent the system from getting off the ground.

I'm talking about how we could build a new society, not trying to impose a
foreign concept on an established society

>>Each 100 elects a Speaker. The Speaker deals with all local concerns, such
>>as our Municipalities do now. The Speakers get nothing from the public
purse
>>except re-imbursement for trips to the Capitol and time off work. If the
100
>>are unsatisfied with their Speaker, they vote him or her out at any
meeting.
>>The "non-confidence vote" The Speaker then has to remain
focused on the
>>local issues, or else he or she is suddenly no longer Speaker.
>
>Like Parliamentary governments; too bad we don't do that here (though there
>is a provision called "recall" where citizens can do exactly
this sort of
>thing.  Nobody uses it anymore, though).
>
We have non-confidence votes. They do get used. Joe Clark was Prime Minister
for only 4 months

>>Each 100 Speakers elects a Representative. The Representives are still
>>Speakers for their own 100 as well as being Representative. That means the
>>Representatives represent 10,000 people as well as Speaking for their own
>>100. Despite having to represent the concerns of a hundred 100s, they also
>>have to keep their own 100 satisfied or else they're suddenly not Speakers
>>any more, which means they're suddenly not Representatives any more,
either.
>>They also get no renumeration from the public purse except for
reimbursement
>>of transportation and time off work. The Representatives would be
equivalent
>>to State Governors or Provincial Premiers.
>
>Interesting.
>
>>Each 100 Representatives elects a Minister. This means each Minister is
>>ministering to 1,000,000 people. The number of Ministers depends on the
size
>>of the population. The Ministers hold portfolios such as public health,
>>national defence, things that affect the nation as a whole. Because of
this
>>they require sabbaticals from their jobs to be able to do their
ministerial
>>work, because they are also still Speakers of their 100 and
Representatives.
>>Which means if they neglect their home 100 they are no longer Speakers, or
>>anything else. Because they are actually off work for significant chunks
of
>>the year they get more from the public purse - the replacement of their
>>wages, and housing in the capital, and transportation. When the government
>>is not sitting they are expected to be in their own homes, at their own
>>jobs, dealing with their own neighbourhoods.
>
>But not enough that they can live lavishly, and far far above the average
Joe.
>
Since only their wages are replaced, there is no such things as getting a
more lavish life-style than they had before they served their term. It's
unrealistic to expect that anyone could serve a term if they had no income
while they did so,  but there is no reason to have the income increase at
the public expense. If the Public Servant is always Joe Blow from next door,
then there is not the great myth of aristocracy that at present surrounds
the President of the United States. The Public Servant might need a security
force to proect him or her from reporters and lobbyists, but more in the way
the Prime Minister does, not the lavish displays of power that the President
has.

The Founding Fathers sought to have a "*Mister* President" to do away with
the trappings of royalty. What they failed to take into account is that
people need symbols of pomp and circumstance, history and glory. Because
they stripped away all vestige of royalty, the p&c&h&g became
vested in the
President, who now lives in a more lavish style than any of the crowned
heads do (baring the Sultan of Brunai)

>>The Ministers nominate 5 Public Servants. The entire population votes for
>>Public Servant. The one with the most votes becomes Public Servant, the
>>runner up Secondary Public Servant, the third becomes Tertiary Public
>>Servant. These three are the only ones who live full time in the capital,
on
>>the public purse. They are the ones who appoint the Ministers to
portfolios.
>>If the Public Servant is in office for 5 years there is an election
called.
>>If the Public Servant cannot complete his or her term, the Secondary
Public
>>Servant becomes Public Servant and calls an election. When the Public
>>Servant is out of office, he or she returns to his or her home. Each time
a
>>Public Servant retires there is a vote held to decide how much of a
>>gratitude for service renumeration that person deserves. Every penny over
>>simple replacement of wages has to be accounted for and may not be hidden
>>from the public.
>
>This is good.
>
>>This means no party politics, no career politicians that lose all touch
with
>>reality, no fat cats, no congress, no senate. People serve their country,
>>putting in their time in order to get things done that they want done.
Less
>>chance of passing laws in order to look busy and justify taking copious
>>amounts from the public purse - the pressure will be to spend as little
time
>>as possible sitting in government and as much time at home as possible
>>taking care of business.
>
>Nice.  Very nice.
>
>>Much harder for special interest groups to gain control of the entire
system
>
>I like it.
>
>Veloci--how about a revolution?--raptor
>
Laurie I know who I want first against the wall when the revolution comes
Phoenix

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha