Doomsday
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 06:51:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
18905 Posts in 2720 Topics by 274 Members
Latest Member: dige
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Doomsday
|-+  Holo-Emersion Tanks - IG Boards
| |-+  RAVEN Message Relay System - Mag Mel - Unsecured
| | |-+  A MEMORANDUM FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL COALITION OF UNIFIED MAG MEL
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: A MEMORANDUM FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL COALITION OF UNIFIED MAG MEL  (Read 1725 times)
Undrask
Followers of the Machine Mother
Member
*
Posts: 206


Mr. Nobody|AC3-A


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2016, 09:04:01 PM »

ps i said im rebuilding caliban and flipping nodes to point out that I AM WELL AWARE OF THE HOUSING ISSUE

i didn't see you pulling survivors out of the rubble in caliban

U ainy gotta tell me shit boyo
Logged

Static/AC3-A
Mr. Nobody
Frisco Cruise
LA Seneca
Member
**
Posts: 93



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2016, 08:04:55 AM »

RIGHT TO EDUCATION

Existing text: All governments must make education available for all citizens, and provide for the equal opportunity to engage in in that education.

Clear translation: The government, should it tax citizens to procure education services, shall not discriminate in how that education is distributed.

Note: In the absence of future legislation obligating the government to tax citizens for the purposes of procuring education services, the government will not tax citizens for the purposes of procuring education services. Therefore, the government will not have any education services to distribute.

 

RIGHT TO HOUSING

Existing text: No government shall willfully deny its citizens available housing.

Clear translation: The government, should it tax citizens to procure housing, shall not discriminate in how that housing is distributed.

Note: In the absence of future legislation obligating the government to tax citizens for the purposes of procuring housing, the government will not tax citizens for the purposes of procuring housing. Therefore, the government will not have any housing to distribute.

 

RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE

Existing text: No government shall willfully deny its citizens available Healthcare.

Clear translation: The government, should it tax citizens to procure healthcare services, shall not discriminate in how healthcare services are distributed.

Note: In the absence of future legislation obligating the government to tax citizens for the purposes of procuring healthcare services, the government will not tax citizens for the purposes of procuring healthcare services. Therefore, the government will not have any healthcare services to distribute.

***

As Mr Nobody has vigorously argued, the clear translations I have provided above mean the same thing as the existing text. However, the clear translations are more precise. The existing text may reasonably be misinterpreted as describing government obligations to procure goods or services. When crafting constitutions, it is important that the intent of the text is crystal clear.

Replace the existing text with the clear translations.
Logged

"Everywhere you go, well there you are."

OOG: Brian E
LA Seneca
Member
**
Posts: 93



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2016, 09:01:42 AM »

Some notes about the solution above:
 
[1]
Because the sections of the constitution concerning housing, education, and healthcare are describing non-discrimination in regards to goods and services that - absent further legislation - will not exist, you may as well remove them from the constitution and place them in their respective legislation when that legislation is drafted.
 
[2]
If the goal is to ensure non-discrimination in distribution of government-held goods and services as a general principle, there’s no reason to specifically limit the non-discrimination to just the domains of education, housing, and healthcare.
Remove the sections of the constitution concerning housing, education, and healthcare and replace them with this:

NON-DISCRIMINATION IN DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES

Discrimination by the government shall not be permitted when determining the distribution of publicly-provided goods and services.
Logged

"Everywhere you go, well there you are."

OOG: Brian E
Undrask
Followers of the Machine Mother
Member
*
Posts: 206


Mr. Nobody|AC3-A


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2016, 05:07:45 AM »

aight i liek were u r going with that last one but i fear that it's 2 broad and open to loopholes

and it also brings up the question if a government can provide PRIVATE goods and services??? like if u have 2 buy it or they just say it's "private" can they get around that??

could u just say,

"NON-DISCRIMINATION IN DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

Discrimination by the government shall not be permitted when determining the distribution of provided goods and services."

cuz liek if the government is providing it, it should kinda be public right?
Logged

Static/AC3-A
Mr. Nobody
Frisco Cruise
Undrask
Followers of the Machine Mother
Member
*
Posts: 206


Mr. Nobody|AC3-A


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2016, 05:15:33 AM »

And wut specifically does "discriminate" mean in that context?

Thats y it was "can't deny available" and stated specific services bcuz it prevents us from creating protected catagories

I tjink urs is like way more vague ay this point but if u can figure it out thatd be cool
Logged

Static/AC3-A
Mr. Nobody
Frisco Cruise
LA Seneca
Member
**
Posts: 93



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2016, 06:42:32 AM »

Good point. Any good or service procured by and/or owned by the government is a public good or service. Therefore, I think you are right to remove the word “publicly” from Non-Discrimination in Distribution of Public Goods and Services – it’s redundant.

I suppose we could consider some kinds of public-private partnerships, like privately-owned prisons, as an exception to this definition. However, I think it would be prudent to avoid creating these public-private partnerships, as they tend to lead one’s government towards cronyism and kleptocracy.

You may even want to consider adding into this constitution text that would prevent public-private partnerships. I think it would be a good idea.

***

“Discriminate” in this context means “choosing among individuals who receives more or less”. The idea being, if the government does have goods and services to distribute, they should be distributed evenly. The characteristics of a given citizen shall not be relevant to determining how much of a good or service they receive from the government.

I agree there is some small amount of ambiguity in the use of "discriminate", but I think the understanding of the word I laid out above is the dominant one. At the very least, it is less ambiguous than the use of the word "available", which could be understood as leading to an obligation to create if there is none.
Logged

"Everywhere you go, well there you are."

OOG: Brian E
Undrask
Followers of the Machine Mother
Member
*
Posts: 206


Mr. Nobody|AC3-A


View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2016, 06:59:47 AM »

yo i can get behind a clause on preventing private relationships w/ governments.

how would that effect elysians??? it sounds like that would be a tough sell but i legit believe thst governments rlly shouldnt b forming private contracts w/ businesses r individuals.
Logged

Static/AC3-A
Mr. Nobody
Frisco Cruise
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!