The minutes of the first meeting (held in Reykjavik, at CCP’s expense) are now on the web. and they make for some interesting reading. Players have been invited to discuss all the issues raised on the EVE forums. I’ll be having a more detailed read of a couple later in the week.

Bookmark to:

Handguns are being blamed for alot of things, but the people holding the guns barely seem to get a mention.

A police state is defined as a country where only the police, or other government agencies are armed. How does it feel to be living in such a state?

Would allowing the populace the right to own a handgun really cause more gun crime or would it lead to a lessening of such crime?

Its a complicated issue and one which evoke emotional responses from almost anyone who takes part, but its still a discussion worth having. I for one would buy a gun if allowed and use it in the defence of my family, myself and my property. in that order. Simply because I don’t trust the police or any other agency to do it. What use are a couple of unarmed cops turning up after someone hears a gunshot, or even with the intruder (possibly armed) still on the premises. The only person I trust with the defence of my home and family is me, and going up against a gun or knife toting intruder with nothing in my own hands is a bad deal.

What do you think?

Bookmark to:

1. The powers not delegated to the State by the Constitution are reserved to the people. The State shall make no law amending this except by the will of the people expressed in a full referendum. In my opinion we should lose the bit about a referendum. An adept politician may be able to persuade the unwary into voting for almost anything.
2. Parliament shall enter into no treaty, or agreement with any individual, group or state, that in any way abrogates or diminishes the sole sovereignty, or power, of the people of the United Kingdom, save with the full agreement of the people as expressed in a full referendum. Same edit as above.
3. The State shall make no law concerning the establishment, elevation or imposition of any religion, or prohibiting the free peaceable exercise of religion. No person or persons shall have the right to impose any religion on any person by means of force or threat.
4. The State shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, including the written word, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
5. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrants shall be issued, except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and precisely specifying the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
   Parliament shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation. Replace the word parliament with “the state/government”. If the word parliament is included the implication is that we have to have one.
6. All persons born, or naturalized, in the United Kingdom, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Kingdom. The State shall make no law, or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State. Nor shall it deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I suggest splitting this one into two parts, the first defining who is a citizen, and the second stating that all persons in the country are subject to the law equally.
7. Neither slavery, nor any form of involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United Kingdom, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Lose the exception.
   Parliament shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation. Parliament replaced as above.
8. The right of citizens who are over 21 to vote shall not be denied, or abridged by the Government or by any Local authority on account of race, creed, colour or sex. This right shall not be denied or abridged by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. This right shall not be abridged or denied for any reason at all.
   Parliament shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation. Parliament again.
9. Parliament shall make no law interfering with the right of any individual, groups, or companies, to freely associate, or make agreements and contracts together, excepting where said are contrary to, or bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom.
10. Parliament (the state/government) shall not pass any laws which infringe the rights of all citizens to keep or bear arms in personal and collective defence against enemies both internal and external.
11. The citizen has an absolute right to protect their life family and property, also lives and property for which they may be responsible, against unlawful attack. The citizen may use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, if necessary, in order to exercise that right.
    This right shall only be bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom. Parliament Nor any other governing authority, shall enact no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
12. And one of my own: The state shall have no claim upon the property of an individual or group of individuals, except where said property is voluntarily given without threat of force, imprisonment, abridgement of rights, or any other form of coercion on the part of the state.

Its still a work in progress, and the language is admittedly archaic but then it is modelled on the United States Constitution which was written more than 200 years ago. A good start I think.

Contributors: Phil A, Mick G, Tim C

Bookmark to:

Our government is one of the oldest democratic institutions on Earth. Built on an unwritten constitution over centuries of change, it has become grossly overburdened with legislation and tradition. Tradition is all very well but when building a house you don’t use an old and broken tool to do the work, just because that’s the tool you’ve always used. The 21st century is upon us and our traditions will not serve us in a world where the pace of change is only going to get faster. The bureaucracy built over the years has become sluggish, overweight and inefficient, like the fat kid on school sports day, it is struggling to keep up.

Apathy has taken over the electorate, they know that their vote has no impact upon what is done in Westminster, only upon who does it. When elections should be about important issues and long term solutions they are instead about personalities and short term fixes. Driven by a media that thrives on hyperbole and sensationalism, and limited to terms of office after which any long term plans which have been put in place may be undone by those who follow, our government has become reactive rather than pro-active. Legislation is focussed upon how the media will react and treating symptoms rather than causes. In short: its a mess. The system is broken and is currently held together by chewing gum and string.

What would we have replace it? Which system would solve all these problems and give the electorate a reason to come back to the polls? The very same advances which are making the flaws all too apparent in our current way of doing things may provide an answer to both these questions. Technology is what will carry the human race through the coming century, either to our destruction or our salvation, and technology can be used to bring government back to the people, where it is meant to be, and allow it the flexibility to plan for the long term and react to the pace of change.

We need a new form of democracy. Parliament no longer represents the people who vote in the elections, instead parties are funded by the rich who use that as leverage to get their own interests served, to the detriment of the voting public. The media influences elections so that to get anywhere a politician has to serve whoever has the most readers, and deal with issues chosen for them by moguls like Rupert Murdoch and the editors in their pay. A system is required where the influence of these special interests is diluted to such an extent so as to be totally ineffectual.

Much of politics is done behind closed doors, at lunch meetings and in smoky gentlemen’s clubs. There is no longer, and indeed may never have been, any transparency. Deals are done in the shadows when they should be done in the open, where the public whose lives these deals impact can see. Our representatives are discouraged from voting with their consciences and threatened into toeing the party line. Information is spun and re-spun giving the electorate a distorted view of the motives behind government policies. Things are hidden from us that we should be told and we are lied to on a daily basis. The new democracy should be completely transparent, open and honest. This is the information age and as such we should have all the information made available to us.

I’ve touched briefly on the party system above, such a system is inherently corrupt and as such corrupts all who adhere to it. Those who fund the parties to gain undue influence, those who allow themselves to be influenced, and those who go along with it because it is the way things are done. All are tainted by it. I propose that we do away with parties altogether. Let each man (or woman) vote with their conscience, swayed only by argument and debate and not by the fat wallets of scheming plutocrats. People should not be forced to divide themselves along seemingly arbitrary political lines. We are one nation at the same time as we are all nations of one.

Its time for a change, a new way, a new kind of democracy. I’ll be expanding on this topic over a series of posts relating ideas for, and possible methods of, changing our democracy into something which is ready for the 21st century and not something which is stuck in the 14th. I mean this to be a discussion, a debate, a forum, a place where ideas are thrown about, changed, discarded, adapted and argued over. Eventually I’d like to produce a firm document, a statement of intent if you will. This discussion will not extend to policy, that is not for us to decide. Our aim should be to build a better system, a fairer system, a more democratic system. Then let the people decide policy through that system. It is meant to be our government after all.

I know that this is not The United States, and it pains me that it wasn’t a Briton that said these words but it is my hope that “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

Bookmark to: