2988 cr points
Send Message:
  20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
 Offline
|
Law and History cannot be separated. I learned both very extensively. Using my knowledge, I though I could make a fun distraction of:
Which form of Government/Society is the most correct?
These names are translated from Latin, for a better understanding.
Dominion over the Minority
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
Often referred to as a "Democracy", the law is "majority rules" and there are no exceptions to this rule, the majority makes decisions for everyone and it's non negotiable if 51% of the people unanimously agrees. It's often called out for it's fundamental building blocks that are prone to collapsing. There are no true democracies in world. It's impossible to establish a democracy.
Democracy is an often code word that actually means bureaucratic. Which is more or less a slave master's law. As it can be used as such. Such as in Americas, all of Europe, all of Asia. There are no known colorable non-bureaucratic governments in the world.
Democracies came into existence after the introduction of the 14th amendment that allowed non-nationals privileges by the respective colorable government. In this case, the founder of the bureaucratic society is Congress, or some version of congress. To this day, bureaucratic dominion over colorable people is what "democracy" means, and there will never be a true democracy.
If 7 out of 10 people say you're breaking the law. You're breaking the law in a democracy, regardless of what you were actually doing.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
This is the "Emperor's Land", a family that's "entitled" to the estate and everyone and thing on it. The whole place is owned by the emperor, and you obey his commands, lest' you want your pay cut in half.
That's not to say that anyone in power would be openly corrupt and abusive. In this society, it's normally the people being grateful for the emperor allowing them protection and law, instead of being out and about, vulnerable to anyone or thing that decides to mess with you.
For example, if America had an imperial family that worked like a empire, you would be subject to the empire's rules, resolutions, statues, codes, etc. If you didn't, they would either kill you(because you're not part of a nation, thus no rights at all), or sell you, because without a nationality, you have as much as a right to life is a cockroach.
The empire setup is as old as the European Kingdom(England), it grants authority to family that claimed the land way before you got there. They probably fought a war, or killed the dangerous animals in the area to make it their own, and you're in no place challenge anything they want to do to others, you or your property as long as you live on their soil.
If the emperor/empress sees you in the local market, and they like the way you look. You're going to their bed. No questions asked. The empire's word is absolute if you domicile on their land.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
Hierarchical society where the ranks above are superior to the ones below.
You're a Rank C and a Rank D just stole your place in line to get a burger. Who cares? He's higher rank so he takes priority over you.
The origins of this system is unknown as it's not known which colorable nation was ever ran like this. It does exist in some forms, such as Japan, Americas and all of Africa. Such as the police being a "rank" above you in society. Running red lights, wielding fire arms, and exercising force daily. But it's not allowed for you to do either of those things, of course.
Europe and Korea are run this way as well. South Korea may be an exception.
This is perhaps, were most people are comfortable, there's a 99% chance where you live in a land where-
Government > Government Agents(Police, Tax Agents, Judges, Attorney) > People.
Being a "citizen", you're the bottom in this bucket, you need licenses to drive, carry a fire arm, exercise legalese, a hunting license, fishing license, food handler's license. Etc. You need to ask those ranks above you if you're allowed to do any of those things.
- ( Proper Person)
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
The original government of all lands on earth.
This is often called "Republic" because it is. Every government on the planet actually has one of these underneath the colorable one.
As long as you don't hurt others or their property, you're free to do a you wish and contract as you wish with whomever is at full conscious. There's no one above and everyone has equal standing at law. You're the supreme being, and anyone that wants to make requests on you, must do so on your terms.
If someone wants you to go to court for something they "think" you did is wrong, they must pay you for it, as your time is not free. If anyone touches you in anyway shape or form whenever you told them not too. They're immediately imprisoned. The government and it's servants exist to protect and secure your birth rights, and nothing else. They may not intimidate you, make demands or even pretend to have any kind of authority. If they do. You physically grab that officer and remove him/her from their position. And if they resist. Your military will come and remove all the offenders by any means necessary.
This is the original government and they exist on all lands, though, these kinds don't apply to you specifically.
The reason why this government is unheard is because people in general don't want this kind of government, like the current people in power, they want a little control.
In this "Propria Persona" government, a 14 year old girl is conscious and very well educated about law and contract. And she knows her liberties in relationship to the rest of the nations on the earth. She can do whatever she wants, and parents have no control at all in her personal relationships. Manipulating a free man's affairs is serious. You can be charged with genocide, practicing slavery, treason, etc. She could smoke, drink, have sexual relations with anyone she chooses. Even if that person is 36 years old. Interfering in their affairs would get you fined and detained, regardless of what your relationship is to either of them. Whether you're her mother, father, sibling, etc. You may not play god. Period.
And now you know why no one "truly" wants this government deep down, we all want to be free, but there's a voice in everyone's head that thinks "that" should be outlawed. Regardless. This is the government your ancestors made for you. You may be thinking, "I wouldn't choose this government!" But you can't choose for others, you can live in a democracy but your siblings, children, significant other, etc. Could all choose "Propria Persona", there's no way to control people and people in general will have to accept that at some point or the consequences will be very severe.
Which government/society would you choose?
Another question. Which is the most correct form of society/government? Answer both in the comments below! |
|
|
"Democracy = all of asia..."
North Korea = Asia. |
552 cr points
Send Message:
21 / M
Offline
|
I would choose Head of a Empire
Because ..... Let me think ... Sleeping ... I'll give out the reason later.
|
2988 cr points
Send Message:
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
|
lianghong1 wrote:
I would choose Head of a Empire
Because ..... Let me think ... Sleeping ... I'll give out the reason later.
I'm very surprised that someone actually chose Head of a Empire.
I didn't think anyone liked being "under the King's thumb"
|
17063 cr points
Send Message:
48 / M / Sussex UK
Offline
|
Constitutional monarchy, but realistically all political systems are open to abuse.
|
10122 cr points
Send Message:
Offline
|
Magical-Soul wrote:
Often referred to as a "Democracy", the law is "majority rules" and there are no exceptions to this rule, the majority makes decisions for everyone and it's non negotiable if 51% of the people unanimously agrees.
Well that's direct democracy. In it, the tricky part is decisions over the rights of fellow citizens, including their citizenship itself. To take it to the extreme, if the majority on some issue banishes the minority, then the majority of the remaining citizens on a second issue banishes the minority, and so on, the end state is just two citizens who can't get to a decision when they don't agree... Well things can get messy with much less, especially if the minority robbed of some rights or some sizeable non-citizen group rebels or takes revenge when becoming a majority in the next vote, so "majority rules" is usually constrained by a concept of "inalienable rights". There is also the issue of time: the majority can also rule that its decision is valid for X years, thereby restricting future majorities (this is at the core of the concept of "laws"). Another problem is that on many issues, people have more than two possible opinions, and you can end up with neither of them achieving 51%, so you need further rules (sub-51% majority rules, 51% majority rules in a run-off vote, compromise, coalitions).
But what we have instead of direct democracy is representative democracy, in which citizens delegate the right to majority vote, in theory get to vote on packages rather than every single issue. While this system won't boil down in banishments and like as happened to Athens, there are thousands of ways to game the system so that there will be representatives who will vote contrary to the majority opinion of citizens, or to bar representatives from voting on some issues. Some actual systems are better, some worse. For example, in the US system, the first-past-the-post vote promotes the pooling of forces until only two main parties remain, thus representatives only represent a little over 50% of actual voters and Congress majorities only a little over 25% of actual voters, and the way campaigns are financed ensures that most of them only represent the interests of the wealthy funders. For better systems, there are the Scandinavian countries with their proportional vote, or Switzerland with its frequent referendums alongside the elected parliament and the all-parties government.
Democracy is an often code word that actually means bureaucratic.
"Bureaucratic"? I suspect you meant something else. All organised states have bureaucracies by necessity, whatever the form of government. To abolish bureaucracy, you either have to abolish all organisation (and thus government) or get citizens to do all government tasks on a part-timer basis.
There are no known colorable non-bureaucratic governments in the world.
What did you mean with "colorable"?
Democracies came into existence after the introduction of the 14th amendment
Huh!? The history of democracies didn't begin in the USA.
If 7 out of 10 people say you're breaking the law. You're breaking the law in a democracy, regardless of what you were actually doing.
This doesn't make sense. You might want to claim that in a democracy, there is no such thing as a "law" (with majority decisions over-ruling any pre-set rules). But, if you accept the existence of laws in a democracy, you should also accept the possibility that the interpretation of law is made the job of a selected few ("lawyers", "judges", but also "jurors") rather than all citizens.
|
44144 cr points
Send Message:
20 / M / Sweden
 Online
|
Rank Ascend if I'm at the top!  |
10122 cr points
Send Message:
Offline
|
Well first off, I think "Empire" is not the same as "despotism": an empire is a state which has a center that dominates the periphery. That is, the subjects aren't all equal. And you can have that without a despotic Emperor. (Athens at the helm of the Delian League or the French colonial empire before WWI or the USA at the helm of NATO now are empires with a democracy at the core, the British Empire had a constitutional monarchy at the core.)
The empire setup is as old as the European Kingdom(England)
Nope, empires go back 5000 years, despotisms even further back.
|
10122 cr points
Send Message:
Offline
|
Magical-Soul wrote:
Rank Ascend
Hierarchical society where the ranks above are superior to the ones below.
How is this even separable from the others? Your treatment ignores three key questions which make all the difference: (1) how do people rise or fall in rank, (2) how are ranks and their special rights decided, (3) are special rights hierarchic or not. Regarding the last one: you put government, policemen and citizens in a hierarchy, but policemen usually have rights politicians don't and in some systems can arrest them, both can be fired for less than normal people, and sometimes special rights come with special lack of rights (like a ban on political activity for policemen or judges, for example).
Special rights are truly bad if a change in rank is severely restricted and mostly hereditary, and special rights personally benefit the holders of those rights only and are hierarchic themselves.
|
2988 cr points
Send Message:
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
|
ROD_Junior wrote:
Well that's direct democracy. In it, the tricky part is decisions over the rights of fellow citizens, including their citizenship itself. To take it to the extreme, if the majority on some issue banishes the minority, then the majority of the remaining citizens on a second issue banishes the minority, and so on, the end state is just two citizens who can't get to a decision when they don't agree... Well things can get messy with much less, especially if the minority robbed of some rights or some sizeable non-citizen group rebels or takes revenge when becoming a majority in the next vote, so "majority rules" is usually constrained by a concept of "inalienable rights". There is also the issue of time: the majority can also rule that its decision is valid for X years, thereby restricting future majorities (this is at the core of the concept of "laws"). Another problem is that on many issues, people have more than two possible opinions, and you can end up with neither of them achieving 51%, so you need further rules (sub-51% majority rules, 51% majority rules in a run-off vote, compromise, coalitions).
But what we have instead of direct democracy is representative democracy, in which citizens delegate the right to majority vote, in theory get to vote on packages rather than every single issue. While this system won't boil down in banishments and like as happened to Athens, there are thousands of ways to game the system so that there will be representatives who will vote contrary to the majority opinion of citizens, or to bar representatives from voting on some issues. Some actual systems are better, some worse. For example, in the US system, the first-past-the-post vote promotes the pooling of forces until only two main parties remain, thus representatives only represent a little over 50% of actual voters and Congress majorities only a little over 25% of actual voters, and the way campaigns are financed ensures that most of them only represent the interests of the wealthy funders. For better systems, there are the Scandinavian countries with their proportional vote, or Switzerland with its frequent referendums alongside the elected parliament and the all-parties government.
There are no exceptions to a true democracy, otherwise it's not a democracy. As I stated above, there are no "true" democracies, and there never will be. The key here is that legally and lawfully a "minor" is someone of a lower lawful status, not a kid or a small amount of individuals. But "minorities" means negro, black, Indian, African-American, poor whites, Hispanics, Latinos, etc.
Bureaucrat is more like how a corporation is run. A government isn't a corporation per say, but the ones in question. Like the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation no different than MICROSOFT or SONY. A bureaucratic corporation is run by a board of directors, executives, CEO, etc. And that's how "colorable" governments are run, they're not true governments, but EUROPE INC. Masquerading like one.
When you agree to be a "U.S." Citizen, you agree to their policies and private law. No different than working at CRUNCHYROLL. The "trick" here is that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a stack of papers in Washington DC.
And for the love of everything that is good. Do not associate U.S. USA, etc. With America the land. UNITED STATES and United States are both foreign organizations from the Roman Empire(Europe collectively). America is a different nation than the U.S. Although I can kinda see why you would think they are one and the same...
"Bureaucratic"? I suspect you meant something else. All organised states have bureaucracies by necessity, whatever the form of government. To abolish bureaucracy, you either have to abolish all organisation (and thus government) or get citizens to do all government tasks on a part-timer basis.
The citizens of the land are the government. Every person who has a nationality is part and parcel of it's national government. You're supposed see that the law is upheld, all true citizens are to enforce their national constitution. As I said above bureaucratic is corporate, nobody "runs" a government but the nation itself. There is no head of a government because that would mean that others are below us. Governments in a conventional sense, such as Judges and magistrates are elected officials. An officer of any government agency is elected. The fact that they're hired and not elected let's you see it's not a government. But a colorable government.
What did you mean with "colorable"?
"Colorable" has a lawful terms such as dead, fake, fraud, impersonation. Let's use an example.
I pull you over because you ran a red light and I say you owe me money for breaking state "policy". If you understood law to it's fullest you would tell me you are not obligated to follow any state rules as you're not a member of the state corporation and you didn't agree to follow any kinds of policy that some corporation decided to put up.
The land was here before corporations, and corporations can't own anything.
Huh!? The history of democracies didn't begin in the USA.
Yes, it did. Government, Civilization, started in Amexem / North West Africa / Mu / Al Morroc / America. You're correct about it not starting in the USA as the USA isn't actually a place.
This doesn't make sense. You might want to claim that in a democracy, there is no such thing as a "law" (with majority decisions over-ruling any pre-set rules). But, if you accept the existence of laws in a democracy, you should also accept the possibility that the interpretation of law is made the job of a selected few ("lawyers", "judges", but also "jurors") rather than all citizens.
A combination of answers above answered this question.
Lawyers aren't present in a actual court.
|
40273 cr points
Send Message:
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
|
Not even sure in all honesty.
|
13139 cr points
Send Message:
M / Europe
Offline
|
Democracy
|
33030 cr points
Send Message:
26 / M / Socal
Online
|
Propria Persona
this one, it"s close to chaotic, my vote is for chaos.
|
2988 cr points
Send Message:
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
|
pandrasb wrote:
Propria Persona
this one, it"s close to chaotic, my vote is for chaos.
How is not hurting anyone or their property chaotic? Lol.
Propria Persona... Is the most correct form of government. It's not chaotic! xD
|
33030 cr points
Send Message:
26 / M / Socal
Online
|
Magical-Soul wrote:
pandrasb wrote:
Propria Persona
this one, it"s close to chaotic, my vote is for chaos.
How is not hurting anyone or their property chaotic? Lol.
Propria Persona... Is the most correct form of government. It's not chaotic! xD
well I relate chaos to freedom, if freedom and liberty sound nicer use those ;D
|
RSS
