From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

The purpose of law is to protect, but its nature is to judge.

AnewGoLaw is based on these Legal Concepts:

Minimal law is the goal of AnewGo.

  1. . Universal suffrage: Anyone with AnewGoCitizenship and by the suffrage of computer access can vote in AnewGo.
  2. . Mutual Respect: All citizens are protected by common consent against their rights being denied or restrained.
 * no killing.
 * no stealing
 * no involuntary servitude.
 * no unwarranted interference with activities.

Open government work

Beggars can't be chooses. Anyone can sign up for any open or abandoned position, unless special requirements, like nomination and seconding are stipulated. Eligibility for work hour credits(a type of AnewGoHours) requires work recognition by another citizen at least.

'Laws on the floor for voting'

  • ExtraLaw. All laws in all communities, local, state, federal, and International Law are all valid and considered part of AnewGo. ( Votes: Implied by including in declaration and statement of framework of AnewGo: PhillipBannigan 2003-03-23, Against: StarPilot 2003-05-29 )
  • ImportLaw. Allowing for the import an existing Legal Document (with appropriate modifications) from what the proposer considers to be best practise of the originating geographical state. (Votes: For: PhillipBannigan 2003-5-11, KenSchry 2003-5-11. Against: BayleShanks 2003-5-19, StarPilot 2003-05-20)

'Note: Another AnewGoProposedAct now with its votes in two places. Original voting was placed on the Act's page.

'All AnewGo citizens receive automatically an account with a credit limit of @ngo 2000 ( AnewGoBankAccounts )

'Note: Our resident AnewGoResident has been sponsoring new Acts, helping pass or veto other Acts, and signed AnewGoCitizenry have been respecting this. This Act therefore is not being enforced by the Consensus. Therefore, I'm voting against it, and starting a protest that the current AnewGo community does not see this as needed in AnewGo at this time.

'I'm against the AnewGo Censure Act, I believe a simpler form of exile is at hand. 'SP - (originally voiced against on 2003-05-20 in AnewGoCensure Act.)

See NewLaw, ExtraLaw, AnewGoCongress, AnewGoChurch


(Law is the antithesis of freedom.) This statement is in contention.

Freedom does not equal complete unrestriction. What we call freedom is a balance of sensible restrictions and "space" to move within.

All cultures have Law, it is what defines them. A culture without law has no definition.

Therefore a careful balance of Law and unrestriction needs to be achieved.

- Er... Shouldn't this be discussed at Law, rather then here? And hasn't a good bit at War?

Second issue: Precedent? When did that get added as a explicit matter? Wasn't it implicit from ConsensusByDefault? ---StarPilot

True, doesn't hurt though.

Actually, I think the idea of Precedent causes a good deal of trouble. I feel that one of the main reasons for the complexity of the U.S. legal system is Precedent. I feel that it is a problem that a citizen cannot understand the law to which they are bound just by reading the Laws. Even if you knew court procedure and law, you would need a lawyer in court, for you would need someone to research precedent.

Or, to put it another way, Precedent sort of incorporates past court decisions into the Law. It therefore makes even a small body of law unmanageably huge.

My preference would be a system in which courts would decide the case at hand, and then if there is some issue which needs to be settled once and for all, they should have a mechanism to force the legislature to consider the issue and to write some sort of resolution into the Law.

The downside to this is that the decisions of various courts may become less consistent; because various similar cases might be decided differently if the principals of the decisions were not be deemed important enough to get written into the Law.

I see no problem with this, however. If a normal citizen cannot determine how a case should be decided by reading the Law, why should it matter to them if such a situation is resolved differently at different times? For the use of Law to a citizen is to decide whether an action they are contemplating is legal; and they should decide this by consulting the Law, not by consulting past court cases.

(I would be willing to accept precedent anyway for AnewGo because it seems to be popular. But those are my views.)

-- BayleShanks

Well, precedent will evolve in any Legal system. Even if you start with a completely clean state, you will get a body of past judgements. This will lead judges and lawyers to look into that past body of judgements for similar cases (and in the case of the lawyers, for cases whose rulings go the way they desire). Precedent evolves by people looking to the past to see how people decided the matter, and why they decided it how they did so.

It is the times you get different rulings on similar matters where you get the splitting of hair, which yields shades of interpretation.

I am against making precedent explicitly part of the system, particularly the FIRST element, as that says that the tradition of how people have ruled is more important then any particular variations of current cases. Leaving precedent implicit, as evolving out of a clean system, seems to be the mechanism that works best, as each cases variations then can be decided to be significant enough to justify breaking with the traditional ruling. Mercy and Justice depends on looking at each case individually, not traditionally.

The purpose of Law is to formalise the punishments for "bad" behaviour. Because you have a code for penalities for behaviour, you gain by YinYang or Duality, a code of approved or expected/acceptable behavior. People pass the judgement. Law merely specifies what the enforced consequences of a particular behaviour.


What is the difference between The AnewGoErasureAct and AnewGoMajorEditAct? They seem to be the same thing to me. One version just got voted down (well, currently, anyway). Can PhillipBannigan please explain what these two things are meant to be, and why there needed to be two of them? ---StarPilot

The difference is:-

1. The AnewGoErasureAct was used to change to front page completely. Result: change effected.

2. The AnewGoMajorEditAct was invoked to alter TheAnewGoDeclarationOfExistence. Result: Two votes gathered, change not effected.


Hello, just a thought. I think I like the idea of using Back links as voting tools. So one doesn't add their name, but rather adds the issue to their home page on this wiki. AnewGoEreasureAct and AnewGoEreasureActAgainst might be the two links. The proposal would be AnewGoEreasureAct. It seems to me to use the wiki in an interesting way. An I think that a system of linking to things that you care about will scale. -- Best, MarkDilley

Good idea. How can this be implemented? --PhillipBannigan

Personal tools