NewLaw

From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

Is the concept that these laws do not need the enforcement by the use of deadly force.

Laws that do are barbaric.

NewLaw is bound by agreement of citizens.


How could you do that? If we have laws, but dont enforce them, then your society is doomed to fail.

  • Not everyone wants to pay taxes, but it's for the good of the government, so we pay. With force.

Why is that? You are happy to pay for goods and services. Is it just psychological immaturity?

  • Not everyone wants to enlist in the army. The gov't forces us to if we are drafted, so we do.

Without force, we could not uphold a law.

There will be no need of a military force. We will have no borders.

With the idea that laws have to be agreed on by all citizens, never does every person agree.

True, we will have a representitive AnewGoCongress that will pass laws by majority vote. Sound familiar?

Once a law is passed, most sensible people agree to hold it, or take political action.

While it is great, AnewGo, and would be even better if it could work, it just can't. But re-word it... you have a basis. --KenSchry

maybe not.

We will use the concept of ExtraLaw.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

In a way WikiWikiWeb is a good illustration. We all have the power to edit pages as we see fit, but agree to not mess up other writer's efforts, because there is no point really.


I am sorry if I came across as trying to mess up your efforts. I'm critiquing this to help you with your laws. But I still hold by what I said before... but still, ExtraLaw is good. --KenSchry


Thankyou for your critique I appreciate your efforts. I recognise that your view is a very popular view, but if we cannot aspire to something better, I believe we lose something. AnewGo is an experiment, but most of modern life is experimental.


AnewGo law might employ consensus by default, as in WikiCourtroom?


Yes I think it is an interesting model with merit, feel free to input into AnewGoLaw


You need to go look at how humans cooperate and interact. This is the site on collectives and HumanCooperation. The way humans behave lets everyone know this is doomed to failure. You have to teach the humans to behave differently, before your new go has the remotest of a chance.

Second, you have several positions in your new go that are not supported by the intelligensia of the world. Such as this planet is in danger of an ecological collapse. This is our garden, and we need to tend to it so that it can continue to provide for us, but life and our biosphere life creates is more resilenant then people think. You are delicate, it is not.


True the idea of ecological collapse is too strong, and i have modified it. Yes you and I are delicate, and if our survial is not important to us, what are we doing? I don't agree with your interpetation of "doomed to failure" if you do not try of course you will not succeed.


Refering back, AnewGo, I meant taxes (ex:Monthly taxes). And.... not all people are sensible.


True, i suppose we will find out what is necessary - BankOfAnewGo


I believe that we do need to allow enforcement with deadly force. For instance, what if there is a man on a murderous rampage and an office of AnewGo shoots him to defend others? Are we to say that that shot was not sanctioned by the Law of AnewGo, and that that officer was outside the Law?

What if our nation or citizens were somehow physically attacked with deadly force? Would defending this be outside our Law?

I agree that it seems like right now, the land-states will provide these sort of physical defence services, and AnewGo need not dirty its hands. However, I think we are crippling AnewGo from the start to absolutely forswear deadly force.

How about finding a way to say "no law needs enforcement of deadly force except for a law concerned with defence against deadly force". In other words, we want to forswear the use of deadly force except when such use is necessary to counter deadly force.

-- BayleShanks

  • You US citizens do continue to exhibit a profound attachment to violence as a way of solving problems, and of course the inherant assumption that force will be directed at you. Are you not learning anything? Also AnewGo, NewLaw and ExtraLaw are dedicated to mataining the present geographical states and their police forces. So now it is only international relations that we are talking about, not the international relations of Heads of State, but the co-existance of citizens from various states, like you and me. Here good work is being done by the UN. It seems to me that the warlike cultures are extremely dangerous, and simply reinforcing those attitudes does very little to prevent it. We must graduate from this position or be condemed to continue it.

You may not agree but, the reference of the need for deadly force creates it.

What sets NewLaw apart from Existing Law frameworks is that very omission.

There is an issue. Is it alright to use deadly force to defend yourself?

Second, all AnewGo members do, to some extent, support the use of deadly force. Many food sources are killed to have their food item harvested. This is deadly force against other living beings. Just not against humans. In some cases, these food source beings have just as strong feelings as you or I. In other cases, they have feelings, but cannot easily communicate them. In yet other cases, they are actually too 'primitive' to have anything resembling a recognizable feeling. And yet in other cases, we cannot be sure. Can the 'No Deadly Force' be extended to say that, politically, an AnewGoCitizen must be a Vegan? Or are we talking 'Deadly Force is only to be used when it is a matter of survival', which then includes non-Vegan ways of life? ---StarPilot

The term "Deadly Force" I have been interpeting to mean: Force which results in human death for a political reason.

The situation of self survial is an incredibly rare situation. Even during the recent Iraq War many indivduals were able to survive without resorting to deadly force, possibly the ones who did resort to the use of deadly force, are the ones who did not survive.

If you do find yourself threatened to the point of electing the use of deadly force for survial, then I suggest it is a matter for a court of the geographical state to resolve in the instance.

  • See? This sounds like a cop out on the issue. We can make it illegal, but it won't be really illegal, as your real world laws and community will decide if you should or shouldn't have used force. Which reminds me... making the use of force illegal would abridge some community laws, making the matter 'illegal' under ExtraLaw, as then AnewGo has enacted a law that is counter to local, state, national, or internation law of an AnewGo member. ---StarPilot

The issue of food worries some people, and personally I have sympathy to the vegetarian philosophy, but in this case it is irrelavent, by domestication their polictal rights have been relagated to our decisions.

What NewLaw is proposing is a way forward so as not to encode this paranoia into the enormous stockpiles of weapons that we see hoarded by nations today, that if actually were used would result in possible total destruction of the modern world. (many dystopic senarios have been explored, but i do not want to donate any of them to future generations, if there are any future generations under these senarios.)

It may be interesting to contemplate this fact. I live in Australia. If a US citizen travelled here, and took the position to remain with the same legal ideas in their head, and had a weapon in their possession, (firmly in the belief that it is their right), even a knife, and it was discovered, they would be arrested. If they continued to believe this was their right to carry this weapon, they would be considered mentally unbalanced and incarcerated for treatment.

What has changed, only geography. From our perspective the US is a nation of lunatics.

I realise that arguing the position of NewLaw to a violent and warlike group such a US citizens is an uphill battle, but there are many other perspectives to be met yet.

Let us try to be Good rather than opting to replicate what already exists.

Also AnewGo is a symbiotic creature with it's host nation, seeking to lead by example, if an AnewGo citizen is unfortunate to experience violence then they have adequate recource with the host nations laws. - PhillipBannigan


Time for you to set forward an AnewGoAct then, detailing the limited use of Deadly Force. "Deadly Force" to me is quite broader. When a police officer properly uses "Deadly Force" to eliminate a threat to themselves and the public they protect, I do not consider this an evil. Merely one of those regretable things that happens when an individual threatens his own social group. When a Texas Cheerleader's mother hires an assassin to kill her daughter's rival for being the cheering group's leader, that is murder.

  • I think this misunderstanding comes about from not understanding ExtraLaw. AnewGo needs the present existence of Geographical States to exist, and does not seek to change them other than through the accepted practices of their own politcal processes (action by citizens with that primary citizenship) or the UN. Therefore these issues remain the concern of the geographical state and it's respective police force.

I'm surprised you take the position that animals we have domesticated have surrendered their rights. That strikes me as being a very dangerous precident. I can logically extend that to you supporting slavery, for instance. A domesticated animal is a domesticated animal, and you are not taking into account self-awareness, nor self-emotivitiy. Not that I am opening the floor to that entire logical chain for debate, merely pointing out the fact that your statement needs some serious qualifiers/boundaries.

And the difference between Australia and the US is not lunacy.

  • Isn't it interesting. of course that is true, but remember the example tried to point out that these cultural ideas are not portable, you cannot expect the same rights to weapons outside of the USA. We are looking at the area of International Relations in AnewGo, obviously so lets build something GOOD not BAD.

It is one of culture. There is a minority here in the United States of America that still use firearms to provide meat for their family. Plenty of places to go Deer or Moose hunting, for instance. And for some families, the difference in their diets is significant.

Second, we are a nation built on pioneers. We believe in people having the right to stand up for themselves, as well as defend themselves.

The fact that most firearms in America are actually owned by Law Enforcement or Criminals is besides the point in modern America. However, when one starts talking gun control (or destruction), it does become a central point. As the majority of weapons would not be affected. So long as criminals have weapons, police officers will keep theres. And the latest FBI studies show, criminals get the majority of their weapons from Law Enforcement sources. The fact that any move on the government's part to eliminate firearms would further outrage the freedom loving people of America.

  • Yes you do have a difficult problem due to your history, obviously the large amount of weapons in your country is the major factor in creating deadly violent situations, and a very violent culture. This can be addressed in AnewGoLawGeographicalEdition. Thank God we do not share that situation in Australia.

'It isn't the weaponry. Violent crime is on the rise in the UK, and has been for some time. They have very strict weapon control there. In Japan, a nation with one of the strictest weapon control laws in the industrialized world, violent crime is on the rise there. It isn't a matter of having the tools leads to the act. Compare the US versue the UK or the Japanese rate of violent crimes, and ours (the US) is lower, although we have the laxest laws of the 3 nations. Violent crime is a function of poverty and population density. Australia isn't very rich, but it isn't very dense in population either. ---StarPilot

Third, returning to the matter of culture, there are many more places in the world where having a firearm and a knife is a requirement, socially or for survival. The majority of the world, IIRC, believes that owning weapons is ok, and killing people that you do not like is ok or for a matter of honor is perfectly expected. Remember that the people here at WikiWorld and AnewGo currently, are and extremely 'elite' group in our beliefs and are in the vast minority in almost all of our thoughts, when compared to the mass of humanity currently alive.

---StarPilot

They are simply barbarians. What you describe is barbaric. You have prooved the argument.

Of course I realise that you are a barbarian and you have every right to exist. I am not a barbarian.

Actually I am very glad we have a resident barbarian in ANEWGO, quite a useful resource. See AnewGoLawGeographicalEdition.

Also could you please explain how animals can articulate their concepts of their rights to humans, and that humans do not arrive at an idea of what animals rights are by themselves?


Careful with that barbarian label. That is entirely subjective, depending on which side of the cultural line you are on. Remember, to the alien, you are the alien. Remember also that you are in one of the smallest groups/cultures in the world, numberwise.

Personally, I find you calling me a barbarian funny, as most people just call me enlightened, friend, or bastard.

Remember also, that anyone that eats meat, is a barbarian, either directly or indirectly. Whether you get the blood spilled on your hand from killing the meat animal, handling and cooking the meat, or merely paying for it and eating it as part of a prepared meal, you are still supporting that culture. We are all interdepedant these days. It's one global support structure. Rainforest being cut down in the Amazon to raise beef cattle whose meet goes to MacDonalds and other major food chains, etc etc etc.

As far as where animals get their rights, there's that little bit of politicking of Jim's. You know, Animal Rights for Humans, Human Rights for Animals, as there is no distinguishing between the two, scientifically and behaviorally. You might want to check your references and inclusions by references if you don't like that (it's in the contracts, good life, and a few other places, IIRC). I think you'll find, BTW, you are already outvoted on that issue in AnewGo if push comes to shove.

Do you think you have a superior claim to rights over animals? Cats, dogs, horse, goats, sheep, birds, lizards, etc? You do not sound like someone with any real long term/co-habitation experience with animals, or you'd know that most animals do articulate that they want their right to food, water, shelter, caring, and to be left alone. Just because they do not speak English, does not mean that they cannot communicate their desires, wants, and emotions. We understand our fellow mammals easiest, as far as groups and types go, but even reptiles can communicate their thoughts, emotions, and desires.

You are on a very slippery slope. If you state someone has to communicate with you in a fashion you can understand clearly, then you are dooming most of humanity to animal and non-protected status under that defination, as most of humanity cannot communicate any clearer to you in a foreign language then any other primate on this planet. If you recognize all of humantity, you will not find a way to block out recognizing our genetic cousins, as they can just as easily communicate to you as a Chinese person speaking Mandarin can communicate with me. Once you include primates, it is easy to show that other mammals can all easily communicate with a human just as primates can. And one can continue to extend that out for quite a distance.

Scientifically, you cannot justify having just humans being special. We share too much with our fellow beings here on this little planet.

Spiritually, you can find some passages in King James and other Christian based bibles that do say "Man is special and unique". But a review of religions throughout Man's history will show that the thinking that Man is special and unique is a minority opinion in and of itself. Most religions recognize that there are spirits/souls in our fellow animals. And spirit is just an ancient word to mean intelligent, feeling being.

---StarPilot

I do not disagree with your caring statements about our fellow creatures, but it remains a fact that humans will interpret signs from animals and arrive at a process of codification of their rights. It is very difficult for illiterate creatures to arrive at a document. What that document contains remains to be seen, but what I have read so far, I support it's inclusion in AnewGo by the use of the ImportLaw Act. It seems to have already been included in TheAnewGoConstitution.

On the issue of barbarism. If to use Deadly Force against humans for a desired outcome is a bararbic act, yes there is a lot of barbarism in the world. Does not seem to be a reason to increase it though. I have defined Law that is supported by the use of Deadly Force as barbaric. Obviously all present Law, with the possible execption of International Law is supported in this way, as per many paragraphs of your text.

It may be wise to look at the work of Mahatma Gandhi, a well respected statesman, who did much to establish the modern state of India and to propergate ideas about Non-violence and the rule of law.

This is where AnewGo recieves it's uniqueness, the central idea that will ensure a gradual growth, as it is inline with the development of International Law, and the plea for universal acceptance of the rule of Law, which does not exist at this point in time.

The TyrannyOfTheMajority issue needs to be addressed, but it seems to be a conumdrum on the surface of it.

I will not continue to discuss the issue of NewLaw, as I believe it to be adequately addressed.

--- PhillipBannigan

Ah. But again, you still have one last position that logically and philosophically needs to be addressed. If you take the position that a horse has never documented it wants to be fed, watered, sheltered, attended (played with and cared for), and left alone, we find that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of all Humans that are alive today, or have lived, also have not documented their rights either. Yet, you recognize their rights (well, the rights you decide they are entitled to), wherever they come from or whenever they lived. So either your requirement that animals document their rights in terms you can understand is incorrect (as you do not require that for your own animal species and therefore show that it isn't needed), or you are a speciest (that's a bigot against other species) and wish to think of yourself and your own species as unique. I do not mind if you do want to, for whatever reasons, decide to not recognize other living, feeling, self-aware beings as having any rights. However, since we are talking about building a better, more logical system for the world, be prepared to recognize the fact that it is illogical and inconsistant, a special case of your own, and that the Tyranny Of the Largest Minority | has you currently out-voted on the issue.

Logically, and philosophically, I think if you consider the matter, you will find that position solves more issues then it raises. ---StarPilot


I do recoginise other creatures rights, but it remains a fact that humans are doing the recoginising, so it will remain the decision of humans.

  • Really? Trust me, when you stand beside an animal that weighs a ton or ton (like a large horse, a rodeo bull, etc), you will realize that it was recognizing your rights (to live in peace, etc) when it decides to revoke those rights because it thinks you are infringing on it's right to live in peace, etc (gets scared at you, etc).
  • Ever been beside a large animal like whale? Ever see it decide to leave you in peace and it purposely and consciously goes out of its way to leave you unharmed? Trust me, for the bigger animals, it's easier for them not to bother going around something as small and insignificant as you then it is for them to be kind and do so.
  • As I said, the only way to say that we have right to decide for them is the fact that we, as a community, are mightier then them. And that is the very action and attitude, PhillipBannigan, that got you so mad at Bush and Blair and the Coalition and motivated you to start AnewGo in the first place. Because you do not believe in MightMakesRight. So apparently, you are an MightMakesRight guy with one exception. You believe MightMakesRight in all cases, as long as you view it as Nature. Only, Nature is not a seperate matter from Humans. We are all a part of Nature. --StarPilot

It remains to be seen who is the "mightier" in the over all system. If one measures by numbers insects do seem to be the most numerous. As you demonstrate we are a part of the natural system, whatever that may be in totality. But what is in question is the codification of law which is communicated amongst a community, any specific can occur as in your examples. It remains a fact that at present, humans codify language into laws. The purpose of NewLaw is to create a moral basis for law making asked for by JimScarver.

  • Again, you are incorrect, on several counts.
  1. Insects wouldn't recognize you as a fellow insect. Food yes. Nesting material, yes. But insects do not try to put on a regulated behavior that differs from their feelings and instints. We do. We call this behavior, community.
  2. Law is not the codification of language. Law is the codified penalities for bad behavior. We've been over this. Why do you keep getting lost on this? Or are you trying to mutate the Meme of Law?
  3. Morality is not an objective fact. It is merely what a particular viewpoint finds to be comfortable behavior. Any person, living in the world, will change their personal morality over time. Today, you do not approve of the killing of your fellow man. In ten years? You may. Your morality is nothing more then an opinion of yours, and as an opinion, it will change.

At no point in time have I advocated the use of deadly force for anything. I believe that the mood at present in AnewGo is that there should be a provision for retaliation in the future, which is speculative at best.

  • Again, incorrect. We reserve the right to use force of any kind, up to and including deadly force, in any and all manner of circumstances. From matters of survival (killing food plants and animals, to killing dangerous wildlife that pose a threat to ourselves or our communities) to matters of community survival (going to War to defend ourselves, our allies, or the future communities of the world).

This I refute under the idea of ExtraLaw and which has been stated that Laws of Geographical states should not be broken. If there is an organisiation in AnewGo that posesses weapons and organises the use of them, I would strongly suspect that if this came to the notice of any geographical state, that could be construed as a militia or terrorist organisation.

  • ExtraLaw is that all exiting laws apply to AnewGo. Therefore, I will now point out the stupidity of ExtraLaw: This means ALL LAWS of ALL COMMUNITIES existing in this world, (allowing for all opposition of views to cancel each other out on the basis of one for one to help cut down on the clutter). Now, murder is required of all AnewGo citizens; the murder of all that do not believe correctly, the murder of the immoral and unjust, the murder of all who offend God by existing in all manner of Unholy ways. Remember: The majority of MAN, from the first day of Community, believe in the killing and slaughter, wholescale, of any and all things, Phillip. It is legal, right now in this world, in all significant nations, to kill, under all manner of circumstances, for all manner of reasons (whether 'reasonable' such as self defense, or 'morally based' such as the execution of adulterers and traitors). It is moral and just, throughout this world, right not, to use torture on men, women, and children to extract information to be used againt them and others in the court of laws of the world. It is legal to own your fellow human being in the majority of the world's communities. You need to get over this thinking of yours that you are right and the world is wrong when we are discussing community. You can only have that view in an organization that is despotic, and if you are the tyrant in charge of it. Remember, you are only right for 'you'. But you are very wrong in the view of the 'world' as a community. And since we are discussing being a democracy of the masses, of any and all in the world that can speak, remember that the world's opinion is that you kill a woman you believe is unfaithful. You kill any unwanted child. You kill any who mar your personal honor/public face. Humanity, as a plurality, is a small, wicked child with a very sharp knife, a child which uses that knife to harm others for any imagined slight or pain or advantage, until a bigger child kills it.
  • WE here are among the most elite of the HumanAnimals on this planet. Our attitudes and beliefs are very different, very distinct, and very "advanced". We are completely outnumbered already in beliefs in just those that already use the internet. And that difference of numbers will continue to grow as more people of the world become wired. All your thoughts and morality are at best scotch taped on to the AnewGo community. Right now, it would only take 5 Zulus to come join AnewGo, and they could out vote us on anything, change the AnewGo constitution to require a blood sacrifice on the New and Full moons to honor the ancient spirits because they follow a particular offshoot of one of their community's traditional beliefs, and that be it. Remember, the final arbitrator of any issue in AnewGo is the majority of the community's opinion.
  • That is what you don't grasp about AnewGo. By your very declaration of it, you made yourself the smallest minority member of it. If it is truly successful, you will end up leaving it, in disgust, as you will be out-voted and over-ruled by the masses. (Don't worry. The rest of us here wouldn't stick around much longer, I think.)
  • Democracy is the tyranny of the largest group over all other groups. You have failed to address this matter in any significant form so far. You have seen what your attempts to stamp your beliefs over others have earned... the Consensus is against it. New Law (No use of force)? Voted down. Import Law? Pointed out as redundant. (Doubly so, since ExtraLaw has already effectively imported all laws of all communities in the world).
  • There is certainly a desire in the people of this world to improve things. But you are not offering improvement through NewLaw, ExtraLaw, ImportLaw, etc. You are arguing to impose your opinion upon all others, and not thinking this through (Obviously, or you wouldn't have declared ExtraLaw or ImportLaw). Our democracy has already rejected all of your moral positions. While this small group all agree we do not believe others have the right to do harm to us, and that we all want to improve the world, we disagree on what form those improvements would be. And inviting more people will just raise the noise to signal ration. I am used to being a minority opinion, so I do not mind. But I sense a frustration in you in being a minority, and that frustration will just grow as we add in more people to the AnewGo community. Remember, the only difference in a democracy and a tyranny, is that a democracy gives everyone that can vote a chance to be a tyrant, but people will almost always be the over-ruled minority instead. ---StarPilot

--PhillipBannigan

I think StarPilot's points are a little strong:

  • I agree. :-D I tend to state things strongly when communicating online in this sort of medium. A common failing. Maybe I use more body language then I'm truly conscious of, but am trying to make up for it?

You need to get over this thinking of yours that you are right and the world is wrong when we are discussing community.

Why? Maybe he is right and the world is wrong. Just because "the majority" thinks something doesn't mean it's right. Anyhow, I think you are exaggerating the extent of PhillipBannigan's disagreement with the rest of us.

  • When talking about a consensus of the community, the individual opinon is always wrong, by definition. Otherwise, they wouldn't be an individual opinion, they would be the party opinion. At AnewGo, there is no such thing as MORALITY. That is merely a spiritual matter for AnewGoChurch. All morality is to be removed from AnewGo LAWS. Total separation between all matters spiritual or spirtual based, and the 'real world'. That is AnewGo's very own statement (prior to his switching to the use of the handle PhillipBannigan). Since there is not spiritual right and wrong, the only morality is the community's morality. Since PhillipBannigan does not agree with the consensus, he is wrong and immoral and disruptive, by his own statements, opinoins, and reasonings posted here.
I think there's a big distinction between saying that the legal code should be independent from spiritual matters like morality, and saying that as we discuss which laws to make we should not mention morality. I only sort of agree with the first and almost always disagree with the second. We should feel free to consider moral justifications for the laws when debating them (although, as I said below with reference to the animal rights thing, I don't think disagreement on the philosophical underpinnings of a law is a problem when we all agree about the law itself, but for different reasons).
'Note'
In this usage, wrong just means incorrect. As in, 'NOT' correct. Where is this morality being derived from? It is not. There is no such thing as "group morality" in AnewGo. Merely what is currently correct, and what is not. What is the current accepted group compromises and what is the currently accepted behaviors that the group will abide by. There is no universal 'Right and Wrong' because there is no universal 'Morality'. That's why the AnewGoChurch is a seperate matter and no matter of the AnewGoChurch can ever be considered in force over any member of AnewGo. That's what you've agreed to, Bayle. That's what all AnewGoCitizens have agreed to. To never kill, to obey all AnewGo 'laws' (which with NewLaw, means you die if someone tries to kill you. You CANNOT defend yourself. Pay attention, as that is using deadly force. If your local community grants you that right, you LOSE it thanks to NewLaw, as it doesn't enable you to break your local law, merely further outlaws activity that PhillipBannigan thinks is disgusting and barbaric. After all, you won't need the option of deadly force when everyone in the world stops being a barbarian and joins AnewGo.) ---StarPilot
As a side matter, even if you didn't want to discuss morality for whatever reason, don't call disagreement with the consensus "wrong" or "immoral". The individual opinion is not "wrong" compared to a disagreeing community, it merely does not hold force. The legal decision of the community should not be confused with morality, although there are many close associations between the two.
When something is incorrect, it is wrong. I do not recall saying it was "immoral", other then in the philisophic sense that the community is always right, and no matter 'HOW' people try, the group spiritual beliefs and morality will be reflected in the laws they make, and what they consider acceptable ("correct" and therefore "morally acceptable" in the community) and what they consider unacceptable ("Incorrect" and therefore "immoral" in the community).
The legal decision of the community is automatically the moral decision of the community. That is where morality draws its authority from, community. There was a time it was immoral to get a divorce in the US. Who enforced this morality? The community. Now it is just another accepted thing that happens. It used to be morally accepted (and a man's duty) to beat his wife and kids when they got out of line. If the man did not do this, the community did. Today? Now it is a "morally reprehensible" act for someone to bully another being, regardless of any familial relationships. Again, who enforces this morality choice? The community. The community is ALWAYS right. It will only recognize it is "wrong" when it has either changed it's morality (Japanese apologizing for the torture of subjegated people and POWs during WWII), or a larger/stronger community forces it to (most Mormon sects stopping the practice of polygamy due to the larger, national community finding it "immoral", and enforcing that decision). Your community determines what is moral and immoral. Community gains this power through the most basic mechanism of cooperation, MightMakesRight. ---StarPilot
(if the community consensus was the definition of "moral", then what wording would you use to disagree with the consensus on moral grounds? For example, how could you articulate in a slave-holding society, "I think slavery should be abolished because I think it is immoral"?. If "morally right" "agrees with communnal consensus", then it would be factually incorrect to say that slavery is immoral in a slave-holding society. This would make discussions about proposed changes to the law very confusing).
I would use, "I disagree" and "I think this is incorrect" and "this seems illogical" and eventually, "Philosophically". Morality is determined by the group. Your spiritual beliefs are your own, but the group (community) determins what is 'moral' and isn't. Philisophically and/or logical, you can disagree. But so long as your beliefs are in the minority opinion, you are not on "moral" grounds. ---StarPilot
-- BayleShanks
  • Furthermore, I think you are underestimating the extent he disagrees with the rest of us. After all, he thinks we are all lunatics and barbarians and undeserving of our very lives and he needs to lead us all to the only proper way of life as determined by him, by his very statements here at WikiWorld (several on this very page). Do you believe you are a lunatic? A barbarian? In need of someone to show you how to live properly? I do not think that is what the community here believes. Most of the active participants strike me as being rather settled in their selves, having a good sense of who they are, and how they want or like to live. -- StarPilot

ExtraLaw is that all exiting laws apply to AnewGo.

No, ExtraLaw says only that AnewGo laws don't overrule existing laws. Those existing laws have jurisdiction only over the citizens and residents of the nations promulgating them. Specifically, murder of the unholy and such is not required of all AnewGo citizens. It's just as if you had a corporation or a club or something; the organization can have rules, but these do not overrule the laws of sovereign nations. -- BayleShanks

  • You are not following through on the matter. Extra Law is that AnewGo recognizes all Laws of all communities, from the most local up to international, and that AnewGo will never make an act that contradicts such, merely adding its own to that existing body (and never conflicting with those). So then, AnewGo can never abridge this: "It is required for you to kill the unholy, the unclean, the unbelieving, that is not murder but justice and protection of the community; Failure to do so means you yourself are an unholy, a heathen and non-believer, and the faithful are required to kill YOU." (A common law in many communities throughout the world.) We can find hundreds of conflicting laws just between our small subset of local, state, federal, and international laws in just the set of real world laws that apply to you, me, Jim, Ken, and Phillip. That's the five most active members of the community, but every community's member's laws, from the very smallest enforced order (local) to the greatest enforced (national) and coordinated (international) are all legitimate, recognized laws of AnewGo. Otherwise, AnewGo could indeed make laws that overrule existing laws of the physical world communities that AnewGo members are part of, or under the jurisdiction of, permanently or temporarily (traveling, visting, just passing through). Think it through. And this is why I'm presenting such a strong 'opinion' on this. I view this as unreasonable and ultimately leading to conflict of legally binding laws, if AnewGo really grows and becomes something more then just 5 or 10 of us discussing various things here. ---StarPilot
I interpret ExtraLaw very differently. I interpret it as saying, "we'll make all sorts of laws, but any given citizen is only bound to obey the laws which do not contradict the laws of their geographic states". In other words, we could make a law "no citizen will kill for religious reasons", and that law would simply not apply to any AnewGo citizens who are under the jurisdiction of a geographic state which mandates killing for religious reasons. ExtraLaw doesn't prevent AnewGo from making any law, or import anyone else's laws. It just says that citizens are not bound by laws which contradict local laws.
-- BayleShanks
You still aren't following through, Bayle. ExtraLaw recognizes all Laws, from the local, UP to the highest known... international. That's why the whole Coalition invades Iraq and knocks over the Iraqi Regime is unlawful AND immoral, according to AnewGo. It violates International laws for nations to just invade each other 'willy-nilly'. The Coalition did not have unanimous (or super-majority) to do so. Therefore, it was wrong, against the community, and therefore 'immoral'.
Now, setting that aside, you still aren't paying attention. It is legal for me, as a citizen NOT of Arizona, to own a camel. It is legal for PhillipBannigan to own a camel, as a citizen of Australia. But it is not legal for PhillipBannigan to take his camel to Arizona while visiting an AnewGo member that resides in Arizona. We all agree that AnewGo is not meant to try and resolve this conflict of local permissions/behaviors. However, what happens when a rabid bear tries to maul PhillipBannigan, his (illegal) camel, and our Arizona member will out camping? While it is legal under local laws for our Arizona member to shoot and kill the bear in self defense, it is not legal under NewLaw for any member of AnewGo to use deadly force. It isn't legal for PhillipBannigan, under his home laws (where it is legal to own his pet camel) to shoot the brown bear, as it violates a law of Australia, if I can believe an oddball Discovery show. Just what jurisdiction for all these laws is the dominant one? Can you shot the maruading brown bear or not? If its taken you this long to decide, you probably missed your chance, and have gotten hurt.
Now, let's add in this twist... it really wasn't a brown bear. It was the Arizona member's little brother, trying to play a trick on his brother and visitor, and was dressed in a bearskin. Now, your self defense against an what our defendant's thought was animal (there had been cases recently of bear attacks locally, say, so there was a higher awareness of the situation), has turned into murder of a fellow human being, which is definately against NewLaw. Whoopsie. Remember, PhillipBannigan didn't agree with self-defense and only agreed to leave the issue 'up in the air'. Since the little brother was only out to scare people a bit, it definately wasn't self-defense, the defendants just thought it was. In some places in the US, the defendant would get off (the little brother would be considered responsible for his actions and the repercussions of those actions). In others, he'd go to jail for man-slaughter, depending on the particulars. What's the ruling? Shouldn't have happened according to AnewGo, and therefore, wrong. We might let the matter slide, since AnewGo depends on the local/state/national real world communities to take care of such matters, but still.
Which leads me back to a point raised early
enforcement of community. Other then banning someone or editing their contributions/postings, AnewGo has no other ways of enforcing its will. Heck, right now it depends on the local community to decide what is and isn't okay. Is it alright for an AnewGo member to marry a 12 year old? Well, if you are German, yes. If you are live in Massachussettes, no. Is it alright to provide drinks to a non-relative who is 19 years old? In England, yes, in Alabama, no. But how would AnewGo go anything about such happenings, if the community thought something needed doing? The best it could do is try and reach some real world authority in those locations and alert them to the happenings.
Of course, that's all nice and good, with what is considered AnewGo 'morally acceptable' to be dependant on the time and place and who it happens to. But what happens if AnewGo, as a community, decides to make the AnewGoNoSmokingAct (No new member of AnewGo can smoke, support the habit of others, and no smoking in any AnewGo community activities) and it passes with majority voters. Later, Jim decides to sell a carcinogen and tar reduced tobocca product. Now, Jim is in violation of the 'no supporting the habit of others'. Now, originally, Jim got into it as an act of kindness to his fellow man (it's meant as a tool to kick the habit, for instance). Jim can of course file a protest with AnewGoCourt over the matter. But this additional law has in fact abridged Jim's rights for where he is and the time he is in. The non-smoking mainstream community of AnewGo have created a Act that abridges the implied, or explicit, law that permits Jim to sell and use such products. Any explicit denial of activity is of course a denial of the ability to do so. By enforcement and common practice, if you haven't explicitly denied an activity, it is implicitly legal. This alone means AnewGo can never pass an Act against anything that isn't already outlawed in the world.
Take this one step further... say Jim shows up at where a couple of other AnewGo members are at. And he happens to smoke what he sales. More then 2 is a 'group' according to the US legal defination. So Jim cannot smoke there because there are now 3 AnewGo members present? But he would be allowed to smoke if it was just him and Ken, as that wouldn't be a group AnewGo activity, merely the meeting of 2 AnewGo members? (2 people meeting and talking is not a group. This is why it isn't conspiracy for 2 writers to talk about plots to kill the President (for a book), but it is conspirary for 3 people (2 writers and a technical consultant) to do so.) Something for your general consideration. What takes precedent?
Remember, whenever AnewGo states "Members can do this", that is in conflict with any place that forbids it. Such as, "Members are to have unlimited access to the Internet" (Isn't that somewhere in the Universal Access to information somewhere?). That is in direct violation to Chinese laws, as well as Iranian, Iraqi (although this will likely change), Saudi Arabian, etc etc etc. Since 'AnewGo cannot make any law that abridges your local, state, federal, or international laws', this is unlawful in AnewGo terms. Gone by AnewGo logical framework. And if AnewGo grows globally, we will SURELY have a few members from China. (Heck, a few of the game forums I participate at does, and they are very narrow interest focused.) Logically, if any place in the world forbids that behavior, AnewGo cannot take a counter stance. And if it is legal any where in the world, again, AnewGo cannot take a counter stance to that. Therefore, AnewGo can only take stances on items that have no legal baggage, anywhere, and AnewGo stances will only last until a real world location takes a stance on the matter. That is the flaw in 'ExtraLaw'. Somewhere in the world, even our date format is illegal, as it does not put the date, month, and year into proper order to show respect to God, Country, Emporer or political party. ---StarPilot


Remember, the final arbitrator of any issue in AnewGo is the majority of the community's opinion.

No, depending on which decision-making procedures we adopt, we can require supramajorities for some things, even extreme supramajorities like 95% agreement which is basically consensus (with protection against small groups of individuals who feel like screwing things up for fun). -- BayleShanks

  • Point of order: At this time, we have set it to be simple largest opinion. If 18 people vote on a matter, with 6 for, 5 against, and the rest abstaining as the issue stands, the consensus is 'For'. Simple largest active opinion (not a 'majority of members'). If someone protests an AnewGoAct, the matter goes to AnewGoCourt, and the simple largest opinion of the community is the final arbitrator. I believe most of us recognize that if this was a community of say, 100 people, that 95% yes would be impossible to get on any matter. Even on something that would be 'universally' agreed to (such as "Banning all child porn or links to child porn from AnewGo, and permitting any AnewGo member to edit out the exist of any such found on the site."), not everyone would have the time to get in and say 'Darn tootting==== I'm for this Act!'. That reasonable line of participation to reach a quarum changes with the size of the community. -- StarPilot ====


I would be in favor of something like 80% out of those who vote is required for an expansion of AnewGo government power, or a "positive action", or 50% out of those who vote required for a negation of a previous law, or a restriction of AnewGo government power, or a "negative action" (with actions being presumed positive if this can't be decided). -- BayleShanks
The number is dependant on what you are after. It's easy to be a spoiler and get things negated if you don't even NEED majority, just tied vote count. And 80% agreement would be impossible to get with more then 100 voters (4 out of ever 5? Think about it. The US constitution calls for 2/3's and that is extremely difficult to achieve at the best of times). What is resonable changes on how many vote, and what you are voting on. ---StarPilot

At no point in time have I advocated the use of deadly force for anything. I believe that the mood at present in AnewGo is that there should be a provision for retaliation in the future, which is speculative at best.

  • Again, incorrect. We reserve the right to use force of any kind, up to and including deadly force, in any and all manner of circumstances. From matters of survival (killing food plants and animals, to killing dangerous wildlife that pose a threat to ourselves or our communities) to matters of community survival (going to War to defend ourselves, our allies, or the future communities of the world). -- StarPilot

I think PhillipBannigan's statement more captures the consensus here. We aren't saying that we will use deadly force to ensure community survival. We are saying we might at some future point think about discussing that, but for now it is clearly prohibited. -- BayleShanks

  • I disagree. And so far, the opinions I've seen expressed supports me. You are closer to what I seen said so far... that we reserve the right to employ the use of force, up to and including deadly, under certain circumstances. I think it is the exact circumstances that were not defined, prior to this point. Everyone that has said they believe in the use of force has so far agreed to using it at least to defend themselves. It is those implied meanings when they say themselves, as what they mean is really 'their Self Interests'. Family, friends, community, nations, honor, pets, property, etc. Personally, I'm not inclined to kill someone that is only out to steal my property. Property is replacable, after all. Some people, that believe in self-defense, believe differently. I would not presume to say that such people are not welcome in AnewGo. Are you? That is exactly what tieing down the terms of when it is and is not appropriate to use force, including deadly force, to defend themselves, does. -- StarPilot


I think the boils down to a difference in interpretation of ExtraLaw. I see ExtraLaw as an overlay, like a transparency overlay for a slide projector. Yes, as individuals we reserve the right to use force in certain circumstances. But these are neither authorized nor condemned by NewLaw. NewLaw says that AnewGo does not authorize the use of force. This means that
1) No-one is ever officially authorized to use deadly force on behalf of AnewGo or in the name of AnewGo. I.e. our tax-collectors or whoever are not authorized to use violence if someone doesn't want to comply with the rules.
2) We do not authorize individuals to use deadly force in any way beyond whatever authorization they've derived from their own geographic state.
Whoopsie==== You just authorized AnewGo members to use deadly force. You are endorsing people to use deadly force as their locale (local, state, national, internation) says they can. So, AnewGo endorses the killing of unfaithful women in Saudi Arabia. The stoning death of witches in Nigeria. That will get a rise out of this elitist community, but it is exactly what AnewGo would do then. We might have a page protesting a few minor happenings (the use of the local orphans to look for mines in North Korea), but since we do not abridge your rights and authority for your real world communities, we therefore implicitly endorse it. Remember, ConsensusByDefault... if you don't protest, you either support it, or just don't care enough about it to give a hoot. ---StarPilot ====


NewLaw does not say "citizens of AnewGo may never use deadly force for anything". It just states that AnewGo or its laws will never serve as the reason or authorization for deadly force. So, the legality of deadly force is entirely the same for a citizen of AnewGo as for another citizen in their same geographic state. NewLaw is simply proclaiming that AnewGo has nothing to say in the matter (by way of saying "AnewGo does not authorize more deadly force" and not mentioning prohibition of deadly force at all). Another way of looking at it; deadly force is prohibited for official, AnewGo purposes. For unofficial purposes (like self-defence), the laws of nation-states are not changed.
Yes it did. Now, we've arued it until the community has decided it means something different (classic politics), and have even changed the wording, but that was what it said originally. Are you trying to say different? Or just say that 'NOW THAT WE'VE CHANGED IT', it doesn't say that? ---StarPilot
What we are debating is whether this should be enshrined in a hard-to-change place like the Declaration or Constitution, or merely be made a Law. I think it should be a Law.
The Declaration is not hard to change. I can go change it now. Doing so would 'invalidate' it's signatory count, requiring a new round of endorsing/voting. But we have not made any Act (agreement) that specifically spells out how easy or hard it is to change the Declaration or Constitution. ---StarPilot
-- BayleShanks
  • To illustrate my point a different way, the reason I'm the 'AnewGoResident' and not a signed 'AnewGoCitizen' is that the original declaration for AnewGo isn't about making a better world. It's about using the earth's resources in a matter of AnewGo's choosing, and bringing political pressure to bear on Bush, Blair, and the Coalition because AnewGo members have found there actions to be offensive and out of bounds for leaders of other countries (Phillip is not a citizen of the US or UK, but has not decried his own country's leadership here as he has decried those). I do not agree with that. Therefore, I will not sign up for that. I am for working to improve our world, improve our communities (at all levels), reaching peaceful cooperative mutually beneficial co-existance that strengthens everyone's future, improves their lives, better utilizes our resources, and gets us to the stars. But I'm not out to spank Bush and Blair. After all, almost no war recorded in history was ever about what the leadership 'told' the people it was about. (The sinking of the Lucentinia ring any bells?) -- StarPilot
I drafted a new proposed Declaration on DeclarationOfExistenceDiscussion which doesn't include as much. It seems like a couple of people, excluding JimScarver, didn't find any huge problems with it, yet I am the only signatory. If you have issues with some of the things endored by the original Declaration, why not sign my proposal? That way we will be moving forward towards a Declaration that everyone can accept. -- BayleShanks

I think the whole rights for non-human life thing is irrelevant to the current topic. Regardless of whether we end up putting something about the rights or our obligations to non-human life in the laws or in our constitution, I think it's clear that we are not going to prohibit deadly force against animals or plants in anything near as strong a way as we want to do concerning humans. When we are talking about a prohibition of deadly force here, we mean humans. Perhaps that definition should be clarified somewhere in our legal documents, but I think for the purposes of this discussion it is quite clear. -- BayleShanks

  • I think you gloss over too much, this time. The point is quite valid. It illustrates a very strong difference between Phillip and Jim. Phillip's expressed views are that only his opinion is the correct one. He refuses to subjegate his own rights for others, claiming that the fact that he is a living, feeling being makes it a "God given right" (to borrow from the US Declaration) for him to have them, but refuses to recognize the same fact for anyone, or anybeing, else. He refuses to acknowledge he is claiming his right because he is one of "God's Children" (made in God's image and therefore elite due to a spiritual viewpoint), and 'claims' it is because he thinks and feels. If his basis is truly that it is he thinks and feels, then he has to recognize the same rights for all beings that 'think and feel'. He claims that he doesn't have to recognize a cow as an equally thinking and feeling being because 'The cow cannot talk in a manner he can understand'. This again shows Phillip is making a very narrow view that has no basis in any logical distinction because he will recognize the rights of deaf people, or Parisians, or Italians, or Chinese or Pakistani, etc etc etc (these are examples of humans that cannot talk in a manner he can understand). He has not provided a consistant logical reason for his opinion that humans are special, and are the only beings to qualify for the PhillipBannigan bill of rights and privelages. This is an elitism I will tear down, every time, whenever I see someone claim that their rights and privs are entitled because they are living, feeling beings, but refuse to give those same rights to others, and do not put forth a logically consistant reason why. If Phillip just says, he's a Christian and believes that God gave Man the right to choose and keep animals as he choses, I will accept that, and leave him be on the matter. That's a moral and spiritual teaching. However, if that is his reasonings, his own statements and opinions is that isn't a legitimate basis for any AnewGo Acts (Laws). Merely AnewGoChurch Guidelines. Seperation of 'morality' and 'spirituality' from what is 'enforcable' or 'meant to be followed by all of the community'.
  • Now, I'm not arguing that we go out and poll the local cow herds for their opinions. I am merely taking issue with someone trying to make an AnewGo policy ("Only humans can be members of AnewGo") that is based on a non-logicly presented point of the matter (especially when Jim has put forward the policy of "Human Rights for Animals, and Animal Rights for Humans", and no one has actually voted counter to his policy, making the ConsensusByDefault to be agreement with that policy). It seems to me that Jim believes that there will be some truly sentient AI within his lifetime, so establishing a policy of whether or not we truly recognize all thinking, feeling beings could be of political interest down the road sometime. I hope that they will be in my lifetime, but I am unsure if they will be legal. Regardless, lets not forget that some enterprising Japanese company has produced a dog to human translator, and are currently working on a cat to human translator, and that other companies are working on dolphin, porpoise, and whale to human translators. Such things, with refinements, could lead to all sorts of odd users surfing and participating online. ;-) ---StarPilot


OK, well I don't claim to have a totally consistent logical framework that derives from first principals a reason why humans should have different rights from cows. However, I still think that's what we should do, partially for practicality and partially based off my internal, probably inconsistent logical framework.
It's very logically inconsistant. According to the AnewGo declaration, anyone that can log into AnewGo is recognized by AnewGo as a person, and entitled to all those privs. It really isn't beyond the realm of possibilities that we will have non-humans interacting here in the future within 10 or 20 years. Most of us would still be alive then, so a real reason other then, well, it don't look human, needs to be established. The only theory put forth so far is, MightMakesRight. Which is very much counter to the political purpose of AnewGo (and causes me to chuckle). ---StarPilot
I think AnewGo's law should just state axiomatically that we give such-and-such rights to humans. I am not concerned that we cannot all agree on a philosophical justification for this. Since I think we will all accept an axiomatic grant of rights to humans different from those given to cows, I see no need to discuss it in this context (it's an interesting discussion, but not one necessary to have in order to write the Laws). More practically, I propose we move that discussion off the NewLaw page and don't worry about it anymore while discussing NewLaw here.
Again, as it is now, we just give it to whoever can log in. That's the differiantion between non-important and important beings.
This is basically jumping back and forth between particular issues with NewLaw, and larger issues, as I see it. If you want to refactor this page, feel free to do so. Remember, if I disagree strongly enough with your refactoring, I will just restore the missing bits. ConsensusByDefault ;-) ---StarPilot
Also, a side issue
I wasn't aware of this "Human Rights for Animals, and Animal Rights for Humans" declaration. This reinforces my feeling that we need a more formal process.
-- BayleShanks



Regardless of PhillipBannigan's not discussing the matter any further, I will, at least for awhile.

I agree with ExtraLaw insofar as I don't think that AnewGo will need to use deadly force anytime soon, because the geographic states do that for us.

However, as far as forming a new kind of government and setting a beacon for the world, I sort of feel that that is like saying we are better because we don't kill animals, while eating a hamburger that someone else has prepared.

It will not be very impressive for our State to outlaw deadly force if the only reason we can do this is because we push the problem onto someone else.

That being said, it may still be the right decision to do this. But, this fundamentally limits the scope of the AnewGo project. I would prefer to create a distributed State which can, in principal, fulfill all of the functions that a geographic state can do, although we do not actually do so. This way, if the state of the world changes substantially and unpredictably, AnewGo may be able to take on a role which does not in the present day exist (examples of the sort of thing I mean: the tribes or franchises in cyberdystopia fictions which protect and assist their citizens even as they live within a geographic state; the E.U.).

So, I guess the question is really one of ExtraLaw, defined broadly not only as not breaking the law of geographic states, but as not taking on any of their main functions. Is ExtraLaw a fundamental principal at the heart of AnewGo? Or, is it a fundamental basis for our current policy? I would prefer the second.

If we want to express formally that we see no use for deadly force in the present day, even for self-defence, while allowing ourselves the option to find a use later, we might put a "no deadly force except to defend against deadly force" clause in the Constitution or even the Declaration, while making a Law that "AnewGo may not exercise deadly force as long as this law is in effect".

-- BayleShanks

This issue will not go away. So we seem to be divided in to the "purist" position my orginal assertion, and the "pragmatist" position.

This may be a good compromise. A kind of emergency button.

-- PhillipBannigan

You are not being a purist on the matter of no use of deadly force, Phillip. And you are not being a purist on the matters of recognizing intelligent, feeling beings to live as they choose and respecting that choice. You are not being a purist in any matter, so far. You are neither being a pragmatic about the matter. You are merely being yourself. Nothing wrong with that, as I believe we should all be ourselves (makes for more interesting conversations). But I do not think you can qualify your position as being the purist of the movement. I think the term you are looking for is "traditionalist", if one is using the proposed moral position for AnewGo as put forth at its announcement. :-D

---StarPilot

ok, but relative to the rest of us he may be a purist, then==== ====

-- BayleShanks

-D Traditionalist==== ====

---StarPilot

Personal tools