0
2

[–] ForTheUltimate 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Btw, It's technically not a tax as long this agreement is entered into voluntarily, as opposed to by being annexed. I like the new change; I feel safer in my freedoms.

  1. an ''s'' is missing to either ''expire'' or ''law''

putting burglary in the same camp as armed assault

insert McMeme I guess I'll just have to not be a burglar then.

How do we deal with a citizen that has intent of mass destruction?

Btw, maybe we should re-organize the rules so that all the redundant rules are at the end. For example, ''rules 7 and 8'' are redundant. That way people can quickly get the main points.

The council can invest the state's funds in their own self -interest but this doesn't threaten our freedom and it's limited to whatever is accumulated through the small tax.

I'm starting to think that the only way for this to go wrong is for the socialists to secede and reform. Maybe we will get it right this time and there will be no need for such attempts in the future.

btw, if you want to conquer alien lands, just have one of the aliens claim their nap was violated, beam them to our ships and then declare war in retaliation lol.

0
0

[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago  (edited ago)

Btw, It's technically not a tax as long this agreement is entered into voluntarily

Yup that is also why I like to use the term "security fee". I also considered having people sign the constitution as you would a contract before entering our territory or when becoming 18 years old.

It would just be symbolic masturbation though.

an ''s'' is missing to either ''expire'' or ''law''

I see it as future tense. (honestly I want to look at something else now though)

How do we deal with a citizen that has intent of mass destruction?

Private bunkers, retaliation and relying on nukes being expensive and hard to get even if they are legal.

If the police can prove ill intent they could also move out.

Honestly I don't even like the idea of everyone running around with rifles that much, but it's the choice we made to protect ourselves from government overreach.

I'm starting to think that the only way for this to go wrong is for the socialists to secede and reform.

Thanks!

0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago  (edited ago)

It would just be symbolic masturbation though.

No, I think it's very important and would serve as a great filter instead of us having to do more gestapo guessing of who the commies to be deported are. I think it would set us apart from all other nations.

Thanks for cutting off the legislative. I still think a separate council for the military adds extra security from government but also adds cost. I think the military council will always be freer and more honorable than elected politicians. However, given the absence of power our politicians have to sell (no subsidies/regulations), they may very well be much nicer than the average career politician.

This just prevents those who would introduce socialist laws from also having as good institutional authority over the military. Remember, the US constitution was (clearly?) overcome. How would USA fare today if it had a separate election for its military and only taxpayers and service man could vote? Would it work in favor of freedom or against? Would we see them talk about issues that are completely irrelevant to their office like ''what do you think about jobs and the minimum wage'' or would they talk like some radical constitutionalist or capitalist?

Thanks!

Thanks for working on this. Dream high and go for it before you no longer can.

0
1

[–] ForTheUltimate 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The Emergency Nation shall be responsible for militarily defending territory and police only. Citizen fees and service must only be used for those purposes.

Does police include the judges appointed by the current council, i.e can the judiciary extract a payment from the fees?

Here are similarities to a state EN retains, although because the land was entered into the agreement voluntarily, is cannot be a state from the ancap perspective. The following is form the ancap perspective assuming EN land was not entered into agreement voluntarily.

Characteristics of a state:

-Judicial monopoly on final arbitor authority.

-Has the right to collect and use property(includes yourself) without consent.

-Has the right to violently remove competitors in police(any private investigators, enforcers), judiciary(any arbitration. mediation would fall under executive), military (any militia/paramilitary), executive (literally all activities, see communism) and legislation (all (including private) agreements).

-Has the right to force continued association or, in other words, disallow cessation.

Comparable characteristics of EN, ignoring the consent of the contract and looking at it as if it was a defacto state in the area:

Has judicial monopoly only regarding those judgements which cannot be outsourced (regarding constitutionality/deportation)

Has the right to collect property without consent but only by threatening deportation.

Has the right to violently remove competitors that violate the constitution; there isn't much they can violate (ex preventing non-citizens from being exiled) and they are largely free.

-Has the right to force continued association in all cases except those where cessation is allowed (contiguous territory).

In practice: - EN, unlike private competitors, is the default subscription Arbitration and police service.

  • EN, unlike private competitors, only allows cessation of payments without deportation form local land if the citizens can secede, and secede. However, any private competitor can create a similar arrangement, except the attached land will likely be smaller than all of EN land. The difference is that the private competitor cannot collect fees without its clients also paying fees to EN, whereas EN can collect fees without its clients being obliged to pay fees to anyone else.

  • EN collects fees for police service from people that may otherwise prefer no police service from the EN government.

  • EN collects fees for Judiciary services from people that may have nearly completely unsubscribed from EN courts (by opting into wide coverage from private arbitration).

  • EN will have cross-jurisdictional (like the FBI) policing authority.

Alternatives:

Fee credits

Foreword: how fee credits are similar to EN sub-contracting police:

Instead of EN collecting Fees and then paying them to subcontracted police or courts, the citizens expressly pay the police or courts directly, without the fees passing through EN.

Problems these tax credits solve: As EN grows, A centralized budget comittee (the council) will not be able to keep up with all the consumer preferences accross EN as well as a free market could. The reason for this is, the process for populations of any area lobying the current council for ''I don't like the police you're paying in my area, I want different police to get my fees'' is #1 much longer, #2 dillutted by everyone else's vote, #3 only as responsive as the frequency of the election cycle, #4 over-encumbering an already small group of statesman. The council could instead just hold elections in the respective communities. The question is, are you more afraid out of control private police or out of control state police? If the state police is out of control it may be too small (only in your area) an issue for a giant EN empire to garner enough attention from the council. Or if the council has set up automated processes, these may not be the ones you want, and they might result in centralization, a deep state, and corruption overtime. If it's private police you pay directly, you can change subscription and payment to EN. If it's already paid by EN and not you, well now, how do you get to the middle man if you're a tiny town in the middle of a galactic empire? What will you do if the bureaucracy set up for local choice in police fails you?

-Give tax credit individually for unsubscribing from EN police. The individual cannot expect EN police service in the corresponding year . If it is impractical to discriminate between police callers, the EN can set a pre-determined fee for unsubscribed citizens who do call EN payed police. This fee can more than cover the cost, whilst allowing citizens consumer freedom but also a last resort.

Possible changeable policy: Re-subscribing requires backpayment if the individual re-subscribes with exceptional pre-existing conditions (ex: his child was murdered and the suspect can't be reached through private enforcement channels but cna be reached by EN police). However, in this case EN police could just collect a fee from the citizen's private alternative for doing its part.

-Give tax credit individually for unsubscribing from certain parts of the law covered by EN courts equal to the expense accrual saved by the EN court.

For example: if 50% of the expenses for processing court cases comes from contracts of category X between population A and B, and citizen of population A agrees with citizen of population B both unsubscribe completely from the EN court in this regard and replace it with their own alternative arbitrator(s), they should receive a tax credit equal to 50% of EN nation's judicial spending in any given year.

May be a problem: if EN spends more than its revenues, it will be possible to have a tax credit that reaches 100% of taxes payable. I said ''possible''. it can only in the above example if EN spends 100% of its tax revenue on these contracts alone. Besides, that's just an incentive for EN not to overspend.

Milder alternative:

This milder alternative conveys the same freedom but only to groups of citizens, not individually. However this option is, in some variants, susceptible to oligarchical competition collusion with the EN council. Because EN can then, with or without intent, favor some competitors over others.

EN can confer tax credits to companies' clients for paying the companies directly instead of indirectly (through EN fees and EN spending budget). This increases EN council's control.

Other thoughts:

Even though EN allows switching arbitration service from EN courts to non-EN courts, it, unlike free market competitors, will be be able to force fees out of its citizens on the threat of deportation everywhere inside EN assimilated land. [...] Actually, anyone can agree to enter into a similar agreement where they agree to be deported if they don't pay. It is preferable legal sub-communities (with shared legal preferences that differ form the rets of the EN population) do this in their territory instead of trying to impose their laws on everyone else. Thus people can create a democracy that is non-aggressive towards the rest of EN without breaking the military union. This will be the equivalent of provinces/sub-states forming.

In case you haven't realized, it's possible to create an EN inside EN, with the only exception that citizens of the newly created EN will still have to pay fees to the over-arching EN.

0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago  (edited ago)

Based on my knowledge of history, states have a strong tendency to stay united and cessations with Europeans are far and between. People will stay united very far into an unpleasant union and will almost never resort to forceful cessation. However this might be because they don't want to lose the taxbase for their gibs and just want a different gibs scheme.

Thus, I think we should not be worried about balkanisation in police and customs. The nation will always be united by its shared constitution and military.

We should instead be worried about EN becoming undesirable but too centralized to escape from.

@7e62ce85

0
0

[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago  (edited ago)

states have a strong tendency to stay united and cessations with Europeans are far and between

Preventing borders from changing was part of the protocols of the learned elders of Zion.

I did read your suggestions about privatizing the police and I tried to accommodate it with better arbitration rules. However I do believe in having a unified minarchist and constitutional state and I could simply not find a decent way to do the fully polycentric justice system you wanted.

You will have to secede, co found a nation or use the arbitration rules to make a state inside a state as you say. And yes I am aware of that possibility, the whole constitution is designed to allow individual and group based non-violent competition after all.

The difference is that the private competitor cannot collect fees without its clients also paying fees to EN, whereas EN can collect fees without its clients being obliged to pay fees to anyone else

Most of the fees (90%) would likely go to the military so the competitive advantage to the privatized state police would not be overwhelming. This percentage was based on a spreadsheet I made.

EN collects fees for police service from people that may otherwise prefer no police service from the EN government.

In civil cases you must pay yourself so if you choose to use private arbitration in these cases you would control 100% of your funds.

EN. If it's already paid by EN and not you, well now, how do you get to the middle man if you're a tiny town in the middle of a galactic empire?

We would probably at some point set up some processes for appointing at least local judges and possibly police agencies.

However yes it may fail at some point.and likely way before becoming galactic.

I'm okay with that. If we can maintain civilization through the collapse of the EU and US and reach space I will leave the rest to the future.

I think the Emergency Nation is a step in the right direction and improved over all previous constitutions.

With the secession rules even if it failed it should serve as a stepping stone to the next level as it would spawn many experimental nations as people seceded.

1
0

[–] ChiCom 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Judges are a weak point. A power grab nobility play. Humans are biased, emotionally unstable and self interested by definition.

I'd rather be subject to the results of a recorded debate among interested parties

0
0

[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago  (edited ago)

I'd rather be subject to the results of a recorded debate among interested parties

What does that sentence even mean mr. Chicom? How would it remove the human element seeing as any group would be made up of humans? (((Who))) would choose the interested parties?

0
0

[–] ChiCom ago 

Because at least those humans are not fraudulently pretending not to be biased despite all manner of bribes and direct and indirect influence from interested parties.

Judges are trying to get rid of juries. Go the other way and get rid of Judges. Enhance juries with all this beautiful technology we have now.

Judges are the most fraudulent part of any State. By definition they cannot do their job. No human is unbiased. If you want an honest society the structure must be genuine. Judges are ingenuine and basically elitist holdovers from nobility.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago 

  1. Why?
  2. Lol no.

[–] [deleted] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago