Tweet
What, no rotten tomatoes yet? OK maybe I haven't given you adequate opportunity to load your weapons. Perhaps when I am done you will have had time.
It struck me a long while ago that we had somewhat short circuited the process of arriving at a good constitution to allow an effective code of laws and body politic. How, you ask?
Well, most of the constitution was written or otherwise assembled by a single individual or small group with little or no awareness that the whole must be a simple, coherent document that could stand the test of time and trials. Surely they meant well. I am convinced that Trip and others did only what they felt was necessary to get the game on the road. That they did.
What they did not do is allow a single process of thoughtful deliberation to formulate a single, coherent plan and then put that to the people for approval. Yes, amendments can and must come later, however we are experiencing the amendment of the month (or week). This is no way to run a nation.
The original constitution would serve very well for a democratic game of 30 or 50 citizens. Most of the other demo games have that, or less. It does not serve well for a demo game of near 300. Here consensus is a time consuming thing to arrive at. Hence, we need a stong and durable constitution to both guide us in our dark hours and to free us to fulfil our destiny.
Is it too late to create such a document? Who would be tasked to debate it, write it, and present it back to us? How would that process be undertaken? Do we need it?
I open the topic to the citizens to consider (or to fire rotten vegetable matter at the author).
It struck me a long while ago that we had somewhat short circuited the process of arriving at a good constitution to allow an effective code of laws and body politic. How, you ask?
Well, most of the constitution was written or otherwise assembled by a single individual or small group with little or no awareness that the whole must be a simple, coherent document that could stand the test of time and trials. Surely they meant well. I am convinced that Trip and others did only what they felt was necessary to get the game on the road. That they did.
What they did not do is allow a single process of thoughtful deliberation to formulate a single, coherent plan and then put that to the people for approval. Yes, amendments can and must come later, however we are experiencing the amendment of the month (or week). This is no way to run a nation.
The original constitution would serve very well for a democratic game of 30 or 50 citizens. Most of the other demo games have that, or less. It does not serve well for a demo game of near 300. Here consensus is a time consuming thing to arrive at. Hence, we need a stong and durable constitution to both guide us in our dark hours and to free us to fulfil our destiny.
Is it too late to create such a document? Who would be tasked to debate it, write it, and present it back to us? How would that process be undertaken? Do we need it?
I open the topic to the citizens to consider (or to fire rotten vegetable matter at the author).
Comment