Constitution v2.0

Anton Sherwood (
Sun, 10 Aug 1997 23:15:33 -0700

Philip Witham (any relation to Steve?) writes
: Yes! re: a limited number of words in the constitution.
: No! re: representitives. With modern communications, we will not need
: these laggards.
: Re: state government, in the current system, this is one of the reasons
: that the US gov. is still somewhat tolerable. It traps people with
: political ambitions at the lowest, least effective level, and presents
: many layers of trap for them. This is the primary function of
: government, IMHO. [...]

And direct democracy would do away with it.

: Here is the concept: On arriving at a port of entry, you are presented
: with a copy of the constitution. You must read it, and prove you
: understand it, and sign your agreement to live by this document while in
: the country. Before entering. This agreement is the moral basis for
: enforcing all laws.

Reminds me of the Unanimous Consent Covenant in Neil Smith's _Pallas_.

: Few or no fixed points to the constitution, all is up for change by
: direct voting of citizens: anything else implys that a few "founders"
: have the right to more control than everybody else.

But if the constitution can be amended by much less than unanimity,
it makes the contrary implication that nobody can expect others to be
bound by their agreements.

: A limitation on the number of charactors or words is key, and may be
: fixed (unchangeable by vote.)

May be changed by unanimous consent, if the citizens' brains are
artificially expanded to hold more. Of course, that need not mean
changing the founding document: it could just be a new covenant
added to the first.

Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\*