The main tank, brimful with ideas. Enjoy them, discuss them, take them. - Of course, this is also the #1 place for new submissions!
By jodonow
#23780
A solution to the problem of tyranny of the majority in any association is: allow anyone to quit the association it belongs to presently.

If any minority doesn't agree with the rules/laws being passed they should be free to abdicate their membership to the group, weather it's an informal club of friends or a nation.

In fact that's what happens with the vast majority of associations, except for nations. That's where it's severely lacking. Even international organizations that countries are part of generally allow for the abdication of membership.

Actually, I think that technically, many countries allow for abdicating one's citizenry, the problem is that no country allows for someone without a citizenry of an existing country to be or come into their country. So presently the only solution is becoming a citizen of some other existing country.

But what if no country is suitable? With any other association or business one can simply start our own. Not so with countries. Well I think it should be allowed.

All countries should allow one to declare one's private property a sovereign nation. And possibly/preferrably also change regions within a country, like allowing one's private property to become part of another state/district/county that's more in line with our preferences, if the state/district/county accepts us of course.

One could also start our own state/district/county as long as the higher level of governance we are still a part of agrees. Or have an entire region decide to become part of another, higher level, region. Like California decide to become a part of Canada instead of USA as long as Canada accepts them of course. Or California could declare themselves a sovereign nation.

So basically the same for all levels of association from clubs of 2 people to entire nations and international associations of nations. Like some members of UN could decide to make their own "UN".

Freedom of association
Freedom of disassociation.

(Note: I realize I probably am not using the correct words regarding countries, nations, citizenry, national, etc. but I don't know the exact terms and I believe anyone understands the underlying point I'm making.)
User avatar
By Xxistent
#23859
Well, I have some questions.
If one was a tyrant ruler of an association, and if they could quit, does that mean they actually would?
If a tyrant ruler heard about the objections about a minority, would they be patient and allow the minority to abdicate, or would the tyrant reject the claims and force the minority to stay? After all, a tyrant leader can do whatever he wants.
As much as I'd like tyranny to end, I don't think these methods would change anything. For this to work, the tyrant would have to be a reasonable ruler who cares about and listens to his people, and thus, not actually a tyrant.
There would need to be some governing association above the tyrannical association, and that doesn't usually happen, given the definition of the word "tyrant". Without this governing association, the tyrant is free to do whatever he wants and he will most likely not be a reasonable ruler.
So step 2, abdication of citizenship, will probably not happen. Thus, no new countries either.
By jodonow
#23861
Xxistent wrote:Well, I have some questions.
If one was a tyrant ruler of an association, and if they could quit, does that mean they actually would?
If a tyrant ruler heard about the objections about a minority, would they be patient and allow the minority to abdicate, or would the tyrant reject the claims and force the minority to stay? After all, a tyrant leader can do whatever he wants.
As much as I'd like tyranny to end, I don't think these methods would change anything. For this to work, the tyrant would have to be a reasonable ruler who cares about and listens to his people, and thus, not actually a tyrant.
There would need to be some governing association above the tyrannical association, and that doesn't usually happen, given the definition of the word "tyrant". Without this governing association, the tyrant is free to do whatever he wants and he will most likely not be a reasonable ruler.
So step 2, abdication of citizenship, will probably not happen. Thus, no new countries either.


lol, you're basically saying: what if what I said should be allowed wasn't allowed.
think about it. The whole point I'm making is that any minority must be allowed to abdicate their citizenry/membership and retain their private property on which they can stay, and you're saying: well what if they weren't allowed?
A much more pertinent question your comment suggests to is:
how can this essencial right to abdication/secession be ensured?
to which I reply:
however it is best ensured. how are other laws ensured? well ultimatly none are 100% ensured but they are nevertheless enforced and some more then others are succesfully so. I won't detail the details of the best way to ensure this essencial right, for I believe there are plenty of other people that are in much better position to bring forth and discuss possiblitities of doing so. I'm merely suggesting an essencial/fundamental human right that in my view would greatlly increase the levels of peace and liberty for humans nowadays.
User avatar
By Xxistent
#23862
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Because while it may seem as if it shouldn't be taken seriously, it is a question that needs to be addressed in a tyrannical government.
In government, laws are insured because there's more than one person in charge. Take the U.S, for example, with their branches of government, because there's more than one person in charge of a country, laws will be 100% insured as outrageous laws that cause problems for everyone except the ruler will not be passed. The reason laws are enforced are because you're referring to a government that is not a tyrannical dictatorship. And you can't compare a dictatorship with a democracy.
The reason questions are raised of whether what you said should be allowed will actually be allowed is due to the fact that a tyrannical dictator doesn't care about his people and will not establish laws that are not beneficial to anyone but himself. A tyrant wants to limit everyone's rights as much as possible
I'd like for your ideas to work, but for them to actually be successful, you'll be placing trust in a dictator to place laws that hinder his self-righteous goals, and that certainly won't happen. If a tyrant placed fair laws and actually cared about his people, he wouldn't be a tyrant in the first place. That being said, no trust can ever be put in a tyrant to establish fair rules.
Your plan of increasing peace is good, but I unfortunately don't think that's possible. There's a reason why Utopia means "no place."
By jodonow
#23865
Xxistent wrote:... you'll be placing trust in a dictator to place laws that hinder his self-righteous goals, ..."

Where did you get the idea that I'd be placing trust in a dictator?!? I never suggested having a dictator!
I'm merely suggesting the right to secession should be a right of any individual or group.
IE EU countries have the right to secession from the EU, there is a legal process to do that, so if one country decides to leave the union it can do so through an already existing process. It won't be seen as evading it's responsibilities towards the union and be prosecuted for not abiding by the laws of the union, as long as it secedes through the existing legal process for doing so.
I know some international organizations also have such rights but USA states IE don't have the right to secession from the union.
I'm merely saying that this right, that EU member countries have, should be a right of every individual/group.
So, especially after your last comment, I'm a bit at a loss as to what is the flaw that makes this impossible, in your view.
how is this right ensured to EU countries and international organizations IE? well, it's not really ensured, theoretically a majority of the EU population/countries could decide to negate such right and enforce countries to stay and obey the unions laws. How best to ensure it? like I said "I believe there are plenty of other people that are in much better position to bring forth and discuss possibilities of doing so."
I'm just suggesting to institutionalize such a right, not just for EU countries as is the case now, but also for every individual and/or group (which is not the case now).
I hope this clears things up, if you still have questions or see flaws/critiques to my suggestion, please express them.
#23879
Your idea is actually quite brilliant. There are other ideas similar to this.

The idea that this would only be needed in a dictatorship is wrong. One mans definition of freedom may very well be another's version of prison. Even a democracy is not 100% free and acceptable to every possible variation of human identity. To assume that democracy is right for everyone is a fallacy steming first from flawed reasoning, and second, likely, from an American attitude of supremicy. Let's face it folks, the U.S.A. is not and has not objectively speaking been the best country in the world, even by its own standards of superiority for a long time, even assuming an objective measure of superiority is possible in this case.

Just in case you are wondering I am Caucasian, and a United States citizen for my entire life, and I believe very strongly in the power of democracy. I also believe very strongly in facts, and the facts are, we are not number one in anything anymore, except perhaps obesity.

Further, perhaps, every human being should have the right to leave their country, and create their own country. Who has the right to say, I have the right to make the rules for you?

That said certain rules would have to be established, and those would have to be overseen by an international body, like the United Nations. Everyone has a vested interest in any new country not becoming a harm to the other countries.

Your new country and it's rules would be stored in a database where anyone on the Web could access them. If someone wanted to leave one country and join yours, so long as they agreed to commit to your rules they could join.

The unifying rules established by the United Nations or a similar group would affirm, and specify that no country is permitted to harm another country in any deliberate way.

Sure there are huge problems, but every country has huge problems, the problems for this are not essentially different.

Still those problems need to be hashed out, so I would love to hear more about how to make this idea work.
User avatar
By Steve
#23903
Fantastic idea - I like. ;D

Talking about associations, what about the association of humankind? O:) Maybe it would also be nice to found one's own species. There are times when I would like to disassociate myself from the deeds of certain fellow humans. :-?
By rachrob
#23964
All governments carry the seed to their own destruction. (in fact this is was Karl Marx says of capitalism - but it goes beyond capitalism) If you look at history over time - all great powers eventually come to an end. Sometimes they are taken over by enemy forces, but usually it is within itself. People who disagree with government ideas and ideals always eventually form groups, and groups grow, and ideas spread. If it doesn't lead to a rebellious revolution, at will at least lead to slow changing of minds, which eventually changes laws. The latter is a slower process. The idea of just breaking off from the government to live by one's own ideals is certainly idilic, but sadly not a simple idea. The government has a lot of power over the people, even in a "democracy" such as the USA, if we choose to call the US an actual democracy. What happens when we disagree with how our tax dollars are spent? Or the way in which our health insurance operates (especially for someone surviving through expensive medical supplies or treatments)? This is why the idea is so idilic. The need for financial help from the powers that be, keep us in the system.
What are your thoughts on anarchy? I know the word scares people because they hear "anarchism" and assume it means total chaos - people dying in the streets and luting each other's homes. When in fact true anarchism is the believe in a true democracy where each vote counts, and the people make decisions, rather then the elected government. There are capitalist anarchists who believe in capitalism and allowing business to prosper at their pace, and then their anarchists who believe large businesses should be brought down... but that's a whole different story.
OFFSHORE
Bath body hair removal

I think a whirlpool with the chemical in it would […]

Should I go for it?

Hi everyone! I am a writer by profession and my w[…]

Is there anymore need for physical cards? I suppos[…]

A Place for problems and solutions

This is a really good proposal. One title could be[…]