thread policyDiscussion of politics that does not directly relate to the Quest or to Quest votes are banned from hereon out. This thread policy will be enforced by the Moderation team. Do not ignore it.
No! It failed because of a world wide economic collapse, centuries of corruption, a terrorist-bio attack unleashing a massive plague and foreign actors leaping on that opportunity. And by that logic we should never use democracies again because so many of those have fallen. I want something similar but better not a duplication! I want to fix the issues that led to this mess but I don't want slash and burn the whole thing.
The OP of this thread explicitly states that America became a failed state rife with sectarian strife and civil war.
This is because of the flaws in the American government system weakening the government and allowing for extremists to seize control of the discourse and create a rebellion with the assistance of foreign powers. Furthermore, these extremists were empowered by the memes passed on by the old American system of government, like the nonexistent "right to rebellion" and the idea that strong government is inherently an enemy of liberty.
So yes, emulating exactly why a failed state failed.
The OP of this thread explicitly states that America became a failed state rife with sectarian strife and civil war.
This is because of the flaws in the American government system weakening the government and allowing for extremists to seize control of the discourse and create a rebellion with the assistance of foreign powers. Furthermore, these extremists were empowered by the memes passed on by the old American system of government, like the nonexistent "right to rebellion" and the idea that strong government is inherently an enemy of liberty.
So yes, emulating exactly why a failed state failed.
[ ][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.
[ ][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
[ ][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[ ][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
We can change the specifics on how we do things and touch it up, but the fundamentals must remain. There is a reason the USA was a superpower, and that's because of it's core beleifs in freedom and fairness.
We can change the specifics on how we do things and touch it up, but the fundamentals must remain. There is a reason the USA was a superpower, and that's because of it's core beleifs in freedom and fairness.
I think It's been said before, but i'm saing it again: A reworded United States Constitution with modern language, or to even use it a a building block to write a new one if some one convinces me that it is a good idea. However, throwing it away and starting anew is a bad idea because right now, we need people to come join our cause of reunification, and becoming something alien might make us seem like Victoria.
I will agree with MJ12 that the America of Today is different then the one the founders and the signers of the constitution envisioned during the 18th century, and that we are cruising on political inertia now.
But we're not in america today. America in this world is now gone and all it has is it's legacy, a legacy that is long, and full of great accomplishments and many numerous failings, both socially, and economically. We can address those concerns now, but we need to try and get as much legitimacy as we can, so that when we ask the world to view us as the true successor state to the USA they will see it as such.
We also do not have the luxury of being in an mostly empty continent with a few colonial powers, Mexico later and native tribes to compete with. We are a battered, but not beaten people who need to unify after decades of enemy action against us, against an enemy who's been Mary Suing themselves to global hegemony.
We've been dealt a shit hand. And like the founders before us, we're going to need to compromise the ever loving shit with everyone to make this all work out.
We can change the specifics on how we do things and touch it up, but the fundamentals must remain. There is a reason the USA was a superpower, and that's because of it's core beleifs in freedom and fairness.
The fundamentals of why the US was a superpower are that nobody could invade it thanks to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and thanks to mass death from disease (and occasionally willful crimes against humanity) it had huge tracts of land rich in natural resources all to itself. The American 'core beliefs in freedom and fairness' don't factor into it, because at the time the US grew to become an actual superpower it explicitly considered many races and peoples subhuman and was immensely, ludicrously corrupt.
[ ][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
[ ][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.
[ ][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need
[ ][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[ ][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
This is pretty much what I'm going for.
New Capitalist would piss off both socialists and communists, Soc Dem is a good compromise and cuts off the Communists from gaining traction if they want to cause trouble. Leaning towards none, but would accept some for the crush option. Either of the power options are acceptable to me. The constitution needs to be rewritten, though its spirit and some of the wording can be retained.
When it comes to this I believe our best option is moderation as such I feel we should go for:
[ ][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.
This is to me the most realistic option. We will still have support from abroad but we are not at risk of complete takeover.
[ ][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
Gives us a great amount of legitimacy and seems to be the morally right call.
[ ][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need.
I feel that while centralization is necessary we do need to make sure that local groups have a say in government.
[ ][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
We can't throw away the entirety of the constitution. We can use the original Constitution as a guiding document but we need to accept that a new Constitution is necessary in these times.
We can't throw away the entirety of the constitution. We can use the original Constitution as a guiding document but we need to accept that a new Constitution is necessary in these times.
Here's the problem with using the original Constitution as a guiding document: basically none of it is relevant. The US Constitution was originally intended to solve issues based on how the original US at that time was a loose collection of bickering states riven by the question of slavery and the possibility that it might be outlawed.
Basically none of this is relevant to mediating a discussion between a bunch of not-states which are apparently primarily riven by the question of how capitalist or non-capitalist the economy should be and how many positive economic rights exist. It gives no guidance, so this is basically an argument that you hollow it out and retain maybe a tiny bit of the language of the US constitution, which you would probably end up having analogies of just by accident in any constitution that isn't written to explicitly enshrine a completely authoritarian state.
And you know, in half of the constitutions which are intended to enshrine an authoritarian state into power forever.
@MJ12 Commando, you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again: Which specific things that nkd says he wants caused the US to become a failed state?
Also, you're saying all of this stuff about the US Constitution without providing a single shred of proof. Are you saying that none of the articles or amendments have any value or place in a modern constitution after some modification to the language?
That is true and you make good points. My reasons for using the Constitution as a guide fall into practical and moral sides. Practically, using it as a guide document ensures that we don't anger either the reformists or the traditionalists. We need as much internal support as possible and I don't want to start off with a faction already pissed at us. Morally, I want to keep the spirit of the rights in the Constitution but updated for the 21st century, taking lessons from where the original faltered and using these lessons to create the strongest foundation possible.
We can change the specifics on how we do things and touch it up, but the fundamentals must remain. There is a reason the USA was a superpower, and that's because of it's core beleifs in freedom and fairness.
America is a Superpower due to geopolitical factors not because of any core beliefs. The Colombian Exchange killed off 90% of the native american population allowing it to blob and acquire an entire continent worth of resources unopposed. With mastery over the continent none could do anything to actually invade it due to the two giant oceans that separated it from any potential true rivals in Europe and Asia.
Then World World 1 and 2 led to all the Old Great Powers to be shattered because the wars were fought on their frontyards meanings that their population and industrial centers were utterly wrecked. Meanwhile the US was again, a literal Ocean away, did not see fighting on its home soil, meaning that at a time where every other nation in the world was either a Crippled Former Great Power or a Former Colony finally breaking away, the US was the only functioning State with an intact industry and population center.
Now it is to the credit of the Post WW2 US political thinkers, diplomats and state departement that they were able to exploit this historical opportunity. Propping up allies and beating down any potential rivals with decisive foresight. But neverthless, those were the reason why the US was a superpower, not because of its Core Values. If Victoria was anywhere close to being a actual functioning state it would be a Superpower as well, but it isnt because its a patchwork of failure.
I mean, the memes that are contained within the popular interpretation of the US constitution, like the right to rebellion, the absurdity of how people interpret the First Amendment (and the actual truth of how it's interpreted as requiring strict scrutiny is already extremely problematic at enabling the spread of falsehoods, creating a media environment that chases ratings and controversy rather than providing common ground for factual debate), the fail-to-ineffectuality nature of the government set forth in the US constitution, are all not helpful in this situation. Especially when you're pissing off two major parties and the nature of the system means that said parties are going to be encouraged and incentivized to basically scorched-earth oppose you (in a situation where this might lead to everyone getting fucked) because that's the only way they can get power.
These are actually huge problems in the US constitution that have only failed to create more massive existential crises like the Civil War out of luck, and in the Victoria setting actually did end up killing the American state. Yes, Russia and the plague pushed it over the edge, but it was teetering long before then.
Also, you're saying all of this stuff about the US Constitution without providing a single shred of proof. Are you saying that none of the articles or amendments have any value or place in a modern constitution after some modification to the language?
No, I'm saying overall the US constitution is poorly drafted and overall it is inapplicable because the circumstances of 2077 are not the circumstances of 1777. Even a constitution that has no relation to the US constitution will have certain parts which look like the US constitution so long as you have a mostly liberal state. But the constitution should be drafted from scratch, based upon the circumstances that people are currently in, and both its proscriptions and government structure should be based upon the people then and there rather than trying to retain a bunch of 18th century thought simply for the sake of retaining 18th century thought.
In fact, I think that the existence of Victoria should demonstrate that one particular bit of 18th century thought is relevant: When the Federalists argued that a bill of rights was irrelevant, they were correct. America was never about the constitution or the bill of rights-it was always about the decent people who took great risks and sacrificed to make things better, and when they were beaten down, no bill of rights could have been sufficient.
I mean, the memes that are contained within the popular interpretation of the US constitution, like the right to rebellion, the absurdity of how people interpret the First Amendment (and the actual truth of how it's interpreted as requiring strict scrutiny is already extremely problematic at enabling the spread of falsehoods, creating a media environment that chases ratings and controversy rather than providing common ground for factual debate), the fail-to-ineffectuality nature of the government set forth in the US constitution, are all not helpful in this situation. Especially when you're pissing off two major parties and the nature of the system means that said parties are going to be encouraged and incentivized to basically scorched-earth oppose you (in a situation where this might lead to everyone getting fucked) because that's the only way they can get power.
These are actually huge problems in the US constitution that have only failed to create more massive existential crises like the Civil War out of luck, and in the Victoria setting actually did end up killing the American state. Yes, Russia and the plague pushed it over the edge, but it was teetering long before then.
No, I'm saying overall the US constitution is poorly drafted and overall it is inapplicable because the circumstances of 2077 are not the circumstances of 1777. Even a constitution that has no relation to the US constitution will have certain parts which look like the US constitution so long as you have a mostly liberal state. But the constitution should be drafted from scratch, based upon the circumstances that people are currently in, and both its proscriptions and government structure should be based upon the people then and there rather than trying to retain a bunch of 18th century thought simply for the sake of retaining 18th century thought.
In fact, I think that the existence of Victoria should demonstrate that one particular bit of 18th century thought is relevant: When the Federalists argued that a bill of rights was irrelevant, they were correct. America was never about the constitution or the bill of rights-it was always about the decent people who took great risks and sacrificed to make things better, and when they were beaten down, no bill of rights could have been sufficient.
We still are cloaking ourselves in the idea of restoring the United States, not necessarily building a new one. If we are to paint ourselves as its successor, which we are, we need to compromise on some level to gain that legitimacy.
This means if we have a brand new constitution, we might not get the socialist government we want. Or it might mean we have to go full democracy and leave the door open to people coming behind us and throwing out all our hard work due to a lost election.
And if we get all the fixin's, we might lose out on getting people to sign up voluntarily to rebuild the USA and might have to resort to the use of force. I mean, if you are cool conquering people in the name of squashing rebellion then I am down for it.
But these are the practical considerations we need to have when we make these votes. It's all great and good to say the constitution was a dumpster fire and an obsolete document built for a different nation and people. But at the end of the day there are still people who believe in it for right or wrong.
And these are people we need to either sit down at the table and agree to some things in exchange for others.
We still are cloaking ourselves in the idea of restoring the United States, not necessarily building a new one. If we are to paint ourselves as its successor, which we are, we need to compromise on some level to gain that legitimacy.
This means if we have a brand new constitution, we might not get the socialist government we want. Or it might mean we have to go full democracy and leave the door open to people coming behind us and throwing out all our hard work due to a lost election.
And if we get all the fixin's, we might lose out on getting people to sign up voluntarily to rebuild the USA and might have to resort to the use of force. I mean, if you are cool conquering people in the name of squashing rebellion then I am down for it.
But these are the practical considerations we need to have when we make these votes. It's all great and good to say the constitution was a dumpster fire and an obsolete document built for a different nation and people. But at the end of the day there are still people who believe in it for right or wrong.
And these are people we need to either sit down at the table and agree to some things in exchange for others.
Practically speaking, the core of the US constitution is how the government is arranged, and broadly speaking that is entirely fucked unless you're facing the issues which the 18th century drafters expected to be facing, which is 'the states are afraid that the federal government is going to go and crush them, the federal government is expected to be a kind of vestigial power which does relatively little, and also we need to figure out how to keep the slave states from revolting.'
The practical consideration is that most of the time you basically only get one shot at actually writing a constitution, and if you're using it to create 'American constitution, but with tweaks' instead of using that shot to make a statement or do something useful, you've just used that shot to blow off your own dick.
Here's the thing-these aren't what I'd call 'core features' of the US constitution. The core feature is that it is a presidential democracy with a bicameral legislature with a court system that is although on-paper independent in practice is entirely staffed through decisions made by both the executive and legislature.
It's a perfect storm of instability which is why it breaks down the moment you start getting real ideological polarization (like you know, the 1850s). Part of this is because there are two innate possible sources of democratic legitimacy, the president and the house (and after amendment, now there's three or arguably even four-the president, the senate, and the house [you can argue the court system is also a possible source of democratic legitimacy given how judgeships are basically a political prize granted for winning elections nowadays]) and that the design of the checks and balances in the system make it fail-to-safe (that is to say, the default mode of failure is government paralysis)-and allow basically control of any single one of these sources of democratic legitimacy to cause it to enter fail-safe mode.
Yes, your constitution will probably contain things that are similar to provisions in the US constitution, because of analogous evolution. But that should be because they're desirable in and of themselves, not because the US constitution had them.
I stand before you today, a delegate representing the General Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the World, but also as an American, and a Chicagoan.
I didn't grow up here, I came here from Cincinnati to fight nazis along side other wobblies, I'm not from there either, so, no, if any of you are from the Queen City, I'm not going to tell you what high school I went to.
But I digress, we, people from all across the midwest, but mostly chicogoans themselves bashed those fash the hell out of this city. You can't help but admire that fighting spirit, that will to hang on, even in the face of all the horrors of the collapse.
Now, with the boot of the Tsar on someone elses neck, we have a chance to do something besides just hang on. We have a chance to build anew.
The question we need to ask ourselves is what do we want to build?
Do we want to hew blindly to the forms and traditions of a state that couldn't save itself from the betrayal of the Victorians? Which even before their perfidy was straining under the load of a system which only benefited the few?
Or do we want something more?
You know, In some ways, the IWW has done well by this mess, there were times, in the last century when we were on the verge of extinction, now we have branches of some sort in many of the communities represented here...
I can tell by the faces of some of the more respectable looking types that not every ones ecstatic about that...
And, we govern a few neighborhoods in the city, Its not quite the Commonwealth of Toil old Ralph Chaplin, sang about, but we keep folks alive and free, and it was enough to get us invited to this Accord, to the consternation of some of our own traditionalists, which is more than nothing.
I've been rambling, but what I want to say is this, no matter what form of government gets hammered out here, we'll be out there, and I think you can guess which ones I prefer, organizing workers, fighting against fascism, so that one day, perhaps in the not to distant future, the light of freedom will shine on this great land, and all its people, from San Diego, all the way up to Maine, as the song goes.
Thank you, and Solidarity.
Forever.
Adhoc vote count started by Flectarn on Mar 16, 2019 at 1:11 AM, finished with 589 posts and 113 votes.
[x][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
[x][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
[X][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
[x][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for allcitizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
[X][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.
[X][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.
[x][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.
[X][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
[X][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.
[X][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
[X][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
