I like it! New financial reform bill.
- Thread starter GlassOnion
- Start date
That's 'easy' to fix.
The Republic of East Puckistan won't have prisions per say. It will have a 18th century version of Australia. You know, a place where criminals can work it out with their own kind. LOL If a judge violates the law by taking a bribe or otherwise cheating justice, the charge is TREASON. Because that is more or less what it is.
R.E.P will be a great place to live, as long as you are not a douche canoe. If you are a douche canoe, it will be a unpleasant and probably short lived life.
Sufferage requires a test to be passed, but would other wise be universal.
I have all kinds of ideas. Lilavati will tell me why it won't work, LOL, and we go from there.
The Republic of East Puckistan won't have prisions per say. It will have a 18th century version of Australia. You know, a place where criminals can work it out with their own kind. LOL If a judge violates the law by taking a bribe or otherwise cheating justice, the charge is TREASON. Because that is more or less what it is.
R.E.P will be a great place to live, as long as you are not a douche canoe. If you are a douche canoe, it will be a unpleasant and probably short lived life.
Sufferage requires a test to be passed, but would other wise be universal.
I have all kinds of ideas. Lilavati will tell me why it won't work, LOL, and we go from there.
"The public treasury shall only be used to operate the allowed functions of government."
These would be VERY limited. Scientific grants would not be part of it. I can forsee your argurement and I don't care.
These would be VERY limited. Scientific grants would not be part of it. I can forsee your argurement and I don't care.
Hey, its your country. I included scientific grants because they were allowed from the beginning of the US and you had conceeded their utility previously. But if I'm Attorney General, then my job is to advise my client (that is, the government of East Pakistan) not make the rules.
I was never against having lawyers on the island. The problem would be that since no one would have entitlement to anothers earnings or have the right to create a victim, everything else the people would be free to do. Not much work for a lawyer, the laws could be written on a sticky note. I think anyone in the law profession would be better off judging/counseling as a sideline and perhaps fishing or home building as a main occupation. The only people who would be attracted to such a place would be those interested in justice and those people don't have much need for council.
I will point out that the tort system gets a lot of crap (which is why people want to put limits on it) and is heavily abused. However, in the absence of regulation, it is the only system available to gain compensation when someone else's judgement fails them and harms you. What I see alot of from conservatives (not necesarily liberatarians) is a tendancy to want to get rid of regulation and put serious limits on the tort system, which leaves those harmed by other people's failures of judgement pretty much up a creek.
Yes, people who do really stupid things, or suffer mundate accidents should pay for it (or their insurance should). But when confronted with outright irresponsibilty by an other individual or a corporation, there must be an effective remedy, or you end up with another kind of bullying. Basically, the powerful and irresponsible can do what they please, and **** the consequences. I'll note that our current tort system is the worst of both worlds .. . it allows frivolous suits (though it is often harder to tell when a suit is actually frivious than you'd thing) and it takes forever and costs a fortune, leaving those with acutal grievances without a remedy in many cases (as I can tell you from personal experience)
Yes, people who do really stupid things, or suffer mundate accidents should pay for it (or their insurance should). But when confronted with outright irresponsibilty by an other individual or a corporation, there must be an effective remedy, or you end up with another kind of bullying. Basically, the powerful and irresponsible can do what they please, and **** the consequences. I'll note that our current tort system is the worst of both worlds .. . it allows frivolous suits (though it is often harder to tell when a suit is actually frivious than you'd thing) and it takes forever and costs a fortune, leaving those with acutal grievances without a remedy in many cases (as I can tell you from personal experience)
The only problems I see with a criminal colony are a) you need a substantial ammount of space separated by a natural barrier from the rest of the populace (how big is REP?) b) you have the problem that depending on how you define "criminal" you will have a mix of people ranging from the outright vicious to mere losers, which will result rapidly in a brutal tyranny within the prison colony that would undoubtably result in horrific abuses to people who are idiots but probably don't deserve to be raped and murderd (which may not matter under the philosophy of REP, but it is likely result that should be considerd), and c) you have to worry about unsupervised criminals (unless they are well separated by a natural barrier) getting the idea to organize and overturn your government. I'll also point out that Austrailia didn't work that way . . . it was orginally a collection of prision camps. I'm not sure how the transition happened, but it was not initially a place to let criminals work it out themselves.
My only concern with making bribe taking treason is that it might cheapen the crime of "treason" thus taking away from of the impact and horror of the crime. On the other hand, if you strictly limited the number of things that could actually be considred treason, and made judicial corruption one of them, it would emphasize the importance of the rule of law. Of course, I always liked the people (was it the Norse) who made the chair of a judge out of the skin of a previous dishonest judge . . .
Assuming you are not starting with an underclass a test for sufferage seems reasonable and rational. Since I assume REP will be started on uninhabited land with volinteers, that would be possible.
So far, I don't see any impossible problems, though I do worry about having all those criminals running loose somewhere near by . . . perhaps we should deport them to West Puckistan, which is run by your evil twin.
We should also consider the legal status of the autonmous region of Buckshotia . . .
My only concern with making bribe taking treason is that it might cheapen the crime of "treason" thus taking away from of the impact and horror of the crime. On the other hand, if you strictly limited the number of things that could actually be considred treason, and made judicial corruption one of them, it would emphasize the importance of the rule of law. Of course, I always liked the people (was it the Norse) who made the chair of a judge out of the skin of a previous dishonest judge . . .
Assuming you are not starting with an underclass a test for sufferage seems reasonable and rational. Since I assume REP will be started on uninhabited land with volinteers, that would be possible.
So far, I don't see any impossible problems, though I do worry about having all those criminals running loose somewhere near by . . . perhaps we should deport them to West Puckistan, which is run by your evil twin.
We should also consider the legal status of the autonmous region of Buckshotia . . .
Do you recall the immigration policies I discussed in an earlier thread?
Freedom is a lot like justice. Most everyone wants it for themselves -- but not so much the other guy.
Freedom is a lot like justice. Most everyone wants it for themselves -- but not so much the other guy.
Well if YOUR failed judgment harms ME, (or vice versa) then yes, YOU should be responsible to fix whatever harm/damage you caused ME..........My biggest issue is when YOUR failed judgment, lack of observation, lack of whatever on YOUR part harms YOU and then YOU sue someone else for compensations. That is BS and needs to be remedied. There are countless examples of STUPID law suits that should never make it in front of a judge, but they are somehow actually WON!
Example: YOU trip and fall down in a store, or anyone's property really. Instead of saying, Oh gee, I tripped........you decide to get a lawyer and sue the property owner not only for your trip to the ER but for 'pain and suffering' NOT!
Example 2: YOU break into my home (or attempt to) and are injured in the process, whether you fall through a skylight, are bitten by my dog, or are shot in the @ss by ME..........you sue me for your injuries and actually WIN NOT OKAY!
And yes, a quick google search will tell you this does indeed happen! ----> burglar sues property owner for injuries - Google Search
Example: YOU trip and fall down in a store, or anyone's property really. Instead of saying, Oh gee, I tripped........you decide to get a lawyer and sue the property owner not only for your trip to the ER but for 'pain and suffering'
NOT! Example 2: YOU break into my home (or attempt to) and are injured in the process, whether you fall through a skylight, are bitten by my dog, or are shot in the @ss by ME..........you sue me for your injuries and actually WIN
NOT OKAY! And yes, a quick google search will tell you this does indeed happen! ----> burglar sues property owner for injuries - Google Search
Well if YOUR failed judgment harms ME, (or vice versa) then yes, YOU should be responsible to fix whatever harm/damage you caused ME..........My biggest issue is when YOUR failed judgment, lack of observation, lack of whatever on YOUR part harms YOU and then YOU sue someone else for compensations. That is BS and needs to be remedied. There are countless examples of STUPID law suits that should never make it in front of a judge, but they are somehow actually WON!
Example: YOU trip and fall down in a store, or anyone's property really. Instead of saying, Oh gee, I tripped........you decide to get a lawyer and sue the property owner not only for your trip to the ER but for 'pain and suffering' NOT!
Example 2: YOU break into my home (or attempt to) and are injured in the process, whether you fall through a skylight, are bitten by my dog, or are shot in the @ss by ME..........you sue me for your injuries and actually WIN NOT OKAY!
And yes, a quick google search will tell you this does indeed happen! ----> burglar sues property owner for injuries - Google Search
Example: YOU trip and fall down in a store, or anyone's property really. Instead of saying, Oh gee, I tripped........you decide to get a lawyer and sue the property owner not only for your trip to the ER but for 'pain and suffering'
NOT! Example 2: YOU break into my home (or attempt to) and are injured in the process, whether you fall through a skylight, are bitten by my dog, or are shot in the @ss by ME..........you sue me for your injuries and actually WIN
NOT OKAY! And yes, a quick google search will tell you this does indeed happen! ----> burglar sues property owner for injuries - Google Search
When the news says someone was sued for something, that alone means nothing . . it means someone filed the suit, not that the judge won't fall off his chair laughing.
But some silly suits do get far . . . and sometimes they even win . . . which makes you wonder what the jury was smoking.
True just because you sue doesn't mean you'll win........but sometimes they DO win those absurd cases. Not only that, you have to go through undue stress and your own legal fees to defend yourself....... can you explain this to me? (not sarcasm, I want to be sure I understand it correctly, LOL)
Accused Burglar Sues Homeowner Who Shot Him
The gist of that link is, Burglar breaks in, property owner (who happens to be a doctor) shoots him. It was ruled a "justifiable shooting" but the perp is STILL able to sue.......Mmmmk.
This is the part I need you to explain if you will.
Does that mean the burglar who is suing will ONLY have to pay $500 max (because it says "up to") if the case is thrown out? Because if that's the case, it's BULL. I'm sure that Doctor is going to lose more than $500 for a frivolous suit.......between time missed at work and his own attorney fees.
Honestly, if you bring a ridiculous case like that and it gets thrown out, YOU should be responsible for %100 percent of ALL costs to the other party. Period.
Accused Burglar Sues Homeowner Who Shot Him
The gist of that link is, Burglar breaks in, property owner (who happens to be a doctor) shoots him. It was ruled a "justifiable shooting" but the perp is STILL able to sue.......Mmmmk.
This is the part I need you to explain if you will.
Does that mean the burglar who is suing will ONLY have to pay $500 max (because it says "up to") if the case is thrown out? Because if that's the case, it's BULL. I'm sure that Doctor is going to lose more than $500 for a frivolous suit.......between time missed at work and his own attorney fees.
Honestly, if you bring a ridiculous case like that and it gets thrown out, YOU should be responsible for %100 percent of ALL costs to the other party. Period.
Thats about all I can say too. There's no way to stop people from filing those suits, but there are penalties, and they should be enforced. But as long as the penalties are not enforced, people will keep filing the suits . . . because they have the right to, and a right to at least have a judge look at their complaint, even if it is immediately dismissed. But if the attornies are fined or censored for filing, that would take care of many of the suits.
But I can't defend the practice of filing frivilous suits, nor would I. I work for a firm that mainly does defense . . . we get paid for dealing with this crud, but its still annoying.