Just Laws for a Righteous Nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter bsroufek
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bsroufek

Guest
I have endeavored to publish a Basic Set of Laws for (any) Nation on a Blog:

righteousnation.wordpress.com

It is supposed to cover the basic Moral Law. Feel free to comment here on any of it. I am interested to know what changes or additions others may have to them.
 
Most people I polled on another site did not agree with me regarding diplomatic immunity.
I don’t believe it should exist–There shall be one law for you and the alien [alike], God said.

Now, this is Moral Law for the Common Good. Feel free to comment.

blog: righeousnation.wordpress.com
 
Here are a few edits that I suggest.
  1. “The Catholic religion is the sole religion of the State. The freedom to practice it shall be guaranteed absolutely. Other religions shall be tolerated in accordance with the common good. Blasphemy is prohibited. No one may be forced into religious belief or practice.”
  2. “Violence not used in defense of oneself or of another and torture are unlawful. The government may use force for incarceration or warfare or control of prisoners, but torture is always unlawful.”
  3. “Marriage is between one man and one woman. The State shall defer to the Church in matters regarding the validity and indissolubility of a marriage. Divorce is prohibited. The State shall establish a system of legal separation in accordance with canon law, provided that no Catholic may pursue such separation without obtaining canonical permission to do so. A system of civil marriage shall be established for non-Catholics, provided that no invalid marriage shall be recognized by the State.”
  4. “Incest is immoral. Parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings, aunts and uncles and first cousins — all such intercourse and marriage is unlawful, notwithstanding law 11.”
  5. “Riots may be controlled for the people’s safety, but killing and injuring rioters must be avoided to the greatest extent possible.”
  6. “Catholic religious organizations themselves may not be taxed. Their personal incomes from the organization are taxable, however.”
  7. “Any diplomat may be permanently sent home by our courts.”
  8. “A head-of-state who is guilty of high-crimes, such as mass slaughter, cruelties, indiscriminate or oppressive punishments upon the people must be removed by a judge. Prison for that one!”
 
Thanks for the suggestions. I think that many of yours would go over well with the Vatican City State, perhaps.
 
  1. reveals a bad understanding of national economies. Treasury bonds are important.
Same with (32). If you don’t at least subtract cost of goods sold for taxable income, almost no business is going to be able to operate.
  1. You don’t think people have a right to know if someone has a history of sexual assault? Don’t you think that should disqualify someone from holding certain positions, like that of a teacher?
 
bsroufek said:
I have endeavored to publish a Basic Set of Laws for (any) Nation on a Blog:

righteousnation.wordpress.com

It is supposed to cover the basic Moral Law. Feel free to comment here on any of it. I am interested to know what changes or additions others may have to them.
Click to expand...
Just my thoughts

Article 25 sounds very tricky to me.
In the extreme I could be sent to prison if, while on vacation abroad in a country with higher speed limits, I driver faster than the speed limit back at home. Laws should be bound to the territory over which they have juristriction, not people.

Article 29 would basically prevent the government from issuing a currency. It would also mean all contractors and employees would have to payed up front as it would be illegal for the government to owe them any money. It would be very difficult to force contractors to work to the required standards in such a scenario. In fact fraudsters would have an easy job dferauding the government.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
Just my thoughts
…
Article 29 would basically prevent the government from issuing a currency. It would also mean all contractors and employees would have to payed up front as it would be illegal for the government to owe them any money. It would be very difficult to force contractors to work to the required standards in such a scenario. In fact fraudsters would have an easy job dferauding the government.
Click to expand...
What I meant for that law as to prevent large federal government debts like we have in America, not to prevent temporary business finances. I could have said, “No borrowing from other counties,” but a few people own all the money (a lot), so I could see the government borrowing large sums from its own citizens.

Thanks for the comments.
 
ngill09 said:
…
36) You don’t think people have a right to know if someone has a history of sexual assault? Don’t you think that should disqualify someone from holding certain positions, like that of a teacher?
Click to expand...
That’s a tough one, but in general I don’t think keeping permanent histories of crimes is a good thing. You raise a good point, though.

There are habitual offenders, too.

So, I have to think about it. Maybe just for taxes, not keeping a history. But then I think not being able to ever get a job because you committed a crime when you were young is a good thing.
 
There exists in most if not all countries a strong underlying statist philosophy. So the state gives you and your property some protection (for example through police), some welfare and education, and in return expects you to be a full member of that state. In countries that have conscription for example, you have to fight in its army and die in its wars (if the government ordains it). You are thus an expendable resource. Likewise you have to pay taxes. If you refuse to fight or refuse to pay taxes or refuse to abide by arbitrary laws, you can get sent to prison. You can thus be punished for breaking a contract you never signed. The problem is, nobody asked you to sign that social contract. You received the free schooling at a tender age at which you were not aware of what the state might ask in return. Your parents signed your birth certificate, basically giving you to the state, giving you no choice but to abide by the social contract, even if it means dying in a war that was not of your chosing for a cause that is not your own.

I thus propose a system replacing automatic citizenship by voluntary citizenship, in which you sign the social contract as an adult, or refuse to sign it. You could for example make military or community service a necessary condition of signing the social contract, thus earning you your citizenship, but at the same time respecting the freedom of those who do not wish to accept the social contract. Effectively such people can move away and settle in areas where they set up their own state and write their own social contract on their own terms. To make this possible, we would have to break with the system of uniformity of laws across the entire territory. You could think of it as a micro-federalism, with a federal state still providing some minimalist infrastructure that keeps things together such as courts to settle disputes between states, but the states themselves having much more self governance as well as the ability to dynamically subdivide, split and spawn new states to cater for all opinions. A state shall be any group of individuals drawing up a state consititution. The posession of a territory shall not be necessary initially, but can be acquired later. Questions such as homosexuality or healthcare should not be federal matters but should be decided from state to state, so that nobody can impose their righteous worldview on others, however convinced they are that they are right and the others are wrong. Citizens will be citizens of the states and not of the federation and the federal government will deal only with states, not with individuals. Likewise, individual citizens will be answereable only to the courts of the state.
 
Personally, I find many of your laws silly. Not only do you define what is a crime, you also state what isn’t a crime. And this:

"28) Unreasonably long or excessive incarceration is to be avoided. The head-of-state may pardon prisoners. Oppression is, again, unlawful. This includes unreasonable or indiscriminate jailing. 30, 40 or more years is intolerable, except for serial killers. "

So, serial killers can get 30, 40 more years but a single homicide doesn’t? What of an abortion doctor? Don’t you think that a serial rapist should get some serious hard time?

"33) The people are permitted to lightly spank their children, but abuse is punishable by the courts. " :rolleyes:

"38) A head-of-state who is guilty of high-crimes, such as mass slaughter, cruelties, indiscriminate or oppressive punishments upon the people must be removed by the national military, not a judge. Prison for that one! "

Congratulations, you just established a military dictatorship.

"6) Criminal hoarding or extreme capitalism is unlawful. The taking over of all land, food and money by the government is also unlawful. "

So, a successful business man has to fear prison? How much becomes “criminal?”

“22) Too many laws is unlawful.”

Oh, c’mon. Laws are drafted as the need arises. How do you decide when to stop?

"24) Judges are necessary. Juries for high crimes are good for opposing systemic evil. Lawyers are unnecessary, unless the judge decides on a per case basis that the defendant can’t defend himself or herself. "

And don’t you think that anyone who isn’t a schooled lawyer couldn’t adequately defend themselves?
 
Cirdan_XII said:
There exists in most if not all countries a strong underlying statist philosophy. So the state gives you and your property some protection (for example through police), some welfare and education, and in return expects you to be a full member of that state. In countries that have conscription for example, you have to fight in its army and die in its wars (if the government ordains it). You are thus an expendable resource. Likewise you have to pay taxes. If you refuse to fight or refuse to pay taxes or refuse to abide by arbitrary laws, you can get sent to prison. You can thus be punished for breaking a contract you never signed. The problem is, nobody asked you to sign that social contract. You received the free schooling at a tender age at which you were not aware of what the state might ask in return. Your parents signed your birth certificate, basically giving you to the state, giving you no choice but to abide by the social contract, even if it means dying in a war that was not of your chosing for a cause that is not your own.

I thus propose a system replacing automatic citizenship by voluntary citizenship, in which you sign the social contract as an adult, or refuse to sign it. You could for example make military or community service a necessary condition of signing the social contract, thus earning you your citizenship, but at the same time respecting the freedom of those who do not wish to accept the social contract. Effectively such people can move away and settle in areas where they set up their own state and write their own social contract on their own terms. To make this possible, we would have to break with the system of uniformity of laws across the entire territory. You could think of it as a micro-federalism, with a federal state still providing some minimalist infrastructure that keeps things together such as courts to settle disputes between states, but the states themselves having much more self governance as well as the ability to dynamically subdivide, split and spawn new states to cater for all opinions. A state shall be any group of individuals drawing up a state consititution. The posession of a territory shall not be necessary initially, but can be acquired later. Questions such as homosexuality or healthcare should not be federal matters but should be decided from state to state, so that nobody can impose their righteous worldview on others, however convinced they are that they are right and the others are wrong. Citizens will be citizens of the states and not of the federation and the federal government will deal only with states, not with individuals. Likewise, individual citizens will be answereable only to the courts of the state.
Click to expand...
Really, social contract theory?
Timothysis said:
So, a successful business man has to fear prison? How much becomes “criminal?”
Click to expand...
Why do you make up such absurd strawmans about the Church’s social teaching.
 
devoutchristian said:
That capitalism must be regulated is a Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
This is what the OP wrote:

""6) Criminal hoarding or extreme capitalism is unlawful. The taking over of all land, food and money by the government is also unlawful. "

If someone were as successful as Bill Gates in this little fantasy world, would he be guilty of “criminal hoarding” for being worth tens of billions of dollars? He may not have all the money but he’s got a damn lot of it, far more than he will ever need. Would this be "extreme capitalism? Would the OP confiscate said wealth because it goes against canon 6?

Why are you trying to start a fight over this?
 
Timothysis said:
This is what the OP wrote:

""6) Criminal hoarding or extreme capitalism is unlawful. The taking over of all land, food and money by the government is also unlawful. "

If someone were as successful as Bill Gates in this little fantasy world, would he be guilty of “criminal hoarding” for being worth tens of billions of dollars? He may not have all the money but he’s got a damn lot of it, far more than he will ever need. Would this be "extreme capitalism? Would the OP confiscate said wealth because it goes against canon 6?

Why are you trying to start a fight over this?
Click to expand...
In the case of Bill Gates, he’s not hoarding anything, esp. tangible goods like food, clothing and building materials. THAT’s what I have in mind here.
 
bsroufek said:
I have endeavored to publish a Basic Set of Laws for (any) Nation on a Blog:

righteousnation.wordpress.com

It is supposed to cover the basic Moral Law. Feel free to comment here on any of it. I am interested to know what changes or additions others may have to them.
Click to expand...
21A Completed sentencing reinstates the citizen to his normal state. Sentencing satisfies his debt. Whatever he received as a consequence of crime, is expended through sentencing.

Time to combine the add ons to the original.
Chuck gets 50$ fine in proclaimed sentencing, then he doesn’t receive anything else. If it’s a mistake, then that’s not a fault of Chuck’s, and they can fix it on the next case.

Chuck paid his 50$?,… welcome home.

Theological: Reasoning is that such an implementation would ensure a yardstick measure of condign punishment(catechism). Courts would be faced to balance crime with payment. As it is, Chuck would not be allowed to enter forces or government jobs. Although unjust of course, a proper proclamation sentence of this case would be “you are sentenced to 50$ fine,restriction to military, government jobs,etc” Assumptions become forbidden. Immediately without this ambiguity we can analyze what he received, whereas prior to this we(and a deceived new immigrant who thinks the system is better than his was) would think that the 50$ was fair.

*26A Citizens have a right to overthrow a tyrannical and coercive government, regardless of government type. They have a right to carry arms and use it to protect their own families against it. Examples, Vichy,France and the resistance. Nazi Germany.
*
As an addendum to 21A, and ties in to your slavery rule, anyone who doesn’t enjoy the full complement of his constitutional right, is no longer a citizen technically and is in exile in his own land, this because there is not a set of constitutions of lessor rights that define each case, and the removal of such a right was removed by his fellow citizens.
So the result is the state allows him to become his own nation complete with his own allegiances and protocols. A citizen of one as it were.

That being said we can see the importance of getting sentencing over with and the guy restored to his constitutional rights.
 
  1. Unreasonably long or excessive incarceration is to be avoided. The head-of-state may pardon prisoners. Oppression is, again, unlawful. This includes unreasonable or indiscriminate jailing. 30, 40 or more years is intolerable, except for serial killers.
Click to expand...
You think that serial killers only deserve 30 or 40 years? Dang. Someone should call Governor Moonbeam and let him know that he needs to set Charles Manson loose upon society, since he’s been locked up for 42 years now and based on wikipedia, he won’t be going up for parole again until 2027.

Seriously though, life in prison is not unreasonable when it comes to people who can never be rehabilitated to the extent that they will always be a danger to society. It’s less reasonable to set criminals loose that will only commit more violent crimes [and that goes for rape too] just for the sake of some arbitrary number.
 
Timothysis said:
This is what the OP wrote:

""6) Criminal hoarding or extreme capitalism is unlawful. The taking over of all land, food and money by the government is also unlawful. "

If someone were as successful as Bill Gates in this little fantasy world, would he be guilty of “criminal hoarding” for being worth tens of billions of dollars? He may not have all the money but he’s got a damn lot of it, far more than he will ever need. Would this be "extreme capitalism? Would the OP confiscate said wealth because it goes against canon 6?

Why are you trying to start a fight over this?
Click to expand...
Throughout much of recent history, that is the last couple of hundred years, there have existed common law principles allowing you to claim things from hoarders. If you took something that you used or needed and you did so openly and visibly, and the alleged owner did not demand you return it, it automatically became yours after a certain period. So for example if your neighbour is a ranch owner with hundreds of acres of land and isn’t using half of that land, and you are a small subsistence farmer, and you start ploughing and planting a little corner of his land, and he does not notice, that claim became your property after something like 5 years (provided you haven’t been seeking to hide or make a secet of your activity), and you could even sell it legally and the original owner cannot de-posess you or the new owner. The philosophy being that theft is not theft if the original owner is not using the property whereas the new one is, and the original owner does not notice the loss despite the new owner not hiding it. Modern interpretations of capitalism have in recent decades become more defensive of property, allowing more and more wealth to become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Hence all this craziness over big corporations suing poor grannies for downloading songs and all that.

So to bring back the Bill Gates comparison, under the old laws, if you were to start selling a Microsoft software that Microsoft had withdrawn from the market, and you were to do so openly, so not just hiding on bittorent servers but selling via mainstream channels, and if within 5 years Microsoft does not reclaim it’s right, it would become your intellectual property and you could even sue Microsoft for piracy if they decide to bring it back to the market.

These laws were never actually repealed but through their court actions, the big corporations have de-facto changed the law in their favour. That is anti-democratic.
 
  1. Criminal hoarding or extreme capitalism is unlawful. The taking over of all land, food and money by the government is also unlawful.
Click to expand...
Monsanto is one which comes to mind: they own practically ALL the seeds for crops in America (and other places too). AND the seeds from the crop aren’t fertile, so you MUST buy
them ALL from Monsanto at exorbitant prices. This is one case which fits.

The second part is also evil: Communism and extreme Socialism, wherein all staples are
nationalized.
 
I thought the big debate would be over the lack of diplomatic immunity. This was an area
of thought for me, but I recall God saying in the OT that there must be one law “for and the alien.”

Other topics seem to be of bigger concern, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top