Laws & Freedom: Abstract: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It may be surprising | === '''Layers of Paint''' === | ||
It may be surprising that many nations currently have laws originating from medieval precedence, the Magna Carta, the Quran, the Bible, or even the Code of Hammurabi. Our understanding of the world, society, the government, and ourselves has changed dramatically over the last 4000 years, so shouldn't our jurisprudence? It could be argued that the interpretation of those laws have evolved, but instead of adding a new coat of paint to a dilapidated structure, sometimes it's best to tear it all down and build new. | |||
The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” | === '''Building New''' === | ||
The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, ethics, science, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” In essence, the Liminal State starts with a blank slate and builds up; using a unique and far more equitable method among existing democracies for creating new laws and and shaping our communities. | |||
To begin with, the laws ensuring universal equality and basic freedoms, those expected of any modern society, are set from the start and are immutable. Communities then decide for themselves what limitations they wish to impose upon themselves within this framework, with the Liminal State focusing on those aspects of governance that fall outside the scope of social issues. While there is some gray area here, this generally means that the Liminal State will first ensure all are treated fairly and with equality of opportunity, then focus on maintain infrastructure, the regulations affecting the economy, business practices, etc. On the other hand, the ''Citizens'' will shape the laws that impact their local communities based on their own values. | |||
This philosophy makes the Liminal State the only government intentionally designed from inception to accommodate vast populations with unique perspectives and cultures, and perhaps therefore the only governmental structure that could ever work at an international level. | |||
=== '''Summation''' === | |||
In the Liminal State, all people start with complete freedom. Foundational laws then create a level playing field by ensuring all are treated equally and the people are prioritized above all else. Citizens then pass subsequent laws to restrict these freedoms for themselves in the most limited ways possible, until there is an ideal balance between freedoms and the limits on those freedoms, and a balanced social construct has been reached where all ''Citizens'' can live and work together in this healthy, productive, and fulfilled society. | |||
=== ''' | === '''Fundamentals''' === | ||
While | Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group as a whole. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: ''Non-Citizens'', ''Protected Citizens'' (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and ''Emancipated Citizens'' (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State. | ||
Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents ''Protected Citizens'' from owning guns would be. | |||
Even if a law uses ambiguous or misleading language which overtly doesn’t appear to target a specific sub-group, yet by virtue of the way enforcement would need to be applied still would, that too would be illegal. It is prohibited for any laws to be written in any way that would, in practice, disproportionately affect a subgroup within one of these pre-defined groups. | |||
Example 2: A law that allows only those people with low average levels of testosterone to own guns would not be allowed, even if some minority population of men could still be eligible under this law. | |||
While guns could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the ''80% Rule''. This means 80% eligible voters would be required to vote in favor to limit this freedom. | |||
It may seem unlikely that 80% of a voting population would agree on anything, but this highlights the greatest advantage of the Liminal State. Only very common sense laws with the widest support of the population should be applied to the whole population. Instead of an entire nation forced to accept a rule that passes with 50% + 1 vote, where clearly half the nation opposes, the ''80% Rule'' forces populations to check themselves from forcing unpopular laws on an unwilling population. | |||
=== '''Local Self-Determination''' === | |||
On the other hand, local communities have much more power over their own lives within the Liminal State. A town, for example, may pass laws to restrict their freedoms however they wish (within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State). They would still be forbidden from passing a law banning men from owning guns, but they could ban all gun ownership within their community, while the next town over may allow gun ownership across all pre-defined groups. | |||
In this way ''Citizens'' can mold their communities the way they see fit and all communities can learn from one another. With the previous example, surrounding communities could watch and see how these laws regarding gun ownership affect the school shootings, personal defense, domestic violence, inconvenience to hunters, etc. in those communities. The same goes for abortion, vaccines, transgendered bathrooms, etc. All these hot-button social issues that are currently being debated nationally would be better addressed locally, and only within the Liminal State is it possible to do this. When these ideas get tried locally and real data behind the effects of these laws becomes available, those winning ideas from the local level will gain additional support and get proposed at a higher level. Only the best ideas and laws will rise to the top, and through demonstrable data and popular support will the best ideas become national laws. | |||
=== '''Citizen Control''' === | |||
''Citizens'' affect their communities and the safety and prosperity provided by the Liminal State in direct ways. In addition to a government, via the Liminal State, that inherently protects and promotes the ''Citizens'' by insuring their total well-being above all else, ''Citizens'' also impact their communities in direct ways that are uniquely provided by the Liminal State. | |||
The ''Citizen Initiative'' provides a path for important issues that impact the community to be available for a vote within the community. The legal framework of the ''Citizen Initiative'' protects this process from outside or corporate influence, meaning that only the ''Citizens'' within a ''Political Boundary'' can participate in the process. This is the main mechanism used by ''Citizens'' to shape their communities the way they want, since the Liminal State as a government instead focuses on the big-picture issues, like international relations, regulation of businesses to protect the ''Citizens'' from harmful or unfair practices, environmental protection to ensure the ''Citizens'' health and well-being, etc. | |||
There may be issues that overlap the usual purview of the Liminal State and the interests of the community. While the expertise and decisions of the ''Government Personnel'' should always be sound based on the inherent meritocracy built into the Liminal State, the ''Citizens'' themselves can always challenge any regulation decided by any ''Branch'' via a ''Citizen Jury.'' The process of convening a ''Citizen Jury'' is the same as getting a ''Citizen Initiative'' on the ballot, except that instead of proposing a community law, the process would instead get the regulation in question on the ballot to be decided by the ''Citizens''. | |||
With enough signatures gathered to convene a ''Citizen Jury'', the regulation in question is automatically placed on the ballot of the next election to be decided by the ''Eligible Voters'' within that ''Political Boundary''. Before the next election, 99 ''Emancipated Citizens'' from within the affected ''Political Boundary'' will be selected at random to convene as the ''Citizen Jury''. The purpose of this jury is not to decide the matter, but rather to hear all the available evidence and allow the ''Citizens'' composing the ''Citizen Jury'' to investigate and ask questions regarding the regulation in question. The experts who enacted the regulation from the responsible ''Branch'' will defend their decision and provide relevant information for the basis of that decision. At the same time those that oppose the regulation will present their information and defend their position. The 99 jurors can ask any questions they wish, call additional witnesses, ask for additional experts, etc. Their authority to investigate the matter is not limited, and they will also be discussing among themselves their own positions and their own thoughts. | |||
The purpose of the ''Citizen Jury'' is to provide a venue for the discussion of relevant details of the regulation, the impacts on the community, and any other factors that the ''Eligible Voters'' within the ''Political Boundary'' might need answered to make an informed vote. Using the jury ensures the issues are heard without censorship from every side and all jury members have the ability to ask questions on behalf of the public at large. The jury is composed of 99 random ''Emancipated'' ''Citizens'' to ensure there is enough people to have a large enough sample of the population that every important question can be asked and there is no chance of corrupting the jury, but not so big that the process and format is unweildly. The entire process is recorded and available to the public so they may inform their own decisions when it comes time to vote. | |||
In the same way that the ''Citizen Jury'' can be convened to fight an unpopular regulation, the same process is used to convene the jury in situations where the ''Citizens'' feel an issue is not being addressed that needs more attention. An example would be the Epstein situation in the US, where the elites are apparently using all their power and influence to keep the information from going public. In the Liminal State the ''Citizens'' could collect the required signatures to convene a ''Citizen Jury'', which would then have total investitive and subpoena powers to thoroughly and publicly get to the bottom of the issue, ultimately forcing a vote, which if successful, would force the government to take action. Of course with the absolute transparency provided in the Liminal State, something monstrous like this should never happen in the first place, but at least the ''Citizens'' have the power to act when elected leaders fail. | |||
While | === '''Conclusion''' === | ||
While the ''Justice Branch'' of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by a massively popular vote among ''Eligible Voters'' can a law be enacted or removed. | |||
The key understanding here is that smaller groups of | The key understanding here is that smaller groups of ''Citizens'' may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for the good of their community. Instead of having to fight for important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, ''Citizens'' can mold their communities with their neighbors the way they see fit for themselves. | ||
This is how people are provided the freedom to live the lives they want, based on their values, while allowing other citizens to live the lives they want. It’s an ideal compromise; getting to live life the way you truly | This is how people are provided the freedom to live the lives they want, based on their values, while allowing other citizens to live the lives that they want. It’s an ideal compromise; getting to live life the way you truly desire, and only giving up the ability to force others to live that same way. | ||
=== '''Site Navigation''' === | === '''Site Navigation''' === | ||
'' | ''Continue Reading:'' | ||
[[Goals|← Goals]] | [[Laws & Freedom: Abstract] | [[Laws & Freedom: In Practice|Laws & Freedom: In Practice →]] | [[Goals|← Goals]] | [[Laws & Freedom: Abstract]] | [[Laws & Freedom: In Practice|Laws & Freedom: In Practice →]] | ||
''Site Map:'' | ''Site Map:'' | ||
Latest revision as of 17:14, 15 September 2026
Layers of Paint
It may be surprising that many nations currently have laws originating from medieval precedence, the Magna Carta, the Quran, the Bible, or even the Code of Hammurabi. Our understanding of the world, society, the government, and ourselves has changed dramatically over the last 4000 years, so shouldn't our jurisprudence? It could be argued that the interpretation of those laws have evolved, but instead of adding a new coat of paint to a dilapidated structure, sometimes it's best to tear it all down and build new.
Building New
The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, ethics, science, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” In essence, the Liminal State starts with a blank slate and builds up; using a unique and far more equitable method among existing democracies for creating new laws and and shaping our communities.
To begin with, the laws ensuring universal equality and basic freedoms, those expected of any modern society, are set from the start and are immutable. Communities then decide for themselves what limitations they wish to impose upon themselves within this framework, with the Liminal State focusing on those aspects of governance that fall outside the scope of social issues. While there is some gray area here, this generally means that the Liminal State will first ensure all are treated fairly and with equality of opportunity, then focus on maintain infrastructure, the regulations affecting the economy, business practices, etc. On the other hand, the Citizens will shape the laws that impact their local communities based on their own values.
This philosophy makes the Liminal State the only government intentionally designed from inception to accommodate vast populations with unique perspectives and cultures, and perhaps therefore the only governmental structure that could ever work at an international level.
Summation
In the Liminal State, all people start with complete freedom. Foundational laws then create a level playing field by ensuring all are treated equally and the people are prioritized above all else. Citizens then pass subsequent laws to restrict these freedoms for themselves in the most limited ways possible, until there is an ideal balance between freedoms and the limits on those freedoms, and a balanced social construct has been reached where all Citizens can live and work together in this healthy, productive, and fulfilled society.
Fundamentals
Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group as a whole. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: Non-Citizens, Protected Citizens (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and Emancipated Citizens (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State.
Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents Protected Citizens from owning guns would be.
Even if a law uses ambiguous or misleading language which overtly doesn’t appear to target a specific sub-group, yet by virtue of the way enforcement would need to be applied still would, that too would be illegal. It is prohibited for any laws to be written in any way that would, in practice, disproportionately affect a subgroup within one of these pre-defined groups.
Example 2: A law that allows only those people with low average levels of testosterone to own guns would not be allowed, even if some minority population of men could still be eligible under this law.
While guns could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the 80% Rule. This means 80% eligible voters would be required to vote in favor to limit this freedom.
It may seem unlikely that 80% of a voting population would agree on anything, but this highlights the greatest advantage of the Liminal State. Only very common sense laws with the widest support of the population should be applied to the whole population. Instead of an entire nation forced to accept a rule that passes with 50% + 1 vote, where clearly half the nation opposes, the 80% Rule forces populations to check themselves from forcing unpopular laws on an unwilling population.
Local Self-Determination
On the other hand, local communities have much more power over their own lives within the Liminal State. A town, for example, may pass laws to restrict their freedoms however they wish (within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State). They would still be forbidden from passing a law banning men from owning guns, but they could ban all gun ownership within their community, while the next town over may allow gun ownership across all pre-defined groups.
In this way Citizens can mold their communities the way they see fit and all communities can learn from one another. With the previous example, surrounding communities could watch and see how these laws regarding gun ownership affect the school shootings, personal defense, domestic violence, inconvenience to hunters, etc. in those communities. The same goes for abortion, vaccines, transgendered bathrooms, etc. All these hot-button social issues that are currently being debated nationally would be better addressed locally, and only within the Liminal State is it possible to do this. When these ideas get tried locally and real data behind the effects of these laws becomes available, those winning ideas from the local level will gain additional support and get proposed at a higher level. Only the best ideas and laws will rise to the top, and through demonstrable data and popular support will the best ideas become national laws.
Citizen Control
Citizens affect their communities and the safety and prosperity provided by the Liminal State in direct ways. In addition to a government, via the Liminal State, that inherently protects and promotes the Citizens by insuring their total well-being above all else, Citizens also impact their communities in direct ways that are uniquely provided by the Liminal State.
The Citizen Initiative provides a path for important issues that impact the community to be available for a vote within the community. The legal framework of the Citizen Initiative protects this process from outside or corporate influence, meaning that only the Citizens within a Political Boundary can participate in the process. This is the main mechanism used by Citizens to shape their communities the way they want, since the Liminal State as a government instead focuses on the big-picture issues, like international relations, regulation of businesses to protect the Citizens from harmful or unfair practices, environmental protection to ensure the Citizens health and well-being, etc.
There may be issues that overlap the usual purview of the Liminal State and the interests of the community. While the expertise and decisions of the Government Personnel should always be sound based on the inherent meritocracy built into the Liminal State, the Citizens themselves can always challenge any regulation decided by any Branch via a Citizen Jury. The process of convening a Citizen Jury is the same as getting a Citizen Initiative on the ballot, except that instead of proposing a community law, the process would instead get the regulation in question on the ballot to be decided by the Citizens.
With enough signatures gathered to convene a Citizen Jury, the regulation in question is automatically placed on the ballot of the next election to be decided by the Eligible Voters within that Political Boundary. Before the next election, 99 Emancipated Citizens from within the affected Political Boundary will be selected at random to convene as the Citizen Jury. The purpose of this jury is not to decide the matter, but rather to hear all the available evidence and allow the Citizens composing the Citizen Jury to investigate and ask questions regarding the regulation in question. The experts who enacted the regulation from the responsible Branch will defend their decision and provide relevant information for the basis of that decision. At the same time those that oppose the regulation will present their information and defend their position. The 99 jurors can ask any questions they wish, call additional witnesses, ask for additional experts, etc. Their authority to investigate the matter is not limited, and they will also be discussing among themselves their own positions and their own thoughts.
The purpose of the Citizen Jury is to provide a venue for the discussion of relevant details of the regulation, the impacts on the community, and any other factors that the Eligible Voters within the Political Boundary might need answered to make an informed vote. Using the jury ensures the issues are heard without censorship from every side and all jury members have the ability to ask questions on behalf of the public at large. The jury is composed of 99 random Emancipated Citizens to ensure there is enough people to have a large enough sample of the population that every important question can be asked and there is no chance of corrupting the jury, but not so big that the process and format is unweildly. The entire process is recorded and available to the public so they may inform their own decisions when it comes time to vote.
In the same way that the Citizen Jury can be convened to fight an unpopular regulation, the same process is used to convene the jury in situations where the Citizens feel an issue is not being addressed that needs more attention. An example would be the Epstein situation in the US, where the elites are apparently using all their power and influence to keep the information from going public. In the Liminal State the Citizens could collect the required signatures to convene a Citizen Jury, which would then have total investitive and subpoena powers to thoroughly and publicly get to the bottom of the issue, ultimately forcing a vote, which if successful, would force the government to take action. Of course with the absolute transparency provided in the Liminal State, something monstrous like this should never happen in the first place, but at least the Citizens have the power to act when elected leaders fail.
Conclusion
While the Justice Branch of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by a massively popular vote among Eligible Voters can a law be enacted or removed.
The key understanding here is that smaller groups of Citizens may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for the good of their community. Instead of having to fight for important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, Citizens can mold their communities with their neighbors the way they see fit for themselves.
This is how people are provided the freedom to live the lives they want, based on their values, while allowing other citizens to live the lives that they want. It’s an ideal compromise; getting to live life the way you truly desire, and only giving up the ability to force others to live that same way.
Site Navigation
Continue Reading:
← Goals | Laws & Freedom: Abstract | Laws & Freedom: In Practice →
Site Map:
