Wow. Pretty interesting. Good luck I guess.
I’m not that enthuastic. Europeans are more left-wing, so making a new constitution from nothing is probably going to be more left-wing than constitutions of older countries. Especially now after Iceland has faced huge financial crisis. I think they should use their original decentralized society they had in middle-ages if they want to break free from Denmarks laws.
More left wing than who or what, exactly? Sure, you have Denmark and Sweden, but Poland and the Baltic nations are about as left wing as South Korea, if not less. Also, the oldest constitutional nations were founded by Europeans, so I don’t see your point.
If they want stability, then they need to base it upon the Articles of Confederation. Sorry to bring that up for the millionth time, but the Articles of Confederation was quite possibly the least painful supreme law known to man.
It was also inefficient, because it proposed some authority but never gave anyone any power. So it was good in the sense that nothing got done. It was bad in the sense that it didn’t do what people had believed it would do.
It is difficult to create the “correct” constitution, because justice is in the minds of the individuals. If men believe in the NAP, they will create a voluntaryist society. If men believe in aggression, the state will emerge. No one document enforced with aggression will sway men to either side.
If they want stability, then they need to base it upon the Articles of Confederation. Sorry to bring that up for the millionth time, but the Articles of Confederation was quite possibly the least painful supreme law known to man.
Not in the slightest. The Articles of Confederation were a giant, unworkable mess which was why it was removed and replaced shortly after being signed
The states were literally “states” that were effectively only united by the weak Federal government, but the Feds were expected to provide services to the states from a bunch of money gathered from the states without much means to do so. All the states had their own little armies and were engaging in attacks, and most of them were issuing fiat money to make a quick buck. Many probably would have evolved into pseudo fascist states over time, and the incentive to fund the central government was practically zero, since each figured the others would do so.
It was already doing horribly a few years after being enacted, which is why it was replaced.
how would you write a new constitution? would it have to be long and verbose?
couldn’t you give the government no real powers with a short document? do you really need thousands of pages of words to do that?
“No one may aggress against the property or person of another without first being aggressed”
Bam.
Intellectual climate was more libertarian when those constitutes were made, that was my point.
Why is it so hard to convince someone that the only thing preventing peace from prevailing is their insistence on using force?
Why is it so hard to convince someone that the only thing preventing peace from prevailing is their insistence on using force?
I’ve come to settle on the idea of convenience. It’s just really dang convenient to have someone do your dirty work for you. Out of sight, out of mind.
Because they typically don’t want peace per se - they want peace on their terms.