Europe.
-
Ok... reposted here from the lounge, although I think this is apolitical.. I guess it could quickly become polictical. Last night I watched very good documentary on the BBC where Boris Johnson* (MP) talked about how the EU could look back to the Romans in trying to find a way of bringing Europe together. His observation was that "Rome" was much more of an idea than an entity. With the EU struggling to form a "constitution", my question is (and input more than welcome from non-Europeans) "What ONE thing should be in the constitution?" Rather assuming a constitution should be 100 page long and with 100's of rights... Start small, but keep it to definable items, e.g. Freedom can be spun many ways, my view of the US is that their "freedom" is being taken from them by their "anti-terror" measures, so.. whilst they're still "Free", it's not a concrete right. * Please ignore the "personality" if you have a strong dislike for Boris... the question isn't about him, but repeating something he raised. Regards, Ray
Rome was a slave owning militaristic society that defined itself in large part by invading and subjugating its neighbours. The late republic was ethnically and religeously diverse, granted (one of the benefits of polytheisim is its ability to tolerate belief in other gods) but if they shared a single ideal it was one of aggressive cultural superiority. As most of the EU's countries are post imperial powers with a sense of guilt about their recent past, and are also in relative decline compared to both America and the rising economic power of China and India I doubt such a unifying ideal is either possible or healthy. As for a constitution, I agree that it should be a conscise, clear statement of ideals and principles, understandable by as many citizens as possible. We should really look to the Americans (or revoloutionary France) when it comes to the drafting of a consitution, it should be a concise statement of principles from which law can be derived. Not a 300 page monster of muilti lingual legalese. I somehow doubt we will get anything like it though. This Tom Paine quote from the Rights Of Man[^] still holds for the EU:
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretences for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a tribute.
Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
Ray Hayes wrote:
What ONE thing should be in the constitution?
I don't know of ONE thing I'd like in it. However, I can tell you ONE thing that should not be in it: There should be no mention of a specific religion or god, diety, supreme being, creator etc. There have been moved by certain governments/polititians to have something about the EU being a Christian entity. I, along with the millions of other non-Christians, would feel disenfranchised by such a thing. So, no religion - people can practice whatever mumbo-jumbo voodoo they think will gain them a comfortable hereafter but the state should not sponsor it, pay for it, or support it. ColinMackay.net "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
Unfortunately, Natural rights seem to require an appeal to a higher power to be axiomatic. Secular versions rely purely on 'Nature' granting rights, which I find difficult as it relies on our moral intuition without honestly stating that is the source. This is obviously (to atheists) also the case with invoking a creator to grant the rights to us, but it doesn't make it philosophicaly less troubling. There may have been philosophical developments that solve this problem but I am unaware of them. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 8:51 Monday 30th January, 2006
-
Ok... reposted here from the lounge, although I think this is apolitical.. I guess it could quickly become polictical. Last night I watched very good documentary on the BBC where Boris Johnson* (MP) talked about how the EU could look back to the Romans in trying to find a way of bringing Europe together. His observation was that "Rome" was much more of an idea than an entity. With the EU struggling to form a "constitution", my question is (and input more than welcome from non-Europeans) "What ONE thing should be in the constitution?" Rather assuming a constitution should be 100 page long and with 100's of rights... Start small, but keep it to definable items, e.g. Freedom can be spun many ways, my view of the US is that their "freedom" is being taken from them by their "anti-terror" measures, so.. whilst they're still "Free", it's not a concrete right. * Please ignore the "personality" if you have a strong dislike for Boris... the question isn't about him, but repeating something he raised. Regards, Ray
Ray Hayes wrote:
"What ONE thing should be in the constitution?"
I suppose that depends entirely on what you expect to achieve by creating the constitution in the first place. From my perspective (ignorant American red-neck conservative ;) ) it seems most of the media concentrates on percieved business advantages gained in competeing internationally with the US, Japan, China, etc... If this is the case, maybe you only need a few modified tax laws and not an entire constitution. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
Unfortunately, Natural rights seem to require an appeal to a higher power to be axiomatic. Secular versions rely purely on 'Nature' granting rights, which I find difficult as it relies on our moral intuition without honestly stating that is the source. This is obviously (to atheists) also the case with invoking a creator to grant the rights to us, but it doesn't make it philosophicaly less troubling. There may have been philosophical developments that solve this problem but I am unaware of them. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 8:51 Monday 30th January, 2006
There's nothing natural about rights. They are a human construct and therefore need not be linked to a 'higher' source.
-
Ray Hayes wrote:
"What ONE thing should be in the constitution?"
I suppose that depends entirely on what you expect to achieve by creating the constitution in the first place. From my perspective (ignorant American red-neck conservative ;) ) it seems most of the media concentrates on percieved business advantages gained in competeing internationally with the US, Japan, China, etc... If this is the case, maybe you only need a few modified tax laws and not an entire constitution. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
If this is the case, maybe you only need a few modified tax laws and not an entire constitution
That is all we need in Europe :) Unfortunately some people think we need some sort of super-state, presumably because they believe that there are not enough bureaucrats in the world.
-
Ok... reposted here from the lounge, although I think this is apolitical.. I guess it could quickly become polictical. Last night I watched very good documentary on the BBC where Boris Johnson* (MP) talked about how the EU could look back to the Romans in trying to find a way of bringing Europe together. His observation was that "Rome" was much more of an idea than an entity. With the EU struggling to form a "constitution", my question is (and input more than welcome from non-Europeans) "What ONE thing should be in the constitution?" Rather assuming a constitution should be 100 page long and with 100's of rights... Start small, but keep it to definable items, e.g. Freedom can be spun many ways, my view of the US is that their "freedom" is being taken from them by their "anti-terror" measures, so.. whilst they're still "Free", it's not a concrete right. * Please ignore the "personality" if you have a strong dislike for Boris... the question isn't about him, but repeating something he raised. Regards, Ray
What should be in the treaty? 1. All EU employees from Council Ministers down shall be held personally accountable for all funds they are responsible for, and any expenditure which cannot be accounted for will be recovered from their own personal assets. 2. The French will be required to follow EU Laws the same as everyone else. 3. The EU will reduce its bureaucracy budget by 5% per year. 4. The regular decamp to Strasbourg periodically at great expense will cease. 5. The EU will butt out of things that don't concern them, but fully enforce things that do (see 2). 6. The "Euro" currency will be given a not-so-stupid name.
-
Unfortunately, Natural rights seem to require an appeal to a higher power to be axiomatic. Secular versions rely purely on 'Nature' granting rights, which I find difficult as it relies on our moral intuition without honestly stating that is the source. This is obviously (to atheists) also the case with invoking a creator to grant the rights to us, but it doesn't make it philosophicaly less troubling. There may have been philosophical developments that solve this problem but I am unaware of them. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 8:51 Monday 30th January, 2006
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Unfortunately, Natural rights seem to require an appeal to a higher power to be axiomatic.
I think you don't know what the word axiomatic means. The exact definition varies, but the point about axioms is that they are simply postulated, they are not derived. Accordingly, if you derive natural rights from the presumed existence of a higher power, then they are not axiomatic. If what you really mean to say is that natural rights "lack authority" unless some higher power endorses them, then I would say that it all depends on what you regard as the source of authority.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Secular versions rely purely on 'Nature' granting rights, which I find difficult as it relies on our moral intuition without honestly stating that is the source.
What is to stop people honestly stating that human moral intuition is the source? Indeed, I believe that some people do. At the end of the day, I agree with Dan Bennett; rights are a human construct. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Unfortunately, Natural rights seem to require an appeal to a higher power to be axiomatic.
I think you don't know what the word axiomatic means. The exact definition varies, but the point about axioms is that they are simply postulated, they are not derived. Accordingly, if you derive natural rights from the presumed existence of a higher power, then they are not axiomatic. If what you really mean to say is that natural rights "lack authority" unless some higher power endorses them, then I would say that it all depends on what you regard as the source of authority.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Secular versions rely purely on 'Nature' granting rights, which I find difficult as it relies on our moral intuition without honestly stating that is the source.
What is to stop people honestly stating that human moral intuition is the source? Indeed, I believe that some people do. At the end of the day, I agree with Dan Bennett; rights are a human construct. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
If what you really mean to say is that natural rights "lack authority" unless some higher power endorses them
Not quite, I believe I was stating that the american constitution, and historical statements of the right of man rely on right given to us by a "Creator", however vague that may be. I assume that this was an attempt to put them beyond the reach of further legislation. The Chinese constitituion has a list of natural rights and then goes on to make explicit exceptions in the interest of the state. Axiomatic is probably not the right word for me to have used, given that they can be postulated for convinience rather than being discovered, oops.
John Carson wrote:
What is to stop people honestly stating that human moral intuition is the source? Indeed, I believe that some people do.
Agreed, and that is what I would do. but I have only ever seen references to nature or a creator, rather than an honest statement that these rights are derived from moral intuition for the purpose of creating a just government. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
John Carson wrote:
If what you really mean to say is that natural rights "lack authority" unless some higher power endorses them
Not quite, I believe I was stating that the american constitution, and historical statements of the right of man rely on right given to us by a "Creator", however vague that may be. I assume that this was an attempt to put them beyond the reach of further legislation. The Chinese constitituion has a list of natural rights and then goes on to make explicit exceptions in the interest of the state. Axiomatic is probably not the right word for me to have used, given that they can be postulated for convinience rather than being discovered, oops.
John Carson wrote:
What is to stop people honestly stating that human moral intuition is the source? Indeed, I believe that some people do.
Agreed, and that is what I would do. but I have only ever seen references to nature or a creator, rather than an honest statement that these rights are derived from moral intuition for the purpose of creating a just government. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
John Carson wrote:
If what you really mean to say is that natural rights "lack authority" unless some higher power endorses them
Not quite, I believe I was stating that the american constitution, and historical statements of the right of man rely on right given to us by a "Creator", however vague that may be. I assume that this was an attempt to put them beyond the reach of further legislation. The Chinese constitituion has a list of natural rights and then goes on to make explicit exceptions in the interest of the state. Axiomatic is probably not the right word for me to have used, given that they can be postulated for convinience rather than being discovered, oops.
John Carson wrote:
What is to stop people honestly stating that human moral intuition is the source? Indeed, I believe that some people do.
Agreed, and that is what I would do. but I have only ever seen references to nature or a creator, rather than an honest statement that these rights are derived from moral intuition for the purpose of creating a just government. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Not quite, I believe I was stating that the american constitution, and historical statements of the right of man rely on right given to us by a "Creator", however vague that may be. I assume that this was an attempt to put them beyond the reach of further legislation.
For sure, appeals to a "Creator" are intended to put the matter beyond the power of mere mortals to dispute. Mere mortals do, however, dispute such rights in practice, based on 1. different versions of the Creator or 2. different interpretations of the Creator's will or 3. a denial of the Creator's existence. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Ray Hayes wrote:
What ONE thing should be in the constitution?
I don't know of ONE thing I'd like in it. However, I can tell you ONE thing that should not be in it: There should be no mention of a specific religion or god, diety, supreme being, creator etc. There have been moved by certain governments/polititians to have something about the EU being a Christian entity. I, along with the millions of other non-Christians, would feel disenfranchised by such a thing. So, no religion - people can practice whatever mumbo-jumbo voodoo they think will gain them a comfortable hereafter but the state should not sponsor it, pay for it, or support it. ColinMackay.net "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
There should be no mention of a specific religion or god, diety, supreme being, creator etc.
Yes, you certainly would not want the state to have to concern itself with any authority higher than itself. "All rights derive from the state! All hail the state". Hey, that does sound pretty damn Roman after all! ;P "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
There should be no mention of a specific religion or god, diety, supreme being, creator etc.
Yes, you certainly would not want the state to have to concern itself with any authority higher than itself. "All rights derive from the state! All hail the state". Hey, that does sound pretty damn Roman after all! ;P "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Ok... reposted here from the lounge, although I think this is apolitical.. I guess it could quickly become polictical. Last night I watched very good documentary on the BBC where Boris Johnson* (MP) talked about how the EU could look back to the Romans in trying to find a way of bringing Europe together. His observation was that "Rome" was much more of an idea than an entity. With the EU struggling to form a "constitution", my question is (and input more than welcome from non-Europeans) "What ONE thing should be in the constitution?" Rather assuming a constitution should be 100 page long and with 100's of rights... Start small, but keep it to definable items, e.g. Freedom can be spun many ways, my view of the US is that their "freedom" is being taken from them by their "anti-terror" measures, so.. whilst they're still "Free", it's not a concrete right. * Please ignore the "personality" if you have a strong dislike for Boris... the question isn't about him, but repeating something he raised. Regards, Ray
-
Ray Hayes wrote:
What ONE thing should be in the constitution?
I don't know of ONE thing I'd like in it. However, I can tell you ONE thing that should not be in it: There should be no mention of a specific religion or god, diety, supreme being, creator etc. There have been moved by certain governments/polititians to have something about the EU being a Christian entity. I, along with the millions of other non-Christians, would feel disenfranchised by such a thing. So, no religion - people can practice whatever mumbo-jumbo voodoo they think will gain them a comfortable hereafter but the state should not sponsor it, pay for it, or support it. ColinMackay.net "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
So, no religion - people can practice whatever mumbo-jumbo voodoo they think will gain them a comfortable hereafter but the state should not sponsor it, pay for it, or support it.
Well most western states are build on the christian religon. It's not bad to have social merits. Nine of the decalogue are universal, even if you don't believe in god. And it isn't so bad when people don't kill and steal. But I agree, that we don't want god based state of any kind, with a religon everybody has to bear. I want to give just an idea, it's not my opinion, but it's a point to look at. Other could say, that they want religion to be instituted in the constitution. So what to say against? You said that every one could live like he wants, but that is not possible at all. Perhaps someone believes that building a religion based state is the only way, so you would prune his rights to live his religion if you don't let him. If you let him, he would prune your rights to live without religion. What todo then? Nobody is right and nobody is wrong, it's just the way you look at. So one's believes will be depressed and consequently his rights. It's not possible to give everybody all rights he wants, because then nobody has any rights. We don't find a perfect solution for this problem, even if we agree, there will be someone who won't. What if fifty and one percent of all habitants of europe like to have it in the constitution? Greetings, Ingo
-
What should be in the treaty? 1. All EU employees from Council Ministers down shall be held personally accountable for all funds they are responsible for, and any expenditure which cannot be accounted for will be recovered from their own personal assets. 2. The French will be required to follow EU Laws the same as everyone else. 3. The EU will reduce its bureaucracy budget by 5% per year. 4. The regular decamp to Strasbourg periodically at great expense will cease. 5. The EU will butt out of things that don't concern them, but fully enforce things that do (see 2). 6. The "Euro" currency will be given a not-so-stupid name.
viaduct wrote:
The French will be required to follow EU Laws the same as everyone else.
:confused: Do we not ?
viaduct wrote:
The regular decamp to Strasbourg periodically at great expense will cease.
Yep, let's make it definitely there and forget this with ... how is it named again ? Ah yes, "Bruxelles". Ok I live in Strasbourg, nevermind
viaduct wrote:
The "Euro" currency will be given a not-so-stupid name.
Former name was Ecu :rolleyes: What's wrong with euro, BTW ? ~RaGE();
-
Ok... reposted here from the lounge, although I think this is apolitical.. I guess it could quickly become polictical. Last night I watched very good documentary on the BBC where Boris Johnson* (MP) talked about how the EU could look back to the Romans in trying to find a way of bringing Europe together. His observation was that "Rome" was much more of an idea than an entity. With the EU struggling to form a "constitution", my question is (and input more than welcome from non-Europeans) "What ONE thing should be in the constitution?" Rather assuming a constitution should be 100 page long and with 100's of rights... Start small, but keep it to definable items, e.g. Freedom can be spun many ways, my view of the US is that their "freedom" is being taken from them by their "anti-terror" measures, so.. whilst they're still "Free", it's not a concrete right. * Please ignore the "personality" if you have a strong dislike for Boris... the question isn't about him, but repeating something he raised. Regards, Ray
You guys probably should be referring this question to Islam. After all, they're the ones who will be inheriting any constitution you come up with in a couple of generations. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
The second sentence is not a result of the first one.
Thanks for reinforcing my prejudice about new emigrants to the US not understanding anything about Jeffersonian Democracy. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
The second sentence is not a result of the first one.
Thanks for reinforcing my prejudice about new emigrants to the US not understanding anything about Jeffersonian Democracy. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
not understanding anything about Jeffersonian Democracy
Please enlighted us. I have no idea what you mean by that. ColinMackay.net "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
-
You guys probably should be referring this question to Islam. After all, they're the ones who will be inheriting any constitution you come up with in a couple of generations. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
I'd rather my grandchildren grow up amongst Muslims than the Stan Shannon's of the world any day.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
The second sentence is not a result of the first one.
Thanks for reinforcing my prejudice about new emigrants to the US not understanding anything about Jeffersonian Democracy. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my prejudice about new emigrants to the US not understanding anything about Jeffersonian Democracy.
Yeah whatever... as if I were a new "emigrant". :rolleyes: According to wikipedia[^], one of the core ideals of JD is: A wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from government intervention. So what's your point?