I think that society should introduce 7 fundamental rules, which would be above the law. No law may overwrite those rules, change them or be against them:

  1. One should act with compassion and empathy
  2. One’s own sense of justice must be put above the law
  3. Bodily freedom is supreme
  4. Freedoms of others, including freedom to offend, must be respected. One who violates the freedom of others gives up their freedom
  5. Unscientific beliefs are not allowed
  6. All who commit wrongdoing must rectify it.
  7. Above rules are interpreted according to common sense

Another thing I want to introduce, which is not a formal law, is optional taxation. People may choose not to pay taxes, but they would need to pay for public services.

  • queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    number 1 is a nothing rule, unless you change it to “One must act with compassion and empathy”. Then you have to define compassion and empathy, and what it means to act with them, in a way that respects rules 2 and 3.

    number 2 renders all other laws meaningless unless you have some objective measurement of a person’s sense of justice, whatever that is.

    number 3, ok, supreme over what? over someone else’s sense of justice?

    number 4: you don’t get to demand my respect. My mind is in my body, therefore rule 4 is a violation of rule 3

    number 5: LMAO unscientific belief is the progenitor of science, also rule 3 so kick rocks telling me what I can and cannot believe.

    number 6: who defines and adjudicates wrongdoing and remedies thereof if not the law? How can anyone contradict my own sense of justice without violating rule 2?

    number 7 is another do-nothing law until you define common sense and everyone agrees that the definition conforms to their own sense of justice. Good luck with that.

    number * a.k.a. optional taxation: Taxes are already optional. Optional doesn’t mean consequence free. Who are you to contradict the tax collector’s sense of justice?

    overall score .25/7*, I do not endorse these rules and judge them unpopular to the extremity.

    P.S. I think you’re on the right track. Reading back over my criticisms they sound harsh, and I stand by them, but I think it’s good to think about these things. Creating rules for groups of people is really, really hard, and I am of the opinion that no one has ever done a very good job at it, so in this respect you are in esteemed company. I hope you post another draft at some point.

    P.P.S. A lot of my criticism revolves around the expansive nature of Rule 2 and the phrase “sense of justice”. The tension between one’s personal sense of justice and the relative inflexibility of the law is a huge philosophical problem known as Civil Disobedience and reading up on some other thinkers on the topic may help you sharpen your own thoughts on the matter. As a start I’d recommend some Thoreau for the reason that he’s the first person I thought of, since he figuratively wrote the book on it.