I’m not sure really. What are the penalties for evading jury service? A fine, maybe? With quite a lot of ways of getting out of it. I would prefer to use a carrot rather than a stick.
You could do it by web conferencing or something, so they wouldn’t even have to move.
Hello?
Unlike Maia I prefer the carrot and the stick approach. If anyone refuses mandatory political service you take a carrot, shove it up their arse, followed by the stick, followed by a bigger, rougher carrot.
How about just let a hundry horse into the House of Lords, tethered to the center, with food set equal distant from either side of it- if it goes to the left, the leftists get the vote, if it goes to the right, the rightest get’s the vote, if it just stands around, chewing on funniture and randomly shits, the center gets it.
The US system was designed in purpose into deadlock, not for the sake of efficency of the vote, but for increased opprotunity to examine the passions behind the vote in a seperate house of legislation, allowing time for modification. The American deadlock isn’t a ‘bad thing’, it’s the design of our government, so no single line of thinking from passion or fraud can easily evade detection. We believe to a great degree in a divided government. Think of Battlestar Galactica- they didn’t unify the computer systems together in a larger, centralized net because of fears of the computer system being taken over.
Yes, we’re a democracy, but we’re also a republic. We put the seperations of power in place, both horizonal as well as vertical, in place to keep really bad ideas from gaining traction.
From my understanding of the English style parlimentry system, it’s ‘barely’ a democracy. But if it’s not broken, there isn’t much of a reason to fix it. Just know, if your system goes to shit from a oversight, the Yankes are NOT coming to help you fix it. I’m sending SAIDT a slingshot and some high power firecrackers and a hockey mask, and letting him become king if everything goes to shit.
Honestly, I don’t know how you expect a nation with as high a population density as England become Anarchist. Besides, most of the suggestions so far are neither Democracy nor Anarchism, it’s of the same philosophical tradition that governs juries.
What the English here are suggesting is a legislative grand jury. In America, we still use Grand Juries, but in the judical branch. It’s died out in England as far as I am aware, because the English are the English and do crazy ass shit all the time, claiming they are all the wiser. It’s a damn good insitution, and can be easily appended to any house of paliment or congress. We have sub-committes that process bills, deciding on their constitutionality and priority of vote between houses. If a congressman say ‘I am presenting this bill to be voted on, Horses should wear skirts to cover their ding dongs’ it will get a lower vote than a congressman suggesting we declare War and Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor. But it isn’t designed to be a check and balance, or a alternative to democracy. It’s a inherent function within our legislative process recognizing the improbability of getting the good important stuff through and voted on over all the garbage.
A Grand Jury attached to the House of Lords can do much the same process. If it’s just protecting the rich, they can veto the vote. Or more than likely, just stare at the ugly furniture and agree with them, as they won’t really be expected to know.
The rich do have a understanding and intutive feel for the statis quo, and the statis quo does great things, like allows food imports to work, or allowing your currency to have meaning to foreign businessmen who would be interested in trading goods with your puny ass, agriculturally deficient nation. You’ll starve if people lack a understanding of how to keep economics going. A guiness and a crowbar, running through the streets screaming Fortress England, isn’t very likely going to encourage solid food imports. Most anarchists aren’t qualified to charter supply ships to other nations, navigate them, and trade Twidle cloth from Moon to buy foodstuffs from like- any nation. The brits will starve, and SAIDT will be a king of skeleton nations.
How about just let a hungry horse into the House of Lords, tethered to the center, with food set equal distant from either side of it- if it goes to the left, the leftists get the vote, if it goes to the right, the rightest get’s the vote, if it just stands around, chewing on funniture and randomly shits, the center gets it.
The US system was designed in purpose into deadlock, not for the sake of efficency of the vote, but for increased opprotunity to examine the passions behind the vote in a seperate house of legislation, allowing time for modification. The American deadlock isn’t a ‘bad thing’, it’s the design of our government, so no single line of thinking from passion or fraud can easily evade detection. We believe to a great degree in a divided government. Think of Battlestar Galactica- they didn’t unify the computer systems together in a larger, centralized net because of fears of the computer system being taken over.
Yes, we’re a democracy, but we’re also a republic. We put the seperations of power in place, both horizonal as well as vertical, in place to keep really bad ideas from gaining traction.
From my understanding of the English style parlimentry system, it’s ‘barely’ a democracy. But if it’s not broken, there isn’t much of a reason to fix it. Just know, if your system goes to shit from a oversight, the Yankes are NOT coming to help you fix it. I’m sending SAIDT a slingshot and some high power firecrackers and a hockey mask, and letting him become king if everything goes to shit.
Honestly, I don’t know how you expect a nation with as high a population density as England become Anarchist. Besides, most of the suggestions so far are neither Democracy nor Anarchism, it’s of the same philosophical tradition that governs juries.
What the English here are suggesting is a legislative grand jury. In America, we still use Grand Juries, but in the judical branch. It’s died out in England as far as I am aware, because the English are the English and do crazy ass shit all the time, claiming they are all the wiser. It’s a damn good insitution, and can be easily appended to any house of paliment or congress. We have sub-committes that process bills, deciding on their constitutionality and priority of vote between houses. If a congressman say ‘I am presenting this bill to be voted on, Horses should wear skirts to cover their ding dongs’ it will get a lower vote than a congressman suggesting we declare War and Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor. But it isn’t designed to be a check and balance, or a alternative to democracy. It’s a inherent function within our legislative process recognizing the improbability of getting the good important stuff through and voted on over all the garbage.
A Grand Jury attached to the House of Lords can do much the same process. If it’s just protecting the rich, they can veto the vote. Or more than likely, just stare at the ugly furniture and agree with them, as they won’t really be expected to know.
The rich do have a understanding and intutive feel for the statis quo, and the statis quo does great things, like allows food imports to work, or allowing your currency to have meaning to foreign businessmen who would be interested in trading goods with your puny ass, agriculturally deficient nation. You’ll starve if people lack a understanding of how to keep economics going. A guiness and a crowbar, running through the streets screaming Fortress England, isn’t very likely going to encourage solid food imports. Most anarchists aren’t qualified to charter supply ships to other nations, navigate them, and trade Twidle cloth from Moon to buy foodstuffs from like- any nation. The brits will starve, and SAIDT will be a king of skeleton nations.
There should be a House of Peasants - using a noun from the appropriate era - chosen by lottery from the working poor.
How so? I mean, I don’t completely disagree, but I would say that to the extent to which it is not a democracy, the American system is even less democratic.
We have sub-committees too, along with a lot of revision of bills and stuff. All bills go through to a ‘public bill committee’ which is multi-party and which discusses ammendments to the bill in both houses separately, so by the time it comes out its had a total of two committee stages, six ‘readings’ to the whole house (four with votes) and two ‘consideration’ stages, where more amendments are made. It’s pretty thorough - after all we’ve been doing this for a pretty long time so we’re pretty good at this whole government thing by now. Which is one reason I’m always a bit hazy on suggestions to completely reform the Lords - they are an essential part of the legiclative process, any replacement would have to be able to do just as good a job at scrutinizing bills, or we could be in a lot of trouble. A ‘house of peasants’ probably wouldn’t be able to perform this function.