A new constitution for democratic confederation of communities.

here is the PDF draft one.
jan 1 2016

Whilst my attention span is not the best, & technical stuff tends to go over my head, what I have been able to take in on this looks pretty dam good. Full marks from me. Mind you, anything right now would be an improvement on what we have, so I leave it to the "experts" on here to tweek if required, but like I said, this 1st draft looks pretty dam good to me.
Regards, Keith.

It looks very complex. I'm practically an anarchist, and my attitude about the democratic confederation of communities is that it should develop organically per each community. Natural communities may, of course, overlap in many ways, on many scales of society.

I strongly favor consensus-oriented decision making. Full formal consensus has its limits, of course, but I greatly favor supermajorities over majoritarian voting.

So my questions are:

1. Does that document presume that communities should be able to create policies through simple majority (50% plus one) voting?
   
2. Does the document presume that communities will create policies more easily than they can reverse them? For instance, by using simple majority to create policies, but (perhaps) requiring something like 71% voting to change or remove them? I believe that that would be a recipe for increasing organizational complexity over time, possibly leading to the kind of incomprehensibly complicated code evident in (for instance) the US federal government.
3. Does that document do anything to protect communities from potential tyrannies of a majority-based decision-making, other than listing a lot of human rights?
   

I do like the very thoughtful and mature conception of rights. However, we can be tyrannized and coerced in many ways which will never IMO fit onto lists.

I'm also anarchist. I was trying to lay out a common framework for anarchy.

How can I be free, but still have a society to share?

Im hoping something in this is the wsy.

Its loosely based on Rojavan constitution.

But reading theirs, they still trust councils and representatives.

I don't.

None can represent me, but me.

1. The document at this stage leaves communities to decide their own policy on resolutions. It can go further if we want it to. Or be scaled back. Draft 1. Of maybe 1000 lol.

2. The document has not included, but needs to have a sunset clause I think.

That all resolution must time out for re-evaluation at certain points. I wanted a draft out by new years day. Your suggestions here are certainly interesting and we should specifically raise this as a potential article if you can find a spot to refine and drop it in

1. It wasn't clear, I hoped it would be, but no resolution of any community can extend to a person's domicile. So even if a community bans something, they cannot prevent me from doing it growing it or believing it in my own place. I used to call it "my home is my castle" ... I tried to express it via "nothing outside of this document is law"

Maybe we can word it better?

Thank you for your clarifications @directadmin ; I appreciate it. And thank you for giving such deep thought to a world based on freedom of association with an effort to define human rights in a globally reasonable way.

The constitution is quite ambitious of course. I appreciate that you're trying to develop it in a controlled but interactive environment at this time. I think it overlaps considerably with my views of where we're heading.

I view it as a very long-term goal. I'm more oriented right now towards a variety of IMO shorter-term goals to improve our basic techniques and technologies for communications and collaboration.

I think that a genuinely open source, contemporary improvement of previous "bill of rights" models may be a better focus than the term "constitution". One can certainly argue that certain organizational principles, based as much as possible on personal autonomy, are human rights.

One point where I would anticipate especial resistance is --

Article 41
All buildings and land in the Autonomous Communities are the property of all.

I think it's quite possible that a huge supermajority of people could agree on other stuff before they would open their minds to that. However, I understand the ethical and practical distinction of 'permanent structures' from other constructed items.

Have you thought much about how 'residence rights' would protect domiciles which aren't owned by anyone in particular? Would everyone be entitled to only one domicile?

I don't understand this part at all; could you paraphrase or rephrase it?

Article 71
All administrative bodies, institutions and committees shall be made up of at least 50
percent (50%) of either sex.

Rojava is doing this now. I borrowed heavily from their constitution.

The bill of rights should be under this document. I was lazy and just left the universal declaration of human rights.

But i dont think the world has much time left honestly.

If we don't start making noise and organise now, the narrative will be established/continued by the current states.

Just one domicile. I knew it was contentious

I borrowed from Australian first nations.

Essentially its not losing ownership of the land, but gaining custodianship for the whole community

Its also about limiting mining and exploitation action.

Its a tough sell to capitalists