Atlas City Project

Summary from Zeitgeist forum

******

Do cities have a constitution? We are not leaving the U.S. However, a "City Bill of Rights" is appropriate. The real purpose of any constitution should really be about protecting rights, however modern society has filled it with things that take away your rights.

In Atlas City, a "Bill of Rights" has the intent to insure citizens that powers will not be taken against them. Lets make a list of rights that citizens should be guaranteed, and then lets decide if it makes sense to publish it.

I will start.
Atlas City Citizens Bill of Rights:

1) You have the right to ownership of that which is your own.
2) You have the right to pursue life's pleasures, to adequate health care and healthy food.
3) You have the right to be free to pursue happiness as you see fit so long as you do no harm to others and do not destroy others property (including city property).
4) You are free to express yourself as you see fit so long as it is not unreasonably offensive to those in your presence.
5) You have the right to appeal a decision to accept retraining for inappropriate behavior.
6) You have the right to your own place to live.
7) You have the right to necessary and appropriate clothing.
8) You have the right to contribute to society to make it better place to live.
9) You have the right to enjoy consensual relationships with others of your choosing.
10) You have the right to be free from harm, abuse and intolerance.
11) You have the right to permanently leave at will or to occasional off-site vacations as afforded by coordinated services.

Coordinated services (a department) is responsible for special needs of all members and making sure their needs are met (ie, special medications or medical supplies, ergonomic needs, etc.).

Things that should be addressed but are not yet addressed:

how to discourage smoking (is it just retraining - how does that get enforced)
how to prevent illegal drugs (how does that get enforced)
how to reduce obesity (is that retraining and is there enforcement)

******

This is very complicated. It is correct changing from "constitution" because we still need to follow the nation and local government laws. Being it's own city, is it mandatory to have a sort of major/governor or whatever city politics has at this point? Can we do it as a true democracy for the time being? With only 1000 people this may be possible. Most issues arise as the populations increase and a hierarchy is developed to prevent chaos. Hopefully, we can just have an informed forum for each topic and decide based on majority vote as true democracy is suppose to be. Of course, as long as we have any form of deciding group we will have issues, but let's try to pick the lesser of two evils (and to the greatest degree possible). I'm going to re-read my philosophy of politics books and see if any good ideals stick out to implement temporarily in the transition phase.

Also, we should be careful on making a "Bill of Rights" quite yet. Let's leave it as a mission statement since we cannot currently guarantee things like health care (not until things progress and we have enough specialized citizens for each task).

The whole topic of cigarettes, drugs and alcohol are a non-issue. For now, they are under the current state laws. Later, there will be no laws against any of them (according to Frescoe). He stated that drunk driving is not illegal because the car will pull you over if you are swerving, the same mentality would be attributed to "illegal" drugs.

Obesity should be greatly reduced anyway due to our healthier food, better health care, and encouraged aerobic activities. Plus, with free and easy use many more people would use them anyway. How many people don't go to a gym because of the cost?

If only there was an easy way to say "Just be a decent human" that would be nice. Unfortunately, each little thing has to be spelled out because people generally don't know what a "good person" is contrived of.

If it's only a city, does it even need it's own constitution. If we just say that you are guaranteed the same rights as you would have if you were to step immediately outside of the city, EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING:..... Would that not be enough?

The exceptions would be obvious things like using money, etc.

Also, what about a police force? Would the city even need one? Would the outerlying county allow the city to not be penetrated by the police force? Would there be a deal negotiated with the county how often police would come in and check up on the city? How would that work? The city would still be within its jurisdiction.

The people of Atlas are bound by the laws of nature. Police will be needed during the transition for the protection of the inner city inhabitants from outside criminals in the monetary system

I believe I proposed this on the Zeitgeist forum:

1. No physical property shall be taken from somebody against their will in any way. Intellectual property is always owned by its creator.

2. No physical harm shall be done unto somebody against their will in any way. A person may do physical harm to themselves if they choose so.

These are two fundamental values I believe are absolutely necessary.

Does anybody else have any fundamental values to add?

No person's liberty or freedom can ever be removed by another person or group of persons or entity even if they did so willingly. freedom is not something you can give away and to do so is slavery.

A Constitution is a social construct...A declaration. This is something that is very complex. I will just take one word mentioned above...(ownership). I was under the impression that the idea is to provide for everyone's needs and support each to live their life to it's fullest. If that is the case, then doesn't it make more sense to stop using the idea of ownership because we are all responible and will have or be given what we need or want so we can persue whatever we desire? I am not going to go any deeper down this rabbit hole for the time being because the technical solutions with providing for us comes first IMO. I don't know if a constitution or some other form of documentation for this social philosophy would be a near term priority but it would be something that eventually needs to be looked at.

So what does everyone think of the American constitution being disbanded due to this Pan-America idea? I never even thought of it that way till a discussion a few weeks ago. If the combine all of north and south America into one nation, as is the plan, then the constitution would no longer be valid. Though many things the government does now is unconstitutional, it still provides some protection in our lives. Without that we will have such a horrific autocracy (think of the Alliance from "Serenity").

that is an interesting point chase.

in regards to atlas city and a constitution, it would be difficult for me to trust the city to work without a small set of rules to guide life, such as the ones mentioned by qbit

We have always said that we must abide by American rules since the city is within the US. If these constitutions are no longer valid we may be subject to many more problems and less protection. "Endgame: a blueprint to global enslavement" mentions many of these problems and just how close we are to them.

Hi
first line, first question



if you consider the ownrship concept, haw can you suppose to leave monetary system?
Money is just an easyer why than barter, but both are based on ownership and private property concept... and if you keep the conceps of propery you can only transform the way you own, sell or buy the goods.
For me the basic concep should be to forget ownership concept as we know it now, starting from the point the we can create only thoughs not materials goods. Of course we can transform materials, change their shapes, use them in differnet way... But the iron of our cars is an invention, not a creation.

Qbit wrote:


Please define physical harm to oneself - as in assisted suicide? Or if I want to simply jump in front of a train, that is permissible (legally?). Are there legal limits to the ways ion which one can harm themselves? Should there be a provision (it should go without saying) that it is O.k. to do yourself bodily harm provided no property is damaged other than your own, and no one else is harmed (physically)? Not that any sort of written provision would prohibit such acts, but would such things be needed to prevent liability against the city?

noage wrote:


Personal ownership is a given and nobody should try to undo this. So, I'm fond of collecting widget "X" and doodad "Y" -they are MINE. Not yours, and not to be shared. I may trade them to you for something you have that I want. How can barter be undone? Who is anybody to tell me I can't have for my exclusive possession a given item? You strip a certain amount of freedom and individuality by removing the concept of personal property and ownership.

Say an artist creates a fantastic work - can he or she not claim that as their own their own creation and are at their own will to do with it as they please? Or does it suddenly become community property???

Non-ownership seems absurd to me - and I do not think it needs to be a prerequisite of any such project like this. Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding your point???