NationStates Jolt Archive

I've finally completed a working demonstration of my model of the political spectrum.

A paper I've written on it is here:
http://compass.fapfap.org/

A demonstration of it is here:
http://compass.fapfap.org/quiz.php

I'll release the source-code when the quiz is finished. For now, I need to start writing the questions. Now, obviously, I'm not going to ask anyone here what the questions should be (I've done that in the past, and it never worked).

So, instead, I'd just like to ask you to help with a list of liberties to base the questions on, which shouldn't be too difficult. Basically, a "liberty," is merely a right. Recognizing something as a liberty does not mean you agree everyone should have it all of the time. And recognizing something as a liberty does not even necessarily mean you agree anyone should have it ever. But it simply means, "It's a form of freedom, that governments might consider, when determining the law."

Also, try to keep it issue-based, rather than relative to certain events or cultures.

So, for example:
GOOD: Right to freedom of the press.
BAD: Freedom to leak a CIA agent's identity.

GOOD: Right to life.
BAD: Right to have a feeding tube (or universal healthcare).

And you don't need to make a long list, either. Just help to add to my current list of liberties:


Right over one's life

Right to have life (universal healthcare, social welfare)
Right to keep one's life (death penalty, murder, abortion)
Right to end one's life (euthanasia)
Right over one's reproduction (pregnancy rights)

Right to property

Right to control of physical property
Right to freely transfer property (inheritance)
Right to intellectual property
Right to engage in business freely (monopolies, anti-trust, taxes, etc)
Right to means of production

Right to political representation

Right to vote
Right to petition the government
Right to peacefully assemble

Right to freedom of speech
Right to freedom of religion (or belief)
Right to freedom of association
Right to bear arms
Right to freedom of movement

Right to emigrate
Right to immigrate
Right to travel freely

Right to freedom from discrimination

Freedom from discrimination based on gender
Freedom from discrimination based on race
Freedom from discrimination based on sexual-preference
Freedom from discrimination based on religion
Freedom from discrimination based on beliefs
Freedom from discrimination based on appearance
Freedom from discrimination based on association
Freedom from discrimination based on age
Freedom from discrimination based on mental or physical health
Freedom from discrimination based on mental or physical disabilities

Right to freedom of the press
Right to freedom of thought (or conscience)

Right to conscientiously object to war

Right to due process

Right to freedom from undue searches
Right to be notified of your rights
Right to silence (to avoid self-incrimination)
Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Right to an attorney
Right to equal protection under the law
Right to a fair trial.

Right to not be falsely represented (libel and slander)
Right to security

Right to security from domestic harm (police)
Right to security from foreign harm (national security, foreign embassies)

Right to privacy


If you can think of any others that should be added, or why some of those on the list should be removed, go ahead. Oh, and also... Although I don't want you to be too specific, don't be too general, either. Like "Right to Freedom."

I'm even thinking that "Right to Political Representation," should probably be split up.

EDIT: Made some major changes. I also started adding sub-sections, to have greater distinction among some of the general categories.

Right to bear arms
Right to political representation
Right to freedom of speech
Right to freedom of religion (or belief)
Right to life
Right to property
Right to means of production
Right to freedom of association
Right to freedom of movement (or travel)
Right to freedom from discrimination
Right to freedom of the press
Right to freedom of thought (or conscience)
Right to privacy
Right to an attorney (insert other legal necessities here as well)
Right to petition government of grievences
Right to peacefully assemble

Well I disagree with equating liberties with rights, but for the sake of discusion I'll let it stand. Following your format a few ideas for your consideration:




* right to control of property (as opposed to mere ownership without control) which can be related to
* right to engage in business
* right of post-humous control of property (bequests/inheritance)
* right to movement within the area controled by the governing body should be distingushed from
* right to travel into and out from the area controled by the governing body which should also be distinushed from
* right to emmigrate/immigrate
* right to reproduce
* right to own non-real property (copyrights/patents/trademarks)
* right to self-terminate (commit suicide) which may be related to
* right to personal autonomy over one's body

Americai, yours were all very good. They've all been added. As for Squi...
*Right to control of property (as opposed to mere ownership without control) which can be related to
* right of post-humous control of property (bequests/inheritance)
Related to "right to property," but I'll add them as sub-sections.

* right to movement within the area controled by the governing body should be distingushed from
* right to travel into and out from the area controled by the governing body which should also be distinushed from
* right to emmigrate/immigrate
Once again, relates to a current right. But it's general enough, that I'll make them sub-sections.

* right to reproduce
Good. Added.

* right to own non-real property (copyrights/patents/trademarks)
Intellectual property.. Added as a sub-section.

* right to self-terminate (commit suicide) which may be related to
I changed "Right to life," to "Right over one's life." Added two sub-sections.

* right to personal autonomy over one's body
I don't think I'm going to add this one, because it's far too general, and the circumstances which would violate it would fall in several categories (such as rape). And, in history, I don't think there's ever been a fascist police force that go, "HEY YOU! COME HERE! Now hop on one foot, and pat your head, while rubbing your stomach! Go on!"

I also added, "Right to not be falsely represented," because of libel and slander laws. I also separated "discrimination," into a number of sub-sections.

Anyone else have any ideas on what other liberties there are?

Well, the right to autonomy over one's body is the right involved in the abortion issue, I don't think that's covered by any of the other ones.

*Right of being secure in your own person (illegal search and seizure)
*Right of freedom to peacefully gather
*Right to arm bears (wait...I'm sure I didn't mean that)

Well, the right to autonomy over one's body is the right involved in the abortion issue, I don't think that's covered by any of the other ones.
I added "right over one's reproduction," which could cover rape as well as those who are pro-choice. Meanwhile, "right to keep one's life," would cover those who are pro-life.

Right to freedom of consumption (ie, right to eat, drink or otherwise introduce to the body any foodstuff or chemical... ok, ok, we're talking drugs too.)

Liberties are the freedom to walk around commando! :eek:

Actually, I think that right to consumption ones is another that relates to the whole "autonomy over ones body" thing

*Right of being secure in your own person (illegal search and seizure)
*Right of freedom to peacefully gather
*Right to arm bears (wait...I'm sure I didn't mean that)
Added "freedom from undue searches."

Illegal seizures would fall under right to property.

Hmm.. I think 9 i and j are really just two sides of the same coin, but Im sure you've thought it through, so if you could explain why they are seperate Id be interested to know.

And I think Freedom of Speech should have a subsection to include freedom of expression in non-verbal form, such as in artistic representation, clothing, body ornamentation etc.

just curious - why do we (you) need the right to bear arms?

My coments in bold:


<snip>
Right to property
[list=a]
Right to control of physical property
Right to freely transfer property (inheritance)
Right to intellectual property Within a time based limitation. Read Spider Robinson's Melancholy Elephants to understand the problem.
Right to engage in business freely (monopolies, anti-trust, taxes, etc)
Right to means of production

<snip>
Right to freedom from discrimination

Freedom from discrimination based on gender
Freedom from discrimination based on race
Freedom from discrimination based on sexual-preference
Freedom from discrimination based on religion
Freedom from discrimination based on beliefs
Freedom from discrimination based on appearance
Freedom from discrimination based on association

Freedom from discrimination based on age
Freedom from discrimination based on mental or physical health
Freedom from discrimination based on mental or physical disabilities
These last 3 are problematic for a number of reasons, mostly due to interrelated competence issues. Not being able to "discriminate" based on mental or physical health for example, could put my employees/customers at serious risk, for which I would be liable. Do you want me to have to hire someone with a violent mood disorder to help me run my daycare? There are certain things you canot expect one of the above classes to do safely (an 80 year old bus driver?)

<snip>
Right to security

Right to security from domestic harm (police)
Impossible to ensure/enforce. Major Liability issue.

Right to security from foreign harm (national security, foreign embassies)
Also impossible to ensure. The State may have a Duty to do what is possible to prevent foreign harm, but it cannot Guarantee the Right.

just curious - why do we (you) need the right to bear arms?

Read the original post.

Recognizing something as a liberty does not mean you agree everyone should have it all of the time. And recognizing something as a liberty does not even necessarily mean you agree [i]anyone should have it ever. But it simply means, "It's a form of freedom, that governments might consider, when determining the law."
The right to "bear arms," is not merely guns, but the right to self-protection, including owning such weapons for said protection.

In Australia, if someone tries to beat you up, I'm sure you have the right to self-defense... And probably the right to own some weapons for self-defense. (What are your laws on knives?)

just curious - why do we (you) need the right to bear arms?
Because of:

<snip> Right to security
Right to security from domestic harm (police)
Impossible to ensure/enforce. Major Liability issue.

Right to security from foreign harm (national security, foreign embassies)
Also impossible to ensure. The State may have a Duty to do what is possible to prevent foreign harm, but it cannot Guarantee the Right.

Without tthe RKBA, there is no personal Right to security.

In Australia, if someone tries to beat you up, I'm sure you have the right to self-defense...

errr... sorta... its expected that
a) it wont happen
b) there will be cops close by (at least at public events, and most public places)


And probably the right to own some weapons for self-defense. (What are your laws on knives?)

ok bladed weapons are not allowed in public, with the following exceptions:


The legislation lists some specific circumstances in which it will be OK for a person to have a knife. This does not mean that these are the only circumstances where it is OK. These specified circumstances include where the knife is reasonably necessary for:

* the lawful pursuit of a person’s occupation, entertainment, recreation or sport
* the preparation or consumption of food or drink
* exhibition of knives for retail or other trade purposes
* organised exhibitions by knife collectors
* the wearing of an official uniform
* for genuine religious purposes
* or where custody of the knife is reasonably necessary during travel to or from any of the listed activities.
* Examples of sport where people might require knives include fishing, yachting or hunting, while occupations would include tradespeople, farmers and knife exhibitors. This makes it quite clear that it will be OK to take a knife out to go fishing or to a picnic so long as that is what it is genuinely intended for.The new law states that it is not a reasonable excuse for a person to have a knife in a public place solely for the purpose of self defence or the defence of another person.

Bladed weapons include ALL knives down the size of the small blade on a swiss army knife (which are easy to justify carrying)

Because of:

<snip> Right to security
Right to security from domestic harm (police)
Impossible to ensure/enforce. Major Liability issue.

Right to security from foreign harm (national security, foreign embassies)
Also impossible to ensure. The State may have a Duty to do what is possible to prevent foreign harm, but it cannot Guarantee the Right.

Without tthe RKBA, there is no personal Right to security.


i disagree with the necessity for carrying weapons - in a non corrupt nation you should not need to protect yourself from the cops. And why would you consider yourself better at defending your nation from foreign harm than the army? or do you mean a non government intervention - ie illegal immigrants.

errr... sorta... its expected that
a) it wont happen
b) there will be cops close by (at least at public events, and most public places)
It's ridiculous to believe that cops can protect everyone, all the time.

ok bladed weapons are not allowed in public, with the following exceptions:

Bladed weapons include ALL knives down the size of the small blade on a swiss army knife (which are easy to justify carrying)
We have similar laws in America. I think the max-length is something like 2 or 2.5 inches or something.

In any case, Australia does not ban martial arts, and they support the right to self-defense, but merely believe guns are too dangerous to be used in self-defense (that others will be hurt in the crossfire, or that criminals will use them). Furthermore, I'm sure Australia hasn't banned mace... And also, you can hire bodyguards, no?

And can bodyguards get licenses to have guns and knives?

Even in the most liberal states in America, bodyguards and private law-enforcement officers can apply for licenses to carry almost any weapons, including concealed weapons or if you have any kind of job that requires it. For example, an artifacts dealer might have a license to transports melee weapons or guns. Companies that transport materials in armored trucks (such as cash, for businesses or banks) are allowed to give their drivers machine guns.

i disagree with the necessity for carrying weapons - in a non corrupt nation you should not need to protect yourself from the cops. You do not carry a weapon to defend yourself from the cops, you carry a weapon to defend yourself from predators because there can never be enough cops to "ensure your security". The police are there to clean up the mess and investigate afterward. It is only by sheer luck that one can get to the scene of an assault in time to defend you. For example, there was recently an assault made by a group of youths upon another youth, then upon his random defender. This assault happened within 400m of the police station, yet the thugs were able to severely injure their victims and get away. Only one has yet been caught.

And why would you consider yourself better at defending your nation from foreign harm than the army? or do you mean a non government intervention - ie illegal immigrants.I am the government. An unarmed populous cannot be called up to defend the homefront. This is why the US had to send thousands of privately held firearms to Brittian to arm the Homeguard during WWII.

It's ridiculous to believe that cops can protect everyone, all the time.

why? once i have been attacked (me =, male about 100kg at the time, with a friend, male, about 85kg and in the Navy, training to get into the SAS recruitment course :-) ) by 7 "native" youths, within 2 minutes there were ~30 cops present, my mate had dropped one of the attackers (knee say hello to groin), for which he was repremanded by the cops, had a formal complaint made and then repremanded by his CO as well (first repremand before they knew he was in the Navy), no charges were laid tho.


Furthermore, I'm sure Australia hasn't banned mace...

correct, but it is not easily available. (none of my female friends from uni have any (some could make it tho) and i dont know of anyone who does carry it let alone regularly.

And also, you can hire bodyguards, no?

And can bodyguards get licenses to have guns and knives?

Not really, security guards cannot get weapons licences without a lot of difficulty, to the point that the only ones i have ever seen carrying are armaguards transporting bank quantity cash, and then not always and not recently (since 1996 (Port Arthur, tightened gun laws)) but i havent been looking.


For example, an artifacts dealer might have a license to transports melee weapons or guns.

no problem here, but must be locked in a secure safe at all times (guns and knives).
(this put a major crimp on sword collectors)
Companies that transport materials in armored trucks (such as cash, for businesses or banks) are allowed to give their drivers machine guns.

No chance in hell. Like i said above, some of the armaguards have revolvers, but not even all of them. Hardly any cops have access to SMGs, no one in the public domain does, the only exception are collectors and military cadet units, and both of these must have the chamber, barrel, magazine and all other moving parts welded shut and voids (like the barrel) filled with concrete. (That made the SLRs at school a damn sight heavier i can tell you.)

You do not carry a weapon to defend yourself from the cops, you carry a weapon to defend yourself from predators because there can never be enough cops to "ensure your security". The police are there to clean up the mess and investigate afterward. It is only by sheer luck that one can get to the scene of an assault in time to defend you. For example, there was recently an assault made by a group of youths upon another youth, then upon his random defender. This assault happened within 400m of the police station, yet the thugs were able to severely injure their victims and get away. Only one has yet been caught.

see my above post, i think there must be a very different attitude to law enforcement here...


I am the government. An unarmed populous cannot be called up to defend the homefront. This is why the US had to send thousands of privately held firearms to Brittian to arm the Homeguard during WWII.

i personally would not want an untrained militia to be defending the homefront, they will cause more "blue on blue" than anything else. I will rely on the army, the reserves and a call for people to join them during said crisis (at which point they will get at least 10 weeks training, i hope, or for a very close crisis at least a week intensive and a direction to go in...)

why? once i have been attacked (me =, male about 100kg at the time, with a friend, male, about 85kg and in the Navy, training to get into the SAS recruitment course :-) ) by 7 "native" youths, within 2 minutes there were ~30 cops present, my mate had dropped one of the attackers (knee say hello to groin), for which he was repremanded by the cops, had a formal complaint made and then repremanded by his CO as well (first repremand before they knew he was in the Navy), no charges were laid tho.Essentially, defending one'self from harm is frowned upon in OZ. Once again, the Criminals are in charge... :rolleyes:
<snip>
<snip> Hardly any cops have access to SMGs, no one in the public domain does, the only exception are collectors and military cadet units, and both of these must have the chamber, barrel, magazine and all other moving parts welded shut and voids (like the barrel) filled with concrete. (That made the SLRs at school a damn sight heavier i can tell you.)Um... BS. Anyone with the desire, a hand saw and a drill can make an SMG.
http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c01_photoalbum=showdefault&_c=photoalbum

What you are suggesting is the creation and maintenance of a Police State in which only the Criminal has the "right" to cause harm. The victim's only "right" is to be injured. :mad:

C'mon you two, stop turning this into a guns debate. The issue is unresolvable and culturally dependent.

Chomskyrion, this is a fascinating thread. Good luck, I'll be keeping tabs!

Why are rights to healthcare not good?
What about rights to water, sanitation, housing, and energy? Or a living wage?
The first three are in real constitutions, I've seen campaigns to get the second recognized, and the third's also pretty basic.

How does just including negative rights show a balanced political spectrum?

apoligies... someone should start another one of those threads :-)

on this topic, how about right to your own information (ie what a govt, corp or other holds on you.)
right to general (and accurate) knowledge about domestic and best knowledge of foreign affairs. (ie X nation is evil, here are the reasons, here is the independant witness to our claim, or conversely this nation is good, reasons, independant witness.
Right to choose the education of your children.
Right to Self deteremination (dont know if this is already there)

Wow, now that I know that Australia's bank guards only have revolvers, or sometimes no weapons at all... I seriously need to move to Australia and rob a bank.

(Just kidding.)

What's your army like?

The reason there is a right to bear arms in the United States is if the Government were to become oppressive, that the people would have the ability to defend democracy from a tyrannical government. The Founding Fathers realized that the government they created could possibly devolve into a tyrannical, fascist, dictatorship, and the right to bear arms is to try to prevent that from happening.

Another reason is that all of these European nations wanted to conquer the US, and they wanted people to be able to defend themselves easily.

In Switzerland, if you are not aware, there is mandatory gun ownership. One very good reason the Nazis didn't invade in the War.

"Right of Self-Defense" which differs from the related Domesic Security and Arms issues in two key matters:

1. Vs. the Right to Domestic Security-the Police are not necessarily a threat, whereas criminals appear nearly everywhere-even in very well regulated (read:Totalitarian) states. One should not be obligated to submit to an assault merely because the Police aren't there yet, nor should one surrender one's rights to Privacy, Property, control-of-Life, merely because an appropriately comissioned Officer of the Court is unavailable/delayed.

2. Vs. The Right to Bear Arms-which right may be present without permitting Self-Defense (New York City, London, etc.), or may be absent while permitting self-defense (some asian nations and locations on the West Coast of the U.S.) Yes, folks, you can have a right to protect yourself and your property without being allowed to own a gun. (you won't do much of a job at it, but you can be permitted...)


It also differs from the External Security issue, because while an invader likely will do harm to your citizens, it is an unlikely proposition in most cases that you will face a foreign invader.

Christ, you're rapidly becoming very dull. The right to self-defence is an obvious liberty. Likewise, the right to armed self-defence. Specific armaments, however, are a no-no for this test, surely?

I'm anti-guns, generally speaking, but I agree that my position is a curtailment of certain liberties. The fact is, cultural differences affect the degree to which gun liberty is desirable and/or effective. Now, can we please move on?

Why are rights to healthcare not good?
What about rights to water, sanitation, housing, and energy? Or a living wage?
The first three are in real constitutions, I've seen campaigns to get the second recognized, and the third's also pretty basic.

How does just including negative rights show a balanced political spectrum?
I'll add "right to the commodities necessary to live," under the right over one's life.

Because it defends liberty appropriately. Currently, past scales viewed conservative social policies as anti-liberty and liberal economic policies as anti-liberty. That isn't the case. There's a difference between fascist social policy and conservative social policy, and there's a difference between fascist economic policy and liberal economic policy.

fascinating website, Chomskyron

i have split off the section about RTBA to here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9460026#post9460026).

Christ, you're rapidly becoming very dull. The right to self-defence is an obvious liberty. Likewise, the right to armed self-defence. Specific armaments, however, are a no-no for this test, surely?

I'm anti-guns, generally speaking, but I agree that my position is a curtailment of certain liberties. The fact is, cultural differences affect the degree to which gun liberty is desirable and/or effective. Now, can we please move on?

Not necessarily-much of today's "Civilized" world has an infection of Lawyers who will represent Felons in lawsuits against their (attempted) victims. While it may have been almost-automatic in decades past, Self Defense is something often treated as a non-right by the courts, particularly in the United States and Great Britain.

It's much more of a Primary Liberty than, say, having a right to three-hots-and-a-cot, or Medical care. Those are Luxuries in comparison to the right to refuse to submit to intimidation, violation, and subjugation.