DeclarationOfExistenceDiscussion

I want to talk about the TheAnewGoDeclarationOfExistence, but I don't want to modify a document that people have signed in any way that might undesirably alter its meaning (so I made this page).

I like the idea of AnewGo, but I can't sign onto the Declaration in its present form.

First, I think that the link SocialContract can be interpreted as incorporation by reference. Furthermore, on the SocialContract page, there are more links that may be incorporated by reference. I think this states more than can be agreed upon in a declaration of existence.

I propose that the fundamental declaration of existence document should be made more general by cutting off these other parts. The SocialContract can be agreed upon, adopted, and signed separately (and I would hope that before this happens, it would also be pared down).

Also, I think the sentences which are basically links to other pages (like "TheAnewGoDeclarationOfExistence enables AnewGoCitizenship to exist.") should be clarified (once again, now it looks like they are either close to meaningless or incorporate by reference the current versions of those other pages). -- BayleShanks

Something like this:

We accept these truths.

  1. The problems of humanity and governance remain complex and difficult yet are of the utmost importance.

  2. When possible, we must attempt to make progress towards a more perfect union.

  3. It is time to start a new political process to fully address these problems.

  4. I agree and will into existence the domain of AnewGo

Therefore,

   1. TheAnewGoDeclarationOfExistance will be incorporated into a delegation to ICANN http://www.icann.org to ask for the top level Internet domain of .go

   2. Upon its creation, we hereby recognize the legitimacy and force of the Law of AnewGo.

   3. We recognize the existence of the institution of citizenship in AnewGo.

   4. This declaration enters into force upon the 50th signature below. We call upon the delegation to form at this time, and summon an online convention for the purpose of creating a Constitution for AnewGo.

Signatories below :-

 Baylis Shanks

See also AnewGoCitizenship, AnewGoLaw, TheAnewGoDelagation ,TheAnewGoConstitution.

Comments:

Note that the interpretation of "domain" in #4 is ambiguous. It may mean inInternetNS domain, but it doesn't necessarily. I think it is premature to declare ourselves as a State. We shouldn't move onto that until our laws are a little more worked out, and until we are more sure there will be no adverse consequences (such as make sure there is nothing about doing that that could get us in trouble with our land-states).

However, should we later take that step, the word "domain" in #4 could be interpreted to mean that. Or, it could mean a new kind of post-state organization. So, the flexibility could be useful later.

#2 makes it clear that the current state of AnewGo Law is not necessarily to go into force. However, it also makes clear that the Law, when created, will actually be binding and forceful. I place my trust in you all not to make some awful law and then refuse to let me relinquish my citizenship.

I took out the stuff about the ecosystem and made a more general (and therefore hopefully less contentious) statement. I took out the stuff about a higher power for the same reason.

I made the 50th signature bit sound more formal. Although, to be honest, I think 50 is way to low a number. I believe we should make this something more like 10,000. The reason being to emphasize that we are serious; the vision of 10,000 people rallying around a declaration is way more noble than 50. And, to be honest, I don't think we have a shot if we net only 50 people anyway, so we have nothing to lose by raising the number.

But I think we can make 10,000. Yes, it's years off. So what?

I think this idea is interesting:

http://theyankeeblogger.blogspot.com/20020818theyankeebloggerarchive.html#80665128

can we think of how we might have something like this to work with? MarkDilley

I agree with the main points and create the AnewGoMajorEditAct very similar to the AnewGoErasureAct but more subtle.

You may be right about the goal of 50 sounding ridiculous in our time of millions of people, but do you deny the validity of Pitcarn Islands? [1] It really is the classic chicken and egg paradox. Lets go for 50 and see what happens, it is their choice to promote or suppress, either way it gives us good information.

Of course I do agree it is a gamble, but if we don't test it we will never know, and if the top level domain is achieved then 10,000 may become real just that little bit faster.

Also the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America does not bear signatures beyond 3 digits.

Still on the whole I agree with your points.

AnewGoLaw at this point of time is a set of Rules that we agree to hold and continue to experiment with, which if you think about it is not very dissimilar to Law.

The issue of a higher power is difficult. I agree for populist and marketing reasons it is best to avoid it, but if you examine the legitimacy lineage of many constitutions on earth it is refered to. Maybe a wording can be agreed upon refering to the Universe in which we live, whatever that may be.

Upon refeclection. The reference is irrelavent. It is a personal issue.

I bring up the point of 10,000 signatures, AnewGo. WikiWorld is composed of possibly at most 20 semi-regular people that post. Theorize that unless there is a big break, people will become AnewGo citizens at the rate of two every two months average. Yes, I know the AnewGoCitizenRegistration Act covers the people that aren't citizens but participate, but it seems the 50 citizens goal is becoming somewhat unreachable... --KenSchry

Things could change fast Ken, if we get our act together. I think it needs the AnewGoMajorEditAct invoked with all signatories to be consulted.

'I agree.'

(Votes: AnewGo 5/11/03, KenSchry 5-11-03)

I see little point and potentially great danger in fostering any international organization that is not based on principles. Unless there is specifically some commitment to preserving the diversity of our peoples, sustaining our planet, self-determination and sovereigncy of individuals over their own lives(freedom), my vote is no. --JimScarver 03-05-11

ok Jim, we need to seperate the issues you have raised from the issue of inclusions by reference which have been raised. I think that the Declaration cannot inculde inclusions by reference that are not clear on the document itself. That does not mean that the issues refered to by Jim be discarded at all.

I feel the first point by citizen Bayle is quite clever, alluding to the problems we all know exist without directly refering to "ecosphere" or any other contentious statement, but nonetheless inclusive of these issues. Any more suggestions?

Frankly, you can DROP the ecosphere comments from the Declaration, then raise it as a primary concern for some of the AnewGoCitizens in AnewGoCongress, to form a AnewGoEcosphereCommittee, which would be a committee of concerned AnewGoCitizens focused on ecosphere concerns. Issues of great importance could be forwarded from the AnewGoEcosphereCommittee to AnewGoCongress for all of AnewGo to examine.

The chair of the AnewGoEcosphereCommittee could be the AnewGoEcosphereSecretary or whatever WE want to call it.

Humm... is it really AnewGoCongress's place though? Or AnewGoChurch? I could see it crossing the boundry, depending on how people treat it, and believe in it. ---StarPilot

I am agreement with StarPilot. TheAnewGoDeclarationOfExistence's function is purely to bring AnewGo into existence. This needs to be clear, simple, and non-contentious as possible. So that the goal of 50 signatories can be reached, (or even more, as necessary)

The further issues can be worked on in AnewGoCongress and TheAnewGoConstitution

If we can come to agreement that TheAnewGoDeclarationOfExistence can fulfil the function of bringing a new state into existance, that fact in itself will in turn provide a new opportunity for people to fully address the issues raised by JimScarver and others.

Remember AnewGo and all states exist only in the minds of the people who are the citizens, at this point of time we are even less than the Principality of Sealand http://www.sealandgov.com which has an undeclared population, of maybe 5-7, which is only barely recognised by Britian and Germany, and does not have a top level domain.

We need to consider how best to achieve the aim. - PhillipBannigan

The whole value of the american Declaration of independence, is the principles it represents. Take out those principles and it would be a wothless piece of paper. The only reason AnewGo has meaning is because Bush and a lot of others think those principles only apply to americans. If the world gave the Vietnese, Iracis, etc., the right to self-determination, etc., anewgo would be purpossless and much war would have been avoided.

Unforutantely the principals in both the American Decalaration of Independance and The Constitution of the United States of America do not appear to be up to the job at hand.

If anewgo is purposeless it has no businees monkeying in world affairs.

--JimScarver

If we hold to NewLaw we cannot advocate violence in laws we make. Tell me anyone one else on earth that can command that position. That is not purposeless that is purposeful.

Please answer this question. Who else can claim to a position that the laws created do not contain the threat of the use of violence in them other than a possible execption of the UN.

%%%-- %%%So why not state NewLaw or any purpose explicitly?

I have. How more explicit can it be.

If we are not supporting '"self-determination of the worlds peoples and sustainance of our planet"' we are part of the problem. If some don't agree with these most basic principles, do we really want them anyway?

Good point. Some in their stubborness may define themselves outside of AnewGo. Back into the normal world as we find it. So hence the AnewGoCensure Act.

At this point of time, we cannot even agree on the principle of non-violence, therefore we have not much chance of offering any useful debate on the issues of self determination or sustainabilty. We need to get the order right.

agree on the issue of non-violence.
address the issue of self determination in AnewGoLaw for AnewGo, and AnewGoLawGeographicalEdition in the respective states. (though that law seems pretty weak)
begin to address issues of sustainabilty.

Truthfully much of my time is used in debating completely speculative positions by those who wish to adheare to violence.

These principles would be church matters if not explicite in our charter.  My greatest fear for the future of humanity is fear of the TyrannyOfTheMajority.  Without the principles of freedom and self-determination we become slaves to mob rule, and when we trust politics to manage our economy and shared resources rather than objective criteria, we collectively lose value most every time.  Founding princibles are what allows objective criteria in applying those principles.  If you have no shared pricibles there is not bases for collaboration.  30 of group research has shown groups will not be sucessful at decision making unless they can agree on objective criteria.  This generally requires shared principles.

 + So... AnewGo admits he is not after a new and better way of life for everyone. He is after a new and better way of life where AnewGo is one of the elite in charge, and everyone else does what he and his clique tell them? That's very anti-WikiWorld. Jim, Ken, are you paying attention?

Please explain how this conculsion has been reached?

We have the widest possible sufferage on earth.
Our immigration policy is: All welcome.
We are using a technology that all who care to look can easily edit everything we have written.

I think this must then be a misinterpretation. My contention is, by building Non-violence as a central core of AnewGoLaw a new position is created, wether I or anyone else can understand what to do with that legitimacy, remains to be seen. If we fall victim to debating a purely speculative need to perpertrate violence on persons unknown, or not. Rather than addressing pressing issues, and doing something REAL. I do hope this phase in AnewGo history ends soon.

---PhillipBannigan

I am not saying that we must declare that our aim is to rid the world of all bullies, which is my personal adgenda, I am just saying we need to specify sufficient principles that we do not ourselves become the bully. How about, '"self-determination of the worlds peoples and eqidable utilization of our planets resources"'

--JimScarver

Good Jim. We may include that line. But I contend it would be very hard for AnewGo to evolve into a Bully if it's central Law is Non-violence. There may be even ways of characterising destruction of habitat of animals or humans as a use of Deadly Force and therefore illegal in AnewGo.

Let's get on with it, these goals may be achieved, but we have got to START. At the moment we can't even agree on anything but 2003-05-17, i'm sorry to say we are not achieving much. We certainly do have diverse opinions, I would like to see the needs of Geographically grouped citizens addressed in AnewGoLawGeographicalEdition. You can have as much violence as you want in there, as it is purely your responsibility to create the Laws there. ---PhillipBannigan

My feeling is that the Declaration of Existence should be as non-contentious as possible. This does not mean that AnewGo will never address other issues; just that it will address them later on, in the Constitution or in as an Act of Congress. I agree with StarPilot and PhillipBannigan here. For me, this springs from the concept of MinimalLaw. I feel that the most fundamental laws should be simple, direct, short, and agreed to by almost everyone.

An Act of Congress will not be devoid of force just because it is not enshrined in the Declaration or Constitution. For instance, as long as they are in force, Acts of Congress will be Laws as much as the Constitution is (unless there is a direct conflict) -- the only difference is that it will be harder to change or to nullify the Constitution than it will be to modify Acts of Congress. And, it will be possible to amend even the Constitution. So, for me, the question of where to put such things now is mainly a question of what makes good procedure. To me, the answer is:

1) Decouple issues as much as possible. (I do recognize the possibility that agreement on the need for the very existence of AnewGo might be coupled to ideals, though).

2) One of the main functions of fundamental documents is to set up a basic procedure for resolving later substantive issues.

I DO mostly agree with the unsigned statement "My greatest fear for the future of humanity is fear of the TyrannyOfTheMajority. Without the principles of freedom and self-determination we become slaves to mob rule". One of the most important features of our fundamental documents will be to properly restrain the government of AnewGo. Before I sign our Constitution, I will insist that it contains some sort of "Bill of Rights". However, I feel that this will be a very complicated issue that will take a long time to resolve (for example, I like the idea of Self-Determination, but I think the term is too nebulous) -- I think we can agree on the Declaration now if we leave these issues for later.

I am not even sure yet that the value of AnewGo will be the principals it represents -- the value might be in the process which will give more of a voice to "the people" of the world. But maybe it will turn out to be the principals. I agree with JimScarver that "If anewgo is purposeless it has no businees monkeying in world affairs". But I think a better system of government is a high purpose in and of itself.

So, here is how I see our evolution:

Declaration of Existence. A non-divisive document that will not dissuade anyone from joining us unless they dislike the very idea of a new distributed nation. At this point, we will consider ourselves a nation that formally exists, even if our legal process is still a bit murky.

Agreement on initial formal procedures for our Congress. We start discussing what we want our Laws, principals, and Constitution to be in classic wiki style, and then various resolutions become more stabilized by a Resolution of the Congress. Of course, people are still free to discuss alternate forms wiki-style, but at least everyone will know what the current Law is which they are comparing their ideas against. Acts of Congress will be binding laws even though we don't have a Constitution yet (some nations never adopt a Constitution, after all).

Years pass before we agree on a Constitution. This will give us time to consult various Constitutions around the world as well as legal experts. This will also give us time to get enough members that we know that what we decide on is something that a lot of people like, rather than something that 5 of us like.

The Constitution will be able to be amended in the future. Constitution can include a new Declaration which will supercede our original one, if we find the need to do so. I.e. we shouldn't worry that any of our documents will be so final that they are unchangable.

-- BayleShanks

That seems quite reasonable. I'm in the process of inviting an international lawyer with chinese heritage to the discussion, if it interests him and he is activated, we may be able to make some headway.

---PhillipBannigan