Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

AnewGo is ruled as WikiCourtroom using ConsensusByDefault to enable SovereignIndividuals in the creation of value, preserving diversity, and upholding our SocialContract.
AnewGoCourt will resolve issues
AnewGoCongress is limited to applying holistic objective criteria in this endeavor.
AnewGoInc. will invest the common resources of AnewGo profitably in accord with the SocialContract and AnewGoLaw
AnewGo moral council| will define decentralized consensus based acceptable social behaviour.
As an informed public is the cornerstone of self-government, AnewGoU will facilitate collaborative teaching and learning.
All AnewGo citizens have the executive power of ConsensusByDefault in all the branches on AnewGo. The AnewGoUnRep presents AnewGoInternationalPolicy at the UN.
Anyone can choose anyone to represent them in any branch of AnewGo in and interest area. If the individual does not vote on any particular issue their vote is delegated to the corresponding representative and so on.
A persons current rank ordering of alternatives that they would support or fight will be utilized to determine their effective vote, equivalent to an actual vote in run off elections between alternatives in the absents of an explicit vote.
Voters on an issue should be actual stakeholders in the outcome of the issue or their representatives.
One or more persons may declare themselves to represent some off line or non-voting community. Such representation must be substansiated by actual polling, studies or other means.

====discussion:

==

I think this page needs to be moved to AnewGoCongress as I wish to debate it. Things needing debate cannot be here. 'Can we?'

AnewGoCongress only gets its powers here; we can discuss here the overall structure. Discussion on each potential branch, such as details of the AnewGoCongress itself should go in AnewGoCongress, court details in AnewGoCourt, etc.

The prospect of designing a nation from scratch is very exciting. We should all be in a brainstorming mode now adding all the ideas we can think of. At some point we will need to be more selective.

The initial issues are:

What are the branches of AnewGo comprising the separation and balance of power?
What are the powers, limitations and responsibilities of these branches?
How will these branches support decentralization of power and diversity of action to facilitate continuous evolutionary improvement.

Very Good. Ok I accept these terms of discussion.

So far We can establish AnewGoCongress as a group to pass legislation ( AnewGoLaw ) These can be elected from the signatories of TheAnewGoDeclarationOfExistance. I suggest no need for a president, therefore meeting a condition of decentralization. However a member will be need to be elected to a seat at the UN to articulate AnewGoInternationalPolicy. This may become a defacto presidential situation. This may be countered by not allowing the existence of any veto power, since "live" documents can be consulted by any AnewGoCitizen including the AnewGoUnRep there should be no need.

====Open representation

==

AnewGo citizens may assign their vote on any issue to any other individual. (This may take some thought....)

To pass AnewGoLaw. Format: The Law() Act. <Description of Act>

To pass AnewGoLaw: Format: 1. The Law <PossibleDescription> (Voters - Date Signed). Based on the current type Jim devised. (- Revised with date signed. -)

====Open representation discussion

==

I like this concept. So, AnewGoCitizens sign up stating that person X represents them on either a particular concept ( AnewGoLaw ) or has their confidence and permission to act as their agent for a particular task ( AnewGoUnRep, AnewGoCIO ). Excellent==== However, I'd suggest a minor improvement for consideration... dating when you sign a matter. It is my experience that you may need an audit trail of when a law or person had the confidence of its signatories. After all, in all things change, and people can change their minds. ---StarPilot

==

Someone's preferences may get stale over time. It should probably be required that individuals reaffirm their viewpoints and representatives at least one a year for them to be counted as votes.

 I suggest WE make the standard longer then one year, somewhere more likely between 5 and 7. This will keep down the amount of items AnewGoCitizenry must try to remember to go back and renew. Additionally, most adults do not change their worldview significantly in just a year, but their worldview and opinions do tend to change over the longer span. Two and three years seem a bit short, and if a AnewGoCitizen decides they do not want to continue to support a matter, they can simply sign off. (Example: "I no longer support this - John Doe, Dec of Never, Never"). If they decide there is serious fault in the proposition they can bring the matter to AnewGoCourt, for all of AnewGoCitizenry to re-appraise. Yes? ---StarPilot

This sounds like a good idea, to at least try, maybe adopt 2 years first, and see how it goes, an automatic email reminder service could be enabled.

 An automatic email reminder sounds like a nice thing. Although that means we will need some additional hardware, processing, and data storage. We will need to track when notices/reminders need to go out for which resolutions, and where they need to go. So... AnewGoCitizenry will need to sign up into a database that tracks their email address, resolutions brought up before AnewGoCongress will need to be recorded into a database table with proposed, passed, next renewal columns (as well as child link tables ( to citizens ) for sponsors, signataries, nay sayers, and related AnewGoCourt challenges/rulings). Humm... most likely, AnewGoCourt rulings and AnewGoChurch resolutions can also be dropped into the master AnewGo Congressional Ruling. Call the master table AnewGoResolutions. And yes, leave that link, it will be useful to the AnewGoCitizenry to be able to see a list of all AnewGoResolutions.

 Furthermore, I think all AnewGoResolutions should be implemented in the AnewGoWiki with the naming convention AnewGoResolutionExampleIssue. This would allow for easy finding of all AnewGoResolutions. Humm... Although a Resolution isn't resolved until it is voted into consensus. Maybe that should be AnewGoProprosals? See AnewGoNamingResolutionsAndProposals for discussion on naming conventions discussion. ---StarPilot

Is this constitution a PoliticalConstitution or an AdministrativeConstitution? Apparently the nomenklature comes from de Tocqueville. I| came across it in Alinsky. The theory seems to be that the PoliticalConstitution and AdministrativeConstitution tend to move opposite directions according to some kind of TanstaaflPrinciple.

That seems to be up for discussion at the moment. It seems that it is trying to be both to different degrees to different people at different times. ---StarPilot.

Different degrees to different people at different times is certainly reasonable. A truly salient question is does an individual have a say in proportioning the ingredients, or do we pretty much live with however rich or lean the mixture is on a given day? --LorraineLee

It seems to me that AnewGo is a living consensus. Therefore, as a living consensus, we are not firmly locked into any particular mixture. As participants in the living consensus, we are the actors, inputs, and reactants. Whatever we decide is what the current, and proper, mixture is. If one of us wants to politicise a certain issue (Sustainable Growth Economy, Animal Rights for Humans, PubWan, etc), then they are welcome to do so. Should a sufficent shard of the living consensus agree, they will follow, encourage, add, etc. Should there be disagreement over the issue (ie, whether the use of LethalForce can be considered acceptable under any circumstances, and if so, which ones), then debate will transper between the various polarized/concerned "camps". Should a consensus not be reached by said parties, the matter could be taken to the general AnewGo public via AnewGoCourt to reach a current consensus of the matter from the AnewGo collective. And that consensus ruling would last until something new changed (balance of voters, new data discovered, whatever). Or so it seems to me, anyways. ---StarPilot