backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by onelittleindia.. on Oct 1 at 12:59 PM

New Zealand will allow citizens to decide what is legal or not via wiki

New Zealand's Policing Act governs what is legal and what is illegal for its citizens.  Now New Zealand will take a grand, bold step by allowing its citizens to collectively rewrite its laws in pure democratic fashion.

While the idea hearkens back to ancient democratic forums, the medium is decidedly high-tech -- the nation will use a wiki to allow citizens to contribute to the new policing act.  The page will help people organize their thoughts and collectively make decisions.

Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki, chose the Hawaiian word "wiki" rather than the English term "quick" to avoid coining the term "quick-web."  Cunningham's first collaborative database was a simple, quick way to store vast amounts of user-contributed data.  His idea would eventually seed one of the most trafficked sites on the Internet: Wikipedia. 

New Zealand Police Superintendent Hamish McCardle, responsible for the review, calls the move "a new frontier in democracy" and sees the pilot as essential for police to understand public sentiment. "It's a novel move but when it comes to the principles that go into policing, the person on the street has a good idea ... as they are a customer," he claims.

The old Policing Act dates back to1958, and modern police feel the code could not accurately and fairly police its citizens in the modern landscape.

New Zealand Police boldly decided that changing the law should not be relegated to government politicians and bureaucrats.

Allegations that criminals will exploit the process to write legal loopholes do not concern McCardle. "We have been asked if we are worried about it being defaced, but wikis generally haven't been defaced internationally -- people generally are constructive and productive," claims McCardle.

McCardle specifically notes the success of Wikipedia as proof wiki-based contributions can lead to something constructive.

The Wiki is also open to people worldwide, so everyone from academics to amateur politicians can have a say in what they think would help make a safe and productive society.  However, the site is temporarily not accepting new entries due to the volume of new entries.

New Zealand successfully launched a smaller wiki, dubbed ParticipatioNZ, to study the effectiveness of wikis in government.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Does that mean...
By diliff on 9/28/2007 6:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
That you could vandalise the law minutes before killing someone and then claim at the time of the murder, it was legal?? ;)




RE: Does that mean...
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 7:02:35 AM , Rating: 4
Well, with Wikipedia they can track who does the edits, so they might be able to find you if you did an edit, then did the illegal act. Or like wikipedia they could lock some things, like murder, so that people just can't say that murder is legal.

But set aside the people out there who will always abuse anything, this could be a bold new (or old, depending on how ya look at it) form of democracy. Give more power to the people relating to issues of what the GOV can do, what they can do. Finally figure out what the majority of people really want


RE: Does that mean...
By Polynikes on 9/28/2007 7:50:46 AM , Rating: 5
But only a certain percentage of the population will actually be able to edit it. You know how some people are with computers. It's not really a totally fair way for everyone to have a say, but it is a step in the right direction.


RE: Does that mean...
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 8:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
While i don't know the statistic for the amount of people there that have a computer, i'd be willing to bet that there is a large portion of the population that does. And, for those who don't. They probably have some sort of free use computers for the general public to use. Like how in my local library they have 20 or so computers for people to use (and i live in a small town) Or one could even ask to borrow someones computer for a couple minutes. But you're right, its not perfect, but i'd say in another 10-20 years most people would easily have some computer


RE: Does that mean...
By GaryJohnson on 9/28/2007 2:51:21 PM , Rating: 4
I think the point wasn't that people don't have computers, but rather that not everyone has the necessary level of computer literacy to edit a wiki.


RE: Does that mean...
By Christopher1 on 9/29/2007 12:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't that hard, and there is a guide to it right at Wikipedia for those who are that stupid or unexperienced.


RE: Does that mean...
By Polynikes on 9/30/2007 4:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Some people don't even know how to navigate in the Windows shell, or type. Some people don't know what a web browser IS. You see my point? What we consider to be no-brainer stuff is utterly foreign to others.


RE: Does that mean...
By GaryJohnson on 9/30/2007 6:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
Whether that's a bad thing I think depends on whether the gap in computer knowledge and literacy is predominately cause by low intelligence or high ignorance.


RE: Does that mean...
By HrilL on 9/28/2007 10:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a good point. But I find that the people that have computers are more educated then the people that do not. This is not always the case but it is a most of the time. So really this system sounds like it would work great. And those morons you don't want changing laws won't be able to because they don't know how... Seems fair to me.


RE: Does that mean...
By rsmech on 9/28/2007 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I find that the people that have computers are more educated then the people that do not.
quote:
And those morons you don't want changing laws won't be able to because they don't know how


You already sound like a politician, is this a disease when you give someone this much authority they feel all of a sudden so brilliant. If this type of system with this type of mentality sounds fair to you then look around you already have it. The only difference is that instead of you being labeled the moron you elevate yourself as a self proclaimed elite to label others as such. Yea, seems like a great idea.


RE: Does that mean...
By 3kliksphilip on 9/28/2007 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with that. However, people with out PCs are so inept at making laws for computer activity that having a Wiki Law guide is a step in the right direction.


RE: Does that mean...
By rsmech on 9/28/2007 2:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
So people without kids are too inept to make any law governing such.

People without guns are too inept to make gun laws.
People who don't smoke are too inept to make smoking laws.
People on welfare are too inept to make tax laws.
People without a business are too inept to make business laws or business tax laws.
This logic can go on and on. It seems a little flawed.

I don't need to be any of these to have the right to vote directly for one of these laws or a representative supporting my views.


RE: Does that mean...
By 3kliksphilip on 9/29/2007 8:38:36 AM , Rating: 2
Computers are misunderstood by quite a few people in power. Unlike most of the things you compared misusing computers to, computers are available pretty much everywhere and a wide range of people use them, including the people in power. Computing has boomed in publicity and accessibility so quickly that various people are worried about the growth and intend to stem it. If you get a virus, you remove it with an anti virus tool. You don't go paranoid, blocking everything which could be misused (As that includes pretty much anything). Even if you did go paranoid, you don't have to impose that on everybody else. I'm not sure if it's the same in America, but even if only half the things I've heard about the new riles in Britain are true, it's going to make buying a PC a very risky occupation.


RE: Does that mean...
By rsmech on 9/29/2007 10:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you get a virus, you remove it with an anti virus tool. You don't go paranoid, blocking everything which could be misused


The door swings both ways. I understand your concern about the lack of knowledge some have of computers & the internet. Your example is how the private sector polices the problem which I agree should be the best case. But there are very few cases where the gov't shouldn't have at least some guidelines. Take for example and correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't it a private entity which governs domain names. How many times have they denied the request to promote safer internet access for children. The easiest browser filter would be to use settings like .xxx or .kid. But this would hurt the porn industry. Maybe a little intervention by the ignorant without computers would be welcomed here since non-gov't entities don't get the picture. You don't have to fully understand the whole picture to have an opinion about part of it.


RE: Does that mean...
By Cr0nJ0b on 9/28/2007 12:20:10 PM , Rating: 3
the way I see it, only a certain percentage of the population...a very, very, very, very small one...has the ability to edit the current laws. I'm not sure that you can say it's a bad thing to go from 1% of the people to say 30% of the people. I for one would love to see more democracy in the hands of the common man instead of elected officials, lobbiests and lawyers. and for the people who don't know how to access a computer...they can always go to a library and ask for help...there are computers there.

Of course to think this would ever happen in my country is pure fantasy.


RE: Does that mean...
By HighWing on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Does that mean...
By UCanUnwind on 9/28/2007 7:09:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, but you'd be screwed if you forgot to verify your change by clicking the link in the email they send you.


RE: Does that mean...
By bighairycamel on 9/28/2007 7:17:01 AM , Rating: 3
And what happens if someone edits in the statement, "Henceforth this wiki can not be edited by penalty of death according to this law I just wrote, lol@U!!1!!11!"


RE: Does that mean...
By Christopher1 on 9/28/2007 7:28:12 AM , Rating: 1
Well, I'm sure they would have protections against that. Really though, there should be no criminal laws except those against murder, stealing from others unless it is your last choice between you and starving to death, and laws against forcing someone into sexual activities (and just being of disparate age is not forcing, i.e. no statutory rape or 'child sexual abuse').

Simple and to the point.


RE: Does that mean...
By themadmilkman on 9/28/2007 3:57:45 PM , Rating: 3
lol... oh wait, you're serious?

So there should be no criminal laws against helping somebody commit one of those crimes... or did you forget about accomplice liability?

So there should be no criminal laws against beating a person within an inch of his life, so long as he doesn't die?

So there should be no laws against publicly mistating your company's profits to boost your own stock portfolio, or is that under stealing?

So there should be no criminal laws against entering somebody else's home against their will, so long as you don't steal anything?

Those are just the first three that popped into my head... Think before you post, man.


RE: Does that mean...
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Christopher1 is an advocate of adult-child sex, so you have to take his comments with a grain of salt. The important part of his comment is that statement at the end. I don't think he really cares about any of the laws you mentioned.


RE: Does that mean...
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 4:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So there should be no laws against publicly mistating your company's profits to boost your own stock portfolio, or is that under stealing?

Ha, Ken Lay was so master a thief that he screwed people even after he was dead:
http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_story...


RE: Does that mean...
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 7:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
LOl, then just get a computer to automatically change any statement like that


it'll never work
By otispunkmeyer on 9/28/2007 8:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
because no one will agree

you'll have the far left and right wanting their laws, idiots wanting completely daft laws, other groups like motorists wanting their laws like no speed limits and no cameras and their oppositions who want to tax every mm a car moves.

it'll just never work. they'll have to have like an overseeing committee to make sure everythings in check and the government will probably pick n chose (read censor) what they do and dont like anyway and that makes the whole thing pointless because that comes down to the gov chosing the rules and thats what we already have.

an ingenious solution to a problem that doesnt exist




RE: it'll never work
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 8:39:49 AM , Rating: 5
Nobody agrees in any system. The difference is that, say in our current system, we elect people to think for us, and then we end up unhappy about what they are doing. In that system, we would be able to think for ourselves. But yes, when it comes to a large group of people, oh lets go with 300 million, there are too many different viewpoints. The problem is that most major laws seem to be made by the highest system of government. In our case, thats the Feds. If the majority of the laws were broken down to the lower governments, say state or county in the case of the US, then there would be more like minded people and making laws would be easier. Of course the core things like murder, theft, rape, those should be established by the larger gov, and enforced by the larger gov. But things like taxation, traffic speeds (keep the side of the road the same for ease of traveling between different areas), and other such laws could be handled more accurately on a lower level. And if it were so, and someone was unhappy with the tax level or speed restrictions in their state/county, it would be easy to move and then get what you wanted. Thus you are correct. On a large scale people are too diverse to get what they wanted. However broken down to the small scale it would become easier to manage


RE: it'll never work
By Screwballl on 9/28/2007 12:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Considering this is a country the size of Colorado, it is much easier on that scale than it would be for say the American government to do the same due to the sheer size and number.


RE: it'll never work
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 2:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
At first, I thought I was going to have to rant about how pure democracy is a sham.

And then you turned your ire to the federal government in general.

In other words, you want to abolish the 17th Amendment and return the nation to the days of olde where Senators actually performed a valuable function other than pandering to the masses (which is the job of the House); they looked after states rights. With vigorous states, as you say, the people on the local level have more power, as does the individual.

I agree fully! Unfortunately.. the overwhelming trend in America is rapid expansion of federal government. -.-

Doesn't particularly matter which party, either. Two different flavors of federalism.


RE: it'll never work
By RogueSpear on 9/28/2007 8:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that there has to be far more details than what is presented in the article above, but at first glance it does make me worry about what is my favorite country and it's future.

I think it'll either be a short term ineffective attempt at change or it will end up being a model that other modern democracies try to follow. I mean just how well functioning has our democratic system in the US been for the last 25 years? The left and right are so far divided that virtually nothing gets accomplished. The only bipartisan efforts I've ever seen are when they pass a raise in pay for themselves.


RE: it'll never work
By wordsworm on 9/28/2007 8:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you'll have the far left and right wanting their laws, idiots wanting completely daft laws, other groups like motorists wanting their laws like no speed limits and no cameras and their oppositions who want to tax every mm a car moves.

And how exactly does this differ from the system in the US or Canada, or any other elected government? ie,
quote:
in Oklahoma, on Sundays you can eat hamburgers, but only in restaurants.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/24/ltm...
Dumb laws abound. This is an experiment worth investigating. I have often wondered what direct democracy would be like, and this is the first major experiment with it I've seen. It sounds quite fascinating. Thanks for the heads up on the development Jason :)


RE: it'll never work
By masher2 (blog) on 9/28/2007 9:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
> "And how exactly does this differ from the system in the US or Canada, or any other elected government?"

The difference is the populace elects officials, who (in theory at least) devote time and study to writing appropriate and just laws. Do they always? Of course not...but in general they'll do a hell of a lot better than a guy who just spent the day painting houses, who hasn't read a newspaper in a month, and isn't even sure where most of the countries in the world are.

This experiment is nothing but mob rule. As the saying goes, the people will vote themselves bread and circuses, while the country crumbles.


RE: it'll never work
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 9:51:20 AM , Rating: 3
The problem with elected officials is that while they should do what is best for the country, in general practice they do whatever they need to stay in office, regardless of if it helps the country or not.

And with, using the example of the US, we are already crumbling at an alarming rate. There is a massive tear between two halves of the country and unless something changes, it will only get worse. And the worst case scenario is a second civil war erupting after lets say California decides that it really does want to become a soverign republic again, and tries to secede, causing the rest of the liberal states to try to follow it. Or during a presidential campaign one candidate is killed, and the killer turns out to be from the other party, thus creating party based violence. I hope this doesn't happen, i hope we can actually find a way to fix our system of government. And while this might not be the perfect solution, it also could be. We will just have to wait and see what happens


RE: it'll never work
By Felofasofa on 9/28/2007 10:23:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
This experiment is nothing but mob rule. As the saying goes, the people will vote themselves bread and circuses, while the country crumbles.

That's totally cynical. For one thing NZ only has a population of 4 million, so mob rule doesn't really apply, plus it's citizens myself included are actually quite enlightened. First country to give women the vote. Greatest Rugby nation in the world. Greatest sailing nation in the world. First up Everest. Invented the Pavlova. Most progressive race relations of any country...the list goes on.;) I'm not suprised the Kiwis came up with this as it has a history of extraordinary achievements relative to it's size and a standard of living ordinary Americans can only dream about. The only comparable country would be Aussie. Both countries have virtually free health care and generous welfare. We are all pretty happy down under.:)


RE: it'll never work
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 10:27:50 AM , Rating: 1
pfft... Rugby.... lol sorry i had to


RE: it'll never work
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 2:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have often wondered what direct democracy would be like, and this is the first major experiment with it I've seen.


That from earlier, and now your comment:

quote:
plus it's citizens myself included are actually quite enlightened.


Apparently, you're all so enlightened you forgot all about Athens. Long story short: Mob rule. Popularity contest ensured immense suffering at the hands of Sparta. Lots of death.

Funny, then, that republican government's have been much prefered afterword.

Of course, there are complicating details, but thats the general idea.

quote:
The only comparable country would be Aussie. Both countries have virtually free health care and generous welfare.


Another reminder from a low-brow prole to such an enlightened group: TANSTAAFL.


RE: it'll never work
By Felofasofa on 9/28/2007 6:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
TANSTAAFL.

Free lunch, dinner and desert. Aussie which only has 20 million people, has the worlds largest mining company BHP-Billiton, and numerous other enormous mining companies. Tax revenue from these entities is huge, filling govt coffers. The biggest arguments are how to spend it. Australia's resource wealth is staggering, we used to call it "living off the sheeps back," it really is now "living off the miners back." NZ is a different story and generates its wealth in other ways. Social equity in both countrys is highly developed.


RE: it'll never work
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 10:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that tax revenue is somehow a free lunch?

If so, that's quite the contrary -- that's more like taxing wealth creation as it most basic, fundamental core. You're paying for those revenues in higher prices, and since we're speaking commodities, higher prices in virtually every consumer product. TANSTAAFL is the economic equivalent of gravity; a near absolute certainty.

Social equity also makes me raise an eyebrow. People are motivated to different degrees; I don't quite understand the strong desire to take from the more motivated and help the less motivated. Is having 20% of the working age population inactive such as in Sweden what you consider, ah, "highly developed"? I call it highly inefficient, but I digress.


RE: it'll never work
By Felofasofa on 9/30/2007 8:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Social equity also makes me raise an eyebrow.

And that's exactly why you have, what is it, 40 million people without adequate health care. A society based totally around supply and demand will reap those sorts of "rewards". Not everyone is equiped to deal adequatley with pure capitalisim, be they motivated or not. The American system fails badley to deal with this. Look at the aftermath to Katrina, - what a shambles. Whilst "social equity" remains an anaethma, Americas poor will continue to live in third world conditions.


RE: it'll never work
By onelittleindian on 10/1/2007 12:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at the aftermath to Katrina, - what a shambles.
The "aftermath of Katrina" shows how badly the socialist model functions. The largest government reconstruction subsidy in history -- hundreds of billions of dollars in aid -- wasted for for little real results. And whats the end result going to be? Rebuilding a city in a comically unsuitable site, ensuring the disaster will happen all over again some time in the future.


RE: it'll never work
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 5:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This experiment is nothing but mob rule.

What if they legalized and taxed pot? Would you still call it mob rule?

(Don't know if it is or isn't, and don't care. Its just one simple question.)


RE: it'll never work
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 10:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
I wish they would. At least then the FDA could regulate its safety and we could move on past prosecution to rehab and education. Employment policies need not change; showing up high would be no less excusable than drunk. Everything else would be improved, though.

IMHO, anyway. Too many moral Puritans in my own party though for them to agree with me.


RE: it'll never work
By tcsenter on 9/28/2007 8:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This experiment is nothing but mob rule. As the saying goes, the people will vote themselves bread and circuses, while the country crumbles.
Exactly. It's government by 'personal gripe, axe, or whim du jour', overrepresented by folks who feel impotent in their own personal or professional lives and have convinced themselves that society is either to blame or obligated to provide the remedy for it.


RE: it'll never work
By mendocinosummit on 9/28/2007 10:36:24 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the great state of Oregon. I will never live there again.


1000 reasons
By tcsenter on 9/28/2007 8:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
Does this strike anyone else as - I don't know - moderately to exceptionally stupid?

I can think of a thousand reasons against wiki-based law but only a single reason for it; that being because it makes us feel warm, fuzzy, and sophisticated to say romantic things like 'new democratic frontier'.




RE: 1000 reasons
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 8:41:29 AM , Rating: 1
Would you like to list said thousand reasons against it? If not do not say you can. I can think of many reasons why it is a good idea, and i believe i have mentioned them already. Please back up your statements.


RE: 1000 reasons
By straycat74 on 9/28/2007 9:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
I can give you the most important example of why not, and it wouldn't even take 1000. Ever seen Jay Leno ask questions to the average person on the street? Scary. Direct democracy doesn't work simply because we all have lives to run, (i.e. work, kids, mortgage payments) and just because something sounds fair and reasonable, things are not usually that simple. Law starts out simple, and with only the relatively few people that have been in charge of law making, and presumably well educated, we have some strange laws today. Would you want the guy who can't get your order right at the local donut shop creating laws? Even if all laws were listed to be voted on in a pure democracy, it's just too complex and too important to be taken so lightly.


RE: 1000 reasons
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 10:08:39 AM , Rating: 3
Which is why you break things down to a smaller level. In the US (which is not united states at all, it is simply one country subdivided into states for ease of telling people where you are from) the system of government is backwards. Mostly the taxation, but the laws as well. As it is, most income tax goes straight to the federal government which then decides how much to dish out to certain states, The federal government then makes the majority of the laws that then affect the full population of the country. However if the system were turned around, where the majority of the income taxes were to go to the state you live in, Where they would then send some up to the feds, potentially less spending could occour (certainly it would only have to change levels once instead of twice). And if it were the local governments that made the majority of the laws that each person has to deal with on a daily basis, then change could come more easily than it does now. For instance, if Michigan could make its own laws on drugs and abortion and stem cell research, then people who didn't like it could easily move to a different state. Basically, in order to be "United States" the states should function on their own, but be held together economically (ie use a federal currency) protected from attacks (ie by a us federal military) and connected by a federal transportation system (ie interstate highways).

If that was the case, then if joe fry cook and all his buddies wanted to make a law you didn't like, you could move someplace where there were people who think like you.


RE: 1000 reasons
By straycat74 on 9/28/2007 2:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
You are right in your philosophy, which is what the republicans used to be more like in the 80's, but have unfortunately become more liberal in their actions recently. I attribute that to following polls instead of the reasons people voted for them. But your idea still doesn't make sense with a direct democracy. Things are different from state to state now, but not too drastic. Although Illinois is about to become an example of what a completely democrat run state will look like. Because of our wonderful gov, business will be leaving the state faster than ever. He wants to tax GROSS sales of businesses. And cook county (Chicago) is attempting to pass a 11% sales tax. Local isn't always so good either. Can't win.


RE: 1000 reasons
By tcsenter on 9/28/2007 8:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you've offered nothing more than the very romanticized pseudo-sophisticated rhetoric of which I spoke as the only reason for wiki-based laws, underscoring the same widespread 'popular' ignorance or misconceptions about civics, government, and history that plagues the masses.

Ever been to a local 'town hall' public board meeting, where citizen after citizen demands to know what local officials plan to do about China, Iraq, pharmaceutical companies, black helicopters, chemicals put in their water by the Pentagon to make them conform, cats walking along their fence, birds pooping on their cars, and the limited vegetarian choices at local restaurants?

These are the folks most inclined to participate in 'direct' government. Nuff said.


RE: 1000 reasons
By 1337n00blar on 9/28/2007 11:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
i would think that in the final form, the wiki would just suggest changes to the law, but then they would have to be ratified in a plebiscite or in a session of parliament. i can't see it working with real time changes to the law


Let the count down begin!
By Misty Dingos on 9/28/2007 7:36:50 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder how long it will take before pot is legal in New Zealand? I am not suggesting that it should be legal or not but it is my opinion that most people really don’t have an issue with it. Unless I am mistaken the people in NZ probably think it should be in the same category as alcohol.




RE: Let the count down begin!
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 7:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
That would just make sense. I actually watched a documentary (on the History Channel i believe) of why it became illegal. They were simply trying to stop illegal immigration from i think Mexico, and they figured that since those people were the largest users of it, that if it was illegal it would discourage them from coming. Obviously it didn't work, and now we spend billions fighting a supposed war against it. IF it were legalized and taxed the same as tobacco and alcahol... instant billions in new income... They might even be able to lower taxes (unless liberals are in office... lol)


RE: Let the count down begin!
By tspinning on 9/28/2007 10:41:06 AM , Rating: 3
Lower taxes... pshh, however it could, I believe, single handedly solve the education funding crisis, release much needed pressure on a failing, heavily over populated prison system, free up resources in the court system...

and and make people happy, therefore it is simply too good for the government to act upon.

No I'm not saying make all drugs legal, no I'm not saying a 12 year old should be able to buy a pack of J's at the local store, let's be logical here. Look at the NH liquor system, state run (and very well I might add) very good prices, and the revenue supposedly goes to better the state, while that may be partly true, I think it does a superior job limiting the underage access to liquor from the store (kids will always steal bottles or pay bums to buy it... but no one uses fakes at the NH liquor store.

PS It would also allow countless students to re-enroll in colleges due to their federal loan dollars being cut if they got into trouble because of the evil weed.


RE: Let the count down begin!
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 5:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at the NH liquor system, state run (and very well I might add) very good prices, and the revenue supposedly goes to better the state, while that may be partly true, I think it does a superior job limiting the underage access to liquor from the store (kids will always steal bottles or pay bums to buy it... but no one uses fakes at the NH liquor store.

PA was (is?) like that as well, seems to work for them. Beer distributors remain an issue.


RE: Let the count down begin!
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 11:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PS It would also allow countless students to re-enroll in colleges due to their federal loan dollars being cut if they got into trouble because of the evil weed.


While I don't disagree with legalizing it, breaking the law and facing consequences is still to be expected. Besides, unless they've already got dependents, there's this other source of funding that millions of American students tap every week: a job! There are also these amazing institutions that provide lower-cost yet quality educations as well -- we call them community colleges and public state universities.

If that's all it takes to shake some kids out of college I'd say we don't need them there. Beyond that, throwing money at kids is why college costs have far outpaced inflation. Force them to be more discriminating and costs would be contained from competition.


Democracy, not legislation
By pheffern on 9/29/2007 1:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
One thing that's not really made clear in the article, and that has clearly been misunderstood judging from the comments:

The wiki will be so that everyone can provide input on what the new law should be, not so that they can change the law in force. Any reforms that come out of the wiki process must be vetted and reviewed by the government. It will also not be an ongoing, fluid process, where the law is changing minute by minute like a wikipedia entry. That would verge on anarchy.

In any community larger than a few hundred people, the legal system must necessarily be an incredibly complex network of interrelated laws. Reforms to one law must be carefully considered for their impact on others.

People should recognize that this is an exciting new experiment in participatory democracy, but it is NOT a new form of legislation. Whatever comes of of the experiment will still have to go through the normal legislative enactment process.




RE: Democracy, not legislation
By sscilli on 9/30/2007 2:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really think it pose to many problems because in all odds not everyone will use it. Everyone of legal voting age has the option to vote, but there are plenty of people who never do.


RE: Democracy, not legislation
By bersl2 on 9/30/2007 10:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
Anybody who believes that this wiki will have the force of law should stop and think for a moment---and it sounds like most of you will need to do some thinking.

This is just as if one were to contact one's legislator and suggest some new law, but this brings the strengths and weaknesses of the wiki to the process.

Government officials may be stupid, but they are not that stupid.


First Edit
By AlphaVirus on 9/28/2007 1:27:43 PM , Rating: 3
*types in first wiki law*
"I am king and anything I say will be law, anything you say can be edited by me. That is all"




So...
By tspinning on 9/28/2007 9:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
Can we set this up in Iraq anytime soon?




Copyright law
By PrinceGaz on 9/28/2007 10:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how long it will be before copyright law is scrapped in NZ, and its citizens are free to share music, movies, games etc online :)




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki