Iceland Taps Facebook To Rewrite Its Constitution 264
An anonymous reader writes "Iceland is finally overhauling its constitution, and it has turned to the Internet to get input from citizens. More specifically, the 25-member council drafting the new constitution is reaching out to its citizens through Facebook. Two thirds of Iceland's population (approximately 320,000) is on Facebook, so the constitutional council's weekly meetings are broadcast live not only on the council's website, but on the social network as well. 'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir, spokeswoman for the constitutional review project."
Re:public-private partnership (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They cannot possibly get it right (Score:3, Informative)
No one owns another person, not even one's children. That does not lead to a default ownership of children by the state.
Your construction is interesting "one's children"; that is a possessive construction, and its one that everyone uses because quite naturally, properly functioning human beings understand that children really do belong to their parents; they are a unique specie of property in that they can be owned, but also have all the rights that human being have, meaning that they are not truly owned as a man owns a dog, but exist in a separate and special category of property that is not found in any other type of property.
Even if we were to agree that 'no one owns children' you have to accept that someone must have authority over them in the form of being a ward or guardian. The question then becomes who is that guardian, and why is that entity the rightful guardian. Its the same problem stated without the emotionally charged phrases.
All human beings have the same rights, no matter what age they are. That means (to refute your straw man) that killing your children, as a parent is wrong. Its not a matter of wether other people think that killing your children is wrong, it is a matter of objective fact that it is wrong.
Intervention when the rights of people are violated is justifiable, but this is not what we are discussing; what we are really discussing is what are rights and where do they come from. Rights do not come from the State, or the collective vote of the majority, or from a constitution or mass opinion or some economic need.
The matter of schooling in all of this is crucial, because it sits at a very tricky locus of relationships, where the state can interpose itself and bamboozle people into believing that it is legitimate, when clearly it is not.
Those countries that claim to be free but which outlaw Home Education are not free at all. The State lays claim to all children, and mandates what they must learn. Those states are even willing to violently kidnap children as they assert their ownership. No one with a working and complete moral center can say that this is right.
Re:Let me guess... (Score:2, Informative)
Like the other poster said; It's not forbidden to educate your child at home, but it is forbidden to deprive them of the education provided by the state.
That is a flat out lie. Home Education is ILLEGAL in Sweden and Iceland and Germany (for example). You may not teach 'your' children at home, even if you decide to follow the State curriculum.
In the case of Germany, the law forbidding Home Schooling is one of the few laws left on the statute books from that country's dark era that Godwin's law prevents me from typing out. :)