Iceland Taps Facebook To Rewrite Its Constitution

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."

Comments

public-private partnership

[Hazel Bergeron]

I guess "reliance on large private corporations for operation of and participation in government" is going to be part of the new constitution? Not that it isn't de facto part of every other modern Western constitution, but now they've announced the overhaul it seems to me the right time to start being open about how the world runs now.

Re:public-private partnership

[FriendlyLurker]

Iceland has set a shining example to the rest of the world on how NOT to be subjected to never-ending corporate control. An example that other countries citizens are fighting in the streets (literally) to try and follow.

Re:public-private partnership

[Rei]

Indeed. So many people are perpetuating this false notion about the Icelandic crisis.

1) Iceland *has* taken austerity measures, and pretty significant ones -- about 40% cuts, 60% revenue.

2) Iceland *did* pump significant money into their banks -- nearly a year's worth of GDP as loans. However, they did it *after* the banks went into receivership. This let them fully bail out their own citizens while not fully bailing out the citizens of other countries who invested. This is actually the basis for the legal case against them.

3) This action is the reason that, contrary to popular misconception, the Icelandic crisis is *far* from over. This isn't about banks, the IMF, some shadowy cartel, or whatnot trying to force Iceland to pay back vague "debts". Rather, it's about paying back UK and Dutch citizens for their maximum insurable losses in their Icesave accounts. Individuals, not institutional investors, and the entities seeking the payback are the UK and Dutch governments. Iceland rejected reduced settlements with them in the referendum, so now they're having to fight paying back the *full* cost in the EFTA court system. If they lose, things will go very badly for them. One thing that may help is that the estates of the collapsed banks appear to be larger than expected, so they may be able to pay off most if not all of the overseas accounts just from that.

4) In a way, this is as much aggravated by old rivalries than anything else, esp. with the UK. It certainly didn't help matters that the UK invoked a provision designed for terrorists against Iceland to sieze Landsbanki assets in the UK. It's so crazy that I sometimes run into British people online talking about how they should sue Iceland for the volcanoes.

I don't know that Iceland's approach was right or wrong. They definitely got themselves into a lot of trouble with their domestic bailout. But as for taking things to the EFTA, only time will see how that goes. I do find it admirable that they've thrown their legal system not just at the bankers that caused the mess, but the politicians who stood by or were complicit in allowing it to happen. Their real problem is that their banking crisis was so much larger than their economy, so when other nations wanted them to insure against the losses from their banks, well...

Re:public-private partnership

[digitig]

Yes, and I bet before this people arranged meetings by telephone over systems run by large private corporations, drove to meetings in cars made by large private corporations using fuel supplied by large private corporations and took notes on laptop computers made by large private corporations or on paper made by large private corporations with pens made by large private corporations. So what's new here?

Re:public-private partnership

[AmiMoJo]

I have little sympathy for people who invested in Icelandic banks from overseas. They gave very favourable interest rates and returns in exchange for greater risk, and people are now complaining that they never expected that risk to actually materialise. Well, too bad, you took a chance and lost. The system in the UK compensates you up to (IIRC) £35k if you are a private individual but beyond that you are on your own.

I had an account with an Indian bank for a couple of years to get their high interest rates, but I never expected the same security as from a UK bank.

Re:public-private partnership

[FriendlyLurker]

One of the central points made by the research professor in his analysis was not all or none on austerity measures - but that the taxpayers were very correct in not agreeing to foot the total losses of the private banking sector - to the extent that Iceland would never be able to repay the private sector losses+interest, and so avoid entering national level "debt slavery" that they can never escape from. Besides the overwhelming evidence presented to support his analysis (including the "Brady bonds that resolved Latin American and Third World debts in the 1980s" and the resulting social and unfortunate economic impact those "austerity" measures have had on the region) - this particular professor of economics is not alone in his analysis. Increasingly economists who are worth their salt and not mere shills for the financial industry (a short list) are coming the the same or similar conclusions - including a nobel prize in economics winner or two.

When I discuss this kind of analysis with some well educated Economist colleagues of mine, the knee-jerk reaction appears to be similar to "rolfwind" above "full of shit" - however once we begin to dig into the issue a little it becomes apparent that the intellectual dishonesty/deception (as discussed in the first linked article) has worked way to persuade people who really should know better and be capable of much better critical thinking about this most important issue that affects us all.

Farcebook

[Spad]

'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir

Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...

Re:Farcebook

[Grygus]

'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir

Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...

If 2/3 of the population is using one platform, couldn't that automatically mean that most of the discussion would take place there, regardless of anyone's wishes? I think you may be seeing an agenda where there is only acceptance of reality.

Let me guess...

[spectrokid]

you are living in the country on earth that spends the most $$$/inhabitant on healthcare, yet bungles somewhere around Cuba in elementary healthcare statistics like child mortality and cancer survival rates. You firmly believe in printing your own money backed by a gold standard, but are posting from a shiny laptop you could never have bought if your government wasn't borrowing shitloads of money from the chinese. You have absolutely no clue about the damages which alcohol abuse historically have done in ALL countries close to the polar circle. Therefore you couldn't imagine that in a very thin spread population, in a country with tons of gravel roads, "I'm homeschooling my kids", could easily mean "I 'm too drunk to drive them to school.". The social and pedagogical effects of a child growing up on a remote vulcano and never meeting other kids is totally lost on you. Oh fuck it, this is boring...

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Kjella]

No State monopoly on security / police

If any private party can claim police power, they can also claim the right to search your property and papers. Oh, and any complaint of illegal searches would go to the same system. That's the end of the 4th amendment.

No State monopoly on Law
No State monopoly on courts

I guess you don't believe much in the "with liberty and justice for all" thing. I'd rather not be hauled before a kangaroo court or get no protection if I have no protection money, thank you very much.

No State theft of resources (Taxation)

Without income, there's no public services whatsoever. Go to Somalia or some other anarchist state if that's your ideal society.

Yet another country where the people have been reduced to the level of property; the property of the State.

There are equally bad or worse fates, like being the property of your parents. Children are not pets and even pets have laws against animal cruelty. Any state that lets children grow up with no minimum standard of education is neglecting that child and its human rights. They may be your offspring but they are not your prisoner - physically, intellectually or otherwise. If I was to use as much hyperbole as you, I'd say you demand the right to brainwash your children. My country, Norway, has also outlawed home schooling but there are private schools like Montessori or Waldorf education. They have to document a competent staff, their plans and methods of teaching and adherence to minimum guidelines set forth by the government. And I think it's a good thing, YMMV.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

Isn't that Somalia?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Then you accept that if a homeschooled individual can't find a job or otherwise finds him/herself in trouble, the state has no obligation to care for that person?
Not saying homeschooling is bad, just that authority and responsibility cannot be separated and one has to accept the consequence of changing either.

Absolutely. Employment is not the business of the state, wether the person was Home Educated or not. The State cannot have obligations, only people have obligations. States do not have rights, only people have rights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

For the record, Home Educated people have a higher rate of employment that the general government schooled population.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

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.