Why?

It’s a failed system.  We know that.  Money sent to chaotic nations never reaches those in need.  Real changes are never achieved.

Why not take our cues from organizations like the Red Cross and Medicins Sans Frontieres?

Relatively speaking, it costs nothing to build, staff, and protect schools.  Build a village based around a central school.  Pay teachers  and staff.  Pay a private security force if it’s required.  Open the school to anyone and everyone who wishes to learn–for free.  House them. Feed them. Provide entertainment by way of arts, music, drama, sports.

“Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.”

The most violent and poverty-stricken nations are those with the least education.  The common approach–feed them and calm them down, and we’ll be able to teach them–is backwards.  Teach them and they will calm down and learn to feed themselves.

Build schools.

Build farms.

Spend the money to purchase seeds, equipment, and infrastructure.  Spend money to send “farm boys” with education and experience.  Reshape the landscape one farm at a time–village by village.  Don’t just send them food–bags of goods that can be stolen and sold on the black market–send them knowlege.  5 farmers equipped with the right tools and the right knowledge can teach a dozen villages how to feed themselves.

The foreign policy of Geekistan should be simple: deal with people not governments.

The foreign policy of Geekistan should be based on one simple concept: It is our goal that every person be free to make their own choices; that every person should be educated to make their own choices; that every person should understand that a government is a tool to be used for their betterment, not a hammer to beat them into submission.

(Not that anyone is actually reading any of this.)  

1. At the top there is the text of the proposed Constitution.  These are the words that actually appear in the document.  They carry the full weight and power of authority.  These sections will be written in blockquote structure.
2. Comments of intent.  These are additional comments that exist outside of the written law, but which explain the intent of what is written.  So much of the debate about Constitutional law in the US centers on what the writers “really meant” by certain words or phrases.  Such intent should be readily available and any debatable sections clarified.  These sections will be written in italics
3. Comments of context.  This is just personal observation and background explaining why certain sections exist.  These may be examples from current events, personal perspectives, or random tidbits of information.  These sections will be written in plain text.

This formatting only applies to Pages, not posts here in the blog section of this site.   Somewhere down the line I’ll work on the CSS for the blockquote formatting so that it fits well with the flow of the overall theme.

Right now, I’m tossing out ideas and concepts, formulating interactions, and occasionally spewing randomness. As more content is generated, the Articles and Sections will be distilled down to a more logical and coherent format.

So far, “A Good Start” is… well… the best start on this path. A great deal of this site is reactionary. That is to say that event in the real world cause me to react with information on how <i>I</i> would handle the issues involved. That means that most of what’s being written deals with personal rights and restrictions on authority. The actual enumerating of powers will come later, when I have more time and focus.

As a side note: I’m working on formatting. One of the issues that continually arises in US Constitutional battles is the lack of understanding intent: “What did the Framers <i>mean</i> by that phrase?” The Second Amendment is, perhaps, the hottest battleground on that front. The 3 words “well regulated militia” give rise to polarized interpretations. In an effort to avoid such confrontations, I am including with the Constitution of Geekistan commentary which will (hopefully) give better understanding of the intent of the governing document. It is my intent that this commentary will be considered an integral part of the document as a whole, and will lead to cleaner and more consistent interpretations of the Law as written.

In addition to those, I will be adding personal commentary which may be of scholarly interest, but not hold any legal standing or weight.  These will be comments regarding why certain passages are written, or why they’re written the way they are.  They may give current examples–either positive or negative–which reflect actual circumstances in which these Articles would be used.

The “formatting” part comes in with how to display the “Law” parts separate from the “commentary” parts separate from the “personal insight” parts. I’ll be working on that to make it clearly obvious.

In the off chance that anyone is actually reading any of this, please feel free to leave any intelligent and constructive comments (stupidity and trolling will be deleted offhand). I may or may not incorporate any of your ideas, but I certainly want to hear them. Discussion and debate is what this project is all about.