You wanted the original Constitution back. Leaving many other questions aside, I would presume that you are also asking for a society that supports aristocratic relations, mainly, a restricted franchise dependent on a theory of property creation that is no longer practical or useful (homestead claims).
Still, if everyone had a home, and everyone OWNED their home (As in Gadhaffi's Libya), and that was the LAW, then the 'homesteading' wouldn't be so bad. It would be universal suffrage with knobs on. One less Rentier mob to worry about, AND a much needed weakening of the Bankster rentiers too!
"That was the LAW" skeeves me out because who exactly is bound by this idealistic dictate is unclear.
Now we have to ask about what "having" a home vs. "owning" a home means, on what basis a society shall issue homes or recognize "ownership" or recognize residents as "persons", what sort of market (if any) there will be in dwellings, what sort of class systems we are constructing within the home (as they will be reproduced in adult social life), what of people who change jobs, irreconcilable differences, family splits, etc.
Unfortunately, I predict that the answers to these questions will call to reenact English Puritanism, which does nothing well but multiply and destroy.
One: Gadhaffi had considered such problems seriously, and not just for 10mins before replying on a blog, and
Two: That Libya under Gadhaffi/Green Book was not some English Putritanism (Not a typo) outbreak.
As to what the specific solutions were, I'm fairly sure that Libyans found it more comfortable than the Colonial system that existed beforehand; and that it was more humane than the USA's/UK's current "Homelessness increases house prices" policies.
You wanted the original Constitution back. Leaving many other questions aside, I would presume that you are also asking for a society that supports aristocratic relations, mainly, a restricted franchise dependent on a theory of property creation that is no longer practical or useful (homestead claims).
AHH, getcha lol. :'D
Still, if everyone had a home, and everyone OWNED their home (As in Gadhaffi's Libya), and that was the LAW, then the 'homesteading' wouldn't be so bad. It would be universal suffrage with knobs on. One less Rentier mob to worry about, AND a much needed weakening of the Bankster rentiers too!
"That was the LAW" skeeves me out because who exactly is bound by this idealistic dictate is unclear.
Now we have to ask about what "having" a home vs. "owning" a home means, on what basis a society shall issue homes or recognize "ownership" or recognize residents as "persons", what sort of market (if any) there will be in dwellings, what sort of class systems we are constructing within the home (as they will be reproduced in adult social life), what of people who change jobs, irreconcilable differences, family splits, etc.
Unfortunately, I predict that the answers to these questions will call to reenact English Puritanism, which does nothing well but multiply and destroy.
I am certain that:
One: Gadhaffi had considered such problems seriously, and not just for 10mins before replying on a blog, and
Two: That Libya under Gadhaffi/Green Book was not some English Putritanism (Not a typo) outbreak.
As to what the specific solutions were, I'm fairly sure that Libyans found it more comfortable than the Colonial system that existed beforehand; and that it was more humane than the USA's/UK's current "Homelessness increases house prices" policies.