The constitution is dead. Long live the constitution.

About fifty years ago I was attending Tiverton Grammar School and I recall one of our teachers (I’m ashamed to say I cannot remember his name) opine that the best form of government is a benevolent despot.  The key word there being benevolent.  The logic is clear in that the wishy, washy suit brigade can be pretty much cut out of the equation but could such a thing exist?  I have to say I think it unlikely given that governance has always been monopolised by the shite and the shitier the people involved the higher they climb up the ladder of power.  This for no more complicated reason than the fact that the driving force is always greed.  Greed for wealth and power, the two things of course being inextricably intertwined.  It’s early 2025.  Look around you.

As a slight aside and digression I might suggest that its bad enough when the top-dog shite of the moment are simply evil, sociopathic, narcissistic, greedy bastards.  How much worse though when they are thick as shit, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic, greedy bastards.  That then gets really hard to swallow (as the actress … forget I said that – I take no responsibility).  

I’ll put my hands up that I always fancied the job (the despot thing) whether it be nationally or even globally.  I’d even lined up my team of advisers; mostly comedians it must be said:  Ricky Gervais, Richard Osman, Kevin Bridges, Giles Brandreth, Bill Bailey, Joe Brand etc.  Sorry ladies you will be included – on merit.  Comedians see life more clearly than most of us and the vast majority didn’t go to Eaton or Harrow which also helps.  As the years have flown by, however, the likelihood of this happening seems to have rather faded away and it was always going to present something of a problem anyway in that Shirley would no way accept my having the sort of authority that would naturally come with the job.  That would not have ended well I’m quite sure.

In the circumstances therefore I’ve come to the conclusion that my best bet now in seeking to have some real influence on the world order (and it would of course be a great shame if humankind were to be deprived of that) would be to draft a template by which society, all society, should live.  Think of it as a generic constitution.  This comes to mind now I should say as I and the rest of the world watch the American constitution die a horrible death before our eyes.  There can be no doubt of course that it is dead as there would otherwise surely be those with real, taxpayer-funded power standing up to the ‘enemy domestic’.  Come the moment as they say.  No that constitution it would appear was just a collection of words and oaths and shit which don’t really count for much when they are challenged.  That’s unless of course it has to do with the right to hold on to military assault weaponry for use by any Rambo wannabees for whatever defensive or hunting or other purpose they may choose.  Suitably allocated amendment number two that has always been, and would apparently continue to be, sacrosanct.  Time for change!

So here I am setting out with the objective of offering up my suggestions for this new constitution.  In doing so I shall be looking at the US Bill of Rights as my template, making a couple of amendments found there and then adding a few of my own suggested amendments.  This is obviously just a draft at this stage and I’ve left it open for anyone (except David Icke) to throw their suggestions at me for others to follow and I’m sure there will be those. 

Firstly then let’s talk about those handful of amendments that I would make to the Bill of Rights.  Generally speaking it’s a pretty solid document I would agree except that is for the following:

2nd Amendment.   You don’t need to have an automatic right to bear arms any more than you need an automatic, military-grade assault rifle.  Regulation and licensing of sensible firearms would work much better.    

3rd Amendment.  This should now be reversed in the sense that citizens should be allowed if not actively encouraged to house veterans (once a soldier always a soldier) rather than allow them to be forgotten and abandoned to the streets.

5th Amendment.  Get rid of this rubbish about self-incrimination and double-jeopardy.  If you’re guilty we want to know about it and guilty is as guilty does as the man says.

Moving on then to my new amendments.  I’ll give them my numeration for now and they can be slotted in later as necessary: 

No.1:  The right to a limited amount of assets.  If there’s one thing we have come to learn more than anything now in the early twenty-first century it’s that greed is a horror.  It was always an abomination but today it has shown that it has the potential to destroy us all.  My amendment would set an asset limit for any individual.  I haven’t quite decided where that should be yet but if I were to say £10m dollars equivalent who in their right mind could query the fairness of that?  I would therefore place a 150% tax on anything above that level so as to positively disincentivise anyone from seeking to amass some sort of limitless stache.  Don’t talk to me about encouraging entrepreneurialism please.  We all know the deal.

No.2:   The right to an essential education.  As a sort of backup to No.1 everyone should be formally educated on the principle of ‘enough’.  Having it is after all the key to happiness so we should all be able to recognise what it is it when we see it and it would be for the greater good of all of us if we could do that.

No.3:   The right to vote in proportion to your mental ability.  Maybe a bit contentious this one but I would definitively allocate voting power based on intelligence.  We’d probably have to call AI in here to come up with some DNA algorithm or other but basically smarter people should have a bigger say in the matter than dumber people (see also No.4). 

No.4:   The right to know who to avoid and not take seriously.  God (if that is your real name) knows that we have enough DNA material now to get AI on the job of telling us what is wrong with certain members of our world society.  If I were to suggest a top-down approach that would be where I step back and let science do what it has to.  Putting it bluntly, having identified exactly what it is that makes some people into cunts we should be able to recognise this at birth and act accordingly (see 5 below).

No.5:   The right to live alongside people of equal niceness.  This new world order is certainly not going to advocate nastiness, violence or cruelty of any kind.  By the same token, however, I believe that it should protect the masses from the nastiness, violence and cruelty of those most likely to practice it.  Expanding on that DNA learning that I included in Nos. 3 and 4 therefore I believe that we should look to group people together in terms of where they might live on a ‘niceness’ scoring basis.  Basically the nicest people should be allowed to live alongside other nice people in the nicest places in the warm and temperate climates and the shittiest people should be housed in somewhere like, for the sake of argument, inland Greenland.  I would stress the inland bit of that.  Freedom of choice would apply though so if those eskimos/inuits already settled there should lobby against (which I would fully understand why, no-matter how much space were available, they wouldn’t want to be on the same landmass as certain others) there should be adequate flexibility.  We can sort it over time I’m sure but I’m liking the principle so I’m including it here in draft.  We also have Siberia of course.

No.6:   The right of the contributors to choose your enemy.  We’re still going to need the military of course because, as we’ve seen, it only takes a handful of cunts to slip through whatever net is there, to require this facility as a back-stop protection from our enemies.  This much we now know if we didn’t before.  The principle here is simple enough.  If you, as an individual, have paid in and contributed to the cost of that military through your taxes then you should be in the front of the queue in deciding how and against whom it might be deployed when necessary.  We need to reverse the growing trend of the exact opposite situation arising and that must definitely be changed as we could otherwise have a totally undesirable and unfair situation where the payers end up being branded by the payment avoiders as the ‘enemy of choice’.  Surely that could never happen but best be safe.

Sensible comments and contributions invited.