Hell, I’ll take a stab at this.
Government will provide for the basics of human life in the case that you cannot, or will not provide for yourself. Housing, food, and access to necessary medical care. Before we get too out of hand, it is important to note that these services will be basic in nature, providing no amenities at all. If you are able to work, but simply choose not to, you trade certain civil liberties and rights in exchange for your keep. moochers do not have the right to vote, nor legal recourse in the event of government intervention regarding social matters. If you want to enjoy those privileges then you must contribute. A term limit will be employed to ensure that someone on temporary assistance does not loose their rights unduly.
Government will ensure that the minimum wage is a LIVING WAGE, one that is defined as the minimum needed to sustain independent life outside of the social system.
Government will provide regulation for businesses on a sliding scale. The larger the industry, the smaller the percentage of profits it is allowed to pay out in executive compensation. There is no cap on salary, but this ought to ensure that CEO’s and the like must truly earn their keep rather than fleecing the hourlies. There will be a minimum amount of profits that must be reinvested into building business, employee wages, etc. Tax breaks will be given out to companies who engage in ethical practices and contribute to the benefit of the local community. Businesses must have a certain percentage of funds in cash on hand at any given time to be in compliance with their licenses, and may not have more than a certain percentage of needed capital out in credit. Business will grow slowly, but it will be stable.
Congress will be replaced with a multi-party parliament that must reach supermajority decisions to enact any major bills. The President will have a line-item veto. All government spending will be completely transparent, and available online to review by any citizen who has all their rights intact. Military spending and other sensitive programs will be covered in a private budget subject to review by an independent commission at any time.
:dubious: I beg your pardon, I did not realize your point was a wholesale rejection of the principle of democratic government. The Framers, you may be sure, wanted the state governments (democratic/republican to varying degrees) to have full and plenary powers to tax or regulate, they were divided only on issues of federal power.
No. Those are things upon which we cannot agree. But all of us but the most hardcore-asstard anarchist/libertarian extremists can agree government as such is necessary (because we can see what happens in places like Iraq where no effective government exists). The best we can do in a discussion like this is agree on a framework for a political system within which such questions may be threshed out; which is what we’ve got now, but we can discuss improvements.
No, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the debate. You are trying to foreclose all the most important year-to-year political questions like taxing and spending increases by writing your views on them into the system. That sort of thing is widely done, to be sure, in state constitutions, but always inadvisedly, in my view; such rules do not belong in a polity’s fundamental, organic law, and certainly not in a national constitution. In any case, they have nothing to do with the system’s design.
I think you are confusing government with religion. If not, then the next time you get arrested, just walk on out through those illusory bars and wave goodbye to the ghosts in blue uniforms.
This makes no sense. I claimed that government is an illusion, and you interpret that as a denial of the existence of steel bars, prisons, or police officers? Well it’s another thread I guess.
The concept of force is not particularly tangible, as I’m sure you would agree given a chance, but really, the comment wasn’t meant to lead this discussion astray so badly. You made a rather offhanded derogatory comment, I replied with an offhanded comment in kind.
Soft term limits for elected officials in all branches of the government. Something like 1st and 2nd term, needs majority to win the seat, just like now. 3rd term, needs 2/3 majority to win. 4th term, needs 3/4 majority to win, etc. Perhaps not those exact numbers, but you get the idea. Very qualified/popular incumbents will be able to keep their seats. Those who aren’t that popular will have a hard time winning that 3rd election, keeping things mixed up.
Split congress. Each state gets one senator, and half the representatives they do now. 50 senators and 217 representatives will be elected in national elections. The people have representation based on where they live right now. This would also give them representation based on their beliefs, so even if you are a hippy treehugger living in alabama, you will have a voice in congress.
Make all important jobs in the government elected officials. The secretaries, heads of big government entities like the IRS, FCC, Attorney General, etc. I manage to vote for a variety of different positions in the city i live in. I can manage it on a national level as well. Ofc, popular vote for these positions.
Scotus… I’m not sure if these guys should be elected, since they are supposed to be nonbiased, and I’m sure elected judges would be anything but. I think a 9 year term limit would be very appropriate though, with a position opening every year. No offence, but we really don’t need 90 year old justices.
