Reduce the House to 400 Representatives. It might save some money, but mostly it will make the math easier.
The OP limited us to three items, and I gave three, but pretend that I didn’t. 
-
No war, conflict, or use of armed forces shall be allowed unless approved by 2/3 of Congress. The only exception shall be the President using armed forces to repel attacks being carried out on our own soil. (Yeah, we have the war powers resolution passed in the 70’s which is similar, this would strengthen it by making it constitutional.)
-
In all federal, state, and local court cases that are instigated by a police officer, the officer must either have a witness willing to testify or other proof to back him or her up. If all the officer has is his or her word, the case shall be dismissed.
-
All federal, state, and local legal interrogations must be video taped. While an investigation is going on, the showing of the tape may be limited to the prosecution and defense councils, and a judge if one is involved, but after a trial it will become a public record.
Wow. So now it will take two officers to hand out a speeding ticket or arrest a vandalist?
Does anyone even use videotape any more?
Yes.
Use whatever media you want, as long as it can record hours of audio and video and be stored long term.
Which governments where those?
As much as I like this one, all that corrupt departments would have to do is put two lying cops at every speedtrap instead of one.
Maybe you could just reword it to “…have a witness who is not a police officer…”.
Hmmmm…on the one hand, I don’t want judges to take the word of a police officer simply because they’re an officer, but on the other I don’t want to make their job too hard…hmmm…
How would the corporate duty to provide profit above all else including morality and soul work in this “voluntary” society? Would Environmental protection regulations get any funding in heavy industrial areas? Would abortion clinic doctors in conservative areas receive any protection from the cops?
In short how would the government protect the weak from the financial coercion of the rich when it loses all the strength to fight if the rich disagree?
In short you’d render anyone not rich a serf.
I believe that one’s for you to answer. BG’s saying there aren’t any.
It didn’t come across to me that way. BG said, “No government ever has been or will be adequately financed by voluntary fees alone.” That implies that an attempt was made to have one or more governments finanaced by voluntary fees, and so I asked him which ones had tried it and failed. Now, if I take your interpretation, then I have to say you’re wrong. (Or he’s wrong — I guess you’re tag-teaming.) What involuntary capitation tax did the United States impose from 1791 to 1916?
Boy, you’re sure reading a lot into his statement.
That’s as if he’d said, “Nobody in the history of major-league baseball has ever hit a 5-run home run,” and you assumed that someone had tried and failed.
In Lib-land, do involuntary capitation taxes and voluntary fees constitute a partition of the potential government revenue streams?
In that period the federal government was financed mainly by tariffs, which are not “voluntary fees.”
Sure they were. No one was forced to ship anything to the United States market.
You’re right. And no one was forced to buy products (e.g. textiles) from Northern factories instead of from English factories. They could have simply done without, or worn homespun.
What I get from this example is that depriving you by government fiat of a good set of choices, and substituting an inferior and more expensive set of choices, is not coercion, by your definition.
That’s a funny definition. You’re welcome to it, of course, but if you use words quite differently from other people, you can’t expect to have debates with them that make sense.
Nor could you expect others to interpret that proposed Constitutional amendment in anything like the way you might mean it.
No one is forced to earn income, but income tax remains non-voluntary. “Voluntary fees” in this discussion can only meaningfully mean (1) the government going around for donations like a charity or (2) fees paid by end-users of public services, like highway tolls. Neither will ever be adequate to fund a government any reasonable person would want to live under.