1. Our government is filled brim-full with self-serving highly corrupt politicians of both parties. Those statesmen who truly want the best for the nation as a whole are a small minority.
..........
In short, we're fracked. Frankly, we need to throw the existing system out and start over.
This is of course unlikely barring some kind of utterly disastrous crisis of national proportions far beyond anything we've seen in the past half century... but we might be heading that way if we continue as we are.
So what should we build in its place? A unified government with one law for all, or a loose federation of internally autonomous regions?
Either way, I think there are some principles we need to build the new system upon:
1. Professional politicians invariably result in a corrupted government. Simply put, when politics becomes a lifelong profession, the temptation to corruption becomes almost irresistible, and politicians cease to be "of the people" and become instead "the ruling class"... and as we've seen, they put themselves above the law.
A separate set of more stringent requirements for appointment to the Supreme Court in similar random fashion, said court to be expanded to 15 Justices and term of office set at eight years.
2. All campaigns funded from the public treasury in equal measure, no contributions (private or corporate) allowed.
3. Retain the Bill of Rights, but reworded in modern legal English leaving no question as to meaning, which is to be construed in favor of individual rights.
4. No bureaucracy may regulate with force of law without specific Congressional authorization of the individual regulation; no upper-tier bureaucrat may hold his position more than eight years; any bureaucrat may be fired for any reason at any time by executive order or Congressional act.
5. No bill may pass without first being read. No rider may attach that isn't directly relevant to the bill's original purpose.
6. No troops shall engage in combat in a foreign country, except in direct self-defense of American lives, without a formal declaration of war by Congress.
7. Hold the media strictly accountable and liable for outright lies or blatant inaccuracies propagated without due diligence.
Yes, I know this is little more than a thought exercise, but I think it is an interesting one. Comments invited...
What a lovely pipe-dream.:lamo
How do you intend on getting rid of the 2 corrupt parties and open the eyes of their blind followers. You are going up against multi-billionaires who have trillions of dollars worth of assets and cash at their disposal to stop you. They own the media from the local newspapers and radio to the network TV. We all have seen first hand how they black out or crush anyone that does not conform to their 2 party system. They have sold the 2 parties so well that most people vote and have no clue who is actually running and what they intend to do when in office. 1/2 the people in this country think rewarding criminals who circumvent our immigration laws should be rewarded. They also believe securing our borders and the American people deciding who comes into our country is crazy. Anyone that can sell that kind of ludicrous nonsense is an invincible opponent. I am currently arguing to keep our rights from being stripped on suspicion without proof or due process by our government and these same people. You will be lucky to not get drug from your house one day and imprisoned for even talking about being free the way things are going.
1. Our government is filled brim-full with self-serving highly corrupt politicians of both parties. Those statesmen who truly want the best for the nation as a whole are a small minority.
2. The two parties have a stranglehold on elections... few candidates reach the level of running for national office without being corrupted, and achieving national office without the endorsement of one party or the other is nearly impossible.
3. Entrenched bureaucracies and special interests control more and more of our lives, stealing power that was supposed to go to elected officials theoretically accountable to the voters.
4. Apathy, ignorance and indifference among the populace has lead to less than half of eligible citizens actually voting in a given election. Given that we are so often faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils (two corrupt candidates from the major parties), it is hard to blame them, but it is an abrogation of the citizen's right and duty to participate in self-governance by the principles of our nation.
5. With a combination of biased partisanship and indifference to accuracy, the media cannot be trusted by the voting public.
In short, we're fracked. Frankly, we need to throw the existing system out and start over.
This is of course unlikely barring some kind of utterly disastrous crisis of national proportions far beyond anything we've seen in the past half century... but we might be heading that way if we continue as we are.
So what should we build in its place? A unified government with one law for all, or a loose federation of internally autonomous regions?
Either way, I think there are some principles we need to build the new system upon:
1. Professional politicians invariably result in a corrupted government. Simply put, when politics becomes a lifelong profession, the temptation to corruption becomes almost irresistible, and politicians cease to be "of the people" and become instead "the ruling class"... and as we've seen, they put themselves above the law.
So we don't want professional politicians... term limits are a start but we need to go beyond that. Power tends to corrupt; people who SEEK power tend to BE corrupt. I suggest establishing some baseline standards (ie a simple either/or standard might be: to be qualified for office, one must either have ONE of the following: an advanced degree (masters+) OR have a positive net worth {assets minus debts} exceeding 2x Per-cap GDP, or a minimum 8 years active duty military service... the former indicating intellectual achievement, the second indicating pragmatic financial achievement, the third showing willingness to serve the nation at risk of one's life). Of the qualified, select three candidates for each office at random, plus the incumbent if he is eligible for re-election, and let the People vote their preference. In this manner we retain an element of democratic participation but are more likely to avoid filling the government with self-serving power seekers, or the utterly incompetent. Those selected can refuse to run for office but it costs them their right to vote hereafter... allowing the truly disinterested a way to opt out, but encouraging those with a modicum of civic duty to participate. A limit of two terms in any given office, and not more than four terms in a lifetime. Candidates for President being drawn from those who have already served as Legislators or Governors; candidates for Governor having already served in State Legislature.
A separate set of more stringent requirements for appointment to the Supreme Court in similar random fashion, said court to be expanded to 15 Justices and term of office set at eight years.
2. All campaigns funded from the public treasury in equal measure, no contributions (private or corporate) allowed.
3. Retain the Bill of Rights, but reworded in modern legal English leaving no question as to meaning, which is to be construed in favor of individual rights.
4. No bureaucracy may regulate with force of law without specific Congressional authorization of the individual regulation; no upper-tier bureaucrat may hold his position more than eight years; any bureaucrat may be fired for any reason at any time by executive order or Congressional act.
5. No bill may pass without first being read. No rider may attach that isn't directly relevant to the bill's original purpose.
6. No troops shall engage in combat in a foreign country, except in direct self-defense of American lives, without a formal declaration of war by Congress.
7. Hold the media strictly accountable and liable for outright lies or blatant inaccuracies propagated without due diligence.
Yes, I know this is little more than a thought exercise, but I think it is an interesting one. Comments invited...
My only major issue is Number 1, you are perverting democracy. It is completely idiotic and will not change anything. It make the government completely ineffective and fill it with people who have no business being there as well as perverting democracy. You are just changing one political elite to another.
My only major issue is Number 1, you are perverting democracy. It is completely idiotic and will not change anything. It make the government completely ineffective and fill it with people who have no business being there as well as perverting democracy. You are just changing one political elite to another.
Yes, I know this is little more than a thought exercise, but I think it is an interesting one. Comments invited...
Yes, it is somewhat of a departure from democracy per se... then again, we've NEVER been an actual democracy as such. Given that it is almost impossible to elect anyone to major office but a D or R, it isn't really any more restrictive than our current situation. It is, IMHO, one way to get around the fact that power-seekers tend to be easily corrupted.
I'm open to suggestions as to another way.
If you are hiring someone do you just hire some random guy off the street that does not want to do it nor has any relevant skills or the guy who at the very least wants to do it and has experience doing something? A government whether you like it or not has to function and get things done and only people who want to do that will do it. It is the equivalent of making a fresh conscript into a general and expecting him to command an army or having a manager that does not want to be a manger. You need not only skilled people but motivated people. Do you want someone with a degree in art history negotiating trade deals?
"No regulation without specific congressional authorization" is one of two things:
1) Exactly what we have right now
2) Eliminating the entire purpose of regulatory agencies
If you are hiring someone do you just hire some random guy off the street that does not want to do it nor has any relevant skills or the guy who at the very least wants to do it and has experience doing something? A government whether you like it or not has to function and get things done and only people who want to do that will do it. It is the equivalent of making a fresh conscript into a general and expecting him to command an army or having a manager that does not want to be a manger. You need not only skilled people but motivated people. Do you want someone with a degree in art history negotiating trade deals?
So far the Ivy League **** ups running the show now, have shown nothing that convinces me that we would NOT be better off with Goshins plan to select people, or hell even randomly selected people. To be honest it would probably be a step up. There are times I seriously wonder if the people in charge are deliberately screwing things up, I know our enemies would have a hell of a time trying to improve upon the destruction those overeducated, under experienced, idiots have wrought.
Thus the idea that you select from people with some kind of accomplishment or experience, such as an advanced degree, or a larger-than-average positive net worth (most of us have negative net worth due to debt), or eight years of service to the nation potentially at peril of one's life.
Self-selected professional politicians have not demonstrated a good track record in my lifetime.... those willing to seek power in the current system almost have to be willing to be corrupted to get there.
What a lovely pipe-dream.:lamo
How do you intend on getting rid of the 2 corrupt parties and open the eyes of their blind followers. You are going up against multi-billionaires who have trillions of dollars worth of assets and cash at their disposal to stop you. They own the media from the local newspapers and radio to the network TV. We all have seen first hand how they black out or crush anyone that does not conform to their 2 party system. They have sold the 2 parties so well that most people vote and have no clue who is actually running and what they intend to do when in office. 1/2 the people in this country think rewarding criminals who circumvent our immigration laws should be rewarded. They also believe securing our borders and the American people deciding who comes into our country is crazy. Anyone that can sell that kind of ludicrous nonsense is an invincible opponent. I am currently arguing to keep our rights from being stripped on suspicion without proof or due process by our government and these same people. You will be lucky to not get drug from your house one day and imprisoned for even talking about being free the way things are going.
I've always been a strong supporter of term limits. I have two issues with that though. 1) This sets up more cronyism, as 'current' politicians jockey their 'successors' for positions. It would further polarize the two major parties. 2) Time in office will be further wasted campaigning for successors. "Hey, I didn't have time to [insert campaign promise]...but if you elect my hand-picked successor, he'll finish it for you."1. Professional politicians invariably result in a corrupted government. Simply put, when politics becomes a lifelong profession, the temptation to corruption becomes almost irresistible, and politicians cease to be "of the people" and become instead "the ruling class"... and as we've seen, they put themselves above the law.
So we don't want professional politicians... term limits are a start but we need to go beyond that. Power tends to corrupt; people who SEEK power tend to BE corrupt. I suggest establishing some baseline standards (ie a simple either/or standard might be: to be qualified for office, one must either have ONE of the following: an advanced degree (masters+) OR have a positive net worth {assets minus debts} exceeding 2x Per-cap GDP, or a minimum 8 years active duty military service... the former indicating intellectual achievement, the second indicating pragmatic financial achievement, the third showing willingness to serve the nation at risk of one's life). Of the qualified, select three candidates for each office at random, plus the incumbent if he is eligible for re-election, and let the People vote their preference. In this manner we retain an element of democratic participation but are more likely to avoid filling the government with self-serving power seekers, or the utterly incompetent. Those selected can refuse to run for office but it costs them their right to vote hereafter... allowing the truly disinterested a way to opt out, but encouraging those with a modicum of civic duty to participate. A limit of two terms in any given office, and not more than four terms in a lifetime. Candidates for President being drawn from those who have already served as Legislators or Governors; candidates for Governor having already served in State Legislature.
A separate set of more stringent requirements for appointment to the Supreme Court in similar random fashion, said court to be expanded to 15 Justices and term of office set at eight years.
I like this, but it would have to be audited. Who will audit? Who will audit the auditors? You KNOW politicians will be trying to buy off whomever they can.2. All campaigns funded from the public treasury in equal measure, no contributions (private or corporate) allowed.
I see massive legal battles with this. The Bill of Rights would fill the library of congress it would be so wordy.3. Retain the Bill of Rights, but reworded in modern legal English leaving no question as to meaning, which is to be construed in favor of individual rights.
You can lead a horse to water....5. No bill may pass without first being read. No rider may attach that isn't directly relevant to the bill's original purpose.
I'm ok with this, but America has non-human interests that need to be protected as well.6. No troops shall engage in combat in a foreign country, except in direct self-defense of American lives, without a formal declaration of war by Congress.
Pipe dream. The media is bought and sold like a slave, and Big Government is the 'massa.' Even non-mainstream media is excessively biased.7. Hold the media strictly accountable and liable for outright lies or blatant inaccuracies propagated without due diligence.
I've always been a strong supporter of term limits. I have two issues with that though. 1) This sets up more cronyism, as 'current' politicians jockey their 'successors' for positions. It would further polarize the two major parties. 2) Time in office will be further wasted campaigning for successors. "Hey, I didn't have time to [insert campaign promise]...but if you elect my hand-picked successor, he'll finish it for you."
e.
2.
No bureaucracy should be allowed to make a regulation, the violation of which can put an American in prison, unless Congress specifically authorizes it as such by passing it into law.
To do otherwise violates the principle of elected representatives making law, as opposed to appointed bureaucrats not accountable to the voters.
(HAD TO SHORTEN CAUSE YOU BROKE THE 5k LIMIT GOSHIN.)
Yes, I know this is little more than a thought exercise, but I think it is an interesting one. Comments invited...
Blame the true holders of power for giving up their power and forgoing their duty in favor of handouts and "entitlements"
Oh please :roll:
America is not in trouble because it gives a pittance to poor people.
It's anarchists and misguided idiots, that legalized corruption in government through citizens united that has lead to the true downfall.
Unchecked and predatory capitalism, that's Americas problem.
Not SNAP and SS.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?