On reflection I'll take a more serious stab at this, than my previously facetious post.
First off, I don't believe in Utopia. Utopia implies a perfect society, which implies than Man is perfectable...which I do not believe. It would require changing human nature dramatically and universally, or else it would require a totalitarian dictatorship of Orwellian proportions, both of which I reject as either impossible or undesireable.
I do believe we could do better than present...so let's call mine "Neartopia". :mrgreen:
I've become somewhat convinced that the form of government, ie Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic...while important, is not as important as certain other key elements.
First, understanding that government is chiefly about raw power, and most of the rest of it is window dressing to make that raw power more palatable. Over time the "respectability of age" will give a government a veneer of legitimacy and authority...and authority is distinct from power. Power is raw force; authority is the ability to compel obedience without actually using that force. Superman can (mythically) stop a speeding car with his hands, which is power --- a traffic cop can "stop" a speeding car with an upraised hand without even touching the car, which is authority.
Limited government is the foremost. Any form of gov't whose power is unlimited, especially if that power is unchecked by some effective form of accountability, is doomed to become corrupt and tyrannical.
Balance of power: "The People" must have sufficient power that the Government fears to push them too far, lest they rebel. Some distribution or segmenting of authority into competing/hostile divisions can help create checks and balances also.
Minority rule: in many ways it is desireable that the ruling class or electorate be a minority. This might seem odd, but this is because a minority must always fear the majority, if the majority be aroused against them. This is the danger of pure democracy, because a ruling majority has little need to fear a nonruling minority...the ruling majority has more manpower.
Accountability: there must be a mechanism to hold rulers accountable for ruling poorly, selfishly, or with undue harshness, and corruption must be punished severely.
Sacrifice: This one needs some explanation. Followers give power to their leader through their obedience: they "lend" him the sovereignty of their ability and resources, making him far more powerful than he is alone. To lead willing followers (as opposed to compelled followers), the leader must do or be many things: capable and trustworthy to be sure, but just as importantly as his followers sacrifice to give him power, he must sacrifice his Self for the sake of the needs of those he leads. That is, his decisions are based not on his own needs or preferences, but those of his followers. I found this out through hard experience, but that's a story for another time. Requiring some kind of symbolic but real sacrifice on the part of those who lead would be a step in the right direction.
Now, let us consider The People:
The People must retain the majority power, at least in potential, of armed might, or risk being enslaved by the government. The People must retain the ability to criticize the gov't and speak against it, or ditto.
Franchise should be limited. Those who do not contribute to society as a whole should not have a voice in its rule, because they demonstrate irresponsible behavior and are unfit to rule. Voting is a form of rule. Franchise (voting rights) should be restricted to those who have demonstrated great competence in real-world activities, or those who have sacrificed for the greater good.
"He governs best, who governs least": The key to this is actually a responsible citizenry. IMO the way to make a citizenry responsible is to allow them to experience raw reality and suffer the consequences of their bad decisions...this breeds responsible adults. The social-welfare course breeds irresponsible dependents, who make good slaves but poor citizens.
On the one hand: Local conditions result in local needs varying from larger-scale needs. Therefore those aspects of government that most affect the citizen's daily life should largely be local or regional, rather than on a larger scale such as national. Local/regional autonomy within certain limits is therefore desirable. OTOH we now live in a society where people are extremely mobile...I'm on the East Coast and could travel to the West Coast in a matter of hours. People often live in several different States and regions over the course of a lifetime nowadays. It is more than merely annoying that what is legal in my state could make me a felon in an adjacent state, merely by my movement of couple hundred miles. In that sense, a more homogenous and uniform criminal code might be desireable, whereas economic, regulatory, civil and misdemeanor laws might be more suitable for local autonomy. This is a fine line to walk.
There's a lot more but I'll stop there for now.
SO, here's what I propose based on these principles:
A Republic, divided into three branches much like our own, with a Federal government and various State governments much like our own. Now to the differences:
Limits to government:
Elected officials, and appointed officials above a certain level (say, the top 1000 bureaucratic administrators), will have to sacrifice their personal comfort and wealth in order to rule. Any assets they have exceeding $3 million 2009USD will be donated to the public treasury upon their assumption of office. During their time in office, their needs will be seen to from the public treasury, including all necessary activities relating to their office; however, their housing, food, entertainment and luxuries will be as spartan as those of their average citizen and no more will be spent on same than the per-capita GDP (GDP divided by population), nor will they have access to any personal fortune they may have remaining (assets will be placed in a blind trust until they leave office).
Term limits: two terms in any given office, no more than 12 years continuous in political elective or appointive office then the person is ineligible for 5 years. Thus, they will have more empathy for "the people" as they know they will not be able to remain of the "ruling class" perpetually.
Limited government: the Constitution will spell out what powers each branch of government has, and it has those alone. Amendment should be possible but difficult. This differs little from what we have now in theory, but I propose a department dedicated to overseeing that government does not exceed these limits which is more attuned to "the people" than the current Supreme Court. I would propose a list of voting citizens with certain qualifications (such as a certain level of education and achievement), from which is chosen at random a committee of 100 to serve one year; this "Citizen's Committee" has oversight and can "veto" any act of government through a 2/3rds majority.
Limited Government II: no bill shall pass without a 2/3rds majority in both Houses; a 3/4ths majority is required to override a Presidential veto.
Accountability: all elected officials shall be subject to recall votes, the exact mechanism of which will be determined...for rule of thumb, make it a little easier than the system they have in California at this time. Also, the Citizen's Committee (above) will have the authority to remove any elected or appointed official for any reason on a 2/3rds vote.
The penalty for taking bribes or other serious criminal malfeasance of office will be death.
State sovereignty: Any State can seceed if 2/3rds of its population vote to do so. There will be an annual Governor's Council that can veto any act of the Federal government by a 2/3'rds majority vote.
The States will be fully subject to the Bill of Rights and may not violate them; this will be overseen by both the Supreme Court and the Citizen's Committee.
Local governments (county, city) may enact such laws as are beneficial to their local jurisdiction, but may not enact felony criminal laws; only regulations with reasonable fines and misdemeanor crimes. State pre-emption of local law.
Balance of Power: The standing army (full time), plus all Federal law enforcement or personnel with enforcement powers, may not exceed 1% of the general population nor have a total budget exceeding 5% of GDP. All reserves (regular reserves or "select militia") will be State-based, under the command of the State Governor, and only released to Federal service if the State Governor allows it. Reserve military will not exceed 2% of the State's population or 10% of the State's gross economic product.
Too long...Continued Part II below:
