What is your ideal political structure?

[KomradeEli]

I've spent about 20 years now, trying to figure out where I REALLY stand politically.

I don't fit in well amongst progressives (at all) but I don't fit in amongst conservatives either once we get past the first level of "small gov, low taxes" talk.

In college, I was pretty intrigued by the "crunchy con" movement. (Conservatives that care about the environment etc). I also read a lot of Pat Buchanan during this time, thinking myself to be a paleocon...but what exactly are we conserving at this point?

Ron/Rand Paul made a lot of sense to me with some of the libertarian arguments, although amongst hardcore libertarians...they viewed me as too conservative (I'm like...kind of against people murdering their unborn children you know).

Once I came to saving faith, I started exploring theonomy/theocracy but didn't really fall cleanly into any of those camps either.

What I have resolved...we shouldn't all be voting equally, that much I'm sure of. I'm 100% against pure unfiltered democracy.

What I'm left with is kind of oscillating between a sort of republican monarchy and a Christian libertarianism. (yeah I know)

Your thoughts?

Lol you described pretty dang close to my political feelings. I really have an emphasis on moderation despite being pretty much right aligned with most of what you said. I super disagree with unequal voting though. I think that people who are super conservative or liberal are way too caught up in one side. I think a good way to represent more views is to adopt ranked choice voting like some other countries have.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You also forget that there was no income taxes back then. So if we revert to 1791 type government there will be a huge amount of income immediately avaliable or very soon after for those living paycheck to paycheck.

Well, that's not going to happen. You're talking about 200 years in the past, not things as they are today.

 

[jake blue]

I don't think pining for the past is the answer. For one thing, it wasn't all as rosy as our halcyon-clouded memories make it out to be. But more importantly, the past is exactly how we ended up precisely where we are now so there's no reason to believe hitting some mythical historical reset button is going to result in any other outcome than we have already. And to the argument that we as a collective would make different (better? wiser?) choices to affect a more successful future, I'll just point out that we're at this moment reliving both the 1970s AND the 1940s simultaneously.

If anyone here isn't old enough to remember the 1970s, specifically the Carter administration, it was a time of runaway inflation, the gas crisis, shortages and unemployment. It was a milquetoast democrat president who had no diplomatic backbone and gave rise to the terrorists we've had to spend most of the 21st century combating.

And as for the 1940s, well Putin is just the Hitler of the 21st century. His motives aside, it's already been revealed he's not stopping at Ukraine and we're taking the same backseat diplomacy position we did back then right up until we're personally attacked and forced to join the fight except I have zero confidence in our current military readiness.

My point in bringing both of those up is that we're horribly prone to repeating history so hitting the reset button to return to 'the good old days' when the constitution was young is unlikely to produce any other result than the one we find ourselves in already. I can see using the framework and intention of our forefathers as a blueprint for something new but it has to be something new, not recycled.

Just my $0.02

 

[DadSmith]

Well, that's not going to happen. You're talking about 200 years in the past, not things as they are today.

This thread basically ask what your political beliefs are doesn't say it has to be realistic

 

[ditcherman]

I think I would support military service or certain civil service as a prerequisite for voting right. If you have no skin in the game why should you get a say?

I know I’m really late to the party, but just wanted to mention that the landowners have decided to hoard all the food until you change your mind.
This is why the conversation turned to pie earlier, and will turn to PUDC or pizza sooner or later.
Your move.

 

[jamil]

What I have resolved...we shouldn't all be voting equally, that much I'm sure of. I'm 100% against pure unfiltered democracy.

Lol you described pretty dang close to my political feelings. I really have an emphasis on moderation despite being pretty much right aligned with most of what you said. I super disagree with unequal voting though. I think that people who are super conservative or liberal are way too caught up in one side. I think a good way to represent more views is to adopt ranked choice voting like some other countries have.

I'm more interested in the part about how to vote. But first, it looks to me like breakingcontact is talking about "pure" democracy where people vote directly on policies. That would be disasterous. I think a representative democracy is way better than pure democracy. So I think the ideal system is still a representative democracy where the people have some say in who sets policy. I'd still keep the idea of federalism, so we'd still have states that have a high degree of sovereignty where there is a clearly defined distinction between the roles of federal, state, and local governments where the most power is closest to the people.

I'd still keep the idea of the branches of government but change the constitution to make a clearer distinction. No more delegating congressional lawmaking to the executive branch. No more judicial activists legislating from the bench. And absolutely no crony relationships between government and businesses. No using corporations to act as agents of the government.

There'd still be a POTUS/VPOTUS. Maybe the VPOTUS should be an elected position separately from the POTUS and that role would ideally be more adversarial to the POTUS. A watchdog of sorts?

I think elections would all be ranked choice, local, state, federal. Local and state are pretty straightforward. Federal a little more complicated. State and local elections probably would not require a primary. Candidates run during campaign season, and then we rank-order our choices and top ranked wins.

For federal we still need to keep something close to the electoral college, where it is essentially the states that chose the president through ranked-order voting within the state. But federal presidential candidates would probably be too numerous for ranked order voting. Too likely that no one candiate would have the consensus of the people. So I think a primary system different from the one we have now would be appropriate.

First, all primaries would happen on the same day. All the presidential candidates would run in the primary against each other, in each state, to vie for a spot in the general election regardless of party. Maybe take the top few to go on to run in the general election. Then the pop ranked candidate in each state wins that state's electors. And the one to get the most electoral votes wins the presidency. Maybe 2nd place becomes VPOTUS. Or maybe that's a separate election altogether. But no more running mates. The VPOTUS office is a placeholder for noteriety in future elections and not a lot more than that.

 

[jamil]

This thread basically ask what your political beliefs are doesn't say it has to be realistic

sure, but it's also fair in such a discussion to point out the flaws. Aren't these kinds of discussions about trying to build good ideas? We can take the good parts of ideas and build on them with other good parts.

 

[Wolfhound]

It’s already been expressed in one way or another but I would prefer a true constitutional Republic as the founders drew up over 200 years ago. Most of the power staying with the states and not with the Federal Government. I see weakening the Federal Government as a good thing, it has grown too big and bloated. But not weakening our military to the point China or Russia could come here and @&tch slap us anytime they want. Just my two cents without writing a book on the subject.

 

[DadSmith]

It’s already been expressed in one way or another but I would prefer a true constitutional Republic as the founders drew up over 200 years ago. Most of the power staying with the states and not with the Federal Government. I see weakening the Federal Government as a good thing, it has grown too big and bloated. But not weakening our military to the point China or Russia could come here and @&tch slap us anytime they want. Just my two cents without writing a book on the subject.

Marines, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, possibly Space Force. The rest can be called up and trained as needed when needed.

 

[scout5]

1 There is no such thing as a free lunch.
2 Your rights end where another man’s begins.

If these principles are applied decisions become clearer.

 

[tim87tr]

Anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You might be familiar with Doug Casey. That's his foundational outlook and the discussions are interesting. I've listened to many on YouTube.

https://youtube.com/c/DougCaseysTake

 

[BigRed]

You might be familiar with Doug Casey. That's his foundational outlook and the discussions are interesting. I've listened to many on YouTube.

https://youtube.com/c/DougCaseysTake

I am not....thanks for passing along.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I had a thought occur to me today. I saw a few people in this thread suggesting that voting be restricted to those who own property, with the idea being that it would restrict voting to those who have something invested in society, or have some "skin in the game", so to speak. While I didn't agree with the idea, mostly because, as others pointed out, owning property isn't the only indicator of being invested in society, it did get me thinking a lot.

So, the idea that came to me randomly today, was: what if we went with a sort of tiered voting system, based on age? When you turn 18, you can vote in local elections; at 25, state elections, and at 35, federal elections, or something like that. I think this would have several advantages.

The city government, ideally, would be the one with the most say in "practical" matters that affect your day-to-day life, so it's fair that once you come of age you should have a say in that. But moving on to state, and then on to federal, the decisions (at least, in a society with properly distributed power structures) are moving further away from ones that affect your everyday life, and are more mature, long term decisions, that shape the direction the country heads, and require a lot more thought and experience, like going to war, trade with other nations, immigration, etc.

I feel like a big problem in our country is a lack of investment when it comes to local governments; the vast majority don't know and don't care what their city/county government is doing, and thus they are much more comfortable with state government usurping powers that should have been left to local governments, and by the same idea, with federal government usurping powers that should have been left to the states. By making a portion of the population be necessarily more invested in what their local government is doing, I feel like we would have a much stronger check in place against centralization.

Another thing; as a general rule, as people age they become more mature, and also more invested in society, and start to think less about how they can game the system to benefit them, and more about how their decisions will affect their children. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to this; many only grow in greed and ambition with their growing years, and many become disillusioned and disgruntled and care less and less about society as time goes on, but I feel like these are just exceptions to the general rule.

I'm sure there'd be some potential downsides to something like this, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Just thinking out loud right now, mostly. Am curious as to others' thoughts...

 

[Shadow01]

I think the US was established with about as good of a system as is possible. We just corrupted it by giving far too many people the ability to vote, which the system wasn't designed for. If we wanted to let everyone vote, we need a different system more resistant to the mob.

Economically, I think there's things that could provide for a self regulating system that would keep most people happy. The downside is that it'd require an expansion of the state, but I also think that could be managed by the above.

In my opinion, rather than regulations on the economy, the government should run a public alternative that competes with free market options. By tweaking the costs and options provided under the public alternative, you could steer the private market without regulation getting in the way. This is a far more hands-off method of keeping things from getting out of control, and utilizing the natural self-optimizing nature of the free market. Of course this requires being ran in a good-faith method and not being politically weaponized, but if we're talking about ideal systems we can acknowledge things might not be as fleshed out as necessary to work in reality.

An example would be opening up medicare for anyone to buy a plan from. Keep rates and coverage competitive with private alternatives, and tweak them as necessary to reflect desired outcomes. You can leverage this to keep private market rates from exploding, rather than slapping them over the head with regulations.

You need representation with morals. That no longer exists in our government.

 

[jamil]

I had a thought occur to me today. I saw a few people in this thread suggesting that voting be restricted to those who own property, with the idea being that it would restrict voting to those who have something invested in society, or have some "skin in the game", so to speak. While I didn't agree with the idea, mostly because, as others pointed out, owning property isn't the only indicator of being invested in society, it did get me thinking a lot.

So, the idea that came to me randomly today, was: what if we went with a sort of tiered voting system, based on age? When you turn 18, you can vote in local elections; at 25, state elections, and at 35, federal elections, or something like that. I think this would have several advantages.

The city government, ideally, would be the one with the most say in "practical" matters that affect your day-to-day life, so it's fair that once you come of age you should have a say in that. But moving on to state, and then on to federal, the decisions (at least, in a society with properly distributed power structures) are moving further away from ones that affect your everyday life, and are more mature, long term decisions, that shape the direction the country heads, and require a lot more thought and experience, like going to war, trade with other nations, immigration, etc.

I feel like a big problem in our country is a lack of investment when it comes to local governments; the vast majority don't know and don't care what their city/county government is doing, and thus they are much more comfortable with state government usurping powers that should have been left to local governments, and by the same idea, with federal government usurping powers that should have been left to the states. By making a portion of the population be necessarily more invested in what their local government is doing, I feel like we would have a much stronger check in place against centralization.

Another thing; as a general rule, as people age they become more mature, and also more invested in society, and start to think less about how they can game the system to benefit them, and more about how their decisions will affect their children. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to this; many only grow in greed and ambition with their growing years, and many become disillusioned and disgruntled and care less and less about society as time goes on, but I feel like these are just exceptions to the general rule.

I'm sure there'd be some potential downsides to something like this, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Just thinking out loud right now, mostly. Am curious as to others' thoughts...

I think in a free society, being ruled by laws is the only skin necessary to have a right to vote for representation. That is a fundamental right. But, I think in terms of taxes and how they're spent, I don't think that's as true, theoretically. If someone pays no taxes, how is it fair that that person has the same say in how much of other people's money goes into their own pocket? I don't think that's fair.

So I'd rather have a different tax structure. There is laid out in the federal and state constitutions the legitimate functions of government. That amount of government has a cost. So we'll call that the cost of basic government. So we'd need to raise taxes to pay for just that, separately from any other part of government. Social programs, for example, would not be included in that. National defense, law enforcement, justice system, employment necessary for basic government, etcetera, would be part of the basic government cost. If you want to fund something beyond that, you'd have to pay extra on your tax bill for it. So this is a new kind of voting, but with your wallet.

So one idea for funding basic government would be a mandatory flat income tax, no deductions or exemptions. Simple percentage of how much you earned. You pay your taxes monthly. No payroll deductions allowed. You write a check for the tax bill so that you feel every penny of your hard earned money leaving your soul to fund the government.

To fund more than cost of basic government, on your tax bill you can check boxes, and write in the amount you're including for all the other programs you want to fund. You think the government should provide welfare? You check that box and fill in how much of your money you want to fund it. You think Big Oil needs subsidies? Check the box. You think Elon Musk needs that money to help people pay for his cars, you check that box and pony up.

But, now I'm thinking that it might be better to have something like a vat tax for funding basic government, and then you have to pay the government money to fund that program. That solves two things that might be wrong with the original idea. One, everyone who buys anything would be paying to fund the basic government. Two, it takes extra thought to decide to write a check (or pay with cc) to volunteer your money to go to some government program. It's kinda like the idea of charity. You really have to think about paying for research on aborted fetal cells to decide to go get your checkbook and write that check. But I suppose you'd get spam in your email from the government asking you to click the convenient link to pay online.

 

[ditcherman]

I think in a free society, being ruled by laws is the only skin necessary to have a right to vote for representation. That is a fundamental right. But, I think in terms of taxes and how they're spent, I don't think that's as true, theoretically. If someone pays no taxes, how is it fair that that person has the same say in how much of other people's money goes into their own pocket? I don't think that's fair.

So I'd rather have a different tax structure. There is laid out in the federal and state constitutions the legitimate functions of government. That amount of government has a cost. So we'll call that the cost of basic government. So we'd need to raise taxes to pay for just that, separately from any other part of government. Social programs, for example, would not be included in that. National defense, law enforcement, justice system, employment necessary for basic government, etcetera, would be part of the basic government cost. If you want to fund something beyond that, you'd have to pay extra on your tax bill for it. So this is a new kind of voting, but with your wallet.

So one idea for funding basic government would be a mandatory flat income tax, no deductions or exemptions. Simple percentage of how much you earned. You pay your taxes monthly. No payroll deductions allowed. You write a check for the tax bill so that you feel every penny of your hard earned money leaving your soul to fund the government.

To fund more than cost of basic government, on your tax bill you can check boxes, and write in the amount you're including for all the other programs you want to fund. You think the government should provide welfare? You check that box and fill in how much of your money you want to fund it. You think Big Oil needs subsidies? Check the box. You think Elon Musk needs that money to help people pay for his cars, you check that box and pony up.

But, now I'm thinking that it might be better to have something like a vat tax for funding basic government, and then you have to pay the government money to fund that program. That solves two things that might be wrong with the original idea. One, everyone who buys anything would be paying to fund the basic government. Two, it takes extra thought to decide to write a check (or pay with cc) to volunteer your money to go to some government program. It's kinda like the idea of charity. You really have to think about paying for research on aborted fetal cells to decide to go get your checkbook and write that check. But I suppose you'd get spam in your email from the government asking you to click the convenient link to pay online.

Can you even imagine the spam?!?

In your flat tax scenario, when people say no deductions, I assume everything trickles down to the individual? How does that work, when someone says “no deductions”, when I’m handling 3 million dollars but just making a living, with 2.94 million in expenses? If I’m paying tax on that, well we’re shuttin’ her down boys. No drain tile or corn for you!
Is a business not taxed?

 

[wtburnette]

Can you even imagine the spam?!?

In your flat tax scenario, when people say no deductions, I assume everything trickles down to the individual? How does that work, when someone says “no deductions”, when I’m handling 3 million dollars but just making a living, with 2.94 million in expenses? If I’m paying tax on that, well we’re shuttin’ her down boys. No drain tile or corn for you!
Is a business not taxed?

I don't understand your question in regards to individual taxes. Under a flat tax, everything is based on purchases. You pay tax on what your buy, instead of being taxed on income, property, etc. No need for deductions under such a scenario. Also gets rid of loopholes and things like that. Everyone pays when they buy stuff, even drug dealers, pimps and people who get their incomes under the table. At least this is the flat tax I've heard of and agree with, not certain if that's what jamil was referring to.

 

[ditcherman]

I don't understand your question in regards to individual taxes. Under a flat tax, everything is based on purchases. You pay tax on what your buy, instead of being taxed on income, property, etc. No need for deductions under such a scenario. Also gets rid of loopholes and things like that. Everyone pays when they buy stuff, even drug dealers, pimps and people who get their incomes under the table. At least this is the flat tax I've heard of and agree with, not certain if that's what jamil was referring to.

It just seems to me that because I’m spending 2.94 million on fertilizer, seed, and drain tile, my tax bill would go way up. I’m obviously not making lawyer money here, and I feel my tax should be based on my personal income; if a flat tax scenario the 60k I’m living on to buy groceries and guns gets taxed. (if I had as many boats as Houghmade and Kirk then my taxes would be higher)
If I and every other business are paying the same rate on inputs to make a widget as the consumer is to buy toilet paper, I’m not very motivated.
What am I missing?

 

[wtburnette]

TBH I have no idea how the business side of it works. I'm assuming you're talking about spending that money as a business, or farmer, or something along those lines. I don't know how that would be done.

The problem I have with income tax is that it's tied to things like tax code and bureaucracy like the IRS, neither of which is needed. We should be able to simplify things to where we not only have taxes coming out of our paychecks, but we can better control our portion of taxes. Flat tax on the individual does that as any discretionary spending controls your contribution to taxes. The essentials you need to pay for, but anything over that you have more control over. Plus it provides a more level playing field. You don't get people with huge incomes paying attorneys and tax consultants to find loopholes to avoid paying taxes. You pay when you buy stuff, ensuring everyone is paying their "fair share". Like I said, even the pimps, drug dealers and illegal aliens would then be paying into the system their taking advantage of.

 

[jamil]

Can you even imagine the spam?!?

In your flat tax scenario, when people say no deductions, I assume everything trickles down to the individual? How does that work, when someone says “no deductions”, when I’m handling 3 million dollars but just making a living, with 2.94 million in expenses? If I’m paying tax on that, well we’re shuttin’ her down boys. No drain tile or corn for you!
Is a business not taxed?

Well, yeah, like I said, we'd probably be bombarded with spam, not just from Anthony Fauci begging for money to fund gain of function research, but every dot org with a cause. This is why they invented spam filters.

Anyway, yes, for individuals on payroll, it's income. For self-employed, or business income it's a flat tax on profit. So income - expenses. When I say no deductions, I mean like, individuals won't get deductions for interest on home mortgages, charitable donations, etcetera. For income earned by self-employment/business, it has to be more complicated than just a payroll check. Obviously when explaining the general concept I can't get into every detail. I assume people would infer that "flat tax" means something a bit different depending on the source of your income.

But regardless, as I said, I'm now more fond of the VAT to pay for basic government. And even that's only just over and above revenues from other sources like tariffs, and various fees, etcetera.