Discussion inevitably turns to food
Apparently this thread has run its course
I think we could do worse than a system centered on the importance of personal honor and integrity in all things, so Bushido
View attachment 198532
"Bushido is all very well in its way, but it is no match for a 30-06." -- Jeff Cooper
The issue with citizenship upon birth is the assumption that it validates the parents legality to stay. The child can stay alone as a foster or the parents can return to their native home with child and that child can return here upon its 18th birthday. All choices made by the parent.I was working, and wanted to think on this thread's topic for a bit before I blathered.
I believe a Republic of Republics is still this Nation's best form of government, and is the closest to my ideal. I still strongly believe that our Founding Fathers hit a home run with the Constitution. There have been some needed corrections, clarifications, and some amendments I would consider missteps; but overall I believe the document has served myself and this Nation well.
I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. By this, I mean our Nation's Constitution does not need replaced, but I do think there needs to be another comprehensive Amendment, similar to the 14th.
It is my belief that corporations, in the context of today, simply did not exist in a form which would have allowed those who framed the Constitution to recognize their potential threats. Also, those original founders did not exist in a world of fiat currency and financial and economic recklessness. Such behaviour had dire, direct, and personal effects (like you starved or ended up in debtors prison).
As I have "matured" I have applied root cause analysis to what I see as the ills and failings of our Nation in its current form. Out of that RCA, I began drafting the notional "28th Amendment" below.
There is a reason for each element, but together I believe they would help to curtail the worst excesses of the current federal structure. It is my sincere belief that within a generation of ratification this Nation would look more like pre-1860 in its governance, than what it does today.
"Amendment XXVIIIThe United States government may only raise revenue from the citizens and residents of the United States by one means. That means must be equally apportioned to each citizen by equal amounts per divisions of one hundred. It shall be permissible to set a floor or threshold such that citizens with means below the threshold are not compelled to contribute to the Nation's revenue. No citizen shall be afforded methods to reduce their burden to the revenue of the United States relative to other citizens. The XVI Amendment is revoked four years from the date of ratification of this Amendment. No other tax, fee, charge, or any other method of raising revenue from a citizen or resident of these United States shall be permissible four years after ratification of this Amendment.All citizens and lawful residents are members of the militia, whether organized or unorganized.The rights of citizens shall only be afforded to natural persons. No organization, corporation, or collective shall be afforded the rights guaranteed by this Constitution to it's citizens, nor shall they be compelled to collect or contribute revenue to the National government. No organization, corporation, or collective is permitted to contribute to a candidate for office, or lobby or otherwise seek to influence an elected or administrative official.No person may be paid from the Treasury of the United States, directly or indirectly, for a total exceeding twenty-five years excepting years in military service.All laws shall be stricken from the laws and code of these United States one hundred years after the law was passed by the House and Senate and presented too the President. Any law to be reinstated must be again debated and amended in accordance with the rules of each house in effect at the time of debate. Those laws which would be stricken upon ratification of this Amendment may remain in place until twenty-five years from the date of ratification of this Amendment.The President of the United States may strike from any legislation presented for signature any passage or portion of the legislation. The Congress may override such a change in accordance with Article I section 7 of this Constitution.Proposed legislation presented for debate in the House or Senate may not aggregate dissimilar legislative purposes.A Representative or Senator who votes upon legislation and has not read and comprehended such legislation, shall have committed a breach of the public trust.A felony shall only apply to those convicted of treason, the taking of another's life, violent assault resulting in bodily injury, sexual assault, and for those paid from the Treasury of the United States breach of the public trust. No citizen may be deprived of the rights guaranteed by this Constitution upon completion of the sentence imposed by a court of law. Hard labor nor capital punishment shall be construed as cruel or unusual punishment; upon conviction by a jury of the defendant's peers.No citizen or resident of these United States shall be deprived of property, possessions, or assets except as a condition of a sentence imposed by a court of law after trial. In all cases property confiscated or forfeited shall be remunerated to the Treasury Department and applied to the debts of the Nation.The government of these United States may only empower one agency or department of the government with powers to enforce the laws of the United States. Such department shall operate under the oversight of the Congress, but the highest official shall be appointed by the President for a period of not less than six years and not more than ten years. No State may be compelled to enforce the laws of the United States on its behalf. This provision shall be in effect from two years after the ratification of this Amendment.The government of these United States is prohibited from favoring one citizen over another for any reason in law, regulation or policy or by action. Nor shall the government of these United States disenfranchise or discriminate against one citizen over another for any reason in law, regulation or policy or by action."The above is a work in progress. I am still striving to develop something to amend section 1 of the 14th amendment. I am not convinced being born upon U.S. territory should be enough alone to make you a citizen. I am also increasingly of the opinion that just being 18 years of age is enough to vote. Personally, on the latter issue, I am leaning toward 17 years (ascention to the unorganized militia) AND have been or be in the service of the Nation; or 21 years of age.
It wouldn't be a bad thing at all, IF the people actually elected the candidates based on the character and views of the candidate themselves. These days, people "pull the lever" for a party, not a person. I think 12th is effectively meaningless at this point.The twelfth amendment should be repealed. It changed the way the President and Vice-President were chosen. I don't necessarily see having them from different parties as a bad thing.
Cute and witty, but a horrible idea even in concept. First, no inteligent rational person would want the job, and we're left with even worse idiots than we have now. Second, this would be a constant campaign circus. Solution along this ideal only amplify what's wrong now.I like the form of government we have now with one caveat, you volunteer for the office and we vote quarterly to either keep you or vote you out. Being voted out means that you will be hanged the following Sunday after church on the federal building steps. To avoid being hanged you can resign ahead of the quarterly vote.
I feel like we have that now anyways!Cute and witty, but a horrible idea even in concept. First, no inteligent rational person would want the job, and we're left with even worse idiots than we have now. Second, this would be a constant campaign circus. Solution along this ideal only amplify what's wrong now.
I once dreamed up an idea for voting power. I can't remember the details but it went something like this:I'm actually surprised to realize that this makes perfect sense to me. Only landowners, that is, those with everything to lose, get to vote. Earmarks, handouts and pork spending would end overnight. This makes me happy.
Basically meritocracyI once dreamed up an idea for voting power. I can't remember the details but it went something like this:
Citizen over the age of 18: + 1 vote. Everyone lives with the system, everyone gets a vote.
Over the age of 40: + 1 vote. More life experience and more familiarity with the system.
Military service: +3 votes. Subordinate your rights, "Write a blank check" for your life, learn accountability to the group.
Other qualified service: +1 vote. This if for those who serve, but not military. BIG restrictions on what counts as service.
Employed and paying taxes: +1 vote. You're being productive, and paying in. Amount is not considered.
Education (some test for basic economics, law, govt, etc.) +1 vote. Balances idiots who don't understand the issues.
Own a business with X employees: +1 vote. Providing jobs for others, pay additional taxes, and understand budgets.
Receiving certain benefits: - 1 vote. Help for those in need is good. Voting to help yourself is not. Sacrifice for benifits recieved.
Conviction for XYZ crimes: -X vote for Y time. No voting on the rules you won't follow. Reduces pandering for criminal votes.
There were a few more things on my original list, but it capped at 10 votes. Certainly not a matured idea. Implementation/security gets complicated, but doable.
The general principle was that: 1.) Everyone should get a vote; 2.) Those that contribute nothing are not equal to those that do; and, 3.) Those willing to sacrifice for the many deserve more influence.
And this view holds with history. Democracies often fall from internal corruption and bloat, not external invasion.He who governs least governs best. Minarchism
But it'll never happen. Instead our government will continue to grow larger and more authoritarian until everything eventually collapses. The only variable is timing, since it's pretty much inevitable. My hope is that the collapse won't be in my lifetime, but it's anyone's guess.
I like what your thinking. However, IF you hold that the job of the legislators is to look after the interests of the citizens, THEN they can regulate the crony capitalism and keep it in check. The problem is when they don't serve the citizenry, and that's the core of all of this.Best? I think what we have is pretty good, at least in terms of what the US constitution describes. But, if I were to criticize what we have I would say the US constitution doesn’t protect against crony capitalism enough.
Without more specifics, it's hard to tell exactly what you're proposing, but with that being said...I like what your thinking. However, IF you hold that the job of the legislators is to look after the interests of the citizens, THEN they can regulate the crony capitalism and keep it in check. The problem is when they don't serve the citizenry, and that's the core of all of this.
Example: Predatory lending. I believe Banks can do what they want with their money; and people can enter into any deal they want - even stupid ones. However, average citizens don't have equal understanding, information, and resources regarding loans. Lending becomes predatory, the game gets rigged in favor of the banks, and people and the economy are harmed for the banks benefit. It's a corrupt game against citizens.
Now consider that: 1.) a primary duty of the legislature is to protect citizens; and, 2.) Banks ARE NOT CITIZENS. (They serve citizens, they employ citizens, but they are not citizens.) If legislators could keep there focus on these two simple facts, AND they had a sense of duty - a desire to do there real job - then they could make laws that even the playing field. It is well within the bounds of our constitutions for them to protect against the dark side of capitalism. They just don't do it.
Once again we come back to - The design of the system isn't the problem, it's the implementation and its corruption.
Kind of. More of a responsibilitocracy.Basically meritocracy
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?
Brother, I think I agree with you completely, and appreciate your response! I was only responding to the concern that "the US constitution doesn’t protect against crony capitalism enough" I embrace capitalism, but understand it's inherent dangers. The point I was hoping to make was just that it is well within the Constitution's bounds for the Government to establish rules to maintain a fair market. If they encounter delimas while doing this, the default is that they serve the citizens, and banks/businesses are not citizens.Without more specifics, it's hard to tell exactly what you're proposing, but with that being said...
I have a big problem when people start talking about it being the government's job to protect people from their own stupidity. If you're saying that the government should protect people against fraud by passing laws to prevent banks acting a deceptive/dishonest manner, fine. But if you make a law designed to prevent people who shouldn't take out loans from doing so, you've opened a big can of worms, because now it's the government's prerogative to decide whether or not you're ready to take out a loan, and not your decision anymore.