First Look at Unifying Theory

Ok, as you some of you know I was going to work on this over the weekend but after everything I've drawn up today I am leaving out some important stuff I'm sure. So, what follows is what I have so far and of course I can answer any questions and we can build from this together.

Unifying Theory

The goal is the decentralization of power. Removing the control of our destinies from the hands of the Federal Government and placing it back in the jurisdiction of the individual.

Due to the Corporatocracy that is birthing the rise of Corporate State it has become impossible to wrest our destinies from it's hands with out intervention by the People.

We all currently struggle against two masters:
The Federal Government which relies on an economical model, be that capitalism or socialism, to operate accordingly with it's wishes.
The economic model that relies on the Federal Government for regulatory control and as a tool of violence to ensure future profits at the expense of the working American.

An Economic Model

Something that can be agreed upon by Red and Blue alike, is that fiat currencies do not create healthy, free societies.

The centralization of wealth creates the centralization of power and vice versa.

Some socialists will argue that the power can be restored to the people by redistributing that wealth equally by taking collective control of, and responsibility for, the means of production. Some capitalists, in turn, argue that Federal involvement leads to mismanagement and an erosion of civil liberties by the "Governing Committee" as it has been historically shown to do.

While not being able to sway either side in their economical beliefs, it is possible for both to coexist because of the geographical and sociological nature of this great country.

The road to true equality, liberty, and freedom lies not in economic or political ideology, but in the destruction of fiat currencies and the reinterpretation of wealth. It is labor that is intrinsic to man and is inherent to ones own nature. It is labor that can not be stolen or devalued through taxation, speculation, and redistribution.

The Labor Dollar

Our currency, and therefore the nation, is controlled by private interests. There is no liberation to be found through more federal intervention as long as the concept of wealth is based on a flawed model.

Currency =/= Wealth.

Only by basing a currency on the action of creating the commodity, labor, are we able to hold true value in our hands.

One Labor dollar is produced for every hour of labor performed, as a standard. Although the exact rate of exchange for any given transaction can be decided by the parties themselves. Ensuring that only the very act of production is the only thing of intrinsic value.

Thus, the very need that exists in a market is the very point of job creation and the currency has true equality regardless of economic process across borders.

The Political System

- The Federal Government should only exist for Military and Foreign Policy needs.

- State level government is all that is required as a governing body.
-- Individual communities, themselves, determine the purposes warranted for the existence of the State level governing body as every State has different needs.
--- This Council will consist of elected members placed in a pool of available candidates to ensure representation and a check against power centralization that leads to tyranny of the minority.
-- All other circumstances requiring an appeal to higher governing authority are decided upon buy a council created via a raffle.

-Taxation is a necessary evil that must be collected to fund the operation of the State council and potential councils created as courts to hear grievances; however, all tax dollars gathered that remain in surplus must be returned to the tax payers at the end of the fiscal year in direct proportion to what was paid.
-- All tax payers have a right to withhold tax dollars from their governing bodies. They can not then engage in use of and tax dollar funded program, utility, or infrastructure without first paying an upkeep toll decided upon by that particular business or entity.

-The people, through their elected representatives, have the right to prevent the formation of monopolies and cap buy outs by any means possible to include violent action if necessary.
-- All corporate entities of bordering States and Internationally are considered foreign entities and subject to a punitive import tariff, be it the will of the people, to inhibit growth of monopolies, prevent outsourcing, and to ensure that all business is performed ethically, for the benefit of the people.
--- All monies generated by the punitive import tariff will be distributed to the people in which the business is operating to ensure the people at large maintain their buying power locally and can engage businesses of their choosing.


Ok, so that's what I got so far. Bring on the dancing girls.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

The Political System

- The Federal Government should only exist for Military and Foreign Policy needs.

- State level government is all that is required as a governing body.
-- Individual communities, themselves, determine the purposes warranted for the existence of the State level governing body as every State has different needs.
--- This Council will consist of elected members placed in a pool of available candidates to ensure representation and a check against power centralization that leads to tyranny of the minority.
-- All other circumstances requiring an appeal to higher governing authority are decided upon buy a council created via a raffle.

-Taxation is a necessary evil that must be collected to fund the operation of the State council and potential councils created as courts to hear grievances; however, all tax dollars gathered that remain in surplus must be returned to the tax payers at the end of the fiscal year in direct proportion to what was paid.
-- All tax payers have a right to withhold tax dollars from their governing bodies. They can not then engage in use of and tax dollar funded program, utility, or infrastructure without first paying an upkeep toll decided upon by that particular business or entity.

-The people, through their elected representatives, have the right to prevent the formation of monopolies and cap buy outs by any means possible to include violent action if necessary.
-- All corporate entities of bordering States and Internationally are considered foreign entities and subject to a punitive import tariff, be it the will of the people, to inhibit growth of monopolies, prevent outsourcing, and to ensure that all business is performed ethically, for the benefit of the people.
--- All monies generated by the punitive import tariff will be distributed to the people in which the business is operating to ensure the people at large maintain their buying power locally and can engage businesses of their choosing.


Ok, so that's what I got so far. Bring on the dancing girls.

edit on 10-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: Spelling, grammar

Your key talking points are outstanding. Everyone should take notes on the quoted text above as that is a good paper model of how a republic should work.

Give full control back to the people. At the local level people can govern themselves accordingly.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE BROUGHT BACK TO IT'S PRIMARY FUNCTIONS. No longer can we stand by and allow politicians systematically strip our rights until there is nothing left!

Your economic model and your Political system are dead on. BRAVO my friend.

It's my hope that we see more and more threads like this coming to light. This is the kind of constructive thinking we need to maintain in order to better our countries' situation. In doing this we will in effect also better the world at the same time. WELL DONE!!!

ED- Since our threads could practically go hand in hand I wanted to link this for any one interested: CLICK HERE: ATS

This is a shameless bump of a great OP.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum

This is a great start I am going to read it a few times this weekend and see what I can come up with if anything.

Thanks again.....


Tom

THis is a great outline of what we need and what is required of us to determine now before we get too far ahead of ourselves. It is important that we settle what reforms we want to take place, otherwise we will be shunned for being the typical loud and arrogant youth. We need to prove that we can change this country for the better, not just cripple government like any other anarchist movement. The last thing we want is for the media to gain any advantage on us simply because we asked for more than we could afford. You have to remember guys, that political reform = social reform = temporary economic collapse. Things like the looming depression, anarchical state, and domestic terrorism will be the sorts of things we will hear from the opposition about our movement if it were to gain any grounds.

We need a real plan. We need to divide the responsibility between us all so that we can each tackle certain aspects rather than everyone flooded with their work and Ideas on the same topic. For example, someone or a group of people who are learned or at least feels they know economics well should tackle economic reform. People who understand foreign policy, including international trade, should be able to come up with a plan that will allow the continuity of imports and exports, or be able to get us out of the entire trade for some time while remaining in a healthy diplomatic stance with other nations during the time of reforms. Anyone learned in the law must begin to investigate corruption at any level within the government and how we can remove the supreme court justices. The list goes on. The most important aspect of it all though is our ability to provide continuity of security and resources to the people. Because our government is a corporate fascist state, unless we can abolish the laws that are in favor of companies such as GE and Monsanto or Pfiezer, we will be jumping right into hell, because the government may not be there, but the companies will be, and so will the laws that restrict us from our freedoms and grants it all to them, and the law enforcement agencies whose duties are to uphold those laws, no matter how ridiculous they may be. See what I am getting at? There is a duality of power at play. We must be able to convince the people of america that they won't lose everything. We have to have the redemption plan.

Convincing law enforcement of our plan. That is our biggest struggle. We have to build this up locally, just as the opposition must break us down locally. Nothing worse could happen to a movement than the law enforcement cutting their legs off and the government locking their minds in double plated steel wall cages.

Originally posted by asperetty
THis is a great outline of what we need and what is required of us to determine now before we get too far ahead of ourselves. It is important that we settle what reforms we want to take place, otherwise we will be shunned for being the typical loud and arrogant youth.

I'm glad you think so and it is important that we accomplish that. Hence why I posted this here. I believe that the reforms themselves were outlined pretty clearly in the other thread.

We need to prove that we can change this country for the better, not just cripple government like any other anarchist movement.

Firstly, the beauty of what I outlined it is what you want to be. Anarchistic systems can coexist here with other systems. Government still exists and so it isn't total Anarchy but merely the restoration of individual liberty that allows you to live as you choose.

The last thing we want is for the media to gain any advantage on us simply because we asked for more than we could afford. You have to remember guys, that political reform = social reform = temporary economic collapse. Things like the looming depression, anarchical state, and domestic terrorism will be the sorts of things we will hear from the opposition about our movement if it were to gain any grounds.

One, we are already going to experience economic collapse if we take no action at all.
Two, the monetary system I propose has been proven to work. see: Ithica, New York.
Three, the political reform will bring about social reform naturally, as that is the natural course of change.
Four, the MSM is already going to paint us as dissident regardless of what we posit, I have a contingency plan for that as well.

We need a real plan. We need to divide the responsibility between us all so that we can each tackle certain aspects rather than everyone flooded with their work and Ideas on the same topic. For example, someone or a group of people who are learned or at least feels they know economics well should tackle economic reform. People who understand foreign policy, including international trade, should be able to come up with a plan that will allow the continuity of imports and exports, or be able to get us out of the entire trade for some time while remaining in a healthy diplomatic stance with other nations during the time of reforms. Anyone learned in the law must begin to investigate corruption at any level within the government and how we can remove the supreme court justices. The list goes on.

All of this is addressed in my OP. I've come up with this because it allows us to operate based on the knowledge of the people. We don't have to have all these specialists because they exist in the community and can iron that out on the fly. All that needs to be done is critiquing and getting people behind it.

What I have posited protects the local community and still allows business to operate. We can have a swift change with no loss in production and rebuild based on this faster than we ever could under our current economical system. I stand by that statement.

The most important aspect of it all though is our ability to provide continuity of security and resources to the people. Because our government is a corporate fascist state, unless we can abolish the laws that are in favor of companies such as GE and Monsanto or Pfiezer, we will be jumping right into hell, because the government may not be there, but the companies will be, and so will the laws that restrict us from our freedoms and grants it all to them, and the law enforcement agencies whose duties are to uphold those laws, no matter how ridiculous they may be. See what I am getting at? There is a duality of power at play. We must be able to convince the people of america that they won't lose everything. We have to have the redemption plan.

I've addressed all of the corporate issues as well. I've woven in checks to ensure that they have no power in the world we are talking about here.

As far as law enforcement, they are going to do what they are going to do. But, having worked as one, and knowing plenty, they are split on what to do. There are some that will avoid it. There are some that will join it. There are some that will do what they are paid to do.

As for the duality, I addressed that as well. The point that America has to understand, in my opinion, is not that they will lose everything, but that they have already lost it.

Convincing law enforcement of our plan. That is our biggest struggle. We have to build this up locally, just as the opposition must break us down locally. Nothing worse could happen to a movement than the law enforcement cutting their legs off and the government locking their minds in double plated steel wall cages.

I don't think you give our boys in blue enough credit. They see what's going just like you and I. They are citizens as well so lets give them a chance to get involved before we write them off.

F, F & S for you. Read it through, but have a tired mind and eyes, so need some time to read it more and think on it. Thanks for getting the ball rolling.

Exactly! I am down to help! I sent a PM to W3RLIED2. Oh but my little addition, don't call it the "youth" movement because you'll make many of us extremely useful thirty-somethings feel left out!

In my PM I also forgot to mention I used to be a cop and my parents are an assistant Attorney General and a corporate lawyer in addition to my other areas of "expertise". Let me know if I can help!

reply to post by Redwookieaz


Don't worry, It won't be called that if I have anything to say about it.

I'm glad you like what I've got so far. I'm working on more so i'll update as I go.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


Please do!
2nd line.

Education Reform?...:

The federal regulation and standardization of education must be dismantled. High tuition are not not necessary and are not reliable representation of good education. A high school graduate whose family lives from paycheck to paycheck should not have to place themselves at the risk of debt to afford a good collegiate education, or any good education for that matter, and there should be no sacrifice of that higher education because of the fear of debt. There should be a way for excellent education to be made available to all people from all incomes. Free public schools require standardization of education which prohibits the growth of the students according to the what the government has laid down as required, and it also requires a central regulatory oversight committees, as public schools are required to meet a quota for the government, and this does not boast well in terms of the integrity of the education, as students just become numbers required to obtain. On the other hand, a private school can adapt their educational standards to the amount of revenue they make directly from tuition, because their educational principles and standards are based off of their own philosophy and their own system. Therefore I think that privatization of schools offer not only competition between schools beyond football games, but also better prospects for the student and higher standards of education. This is my basic model of the education system:

From Preschool to twelfth grade, and possibly college, students will have to pay a percentage of the total family income based off of set percentage for defined income brackets, basically an education tax. An example is anyone making less than 45k is taxed 3%. that means they pay 1350$ per year for education. But a family that makes 90k is taxed 6%. That means they pay 5400$ per year, and this is the same throughout the 14 years of primary and secondary education. But the money from this tax does not go to the government. This is the tuition fee for the school itself. This is the revenue for the school. THe only role that a government would have in this set up, is that it pass federal legislation that this be the norm for education fees.

Rather than being charged a flat 10k to attend a nice private high school, your tuition is based off of what you and your family are earning. So if your family is making 60,000 $ per year, and say federal stature required that for this income bracket of total income you pay 5% of your income per year, that means your fees per year would come to 3000$. Now i know what you are thinking, that is a crapload of money being lost. How would the school fund its own operation, its own foundations, its own insittutions, its own research, etc. That is the responsibility of our tax dollars to the federal or state govt. But I will get into that later.

So how is this any better than what we have? How is taxing us for education any good at all? Why should a person making 100k per year have to pay, if there was a 6% tax for that income bracket, 6000 dollars for their three year old to go to preschool, when someone making 10k pays 600$? Well to be honest, what is being asked here is a change of values. One has to see the importance of their childs education as well as their neighbor's child's education, and the importance of the excellence of the education, the quality of the teachers, and then you can understand why you pay so much.

So for the moment, believe that your values have changed. Now the free market aspect of the education system takes place.

Just like any competing businesses, the schools will also be competing against each other for their share of consumers. How do schools compete? It is based solely off of the quality of the education they provide. If the schools are churning out a high rate of bright respectable and successful children, that is going to attract the attention of parents who are looking for a good school for their children, and since all education will be made affordable, no matter how prestigious the school may be, the child will be able to go, which is good for the student, the parent, and the school. The better the education, the more people will want to send their child there, and the more children that go, the more money they make, and this allows the school to expand and progress as an institution and offer even better education by offering higher salaries to even more qualified teachers so that those teachers can churn out better students and the cycle just continues. offer better education, acquire more students, receive more money, higher better teachers, offer better education, acquire more students, receive more money. The entire system revolves around how good the education is being offered, just like a University will cost more because of its highly regarded professors and curriculum and courses offered, except, anyone will be able to attend so long as they are intellectually capable of passing each year by taking certain exams and proficiency tests and all that, no different from how it is now.

The only difference is that you now have to earn your education. You can't just buy it, you can't sleep through it, and you can't borrow it. And there is nothing there to stop you from getting the best education you can except yourself, because the value of education remains the same everywhere, and only the quality can vary. But you will know which institution provides the best education based on the amount of the students that attend, because the school that has the highest percentage of first rate students will be the most desired. Its not a matter of social class, where the rich can afford these amazing private schools in the foothills of Aspen and where the 1st grade teachers are Nobel laureates, but the poor are stuck at worthless public schools that are falling apart due to the lack of funding. Both can share the same school and the same great education and both are allowed the same opportunities. It all just depends on the intellect of the student, and if they can take advantage of their opportunity.

The idea is such an elementary program. The better the education means the more students which results in the more revenue which is used for the better the education. Its simple economics. Every school will survive, because they will take in only enough revenue to support their institution always, unless people stop going there. It just depends on how valuable their institution is to begin with, and how valuable it can become. If the education sucks, if there is another school on the other side of the city with much better education, then everyone will go there, and that bad school will close down.

And the idea is that the school is concerned primarily with quality education. The government is concerned with the progress of the country scientifically. So just like the government offers grants to students now, well instead they will offer grants to schools, like they do currently even, but because education is now affordable to everyone, no one requires financial aid from the government, so the government can use that money that would have been in the hundreds of millions, possibly billions, and gift that directly to the betterment of the schools that deserve it. Now these grants are like a prize, and they go to the best of the best of the educational institutions. These grants are part of what the schools compete for, because these grants are the like the huge bonus at the end of the year. Like CEO's get million dollar bonuses, so will the schools, based off the amount of successful and highly rated graduates per year. These grants are to be used for institutional development only, such as for funding research and innovation. Salary raises for the staff of the schools rises alongside the amount the school makes directly from tuition. so then, when a school gets more grants, that signifies it has better education, which attracts even more students, which is an incentive for teachers to work harder at their job, because they get better facilities and raises.

This rating of students would be determined by specified examinations and it would be based on something similar to the GPA. These exams would have be based off of a core curriculum that all schools are required to teach, that consists of Mathematics, Sciences, English/Literatures, Civics, History etc...all in all the same subjects you take in high school that is necessary for a citizen of that country to learn in order to be a success in the world. There will always be a core curriculum, but any courses or subjects that go beyond that, or even how the core curriculum is taught, is based off of, of course, the quality of the teachers and what the school can afford and the philosophy of the school, and what the school can afford is directly synchronous to the quality of the teachers, and what the school offers is part of the school's uniqueness, and is part of the incentive to attend.

Teacher salaries are set upon hiring as agreed upon between both parties, and the rate of increase in salary or decrease in salary is based on negotiations between the teacher and the school, and so if the teacher is ever unhappy with their pay or are getting better offers from other schools, they can leave once their present school can find a replacement. Teachers will have their own stats and ratings so that schools can keep track of the higher quality teachers and they can compete over that teacher. This way, a teacher always has motivation to work harder.

This system is one based off a triangle of success. If the students succeed, the school succeeds, and the teachers succeed, and it goes on. Unlike a public school, there is no quota that needs to be achieved because they are gaining their funds directly from tuition, and normal operation is provided by government distribution of taxes, such as for maintaining the utilities and upkeep of the structure and premises. Better education is the only thing they strive for, because if they can accomplish that, the institution will be rewarded and they can continue to innovate and expand and grow. Of course the brackets and percentages have to be settled to be more efficient and reasonable. but most of all peoples values need to change. Parents need to see the importance of education for everyone, and the quality of that education, and that it should be available to everyone, and that we all have our own duty to pay.

The best of the best should be available to everyone when it comes to education. This system actually inhibits the growth of the teaching profession, it makes the occupation of a teacher so much more valuable, so much more exciting, because you are compensated for your work accordingly to the quality of your work. everyone would want to be a teacher. you could make millions simply by being educated in the subject you love most and being able to teach it to someone else. just think, a land of rich scholars. it remind me of the argument that teachers should have the highest salaries. well i say, sure, if they can earn it. this system is all about that, earning and giving.

reply to post by asperetty


Firstly, what you have written there is good. The education system in America requires a drastic overhaul and I would even support this reform if you were running for an office.

Some things I would like to point though are that it is impossible to go into debt if we have a labor dollar. One must produce in order to consume, and so for every dollar spent one is created through the means of production. When schools can only make money dependent upon what they produce, they in kind will have to reform.

I wish you would have asked me about it to save yourself some key strokes there, but what you have created many people may agree with. That isn't a problem. I don't believe we require any federal level oversight of our education system. The individual States can decide for themselves what works best and the best way to implement that, just as you have done with your fine post so others can do. We don't need a "Big Brother Ministry of Education" you as a person and us as the people will do just fine with out it.

I posit that the State can decide what is necessary and if wanting to engage in an education standard with other states need only create the necessary council and negotiate with the other representatives of the nation. This way college dollars can not be abused by a Federal entity, similar to Social Security now, and other people have room for their own alternatives which may be appropriate for their own specific circumstance.

What you have written is good, it's just that others may not agree, and that's ok. That's why in my OP I attempted to create a way for you to have your system the way you want it and others can have theirs and the people have the ability to choose for themselves. Eventually the most successful system will win out over all and will be adopted across the board, but lets not stifle the ideas of others that we may be unable to see from our point of view just because we think this idea will be successful.

In short, your State can do it your way, California can do it another, Arkansas another, etc. It is through diversity that we will grow faster and and stronger, like you said, competition is good.

What do you think?

Oh most assuredly. It does not have to be federally mandated. My point was that the only role that any governing body would play in the education system would be to decide the percentage of tax per income bracket and the income brackets themselves. As the progression and development of the nation depends upon its innovative capabilities, the federal or state government has a responsibility to promote that. With the system I propositioned, the amount of revenue that schools will make is really just incentive for its employees to work harder so that the school can be eligible or 'win' the state or federal grants towards research and development, as much of our innovation and discoveries happen in college labs, and in that, they and the students that attend not only prosper academically, but the attention it draws for being rewarded for their outstanding achievements, especially if consistent, only inspires better work from the employees and induces more parents to send their children to that school, which once again increases the revenue of the school so they can make their teachers happier and the cycle goes on.

Whether is be federal, state, or even municipal, I think that with a bit of refinement, this reform can change everything. It is competition for better education where the competition is determined on the level of sincerity of people. It brings out the best in the teachers, and hopefully that translates into the students as well.

I just thought I would mention this since we had economic and political reforms and such. Like I said in an earlier post, we can all take a specific branch that needs reform and work on new approaches and refine them until we get something real. So I mean, if this is going to be organized, sort of compartmentalized, I'm willing to tackle the issue of education, among all other things that I am willing to do for this movement. Cause think of the day we succeed, we are going to need solutions asap.

So far, I think what we have is pretty good.

Im afraid what we need most though, is judiciary reform, and I don't really know how to go about that unless we literally throw them out with our own hands. Supreme Court Justices are like the real gods of this country.


EDIT:

But I do want to add, that instead of saying violence, maybe say force? Just saying.

And also communications reforms are necessary, such as reinstating this one act, i forget the name, but it required equal representation on both sides of a debate when an issue is represented or discussed on radio or TV. That is a very important policy that should never have been removed. Because it had been, we have news channels like Fox, CNN, and NBC, which all lean in different directions.

But I think I am deviating too much. Right now we are just trying to limit the size of government, and give people and states their rights back.

Im not too well versed in this, but I have spoken to someone briefly that insisted that the Commerce Clause was necessary to abolish if states want their freedoms back.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.law.umkc.edu...

reply to post by asperetty


Ok, I see where you are going with this now. In the future I will forward all questions about education to you.

About the judiciary reform....

I posit that the people can form the councils required to pass laws for themselves. Creating their own social contracts. For instance, one state may wish to make something illegal while another doesn't. So, the people would merely pass laws via their elected officials through the system I proposed. When some one violate those laws, the elected members appoint judges as part of their term that will also fall under the same stipulations of only being able to serve for two four year terms. A maximum of 8 years. The jury is selected the same way it is now.

If the judges get out of hand, we the people still have the power to starve out the governing body by withholding taxes. That will sober up politicians real quick if some get any bright ideas.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


OK, but what would stop citizens from withholding their taxes regardless?

And these social contracts, isn't that actually what the original intent of the separate states were? To allow people to choose what is legal or not legal? I definitely can agree on that. THat's not even something to theorize about. That's just the way its supposed to be.

Its quite simple too. States are already divided into Counties, which are a collection of municipalities. The people of each individual municipality will vote for their city council, such as the mayor and the deputy treasurer and all those silly little hometown political seats. Those people hold their office in 2 year terms, with the maximum years being 6. Now what you put forth is basically the same as a state legislature. Yes, this is necessary, and we already have it, but for some reason we never hear a thing about them, only their proposition 1, 2, and 3's. So this is what i think. Since the state is already cut up into counties/regions, all cities within that region can nominate someone from their own city council to run for a seat in the governing state council who will represent that county/region. It won't be required, but it will be promoted and supported. But if the city does not want to put up an official, or no one from the city wants to run, that is fine, that just means less to choose from.

Take for instance my county, the orange one, there are 35 cities, meaning 35 city councils. that means 35 possible choices to represent orange county in the state legislative body. every 2 years, there will be new elections for those county representative in the state governing body. the maximum that a single country rep can hold office is 2 years, with a max of 3 terms. And then of course, you have the figurehead of the state, the governor. I believe that there should be two, and these two take the place of the senators in congress. 1 stays in the state, while the other works in congress. both have 4 year terms, and 2 terms max. If the one in congress wants to pass a certain piece of federal legislation, he first has to gain the approval of the governor back at the state, who before he can offer an answer, must get a 2/3 majority approval in the state legislature. the point of having shorter terms for all the officials of the state is to maintain proper representation of all the constituents in their respective counties.

Its just like a pyramid scheme, with the top of the pyramid completely dependent upon the people at the bottom, and not the other way around.

Originally posted by asperetty
OK, but what would stop citizens from withholding their taxes regardless?

The same mechanisms that stop them from holding back now.

And these social contracts, isn't that actually what the original intent of the separate states were? To allow people to choose what is legal or not legal? I definitely can agree on that. THat's not even something to theorize about. That's just the way its supposed to be.

That's the beauty of it. But it sure sounds new, and people love new.

Its quite simple too. States are already divided into Counties, which are a collection of municipalities. The people of each individual municipality will vote for their city council, such as the mayor and the deputy treasurer and all those silly little hometown political seats. Those people hold their office in 2 year terms, with the maximum years being 6. Now what you put forth is basically the same as a state legislature. Yes, this is necessary, and we already have it, but for some reason we never hear a thing about them, only their proposition 1, 2, and 3's. So this is what i think. Since the state is already cut up into counties/regions, all cities within that region can nominate someone from their own city council to run for a seat in the governing state council who will represent that county/region. It won't be required, but it will be promoted and supported. But if the city does not want to put up an official, or no one from the city wants to run, that is fine, that just means less to choose from.

Fair enough. I actually like the 2y-6y plan better. I still say after we have that pool of individuals it is then decided the same way jury duty is decided. A raffle would protect against oligarchies and tyranny of the majority. No one would dare run a Sara Palin candidate again if we had a raffle.

Take for instance my county, the orange one, there are 35 cities, meaning 35 city councils. that means 35 possible choices to represent orange county in the state legislative body. every 2 years, there will be new elections for those county representative in the state governing body. the maximum that a single country rep can hold office is 2 years, with a max of 3 terms. And then of course, you have the figurehead of the state, the governor. I believe that there should be two, and these two take the place of the senators in congress. 1 stays in the state, while the other works in congress. both have 4 year terms, and 2 terms max. If the one in congress wants to pass a certain piece of federal legislation, he first has to gain the approval of the governor back at the state, who before he can offer an answer, must get a 2/3 majority approval in the state legislature. the point of having shorter terms for all the officials of the state is to maintain proper representation of all the constituents in their respective counties.

Yep, sounds good so far. But, I'm not sold on the idea that we even need a congress. What purpose do they serve that couldn't be taken on by the State?

Its just like a pyramid scheme, with the top of the pyramid completely dependent upon the people at the bottom, and not the other way around.

Understandably, that's the idea; however, why have a pyramid at all? Why do we need people at the top? You and are deciding policy just as well as any other politician. So why no do away with the whole thing entirely?

ah a labor dollar that is very interesting to say the least i've never thought about that.
i have a great idea to go with that which would be the fair tax.
you get a dollar for every thing you produce and you would be taxed in everything you consume.. now the consumption tax would be drastically higher than it is now, but this would abolish the need for an income tax. and this way there would never be a need for tax cuts or tax raises. since based on your consumption is the basis of your taxation.
we all know not taxing the rich is a bad thing since they are the ones with the higher surplus. so those who have the ability to consume more (per say larger corporations) would be the biggest contributors to tax. as should be the natural order of things.

by the way awesome OP and education reform was absolutely amazing as well.

reply to post by stuncrazy


Bingo! We got this on lock.

As far as taxation that can be taken care of on a State by State basis. But, a fair tax would work in that regard and potentially actually be fair.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


you still need organization. thats the idea of short terms and local power. Each state is essentially its own country and the people in this kind of system have the power because the scope of interest has become local.

and true, there is no real necessity for a national congress unless for emergencies such as in times of war, or in in times of deciding whether or not to go to war. or for important national issues such as regulating monetary policy. congress is required to regulate monetary policy and international trade/foreign relations. the difference is that there will be less people in congress now, and what they decide is based specifically on what the people from their respective states decide. because nothing can be decided unless the majority of every city in the US agrees or disagrees, rather than what congress thinks is right. It actually becomes necessary, it is a requirement to have the approval of the majority of the US population for any national/federal policy to be implemented. Any policy suggested in congress has to be represented back at the state legislatures and time enough must be given for county reps to get the opinion of their constituents through local county votes. Because the federal policies will be rare and usually just one large issue at a time, such as war, money, or trade, and since the federal laws would be reduced to nearly what the constitution states is lawful, the people would not get tangled up in the mess of laws, bureaucracy, and politics that we see now. everything will be pretty much black and white when it comes to federal policy. state policy is all up to the people who live in the state, and that can be painted any color according to what they want.

reply to post by asperetty


Right on. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. What you have described would be the sole purposes of Congress, no more and no less.

I wasn't sure if what I had written was clear enough to express that and I didn't want to "lead the witness" so to speak. I have a friend who should be in here tomorrow to take a look and I'll feel a lot better after he proofs it.

Thank you for your replies and for all the key strokes, btw. I know it's a pain.