What if we changed the game?

[osan]

I just had a stray thought. This has probably been conjured up by someone smarter than me (or crazier, if one could imagine that), but I'll throw it out there just for giggles - this definitely belonging in the "out there" pigeon hole.

If we the people decided to change this whole painfully dull game of American tyranny and Bozo politics, what new form would the republic take? I was thinking that, what if instead of a strong federal government in the sense we all now get to love, enjoy, and admire, this confederation of states changes the nature of the arrangement such that it was more like an exclusive club. The club would have entry criteria and one of those would be that a prearranged set of explicit standards would have to be met by all members - standards of quality, behavior, and character. Any member state failing to uphold those standards could be suspended from membership until they met muster, or barring that, even be kicked out indefinitely.

So imagine a coalition of 10 states that say "screw you" to the US and secede. Imagine they agreed to go the route of strict freedom - true free market capitalism - true liberty for one and all citizens, etc. and so on. Nobody will arrest you for smoking a joint on the steps of City Hall or the Capitol, or for having whatever consensual, deviant seX you care to engage in. Carrying a gun anywhere and at any time would give nobody cause for any concern... and so on down the line with the whole of the law being something akin to the Golden Rule.

Imagine no initiation of force against anyone at any time for any reason by so-called "government". Imagine harsh penalties for violating the rights of others, no matter who you are. Imagine property rights held sacred with stern vigor and intolerance. Imagine a complete absence of the welfare state and the horror of property tax. Imagine all "social" functions being handled privately, the citizens mostly unconcerned with the threat of injury by by such private parties because the results of such acts would bring the hangman's noose rapidly, publicly, and without mercy.

Imagine such a voluntary and standards-based confederation of states rising to the top of the global economy, putting to shame what remained of the USA and China and becoming the envy of the world. Then imagine, one by one the remaining states slowly swallowing their egos and applying for membership, gaining the same only when their own government structures and powers met the very strict standards of this new republic. Imagine the ability of the confederation to hold each state pretty much by the balls such that they must always toe the line of those standards with the threat of suspension where all trade with the other states ceases within 24 hours of the change in status and the borders lock down tightly on all commerce.

It seems to me that this sort of a structure would provide some very flexible and powerful mechanisms by which to keep each individual state aligned to proper perspectives regarding their raisons d'etre and the concurring limitations on their prerogatives.

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on such an arrangement. No need to get too concerned about details - I have certainly not come up with all the answers. This is a broadly expressed concept at the 50K foot level. Assume the details are in place and are well designed and assume something better in terms of public attitude and honesty - a risky assumption, I know, but necessary here that the concept itself might get a reasonable airing.

[thehunter]

Interesting post Osan, and I have been thinking about the broader "bill of responsibilities" aspect that has been debated with respect to both individuals and local communities over the last 300 years. Unfortunately, much of the pull-your-weight planning has been tried by the EU and is failing miserably as we speak. The other caution I would warn against is the idea that liberty can be mandated -- not only is it counterproductive, but ours is a day when we can no longer agree on even basic human rights (eg. the abortion debate where both sides claim a moral right). How would we police this responsibility if there is "no initiation of force against anyone at any time for any reason"?

No, the answer lies not in quasi-anarchy, but in an understanding that society need a basic understanding of laws and norms which are needed to provide a stable, liberal, capital-based environment for people to flourish. I am planning on posting more on this idea later myself, but for the time being, let me refer back to the Free State Project which even many libertarians agree is a failed project as everybody has their own definition of liberty, complete with its own unique priorities.

Aren't we the ones who are quick to point out that less is better -- if that is case, than why not tackle the libertarian society issue from the perspective that it wouldn't be the end of the world if such a state was set up without a constitutional protection for pot smokers right in section 1 of the constitution, to say nothing of the other nit-picking we tend to do?

[osan]

Interesting post Osan, and I have been thinking about the broader "bill of responsibilities" aspect that has been debated with respect to both individuals and local communities over the last 300 years. Unfortunately, much of the pull-your-weight planning has been tried by the EU and is failing miserably as we speak. The other caution I would warn against is the idea that liberty can be mandated -- not only is it counterproductive, but ours is a day when we can no longer agree on even basic human rights (eg. the abortion debate where both sides claim a moral right). How would we police this responsibility if there is "no initiation of force against anyone at any time for any reason"?

Your points are well taken, but let me address the initiation of force issue specifically, though I will state up front that I am not entirely clear on the precise context in which you make your statement. My way of looking at initiation of force refers mainly to individuals as the targets, though this is not categorically the case. More to the point in my mind, suspension or termination of "membership" of a state in the confederation is not an initiation of force, but a response to breach of contract, which I view as equivalent to an initiation of force in that the results are the same: violation of the rights of the other member states to hold the offending state to its contractual obligations, as well as possible (probable?) violations of individual rights within the borders of that state and that may in some manner spill forth into other states by some means. Upon acceptance in the "club", the new member state has agreed to the standards without question or reservation. When they breach that element of contract, the larger body is within their rights to take the appropriate actions as stipulated.


No, the answer lies not in quasi-anarchy, but in an understanding that society need a basic understanding of laws and norms which are needed to provide a stable, liberal, capital-based environment for people to flourish. I am planning on posting more on this idea later myself, but for the time being, let me refer back to the Free State Project which even many libertarians agree is a failed project as everybody has their own definition of liberty, complete with its own unique priorities. I do not see this as quasi-anarchy. There are very definite boundaries and obligations on the part of "government", citizens, and corporate entities. The prerogatives are expansively broad, the restrictions vanishingly small, and the paltry set of obligations clearly set forth and sternly observed.


Aren't we the ones who are quick to point out that less is better -- if that is case, than why not tackle the libertarian society issue from the perspective that it wouldn't be the end of the world if such a state was set up without a constitutional protection for pot smokers right in section 1 of the constitution, to say nothing of the other nit-picking we tend to do?In this world, there would be no need for nitpicky details. When proper principles of liberty comprise the foundation of the national structure, the constitutional protection for the dopers is built-in in an explicitly implicit manner, if that doesn't sound too confusing. The prohibition on prohibiting personal prerogatives so long as the individual observes and respects the rights of others. Joey Dopehead smoking a joint infringes on nobody else's rights. He is therefore free to smoke that garbage until his head rots if that pleases him so long as so doing does not injure others. The one hitch in all of this centers upon "clear and present danger". If Joey tokes up and goes driving, does that constitute a justifiable circumstance for detaining him and, at the very least, making him walk? I do not, as yet, have an answer to that. "Yes" is very tempting, but I see a very precipitous and banana-peel laden slope there, so my personal jury is out on such and issue. I am, however, inclined toward answering "no" on the understanding that when stoned Joey injures someone and is duly convicted, the penalty would be severe. Given the enormous carrot of virtually unlimited vistas of liberty, coupled with the brutally unattractive stick of unbearably high prices for violating others under such conditions, I believe that most people will toe the line of respect for their fellows. Those who do not are either so stupid or self-centered that they would commit such attrocities no matter what limitations were in place on paper. Such people belong in prison, but we being better than the petty tyrants and nervous nellies are willing to risk some horrors in order that true liberty be secured for one and all.

Real freedom demands much of the individual and it is also damned scary stuff at times. I have no doubt that a proper, equitable, and stable system supporting full human rights can be designed and implemented. The real issue at hand is the question of whether people would want such wholesome liberty, knowing the price that it demands of them. I suspect most people in the USA today would turn away from it as too scary and too risky. On the whole, I have found that people want to enjoy those advantages of liberty to which their interests and personalities predispose their desire, while having a nanny state there to ensure that all risk is eliminated. It is called having ones' cake and eating it too. It's the gambler who wants the game rigged so that he always wins. That's not liberty - it's bullshit for cowards and sissies.

[AmericaFyeah92]

I just had a stray thought. This has probably been conjured up by someone smarter than me (or crazier, if one could imagine that), but I'll throw it out there just for giggles - this definitely belonging in the "out there" pigeon hole.

If we the people decided to change this whole painfully dull game of American tyranny and Bozo politics, what new form would the republic take? I was thinking that, what if instead of a strong federal government in the sense we all now get to love, enjoy, and admire, this confederation of states changes the nature of the arrangement such that it was more like an exclusive club. The club would have entry criteria and one of those would be that a prearranged set of explicit standards would have to be met by all members - standards of quality, behavior, and character. Any member state failing to uphold those standards could be suspended from membership until they met muster, or barring that, even be kicked out indefinitely.

So imagine a coalition of 10 states that say "screw you" to the US and secede. Imagine they agreed to go the route of strict freedom - true free market capitalism - true liberty for one and all citizens, etc. and so on. Nobody will arrest you for smoking a joint on the steps of City Hall or the Capitol, or for having whatever consensual, deviant seX you care to engage in. Carrying a gun anywhere and at any time would give nobody cause for any concern... and so on down the line with the whole of the law being something akin to the Golden Rule.

Imagine no initiation of force against anyone at any time for any reason by so-called "government". Imagine harsh penalties for violating the rights of others, no matter who you are. Imagine property rights held sacred with stern vigor and intolerance. Imagine a complete absence of the welfare state and the horror of property tax. Imagine all "social" functions being handled privately, the citizens mostly unconcerned with the threat of injury by by such private parties because the results of such acts would bring the hangman's noose rapidly, publicly, and without mercy.

Imagine such a voluntary and standards-based confederation of states rising to the top of the global economy, putting to shame what remained of the USA and China and becoming the envy of the world. Then imagine, one by one the remaining states slowly swallowing their egos and applying for membership, gaining the same only when their own government structures and powers met the very strict standards of this new republic. Imagine the ability of the confederation to hold each state pretty much by the balls such that they must always toe the line of those standards with the threat of suspension where all trade with the other states ceases within 24 hours of the change in status and the borders lock down tightly on all commerce.

It seems to me that this sort of a structure would provide some very flexible and powerful mechanisms by which to keep each individual state aligned to proper perspectives regarding their raisons d'etre and the concurring limitations on their prerogatives.

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on such an arrangement. No need to get too concerned about details - I have certainly not come up with all the answers. This is a broadly expressed concept at the 50K foot level. Assume the details are in place and are well designed and assume something better in terms of public attitude and honesty - a risky assumption, I know, but necessary here that the concept itself might get a reasonable airing.

This scenario takes place apparently at the end of the revolution: a Confederation of states have successfully broken off from the Federal leviathan, and under a "Libertarian" flag no less.

I say we focus on getting to THAT point, and worry about the rest when we get there.

[osan]

I say we focus on getting to THAT point, and worry about the rest when we get there.

I must respectfully disagree, and here is why: the last thing we should want is to revolve, win, and then find ourselves standing with our dicks in the dirt with no plan in place for taking the next steps. That is PRECISELY what happened in Eye-Rack II. We went in with NO clear mission (not the issue here) and no plan of what to do when we "won" - no exit strategy.... at least if what we have seen in the MSM is to be even marginally trusted. I suspect the plan may have been to have no plan in order to justify a very long term entanglement there. After all, I'd say companies such as Haliburton have profited rather neatly from all the death and destruction. Why would they want it to ever stop if they can keep it going. Having no plan meant no standards by which to judge conditions at any given moment, thereby rendering those running the freak show wholly able to keep it going indefinitely... but I digress. What is salient here is that there was indeed no plan going forward and it has greatly contributed to our current state of bankruptcy, the fact that most of the world absolutely hates us, and umpteen thousands of dead soldiers, not to mention the tens of thousands who have returned home horribly maimed.

Therefore, I believe it behooves "us" to have a plan in place upon which we may execute for at least five years, figuring out the miscellaneous details as we work our way through it. What do you think?

[AmericaFyeah92]

I must respectfully disagree, and here is why: the last thing we should want is to revolve, win, and then find ourselves standing with our dicks in the dirt with no plan in place for taking the next steps. That is PRECISELY what happened in Eye-Rack II. We went in with NO clear mission (not the issue here) and no plan of what to do when we "won" - no exit strategy.... at least if what we have seen in the MSM is to be even marginally trusted. I suspect the plan may have been to have no plan in order to justify a very long term entanglement there. After all, I'd say companies such as Haliburton have profited rather neatly from all the death and destruction. Why would they want it to ever stop if they can keep it going. Having no plan meant no standards by which to judge conditions at any given moment, thereby rendering those running the freak show wholly able to keep it going indefinitely... but I digress. What is salient here is that there was indeed no plan going forward and it has greatly contributed to our current state of bankruptcy, the fact that most of the world absolutely hates us, and umpteen thousands of dead soldiers, not to mention the tens of thousands who have returned home horribly maimed.

Therefore, I believe it behooves "us" to have a plan in place upon which we may execute for at least five years, figuring out the miscellaneous details as we work our way through it. What do you think?

Fair enough.

I'd imagine this "contract of states" would have to have some kind of "mutual defense clause", where if one was threatened by foreign, rather than internal, aggression, the other "Free States" would come to its aid. But this begs the question of what kind of military this Confederation would have...a volunteer citizen-militia, a small standing army paid for my fees/tariffs, etc (i suppose the fees and tariffs would have to be part of the contract as well, if non-coercion is the goal).

I would caution against standing armies. But how could a contract obligate a free militia to come to anyone's defense, since militias are by defenition loose, spontaneous, decentralized things? And if there was no contractual obligation, no "mutual defense clause", why would anyone want to join this confederation that leaves itself so vulnerable?

[libertybrewcity]

we need a parliamentary system.

democratic republics like the united states are too prone to tyranny as you can see...

a constitutional parliamentary republic would do the trick. it allows for smaller parties to have access to the legislature.

or if that is unobtainable we need more constitutional amendments that are hard to repeal such as balanced budget amendment, solidified private property rights, etc.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Libertarians do not even have a majority in one state. How do you plan on suddenly getting a majority in 10?

[osan]

Libertarians do not even have a majority in one state. How do you plan on suddenly getting a majority in 10?

D00d, you have to READ. This is a hypothetical - a model being tossed out there for discussion of the idea. As I wrote, it assumes much for the sake of not getting bogged down in details before we even understand the virtues and shortcomings of the basic idea.

[YumYum]

D00d, you have to READ. This is a hypothetical - a model being tossed out there for discussion of the idea. As I wrote, it assumes much for the sake of not getting bogged down in details before we even understand the virtues and shortcomings of the basic idea.

I enjoy your ideas; very creative, but I tend to be more of a realist. We can't get along on this board, so how in the hell would we cooperate in your anything goes Free Market Society?

[osan]

Fair enough.

I'd imagine this "contract of states" would have to have some kind of "mutual defense clause", where if one was threatened by foreign, rather than internal, aggression, the other "Free States" would come to its aid. But this begs the question of what kind of military this Confederation would have...a volunteer citizen-militia, a small standing army paid for my fees/tariffs, etc (i suppose the fees and tariffs would have to be part of the contract as well, if non-coercion is the goal).

Mutual defense? Of course. It would be unsound otherwise - but no standing armies - no professionals. No compulsory service, just volunteer militias who train with state of the art weapons. All of these operations would be subject to their own standards. The real hitch in all of this is the process of establishing the standards in general, amending them, repealing them. That is a key issue for which my knowledge of practical governance is somewhat lacking, though if pressed my creative powers can be considerable.

Insofar as mutual defense, I would look upon that situation in the same way we do now: attack against one is an attack against all. We might call the new club the United Republics of America or some such. I've never been a big fan of the term "state" due to all the false and bad connotations.

In terms of how to pay for defense, we do it the same way we pay for any government agency - sales tax @ 1% max., retail only. No double taxation - absolutely verboten, no VATs - no income taxes and absolutely no property taxes. Private property rights would be primary and any violations would be met with grim intolerance.

As for foreign trade, there would be a standard for that as well. Nations wishing to trade with us directly would have to toe our line. Period. There is good reason for this: the ONLY way that free market capitalism works properly is when ALL players allow markets that are actually free. We could sell to nations such as China, but they would not be able to sell to us until their system of slave labor arbitrage was dismantled. If they want to sell to us, they toe the line. Otherwise, they can pound salt.


I would caution against standing armies. But how could a contract obligate a free militia to come to anyone's defense, since militias are by defenition loose, spontaneous, decentralized things?

If you fail to come to the defense, you are out until reparations are made, e.g. commanders failing to give the orders go to prison for a lengthy stay in solitary. I don't know the real answers... yet. Your point is, however, eminently valid.

Another issue would be that of cliques - groups of states glomming together into issue-oriented coalitions with the goal of strong-arming the remaining states to make some change. Imagine 100 years down the line when the worries and problems of today are five generations behind us and there arises amidst the prosperity and abundance of the nation the ugly head of the nanny-staters, now wanting to "share the wealth" with the "less fortunate", as if fortune has anything significant to do with success in general. They propose welfare programs to make the world a smiley place for all. Without sufficient safeguards and with a sufficient majority, the nation would once again be thrust onto the path of perdition. This is why my new constitutional architecture - or something similar - would be crucial. The US Constitution is a very pretty document, but it is a train wreck of insufficiency with respect to protecting the rights of the individual. Were it not so, we would not be in our current economic and political predicament.


And if there was no contractual obligation, no "mutual defense clause", why would anyone want to join this confederation that leaves itself so vulnerable?

Methinks you answer your own question, even if by implication alone. :)

[osan]

I enjoy your ideas; very creative, but I tend to be more of a realist. We can't get along on this board, so how in the hell would we cooperate in your anything goes Free Market Society?

Well, if we choose to take this outlook, then I recommend we do one of two things ASAP. Either lay down for slavery, or go to the garage and blow our brains out. Even if my notion is too idealistic to realize as-is, there may be practicable elements that could be used, or perhaps the model can be rendered workable with a greater or lesser degree of tweaking. Without ideals we are SOL. Ideals give us our normative standards - goals toward which to strive, even if we know we will never attain them. Otherwise what do we have? We have the here and now, which may be OK when times are good, but really sucks when times go sour.

My recommendation is to develop these ideals into models as if the intention is there to implement them. Without "theory", there is no applied science, yes? Just look at all the incredible things the human race has accomplished - all the applied science. Were it not for pure science - pure research for its own sake, we would still be scratching our butts with tree branches as we sat, waiting for the lions to decide they weren't going to be able to eat us and go away.

The craziest, seemingly most useless and stupid ideas in pure research have proven invaluable to us. Consider George Boole, the inventor of an algebraic system named after him. A system of base-2 algebra. In the 19th century, such conceptual systems had no practical value whatsoever, nor were there any prospects for the future - yet Boole pressed on with it. Without Boolean algebra, the internet would not exist, men would never have gone to the moon, we would know next to nothing of the structure of atoms and molecules, and the list of things we would not be able to do would go on for quite a while. Boole's silly little musing of base-2 algebra is the very foundation of the world that you grew up with, yet you may not even know it.

Spend the time on the ideals, forgetting the practical. It is eminently worthwhile because out of the ocean of random musings there comes to the surface a gem that may transform the world. Never forget that.

Last swag at the now-dead horse: consider Bell Laboratories. AT& T funded them up the wazoo and most of that money was invested in PURE research. Through that system of idealized exploration, the transistor and laser were invented. Had that avenue of purely intellectual pursuit not been funded, your life would be radically different. That such laboratories basically no longer exist can only lead one to wonder what other advances may be lurking in the shadows, undiscovered.

[osan]

...

[osan]

we need a parliamentary system.

democratic republics like the united states are too prone to tyranny as you can see...

a constitutional parliamentary republic would do the trick. it allows for smaller parties to have access to the legislature.

or if that is unobtainable we need more constitutional amendments that are hard to repeal such as balanced budget amendment, solidified private property rights, etc.

Please forgive my ignorance here, but could you nutshell the difference between the two systems? I look a the train wreck we call Great Britain and see a situation that is far worse than our own. What advantages do you imply with your suggestion?

[djdellisanti4]

A little off topic, but this makes me wonder if the Free State project wil ever go anywhere and if so could N.H. ever be used to try this theory? I know its just one state, but we would have to start somewhere.

[TNforPaul45]

Our current form of Government may even be fine, I would think, if we could close a few loopholes and change a few basic mechanics of the Federal System.

It would take a Civil War, and the Anti-Federal side would have to win (We're currently 0-1) for these changes to happen though.

[YumYum]

What do you do about greed? Rich people that exploit the poor and end up controlling everything? The bankers?

[AmericaFyeah92]

If you fail to come to the defense, you are out until reparations are made, e.g. commanders failing to give the orders go to prison for a lengthy stay in solitary. I don't know the real answers... yet. Your point is, however, eminently valid.

Another issue would be that of cliques - groups of states glomming together into issue-oriented coalitions with the goal of strong-arming the remaining states to make some change. Imagine 100 years down the line when the worries and problems of today are five generations behind us and there arises amidst the prosperity and abundance of the nation the ugly head of the nanny-staters, now wanting to "share the wealth" with the "less fortunate", as if fortune has anything significant to do with success in general. They propose welfare programs to make the world a smiley place for all. Without sufficient safeguards and with a sufficient majority, the nation would once again be thrust onto the path of perdition. This is why my new constitutional architecture - or something similar - would be crucial. The US Constitution is a very pretty document, but it is a train wreck of insufficiency with respect to protecting the rights of the individual. Were it not so, we would not be in our current economic and political predicament.



Methinks you answer your own question, even if by implication alone. :)

Ah, but the fact that "commanders" would be held responsible for the Free Republics' defense implies the existence of a standing army. Or at least a "reigstered", "formal" militia, which might as well be a standing army...

I say you allow militias to simply come into being of their own accord, which they almost always do in the case of foreign aggression. But just in case, you retain a mercenary force on contract as part of the mutual defense

[AmericaFyeah92]

What do you do about greed? Rich people that exploit the poor and end up controlling everything? The bankers?

What do we do about one of the inescapable traits of human nature, you ask?

First of all, what do you mean by exploit? If someone agrees to a job for a certain wage, and doesn't quit, how is that exploitation? Even if the job sucks, the fact that they accepted it implies they either aren't qualified to do more complex, rewarding tasks or lack the motivation.

And without the power of the state to bail them out, artificially tamper with interest rates, pass competition-killing regulations, etc, the banks and large multinationals will face an uprising of competition from small/medium sized businesses. It will be a much more "fair" world.

Voluntary action can take car of whatever inequities or poverty remains. Unions would be free to organize and petition, charities would exist, etc.

[thomas-in-ky]

What do you do about greed? Rich people that exploit the poor and end up controlling everything? The bankers?

End The Fed

[constituent]

Why not just get a law passed that makes individual participation in fedgov voluntary?

Talk about a game changer.

Hell, an "opt-out" privilege would suffice.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why not just get a law passed that makes individual participation in fedgov voluntary?

Talk about a game changer.

Hell, an "opt-out" privilege would suffice.

Good man. That's almost Voluntaryism in a nutshell. :cool:

[constituent]

Good man. That's almost Voluntaryism in a nutshell. :cool:

shhh... ;)

[libertybrewcity]

Please forgive my ignorance here, but could you nutshell the difference between the two systems? I look a the train wreck we call Great Britain and see a situation that is far worse than our own. What advantages do you imply with your suggestion?

Great Britain doesn't have core codified constitution. If they did, there would be more restrictions on government.

Great Britain is messed up but the United States is very much messed up too with the presidential system. In a parliamentary system there is a different sort of checks and balances. The prime minister is the head of government(different from head of state) and is voted in by the legislature. The legislature can vote in a new prime minster at anytime with a vote of no confidence and the prime minister can dissolve the legislature.

The bad thing about having a combined head of state and head of government is the candidate has to take on two different roles, that of leader and that of a policy genius. What often happens is the people vote for a president that is one and not the other, for example, Barack Obama is a great speaker but he doesn't have policy experience.

There are set election dates but those can be changed with the vote of no confidence and the dissolution of parliament as I stated above.

In the presidential system it seems that many votes are "wasted" when a candidate wins with 51% because the voices of 49% of the people are not represented. In the parliamentary system you can vote for party and candidates as well. The systems differ but generally a party needs anywhere from 2-5% to get a seat in the legislature. This allows for small parties to have a voice. The libertarian party would get a few seats as well as the greens and constitution party. I would think that more parties would form because of their ability to form coalitions and gridlock government. I would think in the United States an farmers party would form or an anti war party. Many people feel unrepresented in the current Republican and Democratic party.

If we had a parliamentary republic, the state legislatures could be allowed to choose the Senate(upper house). The state legislatures would also be parliamentary systems, allowing for smaller parties to have a larger voice. In the current presidential system, smaller parties very much want to grow but are dwarfed by the two big ones. Once the smaller parties start to gain some influence, more people would join and they would have the ability to influence the choice of senators (forming coalitions with other parties to choose a more libertarian-Republican senator for example).

Basically, the system allows for greater representation of the people. If you are included in the 49% during the vote of candidate, you still have a representation. If you live in San Francisco and are Republican, you are represented. If you live in Texas and are democrat you are represented.

[osan]

What do you do about greed? Rich people that exploit the poor and end up controlling everything? The bankers?

I would not worry too much about that. Free markets are to remain that way. Any action on the part of any corporate entity that demonstrably thwarts or otherwise alters the organic nature of the market has committed a crime and would be given a stern lesson in screwing around. The shareholders would pay a substantial part of that price and would thereby be enjoined to take a more active role in overseeing the managers they hire to run their businesses. Corporate managers convicted of such crimes would, as with any criminal, spend time in a prison that would make them cry like children. Even if they spent only two years in the klink, they would be so straightened out at the end of it that they would sooner eat their own guts than ever risk a second helping of solitary confinement.

Were I king, prison would be a horror. No violence against the prisoner at all. Just an 8x10 cell arranged such that the prisoner neither sees nor hears another human being the entire time they spend there. No outside communication of any form, not even with a lawyer, who would have to handle his client's appeals on his own. By the time a year had passed, they would be so averse to ever violating the rights and trust of others, most would never again pose any threat to the rest. The silence would compete with hell itself. No books, no photos, no amenities of any sort. Aobominably balnd and flavorless food is delivered by machine. You keep your cell clean or your sentence is extended. You are under 24 hour surveillance. Any time in the infirmary is not credited to your prison time, so you are motivated to remain as healthy as possible. I would make sentences shorter than what is typical precisely because the time is so hard.

Greed is not a problem in and of itself. All we need concern ourselves with is the behavior of the sorts of people you cite. If they violate rights, they go to hell. It is a simple formula. Anyone falsely accusing such a person sees a similar fate. Anyone knowingly participating in a frame-up wins double the sentence handed down the falsely accused, forfeits their entire material wealth to them, and makes whatever other restitution the law might require.

In my world there would exist fabulous carrots, available to one an all for the earning. There would be horrors awaiting those thinking themselves entitled to violate the rights of anyone. One's fate would be entirely in their own hands. Corruption by any "government official" would earn triple the customary penalties, or even death. Anyone assuming government office, epecially if elected to it, forfeits some portion of their rights, particularly when discharging their official duties. They could be surveilled at any time - privacy would go out the window. That is how it would be. I suspect there would be very few career politicians. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there would be none. Those assuming public office would do so a short stint because they really believed in what they were doing. Pay would be humble and the penalties for corrupt acts terrible. You do the math.

Corporate entities would enjoy certain granted "rights" as they do today. Corporation are not persons and therefore any "rights" they may possess may be so possessed only at the pleasure of the law. Therefore, those rights may be altered under conditions that would have to be codified in law. Abuse would result not only in punishment for those persons responsible, but possibly to the corporate "person" as well including abridgement of those privileges (AKA "rights"). Because a corporation may become a super-organism that wields super-human powers, they are to be subject to certain controls such that fascism would be a highly unlikely outcome. Fundamental rights belong to individual people ONLY. Corporate "rights" are bestowed by way of principles. Corporations would be protected by all due process, but their prerogatives would be somewhat limited when compared with the fundamental rights of people.

The other side of that is this: if silly Billy Gates invents a better mousetrap and the world beats a path to his door and he corners the mousetrap market, barring any criminal activity on his corporation's part, he is it. So long as he commits no provable crime against the rights of others, he will own that market. In truth, if that market proves profitable, chances are slim to none that he would be able to monopolize it. Barring very specific and unusual circumstances, any market that lucrative would become target for competition. If silly Billy was discovered to have set up barriers to entry such that competition would not be able to get a foothold in the markets, he would see prison time and his corporation would be taken to the cleaners. To beat the already dead horse, in my world committing crimes against people would be handled most unequivocally. I would strike white terror into the hearts of those who saw fit to violate our rights in criminal fashion.

[osan]

I say you allow militias to simply come into being of their own accord, which they almost always do in the case of foreign aggression. But just in case, you retain a mercenary force on contract as part of the mutual defense

This may be workable. Contract defense forces... but how is this really different from a standing army? How would they be paid? By whom would they be hired? Just wondering.

[osan]

Why not just get a law passed that makes individual participation in fedgov voluntary?

Talk about a game changer.

Hell, an "opt-out" privilege would suffice.

Good thought, however...

That may take care of the problems of the federal government, but it fails to address the issue of state-originated tyranny. One is as bad as the other. What then - make participation in state government voluntary as well? Then where would we stand in terms of criminal justice? I do not believe we could afford to completely abandon the concept of courts. Were we to, could it not lead to a resurgence of feudalism? I'm not that keen on the idea that I could end up in prison just by driving from WV down to GA wearing a short-sleeved shirt only to discover some local yahoos decided wearing short-sleeved shirts constituted a felony. I know that sounds ridiculous, but is banning the bearing of a firearm or possession of a joint any less arbitrary and stupid?

Just wondering where your boundaries rest in all of this.

[constituent]

Good thought, however...

That may take care of the problems of the federal government, but it fails to address the issue of state-originated tyranny. One is as bad as the other. What then - make participation in state government voluntary as well?

Ideally, yes.

But fedgov is a start. :)



Then where would we stand in terms of criminal justice?

Where do we stand now?



I do not believe we could afford to completely abandon the concept of courts.

Not a big fan of the courts, myself...

but I'll stop there before I get the "Ron Paul believes in a constitutional republic, why are you even here if you disagree" squad coming out all:

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu231/firewaller/howlers.jpg



Were we to, could it not lead to a resurgence of feudalism? I'm not that keen on the idea that I could end up in prison just by driving from WV down to GA wearing a short-sleeved shirt only to discover some local yahoos decided wearing short-sleeved shirts constituted a felony. I know that sounds ridiculous, but is banning the bearing of a firearm or possession of a joint any less arbitrary and stupid?

It would sound ridiculous, but unfortunately, as you know, it is real. :(

In answer to your question, absolutely not, imo.
Banning firearms or possession of a joint is equally arbitrary and stupid.



Just wondering where your boundaries rest in all of this.

Personally, I believe that people should be free to associate with or disassociate from any individual or group of individuals as they please and at their will. :)

As for me in the meanwhile? That's exactly what I plan to keep doing until someone stops me.

IMO, the only way to sell freedom, to sell liberty is to lead by example.

[YumYum]

I AM CURRENTLY INTOXICATED.....WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!!BbHJ

Right now, sober. What are you drinking??

[AmericaFyeah92]

I AM CURRENTLY INTOXICATED HOWEVER I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SAY IF THIS EVER DID HAPPEN YOU YOURSELFS WOULD BECOME THE FUTURE ILLUMINATI BEHIND THE SCENES PULLING STRINGS AS THE WORLDS ELECT AND POWERFUL OF THIS NEW "REPUBLIC".....WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!!BbHJ

That's the point!!!! ;)

[AmericaFyeah92]

This may be workable. Contract defense forces... but how is this really different from a standing army? How would they be paid? By whom would they be hired? Just wondering.

Well that's what I'm asking you!

They could be paid for either by "entrance fees," minuscule taxation, tariffs, or however else we fund this Utopian Confederation. It would differ from a "standing" army however in that it would avoid the needless bureaucracy and bullshit that hampers modern armies (it's a private enterprise, so there is less waste). Also, we'd be free to fire them and hire their competitors, which you can't really do with a standing army.

[osan]

Well that's what I'm asking you!
however else we fund this Utopian Confederation.

SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...

Whoa there big feller, this would NOT be utopian by an means. To my understanding a utopia is really the ultimate nanny state. This would be anything but that.

Ack... I think my brain needs to go vomit now.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Utopia has come to mean anyone's vision of a perfect society, not the ultimate nanny state