Lepard article on Government and reform.

[llepard]

Here is a link to my most recent article.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig8/lepard5.1.1.html

[silverhandorder]

Excellent article. Talking about trillions in lending is what gets people thinking. It makes wealth transfer too obvious.

[Lucille]

Great stuff! I was so happy to see your piece on LRC and, again, congrats!


Do not stop until we have bastards who will reform the system.

That one made me LOL.

[donnay]

Excellent article!

I especially loved this list:

Here are the reforms I support.

Term limits for all political offices. Senate one term. Congress, two terms. We need citizen legislators, not professional politicians.
Politicians cannot raise money or take contributions. No money in politics. Government funding of elections, so that all candidates have the same amount of money.
Politicians are banned from working for industries they have regulated.
Lobbying banned.
Judges subject to citizen review. Jury nullification accepted and endorsed.
Bureaucracies severely downsized. Bottom up budgeting. (FAA is an example of a good bureaucracy).
Glass-Steagall Act reinstated.
Financial derivatives banned.
Too big to fail doctrine repealed.
Federal Reserve completely audited.
US Gold Reserves audited.
Sound money doctrine, gold standard, or Government Bills.
Legalization of marijuana. Broad pardon for all minor drug offenses.
Interest rates set by the marketplace, balancing savings against investment demand.
Elimination of all "earmarks" and the earmark process.
Elimination of all government subsidies for all industries.

Yes, indeed, I have had enough!

[FreeTraveler]

if politicians aren't allowed to raise funds, do you really believe the gov would approve a candidate like Ron Paul for funding? It is a terrible idea to make the gov the gatekeeper to decide who gets funding to run.

Terrible idea. I like a lot of the other ideas though.o

[evilfunnystuff]

Bump for Lepard

[llepard]

if politicians aren't allowed to raise funds, do you really believe the gov would approve a candidate like Ron Paul for funding? It is a terrible idea to make the gov the gatekeeper to decide who gets funding to run.

Terrible idea. I like a lot of the other ideas though.o

I hear you. I think it should basically be, get 1000 signatures, get money. Win a primary, get more money. I don't care if we fund 50 candidates. As long as they all have the same money.

It will cost government money, but given what is at stake the funding of candidates is mouse nuts.

One of the largest fundamental problems is money in politics. We have to make politics money free. Principle trumps dollars. If you have a better suggestion on how to do this I am all ears. I am not wedded to this solution, it just seems like a good place to start.

LL

[FreedomWon]

Larry it's always a pleasure to read what you post. Thanks!

[evilfunnystuff]

After reading I'm not sure I agree with some of the reforms you suggest.

Even if you were only talking about lobbying for profit, it would be near impossible to ban.
Just look at "Historian" Newt.

[Lucille]

I hear you. I think it should basically be, get 1000 signatures, get money. Win a primary, get more money. I don't care if we fund 50 candidates. As long as they all have the same money.

It will cost government money, but given what is at stake the funding of candidates is mouse nuts.

One of the largest fundamental problems is money in politics. We have to make politics money free. Principle trumps dollars. If you have a better suggestion on how to do this I am all ears. I am not wedded to this solution, it just seems like a good place to start.

LL

I know a lot of otherwise libertarian people think this is the way to go too. I'm ambivalent about it.

Barry Goldwater, Jr. and John Dean said (http://www.c-span.org/Events/Pure-Goldwater/18032/) Barry wanted to limit the campaign season to three months because prolonged, expensive campaigns prevent the little guy from running.

[llepard]

After reading I'm not sure I agree with some of the reforms you suggest.

Even if you were only talking about lobbying for profit, it would be near impossible to ban.
Just look at "Historian" Newt.

There is no doubt that it would be hard. However, term limits and restriction from seeking employment would go a long way to halting corruption. I sincerely believe we would be better served by picking people randomly from the phone book and putting them in office versus the present system. The present system is adverse selection. We get the worst people to represent us.

Of course, the real solution to money in politics it to take all of the power out of the Federal Government. The problem is that is a chicken/egg problem. Until we get honest politicians we cannot downsize the Federal Government.

Screw it, maybe we should just start with a clean sheet of paper.

[donnay]

There is no doubt that it would be hard. However, term limits and restriction from seeking employment would go a long way to halting corruption. I sincerely believe we would be better served by picking people randomly from the phone book and putting them in office versus the present system. The present system is adverse selection. We get the worst people to represent us.

Of course, the real solution to money in politics it to take all of the power out of the Federal Government. The problem is that is a chicken/egg problem. Until we get honest politicians we cannot downsize the Federal Government.

Screw it, maybe we should just start with a clean sheet of paper.

Excerpt from the DOI

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States..."