Let's Make America America Again

[euphemia]

If you want to go back to watch Scott Baio's speech, you can. It was only about four and a half minutes. He concluded with the line, "Let's make America America again."

This is a sentence that makes me want to ask, "What is America?" If our Founding Fathers were here today and scripting a return to America, what would that look like to you?

[tod evans]

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Scott Baio? Is this some kind of Garry Marshall Happy Days thread?

[euphemia]

Nope. I work at least three nights a week, so I'm catching up on speeches. For all the discussion on what liberty is and isn't, I want to know what people expect the next president to do that would make America true to its founding.

[tod evans]

Nope. I work at least three nights a week, so I'm catching up on speeches. For all the discussion on what liberty is and isn't, I want to know what people expect the next president to do that would make America true to its founding.

This is a new question......

There is absolutely nothing one man can do to "make America true to its founding"....

Especially any of the jokers sitting or running...

Even Ron Paul couldn't accomplish that task.

[euphemia]

Okay, so instead of saying what candidates would do, please say what needs to be done to return America to its founding principles. What does that look like in 2016?

[AuH20]

Make America America again? Are we talking about the New Deal and ill advised World Wars?

[tod evans]

Okay, so instead of saying what candidates would do, please say what needs to be done to return America to its founding principles. What does that look like in 2016?

Ron Paul had the right idea, start with shrinking government, bringing home the troops and shuttering the fed....

[euphemia]

Please stop assuming the question is anything other than it is. It's just trying to get some original thought about what we should be expecting of our government.

[r3volution 3.0]

Please stop assuming the question is anything other than it is. It's just trying to get some original thought about what we should be expecting of our government.

That you don't already know the answer to that question explains your support of Trump, I suppose.

[presence]

1) deregulate THE ENTIRE economy; federal, state and local: no licensing schemes, no price controls, no wage controls, no contraband edicts, no licenses, no permits, no zoning, no taxes: none of it.

2) disband the military and police; auction valuables to US citizens non-export for 99 years

4) stop minting of fiat currency

5) fire everyone with a government job and eliminate their positions

6) auction off all gov't real estate, mineral rights, schools, roads and other real property to US citizens non-transferrable to foreign nationals for 99 years

7) release anyone in jail for anything other than violence or grand theft






that should at least get the ball rolling in the right direction

[r3volution 3.0]

^^Well that would appear to be abolition of the government entirely.

The minarchist position, anyway, would be to limit the government to its one proper function: security.

This would mean an ~95% reduction in government spending, the remainder being sufficient for the military, police, courts, etc.

[Occam's Banana]

[...] instead of saying what candidates would do, please say what needs to be done to return America to its founding principles. [...]

Step One: Undo the coup of '87 and restore the Articles of Confederation ...

[P3ter_Griffin]

^^Well that would appear to be abolition of the government entirely.

The minarchist position, anyway, would be to limit the government to its one proper function: security.

This would mean an ~95% reduction in government spending, the remainder being sufficient for the military, police, courts, etc.

This is pretty much where I am at. Although I'm not a fan of the word... I'd rather say protection and justice... but I'm not a big fan of the word protection either. I think what this 'protection or security' is needs to be better defined.. and that to each location there will be a 'most bestest' definition for what that is.

Bigger picture this means to me decentralization. Elimination of the federal, state, and local governments and replacing them with with even more decentralized control... such as the many churches within the city or any individual/organization that would like to fill that (security) role... and then Priest or Pastors or individuals from these organizations could, at their own behest, form cooperatives amongst themselves. This is without regard to whether they must use coercion or not to fund their operations.

[Zippyjuan]

Scott Baio? Is this some kind of Garry Marshall Happy Days thread?

Don't make fun of Marshall. He died this week.

[donnay]

Don't make fun of Marshall. He died this week.

Yes he died yesterday.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bigger picture this means to me decentralization. Elimination of the federal, state, and local governments and replacing them with with even more decentralized control... such as the many churches within the city or any individual/organization that would like to fill that (security) role... and then Priest or Pastors or individuals from these organizations could, at their own behest, form cooperatives amongst themselves. This is without regard to whether they must use coercion or not to fund their operations.

Decentralization has benefits.

The problem is that the many little states fight wars, resulting in mergers, so that over time the states in the system increase in size and decrease in number. Consider medieval Europe, consisting of hundreds of little polities, and how they were transformed into large nation-states through war. Thus interstate anarchy undermines itself.

One apparent solution is federalism, where instead of the states being completely independent, they're subject to a central government powerful enough to prevent them from warring with and conquering one another. The problem is that any central government strong enough to play referee between the states is strong enough to dominate them. Federations tend over time to either revert to interstate anarchy (if the central government is too weak) or evolve into centralized states (if the central government is too strong). Thus federalism too undermines itself.

Ultimately, decentralization is not a solution to the problem of how to restrain government.

Counter-intuitively, the solution is to concentrate power as much as possible.

If you're not familiar with the libertarian case for monarchy, see here.

Once the ruler is motivated to pursue liberal policies, then decentralization can be useful as an administrative technique, imposed from the center.

The ideal form of government ends up looking like feudalism, or a type of corporate franchising; see here (towards the bottom of the post).

[euphemia]

That you don't already know the answer to that question explains your support of Trump, I suppose.

Don't make that assumption. I am a little tired of people on this forum carping about what goes on in government. What specifically would you do? Do you have any original thinking on the matter?

[r3volution 3.0]

Don't make that assumption. I am a little tired of people on this forum carping about what goes on in government. What specifically would you do? Do you have any original thinking on the matter?

As I said above:

The minarchist position, anyway, would be to limit the government to its one proper function: security.

This would mean an ~95% reduction in government spending, the remainder being sufficient for the military, police, courts, etc.

It's fairly straightforward.

It's called libertarianism.

[phill4paul]

Okay, so instead of saying what candidates would do, please say what needs to be done to return America to its founding principles. What does that look like in 2016?

tod has already answered the question...

Were that we were a tenth of what those men were and, if nothing else, declared Independence and attempted a new start.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Decentralization has benefits.

The problem is that the many little states fight wars, resulting in mergers, so that over time the states in the system increase in size and decrease in number. Consider medieval Europe, consisting of hundreds of little polities, and how they were transformed into large nation-states through war. Thus interstate anarchy undermines itself.

One apparent solution is federalism, where instead of the states being completely independent, they're subject to a central government powerful enough to prevent them from warring with and conquering one another. The problem is that any central government strong enough to play referee between the states is strong enough to dominate them. Federations tend over time to either revert to interstate anarchy (if the central government is too weak) or evolve into centralized states (if the central government is too strong). Thus federalism too undermines itself.

Ultimately, decentralization is not a solution to the problem of how to restrain government.

Counter-intuitively, the solution is to concentrate power as much as possible.

If you're not familiar with the libertarian case for monarchy, see here.

Once the ruler is motivated to pursue liberal policies, then decentralization can be useful as an administrative technique, imposed from the center.

The ideal form of government ends up looking like feudalism, or a type of corporate franchising; see here (towards the bottom of the post).

I don't think we are necessarily in disagreement r3v. Just on maybe how that majority monopoly on force (you can't have a complete monopoly on force without putting everyone in straitjackets and strapping them to a wall) is granted or achieved. I think putting individuals who worship the true God (that being the Creator and not the State) to the task will bring about less death and a better outcome then leaving it up to individuals who worship the state. It is also based on action to gain this majority monopoly on force in such a way... instead of for instance voting where we are left to the mercy of the voting booth... it is based on action through supporting your local Priest or Pastor or building a church and building a flock of one's own, and expanding influence and power by diplomatic ties. How do you suggest this majority monopoly on force is obtained?

[tod evans]

Don't make that assumption. I am a little tired of people on this forum carping about what goes on in government. What specifically would you do? Do you have any original thinking on the matter?

New and improved isn't always.........

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't think we are necessarily in disagreement r3v. Just on maybe how that majority monopoly on force (you can't have a complete monopoly on force without putting everyone in straitjackets and strapping them to a wall) is granted or achieved. I think putting individuals who worship the true God (that being the Creator and not the State) to the task will bring about less death and a better outcome then leaving it up to individuals who worship the state.

If the success of a political system depends on its rulers having a certain ideology, it's unlikely to succeed long-term.

Ideology is a fluid thing, and most people - even those who profess an ideology - act on the basis of material self-interest most of the time.

Consider US history. There was a great classical liberal culture in the 19th century, which all of the sudden disappeared, totally routed by the forces of material self-interest (i.e. various interest groups who, indifferent to ideology, lobbied the government to enact policies to materially benefit themselves).

Thus I see more hope for liberty in a political system whose success depends on nothing more than the rulers being materially self-interested.

...i.e. monarchy (or a narrow oligarchy), in which economic incentives drive the ruler toward liberal policy, regardless of ideology.

If they're also ideologically inclined toward liberty, great, but it's not essential.

It is also based on action to gain this majority monopoly on force in such a way... instead of for instance voting where we are left to the mercy of the voting booth... it is based on action through supporting your local Priest or Pastor or building a church and building a flock of one's own, and expanding influence and power by diplomatic ties. How do you suggest this majority monopoly on force is obtained?

If you mean how we actually get from here to there, that's a much more difficult question...

Libertarianism is very unlikely to succeed through the democratic process. It's worth trying, if only to slow the decline, but in the long-run democracy will have to be abolished for liberty to reemerge. Fortunately, democracy is doomed to collapse due its own internal contradictions (eventually they run out of other people's money), at which point there will be an opportunity to rebuild the non-democratic state. If democracy evolves into dictatorship (as it typically has done historically), we should want that dictatorship to secure itself as rapidly as possible so as to evolve into a stable monarchy (monarchies begin as military dictatorships). The danger is that it won't secure itself, and you'll end up with an unstable, populist dictatorship, as have plagued the third world. But that's the path forward in my opinion, unappealing as it may first appear.

[helmuth_hubener]

This is a sentence that makes me want to ask, "What is America?" What would that look like to you?

[tod evans]

Little help here.......

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to helmuth_hubener again.

[otherone]

Step One: Undo the coup of '87 and restore the Articles of Confederation ...

THIS

[r3volution 3.0]

Nah, I'd rather let the Mexicans pick the crops while I do something more enjoyable with my leisure time.

[Ronin Truth]

I don't want a stuttered or redundantly named country. <BOOO, HISS! barf, yuck>

[bunklocoempire]

Okay, so instead of saying what candidates would do, please say what needs to be done to return America to its founding principles. What does that look like in 2016?

Relationships. Icky, icky, relationships.

Government is the third party that helps destroy relationships.

If I can come between you and your neighbor, I can b.s. you both to death, and get me and my friends rich while doing it.

Seriously, that's what this is all about, relationships.
Fly a gold and black and drop out of the 3rd party's system -you'll need GOOD relationships to attempt this, which prepares you for the worst.

Is better or worse going to come with an empire? Please act accordingly, and make your neighborhood "great again" while doing so, hopefully your extended neighborhood as well. Relationships, mutually beneficial, relationships.

[Ender]

THIS

YES

@Occams Banana