Centinel
The 10% number is based loosely on the Rahn Curve that shows maximum societal economic growth when government spending hovers around 10-15%. Moreover, defense spending is more than adequate at 5% – indeed the extra 5% would be insurance and pay for law enforcement, statistical analysis and data collection, judiciary, congress, et al
I can see that we part ways in terms of where pragmatism must give way to principle. I don’t care about maximizing societal growth per se; in fact, I believe that what is crucial for our future as a nation–and as a planet-- is not more economic growth, but more moral growth; and as I stated previously, I believe this comes through hands-on trial and error, facing consequences for decisions made, not through accepting a predetermined percentage of taxation, Rahn Curve or not.
However a more competitive standard would be to charge each state based on population so as to encourage state fiscal and monetary policies to be economically effective or face temporary Federal takeover – hence bankruptcy and ‘restructuring’ proceedings
I suppose this is as good a time as any to make clear that I have no interest in accelerating the economic development, let alone the population growth, of the several States, or of the states of the world. I don’t dream of turning a quick profit on all of Earth’s assets, even if they went to the most efficient producer. I like the global state stalemate that keeps much of the planet underdeveloped; and I like the fact that we have States here that are broadly natural in landscape, bejeweled with national forests and national parks.
My system is such that if more government is required, more government is paid for. And to those who make more government necessary these costs accrue directly. Government thereby becomes a tool for teaching self-reliance, with those who require shouldering its costs.
I agree that the People most definitely know what is best for themselves – indeed this self-interest is what drives crony capitalism.
Don’t knock self-interest; the alternative is servitude.
Indeed, power goes to those in society who most aggressively pursue their own self-interests – not those whose self-interests most benefit society.
I like the line; but unfettered free markets would be less interested in what benefits society than most state systems are. It isn’t their job to look out for the general good, unless it directly affects the bottom line–and even then they make careful cost/benefit analyses. Again, my ideal planet does not resemble the DeathStar. To me, the most efficient free market is not the ultimate goal. Personal accountability must be taught to the greatest number, or any system will falter. And direct democracy is uniquely capable of localizing accountability, while maintaining civil rights protections, and state military and law enforcement protections.
Hence, a representative government is needed to check self-interest driven by political machinations.
Really? Since when has representative government CHECKED “self-interest driven by political machinations?” It seems to me that that is exactly what it was designed to foster. For how much more difficult would it be for a special interest to bribe or otherwise convince the entire voting population that it warrants special considerations–that the voters themselves do not–as opposed to bribing or otherwise convincing a handful of representatives on the golf course, or behind closed doors?
Under a pure democracy I believe that 50.1% will vote to plunder the 49.9%.
Mine is no pure democracy. And I’ve already laid out the relevant amendment and argument. We have a representative government now that is allowing the non-productive to plunder the successful.
in order for a military force to be an effective deterrent, it must be funded in peacetime. Hence, where and how does the money come from to maintain a strong military ?
IN sum, I dont see where your source for funding government comes from in your scenario.
In the Tenth Amendment posted above, I’ve enumerated the sources of revenue for government and stipulated that the collections must reflect actual costs. Here’s a few examples:
Usage fees levied upon persons whose activities degrade or monopolize public property; (This permits the government to collect revenues to compensate for the degradation and maintenance of public roads, bridges, buildings, etc.; as well as charging individuals for such things as grazing on public land, parking meters, hot dog stands, etc.)
Usage fees levied upon persons enjoying exclusive use of land, in proportion to its acreage and the volume, mass and scarcity of natural resources therein; (This permits the government to collect revenues in direct proportion to the benefit that individuals derive from the military/law enforcement protection of their private property, peacetime or otherwise. Notice that there is no upper limit on what the government may charge, only a requirement that it actually reflects what they in fact used. Incidentally, it also discourages the acquisition of more private land than one could possibly need; which, as I previously stated, I find of significant planetary benefit.)
Usage fees levied upon foreign governments for involvement of United States military personnel, equipment or weaponry in operations outside the territory of the United States, at the request of said governments, which would otherwise be the responsibility of any sovereign nation to itself; (Obviously this provision enables the military to recover its costs for all overseas military bases from the countries within which they are situated, peacetime or otherwise. And it covers operations in which the U.S. shoulders the burden for nations that piggyback off of our role as the world’s police force.)
I also made some significant legal/justice reforms, including this revenue source:
All convicted prisoners shall labor no less than eight hours per day, five days per week, unless two physicians certify that they are physically or mentally incapable of as much; and only in so laboring shall able prisoners earn the privileges of hot meals, visitations, educational and recreational opportunities and personal, non-toiletry possessions within cells.
By this provision, prisoners will pay for their own incarceration–and accustom themselves to the life of a responsible adult, rather than colluding to commit offenses behind bars–when they aren’t watching cable TV, or playing basketball. Hopefully, such a provision will act as a greater deterrent to crime than conditions today. But I believe in the moral soundness of it, irrespective of results.
I believe that the best means to deal with any societal problems either man-made or natural is a strong, fluid, and nimble private economy – not a strong, fluid and nimble government.
Generally, I agree. And I think we’re largely on the same page with respect to the need for a state military and law enforcement. But I don’t want every road to be a private toll road; or every park to be a day-fee park. I want an option and a requirement for public education, when private individuals, particularly in poor neighborhoods, either cannot afford private schools, or are too irresponsible to save for them. I don’t mind public bus transportation, if the only other option is a private taxi cab. And I value the protection of national lands, and lands of public domain.
But it goes without saying that many of these departments are bloated and wasteful; which is why I provided several different means by which to block their policies:
– The exercise of oversight, investigative and regulatory powers formerly delegated to the United States Congress by the original Constitution, where not previously delegated by the former, shall be delegated by the Attorney General to, and in turn by, the appropriate executive appointees, whose official acts may be halted by the President, the Attorney General, or by a three-fifths majority of the Governors, when deemed unlawful, wasteful or predominately political in nature.
I like this, however if you want a nimble and fluid government – then subjecting bureaucrats to criminal prosecution is counter productive to your goals. Nonetheless, if government mistakes can be punished, then this rule alone would be enough destroy government completely. In the very least, it would make bureaucrats far more cautious and hesitant than ever before thereby rendering them useless and simply cashing paychecks for doing nothing but shuffling paper – which is what most of them do now anyway.
Rules with impartial teeth are what’s missing from our crumbling society: In other words, personal accountability for all. If this provision slows the tendency of regulators to impose unnecessary rules upon business; or forces business to be especially cautious in defense of public safety, I will live with the resulting stalemate. I believe that it will greatly shrink government regulation; and greatly improve business ethics, e.g. drug recalls, environmental pollution, deficient manufacturers’ safety standards, etc.; but that it will not destroy the necessary functions of government.
Too much power to the states thereby rendering the federal government useless. Moreover, I see a dangerous pattern emerging that places power in the hands of appointed and unelected bureaucrats (attorney general) instead of Congress.
The States represent their respective populations more directly than the federal goverment does, whether through their senators and representatives, or through their governors. Either way they must be represented. My system allows even appointed bureaucrats, the members of the Administration, in addition to being subject to the checks listed just previously, to be voted out of office:
Every public official within the United States but the President, either elected or appointed by an elected officer, may be replaced in a summer electoral initiative when, among an option of any precinct-certified candidates who meet all other qualifications for the office of an incumbent, an option to require the immediate replacement of an appointee by the appointer, where applicable, and an option to retain the status quo, one of the two former options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for said office, among at least ninety-five percent of precincts subject to its oversight and authority. Nor shall the aforementioned appointer during the existing term remove the duly-elected replacement-appointee from office, unless for misconduct therein; though all public officials may be replaced in any electoral initiative when a vacating of their offices for any other reason shall have necessitated a special election.
Kind of wordy for a constitution, and it definitely places far more power in the hands of the states than I envision, moreover it makes it nearly impossible to wage war (governors voting) and it would take too long in a fluid situation that requires an immediate response. My plan only requires a supermajority vote by congress
In some cases the founding document was not “wordy” enough; hence the mess we have now. It also makes it necessary that the President convince a large majority of the Governors that the case for war is compelling enought to send their respective state populations to face death overseas. But the time it would take, in this age of smartphones and internet, to gather the necessary votes from the 50 Governors, as opposed to the 535 members of Congress, would probably be less time.
I dont like power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats
It’s already there: Congress has long since transferred their enumerated powers to agencies run by unelected bureaucrats, like the FDA, EPA, IRS, etc.; I just place redundant checks upon it this system, including a new one, directly in the hands of the people, instead of just relying on the courts as a last resort. And don’t forget that the powers that they possess are still limited by a Constitution–only now the buck stops with a single, accountable individual:
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the power to monitor and to regulate entry into and exit from the United States; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and deportation; and to make rules for domestic capture of foreign enemies.
The Secretary of State shall have the power to define and process piracies, felonies and other non-military transgressions committed by United States citizens on the High Seas, or in any other international space, and offenses against the law of Nations.
The Secretary of Defense shall have the power to provision and maintain the armed forces; to maintain rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces; and to make rules for the capture of foreign enemies abroad.
Sorry about hijacking your compliment to Merlin; but I still think your posts are refreshingly-rooted in common sense. And I don’t expect you or anyone else to adopt my way of improving the nation. I just felt obliged to put my own ideas on record.