There should be about a dozen lawmakers and their staffs. They would be elected by direct vote every two years. They would listen to private special interest groups alike the N.R.A., the Sierra Club, Boeing, Puritans of the former State of Mass., etc. They would be guided by a modernized version of the Constitution and campaign statements of "What Americanism means to me." In 25 words or less.
They would make and delete laws as needed, confirm Supreme Court Judges and declare war. The population or corporations would contribute to the special interest groups directly or not, depending on how important each issue was to them. Never directly to a lawmaker.
There would be no political States. An area could declare itself a "State" with a Governor embracing a certain quality of life such as, Greater New York City, Montana Countryside, or Rural Midwest. Everyone would have a "home" State.
They could spend time in another state, but they would have to pay a "Tourist tax" which could be negative. The States would receive a portion of tax dollars depending on how much they paid (about 70%). Only the Feds could collect taxes.
They would keep some for Fed projects and a baseline representation of all
citizens including illegal aliens who are here but do not contributive anything and have no State.
Some very good, very forward looking (I can't use the term progressive any more) ideas.
I like the idea of very few term-limited legislators, although I would suggest that the risks are great, because any 12 persons can more easily conspire to perpetuate the tyranny. On the other hand, managing this or any other useful constitution shouldn't require much more than 12 people.
When I revert to my natural anarchic state, I visualize utopia as no central government whatsoever. In a perfect wold, all governments are local. And if you don't like your local government, move. Odds are there's a better one within walking distance.
I recognize that there would be some confusion. For example, you'd have to pay a toll every 8-12 miles, but maybe some creative consolidator could manage that effectively, much like the Indiana and Illinois do with their toll pass system.
Also, when I go back to this 'no central government' construct, I recall that we had exactly that between 1776 and 1791. We had the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the commonwealth of Virginia, and all the other governments that the people were perfectly happy with. Everybody knew the governor, or at least was free to go see him. Then, in 1791 the states signed up for whatever reason to a federal government, which many rightly felt they didn't really need. It was sold to these people on the basis that the entity's role was limited. Someone had to maintain the Atlantic police fleet. Since New York was mostly landlocked, and it wouldn't be right to have Delaware, Virginia, etc. foot the entire bill for protecting the coastal ship traffic. So, to provide for the defense was the one compelling reason to unify the states.
The only reason this new republic did not suffer immediate tissue rejection was because Thomas Jefferson and a few other early presidents were careful not to overstep their charter.
Then, starting a few decades later, states rights were subjugated to federal authority, and the rest, as they say, is (literally) history.
So if, as some of our "progressive friends" like to say, the constitution is a living document, we need to move on from the old ways. Okay, I say, let's try a new system where we assign all rights to the states, and let them decide piece by piece how much federal government we want to allow. How's that for progressive? Better yet, we could start at the municipal level, and decide from there what constitutes a state.
Something tells me that Hoosiers will be perfectly happy to stay Hoosiers, and even happier to not have to send their best politicians and 28% of their money to DC. They'd be happy to spend, say, their full share or more of the defense budget, but that money wouldn't have to go through the big government bureacracy. instead, their state would pay a fee to the public defense utility which would be responsible to its own shareholders and to its customers (the residents of that state) for protection. A lot like the electric company.
To those who are looking for the economies of scale where the federal government is responsible for collecting all the money. I think the closer the money is spent to where it is being earned, the better. It simply loses too much value in the round trip through Washington DC. The poor schlubs in Washington who are chartered to spend it have no clue what would have a positive impact on that local economy. Let the mayor spend it. Let the locals decide how much they want to be taxed, and let them see the results of what they bought.
Anyway, with the collusion that goes on now between the two big-government
parties, I see no real relief initiated at the federal government level. Until a state decides to secede, the federal government will continue to own us all, and in ever increasing ways. Maybe the Alamo in a more literal sense will be the last outpost of freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment