Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

  1. Join us at the Holiday Inn Detroit-Livonia on Thursday, May 14, 2015 for a full 4 hours on expedite trucking information, career information and tips. Learn how to be successful as an expedite Owner Operator and discover new products and services in the Expedite Trucking Industry. CLICK HERE to register today!

How to remake our government

Discussion in 'The Soapbox' started by AMonger, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. AMonger

    AMonger New Recruit

    With all the regime change going on in the world, as well as the potential economic default scenarios that actually endanger our government and way of life, perhaps it's time to ask ourselves what a better government should look like. After all, our Founding Fathers told us that it is a natural right of man to alter or abolish their government as they see fit if it becomes destructive of their rights.

    No one can argue that that hasn't occurred in America.

    And the circumstances may be upon us that will take care of the problem automatically rather than any uprising. An economist was asked something to the effect of when we might regain our freedom. His answer was, "When checks from Washington no longer buy anything." That day may be right around the corner, and when it arrives, it might not take much prompting to convince most Americans that something different has to be done.

    So this is my question: If the current government collapses under the weight of its own hubris, greed, incompetence, and lust for power, what should a new government look like? Should we continue with our current model of executive, legislative, and judicial branches? Would a parliamentary system work better, like in the UK where they elect ministers and one of them is elected the Prime Minister, subject to confidence votes? What changes would be needed to ensure our legislative branch isn't for sale to special interests? What type of constitution would guarantee our rights better than our current one? What should our criminal justice system look like?

    Please add more questions and answers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  2. iceroadtrucker

    iceroadtrucker Active Expediter

    Take a look at Columbia the truckers down there in 16 days of stricking got their way.

    American Truckers need to band together and do the same.

    Fuel is over Priced Bring it down

    The payment of freight has went down in the last 20years.
    that i believe is to compensate for the higher price of Fuel and the payement of fuel surcharge.

    Throw those bums outa office and start over and dont give them no stinking retriement after one or two terms.

    Make them do 20 years community service for free each weekend if they want a retirement. & that dont mean kissing babies either!!! real work for the poor and needy roofing houses ect setting and running boys and girls clubs.
    Food banks ect.
    Real work to help real people.

    How many politicians would want to be in office then.
    That will solve the hudge on slug of us having to pay those over payed bums. One term and they are done. Make them work together and get the work done.

    Its suppose to be for the people by the people not for them selves.

    Some where our forefathers message has gotten lost.
    too much compramise.
    What were most of our forfathers that formed this country
    they were what Farmers working class citizins who would get together do the good for the Country then go back home to work. Voluntary I do believe is the correct word but then again there will be those that will say that is incorrect too.

    I say throw them out an start over. but that would be too easy.
     
  3. melanieanne

    melanieanne New Recruit

    Hey Nature Boy (IRT) Your right we should throw the bums out and start over and not with the Fancy Texas Saddles of the Cowboy but go Bare back like the Farm boy. A honest days works for an honest days pay. Blood Sweat and Tears.
    You go Nature Boy ;-)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  4. chefdennis

    chefdennis New Recruit

    The Republic that our Founding Fathers gave us would work again, if the people take personal responsibilityand learn that the "entitlements" are what have bankrupt us not only financially, but also killed alot of peoples reason to sustain themselves. When the elected few took it upon themselves to be the "great provider", they and the people were more then happy to let them we started to die a slow death...as we have for the most part since the 30's....I guess in the big picture, it hasn't really been a slow death, but a very rapid one.....
     
  5. RLENT

    RLENT Seasoned Expediter

    "The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." - John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798
     
  6. zero3nine

    zero3nine New Recruit

    [YouTube]9ZDkacOveF0[/YouTube]

    fired at you from my Droideka
     
  7. skyraider

    skyraider Active Expediter

    1. No one needs to be paid, make it all a volunteer group.

    2. Do away with all the fringie things like a zillion dollar jet to fly the government dingbats from Washington to LA so they can get home on the weekend. Ugh, I drive my van home if I want to do this,,,guess what,,its called dead head miles on my bill, not the taxpayers bill.

    3. If u cant make ends meet, then revise ur personal budget, not borrow from ur neighbors(taxpayers).

    4. Stop meddling in other peoples business( foreign politics)

    5. Return to some pride in the USA, can we say work ethics and family values, ( not the u owe me crowd and those government workers doing porn at the office all day)

    6. Now I need a 3000 mile week starting today,,Ive got a headache.:rolleyes:
     
  8. greg334

    greg334 New Recruit

    If they end the entitlements tomorrow, what would really happen?

    I mean the question "And?" happens to pop into my mind when we actually look around and see there is nothing to be feared by this. SO if there is rioting, how long do you think it would take before the rest of usome rioting, some looting but overall the majority of the people who put into the system would not just let it happen as much as many would think. There may be problems for while, but s get tired of it and there is a backlash either through law enforcement or through just dealing with it on our own?
     
  9. golfournut

    golfournut Active Expediter

    Cut all foreign aid. None, zilch, nadda.

    Close all foreign military bases, bring all our military home. Unless that foreign country foots the total bill like S. Korea.

    Raise import tariffs to make up the disparities between currencies.

    Tax breaks to companies if you make 100% of your product here.

    If not, tax the heck out of them and pay the import tax.

    Flat rate income tax.
    No tax breaks for foreign charity. You want to help someone, do it here. Dollar for dollar tax break.

    Everybody pays SS. No pensions 401s etc. Get a job and save your own money.

    Get your own healthcare.

    No welfare no unemployment. Be a burden on your own family. No family, your gonna die!

    Congressmen and Senator pay $30 k
    With no bennies. Limit staff. No self imposed pay increase.

    Mandatory death penalty for any kind of murder.

    All other crime, lock them up solitary confinement except for work. Bring the chain gangs back.

    Close our borders. Must be a US citizen to own property, business and all education including higher education. Why should we educate the world then they use it against us!

    Tough love!

    That's to start!
     
  10. Poorboy

    Poorboy New Recruit

    I'm starting to like the way you think:D
     
  11. golfournut

    golfournut Active Expediter

    Great minds think alike! lol
     
  12. AMonger

    AMonger New Recruit

    That's why the old system doesn't work and won't again. It allowed loopholes and variances in interpretation, such as the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause, to occur and steal our freedom. We would have to try something else, something that is far less ambiguous, something that's expounded on exhaustively to allow for changes in language over the next few hundred years, something that unquestionably limits governments power, and perhaps most importantly, provides penalties for power over-reach.
     
  13. AMonger

    AMonger New Recruit

    This really has nothing to do with trucking. Not that freedom wouldn't affect trucking, because it would. Imagine if the prohibition against self-incrimination wasn't violated in trucking. It would mean an end to logbooks and EOBRs, etc. You'd just have to face severe penalties for harming someone else, as you would in any just society. Drive as many hours as you want, but if you run over somebody's Aunt Mildred, you'll wish you were never born.

    As for the price of fuel, do you want the government setting prices? You may think you do, but once they start, you'll wish you hadn't opened that door. How does one set prices? Are you proposing a subsidy to offset the difference between what you want to pay for fuel and its real cost to the station operator? It's easy to say, "The cost of fuel shall be $1.25 a gallon," but if it costs the truck stop $3.20 a gallon, he's not going to be in business long enough for you to get to the pump and fill up.

    And in a free, capitalist society, government doesn't have the power to set prices. We are both talking about setting up a free society, aren't we?

    Ok, to translate, your proposal is to disqualify from future political office anyone who currently holds office, to impose mandatory term limits, and to abolish the congressional pension plan, right? Would you also disqualify previous office holders, say someone who was a congressman 10 years ago but isn't one currently?

    We'll assume you meant 20 hours every week. So you wouldn't abolish the pension plan, just make them do 20 hours of labor a week to get it? If they wish to forgo the pension, would they still have to do the weekly labor?
    What are your specific proposals for making them work together and get work done?

    It's a bit simplistic to state it that way, but how to "start over" is the premise of the thread. Do you have any proposals?

    Should we keep the same form of government, with three branches composed as they are? Should we rewrite or amend the constitution in any way? How should we fund the government? What should our immigration policies be? Should we keep electing senators or should we return to having senators appointed by the States to represent them? Should we have senators at all? Should we retain our current system of justice or rework it entirely?

    For example, we currently have a system that divides criminal infractions into misdemeanors and felonies, but some felonies that are more harshly punished than crimes of violence. So I would propose that we have different classes of crimes, one in which there are 4 classes: misdemeanors, violent misdemeanors (a punch in the nose or some minor violence), felonies, and violent felonies, which would, of course, be punished the harshest. We could even add a 5th class, which would be a breach of trust by an elected or appointed official.

    In my question, everything is on the table.
     
  14. AMonger

    AMonger New Recruit

    This would mean that only the rich could serve, and that's kind of what we have now by other means. Look at the problems caused when one class becomes the rulers.

    What do you think of a system whereby each candidate would have to raise support to live, like a missionary? If he wants to serve, his district has to directly pay for his food, rent, car, healthcare, etc. And they can have direct control over what he's allowed. They can say, "The pay and expenses for serving our district is X. If you're elected, that's what you get. No caviar for you, I'm afraid." If rich districts want their rep to have caviar, they can pay for it. If decisions made by congress cause economic problems, their rep might be eating mac and cheese.

    If you do that, you'll never meet your representative unless you travel to him. Perhaps his district ought to pay for that travel, based on how often they want to see him home. And then they can summon him whenever they want him. "Hey, buddy, remember your vote on that bill we told you we didn't want? There's a plane ticket waiting for you at Dulles. You have an appointment to be here to explain yourself."

    So this would be a proposal for a balanced budget law? To make this happen, you'd have to regulate the nature of things on which they can spend money (actually, this already exists, but it's been interpreted into meaninglessness), and you'd have to ensure that they set tax rates (if we would continue taxing incomes) independent of their projected expenses. In other words, set up a process to set a fair tax rate, then allow them to spend no more than whatever that brings in. You'd have to set up some sort of procedure for declaring emergencies so they could fund responses to true emergencies, but the problem is that they'd declare those emergencies whether or not they exist and then do some budget trickery to pay for whatever they want. We'd have to come up with methods of preventing them from doing that.

    I like it, but it won't happen in a day. It's hard to legislate virtue. We can only attempt to legislate away some symptoms of a lack of virtue. For example, some people wish to steal from others, so we have laws against it. But the desire to steal would still be there.

    As for work ethic, you're going to have to abolish all welfare and entitlements. If you abolished them immediately, you'd have a LOT of consequences. All the people who survive on welfare now, and who can't get a job because of the economy or their own shortcomings would face a drastic situation in which many of them would turn to crime. You'd have to be ready for that crime wave. You would also have to be ready for some people who won't work and who are also poor criminals to starve and die. That would create opposition from many in society, so you'd have to be ready to counter that.

    6. Now I need a 3000 mile week starting today,,Ive got a headache.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
    You and me, both, minus the headache.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2011
  15. greg334

    greg334 New Recruit

    So where do you get the old system doesn't work, it seems to work until there was external influences from the European experience.

    The loopholes don't exist, they are part of the safeguards that were needed so we didn't become another UK or France or Unified Italy/Germany. They were not really important until we allowed them to used at a time when we were influenced by outside forces, a change in the government structure won't close them or allow any rectification to take place but entrench them into the system where we have no recourse.

    If you understand that most of what we have today is still a far cry from what others have today, then you can easily see the failures of the other systems and how the rights of the subjects are just that, given rights of the subjects of the government. As one genius idiot from France said just today, America has went backwards from the 21st century to the 18th all because we want to return to an antiquated system that only addresses the rights of citizens and not the rights of all the people as describe by the international community. He added we are fighting within the system to change the system which is what we shouldn't do but actually change the system to what others have so it is easier for everyone to understand and to make the changes effective.

    Nevertheless his comment is right to a point, we do have an antiquated system but we haven't change the system to fit the needs of the government as France has done nor have we modified the system for the needs of the government like the UK has done. It is right we are fighting to change the system within the system and no other system allows anyone to do that, which is the great thing about how our constitution and our government actually works. IF we are under a parliamentary system, there are a few assumptions that take place about the rights of man and how they are created and passed on. There isn't one other country that says that the rights are from God except this one and to remove that basic principle from the foundation of our government will mean we are no better than the UK or France and your rights are subject to the whim of the leadership in power.

    BUT you miss a very important point, which many are ignorant about when they scream about rights and ambiguity so on - we allow the system to be what it is.

    The people in power can only achieve power through us. A senator or congressman can not be elected by the congress, there is no appointment process for the president and each branch of government is autonomous but dependent on the others to maintain its credibility and ethics. A sitting judge can be impeached while a sitting congressman can be tried for a crime while a president can actually be removed - does not happen in other countries as a means maintain a viable government. You don't have the complexity and the run around that other systems have when it comes down to how they get there and how they are held accountable by the vote.
     
  16. AMonger

    AMonger New Recruit

    I like it, but it's one of those "as long as you're ready for the consequences" type of things. You'd have to prepare for them. And I'm not convinced that American boys should spill their blood elsewhere even if the other country is paying.

    Doing the second would obviate the first. I mean, don't offer a tax break, just have the tax penalty for the second.


    If everybody is to get a job and be responsible for their own retirement, that would mean SS isn't necessary at all. But if we're going to have an income tax, perhaps we should use your principle there; EVERYBODY would be liable for some tax, even a bum on the street who collects cans and begs for handouts. You'd probably have to declare it uncollectable and waive enforcement of it, but I've heard it argued that exempting some people from tax liability harms society. Perhaps if EVERYBODY was expected to chip in SOMETHING, even if it's a pittance, more people would take an interest in what happens.

    I like this one. Health insurance as it functions today drives up the cost of all heathcare. I'd certainly be in favor of abolishing all health insurance other than catastrophic coverage. If the most anybody could or would pay for a heart transplant was $25,000, guess what it would cost.

    I'm guessing private charity would step up to the plate. But you'd have to be prepared to counter the elements of society that would call this immoral.

    Given the cost of living, that might be a bit low. If you're going to limit their pay drastically, you're going to have to pay their expenses. They do have two homes, you know; one in their home district which they have to have to be eligible to serve from that district, and then a residence in DC. Who can live in DC without welfare on $30,000? Good in principle, but the figure is a bit low.

    Now this is a very interesting proposal. Solitary is torture, really, if it's for an extended period of time, but there are ways of semi-solitary that could get around that. Imagine if every prisoner had an 8x8 cell on wheels or on a track. He's the only one in that cell, and you can move it anywhere. If he's behaving himself, you can wheel it near other cells and they can socialize. If they don't behave, you wheel it off somewhere alone. He would never have any physical contact with anyone, so prison violence would be a thing of the past. When it's time for a shower, you wheel his cell to the shower, it locks in place at the opening to the shower, you tell him he has 15 minutes, and when he's done, you wheel him back. The same could be done with the exercise yard or a TV room if he earns that. So he'd be in his cell almost all of the time except for some exercise time and shower time, and maybe an hour of TV a day, if he earns it. But in each case, he's there alone.

    24 men to a block, each with one TV room, exercise area, shower, etc. And they'd be rotated as necessary. And each block could have one or two guards on duty, with each cell in plain sight of the guard. And monitors to watch the TV room, shower room, and exercise yard. Automate the moving of the cells, and you have a very efficient setup.

    I like most of this. It was a big mistake to educate the world's masses. Before we did that, we pretty much guaranteed a high standard of living for ourselves. Any country could set up their own education system, but we shouldn't have educated their people for them. Had we not, the nuclear and WMD genies would still be in their bottles, at least to a far greater extent than today. Though I'm not as enthusiastic about forbidding foreigners to own anything.
    Tough love!
     
  17. AMonger

    AMonger New Recruit

    We don't seem to be talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about principles of governance that were perverted. For example, the general welfare clause. We know from what the Founding Fathers wrote that they had a fairly narrow definition of what that means, and our current office holders have expanded that far beyond the original intent. Ask Chuckie Schumer or Bernie Sanders what it means, and you'll see they view it as virtually without limit, and limited government is a fundamental tenet of our system of government--limited government with enumerated powers.

    The same is true of the interstate commerce clause. It was Schumer, I believe, who fought for the passage of a Federal Violence Against Women Act, a power that without question, is a state issue. When challenged on it, he came up with some BS about how violence against women causes them to miss work, which affects the economy, etc.

    Look at the second amendment, or the right against unreasonable search and seizure, or almost every other right. They've been whittled away at, twisted, abused, as if every one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights had "unless we want to" at the end.

    Right now, I'm following a case in NY in which a guy is awaiting trial, but not by a jury. The court says the maximum sentence is less than 6 months, so he's not entitled to a jury. But he points out the 6th amendment, which says, In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed... So, he asks, what part of the word ALL does the government not understand? In addition, federal court rules define "speedy" as "within 70 days," something else that's not happening in his case, yet he's still being prosecuted.

    These are instances of where the government has carved out loopholes, violating the specific wording of the supreme law of the land. That may not be, strictly speaking, a loophole, but you see what I mean. Or you should.
    This isn't about the "needs of the government." The needs of the government are addressed in article 1, section 8, where they are given a specific set of powers to address their needs.

    I'm reminded of a court case in which there was a ruling for the defendant and against the state. The prosecutor whined that his case was hampered by this, and this affected the state's right to a fair trial. But the thing is, the state has no right to a fair trial. Find that somewhere in the constitution. It's the defendant who's guaranteed a fair trial.

    If you mean something else by "the needs of the government," I don't know what it is.

    I'm not even coming close to saying or even implying that. The system in which we empower the government, giving them limited powers, and reserving the rest to ourselves under the premise that our rights come from God is the correct system, and it's this system that has been perverted. Our current public employees don't believe this, nor do many people on this forum. Many believe that our rights are granted by government. Ask some congressmen about rights, and you'll see. So my point is if the old system crumbles under its own weight, we must make sure that whatever new system we put in place is set up so these perversion CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN.


    All the more reason to put more safeguards for our liberty in place. As the Declaration says, "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."

    If you're setting up from scratch, you can "(lay) 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."

    So that's what I'm asking in this thread: What principles seem most likely to effect our safety and happiness, and how should we organize government's powers, should the opportunity present itself? Everything's on the table.
     

Share This Page