Discussion in 'Politics' started by proletarian, Mar 2, 2010.
levels of cooperation like city -> county -> state -> confederation? confederate currency or federal? do you mean the corporate entity, or will there not be private enterprise?
not a vision of the founding fathers. where are you coming from with that?
do pose this as a superior layout than a country like the US?
Sorry, Antagon, I only now became aware of your reponse.
Pretty much, though I feel a true confederation is too weak and a federation can become too strong at the national level. I personally believe the FF reached a wonderful compromise and provided a wonderful template with which to work.
To maximize free and open trade and business between the member States, their must be a unified currency. This currency should be in the form of a 'commodity note', where the currency is valued as being equal to and exchangeable at any time for a set quantity of a given commodity held in reserve. Historically, precious metals have served well and been fairly resistant to monetary inflation (though the very use of such notes opens the door for abuse, I do not believe it is feasible to perform every day transactions in precious metals).
One cannot destroy private enterprise ('hey, I'll give you fix bucks to make me a beanie or shine my boots') and any attempt to do so would be a total clusterfuck. Private enterprise is necessary for any funtioning economy, as the private entrepreneur can read and respond to local market demand and competition leads to the creation of new and better products to serve the needs and fulfill the wishes of the people. Only a fool tries to destroy private enterprise.
I was referring to the corporate charters which declare a corporation a legal 'person' with all the rights of an individual and none of the liability- a legal fiction that has had devastating effects for the economy and the nation since its creation.
It's not a new system, but a reformation of the current system so that is more closely resembles the original. It's more comparable a church throwing aside pagan influences and telling the Pope to go fuck himself so they can focus on the teachings of Christ than the creation of a new dogma.
We have seen the Republic transform into a monstrous thing, more a federation with a totalitarian and corrupt heart than the union of semiautomatics States it was intended to be. As a result, we've seen the the personal greed and ignorance of those in DC bankrupt the entirety as the states have become slaves to the system of which they were to be the masters.
I find your description more mirrors the country under the Articles of Confederation rather than the country under the constitution. Your description results in a really weak federal government without the power to provide for our mutual defense, to regulate commerce between and among the various states, and to engage in projects such as the interstate highway system. It also leaves a federal government without the power to ensure the 'equal treatment' of its citizens by the member states. We tried that and hurriedly realized that it wouldn't work.
i think the corporate charter is the only way to account for the revenue and assets of the enterprise. after you outgrow our s-corp status, the business and its owners are distinct (by law and reality). taxation, equity-based investment and enterprise-owned assets all depend on this identity. is it the owner's indemnity you dont like? you could just scrap that.
i think beo is right - you either empower the fed to handle huge issues and it gets huge, or you have a hard time dealing with said issues. although, you could also make your model parliamentary - scrap the executive branch (if you had one) and run the cabinet out of the legislature. i, too, would scrap the house of reps and just run two reps per state like the senate. state legislatures could decide what to send to the national reps and how to structure their state/local gov. i think the house is full of jokers that shouldnt have graduated from state politics anyhow. even though i was raised in california, a big state, i cant account for the benefit of having district-proportionate representation in the federal government.
So you take powers I specifically mentioned the Fed would have... and accuse me of not giving the fed those powers?
Did you bother reading beyond the first sentence?
Clarify. Plenty of businesses have functioned and do function without them
Under the current system, the corporation and the persons who are its head are isolated from any culpability at all, which has opened the door for too many abuses to list. Have you seen The Corporation?
I've not looked into the parliamentary system (such as is seen in the UK) enough to really comment on its merits and/or flaws as compared to our system.
The idea is similar to that (I forget the term at this time) which seeks to represent all parties proportionally. That a group (State) of 3000 thousand should be a slave to 1500 people simply because they are form two different states of smaller populations than the first flies in the face of democracy and gives smaller states unfair sway. Thus, the house allows something closer to a true democracy and allows more populaous states, by merit of their greater numbers, to have greater sway while the Senate forces the States to enter on equal grounds, acts to prevent through this and longer terms the force of mass opinion and trend on national policy, and effectively filter out much of what might be passed by exited majorities in the House before bringing matters to a more deliberate debate and consideration.
I think you are proposing a solution that won't work in this century.
Basically you are proposing a city state system....one that is based on a theory of how to organize society based on the flawed notion that human nature will change.
The Corporation Film: Welcome ...that?
i havent seen the movie. will check it out some time. couldnt you just scrap the indemnity protection? chiefs still end up going to jail as it is for business ethics. you could strengthen that.
to clarify, as a business gets bigger, it doesnt work much like a sole proprietorship anymore. at some point, all the profits from a business dont constitute personal income for the owner/proprietor. partnerships, and employee/publicly owned companies accentuate the fact. owners become investor/executives, more than the owners of all of the business' profits and assets. they take an income from the business, but are able to leave the business to make investment decisions independent of them; they are able to offer parts of the ownership to others in exchange for capital, etc. without the business being a distinct entity this is difficult. am i missing something?
that that system is corruptible and should therefore be abolished entirely, sets a bar that government couldnt pass either.
parliament, for starters, has no executive, but a main representative chosen by his piers.
on US congressional representation.. i understand that mechanism, but if you're looking to devolve and deflate the role of the feds in the national dynamic, you could consider the extent that the forces of popular democracy are the ones that have empowered the US federal government over the states and endowed it with the wagner's law effect you disdain.
if states in your model would deal with their local concerns, while national concerns would be the only on the federal docket, there wouldnt be all of the earmark power we see in the US federal government. state citizens would see their state legislatures as more valuable than the federal government. that is the end that i feel could be achieved by a system with no national representation on a district by district basis.
if you really want to invert the influence of the broader, national components to be subordinate to the state and local components, perhaps federal delegates should work in state governments - in addition to, or in lieu of - the other way around. want to go to war? convince my state, and we will vote it up or down based on our distinct constitutional process, and fund it accordingly with our tax revenues.
basically deflating the role of local governments in the federal government actually deflates the fed end and its mandate to out-tax/spend local governments, how i see it.
the weaknesses any local/state-centric government has are national defense, cohesion of the union and monetary policy. that's what makes me more of a washingtonian/hamiltonian federalist than a madisonian confederate.
i wonder if madison and the more confederate thinkers would have prevailed in 1812.
Separate names with a comma.