Now, don't misunderstand me: I am not advocating the overthrow of the government, I am not advocating the change in system from the Representative Democracy (read: "Republic") we now have, and I still think America is the "last, best hope of the world."
But, some changes have to be made in The Noble Experiment. The Founders weren't stupid men - they did a good job. But, mind Lord Acton's (Unfinished) Dictum - "Power Corrupts. Absolute power Corrupts absolutely."
Unfinished? Yeah - he left off one more key point. "Power attracts the corruptible."
Let's throw out a few potential changes to the way we're doing things now - since what we're still doing is what's getting us into trouble (I think voter apathy and ignorance also have a lot to do with it, as well as a constitutional inability of the average member of the public to think farther into the future than the end of his own nose. WAKE UP! I can't do this all myself...)
OVERALL CHANGE: Retirement packages for "elected officials" - self-funded or no - go away entirely. Put them all on Social Security and Medicare. Hell, put them all on Medicare while they're in office. That should get those systems fixed!
Basic Change #1: We don't elect our representatives and officials anymore. Instead, they are selected by lottery from the rolls of registered voters and prior servicemen.
How would this help? It's been said that, "The idea man to wield political power is the man who oes not want it." No more running for election - you get selected at random. It takes a genuine hardship to become exempted from this - nowhere near as easy as it is to get out of jury duty.
How many people have said they could do better, given a chance? This makes it more likely that they get their chance.
CAVEAT: Once you have finished a term in office, you are disqualified for a like period of time from holding "elective" office at any level. If you spend six years in the Senate, you can't even get elected City Dog Catcher for the next six years. The two-term limit on President still stands.
This disqualification works up the chain as well - if you serve a four-year term as, say, Mayor; you are thereby summarily disqualified from holding office at any higher level until four years have passed.
The only real "professional" exemption I can think of offhand would be to medical practitioners - they have to stay in practise and have to deal with too much Continuing Medical Education as is. No, I'm not going to exempt lawyers - the CLE is there because Congress passes laws on altogether too regular a basis, and maybe we can slow them down this way...
Basic Change #2: Hard term limits. Two terms in any one office. I am unsure if they should still be allowed to ascend the ladder - but elimination of retirement benefits should make that a much more carefully-considered decision.
Basic Change #3:
A) Officials are still elected, but are disqualified from holding office for a like term after having served a term in office - AT ANY LEVEL. The two-term limit for POTUS still applies.
B) Retirement packages are, naturally, revoked.
C) (And this one is the kicker!) The party that previously held the office is summarily disqualified from posting a candidate for the following term! Democrats have a Senate seat for six years, then they have to give it up. Ditto Republicans. This should make the "third parties" rather more viable, and should (I hope) break up the "40/40 voting bloc" that helps to screw everything up.
(C) is going to be the one that sticks in everyone's craw the most, but I honestly think it would be a useful and progressive change, meant to turn over personnel and keep things from getting entirely too entrenched in Washington. It should also help to force a "Party balance" in the two Houses.
Basic Change #4: Candidates for President may no longer have running mates. Return to the way things were before - the man who got the most votes became President, the one right behind him became Vice President. This was a good idea - it helped to make the Parties work together (I'm not sure why they're called "parties" - they're not that damned much fun.)
Basic Change #5: Someone may only run for elected office if he has previously served in a military capacity - for a term or a career, and has not been dishonourably discharged. This shows a dedication to the betterment and protection of the Nation - something the current crop of pols seems to neither have nor want.
Now, some basic changes to the legislative process:
#1 - No Riders. Period. The bill is about what it's about, and if you want to pass something else, write another bill. I'm tired of all of the stuff getting tucked into bills - you expect me to believe that anything that is 1500-2000 pages is just about one subject? I remember the "heathcare bill" being bandied about as 1900-odd pages. No way is was all about healthcare - and I seem to have been right about that.
#2 - Fifty-Page Limit. If it can't be written out in fifty pages and fully summarised (skipping nothing) on the front and back of a single page, it goes back for a rewrite. "Page" referring to the common letter-size page, or 8-1/2"x11" sheets.
#3 - Constitutiuonal Review. If the law as written would fly in the face of the Constitution, it gets scrapped in committee. It has long been held that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that "any measure repugnant to it is null and void of Law." When did we forget this? And, any laws currently in effect are to be reviewed against the Constitution, and any law that violates it is to be scrapped. Anyone prosecuted under a scrapped law shall have their case reviewed - the review board may release the individual and/or expunge the record as indicated.
#4 - Static Growth. In order to pass a new law, an old law must be rescinded. We have a number of measures still on the books that just don't apply anymore - at all levels! - but you can still be prosecuted for them (ex: I grew up in Indiana. Every time I shaved my own face, I was guilty of a misdemeanour - under law, I had to go to a barber for a shave. Not enforced anymore, but it damned well could have been.) Most of these laws are hangers-on from 100-150 years ago, and circumstances have changed drastically.
#5 - Common Sense. "I'm sorry sir, that doesn't pass the Common Sense test." If you've done a term in service, it's a good chance you heard a senior non-com saying this to some lieutenant. If you did a career as an enlisted man, you probably said this to some lieutenant at some later point in your career. A similar measure should apply in the Senate and House chambers - catch stupid laws before they become "problem laws." If it doesn't pass the Common Sense test, it gets killed on the floor. Problem solved. This should take care of the various "unenforceable laws" out there - the Electronic Communications Protection Act of 1986 leaps irresistably to mind.
That should be enough to prime you into thinking for now. Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
I was talking with my wife at the store the other day...
And she had an interesting realisation (I love that woman. Nice to have someone to talk to whose mind works in a similar direction to my own - and in a similar capacity - but diverges just enough to make conversations interesting,) which is simply:
"Generation X, Generation Y, and those coming up actually LIKE and ENJOY being told what to do."
This explains much - for instance, it explains why there isn't anywhere near as much popular outcry over the regulations that have been getting passed in the last year or so, regs that not so much "guide" activity as try to "force" it.
I recall noting with dismay a front page (above the fold) news item on New Year's Day this year that mentioned "Forty Thousand New Laws Go Into Effect Nationwide Today." (emphasis mine)
Yes, there have been certain rare occasions where I think a law is necessary to get people to stop doing something that is dangerous in and of itself (DWY - Driving While Yakking - comes to mind. Hands-free or holding the handset to your ear, DWY is distracting. It's been shown to be at least as incapacitating as a BAC of 0.08%. But, when CA passed the law to prevent it, the fine for the first couple of offenses wasn't even enough to outstrip the cellphone bill for a month! Ergo, I still see people doing it all of the time.)
But, 40,000 new laws, at all levels? What? Why do we have even 40,000 laws on the books in the first place, much less enough that 40,000 new laws is merely noteworthy?
And, have you ever tried to read these things? I once audited a course in Logic years back (I wish I'd taken it for credit - it was fun,) and logic doesn't have a lot of bearing on how these laws are structured. That, and you're constantly cross-referencing back and forth; just looking up one law and its effects can end up with you going through eight or ten thick books just to get the full impact of the thing.
And there are more coming all the time. And the younger generation likes it!
We've forgotten our history. The United States exists, as a nation, simply because we got tired of being told what to do by an "absentee landlord" (read: the Throne of England.) The fact that our Nation's capital - and our State capitals - are on the same continent doesn't make them any less "absentee landlords" - frankly, I'm tired of being told what's best for me by someone who doesn't know me from Adam's off ox.
As much as it pains me to admit it, I must go on record as saying the following: "Yes, we do (unfortunately) need laws to guide behaviour. They are necessary because we, quite simply, aren't grown-up enough (as a people) to govern ourselves." I'd like to see us get there - but putting more laws on people isn't the way to go about it.
The "elected representatives" aren't any help - they've convinced themselves (and most of us) that they're our elected masters, not our elected servants. Until we can finally remind them that they work for us (not the other way about,) it's going to keep getting worse.
"Power attracts the corruptible." I'd mentioned that in my last post, and I'm thinking of calling it Lord Acton's Corollary (in fact, I think I'll start doing that now. "Acton's Law" and "Acton's Corollary" are now a part of my vocabulary.) As long as we keep getting corruptible people elected to office, the system will not improve - in fact, it will continue to get a good deal worse.
There are those of you who may read this who end up thinking, "So?" Hey - you may enjoy being told what to do, but I don't. I've got an independent, functioning brain, and I'd like to be able to use it. I can think for myself, y'know?
But, if we're going to keep getting saddled with laws and regs, what do we have to look forward to? You might want to watch Demolition Man - for all of its appearance, the society shown in that movie is actually rather dystopian. Read _1984_ and _Brave New World_ (George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, repsectively) for more examples of dystopian societies.
Then come back and tell me that's where you really want to go. Me? If we head the direction of Demolition Man, I'm going to be rather more like Denis Leary's character (Edgar Friendly, as I recall,) in my outlook. "I wanna run naked down the street, reading Playboy magazine, with lime Jell-O smeared all over my body. Why? Because I might suddenly get the urge to, OK?"
I don't need other people trying to think for me, I don't want other people governing my every action. We don't have much farther to go before we get to "What is not Forbidden is Mandatory, what is not Mandatory is Forbidden."
And then where will we be?
"Generation X, Generation Y, and those coming up actually LIKE and ENJOY being told what to do."
This explains much - for instance, it explains why there isn't anywhere near as much popular outcry over the regulations that have been getting passed in the last year or so, regs that not so much "guide" activity as try to "force" it.
I recall noting with dismay a front page (above the fold) news item on New Year's Day this year that mentioned "Forty Thousand New Laws Go Into Effect Nationwide Today." (emphasis mine)
Yes, there have been certain rare occasions where I think a law is necessary to get people to stop doing something that is dangerous in and of itself (DWY - Driving While Yakking - comes to mind. Hands-free or holding the handset to your ear, DWY is distracting. It's been shown to be at least as incapacitating as a BAC of 0.08%. But, when CA passed the law to prevent it, the fine for the first couple of offenses wasn't even enough to outstrip the cellphone bill for a month! Ergo, I still see people doing it all of the time.)
But, 40,000 new laws, at all levels? What? Why do we have even 40,000 laws on the books in the first place, much less enough that 40,000 new laws is merely noteworthy?
And, have you ever tried to read these things? I once audited a course in Logic years back (I wish I'd taken it for credit - it was fun,) and logic doesn't have a lot of bearing on how these laws are structured. That, and you're constantly cross-referencing back and forth; just looking up one law and its effects can end up with you going through eight or ten thick books just to get the full impact of the thing.
And there are more coming all the time. And the younger generation likes it!
We've forgotten our history. The United States exists, as a nation, simply because we got tired of being told what to do by an "absentee landlord" (read: the Throne of England.) The fact that our Nation's capital - and our State capitals - are on the same continent doesn't make them any less "absentee landlords" - frankly, I'm tired of being told what's best for me by someone who doesn't know me from Adam's off ox.
As much as it pains me to admit it, I must go on record as saying the following: "Yes, we do (unfortunately) need laws to guide behaviour. They are necessary because we, quite simply, aren't grown-up enough (as a people) to govern ourselves." I'd like to see us get there - but putting more laws on people isn't the way to go about it.
The "elected representatives" aren't any help - they've convinced themselves (and most of us) that they're our elected masters, not our elected servants. Until we can finally remind them that they work for us (not the other way about,) it's going to keep getting worse.
"Power attracts the corruptible." I'd mentioned that in my last post, and I'm thinking of calling it Lord Acton's Corollary (in fact, I think I'll start doing that now. "Acton's Law" and "Acton's Corollary" are now a part of my vocabulary.) As long as we keep getting corruptible people elected to office, the system will not improve - in fact, it will continue to get a good deal worse.
There are those of you who may read this who end up thinking, "So?" Hey - you may enjoy being told what to do, but I don't. I've got an independent, functioning brain, and I'd like to be able to use it. I can think for myself, y'know?
But, if we're going to keep getting saddled with laws and regs, what do we have to look forward to? You might want to watch Demolition Man - for all of its appearance, the society shown in that movie is actually rather dystopian. Read _1984_ and _Brave New World_ (George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, repsectively) for more examples of dystopian societies.
Then come back and tell me that's where you really want to go. Me? If we head the direction of Demolition Man, I'm going to be rather more like Denis Leary's character (Edgar Friendly, as I recall,) in my outlook. "I wanna run naked down the street, reading Playboy magazine, with lime Jell-O smeared all over my body. Why? Because I might suddenly get the urge to, OK?"
I don't need other people trying to think for me, I don't want other people governing my every action. We don't have much farther to go before we get to "What is not Forbidden is Mandatory, what is not Mandatory is Forbidden."
And then where will we be?
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Oh, FFS. Don't you people learn anything?
Just saw on the news where incumbents are winning primary elections all over.
What? No, really. What?
What are you people thinking?
From what I've seen, popular opinion sez:
- You're not happy with the Healthcare bill as passed. PASSED BY CURRENT HOLDERS OF OFFICE.
- You're not happy with the economy as it's running. AFFECTED BY CURRENT HOLDERS OF OFFICE.
- You think the "economic recovery" isn't working, the "economic stimulus" programme isn't doing anything useful, and the whole TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Programme) was a silly notion. PASSED BY CURRENT HOLDERS OF OFFICE.
- You think that banks that were about to fail should have just been allowed to fall over - and we emerge from the other side "leaner and meaner." You don't see that Federal funds (essentially, OUR money - NOT the government'!) should have been used to bail out these outfits. But, TARP and the stimulus passed. PASSED BY CURRENT HOLDERS OF OFFICE.
Granted, these weren't derived from any scientific polling - just my day-to-day interactions with people all over. I talk fairly regularly with people all over the nation - and, in fact, all over the world (God bless the Internet.) I tend to keep track of what people are thinking - and the people I talk to overseas think that the TARP/stimulus programme is even sillier and more useless than we think here!
Now, recall your high school Civics class. What is an "incumbent?" It is an individual who holds a particular office, that is seeking re-election for that office.
What did I call out in ALL CAPS for each point above.
Now, could someone tell me please how keeping the same jackasses in office will actually help? Flush 'em out and start over!
The. Incumbents. Are. The. Problem. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that.
I don't want to overthrow the government - I want to fire them! Terminate with prejudice, and don't let them have retirement benefits, either (they shouldn't be in office long enough to get them.)
I'm tired of elections proving the short memory of the American voting public. I'd like to propose an alternate system (it's not really my idea - but I think it's a good one. Kevin, if you're reading this, your idea is getting exposure... I'm adding my own twist, but the basic idea is still yours.)
According to Lord Acton, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." What the estimable Lord Acton failed to mention was that, "Power attracts the corruptible."
What does this mean? Simple - the ideal individual to wield anything like supreme political power at any particular level is the man who does not want it. Easy.
So, let's eliminate the idea of voting. Let's get rid of the Electoral College entirely. Retain the current qualifications for holding office - but I'd like to add one: In order to hold political office, an individual must have: 1) Become a stable journey-level tradesman, 2) Completed a term or a career of military service satisfactorily, 3) Raised children to adulthood without accepting any sort of public assistance, or 4) as a reinstatement of the "Pauper's Oath," he may not be on any sort of public assistance. Further, if he had accepted public assistance, he must have been off of it for the five years prior to being selected.
"Being selected?" Yeah - we're not voting for people anymore. All elected offices will still serve their terms as before, with the singular exception that they are selected by lottery, without regard for political opinion or views, entirely at random. Service of a term of office renders you ineligible for another term of office for a like period of years (if you get a six-year Senate term, say, you now may not hold office at any level for the next six years.)
President and Vice-President, or Governor and Lieutenant Governor, or any other "Primary/Secondary" office level, are to be selected separately. This is a nod to the "good old days" - when the President was the man who got the most votes, and the Vice President was the first runner-up in election (none of this "running mate" crap anymore. If you know that your second-in-command doesn't share your viewpoints on various issues, it makes you more likely to temper your own opinions.)
Further, sitting judges at all levels will be instructed to include the precept of "Jury Nullification" when they instruct juries prior to deliberation. This is something else that's fallen by the wayside - you've probably never heard of it.
What is "Jury Nullification?" In the event that someone is being tried, it's possible for the jury to render a verdict of "Guilty" (yep, you did it!) "Not Guilty" (it wasn't proven to us satisfactorily that you did it,) or "Annulled" (the law you're being tried under is stupid, and we're getting rid of it.) While this shouldn't apply in all cases - anything that is considered malum in se shouldn't be stricken - it would give us the opportunity to handle so many of these asinine malum prohibitum laws that keep getting thrown at us. Jury Nullification was meant to be the "final check and balance" on governments - an opportunity for direct involvement by the People to put the brakes on the legislative process.
Of course, something else will have to happen - the entire process of jury service will have to be revised so that people quit trying to get out of it (if you don't take part in the system, you don't get to complain. If you are legally able to vote, do so. If you are legally able to serve on a jury, do so. Quit trying to dodge your responsibility!)
Lemme give ya a f'r instance:
As it stands now, when you get a jury summons in CA, you essentially have to put your life on hold while you're finding out whether or not you're even going to be called. And they wonder why people dodge it so much! You call in back and forth for the whole damned week, just trying to find out if you have to actually show up. If you show up, you end up sitting around waiting to find out what's going on next (I've been through this a couple of times. Didn't get selected tho - they didn't like my opinions.)
Let's shift things around a bit. There are forty working hours in a week. Select, say, four hundred people for that week. Divide into tens - 1-10 shows up at 0900 on Monday, 11-20 at 1000, 21-30 at 1100, ... You can shift it up a bit - but it still results in ten people showing up an hour. You can call in on Sunday night to find out which hour you show up for - this simplifies your planning.
On the off chance that they manage to empanel all of the juries for that timeframe, you just put up a message at the end of the day that says, "Thank you for your service, you are no longer required." You call at the end of each day (sometime after, say, 1730 - give 'em time to record the message) and see if the whole show has been called off. If it has, get on with your life. If it has not, your reporting time hasn't changed - if you were on for 1100 Thursday morning, you plan on showing up at 1100 Thursday morning unless you are cancelled.
Isn't that much easier? Of course, there are still reasons to be excused (primarily for reasons of hardship,) but we can raise the bar a bit on those to make sure that jury service would cause a genuine hardship (how many people lie to get out of it?) Medical excuses can be readily checked - just give them your doctor's card.
Who was it that said a jury trial isn't any good because "your fate will be decided by twelve people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?" Change the system - we can get intelligent jurists.
Juries would be selected from the same pools as statesmen, under the lottery system. Could make for interesting reactions to the summons - "They want me to be President again! Dammit..." (but you don't get out of political service. Since it's a "job" at that point, you'd continue to make the same money - up to a certain point - just that your paycheques now come from the US Treasury.
NB: Under the lottery system, anyone who would actually want to run for office would be automatically disqualified. Anyone who has been previously elected to political office would be automatically disqualified (and no-one get "retirement benefits" from political service anymore. This includes those who had been previously elected. If all you've got to sell is jawbone, you'd damned well better get trained in something productive... Pushing an idiot stick or working as a gandy-dancer comes to mind.)
Something I've often said - I don't want to hold office, despite the number of people who would like to see me in the Oval Office. I really don't. I'd probably have to kick my own ass on a daily basis just to keep myself honest.
However, if it was given to me, I'm not going to turn it down. I still don't want it, but I'm more and more inclined to think I can do a better job than most of the others have of late. Just get used to seeing me in working clothes or issue fatigues - it's to remind myself (and anyone else around me) that I'm there to work. I don't want to hold office, but I want even less to be one of those pols that creates problems and then "solves" them to show how useful I am - I want to solve the problems that my predecessors left, since they're the bigger issues.
If elected, I'm not going to campaign for a second term. If you think I'm still needed, you can re-elect me. If you want to save my second term for later, fine. I've got other things I'd rather be doing than book tours (at least for my memiors. I'm working on technical books - and I enjoy doing that more...) and speaking engagements. I hate politics, I despise the political process, and I'd likely drill the whole political system a new arsehole from the inside out, given half a chance.
Things I'd like to do, if I could?
- Rescind 26CFR.
- Eliminate the "Progressive income tax."
- Institute a "flat tax."
- Eliminate many of the fees and taxes we pay for no good reason.
- Streamline the government.
- Get rid of the annual trade deficit with the Pacific Rim (not by using tariffs - but by balancing trade. "You want us to buy from you? You've got to buy from us in return.")
- Rescind the National Firearms Act of 1934 in its entirety.
- Rescind the Gun Control Act of 1968 (and other "Crime Bills" that have followed/augmented it.)
- Rescind the "Crime Bills" that don't have anything to do with crime.
- Decriminalise marijuana (it wasn't made illegal because it's a drug - it was made illegal about the time DuPont Chemical released Nylon, because it was competition. The lobbyists simply played up the narcotic aspects of the plant - through history, it was used more for fibres than narcotic purposes anyhow.)
Given a chance, I'm sure I could find plenty of other things that will want doing. The primary thrust of all of this would be to make America - and Americans - more self-sufficient. Knowing that the government has no duty to protect the population as individuals, I wish to restore their ability (and the choice!) to secure themselves effectively. Knowing that the economic health of a nation is critical to its security, I wish to reduce or eliminate the annual deficit we're all saddled with. Knowing that some level of social welfare is necessary for the economic health of the body politic, I wish to adopt much more closely the model posited by Thomas Paine when he wrote Common Sense. You get the idea.
There are going to be those (primarily Gen-X, Gen-Y, and assorted Yuppies) who will have a huge issue with this sort of thing - simply out of a misplaced sense of entitlement. Allow me to borrow from Samuel Clemens (bonus points if you can give the pen name of this author...) "The world does not owe you a living. It doesn't owe you a damned thing, it was here first."
This should tell you just how long this sort of thing has been going on.
What? No, really. What?
What are you people thinking?
From what I've seen, popular opinion sez:
- You're not happy with the Healthcare bill as passed. PASSED BY CURRENT HOLDERS OF OFFICE.
- You're not happy with the economy as it's running. AFFECTED BY CURRENT HOLDERS OF OFFICE.
- You think the "economic recovery" isn't working, the "economic stimulus" programme isn't doing anything useful, and the whole TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Programme) was a silly notion. PASSED BY CURRENT HOLDERS OF OFFICE.
- You think that banks that were about to fail should have just been allowed to fall over - and we emerge from the other side "leaner and meaner." You don't see that Federal funds (essentially, OUR money - NOT the government'!) should have been used to bail out these outfits. But, TARP and the stimulus passed. PASSED BY CURRENT HOLDERS OF OFFICE.
Granted, these weren't derived from any scientific polling - just my day-to-day interactions with people all over. I talk fairly regularly with people all over the nation - and, in fact, all over the world (God bless the Internet.) I tend to keep track of what people are thinking - and the people I talk to overseas think that the TARP/stimulus programme is even sillier and more useless than we think here!
Now, recall your high school Civics class. What is an "incumbent?" It is an individual who holds a particular office, that is seeking re-election for that office.
What did I call out in ALL CAPS for each point above.
Now, could someone tell me please how keeping the same jackasses in office will actually help? Flush 'em out and start over!
The. Incumbents. Are. The. Problem. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that.
I don't want to overthrow the government - I want to fire them! Terminate with prejudice, and don't let them have retirement benefits, either (they shouldn't be in office long enough to get them.)
I'm tired of elections proving the short memory of the American voting public. I'd like to propose an alternate system (it's not really my idea - but I think it's a good one. Kevin, if you're reading this, your idea is getting exposure... I'm adding my own twist, but the basic idea is still yours.)
According to Lord Acton, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." What the estimable Lord Acton failed to mention was that, "Power attracts the corruptible."
What does this mean? Simple - the ideal individual to wield anything like supreme political power at any particular level is the man who does not want it. Easy.
So, let's eliminate the idea of voting. Let's get rid of the Electoral College entirely. Retain the current qualifications for holding office - but I'd like to add one: In order to hold political office, an individual must have: 1) Become a stable journey-level tradesman, 2) Completed a term or a career of military service satisfactorily, 3) Raised children to adulthood without accepting any sort of public assistance, or 4) as a reinstatement of the "Pauper's Oath," he may not be on any sort of public assistance. Further, if he had accepted public assistance, he must have been off of it for the five years prior to being selected.
"Being selected?" Yeah - we're not voting for people anymore. All elected offices will still serve their terms as before, with the singular exception that they are selected by lottery, without regard for political opinion or views, entirely at random. Service of a term of office renders you ineligible for another term of office for a like period of years (if you get a six-year Senate term, say, you now may not hold office at any level for the next six years.)
President and Vice-President, or Governor and Lieutenant Governor, or any other "Primary/Secondary" office level, are to be selected separately. This is a nod to the "good old days" - when the President was the man who got the most votes, and the Vice President was the first runner-up in election (none of this "running mate" crap anymore. If you know that your second-in-command doesn't share your viewpoints on various issues, it makes you more likely to temper your own opinions.)
Further, sitting judges at all levels will be instructed to include the precept of "Jury Nullification" when they instruct juries prior to deliberation. This is something else that's fallen by the wayside - you've probably never heard of it.
What is "Jury Nullification?" In the event that someone is being tried, it's possible for the jury to render a verdict of "Guilty" (yep, you did it!) "Not Guilty" (it wasn't proven to us satisfactorily that you did it,) or "Annulled" (the law you're being tried under is stupid, and we're getting rid of it.) While this shouldn't apply in all cases - anything that is considered malum in se shouldn't be stricken - it would give us the opportunity to handle so many of these asinine malum prohibitum laws that keep getting thrown at us. Jury Nullification was meant to be the "final check and balance" on governments - an opportunity for direct involvement by the People to put the brakes on the legislative process.
Of course, something else will have to happen - the entire process of jury service will have to be revised so that people quit trying to get out of it (if you don't take part in the system, you don't get to complain. If you are legally able to vote, do so. If you are legally able to serve on a jury, do so. Quit trying to dodge your responsibility!)
Lemme give ya a f'r instance:
As it stands now, when you get a jury summons in CA, you essentially have to put your life on hold while you're finding out whether or not you're even going to be called. And they wonder why people dodge it so much! You call in back and forth for the whole damned week, just trying to find out if you have to actually show up. If you show up, you end up sitting around waiting to find out what's going on next (I've been through this a couple of times. Didn't get selected tho - they didn't like my opinions.)
Let's shift things around a bit. There are forty working hours in a week. Select, say, four hundred people for that week. Divide into tens - 1-10 shows up at 0900 on Monday, 11-20 at 1000, 21-30 at 1100, ... You can shift it up a bit - but it still results in ten people showing up an hour. You can call in on Sunday night to find out which hour you show up for - this simplifies your planning.
On the off chance that they manage to empanel all of the juries for that timeframe, you just put up a message at the end of the day that says, "Thank you for your service, you are no longer required." You call at the end of each day (sometime after, say, 1730 - give 'em time to record the message) and see if the whole show has been called off. If it has, get on with your life. If it has not, your reporting time hasn't changed - if you were on for 1100 Thursday morning, you plan on showing up at 1100 Thursday morning unless you are cancelled.
Isn't that much easier? Of course, there are still reasons to be excused (primarily for reasons of hardship,) but we can raise the bar a bit on those to make sure that jury service would cause a genuine hardship (how many people lie to get out of it?) Medical excuses can be readily checked - just give them your doctor's card.
Who was it that said a jury trial isn't any good because "your fate will be decided by twelve people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?" Change the system - we can get intelligent jurists.
Juries would be selected from the same pools as statesmen, under the lottery system. Could make for interesting reactions to the summons - "They want me to be President again! Dammit..." (but you don't get out of political service. Since it's a "job" at that point, you'd continue to make the same money - up to a certain point - just that your paycheques now come from the US Treasury.
NB: Under the lottery system, anyone who would actually want to run for office would be automatically disqualified. Anyone who has been previously elected to political office would be automatically disqualified (and no-one get "retirement benefits" from political service anymore. This includes those who had been previously elected. If all you've got to sell is jawbone, you'd damned well better get trained in something productive... Pushing an idiot stick or working as a gandy-dancer comes to mind.)
Something I've often said - I don't want to hold office, despite the number of people who would like to see me in the Oval Office. I really don't. I'd probably have to kick my own ass on a daily basis just to keep myself honest.
However, if it was given to me, I'm not going to turn it down. I still don't want it, but I'm more and more inclined to think I can do a better job than most of the others have of late. Just get used to seeing me in working clothes or issue fatigues - it's to remind myself (and anyone else around me) that I'm there to work. I don't want to hold office, but I want even less to be one of those pols that creates problems and then "solves" them to show how useful I am - I want to solve the problems that my predecessors left, since they're the bigger issues.
If elected, I'm not going to campaign for a second term. If you think I'm still needed, you can re-elect me. If you want to save my second term for later, fine. I've got other things I'd rather be doing than book tours (at least for my memiors. I'm working on technical books - and I enjoy doing that more...) and speaking engagements. I hate politics, I despise the political process, and I'd likely drill the whole political system a new arsehole from the inside out, given half a chance.
Things I'd like to do, if I could?
- Rescind 26CFR.
- Eliminate the "Progressive income tax."
- Institute a "flat tax."
- Eliminate many of the fees and taxes we pay for no good reason.
- Streamline the government.
- Get rid of the annual trade deficit with the Pacific Rim (not by using tariffs - but by balancing trade. "You want us to buy from you? You've got to buy from us in return.")
- Rescind the National Firearms Act of 1934 in its entirety.
- Rescind the Gun Control Act of 1968 (and other "Crime Bills" that have followed/augmented it.)
- Rescind the "Crime Bills" that don't have anything to do with crime.
- Decriminalise marijuana (it wasn't made illegal because it's a drug - it was made illegal about the time DuPont Chemical released Nylon, because it was competition. The lobbyists simply played up the narcotic aspects of the plant - through history, it was used more for fibres than narcotic purposes anyhow.)
Given a chance, I'm sure I could find plenty of other things that will want doing. The primary thrust of all of this would be to make America - and Americans - more self-sufficient. Knowing that the government has no duty to protect the population as individuals, I wish to restore their ability (and the choice!) to secure themselves effectively. Knowing that the economic health of a nation is critical to its security, I wish to reduce or eliminate the annual deficit we're all saddled with. Knowing that some level of social welfare is necessary for the economic health of the body politic, I wish to adopt much more closely the model posited by Thomas Paine when he wrote Common Sense. You get the idea.
There are going to be those (primarily Gen-X, Gen-Y, and assorted Yuppies) who will have a huge issue with this sort of thing - simply out of a misplaced sense of entitlement. Allow me to borrow from Samuel Clemens (bonus points if you can give the pen name of this author...) "The world does not owe you a living. It doesn't owe you a damned thing, it was here first."
This should tell you just how long this sort of thing has been going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
