How to totally reform without violence?

Dangus

New member
If we were, as a nation, truly desiring to scrap the current organizational structure of the government. How do you think this would be best achieved without the use of violence?

I am not sure what the means would be, but here are the ends I have in mind:

1)An executive branch headed by an executive counsel, all of whom are elected. They would number 6 people, 1 would be the chairman, who would have 2 votes and would play the role the current president does, in terms of PR. This executive counsel would represent the core of the cabinet, with each member having a specific role. The roles would be, President, Vice President, Attorney General, Chief Treasurer, Defense Secretary, and Foreign Affairs Secretary.
They would function individually, but any one member could call into question the actions of any other, and force it to be brought to vote where the cousel could decide to approve or disapprove the decision.
This would make "police action" a more democratic decision and would be far better for the country in my opinion. It also would allow multiple parties to be represented within the executive branch, something that is currently next to impossible.

2) Formation of a department of effiency, which would be attached to the judicial branch, and would serve as an observer that would find ways that other parts of the government could cut costs and improve services. They would also work as a sort of scouting group for potential constitutional oversights which would be brought before the supreme court. Basically just a group to make sure government ran smoothly.

3) A totally reworked legal code that reduces the mountain of obscure and impossible to keep track of laws down to a concise and simple set of rules with well catagorized sub rules for things like safety regulations.

4) Some sort of congressional incentive for keeping the legal system simplified. Currently all congress does is bicker and fight, and then pass more laws we don't need. We already have more laws than you could ever memorize in your entire lifetime, why make more all the time? We need a way to refocus the energies of the legislature. If they have nothing to vote on, if the system really is working smoothly, they should either just sit there, or end session for the year. We don't need another 200 years of constant new laws and expansions of power. Don't you see this is an obvious and extreme flaw in the design of our national government? I think it would be nice to fix this flaw.

5) Reorganization of the military system. Return of control over National Gaurd units to the states, though possibly with standing army size limits. Also, clear and absolutely concrete rules limiting the possible involvement of state and national troops in domestic crime suppression. Clear rules that would not allow national gaurd units to be called in during riots except in cases of overwhelming support of the state legislature. Also it would forbid Federal agencies from using military troops to assist with their operations withouth overwhelming majority support of the legislature.

That is my basic vision for a reorganization of the Federal Government. Agree with it or not, that's not really the point.

The point is. Lets say there was a fairly significant support for this plan by the people of the country. What would be the best non-violent way to totally overhaul the government in this fashion? Even if just hypothetical..

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
The constitution has provisions for both amendments and for a constitutional convention which could make a whole new one.

Hey, your # 1 sounds a little like Switzerland. They have a plural executive.
 
History shows that this is impossible without violence.

The Bonus Marchers were in WDC to petition for a partial contribution for their promised Bonus in 1945, for volunteering for Service in WWI.
They were attacked, and burned, and shot, and run out of town, by their own. By none other than McArthur and Patton. Who were the violent ones?

I refer to the Civil Rights marches of the 60's. And the violence that came along with that.
Who were the violent ones?

The Vietnam War protests. Again, was the Kent State protestors the ones shooting?
Who were the violent ones?

If were to seek a non-violent approach to the current state of affairs, do you honestly think we would succeed without violence a part of this?

I sincerely doubt the power players would allow that without a fight, because someone will be faced with losing something in the change you seek.
That usually means money, and power exchanges hands.
 
Well, in a two party system, this would certainly be a lot harder, that's quite evident. After this election I may go Libertarian, but not sure. Wouldn't hurt to form our own political party, the TFL party ;)



------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Money.

All the Demos and Repubs do is buy the image they want and then claim that it is them, to fool the people. Ingraining into the people that the only possible system is the one that is working so well for us now. [sarcasm off]

The same spin doctors can be bought by anyone, even Pat Buchanan.

In my opinion,

1. Money
2. Message
3. Media
4. Once a moral and honest government that actually cared about the governed is in place, the Federal government should gradually be unfunded, except for core programs like defense, social security and other to be agreed upon later. The Feds do nothing that can't be done better by the states, provided that the state government is moral and honest.

In our lifetimes?
 
It's a democracy. People won't vote for social security's demise. Social Security isn't welfare, and doesn't have to operate at a loss.

Battler, what would you consider "core" besides defense and justice?

Regards,

Ledbetter

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited August 10, 2000).]
 
Social Security is an oxymoron and just another excuse for people to act irresponsibly. At the most government should enforce contracts (justice), this provides defense of rights. The militia provides defense of the borders.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Funny you should mention "Social Security".

See I'm not from America. In at least Australia and England Social Security IS the name given to the welfare system. . . . . I remember being confused when I saw it listed as a separate tax on my paystub until someone explained that it's theoretically being saved up somewhere.

Of course, were it TRULY a savings account and not an entitlement (which even in the current form it IS welfare for some) they'd just let you save your own cash.

US "Social Security" is just like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly - it will transition to a European "social security" as the population ages.

Battler.



[This message has been edited by Battler (edited August 10, 2000).]
 
Yeah, libertarians alright. I'm still voting for Bush this time around. Despite this, I think I'll join the libertarians. Does anyone know how you track down your local libertarians?

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Even better yet, lets form our own party :)

Any Iowans here?

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
You know, I wake up each morning thanking God that we don't really have a truly efficient Government! Truly efficient governments are very often the most oppressive ones. I'm very happy with the fact that our Government seems not to know it's A$$ from it's elbow!
 
Republic? Nyet. Not on this continant. Oligarchy is what we have here.

By the way. Get back to letter writing and assisting pro-RKBA orgs.
 
Cedar Falls...

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Dangus you can't reform without destroying the federal reserve, can't have a private corporation controlling the money supply.

I think you have to give back most of the powers to the states where it belongs then the federal gov wont be that much of a pain. Unfortuantly that includes california,mass,NJ,and NY.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON

Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.

A RAND
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dangus you can't reform without destroying the federal reserve, can't have a private corporation controlling the money supply.[/quote]

Are you saying that to reform would get rid of the Fed, or are you saying that I was saying to replace it with a corporation. I'm a bit confused on that point.

As for giving power back to the states, that's very hard with the current setup. The states need such reforms as well, becuase constant new laws and poor systems for reforming the old ones helps noone besides tyrants.


------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
What I am saying is that I think the destruction of the fed would be one other thing to add to your list of things to do, as they have screwed up this country. I think it was pres wilson? on his death bed that said it was the worst thing he could have done to the country.

The original setup gave the states considerable power but they have shunned resopnsibility and have asked the fed to get involved in almost all aspects of society. Dont know how you do it but I see them gaining their rightfull place in power as essential, at least if its molded after something resembling the original country.
 
Back
Top