-2 votes

We need a New Constitution -- We are engaged in a Perpetual War

a Perpetual War that cannot ever be resolved.
----EVER!

There's an audio debate with Tom Woods and Neil Siegel that proves that you will never "resolve" the constitutional question of legality.
---http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcgbNVenUTA

We need a "clear cut" Constitution that eliminates "rights" for everyone save consumers -- who foot the bill (all Bills - Laws - Regulations - Licensure).

No "rights" need to be enumerated for consumers either. The consumer is free when all others have no rights/protectionism; meaning none can circumvent consumer-demand.

Here's my 350 Word Constitution

Central Gov't
The ZEROS

0% Tax Authority (on any individual or group)
0% Currency Authority (100% freemarket money / coinage / credit)
0% Regulatory Authority (100% Consumer Sovereignty)
0% Judicial Authority
0% Lobbying
0% Foreign Debt Accrual

Central Gov't shall be a 24Team Naval Meritocracy

The 24-Team will be hired owing to resume, education, and business plan presentation. They will be hired by a revolving panel of experts who are pooled from 4,000 or more such experts in the fields of: weaponology, bidding analysis, contract analysis, accounting, efficiency experts, oceanography, and military strategy.

This team will be paid from the remainder of their budget (unused). A very open source (for all to view) rubric will be used and a public auditing to factor their incentives based on: anti-pirate record (safeguarding our ships and ports), non-international water violations, communication improvements, weaponology improvement, search and rescue, cost accounting, contract bid analysis, efficiency improvement, etc.

They will hire "employees" from the free labor pool on a contractual basis.

1% National Sales Tax (cover budget and incentive plan)
One 6-year Term

State Gov't

The Zeros

0% Tax Authority (on any individual or group)
0% Currency Authority (100% free market money / coinage / credit)
0% Regulatory Authority (100% Consumer Sovereignty)
0% Judicial Authority
0% Lobbying
0% Foreign Debt Accrual

State Gov't shall be a 24-Team Army and Air Guard Meritocracy

Search and Rescue (disasters only) and Border Patrol

Logically Similar Rubric (to assess incentive merit)

Logically Similar Hiring "board of experts"

3% State Sales Tax (for budget and incentives)
ONE 6year Term

GAO (Gov't Accounting Office)

The Zeros
0% Tax Authority (on any individual or group foreign or domestic)
0% Currency Authority (100% freemarket money / coinage / credit)
0% Regulatory Authority (100% Consumer Sovereignty)
0% Judicial Authority
0% Lobbying
0% Foreign Debt Accrual

The GAO shall be a 24Team Foreign Debt Meritocracy they have one job "Pay off all Foreign Debt

Logically Similar Rubric (to assess incentive merit)

Logically Similar Hiring "board of experts"

3% National Sales Tax (for budget and incentives)
This is a temporary dept until all debt is paid

All above taxes will reduce by .5% per 6 year period. There is no emergency forced taxation authority.

-----------------------
-----------------------

Easily pay-off off all foreign debt in 90 years
---I'm sure the amount will be negotiated down

Probably need to start at 12%, but eliminate the tax-collection by .25% per year for 90 years. Self-Diminishing.

You wouldn't reach zero -- but could dump the whole thing at around 8% and then allow everything to be handled privately -- private courts, private security.

We just need time to transition and 90 years would give the world time to adjust to us not carrying them and give us the protection to secure our markets while they adapt.

It's a 93% Tax Free Society -- So, it requires only 7% Abdication, rather than the reverse which is what we have now.

Currently we live in a 80-90% Tax-Theft Society -- So, it requires 90% Abdication.

Minarchism requires "some" Gov't

This is a transitionary model (thus temporary).

A Meritocracy exists outside the control of the people -- It's the only form of leadership that can have REAL WORLD restrictions put against it -- Because there is ZERO Voting / Lobbying.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

We do not need a new constitution but we need to follow the one we have and add:

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

TheKingIsComing

This argument is "old" and "trite"

It ignores all of human history.

#1 No one has ever won their freedom by-way-of Voting and Lobbying

#2 No one has ever won their freedom by first abdicating to the authority that rules them
----There must be "non-participation"

#3 No one has ever won lasting liberty by first an act of hostility or aggression.

Your model "stick to the one we got" requires "force" and "retaliation"

You will never get people to "adhere" when there are no contractual consequences nor an "oath" kept if there are options to out.

If you could only make the Constitutional Vote -- then there would be no purpose for the Gov't we have now; it functions on the possiblity of going around the Constitution; it was WRITTEN that way.

It was not a happy turn of the pen that left so many gaping holes in that Swatting Paper we call the Consitution.

It was written by the Welfare Wealthy Slave Owners/Profiteers (save Adams); yet all were Benefactors of British cruelty on American Indians, Land Theft, Broken Treaties, and Reservationism.

All of which was "un-Cosntitutional"

I will always argue that you can't force people to behave if you give them the option not too.

King,

As written, your proposed amendment makes it impossible to have a Congress, does it not?

For instance, under your law, either the entire populace would be compensated for serving in the Congress, or no one would. And if there is no pay, how few would serve in the Congress? And do we want only the very rich in the Congress---those who could fund their own service?

Similarly, for each Member of Congress to have an office in Washington, all citizens would have to have an office in Washington.

Or further, if Congress cut its own pay, every citizen's pay would be cut.

So I think your idea needs some more work. I find it curious, however, that you seem to believe all the important problems would be solved with this one amendment to the Constitution. I don't think you've put enough thought into it.

Jack

With Todays Technology

The only office needed would be in their home state and maybe meet in Washington D.C. 3 or 4 times a year. I can see them talking and seeing each on TV. Sure would save a lot of money and they sure would hear from the home folks.

TheKingIsComing

This is good!

"and I volunteer my time and effort to the constitution of the United Sates of America.Keep the money I don't need it to do what is right".

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

reedr3v's picture

this line, "the consumer is free when

all others have no rights..." I don't think works for most people. Yours is a radical (and attractive) vision, but you need to brush up better on expressing it in palatable and more easily understandable ways, IMHO. One has to read between the lines (trying to read your mind) sometimes to even begin to get your message.
I hope you'll take this as the constructive suggestion it's meant to be.

"The Consumer is free when all others have no rights"

[EXPLAINED]

If I say that "The Consumer" pays ALL taxes, fines, licensure, and Regulatory Costs does that make immediate sense?

If so let's move on -- if not ask for further edification.

Hidden Tax vs. Direct Tax

Hidden: (All Costs against Consumption) -- All Taxes (save two) -- All Licensure -- All Fines -- All Regulatory Effects Against Efficiency -- Fiat Credit/Currency -- Everyone elses Income Tax

Direct: Income Tax and Sales Tax

The Overlap: Income Tax effects the individual and because his consumptive choices are less; it effects world consumption. Making it the most immoral of all taxes as it most perverts (in the medium to long run) "true" consumer demand (and thus what to produce).

The consumer pays all taxes that a corporation pays and all taxes on workers; the consumer pays for all income tax (as it effects consumptive trends and falsely cues business cycles); the consumer pays for the Fiat Currency/Credit effect; the consumer pays for joblessness (it reduces demand and increases costs), creating shortages or waste.

All Taxes - Licensure - Fines - Penalties - Regulatory Costs are Lobbied for by Big Industry, Unions, and Corporatists.

They pass the cost of these onto the consumer plus a bit of profit on the top (as they put a little profit over their raw goods costs) -- then next year (when that years tax is do) they lobby for tax-loopholes.

Thus keeping the "artificial profits" -- Right-Seeking

In these ways (and many more) I say "The Consumer is free when all others have No Rights"

Only those with "rights" can Lobby.

Owners vs Workers
Industry vs Unions
....Groupist Theft of Consumer Purchasing Power

Zero Abdication Society
---Is one where the Consumer Awakens to the above reality and stops participating in it -- stops identifying as the Worker or the Owner; stops holding assets in banks; stops holding assets on wall-street; and stops buying corporatist products.

Localism + Non-Participation is the Mathematical Truth
-----> Community-Economics

Reed: I see your point -- however, I try to keep my arguments

concise -- they are written for people of Daily Paul; not for the MSM (who writes at a 7th grade level).

It's a work in progress, I'll get better with time.

If you "get" what I'm saying then the best thing would be for people to take what I write and put their own spin on it -- 'till we formulate a language that is commonly and concisely understood.

Right?

*return service* -- your play

Another distraction...

This is why the freedom move doesn't get any traction, it's always another issue.

We need to focus on common goals that are practical and doable. For example, we need to take back the creation and control of our own money.

END the FED before it ENDS US

DrKrby: Conceptualizing what the goal of a movement is

is hardly a waste of time.

The "waste of time" is repeating actions that have never once brought about liberty in all of human history -- never ONCE.

1) Voting and Lobbying
2) Protesting at Rallies
3) Lawn Signs
4) Blimps....(I mean #3 and #4 are fun)
5) Bumper Stickers
6) Trying to call upon Constitutional Rationality
7) Paying any tax other than a Sales Tax
8) Using Corporatist Tools to gain a Free-Society
9) Using Capitalist Tools to gain a Free-Society
10)Open Rebellion and Warfare
11)Party Politics
12)Creating 3rd or 4th Parties
13)Globalism (buying corporatist products)

None of the above has worked (never once) in all of human history

[Insert Einstein's Definition of Insanity]

although I disagree with your

although I disagree with your monetary policy, I see your point here.

Ventura 2012

Dr. Krby, It's just not that simple.

You wrote:

We need to focus on common goals that are practical and doable. For example, we need to take back the creation and control of our own money.

It's easy to hand-wave and toss out a "for example"---and especially as an alternative to a more comprehensive plan that's much harder to orchestrate. But for every example you can toss out, someone can probably think of one that's even more urgent or important. For example, to counter your call for sound money, how about restoring secure voting first? We can "focus" on fixing the money, but we may well be completely disenfranchised by corrupt computer vote counting. Or before we try to restore secure voting, say we go after the corruption in Washington first? And before we go after that, say we go after making FOIA access easier first. And so on.

But whatever we choose, we could make a compelling argument that this is the "most important" thing. And then someone would surely step up and say that we had merely provided "another distraction".

Citizen involvement in this country should resemble this steady line somewhat (going from left to right as time progresses):

-----------------

Instead, it resembles a sawtooth wave, with long sections of zero activity, followed by sharp peaks, dropping back off to zero for another long stretch.

The peaks are right at election time, and then everybody takes a year or more "off" to "see what happens". If we fixed problem A (your choice), rather than proceeding immediately with problems B-Z, most citizens would take a year off to "see what happens".

Thus can we readily observe why the incremental approach has proven over and over to be such a dismal failure. The fact of the matter is that the government is able to crank out lawlessness at such a pace that an increment-based reform can never keep up.

Our backlog of unchecked governmental lawlessness goes back at least 150 years. So before I jump on the bandwagon for the incremental approach, somebody's going to need to convince me that the public now has a new paradigm, and will not take extended breaks between solving problems.

And even as I write this, I'm trying to think of the last time some governmental lawlessness was overturned. Anyone?

Jack

STOP IT

You can't even enforce the one you have..

Well -- You do understand why we "CAN'T" inforce it right?

It's not "enforceable" because it is engineered for the possibility of decent; it relies on "representative voting" which is an abdication of self-rule.

Suprisingly, self-rule is dependent on Zero Abdication.

Therefore a Free-Society must be bound to a Zero Abdication model.

We must "force them" (by way of non-participation and localism = "Community-Economics") to find alternative revenue sources then theft and the artificial creation of business cycles.

While I don't

necessarily think that we need a "new" Constitution, I do love the ideas that come out of these discussions and I am glad that people are pursuing these causes. I think that no matter what document government is bound to, they will stretch the limits of language to assure their power. The definitions of words such as "lobbying" would just be skewed in the way "inflation" no longer is known as growth of the money supply and rather it's result. The lawmakers have found ways around such things as "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", etc. These are pretty clear statements no matter what century you're from.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Fanks

Silent,

I am always saddened to see just how few people actually have the audacity to attempt solving problems, rather than simply musing about them.

Your observation about the propensity of government to test the limits is valid. Why not then apply what may be learned after 220 years of the present Constitution to writing another that better bolsters those limits and curbs those powers that are so easily abused or exceeded?

Writing a new document will serve no good if it is the sole course of action----and this is true of every proposed course. Even so, having such a document to ponder---even if for 50 years---would be far better than to have none.

As it is, however, we have an excess of armchair quarterbacks who see fit to quell the problem solving efforts by way of pontifications that they don't think such efforts are necessary.

Indeed, shouldn't any fan of the current Constitution share its goal of "form[ing] a more perfect Union"? How is it, then, that so many laud the Constitution while defending its demonstrable flaws? Does the formation of the "more perfect" cease with the first stab at it?

I hardly think that was the intent of the Framers.

Instead, the establishment cartel has continued to form a more perfect Cartel, while the rightful owners of the Union have seen to it that their Union gets less and less perfect as they increasingly abdicate their self rule. It simply does not do to sit back and say, "Well, cartels will be cartels!", as if it is impossible to curb government and to run the cartels out.

They have come to own our government because we will NOT own it.

Am I counting wrong, or is it true that most people who claim that we don't need a new Constitution are from the camp that doesn't expect that problems can and should be solved?

Jack

Yes I agree -- we can't start from a document

The above constitution is a "meditation" -- if we can't conceptualize the powers we'd grant a minarchist gov't then we cannot materialize such a society.

In the above Constitution we have a Zero Abdication Society; this must begin with "Community Economics"

C-E
1) Localism
---Produce
---Meat and Diary
---Products and Services
---Under-the-Table (Work and Hiring)
---Farmers Markets
---Swop Meets
---Garage Sales
2) No Voting
3) No Lobbying
4) No Assets in Fed Banks
5) No Assets on Wall Street
6) No Corporatist Products / Services
---Or as very little as possible
7) Creation of Underground Trading Vehicles (Currency)

we do not need a new

we do not need a new constitution we just need to fallow the old and to apoint good Representaion

hope for the best

Gimick,

I used to say that, too. But then I started doing the math and I realized that following the existing Constitution would require a COMPLETE dismantlement of our government and starting anew. I estimate that over 90% of US Code would have to be thrown out. And 80% of the federal departments trashed. And 95% of what the remaining departments actually DO is unconstitutional, too.

And once we got that done, the same constitutional loopholes and inadequacies that led to this present corruption would be exploited all over again, creating a similar mess for our children and grandchildren.

The nation that lacks the will to insist that its constitution be followed also lacks the will to repair the flaws in that constitution. It's easy to make a wave of the hands and say that "we just need to follow the old one", but the devil is in the details, as they say.

If you really want to fix things, following the old one just won't do.

Jack

Gimick: I think this is a bit naive given all of human history

there has never been freedom won by-way of voting-lobbying nor by-way of "asking" or "suing"

Lasting Liberty is a whole other affair -- temporary liberty the world has seem; more of a reprieve from war and regime change plus "seeming" liberty to be precise.

The above Constitution represents what I like to call a 7% Consumer-Minarchism -- where we learn to live within the means of a 7% sales tax (3% for Naval Meritocracy, 3% for GAO Meritocracy, and 1% Army-Air Meritocracy with the latter held at the state-level).

We'd probably need to transition into something like that -- I've enumerated RP's Solution as a 12-20% Consumer-Minarchism.

Although I don't know if his model resolves the perpetual war mechanism (the end of Owners vs Workers politics or "groupism").

The current Constitution is designed to (either intentionally or accidently) give rise to perpetual war; owing to the voting-lobbying mechanism.

Our system is a joke because not only is voting-lobbying allowed; which is EXACTLY an abdication of self-rule and the purchase of voting blocks, but we must trust an impossible vote-count taken by corporatists, precided over by corporatists, and just in case we get it wrong an electoral college to interprit the "chads"

I think that Slave Owners and Reservationists cannot come up with a document of Liberty (regardless the one or two advanced thinkers among them: Adams and Henry).

For those who wish to learn more about the Articles of Freedom

I would encourage you to do a google search of all the many wonderful details and writings, audios that took place of the proceedings last fall of the Continental Congress 2009 etc.

Here is a good one amongst many that I found giving a report of what took place:

http://firecoalition.com/blog/post/2010/02/The-Official-Arti...

Anisha: I read it

My Constitution is far easier to understand and the powers are clearly (very clearly) laid out.

Read the "Zeros"

Although I'm not an "atheist" the last document was based on a Christian Prescription of "God-Authority;" which allowed for Slavery, Land Theft, Countless Broken Treaties, and Reservationism; most of which every Founding Father benefited from.

Adams I think was the only one that didn't benefit directly from Slavery -- was there another?

Patrick Henry owned slaves twice during his life so he's ruled out.

I think all of them benefited from Brittish "routing" of the "red hostiles" and definitely later as they created a "worse than Brittain" chain of broken treaties, land-theft, and reservationism.

My point is I will not try to make that blood soaked document into a "polstice cloth of liberty" -- there are no herbs known to mankind to un-do the atrocities of that God Forsaken time period.

Besides My Constitution is far more Biblically sound -- if you want to go there. Though it does not mention God; the Bible is clear that God gave one law and if violated man would created 10,000 upon 10,000 laws in attempt (contempt) to replace it.

My document has no laws -- without which man surely will be less distracted in his persuit to the One Law.

Barring all that my document is Religious and Atheist friendly; whereas the Articles of Freedom reads like Revolutionary Re-enactment; rather than a modern and innovative solution.

I don't think you want to go there

at this time..You may end up with what we already were hoodwinked into..

Impailed4u: How so?

Hmmm

Thank God I'm not a "consumer".

Partial Solution

I've recently been considering an idea I came across in a quote regarding getting rid of elections in favor of choosing representatives at random. Within the confines of a limited republic it seems as though a system like this could impose more limitations on the legislature while simultaneously yielding a greater degree of democracy within government since it would be entirely composed of people who weren't seeking office to begin with. Elections only result in representatives who are seeking power and who are all too ready to create legislation regarding 'the issues'.

Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

JohnDoe804,

Are you suggesting, then, that the clerk at McDonalds, who couldn't get my order right after three tries, is apt to be my next Congressman?

Jack

ha

You might actually get better results than what we have.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

We need the PTB (Congress, Judges, etc.) to strictly......

adhere and abide by the one we currently have not a new "Constitution". Our massive problems stem from their utter disregard for the "Premier Law of the Land". If they are unable to respect and adhere to the present "Constitution", what makes you think they will abide by a new one or any Constitution for that matter? The problem lies in individual power followed by corruption. Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. With the exception of a few good and honest individuals (i.e. Ron Paul), the current crop cannot be saved for they have been irreversibly corrupted. They must be removed from office.