-2 votes

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

a Perpetual War that cannot ever be resolved.

There's an audio debate with Tom Woods and Neil Siegel that proves that you will never "resolve" the constitutional question of legality.

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

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.

John B,

"Trying to sell a new blueprint just won't work."

For the time being, this is true.

"People can understand incremental reform and support it."

Maybe. They also gladly put up with incremental corruption, and they support that. The populace is ever vacillating on a point-by-point basis. They are NOT driven by principle, but by momentary opinion.

"A Constitutional Convention to consider amendments, not a new constitution, can work."

But to what end can it work? Meaningful reform? Hardly. Meaningful reform would be principle-based, and would, therefore, be systemic to whatever extent a given principle should involve the whole system. What is more likely, however, is a spot treatment of this or that SPECIFIC and LIMITED reforms that the convention (and States) could agree on. But even if an Amendment ended the Federal Reserve and prohibited any such thing ever again, such amendment would not reform the entire beast of lawless government.

"Pull the monster's teeth, one at a time."

This will not work when the monster can grow new teeth faster than you can pull them. We still haven't dealt with the illegal Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade (I'm not talking about abortion, but about how the SCOTUS made an illegal RULING by citing things that are not in the Constitution)....

...anyway, we still haven't fixed Roe v. Wade from 1973. Nor the Federal Reserve Act. Nor the Social Security Act. Nor even Barron vs. Baltimore. So how are we going to deal effectively with excesses of power from 2010? The backlog is impossible without a wholesale reform.

It is an utter waste of time to hack at the branches when the root is left alone.


Jack, here is an amendment to the Constitution that would

change things. Whether you like it or not, the playing field would be changed.
Amendment 1- A majority of the state legislatures may negate any federal law.
Forget the big picture. If you propose a blueprint with 200 points, how many will agree with all the points? How many will even understand it?
The more complicated it is, the more difficult to get it passed.
Give the states tools to take on the Feds and change America for the better.
If Amendment 1 were in effect, the new Healthcare Act would soon be history.
Keep any change simple but powerful. It's impossible to go back to the beginning, and please no ideology(principles). You'll never get enough people to buy your worldview. By making it incremental many from different points of view can come together for mutual benefit.

John B,

"Forget the big picture."


Isn't the "big picture" simply the aggregation of all the small pictures that need to be fixed?

The question of the hour here is: How much reform do you want? Do you just want to "make things better", or do you want to FIX things?

"If you propose a blueprint with 200 points, how many will agree with all the points? How many will even understand it?"

I understand your argument, yet I believe that you are trying to sidestep an unavoidable problem here. You rightly point out that the public's understanding of political matters is quite unsophisticated. Thus you proceed to find solutions that do not tackle the public's understanding head-on. I submit, however, that the public's paradigms/understandings are the PRIMARY cause of the sad state of the nation, and that they must, therefore, be the PRIMARY focus of any meaningful campaign for reform.

No one will trick or manipulate or "ease" the nation into reforming itself in any just and righteous manner. Rather, such reform MUST be the result of the public taking on sounder paradigms as a result of doing their own mental "math". No strategy of "Politics for Dummies" will work here. If Joe Citizen doesn't roll up its collective sleeves and get down to the business of figuring this out for himself, how will ANY initiative ever get the sustaining public support that is needed to stave off the government's insatiable appetite for lawlessness?

*IF* this health care "reform" is overturned, the nation will throw itself a big party, and they'll celebrate "democracy" and pat themselves on the back---most of them never realizing that they are still neck-deep in the manure of governmental lawlessness and of neglected liberties. This is why I keep asking, "How much reform do you want?"

As good as your amendment idea is, there are other measures already in the Constitution that lie unused year after year. We used to have this notion of "sending so-and-so to Washington" to achieve some legislative task---yet the public continues to elect and to re-elect the same ilk that passes the bad laws. And the states already have the right to sue, but rarely does this happen.

So even if your amendment passed, how shall we get the states to make use of it?

To sum all this up, I think we MUST keep the "big picture" ever in view. No reform can succeed unless it includes a radical paradigm shift for the populace.


Let me restate,

as a means of change forget the big picture. As a practical matter I'm convinced the quantum leap (big bite) is nigh impossible.
The stremgth of the incremental change(small bite)is those who don't support the big picture can be allies on a particular reform.
If we wait until there is mass understanding of the principles of freedom, it's going to be a long time.
If freedom is sold, not by appealing to principles; but by appealing to self-interest, progress is possible.
We here at the DP can't agree on a "Big Picture". How much more difficult would it be to convince the public?
The states have always had the power to put the Feds on a leash, just not the will. That power is a constitutional convention.
Shouldn't we avoid thinking in terms of a "magic bullet" to suddenly make everything right, and we all live happily everafter? To wait is not to act.

John B: I think you touched on some important points here

If feels good to win incremental battles but the war is nearly lost.

"They" can't roll into Globalism if all consumer markets are destroyed first -- they are literally not thinking about this or believe as RP has said so much in Keynesianism that magically they'll be able to stimulate it.

The push to globalisation, past a certain tipping point will result in two possible paths for people to follow (one towards lasting liberty and the other towards temporary liberty).

One towards a Misesian-type Solution (what I've been advocating -- a Consumer-Sovereignty)

The other towards a Rothbardian-type Propertarian Minarchism (I say minarchism because even though Rothbard purports to be an "anarchist" in fact his model can ONLY be considered a Minarchist one); whereas Mises and Ron Paul advocating a Minarchist Transition (based on the maximization of Consumer-Sovereignty) is ironically a path toward Individualism (anarchy) --> Consumer-Individualism.

We are to isolative (tech-wise); we've lost our socialization skills and small town networking -- this is why communalism wont work, meaning why I didn't include a Communist or Socialist "grass-roots" solution with the two above.

This is a precarious period.

That's why I wrote a Constitution (rough draft) to get people thinking about what liberty looks like and build a document from which to debate.

The "reform" the American Constitution is a direct path to the Rothbardian temporary liberty -- as outlined above.

Rothbard's Propertarianism is identical to what the Founders had in mind (less some of their initial mistakes) -- it includes, however, the very essence of the fatal flaw; which is: Owners vs Workers (every single 1st World Nations perpetual war; Nobles vs Peasants - Owners vs Workers - Crown vs Colonials).

Thus Rothbardianism can only lead back to Crony Capitalism (in the long-run).

Octo, creating constitutions can be an interesting

intellectual exercise, but to what practical purpose? Would those on the left side of the Bell Curve understand "90% abdication"?
Would the typical Tea Party person understand your constitution are mine for that matter?
What percentage of the people would understand your constitution and the terms you use? Of those who don't understand, what percentage would spend time learning.
If an amendment can't be explained clearly in a sentence or two, how many will understand enough to support it?
A simple amendment to abolish the federal income tax is understandable to all voters. That's incremental reform that has possibilities.
Perhaps if you divided up your constitution in amendments understandable to Joe Sixpack, then maybe we'd have something.

It was nothing more than an intellectual exercise

because I'm an annonymous (sp?) username without a unique font ;-)

I wrote it for "advanced Daily Paul" members who also took the time to read it and meditate on it.

I train flexible and agile minds -- not Joe Sixpack.

INCREMENTALISM is what we've had for nearly 250 years
#1 Free-Markets cannot arise out of Incrementalism
#2 Incrementalism in America has gone from long-wave perturbations to short-wave perturbations (meaning we change less and hover at a direct-indirect tax rate of 80%)

........Therefore you cannot use this model to generate a free-market.

John B, Octobox, and everybody else.

I'd like to propose a fairly simple project that I believe constitutes a crucial first step in writing a new constitution. Long before we are forced to agree (or not) on the solutions, I believe we would do well to list the PROBLEMS.

Is anyone up for a friendly group task of simply compiling a list of the problems/weaknesses/loopholes/abuses we would like to avoid in a new constitution? We would probably need to constrain ourselves not to go beyond the simple list for starters. That is, problems only, and no proposed solutions.....not YET.

This is a fairly complicated puzzle, so I think we would do well to get all the pieces on the table before we start trying to put it together.

Anyone game?


Thanks so much, Octo, for that stirring....

...display of collaborative spirit! : )

OK, here's a start. Remember, these are PROBLEMS only, and not the solutions.

1. The limitless tenure of Senators and Representatives lends itself to corruption.
2. The limitless compensation/benefits of Senators and Representatives makes it too easy to have a "career" as part of the oligarchy--even (and especially) after leaving office.
3. The simple majority requirement for most legislation encourages lots of legislation---since it is such an easy hurdle to jump. The message this sends is that Congress should be QUICK to act, and that government should be sprawling. It also feeds the so-called "two-party system".
4. The sovereign immunity enjoyed by elected officials today allows corruption to flourish. (They are not prosecutable for violating their oaths of office.)
5. Certain laws (and Congressional rules) protect the two major political parties in various ways.
6. Certain laws serve to protect major corporations from their competitors.
7. Congress may pass a law without reading it.
8. Congress may pass an Act that includes all manner of extraneous material, irrelevant to the advertised purpose of the Act.
9. The representative nature of the Congress is undermined by in-house committees and sub committees that control whether legislation comes to the floor for a vote.
10. There is no method by which the public may recall a Member of Congress before the expiration of his/her term.
11. Courts often rule that citizens do not have "standing" to file suit against illegal acts of government.
12. State governments have no stake in the government(the Congress)of the Union to which they are joined (since the "passage" of the 17th Amendment).
13. The President can single-handedly commit troops to war.
14. Wars may be waged for any purpose. There is no constitutional limitation.
15. Tax dollars may be redistributed as charity--even to foreign nations.
16. There is no prohibition against deficit spending---nor against the government borrowing or printing new money to avoid deficit spending.
17. There are no measures against inflation, and the present system causes inflation.
18. Legal "precedent" has equal (or sometimes greater) weight than actual legislation.
19. Human "rights" (as treated in the "Bill of Rights") are not free from infringement. This is especially true at the STATE level---as if citizens of states were never intended by God to have rights, but only citizens of nations.
20. Amendments do not strike and/or replace original language. Rather, they are attached to the end of the Constitution, and their meaning (and effect) becomes a matter of judicial opinion.
21. Electronic voting is neither secure nor trustworthy.
22. The Electoral College is wholly unnecessary.
23. It costs money to sue for corruption. (Many cannot afford the execution of their rights.)
24. It costs money to appeal an egregious court ruling. (many cannot afford the execution of their rights.)
25. Unlimited Judicial tenures (especially appointed positions) encourage corruption.
26. Government ought not to compete in business.
27. Taxation is rampant and without constitutional limits--and is curbing economic growth.
28. Governmental regulation often serves to protect governmental darling corporations from the competition of up-and-coming entrepreneurial endeavors.
29. Under the current Constitution, people have no right to own property outright---without that property being continually taxed and re-taxed every year.
30. Under the current arrangement, a man may not trade his labor for cash at an equal exchange. Rather, he is presumed to be profiting from this exchange, and is taxed on it.
31. Inheritance is taxed, robbing families of the benefits of their ancestors' work.
32. Governmental involvement in education is dangerous and leads to self-serving political indoctrination.
33. Citizens, regardless of their level of understanding of the constitution/government/current affairs, may vote.
34. Media may continue to operate, even while continually and intentionally lying to the people. Lying to the public is not a criminal offense.
35. This "two-party system" has a stranglehold on political advancement, and enjoys the protection of the government.
36. The Federal Reserve---and anything like it, serves only the Federal Reserve, and not the good of the nation.
37. The governmental participation in charity, grants, and loans, (whether to individuals, groups, or corporations) breeds too much corruption, is counterproductive to sound economic growth, and is patently unfair to those who are taxed to support such gifts.
38. Government gives special latitude to churches to operate without taxation. Yet government requires that the church refrain from political speech in order to qualify for the exemption.
39. Progressive taxation (tax brackets) is inherently unfair and counterproductive to sound economic growth.
40. The federal government ought not have individual-specific data on the citizenry.
41. There should be no entity of government that is immune from Congressional oversight. This includes, but is not limited to: military, intelligence, Federal Reserve, etc. Many such entities operate independently, however, under the direction of parties unknown.
42. There should be no federal lands in any state. Neither parks nor forts nor wildlife reserves.
43. States do not have an explicit right of secession in the Constitution.
44. The Constitution does not provide for the punishment of those who violate it.
45. Tax deductions and incentives are used by government to entice the public to spend money with their corporate darlings. (Ethanol is a great example of this, and solar technology, etc.)
46. There is no independently-elected inspector-general-type official whose task it is to police the governmental departments with regard to the legality of their operations.
47. civilians are not allowed to keep and to bear the types of arms necessary to unseat the government or to fight off a lawless military, should that become necessary.

There are certainly many, many more, but this is enough to get it started. Perhaps not all these problems are of the sort that should be addressed in a Constitution, yet each has played a role in the demise of the nation, and should be considered for addressing in a new constitution.


I agree with everything you got there Jack

I'm going to sum up all those problems (make 'em more concise) like thus:

1) Gov't currently has the power to Regulate, Tax, Give Licensure, Fine, Penalize, and Oversee the following Markets: a) Health Care, b) Currency (Paper, electronic, and commodity, c) Banking, d) Securities, e) Education, f) Durable Goods, g) Food-Farming-Agriculture-Water, h) Fuel-Energy-Electric, and i) Insurance

2) Gov't currently has the power to direct soldiers and seamen accross borders / international waters

3) Gov't has Taxing Authority over Civialians

4) Gov't has a mechanism to over-ride voters

5) Gov't uses Voting and Lobbying to keep Perpetual Party War so the need for gov't expansion is always needed.


By the way my Constitution above solves your list of problems and mine :-)

*claps chalk dust off hands*


John B,

"Amendment 1- A majority of the state legislatures may negate any federal law."

I think I like this one in theory.

How would it work? Would this be a collective line-item veto? That is, would they be striking single facets of omnibus bills that they don't like? Or would it be on an act-by-act basis? (Example: the entire USA Patriot Act).

Also, who would certify that a sufficient number of the states had so voted?

Also, would this remove the original legislation from law, or would it simply supersede the original, leaving it up to the courts to figure out how to interpret things?

Also, what would be the states' remedy when they negated a law, but the Feds ignore the negation?


The States Only Negate

Just gave the amendment as an example of what could be done.
If I understood Jon the state legislatures would negate a whole law(Federal Law No.@#$%^&).
Congress would be sent an immediate message, every omnibus bill would be in danger. It might even force them to be more honest. There'd be incentive to stop putting "crap" secretly in massive bills.
The Feds can always ignore any amendment or law now. They'll do whatever they think they can get away with, but at least the people would clearly see what was happening.
It's important to keep an amendment clear and as simple as possible, giving the Feds as little "wiggle room" as possible.
Two more amendments
Amendment II- The states shall hold a Constitutional Convention every ten years, to be held in alphabetical order starting with Alabama in 2***.
AmendmentIII- A state may withdraw(secede)from the union at will to become an independent nation. Any disagreements between the two resulting sovereign nations shall be settled in an international court of law.

Give the states weapons to put the Feds under control.

John B: You missed the point of "my" Constitution

The "evil" in our Corporatist (by-way of Capitalist) Society is that we have an "option" to sell-out self-rule, self-health, and self-defense.

That we can abdicate it over to some authority.

If you abdicate to the state long enough for "efficiency" reasons a Federal Power will be created.

Nope: Self-Rule, Self-Health, Self-Defense must all be in the hands of the Individual.

To be free you must analyse the "Zeros" above and create a Zero Abdication Society.

Individualism 1st
Localism 2nd
--then City
--then County
State 3rd
Nation 4th
World a distant 5th

No ammendment can turn that swatting paper into "liberty" as long as voting and lobbying (abdication and the purchasing of voting blocks) is allowed.

I have no doubt I missed the point,

but then that's my point. How many of we common folk would get it? Or should we support it as a matter of faith?

I purposely went to the conclusion to muster conversation

when I say you are not "getting it" I'm not agreeing that it's tough to figure out; I'm saying you did not read it all the way through and meditate on it.

The 350 Word Constitution is in short-hand #1

It was intended to stimulate discussion #2

It is a perfect solution to every complaint ever given on Daily Paul (as to why Gov't Fails) #3

......and it's expertly crafted ;-)

Joη's picture

how about a very simple amendment:

Amendment XXⅧ: "Strike A1§8¶17."

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?


Striking, writing, or amending the rules is of little consequence when the government already shuns the law. Until the public is adamant about enforcing the law, no constitution will be of any practical use in limiting this government.

Joη's picture

Generally agree

but removing any wording to suggest exclusive and complete jurisdiction anywhere for the federal government might be a good start. That single line opened the floodgates.

Worse yet, it likely still serves to lend credence to the Constitutionality of their actions.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

We Don't Need a New Constitution

We need a new government to start honoring it.

Ladalang: As long as there is "choice" to abdicate

authority or not abdicate authority you will always have a perpetual move away from liberty.

You could "reset" it with massive revolution, but within a generation a rapid or gradual movement back towards a pre-revolutionary state would begin.

If you want lasting liberty, you must have a Zero-Rights Society -- that's how "all" rights are protected, by givin no individual or group "rights" (by gov't).

How about we get everyone to use the one we got?

That is the problem, we are not following the one we already have.

Demolay, "the one we already have".....

...while superior to the de facto system of government that continually ignores it, actually facilitated the uprising of this lawless government.

While certain sections of it are genius and clear, other sections are wholly inadequate and ambiguous.

For example, consider the "sovereign immunity" of office holders. There is no provision for the public being able to prosecute elected officials who violate the Constitution. These guys operate with a high level of impunity--and the WORST that will ever happen to them is they don't get re-elected---and then they go off to accept all the bribes they were promised while in office--and continuing to receive a pension and benefits forever.

Or consider the stupid construction of Amendments like the 2nd. Did it intend to allow inmates, children, and the insane to "keep and bear arms"? If not, then why didn't it say so? Why leave so much up to the interpretation of the courts?

And consider how the preamble to the "Bill of Rights" was omitted, removing the theory that prompted them, and leaving them philosophical orphans in the text. It is now argued that, even though the popular title is "Bill of RIGHTS", what they REALLY are is a list of limitations on the power of the Federal Government--and that they have nothing to do with personal rights of human beings---sort of---unless we feel like it. That there is no standard interpretation is because of this sloppy work.

And the list goes on and on. A new one should be written with our ugly history in view---cutting out the things that are the obvious havens and tools of scoundrels and tyrants.

For instance, have you ever considered how a simple majority vote ENCOURAGES the constant springing forth of new legislation? This sends the signal that Congress is SUPPOSED to be making lots of new laws, because it's so easy to do it. In my view, a 2/3 requirement would send a different signal: that Congress should only act when action is obviously needed.

And with the present corruption in view, term limits (and even shortened terms for the Senate) are an obvious remedy in part.

The problem with "the one we already have" is that the people have not perfected it over the centuries. Instead, they stood back and watched it be exploited to their own detriment. Had we been a better people, it would have been greatly improved in all this time.

In my opinion, therefore, it would take as great a miracle to reform the country completely to the Constitution as it would to reform them to a point that they'd want to start over with a BETTER one.


Thanks you for you post, Rule of Law

Keep posting. I learned a couple things and agree with your statements.

I am searching for an answer just like OctoBox.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn

Demolay: The Constitution we have now is so full of holes

that it can never be "perfect"

It allows for choice: Yes Abdication of Authority or No Adbication of Authority -- when it was first written.

It now allows for choice: Full Abdication or Partial Abdication -- the "no" vote is made by one person only.

And 97% of the nation (the ones that voted) voted against that "one" (Ron Paul).

If you give people the option to abdicate self-rule they will either do it fully or partially and very few will say "no"

That's the destructive psycho-meth-thinking that comes out of Capitalism, Democracy, Corporatism, Communism, and Socialism.

The ETERNAL Right-Seek Societies

We need....

A Zero Right Seeking Society
---Zero Voting
---Zero Lobbying
---Zero Authority

We must of course transition and pay off our debt.
---We can't throw our law enforcement, military, fire-department, and rescue into the night; we must help them transition into the private market (as outlined in my Constitution).
---We must also keep some authority while the wealthy and the criminals find a way to earn big profits in a free-society (or freer society).
---Then we eliminate those basic taxes / authorities and move into Consumer-Individualism.

It is not supposed to be perfect. It is supposed to be full....

.......of holes. In order to have free will people have to have the ability to make good choices, or to screw up. The Constitution is a compromise, which is the essence of politics. But (the big but) the Constitution allows the utmost flexibility, since the founders were intelligent enough to understand that they could not perceive every eventuality.

Good luck on getting your constitution legitimized. I will stick with the old version for now, thanks.

Demolay: Obviously this OP Thread (posted anonymously)

is not meant to be a literal "new constitution," so there's no need for sophomoric debate.

People DO NOT have free-choice under "your" Constitution, but they would under mine.

As long as groups, workers, and owners can vote and lobbying (which is a consumer override) then your purchasing power (thus choices) will be destroyed.

My Constitution is far wiser (of course I have the advantage of history) than what the Founders came up with.

Liberty means Zero Abdication of Self-Rule, Self-Defense, and Self-Health -- amongst other things.

Never once in all human history has such a Constitution (as created by the Founders -- after being benefited by British Slave Trade and British Army Indian Land Theft) or one created by any other gov't brought about "liberty" for all.

It was engineered to free a few men and to enslave the rest.

You miss the point. It does not matter so much what the........

......rules are, as it does the mental, moral and spiritual make-up of the people the laws represent. We can have all the right laws, or anything else you say we need to make everything perfect, but it will never work if the individuals, the citizens themselves, are not just and virtuous. We have plenty of laws now and yet there is perpetual crime. What we need to do is start teaching people to be good and productive citizens again. Now everyone is concerned about having all the authority and yet they refuse to take responsibility. We have the elite running things, but they have never done the jobs they are in charge of, so they cannot understand when they make bad decisions, or why the decision was bad.

We can try and force everyone to do things the way you think they should be done so that everything would be perfect, but we would end up bastardizing that vision also unless the people are just and virtuous. Right now we are elitist, greedy, arrogant, selfish and willful. At least if our leaders truly represent us.
But thanks for calling me sophomoric, actually I am a junior. (A slight joke, in case you were going to take it seriously).

Actually I got the point -- I'm not articulating simply enough

I never said "get the laws right"

I'm saying eliminate all laws and regulation over the markets.

Keep a small sales tax to run a Naval Meritocracy, an Army-Air Meritocracy, and a GAO Meritocracy.

For the purpose of Search and Rescue, Border Security, and Costal Water Security, and to pay off Foreign Debt.

We of course would have to transition into such a society; as Ron Paul has suggested and I've agreed to in the past (and present).

All's you need to do is create two more departments and tack on another 15% on sales tax (to my 7% above).

7% going to Roads - Highways - Bridges
8% going to Seniors (for 20 years) and the Infirm (20 years).

You can demo the above two after 20 years (when Roads and Highways and Bridges) are logically privatized.

Same with taking care of Seniors and the Infirm -- after 20 years you turn it over to the private sector charity groups.