1 vote

If you were to design a new governmental model, what would it look like?

Having been contemplating means of dissolving current tyrannical rule, I am curious what others' answers are regarding "what should the role of government be? (acknowledging Dr. Paul's frequent campaign rhetorical question)" If the response is strong, I might compile the answers in an organized presentation.

Here are my ideas:

1) Volitional governance> the checks and balances of Executive/Congressional and Judicial branches would remain while autonomously
Constitutions are reflexive to individual rights.
Additionally, all public agency (inc. local sheriffs, judges etc) is funded by electoral choice while all taxation is abolished

2) Ethical ideal> the ethic of the Constitution is refined and philosophically based upon individual rights, while validating the principles of
-agency (ex. currency)
-corporality (one's body)
-sovereignty (freedom to travel)
-philosophy (freedom of speech)
-spirituality (freedom of religion)

(3) Virtual politics> ideally a party can spontaneously evolve who are espousing these virtues

Comment viewing options

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

After many years of pondering this, you'll be amazed

Not feudalism, but a nationalist monarchy. Republicanism has not worked at all. Oligarchys always emerge. If you really think about it, there are 2 forms of government in the world, monarchy and oligarchy. The illuminati and masons worked for a long time to "kill the king" and it makes me think the king system was preferable. Just my thoughts on a matter I can't do anything about.

Self governance and voluntary assemblies as needed.

Tribes, and people pick and choose their tribe. If they want to be a tribe of one, that is OK too. Oh, and vigilante justice. People who are afraid of murderous neighbors going on wild shooting sprees are not watching modern "law enforcement" very closely. (And if you missed it, DO watch the video "Why the mafia is better than the state" by a strangely purple granny at Porcfest.) I grew up in the oh-so-civil midwest, then moved to the wild, wild west where everyone still open carried. The kids all had hunting rifles in the truck at school, and about half the men walking around downtown had a pistol at their side. I grew up in "polite society" but learned about real manners in the boondocks.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.


Since people throughout history have become apathetic and complacent and degenerate with relatively good functioning jurisdictional administrations. Perhaps it is better to start off with a government run by the biggest and meanest well armed SOBs so the people have a goal to work towards ;)

Seriously, limited government but harsh punishments for the violation of the rights ie. violent crimes, fraud, theft, etc. of the members of the country.

Respect for property rights is paramount. ie. Environment and No exceptions for big business monompolies to trump small family run operations. Next, all the others, religion, speech, expression, self-defence etc.

Well informed and educated peoples in jurisprudence and heritage and history and philosophy of the land.


before one could even answer the premise lets look at

Your list and recognize what our brainwashing has done to us.

Volitional governance> the checks and balances of Executive/Congressional and Judicial branches would remain while autonomously
Constitutions are reflexive to individual rights.
Additionally, all public agency (inc. local sheriffs, judges etc) is funded by electoral choice while all taxation is abolished

Lets see where WE as a free people granted by God (or insert your belief of existence),and supposedly in CONTROL of our own destiny AND this GOVERNMENT, are- on your list...

Oh gosh, way down there on the bottom (self), almost as an afterthought!

When WE the PEOPLE, are the very inheritors, the beneficiaries, the Grantors, to ALLOW government to even EXIST in service for us.

See how that works? Government didn't "create us". WE "create government". We can Un-create it at our whim. It is the FEAR mongering, brainwashing and propaganda that now has us in fear of our own government, thinking we have lost all control and that it is now separate and not OF/BY us.

Start with this premise and try it again and see what/if you feel we need any government and what it would/should look like.

Disagreement (and as similarly inferred by fadingTruth)

The diagram is intended to demonstrate that individuals can elect to freely participate within higher 'levels' (ex. national or county), while the bedrock of freedom is 'reflexively' found in individual's rights.

Granted, I did not state my agreement that those rights in turn are endowed by the Creator.

well I always though of reversing the appeals process

Like you go to court at the highest state level and then appeal down to more local court. Having Local Courts lawfully organized under state law having the final say.

Increase power of the Person over Government and Corporations.
Decrease power of Government over the person and Corporations.
Decrease power of Corporations over government and the Person.

I am not sure how that would work though!


the constitution we have is just fine but i would add one thing, "The Oath Act" any public servant (including)executive,legislative ,or judicial branch who violate their oath of affirmation will be subject if found guilty to no less than 20 year imprisonment and revoked of their citizenship .. i think this would make these tyrants think twice before voting for things like the un-patriot act ,and s.b. 1867... i would also add that the same would apply if they violate any of the bill of rights as well..

My first question is Why do we need a government?

My answer is we don't. They are a band of thieves writ large.

The only government I support would be a township board and even that I think is way too much government.

But hey I am just an anarco capitalist.

Would the role of government

not include public agency?

fireant's picture

Get rid of the 16th and 17th...

...give "constitutional republic" a chance and see how it works.

Undo what Wilson did


articles of confederation were better than the constitution!

King of Kings and Prince of Peace

I'm looking forward to this one...


“I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there.” -Ron Paul

█████ R █ O █ N ██ P █ A █ U █ L ███ 2 0 1 2 ██████

Lord of Lords

Yep, can't wait for God's government. Man has proven he can't govern himself.

2 Chron 7:13-14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Daniel 2:44

It says God's government will destroy all the governments on Earth. That would include America.

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

When God himself rules on earth

everything else will be irrelevant. No more death and world peace.

“I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there.” -Ron Paul

█████ R █ O █ N ██ P █ A █ U █ L ███ 2 0 1 2 ██████

Are we talking about starting

Are we talking about starting completely from scratch here? Because I happen to like 90% of our constitution as it is already. The only problem I see is that we need a whole new system of checks and balances (the old one isn't enough). Ideally, the powers of the federal government would be much more segregated than they are now.

For example, judicial review would be almost completely eradicated, the House would be mandated to pick a Speaker from the general populace - and not a current state or federal representative (much like the electoral college).

The 17th would be repealed, the 22nd would be amended to prevent more than 3 consecutive terms by the president, and a proportionally-elected House to make Congress tricameral would be a good start.

That's just a start, and it mainly deals with Congressional reform, but it gives you a gist of what has to be done. I once thought that splitting the presidency's powers in two between foreign and domestic policy lines was a good idea, but after thinking about it more, I have strong doubts. There is no question that the executive branch's powers must be constrained in some way... most likely through heavily restricting executive orders and signing statements.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.

- Barry Goldwater

Hypothetically yes

although I'd agree there are many positive attributes which could be retained from our current model.

The public House Speaker idea is a new one to me, although would mandates foster another type of 'conscription or totalitarianism' (as you can tell my proposal above leans towards freely electoral choice whenever possible)?

Ideally, you'd have less

Ideally, you'd have less electoral choice, not more. Because the more you try to make government more fair and equitable and democratic, you inevitably end up consolidating power through unofficial channels through those who can buy influence.

The only reason the founders went with a republic was because they had seen firsthand the abuses of a sole dictatorship. But pretend that the scenario were different...

It really makes no difference to me how many choices there are to make as long as the ultimate right to abolish the government is preserved. This is the fundamental difference between a Lockean social contract and Hobbes' "Leviathan".

Peter Thiel, a respected entrepeneur, libertarian, and Ron Paul supporter, has said that he believes democracy (and I'm paraphrasing here) is redundant. Why?

Because a democratic government is still an arbitrary restriction of your right to affiliate with othersand freely express yourself. In a market, you are free to vote as much as you want for whatever you believe in -- by donating to social welfare projects, buying American cars over foreign ones, etc.etc.

That is FAR more true to the principle of democracy than "one man, one vote".

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.

- Barry Goldwater

I don't know...kinda like THE CONSTITUTION

you know where a really good place to look would be : The end of the book PATRIOTS by Rawles http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias... , has a page near the end where after the collapse and the reconstruction they are working on the new constitution and they decide to make some changes to the one we currently have. Those seem pretty reasonable to me.

In the book Hologram Of Liberty http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias..., Royce makes some suggestions...but I don't like how he just makes amendments to what we currently have.

That's a long answer.

It would not look just like the current constitution, because the anti-federalists proved to be right in many respects. Amendments after the 13th centralize power.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)


if i were in charge, it would look exactly like the constitution.