3 ms·

Labels are the problem. Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives ect is creating a false sense of choice. The problem has a solution: states right. ~

Labels are the problem. Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives ect is creating a false sense of choice. The problem has a solution: states right. ~400 million people will never agree on a leader or have their beliefs encapsulated by 1 person/party. More choice, more parties, more power distribution

fictioncircle 10y ago
Yes, that is a route that is most likely to create a long term solution to the 2 party system. I just don't see it being implemented (or honestly) any genuine advocates for it. It is one of those issues the GOP drops whenever they control the Federal government. Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen. It also doesn't work when anyone can freely migrate between the states. You can't have large social assistance programs and high taxes in one state and the opposite in an adjacent state and not expect an unsustainable influx of low income people into the state with more benefits and high income people and businesses into the state with lower taxes. The problem with the federal government is that it's structurally too susceptible to special interests. Instead of an exception-free flat tax and a UBI that nobody can cheat, you get a tax code full of deductions for donors and a welfare system full of subsidies for industries with strong lobbies like insurance and finance. Instead of a normal-sized military that defends the country, you have a corrupt money train into the military industrial complex. Probably the only fix for it is to put the important bits in the constitution, e.g. there shall be a flat value added tax the rate to be set by Congress, Congress may provide a universal basic income to every citizen in the same cash amount, no other federal taxes or federal social assistance shall exist, military spending in peacetime is capped at 5% of GDP (where "peacetime" means "no enemy soldiers on US soil"). Remove as much discretion and complexity from the federal government as possible, and if something isn't suited to be done simply and uniformly then the states have to do it.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    > It also doesn't work when anyone can freely migrate between the states. You can't have large social assistance programs and high taxes in one state and the opposite in an adjacent state and not expect an unsustainable influx of low income people into the state with more benefits and high income people and businesses into the state with lower taxes. > The problem with the federal government is that it's structurally too susceptible to special interests. Instead of an exception-free flat tax and a UBI that nobody can cheat, you get a tax code full of deductions for donors and a welfare system full of subsidies for industries with strong lobbies like insurance and finance. Instead of a normal-sized military that defends the country, you have a corrupt money train into the military industrial complex. > Probably the only fix for it is to put the important bits in the constitution, e.g. there shall be a flat value added tax the rate to be set by Congress, Congress may provide a universal basic income to every citizen in the same cash amount, no other federal taxes or federal social assistance shall exist, military spending in peacetime is capped at 5% of GDP (where "peacetime" means "no enemy soldiers on US soil"). Remove as much discretion and complexity from the federal government as possible, and if something isn't suited to be done simply and uniformly then the states have to do it. Yes, the way fiscal/monetary policy is built would need changes but I think it can be figured out. I think you hit on the "solution" I had in mind to a large degree. When I made that comment what I envision is basically this: A) A progressive federal tax system that funds the LEO, Military, Justice, and International obligations (i.e. Embassies, foreign policy) without deductions or much chance of modification via a constitutional amendment that no state is going to willingly override. (i.e. The tax rate will be progressive, be based on multiples of the median household income, and will not allow for deductions beyond a standard deduction of all income below the poverty line. In peacetime, there is a % cap of GDP for the tax rates outside of covering the cost of the poverty line UBI.) B) The social safety net has to be built into that ultimate amendment as well. Yes, some people will try to cheat...but the government can just reduce payments if they do so fraud shouldn't be worse than unemployment now. (i.e. A UBI for the unemployed equal to the poverty line without trying to gauge the "why" of unemployment.) C) A state of War requires the consent of 50%+1 of State governors to release the funding cap on the Federal government (as a check against the Federal government just "deciding" terrorists are enemy soldiers on US soil or other loopholes). D) The Federal Government only intercedes in forms of regulation as a mediator between states or if the constitution is violated. E) The basic structure of the Federal government otherwise remains the same.

fictioncircle 10y ago

Yes, that is a route that is most likely to create a long term solution to the 2 party system. I just don't see it being implemented (or honestly) any genuine advocates for it. It is one of those issues the GOP drops whenever they control the Federal government. Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen. It also doesn't work when anyone can freely migrate between the states. You can't have large social assistance programs and high taxes in one state and the opposite in an adjacent state and not expect an unsustainable influx of low income people into the state with more benefits and high income people and businesses into the state with lower taxes. The problem with the federal government is that it's structurally too susceptible to special interests. Instead of an exception-free flat tax and a UBI that nobody can cheat, you get a tax code full of deductions for donors and a welfare system full of subsidies for industries with strong lobbies like insurance and finance. Instead of a normal-sized military that defends the country, you have a corrupt money train into the military industrial complex. Probably the only fix for it is to put the important bits in the constitution, e.g. there shall be a flat value added tax the rate to be set by Congress, Congress may provide a universal basic income to every citizen in the same cash amount, no other federal taxes or federal social assistance shall exist, military spending in peacetime is capped at 5% of GDP (where "peacetime" means "no enemy soldiers on US soil"). Remove as much discretion and complexity from the federal government as possible, and if something isn't suited to be done simply and uniformly then the states have to do it.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > It also doesn't work when anyone can freely migrate between the states. You can't have large social assistance programs and high taxes in one state and the opposite in an adjacent state and not expect an unsustainable influx of low income people into the state with more benefits and high income people and businesses into the state with lower taxes. > The problem with the federal government is that it's structurally too susceptible to special interests. Instead of an exception-free flat tax and a UBI that nobody can cheat, you get a tax code full of deductions for donors and a welfare system full of subsidies for industries with strong lobbies like insurance and finance. Instead of a normal-sized military that defends the country, you have a corrupt money train into the military industrial complex. > Probably the only fix for it is to put the important bits in the constitution, e.g. there shall be a flat value added tax the rate to be set by Congress, Congress may provide a universal basic income to every citizen in the same cash amount, no other federal taxes or federal social assistance shall exist, military spending in peacetime is capped at 5% of GDP (where "peacetime" means "no enemy soldiers on US soil"). Remove as much discretion and complexity from the federal government as possible, and if something isn't suited to be done simply and uniformly then the states have to do it. Yes, the way fiscal/monetary policy is built would need changes but I think it can be figured out. I think you hit on the "solution" I had in mind to a large degree. When I made that comment what I envision is basically this: A) A progressive federal tax system that funds the LEO, Military, Justice, and International obligations (i.e. Embassies, foreign policy) without deductions or much chance of modification via a constitutional amendment that no state is going to willingly override. (i.e. The tax rate will be progressive, be based on multiples of the median household income, and will not allow for deductions beyond a standard deduction of all income below the poverty line. In peacetime, there is a % cap of GDP for the tax rates outside of covering the cost of the poverty line UBI.) B) The social safety net has to be built into that ultimate amendment as well. Yes, some people will try to cheat...but the government can just reduce payments if they do so fraud shouldn't be worse than unemployment now. (i.e. A UBI for the unemployed equal to the poverty line without trying to gauge the "why" of unemployment.) C) A state of War requires the consent of 50%+1 of State governors to release the funding cap on the Federal government (as a check against the Federal government just "deciding" terrorists are enemy soldiers on US soil or other loopholes). D) The Federal Government only intercedes in forms of regulation as a mediator between states or if the constitution is violated. E) The basic structure of the Federal government otherwise remains the same.