A new nation with no government. What would you suggest?

Although we all have rights and some wear the flag pin or hid behind a flag and live off others sacrifices. I bestow the power of creation, for I am the God of all creation and the know it all God. I speak the truth.

Perhaps we need a religious government, and have worthless cowards and helpless fools worship, and beg and pray for our power. And have the loudest people as the representatives of our God religious power. Then we can go to war with all the other religions and exterminate them like they did back in the mid evil days. With religion we will have justification to destroy all others.

I call this government God Power Religious Government.

Isn’t that special.

 

A Constitution enumerating governmental negative rights would be worse. Something will be missed, and exploited because it was not included in the "thou shall not" list.

What seems to be absent with our current constitution of inclusive powers is a definitive fence of containment and a speedy method for redress of citizens' grievances, all of whom would at least have some standing when any usurpation of authority exists.

A recent suggestion, that could be explored, is attaching the included constitutional power granted, to any and all legislation brought to a vote, requiring the sponsor of the bill to justify the legislation under the glaring light of the constitution. The debate would be recorded for future review for clarification or repeal for super-constitutional law by the courts.

Too bad they didn't have air conditioning in 1787, they may have expanded beyond the 4543 words had they been more comfortable. (Steven Covey's solution to long meetings is to conduct the meeting standing up.)

 

I don't believe that this island exists. You're going to have to provide evidence from at least 3 "controlling sources" to prove otherwise. Even if you provide the evidence that it exists, I'm going to deny it and contend that the island is actually in the Atlantic and is about the size of Massachusetts.

 

I would just charter the island as a corporation and issue shares which will then be auctioned at one share to each person wishing to become an inhabitant. Inhabitation wil require voting share ownership. Ownership of more than one voting share is prohibited. Voting shares cannot be confiscated or voting rights impeded or prohibited or votes coerced. Shares retained by the corporation or sold to non-inhabitants will not have voting rights. Dividends to be issued on a per share basis.

Then just let the shareholders decide everything else by vote and see what happens. it would be the ultimate experiment in democracy and corporate governance.

 

The people that have an financial interest are the voters. That is similar to what the US had, land owners could vote. I like the idea.

 

This raises an interesting paradox in American voting. A person can live in one voting district and have a vested interest in voting there but can also own a business in another voting district and have a vested voting interest there as well. Under current laws they can only vote in one of the two districts but they have a vested interest in both.

While this only addresses local voting issues should a person be allowed to vote in all local districts where they have a tangible vested interest in the actions of the local government? For example, should a person that owns a chain of stores be allowed to vote in every separate district where their stores are located? They certainly have a ligitimate reason to be allowed to do so as the local government directly affects their business interests.

 

Only Chicago Democrats may vote early and vote often.

An interesting conundrum but is not unusual. If one is not registered in the big box political parties, they may not vote in the primary election cycles. So to be restricted to voting in only one district, as is the case in most places in the US now, is not unusual. There is the potential for abuse for permitting a vote in every district that one owns property. Voters then must stake a single location that is of the most interest to them, the home office of the business interest. ??

What solution would you suggest?

 

In Chicago they even continue to vote after they're dead.

i'm not sure I have a solution. Obviously a business would have to accept the existing laws and regulations when first being established in a local community but that can change over time and it is highly expensive for an enterprise to relocate.

I don't actually see a problem with an individual voting in mulitple local elections based upon a vested interest in the community but obviously this does not apply to the national voting. By way of example a person can hold numerous positions on different corporate committees and be involved in the decisions in each of them without any problem. Why wouldn't this same criteria apply to local government?

 

The potential for abuse with your suggestion would need to be considered and abated. I have no solution, but I agree with your premise. Vested interest should mean voting interest.

 

"No taxation without representation" LOL

 

Representation is only necessary (?) when the population grows too large to represent themselves. Maybe smaller districts would be the solution.

 

Should a person who owns one share of 7-11 be allowed to vote in every voting district where there is a 7-11?
There is no question that they have a legitimate interest in places where 7-11 stores are located and a reason to be allowed to vote seeing as how the local government can affect their business interests. Since 7-11 has millions of shareholders it would only be right to grant every one of them a vote in every local election where there is a 7-11.

According to you that would be OK. If not, please explain yourself.

 

Once again this issue presents a paradox because the 7-11 does have a vested interest in the actions of the local government that affect it. The enterprise should have (1) vote IMO. If it is a partnership/corporation then the partnership/corporation would be entitled to that (1) vote. That's just my thoughts on this and obviously the potential for abuse should be considered and mitigated.

 

Actually it depends upon the criteria established by the Constitution and the form of government established.

 

I would argue that business' political interests could best be met through a local chamber of commerce or other special interest group which gives direct influence over Government policy and therefore dilutes out the single vote interest of a non-resident business owner. After all if you can convince 3 people to vote your way through the auspices of the CoC then your personal voting interests are probably met.

It's not like businesses go completely unrepresented on the Council Chamber Floor.

 

Agreed. But this exercise is to design our own constitution. My purpose for this thread was to give an understanding of how difficult it was for the Framers of the US Constitution to design a document within the scope of their goal of self-determination and a new concept of sovereign citizens, not sovereign government. Although we may have discussed a different model of monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy, etc.

What has not been addressed yet is, should corporations be constitutionally protected as individuals as they are now in the US? My first thought is, no. Corporations should only be limited in their scope, such as a corporation set up to build a bridge or stadium and is dissolved when the structure is completed. Any thoughts?

 

This would work by limiting the Federal influences imposed on business, keeping the regulations at the local and/or state level, accessible to the business owners.

 

Corporations are nothing more than an entity comprised of People and as such they are representative of the People that own the stock. To not allow representation of corporations would be similar to not allowing representation based upon political parties or affilliations.

 

Associations are not afforded the status of an individual. Freedom of association is important, but permanent entities that are legally treated as an individual seems to be a way to avoid responsibility for corruption and liability, individuals hiding behind the veil.

 

A corporation only provides very limited protections as corruption and liability can be addressed against individuals in the corporation that are responsible.

A corporation does not have all of the Rights of the Individual but does have some of the Rights of the Individual because it represents the Individual. The key is in where to draw the line.

 

Individuals hide behind the veil and it is a difficult legal end-around to pierce that veil of protection.

The definition and legal protections of a corporation could be limited more than they appear to be in the US today. Is the purpose of the USC to protect individuals but was never intended to provide the exact same protection to entities? (I'm thinking this through now.)

 

A lot of good brain-storming going on, eh?

The primary concern related to corporations are the property rights of the individuals. Stockholders have property Rights related to the corporation and other individuals have property rights that can be violated by corporate monopolies and price fixing. Both need to be protected with the least amount of infringement upon the Rights of the Individual. A sticky-wicket to be sure.

 

The investors have the rights and responsibilities they agreed to in their contract. So protecting those rights of the company and individual is the proper role for government.

Illegal activity by the business is easily dismissed by the business since it isn't the individual's butt in the sling that commits the illegal activity, dumping fuel oil on the ground, improper allocation of funds, ignoring shoddy or dangerous production standards.

Any further intervention is redundant and damaging to the investors ROI.

 

If I can build a new country, then it would be a confederacy. Decentralized power. After what I have seen in Greece and California, I have come to appreciate the need for decentralized government. Decentralized government means that politicians can only destroy their states not the nation as a whole.

First the new constitution will clearly spell out that the only job of the central government will be foreign policy and national defense. The states within the country will have the job of taking care of domestic issues. The new constitution will have several provision to reign in states because no one states to be evil and violates human rights. Also, there must be provisions to allow free trade, and freedom of movement.

In order to finance the central government, the states have to hand over 1/3 of their state revenue to the central government.

 

Using the example provided of an island nation equal in territorial size to Ohio it would be somewhat difficult to divide it into states and instead it would be more like dividing it into counties surrounding major cities (e.g. city-sates) but the point of a decentralized government is a good point.

There are some issues other than simply national defense that the central government must also be responsible for such as establishing a national standard of weights and measures (which was addressed in the US Constitution).

Based upon initial review I do like the concept of the national government being funded by the "state" government as opposed to direct taxation of the People. I will think about that a little more. I'm not sure that the criteria of 1/3rd (or a specific percentage) of the local taxation is a good idea as some locales might choose additional taxation for specific purposes. Perhaps a tax rate that is proportional relative to population.

I would also propose that the members national government be appointed by the "state" government without any popular elections for them by the People. The federal government should be the government of the "states" and not of the People as originally envisioned by the authors of the US Constitution.