Topic: How to Reduce the Size of Government - page 2. (Read 537 times)

^^^ People of most other countries don't have the freedom mindset of Americans. Much of the attempts to "Americanize" operations in other countries is being done only to further fiat banking worldwide.

Look at the people of India and China. They all could easily overcome their governments in revolution form, and install freedom instead of what they have. But they don't want to. And their governments know how to keep them pacified just the right amount, so they can keep on milking the people.

The government especially the democrats systems that we are running all over the world is very expensive and many countries especially in Africa could not develop because of the running cost of government. The parliament is were most of this money goes including the presidential aids. If those two are not there the cost of running a government will be reduce.

^^^ The "program" is what the people wanted done. If the first person doesn't do the program, why should the second be allowed to proceed with some other programs? That's not fair to the people. And the people is what government is all about, right? Let the program be done that the people contracted for. If they didn't want that program, they wouldn't have elected the guy to do it in the first place, right?

The second person doesn't have to do the program. He has 2 choices to start with:
1. Resign;
2. Accept the position of the first guy to do the contract.
So, he doesn't have to do the program. He can resign.

If he resigns, he is out of it. If he accepts the position, he has 2 choices:
1. Do the program of the first guy;
2. Don't do the program of the first guy, and get executed.

It will work fine. If everybody resigns or gets executed, government size will be reduced. The responsibility will go to local government to get the job done for their local area. And that is the way most of government should be done... on a local area basis - the State or County or City/Town/Village.

If some form of this idea is implemented, we will finally get smaller, more honest, more practical government.

This cannot work.
If the first person do not fulfill their program then why the second who takes place should fulfill the programme that the first person has set?
He may don't have the knowledge or the beliefs to execute it.

Not passing a bill of this kind is a smoke-screen, designed to make the ignorant populace think that they have no power. As I said in my previous post above, the capability of the people to do this is already written into the Constitution and Amendments.

Amendments 6 and 7 allow for trial by jury. The thing that is not clearly stated is the fact that these Amendments are not only defensive Amendments, but that they are common law offensive, where any individual can bring suit against any other individual via trial by jury - even an elected government official - for any damage they believe was done to them. There is law - literal court-case adjudication - that states execution for government officials who blatantly defy the law that you present to them, when you take them to court.

Listen to David Myrland at https://fci-recordings.s3.amazonaws.com/production/conference_6074645_307617... to learn about the law that can be used to have government official criminals executed (within the first 11 minutes of the audio recording). Note that David Myrland is a bit of a hothead, and has had legal problems because of it. So, do what he says (sort of) but not the way he does it. Rather, use the Karl Lentz way and, better, the Gus Breton way... Gus at https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/ (Karl at http://jurorinlaw.com/talkshoe/klentz/. Download these audios before they are gone. Listen to the first 20 of them. Then think.).

So, we don't need, and really don't want, the government to pass any bills that give the people power. It's already in the Constitution and Amendments. The fact that the people barely use their power, and yet they are protected, shows just how powerful the people would be if they completely understood their power and used it.

Perhaps this is happening right now. But I have never seen - not that I see much of anything - a copy of a signed contract between a US president and anybody regarding his platform: "I, candidate Jon Doe, if I am elected president, promise to blah, blah, blah before the mid-date of my first term in office. In the event of my failure, I require my execution/life-imprisonment. Signed, candidate Jon Doe."

If the voters don't like the contract, they won't vote for the joker. If they don't care, who knows what will happen?

Many people care right now. The only reason we don't do something about it, is that we don't know that we can take any law or any elected official to trial by jury for anything or almost nothing. And even if we knew we could do this, we don't know how to do it.

Government officials, especially the Judicial Branch, are keeping us ignorant about the whole process, built right into the Constitution and laws, for any of us to personally prosecute any law or government official, anytime, in common law court. And when the few of us who find out how, attempt to do it, the Judical people block us as much as they can. That's why we need to have support groups in this.

I think you should look at Jan Lokpal/(Citizen Ombudsman)  for inspiration. Since we were struggling with corruption so it stated mostly corruption but you can replace corruption with most prevailing problem of your system.


PS: This bill never passed and no government is ready to pass the bill that can give so much power to the people that is not originating from government.

isn't this is what happening right now? the only difference are companies and rich people with certain agenda are the ones they have contract with.
and even if what your saying happened it'll be just the same factions will be made with their own agenda people will be divided the only difference is
they'll be working for the "people".

Probably the reason why some of the politicians are not able to achieve what they tell to people is because of the government's previous status, as well. Why? Because before entering his/her desired position, he/she will for sure have a set of expectation about budgets and capabilities. That is the moment he/she will think about ideas and make it as his/her platform.

However, once he/she wins the election, that is the moment she/he will realize that he/she was messed up. The reality for sure won't meet his/her previous expectation and by the end of his term, he will not be able to achieve his/her platform.

-just giving me 2 cents here.

The people wanted the contract of the first guy, or they wouldn't have voted for him. If the second guy doesn't fulfil the contract with the people, why do we even want the second guy in there? We will find somebody who fulfils the contract we bargained for, or stop the government until they figure out a way to get our wishes done. That's a big part of the whole point of the contract... reduce government or get the job done.

In most countries the government doesn't follow the model of "collective responsibility." Rather, government follows the model of making the most money for the people in office, and screw the public except when not screwing them makes more money for government officials.

My proposal believes in punishing bad and negligent government officials rather than punishing the people by keeping the officials in office.

If you have ways to make things better, point them out. My brief proposal is missing a whole lot of details that have to be worked out. It's simply the basic idea. Giving government officials free reign without getting anything productive done makes things worse.

Social media is a way to keep the people in contact. It's a good way, because the trolls will add their two cents, and this will disrupt the thinking of the people to an extent. Then the people will see through the trolls because of "statesmen" among them showing the flaws in troll thinking, and the people will be united more than ever.

All congressmen and politicians might not be aggressively or intentionally bad. But they are all negligent and delinquent. How do we know? We know it by the fact that essentially none of them take laws and proposed laws and regulations to the people in a serious way... by forming common law courts with 12-person juries to vote on laws and proposed laws... even though this is a basic way to find out what the people want. And essentially none of them even inform themselves about how this can be done.

It's not this radical approach that is wrong. And it will not be forgotten. Why? Because the people want things to work right for them. And with things like taxation stealing their property to give it to the banks through inflation, the military to make wars they don't want, and welfare recipients who spend it on harmful drugs, etc., there is need for radical approaches like this.



EDIT: For example. There is nothing wrong with taxation - IF - the people are given a receipt showing exactly where their individual and personal taxes will be used, and what they personally are getting for their taxes. Taxation as it stands is really taxation without representation, because nobody can see for a fact that he got back anything for his tax money. For all he knows, government would work fine without his tax money.

Why next person coming have to fulfill the contract of the first one. May be the first one did not find the efficient way or there is a loophole and it will be always going to fail.

In most of the country government is supposed to follow the model of "collective responsibility" and not based in model individuality.
Your proposed model believes on punishing but not work towards making things better.

That is a very aggressive radical approach. Decrease the government size through massive pressure over the congress to change the legislation. Keep the citizens united on social medias, so they can know when to act together more effectively.
Not all congressmen and politicians can be bad. Join the good ones and help other good names to win the polls next time to make the necessary changes.

Forget about this radical approach, besides not helping, it wouldn't happen anyway.

That's the point. Government reduction.

Politicians aren't completely stupid. Many of them will run on a platform that they will be certain they can accomplish if elected. The platforms will be, however, silly things, because silly things are what they won't get hurt over.

Then, somebody will come along and run on a platform like getting rid of the IRS before going through half of his presidential term. If he gets elected, he will have time to do all kinds of other things before the first 2 years is up. Since getting rid of the IRS is what most people would like - even if many of them say they like taxes - the other things he does in the first 2 years will be just as dynamic... like bringing all the troops home... or putting us back on the gold standard.

The points will be threefold:
1. Government will shrink;
2. Important stuff will get done;
3. Local government will become more powerful.

If the nation were only 33 million strong, we might want to increase federal government size. But with a nation of 330,000,000, we want to increase local power, so that the feds can't regulate and tax stuff they shouldn't have their fingers into anyway.

Agree. Take responsibility. Create your own insurance plans. Make your own systems and be a sovereign individual

Why You all need government? Why not be your own government yourself?

When I was kid, I took my mobile phone to repairmen to get it fixed. Usually I ended up with phone that is damaged by opening it, it was partially fixed and also I paid a lot for the sloppy job. Then I started to fix all my electronics myself. Same with government. Since the crisis of 2008/09 I ended up living by my own rules. I do not need somebody else to say what can I do and what I cannot do. And threaten me with violence if I disobey. Now I threaten other people with violence if they cross my road, but I still take their needs in account more than any other government. The war and life in poverty after crisis but before war learned me to be this way.

Second amendment in US constitution is not about hunting elk or defending home from burglar. Second amendment is about hunting down government agents before they invade your home and interfere in your life. In europe where everyone is gay sheep there is no such laws. The sheepherders are keeping every sheep in control by various means.

The problem is that if you would punish every politician that can't handle with his responsibilities then it creates a risk for qualified politicians to get the same punishment. So pretty soon you will simply run out of people that wanna work there and their place would be taken by a bunch of honest retards. Or no one would be pushing any initiatives because of those risks.

Give it a decade, Australia will be one big government department, 1-2 privately owned mining companies, 10 Chinese farming companies and 4 banks. 

Government doesn't care about the poor people all they want is taxes from those poor people and even they don't know that they were paying taxes to their governments on each of their activities which looks more worse than slaves so my idea is we don't need government just work for yourselves and keep the money for you and it applies to all the 7 billion world to the people.

^^^ If you want to see a slum, just look at any of the big cities in the USA... Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco Los Angeles...

It is people working for themselves and taking pride in their work that builds a nation.