Bitcoin Forum

Let the platform that a candidate runs on be a contract with the people. When he is elected, if he doesn't do what he said in his platform contract, execution. If he is literally stopped by the opposition from a timely follow-through, so it isn't entirely his fault, life in prison immediately.

When the next person in line takes over after the first guy has been executed/imprisoned, he has a choice. Fulfill the platform contract of the first guy, be executed/imprisoned like the first guy... except if he voluntarily immediately resigns without taking office.

Same with every other person who is the follow-up person to take office as successor to someone who is executed/imprisoned/resigns. Fulfill the contract of the office you are coming into or die.

By the time they run through all the people in government, and the garbage collector resigns before he is executed, government problems will have straightened themselves out.

8)

EDIT: Obviously, this is only a basic idea. I mean, we should add that if the elected fulfills his contract with the people, a new election is immediately mandated.

there are places in the world the people want a bigger government.

you can reduce the size of the govenment only if private contractors fill the gap.

^^^ If you reduce the size of government down to the garbage collector, the IRS will already be gone, and without taxes and regulations, everybody will be their own private contractor.

8)

jes and then the country becomes insignificant on the global scale and in their political and trade alliances and it becomes just a slum

^^^ 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.

8)

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. :D

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

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.

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.

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

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.

8)

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.

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.

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.

8)

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.

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.

8)

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.

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".

I think you should look at Jan Lokpal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Lokpal_Bill)/(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.

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.

8)

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... (https://fci-recordings.s3.amazonaws.com/production/conference_6074645_307617.mp3?response-content-disposition=inline&response-content-type=audio%2Fmpeg&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJH74ISJPD4R4YDTQ%2F20190527%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20190527T154101Z&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=1b5a0e36fe2d0c18e6522b2ad7019c3be1e71f73c637fbe23a242f93750b3c25) 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.

8)

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.

^^^ 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.

8)

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.

^^^ 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.

8)

First one should be able to be sure the elections are fair and that people isn't influenciated by any mean and that is impossible. Then you need to know that the money the government manages is employed towards the country or it's interest.
Enviromental care should be a priority independent of wealth.

Could go on for a while but I feel it would be pointless.

"Execution"

Number of candidates drops close to 0.  ;D

Anyway, a less brutal option about it is to put heavy restriction on anyone applying for office to deter people that might abuse their position. We need something more than simply divesting.

This is barbaric :D

You are suggesting how to fight false promises not how to reduce government size.

Since the tittle talk about size of government, I want to say that the main problem of Government size is that people working there are not motivated to reach goals compared to private sector.

This sounds crazy and futuristic

There are many problems with the government's size. Mainly, there's too many people behind each MP, people who are getting paid for helping him decide what to do and sometimes even do his job for him. Do we vote for our representatives or for their teams of secretaries and assistants. If there's 20 people working for every MP, maybe the number of MPs could be cut in half? The result would still be the same.

They aren't motivated because it's usually not their only job. In most countries MPs work part time. In the old days these jobs were given to aristocrats and it had some interesting benefits. For instance, aristocrats had a lot of money and weren't motivated by greed and much harder to bribe. You had to put really big money on the table to make them change their minds. Nowadays, when poor people suddenly come to power they can be pretty easy to "persuade". Also, aristocrats were taking politics pretty seriously, as it was their only job apart from hunting, partying and various sports and arts and were pretty well educated. These days every moron can become an MP because we have equality, which means that there has to be a member of every minority, sex, religion and even sexual preference in every group.

when there is no government everyone will spend horrific amounts of money to protect his private property

You got it there :D.

You forget two major things:
1. We are spending it now, out of control;
2. Nobody says we can't increase the size of Government when we need to, but under complete control, via contract, rather than the free reign we give to the people who run our lives.

Actually, we can essentially cancel the Government right now (in the USA) with Private Membership Associations. And it's all perfectly legal. But I will leave the method for this to your imagination. All you need to do is think a little.

8)

For the right democracy, let every people vote everyday for every issues in the parliament.
We have done so much in technology, everyone has a smartphone on their hands.
50% turnout should be must and 50% to pass a normal proposition. 2/3 for serious issues.

But the one who need to implement this are the one who get suffers if its gets implemented,so I don't think it will be implemented. :D

In a democracy...

The majority who wins the vote essentially makes slaves of the minority who lose the vote. Is this fair to the minority?

The majority who wins the vote turns over their power to a small group of people who are supposed to enforce the items voted on. This small group might do what they were told, somewhat, but mostly they do whatever they want. So, the requirements of the majority don't get done, and the wishes of the minority don't get done, either.

What we get is a dictatorial group ruling over both, the majority and the minority.



The goal to aim for is this. Total freedom for everyone, except if he harms someone else or damages his property. This means that the job of government is to issue all kinds of warnings, but never punish anyone, except if there is harm or damage done... REAL harm... not things like the stupid little pickings on people for saying bad words.

Why this? Because it makes everyone his own government so that we have true freedom.



We start to implement the freedom by making the voting platform a contract with the elected. We make it serious by demanding execution for not fulfilling the contract. This isn't the only thing we do. But it is a start.


8)

there are a bunch of ways, but there is a one main problem, why minarchism, classical liberalism and etc are not working. the government is always becoming bigger, than it was before, thats why the only solution of this problem, which i have found is FOCJ(functional overlapping competing jurisdictions) and Panarchy(aka Polystate)

All the States except Louisiana have an acknowledgement of the Federal Constitution right in their founding documents... their constitutions or agreements for statehood with the US gov. But this isn't enough. The States should add a clause that cannot be removed, rescinded, repealed that states that the State will always accept the rights for the people as detailed in portions of the Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Once this is done, the Federal Government can be abolished, because the States are of a size and ability that they can govern themselves without Fed Gov. All that Fed Gov is doing is leaching off the States. Get rid of the leach, but keep its good parts - freedom and rights for the people - and let the people of each State control their location.

There is enough interstate communication between the governing people of all the States, right now, to maintain fairness for each State and its people. It's the Fed Gov that is making trouble for everybody.

8)

there is a problem, that smb, who already has the political power, has to lose it by its own decision, its pretty hard to imagine, and again, why noone is talking about destroying the government's monopoly for the violence on the land, its the only way, which will reduce the government, cuz while government has no competition on the current land it's monopoly, and monopoly will do everything monopoly owner wants

Perhaps that wouldn't be a priority or a need if we focused on the current vacants , It just feels impossible to say anything when theres such chaos.

Actually, no.

The 6th and 7th Amendments uphold the right to trial by jury. The 9th Amendment protects all the rights of the people that the Constitution doesn't mention:
Since the jury trial was available under common law before the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation (pre-Constitution Constitution), all it takes is a jury vote of the people to dissolve the Federal Government, or any part thereof.

8)

I'm very confident that no politician anywhere would ever sign anything like this....

Good point. Since they are all crooked enough that they won't sign something like this, we can all be sure that they are up to no good, and just taking the job for the money or power to pull something over on us.

When the country was set up... almost any country... there was penalty of death for those who took office... if they failed. In the USA, many of the patriots who set the country up died under strange circumstances.

Let the current suckers make a contract if they believe in what they are doing. Otherwise, shut the Federal Government down. I mean, who needs a bunch of liars ruling over them? I sure don't over me.

8)

 Promise very little of times means something could be of done, this is the time we can actualy do something, if something is lost we could all lose something for ever.

I don't know that I believe in this joker. But there are people doing things. He has nothing to lose except for his life from a long-range .50 cal. bullet, from a gun that can shoot over a mile. https://kokeshforpresident.com/

8)