The Sanity Platform

[ArfinGreebly]

Something said on another forum about an alternate political platform tripped a random neuron, and I started thinking.

Never an auspicious start, I will admit, still though, thinking beats nerveless apathy.  Or so I've heard.

Platform?

I glanced at both platforms in the run-up to the election.  Meh.  One is the "bread-and-circuses" platform, the other is the "morality-fitting-nobody-really" platform.

One of them I could reject out of hand.  The other made me wince.

So . . . I was wondering . . . and thinking . . . what would a collection of my saner friends think would be a good platform?

So I figured I would open the floor for discussion of something I will call "The Sanity Platform."  ("Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!  You can't fool me.  There ain't no Sanity Clause!")

So:  The Sanity Platform
       Plank #1:  People are not property.  Corollary:  The government does not own people.


Who wants to go next?

[Fjolnirsson]

Plank #2- Government shall not raise taxes, reduce tax breaks or borrow money from foreign countries. The eventual goal shall be to reduce spending to pre-1913 levels, adjusted for inflation. The U.S. shall be put back on a gold standard.

Lacks brevity...maybe just, "The government shall exercise fiscal responsibility"?

[AZRedhawk44]

Plank 3 - Indebtedness we create this year is a debt to be repaid by our children or grandchildren next year.  This is intergenerational slavery, and abhorrent to us.  We will never do this.

[Jamisjockey]

Plank 4: repeal the 16th amendment

[Perd Hapley]

Plank 3 - Indebtedness we create this year is a debt to be repaid by our children or grandchildren next year.  This is intergenerational slavery, and abhorrent to us.  We will never do this.

You really want a government that will never borrow money? Wasn't that one of the first things our national government tried to do, during the Revolutionary War? 

[Fjolnirsson]

If our government resembled that of the Founders, I wouldn't mind. The degenerate morons we have now? No.

[makattak]

I'm sorry, the whole gold standard idea is silly, difficult to implement, and EXTREMELY unlikely to actually be taken seriously.

The statement about indebtedness is good, but far too absolute. Would you go into debt to save your children's life, even if they will have to pay it back? I'm guessing yes.

How about: "Indebtedness we create this year is a debt to be repaid by our children or grandchildren next year. Only during times of national emergency will we take on debt."

I have no disagreements with Jamis's plank.

My addition would be: The federal government always imposes one single solution on the entirety of the country. Therefore, everything that can be done by localities or states will be left to states and localities. Regulating commerce between the states means the federal government will prevent tariffs or regulations designed to prevent people, goods, or businesses from freely moving from state to state. (Maybe that should be two planks.)

[cosine]

[...]

My addition would be: The federal government always imposes one single solution on the entirety of the country. Therefore, everything that can be done by localities or states will be left to states and localities. Regulating commerce between the states means the federal government will prevent tariffs or regulations designed to prevent people, goods, or businesses from freely moving from state to state. (Maybe that should be two planks.)

Repeal the 17th amendment to help in accomplishing that.

[Angel Eyes]

How about: "Indebtedness we create this year is a debt to be repaid by our children or grandchildren next year. Only during times of national emergency will we take on debt."

Unfortunately, "national emergency" is a pretty big loophole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

There were 32 declared national emergencies between 1976 and 2001. [2] Most of these were for the purpose of restricting trade with certain foreign entities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707).

...

The United States has been in a state of national emergency continuously since September 14, 2001, when the Bush administration invoked it premised on the September 11 attacks. In September 2011, President Barack Obama informed Congress that the State of National Emergency in effect since September 14, 2001, will be extended another year.

[ArfinGreebly]

FWIW, I'm less interested in specific issues and more interested in expressing planks as principles.

"Repeal the [XX] amendment" becomes an issue, while the reason for doing so is a principle.

I don't have a problem with "Because [abc] principle, repeal [xx] amendment."  A clear articulation of the principle is necessary, however, so that the "repeal [xx]" flows naturally from it.

I find that I have less trouble getting agreement with a principle ("people are not property") than with an arguably logical derivation from it (like "therefore children do not belong to government").  If I begin the discussion with "kids don't belong to government" I find myself swimming upstream against a long-propagated meme that "government is in charge of kids" without any examination of why that would be a bad idea.  If I start with the principle (people are not property), which has derivations like "therefore slavery is bad and wrong," it becomes easier to highlight the incongruous idea that somehow kids are property ("owned" by government).

Therefore I suggest that "good idea [xx]" be preceded by "such-and-such is a principle."

Principles make better planks than "issues."

[Strings]

No law shall be passed without stating the constitutional authority it draws on

[Boomhauer]

No law shall be passed without stating the constitutional authority it draws on

No making up Interstate Commerce Clause bullshit to seize power.

The Constitution and it's amendments are crystal clear. When it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", that's exactly what it means, numbnuts. When it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" that's what it means. If the military has it, you should be able to buy it if you can afford the purchase cost and the manufacturer is willing to sell to you.

Get rid of property taxes. I'm sorry, but when you buy land, you should BUY THE LAND, not pay extortion money to a state or local .gov so they won't send men with guns to take your land from you. Speaking of taxes, your money should be taxed once, not multiple times. I should not be taxed upon payday, taxed yearly, and then taxed upon my death for the same money.

Stuff like the NPS, Forest Service, and so on can be easily handled by state agencies. It's entirely stupid, as we have in my state, to have State Parks and Forest Service and then have federal park and forest services.

[seeker_two]

All Federal and State legislation will expire ten years after its passage, where it must be voted on again to extend it another ten years or let it expire....

All Senators, Congress-persons, and their employees will draw their salaries, pension,  and office budget from the legislature of the state they represent. The state legislatures can review and change those salaries at any time during the official's term.

[dogmush]

The results of a person's labor, whether goods or cash, belong to that person.  They are never an entitlement or right of some one else.

[griz]

The principle that we seem to be disreguarding the most is:

You can not spemd your way in to prosperity.

[Perd Hapley]

All the decisions of the executive officer of the week have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs.

[Jamisjockey]

FWIW, I'm less interested in specific issues and more interested in expressing planks as principles.

"Repeal the [XX] amendment" becomes an issue, while the reason for doing so is a principle.

I don't have a problem with "Because [abc] principle, repeal [xx] amendment."  A clear articulation of the principle is necessary, however, so that the "repeal [xx]" flows naturally from it.

I find that I have less trouble getting agreement with a principle ("people are not property") than with an arguably logical derivation from it (like "therefore children do not belong to government").  If I begin the discussion with "kids don't belong to government" I find myself swimming upstream against a long-propagated meme that "government is in charge of kids" without any examination of why that would be a bad idea.  If I start with the principle (people are not property), which has derivations like "therefore slavery is bad and wrong," it becomes easier to highlight the incongruous idea that somehow kids are property ("owned" by government).

Therefore I suggest that "good idea [xx]" be preceded by "such-and-such is a principle."

Principles make better planks than "issues."

I disagree.  The 16th Amendment gives Leviathian all the power to do all the things we despise, and is the biggest stranglehold on the population at our government's disposal. 
"We will do XYZ" is a principle.

[French G.]

Plank 4: repeal the 16th amendment

Yay!

[MillCreek]

All the decisions of the executive officer of the week have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs.

But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major......

[zxcvbob]

Plank 4: repeal the 16th amendment

16th, 17th, and 18th were all bad.  WTF were they thinking?

[kgbsquirrel]

16th, 17th, and 18th were all bad.  WTF were they thinking?

Probably something along the lines of...

[Perd Hapley]

16th, 17th, and 18th were all bad.  WTF were they thinking?

You forgot 19.

[BlueStarLizzard]

You forgot 19.

Plank # whatever: fistful shall be permibanned.

[kgbsquirrel]

Plank: Constitutional amendment to restrict suffrage to those persons who have completed at least four years of service in the Armed Forces and are discharged under honorable conditions, or have received a medical discharge under honorable conditions due to injuries sustained in the line of duty, or have completed at least 30 years of non-combat civil service in a non-elected, non-appointed, position and having retired in good standing. Furthermore, franchise shall be a requirement of any candidate to hold any elected office or to receive appointment to a civil position which has a term of office greater than 2 years.

[birdman]

Plank: Constitutional amendment to restrict suffrage to those persons who have completed at least four years of service in the Armed Forces and are discharged under honorable conditions, or have received a medical discharge under honorable conditions due to injuries sustained in the line of duty, or have completed at least 30 years of non-combat civil service in a non-elected, non-appointed, position and having retired in good standing. Furthermore, franchise shall be a requirement of any candidate to hold any elected office or to receive appointment to a civil position which has a term of office greater than 2 years.

Great...since I can't be in the military I can't vote?  Thanks, guess the decade plus I've spent forgoing a non defense industry big paycheck to put my skills to use for our military isn't quite the same?  VETO.

And why the time difference?  So 22 year old folks with a DD214 can vote, and 48 year old civil service folks?
That's pretty much selecting a below average voting population with limited experience.  Most civil service folks are retarded, and I'm sure DS Fitz can vouch for the -average- civil knowledge and critical thinking skills of young military folks (again, AVERAGE).

I'd prefer voting be restricted to people who can pass a combined critical thinking, economics, and civics test.