GameStop Gambit Flips Market Script, Reaction Recruits New Members to Team Liberty

As requested:

I was asked a question recently on a site called Quora, and I think my answer should be shared here. I don’t claim that I’m right, I only claim that the question is important.
My answer doesn’t have to be right. If it prompts someone else to think of an answer that is right, that’s still a win.

In Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand said something like: In an argument, one side wins and the other loses. But both profit by learning what’s correct. That last statement of yours above embodies that idea.

Also, on a side note Re:What is Virtue?, specifically the willingness to admit that you’re wrong… Personally, I have been of the opinion for decades now that “What if you’re wrong?” is the most useful question a person can ask themselves. ANYBODY can be wrong. ALL of us will be, more than once, in the course of our lives. The point of the question is to give yourself a chance to assess consequences before you take action. A lucky man is just a man who knows what can safely be left to chance.

Another statement that doesn’t get used enough is “I don’t know.” Nothing wrong with saying that, although very few are willing to make that admission.

Anyway, the question, and my answer:
What potential Third Party platform would sway you to abandon your current political affiliation? I am asking for both Republicans and Democrats to reply.
Let’s see…
With the sole exception of the Constitution itself, all laws have a “sunset.” Yes, even the obvious ones like murder. If you want it to stay illegal for more than, say, 20 years after it was first passed, it has to be passed again.. and again, and again, every _____ years. This prevents stupid, useless laws from hanging on to the books, and prevents legislators from looking for something to do to make them look productive to the voters.

A few years ago I started writing something I call the “Universal Constitution.” It’s based on the U.S. Consititution but modified for the goal of one document that could be applied to all levels of government – federal, state, local, whatever. It was meant to ensure no conflict between the levels while leaving them all free to deal with their specific and several concerns. It’s one hell of an intellectual exercise and it remains unfinished.

But it was also meant to implement some things I thought to be generally good. The idea of a sunset on every law was one of them. I added that any proposed law has to wait some amount of time before it can be considered at all, to prevent inadvertently making things worse by passing knee-jerk reaction laws. The same idea could be used to prevent one-day impeachments…

No one can hold public office for more than 2 terms in the same position, nor more than 25 years total in all elected positions.

Different lengths but the same idea I had come up with. I’m not as generous: 12 years total, keeping the term lengths we already have, no limit to terms in the same office except the overall 12 years.

I also have a pet thing about changing the length of all terms to the nearest prime number to the existing ones: House, 3; Senate, 7; President, 5. (I know, 2 is prime. But odd numbers work better for this.) The idea is to not have as many times as we do now when elections for different positions occur in the same year. With those numbers, all three would come up together only once every 105 years! We could also stagger House elections like Senate ones to prevent 100% turnover every election. (Not that that’s ever going to happen, but still…) If nothing else, it would keep citizens more alert to gubmint goings on.

Every law that applies to the general citizenry applies equally to the legislators who passed it, to their families, their cronies, and their security teams. If I can’t have an AR-15, neither can your security detail. If insider trading is a felony for me, it’s felony for my Congressman. If it’s not okay for me to slander someone I’m working against, it’s not okay for Harry Reid either.

This is an absolute necessity. No political class with privileges the rest of We the People don’t have.

Also, no laws that apply only to a specific grouping of citizens. E.g. no more affirmative action.

A bill submitted as a potential law or regulation must be limited to one subject only.

Again, very yes. No unrelated amendments or attachments. No bloatlaw (to borrow a style of term from the software biz). Also, bills should be limited in length. If you can’t explain it in some reasonable X number of words, and without referring to external documents as a means of skirting this requirement, it shouldn’t be proposed. These go along with your other point below about understandabilitude.

If government spending requires the government to go into debt, no new spending can be authorized until the existing debt is paid in full. No, not even increases to existing spending. Not even COLA adjustments to government salaries. And no damn it, not your own raise.

I don’t know if I’d handle it exactly the same way, but yes. It’s unrealistic for debt to be prohibited entirely like some have proposed, but it has to be reined in so it never becomes what we have now.

And balance the budget.

If the language of the bill cannot be understood by the average first year college student of the area affected by the bill, it cannot become law.

Again, the wording and conditions might be different but I’m all for the concept. And how about we use the average 7-year-old? 😉

Regulations must be made by legislators, not by bureaucrats. A regulation instituted by a bureaucrat is only a guideline or advisory, and citizens are not required to obey them, and cannot be punished or penalized for failing to do so.

Or all regulations, before they go into effect, must be passed by Congress using the same process as for laws. It makes sense to use someone’s expertise when it’s available, so a non-legislator crafting a regulation (or law) should be allowed. But bureaucrats shouldn’t be able to enact anything that has the force of law.

Similarly: Executive orders have no authority outside the Executive branch. (Especially regarding citizens.) Get rid of law by fiat.

Personal taxes, corporate taxes and investment taxes are all at the same rate. You can raise or lower any of them, but if you do you have to raise or lower all of them by the same amount.

My ideal is that there be no taxes at all but I know that will never be accepted, at least not in my lifetime. So yes to this since taxes will exist.

Side note: I think corporations shouldn’t be taxed at all. Corporate money just passes through to shareholders, and it’s taxed there. If the corporation is taxed, the same money gets taxed twice. Alternatively, tax corporations but not the proceeds that go to shareholders. I prefer the former.

Changes in legislators’ salaries cannot be made by the legislators themselves, they can only be changed by ballot initiatives. In other words, the voters get to determine what your salary is, Senator, YOU don’t have any say in it.

The 27th Amendment is an attempt to prevent legislators from giving themselves raises, but with incumbent reelection nearly a guarantee these days it doesn’t do the job. So yes.

Something I’d add that you don’t cover here: Some parts of the constitution, specifically the parts that are “philosophical” rather than functional, should not be subject to amendment. That way, principles can be protected from changes by people who oppose them.

One more: Every bill must state which section of the Constitution permits government to enact it. And why.

One more one more: An amendment stating explicitly that powers not expressly authorized to government by the constitution are prohibited to it. (This is an example of something that should be not-amendable.)

Those are the serious ones. The only other one I’d like to see is one I want just… because:
Children left unattended will be given a double espresso and a free puppy.

The double espresso (maybe even the puppy) could be considered cruel and unusual punishment of the parents. Then again, the punishment for leaving your children unattended probably should be cruel and unusual.

Altogether, an excellent list. This whole thing makes me want to go back to work on that Universal Constitution, though. 🙂