Our System of Governance Should be Changed.
It occurred to me that if I am going to criticize what the government and various political elements in the country are doing, I should rightly have an alternative to present. That being said, I also think that there should be standards by which any system of laws should be judged
So lets start with an overriding concern. The function of law is to serve the populace, not the converse. As it stands, the law (and the government) act in their own interest, not the best interest of the population at large. That is to say, government and the laws perpetuating its existence act to support and enable that government, not the will and interest of the population.
It is further true that there are subsets of the population that are favored by the laws and the government which is formed by them. Since the motivation of the government is to maintain itself, not to serve the bulk of the population, it follows that that portion of the population which is most able and willing to support and maintain that government is most favored by that government. “Them what has, gets” is an aphorism that summarizes the actual functioning of the present government. It can be made more technical and detailed, but no more true in it's presentation.
History, for those interested enough to study it, points out that this descent into pragmatic servitude to the wealthy is a failing of most all governments in history. However, history also provides an ideal that could and probably would minimize this tendency.
“Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a Roman consul (460 BCE) and dictator (458 and 439 BCE), a legendary figure in the early days of the Republic. He responded to a call from the city fathers, left his plow lying in the fields, donned his senatorial toga, and led the Roman forces to victory over the invading Aequi, only to return to his small farm fifteen days later. For generations, he served as the symbol to Romans young and old of what a loyal citizen ought to aspire.
Although Cincinnatus has long been considered a heroic representation of the virtuous Roman citizen, there are some historians who doubt the story altogether, claiming it to be nothing more than a myth. Yet, while there are many who may not accept the story as genuine, they contend that it does not really matter whether or not it is true. As with any myth or legend, the story of the heroic Cincinnatus served a useful purpose by rallying the citizens of the fledgling Republic together as one, demonstrating that a loyal citizen must place the matters of the state over his own self-interest.”
There is some question whether this is historically accurate, but as an idealized principal it has merit. Government by those unwilling to govern,as contradictory as that sounds, is the ideal form of government. Government by conscription may be the closest to an ideal that can be accomplished. We trust the very most important decisions that can be made, life and death, to a jury of twelve. These are conscripted jurors. It works.
This could well be the standard for any governmental body or group. If legislators were lay people, conscripted like jurors for a certain period of time and given clear standards and structure for writing and passing laws, the law itself would become clear, straightforward and functional. Most of the millions of dollars spent yearly to pay lawyers and judges to interpret the laws passed by other lawyers would not be needed. For example, let any bill be presented with a mandatory prologue. This prologue. would state the intent and scope of the law in clear and universally understandable language, and the details of the law, including dates of application and review would be contained in the body of the bill. No additions to the bill would be permissible, as this is one of the most easily corruptible aspects of our present congressional system.
Those holding law licenses would be barred from making laws. The reasoning is simple; lawyers write laws for lawyers, non-lawyers write laws with the sole purpose of making a clear guidance and law. Lawyers would be allowed in the judicial segment of the government and nowhere else. The judiciary would, as they do now, review laws to ensure compliance with the original intent of the Constitution.
Constitutional issues, such as keeping and bearing arms would not be legislated under the concept of subsidiarity, as would almost all other issues. Subsidiarity is simply the item of social justice that states that problems should be addressed at the point closest to the problem at which that problem can be addressed successfully. Issues like concealed carry of arms should be nationwide, and the sole source of guidance should be the Constitution. Common ares of interest like medical licensure, Nursing and other such licensing should be likewise national in scope. It is intrinsically unfair that any citizen receive lesser protection simply based on geography.
Issues like education, on the other hand, are definitely best handled at the closest to local level possible. Guidance and standards of performance would be nationwide for reasons given above. The so called Common Core was and is a purely political construct never really meant to improve education, but rather to cater to a political group. Guidance for education would be based on such things as requirements of institutions of higher education admission standards and background minimum standards for successful completion of undergraduate courses. Tech school requirements likewise on the needs of business for entry level employees. Annual review of success would allow adjustment on a close -to-real time basis of the educational standards.
No form of discrimination should be tolerated, including the most prevalent and subversive form of affirmative action. All success must be based on personal accomplishment, not adjusted for race, gender or whatever. Personal responsibility and accountability are part and parcel of liberty, as is blind equality. Men are not born equal, they are born with equal right to progress as far as their personal ability will take them.
The sense of entitlement that has and is paralyzing our nation is directly tied to the failure of the family unit. The activist court and left wing interference in the nuts and bolts of life is not to be tolerated. No one has any right to that which they have not earned, and most especially not to that which someone else has worked for and earned. These must be guiding principles of any and all governance.
Religious freedom is established in the Constitution and must be clearly and cleanly enforced. Sharia law and such imposition of religious law in any form is unconstitutional, as is the denial of anyone to practice their belief. The caveat is the humanistic ideal that (in religious practice specifically) “an it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”.
Biological sex determination is also part of Natural Law. All religious proscriptions aside, the nuclear family is and has been the means of survival and development of the human race. The basis of society should be legally, morally and practically the support and clear defense of the nuclear family and biological gender identity. Any governmental support, tacit or otherwise of any deviant of that natural order should be strictly disallowed. Individual decisions on lifestyle, as and in religion and its practice likewise should follow the earlier example “an it harm none, do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”. No religious belief system should influence the law more than any other. That being said, the personal practice of religion, like keeping and bearing arms “ shall not be infringed'. There is nothing in this system and approach to governance. that is not doable, nor anything that can be cast upon as “racist”, “sexist” or other “ists”. It is simply a realistic and practical approach to fair and efficient governance.
