And that's the main point of Federalism, checks and balances and the counteraction of ambition with ambition to have the government control itself while keeping the ultimate source of power with the people.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

The only problem with more transparent local, state, and federal governments is that I don't think enough of the public care. There is alot of information out there today that would shock Americans, but we don't care enough to check up on our government. If we did care enough, they'd make everything look so complicated and wordy that even fewer would attempt to do so (taxes).

Do you think it'd be worthwhile to have the public vote on senate or congressional laws? Maybe a few seats would be given to the public. Not enough to flood our tv and radios with too many ads, just enough to give us a say in what goes on.

Having the government be subject to the original Constitution would be the first step, if that gives you a general idea of the amount of power that I think would be ideal for the federal government to hold. The principles contained in our Constitution are mainly the original ideals of Federalism as thoroughly explained in the Federalist Papers. Strict construction would then be the way of law for the government under this constitution, though several changes in the original constitution would need to be made. The amendments that we have currently would be kept with the exception of the 16th, 18th, 21st, and 26th. Terms for the Federal Reserve would be explicitly contained within the Constitution among with a few other changes in the wording of the document so that the interpretation of the document is explicit and not subject to arbitrary "reinterpretation" by third parties.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

There's actually, as much as I hate to say it, too much information... more than the human mind can handle. And a large portion of it is bunk.
Consider that most of the information people absorb on any given day is consumer-aimed BS marketing. Is anyone going to tell me that isn't directly connected to the lousy savings rate, high debt, and the crises that come from it. Garbage in, garbage out.
Now consider the decline in any interest in any news source even attempting to be objective... but then again also go figure that all profit-based news tends to exagerate bizarre occurrences, crime, minor concerns... and also acts as transmission for commercials.

Not really. I don't like ballot initiatives. Problem is... there's no one to hold accountable for the effects. I think ballot initiatives are often ways to fool people into backing a policy without any one being held responsible.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

What funds does the government use if not income tax? Where would it get its money?

Why remove the 26th? What would you change the age to vote to?

They got along just fine without income tax for quite awhile.

But for now, I support a plan similar to the FairTax.

18 year-olds on average don't have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their own actions. The decision to give them the right to vote was based on the fact that they were needed in military drafts. Now that military drafts are unnecessary due to major political power changes around the world, there is no need that people who can't understand the consequences of their actions should be voting. The age should be roughly 25, as that is the age that most people do gain the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

What about a group of people who are hired to review and publicize government actions. It'd be hard to eliminate bias from this, but a group doing this on its own would surely help the average American understand whats going on in their government. There would be biased and unbiased segments of this group and their "news".

I don't think any of the current news stations count as even close to this because they focus on pointless things rather than issues and actions.




True, but maybe a failed policy could go on record. Whoever initiated the policy would have that failed policy on their record forever.

I'm personally not for removing the income tax, but I think we should move some of our funding from the income tax toward geo-libertarian types of tax (land value, natural resources... I think taxes on pollution can work similarly). Not very likely to see in our lifetimes... let alone a switch to a georgist tax system.
But I tend to think the single biggest problem leading to concentration of wealth is the paradigm of individuals "owning" nature. I think there are some practical problems, but as I understand it such systems have worked in other places or in some localities at various times. Hong Kong is often cited as an example.

But it would take a great deal of cultural change for people to accept the mutualist idea that nature is not itself the product of any individual's labor and thus not there's.
Some people mix it up with communism. The main difference is that it's about the value of land and resources themselves, not the value added by improvements and refinement (the means of production).
The idea was mostly big in a different century. It was to deter the hoarding of land, the concentration of wealth, and the alienating of people from land (which no one really has the right to deny anyone from).

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

I think it's better to diversify sources. The corporate media dominate in this day and age. They are superficially different but have the same motivation. NPR is an alternative model in that it has different motivations.
I also think government agencies should put some small effort into publicoutreach to give their own side.

I distrust any broad regulation of media as a whole. The Fairness Doctrine has some nasty side effects.






That's only one person though, most likely representing only one small area of a state. I'd rather see people in many localities held responsible.
Ballot initiatives aren't as bad in smaller local levels... except that no one pays attention or shows up to vote.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.