I've tried to wrap my brain around this for over a year now. I cannot, for the life of me, seem to come up with a government that works without corruption and for the people? It seems pretty simple, but what kind of government can work these basic governmental rules into its process? Nothing i've seen out there today and so far as to what I've studied has even come close to a regular, working government.

Corruption comes with power.

Power comes with government.

To minimize corruption, one must take it into account and seek to find the point on the scale of government at which corruption and benefit to the people are both in balance for the greatest benefit. What kind of government is that? You may differ in your opinion, but a Federalist system is the absolute point of government minimization with the greatest benefit to 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

What changes would you make to our current government? You don't have to name every political process. But would you take away or give more power to our government now?

Would you put government controlled programs into the hands of the people?

Compared to the alternative, anarchy, most governments work surprising well.
Of course the more people are involved to keep their government open, honest and free of corruption, the better.

__________________
Obama/Biden 2008

Take away a large portion of our government's power.

And the smaller the government's obligations, power, and corruption, the more control the people will have over that government, given that the system is democratically based in the first place.

__________________
.

"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

You state that as if it were a fact, but acknowledge that it is an opinion, interesting.

I would suggest that a government only works if it has the interest of it's citizens as it's priority. Military spending for offensive actions draws money away from spending on domestic infrastructure. Allowing companies to export jobs without fiscal repercussions takes away from our economic sustainability. In my opinion, these are some of the concerns that need to be addressed before we can have a working government.

__________________
Dr. Martin Luther King:
We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.

Negative rep score: 6 (Is that really all I get?)
Edit: (Is that all I'll ever get?)

I could spend all day explaining why, if you wanted me to.

But then a government will never work, because a government is made up of people who have been given power over something or some group of people, and they will have their own interests at heart when exercising that power. The government itself will never have the interest of it's citizens as its priority, but a government can be structured in such a way that the amount of power given to that government can be controlled by the people in their own interest.

Offensive military spending takes from the people and gives them less than their money in return for what is taken. In addition, from a non-national view, it does not cause benefit to the people as a whole, but only to those of the offending nation, thereby causing no benefit to humankind in general but only of one group over another. Spending on domestic infrastructure by the government also takes from the people and quite often gives them less than their money in return for what is taken. Unless the case for a specific improvement or piece of infrastructure can be proven that it would bring more benefit to the people than its cost, it is detrimental to the people to have the government spend money on it.

Not allowing companies to make the choices that are most economical to them harms the people by raising the cost of everything and preventing the people to minimize the costs to themselves. Companies only export jobs because of government interference such as heavy taxes and restrictions on their activities and mandates on certain things such as wages. Taking away these unfair restrictions would be beneficial by allowing all people to make their own economic decisions which would lower the cost to everyone in the country and in the world.

__________________
.

"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

Corruption is one problem that I think the world has very sparse information on how to combat. It can be minimized with more transparent government, but that is lessened by the phenomenon of too many people and too much information.
A local system with a close following could also reduce corruption but with a glaring problem (unfortunately local politics is not closely followed and rarely has enough candidates to make it worthwhile... often making it even more corrupt!): it creates a sort of macro-corruption in the larger system with each locality more free to break the collective interests of the nation. Today that is done with earmarks... Say what you will about them- at least it requires a process!

Power and corruption both exist regardless of whether there is a government.
What's important is ensuring that the power of government is shared by diverse interests and that no one group gains too much... that's the most important part. Then there's transparency and safeguards against bribery and such.

As such government has to be more powerful than any other power group. Because it is the only one shared by diverse interests... unless you actually fully combine government with the economy- which is a big mistake for reasons other than just corruption.
The government must be able to enforce rule of law and keep other centers of power accountable.

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

And I do not need to know.

What power would you take away? What responsibilities? Are you insisting that the ones taken away from the government would be given to local and state control?

Not really, because none of it would convince me that my opinions were wrong. You have your ideas, and I have mine. I just happen to think that mine are better. I do respect the fact that you attempt to explain your side rather than just denounce mine, I just don't think I can ever come around to your views when the interests of the nation are at stake.

__________________
Dr. Martin Luther King:
We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.

Negative rep score: 6 (Is that really all I get?)
Edit: (Is that all I'll ever get?)