Simplicity as a guiding principle for Government

[Jerry Grim]

The more complicated a government is the less democratic or just it is. As it’s workings move beyond the understanding of it’s citizenry, it moves beyond their accounting. This leads to corruption, and the subversion of the government, away from it’s proper roles.

Simplicity in where decisions are made: Decentralizing and dispersing decision making power back to states, municipalities, and individuals. This could greatly reduce the bureaucracy.

Clarity in Legislation: The law should be transparent enough that the citizenry of the Nation, passing a basic education standard, could understand them without call for a professional Lawyer. A Lot of our politicians would benefit from this anyway. The resultant rise of the Lawyer class, in the absence of transparency, really results in no-one who isn't a lawyer having rights or legal recourse. While we are at it why not consider adding expiration dates for laws, or allowing a minority the ability to strike down laws. I personally would love to see an end to victimless crime.

Taxation and Spending: A rational budgeting of Funds, with stable year to year budgets, and rewards for enhancing efficiency. We propose this through a percentile system, wherein factors of government receive percentages of tax income. This makes seeing where the money is going really damned easy. Lets also see a removal of income tax caps as an immediate solution to funding, and reconsider where the money comes from (Fair Tax and Basic Income Guarantees are things I would suggest taking a look at.)

[Feral!]

Isn't it amazing that we have come to a point in history where Jerry lays out what are basically the foundations of the Republican Party, and he sounds like a crazed radical? Barry Goldwater is smiling down on us!

Well put, Jerry - tax reform and smaller government seem tough but doable in the near term - revising the legal system, now that sounds tough! Unfortunately, it's also going to be necessary to recapture personal freedom. How do we change the course of lawmaking on a well-worn path that stretches back to the Romans? As international mega-corps continue to cement their control over world governments, I would guess we will continue to see the lines blur between civil law and common law, and it will be increasingly difficult to institute change on a state-by-state basis. (In some respects, the free-staters have a good idea there- pick an under-populated area and move there - instant majority!)

[Jerry Grim]

Here's my thought on leaving that well-worn path.
What we need is a circumstance where we have no clear majority. Where we have three or more parties who each only command a minority of the population, and for them to refuse to be disenfranchized. Then we need them to be able to talk to each other about actual power sharing, and how to build it into the constitution.

I like David Brin's thoughts on what the democrats should do to make sure that a majority can't ever shut out the minority from even being heard in congress again. As sooner or later they will be in the minority again.

[Rachael]

I had absolutely no idea that these kinds of things would be considered Republican! I think that it is amazing and great that reasonable people who are dissatisfied with the current sociopolitical setting are completely scattered all over the conventional political spectrum. It only recently has been brought to my attention that things that I care about and think are wrong with the current form of government (verbalizing them is not a strong point of mine, but I hate victimless crime and most pointless restraints on personal freedoms, at the same time I feel like our democracy would only be a true democracy if everyone could start on the same foot, or at least have a chance at an equal sort of footing, plus I have problems with wreaking environmental havoc, playing the world's policeman, etc. etc. etc.) are not feelings to be found only within the far left. There are conservatives that I agree with! I have libertarian leanings and republican leanings! It is a revelation that I am reveling in.
That all being said, incoherently perhaps, I do not trust myself enough yet, and others even less, to not become turned off or biased at the mention of a political party or ideology that they may have a bias against. What I'm getting at is that I appreciate not labeling any of our issues or points with pre-existing political labels (or at least, like with this particular post, not until the very end so that the reader has already read and either agreed or disagreed before finding out that those issues would be labeled "liberal" or "conservative"). It makes things a little harder, like re-inventing the wheel almost, to have to restate things that are eloquently stated elsewhere, in other party platforms or something, but I think it is important for maintaining a diverse group of people and keep them all really involved and working together.

[Jerry Grim]

I really hear ya.

One of my biggest turn offs of the Mondoglobo system was a request to state where we stand on a left vs right political spectrum. I ended up taking a random we quiz to decide what to put in. I think that this will simply serve to empower people to act on their prejudices about such positions instead of getting them to read and judge anew.

I think it's a part of the US vs THEM mentality that american culture seems to embrace so strongly whenever it feels attacked or threatened. I'd like for the Open Source Party to focus on expanding US, instead of fighting THEM, to include everyone who wants to solve a given problem.

[cRitter]

I agree that the US vs. THEM mentality is more suited to the positions of other "Liberal" parties -- even our own QuestionAuthority -- as these issues tend to divide us more than unite. As you stated, the Open Party should focus on the ways and means in which our government can become more transparent, more inclusive, so that our ideals on Democracy can finally become a reality!

[Feral!]

I'm with you 100% - my point was not to "taint" the ideas by associating them with the Republican ideology, but only to illustrate how far our existing parties have strayed from their ideals. I think if we want to reach out and be inclusive, we need to be aware of where we already have common ground. No need to re-invent the wheel... although in the swamp that is politics, we may want to give up on the wheel and invent hip waders - or the life raft, or the hot-air ballon?

Jerry, I agree- that quiz has got to go - there are loads of pretty sophisticated little political quizes out there on the web which are much better, if we really need to do that kind of thing...

[Gary F. Moraco]

Read this stuff.It's good.Not quite Lao Tzu but it's a start.

[Jerry Grim]

Gods, I hope I'm easier for modern Americans to understand then a fucking 2400 year dead chinese guy. Otherwise it misses the point of transparency...

Thinking on that.

[cRitter]

While I haven't read enough to know if you're more easily understood than a 2400 year old dead guy, I can attest to the fact that describing the premise of an Open Democracy is nearly impossible given either the lack of concern, or the inability of most to conceive of a system other than one we have today.

The founding principles, from my perspective, are easily understood, whereby every American has the right to interact with their government on each and every level, and are provided the tools necessary to affect their rights according to their personal beliefs. No representation (unless they join a group), just Democracy.

And yet somehow, these guiding principles are immediately confused in a variety of ways: Does this mean that I have to continuously vote in order to maintain my freedoms? Can anyone write a law to allow them to do whatever they please, even at the expense of others?

In response, I thank the gods that we have the Open Source model to show the true potential of the human spirit.

[Gary F. Moraco]

As long as people keep raising there children like they have mental disabilities you need government.Duh?

[Gary F. Moraco]

http://longestwalk.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

[Gary F. Moraco]

http://www.gregpalast.com/exxon-suxx-mccain-duxx