US Government Failure by Design

[Chris hart]

The US government was designed to be the most inefficient and limited body possible and to always be at war with itself for control, because if it is not, it is at war with the people. Because the main goal is to protect the bill of rights, as nothing should need to be changed or improved unless absolutely necessary to the nations survival. The problem is, if you accept the premise, that there is no way to fix or undo bad legislation. Whenever one party takes control, they tarnish the bill of rights by passing more legislation, and there is always a constant need to fix it by swinging between parties, but at the end, each party will opt for more control and legislation when they take power. 

Because of the huge inefficiencies to protect itself, it is almost impossible to enact change if it were possible. For example, when trump is elected into office, he is a lone king on a chess board against congress. Congress gets to write and pass legislation before it hits his desk, so they can make a bill that people wont like, or design the bill to fail. 

For example, the former is the obama care repeal which was flawed, so even if it did pass, the majority of his base would not like it, but if he didn't pass it, then he is going against his word. In the end he passed an executive order and is named the evil tyrant who took away health care form sick people. The ladder is the tax bill which is designed to fail. If states with higher tax rates are penalized more and those states make up a large amount of the population, how can those congressman pass the bill, they can't. 

This is most unfortunate because our president is in a tough spot.

[smarterthanone]

If people have certain inalienable rights, someone from a principled position could have made the constitution and bill of rights in such a way there was no need to ever change it, and thus no need for a congress or president etc.

ie. 1. Do not murder. 2. Do not steal. etc. Anyone who violates these laws will be held to account in zyx. Anyone who tries to change this document will be open to murder by ANYONE immediately and forever with no consequences.

Why do we need to update laws? I am thinking about all the new technology, and? Still don't murder, still don't steal etc all still apply, what is right and just has not changed.

[RichardY]

Perhaps the USA state was initially just to preserve the commercial specials interests of Tobacco, Cotton, Slaves and selling land to settlers. What interests would a central government serve at the time?

[Tyler H]

If a society creates an institution where the initiation of force is justified, then the people who will benefit the most from the initiation of force will have the largest incentive to infiltrate that institution.  Every government will eventually "fail" at the stated goal of serving the people while succeeding at benefiting power mongers who cannot survive through voluntary association.

[Jsbrads]

Trump didn't need to destroy Obamacare. He could have left it in place and evicerated it at the same time.

First state, the law isn't working. So (1) there can't be any penalties to citizens. And (2) any US citizen can now buy any plan from anywhere in the US until the law is fixed (and since it will never be fixed...)

A short time later state, the law is costing more than it was promised to the American people, thus we have to stop the bleeding. Insurers get no money from US Gov. States can do what they want except for bar citizens from purchasing out of state. States won't be getting more money next year. 

[Chris hart]

Yea when you analyze everything, there are always contradictions and it is so obvious. Like we fought off the British to become free of one government so we can create another. The problem is government people. Like we can accept that people are greedy, and greed in the free market is best for the consumer. But greed in the government is corrosive. People need to find free market solutions and drop faith in the government and fiat currencies all together.

[Worlok]

I completely disagree and I disagree because you are mostly right.

The Constitution is exceedingly efficient and so is lawmaking. Unless basically everybody agrees that a new law needs passed, then it probably isn't a very good idea and it shouldn't be passed. The president can veto because just over half of congress might agree with a dumb fucking idea. Congress can override POTUS' veto because almost all of congress might be a bunch of dumb shits, but more likely the president was wrong.

The idea that it is hard to remove laws is absurd. We managed to amend the Constitution itself on 18 different occasions. Some bills sunset, tax law has been massively overhauled half a dozen times.

Obama WAS a tyrant. Just like that jerk, Lincoln. The ACA is thoroughly abominable and was only passed because they snuck it in under an evil leftist political agenda. 

I voted for Trump. I can see that most "republicans" are working against him and for people that didn't elect them. However, every time anybody in government clashes against that status quo or going with your team or doing what you are supposed to do, I LOVE IT. 

The US Constitution is based on three things. First, what the most brilliant men of the time could agree was the best form of government (republic) ergo what minimal law should be required, ergo that laws should only pass if they are good, thus the difficulty of them passing. 2nd, Americans should be educated enough to call bullshit on lawmakers and elect people to fix the problems. 3rd that we can all go to their houses, lynch them, kill any personal army they might have, and replace them all with new politicians and a new government should we deem it necessary. Well, the have the first part down. The issue is that most people are idiots and keep electing the wrong people, and we haven't murdered and deposed anybody yet.

[Jsbrads]

It should be noted we had that minimal government until one day, the Federal Reserve was created, destroyed currency, Great Depression, And FDR forced SCOTUS to cede to a law all knew illegal. Had we had better men in that court, they wouldn’t have buckled to FDR, the court would have been stuffed and FDR would have lost credibility and FDRs ideology of growing government might have failed in this country. 

[J.L.W]

I think the problem is in the banking system to be fair. Perhaps the government has been designed to fail I don't know American or English legislature well enough to know (although I follow Stefans arguments!) However, what is clearly not going to work is the banking system. There is no way that cluster - funnnnk can continue! It's going to come down and in the larger sense, inflation, NIRP, QE, that black market banking term I forget, and a billion other muddy things is clearly not supportable.

You just need to look at the stock market to realise it is all going to come down.

[Tyler H]

@J.L.W No, the problem is the initiation of the use of force. The problem is the government waving a gun in everyone’s face so they have to use a currency they would never utilize otherwise. The problem is the mitigation of risk through the socialization of costs brought on by theft, and a people indoctrinated, indoctrination paid for with their own stolen money, to think that very theft is virtuous. The problem is murdering millions of people for no reason so a select few can get rich through military contracts. The problem is the social acceptance for the use of force as a legitimate means of achieving their own desired end. Democracy is the true war of all against all.  Until the world gets that the problem is the initiation of the use of force the cycle will continue. 

[Jsbrads]

Smarter, whether you agree or not on the modern perspective on sodomy, it used to be illegal in all states and no one thought it would ever need to be decriminalized.