I have a new idea for restructuring our federal government.
Ministers with the power to restrict government activity.
The Minister of Shut Up, for example, has the power to force anyone in government, including the President, to shut up. So when the President says, "My predecessor's failed policies are to blame for the recession," the Minister tells him to shut up. This will greatly increase the quality of our public discourse.
There's also a Minister of Liberty who has the power to overturn or restrict any government action that violates civil liberties, and a Minister of Financial Responsibility that can veto any spending that isn't covered by revenues.
Now, here's the important part: obviously, these positions are only as useful as the people who hold those positions. So if you appoint them, or elect them popularly, you have a big problem. Politicians would appoint people who would not restrict their actions, and the people would elect people who would allow the government to do what they want government to do. It gets us nowhere.
So we will have a popular vote, but the only people who get to vote are people who have a real interest in upholding the restrictions involved. So only people intolerant of bull get to vote on the Minister of Shut Up. Only civil libertarians could vote for Minister of Liberty. And only fiscal conservatives get to vote for Minister of Financial Responsibility.
You might wonder then, what about the liberals? What do they get to vote for? It's only fair that everyone should get to vote for some position, but it seems like at least two of those positions are tilted heavily to the right, and we don't want liberals to feel left out. So, we need a position for them to vote for that is involved in very actively pursuing large government, in taking care of everyone's needs, in fighting against liberty, and so on.
We already have one: President.
So liberals get to decide what government will do, independents get to tell people to shut up, libertarians get to restrict government from hurting our liberty, and conservatives get to say what we won't spend money on because it's too expensive. Everyone gets to vote for only one thing.
I have not decided yet how best to determine whether someone really is a civil libertarian or liberal or what-have-you. Maybe some sort of lie detector test, or maybe just force everyone to pick one position to vote for: they will vote for the position they care most about, which will be the one that is actuated to push their interests, whether it is making government do things, securing liberty, keeping fiscal sanity, or just telling everyone else to shut up.
I think it could work.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at July 27, 2010 12:40 PM | Email ThisI didn't say that. "Civil libertarians" are not the same as "people who have an interest in supporting civil liberties."
The key is that it has to be the goal in and of itself, and higher than all, or most, other goals, not merely something you do when you have nothing else more important. Many liberals, for example, say "I support civil liberties," but they also have no problem superceding those very liberties -- with repressive zoning laws, hate speech bans, gun bans, and so on -- when they find something that they have a greater interest in (which is often).
Many conservatives also do not put liberty at the top. We see this, for example, in the liquor privatization debate. Some conservatives are against one or both proposals because they see it as hurting some businesses, or decreasing revenue, and so on, while other conservatives are for it just because it's the right thing to do according to the principles of liberty.
Without saying either side is right or wrong, it's clear that most liberals don't care about "liberty" in this debate as much as they care about other concerns: fiscal, social, and so on. And many conservatives follow suit, for both similar and different reasons. But civil libertarians say, "no, liberty dictates this should be private."
And frankly, Bruce, I think this is all fairly obvious.
No, not really. Not in this case, anyway.
... and you come up with 3 more government bureaucracies
Absolutely not. The Ministers would be essentially standalone positions, with a constitutionally limited small staff to simply gather information, read mail, handle scheduling.
... with broad scope
Of course. That's the only way they can do any good.
... and you are proud of it
Of course not. Don't be daft.
... and don't see how stupid the whole silly notion is.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
You need a humor transplant, stat.
Posted by: FurryGuyJeans on July 27, 2010 02:40 PMAnd especially Barney Frank.
Also, I would rename it Minister of STFU.
Posted by: Palouse on July 27, 2010 08:17 PMAnd yes, there is no honest man, and we shouldn't strive to find one. We should have a system of openness and accountability, that assumes man is NOT honest, rather than vainly hope that we'll find someone who is.
Why Pudge, it would have to be the Minister of Honesty, Openness, and Accountability of course. : )
Posted by: Jack on July 28, 2010 09:45 AMPffft. Republicans are equally as bad with shovelling the bullcrap. It's pure partisanship to assume otherwise.
Posted by: anc on July 28, 2010 01:13 PMI've never attempted to quantify the two parties, but even if true, so what? I just said those Democrats I mentioned (not all Democrats) are much worse than Bush (not all Republicans). Certainly you don't deny this ... ?
I'm fascinated as to how you'd be quantifying this in an unbiased way... given that you're hardly unbiased. :)
Posted by: anc on July 28, 2010 03:41 PMOr perhaps only men between the ages of 18 and 25 should be allowed to vote on this one.
Oh, and then we should also insist that Congress pass an actual, formal declaration of war.
Oh, and then all those in favor of the Iraq and Afghan wars would thereby be disqualified from voting for the Fiscal Responsibility Tzar.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on July 29, 2010 02:03 AMWould that have retroactively extended to NSA illegally wiretapping AT&T and war spending for Iraq/Afghanistan circa from 2002ish?
Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on July 29, 2010 05:15 AMFirst, most of the non-officers supported both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus, I have a fundamental problem with the military -- even if just non-officers -- getting to dictate military policy, though I certainly believe your idea has some appeal.
Second, you appear to be referring to Selective Service, and the Minister of Liberty would end that anyway.
Third, you appear to think that the Constitution requires any declaration of war, ever, for any action. This is untrue. It simply says that IF there is a declaration of war, it must come from Congress.
Fourth, I already said you'd only get to vote for one Minister anyway!
So I can't agree with your idea, or its reasons. But it's fun to think about. :-)
And the Minister of Financial Responsibility would not have purview over war spending directly; if you mean he could able to force cuts or revenue increases to pay for it, that depends. Obviously an emergency response to a national security threat, such as with the invasion of Afghanistan, is not going to be seriously subject to financial considerations.
Iraq was also arguably a necessary response to a national security threat, but there's little evidence that it was an emergency -- that an immediate response was needed -- so there's an obvious fiscal case to be made that we should have found a way to pay for it before engaging in it, not to mention questioning the way it was engaged in (though I would hope the Minister of Fiscal Responsibility, like the Supreme Court, does not engage in deal-making, but simply says yes/no in regard to proposed or existing actions).
Of course, even if I lived in cave and helped no one, the problem is that I have an unalienable right to liberty. This necessarily means that if there is a government over me, I have a right to have a part in selecting that government. The right to vote at some level for the government in the country of my birth is itself unalienable.
Oh, and also, I propose the Ministry of Elimination of Political Correctness. It would need to be large. Very large.
Posted by: Zarro on July 29, 2010 08:04 PM"We want to work with Arizona. I understand the frustration of people in Arizona. But what we can't do is demagogue the issue," Obama said in an interview with CBS, according to excerpts released by the network.
So what he is saying is that no one can demagogue this issue except Barack Hussein Obama, because that is what he has been doing all along. Can you say anarchist-in-chief ?
Posted by: KDS on July 31, 2010 04:36 PMBut as we all know, he is working to make it bigger across the board, including the military. But then we all know that "war is the health of the state."
And your observation about Obama's demagoguery is right on target!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on August 1, 2010 09:01 PM