Choice in government: It should be as easy to change politicians as it is to change phone companies
Imagine if, to change your phone company, you had to wait four years every time. Imagine further that you didn't get to change your phone company directly, but instead you had to cast a ballot, and if your neighbours outnumbered you in their ballots, then you had to go along with their decision, even though you asked for something different. Of course, there would be a way to change the company within the term, but you would have to take time off work, or use your valuable personal time, to petition the phone company, and there is no guarantee that they will treat your case seriously. Does that sound like a reasonable system? Given the choice, would you choose that system, or a different one?
Some people think that you should have a choice in governance - not in a way that your government dictates, but in a more direct way - refusing to subscribe from an organisation that doesn't represent you or fulfil your needs. You shouldn't be forced to choose a politician on the government's terms, and you shouldn't be forced to accept a choice of others just because you are outnumbered. If you want to live in a socialist community, a free market community, or a resource-based economy, you should have that choice, and nobody has the right to interfere with your peaceful decisions. You should be able to choose your government.
Like Cruelty Free Government on Facebook!
About me
My name is Kurt Robinson. I grew up in Australia, but now I live in Guadalajara, Jalisco. I write interesting things about voluntaryism, futurism, science fiction, travelling Latin America, and psychedelics. Remember to press follow so you can stay up to date with all the cool shit I post, and follow our podcast where we talk about crazy ideas for open-minded people, here: @paradise-paradox, like The Paradise Paradox on Facebook here, and subscribe to The Paradise Paradox on YouTube, and on iTunes
Well said, I hope some day we can achieve this. Resteemed
if only we had true freedom and I had the choice to live my own life without having some archaic centuries' old idea of having some overlord tell me how to live my life... that'd be preferable :D maybe one day we will evolve as such. Thinking that we can only get things done by using coercion/violence is just... pretty discouraging and rather uncivilized.
Also a socialist community is NOT a free market community if it does not afford those "free people" the chance to opt out voluntarily :D
In order to do this we need a federal government. Not federal, as in what we use today as a euphemism for Mordor on the Potomac. But federal as some of the founding father's meant. (before the federalist movement corrupted the term, and the anti-federalists, who were the real federalists...)
It meant a type of government that got its power from the states. If the states moved, then the federal government had to move because it only existed because of the states.
So, the system of voting is wrong, backwards, inside out.
It should be that if you do nothing, no one represents you. That you actively have to do something. That you actively have to support a candidate to be your representative. And when you cease supporting, all support is gone.
Such as, if we wanted a fair and accurate distribution of taxes then the IRS, along with your tax statements should have a form listing all of the govern-cement agencies. And with your taxes, you submit a statement of exactly which departments get your money. If a department is doing a bad job, it gets $0 and is closed for good, almost instantly.
I don't understand. Why is a federal government necessary for that?
Yes, being able to choose which department gets your money sounds like a good way to do it.
You don't understand because you don't know what "federal" means.
In fact, it has no meaning today, so I probably shouldn't have used it.
What we got was half federal, half national.
You basically have to read documents of the founding fathers, and get the meaning implied by the writing.
Anyway, a federal government is one that gets its power from those below. At any time, anyone below can remove their granted power.
Basically, it woulda worked out, in the war of northern aggression... the south wants to leave? Well, who are we to stop them?
I still don't understand why a federal government is necessary for that. Maybe it can work with any part being able to withdraw the power they granted, but why is the federal government necessary? Why can't it work with each part being independent?
Federal, as I have used it, does not mean national.
And federal is just one form of government that works as you indicated.
The United States of America was started as half federal, half national. After Lincoln, it is all national.
There are other types/forms of people getting together in groups. The better ones are voluntary. The best ones are those you can leave at any time.
Ah. So you're saying that all governments should be federal, in that power can be withdrawn at any time?