Note: This is based off American principles of governance. If you don't have a rudimentary understanding of that, this isn't the place to get it, as I will be talking about specific changes to that system rather than it's current state generally.
I believe things work best when they are specific and simple. I know from experience that, when it comes to coding, adding special cases and exemptions haphazardly can drastically reduce not just the maintainability of code, but also its performance. So, my ideas around government are similar; governments shouldn’t be humanitarian organizations looking to micro manage society and enforce equality. They should keep the peace, prevent abuse, and settle disputes between parties, but not much more.
I have a lot of philosophical reasons for these, and I may go into some of them. But this is the core; government should govern, but otherwise respect the tenth amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
State governments, when possible, should manage things rather than the federal government, but beyond that the powers should belong to the people. It’s really that simple. Before I get started, I think I should mention my political orientation is definitely to the right, with some libertarian ideas thrown in. Just throwing that out there for people who like to dismiss arguments they don’t like early on based completely on political leanings.
Part 1: What is the government actually supposed to DO?
Generally… protect its citizenry. Hence, the Bill of Rights, and most of the current amendments. But here is some detail beyond that…
Foreign relations: So, the government functions as an official representative of the people to the outside world. Usually this means the president will conduct diplomacy with other nations, but we can also have people conduct this business on his behalf, and can authorize entire departments to do so. We do not allow just any private unelected citizen to do this, as they are not beholden to the voters.
Law enforcement: We are a country of laws. There are obvious crimes like murder, and less obvious ones like littering. We could go on all day about specific laws, but I will sum it up by saying I prefer less laws. I hear these estimates that an average citizen commits three crimes a day, and I have no idea how much truth there is to that. I do know that there are tons of minor crimes people commit without realizing, as well as crimes that simply aren’t enforced consistently. Generally, I think any law not regularly and consistently prosecuted should be completely dissolved(barring clearly immoral acts such as rape, as that crime specifically has a low conviction rate; it should still be illegal despite that). Additionally, many regulatory laws should also be removed due to being unconstitutional overreaches of government, such as punishing drug users when no other crimes are actually committed.
Local governments taking taxes to pay for this law enforcement, as well as prosecution by paying judges and related staff, is reasonable in my opinion. People won’t be allowed to opt out of being subject to these laws while inside the government’s jurisdiction, as that would defeat the very essence of justice. Similarly, taxes can be collected to pay for the military that defends against foreign threats. Some people may criticize this, saying that the military industrial complex already consumes excess tax money, but that’s a separate issue. An official standing military is desirable in my opinion, but the size and scope it inhabits is definitely up to debate.
Taxes: Taxes can and should be collected to pay for government activity. This includes running day to day operations of government by paying secretaries/organizers/etc., paying for both local and federal law enforcement and prosecution, and paying for any expenses related to diplomacy(paying for transportation, clothes, meals, etc.). Beyond that, taxes are not to be used for redistribution programs, environmental research, business subsidies like bank bailouts, nothing like that. This is because taxes are mandatory, and thus should only be used to pay for services benefiting everyone who pays for them and are within the lawful scope of government. Protecting an underprivileged person from abuse and intimidation(whether through systems like frivolous lawsuits or more direct acts like vandalism) is a reasonable role for the police funded via taxes, but funding programs with taxes to give them more opportunity is not.
Quick note on taxes… do you remember that store you went to that charged you a tiered percentage of your income for the same goods? Wait, no? You don’t? Exactly. There would be a single flat rate tax applicable to everyone, with the only exemption being people who quite literally can’t afford it. This should be rare, as reducing government spending in the areas I mentioned would drastically reduce the cost of government, thus reducing the necessary amount of taxes. Also, if for some reason you are not using government services(I haven’t really thought through all the scenarios on this… maybe you are a US citizen, but actually live outside the country?), you don’t need to pay the respective taxes for that service.
HOWEVER… that is not to say that charities, environmental research, and business subsidies can’t exist. They will just be in the private sector and entirely voluntary. If someone thinks climate change is a hoax and doesn’t want to fund research, then they don’t need to, just like people who aren’t religious don’t need to make donations to their local church. More on this later, as it’s an important aspect of my ideal government.
Part 2: Voting
Voting is something I’ve actually thought about a lot. Did you know that originally, not even all men had the right to vote? When they did gain that right, it was alongside being required to register for the draft. Women do not have that requirement, and thus have all the power granted by the right to vote without the cost. I would support simply removing the draft requirement for men in order to vote, but there is also a larger conversation that can be had here.
Who should vote? I considered when I was younger the idea of a required intelligence test, but decided this could be abused too easily and would silence less academic voters. So, I came up with the following criteria to be able to vote:
Registered US citizen
Paying an amount of taxes without also consuming an exorbitant amount of tax money(constantly calling police, disrupting government activities, etc.)
Not currently in jail(right to vote regained immediately upon release)
Unless otherwise impeded through something like a physical disability, owning and understanding the operation of a firearm
One might say this disadvantages poor people, and perhaps one would be right. The issue is people who do not pay into a system are not invested in it’s long term success… they have no skin in the game, as it were. If you can receive benefits in a system without paying for them, you are financially incentivized to vote in whatever way necessary so you can keep receiving those benefits, even if it is otherwise detrimental to the system or has long term consequences. It is similar to the argument against allowing businesses to pollute constantly, as when they are solely incentivized by profit to increase production by any means necessary, they don’t care about the less direct effects of pollution. They should be held responsible, and similarly, a group of people should not be allowed to affect a system they are not contributing to.
As a quick aside, I think we should use instant runoff voting to help people break out of the false dichotomy that is the two party system. I have yet to see anyone seriously object to this, and I fail to see how it could be anything but beneficial in helping more nuanced positions win out against blind partisanship.
Part 3: Money
This is an odd one… I know some people consider the federal reserve a gross encroachment on our freedom, and responsible for manipulating currency for political benefits. I have nowhere near enough knowledge on this subject to give an educated assessment of this situation, but I do have some thoughts.
A single nationally recognized currency does have utility. It means money good in one state is good in another, and you won’t need to constantly run to exchanges. However, we have largely moved to a digital economy anyways, with people having the option of using many different kinds of payment at most retailers. I believe once cryptocurrency reaches a certain threshold of mainstream acceptance, it can completely replace paper currency, and even be more resistant to counterfeiting.
Additionally, cryptocurrency is harder to inflate arbitrarily. One problem with paper currency created by a government body is if we have 100 units in circulation, and then the government prints 100 more units to then use to pay for services, they haven’t actually created any new money. They stole half the money from those who held existing units. People might not realize this, but paper money is just that; paper(actually cloth and plastic I think, but you get the idea). It only holds the value we assign to it, and part of that is how much actually exists. This is why it was originally backed by gold, giving it a more concrete value. Now, it’s backed by the government, tying its value to a less concrete construct. Cryptocurrency is backed by the cryptographic algorithm that creates it, or rather the computational energy needed to process the transactions.
I’m not really a crypto expert, but I think that gives the gist of it; it can retain value because it can’t be easily replicated, and it’s decentralized nature prevents manipulation of its value by any one party. That’s why I think it’s the future of economic transactions, and will eventually displace fiat paper currency naturally. I don’t see a problem with just letting this happen, though I’m certainly open to people explaining why it would be a problem.
Forgive me for a slight tangent, but another big issue with money is the power it lends a person. Things like monopolies are the biggest threats to a free republic, and such activity to consolidate power and erode freedom should be pushed against. This is far from a simple issue, and I don’t have all the answers on how best to balance economic freedom with protections against corporate takeover. I will only say that I believe such protections are necessary and lawful for government to enforce.
Part 4: Guns
So, we have the second amendment with all kinds of restrictions, but I won’t even say that those restrictions should just be removed.
No, removing them is only the start. I think every able bodied man of sound mind should be REQUIRED to own a gun and know how to use it. If you don’t wish to own one, you can’t vote. One might think this is extreme, and you are right. But the absolutely massive effect this would have on defeating organized crime, terrorist attacks, lone wolf shooters, and even government corruption would be staggering. The United States is a country built upon the idea that each individual citizen is responsible for protecting themselves in the end, and things like police and emergency services are only an additional protection on top of that individual responsibility.
Now, I’m sure there will be at least some people reading this who are concerned about mass shootings, and think that this will increase the frequency of them. There is an ongoing debate on this, but from what I have seen, those arguing for gun control rarely even understand what types of guns exist. Anyone who states “fully semi-automatic” or “assault weapon” is usually spouting buzzwords, and don’t understand that almost every gun, even handguns, are semi-automatic, and the “fully” modifier doesn’t actually mean anything.
The fundamental idea is you don’t want a soft target. The worst mass shootings most frequently happen in zones where law abiding citizens aren’t carrying weapons, making criminals/insane people the only ones armed while the police have a response time that translates directly to a number of people that can be killed without resistance. You can certainly find conflicting stories on this, but studies that downplay this trend typically use dishonest tactics like including household shootings between people that actually know each other(and know if their target even owns a gun), or include suicides with no other deaths as an example of a public shooting. I have yet to see a pro gun control study that didn’t end up getting completely destroyed with further scrutiny.
Furthermore, if gun control doesn’t fall apart when talking statistics, it usually does when talking legislative solutions. As it turns out, criminals don’t follow gun laws. It is frequently discovered that either a person acquired a gun they shouldn’t have by subverting laws or agencies that were tasked with following up on red flags simply didn’t perform due diligence. There is literally no legislation you can write to fix a problem that occurs because existing legislation was not followed properly. That is why I’m not in favor of trying to do so, I’m in favor of everyone being as prepared as possible for whatever might happen.
Part 5: What is the government actually NOT supposed to do?
This is really a miscellaneous section to reemphasize my central idea. Anything not handled by government can - and should - be handled by the citizenry.
Where will roads come from? I’m sure big businesses are more than happy to build and maintain them, especially given they have lower taxes and will financially benefit both themselves and their communities. Sure, there is the potential for abuse where businesses establish monopolies and fundamentally enslave groups, but that is where the government can step in. If a company arbitrarily restricts a citizen or group they don’t like, the government can settle the dispute between the citizen and the company. The company is not allowed to bribe the government through lobbying, and thus the government is able to actually function as an unbiased third party.
Or the community can simply hold a funding event and collect donations to build the road themselves. You know… use the money currently being collected via taxes to just directly pay for the road construction.
What happens to the historically oppressed? What about welfare, social services, and special education assistance? Again, communities can pay for this, it’s called social fabric. Philanthropy and charity can exist completely separate of government, believe it or not. Investing in small businesses? The community. Funding environmental research? Community. Giving presents to poor children? I think you know my answer.
There are fundamental issues with having money shuttled through the government to fund various organizations. The government is functioning as a middle man, siphoning part of the money that would otherwise be going to the charities to pay for the bureaucratic part of the process. Also, taxes are collected involuntarily, and then distributed as the government sees fit, which means people can end up financially supporting things they are actually opposed to, or maybe just don’t want to fund. Finally, it allows a majority to force minorities to fund things that benefit the majority and not the minority.
It’s something I’m surprised more people don’t realize. The government is not meant to handle our morality for us. I think lying is bad, but that doesn’t mean I want people in jail for telling a simple lie. I think people should wear their seatbelts, but that doesn’t mean I think people should go be punished for not doing so. I think people should donate to charities, but I don’t want that money to be collected at the point of a gun in the name of the greater good. In fact, with the charity example, we have a problem with people assuming that those down on their luck are being taken care of by the government without actually verifying that is the case. It’s this really disgusting frame of mind where we want other people to help the poor for us, and it has led to an overall dysfunctional system in my opinion.
Don’t demand that other people use their money in a way you want them to. Make your case, spend your own money as you see fit, and let other people do the same.
That’s the gist of what I believe would be an ideal government. Max freedom, but with safeguards against criminal behavior and other powers usurping the government’s lawful role(such as monopolies or technocracies).