Can you imagine there being 11,000 members of Congress based on the original 1 per 30,000? I for one, would not want that many leeches in Washington DC. 435 is bad enough.
The 1 in 30,000 works for small, mostly rural, homogeneous nations.
Those of us that had a proper education had field trips to Congress. They can barely fit what they currently have. I'm showing my age, but I was there the day they were arguing about the Bob Dole is a crybaby ad.
It's a trade-off. You could maybe triple the numbers in the House to get a more representative House (assuming the elections are fair, which they aren't), but even 1,300 or so House members is a huge number that will all end up being Democrats or Republicans anyway, not providing anything additional in terms of viewpoints or ideology.
You'd have to change the Constitution to proportional representation or some such, to bolster 3rd parties.
I don't necessarily disagree. I wish it wasn't necessary. But of the 535 some odd representatives we have, it'd seem like maybe 10 are reasonable at any one time. I just want the raw number of reasonable voices to increase, that's all. if it can be done with less statist parasites, that'd be better.
RATHER, here's a idea some old liberal suggested to me once, do a draft for public representation. instead of army service, every citizen should have to serve as a public servant for 2 years before theyre 40 or something... and give'm all a 40k salary and once u served ur time, u can only work as a public official for a total of 10 years or soemthing, so stooges don't clog up the system. again, i dont want to create a giant parasite class of govt "workers", and I have no idea how to encourage this to come about, cus obviously the current system wont let it happen, but that's what oughta happen. then you'd have a lot of people who don't want to be there, but since they're there, they'll make the most of it or call our the corruption impedeing their progress. i dunno, just an idea.
It's an old idea, and not necessarily a liberal one...William F. Buckley said he'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the phone book way back in the 1960s.
There really shouldn't be one strong government pretending to fairly represent a huge population of 340 million fucking people, let alone a one world government.
USA should break up into states with alliances and treaties among states.
Balkanization doesn't mean we are any more defenseless.
Your states secedes from the union and now there's no ATF or FBI database to background check you with. Your state may even encourage all citizens to arm themselves for the state's overall defense.
Your argument that we'd be weaker doesn't necessarily hold up.
I think the South actually killed more Union soldiers during the civil war, despite losing.
Can you imagine there being 11,000 members of Congress based on the original 1 per 30,000? I for one, would not want that many leeches in Washington DC. 435 is bad enough.
The 1 in 30,000 works for small, mostly rural, homogeneous nations.
Those of us that had a proper education had field trips to Congress. They can barely fit what they currently have. I'm showing my age, but I was there the day they were arguing about the Bob Dole is a crybaby ad.
It was much more fun than I expected it to be.
I somehow doubt you received a "proper" education.
You were brainwashed to accept foreigners owning our central bank.
You were brainwashed to believe the USA took the good side in WWI and WWII, etc.
You were probably taught about the fake moon landing, and fed Darwin's bullshit evolution theory.
Those were all statements. Not a single question. You've mace up your mind. Move along.
we've tried too few, can we try too many now?
You really want 10,565 more congress critters?
It's a trade-off. You could maybe triple the numbers in the House to get a more representative House (assuming the elections are fair, which they aren't), but even 1,300 or so House members is a huge number that will all end up being Democrats or Republicans anyway, not providing anything additional in terms of viewpoints or ideology.
You'd have to change the Constitution to proportional representation or some such, to bolster 3rd parties.
I don't necessarily disagree. I wish it wasn't necessary. But of the 535 some odd representatives we have, it'd seem like maybe 10 are reasonable at any one time. I just want the raw number of reasonable voices to increase, that's all. if it can be done with less statist parasites, that'd be better.
RATHER, here's a idea some old liberal suggested to me once, do a draft for public representation. instead of army service, every citizen should have to serve as a public servant for 2 years before theyre 40 or something... and give'm all a 40k salary and once u served ur time, u can only work as a public official for a total of 10 years or soemthing, so stooges don't clog up the system. again, i dont want to create a giant parasite class of govt "workers", and I have no idea how to encourage this to come about, cus obviously the current system wont let it happen, but that's what oughta happen. then you'd have a lot of people who don't want to be there, but since they're there, they'll make the most of it or call our the corruption impedeing their progress. i dunno, just an idea.
It's an old idea, and not necessarily a liberal one...William F. Buckley said he'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the phone book way back in the 1960s.
There really shouldn't be one strong government pretending to fairly represent a huge population of 340 million fucking people, let alone a one world government.
USA should break up into states with alliances and treaties among states.
Agreed. We must split up and hold strategic alliances etc with like minded states.
But the Civil War proved we are an empire, not a voluntary "Union."
You're not allowed to leave the entrapment of the empire.
We're not asking permission.
Sure, let the US balkanize so the Chinese have even more influence in world affairs.
Fuck that.
Balkanization doesn't mean we are any more defenseless.
Your states secedes from the union and now there's no ATF or FBI database to background check you with. Your state may even encourage all citizens to arm themselves for the state's overall defense.
Your argument that we'd be weaker doesn't necessarily hold up.
I think the South actually killed more Union soldiers during the civil war, despite losing.
Balkanization means the resources and wealth of the US are now divided up and there is no superpower to confront the evils of China.
States can't secede from the Union, not anymore, without a complete collapse of the central government.
Yes, the South had better generals and Grant was a butcher, but a winning butcher.