Party! Party! Platform

From Facebook :
KEWL! - while I worked out on a treadmill this AM I was thinking I should follow this item with something like a Platform - i.e. a statement of principles in the context of challenges, problems & issues. I will welcome your input & ideas. A... neat thing about principles is that they survive individual politicians. Citizen legislators & citizen officials would be the aim. Let the voters enforce term limits so that we can get new ideas & more solutions & less "professional", detached politicians in it for just the game, money & power.
                                                              ---------------------------
                                                              ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
                                                              ---------------------------
I divide the Statement of Principles into three contracts with the people:
  1. The Social Contract
  2. The Fiscal Contract
  3. The Foreign Policy & Military Contract
I - The Social Contract subject embraces the bold italicised items below in the Preamble exclusive of financial & fiscal matters.
Preamble to the US Constitution: ... We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...

promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...

Tags

  1. platform

Comments


Seth says
I had though that your platform would not want the federal government to "promote the general Welfare" that being something to be left for the "free market" and "charity" and the "states" to take care of.  How are you integrating that plank of a federal platform in with your political philosophy?

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-01-30 08:52:20 15585
I had though that your platform would not want the federal government to "promote the general Welfare" that being something to be left for the "free market" and "charity" and the "states" to take care of.  How are you integrating that plank of a federal platform in with your political philosophy?
Such words had a more traditional 1776 meaning than the nanny state we have today. If you read the U.S. Constitution there is nothing of that nanny state in it. Promoting the general welfare can be something like enacting policies that reduce the amount of money the government takes from it's citizens. Encouraging local charity rather than forced national charity through taxes. Why don't you show me your cards & I will show you mine.

Mark de LA says
I have had some ideas along the idea that we should promote competing with government. If there is a need in society which is currently being handled by government programs then promote, applaud & withdraw taxation where it can be proven that the private sector does a better job. 
Education is the most glaring area.
Social Security is next.  Had I given my social security taxes to an annuity by a legitimate insurance company I could be living like a millionaire now instead of the deflated pittance SS pays. There are better ways to take care of those who are sick & nuts than out of what s/b an annuity fund for retirement to keep the aged out of poverty past their working years.


Mark de LA says
Codify: resize government spending to fit revenue rather than resizing taxes to fit government spending.

Mark de LA says
Codify:  no spending without a budget.
Codify no debt-ceiling raises without a budget.

Mark de LA says
Equality means equal rights not equal outcome. On the subject of inequality there is a good article here: Justice, Inequality & the Poor.
Heritage: ... America's founders knew that, while human beings are equal in some key respects, they are not equal in every respect. People have equal natural rights, but they have unequal virtues, talents, and dispositions. As James Wilson concluded “there is, and it is fit for the great purposes of society that there should be, great inequality among men.” This inequality of talents does not denigrate the natural equality of rights. Where people are equal, it is just to treat them the same; by contrast, where they are different, it is unjust to treat them the same
... equality is in the Rights domain i.e. justice, law ...


Mark de LA says
source: ...

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.  --James Madison, Federalist No. 57, 1788

...Codify it!