Some Advice to Libertarians., Decentralization of Government. Options

[billfmsd]

Some things must be under Federal jurisdiction because "some" States have different values that may not correct in this case Usury. Just like with Health Insurance and many other things the States that "allow" abuse of the citizen become the stronghold of those group or corporate practices that allow what shouldn't be allowed. It is in the eye of the beholder as to what should be left to State decisions and I admit it is debatable. But ever since the States proved they couldn't be trusted with certain people's rights (slavery) they must not be allowed to be the final arbiter of what is good for their residents. Those residents are citizens of the United States first and State residents second.

I agree.

Real federal agencies should be the final arbiter. The problem is that the most influential force over the federal government is not a real federal agency, it's a private corporation. We need a real agency that handles our financial issues that is elected by the people an for the people.

I'm not suggesting a bigger federal government, but a more decentralized federal government. I've mentioned a few times on this forum that are federal government is missing 2 branches in it's checks and balances formula, Inquiry and Income. We have two pseudo branches in the shadow government we call the private sector. Leaving these two branches to be handled by the private sector isn't working. At least the big influence of the inquiry branch (the media conglomerates) don't pretend to be federal like the federal reserve. The only part of what should be the inquiry branch that is official (the FCC) is instead part of the executive. The only part of what should be the income branch that is official (the IRS) is also part of the executive. Both the FCC and IRS are doing lousy jobs. They should both be part of separate branches that provide a 5 entity checks and balance. 3 is too few and too centralized. 2 of those branches are at the mercy of the income branch to get elected. The other branch (the judiciary) is underutilized.

[rla]

Some things must be under Federal jurisdiction because "some" States have different values that may not correct in this case Usury. Just like with Health Insurance and many other things the States that "allow" abuse of the citizen become the stronghold of those group or corporate practices that allow what shouldn't be allowed. It is in the eye of the beholder as to what should be left to State decisions and I admit it is debatable. But ever since the States proved they couldn't be trusted with certain people's rights (slavery) they must not be allowed to be the final arbiter of what is good for their residents. Those residents are citizens of the United States first and State residents second.

I agree.

Real federal agencies should be the final arbiter. The problem is that the most influential force over the federal government is not a real federal agency, it's a private corporation. We need a real agency that handles our financial issues that is elected by the people an for the people.

I'm not suggesting a bigger federal government, but a more decentralized federal government. I've mentioned a few times on this forum that are federal government is missing 2 branches in it's checks and balances formula, Inquiry and Income. We have two pseudo branches in the shadow government we call the private sector. Leaving these two branches to be handled by the private sector isn't working. At least the big influence of the inquiry branch (the media conglomerates) don't pretend to be federal like the federal reserve. The only part of what should be the inquiry branch that is official (the FCC) is instead part of the executive. The only part of what should be the income branch that is official (the IRS) is also part of the executive. Both the FCC and IRS are doing lousy jobs. They should both be part of separate branches that provide a 5 entity checks and balance. 3 is too few and too centralized. 2 of those branches are at the mercy of the income branch to get elected. The other branch (the judiciary) is underutilized.

I like the concept of five branches of government...

Human beings, on the average, can handle five streams of related information. In developing a conceptual model of personing in the human social system, I found that the available pertinent information fell into five categories: perceiving, conceptualizing, feeling, intending and acting. Persons
and nations are organic systems and thus have a similar structure and process...

I haven't decided whether the five most functional parts of a nation should be named: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Income and Enquiry or not...

[billfmsd]

One obvious pattern is that our government has what I call the junk drawer/junk box mentality. As I struggle to keep my house organized, I've learned that not having predesignated spaces for new items accumulated leads to junk drawers and junk boxes, including tool boxes. In the case of the executive branch, it's the junk Presidents cabinet. As times change and new responsibilities arise, they fall in the executives lap and are sloppily organized in haste. 4 to 8 years isn't nearly enough time to think through and build the best agencies. The next president isn't likely to have the same vision that the previous president had, and is going to mess up what little plans were made even more. But don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating longer term limits. Even if there is enough time to organize, some of these agencies don't even belong in the executive for conflicts of interest.

Our government was incomplete from go. It was born at a time when the global society was less technologically advanced and less integrated. Therefore media and money didn't have as strong of an influence and was overlooked in the checks and balances equation. The federal government wasn't even that strong at the time and didn't need to be. The model of the fed was so simple, it was duplicated on the state level in most states. They saw legislative and judiciary as having equal power to the executive. In their less complicated world, there wasn't much to it: make laws, judge laws, execute laws. Secrecy and bribery wasn't as easy, so inquiry and income wasn't as much of a factor. Most people were self-sustaining farmers anyway. All you needed was land and at the time there appeared to be more than enough of it to go around. All you had to do was claim it.

Enter technology into the equation. Although the printing press had already been invented, it wasn't nearly accessible and influential as it exponentially became in the following decades. Electrical telegraph and steam locomotives hadn't even been invented yet. Once the technologies changed the rules of communications and economics, the government was due for an upgrade. But instead conservatism allowed the private sector to develop faster than the government. So we now have hackers in the shadow government hacking into the code of our government and reprogramming it to serve their special interest. We couldn't upgrade fast enough. I'm sure there were many attempts from presidents to fight back against the hackers. There were some strong resistances such as the organization of a Secret Service, Sherman and Clayton Acts, and the New Deal. The Federal Reserve act was too devastating despite all the resistance. It may have been the fatal blow that has cause us to slowly bleed to death over the one century period to follow.

So here we are 233 years after the start and 100 years after the turning point. If there is any hope, it really has to do with decentralizing government and reinventing a smarter way of using money. Giving more governing power back to the states is one way to decentralize, but we should also consider splitting up the federal government in to more smaller agencies with more thoroughly and modernly defined roles. I like the concept of 5 branches too, but it may be too late for our government (or any government for that matter) to organize it self that way. It would probably get ruled unconstitutional. But at least in hindsight we know were we went wrong. As for money, decentralizing money governing institutions would help too. But there is so much power concentrated into too few hands from money now, I don't know if it's possible to reverse it. American unregulated capitalism has become a breeding ground for the virus of global fascism quick to destabilize, overthrow, and insert puppet dictators in any government that threatens the establishment of power from money.