A Discussion about Government

Bob: Hey Joe, I heard your country went through a process that modified how government works. Has it been working?

Joe: Yeah, we made some changes which had good effects.

Bob: What are the changes?

Joe: Well, for starters, our federal government can now no longer spend more than 80% of the sum of all spending of state governments.

Bob: That sounds "dangerous" to me. Has there ever been a time in history where such a thing was put to an adequate test--proving that it will work, even under the worst circumstances?

Joe: Yes, for the 10 years from 1929-1938, the United States went through its worst-ever domestic crisis (the Great Depression)--and the average annual spending of federal government was less than 80% of the spending of the states. This spending pattern "worked" in a worst-case scenario test (proving that it'll also work now).

Bob: But what about "war powers" legislation. Isn't it the case that the federal government should be able to just unilaterally go above its spending limits during a war?

Joe: War spending which would put the federal government in excess of 80% of the states is banned--we do not allow that here. The excess spending that such wars require is put through the states, instead. This also limits which kinds of wars which can be waged, because only defensive ("Just War" theory) wars have broad backing by the states.

Bob: What about federal regulations. How much federal regulations do you allow?

Joe: We let the federal government come up with a maximum of 10,000 pages of regulations overall. If they want new regulations, they must first get rid of old ones (to make room).

Bob: That sounds "scary" to me, as I envision a nation steeped in anarchy, with everyone harming everyone else because there is no federal regulation to stop them. Has there ever been a case when a federal government had less than 10,000 pages of regulation, and everything worked out just fine?

Joe: In 1950, the United States federal government had less than 10,000 pages of federal regulation--and everything worked out just fine.

Bob: What about career politicians? Isn't it the case that there is constant, perverse incentive for people to want to try to make a "career" (personal profit) out of governing over others? And isn't it the case that they will not ever cease in an onslaught of attempts to confuse the public over what level of governance is good for them?

Joe: Yes, it's true that there is constant, perverse incentive for people to attempt to personally profit from "governance" and that they will not ever cease in their perverted attempts to confuse the public with regard to how much government the public actually requires for its well-being. We put term-limits in place to make it so that public service cannot ever be as "profitable" as it used to be.

Bob: But what about federal legislators stringing themselves together in a cabal or a cartel (taking turns in office)? Can they do just about as much damage to the country--while profiting as a special interest group--doing that?

Joe: Any federal law can be instantly nullified by a simple majority of the states. Only federal regulations which do not cause alarm in most of the states can ever make it through the federal legislative process. So, such a "legislative cartel" which you mention is not likely with the vertical separation of powers which we currently have.

Bob: Oh, that actually sounds cool! I wish that my country would adopt a more perfect union like yours has.

Joe: Me too, Bob. I wish that your country does the same, because it means that you would have greater potential for happiness and success.

Image Attribution

Page URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Capitol_east_side.JPG

Attribution: Martin Falbisoner [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)]