I think one of the great innovations in politics was establishing a widely respected process of succession for rulers. As unhappy as people were with Trump, there was no civil war when he assumed power. Same for Obama.
I think a similarly beneficial innovation would be to have well-defined rules and procedures for dissolution and secession. Maybe even rules for rebellion.
For example, the Second Amendment was established, in part, to allow the citizenry to defend against a tyrannical government. Yet it leaves open how tyranny is defined, how tyrannical the government must become before armed rebellion is justified, what steps you must take before armed rebellion is justified, how to know when you've successfully overthrown the tyrants, how to prevent an even more tyrannical regime from taking power, and so on.
If you don't define explicit rules for such things, you end up with de facto rules. The current rule for rebellion seems to be "wait until a large enough faction is angry enough that they're willing to shoot people in the face until they're in control and can get what they want".
But what should those rules be? How can we test them out?
When the US was formed, the total population was about 4 million people. The most populous state, Virginia, had 750,00 people. The least populous state, Delaware, had a population of 60,000 people.
Maybe the rules should be that new states are formed automatically when they reach a certain population, of say, 1 million people. And automatic dissolution when their population drops below 100,000. Large states wouldn't be able to dominate the political process, since there would be no large states.
Perhaps the founders of the US should have included a provision for mandatory Constitutional Convention every 100 years? All previous laws would be declared void, and only new laws passed at the Convention would become law. And maybe the new rule should be that no law should go into force unless at least 75% of Congress read it aloud on camera? Or maybe the new rules should be that no law becomes a force of law nationally until a) it has been force of law in at least 25% of states for 10 years, and b) at least 75% of the population of each state explicitly approves of it?
Of course, then there's the question "How do we get there from here?" The Democrats and Republicans have enjoyed a duopoly for almost 166 years. They've implemented a vast array of mechanisms to ensure their continued power.
#sucession
#seasteading
Michael Porter and Katherine Gehl have covered the problem (and propose some solutions) here:
https://medium.com/@rogerkay/the-entrenched-political-duopoly-is-ruining-our-democracy-825a2425245
I think a similarly beneficial innovation would be to have well-defined rules and procedures for dissolution and secession. Maybe even rules for rebellion.
For example, the Second Amendment was established, in part, to allow the citizenry to defend against a tyrannical government. Yet it leaves open how tyranny is defined, how tyrannical the government must become before armed rebellion is justified, what steps you must take before armed rebellion is justified, how to know when you've successfully overthrown the tyrants, how to prevent an even more tyrannical regime from taking power, and so on.
If you don't define explicit rules for such things, you end up with de facto rules. The current rule for rebellion seems to be "wait until a large enough faction is angry enough that they're willing to shoot people in the face until they're in control and can get what they want".
But what should those rules be? How can we test them out?
When the US was formed, the total population was about 4 million people. The most populous state, Virginia, had 750,00 people. The least populous state, Delaware, had a population of 60,000 people.
Maybe the rules should be that new states are formed automatically when they reach a certain population, of say, 1 million people. And automatic dissolution when their population drops below 100,000. Large states wouldn't be able to dominate the political process, since there would be no large states.
Perhaps the founders of the US should have included a provision for mandatory Constitutional Convention every 100 years? All previous laws would be declared void, and only new laws passed at the Convention would become law. And maybe the new rule should be that no law should go into force unless at least 75% of Congress read it aloud on camera? Or maybe the new rules should be that no law becomes a force of law nationally until a) it has been force of law in at least 25% of states for 10 years, and b) at least 75% of the population of each state explicitly approves of it?
Of course, then there's the question "How do we get there from here?" The Democrats and Republicans have enjoyed a duopoly for almost 166 years. They've implemented a vast array of mechanisms to ensure their continued power.
#sucession
#seasteading
Michael Porter and Katherine Gehl have covered the problem (and propose some solutions) here:
https://medium.com/@rogerkay/the-entrenched-political-duopoly-is-ruining-our-democracy-825a2425245