The U.S. might be better off without Congress — and a president

By Ana Swanson January 4
...
Khanna considers systems from around the world, from Switzerland to China, to suggest an ideal form of government that would reflect the will of the people, as well as the wisdom of experts and data. Khanna argues that the United States needs to evolve into what he calls an “info state,” in which experts use data to guide the country toward long-term goals — otherwise the country will be surpassed by countries that do.
...
You also talk about a collective presidency. What does that mean?

This is another example that I’ve seen it in practice in other countries, especially Switzerland. I firmly believe that there’s no reason in a complex world for one individual to coordinate everything in a government. How can one man actually juggle all the domestic and foreign challenges at the same time and come to a coherent, comprehensive decision about it? He can’t.
...

www.washingtonpost.com...

So here we have more snowflakes wanting to change the United States into a system which uses the practices of countries like Switzerland to CHINA and form what these perfect snowflakes call "the perfect government"...

Notice how this "perfect government" would include a "collective Presidency". I am certain the global elites would be drooling for such a "collective government" which would have no check and balances and instead uses all the disjointed far left-wing ideas and dreams imaginable.

Oh, and btw, did I fail to mention that the journalist who wrote this article, and who thinks many of the ideas mentioned by Parag Khanna as 'being "interesting" happens to be an expert on "Ana Swanson is a reporter for Wonkblog specializing in business, economics, data visualization and China.

So maybe she loves China so much that she thinks it's a good idea to change the U.S. into a "collective form of government" as derived, among others, from China's own form of government...

Heck, I guess Swanson, just like Khanna think we should implement "a one child policy" and have the government enforce such a law. Heck, under this Chinese policy the government murders "excess children" aka "female infanticide" that the Chinese parents had and tried to hide. After all, we already have progressives scholars, doctors, and philosophers trying to assure us that new born babies shouldn't have rights, just like they believe that the unborn shouldn't have any rights.

Some would say, but now the Chinese government is allowing two children for couples. Yet, having more than 2 children means once again that the government can force couples to murder any other of their children. Of course, there are couples that voluntarily murder their newborns, or decide to have abortions voluntarily after decades of brainwashing that "it's for the common good of all and the nation to do so".

As for changing the United States to be more like "Switzerland"?... Why? because the snowflakes want the United States to be a cookie paste copy of other governments/nations instead of having our own form of government?

Switzerland has been until now a "tax heaven" for many multinational corporations, which would be part of the reason as to why, and how the Swiss have/had so much money. But if President elect Donald Trump does as he said he would do, the United States would give more incentives for corporations and businesses to be based on U.S. soil. We still have to see whether this would happen or not.

So perhaps we should follow "some" of the policies which made a country like Switzerland so rich, but of course the snowflakes in the U.S. don't want that.

But to want to look at China or any of it's policies as "an ideal form of government that the U.S. should adopt"... What in the world is on the head of these snowflakes authoritarians?

So you take a "what If' opinion piece about would the US government look the same if we knew what we did today when making it and blow it up like it is some liberal conspiracy?

Man come on atleast read the opening line of the story.

If we could start from scratch, how would we design the U.S. government? Would we preserve the electoral college, the 18th-century creation that is so controversial today? Would we keep the Senate or the Supreme Court?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You act like everything is all one big leftist conspiracy. So narrow minded.

Plus are you saying that only America's founders could possibly create a good government and apparently they did it already and it was perfect as it was created hundreds of years ago. With absolutely no need for changes or updates or corrections ever???

Almost nothing is the same in the world from their time and every system needs updating from time to time.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There are aspects to such a government that might become disturbing, but there are also parts of this idea that interest me, and could be very libertarian. It all depends how it's implemented. In reality though, it seems as if the tyranny of the technocrats would rule where a representative (ish) government ruled before.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The interesting thing about freedom is that it is always ours to give away.

Well, I'm not sure I disagree OR agree with any of this.

Here's the thing- we've got internet. It would be SO easy to completely replace the electoral college with a web based system...
Unfortunately, "supercities", as I call them, completely ruin it. More than half the US population live in cities and have no concept of where the resources they take for granted actually come from, and therefore can't be trusted to govern those resources- or the people who produce them.
That's why we have city governments, and state governments. State governments are charged with doing what's best for the state, not the people- city governments do what's best for the city. Town governments do what's best for the towns. Then federal government comes in and tries to tie it all together, but they've stepped on far too many toes lately.


We could very well replace the president with such a system- registered tax paying citizens get to give their choice on any given situation. Problem there is that for it to work, people would actually have to be informed- we'd need to know what we aren't being told. Of course, the president gets advisers who have access to information, and they advise the president based on what they know. Of course, each of them has their own agenda, much like our media that should be giving us this information has their own. (Gee, think of that- the advisers telling our president what to do have personal agendas)

When I was young, I had all the answers. Now, all I can say for sure, is that it's a mess. The people wouldn't do any better than the president overall- but they might take the presidential persona agendas (paying back all the goons that got them elected, for example) out of the picture.

At any rate, all I can say to any form of government is to quit stepping on my toes. All I want to do is live my life! Rules and regulations that stifle my personal freedoms and privacy might be better for the idiots who work in cubicles five days a week and watch whatever is on TV with their spare time, but it doesn't work for me.

The primary danger of any government is not inefficiency, but tyranny.

In the end, Descartes said it best. Government is best which governs least.

collectivism? do they think humans are at the stage where they can handle such a concept? we are not much more enlightened than animals at this point despite our knowledge not to mention our inability to control our feelings and desires, we can not handle such things yet.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You act like everything is all one big leftist conspiracy. So narrow minded.

You say "everything", I say "Most things", and "open minded".

Yah, checks and balances are overrated. Not that they haven't done away with them anyway. The real owners are behind the scenes, unknown to everyday people.

Hitler wiped away the process of parliament, made himself the decider, made everyone swear an oath to him directly., by name.
Instead of to Germany or the people, to him by name. We do that a bit different here, we say to the constitution, and salute the flag. Its still an oath. You take it every time you go to a ball game.

Interesting, but my first thought was "Good grief! Nothing would ever get done!" What's that old saying? Too many cooks in the kitchen?

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, then I guess that makes you slightly more sane than the OP.

a reply to: mOjOm

So, let me get this straight... You changed the topic to make a personal attack at me instead of actually dealing with the topic itself?... Wow, who would have thought it?...

So you don't seem to find it as a bad idea that these idiots are calling for a collective form of government which, amongst other countries, would take policies like those of China?...

a reply to: intrptr

i see... Is that why the mentality of Germany during Hitler's reign was one of "collectivism"?.

You are trying to make it sound like no "Collectivist" form of government ever gave power to one individual or a small group of individuals. Is that what you think? i guess then Lenin was never in charge of the U.S.S.R., neither was Stalin in charge later of the U.S.S.R., Nor was castro ever in charge of Cuba, nor Hitler himself and the NAZIs.

All those forms of government I mentioned above, among others, gave power to one person, or a small group of people while claiming "it is all for the common/collective good".

All of them.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You typed all that but never put the word "Progressive" anywhere.

Khanna just described Hegel's perfect system.

You know... what the Progressives have been working on for the last century or so in America.

For the others in this thread, it started out as a grand Leftist conspiracy. It's gotten bigger.

And it isn't a theory at all.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, then I guess that makes you slightly more sane than the OP.

Good one. But I wonder who truly is insane?

I mean, are you one of those people who always tirades against the elites like the Rockefellers, and the Rothschilds but you fail to even check what types of policies are embraced by these ruling elites?

Promoting the well-being of humanity throughout the world

www.rockefellerfoundation.org...

Wow, that sounds great doesn't it, so the Rockefellers and globalists must be humanitarians and kewl people?

Let's continue.

If the events of 2016 have taught us anything, it’s that we cannot know for sure what tomorrow will bring. But change has a way of illuminating those things about which we are certain. As a new year dawns, my conviction that every country can and must accelerate progress toward universal health coverage has never been stronger.
...

...

www.rockefellerfoundation.org...

But who could argue with that right? After all, they only want to "promote progress, universal healthcare" and all the kewl things progressives always cheer for, so they can't be all that bad.

Heck, I guess all the "forced sterilizations", and all the other "progressive initiatives" that the Rockefellers, and other globalists have been forcing down other people's throats must be "for the good of all".

September 2003
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics
Historians/History
tags: Holocaust


by Edwin Black
...
But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.
...
The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
...

historynewsnetwork.org...

Oh wait... nvm, I guess these "progressive ideas" are not "for the good of all"...

But that doesn't happen to this day I guess would be your next argument?

Britain must end its support for sterilisation in India
Kalpana Wilson
Population control policies dehumanise women and lead to events such as the deaths of at least 14 women in Chhattisgarh

The horrifying deaths of at least 14 women who had undergone surgery at sterilisation camps in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh, highlight the violence of the population control policies that the British government is at the forefront of promoting globally.

Far from giving poor women in the global south much-needed access to safe contraception that they can control, these policies dehumanise them as “excessively reproductive” and set targets that make atrocities like those in Chhattisgarh possible. While these policies are rooted in deeply racist and patriarchal ideas, they are implemented in the name of reproductive rights and choice.
...

www.theguardian.com...

USAID Funding of Sterilization Camps in India

You want to look for insanity, you better start by looking at those ideas you espouse, because the globalists want these same things, and like you they seem to think "forcing these progressive ideas is good for humanity and Earth".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Is she proposing a Constitutional convention? People in this country would never agree on a new Constitution.

Everyone hates Congress. Congress never gets anything done. Everyone loves the military. Maybe what we need is STRONG leadership that can only come from having a right wing military style dictatorship. Most Republicans claim Democrats and Liberals are why everything is bad in this country. Give me one reason why we should allow Democrats and Liberals to vote? We might has well go full Republican and get it out of our system. Then this country will finally get things done. MAGA Heil!

I thought Texas was supposed to secede from the Union by now. What's taking so long?

The nation doesn't really need a President.

As the Bible says...

The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands; -- KJV, Proverbs 30:27

The only reason a head of state is useful, is when some foreign nation comes and says "Take me to your leader."

It's the expectation that foreigners have, that there's some individual in charge, who they need to speak to, about anything important.

The problem with the Federal Government is that it keeps increasing its power all the time.

A better alternative, would be to abolish the Federal Government every 50 years, and re-introduce a new Federal Government with minimal powers once again.

In the same way, the Founding Fathers thought it wise to "remove and replace" the President every 4 years, they should have included a clause in the U.S. Constitution that did the same for the whole Federal Government every 50 years.

That would remove all the unnecessary extra powers of the Federal Government, which never otherwise get "repealed", and give the whole nation a "fresh start" every half century.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It was a harmless joke, relax.

I'm not changing the topic though.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

The nation doesn't really need a President.

As the Bible says...

The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands; -- KJV, Proverbs 30:27

The only reason a head of state is useful, is when some foreign nation comes and says "Take me to your leader."

It's the expectation that foreigners have, that there's some individual in charge, who they need to speak to, about anything important.

The problem with the Federal Government is that it keeps increasing its power all the time.

A better alternative, would be to abolish the Federal Government every 50 years, and re-introduce a new Federal Government with minimal powers once again.

In the same way, the Founding Fathers thought it wise to "remove and replace" the President every 4 years, they should have included a clause in the U.S. Constitution that did the same for the whole Federal Government every 50 years.

That would remove all the unnecessary extra powers of the Federal Government, which never otherwise get "repealed", and give the whole nation a "fresh start" every half century.

As much as I would be first in line to ban the various bibles, and slap anyone in the face who accepts them over logic...
that's not bad. I guess tens of thousands (no, not four or six or two thousand) years of experience is worth something.

Burn down the entirety of government every couple of years, and start over with a new, small government with minimal control - run completely by people who have never had that kind of power before.

I'll go a step further and have the new set of officials review every single existing law that isn't part of the original constitution/bill of rights - - and have them vote on each and every rule/law. Either Pass or Fail. If it passes, the law stays- if it fails, it's gone... and takes twice as much effort the next time around to re-implement. That part could use some work... but make it hard.
That way, any bad law (bad laws plague us pretty hard) would be systematically removed on a regular basis.