TANSTAAFL

There aint no such thing as a free lunch

Hace un tiempo escribí este listado de sugerencias para mejorar la representatividad. Una de las sugerencias era esta:

4. Unicameralidad Se elimina el Senado. Los gobernadores refrendarán las leyes sancionadas por la mayoría de votos que se detemine. (Veto federal)

Entonces hoy leo la newsletter de Advocates for Self Government, y me encuentro con este sistema propuesto por un autor libertario de ciencia ficción, plagiado por Milton Friedman (No hay almuerzo gratis).

The Heinlein Hypothesis for Rolling Back Big Government

Have you read Robert Heinlein?

In 1966, he wrote a thought-provoking science fiction novel called The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In Heinlein's book, the moon is a penal colony run with an iron fist by the Authority.

Like American colonists, they finally got fed up and declared their independence.

They won the revolution, but discovered that designing and establishing a small and limited government was harder than they expected.

Professor Bernardo de la Paz, the Thomas Jefferson of their revolution, made one extraordinary proposal for making and keeping government small and limited.

When he heard the framers of their constitution propose a two house Congress, he proposed this:

"Instead of following tradition, I suggest one of legislators, another whose single duty it is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority...while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third, is it not likely that you would be better off without it?"

Let the Heinlein Hypothesis sink in. One House needs a two-thirds vote to pass laws and regulations, a two-thirds vote for all government departments, programs, and projects, a two-thirds vote to spend and tax. The other House needs only a one-third vote to repeal laws and regulations, a one-third vote to reduce or remove government departments, programs, and projects, a one-third vote to reduce or remove government spending and taxing.

What if the federal government were set up this way? What if the Senate needed a two-thirds vote to pass legislation and funding and taxes? What if the House of Representatives only needed a one-third vote to repeal? A one-third vote to reduce or remove the legislation and funding and taxes?

What if your state government were set up this way?

If you were a member of the House of Repeal -- the re-tasked US House of Representatives -- what's the first thing you'd want to repeal?

Which federal law would you try to repeal first?

Which federal regulation would you want to get rid of?

Which federal department would you eliminate? Which federal social program? Which federal economic program?

Which spending would you end? Which tax would you terminate?

What would you seek to repeal or remove first? Why?

If you could only repeal or remove one, which one would you choose? Why?

What would be the immediate and direct benefits of your repeal to American workers and taxpayers?

¿Opiniones?

¿Se viene la reforma constitucional cristinista?