Hmmmm,...I believe that there are some ways to solve this 'lumpen prolitariate' dilemma. Switzerland has overcome it , to their satisfaction, by education and asking "what programs,etc., you (the tax-payer) are willing to pay for. Before all of the funding and laws are passed the costs and the alternatives are discussed, at length.

  Everyone in Switzerland knows that they must work and earn money to pay for the programs , etc., which they have decided they want to enjoy. From public transportation to health care...as they desire it and are willing to pay for.

 By the way: the Swiss are also able to repudiate and rescind a lwa, if they so choose. Requires a public vote to do so. Theirs is closer , much closer to a democracy than ours. One of our problems, imo. But , education and responsibility are required to make such function. The USA has a "no-voice" vote and only chooses who shall demand and spend your/our money for what they think we need. Ah well, real democracy can work but it has requirements, eh?

Yes, it certainly does have its requirements. If you want a Swiss style democracy all you need to be is a small, isolated, wealthy, moral, single demographic community of fellowship. Racially speaking I fit the demographic. Think they'll let me in? 

My Friend, I fear you have not been to Switzerland. They do not consider themselves in quite the light you do. They , first , are a Confederacy and each Canton (state) can and may withdraw. Citizenship is by Canton not by the Nation-State . Homogeneous? Not according to the Swiss. LOL, they have many, many prejudices with regard to different Cantons. The Italian Cantons are viewed askance by the German Cantons, etc., etc., and so on.

 The main requirements seemed to me, when I resided there, to be: Education, civic respionsibility, military awareness and training, and finally - the realization that "there ain't no free lunch". 

 Zurich passed a mass transit legislation program after several years of public investigation and debate. A lot of discussion on the initial costs and the on-going costs. The citizens had the final say and are willing to pay for it , as they know what they are getting and what it will cost. Lovely...but demanding of the citizen. By the way - it works.

All true. And I could not be happier for them. But the one thing that binds them is that they all know they're in one small boat that will go down if any of them rock it.

Been great. Signing off for now.

In the Republic (or representative government) envisioned by our founders it was expected that those who passed bad law would pay the price at the voting booth.

_________

Actually, the voting booth was not the primary remedy for corrupt representatives.....the intent has not changed in that respect.....but People knowing about it, how to do it, or using other measures....HAS CHANGE....

Dumbing down....effective measures for the corrupt.

 Thanks for the conversation. Look forward to its continuation. Be well.

Couldn't agree with you more in re: "Dumbing Down".

 I fear, my friend, that in your exuberance you have wandered far from the subject of this post.  Quite understandable that you might. However, I would love to hear your thoughts on the limited subject of the post. Please, share them with me as well as your over-arching theories on fiscal responsibility.

rett - Yep, okay, over-zealous...I will remove.

 Good Lord, No! By no means did I desire that. I did but chide you, gently, I trust as to remaining on point. My Friend, know that were I not interested I should not have replied at all. I am interested in what you think and why. Please, do not denie myself and any others who may drop by the stimulation of anther's thoughts and statements. That is the point of all this posting - would you not agree?

imo Everything in innertwined to some degree.  Some are okay with expounding to reveal how one part is connected to the other.  Some prefer to stay with an exact issue. Some go back and forth, depending on the topic they choose. If you elect to keep your topic responses brief and to the point, that's cool.. I have no issue with that.   

 Most kind of you to see my quandary and to abide my limited  views. I know that others may well take the large, expansive view and thereby find mine a bit too pointed. I, however, wish to know the thoughts of others upon specific points and considerations. You are most kind to humor me.

Who Should Bear The Cost ....??...

Ultimately, everyone.

Beginning with the foreigners, US government, government servants, states, counties, schools, homeowners associations, lastly, the People.

 That is who bears the cost currently. I would submit that the Legislators who pass such laws should be sent the bill, in dollars, for the cost of enforcing  and defending such non-constitutional enactments. Perhaps this would ...slow down the passage of such travesties?

The same bears the cost, but currently, the position is reversed.  Because it is reversed, the People are going broke, and the foreigners, US government, etc. along the line, are becoming stable or enriched.  They are not going without, cutting, etc.

 Ah, but you see that is just what I fear: the "cutting" and  - most especially - the "etc.". Revolutions and the social conditions which accompany them are most unpleasant. I know from experience. Really do not wish to see such here.

As long as the people are ignorant to the rightful position of the Federal government, they will fall for every hoax. 

As long as the people don't know that government is a necessary evil and must remain the servant ...never the master - it will be like this. Shame, isn't it that most of the people prefer it to the responsibilites of being master of government, eh?

The design of the Federal government is SO Limited, it was VOID of EVIL measures.  It is the USURPATION of the servants, that have made it an EVIL BEAST!

And totally agree..........MANY PEOPLE are not smart enough, talented enough, enthusiastic enough, responsible enough,upstanding enough  ...........

to be FREE to take care of themselves.....they hate independence and love being the governments dependent.........aka, societies burden.

THEY WILL BE IN FOR A BIG SURPRISE in the end scheme of things.

 My friend,one of the most difficult concepts to acquaint people with is the difference(s) between "Freedom" and "Liberty". It was not : "Give me freedom or give me death."

 Most people have never had to consider these differences and therefore have no meaningful knowledge of them.  Thus does government confuse them about law, civic responsibility and to top it all off - history is re-written to suit the agenda of the present and we are able to be lead into the same old mistakes.

 Do you know Muscius? Perhaps Brutus (the elder, not G.J. Cesar's friend)?  As Franklin once said: "A republic =- if you can keep it." Th. Jefferson once spoke succinctly to the care and feeding required by this entity...now to repeat it might well be 'criminal'...hmmm?

Liberty is the state of, being to exercise freedom.

On the forming of America as a Nation, did not mean TOTAL freedom, to do whatever one pleased. 

Liberty was the idea to give each citizen the freedom, to govern themselves in all manner without interference, WHILE NOT infringing on the right of another citizen to have the same without interference......with the government, having VERY LITTLE governing authority OVER the people.  THAT IS A REPUBLIC in a nutshell.  

 There have been, and I believe will be, a number of Republics. Not all Republics endorse the same qualities as this one did. The idea of minimum interference with the affairs of the persons living within the States and with the States themselves was , somewhat peculiar to the USA and Switzerland. Both, by the way, were regarded as dangerous entities in their day. Both continued by means of being able to protect themselves by the efforts of an armed citizenry - soon we shan't have to concern ourselves with this dubious distinction.

 Whe this last is forgone we shall learn all that is needful of the differences between governmental authority and power.

Of course I see, what was designed, and what it has become.......

1 Samuel 8.......repeated!

 I believe that we, the people, should make the decisions that the peoples business requires be made.  Only if immediate response is required - militarily - should this ever be violated, imo. But then I do not believe in "business as the business of America" either. :)

Well said!

As Thomas Jefferson warned repeatedly, the greatest threat to the Rule of Law and constitutional limitations on the central government was an unbridled judiciary: "The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will. ... The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

Jefferson understood that should our Constitution ever become a straw man for a politicized judiciary to interpret as it pleased, Rule of Law would gradually yield to rule of men -- the terminus of the latter being tyranny.

 I fear, my friend, that you may well be reading into my post(s) some wishful thinking. 

The Constitution doesn't state or direct the government toward any form of economic entity or sort of economic system. Instead, as even the  nine swine of SCOTUS have stated ; people are free to choose that economic system that pleases them.

 The peoples business is limited only by the prohibitions of laws and the founding documentsw of this nation. The governments business is strictly limited by these self-same documents and the doctrines/philosophies which are therein expressed.

 I am not aware of my having stated , or even intending to state that the USA/Constitution intended this nation to adopt a socialist form of government. I am quite familiar with socialism in its many forms and would not - I hope - have made such a statement.

 Imo, the Constitution is not "sacred" nor are any of the founding documents "sacred". They are poor attempts on the part of human beings to state and form a government on principles of human dignity and liberty. They, imo, fell and fall far short of being complete and lived-up-to. Our fault as they must be understood and applied. Few wish to apply them to any but themselves.

 War? Ah war, well : The war powers of the President and the restraining of them by Congress and the Courts.... Would that they could and would. Reagan comes to mind. Bush ...causes nausea and Obama - laughter.

 Forgive me if I do not waste time and effort upon the slaughter of innocents by poltroons and fools at the behest of trans-national corporations.

And yet, someone must decide what the Constitution and the laws passed mean within our society and within the context of the cultural system chosen. Must they not.

 The Judicial Branch of the USA Government has become politicized and therein lies the problem. Few on the Bench, now, love the Law or even see it as what it is supposed to be and do.

 Have you, by chance, studied the law ? Not just USA law but law qua law? It is , I assure you , a fascinating and , sometimes, disgusting endeavor. Should this be of interest to you we might take it up as a topic. Do let me know your desires in this matter.

 Bad law is made every day. Un-Constitutional laws are enacted as they will permit some mendacious poltroon to "show the folks back home he is their servant". Yes, quite. 

 Please, I beg of you all, do not forget that Adolph Hitler enacted the entire National Socialist Workers Party system without violating one German law.

No JD here.  Although, I do wish there was a legal basis for invoicing those congressmen involved with unconstitutional legislation, as well as, the multitude of attorneys that overload the bench with frivolous tort suits.

Ah, now you begin to see the point of my original post. I believe that those who pass them and attempt to make them the law of the land should receive the bill when they are declared un-constitutional. Might give them pause, eh?

 Hmmm, Who said that the Legislators should declare themselves accountable? Not I . I do, however, believe we should.

 The relevance of Switzerland is that it proves it can be done. Rather like the chicken crossing the road to prove to the 'possum that it can be done. 

"Who said....etc." You did, by logical construct. Otherwise by what authority would you present those bills to the "individuals," or enforce payment for their actions taken as "Legislators?" Are you proposing an extralegal remedy? Any form of tar and feather, or off with their heads will only reduce the pool of those willing to put their necks in the noose. Our only option is to work hard to throw out the scoundrels and prosecute the crooks who violate the law as it stands.

Switzerland is still irrelevant. It is a tiny country of cowards who feign neutrality as a ploy to maintain independence which they rely upon the graces of other nations to accommodate. Even if Switzerland were rich in diamonds, oil, ore and manufacturing, strategic seaports, or any of the thousands of things that complicate the existence of other nations, they are still so small, they still would not be of significant importance. They are 136th in land area for example. To put that in perspective, Cuba is 106th, and is surrounded by water. Not to mention that until recently Switzerland has gotten away with ignoring OECD standards and has profited from asset dumping. There's much more, but you get the picture...Switzerland is irrelevant as a political/economic model for the rest of the world.

 No, not by logical construction - unless wishful thinking be allowed. We, the people , should hold them accountable - as they never will.

 As to Switzerland being irrelevant - I really must disagree. The assets dumping you charge them with is actually asset protection. Or was until they fell for the USA invitation to invest in USA properties, etc. Now the Swiss don't wish to involve themselves with USA investors/seekers of asset protection. 

 The Swiss do not hide behind their neutrality they are neutral and choose an armed and trained citizenry to protect it.

 Switzerland chose to remain small as there aren't that many people who wish to participate in the rigors of education and responsibility that the Swiss system requires.

 If avoiding foreign entanglements , etc., is deemed, by you to create irrelevance...perhaps you are correct. But then what would that make of the USA and the reasons for its 'relevance'?

 We must, it seems, disagree. Ah well. It was most interesting to hear your thoughts and I am sorry that you were un-willing/un-able to see the point(s) I was, in my own poor way, attempting to elucidate. Revolution isn't my way. Been around too many of them.  Be well and I do trust you will enjoy all of this - life itself.