I’ve spent the last several months architecting a comprehensive legislative and constitutional package (127 points total) designed to address what I see as the terminal decline of American state capacity and moral coherence.
I am posting this here because I want a "stress test." Most political discussions are about vibes; I want to talk about mechanics.
The Core Pillars:
Institutional Security: Moving oversight to randomly selected Citizen Juries to break the back of the lobbyist/bureaucrat feedback loop.
Economic Anti-Fragility: Forcing a 20% market share cap on corporations to prevent them from becoming "Too Big to Fail" or "Too Big to Regulate."
Axiomatic Anchoring: Grounding the legal system in a Western/Christian moral framework (Life is Sacred) to act as a stable coordination point against value drift.
I used an LLM to help me cross-reference the data and polish the 500+ pages of text, but the architecture and the trade-offs are mine. I’m looking for the "smartest people in the room" to tell me where this breaks.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Okay, that's enough. I missed the initial post and another mod approved it even though it looked suspicious, but generally we do not let a new user join the Motte and post a manifesto as their first entry. The more I read the more I am convinced someone has pointed OpenClaw at the Motte.
Y'all took the bait, but so did the mods. This is the future, folks- forums getting trolled by ClawBots.
Amadan is being polite and not naming me, as the person who let this through the filter. I was in a generous mood, and wanted to give even a new poster a shot since they met the low bar of having a submission statement and a proactive AI disclosure.
I'm incredibly annoyed that my charity was abused, especially when a quick perusal of the comments a while later revealed he was clearly using AI to do the substantial heavy lifting, without even the courtesy of saying so. Like, c'mon @Createdabill, I have more tolerance for, and am significantly more positive on the scope for human-AI collaboration than is the norm here, and you've disappointed me greatly. I feel like I've adopted a not particularly attractive elderly dog out of charitable impulse, and then it turned out to be a pit-mix that goes on to maul my small children.
If you are going to use AI, then even from a purely personal stance (one not accounting for the general welfare of the Motte and public opinion, which I do take seriously), copy-pasting raw LLM output without disclosure is beyond the pale, anywhere, anytime, or at least the foreseeable future. Especially after people like @Rov_Scam and others put in significant manual effort in engaging with you. It particularly pisses me off because I try to maintain considerably higher standards myself, while doing something that is somewhat controversial but morally acceptable (IMO).
Crashing out in the mod mail doesn't help his case either.
No worries on my end. I highly suspected he was using LLMs to do the heavy lifting, but I wasn't 100% certain because even I, as an AI skeptic, didn't think they were that bad. Maybe he's just not using them right, but I'd think that an AI would realize that his corruption amendment was just a poorly-written bribery statute. He then proceeded to argue based on the presumption that it said something it didn't. I almost lost it laughing when he responded for @netstack's simple question about corrupt book deals. Aside from not even trying to edit the LLM output, the most recent example he gave was from 25 years ago, and neither example would have resulted in any liability under his proposed amendment because there was never any indication that the publisher got anything in return other than a book.
Thank you. Even if I'm more pro-LLM than most, I happily encourage you to report any comments where you suspect bad faith use of AI. That includes even mine.
Your patience is commendable, if someone tried to pull that with me I would have had choice words. I still do not know if he was being 100% lazy, relying on an autonomous agent (quite likely) or just manually copying and pasting. His flame out, which I will spare you from reading, does demonstrate proof of humanity somewhere. Just not where I wanted it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Was the crashout LLM as well?
Seemed like good old-fashioned human ranting. I've seen plenty.
At least he is not fully integrated with the slopMatrix yet. There is still hope. Out of curiosity, lets say he made a new account, and started posting in this thread as the author, but with real human TM responses. Would he be banned again automatically for evasion or given a second chance?
I am doubtful that we would let him back in. I'm not saying he has literally zero hope of being forgiven, but it would require a very sincere apology and a strong promise of doing better before we might consider it. He's been given significantly more initial leeway than the average brand new poster, and what do we have to show for it?
If he made an account just to circumvent the ban, then we would ban first, and ask questions later.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Probably not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My bill mandates that if the national debt exceeds 110% of GDP, the sitting Congress is automatically barred from re-election for life. Additionally, running a deficit outside of war results in automatic dissolution of Congress and a permanent ban from office for those who voted for it. The Question: Is 'career-ending' personal risk the only way to solve the incentive problem of deficit spending? If we remove the 'safety net' for politicians' careers, do we get better leaders, or do we just get more desperate and corrupt ones?
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to look at my post and read my bill. I am so happy to have reached 400 views.
More options
Context Copy link
Alright, I'll bite. Your first amendment is completely pointless. Bribing a public official is already illegal in all 50 states, DC, and at the Federal level. All you've done is restate bribery laws that are lengthier yet somehow more vague than existing bribery laws. Like, why are you mentioning book deals? Politicians write books all the time, but I never heard anyone suggest that a book deal was a quid pro quo to push legislation favorable to Random House. Why do you feel the need to replace the existing court system with a special court that appears to operate more like a grand jury (whence the judge and defense attorney?) than a regular court, except it has the power to convict and sentence and no secrecy. Why the need for "plain language translators" and sanctions for trying to intentionally confuse the jury? It's the job of the attorneys and judge to present things so that the jury understands. If an attorney or expert presents confusing information the result is that the jury ignores it at best and at worst both ignores it and holds it against he side that presented it. I can think of no situation where it would be advantageous to confuse the jury.
So that's pointless. Elsewhere it's outright contradictory. You state that
and later go on to say
You'd probably be interested to learn that absolute legislative immunity is a common law principle. Enacting laws is about as core a legislative duty as one can get. Furthermore, over the past 250 years, the entire modus operandi of state legislatures has been to add to or modify the common law. Things as diverse as the Uniform Commercial Code and modern procedural rules are directly at odds with the common law tradition.
But that's enough for me. I could go on, but this whole thing reads like a parody.
I appreciate the deep dive. This is the exact kind of friction the document was meant to generate. To address your points:
On Bribery vs. Systemic Capture: You’re right that 'quid pro quo' bribery is illegal. My Amendment targets 'Legalized Corruption'—the revolving door and the 'book deal' ecosystem. A book deal from a major publisher with a massive advance for a politician who just sat on a committee regulating that publisher's industry is rarely prosecuted under current law, but it is a clear conflict of interest. The goal isn't to restate bribery law; it’s to close the 'legal' loopholes that current bribery law ignores.
The Special Court vs. The Judiciary: The 'Plain Language' requirement exists because the legal system has become a 'Priest-Class' where complexity is used as a barrier to entry. You say no attorney wants to confuse a jury—I disagree. Obfuscation through 'legalese' is a standard tactic to hide the lack of a moral or logical core in a policy. The Special Court replaces the 'Administrative State's' self-policing with actual Citizen oversight.
The 'Legislative Immunity' Contradiction: This is your strongest point. You’re right: Legislative Immunity is a Common Law staple. However, the document proposes a Paradigm Shift. In this system, the 'Common Law' being preserved is the spirit of the tradition, but the 'Immunity' of the official is stripped when they act outside the 'Constitutional Contract.'
We have had 250 years of 'modifying the common law' to the point where the original protections for the citizen are unrecognizable. If 'Legislative Immunity' means a politician can pass a law that violates the core rights of the people with zero personal risk, then that immunity has become a tool of tyranny. This bill posits that the Individual Responsibility of the lawmaker must supersede their Institutional Immunity.
As you worded your proposal:
Compare to the Federal bribery statute:
I'm not sure how what you're proposing is meaningfully different. Hell, what I excerpted is broader than your proposed law, and that's only a small, representative part of the statute. Offering payment in exchange for governmental action is the definition of a quid pro quo. Your book deal example doesn't even violate ethics rules because the deal wasn't in place at the time of the governmental action. We have these rules to begin with to prevent the corruption of the legislative process, not the corruption of the publishing industry. If the deal wasn't in place when the official cast his vote, then it couldn't have possibly influenced his decision.
What are you basing this on? Are you a litigator? Because I am, and I can guarantee you that the last thing I want to do is confuse a jury, or a client for that matter. How do you think this works, that juries are so stupid that Lawyer A will make a reasoned argument and Lawyer B will use a bunch of fancy five-dollar words that they don't understand and will do whatever he asks anyway because they think he's smarter? No, they're going to wonder what the hell he's talking about and go with A because he actually gave them a reason. To the extent that lawyers overuse technical jargon it's because for semantic reasons we have to be very careful with language in some contexts where words have very specific meanings. But we're told from the very beginning of law school to avoid using legalese any time you're dealing with the public, or the court, or really anyone, unless it's absolutely necessary.
What protections are those? What do you actually know about common law beyond it being a buzzword some conservatives like to use to contrast legal concepts they like with those they don't like? Our own constitutional protections are rooted in the idea that the common law did not contain adequate protection for the citizens; every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights addressed some deficiency in that respect. The Reconstruction Amendments took the idea further, and more recent legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act took the idea further still.
I understand your argument, but you need to consider the full ramifications. The only example I can think of of an unamendable amendment in American history was the Corwin Amendment from 1860, which would have prohibited any amendment banning slavery. Five years later, slavery would be constitutionally prohibited. The only prohibitions on amendment in the actual constitution are the prohibition on an amendment banning the slave trade prior to 1808, and the provision that there will always be equal Senate representation. The first of these is moot and the second uncontroversial, but all three examples of proposed or actual unamendability were the result of temporary political considerations that are no longer relevant. The foreclosing of the possibility of constitutional change poses two dangers: It increases the risk of violent revolution, and it leads to the very disrespect of institutions you're trying to stem. Is it consistent with democratic theory to prohibit future generations from making fundamental political choices?
I appreciate the litigator’s perspective, but there is a fundamental disconnect between the 'broader' language of current statutes and the reality of American governance.
On 'Meaningful Difference': You argue the federal bribery statute is broader. If that were true in practice, the 'revolving door' between K-Street and Capitol Hill wouldn't be the standard career path for retired officials. The current law fails because it requires proving corrupt intent. My Act removes the guesswork. It moves the standard from 'Did you intend to be bribed?' to 'Did you take the money?' This isn't a legal nuance; it’s a structural firewall.
The 71% Mandate: You mention that we have these rules to prevent corruption. Yet, despite these rules, 71% of both Democrats and Republicans now support a total lobbying ban. When 7 out of 10 citizens across the partisan divide agree that the current statutes are insufficient, it is a signal that the system has failed to regulate itself. The American Renewal Act isn't 'reinventing' bribery law; it is finally enforcing the public's will where current statutes have left 'book-deal-sized' loopholes.
On the 'Jargon Wall': You say lawyers avoid legalese. But a 2,000-page omnibus bill is, by its very existence, an act of obfuscation. My Neutral Translator Office isn't about insulting the intelligence of a jury; it’s about leveling the playing field so that a Citizen Jury can't be 'out-resourced' by a team of litigators using complexity as a shield.
On Unamendability: You fear the risk of 'violent revolution' from unchangeable laws. I would argue that the current trajectory—110% debt-to-GDP and systemic distrust—is the actual catalyst for revolution. I am proposing to 'bind the sail to the mast.' If we don't protect the core of the Republic from the short-term incentives of career politicians, there won't be a 'future generation' left to make political choices.
You are literally banning a public official from ever having a job again. That’s sort of what a book is a bribe for service. But you could basically call any work a politician does when out of office a bribe. Which isn’t good either. Some things are just tough to legislate.
Does Citadel and Goldman pay every ex-fed board member a speaking fee? Yes. Do they probably get something more than just a good speech? Probably yes. Is the a way to actual ban this without banning any later private sector work? No
The only thing we could do is pay every out of office politician $500k a year for life. And then ban any other compensation.
I appreciate the honesty in admitting that these fees are 'probably' more than just speeches. That 'probably' is exactly why 71% of the country wants a ban.
We are told that complex problems are 'tough to legislate' only when the solution threatens the status quo of the ruling class. We manage to legislate incredibly complex tax codes and environmental regulations for the average citizen—we can certainly legislate a 'Clean Hands' exit for public servants.
You suggest paying them $500k for life to stop the bribery. I suggest that public service should not be a gateway to extreme wealth. If an ex-official wants to work as a teacher, a carpenter, or an independent consultant for a firm that does not lobby the government, they are free to do so. What they cannot do under the American Renewal Act is monetize their former influence.
The Founders envisioned 'Citizen Legislators' who returned to their farms and businesses. They did not envision a 'Permanent Political Class' that views the private sector as a 'payday' for services rendered while in office. If the choice is between 'banning later private sector work' from certain predatory entities or allowing the slow-motion auctioning of our Republic to the highest bidder, the 71% have already made their choice.
The thing is, you cannot nowadays become a leading politician in idle moments between managing your farms and businesses. Not unless you are a wealthy landowner who doesn't need to spend the first 35 years of their life building those things or working their way up the corporate ladder.
More options
Context Copy link
No politician is going to go teach high school math. It’s beneath them. That’s a IQ 105 job which most should be well above.
You can ban book fees sure. Then JD Vance returns to Ohio and becomes a raspberry farmer. Peter Thiel buys a lot of raspberries (basically identical to doing book deals). A lot of the book deals actually make money because a Democrat aligned PAC or non-profit buys a lot of Hillary Clinton books and distributes them. Thiel can just donate raspberries to poor white kids. Any legitimate business you can think of can be designed to give a kickback. And they will. So you need to end up banning all forms of compensation to thousands of top politicos/policy people.
I don't know about raspberries, but if you're looking for a kickback scheme you can do a lot better than books. People look at the nameplate advance estimates, see the bulk buys, think there's something fishy, and cry corruption, but it's really more complicated than that. Yes, Hillary Clinton got an 8 million dollar advance for Living History. I can't find any allegations that bulk buying was involved, but let's look at the economics of it anyway. She didn't get to keep the whole 8 million. An agent typically gets 15%, which takes us down to 6.8 million, plus she used a ghostwriter, and if you want a ghostwriter you have to pay them yourself. She reportedly paid hers $500,000, so we're down to 6.3 million that she collected.
But that's not a flat fee; it's an advance against royalties, meaning she can't collect any royalties until the book sells enough to recoup the 8 million advance. The list price of the book was $28. Half of that goes to the bookseller, and a typical royalty is 10% of retail. So of that $28, Hillary made $2.80 per book sold, as far as accounting against the advance. The book would need to sell a little over 2.8 million copies before she would make any money on it beyond the advance, and even when she reached that threshold, she would only be making $2.38 per book after the agent takes his cut. There are a couple caveats here: That assumes that all the sales would be of the domestic hardcover at the list price. Foreign rights are sold separately for a flat fee, so if a publisher in another country wants to pay $1 million for them then she'd get $100,000 credited towards royalties in one fell swoop. On the other hand, if there's a paperback edition the list price would be lower, and some books will be sold at below list through book clubs and publisher discounts, so she'd need to sell more books to make up for it. And then there's audiobooks, large print, etc., which has its own price.
The upshot is that if you're trying to give a politician a kickback through book sales, you're only giving them 8 1/2 cents on the dollar, and that's not until after they've recouped their advance. Most politicians aren't going to recoup their advance. Why do publishers give them if they're never recouped? Because they can still make money for the publishers. Hillary Clinton needs the book to sell 2.8 million copies (give or take the caveats) to make money beyond the advance at an effective royalty of 8.5% of retail. The publisher, however, is making 40% of retail, less fixed costs like art, editing and promotion, and marginal costs like shipping and the book itself. If we ignore those (which I will because I have no idea how much they would have cost in 2003), they're making $11.20 per book sold, meaning they only need to sell about 714,000 books to make back their investment. If I assume for the sake of argument that they're making $6/book after costs, they still only need to sell half as many books as she does to come out ahead.
The other thing about bulk buys is that it mostly isn't done as a kickback but by the author themself to their own immediate detriment. The first reason for this is similar to what you said about PACs and the like buying the book to distribute to their supporters, but politicians often buy books themselves as thank-you gifts to donors. Again, I have no idea if this happened or not, but suppose someone gives Clinton's reelection fund $1000 in 2003. They might be more inclined to donate in 2004 if they receive a signed copy of the book with a thank-you note in the mail. In this transaction, Clinton actually lost about $25, but it's worth it if it keeps a large donor on the hook. The other reason to do this is to pump the bestseller lists, particularly the NYT.
A big part of this is vanity, but there can be some financial motive. The publisher can write the best blurb in the world, but it isn't going to compare with "New York Times Bestseller" emblazoned on the cover of subsequent printings. Subsequent printings which might not happen, by the way, which extend the shelf life of a book's profitability and might not happen if the book isn't on the list. Plus it means Barnes and Noble will put it on a display in the front, and the list itself is a form of advertising. It's a risky strategy, though, because it's expensive and isn't guaranteed to work. The number of books sold required to get on the list varies by the week, and you might not have any idea of sales figures until you get royalty statements six to nine months later (and even then you can only estimate). If Hillary Clinton thinks it will take 10,000 copies sold in the first week, then she's laying out $280,000 for a shot in the dark. Plus, the NYT is a curated list, not one based on raw sales totals, and beginning in the 90s they started putting daggers next to books that they thought benefited from bulk sales. Ted Cruz was famously pissed when they refused to list his book altogether due to allegations of bulk buying. $280,000 isn't a lot when you have $6.3 million to play with, but most book advances aren't that high.
In any event, I don't think there's any real doubt that Simon & Schuster paid Clinton what they did for any reason other than economics, because the deal made sense at the time. She was already a bestselling author at that point; It Takes a Village was her most noteworthy work, but she had just put out a coffee table book that sold half a million copies. Add to that that it would be a memoir and was coming a few years after the Lewinsky scandal and it was reasonable for them to expect demand to be high. And they were right—it sold a half million copies in its first week. If she were juicing the demand through bulk sales she would have given far more than the advance back to the publisher. I don't know who buys them (I never saw them become a phenomenon like Michelle Obama's book was), but they apparently sell well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you have examples of the “book deal” model in action?
Obviously, a publisher paying for legislation is corrupt and objectionable. I’m not sure how often they get the opportunity. Outside of (maybe) copyright law, publishing seems like a pretty settled regulatory regime.
Or are you suggesting that they serve as intermediary for other industries?
Think of the book not as a product, but as a financial clearinghouse. Here is how it works in practice:
The Loophole: Ethics rules often limit "gifts" or "speaking fees," but "earned income" from book royalties is frequently exempt or has much higher caps.
The Action: A publisher (often owned by a massive media conglomerate with deep legislative interests) pays an $8 million advance to a Senator. Even if the book "flops" and only sells 50,000 copies, the politician keeps the $8 million. It’s effectively a transfer of wealth that bypasses campaign finance limits.
The "Bestseller" Scam: These bulk purchases guarantee the book hits the New York Times Bestseller list, which triggers "performance bonuses" in the politician's contract.
The Result: The corporation gets a tax-deductible "business expense" (the books), the politician gets millions in "royalties," and the publisher takes a cut for facilitating the transaction.
Hillary Clinton (2000): She received an $8 million advance just as she entered the Senate. While cleared by the Ethics Committee, critics pointed out that the publisher’s parent company (Viacom at the time) had massive stakes in federal telecommunications policy.
The "Squad" & Modern Populists: From Bernie Sanders to Sarah Palin, nearly every major political figure uses book deals to become a millionaire. The "advance" model allows them to receive "exit payments" or "signing bonuses" from the corporate world while maintaining a "populist" image.
The publisher is just the escrow agent. The real 'buyers' are the corporate entities that engage in Bulk Buy Campaigns to trigger royalty bonuses, and the media conglomerates that use the 'Advance' as a way to build a financial relationship with a regulator. If we want to end corruption, we have to end the 'Legal Loopholes' that allow a politician to walk into office a public servant and walk out a multimillionaire through 'fortuitous' literary success.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Since the view count is climbing, I want to address the 'Incentive Structure' of Part II (The 20% Market Cap).
Most anti-trust law is reactive—it waits for a monopoly to hurt consumers, then sues. My 127-point plan makes it Structural. If a firm hits 20% market share, they are legally barred from further M&A and must divest non-core assets.
I'm curious if the 'Economic Rationalists' here think this would lead to a 'Stagnation Floor' where companies stop innovating once they hit the cap, or if it would trigger a 'Golden Age' of mid-cap competition. Thoughts?
Is it always obvious and objective how to define a given market and therefore market share?
I’m thinking of like Amazon which has a huge share of “e-commerce” but not a huge share of “retail.”
Your point about Amazon perfectly illustrates why my bill requires 'Plain Language' and 'Sanctions for Intentional Confusion. 'Right now, market definition isn't 'objective science'—it’s a $multi-million$ shell game. Lawyers define markets narrowly to create monopolies out of thin air, or broadly to hide them in plain sight. My bill moves this away from the 'Expert Class' and their 'Cross-Elasticity' models. We put it in front of a Citizen Jury and ask: 'Does this company have the power to dictate terms to the average American family?' If the answer is 'Yes,' the technical definition of the 'market' shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card for the legal team. I'm prioritizing Actual Power over Linguistic Sleight-of-Hand.
That’s an interesting idea though I’m curious which companies a citizen jury would agree can “dictate terms to the average American family.” Do you have any specific ones in mind?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Appreciate the 200+ eyes on this.
Since the conversation started with cultural signaling (veteran boarding), I’ll pivot to the Executive Branch mechanics. Part XVII includes a 'Hard Sunset' on all administrative agencies every 10 years unless they are re-authorized by a 60% majority in a Citizen Jury. No more 'forever' bureaucracies. It forces the state to justify its existence to the people once a decade.
Too chaotic for a modern economy, or is 'Creative Destruction' for the government the only way to stop the rot?
I think something like this is absolutely a good thing. The trouble with creating an agency is that it’s forever even if the issues the agency was created to oversee no longer exist. It also creates a pretty strong hedge against mission creep and redundant oversight where two agencies are regulating the same sorts of issues.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Beyond a desire for challenge, acceptance of a dare, or obsessive interest in the topic, why should we devote the considerable time to this from an account that has only this post?
Fair question. In a high-decoupling community, the 'who' should matter less than the 'what,' but I understand the hesitation to invest hours into a 127-point system-design from a 'blank' account.
The reason is simple: This wasn't written for 'clout' or as a social media exercise. It’s a specialized project that required a degree of anonymity to draft without institutional friction. I’m not here to build a following; I’m here because this community is one of the few places capable of a low-vibe, high-mechanics critique.
If you don't want to read the whole thing yet, don't. Just pick one section that matches your expertise—like the 20% Market Cap rule (Part II) or the Citizen Jury selection math (Part I). If the logic there is sound, the rest of the document earns your time. If it’s 'hallucinated garbage,' you’ve only lost five minutes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You want a constitutional amendment to guarantee veterans priority for boarding and deplaning commercial flights?
I recognize how that looks on the surface, but the intent is Cultural Engineering. > We currently have a 'Soft Priority' system based on corporate whim and 'Thank you for your service' platitudes that carry no weight. By codifying it, you transform a polite suggestion into a Legal Fact of Status. > In the broader 127-point framework, this is a 'low-cost, high-signal' move. It costs the taxpayer $0, but it forces a daily, public acknowledgment of the military-civilian contract in the most 'normie' space possible (an airport). If we want to restore state capacity and martial spirit, the Constitution needs to reflect who the state actually values in its hierarchy of 'Citizenship.'
It’s a 'small' gear in a very large machine designed to fix the prestige-gap. If you think a Constitutional Amendment is too high a price for cultural signaling, what mechanism would you use to force a permanent shift in public deference?
I think compelled civilian deference to the military is the opposite of how it should work. The military exists to serve civil society, not the other way around. There's a reason the Commander in Chief is a civilian.
The American Renewal Act agrees with your point Gillitrut. By mandating that the military is composed of the very citizens it serves, and by placing the ultimate power of judgment and purse-strings in the hands of Citizen Juries and lottery-selected delegates, the Act ensures that the "shield" of the Republic never becomes the hand that rules it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here is the link because the original is kid of weird: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zby0X0tWfWTpv7ZhJg3eWEzKROq4170e8jyS34GPJ88/edit?tab=t.0
More options
Context Copy link
High end autism. Or LLM.
Spent 3 min cause a thing I have issue with. USgov can not run structural budget surplus. As the creator of a reserve currency other people who want to hold the currency need the creator to make dollars which means the US gov needs to run a deficit. It may be too large of a deficit right now but structurally the US gov needs to be printing money if other people are going behaving the dollar.
Guilty on both counts. I used an LLM as a 'Legal IDE' to debug the cross-references between 127 points—because doing that manually is a recipe for internal contradictions. As for the 'Weaponized Autism,' I consider it a prerequisite for redesigning an entire state's architecture from the ground up.
Most of the replies in this thread read as LLM output. Is that accurate? If I wanted to talk to the bot you've been working with I'd just throw your doc in GPT.
That aside, your proposed amendments are so full of contradictions a lawyers could drive a bus through them. For example: forbidding race based discrimination and elevating the founding culture/religion - Choose one! If a municipality wanted to ship in 10k patriotic new Brits to replace 10k Somalis you'd probably be happy, and your assimilation amendment forbids that (race based discrimination).
And even if I waved a wand and moved all these objections aside, what would be much more useful than a manifesto would be a simple, several paragraph post on what you want the US to be. Start from first principles: what you'd like, then we can evaluate the efficacy of how you want to get there.
I don't want to drive you off from the Motte, but I don't think this is the way to start a conversation
Edit: Ok I gave you far too much credit. Annexing the anglosphere? This is not a serious set of proposals (capping the IRS employment while building an Empire? Ha!).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link