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 -
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