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 -
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