Would you like a custom tailored government? Like a half and half pizza? So everyone gets what they want?

So instead of one government there would be several million? Does not seem very practical.

@LostInParadise We would start at 2 or 3 governments
Democrat, Republicans, and a third party and play it by ear over time. Computers and the burocracy should have running smoothly as time goes on.

The ultimate decisions must be made by people. How do you make decisions with 2 or 3 different governments in charge?

@LostInParadise Like countries vs. states vs. cities etc… I propose another level of government. The individual . More powers given to individuals from the state and government. Not all of them. Rather a new power is returned to the individual where is seems fit.

Could you give an example of a power that an individual should have instead of government? For example, should people be allowed to decide what taxes they should pay? Not a lot of people would want to pay much in taxes.

@LostInParadise The freedom to marry someone without a licence sounds like a good start. Freedom to make a society, or religion , without a board of governors. Freedom to homeschool from pre-kindergarten to university and freedom to determine minimum requirements to practice law and medicine in ones community. The university of Alberta requires one to have a second language to go into masters programs. I would scrap that and give me a list of other universities that don’t have that standard.

Common law marriages are recognized in the U.S. There is nothing stopping you from creating your own religion. Home schooling K-12 is recognized in the U.S. Some sort of requirements are needed to qualify as a doctor or lawyer. You can set yourself up as a faith healer. Good luck with that. You can also declare yourself as a legal expert without a law degree. Good luck on that one also. As far as I know, universities in the U.S. don’t have a second language requirement for a masters degree.

@LostInParadise I just came up with them off the top of my head. Doesn’t mean that one good one doesn’t exist.

How about this…we could direct our tax dollars to support only those politicians and programs we like? Isn’t that sort of the same thing?

@seawulf575 Yes. Just cuttung out the middle man by making payments directly to a cause. Removing the need to purchase a senator.

@RedDeerGuy1 , Who would make the payments for your disability checks? Your mom?

@LostInParadise Good point. I would have to work then. I would write books out my experiences with mental illness. The new meds are working fine an I have permission to work part time as a dishwasher. Just an accelerated time scale would be thrust apoun me. Im trying not to give too much personal info anymore

Wasn’t it a good thing for the government to support and treat you so you could get to the point of being independent?

@LostInParadise Yes.

Then it is worthwhile to demand taxes from those who are able to support themselves to benefit those who are currently unable to do so.

It is also a good use of tax money to provide public education for everyone, so that they can be prepared to join the workforce and become contributing members of society, rather than become a drain on society. Even people who do not have children in school benefit from having other people’s children become educated

It is also a good use of tax money to provide universal health care, as is done in Canada and nearly all other industrial nations (other than the U.S) so that people can remain productive members of the workforce. This holds true even for people who are in good health.

My point is that there are shared values, like education and healthcare, that are worthwhile for government to provide, even if we benefit only indirectly rather than directly. We can add other shared values, like having clean air and water, crime prevention, fire protection, trash removal and road construction. Maybe paying taxes for shared benefits is not such a bad idea after all.

@LostInParadise You make some gross assumptions. You see it as worthwhile to demand taxes from those who are able to support themselves to benefit those who are currently unable to do so. That may be a fine thing, but let’s put some logic into it. There is a huge difference between a hand up and a hand out. I see it a huge waste of tax dollars to make that a way of life and I have seen many cases of that in my life. I don’t see universal healthcare as worthwhile nor a good use of money. I would definitely support efforts to find ways to lower healthcare costs, though.
The biggest benefit of a custom tailored use of tax dollars is that it would require the government to be entirely transparent. The feds would have to actually put out everything in front of everyone to let them see what is available out there. It would make them take the time to explain how they are spending our money instead of voting endlessly to fund things that they have no idea they are funding. t would let them see what the people really want to support and use.
The hard part of this whole thing would be keeping track of what people are supporting on a case by case basis. Let’s say, for instance, I don’t want to support universal healthcare. My tax dollars would not go to support that. But then, I would not be entitled to use the universal healthcare system (if there was one) and there would have to be a way to track who was and wasn’t allowed to use it.
The other problem is that there are certain things that the feds have to provide that would have to be supported, such as a military to protect our country or a national highway system or a State Dept to interface with other nations. And there are some out there that wouldn’t want their tax dollars to go there yet there would be no way to deny them those services. And that really gets into the enumerated powers granted to the feds by the Constitution. This nation is that we were designed to be 50 sovereign states that operate independently with one federal government to pick up those exact things I am speaking of. The problem comes that people have forgotten that. They have taken on the mindset that the feds rule all and the states are subservient.
Education, healthcare, fire depts, police depts, trash removal, state roads, etc should really be handled at the state and local level. The bulk of your tax dollars really ought to be going to your state and not to the Feds.

You seem not to understand the concept of shared benefits. The tax money you give for universal health care may benefit you indirectly. It can allow someone to return to the workforce and pay into the tax system who might otherwise be a social burden.

Maybe I do understand that concept but think that it belongs at a much lower level of government than the federal level. But maybe you don’t understand the concept of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the legislators? Or maybe you just can’t believe that average citizens would game the system?