a neocameralist reconstruction of the US Constitution

the original US Constitution was very amenable to neocameralist restructuring. in fact, pretty much all was already in place, except for the language.

voters were property owners (the closest you got to a real shareholder) who elected a board of electors to point an executive officer. the federation was a consortium among States for mutual protection, so we had corporate representation (Senate). the Congress, as the representation (direct and indirect) of proprietors/shareholders, controlled the funds that went to the executive office.

this is all pretty much in tune with corporative structure. the glitch was with Supreme Court and the whole ideological apparatus

instead of the CEO appointing the justices, I would make justice a single church-like institution with the aim of controlling the legality of shareholder actions. in turn, it would be controlled only by the executive branch’s decision on law enforcement.

Cathedralist institutions (universities, media) would cater to either justice-church sentimentalities or become themselves shareholders.

of course, late 19th century and FDR reconstructions of the Constitution made it impossible, but a neocameralist US of A was once possible.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “a neocameralist reconstruction of the US Constitution

    1. will check the Posner piece, sounds really interesting.

      on the absolutist debate, I’m not sure how I can contribute (except by maybe radicalizing even further your own points – which I assume I have consistently made right here). if there are specific questions you can point me to, I’d be glad to give a response, though

      Liked by 1 person

      1. i don’t really disagree with that, to be honest. i guess i am just a little more economicist that steel-cam, and actually think that war is fundamentally commercial more than it is zero-sum/militaristic; which, of course, makes me more interested in internally divided power.

        Like

      2. War need not be, and usually is not zero/sum.

        There are biological, psychological and ideological reasons for war. Commercial would reduce to these three, which ultimately reduce to biological reasons.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. yeah, I think commerce has a lot more to do with the weird biology of bacteria – lateralization rather than strict cladistics. commerce has to do with hybrids and occultations (cryptics). I think those are the fundamental traits of war as well (camouflage, spying, anticipation, double agency) – treacherous, trustless. I guess you can see why this doesn’t fit very well with the idea that war is fundamentally a state business of allies vs. enemies, based on honor and trustworthiness.

        Like

      4. nonetheless, I think you’re right that human wars have for the most part been conducted – from a conscious POV – in a cladistic fashion. I just think there’s much underneath that.

        Like

      5. We like your work. It deserves to be given more time and attention. We think, however, that because you are “Lrx” people are diffident.

        Can you point us to your canonical works on the subject of “Lrx”? We have read some of it before, but would like to see what you consider the most important; then, we write a post on it.

        We have plans to draw attention to your work more.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s