The Plan.

\\It is with this representation that we trust the government. In your proposal, the government is strict and completely controls the United States as a unitary system, which is more like communism and has more chances of reflecting abusive power.// In my proposal, the government is strict, but for the people's good. When companies stop seeing people as customers and instead as a source of income, the quality goes down, and the living standards grow lower. An idea of capitalism is competition, if one company sells inferior products compared to another, the other would prosper. But what if the consumers are lazy and choose to spend less money on the inferior product? Living standards go down, bad things happen, idiocracy. (That's a good movie). \\my point is that America is supposed to be united. Splitting the country into 30 separate countries contradicts the very name of who we are: the United States of America// Who cares what we call ourselves? What are the benefits of being united? Being able to fend for ourselves? The reason why we have terrorist attacks is because others think we are a menacing figure. If we divide ourselves, we will seem like Europe, and last time I checked, Europe was the happiest place on Earth. \\it contradicts our name: the UNITED states of America.// Again, the what does the name prove? We're on the same team? We're not united, we are divided by the political Yankees and Red Sox. If people favor their party over their true beliefs, then the party with more people wins. \\This proposal is unconstitutional because it gives all the power to the national government and absolutely none to the "countries." The United States is based on representation, and there will be a whole lot less representation from the people with your plan.\ You misread my plan, there WOULD NOT BE A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. They would all be SEPARATE COUNTRIES, all in an alliance. There would be NO representation, because the PEOPLE would represent themselves in a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Direct democracy is much more fair, instead of trusting your rights to some rich guy in a suit, you can speak for yourself. \\They did resolve simple problems like that: they added an amendment, and 18-year-olds who had fought and survived Vietnam had the right to vote. It has been like that ever since.// Which is better: punishing a criminal, or making it so the crime was never committed. \\Rockylightning's refutation has stated no proof that setting up 30 groups of three-branched governments would be efficient. Try getting 30 groups of three people to agree on everything and run as a union. // We are forgetting our history again are we? Think back to the 1770's when the founding fathers had to divide the country into 50 SEPARATE STATES. Never underestimate the capabilities of the brain \You have not completely refuted my point. The people and Electoral College representatives would have to completely agree with everything that one candidate believes in order to want to vote for them.// In a direct democracy, there would be an electoral college. \\lso, because individual votes are kept completely confidential from the public, there should be no peer pressure. An adult voting for president knows that their vote ultimately leads to how the United States will be run.// You are taking this too literally, the peer pressure would happen before the voting period. If you are in a political party, you will favor your political party. Think about people you know, they are republican or democrat, which party would they favor more? \\eorge Washington did warn us not to create political parties. However, we have had them for a century or more, and nothing horrible has happened.// Ha ha that's a good one. Look around you, you see conservatives going against the Obama Health care bill without even reading or understanding it. You see liberals accusing George Bush without knowing what good he did. People are seeing politics as black and white, that is horrible. \\Also, I'd like to add that George Washington is a person who agrees that the current Constitution works efficiently. After all, he was the first president under our current Constitution.// George Washington died in 1799, how can he approve of a constitution that has been changing for over two centuries. \\With Ephors, there is no point in the Senate or U.S. Supreme court. With Ephors, there is no representation for any of the citizens in the United States. Ephors have biased, personal ideas and do not consult with the people who are loaning their power to allow others to govern them. You have yet to refute this.// Ephors ARE the people, they are not 'elected', they represent the people, ephors clearly have biased personal beliefs, that's why there is not only one of them. (Ephors are called upon this duty at least once in their lives, ephors are common people, they are not elected they are appointed, an citizen chosen to be an ephor can refuse. \\No, I cannot refute an end to poverty. However, some places, such as in the south, are where all the farms are – they need these big companies to get goods that aren't readily available in their area of the country. Closing all large companies around the entire country may stop poverty in some areas, but not in other areas. These goods and these crops are needed, and we need to depend on each other as a nation to run,// It's called trade. People can trade goods from "the north" to "the south". This is an easily solvable problem. \\A system where everyone has the same amount of wealth is Utopian, unrealistic, and unfeasible with the United States. Prices of goods vary in different places. If you're proposing this tax system instead of capitalism, then Wall Street closes down. Big companies close down. The system in which we have run the United States for hundreds of years will be destroyed, and nobody will become rich. A huge majority of our country depends on this system. All these people will lose their benefits, and everyone will be living in poverty. How can you possibly argue against that?// No, everybody (sadly) will not have the same ammount of wealth. Think of it like this, you are simply narrowing the range of wealth, there will be no extreme poverty, but there will be no more extremely rich people. (Although very rich people can put their money into banks to create interest which can easily pay the high taxes.) Wall street will not close down, miniature wall streets will pop up throughout the smaller countries. Simple, companies will not die, they will condense, to see the consumer as not a cash source, but an individual. \\Taxpayer dollars to pay teachers? Inevitable taxes for a healthcare system? Sounds like taxation without representation to me. Your proposal is an automatic switch to an included healthcare system, and we don't even have the right to vote on it.// We already do pay taxes to teachers. Is this a new concept? No. YOU WILL BE REPRESENTED, YOU WILL REPRESENT YOURSELF! Thats much better than having someone else [you can't trust] do it for you. \\how will we be able to tell who can vote and who can't? Keep John Steinbeck out of this, please. This has nothing to do with it. And by the way, he didn't want Coyotito to be educated to know right from wrong; he wanted him to set his people free from poverty.// You can make people take tests, that's common sense. Yes, Kino wanted Coyotito to free his people, he would DO THAT BY TEACHING THEM RIGHT FROM WRONG. Read the book again. \\the government will hand out jobs// No, you may choose your job, but the government hands out jobs if you are unemployed. My points are not radical, the founding father's plan was even more readical, and by calling this plan radical you are ultimatly contradicting hte beleifs this country was built upon: abolishing the government if it violates your rights, and I believe I have presented enough proof t