Quote Originally Posted by ThePreserver View Post
People would need to be actively involved in politics to get this to work. I also think the vast number of levels would cause a lot of wasted energy, too.

The main problem I have with this is, not everyone WANTS to have this type of government. That's the beauty of a local-level government; some towns have trustees, some have mayors and councils, some have a chairperson; they get to choose what they want.

I personally think what is laid out in the US Constitution is the best form of government that can be devised: but we need to change the Interstate Commerce Clause so Congress doesn't walk all over it. If we FOLLOWED the Constitution, we'd have a functioning society. (Also the Electoral College should go the way of Maine-Nebraska). The guidelines for a functioning government are there; we just have to take a look at them again and respect the 10th Amendment.
If the US constitution laid out the best government ever devised then how did we reach such a state today? To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, the constitution either allowed what we have today or it has been powerless to stop it and in either case it shows its uselessness. The problem I always encounter with Constitutionalists is that they imply a static political society. Everyone must agree in the interpretation and powers of the Constitution or else the whole system falls on its face. That necessitates a static conceptual idea that must exist for generations in the United States. Our children's children need to see that the Constitution is a document that supposedly restricts the powers of the federal government. Yet your complaint to Omnis is the very complaint you should use against yourself. Not everyone WANTS this type of government. As Bastiat said:

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

An ever expanding government is almost a historical law.