Compromise is lauded as the virtuous way to resolve disputes between civilized people. However, it seems to me that people who call for political compromise invariably mean, "shut up and do as you are told, and be sure you vote harder next election cycle," not, "let's meet in the middle to discuss your concerns and find a degree of give-and-take we can both accept."
Radicals, free-thinkers, activists, and anarchists are constantly reminded of the need to compromise with the status quo in this way. It boils down to, "submit or die," if you strip away the rhetoric and propaganda. I could be hard-nosed and say there is no compromise with terrorists, but let me make a counter-offer for the sake of constructive discourse.
Before any new laws or budget may be passed, each legislative session must begin with a public reading of the national and state/provincial constitution wherever applicable, including any amendments and revisions in force. Then, the entire existing legal code must be read out loud and in full. Any laws which cannot be read before the next election cycle are automatically revoked. If "ignorance of the law is no excuse," how can this simple demand be a burden? They could easily rotate through the body in turn, five minutes per member or so. By such a process, the entire King James Bible could be read through in less than three weeks, assuming a simple 8-hour workday and a modest 150 word-per-minute pace, even when accounting for pauses between readers and time taken for opening and closing ceremonies each day. Why should the legal code be any more difficult?
If a congress/parliament manages this ordeal, then any new law they write must include clear definitions of any terms used and a sunset provision requiring public review before renewal. After all, circumstances change over time, and besides, politicians are no less prone to error than anyone else. Then, it too must be read in full to the public before a vote. Likewise, budgets must be itemized and expenditures clearly defined. No more thousand-page bills which must be passed in order to learn what they contain!
The secret ballot is widely held as a safeguard for democracy, but as Lysander Spooner wrote in 1886, "A secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is nothing else than a government by conspiracy. And a government by conspiracy is the only government we now have. [...] Not one of all the ten millions of voters, who helped to place you in power, would have dared to do so, if he had known that he was to be held personally responsible, before any just tribunal, for the acts of those for whom he voted." I say holding voters accountable for the actions of those for whom they cast a vote is the only way to demonstrate real representation. Anything less means the very concept of representative democracy is a sham. This also leads directly to my next point, in fact.
"No taxation without representation" was one of the rallying cries of the American revolution. If your candidate wins office, you should foot the bill for their spending. Not those who voted against that candidate. Not those who declined to vote at all, whether through apathy or principled opposition. Not those who could not vote for any number of reasons. Instead of the old poll tax which had to be paid to vote, your vote should determine your own tax burden if there is to be any tax at all. So many bleeding-heart activists cry, "we should all pay more!" Put your money where your mouth is instead of deferring to the State's system of plunder. And you are always free to give the feds more money than they demand if you really think they are such virtuous stewards of your wealth.
This should go without saying, but concepts like "qualified immunity" for police and "sovereign immunity" for government officials must be abolished. If such officials act as representatives of the people and exercise delegated authority, they have no need of such protections, as they cannot rightfully commit any act which would be criminal if done by you or me. Every new criminal law must also include an explicit provision for jury nullification as a fail-safe for the public to check and balance government hubris. We cannot delegate authority we do not first possess ourselves, after all, because that is blatantly absurd.
There you go. Five points of compromise to start a real conversation. You want a government? I do not, at least not in the form it takes in countries around the world today. If there is a middle where we can meet, here's a compass toward its actual location. No more mealy-mouthed platitudes about "term limits" and "respect the office." Let's stop beating around the bush and get serious.
