Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Common Sense 3.1 Summary/Discussion

Posted 1 year ago on June 6, 2012, 10:43 a.m. EST by votasaurus (62)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've seen links to this website on the boards for quite some time.

http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

It looks like a lot of work went into the ideas in this. I'm not sure if I agree with everything in here, but I think its worth a discussion:

"The American people are supposed to be in charge - but we are not. We are supposed to be in control - but we are not. There are things that our government has done and is still doing in the name of the American people which make us responsible - but we are not. Then are we really worthy to be what it is we hold to be sacred - “Americans.” "

"For 233 years, we let our government do whatever it pleased. For 233 years we ran our government like an absentee owner. If you don't have health care, a job, hope, money, a home, a good education, etc…, don't blame it on the government. We the people are the blame. The buck doesn't stop with the president. It stops with the people. If you are hated around the world, afraid to travel abroad, in fear of terrorism, mad because the banks are getting bailed out with your money and you can't get a loan, if your life savings and retirement have been wiped out or stolen, upset because we're dying in wars that have no end and make no sense, upset because the government failed miserably at responding to help your city after a hurricane, flood or any natural disaster, upset because your country is turning into a police state, upset because gas and food prices keep rising while your pay is falling, [...] just calm down."

"Because of the limitations of their day, the founding fathers had to settle for something less than a true democracy (Direct Democracy),. They had to settle for a republic. We don't have to settle for an inferior and outdated system of government. In fact, It can no longer support healthy growth or the management of a modern civilization. In a real democracy the words “government by the people, for the people and of the people” are literal, and not just flowery rhetoric to placate the masses."

True statements so far.

"It matters very little what we say or what we want because we are not in charge. This is not a real democracy. The sooner we learn this, the sooner we can begin to make real progress. Civil disobedience, protesting, marching and rioting won’t change anything or the fact that we are a republic. This is why the American people feel so hopeless and disillusioned about real change and their future. They don't see a way out. So in summary, we need to transition our republic to a real democracy. We don't have to settle for the illusion of democracy when we can have the real thing and the benefits that come with it. And we certainly don't have to live like this anymore - like slaves to a revolving two party dictatorship. "

A lot of people have been saying this on the boards. But what's the fix?

"We have become a Capitalocracy. Our country is ruled by money. The lack of paper money or digital money is no longer a limitation. I repeat, money is not a limitation. The lack of resources is the only limitation that we have. Technology allows us to preserve and extend the amount and use of our resources. This is where your real wealth is. Citing the lack of money, the deficit, the size of government or fiscal responsibility as an excuse for not taking care of the people and the people's business is complete nonsense coupled with incompetence. These problems should've been solved 90 years ago."

This is the main idea behind this site: That we should change our government is such a way as to render technology the main factor in our society instead of trying to get everyone a job. The machines can do all of the work for us from now on, and past a small part of government or Computer Scientists that oversees these machines we shouldn't have to live with the same systems that we have had in place since civilization began.

"You will need thinkers with the ability to transform their ideas into hard working realities. Talkers must employ middle men who waste your wealth and resources. The problems we face today are technical, not political. This is the job of the technologist – not politicians, dictators, bankers or big business. You wouldn't let a plumber perform brain surgery on you, so why would you let a politician convince you that he or she can build a new and better world in a technological age? It is not a sane or practical approach, and it has nothing to do with "Common Sense". And if you need any evidence, just look around you. Our country and our world are falling to pieces."

"First, we have to stop hiring government officials with skill-sets that no longer fit our need. This is the twenty first century not the seventeenth century. Politicians were ok in an era where talking and law were the best and only tools of the day for governing. Things have changed much in 233 years.

Politicians and lawyers are not capable of moving our nation into the future. Their time has come and gone. You will have to seek out the Scientist and Engineers. They will show you the way. Again, the bulk of our problems are technical - not political. Legislation and political debate will get us nowhere."

So according to this site the government should be composed of more Scientists and Engineers than Politicians. Sounds like a fair idea to me: after all Politicians aren't as smart as Scientists or Engineers on average, and the Scientists can actually create physical solutions to our problems instead of just throwing money at them (or taking money away from them [Republicans] in hopes that they go away.)

OK, here's where the tangible solution is presented:

"The founding fathers preserved our supreme right and control over government by reaffirming our natural right to alter or abolish the government if and when the people feel compelled to do so.

"that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…" ~From the Declaration of Independence "

"The founding fathers were not perfect and neither could they see the future. They left a big gaping hole in our democracy. They preserved our right to alter or abolish our government in the declaration of independence. The problem is, they never specifically defined the process for citizens to follow in order to execute their right to alter or abolish their old government and start anew. Because the process was not defined, we never exercised our right to use it. Lack of process doesn't take away or nullify the right. Then "common sense" should tell us to define a process, agree on it amongst ourselves - then execute it! I took the liberty to define that process and to present it to you the people for your approval. I call the execution of the process “The Execution of Dissolution and Termination” (EDT). I call the declaration of the process “The Declaration of Dissolution and Termination” (DDT). The declaration itself is modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose is to declare the process of disengagement from the present government to the present government. In other words, it is a pink slip presented to the present government by the people, affectively firing (terminating) the present government. From now on democracy will have teeth and will never be taken for granted ever again without serious consequences from the people. This is how you meet the scientist and engineers half way. You remove the middle men (politicians, lawyers, big business and bankers) and tell the Scientists and Engineers what kind of country and world you want to live in, and they will build it!"

35 Comments

35 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by votasaurus (62) 1 year ago

cont.

The site then goes on to suggest adding two new branches to government, an "oversight" type branch where the people can log on to a website and use direct democracy to control what any of the other branches are doing, and a technology branch that would be apolitical and comprised of nothing but Scientists, Engineers, Inventors, etc. Basically, USA's own R&D department.

The site then goes into more of the reasoning behind the technology aspect of the plan:

"You're probably thinking in order to solve these problems that we are going to have to work harder, longer and retire later. This is wrong thinking. To succeed, we will have to be smart enough not to continue as we have in the past. We will have to do the exact opposite. We will have to work much less and retire earlier. We will be forced to enjoy more of our lives. Sorry to disappoint those workaholics, but there is a new slave among us. Computers, robots and technology are the new slaves; we can not compete. "Common Sense" should tell us to get out of the way or we will get run over. That's what's happening to our work force, our economic system, our financial system and markets, and government. They're getting run over and over, and over again, directly and indirectly. We have to liberate the work force. "Common sense" has warned us for quite some time that technology will eventually begin to displace the human worker. That time is here and now."

I thought the same thing when I saw the first self-checkout stations at the grocery stores.

"If you’re ready for real change, let's get started.

  1. Join the Revolution (http://www.osixs.org/JoinUs.aspx)

  2. Vote in the online petition to Declare Dissolution and Termination. (http://www.osixs.org/Vote.aspx) When enough people learn that they have another choice other than democrats and republicans, they will choose it. No one chooses slavery when they "know" they have a choice. This petition will help raise awareness and track our progress. Spread the news and the word. We don’t have to live like this anymore!

  3. Read Common Sense 3.2 (http://focus.osixs.org/commonsense.aspx)

  4. Read Death By Technology (http://www.deathbytechnology.com/) - You’re going to need it. Education is the key. "It is impossible to fight or fix what you don't understand or know". The Ideas for Common Sense3.1, Revolution 2.0 and DDT come directly from "Death by Technology". Before we can fix the United States, we have to understand what’s really wrong with her. We have to look behind the symptoms.

  5. Tell the world about Common Sense3.1/3.2, Revolution 2.0 and DDT This is not a sipping tea party where we march around carrying silly signs. Our job is to let every citizen know they have a real choice and a process to take their country back in order to repair, rebuild and enhance it . Send emails, flyers or whatever you have to do to contact as many people as possible. "

Any ideas, suggestions, or other feedback about the ideas from this site? I think its interesting. IDK how feasible such a plan is. Honestly, at this point we are not yet ready for a revolution, even though the country needs something drastic soon. Until half of the country's population is starving and out of options we are not going to see major change because too many people are living just comfortably enough to continue their mindless TV-binging existence without regards to the future.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

For the people who would like to change our form of government to a direct democracy where 51% wins all arguments, please go to the line below and understand the difference between a democracy and a republic. Our founders didn't settle for a republic, they were smart enough to know the problems of a democracy.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

Go to the link above which shows examples of both. Our founders were correct to make this a republic and not a democracy. I wouldn't want to be beheaded because 51% of people decided they didn't like my opinion or lose my home because 51% decide I shouldn't have it. I appreciate my individual sovereignty and would not want to give it up to the consensus of the day which could change tomorrow.

The only problem we've had as a nation is that only now are people waking up to what their lack of participation in the process has cost us over many years and decades. It's up to you to get your friends and neighbors involved in the process and educate yourselves on the real issues because you can't trust the propaganda media to give you any truth.

If you want a third party, get one started. Sure they may not win this time around but it would grow and send a message. If everyone says it won't work, then it won't work only because people gave up without trying. Fix the problem we have and quit trying to rewrite the constitution. The problems we have are not because we are a republic. It is because not enough people have paid any attention for far too long and let the "elected" officials do as they please with no accountability.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

First off, your misrepresenting what Common Sense 3.1 is about. Did you look at the site at all? Under this plan, we still have legislators, presidents, and judges; it's just that the executive powers are transferred to the people and the presidents' office becomes the Administration Branch. The people don't legislate laws, but they do have oversight power over ALL OTHER branches. Everything operates as it does now until government assumes powers for which the people never put into their hands. Then the majority has the ability to veto decisions made by government, that are oppressive, unconstitutional, tyrannous, or very unpopular. A few examples would be: Wars, NDAA, the patriot act, taxes, etc. It would not be a pure democracy; but a hybrid built upon our current system.

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson to M.van der Kemp, 1812.

Now lets discuss the evils of the majority. The 51 beats 49 spin. As apposed to what? The 30% beats 70% that we have now? Or 80 - 20? Although the minorities' rights should always be observed, why should the majority live under the rules and laws, that the minority make?

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history - whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by the small elite." ~ Thomas Jefferson ~

This plan allows the people to guide our leaders (NOT RULERS), to give us the government that most of us want. Our fore fathers did not have the technology that we have today. They could not bring everyone in the US into one room, so they devised a representative system. Today, we virtually have that ability.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss2 (125) 1 year ago

I like the part of this plan that mentions the online veto system. Too many Americans are voting for specific people, or for one issue than for what they really want. In fact, I bet most Americans are not completely happy with either candidate for POTUS. Neither one is going to perfectly align with what the majority of 300,000,000 people want, but the people begrudgingly have to pick the one that they feel matches their interests the most.

Ex: Romney sucks because he seems to care more about money than actual human beings. He's also been caught lying multiple times, and has been accused of a few bouts of inhumanity. Obama signed NDAA, didn't bring the troops home as fast as we wanted, and has bowed to extreme fiscal policy in order to get bills to even pass. In other words, both choices suck.

If we had direct democracy veto power, the people could elect, say, Paul to POTUS, and then when he tries to declare war on Whothefuckknowsistan we can use our veto power to stop that action. This seems like a fair way to exercise our power over having to wait four years and hoping that TV ads and unlimited corporate money doesn't move too many zombie citizens to vote against their interests, or too many people aren't distracted by a wedge issue to vote out the warmonger. We'd get to vote in whoever would match up with most or our wants and then correct them when they do the one or two things that we don't want.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Exactly. Under this system, the most important vote you make during an election year, might not be who you voted for as president; but the vote you cast to avert another war.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

First off, you're taking Thomas Jefferson out of context.

'small elite' means monarchy. That is what they we're trying to get away from right?

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents." Thomas Jefferson

"The preeminence of representative government [is maintained] by showing that its foundations are laid in reason, in right, and in general good." Thomas Jefferson

"Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence; as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our States, in a great one. 3. Under governments of force; as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem not clear in my mind that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that, enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too; the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing." Thomas Jefferson

So stop taking Jefferson out of context. He did not approve of any kind of direct democracy crapola. He believed in a government having representatives of the people.

'This plan allows the people to guide our leaders' - we already have that. It's called opinion polls. Politicians use them all the time.

A Representative system was devised because it's far superior to Democracy. Democracy is a cruel and stupid numbers game. 51-49% or 70-30%. It's completely arbitrary and invites ignorance and manipulation.

“A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.”-Plato

“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams said that one.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

The only way I'm taking Jefferson out of context is by applying his words to today's situation. I agree that he probably referred to the monarchy as the small elite; but today we can refer to them as the 1% or plutocrats. The meaning still remains.

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." During his time, this was true; today, technology expands those limits to infinity. Our communication now on this forum demonstrates this.

"Societies exist under three forms ................ Common Sense would fall under #2 - Under governments, wherein the will of EVERYONE has a just influence (unlike today where only the monied interests have influence). It only changes the structure of government by giving the people the last and final word ...... not the small elite.

If opinion polls guided our leaders, congress would have a higher approval rating than 9%. Politicians are guided by the monied interests that fund their campaign, and keep them in power.

A Representative system was devised because it was impossible to bring every American to Philadelphia so their voice could be heard. Today it IS virtually possible.

If you think THIS government is the best thing since sliced bread; and everything in your life pertaining to government is hunky-dory; why are you even here?

"We are a people capable of self-government, and worthy of it."

Thomas Jefferson

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

No you are not. You're taking Jefferson out of context to try to imply that some kind of crapola direct democracy is better than a representative form of government.

If we have a plutocracy it's because of bad campaign finance laws. Elections should be publicly funded. Not end our Representative form of government. Technology does nothing to change this. Lack of technology is not why our Founders chose the representative form. They knew democracy sucked. For many reasons.

Communication on this forum proves to me that the representative form is best. I don't want a bunch of random dumbasses that don't know what the fuck they're talking about making decisions in government. I'll take a plutocracy over that any day.

'A Representative system was devised because it was impossible to bring every American to Philadelphia'. Sorry bullshit. It was devised because they knew democracy sucked.

“Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”― Isocrates

“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” -Alexander Hamilton

I don't think a plutocracy is the best form. I think an uncorrupted representative republic is the best form.

Again, you end by taking Jefferson out of context. "We are a people capable of self-government, and worthy of it." Self-government meaning the use of democratic principles v a monarchy. Not democracy. Democracy sucks.

[-] 0 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Thank you for your argument. I totally agree.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Hey thanks. I'm actually a little surprised there wasn't a shit storm because I said I prefer a plutocracy over democracy. Maybe nobody else read it. Or maybe people actually agree. Anyway, happy plutocracy to us. : )

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

There is no such thing as 'natural rights'. It is bad to make policies on murky concepts.

“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe"~Jonathan Wallace

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

You are wrong! - With all due respect. We all have a right to exist. That right is natural, derived from nature. There is nothing murky about that, especially if you value your existence.

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM OsiXs (More Power and Technology to the People!)

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Lol. I am born into this natural world, and while I am alive, there exists no "magical power", no natural right, safeguarding my existence, evidenced by the fact that I will eventually die, and also further evidenced by the inability of this presumed magical force to prevent my death while typing this message to you, should some unforeseen event, such as becoming acceptable collateral damage in yet another Obama drone strike, occur.

[-] 2 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

No one said anything about magical power. I can't make up for your inability to grasp nature and mans place in. Please, think in the abstract. You either understand nature(and natural rights) or you don't. I'll give you an example. If you have a bowl of chili and you let your friend keep it. It is your natural right to get the bowl back. But the right is not written down anywhere. But it's natural or human nature to want your bowl back. Of course your friend could be an a-whole and ignore your natural right by keeping the bowl. Well naturally you have the natural right to shove your foot up his buttocks.

Ok, the lesson is over....

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

OsiXs (Democracy 2.0)

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Say the friend really, really liked the bowl, so he pulled out a gun and shot you in the head when you tried to take it back, and he did so because it is human nature to be greedy and violent, then you would not exist. I think that would render your natural right to exist null and void. I could determine from that scenario that it is a natural right to be greedy and violent.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

Hang it up dude. You're just a bad student.

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

OsiXs (More Power and Technology to the People!)

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Good students question and think independently. Your analogy establishes that ownership (of a bowl, of property) is a natural right. Based on that premise, the native Americans had a natural right to this land (property), but white man came and took it from them - so I guess white man considered they had no natural right after all. Also, bowls do not exist in nature, they are man made objects - more evidence that ownership is not a natural right, but a man made one. Further, we have written laws concerning how to settle disputes of ownership - casting doubt on your statement that natural rights are unwritten. Also please note that slavery ended because ownership (a supposed natural right) of another human being came into dispute and ended through violent civil war.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Natural rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As far as "If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule", I just did tell you why I think direct democracy is not good. I'm offering a side to the discussion. I said that it is the wrong way to go and offered reasons why I believe that. You can disagree but tell me why you disagree, not that it is a murky concept. I've put what I think on the table. Now tell me qualifying reasons that you disagree, not "murky concepts like offending the universe." Come back to earth.

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

My disagreement is with declaring natural rights of more importance than civil rights. As you stated, the founders got together and decided on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights. If we get together later on and decide on other rights, they are just as natural (and important) as any other right. Unless, of course, you think 'natural' rights refers to some god given rights or rights declared by the universe.

So, my practical argument is this - rights are whatever men choose to agree upon. Therefore, all rights are civil rights derived from civil discourse - and not from any other source.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Civil rights are a creation of law, they do not exist outside of law and society. Without going through a legislative process, they do not exist. They are not inherent, inalienable rights, because they come from other men. They can be taken away by the same process by which they were granted. For if they cannot be revoked by those who granted them, then those who granted them did not have the authority to do so.

Natural rights are those rights that are ours simply by virtue of our existence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are three that were specifically named in the declaration of independence. These are rights that are inalienable and irrevocable by government, because government did not grant them, they were granted by a far greater authority than that of government.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

"Natural rights are those rights that are ours simply by virtue of our existence."

If I am guaranteed life by virtue of my existence, then it must be true that if I run across an angry bear in the woods, the bear will not attack me because I have by virtue of my existence a right to life. Yeah, sure. My existence is not guaranteed by any inherent rights. The premise is nonsense.

"they were granted by a far greater authority than that of government"

I noticed you did not name this greater authority. Why? Is it too mystical and murky to give it a name? Seriously, I want to know upon which 'greater authority', besides simply a product of the brains of our founding fathers, do you think was the source of these natural rights.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Yeah, the bear that is not human is usually picked up by the Forestry Dept and either put to sleep or taken to another forest. There is always a consequence for acting against someone's right. Life is a right. Liberty is a right. I also have a right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't infringe on another's right.

Many of us believe in a greater authority but even if you don't, are you saying that we don't have a right to live or be free?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

You didn't answer my question. Exactly what is the source of this greater authority beyond the brains of men?

I am dying to know. For I can not decide if the reasoning is sound and practical if I do not know how these natural rights are derived.

And, of course, I want to live in a society that grants me the rights to life and liberty. It seems a quite practical and sane idea to keep us from acting like barbarians.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

The founders came here originally to escape religious persecution so much of what they did was based on their belief in God. They called the higher authority in the Declaration of Independence their "Creator". If you don't believe in God or a "Creator", that's fine but that doesn't mean that every individual isn't still entitled to life and liberty. They also believed that these rights are self-evident.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I don't understand what you have a problem with. Of course we all have a right to life and freedom under our government's founding principles. That's what makes us a unique country. I fail to see what your argument is.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

So you are saying the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness were derived from God. Well, how wonderful. A) that is a belief that cannot be proven B) I guess you do not believe in keeping church and state separate.

I already stated my argument, but since you have a short memory, I'll copy and paste just for you.


"My disagreement is with declaring natural rights of more importance than civil rights. As you stated, the founders got together and decided on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights. If we get together later on and decide on other rights, they are just as natural (and important) as any other right. Unless, of course, you think 'natural' rights refers to some god given rights or rights declared by the universe.

So, my practical argument is this - rights are whatever men choose to agree upon. Therefore, all rights are civil rights derived from civil discourse - and not from any other source"


If you or anybody else wants to run around and believe in greater beings, go right ahead, it is a (supposedly) free country. But lets keep matters of human rights squarely in the hands of humans and leave the Gods out of it please.

edit: Is this an unreasonable request? Or does my request offend the Gods and the Universe.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Since the founders founded the new form of government after the revolutionary war was fought, I guess they can say whatever they believe natural rights were to them. By natural rights, they explain them to be rights endowed by the Creator meaning rights that can not be taken away by societal law or man-made law. Other rights that "you get together later on and decide on" are called civil rights and are voted on and passed into law such as the "Bill of Rights" which are civil rights.

In this case, the founders defined natural rights as rights given by the Creator. I realize you seem to have a problem with that but it seems to be what they believed. What matters is that those particular rights can never be denied through a new man-made law.

I'm just stating information from a historical document so if you want to argue your point, I would suggest you go argue with them. This has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It is only the words of people who stated what they believed at the time they wrote the document. I also don't think it matters whether you believe in the existence of God or not. The point is that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural inalienable rights that could never be taken away by man made laws derived from civil discourse.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

No, the point is your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be taken away from you. In fact, it is happening everyday with man made laws like NDAA, the Patriot Act, and the attempted SOPA, to name a few.

I fear your faith in the creator protected status of these rights is naive. ALL rights are based on man made compacts and are only preserved through the continued agreement of these man made compacts. What if you had the misfortune of being born in a dictatorship? Would the creator protect your inalienable rights from the laws of the land then?

Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are no more special or protected than the right to vote or a right to a minimum wage or any other right agreed upon. End of story.

Why is this distinction so important? Because it plays an enormous role in how we debate and decide human rights. Having the existence of natural rights greatly increases the difficulty of winning arguments for other rights, such as a woman's right to vote. After all, how can a mere man-made argument of what should be 'right' ever compete with those all mighty 'rights' given on the authority of God himself. Wow, that is some stiff competition. Truly, if we really cared about the rights of people, we would get God out of the equation in a hurry and level the playing field.

You can worship God on your own time, but not during debates about deciding rights for other human beings, which gets to the very core of government's role in society - to decide what rights govern us.

||| Separate state and church |||

If you don't see how religion is used by rulers to control a populace or have never thought of it this way, then I suggest reading up on some Machiavelli and his charming views on ruling for enlightenment.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

You are correct that our natural rights (rights we are born with - life and liberty) CAN be taken away when we don't pay attention to our government and we let that happen. But then it is not the country as founded anymore. Then it becomes an oppressed country led by either a dictator or a ruling class of tyrants. Never did I say that "the Creator protects these rights." What I said was that the founders described these rights as "endowed by the Creator". I understand that to mean that these were human rights by BIRTH and not by law. It has nothing to do with God. It was their description because of their belief of a right to liberty by birth and that's what is important and that's what makes us unique in the world.

When people in power decide that natural rights should be taken away, then we will lose our liberty and all other rights derived from liberty will be lost too. We then no longer have a free republic as defined by the founders but a statist government with limited liberty that can lead to tyranny and dictatorship. If that happens, there is no longer need for this discussion because it won't be the government anyone of my generation would recognize. That would mean that the founders' documents would have been thrown away making this discussion a sad but nostalgic reminder of what this country use to be like when every individual was BORN with the right to life and liberty that is unique to this country. Actually, we wouldn't be able to have this free speech discussion if not for liberty. Once liberty is gone, the rights derived from liberty (voting, speech, etc) would also disappear.

You said, "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are no more special or protected than the right to vote or a right to a minimum wage or any other right agreed upon. End of story. Why is this distinction so important? Because it plays an enormous role in how we debate and decide human rights. Having the existence of natural rights greatly increases the difficulty of winning arguments for other rights"

I will continue to disagree with you. I argue that other rights voted into law are derived from natural rights. The right to free speech is a defined particular right of liberty. The right to vote is also a particular right of liberty that had to be defined several times in our history. Throughout the centuries, certain rights had to be defined and even re-defined. These are civil rights.Civil rights are rights that are agreed upon and voted on by society but are all derived from our natural right to life and liberty that the founders said we are born with.

You said, "Truly, if we really cared about the rights of people, we would get God out of the equation in a hurry and level the playing field."

I don't think you get it yet. God has nothing to do with it. It was only how THEY described what they felt were our rights by birth. It doesn't matter how you believe we come into this world. What I'm saying is that the founders defined natural rights as rights that every individual is born with.

You said, "What if you had the misfortune of being born in a dictatorship?"

Then we wouldn't be having this discussion because I wouldn't have been born in a country where I have a natural right of freedom at birth. And I wouldn't have any other rights derived from the right of liberty such as telling you what I think on an open forum. I believe as the founders that every human is BORN with a right to life and liberty. However, when a generation of people decide to make a law to take liberty away, this is no longer the country the founder's envisioned. ALL rights go away if liberty itself goes away. All rights are fragile even natural rights and when liberty is gone we will be on the way to the dictatorship and tyranny you mention.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

what now?

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

"I don't think you get it yet. God has nothing to do with it. It was only how THEY described what they felt were our rights by birth. What I'm saying is that the founders defined natural rights as rights that every individual is born with."

I should think it is obvious that I don't get it. Why would I argue the point if I did get it? You make the case that we are born with "natural" rights because that is how the founding fathers FELT about it. I am pointing out the obvious thing here. You and I are lucky to have these rights EXACTLY because that is how they felt about it.

For them to be "natural" birthrights they would have to come about in some "natural" way - you say it is birth. If that were really the case, every individual birth across every inch of the earth and throughout time and history would produce this "natural" result. The FACT that we are lucky enough to be born with these rights and others are not is the proof there is no "natural" process at work here --- there is no mysterious higher power driving this process. The process of deciding rights is plainly a result of how a given people "FEEL & THINK". All rights are decided in exactly the same manner - people get together (peacefully or otherwise) and based on the sum of their thoughts and feelings decide the laws of the land. Nothing mysterious about that.

I appreciate your profound respect for the forefathers and for defending their FEELINGS. But with all due respect to you and them, I will continue to argue that there is no natural driving force behind rights. And I will be right based on a FACT and not on how I FEEL about it.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 1 year ago

Agreed, for the past 12 years I've been working on a new constitution for a direct democracy that's mathematically detailed, as follows:

We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:

The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans, plus $10,000 more credit every year thereafter) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.

This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).

Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?

For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ in combination with NextDoor.com; so help us help you, today!

The full spec, if you don't fully understand the above, is at: https://docs.google.com/a/strategicinternationalsystems.com/document/pub?id=1mKKLMTIyvRCLK2ppPj_GDjdieCvJnATaZaCmlajubWU

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

The founders didn’t have choice. They had to settle for a republic. The difference between a republic and a democracy is night and day. The difference between a republic and a democracy is slavery and freedom. And you choose to remain a slave. That’s how the 1% are able to enslave and control the 99%. They control your mind.

"You can't free the body until you free the mind" ~ Dan Thomas

Are you as afraid to think outside the box as you are to move outside that box that has become your prison? Your beloved republic and constitution has become your prison and you don’t even know it. I’ve run into your kind all over the net. You don’t respond to reason, common sense are even self-interest. The best I can do for your malaise is this. There will be a time when your whole world is turned upside down and then inside out. Only then will you be open to venture outside the box.

OsiXs is the only plan and solution that I’ve found in my 48 years of life. You know where to find it now. My job is done.

“I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” ~Harriet Tubman

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM OsiXs (Revolution 2.0 - The Smart Revolution)

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Anyone that likes this idea - Don't forget to VOTE !!

http://osixs.org/Vote.aspx

Why this online petition is so important???

When enough people learn that they have another choice other than democrats and republicans, they will choose it. No one chooses slavery when they know they have a choice. Doing nothing as we’ve done in the past is no longer an option. So spread the news and help us educate the people. You have a choice. We don’t have to live like this anymore.

This petition is the trigger for a real door to door and state to state grass roots petition for an orderly assembly process to Ratify DDT and EDT in all 50 states. It is similar to the assembly process that was used to bring this nation into existence. This will allow the people to bring about real fundamental changes in government (Government 2.0 ) that is truly for the people, by the people and of the people. Otherwise, we can continue to do nothing while we sit around and watch our nation crumble.

            Good Luck to us All…
[-] 2 points by votasaurus (62) 1 year ago

I think you should present some of these concepts in IRL meetings. Get some friends from Facebook or w/e to join you for coffee, pitch the idea, and see if they like it enough to ask a few of their friends to join for the next time.

I'm learning more and more that IRL activism is quite effective these days. You wouldn't think so, but the reason is that we have so many petitions and mailing lists and other web things that it is easy to just be lost in the crowd with your own website. Unless you get a Digg or Reddit link, or you end up being "Liked" by someone with 10,000 Facebook friends, or you have a viral hit video on YouTube, its REALLY hard to get anyone to just find your site.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Thanx for the tip V. I will. I didn't know what an IRL was until you brought it to my attention and searched it. Thank you.