Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: FreeDA Template

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 10, 2012, 1:58 p.m. EST by LeoYo (5797)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"If, then, control of the people over the organs of their government be the measure of their republicanism, and I confess I know no other measure, it must be agreed that our governments have much less of republicanism than ought to have been expected; in other words, that the people have less regular control over their agents, than their rights and their interests require."

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Taylor dated May 28, 1816.


Free Democracy Affidavit Template

I, ___, certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of ______ that the foregoing paragraphs are true and correct.

  1. To restrain the corruption that has possessed the United States government and to secure the blessings of liberty to the People of the United States, I am fully committed to the ratification of the ten amendments of the FreeDA Liberty Bill and I fully acknowledge that in order for the People to be free, politicians must be legally bound to serving the specific interests of the People rather than the general interests of the corporations. As such,

  2. I support that barring violation to the rights of others, the right of a free people to be secure in their individual decisions of personal safety, ingestion, expression, activity, association, and property, shall not be violated without due process of law.

  3. I support that the freedom from direct taxation being necessary for the right of a free people to be sovereign in the ownership of their labor and of their property, the imposition of direct taxation shall be prohibited at all levels of government allowing for only indirect taxation with tax deductions for non-patrons of social welfare services.

  4. I support that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

  5. I support that barring conviction for either treason or for voting fraud, the right of all mentally coherent adult citizens to vote at all levels of government shall be guaranteed, the violation of which shall be punishable with equivalence to an act of treason.

  6. I support that the right of a politically free and democratic people to engage in Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, to have all of their votes counted, and to be without the undemocratic imposition of an electoral college, shall be guaranteed at all levels of government.

  7. I support that the provision of Patriot Dollars to voters for the sole funding of political campaigns at all levels of government shall be enacted to keep political campaigns free from the undemocratic influences of monied interests that shall be prohibited from funding any political advertisements outside of political campaigns. In accordance with this, I shall only accept campaign contributions from voters and not from unions, corporations, or other organizations.

  8. I support that the offering or acceptance of any item or service of value including but not limited to the offering or acceptance of future employment involving a public official or candidate for public office of any branch or level of government shall be prohibited and punishable with equivalence to an act of treason. In accordance with this, I shall not accept any gifts from special interests upon holding public office.

  9. I support that all communication to take place between a lobbyist and a public official shall be public and open to the press, the violation of which shall be punishable with equivalence to an act of treason. In accordance with this, I shall make all communication between myself and lobbyists open to the press and public.

  10. I support that the separation of corporation and state being necessary for the independence of a democratic government in serving the needs of the people, no public service shall be under the management of a private sector entity and each State of the United States shall have a state bank collectively forming the Union Reserve Bank of the United States with a state appointed bank official from each State to compose the Union Board of Governors exercising all the responsibilities of the Open Market Committee. In accordance with this, I shall not maintain an account with a private bank but shall contribute the support of my personal finances to my local community through membership in a credit union.

  11. I support that any private business acquiring a national market share large enough to be a detriment to the national economy upon the business' failure shall undergo divestment into smaller units assessed to be economically secure for fallibility in the national economy.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/

33 Comments

33 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5797) 6 months ago

Campaign Financing: Can the US Follow Europe's Example?

Tuesday, 25 March 2014 10:23 By Josephine Simmons, Truthout | News Analysis

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22660-campaign-financing-can-the-us-follow-europes-example

In the 2012 Citizens United case, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban on corporate contributions in federal elections was unconstitutional - paving the way for super PACS, which have since made a mockery out of US presidential elections. As countries in Europe have consistently managed to find ways to regulate campaign financing, the US has moved further toward a system of big-dollar contributions.

The early announcement in January 2014 that Priorities USA Action, which helped boost President Obama to victory in the 2012 elections, would be backing Hillary Clinton in her potential 2016 presidential bid has kicked up a new fuss over the role of super PACS in American campaigns. The declaration marks the start of a big-bucks fundraising effort for Clinton and has again raised questions about the role and influence of the super rich and top corporations in US elections.

Most of this "super money" will be spent on radio and television ad campaigns either for Clinton herself or to rebuff Republican blows. Despite the lack of confirmation by Clinton of her decision to run in the next election, Priorities has already vowed to surpass the $67 million it spent on attack ads against Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign. This highlights the risk that future presidential elections will again be plagued with candidate-bashing rather than real political content.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama and Mitt Romney forked out the extravagant sums of $985.7 million and $992 million, respectively. On top of these already hefty sums, nonprofit groups and super PACS spent an additional $65 million on TV and radio ads, further encouraging a system in which candidates compete on the basis of media wars rather than on their roadmaps for change.

One example of how Europe has limited the influence of money in its elections is the case of France. Time Magazine described the US campaigns as "bottomless-pocketed, influence-peddling, ultimate fighting Goofuses" in comparison with the French equivalents, which were dubbed as "parsimonious" and "noble minded Gallants." That is not to say that French electoral campaigns are pictures of perfection, but they have found several ways to limit corrupt practices. While individual contributions to candidates have a plentiful limit of $5,980 in comparison to the modest $2,500 of their Yank counterparts, the French system contains no loopholes such as the super PACS, which accept unlimited contributions.

In addition, in France it is illegal for corporations, unions and other special interests to make contributions to candidates. The country focuses its political campaigns on debating actual policy alternatives, strictly prohibiting the purchase of broadcasting space for "political commercials."

Germany is another fine example of a system dedicated to cheaper and cleaner politics. All campaigns are primarily funded by the government, with only one-third of the cost being covered by corporate and individual donations. Parties are allocated a specific limit for television advertising and, unlike the rough public ridiculing of opponents that takes place in the US, there are no attack ads. Each party is allowed only one 90-second ad that will run for the entire election, starkly contrasting with the $400 million both Obama and Romney spent on television ads.

Hungary has also made strides in the right direction, choosing to follow the example of France in its electoral reform prior to its April 6 parliamentary elections.

Viktor Orban and his governing coalition have banned paid campaign ads in commercial media, and have allocated free and equal access to both public and private media networks to all eligible candidates. This presents each party with an equal opportunity to present their political values and ideas, implying that candidates should be judged on political merit rather than on the size of their wallet. Democracy should not come at a price and candidates and parties shouldn't have to dole out wads of cash in order to win voters.

In the US, the campaign system is pricy and favors those who can buy influence, not ideal for a country that considers itself the beacon of democratic values. Rather than rushing to instill democracy in far-flung places, US policymakers should first look under their noses and tackle the problems of corruption at home. They should look at their friends across the Atlantic and their tactics to reform campaign financing to ensure elections are a serious occasion, rather than a circus show.

Copyright, Truthout.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

You never responded to his question.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5797) 2 years ago

Really? Is that the way it was nationally before 1913? Is that the way it is in states without state income tax?

How it can be concluded that indirect taxes results in all becoming privatized is beyond me especially since direct taxation certainly isn't preventing it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5797) 2 years ago

Your posted conclusion was that a lack of direct taxation results in privatization. Thus, that's what an empirical study pertaining to this matter should naturally examine. Right?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No state tax in Florida and Tampa is a pretty nice place, clean.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

I've always found it fascinating how a person can recognize how monopolies and cartels are bad in the marketplace, but fail to draw the same conclusions in governance. I think it was George Orwell who talked about it taking a massive effort to see the thing directly in front of one's nose.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Certainly, anyone would prefer a highway without a toll booth, it's much more convenient, if you're just making a physical distinction. The question isn't one of convenience. Roads aren't a natural phenomenon, they have to come from somewhere. Your question presupposes a childish ignorance on the listener.

The question is, do you want to pay for the roads you use, or do you want to be forced to pay for all roads in the country, no matter how useful they are or where they go?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Your view is that people should be forced at gunpoint to do what you think they should do. Got it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

If anyone is looking for the destructive testament of schooling, I present the above logical fallacy as proof of the ability to absolutely crush the mind of a living person, while maintaining their ability to live.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

You believe that the force of government should be used on people who disagree with you. That they should be forced to live as you (and democrats?) see fit. Is it different if we separate the triggerman from the man giving orders? Ohhhh, that's right. Hitler was the bad guy, and all those Nazi soldiers were just innocent people doing what they were told. Grow up, man.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Nope, he didn't say that.

Here's what he said.

"my personal view is that as a nation we are much stronger when we work together.

The expense of road maintenance - for example - is much smaller when spread out over more people, and this indeed seems fair - in so much as everyone benefits from the consumer goods that are shipped over those highways . . .

Every single expense that is added at the beginning or in the middle of a commercial process ends up being doubled with every pair of hands it passes through - and hence, taxation is a much more economically viable means of paying for the road system over which consumer products are shipped than are toll systems.

I really can't imagine anyone attempting to argue smaller government on the basis of the highway system - or anything like it.

The benefits of a toll free highway are so obvious - the concept of privatization of every aspect of our lives so odious . . . .

so reprehensible

as if the entire public were no more than sheep to be shorn by the highest bidder . . .

the whole concept is simply revolting.

Perhaps that is, truly, what is needed."

What you said, he said, isn't there.

Not on any way shape or form.

You're just playing a game of presumptions.

Time to feed the fish?

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

You didn't answer the question. Do taxpayers have a choice that doesn't involve personal injury or death? That's called extortion.

"Governments may label individuals who can read a couple of thousand simple words they learned by sight in the first four grades in school as literate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States Would you qualify?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Change the subject much???

I was responding to your false accusation.

Did those silly fish in your brain "force" you to put together yet another lame insult?

Make 'em nasty enough, and the mods will notice.....................:)

Then you can come back with another moniker and bitch endlessly about censorship.

Now wouldn't that be nice?

You do like to bitch, after all.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

"when we work together" implies that people have a choice. Do taxpayers have a choice? Or are they required to pay taxes at the point of a gun?

If you think money should be taken from people to pay for your social programs, you advocate violence against your peaceful neighbor who disagrees with you. Everyone understands this, both democrats and republicans. Government creates slave masters and slaves--those who make the laws and those who get abused by them. This is why democrats, including you, are so scared of republicans. You fear the republicans making laws that you will have to obey, under the penalty of injury or death. If the republicans you feared wanted to make laws that only destroyed them, and not you, you wouldn't have a problem with it. But they will use the force of government (injury or death) against you to force you to obey. So both sides are trying to gain control of the seat of violence and use it against those who disagree with them (the other party, and anyone else).

This is a fact, which is shown in every day life through involuntary taxation. If you cannot understand this, then you're just a psychopath. You might not be the one holding the gun in your neighbors face, but you want government IRS agents to do it so they can get the money to pay for the roads you want to use. If you believe in using government against peaceful people, you're a psychopath; plain and simple. Or mentally handicapped, and unable to observe simple transactions in every day life and put together a few logical deductions. Take your pick?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Implication????

You're basing what on implication??

Stop typing already. There's no point.

So you don't get that whole "work together" thing.

Don't take this personal, but that's a personal deficit.

Too bad for you. You waste a lot of words, working around it.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

"Is it a logical fallacy?"

Nope. You stated an opinion. He was just makin' stuff up again.

Wait for it, and you will hear the term ad hominum, before too long.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's the fish swimming around in his brain.

Have mercy on him.

He's an anachronism, in waiting.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5797) 2 years ago

How so?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5797) 2 years ago

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

-Frederick Douglass

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-529334

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5797) 2 years ago

"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power."

-George Washington

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-537358

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5797) 2 years ago

"A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it."

-Etienne de la Boetie (The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude) http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-541073

"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."

-Etienne de la Boetie (The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude) http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-546667

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5797) 2 years ago

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."

-George Bernard Shaw

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5797) 2 years ago

Americans love the rhetoric of freedom but detest the responsibility of it. This is an ongoing reality that must always be dealt with. Deny this reality and you will accomplish nothing.