Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What Specific Policies Should We Support?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 11, 2012, 4:23 p.m. EST by ImaDreamer (82)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If you have been wondering what specific policies we should support, you might want to check out www.thedreamers.org. The site is built around a new book called Changing the World: Policy Suggestions for the Ninety-Nine Percent which can be downloaded free.

I'm interested in where people might agree or disagree with those ideas.

Here is a list of items from their home page:

A single, worldwide government would end wars between nations and the threat of nuclear war.

The problem isn't big government, it is corruption and inefficiency in government. An Informed Democracy would provide a means of controlling these problems, without the problem of mob rule, by placing immediate power in the hands of the people.

10% of the U.S. population owns almost 90% of the wealth. If they could get by with only 80% it would DOUBLE the standard of living for 90% of the population. An "Exchange Tax" at the same rate for everyone, with no loopholes and no other taxes, could make this happen.

Government competition with private enterprise in areas of basic necessity would reduce prices and provide guaranteed employment for everyone. This would end unemployment, welfare and homelessness, while everyone would still be free to make as much money as they want.

Huge reductions in military spending could finance projects that benefit the people directly. We could have free health care and free education -- and all digital media, including music, movies and software, would be available free, which would solve the digital pirating problem.

The construction of one-building cities housing 100,000 people or more could cut the cost of living in half for those fortunate enough to live there.

Worldwide enforcement of environmental regulations would prevent pollution and eventually stop the climate change problem, deforestation and depletion of fish stocks.

Replacing the Federal Reserve and the practice of fractional lending with a government bank would end inflation, stabilize the economy and provide low interest small business loans to the masses.

Legalizing freedom of choice in the pursuit of happiness (the freedom to do anything which doesn't harm others) would cut crime and prison populations in half.

And there is much more that can be done.

49 Comments

49 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I'm sorry if some find this insulting-
BUT if we want to get something done, ANYTHING DONE
THERE IS ONLY ONE FIRST STEP get rid of citizens united & buckly
many of the things that we want to do will not happen with the MONEY that can be used against us.
some of the things that we want to do CANNOT constitutionally happen before that first step
public financing, for example, cannot constitutionally shut out private financing without this first step
START AT THE BEGINNING
it is the only way to get to your destination

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

The Dreamers propose eliminating all paid political advertising. If that happens it would overturn the Citizens United case that resulted in the superPACs. Campaigns would happen online and via dedicated public access stations, where every candidate would have the same level of exposure regardless of financial resources. Big money would still have some influence in that they could finance big rallies, hire people to make phone calls and produce flashy ads for the public access channel, but if they can't buy media advertising, a little guy with a good message would be able to compete almost as well.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

We need to do what 83% of Americans say they want-


Virtually everything we want hinges on disarming our opponent –
……………………………………………………..GREED
by stopping the flood of bribes into our government.
This is the first REAL step to
REAL change .

government OF the people BY the people FOR the people

JOIN US >
Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )

http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG

join us even if you are not in the NY area
check out our comprehensive analysis of
the 17 existing proposed amendments
and our detailed historical timeline of corporate personhood


We can continue,

as a movement of demands
as a movement of declarations
as a movement of marches

OR


Are you ready
.....................FOR ACTION ?
Are you ready
.....................TO DO SOMETHING REAL ?
Are you ready
......................TO JOIN 83% OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ?


We must not
DEMAND that we WANT THEM.to give to US
We must
DEMAND GOALS THAT WE WILL ACHIEVE FOR OURSELVES


Because of the Supreme Court's decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant, without FIRST -

Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!


83% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll

.........................................

In the the PFAW Poll -

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today.
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount corporations can spend on elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.


PLEASE COMMENT ON: MY "IDEAL - COMPREHENSIVE" AMENDMENT

Section 1 {A corporation is not a person and can be regulated}
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons { human beings } only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 { Money is not speech }
Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, and may restrict all financing to “public financing” for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. As above, all foreign contributions are forbidden.

Section 3 { Transparency & Disclosure }
Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed less than 60 days after the transaction and before the election.

Section 4 { Voter Suppression }
Federal, State and local government shall not require any new forms of id for voting, beyond what was needed to register for previously registered voters. College photo-id ( including for out-of-state students ) must be acceptable. Federal, State and local government shall permit early voting for at least the 6 days before the election day.

Section 5 { Election Day & Registration }
Federal, State and local government may make election day a holiday. Federal, State and local government must allow simultaneous registration and voting on election day.

Section 6 { Eliminate the Electoral College – one man one vote } The electoral college is abolished and the President and Vice-President will be elected by popular vote. .

Section 7 { Eliminate the Filibuster } Unless specified in the Constitution , all voting in the House and Senate shall be based on a simple majority.

Section 8 Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press .

{NOTE: sections 4, 5, 6, 7 are not required to overturn CU – just my wish list }
COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE ARE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


Our primary goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success - WHY CAN'T WE ??????????


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


1
83% of Americans ( and 76% of the Rs ) have already opposed CU in
the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
This Amendment { sections 1+2 }is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process. 4
OWS and the FORUM pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state our demands! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP, the TP, the anti-SOPA – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power and political pressure to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one task that the MAJORITY want.

There are at least seventeen different Constitutional Amendments in the works.
Help us support these moves to get the money out of our political system.


Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
Plan details http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium


░░░░█░.░███░░.███░░█░..░█░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█.█░.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░.█.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░░░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░██░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
█░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░█░.░█░░
..███░░ ░███░..░███.░.█░░░█░░░░.████░.░███░░░


[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

OMG dude. Simplify things so people can understand them quickly and easily. Simply prohibit all paid political advertising in mass media and provide public access outlets for political discussion and campaigns. And yes, the Citizens United decision needs to be overturned. If we keep things simple people will know what they need to support.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Yeah- I know I'm verbose
but the facts are not so simple
"Simply prohibit all paid political advertising in mass media and provide public access outlets for political discussion and campaigns"
is legally impossible without those sections 1 & 2 in a constitutional amendment.
here's a BRIEF example:


On March 10, 1971,
……the Senate voted 94–0 in favor of proposing a Constitutional Amendment
……to set the minimum voting age at 18.
On March 23, 1971,
……the House of Representatives voted 401–19 in favor of the proposed amendment.
On July 5, 1971,
……the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures & became the
……Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America


LESS THAN FOUR MONTHS

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

Yes, we'll need a lot of constitutional amendments to fix all the problems with government. The fact that amendments are generally difficult to make happen is also a benefit in a way, in that corrupt politicians can't simply pass new laws to change things back to being unfair without yet another amendment. The voting age thing is a rare example of amendments being passed quickly, but if we are organized well enough we might get a whole pile of new amendments passed quickly and provide everyone with health care, free education and guaranteed employment, end the war on drugs, get rid of the Federal Reserve and the practice of fractional lending, etc. The Dreamers have a "platform" which proposes such things, but maybe what they need to do is devise a list of constitutional amendments. That would provide a specific list of yes or no decisions that could be put to the people.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

But the people never vote on amendments.
The first step MUST BE overturn CU & Buckley v Valeo
That will cripple the crapitalist greed masters

government OF the people BY the people FOR the people

Join the NYC OWS
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

Your earlier comment about constitutional amendments inspired The Dreamers to propose even more of them.

There are now 6 proposed constitutional amendments posted at www.thedreamers.org which would solve the most significant problems in the US. These amendments would overturn Citizens United, end the war on drugs, solve our debt problem, create a more reasonable distribution of wealth, end unemployment and homelessness, and much more.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

here are some

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-do-have-some-specific-suggestions-that-i-feel-wo/

I think a lot of these are very long term, in general how we move our economy from one of protecting wealth and it's power based on interest payments, to one where capital is put to work creating products for people to make their lives better.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

A list of 6 proposed constitutional amendments have just been posted at www.thedreamers.org and if they could be introduced soon it could radically change things for the better by the end of the year. These amendments would end the war on drugs, overturn the Citizens United decision, fix our deficit problem, begin to reduce income inequality and more.

There is no way congress will introduce such amendments without tremendous public pressure to do so, but with better weather coming I think masses of people would be willing to demonstrate and create that pressure. They just need to know these solutions exist.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Absolutely, where and when we can, we must make ourselves seen.

There are many theories about small changes affecting large systems. One place we see this is in the sound bite/bumper sticker statements, by planting little thoughts people move to certain positions, this has been studied for many years, at great expense. I hope that we can develop a counter to that bought and paid for mindset. So I work mostly on small things, and hope that if faced with some simple statement, we will always have a simple answer too. No doubt the more detailed work must be done and supported.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

Yes, making things short and simple has always made the most sense to me. If you can reduce complex ideas to short statements people are better able to remember them. For example, "Prohibit all paid political advertising" works much better than trying to get support for a law which limits political advertising in different ways for different groups. Both support the same basic intention, but one is completely clear and people understand what it means without complex explanations. A statement like, "Greed is a crime against humanity," can appear on a bumper sticker and cause people to seriously consider their views on unregulated capitalism, stimulating much more thought than what is expressed in a few simple words. Short statements, seen often, can literally change the world.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I might be wrong, but I don't believe they allow political advertising in Germany. I have always thought that was a good idea. I have a few examples on my bio if you would care to check it out. Thought that was les pushy than cut and paste here.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

Your profile hits the nail on the head in how it describes how fine details can be derived from fundamental principles. Discovering those fundamental principles regarding the most effective structure of society works just as well as it does in science.

As with science, the most fundamental principle of social structure must be reason. Reason tells us that because social structure affects all of us another fundamental principle must be fairness. Reason also acknowledges that human nature is such that happiness can not be achieved without individuals having as much freedom as possible, and that freedom ends only when someone's behavior harms others -- when it becomes unfair. The other fundamental principle is opportunity, because reason tells us it is unfair if people are prevented from having the opportunity to achieve whatever they are willing to work toward achieving in life.

Those four fundamental principles can guide us toward creating specific social policies in the same way that science is lead to discover specific methods of producing desired results. If something isn't working well one simply uses reason to discover the problem and fix it. Reason trumps emotion and ideology.

We should not consider ourselves liberals or conservatives, but rational people seeking the most effective means of structuring society for the benefit of all. I think the policies presented at www.thedreamers.org are worth serious consideration.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Libertarian Socialism is the society we should strive for.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

(but this striving for the best should of course be combined with fighting for short term goals: reform, social democratic ideas, taxing the rich etc etc)

[-] 1 points by votersway (15) 2 years ago
  1. Balanced Trade, automatic tariffs proportional to the trade deficit with the respective country. No deficit - NO TARIFFS.
  2. $100 dollar per person cap on political contributions, 0 for corporations and other organizations.
  3. After 10% of GDP budget deficit, the salaries of Congress and Administration go towards paying until that limit is satisfied.
  4. Reinstate Glass-Steagall and the rest of the New Neal, including progressive taxation.
  5. Close the loopholes on offshore profits taxation.

votersway.com

[-] 2 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

It appears you didn't look at the web site, which suggests that all paid political advertising be prohibited, everyone pays the same tax rate with no loopholes, and one world government eliminates the needs for tariffs.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Tariffs are intended to be a balancing act for unequal production cost. One world gov doe not fix this. We don't even have equal cost of production inside our own borders. Secondly, not even those pushing for globalization, like myself, have any interest in removing sovereignty or borders. Serious solutions can only come from informed persons.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

You wouldn't be making these comments if you had read the material. There would be no difference in the cost of production if wages and benefits were the same everywhere. And fairness can not exist when different countries have different laws. True right and wrong do not change when one steps over an invisible line drawn on a map. When the power is placed in the hands of the people directly, they choose the form of government they live within, and can change the laws any time they choose to. Separate governments only create injustice.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

There would be no difference in the cost of production if wages and benefits were the same everywhere.

that isn't even true of any country or region, what makes you think one world gov would change that? If you want to have this debate, you must stop with talking points and get to the core.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

It may be true that wages and benefits are not the same even within countries or regions, but what I am saying is that situation needs to change. If it costs the same to build a product in every country there is no benefit in shipping jobs overseas. Jobs would be created where the labor force and resources exist.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

That is the goal of globalization, but one world gov is not needed nor would it further those ends. It would probably prevent it.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

Corruption in Grease is what caused their financial collapse and could still take down the world economy. One world government with fiscal policy the same everywhere would prevent rogue countries from threatening the economic survival of the rest of the world. This is particularly true when an Informed (direct) Democracy puts immediate power in the hands of the people, where corrupt officials can be removed from office at any time.

As long as their are different systems of government operating in different places the people will never have the power to stop governments when they step out of line. A single world government with the correct structure could end nearly every socioeconomic problem facing humanity today. Do you really think it is better to allow tyrants to rule in places like Syria and North Korea and Iran than to have a government controlled directly by the people?

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I noticed that the second paragraph at thedreamers.org called for a one world Gov to end war.

Right now we are enjoying the lowest rate in war and war casualties in modern history. All that with more than 200 independent nations. Is the answer maybe that we should have more nations instead of fewer?

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to check out the site.

Wars happen when people separate into groups which fight each other. One world government would eliminate nations and thus wars between nations - It's unlikely that California will go to war with Oregon because they are part of the same larger government. If Syria were part of single world government now the conflict there would have been stopped the moment it became violent, and I don't think the people being killed there every day would be the least bit consoled by the idea that fewer people are dying in wars now than usual.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But war and war casualties have never been lower and we have more countries than ever. Why?

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

First, I don't know if there really is less war now, but if that is true one possible explanation may be that it is due to globalization. Countries are more dependent on each other for commerce now and have more to lose from going to war with trading partners. There is also much more communication between individuals in different countries. The hot spots are often countries where media is controlled by governments convincing populations other countries are enemies, or where the public doesn't have access to free speech and the internet. As more people see themselves as part of a global society rather than supporting nationalism war becomes something fewer people will support.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I believe that you are exactly right. Globalization, rapid communication (the internet and cell phones), and the ubiquity of innovation all help to reduce the effects and likelihood of conflict. It’s hard to hate your fellow man living on the other side of the world when you tweet them all day long.

A large number of small governments however do a better job than a large central Gov in serving local communities because they better understand their needs, are more accountable to locals, and are not overly influenced by a large impersonal bureaucracy.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

The Dreamers propose a world government with divisions into smaller and smaller local institutions which are part of the whole, and the system of Informed Democracy enables every person in a community to vote on issues affecting only that community, as well as directing operations of the entire government. If any governmental decision affects someone, that person has a say in what happens.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The Occupy and Arab Spring movements reflect a worldwide frustration with how 1% of the population controls everything for their own benefit at the expense of the 99%. Countless millions of us are finally ready to take action, but we first need to agree on which policies to support. The info on this site suggests how we might bring reason, fairness, freedom and opportunity to all the people of the Earth.

A single, worldwide government would end wars between nations and the threat of nuclear war.

The problem isn't big government, it is corruption and inefficiency in government. An Informed Democracy would provide a means of controlling these problems, without the problem of mob rule, by placing immediate power in the hands of the people.

10% of the U.S. population owns more than 90% of the wealth. If they could get by with only 80% it would DOUBLE the standard of living for 90% of the population. An "Exchange Tax" at the same rate for everyone, with no loopholes and no other taxes, could make this happen.

Government competition with private enterprise in areas of basic necessity would reduce prices and provide guaranteed employment for everyone. This would end unemployment, welfare and homelessness, while everyone would still be free to make as much money as they want.

Huge reductions in military spending could finance projects that benefit the people directly. We could have free health care and free education -- and all digital media, including music, movies and software, would be available free, which would solve the digital pirating problem.

The construction of one-building cities housing 100,000 people or more could cut the cost of living in half for those fortunate enough to live there.

Worldwide enforcement of environmental regulations would prevent pollution and eventually stop the climate change problem, deforestation and depletion of fish stocks.

Replacing the Federal Reserve and the practice of fractional lending with a government bank would end inflation, stabilize the economy and provide low interest small business loans to the masses.

Legalizing freedom of choice in the pursuit of happiness (the freedom to do anything which doesn't harm others) would cut crime and prison populations in half.

And there is much more that can be done.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

The info above was copied from thedreamers.org website. I should have thought to do that from the beginning, so thanks for posting it here :)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

you can edit it into the top post still

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

First of all, stop with this 99% bullshit. So long as you continue to separate people into different political groups, there will be continued inequality of rights, which are the only things which are equivalent amongst all human beings.

Second of all, regarding the idea that one world government would end war, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Right now, in THIS COUNTRY, the United States is waging war against the entire population. What makes you think that an even larger state would NOT do the same thing? The current class of abusive governments, which consider themselves to be the source of rights (God), NEED us to be their milking cows. What would a one-world-government (NWO) change about that? Lazy fucks would still use force against those who have enough scruples to work for what they have.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

Your comment that the government is waging war against the population refers to how 1% controls things while 99% are slaves. That separation exists, it is not a made up division. And most of Europe was continually at war with each other through most of history. The formation of the EU pretty much ensures that those countries will not go to war with each other now, which is what a single world government would do for the entire world.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

"Your comment that the government is waging war against the population refers to how 1% controls things while 99% are slaves. That separation exists,"

followed by: "The formation of the EU pretty much ensures that those countries will not go to war with each other now, which is what a single world government would do for the entire world."

REALLY?

Are you suggesting that the European Union is free from the 1% vs. 99% dichotomy?

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

No. I was only pointing out that when separate states become unified they no longer fight wars among each other. The EU has somewhat less economic inequality than the US, but it is still a problem there.

There are two main things that can solve most of the socioeconomic problems in the world. One is a single government so laws are the same everywhere. The other is a system of direct democracy where the people can change those laws and remove corrupt officials at any time.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

I disagree with the idea that "democracy will solve everything" and with the idea of "economic inequality" as the root of all social problems. I think that the real inequality problem is the inequality of the recognition of rights. When government is recognized as having more rights than the people who are governed, there is no such thing as government by the consent of the governed. If people and their rights are not the source of the power of government, then that government can act as an oppressor against which the people have no legal recourse. If people are given the democratic ability to violate the rights of the others, then the majority becomes the oppressor. The fact that some people have more money than others should, in a just society, reflect the fact that they are more adept at creating wealth. In our society, and other societies of the world, it reflects the ties that those people have to government. It is the inequality in rights recognized by governments that allows this to occur.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

I think I understand the point you are making, but when you refer to government you are referring to existing governments, which do indeed take rights away from the people. The Dreamers describe a form of government where the people have the power to change any law or remove any person from office at any time. If any corruption or injustice occurs the people step in and correct the problem. The Dreamers propose a voting system which operates continuously, with votes cast once a month to change policies or remove officials. In this Informed Democracy voters must correctly answer multiple choice questions in order to demonstrate knowledge of what they are voting on, and can change their answers till they get them right. The object being to prevent mob rule by making people think before they act.

In a system like that the rights of the people are guaranteed by the people themselves. There would also be a constitution based upon reason, fairness, freedom and opportunity. It is not fair or reasonable to violate the rights of others. Your concerns are based upon concepts of government where officials have the power, but that would not be the case if we had the sort of government described by The Dreamers.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

"In this Informed Democracy voters must correctly answer multiple choice questions in order to demonstrate knowledge of what they are voting on, and can change their answers till they get them right." That sounds too much like a controlling power deciding what the right answers are and casting aside any votes which answer incorrectly.

It is my opinion that rights must be protected by constitutional law. There must be a constitution, limiting the powers of government, recognizing that the source of rights is higher even than the constitution, and that there could be no lawful constitution without the rights of the people which that constitution is created in order to protect. Despite all of the contradictions in the Constitution for the United States, it does accomplish that, when viewed as a whole document. The SCOTUS rarely views it as a whole document and I've never seen the argument I make raised in a supreme court case. I, like the founding fathers, believe that democracy should only apply to a limited range of issues, and should never even approach establishing which rights exist and are to be protected. Rights must be protected by the document which authorizes government to act in accordance with the rights of each and every individual, NEVER violating them for any reason, even if that reason is "the public good". For there can be no public good when the rights of that public are stripped and violated to achieve it.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago
  1. Force people to work rather than depend on mother government. According to the recent unemployment reports issues by Obama, the economy is turned around and the unemployment rate is great. Jobs for everyone.
[-] 2 points by votersway (15) 2 years ago

Are you serious? The labor force participation rate FELL, it's the lowest in about 30 years. That means the unemployed are simply not counted as such - statistical manipulation. The LFPR is the measure to watch - it's right there in the report, but the media doesn't mention it, the other statistics are easily doctored and they are. This is VERY WELL know in the financial community.

votersway.com

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

NO,,,,,, wrong,,,,,, I just watched obama's chief of staff on the Sunday morning news shows saying the economy was much better and unemployment was in much better shape. From the horses mouth. There are lots of jobs available for those whining about jobs. No matter that the way they count the unemployment figures to make it look like his economic policy is working,,,, I just BELIEVE he is telling us the truth. (not)

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

The Dreamers aren't saying anyone should be forced to work. They suggest that everyone should be provided with the opportunity to work, and no one should be handed a free ride. That is a long way from being forced labor.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

What ever it takes to make sure EVERYONE contributes to America by paying something in income taxes. It is income taxes that runs this country and if you receive something from our government then you should at least contribute to society.

[-] 1 points by votersway (15) 2 years ago

If we are going to use force, why not force the countries with large trade imbalances to pay tariffs - that's a lot more logical and a lot better. Are you saying that the present day corrupt unbalanced trade is some sort of sacred cow? One that justifies returning slavery as a sacrifice?

[-] -1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Taking from those who have and giving it to those who do not, just as you have been.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

From your user name here it appears that your cryptic comment relates to your having a libertarian perspective on things, so I would like to point out some flaws in that line of thinking.

The Libertarian ideal is to have very limited government which basically only provides police and military protection. Everything else is left to free enterprise and open markets without regulation. This means an individual or company would own the roads you use to get to work, the water you need to survive, etc., and they would be free to charge the highest price they could for these essential services. In other words, you could be charged every dime you make for a glass of water, and be prevented from buying water from a competitor because the guy who owns the road in front of your house also wants every dime you make to use the road.

The idea that competition in free markets results in lower prices falls apart when the demand is constant and the supply is controlled. Deregulation of the financial industry is why the world economy collapsed.

What we need is a system which maximizes personal liberty while at the same time treating everyone with fairness and opportunity. Taxing everyone the same percentage of income, with no loopholes for "costs associated with doing business," would take equally from everyone and provide everyone with the same benefits. We could eliminate homelessness and starvation, unemployment and welfare, lack of medical care and most other socioeconomic problems simply by making the system of taxation the same for everyone.

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Taxing everyone the same percentage of income, with no loopholes for "costs associated with doing business," would take equally from everyone and provide everyone with the same benefits. We could eliminate homelessness and starvation, unemployment and welfare, lack of medical care and most other socioeconomic problems simply by making the system of taxation the same for everyone.

I can absolutlely agree to THAT. The problem I have is when they start taking MORE from those who have more. To a degree I can accept even that, but 50% of Americans don't pay any Federal Income Tax yet continue to complain.