| View Blog
|
| Proposals to Save America
|
|
|
When it comes with party politics I keep finding myself at a crossroads on philosophy, ethics, policy, and the place of government in the lives of the american people.
The republican party used to stand for limited government. Now the party is ran by those that bully the party around through illegitimate means (yes I'm talking about some possibly all of the McCain supporters who despite media propaganda are a minority in the GOP). Reagan ran on the principal that people were individuals who should be given the power to make their own moral decisions. Once elected however he betrayed this standard by engaging in a series of secret wars which would only heighten the national debt, and end up in the long run hurting the country. This than set the standard for the neoconservative who while proclaiming to believe that individual people should have power over their own economies and lives would go behind the peoples backs and abide by an interventionalist policy which was not only manipulative, but was also firmly opposed by founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison. Once in war, the oppurtunity for corruption became to great for these politicians to fight off. Whether this was by malicious intent or mere human nature I leave you the reader to decide. Either way those that promised us smaller government have made it bigger, and while there is a movement within the GOP to set the party back on track it is being not only ignored, but mistreated by some very dirty tactics, including but not limited to; breaking of party set rules, censoring, and media manipulation.
On the other hand you have the democratic party, whose standard was the belief that government should urge the people to help others. In one sense I see this as a very good idea, but than it has ended up being subverted into government forcing people to help others, and not necessarily in ways that are ethically solid. For example, both major democratic candidates that are asking for the national healthcare program also have a 100% voting record in favor of abortion. It should be noted that I am not trying to make a debate on abortion, what I am saying is that if somebody by reason of a personal creed or religion has decided this is wrong, tax dollars from that person should not go to pay for these procedures. The sad truth however is that in all likelyhood the money would. The other question of this is, whose money is it? If the money belongs to the government no matter how hard we work, than what good is it? The reliability of a currency is dependent upon a number of factors one of which is that once you have worked for money it is your property, thus allowing you to purchase other properties, such as food or shelter.
Both parties, have a monopoly on coverage by the major media. Both parties, are supported by lobbyists. Both parties play dirty, and do things that are highly questionable in ethics.
So the big questions for both major parties is how should we handle money, the place of government, war, business and taxes? I'm going to put some ideas that few in either major party have addressed. I really don't see how I could support either major party, at least not as they are. So rather than just harp on about how both parties are broken right now, I wish to offer some solutions that independent parties have reccomended or that I have come up with through independent research. Below are some of my reccomended prescriptions for these important issues.
As for how to handle money and taxes, I reccomend we make our money accountable to the american people, by;
1) Giving our currency a solid backing. The constitution says gold or silver, but I say even a pound of lentils would be effective so long as it was always 100% guaranteed that the currency could be traded at any time for a pound of lentils. Thus insuring a guaranteed that any family would be able to feed itself.
2) Illegalizing fractional reserve banking which is responsible for 90% of all inflation. Don't worry banks, if we are printing our own currency we can fill the difference between the real money and electric money with a solid backing, and then you would loan strictly from the solid backed currency rather than the sole flick of a pen or push of a button. Thus by protecting your customers currency you protect how valid your loans actually are.
3) By giving congress back the authority to print a new american currency rather than borrowing our currency from a private company (the federal reserve) at interest. The reasoning being that this federal loan can only be paid back with the american currency, and the currency itself is loaned at interest, leaving a debt that is impossible to pay. It should be noted here that another word for self-perpetuating debt is slavery. People in favor of this idea include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Johnson (the only president in U.S. history to actually eliminate the National Debt completely), and more recently by Dr. Ron Paul who also wants a solid backed currency.
I reccomend we make our taxes accountable to the american people by;
1) Only taxing with apportioned taxes. This would mean that the federal income tax would be illegal except for when there was an increase of profit between one year to the next and than only by a limited percentage of that difference. This would reduce taxes on not only big business but on people from all walks of life.
2) By only enforcing taxes that people can be shown in a printed law that has been ratified before the date of conviction, search, and/or arrest of an individual said not to be following such laws. This must include Supreme Court Rulings on the matter if they apply, which in the case of an unapportioned tax, they do.
3) The american people should be able to choose where their taxes go to directly, in such a case if someone genuinely wants to support one bill but not another they should have the right to choose where their hard earned money goes. Better still, would be the abolishment of any such laws coupled with an empowering of the people to support the things they want directly through fund-raisers, activism, and donations.
On the role of government and its conflict with ethics I propose that;
1) Forcing legislation that requires people to support by finances or otherwise a moral creed which they as a person do not support, is every bit as bad as a government which rules strictly by religion. Where although such a religious government ends up being favorable for those that adamantly believe in such creeds it becomes tyrrany for those who don't. Coerced ethics are ironically immoral.
2) The role of government as defined by the Declaration of independence is responsible for protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by any creed that individuals choose so long as it does not directly harm others. This also indicates that the government has no place to convict people for doing something that only harms themselves including drugs and consented-sex. It should be noted here that this would not legalize abuse of prostitutes, nor would it necessarily sanction drugs or prostitutes as ethical in all eyes, but more a choice to be made by the individual either by personal creed or religion. I do not use drugs, and as a personal standard I would not go to a prostitute. I only suggest that when someone chooses that as a path in life, it is not my place, nor is it anyone elses place to force them to live by our rules.
3) As for ethics, government officials should appeal to the masses to help others, and definitely should empower the people to do so. All funding for such projects however must come solely from those that support these things.
4) No government official should have the authority to hold the law over you if they themselves are violating the law. If they want to break the law, it would be better to legally change the law, in which case, their would be no violation.
As for war;
1) If congress has not approved of a war, it is not legal to go to war. That is what our law says. Couple that with what is going on and President Bush should have been impeached a long time ago.
2) Military should not be a seperate entity from the people. According to the second ammendment the government is responsible for training and regulating a militia. This is so that people do not have to fight for something they don't believe in. They are not property of the government. This also serves as a check and balance so that the american people will not be abused by government officials, nor by a seperate military force. (Strategically speaking militias are superior to militaries in the sense that they are much much larger, and much easier to not only hide, but also initialize) This would also be the only way to legitimately defend against the threat of the political technique we call terror.
As for business;
1)[ Any company that profits from slave labor, or outsources the american economy into the control of another country should be considered as a perpetrator of treason, and thus subject to federal law.] I would like to retract the statement in parenthesese. If the information was public to the american people, than the free-market would deal with these. I believe that a third-party would be best for exposing such fraud.
2) America cannot be independent nor sovereign as a nation if it is dependent on other countries, we must rely on our own resources, and american business should support primarily the american economy.
Perhaps I have misunderstood american politics, so if someone can explain it to me, I would welcom it. (no name calling though, and that goes for me too; call me out on it if you see it as that is not something I mean to do) In any case, I hope you the reader will consider these ideas, or maybe even come up with some of your own. I'd be very open to hearing some objections questions or even new ideas.
|
|
Posted by seeker_of_truth on 2008-05-01 16:37:02 | Rating: | Views: 114
|
| |
|
|
