Are eroding values compromising our freedom AND our economy?

Money is an inanimate object. It can't interfere with our basic rights and our freedom.

 

I believe in our Second Amendment rights, also, but I believe in regulation to the point where felons convicted of violent offenses should not be permitted access to firearms, even if they are inanimate objects.

 

With the FED printing money and robbing our wealth, we're doomed.

 

To acknowledge that our lives are controlled by fate is to deny purpose to our own existence.

Our subjugation by the powers that be may not be due to voluntary submission, but all citizens collectively share the blame for our mutual dissatisfaction. We, as individuals, are at the bottom of the chain of command, but we, as a united populace, are at the top of the chain of command. Therefore, the effectiveness of our government is dependent on the extent of our unity. The Fed, the government, and even the corporate sector and the media would bend to the will of a united public.

We can keep arguing ideologies forever and keep accepting what is forced upon us, or we can negotiate a universally acceptable compromise and take back OUR country TOGETHER. A revival of formerly common values will facilitate this process by allowing us to reach beyond our own selfish interests.

 

How does this tie into your initial statement that you don't want money to interfere with our basic rights and freedoms? How could money, an inanimate object, interfere with our rights and freedoms?

 

Messages on this thread and forum give plenty of understanding of why the country's economy is collapsing. Every possible excuse and blaming others is the new American way of life. It never crosses anyone's mind that government regulations obliterated American industry and in a majority of states it pays better to not work than to work. And then there is the steady flow of cheap unskilled labor the do-gooders want to come here so the diminishing number of working people can pay for them too.

The new American way is to find anyone else to blame for your own failures and then demand the government do something for you as payout for your skillful self pity raging - and vote. "You owe me because I'm a victim of them" is the new American slogan for 100,000,000 Americans.

Essentially no original American values exist and rather there is the diametric opposite.

 

I assumed that was obvious. Instances are innumerable in which money imparts to the possessor the enhanced ability to harm, persecute or exploit others, and government has a responsibility to prevent this abuse. Likewise, guns facilitate murder and other violent crimes. Why do we not want Iran to possess a nuclear weapon?

Would it help to clarify this statement further if I said I don't want money TO BE USED BY OTHERS TO ENABLE THEM to interfere with our basic rights and freedoms? Neither guns nor money possess moral attributes that would constitute threats; it is the character and the motivation of those who wield them that is of concern. For instance, money is often used to employ attorneys to "buy justice", figuratively, but it also often buys injustice.

 

Yet there you sit, blaming others for what you feel are problems you have to face ... aliens, liberals, gay people ...
Just another person who needs a mirror for their glass house.

 

Obviously you have some big hangup about gays to have injected "gay people" into the topic.

My life is going great.

 

Yes, I never understood this part of conservative logic.

The right of ANY american citizen to own and bear as many arms of any type they like shall not be infringed upon. At the same time, they have no problems to infringe on the liberty of a (compared to us) small country on the other side of the world, which has never attacked us, but which we have attacked in the past, and over which we have NO jurisdiction, to defend themselves.

 

I believe that we are probably in agreement on many or possibly even most issues, but I don't really clearly understand the intent of your post. Are you saying that we should allow Iran to achieve nuclear capabilities, or is this just sarcasm to shed light upon common acceptance of what you feel is an illogical double-standard?

I am, as are most Americans, in favor of impeding Iran's quest to produce nuclear weaponry, mainly due to objective evidence confirming radical intentions, and I am somewhat doubtful that Iran intends this technology to be reserved for defensive purposes. Man now has the terrifying capability to initiate Armageddon.

 

MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. Why do you think Armageddon hasn't already happened. Iran may be religiously fanatic at the governments core, but it also isn't completely dumb. I do think we should impede them, but eventually every country will be able to develop nuclear weapons, and we also should not be impeding nuclear power as a power source. It is inevitable, and anyway with or without a nuclear weapon, nationally, they are no threat to us. Domestic terrorism and free international travel is more of a threat than Iran is. Many other countries, allies or not already have nuclear weapons.

 

I am in favor of banning all nuclear weapons, including Iran's.

Somehow, I have a feeling, though, that the US is not going to give up our stockpile. In that latter scenario, I can't see how we can logically and morally prevent Iran from getting their's, as a means to defend themselves from the only country that has used nuclear weapon in the past, and which has attacked Iranian civilians.

And that's not even talking about the hypocrisy, as outlined in my last post.

 

That's what people have been made to think, but if said amendment is a part of preparatory amendment to an Article V, assuring that the people determine that all amendments have constitutional intent, as only the people can do, its a very different outcome. Preparatory amendment are only three amendments, and they are given time to take effect before a general Article V convention begins.

Do you realize what this amendment will do?

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

Or how could it be a disaster IF everyone was prepared for understanding why it is done?

What that does is make it so anyone who can get a predetermined number of signatures and support for a petition to state government, the state courts give an order to the largest corporate media broadcaster to produce a documentary sharing the facts those people need to share to protect unalienable rights. That documentary would be broadcast at prime time repeatedly across the nation.

The corporation would do this and pay off state and federal taxes by doing so. If they don't they lose their state license as a corporation. If they contest it, they can go to court and try and stop it. To stop it they have to prove people already have the information. That it is easily available and promoted. That it is easily promotes if not. And that the information does not protect unalienable rights.

The petition already has a number of signers each with affidavits stating they did not know and people generally do not, that it is not promoted and beyond the economic reach of anyone to promote in a reasonable, logical, lawful effort materially protecting unalienable rights.

If you know how the broad interpretations of the existing 1st amendment work from its language, you may see that the revision draft works back from the intent explained in the two bolded paragraphs.

What it will do is RAISE THE BAR for corporate commercial media. First they get caught in a number of lies they can only socially wiggle out of by addressing the truth realistically. Then after they start, academia and science can break free from the FEAR hold upon them.

The draft revision of the 1st amendment COMPLETELY empowers, "correctly identify (ing) and collectively acknowledge(ing) the sources of our problems" well in advance, creating the best sources of information "before attempting to implement solutions."

Government can be compelled to return something like the original usenet. There, absolute free speech forums with poll functions can help people to discuss what they have learned. There are some far more advanced potential web forums that use technology to physically, visually sort information for users, so positive opinions on information makes that info easier to see.

I really have though this out. In all reality, for 45 years. Seriously.

The lawful and peaceful revolution is a completely legal due process plan for enabling the people who are aware of being "personally effected" to share, with those who are not aware and elicit their desire for unity upon that fact AND a legal strategy to do something about it.

Currently the uses of this forum and all forums is a random free for all of information mostly. Very little strategy for unity and implementation of it into viable strategy is discussed. This is a very wide reaching plan that has developed over the last 5 years using 40 years of WONDERING, why nothing happened, even thought quite a few people know some very serious things are wrong.

 

Our current nuclear policy is deterrence, to be used only in our own defense as a last measure. To give up our own nuclear arsenal would put us in greater danger of a nuclear attack. We developed the technology; now we're stuck with it.

 

As I have said before, we must stop fighting in order to redeem our rights. In order to have a common voice in government and again make government “by the people” possible and effective, we need to be united in our dedication to support that which is morally right, not just what would benefit us personally. In order to do this, we must have common values and make a united commitment to make the rights of EACH individual our highest priority. If each of us has the protection of all, then targeting of any individual by hostile or exploitive entities will inevitably result in failure, and our commitment to each other, cemented with mutual empathy, will bond us all together as one irresistible force. That is unity, and that’s what it’s going to take to solve our problems. However, in order to establish this unity, we need to resist the corporate sector’s attempts to confuse us by continually bringing up the issue of money. Together, we can control money instead of it controlling us. IT IS NOT THE LAWS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED; OUR PEOPLE NEED TO CHANGE. Everyone is already aware of ALL of the arguments, but so many choose to satisfy their own self-interests and will not even consider what is good for the country.

In post 16 of this thread Lucifer mentions the Fairness Doctrine, which seems very much like what you are proposing. There is a movement going on right now advocating its reinstatement, in case you're interested. I'm on your side. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with your proposal concerning changing the First Amendment.

 

Heroin is an inanimate object. It can't interfere with our basic rights and our freedom.

 

The strategy put forth does all of that.

There is no "we" until unity is created. You've described a paradox.

Our unity adequate to alter or abolish can be around that the framers intended for us to do so, and that free speech is the only thing which can serve the purpose of sharing these facts and enable the unity.

That's all we have agree on in order to have unity adequate to alter or abolish. But "alter or abolish" is Article V codified, and we do not dare have one of those if the people cannot define constitutional intent.

What you are saying is yes to alter or abolish, but no to the only way in which it can be properly done.

If that's not true, then explain how we can create the unity to alter or abolish without free speech serving the purpose of creating the unity.

 

Okay....and?

 

It has by virtue of corrupting a segment of society. Just like money has.

The ideal is different from the reality.

Just like with the 1st amendment. The ideal is a generalization with the language of the existing right. The ideal implies a potential that doesn't exist because the written law doesnt define the purpose of the ideal.

That didn't matter until corporations were given personhood. Then with economic power they used the right to corrupt us, divide us, confuse and mislead us. That same description of use could be applied to money.

 

Well, it really depends what this "capital" is? If it is entirely the result of human labor, what's the harm in letting, for example, someone work hard to be able to buy 50 expensive cars?

If, on the other hand, this capital consists of natural resources, there can be a problem, because one person hoarding it can imply a scarcity for everyone else. If they work harder, it doesn't make more of this naturally occurring capital appear.

For most commodities, they can be seen to consist of a combination of both types of capital. More human labor can make more of the commodity exist, but only up to a point. One example of this would be oil, as more oil taken, it takes even more human labor to extract the remaining oil.

If you talk to geofree (he's a Geolibertarian member in this forum) he will emphasize the importance of land.

In conclusion, when the rich actually create their wealth, they don't hurt anyone else. When they accumulate wealth which was not created by human labor, sometimes they can hog it all up, to the detriment of everyone else. It's important not to lump all capital into the same basket.

 

Thank you for posting this. I agree with your perspective ALMOST completely, but due to changes in American values, all resources, including people and land, have been now downgraded and assigned a monetary value. What once was merely a convenient bartering tool has become the top priority in American politics, and everyone, including landowners, are subject to the abuses and exploitations of those who possess excessive monetary wealth.

Once upon a time, our currency was based on a gold standard, but common consensus is that it is now based on intangible assets. Basically, it seems that our economy is more or less dependent upon the credit rating of our country and the Stock Exchange, which gives much cause for apprehension. Simply stated, money is no more than an intangible entity, represented by printed currency, and underwritten by the American people as a collective unit; it has no meaning other than what we assign to it.

Since the distribution of wealth is becoming increasingly more disproportionate, our sluggish economy is due simply to a lack of available funds in an increasing number of potential buyers because most of the finite capital resources of our country are stagnating or recirculating within the wealthiest echelons of society.

We practice conservation of our natural resources, trying not to use more than we need, and recycling is highly recommended. We should adhere to the same principle with our economic resources, which are also finite (at any one given point in time). Money hoarded by the very wealthy is equivalent to waste, not being recycled, resulting in a rapidly growing insufficiency of capital available to the general public. This growing deficiency is the main cause of our present political division; freedom is now contingent upon economic status.

Corporate America is buying into the agricultural sector now. They control our money, they control our banks, THEY CONTROL US. IS THIS DEMOCRACY???

 

Which ironically has caused the decimation of the local economies in many rural communities. There are vast swaths of land out there in middle America, but a lack economic opportunity for people to live there. All the profits are going to the corporations and being spent by people who live in the cities, where the costs of living are much higher, and where there is often a shortage of housing space.

 

I am not sure that "values" are the primary target here. What has eroded is the education system and this effects values.

The average "Joe" is ignorant of basic principles that the US was founded on. That a kid can do 12 years of school and not get taught this is, IMO, a function of intent and not oversight.

The Declaration of Independence

1) puts individual rights and freedoms "Above" the power of the Government
and 2) dictates that legitimacy of authority (of the government) comes from "we the people" - as opposed to divine right or bloodline as was done in the past.

What this means is that the legitimate power of government does not extend to messing with individual rights and freedoms.

The question you are asking is complicated. Does "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" mean that one can amass unlimited wealth ?

On the surface one would have to say yes but, if we did deeper this is far too simplistic.

With true unrestrained capitalism you end up with a very small group of people owning almost all wealth, resources and means of production.

In such a system the majority of individuals would be reduced to a form of indentured slavery and their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" would then be severely restricted.

Since the purpose of Government is to maintain this condition - defend the rights of the individual- it is then right and proper for the Government to be granted powers to control such capitalistic entities to ensure this condition does not happen.

The legitimate power of government comes from "we the people" as a function of the "Social contract". The contract allows the government to go outside its legitimate power "only" if the contract is changed. In other words .. if the Government wants to make legislation that is outside its purview, it must request a change to the social contract.

The nature of the social contract is to limit the power of Government "only" to that which was agreed upon in the social contract.

That agreement is not (50+1) but requires an overwhelming majority. This is to prevent tyranny of the majority (some group getting into power and forcing their beliefs on others)

The founders unfortunately did not foresee this modern dilemma but, from the ideas of classical liberalism (on which the founders based their ideas) the principle of "overwhelming majority" would be something like 85-90% agreement from "we the people".

Lastly - there is no such thing as functional democracy without an educated populace (by this I mean educated in the basics of how our society is supposed to be structured). The populace also needs to be educated in the basics of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument)

If a person does not know the basics of civics and logical fallacy/what constitute a valid argument, how are they to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad arguments fed to them on a daily basis from Politicians and the mass media ?

How can a kid go through 12 years of school and not be taught what a logical fallacy is ? This is truly an amazing act of "keeping people ignorant"

The third requirement for a functional democracy is a fair and free media. We do not have this either.

Thoughts and beliefs are affected by education. Change the way someone things by educating them and their values will change.

 

Thank you for bringing that up. I suspect that part of this problem stems from the fact that public schools are subject to political oversight, which is subject to the oversight of corporate lobbies. Another problem is that secondary schools preparing teachers are largely subsidized by contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations, or foundations, which I am sure are accompanied by some restrictive instructional guidelines.

However, I am sure you have noted that there are a LOT of government-savvy and seemingly intelligent individuals who adamantly insist that our economy be entirely market-driven with NO government interference. These people are obviously supporting the status quo because it presently is beneficial to them. The point I am trying to make is that we need to pull in the reins on a runaway corporate sector through government regulation in order to create a SUSTAINABLE status quo. Common values are the logical requirements for the unity necessary to reinstate WE THE PEOPLE into government.

I believe that the negative influence of educational propaganda is more harmful than the lack of positive influence. The mind needs to be stimulated, but logic is largely inherent.

I am not disagreeing with you; your point is well-taken.