My website name has NOTHING to do with the convicted felon, nor do I support that pedo liar. People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. Yep, and if the "union" formed by the United States Constitution actually functioned correctly, it would be the ONLY union you need. The power of REAL democracy. People are NOT too stupid to make decisions about law and policy. We just need a PROCESS that works. One that does not front disguise an oligarchy as some kind of republic. Misrepresentation is libel. It is dishonest, it is corrupt and it causes irreparable damage to the people that are the victim of publishing into public record within congress a vote on a legal matter of law and policy, that the public being misrepresented does not consent and agree to. That public may be a minority, that public may be a majority, and that is of no legal consequence to the commission of the criminal act of libel. The law makes no distinction of fact of criminal act whether the victim is one person as the victim, or many. A republic requires representation, it’s not optional. https://www.facebook.com/reel/4180072535602949 https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-000pizza.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch%20011.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/11960270_906654299369805_8393862489010889861_n.jpg dumbest way possible https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/Screenshot%20at%202023-06-16%2013-07-17.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/Screenshot%20at%202020-12-03%2011-10-58.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch006.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch%20000.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-00.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/VOTINGbad.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch_146.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-146.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch%20007.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch%20003.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-251.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-252.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-256.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-257.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/cult-001.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch_delusion.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/taxes_poverty064.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch_merica.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch%20represent01.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch%20ballot.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch%20025.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch%20032.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch006.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-159.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-260.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-263.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-269.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-270.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-274.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-275.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/cult-001.png https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/truth.jpg https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/Screenshot%20at%202021-09-28%2011-30-25.png Flawed process https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/Screenshot%20at%202022-12-14%2015-16-53.png Remember, cannot, don't know Representative Registration and Responsibilities 1. Registration Process: a. Eligibility: Any citizen may register to become a representative. b. Registration: Representatives must register through a designated government portal, providing necessary credentials. c. Verification: The registration process includes a verification step to ensure the authenticity of the representative's identity and credentials. 2. Role and Function: a. Data Reporting: Representatives are required to accurately report data from Congress, the courts, and the executive branch to the public. They must also report data from the public to the accounting process for ballots and to Congress, the courts, and the executive branch regarding articles, initiatives, referendums, and elections for agencies and subservient branch positions. b. Ballot Collection and Submission: Representatives are responsible for collecting and transmitting ballots accurately from citizens to the appropriate governmental bodies. c. Information Dissemination: Representatives must ensure that citizens are informed about legislative updates, judicial rulings, and executive actions. 3. Citizen Interaction: a. Selection: Citizens select representatives based on trust and perceived alignment with their own views. b. Ballot Control: Citizens retain ultimate control over their ballots. They can choose to release their ballot to a representative or withdraw it at any time before the vote is cast. c. Temporary Representation: Citizens may temporarily assign their ballot to a different representative for specific issues if they disagree with their primary representative's position. 4. Voting Process: a. Communication Methods: Representatives may offer various methods of communication such as text messages, email, paper, blockchain security, and others, allowing citizens to choose the method that best suits their needs. b. Standing Execute Proxy Schedule: Representatives may offer a menu of options for ballot execution: 1. Automatic Execute: A schedule where a citizen's ballot is automatically executed unless they cancel it within a specified timeframe (e.g., one week). 2. Manual Authorization: A schedule where a citizen's ballot is only executed upon explicit authorization for each vote. 3. Customized Voting Recipes: Options for tailored voting approaches, where representatives provide sophisticated suites of voting instructions based on specific criteria or simple approaches like consistently voting "NO" on all matters. 5. Oversight and Accountability: a. Participation History: Every citizen has access to their participation history, which is used to hold representatives accountable. Representatives must accurately collect and transmit data streams, and any failures in this regard can result in the loss of their registered status. b. Audits: Periodic audits are conducted to verify that representatives are performing their duties accurately. c. Penalties: Representatives who engage in misconduct or fail to accurately report data face penalties, including suspension or revocation of their representative status. 6. Feedback and Amendments: a. Citizen Feedback: A system for citizens to provide feedback on their representatives' performance. b. Amendments: Procedures for amending the representative framework based on feedback and evolving needs. 4US is not a state of geography. FOR US is a state of mind. https://www.45ink.com/1stbranch-4us-flag.jpg Sky blue, blood red, wisdom gray. Circle of wise people on a field of blue. Stripes of grey, making decisions within stripes of conflict A celebration of cooperative decision process. https://serviceinfo.harley-davidson.com/sip/content/document/view?id=1335702580587945166 LuLu link: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/45ink The O-game kindle book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09CHF8T8N My youtube channel link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdN_NP68iirVbd2p41ABpsw Youtube, Let's go for a ride:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5K6SnZ_6GM https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/misrerepresentative-government/10156964134882278 https://45ink.com/wp/misrepresentative/ https://youtu.be/nLgM1QJ3S_I?feature=shared If you still think that it is possible for the public to ELECT other people to "represent" them, then you are WAY too stupid to be worth my time listening to your drivel of moronic cult programming bullshit. Train: Calling all angels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaG9SDxwPBg Я шторм I Am The Storm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPt7NnhwvA Rainbow Demon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEdKcblmctA 2020 prediction https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/prediction/10156468189042278/ 2019, speaker to power. https://www.facebook.com/AmericasPoliceProblem/videos/334147027232246/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/4-branch-government/ballots/2511842055802948/ Critical thinking links: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan-s-rules-for-bullshit-busting-and-critical-thinking?utm_source=pocket-newtab https://propaganda.games/about JAQ, Just Asking Questions : https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions Article for measuring shutter speed on camera. https://shop.stearmanpress.com/blogs/news/measure-your-shutter-speed-for-free https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/09/22/no-one-seemed-to-notice-greta-thunbergs-critique-of-the-green-new-deal/ https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.015347v1.full.pdf Cats and ferrets Covid19 Girl on bicycle viola https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB3qTVg3hhs Viola in Austria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sYk-7v74C8 Bike artist Nicole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgF_j1FPxhk Nuther Nicole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEWYq0um8M Romance in a hula hoop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o7pb6nVPVQ First two hours of MTV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJtiPRDIqtI Have you read, the book by Yuval Harari? "Sapiens, a brief history of human kind"? https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cff0cf8b82de68564d8df165f2f10b70 Zombie Sex Manual © Copyright 2011 by 45 Mike Anderson. All rights reserved. https://www.45ink.com/articles.php?article_id=132 I AGREE, that my right to swing my fist ends at your face. I GET IT.... My interaction here, is not "whataboutism". I am pointing to the absurdity of presuming that the protection of rights from government infringement can be safely administered by the government provided with the authority to disregard those protections for THEIR convenience. There is a process for amending those protections to allow exceptions. We could use that process to clarify the protection for bearing arms to that of self defense in your home, and to those training and active in a militia. We COULD do it. It would be DIFFICULT, but it could be done. What your government decided to do, instead, was to simply decide to create exceptions to the LAW, that do not exist in that law, for their own expediency. Boom, now they have the precedent authority to specify ANY behavior they don't like that we assume is "protected", as UNPROTECTED. And people seem to think that is a GOOD THING?? Those people broke the law, the LAW said, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The LAW said, SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED. They DID IT ANYWAYS. They COULD have followed the process, CHANGED the law, but they chose NOT to, they chose to BREAK the law, because it was easier for them. It is VERY frustrating to explain something to someone, that ASKED me to explain it, when they insist on arguing with me about what they don't understand, because I am still trying to explain it to them. I won’t be drug into a circle of absurdity… It is VERY frustrating to explain something to someone, that ASKED me to explain it, when they insist on arguing with me about what they don't understand, because I am still trying to explain it to them. The ONLY possible way I can be represented in a legal sense, by the person elected, whether I voted for them of not is if I agree with their decision AFTER they make it, and I have ZERO recourse to change that, EVER. My misrepresentation did not magically become suddenly all sparkles and sunshine just because i might be able to vote for someone else some other day. I was misrepresented. AND if the majority of the people in my district also disagree with that decision, then the MAJORITY of us are misrepresented, and again, that does not turn into some kind of unicorn rainbow fart, by reason of someday we might get to vote for someone else. We , you and I MUST stop trying to run me into circle jerks here. I have already demonstrated the reality of the result of elections for the purpose of providing or producing representation, that process is unreliable, inaccurate, and invites continued and increasing corruption… It does not fucking work.. If all you have is more lies excuses and bullshit attempting to promote elections for representation, we are done. I have been doing this for decades. and am willing to discuss REALITY, but not to continue letting you try to jack my wanker to accept absurdity. Understood? Basically my position is that our current process, is flawed. The flaws make it UNRELIABLE to the purpose of representing us as individuals and as a nation. Not that it NEVER works. Rather that the success or failure of the system to work properly relies rarely on the good will and honorable intentions of those we elect, but rather MORE on simple laws of random alignments of circumstance that NO ONE fully controls. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I fully support anarchy for ME, I am skeptical of that working well for me if I agree to allow you anarchy. Quote from a sci-fi story: Gabrielle cut into the conversation. “Basically, Barnabas has the undying belief that there is no one so dark that they can’t come back into the light, and no one is in the light so much that they could not become dark.” Let's look at the circumstance where we remove all corruption, and money from the basic process as specified in our constitution. We require every elected "representative" to vote, in congress as the majority of the people in that district specify. (yeah, that would mean that those elected people would need to actually ask and record the votes of the public on every issue that comes to a vote in congress, so set that aside for the moment, just assume we do require that) So, now the people in congress no longer vote in congress as their donors want, but rather how the PUBLIC wants. See that, do you understand that even if that process could not represent everyone in each district, it could at least represent the MAJORITY of each district. Correct? See how that would work? NOW, ask yourself, if THAT would work? Would doing it that way, result in the decisions from congress factually and accurately represent the majority of the national public? Don't worry about tyranny of majority at this point, because remember THAT is why we have a supreme court, enforcing our civil rights, which is what prevents tyranny of majority. That is the job of the JUDICIAL branch. NOT the legislative branch. The LEGISLATIVE branch is supposed to REPRESENT THE PUBLIC. If WE, the people, make a mistake and cause tyranny of majority, the COURT, is required to overturn the decision of the public as represented in congress. SO, here we are. If congress was required to vote within congress as factually representing the majority of citizens within each district, then the system would WORK, right??? That is what we were told, THAT is what we were promised IN OUR CONSTITUTION!!! Right??? Angry and frustrated Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities and species. Anger and frustration. No matter what political spectrum the people hails from. Dishonesty in discourse, is one of the social conditions that drive people to pick up a weapon and lash out in rage. Any weapon. Being lied to by people attempting to promote some view over their own, being lied to by people promoting their view. Being lied to about how "great" our governments are. Social injustice, no matter how that is perceived. Creates frustration, and then the lies create the anger. No matter HOW THAT IS PERCEIVED. You are not required to agree or disagree with the root cause of their anger and frustration. It is simply required that you understand that they ARE angry and frustrated, for whatever reasons THEY find sufficient. Wanna start fixing this? What would be useful, is a decision process that allows the public to make rational decisions about the myriad problems we face as communities, nations and species. Kinda like a form of government that actually works??? We need a constitutional republic, properly administering a representative democracy. We need a bill of rights with legal precedence over the legislative process. We need a judicial branch that presumes every bill is guilty of some evil, and rejects it, UNLESS it is proven innocent. We need factual representation, not some elected bunch of rulers pretending to be representatives. If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-reason/ https://www.facebook.com/forfyv/posts/10157082080814526 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_NanBMuMyQ Car children https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv8Pa-cN3uI Denise 3 4 Branch government: A brief outline: The executive branch filters problems. The legislative branch proposes solutions to the problems sent by the executive branch. The Judicial branch determines if the bill proposed by the legislative branch would be legal, if enacted. The executive branch then determines if the proposed bill is plausible and cost accurate. Then the public branch decides whether to enact that bill into law. It's that simple. 4 branch misconceptions: "The system is just another branch added to our current government." No. ALL the branches are reworked, with different roles, responsibilities and authorities, the DIFFERENCES, make the difference, NOT the similarities. **** ***** In 4 branch, the PUBLIC has and maintains the ultimate and over riding constitutional authority, and is the ONLY branch of government that has the power to enact any bill or measure into law. We, the people own and control the maintenance of a list of protections for our civil rights, and that list is LEGALLY PRECEDENT TO THE EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, and JUDICIAL process. We the people have the constitutional authority to ENFORCE that PRECEDENCE. READ THIS!!! ^^^ Read it as many times as you need to to UNDERSTAND it. **** In 4 branch the Executive branch has two, and ONLY two constitutional authorities. 1. To filter problems for decision. 2. To review bills for plausibility and cost accounting. NEITHER decision authority is absolute and can be countermanded by the public branch. **** In 4 branch, the Legislative branch has no authority to enact ANY law. Congress is NOT elected to represent the public. Congress is a single body elected by states, in whatever manner each state finds appropriate, four members from each state. Congress is NOT representative of the public. Those people are NOT elected as representatives. Congress has ONE and ONLY one constitutional authority, which is to consider problems assigned for resolution or management, and to write "bills" that if enacted, are intended to manage or solve a specific problem. Congress does not VOTE on those bills. Again, Congress has NO authority to make any decision of enactment of a bill into law. **** In 4 branch, the Judicial branch is tasked with adjudicating the legality of any bill passed from Legislative branch, while presuming that every bill, is guilty, unless proven innocent, by fact and testimony of reason and law. This adjudication will occur BEFORE any law is enacted. **** In 4 branch, the PUBLIC has and maintains the ultimate and over riding constitutional authority, and is the ONLY branch of government that has the power to enact any bill or measure into law. We, the people own and control the maintenance of a list of protections for our civil rights, and that list is LEGALLY PRECEDENT TO THE EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, and JUDICIAL process. We the people have the constitutional authority to ENFORCE that PRECEDENCE. READ THIS!!! ^^^ Read it as many times as you need to to UNDERSTAND it. 4 branch fulfills the intent and purpose of our Declaration of Independence. ********************* ********************* People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. OPEN MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE ELECTED AS REPRESENTATIVES OF EVERY GOVERNMENT: The decisions that are being made do NOT represent us, the people, the majority public of our species. Whatever reasons or causes you wish to attribute to this circumstance; Money in elections, Lobbyists, Gerrymandering, Party politics, Etc. ad nauseum, FIX IT! If you cannot, FINE, admit your abject failures, then GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY! Sincerely , an angry and frustrated CITIZEN! YOU don't need a new president. YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ You keep making the same mistake, over and over and over. That mistake is the presumption that the political system works the way you think it does, as if your voting within that system means a damn thing. What I am going to say is not a popular truth, but it is the truth. Your vote does NOT count. Not at all. The reason your vote does not count, has nothing to do with dishonest politicians, corruption, republicans, citizens united, or rigged voting machines or gerrymandering, etc. etc. The reason your vote does not count, is because no one asks you to vote on the issues, you vote on people. Those people use a decision process that does not include your vote. Yes, you voted to elect someone. However once that person is elected, the PROCESS takes over. Those people, that we elect, go to Congress, and THEY use direct democracy in congress. THEY vote directly on the issues. NOT YOU. A republic, is a decision process, that specifies a representative democracy. It REQUIRES representation. It's NOT optional. If that representation does not exist, it is NOT A REPUBLIC. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. It's NOT. If all we are doing is electing people to make rules for us, as rulers, not representatives, then yeah, we need to elect people who are good people. If we are electing people as representatives, not as rulers, then they MUST factually represent us. AND if the process forces them to factually represent us, then it really would not matter WHO we elect, because the SYSTEM would work. If we are electing rulers, then fine, but that ain't a republic. It ain't a democracy neither. If we are electing representatives, then they MUST properly and factually represent us, SOMEHOW!!! (if they don't, then they ain't representatives) Can you follow that reasoning? We need a constitution specifying a new FORM of government. They are RULERS, crowned by our elections to RULE us. THEY make the rules. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ There is another truth that might just blow your mind once you understand it. We assume, and rely on the process within congress to represent the majority of public on the decisions they make. We assume that if every person elected to congress did factually represent the majority of people within their each respective district, that the result of the process THEY use, of voting on that decision, will in fact represent the majority decision of the entire nations public. Notice if each member of congress did that, there would not be any corruption, no money, no dishonesty, etc etc. So, consider this example of that process, simplified to the best case scenario, I described above, of every member of congress behaving as a true representative: **** ***** Consider 3 districts, no parties, no money, absolute honest elections and everyone votes. Each district elects a representative and that representative is required, by law to represent the majority of the people in that district. District one, 4999 people said "yes", 5001 said "no". The majority said no. District two, 5003 said "yes", 4997 said "no". The majority said yes. District three, 4999 people said "yes", 5001 said "no". The majority said no. The majority of the people, 15,001 of them said YES! The minority, Only 14,999 said no. The representatives voted two to one and the decision of CONGRESS, was NO. The MAJORITY of the people said YES!! **** ***** Notice that the PROCESS failed. We RELY on that process, and it DOES NOT WORK! They keep pretending that it is true, that our government relies on public approval or permission for the acts of atrocity those people perpetrate against humanity. IT'S A LIE. Who is telling you that lie? NOT ME! Get it? If the public majority had any control, we would not have to fight our government constantly to get any public service or benefit from their decisions. If the people owned the government, we could make decisions that constrained corporate profit opportunities to those that benefit the public. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ What does "well regulated militia" actually mean? To start, a militia, means a group of armed individuals. If the individuals are not armed, it's not a militia. Individuals. Well regulated, means "under orders", acting lawfully, with a chain of command and that command with a lawful purpose. As opposed to a lawless mob, behaving in a criminal manner. The salient point, here is that a well regulated militia, cannot exist, without armed individuals. Thus, the 2nd amendment specifies that individuals have the right to bear arms, and to form groups for lawful purpose. "A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. It’s good for people to read books to educate themselves. But that doesn’t mean they can’t read romance novels. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Having a populace armed and familiar with those arms to provide security for the State is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean they can’t use them for self defense or hunting." Quote from Klaus Schadenfreude It is precisely when a matter is not agreed on by all involved, that a rational decision process is REQUIRED. If everyone agreed on some matter, then the decision is already made. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Demand the TRUTH. If we are NOT being represented, then this ain't a republic. Remember, it was supposed to work, no matter who we elected. The founders indicated they were concerned with a tyranny of the majority, so they created a process administering a tyranny of the minority. Wanna fix stuff. Ask the hard questions. Don't accept lies excuses and bullshit as answers. Don't be a compromising politician. You don't have to promote my plan for a new government. ASK the hard questions and let THEM decide we need a new government, THEN we can talk about new ideas. AS LONG AS WE ARE AGREEING THE LIES EXCUSES AND BULLSHIT, ARE RELEVANT, AND VALID, we just fucked ourselves. "What is the constitutional recourse of the public when the Supreme Court rules that the actions of the president, are legal?" If someone is NOT willing to question the validity of our constitutional process, then that person is not allowed to question my attempt to fix it. They just bootlicked their ass outta my life. If the people owned the government, we could make decisions that constrained corporate profit opportunities to those that benefit the public. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If you are as sick of the unending spew of lies, excuses and bullshit coming from our government as I am, and many others, then you need to ask ANY candidate one and only ONE question. "Explain, and be specific, how your election, will cause our constitutional process to accurately and properly represent the majority of our public?" Go for it. ASK! Get ready for more spew. NONE of them can answer that, get it? NONE. Because the process does NOT function to represent the public. We are not the owners of that process. Yep, and if the process of making decisions is flawed, which it is, in the US constitution, then it should be no wonder at all, that the government fails to meet the expectations of the public in providing the solutions promised by that process. EVEN if the people we elect to congress, DO vote as the majority of the people in their district wish, the result of those people voting in congress, does not necessarily agree with the majority of the national public. Now, some people will attempt to argue, that is a "feature", to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. That is not true, it's another lie, and excuse. I understand WHY we need to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The METHOD of doing that is to protect civil rights. That is the job of the Supreme Court. If congress, (properly representing the majority of public), enacts a law that infringes on the rights of a minority, (individuals are the most vulnerable minority), the court is supposed to rule that the law is illegal. That is NOT the role of Congress, CONGRESS is required to represent the majority in it's decisions, and it does NOT. The system simply does NOT WORK. Too much of current government process is argued about using : Lies, Excuses, and Bullshit. This brick is round. << That is a lie. I know it has flat sides, but really, if it did not have sides, it would not stack properly.. << That is an excuse. No, look, I can walk around it, so it IS round. << That is bullshit. We elect representatives. << That is a lie. I know they don't actually represent us, but they can't represent everyone. << That is an excuse for the lie. No, look, they prevent 'tyranny of majority'. << And that is BULLSHIT about the lie. People should be considered innocent, until proven guilty. LAWS, should be considered guilty, until proven innocent. Our 4th amendment is worthless. The 4th should be written like this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNWARRANTED searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Without a warrant, NO DAMN SEARCH, period. People in congress should NOT be elected as representatives. People who are representatives should NOT be in congress. The two roles are contradictory to each other. A legislator *in congress* should write proposals that may solve or manage some problem. The decision whether to *enact* such proposals should be made by the public through representatives. Such representatives and the process the public uses to employ them should be SEPARATE from the role of people in congress. THAT is the largest part of the problem. The process we use now, attempts to consolidate those two roles into ONE body, and it does NOT work. One point that seems to escape people concerning my 4 branch proposal, is that the people elected to congress in 4 branch are NOT representatives of the public. Those people have a job, and are elected to do that job, of legislators, NOT representatives. They work in the legislative branch, NOT in the public branch. People who are used as representatives of and in the Public branch are employed BY the public branch, and have NO role in the legislative branch whatsoever. In 4 branch, representatives work for the public, NOT anyone else. The legislative branch considers problems, and formulates solutions that may solve or manage those problems, and then writes those solutions as "bills", that may become law, IF THOSE BILLS ARE APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC BRANCH. Please note that again. The legislative branch has NO AUTHORITY TO ENACT ANY LAWS. ONLY the Public branch has the authority to enact laws. I have been asked to please consolidate my arguments, complaints and proposal into one document. You can download or read that document at: https://www.45ink.com/4branchb.txt You are welcome to use that, or any portion as you wish. Thank you. When people ask me how to implement my grand plan, I find that generally what they are really asking is how we can force people into accepting some new system they don't understand and don't trust. Umm, we don't. I won't. If the new plan is compelling enough to convince people to adopt it, it will happen. I am not going to set up machine guns and march people into some dystopian grand scheme of world domination. I understand that people are scared, and impatient angry and frustrated, but I won't be involved in trying to force people into anything. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The hot stove is the MOST effective attitude and behavior changing method we have. Make people responsible for their acts, and they will behave in a more responsible manner. What people miss, is that attitudes and behaviors change in RESPONSE to events. Rarely do events change in response to attitude and behavior "desires to change". That is the fantasy part, expecting people to change who they are, simply so "your" plan or idea can succeed. If your plan or idea succeeds, then you can reasonably expect some change in how people feel and act. Which is an entirely different matter. To the republicans: Hey, remember when you did NOT believe that Obama would be president?? For the democrats: Hey, remember when you did not believe Trump would be president? HOW DID THAT WORK OUT FOR YA??? ROFLMAO The result of voting is unrelated to the purpose of voting, when the vote is to elect representatives. The result of using representatives in a congress to make decisions for a population does not in fact represent the decision of the public. There is nothing real about the process, except the installation of people into positions of power and authority, who may or may not attempt to use that position to properly represent the public as individuals, and fail to accomplish that when gathered into a congress to make those decisions. The entire process is based on lies and fraud. To use such a system, or to participate and support such a system is the absurdity. What I find infuriating and frustrating is the inability of the smartest people on earth, to connect the dysfunction of our current government systems, with those systems consistently demonstrating the inability to resolve or manage the problems we face as community, nation and species. If it was working, if that process of systems was WORKING, then we would be solving and managing those problems, instead of watching our existence spiral into extinction and irrelevance. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Remember when you voted for someone that won, and then you noticed that shit never really got fixed, it just got worse? Funny. LOL We could require that EVERY corporation doing business within the USA, appoint some volunteer person, to stand as the legal "person" representing the corporation in any and every legal action. If a lawsuit against that corporation is filed, then THAT person must stand liable for any and all damages awarded, including criminal liability. This means that a corporation that appointed a person, got busted for a CRIME, then the person, spends time in prison for that crime. THAT means that corporation must get another volunteer to stand liable. IF IT CANNOT, then it cannot do business. Period. That would solve two problems. the legal premise that corporation need to have standing as a person, (citizens united ruling), would be irrelevant. And any corporation that is doing bad stuff, is gonna have a difficult time replacing volunteers, and will not be able to do business. YOUR Candidate: The entire pot stinks, and throwing in a fresh vegetable won't change that stink. HOW did those people with money manage to get influence in our decision process? That is the real question. The answer is that our form of government not only allows that corruption, it invites it in and serves it dinner and buys it a few prostitutes. Our constitution does that. Not, "we the people". We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ For those who advocate for "direct democracy", I understand what you want. What you may not understand, is that 4 branch government, is direct democracy. It is a process that administers direct democracy. YOU, the citizen, vote on every act that this government passes into law. YOU people decide what is law, and what is not. NO ONE ELSE. Just you. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ 4 Branch government: A brief outline: The executive branch filters problems. The legislative branch proposes solutions to the problems sent by the executive branch. The Judicial branch determines if the bill proposed by the legislative branch would be legal, if enacted. The executive branch then determines if the proposed bill is plausible and cost accurate. Then the public branch decides whether to enact that bill into law. It's that simple. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ There are two principles that are in play. The first is that a person accused of a crime must be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The second is that a person who makes an accusation must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Those are NOT contradictory principles. Dishonesty in discourse, is one of the social conditions that drive people to pick up a weapon and lash out in rage. Any weapon. https://www.facebook.com/Americanvoicesthedailycaller/videos/654950131503876 sigh. If a business supplies a product within a community where the number of consumers is adequate to sell ALL of their product, for every production cycle, while providing an adequate profit to the business, then the supply/demand equation is a zero sum situation. The PRICING, is based on maximization of profit for the business. Now, if we increase the wealth of those consumers. ONLY those consumers, not anyone else. JUST those consumers. THEN, the business, has not reduced the supply, nor has the demand increased. YET, that business, in the maximization of profits requirement, will RAISE that price, until sales drop off, then drop the price nominally until sales maximize profits again. The supply has not changed, the demand has not changed. WHAT changed is the wealth of the consumers. It increased to support higher pricing. Prices increased, and it had NOTHING to do with supply or demand, which remained constant. Get it? The consumers of the items that raised prices, got higher pay, and the prices of THOSE products increased. The fact that more people could no longer afford those prices is NOT a problem for the damn businesses that supply products and services to people who CAN afford higher prices. They still make their profits! I disagree with the assertion that the only factors involving price of commodity are supply and demand. This is demonstrated easily when we see that the supply of a commodity, and the demand for a commodity is stable, and yet when the wealth of the consumer base rises, the price increases as well. Which indicates clearly, and without equivocation, that a third pricing factor exists, which is the wealth of customers, or ability to afford higher prices, which drives profit maximization efforts. You can laugh all you want. I am sick of being fed excuses, lies and bullshit to support the notion that rich people should get to shit on poor people, because of an intentional misunderstanding of economic reality. http://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ What MMT is asserting, is that the customer base for goods and services provided by government, by purchasing those, from business, IS THE GOVERNMENT. The government creates as much money as needed. There is NO LIMIT TO THE PRICE GOVERNMENT WILL PAY. Masks, $5 each today, while they were 50 cents three weeks ago? NO PROBLEM, we will print as much money as needed to PAY THAT PRICE!!! THAT is what is happening. Kavenaugh failed to uphold his oath to answer with complete honesty. If you walked into my house, and if I then asked if you drove your car to my home, the "answer" could be yes, or no. Perhaps you drove your truck. Perhaps someone drove you. Maybe you rode a horse. Or walked. NONE of that matters, the ANSWER to my question is either yes, or no. If you took an oath to answer my question with absolute honesty, but then your response to my question was, "Look, your refrigerator is green." YOU LIED. You took an oath to answer me honestly, not to evade and prevaricate. He is a liar and not worthy of public office, and certainly has no business on a judicial bench. I don't even care at this point if he committed any assault. He LIED, under oath, and fuck him. I am unwilling to make any judgment concerning any interaction between Ford, and Kavanaugh 36 years ago. I don't have any access to factual evidence that compels me in any direction. However I don't need any further evidence to evaluate the behavior and attitude of Kavanaugh at the hearing yesterday. His testimony was evasive, and dishonest. I understand that he is fighting for his honor and position in society and in the process to advance his position. However that fight requires integrity, honor and honesty. He lost that fight by his own attitude and behavior under oath. He failed to demonstrate integrity, honor and honesty. https://www.allmostaranch.org/donate https://www.45ink.com/4repfraud.jpg I keep a text file open on my desktop that contains a BUNCH of stuff I have written over the last few years. I often use that file to copy and paste commentary as appropriate, and I invite people to download a copy that I update on my website at irregular intervals. You and anyone else is welcome to use that file in ANY way that you wish as well, I'd prefer that people not take credit for what i wrote myself, but do NOT expect credit to be cited to me. I want people to USE my thoughts as they see fit. here is a link to my text file: https://www.45ink.com/4branch.txt It's BIG and you are welcome to it. (most of the newer stuff is near the bottom) I also wrote a rather complete argument against our constitutional process: https://www.45ink.com/4branchc.txt It's a religious disease. They have "faith" in the systems we use, and any consideration of any alternative is a treasonous consideration, everything that is not what they think God is, must be satanic. Just a suggestion to the DOJ and FBI. If Trump is arrested for treason, he cannot fill the duties and responsibilities of the office of president, and is replaced, which means he is no longer the president and CAN be indicted for high crimes and treason. C'mon people a cheap set of handcuffs is ALL you need. I will address your understanding of direct representation. Do you agree with mail in ballots? How about internet voting? Would you be opposed to voting by text message? I ask you to consider that each of those methods of voting employs a representative. In the case of mail in voting, you do not place your ballot into the system directly, you use a service of convenience, the postal service to vote. You present your ballot, to the mail service, and then they take your ballot, and then re-present your ballot, on your behalf to the system that counts your vote. In this case, the postal service is your direct representative. They did not alter or usurp your invocation of voting in the slightest. Yet, you used THEM, hired them, in fact to represent your decision to the system that counts your vote. You did use direct representation. You chose to use that method, and have no objection to using that direct representation at all. The same can be said for Internet voting, you present your ballot, through some website, and rely on that website to re-present your ballot for the actual counting. Text message? Blockchain? Smoke signals? Telegraph? Phone in? ALL of them are simply examples of your ballot being presented to some service you used for convenience, and that service then re-presenting your ballot to the counting system. Using a direct representative is no more complicated than texting one number to vote yes, and another number to vote no. Using PEOPLE as direct representatives allows the public to forgo ALL technology, even if all electricity fails, all the networks get hacked, and our entire tech base fails, we can STILL USE DIRECT REPRESENTATION TO MAKE DECISIONS! It is just as simple to choose Bob as your representative and THUS register your vote on a matter as a YES, as it would be to text one number instead of another. IF you wanted to vote NO, then you would choose Sally, as your representative. It's THAT simple. When all the voting is done, BOB turns in the number of people he represents that voted YES, and Sally turns in the number of people that she represents that voted NO. Boom, we have a decision. NEITHER Bob, NOR Sally need to be ELECTED! I am suggesting, no, wait, I am asserting, that ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. Now, what about that is confusing to you?? Please consider this situation carefully. Consider 3 voting districts. ONLY 3 districts. Each District has 10,000 voters. We are going to consider two separate decision processes. We begin with elected representatives. District 1 elects Robert. District 2 elects Sally. District 3 Elects Jim. A decision needs to be made on whether to enact a law, about issue X. Robert votes no. Sally votes no. Jim votes yes. The law is not enacted. 2 votes no, one vote yes. The reason each representative voted their decision, is because each of them counted votes from each of their constituents. They voted the way the majority of people within their district indicated by their individual vote. Now lets look at how the individuals voted within each district. District 1, direct count was 4,863 voted yes, and 5,137 voted no. That is why Robert voted NO, because more people in District 1 voted NO. District 2 direct count was 4,915 voted yes, and 5,085 voted no. That is why Sally voted NO, because more people in District 2 voted NO. District 3 direct count was 7,156 voted yes, and 2,844 voted no. That is why Jim voted YES, because more people in District 3 voted YES. Now, let's look at what the majority of people in the three districts decided by direct count. District 1, YES count=4,863 District 2, YES count=4,915 District 3, YES count=7,156 Yes total= 16,934 District 1, NO count=5,137 District 2, NO count=5,085 District 3, NO count=2,844 No total= 13,066 3,868 MORE people voted to ENACT that law. Not an insignificant number, it's NOT trivial. The districts each have an equal number of voters, and EVERY person eligible to vote, DID vote. There was no gerrymandering, no disproportionate district sizing. No cheating or fraudulent voting and nothing was fraudulent about the counting. The PROCESS failed. The process of electing people as representatives, and having those people vote exactly as the majority of people in their district indicated FAILED. The PROCESS is fraudulent. It DOES NOT WORK!!!! The use of "representatives" EVEN when they are absolutely honest and properly represent the majority decision of the people that elected them, EVEN if the representative voted against their own personal belief, STILL did not properly represent the total population majority. This is the basis of my rejection of the elected representative model. It simply does NOT work. The fact that the numbers could just as easily have been such that the results match public will, and just as easily have been such that the congress vote was yes, while the public said no, IS EXACTLY what I am saying. We have no control, it's flopping like a headless chicken. It does not work. I have heard a LOT of people complain about the process of using an electoral college to choose our president. Yet, those SAME people and more, FULLY support the concept of electing people as representatives. They fail to understand that the EXACT SAME FLAW and FRAUD inherent in the electoral college process, exists in the process of using elected representatives. It's a scam, the ENTIRE process specified in our constitution is a FRAUD! https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Some of you may have noticed that I keep hammering on "representation". The REASON, is that representation is a civil right, that is the predicate of our system of government. If we are not being represented, our civil rights as a public and individuals are being infringed, and ignored. It's not a trivial matter, it is THE only matter we should be concerned with until we GET it. UNTIL we get it, NONE of our efforts to resolve or manage problems we face as community, nation, and species are going to succeed. Want to tackle money in politics? You will NEVER get a chance to fix that, if you are not being represented by the process used to make the decisions needed to FIX that. Want to tackle pollution, economic inequity, corporate corruption, ANY matter of importance to you?? Without getting that representation, NONE of those matters will get fixed. I like democracy, I am not opposed to democracy. I am saying, and can PROVE, that electing people as representatives does not produce democracy. Direct representation. It's never been done or tried before that I can see in any historical sense. Let me try to explain it: Imagine some process that presents rational choices concerning issues to the general public. (I have specified that process as well as the direct representation part in a separate article.) However you are asking specifically about the decision part of the process, not the politics that brings a resolution up for a decision. For the moment imagine that pre-process works properly and now a choice is up for decision. Some "law" is proposed that the public can choose to enact, or reject. Now, imagine that you have "chosen" someone as your representative. The REASON you chose that person, along with any number, (big or small), of other people that also chose that person, is the SAME reason you might consider voting for them if you were using an election process. That person reflects your opinion and position, on many various and diverse issues, that YOU find particularly relevant. pant pant, sigh. OK, now, that issue is brought up for public decision. That representative that you chose, has informed you throughout the pre-process i mentioned earlier, about the resolution being brought to you for decision. That information relayed to you, and the rest of the public about that proposed law is entirely factual, without bias, nor opinion. And the factual nature of that information can be easily verified because the process is absolutely transparent, the public can read ALL of the proposals and informative releases, and your representative is forbidden, BY law, to include any bias or opinion. However, your representative now has to make a choice, and that choice is fully dependent on THEIR personal bias and opinion on the matter, they must choose to vote yes, or to vote no. Whatever they choose as their vote, is published immediately into public record, and once published CANNOT be altered. Now, imagine a 2 part ticket like a movie ticket, each part has an identifier, unique, and your representative HAS YOUR ticket, your ballot. (that could be blockchain, email, smoke signals whatever) YOU then decide whether YOU agree with the choice your representative made. (normally you would, because that is why you chose that person) If you do agree, then you release your ballot to your representative. They put one half in their "bucket" along with their own, (and everyone else that agreed with them), and gives you the other half. You would normally have about a week to make your decision. Now, at the end of the week, (or whatever), your representative dumps their bucket of ballets, (think electronic if you wish), into the main ballet collection boxes, one marked YES, the other marked NO. The ballots are counted, and the result is announced. The decision is made. And you used a representative to participate in that decision. Once the announcement is made, you can CHECK that YOUR ballot was put into the CORRECT box, because you have your half of the ballot, the other is posted online, that can be verified by you. If, you do NOT agree with the choice your representative made, you do NOT have to release your ballot at all, you can DEMAND your ballot. BOTH halves. Once you have both halves, you have several alternative choices. You can decide NOT to vote at all. You can choose to go to the ballot collection site in your local area, and place your ballot half in whichever box you want, and again, at the end, after announcement of result, you can verify the half you kept against what is recorded by the system. OR you can drop your ballot into another representatives bucket. One that made a choice, that was PUBLISHED, and CANNOT be altered, that you do agree with. And again, once the result is announced you can verify against the public record. It sounds complicated, but it's not, it's just difficult to explain a NEW concept to someone who i must assume has never considered any of the concept. Kinda like trying to explain voting to a peasant from the 12th century. they simply have no experience with the idea. Someone always told them what to do, and they never had any choice or voice to express. OK, that is basically the concept of direct representation. I promote two separate concepts. The first is a new form of government. The second is a promotion for the use of the scientific method to validate ideas for new forms of government, mine as well as others. I get people who want to "argue" with me. This is my response. I am fully aware of the challenges associated with conveying a new concept to people stuck in a box that only allows known concepts to be considered. I am open to answering questions to further explain my new idea to people who ask, for the purpose of understanding better, what i am attempting to discuss. However there is a clear and obvious difference between that sort of "query", and one intended to argue against the concept being discussed. These argumentative queries range between two general varieties, Those that are based on a misunderstanding of the concept, which, may in turn be categorized, as willful or confused, misunderstanding. The other is arguments based on an understanding of the concept, adequate to sustaining rational statements about the topic. I will address the latter to start. I have no interest in arguing about my proposal, with anyone for any reason. If you do not agree, fine, i accept that, and you are welcome to state your disagreement and reasoning for that disagreement, then see yourself to the door. I have valid reasons for my attitude about arguments here, and if you do not understand what those reasons are, then you were NOT paying attention, and do NOT understand what i am doing and why. Which brings me to the former. If you are willfully misunderstanding my concept, then you are being intellectually dishonest, and I have no interest, nor can there be any value to me, to argue with a person, who is intentionally being dishonest in discourse. If you are confused, that means you are ignorant. That is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. You do not know what I am talking about, you are confused about the subject and do not have knowledge enough of the topic to be unconfused, which is defined as being ignorant on a matter. Arguing from ignorance has no value, to me or to the other party. It is senseless and wastes my time and theirs. When an objection or query is posed to me, as the ORIGINATOR of this concept, it is usually absolutely apparent and transparent to me what sort of query i am presented with. Objections are just as obvious, and are simply not welcome here, I have no value to be gained from objections. I hope this has clarified my responses to various attempts to discuss my proposals. The republican party might be alone at the top, just before we start hanging the people at the top. As for civilian defense against a military determined to put down a majority insurrection... I can just as easily imagine failure as success. What is relevant is that it's an imagination, a fantasy that is subscribed to in either case. Command: "Target these coordinates with saturation bombardment." Soldier: "uhh, NO sir, my parents live there. With no respect, screw you sir." What people fail to accommodate is the reality that not all civilians and not all military will agree and comply. However what is absolutely true in any military engagement, is that if your opponents have agents inside your command and control structure, your "plans", meet a Mr. Murphy and falls flat on it's face. The only thing that is ridiculous, is that I started with lies, and used those lies to perpetuate misinformed opinion on a matter that I am obviously ignorant about. Welcome to the world of idiots arguing about stuff they don't know about. :-) By the way, I agree that BOTH sides lie. A few examples: "The only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." That's a lie. "Assault weapons have no civilian purpose." Again, a lie. "I am safer, carrying my gun." Yep, another lie. "Anyone that wants a gun, is a sick bully that should not HAVE a gun." Oh, my, is that....? YES, another lie. "I carry a gun to keep others safe." more lies. And THIS is a lie: "No one wants to take away your guns." A LOT of lies. I get sick of the lies from both sides. The PROBLEM is 'skirts'! Skirts are pleated and short. They are ONLY used to incite male violent competition. We need to BAN skirts! they are evil, and have no place in civil society. I am not against sensible fashions, but these skirts are a threat to our civilization. Dresses are fine, they are modestly long and NOT pleated. The PLEATS are the real problem. They allow a woman to bounce her ass and show more skin. It's Simply EVIL. Don't try to explain facts to me, because the fashion police have told me all I need to know about SKIRTS! We need sensible fashion control! People who don't understand the problem, or the facts about the problem are the BEST people to listen to when figuring out how to solve the problem!! The BEST people are ignorant on the the facts. They have biased opinions based on lies and emotional pleas from liars. REALLY, those are the people we need to make decisions. The reason we try to tell you the facts about "assault weapons", is that facts can be verified, as true, or false. If someone is telling you that the AR-15 is a "powerful" weapon, and should be banned, because it is so "powerful", then we can actually measure that. If it turns out that it is NOT factually all that powerful, then that means that someone lied to you. THAT is significant. SOMEONE lied to you, and it was NOT me. I did not lie to you, I told the truth. WHO lied to you? There are many measures we could attempt that would have a varied rate of success, and of those, some would have an immediate effect, others would take months or years to to be effective, and still others might take years or even decades to become effective. If the only measures we consider and implement are those that will take years or decades to be effective, then we are being obvious in the actual intent, not to save children, but rather to change society. I am not saying that we should not be attempting to change society, but rather I am saying at this moment, our primary focus should be on saving lives, by using those measures that are effective immediately, not by insisting we can only use measures that may be effective in decades. I am TRYING. The DECISIONS that need to be made to put an END to this crap, all over the world, is THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!! WE, the fucking PEOPLE have NO significant control of the PROCESS, and those decisions. Mothers: "Our children are being murdered in school!" Media and politicians: "You need to vote harder." It's a scam, the ENTIRE process specified in our constitution is a FRAUD! https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ There are measures we can take, some are long term effective, such as bans, and changing the conditions which encourage people to make criminal decisions. Some are mid term effective, such as hardening entry points and perimeter security. Some are immediately effective such as hardening the interiors of the targets, whether that is armed staff, or armed law enforcement on site. That is the range of options available. If we continue to insist on dismissing every measure that is not long term, we are simply inviting more tragedy. Please note that as the longer term measures do become more effective, the shorter term measures become less needed. I want to put a stop to the tragedies, specifically in schools. What I don't want is arguments about whether the risk to children is greater from those dedicated to protecting them, than those determined to murder them. That is absurd. Would anyone care to wager with me, that two weeks before the Parkland shooting, Broward County Sheriff office was stressing and training their deputies that "OFFICER SAFETY IS ABSOLUTE TOP PRIORITY!" I would support using a criminal record, as a guide to deciding who has DEMONSTRATED, such an abuse of their civil rights as to warrant the suspension of 2nd amendment rights. Speeding ticket? 1 year suspension. Any violent misdemeanor conviction, 5 years, MINIMUM suspension. Any violent felony, 20 year min suspension. Based on DEMONSTRATED inability or unwillingness to live within civil law. I STILL say we need to amend the 2nd amendment to legally ALLOW that suspension. However too many people don't care about what the government does is LEGAL or not. "But, Mike, what purpose do you have to use a rapid fire rifle as a tool?" I will tell you. However, please keep in mind, that it's not my obligation to justify my non-criminal behavior. Just as You should not be expected to answer invasive and accusatory questions about your non-criminal behavior. It's not a civil question. I live on the edge of wilderness. beyond my back yard, there is no law, no streets, no civilized structure of society. last summer we had a mountain lion in our front yard. It's not that uncommon, they are here. We have bears. We have coyote packs. last summer some of us went trampling out in that wilderness, looking for a dangerous escaped convict. I was part of that effort. My mom is disabled, during those times when we KNOW that such threats are imminent and present, I do need effective defensive weapons. Not a musket, not a pistol, a rifle, and one capable of engaging multiple attackers with immediacy. I very much resent and refute the nonsense and idiocy fueling this insanity against a style of firearm. It's not a type of firearm that is being discussed, it is a STYLE, a style that LOOKS threatening. The entire side of that idiocy is based on the way the weapon looks. It's ludicrous. Here is a fact for ya. The vast majority of criminal victims NEVER thought they would need a weapon for their defense. NEVER, right up to the moment they realized they were being victimized, and had absolutely NO means of changing the situation. What do the survivors ALWAYS say? Of course the DEAD ones never tell you they were wrong. But the SURVIVORS, always say, "I never thought it would happen here, to me." But it DID! That is reality, whether you like it or not. If you agree that our congress is a puppet of corporate interests, and they are merely corporate whores sucking tit of the NRA, and other corporate whores, it is an affront to my intelligence, and dignity as a human to suggest, that same government should in any case be entrusted to administer and adjudicate the ability of the public to determine to their own best interest which weapons may be properly used in our defense, and under which conditions. It is an ABSURDITY, of such a magnitude I become apoplectic at the mere thought of such stupidity. Have you EVER wondered, what a proper response would be, if you discovered that some madmen were shooting kids at your neighborhood school, and when you called the police, they AGREED with you. They calmly explained that more guns is NOT the answer. They insisted that we should ban guns, especially the evil assault weapons. They suggest you call your Senator, start a petition. Organize a march and protest! That the truth is, that those weapons being used, right now to kill kids, are MUCH too powerful and dangerous for anyone to face, and it's just much more likely that some poor innocent child might be struck by crossfire. What if every plea you make, that they get off their ass and go into harms way to stop that massacre, is met with bland reasoned platitudes about violence begets violence. If you asked them to help, and they replied that they are not cartoon heroes, not Rambo types. I wonder, EVERY DAMN TIME. GREAT, I love this. It's TRUE. So, now that we agree on that, WHEN is all that going to happen? Today? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Next year? WHEN???? And what are you willing to do UNTIL that is accomplished? NOTHING??? You people are just fine with sending in hordes of armed and dangerous people AFTER your kids are murdered, but OMFG, how could we put our kids under armed defense BEFORE they get killed??? That would NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!!! It's MUCH more important to teach dead kids about civil propriety, than to protect kids from crazed murder. It's not a binary choice, that we must use armed TEACHERS. If you keep looking in that empty box looking for solutions, all you find is darkness. I had to visit the county sherrifs office recently and was told that I had to check my weapons before I could come in. The gal was kinda in shock as I unloaded, and she had to keep giving me trays to put stuff in. When I got to the folding corkscrew, I mentioned that maybe this should go in the tray also. She just looked at me suspicious like, and told me to check EVERYTHING that could cause damage. I really really really wanted to ask her if she had a tray for my mind. Just glancing around I could see about 6 potential targets that I could destroy if I walked in bare naked if I wanted to. But I kept my thoughts to myself, got my business done and left. What kinda idiots do they think we are? Don't they realize that we are the MOST dangerous people on earth? Free people HAVE to be!! I understand why people are upset with the organization that supports the 2nd amendment as if it's some divine commandment to go get a gun and kill people. The problem here is that the 2nd does not allow any exceptions. It says that EVERYONE has the right to bear arms. Well, we agree that's a mistake. There are certainly people who should NOT have guns. We agree there. The NRA, is not the problem, they are a symptom. The reason many in congress refuse to enact meaningful gun controls, is because of the 2nd, NOT the NRA. The 2nd amendment says they CANNOT enact gun controls. Just like the 1st says they cannot install a state religion. Just like the 1st says they cannot tell you that you cannot speak your mind. It's NOT an NRA problem. It's a constitutional problem. If you want gun controls, then amend the 2nd. I WANT effective control of who has weapons and what weapons they have. Let me repeat that. I WANT GUN CONTROLS!!!! I also want to do it legally, according to the constitution. If you agree that we should have gun controls, then DAMN IT, FIX THE DAMN CONSTITUTION!!! https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ What does "well regulated militia" actually mean? To start, a militia, means a group of armed individuals. If the individuals are not armed, it's not a militia. Individuals. Well regulated, means "under orders", acting lawfully, with a chain of command and that command with a lawful purpose. As opposed to a lawless mob, behaving in a criminal manner. The salient point, here is that a well regulated militia, cannot exist, without armed individuals. Thus, the 2nd amendment specifies that individuals have the right to bear arms, and to form groups for lawful purpose. What they said, "We need more people trained and armed in defense of the public." What you heard, "We need to give every baby, child, man, and woman a gun and tell them to shoot at each other " What they said, "We need sensible and effective control over who has weapons and which weapons they have." What you heard, "We want to take all your guns, melt them down and make a statue of a football player kneeling." Bunch of drunk idiots in a bar arguing over which flea owns the dog. We need an effective process to make rational public policy decisions. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Okay. So, do you think civilians should be allowed to own guns?" Me: "Most of us. Yes." "Okay, so, why do you think you need a gun?" ... "Oh, honey, I don't. I don't need a gun." I continue, but with a more serious tone: "I could follow you home, walk up your driveway, and beat you to death with the daily newspaper. I could choke you to death with that purse. I could take a credit card, break it in half, and cut your throat open with it. With enough time and effort I could beat your boyfriend here with a rolled up pair of socks. I could probably dream up six dozen other ways I could easily end your life if you gave me an hour or so. If I wanted to, I could wrap my hand around that beer mug and kill all four of you before you could make it to the exit. The worst part is, in your utopian little fantasyland, there ain't a thing any of you could do about it. I don't need a gun. You need a gun. You need a gun because of men like me." Call me a jerk, but if you want to keep your guns, these are the conversations we all need to start having. I am willing to discuss meaningful gun laws, AFTER we have resolved medical care, social and economic equity, military imperialism abroad, corruption, abuse of police authority, judicial reform, and clearly demonstrated a reliable ability to manage and resolve problems of our human experience. Until such time, I will remain armed in defense against deranged assholes, and enraged victims of social injustice. I don't like the 2nd amendment. I CARRY a pistol nearly 24/7 so don't start. However I am not willing to insist that it does not mean what it says. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Nor am I willing to agree that Congress has any authority to decide when the rights of the people do not apply. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Nor will I agree that the supreme court has authority to simply decide that those rights don't apply. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" We have a constitutional process to amend or repeal the 2nd. IF you think there are good reasons to have exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, then AMEND THE 2nd to INCLUDE THOSE EXCEPTIONS. If that process is failing, which I agree it IS, then we need a new process. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ What we said, "We need more people trained and armed in defense of the public." What you heard, "We need to give every baby, child, man, and woman a gun and tell them to shoot at each other " I have been carrying weapons since I was 8 years old. I started carrying a concealed pistol at 19 years old in 1975. I volunteered for military service when I was 17 and earned a Vietnam era service ribbon. I am not interested in taking away everybody's guns. I just KNOW there are people that I do not trust with a plastic spoon, and I certainly never want them to get a damn firearm. Now. I also stopped a long time ago that false narrative that carrying a pistol makes me safer. It does NOT. It does not make people around me safer. Arming myself makes me MORE DANGEROUS! Say it with me. Armed humans are MORE dangerous than unarmed humans. Keep saying that. Say that because god damn it, it is the TRUTH! Quit being dishonest little snot balls. Now convince those people who have never met you why they should trust YOU specifically YOU with a firearm. Have you been HONEST? Are you trustworthy? Are you a hysteric ammosexual asshole with a beer in one hand and a pile of shattered glass, lead and litter at your favorite shooting spot? Have you constantly told them that you are armed to keep them "safe"? I don't think many gun carriers have any clue why other people are scared of people who carry guns. Maybe we should figure that out. Was not that long ago, when school teachers AND students carried firearms to schools. Life on the US frontier was DANGEROUS! All kinds of murderous predators, human as well as other species. Today we need to face a NEW reality. Our current society is NOT safe, it is DANGEROUS! Make of that what you wish, but ignoring it, hoping it will change without actually doing something is simple idiocy. Leaving people undefended against that threat of danger is absurd thinking. How you wanna play it? Wanna pray the shooters kill other people, or ya wanna fight back? I am sickened by the carnage, and yeah, we should DO something about reducing the number of angry frustrated mentally deficient assholes that have easy access to weapons of every sort. UNTIL we do that, wanna pray? Or fight back? Those are your choices. LOL, you don't get it. Does Charlie Manson get a pistol to put under his pillow? No, and he should not. However the 2nd says, quoted, "...shall not be infringed." Get it, there is no exception allowed in the 2nd. Is there? Do you see one? I sure as hell don't. Our legislature decided to make an exception, and the courts upheld that authority for the congress to "infringe" on a right, specifically protected FROM infringement. Get it yet??? No? Take a class in reason and logic people. The courts have ruled that congress can infringe on rights they feel need to be infringed, even when they are specifically forbidden to do so, by our constitution. They were allowed that authority for the sake of expediency. Instead of amending the 2nd, they simply decided to ignore it, in any particular circumstance where it was convenient, for them. Get behind it, or get in front of it, because pulling up the rear on this is futile. Some weapons, almost exclusively military only, allow the user to switch firing modes. These are usually called select fire weapons by people who know, and full auto or machine guns by people who don't know. Civilian models only allow a switch from safety on, to single fire. The user must pull the trigger to fire each round. Those who know, call these semi-automatics, many who don't know, call these assault weapons, confusing them with the sililar looking but different select fire weapons. On the military models, that switch may have other modes. The usual possible modes are safety, single fire, burst, and full. I will explain each mode. 1. Safety on, the weapon should not fire a round of ammunition under any circumstance. 2. Single fire, each round requires a trigger pull, then trigger release. Every round fired requires a separate trigger pull. (This is the only mode available on civilian semi-auto weapons) 3. Burst fire, usually a 3 round, rapid fire "burst" occurs for each trigger pull. A 30 round magazine would fire 10 bursts. 4. Full auto, a trigger pull fires rounds for as long as the trigger is pulled, up to the magazine limit. Now, full auto fire is rarely actually used and most modern military troops are not issued rifles that will fire full auto, they are limited to burst and single fire. A modern rifle capable of full auto usually has a rate of fire exceeding 500 rounds per minute, (usually closer to 800 or more). What that means is that if a rifle has a rate of fire of 500 rounds per minute, a 30 round magazine will last less than 5 seconds, and it is not possible for a human ear to distinguish each round, it is a continuous roar, not separate pops. An M-16 and an AK-47 are both capable of full auto at fire rates of closer to 800 rounds per minute. Which means that a 30 round magazine would be empty in about 3.5 seconds. That is why they stopped issuing full auto weapons to most troops, they are simply ineffective in combat. If a person had a full or burst capable weapon, and chose to select single fire instead, then they are firing single fire, and the weapon is exactly as lethal and effective as the civilian model, functioning exactly the same. Another point that many people do not understand is that the weapons that "look" military, such as the AR-15 and the civilian AK-47, fire an ammunition that is NOT more powerful or deadly than common hunting ammo. One of the least powerful common hunting rifles, the Winchester 30-30 lever action, fires a round that is more powerful and deadly than the AR-15 and the AK-47 both. The militaries of the world discovered something about combat shortly after WWII, and that truth is that wounded enemies cause more problems for the enemy than dead enemies. It's a gruesome reality, but there it is. It is much easier to win a war by wounding the other soldiers than killing them. Every healthy soldier combatant requires a support team, however a wounded soldier not only stopped fighting, but also requires an even more expensive support team, and every person working to support wounded soldiers, is NOT available to fight back. By wounding a soldier instead of killing that soldier, you just removed about 10 other potential soldiers from the battle. What all that means is that the weapons and ammunition used by most military troops are NOT designed to kill. They are designed to remove enemy combatants from the battle. Yes, some do die, people who get shot are as likely to die as not in combat situations. But that is caused by the conditions of combat, not that the ammo or weapons are so deadly. Snipers commonly use modified hunting weapons with hunting ammo, because they are in fact intended to kill people. They don't use combat rifles. "A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the dietary security of our breakfast, the right of the people to keep and eat bacon shall not be infringed." Who has the right, the breakfast or the people? The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ http://45ink.com/wp/constitutional-republic/ Our constitution. I am simply amazed at how people insist that the document is something it is not. You and many others may ask why we don't just use the constitution, the way it used to be. But the fact is that we do. That document is actually quite simple, even though people try and make it sound complex and complicated, and it certainly is not. There is a bunch of mumbo jumbo about how certain bodies will be formed, and more about how members of those bodies will be appointed, or elected, which is in fact the bulk of the document. Then there are some required responsibilities of those bodies and officials. (Which too many take to mean as limiting, but are not, they simply enumerate requirements) THEN there are the amendments, which specify certain rights which are to be protected from legislative acts. In the midst of all that nonsense, is the actual process specified that the US government uses to enact laws. It's a simple and easy to understand process. Congress passes laws of their choosing. The president signs those laws, (or not). The Court decides whether to agree or disagree with the laws passed by congress. That's it. That's all there is to it. Now here is the funny thing. As long as congress passes a law, the president signs it, and the court does not disagree, that law is legal and constitutional. EVEN if that law directly contravenes a protected right enumerated or not, held by the people or states. Case in point, the 2nd amendment, laws have been passed, and adjudicated that clearly strip the right to bear arms from citizens. Some you may agree with, others you may not. However that may be, your agreement, or opinion is NOT part of the process specified in the constitution. Let me cite an example of a 2nd amendment contravention by legislative act, that you might agree with. In Most states, it is illegal for a convicted felon to own or possess a dangerous weapon. Most notably, while imprisoned! That makes sense, correct? People who are in prison for a violent felony clearly should not be armed. But read that 2nd amendment again, now show me where it says that ONLY non convicted felons can have the right to bear arms. You cannot, because it does NOT say that. A LAW was passed and signed by the congress that changed the conditions under which a citizen may NOT have that right to bear arms. ONCE we agreed that the congress has THAT authority, we opened the floodgates to ANY legislative act that can restrict ANY right we normally think of as protected. And YES, it is constitutional, because they used the fucking constitutional process to do it. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch-condensed/10153544524957278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/scamjerk/10150185248182278 http://anonhq.com/matt-damons-anti-war-speech-what-we-need-is-civil-disobedience/ https://www.facebook.com/steve.worthington.5/videos/1095509033813431/?fref=nf Don't disarm the GOOD guys!!! This is not common sense, this is common misdirection and ineffective.Allow me to elucidate the reality.When mass shootings do occur, the authorities do NOT call for clerics, spiritual healers, beads and flower toting pacifists afraid of shadows. NO, the FIRST responders arrive, (too late), with MASSIVE firepower and armor. With REAL assault weapons, grenades, vests and shields and a LOT of ammunition! Why would they choose to send in more guns, if MORE GUNS is NOT the answer?? Standing armed uniformed guards in schools cannot be afforded, much less standing guards to prevent ALL possible scenarios! No, the TRUTH is that some people have the physical and emotional capacity to carry a weapon for YOUR defense, and you have no choice but to TRUST us. Identify, evaluate, train and certify those of us who can and WILL stand guard for your defense, in plain clothes, across this nation as VOLUNTEERS! Do not make the mistake of disarming the GOOD guys! In my opinion, one of the first tasks is to stop the misrepresentative narratives from both ends of the issue. Owning or carrying a firearm, or any weapon, for that matter does not make a person "safer" nor does that act make anyone else around them "safer". An armed human is not a "safe" human, an armed human is a more dangerous human. Disarming the population will not make anyone "safer". Life is not safe. There are criminals that will use whatever means at hand to commit atrocity on innocents. The history of life before the advent of gunpowder is rife with examples of how cruelty and atrocity is prosecuted by the criminal on the victim. Edged and blunt force weapons were found and used to overcome and subjugate populations from prehistory to well recorded accounts. It was not until the common man was armed with a weapon that made each person equally dangerous that there was a possibility of a social order that included the concept of equal rights for all. There is no EASY solution. It is a complex and multi-faceted problem. The only ONE common factor, in criminal violence is that a human made a decision to commit a violent act. Start there, RIGHT there. The answer, if any exists, lies in that moment of decision. If a business offers a wage, and the employee agrees, then how is that not fair? I can only think of one reason why that agreement would not be "fair". That is when the business has a coercive advantage in the negotiation. Such as when there are many people looking for work, and only a few jobs available, and for survival, those employees will agree to poverty wages, because that is their ONLY option. To not accept that wage, would mean immediate poverty and starvation, death. Which IS the situation most people working at minimum wage are facing, they have no leverage in the negotiation at all. They must accept those terms, or die. However what i am proposing is to give those people the option of working in a social market, that pays above poverty wages, because it provides ALL of the base goods and services a person needs, for very little actual labor. What THAT means, is that any business that wants a worker, that business no longer has an unfair coercive lever on the negotiation, they must offer better than below poverty wages, or workers simply abandon them, and go work in the social market, or go find a business that is not being an idiot. https://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/rational-economy/10152712356062278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch-condensed/10153544524957278 http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/21/regenerative-economy-holism-economy-climate-change-inequality https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/10150185246667278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/fiat-currency-evil/10152681718567278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/child-vehicle-death-prevention/10152707964517278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/rational-economy/10152712356062278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/better-energy-production/10152751440202278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/personal-representative/10152683463162278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/politics/10152676344862278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/voting/10152613383312278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/voting-system-fault/10152613386042278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 How about we quit expecting one man in the office of president to FIX anything at all. Expecting to elect any one person, to save your sorry ass, is the clue that YOU have not figured out the problem yet. The enemies and opponents of freedom, equality and democracy are using supercomputers, the media, and robotic drones to control their agenda. We, the defenders of equality freedom and democracy are using a system that consists of broken bones tied to sticks. It is WELL past time to update and harden our systems of self governance! This is a condensed version of my proposal: We should have four branches of government, not three. The executive branch would be quite similar to what we currently use. An elected president, and staff. The executive branch will filter and review requests, from any branch, for legislative action. ONLY the executive branch will be authorized to task congress with crafting new law. The legislative branch will consist of elected congresspersons, much the same as current system. Congress will be tasked by the executive branch to study, review and research problems and to craft legislation to solve those problems. Congress will have no authority to enact legislation. Congress will advance possible solutions to a problem as written law. Such law will be expected to be a plausible solution, with accounting for cost to the nation, and such accounting will accurately define the funding. Who pays the taxes, and how much will be taxed. The judicial branch, along with current responsibilities will review each proposed law advanced by congress, EVERY one. The review will determine if the proposed law will be legal in context of the established laws in force, the Bill of Rights, and any other legal context that may be appropriate. If such review finds a proposed law to be illegal, then that legislation will be returned to congress for edit. Congress MUST pass every law to judicial, after each edit. If judicial review determines a proposed legislative act to be legal, then judicial passes the proposed act to the executive branch for review. The executive branch, now with full assurance the law is legal, will review each proposal for plausibility. Is the law likely to actually solve the problem? Is the cost of the enforcement and other considerations accurate? If the executive branch finds fault with the proposed law, the law is passed back to congress for edit. (note that EVERY edit must pass to judicial, not directly back to executive) If however the executive branch review determines the proposed law is likely to solve the problem, and the cost accounting is reasonable accurate, then the executive passes the proposal to the PUBLIC, the fourth branch, and the ONLY branch of government authorized to enact law. The public branch will review the proposed law, and vote on the decision to enact that as law, or to reject that proposal and send it back to congress for edit. Every citizen over the age of eighteen, has the right to vote, unless such right has been denied for felony criminal conviction. However each citizen may choose a representative to cast a vote. Note that currently we elect a representative for a term. In this system a representative is chosen, hired, by a citizen, for ONLY as long as that representative actually chooses to vote in line with the wishes of the citizen. For each decision, put before the public, a chosen representative will publish to the citizens represented, the decision that the representative will cast on that issue, such published vote cannot be changed by the representative once published. The published decision, will be published some ample time for every citizen who has chosen that representative to determine if THAT is in fact how they want their vote cast. If so, then that representative casts the vote for that citizen. If NOT, then the citizen fires that representative, and that representative cannot cast that vote for that citizen. The citizen, can then, choose a different representative for that vote, or for future votes. OR may choose not to vote at all. OR choose to cast that single vote themselves. A citizen always has the option of choosing if and how their vote will or will not be cast. A representative will be expected to follow the workings of congress and be aware and informative of the proposed acts anticipated from congress. thus, the citizens will have a fair and informed concept, IF THEY WISH, of the likely effect and consequences of the laws they are asked to decide on. Thus, if a representative, having nominally 20,000 votes, should publish a no vote on a proposed law, one week prior to the final count, may only have 18,786 ACTUAL votes cast as NO on that law. This proposal seeks to allow the public to be informed and responsible for the effects and consequences of the laws we will enforce upon ourselves. This is my original proposal: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 If it is true, that all systems administered by people are inherently corrupted by self interested participants, (which I agree with), THEN, does it not make sense to administer that system by the entire public? If indeed the system is corrupted by public self interest, is that not, in truth, the GOAL of government?? The Nation of United States was a promise, and agreement, a contract that we all have agreed to, with some basic premises about who is responsible for what. We the people were promised that we would be self governing. The mechanics of providing that self governance is outlined in our constitution. The question to be asked and answered is whether those mechanics are still, (if ever) adequate to fulfill our promise to ourselves. If the mechanics of the system that we use is inadequate then it must be fixed! Electing new people will never fix the system, there is no election currently being considered that tackles the inadequacies of our systems. None. We see our elected officials behaving as rulers, making laws that benefit them and their interests, while explaining that we, the common people cannot object, because they have information that we don't. They have secrets. They act on secret information. They have become de facto rulers. Being ruled by secret tribunals was never part of the promise, the agreement we accepted as our constitution. Unlike previous victims of predatory rulers acting in secret, we have a precedent of legal authority to remove ourselves from an oppressive or inadequate system, and to install a better one. To remove the current system, without having another installed is to be an anarchy, and invite a dictatorship. With that said, the next question becomes, how shall we design a new system of mechanics that is adequate, and that retains the promise of liberty, justice and responsible self governance that is the foundation cornerstone of this nation? We have seen many attempts at differing systems in history, however the conditions in which they were designed were always much the same, communication was always limited to the speed of a horse. Technology has advanced such that in a great majority of the earth, communication is nearly instantaneous. That simple, single fact changes the entire field of possibilities. Why are we reliant on a system designed to operate in a time that communication was transported by horse?? We now have the opportunity, for the first time in human history to design a system of mechanics that allow self governance of the people, by the people, WITHOUT "rulers" deciding our fates. I propose a system that uses technology to place the authority and responsibility to enact law directly into the hands of the people. We need an executive branch, we need a judicial branch and yes we need a congressional branch, however in addition we need a public branch of government. We remove the authority to enact law from Congress. Congress would be tasked with writing law by the executive branch, but have no power to enact law. Congress crafts potential solutions, then passes those to the Judicial branch. Judicial branch reviews the proposed laws for legality. Does the proposed law meet tests of constitutionality? This is done BEFORE enactment! If the law is bad, legally, it is sent back to congress with suggestions for a fix. If it is good, legally, then Judicial passes it to executive, which reviews it for plausibility. Is the law proposed likely to solve the problem?? Is the law going to fall within current policy? Is the law accurate in the definition of the problem and are the costs and methods of payments accurate? Once a proposed solution passes the 3 branches, it then is presented to the public branch, which is the ONLY branch authorized enact law. Once the public has voted to enact a law, the executive then signs it as law. Who is the public branch? How can that be organized? We are the public branch. The entire citizen population. We claim and hold the sole authority and responsibility for our self governance. (was that not the original promise??) Each person may choose a representative, or we may choose to vote on each law ourselves. Note that a representative is not elected, a rep is chosen by consent and at will. A Rep controls only the number of votes that individuals assign, and that assignment can be changed at will, by individuals. As long as a Rep is voting in line with an individuals choices, then the individual, by consent abdicates authority, and is freed to go about his business without undue concern about the absolute details of the laws being passed. However that abdication by consent may be rescinded at any time, and that full authority can be held and exerted by an individual at any time, and for any reason. For every election, a rep will publish the vote they will cast for the pool of votes they control. That publishment will occur some reasonable time prior to the election. Any citizen can then, prior to the election, remove their vote from that rep. The citizen is then responsible for their vote, casting it, or not as they wish. Note that the goal here is to empower the individual with choices of assuming full control of the right to vote, or allowing another to control that vote, without any loss of control of that choice. The public branch cannot, will not ever be tasked with crafting of laws, that is the sole responsibility and authority of Congress. Elected to represent the best minds to craft the best solutions. The Judicial branch goes to work. They no longer get to cherry pick the work they do. EVERY law will be reviewed and will be judged legal before enactment. There will be no more misery foisted on the public by rulers passing bad law, illegal law, that must be fought back into the courts. At great public expense and pain, division and anger, we the people have been forced to live and work under illegal law, until a court could be convinced to judge the work of lawmakers. NO MORE. We understand that there is some reluctance to trust the public with the role of self governance. However the mechanics of the system outlined here protect the public from the consequences of "mob action". As well as protects the public from the corruption that has corroded our previous mechanics. The salient point here is that our Declaration of Independence, is quite specific in that we agreed on the legal argument of self governance. The people of this nation have the legal authority to make the decisions of governance. If there is a successful argument that the people of this nation cannot be trusted with the role of self rule, then we have negated the legal authority of this nation to exist. I accept the risk of the freedom of others, because I expect to enjoy the benefits of my own freedom. If we reject this premise, the legal argument that we have the right of self governance cannot be supported. Our Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights clearly define the lines of responsibility and authority. Laws which criminalize behavior that do not cause actual injury to another, are way outside the line of authority we have established. Our current system is a rogue state, operating as a ruler class. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch-condensed/10153544524957278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 If we the people, refuse to be held responsible for the acts of our elected and appointed officials, Then how can we possibly expect those officials to accept responsibility?? When CNN asked a local affiliate in Michigan if the protesters were asking for the resignation of Gov. Snyder, the answer was hesitant but firm, "No, they want him ARRESTED!" I get sick of the realization that too many people in the US think of our system of government as some kind of religious doctrine. No matter how badly it works, no matter how crazy it gets, they "believe" in it, just because they have no other alternative, and refuse to consider any alternative. Any suggestion that an alternative could be better, is considered blasphemy and is punished, as apostasy. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 You should understand that I do support Bernie. I think he is the best candidate. I just also agree with so many others that the entire pot stinks, and throwing in a fresh vegetable won't change that stink. Many of us have come to the rational conclusion that the system sucks. The process we use is corrupt, the people involved who insist that participating in a corrupted system is the only path available to fix the system are participating in the further corruption of that system. We reject, utterly, the assertion that electing anyone will significantly affect the state of this nation. The entire mess is a circus, performed by clowns for the entertainment and profit of the owners. All voting does is to enrich the owners of the circus, and validate the system corruption as valid. We are saying NO. If it is true, that all systems administered by people are inherently corrupted by self interested participants, (which I agree with), THEN, does it not make sense to administer that system by the entire public? If indeed the system is corrupted by public self interest, is that not, in truth, the GOAL of government?? https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 What I find interesting is that the Bernie crowd has way too many people who hear him say that our systems are rigged, corrupted, and need to be fixed, changed. And yet when presented with an opportunity to actually make those changes, they immediately want to defend the process, and say that everything works just fine, and there is no reason to change anything. Interesting indeed. For those people I have to ask, are you REALLY a Bernie supporter? Or are you in fact a republican, conservative troll? I want to be honest, what I have proposed has some weak spots, for instance, our current judicial branch is not adequate to handle the task they would be required to accomplish. I have some ideas about that but I hope others will engage with that as well. Another weak spot is that my proposal does not have any mechanism for the public to force a repeal of a bad law. There are several other problems that need to be fixed that I know of, and likely more that will crop up. Therefor what I am suggesting is that we set up and test my proposal. I would like to see several public tests by different university social science departments. Testing will highlight the weak spots and let us try different fixes and choose the best fixes. ALSO, and this is important, by making the testing public, we can demonstrate to the public how much better this is than what we use now, (if it is in fact better). Once a vast majority of the public is aware of how much better this works than our current system, we can simply tell the current elected assholes to pack up and go home. We don't need a violent revolution, we can do this with a peaceful transition. I REFUSE to be involved or support any sort of armed violent insurrection. However if a vast majority of the public agrees to this system, then the transition can be fairly quick and painless. Thanks for your support, SHARE!! LOL, they don't get it. Our constitution specifies the process used to make decisions. That's it. That is ALL it does. It's not some divine document, it's a PROCESS. The process, once stripped of all the ancillary pomp and circumstance, is quite simple. Congress passes laws of their choosing. The president signs those laws, (or not). The Court decides whether to agree or disagree with the laws passed by congress. That's it. That's all there is to it. Now here is the funny thing. As long as congress passes a law, the president signs it, and the court does not disagree, that law is legal and constitutional. Whether you agree with the result is of no consequence, none, they simply don't care if the people don't agree. Why should they? I don't see anything there about "we the people" having any say in the matter. Do you? https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 What bothers me about those people who insist that more people should vote in elections, is that what they really want is to have more people vote, who agree with their own views. I never hear of people who are democrats saying that more republicans should vote. I never hear of conservatives saying that if more liberals would vote, then we could easily solve more problems. The problem here is that generally speaking, the ratio of yay and nay votes on any issue or candidate will be unchanged, regardless of the total number of votes, (with the exception of course when the number approaches zero). The result is that regardless of whether EVERY person votes, or a mere subset of the eligible, the outcome of the elections will generally be unchanged. I challenge any one who advocates that, more people voting will substantially affect the situation, to clearly articulate just HOW that reasoning works. I dare ya, I double dare ya! My thrust here is to argue that merely inciting, or forcing, more public participation in the system, will not substantially change the probability of the success of our government to solve the problems we face. The reasonable conclusion is not to have more people participate in an inadequate system, but rather to participate in building a better system that IS adequate. I reiterate that our current system adequacy is very much like a group of monkeys attempting to launch a space shuttle using a horse and buggy. Every two years we change the horse, every 4 years we change the driver, but no one considers that the system will never work, no matter which part of the system is replaced with the same technology. Regardless of how many monkeys agree to change the horse or driver, it will not work. The argument, by the monkeys is that it WOULD work, if ENOUGH of the monkeys agree that it will work. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/voting/10152613383312278 I am often told that people who do not vote, should have no right to complain about government. As a veteran, who volunteered to fight and die, I argue that I have the right to complain. Whether I choose to participate in the system or not is not material to my right of complaint. However, I understand the emotive argument proposed that if I am not willing to vote, then I have abdicated my authority, as a citizen. I propose to demonstrate a simple and single reason that I choose to not participate. I will outline an imaginary election, that seems to be fairly typical in our current system, that places a single official in a position of power and authority. An election that decides who will be a Congressman. A person wins an election, by a vote of 60%. Because that person won the seat by a clear majority, he feels that by the consent of the people he has the authority and power to make decisions on behalf of all of the people he represents. This circumstance seems fair and reasonable on the face, and indeed this is the state of affairs that we have agreed to for over 200 years. When I look at that circumstance, my first thought is to ask, "What about the 40% that did not vote for that man?? Are THEY being fairly represented?". In a typical election we see a voter turnout that is close to about 33%. If the total number of votes was 10,000, then the number of registered voters that did NOT vote is close to 20,000. With that situation, although the results are reported as a 60% victory, a clear majority, the real truth is that of the 30,000 of those who registered, only 6,000 actually voted FOR that candidate, 24,000 did NOT vote for that candidate. That is an election decided not by a 60% majority, but by a 25% minority! But wait, there is MORE! In a typical voting district only 50% of those who are eligible to register actually are registered. If we figure the situation that way, then the district has an eligible base of 60,000 people, half of those are unwilling to participate at all! We can assume they are lazy, but what if they are not lazy, but rather feel like me, and REFUSE to participate in such an unfair and corrupt system. 6000 votes in a population of 60,000 is not a 60% majority victory! That election was a 10% circus! That congressman does NOT represent the people that did NOT vote for him, but rather a 10% minority of special interests. I am not lazy, I am ANGRY! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/voting-system-fault/10152613386042278 Current United States political reality. Some people blame the President. Some people blame the Congress. Some people blame the Supreme Court. Some people blame democrats. Some people blame republicans. For what?? What is the problem that people are being blamed for?? Failure?? Let's all at least agree on THAT!! The Government is demonstrating increasing failure to respond adequately to the problems we face as a nation and as a global human community. FAILURE is NOT an OPTION!! Blaming is NOT going to fix the problem. Ask the people who do systems troubleshooting!! What is the problem?? Politicians are the problem!! Politicians are created by the systems we use for government!! They all lie! LOL I think that to assign the problems we face, or the ability to resolve them on a human, any human, or group of humans currently working within the broken systems we use, is extremely naive. We use a system that depends on the elected people to have a desire to find and install solutions. Yet, the systems are designed to make that very difficult, and it is much easier to have a desire to maintain power and control. Watch the new Iraqi government, they use the same system as the old Iraqi government. They elected new people, and it will FAIL, just as the old set of people failed and for exactly the same reasons the US systems are failing. They don't want to fix the problems we face, they want to win elections. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/politics/10152676344862278 Wouldn't it be great if you could hire your very own Representative?? How about a penny per vote, paid out of your taxes? Your personal Representative would be a person who actually votes the way YOU want, if they don't you can fire them, before they vote wrong. If you fire them, they don't get paid, and you can then vote the way YOU want instead, then rehire them. Anytime you want, for any reason. Or you could fire that guy and hire some other guy. As often as you want, for every vote. Or you could not pay anyone, and just vote the way you want on everything, or nothing. Think about it. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/politics/10152676344862278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/voting/10152613383312278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/voting-system-fault/10152613386042278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/personal-representative/10152683463162278 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/different-approach-same-result/10152706025602278 Let's try this from a different angle. The hue and cry is this: "Everyone should vote, and those who do not vote have no valid complaint!" Let me stipulate an election, where every elected position in the nation is up for grabs, in a national effort to 'vote the bums out!' Further stipulate that every person who is eligible to register to vote does register. Then further stipulate that every person registered to vote does in fact vote. Now, please explain to me how we can reasonably expect significantly different election results from that circumstance, than the current circumstance where a rather small portion of the citizenry actually does vote. Please explain to me how the 100% voter participation increased the probability of those elected officials to enact and implement realistic, effective and cost effective solutions to the problems we face as a nation. Please, use reason and not wishful thinking, back up your reasoning with reality, not fantasy. Now, let us examine the proposition that people who do not vote should have no valid complaint. Stipulating again, 100% voter participation, the election results have not been affected in the slightest. The ability and willingness of elected officials to enact good solutions has not been affected, therefore the complaints concerning the way our elected officials are performing have not changed in the slightest. With that understood, ask yourself this: "Has the number of VALID complaints increased or decreased??" Now that every citizen has voted, every citizen that complains has a VALID complaint, and that number of valid complaints just increased. BAH HUMBUG!! I get sick of the realization that too many people in the US think of our system of government as some kind of religious doctrine. No matter how badly it works, no matter how crazy it gets, they "believe" in it, just because they have no other alternative, and refuse to consider any alternative. Any suggestion that an alternative could be better, is considered blasphemy and is punished, as apostasy. Many of us have come to the rational conclusion that the system sucks. The process we use is corrupt, the people involved who insist that participating in a corrupted system is the only path available to fix the system are participating in the further corruption of that system. We reject, utterly, the assertion that electing anyone will significantly affect the state of this nation. The entire mess is a circus, performed by clowns for the entertainment and profit of the owners. All voting does is to enrich the owners of the circus, and validate the system corruption as valid. We are saying NO. If it is true, that all systems administered by people are inherently corrupted by self interested participants, (which I agree with), THEN, does it not make sense to administer that system by the entire public? If indeed the system is corrupted by public self interest, is that not, in truth, the GOAL of government?? Our constitution specifies the process used to make decisions. That's it. That is ALL it does. It's not some divine document, it's a PROCESS. The process, once stripped of all the ancillary pomp and circumstance, is quite simple. Congress passes laws of their choosing. The president signs those laws, (or not). The Court decides whether to agree or disagree with the laws passed by congress. That's it. That's all there is to it. Now here is the funny thing. As long as congress passes a law, the president signs it, and the court does not disagree, that law is legal and constitutional. Whether you agree with the result is of no consequence, none, they simply don't care if the people don't agree. Why should they? I do not see anything in that decision loop about "we the people". Do you? http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 Jet fuel can't melt steel.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA Rand Paul, spent some time patting himself on the back, for saving social security funds, from either the dems, or repubs or both. This is my response. Understand that THIS is what they do. THIS is all they fucking do. Oh BULLSHIT. We, the people have seen this kind of idiocy for far too long. THIS is what really happened. THEY wanted to get something important done. YOU insisted that the legislation included funding for some ridiculous expensive bullshit. THEY resisted and argued that if YOU wanted that ridiculous bullshit, then THEY want this ridiculous bullshit. Then YOU insisted that the only funding was to strip that from SS and they agreed, because YOU refused to take it out of DEFENSE. Then YOU voted to stop the funding, and scored political points by saving social security and THEY scored political points because they refused to fund YOUR expensive bullshit. THAT is exactly what you assholes did, ALL OF YOU!! You piss ant liars and thieves managed to spend time making sure that NOTHING got done, just to make sure the other side did not win. FUCK YOU! People seem to enjoy blaming the state of our nation on the "apathetic" public. We are not apathetic, we never have been actually. What we have been is apoplectic! ( look that one up people ) That situation has been caused by the reality that we have zero meaningful or significant control of our government. We were promised self governance, and all we got was a chance to trade one set of asshole rulers for another set of assholes. That is the ONLY control we have, and that is neither meaningful nor significant control at all. We have never been apathetic sheep, we have been angry, frustrated and attempting patience for over 200 years for somehow this purported great system to finally produce reliable, consistent rational results, and all we got was a continuing and increasing stream of lies, excuses and bullshit. Our patience is ending. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch-condensed/10153544524957278 In my mind, people pay way too much attention trying to fix the election process, and I am much more concerned about fixing the results of that process. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ Why are you NOT being represented in government? Because our constitution does not specify that we elect representatives. It specifies that we elect rulers. A ruler makes decisions for you. You may have an opportunity to voice your opinion, but that ruler is not obliged to consider or respect your opinion, because they are elected to make that decision for you. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. In our current constitution, we get together to elect someone and that election places them in a position of rule. They now have the authority and power to make decisions for the population that held that election. For that ENTIRE population, not just the people who voted for that person, but also the people who voted against that person, and also the people who chose not to vote at all. How is that "representing" the entire population?? Now you might suggest that this is the way we do things and there is no better way. However I retort, bullshit. There IS a better way, and the fact that THEY have not figured out a better way in no way is any evidence that a better process does not exist. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ There are two, at least two social tools that are not adequate to managing our human experience, one of those is our economic management tools. The other is our process used to make decisions. In the case of the economic tools, there are good reasons to use capitalism as a tool for driving innovation and improvement in products and services. There are also good reasons to use socialism for managing care of those who for whatever reason are simply not being well served in the capital market. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain, the real challenge is how to integrate those two concepts into a single population in a beneficial manner. Have a look. http://45ink.com/wp/fiat-currency-evil/ The people of this nation have decided to adopt a program that ensures health care for the entire public. Well, what a lie. On so many levels. Let me count the ways. First, it was not the public that wrote and enacted the law that is being discussed. It was an elite group of power mongers elected to make those decisions, that also have the power to enforce those decisions. They don't represent the public. Whether you agree that people have some right to public funded health care, or that people should damn well pay for their health care themselves, neither position was represented by congress. Congress did not decide to fund health care for every citizen, nor did they decide to tell every citizen they need to fund their own health care. NO, what they did decide to do, was to require the entire nation to fund the profits of the health insurance industry and the health care industry. A ruler makes decisions for you. You may have an opportunity to voice your opinion, but that ruler is not obliged to consider or respect your opinion, because they are elected to make that decision for you. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch-condensed/10153544524957278 A representative, constitutional republic, using a democratic decision process. There are layers within my proposal, that are not obvious, because the concepts I designed are new, never been even considered. The public will never be authorized to write laws. That removes the "mob rule" problem. We elect congress to write laws. Those people have no authority to enact the laws they write, that removes any corruption from that layer. They have no "power" to corrupt. They have a job, not a position of authority. The court reviews their work, and adjudicates that work against our existing Bill of Rights, and existing law. If it passes it gets to the next layer. If not, it is rejected as flawed. The executive branch has no authority to enact law, the president has a job, not a position of authority. that job is to review and filter requests for federal solutions, and to review and filter the solutions proposed by congress and passed through the court as legal. The executive review determines if the solution proposed is plausible, and directly addresses the problem. Which means there are no more multi issue laws, with thousands of pages of bullshit unrelated to the main concern. The executive branch also reviews the proposed solution for accounting accuracy, who pays for what, and will those taxes actually pay the costs? Once all that process is completed, any proposed law comes to a vote, by the public. WE decide if that is how we want to solve that problem, if that is how we want to pay for that law. The chosen representatives is the concept that seems to confuse people the most. A representative is NOT elected to an office of power or authority. they are an optional convenience for the public to administer their decisions, while not being always actively engaged. A citizen has the option to choose a representative that seems to accurately reflect the thoughts and feelings of that citizen. However that is a circumstance that is absolutely under the control of the citizen, not the representative. If a Rep, is about to cast a vote that the citizen does NOT agree with, that citizen always has the opportunity to cast their vote without that rep, or choose a different rep, or not vote at all. That choice belongs to the citizen, and can be employed for any vote, at any time before each vote is cast. Which means that a citizen that IS engaged on a specific issue, has absolute control of how their vote is cast on that issue. It also means that on issues that the citizen is not particularly interested in, they have a representative that can vote on their behalf. Much of the process I am proposing was never possible, before the advent of communication at the speed of electricity. It simply was not possible. I am NOT saying we should use the internet, or computers. With the concerns for network security i am opposed to that with current tech. However once we had TELEGRAPH, my proposal was possible. Now that we do have fast communication, what i propose is not only possible, but it also fulfills the original INTENT of the founding documents, a SELF GOVERNING NATION. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 People like to compare Bernie, with FDR. And yet, after we lost FDR, the forces of oligarchy went right back to work, and managed to usurp and corrupt the system we use. When Bernie has served his two terms, what then? Remember, that those corporate interests are not human, they are practically immortal. They can afford patience, to wait until a minor annoyance is removed by time. They are insidious, and not at all dismayed by the irritation of the reforms they will dismantle in time. If we don't lock out those corporate interests, they will always worm their way back into the carcass. Well, that's the problem isn't it. We use a system that forces the public to play casino circus games to attempt resolution to real world problems. You understand what casino circus games are right?? Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but the house always wins. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 So, here is an interesting thought experiment. The only way we can support the 7 billion people we have now, (not very well, by the way), is by using these fertilizers, and GMO products and by slash burning jungles, polluting the air, streams lakes and oceans. Using oil products, including fertilizers, and plastics that cause even further damage to support 14 billion people will destroy our ecosystems, even if climate change is not being caused by human activity, the effect of pollution and eco-damage certainly IS caused by humans. The number of people DIRECTLY affects how much of this damage we cause. Go take a stroll through your local garbage dump, land fill, etc. THAT is your problem. Adding more people is NEVER going to solve that. Do not tell me that we cannot have a government worthy of respect. I actually think that most of the people involved in politics, really think they are doing what they do, in an effort to support or advance the public interest. They each have a unique view of what public interests are the priority, and sometimes that view is skewed by the advisers, pundits, lobbyists, etc. Our constitution assures them, that whatever they decide to do, as a government entity, it is the legal and right thing to do. They trust the process they adhere to. Anyone who professes not to trust and abide by that process, can never be elected to office. It's a unique catch 22 for them, as well as us. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ Solar power, wind power, wave power, tidal power. Let's COMBINE those technologies! Build floating blocks that anchor to the ocean floor, connect those blocks with hydraulic rams that pump fluid to turn generators, activated by waves. Under those blocks, tidal turbines that operate as the tides and currents work against the anchors. On top of those blocks, set wind turbines to catch the ocean winds. On top of those blocks, set solar panels to soak up sunshine and generate power. Inside those blocks, living space for people who build, maintain and service all those systems, in some of those blocks businesses to support those people. We could build those blocks from concrete. We could use water as the hydraulic fluid. The systems don't have to be the absolute best efficiency, the quantity of power available in combining those four technologies in this manner would produce enough energy, even at low efficiency to replace all the coal, nuclear and gas electric power plants. The problems is not generating enough power, the problem is storing the power produced until needed. The most efficient storage method is not batteries, but gravity., Use excess power to pump water into reservoirs, Then when power is needed, let gravity push that water back down through turbines. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/better-energy-production/10152751440202278 Gravity is the effect of, probability of quantum events occurring, in relation to the density of quantum events occurring adjacent to each other. This is what incites the ‘creation’ of “mass”. It incites the occurrence of co-incident events that eventually form structures of event stacks of sequence that occur, then cease, in specific ‘stable’ manner, that we observe as ‘particles’. The events of which these structures are comprised of also occur outside any stable structure and which we observe as “space”. They occur, then they end, and they are absolutely motionless, they NEVER move for the duration of their existence. A circumstance related to the speed of light, Light being structures that are inherently unstable yet bound by the duration of the events which comprise them. Duration is varied, ranging from values too small to measure to, too large to measure. Events which arrange into co-incident stable structures and most forms of “energy” we observe have duration that are similar enough to required for stability. It is the quantum events which vary in duration from required to be included in stable structures, that form the ‘space’ we observe as the universe that matter and energy exists within. Therefor gravity is simply the increased probability of events occurring, as density of events increases. Of two possible events, the probability is 50%. Specify one event as “nothing” the other as “something”. What is the probability of “something”? it is 50%. Consider that duration of “something” is non-zero. During that something event, there is a possibility of reverting to nothing, there is the possibility of the event continuing to occur. That is again, 50% probability. However during the event, there is also a possibility of a separate event. Which presents three possibilities, 1. Nothing 2. Something 3. Another something. Notice that the probability of any of the three has reduced to 33%. Yet that reversion to “nothing” has also reduced to 33%. This means that the probability of SOMETHING increased to 66%! Yes, the probability of any specific event is reduced as the number of events increases, yet, as that “density” increases, the probability of “nothing” decreases. The probability of any of the many possible events increased. Therefor the expansion of the universe, which we observe as the result of Dark Energy, which is simply more space being added to existence. The Dark Matter, observed to explain the gravity behavior internal to galaxies is again, merely the effect of “space” that does not form into structures of stacks arranged into sequence of co-incident events, however is adjacent to such structures of sufficient quantity and density as to change local probability of events continuing to occur… Energy is change. That is why absolute zero is defined as it is. Absolute zero is a “nothing”. Time is a measure we use to observe change. That change is dependent on the occurrence and duration of those events, which vary. The structures we observe as particles, of mass, exhibiting the effect of probabilities discussed above is what is considered gravity. The sequence of the arrangements of co-incident stacks is what we observe as electro-magnetic force as well, and also the strong and weak nuclear forces. There ya go, your unified field theory. Yes I am aware of the string theory, and a few other hypothesis people are proposing. The mathematics I use is all based on that fact of probability. If nothing exists, the only other possibility is something and the probability of either is 50%. Then, as something exists, the probability of nothing then drops to 33.33% As that something becomes coincident with another something, the density increases. As the density increases, the probability of something increases. I know that I did not expand that to explain how structures of stacks of coincident events arranged in specific sequence with sufficient similarity of duration to form what we observe as a particle. I don't have to. Just as Bohrs did not have to correctly specify the structure of an atom, he simply had to hypothesize that such a structure could exist. And do that in a way that others could "visualize" the thetical possibility. We know the universe is expanding. Start there if you like. Now consider an electron, "orbiting" a nucleus. It's moving. That electron is moving. It's not only moving in relation to the nucleons it is associated with, it is moving in relation to other atoms around it, perhaps in a molecular structure. Presume it is part of a molecule, that molecule is moving in relation to other molecules. Presume that molecule is somewhere near the surface of the earth. We can observe that the molecule is moving with the rotation of the earth. The earth is moving in relation to our star, our star is moving in relation to the galaxy, and our galaxy is moving in relation to other galaxies. Now, HOW is that motion functioning, how does that wavicle we observe as an electron, manage to "move"? Again, look at the observed fact of expansion of the universe. Space must be increasing. It may be convenient to say that space is nothing, however if that were true, then adding nothing to noting would increase nothing... Annnd, it does not. There is no way to add more nothing to nothing or even something that results in more something or more nothing. It simply does not happen. So therefor the expansion of the universe cannot be accomplished by adding more "nothing". Space cannot be nothing. Space is "something", and that something is quantum events occurring, then ending, it's changing. That "change" is what we observe as "time". Time IS change. Events can increase, it can decrease, space can "move" even when we comprehend that the events that space is, never move, the events occur, then end, and some other event occurs and ends and many other events occur and end, and each of those occurrences behave according to that probability I mentioned. As densities change that behavior, being a product of that probability, angular motion is produced, even as NONE of the singular events which occur move in the slightest, their "change" of "location" is determined by that probability of occurrence increasing as the densities of OTHER events adjacent, and each event is unique. It is not one event occurring here, then re-occurring there. Once that event ends it's gone, there is never another one of that event. OTHER events subsequent do occur. And THOSE events are again, determined by that changing probability. Which is what we observe as "motion". Getting back to that electron. It "moves" exactly as I just described. A structure of co-incident events, occurring then ending, with sufficient similarity of duration to maintain stable arrangement of sequence. That occurrence and ending sequence determined by that changing probability determined by density of nearby events also occurring. This entirely explains how that "particle" behaves as a "WAVE". Nothing is left out, no holes, no contradictions between relativistic motion and quantum movement. It's complete. Really, consider that every election cycle we sit around sweating over the results, pinning our hopes and dreams on a favorable outcome, and we do this like some gambling addict in Vegas. "If only we win this election, we can start fixing things." Compared to: "If only I get that one card, I will be rich." Or, "One more pull of this handle, and if it hits, I can pay my rent." In my proposal, there are several concepts that are original, and I have never seen discussed, much less implemented. However that may be I find that way too much focus is centered on the 'democracy', and not nearly enough on the process which supports, defines and constrains that democratic process. Most important, is the divorce of the authority of congress to determine, without constraint, which issues they will address by enacting a federal law, and the authorization to enact those laws they choose to consider. Congress would be best suited to considering for solution, issues presented to them by an outside authority exclusively. Their role would be limited to studying that problem they are tasked with and concentrating on that single issue. They would be able to use whatever means they deem needed to find a resolution, and even to promote a range of solutions rather than a single monolithic solution. When they have constructed a "bill", or range of bills for consideration by a deciding authority, they are done, job completed. Good job. Way to go, you are heroes!! That bill, or range of bills, is then passed to a court. the court considers all of the elements for legality. This is done on EVERY bill. No law will even be considered for decision unless it has been adjudicated as legal. That court has no interest in whether the solution will work, how much it costs or whether it will be popular. Only the actual legality, is in question. Are the rights of the individuals and states preserved and protected as enumerated in the amendments? Is there a contravention of standing law? Was the process outlined in the constitution followed correctly? (if congress added a gold paint for congressional bathrooms in a law to stop pollution, then they did not follow the process, which requires them to ONLY consider the problem or issue presented by the tasking. That would be unconstitutional.) Any law not legal, would be rejected and returned to congress for rework. Then the bill is passed to the executive, and now that the court has passed the bill, we, the people, and the executive are assured that the law, if enacted will be, in fact legal. The executive considers and reviews the proposed law, for plausibility. Is the proposal likely to work to solve the problem? There is no consideration of how popular that law may be, or how outlandish it may seem, the only question is would it solve the problem. Also, the cost, not how much or little the cost, but rather the accuracy of the cost specified by congress. The bill may require that every person at age 18 receives a new ford truck. If the problem considered is the inability of young people to find reliable transportation. THAT solution WOULD solve the problem. However, if congress specified that the cost to the nation would be no more than about 20 cents per person, per year, that cost accounting would NOT be accurate, the cost of that solution would likely be FAR more expensive. that bill would be rejected for inaccurate cost accounting. NOT because it's a silly idea. A rejected law, would be sent back to congress for rework. If a proposed law, a bill written by congress, passes judicial and executive review, then and ONLY then would it be passed to some body authorized to make the decision of enactment. The body that decides whether to enact that law needs to be separate from each of the other branches. Now, I like the idea of putting that directly to the people, and that is why I designed the outline of chosen representative system. However, I am not adamant on that concept. I have never seen it in practice. I would like to see testing, improvement and debugging. Regardless of the makeup of that body, it could be a house of reps, or some other public body of the will of the entire population, but it must be separate entirely and uninfluenced by the previously discussed branches. That body must also be prohibited from involvement with the other branches. That is the essence and outline of salience, to focus on the deciding body is simply disregarding the relationships, required and defined by the process that serves that deciding body with consistent, rational and relevant decisions for consideration. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch-condensed/10153544524957278 I realize that people view Bernie as some kind of savior from a broken system. Personally I like Bernie and I think that of the candidates he is the best choice. So I want to be clear that I support Bernie. Yet, I am still left with a broken system to deal with. Bernie has said this himself, that the system needs to be fixed. And yet, all people want to talk about is replacing the people in that system. I just do not agree that changing the people, will materially or significantly change, repair or improve the system itself. FDR fought like hell to put reforms in place to "fix" the system, and then, he was gone, and the forces of oligarchy went right back to work, tearing apart and subverting his reforms. They were not permanent, because all it takes is legislative actions to dismantle those reforms. They did that, and more. What happens when Bernie has served his two terms? When the public once again sighs a big sigh of relief, then in 20 years all that you sweated and bled for is once again in a heap of failed reforms, dismantled by the assholes in power? Your kids? Your grandchildren? Will you once again leave them to this constant and continuous battle? Or will we finally say, enough, and do what Bernie is asking, no demanding that the public MUST do. FIX the damn system. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ What we DO know how to do, is diagnose and troubleshoot complex systems. We also know how to do testing on those systems for efficiency and efficacy. What systems am I talking about? Our social tools. Government and economy. GET those fixed. Government first, then economy. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/the-bible-as-condensed-by-45-mike-anderson/10153685225282278 Wednesday, November 11, 2015 The bible, as condensed by 45 Mike Anderson; I am god. I created everything. I am the voice in your head. Obey me, or I will kill you. By the way, I love you. I am still going to kill you. The End. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/the-bible-as-condensed-by-45-mike-anderson/10153685225282278/ This will be a long one, so roll up your sleeves, put on your thinking cap, and let's jump in this. Normandy Beach, D-Day invasion, WW II, the allies decided to hit the french beaches in an area where there was no port to offload men and supplies to continue the push to victory. Instead they devised a system of floating piers consisting of floating concrete blocks connected by roadways that allowed ships to dock and offload supplies and men. I mention this as a preface to make certain that we understand that floating concrete blocks is not a crazy idea. It works, it works very well, and in fact the technology is being used in Holland every day, building floating homes atop floating concrete blocks. With that clear, imagine a hydraulic ram, with the ports arranged such that regardless of whether the ram is being compressed, or extended, the fluid is being forced in only one direction to an output line, and sucked back in through an input line. Now imagine that ram connected to two floating blocks, hinged together, in conditions of waves, where one block is forced up on the wave top, and the other sinks below in the wave trench. That would cause the ram to extend, pumping fluid through the lines. As the wave peaks, the ram compresses, again forcing fluid through the lines. Now imagine a large number of blocks, each hinged together, and connected with rams on all four sides of each block. Floating in the ocean and being activated by wave action. The cumulative effect is a steady and powerful hydraulic flow used to activate a hydraulic motor that powers an electrical generator. Now consider that if the blocks are large enough, each block has a substantial top solid surface that could be utilized for mounting a wind generator. In addition to wind generation, solar panels could also be installed on the tops as well. The bottom of the blocks would be a perfect mounting surface for tidal/current turbines to capture energy from the ocean below the surface. All the mechanisms will need maintenance, and the best place to put people who maintain the blocks is inside the blocks themselves! Those people will need products and services close by, and businesses that cater to those people could easily inhabit blocks as shops. An entirely new, clean, sustainable, renewable and profitable energy industry could be built on the oceans, that provides industry with power, and a growing and continuing market for skilled labor force. JOBS! People working, and building not only a cleaner future for the planet, but for themselves as well. Oh, I hear objections already, OMG the hydraulic fluid will leak and pollute the oceans. Duh, use seawater, not oil for the hydraulic fluid! What if there is a storm, and the outer blocks get damaged and sink, those people living on them will die! Duh, don't put living blocks on the new edges, keep the people closer to the interior where the wave action has been attenuated by the outer blocks. There are engineering problems to be worked out, but them guys can easily do the math and make it quite doable. There are financial hurdles, but them guys can do the math and make it work. There are social issues, but humans can be quite creative when faced with new situations. We can make it work. How much energy is available for the taking in the oceans? More than we need! Let's go get it! 45 Mike A local TV station asked viewers which of the candidates announced so far would they vote for. A smattering of responses named a few different candidates. The overwhelming majority of the respondents said "NONE". I think the people are waking up to reality as far as what our government systems have become. None. Let that sink in. What will we do, when the majority of voters write in, "None" for President? Will we let some military dictator rule this nation, under arms? Will we let our nation fall apart into conflict and severed states? I really hate the way our systems have failed, but we should NOT give up on the ideals of a constitutional, representative republic. We should fix the mechanics that are broken. I see a lot of angry frustration, and many are yelling for a revolution. But seriously, just how many of your fellow Americans are you willing to kill over this? There MUST be a better way, and electing a new President will not even come close to fixing the problems we face as a nation, or a global human population. Seems that many people recognize that there are increasing unsolved problems, and a LOT of diverse notions about how to go about solving those problems. Yet, it should seem obvious that the FIRST priority is to to develop a decision process that lets us actually define and solve problems. Really, consider that every election cycle we sit around sweating over the results, pinning our hopes and dreams on a favorable outcome, and we do this like some gambling addict in Vegas. "If only we win this election, we can start fixing things." Compared to: "One more pull of this handle, and if it hits, I can pay my rent." Well, that's the problem isn't it. We use a system that forces the public to play casino circus games to attempt resolution to real world problems. You understand what casino circus games are right?? Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but the house always wins. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ 45ink . com/ wp/ 4-branches-of-government / I listen and watch, and sometimes I speak. I wrote this in response to the shooting in Dallas, TX in 2016 at a BLM rally. I hear people who are defending the systems we use claim that we need to be patient, and let the systems work. They claim that a real impediment to the systems working properly is the public not participating. As if the public has any access to that legislative process. So, let me ask this and I really hope you consider this. While the police were stuck defending the public from a violent angry asshole, while they were being killed standing in a line, defending the system from an angry public protesting the lack of resolutions to the problems we see in bold detail, WHERE WAS CONGRESS??? Were they in session, frantically searching for answers, speaking in committee, asking for research, getting public input, discussing solutions and costs?? WERE THEY ACTIVELY WORKING ON SOLUTIONS??? Well, no. They were not. If the police are standing in a line, being killed to defend the system from an angry frustrated public, how does that advance solutions, when those people entrusted to find and implement solutions are protected and insulated from that consequence of inaction? If those elected to fix problems are not actively engaged in FIXING problems, then why are the police defending them, and that process?? Is this just another iteration of the blue line, protecting their boss from the serfs? Are they merely muscle being used to squeeze the blood from the public?? Where is the success of the experiment we started with our declaration of independence?? When do we look at the evidence and conclude that the process outlined in our constitution is not a viable process? When do we start seriously accepting that it is time to search for a better process? When do we start testing new ideas and debugging those and seriously start looking for BETTER ways of self governance?? https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, told The Washington Post on Friday, ?[T]here?s got to be a fear, a concern, that because of the job, because of the uniform I wear, I?m being targeted.? Okay, Officer. Fair enough. I understand and respect that fear. Now imagine that you can't take that uniform off. Imagine that you have to wear it every day, all day, even when you sleep, as if it were part of your own skin. And imagine further that when you wear it, and you go out among the people you fear most in the world, poor black people who may fear you and be targeting you because of the actions of a very small minority of others in that same uniform, you are forced to do so unarmed. Imagine further that you know that every single one of those people you fear will be armed. Let me take that back. You can arm yourself if you like. That is your constitutional right. But understand that if you do so, you will be much more likely to be shot by the people you fear, and more than 10 times as likely as someone who is armed but not wearing the uniform, just because you are armed, whether you use or brandish that weapon or not. Understand that the people you fear won't be killing you because they are bad people, but because they fear your uniform (whether or not that fear is justified) and they are just trying to make it home at the end of the day. Additionally, imagine that if you are killed by one of these people you fear -- whether you are armed or not -- that person will by and large face no legal consequences. All of the people you fear will band together and defend the actions of your killer, no matter what the circumstances, and your death will be touted in the press as just another sad but understandable tragedy. And a much more significant minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the population at large will come out in support of your killer, expressing sentiments in Facebook comments and tweets that if you had only been a bit more respectful, and complied with the demands of your killer a little more quickly, perhaps this tragedy could have been averted. All is not lost. Some people will tweet prayers for your family. And some of your fellow officers will hold candlelight vigils and protests in your name, which will be tolerated by the poor minorities, as long as your fellow officers secure the proper permits and don't get uppity. Otherwise, well, they may just be forced to resort to violence. One last thing I would like you to imagine about that uniform. Imagine that because you wear it, your children are also forced to wear it, even if you marry someone who doesn't wear it. Your children, like you, will have to wear it night and day, and never take it off. You will probably want to take some precautions early on, no later than the age of 7 or 8, especially with your sons. You'll want to sit them down and have a talk with them about how, if they ever encounter a poor minority, they should put both hands on the steering wheel, say yes sir and no sir, be absolutely compliant no matter what that person does to them, and maybe, just maybe, your son will have a chance of coming home alive, without bullet holes in his uniform. Now do you get it? https://www.facebook.com/john.fahle https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/1233600846672747/ I have said it before, I will repeat it. Rules that have no means of enforcement are not rules. Enforcement of rules requires rulers. The form of rulers enforcing those rules is not relevant to the fact that rulers are required to enforce rules. Anarchy does not mean rules without rulers. Anarchy is NO rules. Yep. I will repeat myself. UNTIL we have a social tool that allows the public to make rational decisions, NOTHING will be done about this nonsense. NOTHING. The people in charge of making decisions about this bullshit are THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT from this bullshit. The social tool? It's our political systems. The processes we use to make decisions! https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Is this another example of how well our system of political processes work to make decisions?? Unfortunately we use a system that most closely resembles a slot machine. The public gets to pull the handle every two years. It costs us a LOT of money, and it rarely hits any kind of payout. If it does hit some payout that is a random circumstance, not designed to be the rule. Yep. I will repeat myself. UNTIL we have a social tool that allows the public to make rational decisions, NOTHING will be done about this nonsense. NOTHING. The people in charge of making decisions about this bullshit are THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT from this bullshit. The social tool? It's our political systems. The processes we use to make decisions! Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The legal system that failed to find any reason to prosecute Clinton, is the SAME legal system that found no reason to prosecute any police for the shooting death of Tamir Rice, the same system that sentenced a rich rapist to 3 months, the same system that was perfectly willing to believe the bullshit of Shlager and his accomplices after murdering a man in North Charleston, until independent video evidence proved they were liars and complicit in murder. I am sick and tired of this unending and increasing stream of bullshit, lies and excuses. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ In my mind, people pay way too much attention trying to fix the election process, and I am much more concerned about fixing the results of that process. What we DO know how to do, is diagnose and troubleshoot complex systems. We also know how to do testing on those systems for efficiency and efficacy. What systems am I talking about? Our social tools. Government and economy. GET those fixed. Government first, then economy. Seems that many people recognize that there are increasing unsolved problems, and a LOT of diverse notions about how to go about solving those problems. Yet, it should seem obvious that the FIRST priority is to to develop a decision process that lets us actually define and solve problems. Really, consider that every election cycle we sit around sweating over the results, pinning our hopes and dreams on a favorable outcome, and we do this like some gambling addict in Vegas. "If only we win this election, we can start fixing things." Compared to: "One more pull of this handle, and if it hits, I can pay my rent." Well, that's the problem isn't it. We use a system that forces the public to play casino circus games to attempt resolution to real world problems. You understand what casino circus games are right?? Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but the house always wins. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ In Baltimore, we watched a woman grab her son, as he was going out to "protest" during the riots. She grabbed him, smacked him around and told him to straighten up and fly right. Most of the nation agreed with her, sometimes we need to smack them up alongside the head to wake them up and get their attention. IF YOU AGREE THAT WOMAN did the right thing, then consider THIS. The city of Baltimore, Ferguson, Charlotte, and MANY MORE, needed that slap up at their head, to WAKE THEM UP, GET THEIR attention. We can regret the violence all we want, but we should damn well understand the NEED for that violence, and get behind the demands to FIX THE DAMN SYSTEMS!!! https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I would prefer to see debates structured this way: Each debater gets a list of the issues and questions 4 hours before the actual debate, that list details the time allotted for each response. the debate places each debater in a separate space, insulated from the audience, moderator, and each other. The moderator put's the question/issue to each debater, through a video/audio feed. Each debtor addresses the issue/question in the time allotted, the vid/audio cuts off at that time. If the debtor finishes addressing that issue/question before the time is up, that time is banked for use on subsequent issue/questions. The responses are displayed to the audience in order of shortest time of the response, or randomly if the times are equal. Each question/issue and set of responses is displayed to the audience separately, then the next issue/question is presented. Any reference to character or personal reference to the other debaters, shuts off the response, and that time allotted is NOT banked for further use. Our systems are failing, dismally, to manage or resolve the conflicts, drama and issues we face as a nation and a species. This is not a failure that can be resolved by electing the right people, the election process does not work that way. The failure can only by resolved by fixing the system which relies on electing the right people. By replacing that system, with one that works adequately regardless of how inept and corrupted the people are, and which works wonderfully when the right people are involved. What we use now, does not work, adequately, even if all the right people are involved, and fails miserably when the wrong people get elected. Our 2016 election can be compared rather accurately to looking at floaters in the toilet and wondering which one will be served at breakfast. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ wages drop, when employees compete for jobs. Employers control the number and quality of jobs. Just what sort of competition can we expect employers to tolerate for employees?? Absurd. http://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ The public is yelling about election fraud. In response the media immediately spins that into the public being angry about voter fraud. As if we are too dumb to notice they just accused us of being angry about the public defrauding ourselves. THAT, right there is what we are angry about. The media, the system, we are not angry at the PUBLIC. We are angry about YOU. YOUR lies, YOUR excuses and YOUR bullshit. Note that voter fraud is clearly defined as individuals who are not allowed to vote, such as dead people, non existent people, non-citizens, people too young, etc etc, who manage to illegally cast a ballot. As if we don't understand that is markedly different than ELECTION fraud, such as rigged falsified election results, such as lies, outright lies being told to the public such as, "I never had sex with that woman." Such as "Iraq has WMDs and we MUST attack Saddam." "Libya has a despotic dictator and we MUST kill him." "I never sent or received ANY classified emails." "I'm just tired." (Not "I have pneumonia and am close to death here.") JUST LIKE the media gets in front of your TV and spins your outrage about ELECTION fraud, and LIES to you, by telling you that you are REALLY angry about you defrauding yourself. It's not VOTER FRAUD you fucking assholes. It's ELECTION fraud. It's for their "protection". No really. If someone gets violent while being arrested, someone might get hurt, like cops. Gotta keep that tendency for violence limited to the legal authorities, because, well, you know, the people don't have any legal authority here in the USA. Yeah, well, our government does not control or constrain the behaviors of business. It is business that controls and constrains government. If our government actually functioned properly, business would never have had an opportunity to control public policy or decisions. It was a failure, a flaw of government that allowed this to happen. It was not a failure of the public, we used all the tools and processes available to us in our constitution, to no avail. The checks and balances provided and required by our constitution simply failed to deliver the equitable self governance promised by the Declaration of Independence. Failure, not success. It was flawed from the moment it was ratified. It will continue to fail as long as it is left in current form. The process outlined in that document is flawed. The INTENTION is correct, but the mechanics don't work. It's as if they made a wheel octagonal, not round. It NEEDS to be round. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ No, really. I get it. It is very important that EVERY eligible person gets registered, and VOTE!!! Because in many many elections, the winner is decided by just a few VOTES either way. That is why it is so vital for EVERYBODY to VOTE, no matter who you VOTE for, ALL that matters is that you VOTE, remember that you have to VOTE, because your VOTE can make a vital difference in the ELECTIONS that you VOTE for and the results that you VOTE for are validated by your VOTE, so that no matter what the results are, no matter how badly they behave your VOTE makes it all legal, and they have the authority validated by your VOTE to do whatever sick crap they want, and your VOTE made it all legal!! So, yeah, sheople, go fucking VOTE. Buncha idiots. A quote from: Annette Diehm Medley "While voting is a right and civic duty, so is civil disobedience. Both important concepts. Here's why. In order to achieve a true reflection of the people's opinions we can not allow ourselves to be forced to chose between candidates presented to us. Instead, we need to teach not to EVER vote for a candidate that doesn't reflect our views. If there is nobody to honestly represent us, the democratic process broke down somewhere. Therefore civil disobedience becomes a duty until the process is restored. This "you have to vote" is nothing but a manipulation." http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ Without a rational government process, we are simply drowning in our own vomit. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. In any case, it's about decision process. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ THEY make the rules. Figure that out. The people who benefit from the bullshit are the only ones authorized by our constitution to fix that bullshit. Not you, not me, Congress. Only Congress. Not the President, not the Supreme court, not the media, not the polls, not the elections, not the petitions. CONGRESS is the problem. We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ There are many ways to be dishonest! So much of the news media uses an interesting method, insidious and takes dishonesty to another level, another dimension of dishonesty. When a news segment is introduced, say "gun control", or "medical care", the announcer specifies that the topic will be discussed, in order to outline a solution proposed. Then a question is posed concerning the possible effectiveness of the proposed solution, then the discussion begins and comprises nothing about the merits of the proposal, but becomes focused on the political outcomes. As if the real importance of the issue is NOT how a solution may be crafted, but rather arguments that discuss what supporters of a solution will face in a political arena. How the politics of a decision, or lack thereof will affect the elected officials, WITHOUT REGARD of how that decision will affect the people that need a solution. The news media segment is an unapologetic admission that NO decision, NO solution can be reached, regardless of how effective the solution may or may not be, but because of how making a decision will affect the political future of those making, or refusing to make that decision. This SHOULD be totally unacceptable to the people, to discover that the decisions made which effectively become laws that rule your lives, are being made, not on consideration of how such rule will affect YOU, but rather how such laws will affect those in power. The lie, the dishonesty of the media, is the presentation of this state of affairs in such a way as to convince people that this is the RIGHT of government. Our government has NO rights. The PEOPLE have rights. We consent to our government authority to behave in this fashion, but our consent is not an informed consent. The people are being gang raped. http://www.lulu.com/content/legacy-lulustudio-calendar/lil-johnny-deere-and-friends/22997662 If you read the constitution, it becomes clear, that we elect them to be OUR boss, the lie is that they work for us. They don't. We pay them to make rules, be bosses. Our bosses. There is a difference between someone being your representative on a matter, and being your ruler on a matter. Think about how a representative behaves in a court case, as opposed to how those we elect behave. They are not representatives at all. they are rulers, elected to rule. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Just because we don't like or agree with the current system does not mean we insist on burning it down, and destroying society. We would MUCH prefer it be retired in honor and dignity, placed carefully with reverence into the annals of history. HOWEVER, we are perfectly WILLING to burn the fucker down, if that is the only choice they accept. If you read the constitution, it becomes clear, that we elect them to be OUR BOSS, the LIE is that they work for us. They don't. We pay them to make rules, be bosses. Our bosses. There is a difference between someone being your representative on a matter, and being your ruler on a matter. Think about how a representative behaves in a court case, as opposed to how those we elect behave. They are not representatives at all. they are rulers, elected to rule. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Yeah, we have other enemies. Some might be considered domestic enemies. THAT is what is driving much of the anger and frustration. If the public is becoming increasingly angry and frustrated, it is because those enemy forces are active. They simply want to ignore that our anger and frustration is directed at our government, AS THAT ENEMY. The Russians did not pass a law to spy on our citizens. China did not lie to congress about that law and those spy programs. Hell, North Korea did not suck Bills dick and lie about it. Britain did not erase Nixons tapes, or order Watergate. That was our GOVERNMENT. India did not refuse to convict the police that killed Tamir Rice. VietNam did not assasinate JFK It was not German Nazis that shot 4 kids at Kent State. We took an oath. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ An elected official, noted that the early 2017 women's marchers need to call their "representatives" to voice their concerns. My first question is, "Why would they do that?". If those "representatives" are deaf blind and corrupted beyond repair, then no amount of calls from the public will sway them. If those "representatives" are NOT deaf, blind and corrupted beyond repair, WE JUST MARCHED 3 MILLION LOUD ANGRY PEOPLE THOUGH OUR STREETS TELLING YOU WHAT WE WANT. How much more "voicing our concerns" do you really need?? Seriously, tell me. What a damn scam that is. The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ "They are You." If that is not true, someone has lied to you. It's that simple. Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what a bunch of guys with elitist agendas decided to use over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ Anarchists can be some of the most obstinate purveyors of doublespeak nonsense there are. Anarchy is the absence of rulers. OK, great. You all mostly agree that rules are needed, but you don't need rulers. OK, well, what rules do you need? The rules that everyone agrees to? EVERYONE?? Really? So, yeah, you need a process to decide which rules to have, and enforce. Then you need to decide how to enforce those rules. So, umm, whatever process you use, to make those decisions, that process is government, and the people who enforce rules, on those who did not agree to those rules, are rulers. You are not anarchists, you are misguided people insisting on some fantasy of contradiction. You don't want anarchy, you want good government. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ Is Uncle Donald a hole? Yep, of course he is. They all are. Every four years you dump all your hopes and dreams into a hole, and you watch those disappear into the abyss. Then you look around, and blame me. You blame me, because I did not choose to dump my hopes and dreams into the same hole you did. As if you expected that if only enough hopes and dreams got dumped into the same hole, somehow that hole would be filled and overflow. ROFL, it's a bottomless HOLE. I am a veteran. I swore an oath. To protect and defend our constitution and government. However, if it is true that our government is of the people, by the people, for the people, then I swore to defend the PEOPLE! If it's NOT true that our government, is of the people, by the people and for the people, then DUMP the damn government and the worthless constitution that brought us here. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ In my opinion, the proper role of good government is to simply manage and/or resolve problems of human conflict. That could be as complex as a foreign policy policy dealing with attacks on US corporate interests, and as simple as fixing the pothole in front of your home, or recording an accurate boundary of your property. Not ALL problems of human conflict require or deserve the attention of "government", such as what color socks you should wear. Determining correctly the boundaries of problems requiring government attention from those that do not, is a classic example of a problem of human conflict. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Very carefully consider this statement: If you agree that the people of the USA need to be engaged with elected officials to constantly remind them of our wishes on any and every issue that arises in their deliberations, then PLEASE articulate just exactly why you agree with that responsibility of the public. I would like to suggest that your answer will very closely resemble this: The public needs to continually express their views to elected officials, so that their representatives make decisions that truly represents the will of the people. I would further suggest that the salient point, is that our government has the purpose of representing the will of the public. It either succeeds in that purpose, or it does NOT. Think about that, from the view of the PUBLIC. If the process we use, as specified in our constitution, is failing to properly administrate the will of the public, then I would suggest that the process should be revised. If we consider revision, and I think we should, then it seems to make sense to actually consider process revisions that do fulfill the purpose of government, to represent the will of the public. If we can do that without using elected representatives, then we should NOT use elected representatives. Why would we insist on installing a bathtub in a race car? If it's not needed, we should not be using it. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ Many of us are convinced that our systems are failing. Our numbers are growing. Still, many others insist that there is nothing wrong with the process specified in our Constitution, they insist that we need to get rid of the "bad" people who have been elected and appointed to positions of power and authority. We disagree, we understand that those people who want to keep our process, don't really want to fix anything at all. They simply want to argue with us about who we should blame. They want to blame the liberals, and they want to blame the conservatives. They even want to blame YOU for complaining about their boot on your throat. They also want to blame you for not complaining. That is all they want to do, argue about who to blame, but they refuse to blame the process. They have no interest in winning any argument about who we should blame, because their purpose is to keep us arguing, instead of fixing the problem. They especially love to blame the people who are not voting. EVERYBODY knows that you have no right to complain if you don't vote. The arguments continue, and nothing gets fixed. Some even claim that by engaging more contention, by adding more factions of arguing people, the systems will start working better. Should we vote? Should we keep in contact with elected and appointed officials and constantly argue with them about what we want them to support, or suppress? Consider what the reasoning for that might be. Would it be, because the purpose of our government is to administer the will of the people? https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I might argue with some elected official that I want to stay out of other countries with our guns and bombs. I am rather certain we have been saying that since the mid 60's. Others of course are arguing that we must go abroad killing and maiming and destroying other people, to defend our national interests. Did voting for #44 stop the bombs? Did voting for #43 stop the bombs? How about #45? Those bombs stopped yet?? Is the PURPOSE of our government to administer the will of the people?? That was the original intent of our Declaration of Independence, to transition from a ruling authority of a select few, to the body public having the power and authority. The problem is that our constitution never managed to fulfill that intent, and the process it specifies simply established a new ruling elite. It also left the public powerless to intervene, using that specified process. Yes, we can bitch, moan and complain, but the ruling authority has no legal obligation to consider our opinion, or to agree to any relief. The ONLY legal recourse that we have, is to reject the constitution, entirely, and rebuild a better system. It's a scary situation, and unless we can develop and install a better form of government, the corporate masters will continue their puppet yanking. The concept of a constitutional republic is a sound and valid idea, it simply needs to have the elements arranged properly. This needs a few more tweaks, but it arranges the elements of a constitutional republic in a manner that fulfills the intent of the Declaration of Independence and the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ Great job guys. Yep, I like the self starting idea of fixing local problems in your community. What I don't agree with, is a bunch of people getting together and tearing down a freeway bridge, or railroad bridge with the idea that they can start fixing our infrastructure, without serious public approval. Yeah, you need my permission, me the public. You don't get to make those kind of decisions or act on them without public approval of your entire plan, including who is doing the work, what work is done, HOW that work will be done, who is funding that work, and who is held responsible if shit goes really bad. In other words, we the people insist and demand that we have a PROCESS of making decisions and YOU are not allowed to just start tearing shit down, or building new shit without approval. You don't like that? Too damn bad. THAT is the way we WANT it done, and there are a HELL of a LOT more of us than you. Anarchists can be some of the most obstinate purveyors of doublespeak nonsense there are. Anarchy is the absence of rulers. OK, great. You all mostly agree that rules are needed, but you don't need rulers. OK, well, what rules do you need? The rules that everyone agrees to? EVERYONE?? Really? So, yeah, you need a process to decide which rules to have, and enforce. Then you need to decide how to enforce those rules. So, umm, whatever process you use, to make those decisions, that process is government, and the people who enforce rules, on those who did not agree to those rules, are rulers. You are not anarchists, you are misguided people insisting on some fantasy of contradiction. You don't want anarchy, you want good government. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ 3 card Monte, what a wild game that is. In my 60 years I have learned a few things. One thing I learned is that there are only two possible winners for that game. The first possible winner is the people running the game, they control the deck, they make the rules and they have a couple goons ready to pummel any victim that objects to losing money. The only other possible winner, is the people who refuse to play that game. This is exactly why I have chosen not to participate in our political process. I don't expect everyone to agree with my choice. But as a veteran I expect you to respect my choice. I earned that. I am certain that many people will insist that I MUST vote, as if the reason the game is rigged is because I refused to play. The truth is that I did vote, I am voting. I am voting to reject and deny the legitimacy of our political process. Many are likely to insist that we don't have any option, as if the system we use could not be improved. Perhaps they cannot imagine a system of decision processes that properly administers the will of the people. That does not mean that one cannot be developed, nor does it mean that we should not try. Until that time as we have a rational decision process for public policy, I am voting. I vote "NO". https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ So, I started looking at a story about a pest control cyanide bomb with much skepticism. I mean REALLY, what sort of insane government would set out unmonitored poison bombs, you know, chemical weapons, in public areas?? Yeah, well, shut me up and get my gun. http://www.eastidahonews.com/2017/03/family-dog-killed-boy-injured-cyanide-bomb/ Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ I think a decision process that does not properly account for those people who refuse to express an opinion in the process, is making a huge mistake. If 51 people vote for an act, and 49 people vote against an act, I think it is MUCH more important to recognize that nearly half are opposed, than to recognize that slightly more people agreed. If the number of people opposed is such a large portion of the decision, then the act is likely to need much more thought and consideration. A BETTER solution, would have much more support and less opposition. I am rather fond of 1/3 and 2/3 as minimum limits. In addition, 51-49, is a majority, but ONLY if there were only 100 people involved in the process. Note that if 1000 people were eligible to vote on the matter, and only 51 people voted to support that act, then it seems obvious that 51 for and 949 opposed, is certainly NOT anywhere close to a majority. I just want to be clear, the process we use for making decisions can be much more definitive, and concise about the actual intent of the voting public, and it SHOULD be. If reality is only a reflection of our selves, if we can dream away insane violence, if we can pray to forces we don't understand and expect results that are pleasing, then please, oh please please please, explain to me how you intend to deal with Iran and Korea. Tell me how your self reflection will protect you or defend others from Ted Bundy, and the meth head down the street! Bagh! Your simpering wuss attitude is offensive. Your insistence on becoming a victim of circumstances that you refuse to consider in your silly flower and rainbow games does not obligate the warriors to defend you. When the real world steps up and slaps your dream off your face, bends you over and fucks you in the ass, and takes all you hold of value, including your freedom, dignity and life, recall these words. Wake up. This is not a dream, this is not an illusion. Shit is real, and if you don't learn to deal with it, your little god or goddess, or peace buddha will fade into darkness as your lifeblood flows away. My words. 45 Economics, yes. The public pays an attendance fee to witness the grand competition of business. Our economic systems insist on charging for that ticket, and I am sick of paying for it when i am not interested in watching it, nor playing it. The price of that ticket keeps increasing, even though the VALUE to me is worthless. The value of a loaf of bread, is always the value of a loaf of bread. Whether the price is 5 pennies, or 5 billion Pengos. (btw, do we have any idea which price is actually worth more?) The capital economic model insists that profit must be increased, a growing economy must be encouraged, and all that darwin rot. Fine, go be darwin, but leave my bread alone. Capitalist: "I am successful, I compete, as nature intended, and I win. I won't spend my wealth on people who are losers." that is all true in a dog eat dog economy, darwin, capital economic theory and all that. yeah we get it. The PROBLEM, is that I am not going to throw grandma to the damn wolves just because YOU are too dense to understand that I don't WANT to compete with you, or grandma. I want to take CARE of grandma, and the kids. Don't get me wrong, if someone comes in and tries to take food from grandma and the kids, i am fully capable of barbaric violence and utmost effort. But I have no desire to take a damn thing from you either. If you insist on banging heads with other people, that want to compete for stuff, you go right ahead, just stay the hell outta my shit. Get it? You go clawing up darwins ladder if you like. Grandma and the kids are going to hang out here and take care of each other. We don't want anything from you, and we have no interest in sharing with you. Go on. Compete with people who enjoy that game. We are not playing and we will not be forced to buy tickets to your game of monopoly. http://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ I am fairly certain that my personal view is quite biased concerning MMT and fiat currency in general, simply because I have considered the problems caused by misuse of the economic paradigms of "for profit" and "for caring" systems. I stepped outside the "box" long long ago. As an outlaw biker for most of my life, I simply rejected EVERY aspect of current thought and implementation. I then started considering what elements of various systems were true, in fact, and which are not true. I considered the true elements, and arranged them within structures of process that actually accomplish the "job" that requires doing. For instance, I recognize the value of competitive marketing, for rewarding excellence and innovation. Yet I also recognize that value is severely limited to that "game" of competition, with some rare exceptions where the inventiveness of rewarded individuals produces value to humanity in general. The limit of that value to those who participate for reward, seems to be a natural one, not imposed by regulation. We can see examples of this in the capital markets, easily. The rich get richer. If we agree that the capital market rewards are limited to people of excellence, then it simply makes sense to have a separate system of economic implementation, that has no purpose of profit. Such a system would have a purpose of caring for people. A social market. Such a market needs to be as voluntary as the capital market. It also needs to provide value to every participant equally. That equal value must meet some minimum, that provides basic comfort and dignity to individuals. Yet even such a system must be wary of criminal influence, and some method of accounting MUST be employed to ensure that the distribution is equal, not hoarded by a few. The PURPOSE of that accounting, in each different system IS different. The requirements of, and the implementation of that accounting are different. This reality suggests that the currency used by each system can be different, and SHOULD be different. In any case, yes, I have thought this through. And yes, in that consideration, I have concluded that fiat currency is a scam, as it supports that capital market, that rewards the winners, at the expense of the losers. MMT, describes that circumstance. The proponents of MMT suggest that by providing benefits to the losers, that fixes the situation. But it does not, the losers are still losers, and the winners take the cream off the top, in profits. This increases the amount of currency in circulation, most hoarded by the winners. Yet because now the consumer base is slightly more "wealthy" in terms of liquid cash assets, INFLATION creeps up. MMT suggests that we control inflation by increasing taxes. It seems obvious that increasing taxes on the WINNERS makes the most sense, as THEY have the most money. This is where having control of the decision process is crucial. If we did have that control, we could TAX THOSE WINNERS! So far all good, EXCEPT, that the winners are still winners. Making profit at the expense of the losers. And the losers are still losers. All that was accomplished is changing the SCALE of inequity and misery. I would prefer to create two systems, one that cares for people, and the other is a game the winners can play, that does not negatively impact the people that are not interested in playing that "Darwin" game. Consider this, (you is third person) Capitalist: "I am successful, I compete, as nature intended, and I win. I won't spend my wealth on people who are losers." that is all true in a dog eat dog economy, darwin, capital economic theory and all that. yeah we get it. The PROBLEM, is that I am not going to throw grandma to the damn wolves just because YOU are too dense to understand that I don't WANT to compete with you, or grandma. I want to take CARE of grandma, and the kids. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I am constantly reminded that we must decide to behave responsibly and rationally. How would we decide to do that? NORMALLY, I think most people would agree, that is what we use government for. Making rational responsible decisions. Consider we are still fighting the war on drugs, (an inanimate object having no defense), and have not really had any strategic nor tactical success on that issue. Is that a functioning government? Seriously. Is it WORKING?? If it's NOT working, then it would be insane to expect it to be of any use in making ANY decisions. Don't you agree? Don't you want to have and use a functioning government? How can you reasonably expect to use a system that is not working well enough to manage a war on drugs, to repair itself? It's NOT working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ I have been thinking about this for quite some time, and recently found a formulation of lexicon to express these thoughts. In consideration of what is happening in our nation, from the President down to the local dog catcher, we notice a trend, and truism. That is the recognition that for those elected and appointed persons who are "investigated' for criminal or wrongful acts, the result is nearly always predicated on the presumption that unless it can be proven that the individual had criminal intent, no charges will be filed. Police officers of course are the largest beneficiary group of this treatment. No matter that an unarmed citizen is dead, unless some intent of criminality of the officer can be established, no charges, are forthcoming. OF COURSE, now, we look at us lowly peasants, a half gram of marijuana? Fuck you, 20 years in prison, and we don't have to prove criminal intent, whatsoever, you possessed a substance and that possession is evidence of criminal behavior. Walk out of a store with an item not paid for? Fuck you, 20 years in prison, you left the store and that is all we need, to establish criminality, your INTENT, has NOTHING to do with the matter. Get it?? DO YOU UNDERSTAND???? :-) https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I am sadly surprised that scientists were not the first to wake up and look at the evidence objectively concerning our systems of governance. Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ What we DO know how to do, is diagnose and troubleshoot complex systems. We also know how to do testing on those systems for efficiency and efficacy. What systems am I talking about? Our social tools. Government and economy. GET those fixed. Government first, then economy. I am unsurprised that Trump announced he will call for the US to leave the Paris Agreement. However, as dejected as i might feel about that, it was expected. And expected for reasons that might not seem apparent to most. I note that many big multinational and national business spokespeople are objecting to this decision, and are positioning themselves as the sane and benevolent purveyors of wisdom. Get it? Trump pulls a government floppy dick, and business steps up with a fat hard boner. Oh, wow, and the media is eating that, licking and slurping and offering that fine dick to you, the public. Guess what happens NEXT???? https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ In my opinion, as soon as a person speaks of our government as "they", instead of "we", I figure they already know it's a scam, and pile of bullshit. If it was "we", there would be a path of control, and opportunity to change matters to benefit the public. I know people like to cite matters such as the repeal of prohibition, and abolition of slavery, and women voting rights, etc etc, as some evidence of how well our systems work. And yet, that is bullshit. If the damn systems worked correctly, prohibition never would have been initiated, or managed properly if it had. Slavery would not have sparked a civil war, and women would have had full human rights from the moment our constitution was ratified. The public had to FIGHT, suffer and DIE to FORCE the systems to work. It was a fight AGAINST the systems, not a public effort to USE the systems to administer the will of the public. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Unless a vast majority, agrees that our current systems are too corrupt and ineffective to be allowed to continue, NO individuals or group of individuals has ANY right or authority to use violence to effect any change. The 2nd amendment does NOT authorize violent opposition to our government, by any body OTHER than a vast majority of the public body. Just because you don't like something, the government does, you have no right or authority to throw an infantile hissy fit with deadly weapons. Trump is an elected asshole. Many of the people elected are simply assholes, but it was NOT their personal views that made them assholes. What makes them assholes, is the damn job they are REQUIRED to perform, specified by our constitution. Don't like that? Change the damn systems. Quit being idiots and change the way our constitution specifies the jobs people are required and allowed to do. Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ What we DO know how to do, is diagnose and troubleshoot complex systems. We also know how to do testing on those systems for efficiency and efficacy. What systems am I talking about? Our social tools. Government and economy. GET those fixed. Government first, then economy. The USA, America, is similar in ways to a family. Not a happy family, but a deeply troubled and dysfunctional family. The kids get to vote on who will make some decisions. Not all but some. The parents fight all the time about who will work, and feed the kids, or take them to a doctor. The kids end up going to work, and feeding themselves, paying for their own doctor visits, and they pay for the parents to eat and get medical care as well. The parents decide when it's bedtime, who gets toys, who gets to play, and who gets punished. Sometimes. Mostly, the parents fight with each other, and that really is about all they manage to get done. We should not be a family, with parents. Not even good parents. We should be a nation, using a process that does not think of citizens as children and property. We should use a process that considers citizens as adults, fully capable of making decisions about our lives. It is particularly troubling, when the parents go fight in secret, then come out and hand down decisions, not based on what is best for the kids, but what is best for the parents. The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Our government works, (not), like attempting to operate a vehicle by rolling two dice, one red, one blue. Sometimes the red one wins, sometimes the blue one wins. However the dice don't always commit, for instance, a die might want to turn left one time, and right another, or brake and accelerate, sometimes the right blinker, when turning left, sometimes forwards sometimes reverse, but the dice rarely agree on anything, EXCEPT on a decision that you should roll the damn dice again. If someone asked me if I think that president Trump is a threat to democracy, then THIS is my answer. NO, I think our constitution, that specified the process that elected Trump, is a threat to democracy. I think our constitution specifies a process, that uses a demonstrably false premise as a basis of government is a threat to democracy. I think that we don't elect "representatives". I assert that we elect "RULERS". I cannot be convinced that adding more dice, would significantly impact that situation in a positive way. In my mind, the best way to affect that situation is to throw away the dice, and take control of the vehicle directly. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ Sometimes I feel like I am talking to a 12 century French peasant about proper representation. Imagine trying to explain our government to a 12th century french peasant: Me: We could elect a president, ok? peasant: Oui, a president. me: Then we could elect a congress, ok? peasant: Oui, a congress. me: Then we could have congress make laws, and the president could sign them, OK? peasant: Oui, uhh, wait. What if the King does not like these laws? Me: We would not have a king, see, that is why we elect...... 12th century French Peasant: TREASONOUS BASTARD, Traitor!! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!! BURN him, Hang him! TRAITOR, Traitor!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ This is a PUBLIC post and you are encouraged to share it to anyone you think might be interested. Many of you may have noticed that I am promoting my concept of 4 branches of government. Some of you have decided to support this concept, others have not, for various reasons. If you have declined to support this, because there is no evidence of it actually working, then I am inviting you, your friends and families, to take part in an experimental run of the system. Please, indicate if you are interested in being at the forefront of this venture. If you wish to explain the concept to someone, this is a link to the basic system: http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ >>I am especially interested in the participation of people who simply don't think it will work, and have ideas on how it might be caused to fail! >> To start, I would like to nominate Aaron James, as president. He has run for public office, and is skeptical of this concept, but I am certain that if elected he would do his best job for the public. I am also interested in electing people in congress who have experience in problem solving in the public policy arena. I would ALSO very much, like to enlist the aid of retired or sitting judges, to the positions of a supreme court. >> I will not accept any position, except as an administrator of the "experiment". Making adjustments as needed to the process i have specified, For instance, i have declined to comment on the structure of a supreme court, however I need to do that now. The public will elect 7 seats, Congress will elect 5 seats and the president will appoint 3 seats to the court. >> For the time being, We will elect one person to congress for every 100 citizens. I may set up a sub site on my website, or may set up a private group here on facebook for citizens to join, or decline, as they wish. >> For the time being, the minimum number of citizens that a Representative can claim, is 10. There is no maximum at this time. However that minimum may be removed, or increased, as adjustments are made. Remember, YOU as a citizen do NOT need a representative, however you may employ one if you wish. YOU are always in direct control of your voting decisions. >> If you wish to become a representative, your PRIMARY job, is to maintain an awareness of the issues as they pass from each branch, and to convey those facts to your constituents. That is your PRIMARY role. the convenience role of acting as an accounting tool for the system on behalf of your citizens is severely constrained. there are several things you will NOT be allowed to do. Bible quotes. Leviticus 20:9 ?Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Leviticus 24:16 ?And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.? ?Ezekiel 9:5-7 ?Then I heard The Lord say to the other men? ?Kill them all ? old and young, girls and women and little children.? ?I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle.? Leviticus 26:21-22 ?Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Isaiah 13:15-18.? Nuther example of how well our systems work?? Kinda like insisting that failing to chop off your arm, because you could not lift the axe is some indication that you succeeded in something. That's absurd. I get sick of the realization that too many people in the US think of our system of government as some kind of religious doctrine. No matter how badly it works, no matter how crazy it gets, they "believe" in it, just because they have no other alternative, and refuse to consider any alternative. Any suggestion that an alternative could be better, is considered blasphemy and is punished, as apostasy. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278 Elected officials, as "representatives" of the public. Using the term, "pleasantly aromatic flower" to refer to a pile of garbage does not make it true. It's not a flower, it's a pile of garbage. It may be considered aromatic, by many, and some few might actually agree that it's pleasant, however it would not and cannot be true that it is a flower. That is my position. They are NOT representatives, regardless of the use of the term. The actual role they play in our government is to invoke decisions ON the public. NOT to invoke decisions BY the public. Which means they are RULERS, not representatives. I know the founders HOPED not to create a class of rulers to replace the single ruler enthroned in England, but the reality is they FAILED to create a process of the people, by the people and for the people. We simply managed to trade one king, for multiple little kings agreeing with each other how to screw the public. The result of that is we also have thousands of minor nasty lords and ladies, and the millions of armed thugs and henchmen hired to enforce those RULES on the public. It is simply vital, to establish that FACT, the fact that the people we elect are not and can NOT ever be properly considered representatives, and to do so, bases our systems ON A FALSE PREMISE. No wonder they are failing so spectacularly. If we designed a car on the premise that wheels should be round, (but factually those wheels are RECTANGULAR), it would not be astounding or heretical or unpatriotic to call out the damn error in that nonsense. If the wheels need to be round then they should be made round, not rectangular and just call them round. I disagree with the assertion that the only factors involving price of commodity are supply and demand. This is demonstrated easily when we see that the supply of a commodity, and the demand for a commodity is stable, and yet when the wealth of the consumer base rises, the price increases as well. Which indicates clearly, and without equivocation, that a third pricing factor exists, which is the wealth of customers, or ability to afford higher prices, which drives profit maximization efforts. You can laugh all you want. I am sick of being fed excuses, lies and bullshit to support the notion that rich people should get to shit on poor people, because of an intentional misunderstanding of economic reality. http://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ I see a lot of ideas and plans about how to "save the world" or "fix the government" or "fix the economy". And honestly it's not that I disagree with the results they want to produce. Generally they just want a better more caring more rational life for people. However, MOST of these plans and ideas, when considered for validity, actually begin with the premise that people should stop being who they are, stop feeling the way they do, stop behaving the way they do. The premise is that people should START feeling and behaving in a manner that allows the plan proposed to succeed. Which means they just proposed a fantasy, not a plan. Be wary of these notions, they simply are NOT worth your time. Nor mine. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I would suggest that we consider that result as what happens when you use a flawed constitutional process. The one that assigns power and authority to a small elite group that can decide how to bend and remake rules to suit their own desires and plans. Oh, don't LIKE that? Change it. Ahhh, yes a LOT of people talking about Article 5, yep, the ye olde goode Constitutional Convention. LOL I can read. I actually read the article 5. Know what I noticed? I noticed that the people involved in that bullshit nonsense, are POLITICIANS. ONLY politicians. People already proven to be sworn to NOT change anything significant or useful to the public. Know what ELSE I have noticed? I noticed that whenever a bunch of politicians get together, about the ONLY thing they come up with is some agreement on how to screw the public and consolidate their OWN power and authority. But yeah, go right ahead and get them elected assholes all in one spot, and I will get my ammo ready. (not to shoot politicians, understand, but to defend my life and limb from the armed revolution immediately following that bullshit) https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I am sadly surprised that scientists were not the first to wake up and look at the evidence objectively concerning our systems of governance. Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. What will cause WWIII, in my opinion, is the failure of our social tools to manage or resolve the problems and conflicts arising from our shared human experiences. Our processes we use to make public policy decisions. Our processes we use to manage and account for trade. And in case you have not noticed there are an INCREASING number of us, we the people, that are getting damn sick and tired of the continuing stream of lies excuses and bullshit being spewed by those who insist the damn thing is working. It's NOT working, it's FAILING. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-of-government/ Let us consider the matter of "representation" from a different angle. Imagine a circumstance where we, all 300 million of us decided to elect a single person to represent us. Just one. After some wrangling, jostling and argument, the choices we are left with are Joe Brown, and Sally Green. Who ever wins that election makes decisions for all of us, as our representative. Who did you vote for? Sally or Joe? Consider whether that really matters. If Joe wins and you voted for Sally, do you agree that you are being properly represented? If Joe wins, and you did vote for Joe, but Joe keeps making decisions that you don't agree with, are you still willing to agree that you are being properly represented? Is it true, that either of those candidates could, after winning the election, properly represent the entire population? I suggest it is NOT true. It is false. We don't do that though, do we? We elect a number of people to represent us, don't we? In a district with 1 million people, one person is elected, and that person is said to represent that entire population of one million. However is THAT true? If you voted for Joe, and Sally won the election, do you think you are being properly represented? If Sally won, and you voted for Sally, but she keeps making decisions that you don't agree with, are you willing to agree that you are being properly represented? What of the people that voted for Joe?? Are they being represented? THAT is the question. WHY do we use a system of "representation" that does NOT in reality, and factually represent us??? Why do we call it "representation" if it's NOT. Critical thinking is required here. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Cops who lie should be fired, and prosecuted, not demoted. Cops that consider their own lives more important than public safety should be fired, and prosecuted, not demoted. THOSE two public policy decisions would FIX a LOT of problems with cops. No, you DON'T get to lie, about anything to anyone. Not suspects, not their kids, not their friends, period, JUST NO. No, your safety is NOT top priority. PUBLIC safety is top priority. If you don't wanna be a hero, and risk getting killed trying to save the world, get the fuck OFF the police force. You need a job in a dental office, or flipping burgers, NOT parading around in a shiny uniform thinking you are more damn important than me. wow. Ok, I have this thing called self defense. That means that I control what happens to my body, and who does it. I am legally authorized to use deadly force to enforce my authority in that matter. On ANYONE. If someone is trying to set up a living space inside my body, it does not MATTER whether it's a clump of cells, or a 60 year old homeless guy. I have the right to object and stop that intrusion. If lethal action is the ONLY manner in which circumstances allow me to STOP that assault, I am fully and legally authorized. Oh, and the SAME rules apply to a woman. If you are sick and tired of the continuing stream of lies, excuses and bullshit coming from your government, perhaps you finally realized that you are NOT BEING PROPERLY REPRESENTED!! IF you have ever disagreed with a vote your elected "representative" has made on any issue, THEN, you are NOT being properly represented. let's step back, and look at the big picture though. Are we using a system based on the concept that the public should be properly represented? I suggest that is true, that is the concept we base our system on. However, I want to also suggest that the method of implementing that concept, by electing people, fails to actualize that concept. It is factually impossible for an elected person to properly represent a diverse population, on a diverse set of issues. Which means it is a FALSE premise that we use a system of proper representation. If we elect someone to make decisions, that person cannot, (it is simply impossible), properly represent the population of constituents. So, if we are using a system, based on a false premise, it would be insane to expect anything but failure. No matter how much integrity any elected official has, they are GOING to fail. Those are facts. Now, with that understood, it makes NO sense to think that simply switching out the people will cause the system to work correctly. It's based on a false premise. No, we need to find a method of representation, that actually does properly represent the public. The entire public. By giving every individual a voice, through a representative that DOES represent that person, EVERY time any decision is made. Quit blaming the victims, we the people did NOT cause this. Our constitutional flaws, caused this. It does not work, and it's not because we elect the wrong people, it is not working, because it DOES NOT WORK! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ A more direct democracy. I have noticed that people don't really want to vote on every issue, they do have lives that they don't want constantly interrupted by issues they don't know anything about. Which is why we should allow people to use representatives. Not elected representatives. Those don't work. Also, we should agree on some process to let the public filter out idiotic problems, and idiotic solutions. maybe we could elect a bunch of advisors, to do that filtering. They don't get to decide what laws are passed, but they suggest laws that might work, for the public to vote on. Like a congress without any power. maybe an executive, we could elect a president, to filter out the idiotic problems. Then we could elect a court, to filter out solutions from congress, to make sure we don't all vote to pass a law that is simply illegal, like voting to hang all green people. Then we could have the president look at what congress suggested, to make sure it would actually be plausible, and that we understand how we are going to pay for it, whatever IT is. THEN we could vote on it. OH, wait, I already SAID that. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ If you are sick and tired of the continuing stream of lies, excuses and bullshit coming from your government, perhaps you finally realized that you are NOT BEING PROPERLY REPRESENTED!! Consider carefully the premise of electing a representative. IF and I do mean if I agree that we elect someone as a representative, THEN, I expect to be factually represented. Why should I not? However the reality is quite different, factually I am NOT at all represented by someone that I did not vote for, in that election. Even if I did vote for that person, it is very likely that on some issue, his decision to vote on a matter might not agree with my will on that matter at all. Again, I am not being factually represented. I fully understand that is how it works, but I am not allowing that to sway my position, that it is factually NOT TRUE that I am being properly represented. When I say "I am not being represented." I am speaking of WE, the people, are not being properly represented. The concept of "electing" a representative is based on a false premise, no matter HOW that election is structured, managed or otherwise manipulated. It is a falsity of fact. http://45ink.com/wp/need-a-new-government/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If you are sick and tired of the continuing stream of lies, excuses and bullshit coming from your government, perhaps you finally realized that you are NOT BEING PROPERLY REPRESENTED!! Our government. It seems easy to agree that it's not solving or managing the problems we are facing as a nation and as a species. I know a LOT of people want to insist that it's failing, because we as citizens are electing the wrong people. They say that, because they want to insist that the founders created a perfect, or least working process as our constitution, and it works just fine. Well, I disagree. If it, the process specified, was working properly, then it would not matter who we elected, because it is founded on the idea that who ever we DO elect, will follow the rules, and things will work. Now, some might argue, that it won't work unless the people we elect do follow the rules. That would be true. I suggest that we look at the approval ratings of individuals elected to office. MOST of them are RE-ELECTED, and have high or average approval ratings. Which MEANS, that the people that elected them think they are doing a good job and following the damn rules. Are you going to call those citizens liars? The people we elect to congress ARE doing exactly what the constitution tells them to do. So, the ONLY reason the thing ain't working, is because it DOES NOT WORK!!!! Quit looking for someone to blame. The PROCESS is flawed. It's not fixing itself. It's not going to get better. It has gotten worse, and will continue to fail, for as long as we still use it. We CAN do better, just as we did better than King George, and we tossed the British back to England. We don't have to go to war with ourselves, we just have to come to our senses, and decide to start using a process that DOES work. Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what a bunch of guys decided to use over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ http://45ink.com/wp/need-a-new-government/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Most people actually like the idea of using a representative. I do myself. I would very much like to be able to choose someone that I consider more knowledgeable than myself on the details of some matters. I would like to choose someone to keep me informed of matters of state and policy. I would like to choose someone to make those dull dreary everyday housekeeping decisions that I am not particularly interested in. My POINT is that such a choice should be MY choice, not made for me simply because I happen to live in a geographical area with a majority of redneck inbred racist dickweeds. Or, if you, (general pronoun, not specific), are a redneck inbred racist, living in an area of tree hugging fairytale unicorn fart kissing liberals, then you should be able to choose someone that YOU choose, not one, that, those cross dressing weirdos chose for you. The point is simple. If we are agreeing to use representatives, then damnit, I want to be properly represented, not just enjoying the mist of the piss of the elite assholes who managed to lie, cheat and bullshit their way to a seat in office. The concept of "electing" a representative is based on a false premise, no matter HOW that election is structured, managed or otherwise manipulated. It is a falsity of fact. Yes, the concept is really quite simple. Everyone needs to have a voice, a vote on the matter. That does not mean that everyone gets their way. Essentially it means we use science, the methods of science, to develop, test and demonstrate a system that really does represent the majority, within constraints. I think my system would test out very well. Most people, if dropped off in the wilderness would wander in circles until dead. We know this is true. However if we build roads and signs and rules, by golly, people get around just fine. It is not reasonable to expect those people wandering in circles to build a road. We use the people that know how to build roads to do that. Science, engineering. Gaining knowledge, not blindly following some faith that things might work out, (that would be wandering in circles). The key here is to employ university social science departments, all over the world to study, consider, develop, test, reconsider, and demonstrate what roads work best. THEN USE THEM. People might not agree on the direction they want to go on a road, but everyone generally agrees to use the roads that are built. The problem is that we are using roads designed in the 1700's, and they are falling apart. We can build BETTER roads today, and we need to do that. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Please, pay attention sometime to how you are presented with information from the government and media. Note that when they want you to agree with the process they will use to ram bullshit, lies and excuses down your throat, they refer to elected officials as "representatives". However, when they are attempting to convince you to agree with some government action that will shove bullshit, lies and excuses down your throat, they will refer to elected officials as "leaders". have you ever wondered which they really are?? Are they "leaders"? Imposing their decisions on the public, regardless of public opinion? OR, are they "representatives", imposing public opinion regardless of their personal or business interests? No, really, THINK about it. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ You should read Article 5. Wanna know who gets involved in that convention?? Not YOU, for sure. Who? POLITICIANS. THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED YOU BAD ENOUGH to want a change in the constitution. THINK about it. No really THINK. I understand that many think we are just too stupid to trust with decisions, I disagree, I look around and I see people making reasonable choices all day every day. I don't agree with all of those decisions, but they seem to work fine for those people, generally. I also understand that blaming the public for making a bad choice in electing rulers, is a false view when it was those bad rulers that limited the public TO those bad choices. The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. http://45ink.com/wp/need-a-new-government/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Basically, what I find so frustratingly amusing is the insistence that we don't need no damn government telling us what to do, we can make our own damn decisions, and they should just leave us alone. Then when someone attempts to describe a method of making decisions that gives YOU the damn power and authority to make those decisions, you then insist that people are too damn stupid to make our own decisions. WHICH is IT??? http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ Do we need a king, or a council of kings telling us what's good for us? OR, are we going to stand up, and freely make those decisions for ourselves?? You want rulers, or freedom?? WHICH??? If we are using elections to decide who will make the rules, all we have done, is traded one king, for a bunch of kings. When the bunch of kings makes decisions that limit our ability to choose who will be one of those kings, to ONLY the ones they approve of, then the public has lost control of the system entirely. At that time, the public no longer matters, as long as public "consent" is perceived. That consent is implied, and demonstrated by public participation, or "voting". That is a marked difference from a public voting on the decisions directly. In that case public participation directly affects the outcome. If we used representatives correctly, not as kings, then the public could be disengaged with the issues, directly, and yet have full control of the decision process when an issue arises they ARE concerned with. People have died fighting our government to protect your rights. take a moment to consider that, citizens FOUGHT our government, and DIED, to get some protections from business. Fought. Died. Why are we using a government we have to fight, to work for us?? Our constitution failed to provide proper administration of the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence and protections of individual rights as specified in the 10 amendments. It FAILED because it is based on a premise of properly representing the public will. The failure is caused by the fact that an elected person cannot properly represent a diverse population on diverse issues. Quit blaming the victims, we the people did NOT cause this. Our constitutional flaws, caused this. It does not work, and it's not because we elect the wrong people, it is not working, because it DOES NOT WORK! Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/4-branch-government/testing/1692645284389300/ Did Bernie say, look outside the box? Bernie Sanders quoted--:: (pay attention) "Now in my view the hardest part of politics and something Dr. King certainly knew has to do with courage, has to do with imagination, has to do with the need to think big and not small. It has to do with the need to escape the limitations and constraints of the status quo, which means you can turn the TV and watch it hour after hour, channel after channel after channel, and not see one relevant piece of information, and you have to understand that. It has to do to with rejecting as normal what we see everyday around us," said Sanders. "It has to do with the need to maintain a deep sense of outrage at what we see around us in this country and around the world. "It has to do with the need to understand that the emperor in fact has no clothes and the need to have the courage, and it takes courage to ask the questions and provide the analyses not often done by mainstream media and politicians." HE MEANT EXACTLY what he said. Or, did he? The concept of a constitutional republic is a sound and valid idea, it simply needs to have the elements arranged properly. This needs a few more tweaks, but it arranges the elements of a constitutional republic in a manner that fulfills the intent of the Declaration of Independence and the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ The people we elect, wow. Just WOW, right? But you know, the system we use assumes that the system will work, regardless of who we elect, right? That is why we have 3 branches, to balance the power? Keep things moving, deny any corruption? Right? Is it working? Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what worked over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. The concept of a constitutional republic is a sound and valid idea, it simply needs to have the elements arranged properly. This needs a few more tweaks, but it arranges the elements of a constitutional republic in a manner that fulfills the intent of the Declaration of Independence and the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ I would love to teach the world to sing. To accomplish that we need a class and curriculum. Not a wish and hope they all figure it out on their own. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If you insist that the injustice perpetrated by our government(s), and its agency(ies), are not your responsibility, and that you, personally should not and cannot be obligated to accept blame for those actions, then, You have agreed, in fact, with no equivocation, that our government(s) and it's agency(ies), do not represent you. If you insist that our government DOES represent you, then you cannot reject the personal responsibility and personal blame associated with those infamous acts. That is reality. Yeah, we have other enemies. Some might be considered domestic enemies. THAT is what is driving much of the anger and frustration. If the public is becoming increasingly angry and frustrated, it is because those enemy forces are active. They simply want to ignore that our anger and frustration is directed at our government, AS THAT ENEMY. The Russians did not pass a law to spy on our citizens. China did not lie to congress about that law and those spy programs. Hell, North Korea did not suck Bills dick and lie about it. Britain did not erase Nixons tapes, or order Watergate. That was our GOVERNMENT. India did not refuse to convict the police that killed Tamir Rice. VietNam did not assasinate JFK It was not German Nazis that shot 4 kids at Kent State. We took an oath. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ http://45ink.com/wp/4-branches-detailed/ It is NOT all that difficult. We need 4 branches of government. Any one can submit a problem, for consideration to the executive branch, that may require a federal law to manage or resolve. The executive branch has two important jobs in deciding public policy. The executive branch filters those submissions, and decides which ones actually do deserve consideration as a federal law. If the executive branch decides to consider a problem, a tasking order is written, and submitted to congress.(the legislative branch) That order defines the problem to be considered, and optionally limits the scope of consideration by congress, along with possible avenues of resolution and management. That tasking order assigns to congress the authority to consider that problem, and without that order, congress is NOT authorized to consider a problem. There needs to be some mechanism for the people to force a consideration, or repeal of a bad law, and that will be dealt with in a separate manner. Once congress has that tasking order, their job, is to consider the problem, in whatever way seems reasonable to them, form committees, commission studies, etc. Congress then writes a "bill" that specifies the law they think will manage or resolve that problem, along with a detailed cost accounting for enforcement of that law. That "bill", or range of "bills", is then passed to the judicial branch. A supreme court, selected by election, by the public, congress and selected by appointment by the executive. 5 from the public, 3 from congress, and one from the president. The supreme court, reviews each bill, submitted by congress, for legality. The resulting law, if passed must not contravene existing law, nor infringe on rights protected by a statement of civil rights, nor contravene the process specified. What that court will NOT consider, is whether such law might or might not "work", nor how much or little it might cost. ONLY whether the resultant law would be LEGAL. If such "bill" is rejected by the court, it passes back to congress for re-consideration. If such bill passes judicial review, it is passed back to the executive branch. (The second review of executive branch, in this process) Each bill, passed to the executive branch from judicial review, will be reviewed, and tested for effective plausibility. There is also a review by the executive branch for the cost accounting. Who pays for it, how are those funds collected, and are those costs and funding sufficient and reasonable? If such bill is rejected by the executive branch, it is passed back to congress for re-consideration. EVERY "bill" passed from congress shall be passed to the judicial branch. All revisions will be reviewed by the judicial branch. Congress cannot revise a "bill", then assume it is legal, it must be reviewed. If such bill is passed by the executive branch, after review, then it shall be passed to the Public branch. The public branch is the ONLY branch authorized to enact law. ONLY the public will decide if a "bill" shall become a law. The public branch shall be authorized to employ representatives. Such representatives are not and shall not be elected to an office. Nor shall a citizen be obligated to use a representative. The use of a representative is an option, for the convenience of the public. The power and authorities specified are limited and NOT balanced. The PUBLIC has the authority to enact law. The other three branches are subservient and subsidiary to the public will and intent. The public authority does NOT extend to writing bills, not adjudicating legality of such bills, nor reviewing such bills for effective plausibility, nor cost accounting. The public shall make decisions on the bills passed to them, as written, reviewed and passed. An extended comment on "representatives": Representatives have NO authority or power, except that which is conveyed to them by individuals that choose to employ them. A representative, will monitor the process and actions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and inform their constituents of those actions, with as little opinion as possible. Facts. ONLY facts. When a bill is passed to the public all representatives shall within a reasonable time, (hours,, not days), publish into a permanent record how each citizen choosing to employ that representative, will vote. Each bill will be assigned a reasonable time of consideration by the public. (a week, more or less depending on the circumstances determined by the executive). At the end of that period of consideration, all ballots will be collected and counted. DURING that period of consideration, each citizen that employs a representative, may make decisions regarding the submission of their ballot. IF they agree with the published vote of their representative, then that representative keeps that ballot, and submits it along with all the other citizen ballots that agree with that vote. (note: This means that if you chose your representative carefully, you, need not be actively concerned with their vote, as you generally agreed with them enough to choose them to represent you.) However if you do NOT agree with your ballot being cast as your representative has published, then: You as the citizen, can pull your ballot from control of your representative. If you do so, you are NO LONGER represented on that vote, unless you take further action. You may pass your ballot to another representative, with a published vote you do agree with. This is a temporary representation on this single ballot. The "other" representative is NOT your chosen representative, simply a temporary on this bill. You may choose to go to the voting booth yourself, and cast your ballot as you wish. This is what citizens without a chosen representative would normally do. You are NOT required to vote. If you pull control of your ballot, you may simply choose not to vote at all. THIS process as outlined above confuses people for some reason. It's NOT confusing at all. It's YOUR ballot. YOURS. You choose how it is cast. The process of using a representative assures you that you can use a representative as YOU authorize. YOU control that process. NO ONE ELSE. Your representative has no control or influence on your ballot, that you don't specifically agree to. ****{ If you chose Billy Bob as your Rep, then when a vote comes up, he will have already explained what that bill does, what it costs you, and HIS vote on that matter. You either agree, or you don't. }***** YOUR vote counts. EVERY time a decision is made YOU HAVE A VOICE. Note how that is different from an ELECTED representative. An election determines who makes decisions for you, and it is NOT YOU!! The president is elected, members of congress are elected, the court is mostly elected. YOUR decision however on which laws will be enacted belong to YOU, no one else. A representative republic, using democracy and representation CORRECTLY. 4 branches, vote for it. The enemies and opponents of freedom, equality and democracy are using supercomputers, the media, and robotic drones to control their agenda. We, the defenders of equality freedom and democracy are using a system that consists of broken bones tied to sticks. It is WELL past time to update and harden our systems of self governance! THEY make the rules. Figure that out. The people who benefit from the bullshit are the only ones authorized by our constitution to fix that bullshit. Not you, not me, Congress. Only Congress. Not the President, not the Supreme court, not the media, not the polls, not the elections, not the petitions. CONGRESS is the problem. We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Politicians need our consent. Your consent. They need you to agree with two concepts; First, that the process works. Even if you don't agree with the result of their decisions, they need you to agree, you were properly represented in that decision process. Second, that they have the authority to make those decisions, regardless of your disagreement with the result. Therefor, when politicians refer to themselves, they will use two terms; First, as your "representative", to elicit your agreement they do represent you. Even if they don't. Second, as a "leader", to elicit your agreement that they have the authority to make decisions without your agreement. Consider that, pay attention. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ "Burn mother fucker burn" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSOIspSTP4 "Ain't my fault" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5RDEXpc8OY Bella and denise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf3FQhF4Kf8 If a political candidate agreed to run a campaign with zero corporate sponsors, and promised to ALWAYS ask the people about decisions, and NEVER talk to corporate lobbyists, would you expect to be properly represented? Please, take your time, and JUSTIFY your answer with reason, not fantasy. Consider circumstances that might prompt that person to make decisions you do NOT agree with. Consider the circumstance that elected one of two people that made the exact same promise about corporate influence, but the one that you did not vote for WON! THINK! Please THINK! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ OK, so how does that translate out of political doublespeak into plain english, that I am being represented??? On that issue, I do NOT want my voice to support THAT decision. But the guy that is my "representative" uses my voice to support that decision? WTF?? How can you possibly say that I am being properly represented??? Misappropriation of consent. Perhaps you consented to allowing a business to share your purchase history to affiliated businesses, then you start getting sales calls from some shady business for house siding because you bought a can of exterior house paint. Wait, how did they get your phone number? Did you consent to sharing your PHONE NUMBER?? Well, no, you did not. Misappropriation of consent. Enough to make you angry? I would sure hope so. OK, so now let's look at "representation". We agreed to be governed by a process of representation. Do you feel properly represented? Let us imagine that you voted for the person who did not win the election. The reason you did not vote for the winner is BECAUSE you don't agree with them on the issues they expressed an opinion on. I suggest that you will not at all feel represented. Let's turn that around though. Let us imagine that the person who won that election was the person you DID vote for. That means that most if not all of the people who voted for the other person are not being properly represented. If we agreed to use a process of representation, we should expect to BE represented. ALL of us. If we are NOT being represented, then the situation is much as that business selling your phone number, it SHOULD make you angry, that your agreement, your consent, to representation has been misappropriated. Misappropriation of consent. Is that what our government is doing? THINK! Please THINK! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Your representative should be a person that you chose, not elected. The authority to craft law, should be separated from the authority to enact law. Congress should write bills, but have nothing to do with deciding whether to enact those. That decision would be the sole authority of the public. The public should have the authority to decide whether a bill should become law, but NOT any authority to write laws. Separate. There should be a process to filter problems for resolution or management by law. For instance, the problem of what color socks we must wear on Thursday, is NOT a problem that should ever be considered by attempting to pass a law, however the problem of how to manage and pay for infrastructure maintenance and improvements SHOULD be considered, by law, not by order, or whim. Bills written by congress should be required to include a cost accounting, who pays and how much, and how the funds are collected and disbursed. Bills written by congress should then go through a judicial review, to be adjudicated for legality and process adherence. If a bill infringes on a right, specified in a statement of civil rights protected from infringement, that bill should be rejected, immediately before it even gets to any other kind of process. If a bill contravenes an existing law, again, it's rejected, because it's illegal. If a bill attempted to slip in a decision about sock color in a road maintenance consideration, then it should be rejected for process adherence. Then if the bill pases judicial review it should be reviewed for plausibility and cost accounting. If the problem was road building, and the bill requires that everyone buys a new vehicle, it's rejected, the purchase of new autos, has nothing to do with building roads. If the bill attempts to say that a new road will cost the public 1 million dollars per capita, it should be rejected, no road is going to cost 300 million million dollars. The cost accounting was flawed. THEN, if the bill passes all those reviews and filters, it is presented to the PUBLIC. Is that something that a clear majority of the PEOPLE want to do, and pay for? A clear majority, like 67%. PEOPLE don't want to vote on every damn bizarre idea that comes out of congress, but they want a SAY. THAT is why we want to use representatives. A representative that actually DOES, FACTUALLY, represent me. Not what THEY want, but what I want. The only way to assure me that I will be properly represented is to give ME the citizen, each of us, total and complete control of that part of the process. I decide who I am comfortable with as a representative. MY choice. Not a majority in my geographical area, but ME. I also want the option to change my choice, at any time, for ANY reason. Even the choice to not have any representative at all. Therefor, once a bill comes up for vote by the public, my representative MUST publish how my vote will be cast, if I agree. THEN I have a certain amount of time to decide if I agree with that published vote or not. If I agree, I am done, as my representative has made a decision that i agree with, and if I chose my representative carefully, that will be MOST OF THE TIME. I can go about my life without much concern about those votes, because i know what my Rep is likely to choose to do. If I see something I do NOT like i can pull my vote from that rep. NOT a proxy. MY BALLOT. MY VOICE. Then I can cast my ballot in the way that I do want. I can even give it to a different rep that has published a vote that i agree with, FOR THAT ONE VOTE. I can fire my rep entirely at any time and choose another, or choose not to use one entirely. It's dead simple. It works exactly the way representatives SHOULD be used. AS representatives, not assholes with the power and authority to misappropriate my consent. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ One of the defining factors that sets Progressives apart from the other ideologies, is that we simply are not happy with the attitude of , "well, i got mine, so screw you." In other words, we have compassion and respect and we expect equity in our governance. That is why after we see a progressive beat a conservative in an election, we never wonder who is now going to represent the people who don't agree with anything that progressive wants to do in office. We celebrate our WIN! YAY, I got mine, so screw you! Sarcasm, and disgust, should be totally apparent in my comment. But, oh well, right? We got ours, so screw you. If we agreed to use a process of representation, we should expect to BE represented. ALL of us. Misappropriation of consent. Is that what our government is doing? THINK! Please THINK! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Did you know that I volunteered for military service in 1973? Did you know that when I was 18, I barely questioned the process we use to elect people to make decisions that could have killed me in war? Did you know that I have matured since that time, and have decided that the system sucks? Did you know that I am now fighting to educate you about proper representation? Do you FEEL represented by our government? If you voted for a candidate that promised to support your view on issue "X", and that candidate LOST the election, why would you feel represented by the winner, that promised to oppose your view on issue "X". If you are not being represented, then why do you agree that we use a system of representation?? That makes NO sense, whatsoever. Let's be fair as well, if your candidate WON, then that means that all of the people who oppose your view on issue "X", are not being represented. They don't get a say in congress, only YOU do. They have every right to be angry and frustrated, as you would, when your view is not represented. Yeah, I get it, you feel like a winner when your side wins, but you didn't win fairly. You got your say, but the other side did NOT get a say. Yeah, whatever, that's the way it works. Yeah? WHAT IF IT WORKED SO THAT EVERYONE got a say??? Then if there were more of us that did not want to send people to kill other people we would not have to do that. If there were more of us that wanted to spend our money, labor and resources on taking care of grandma and the kids, and less on padding offshore accounts of corporations making war machines, we could do that. ARE YOU AFRAID of each other? DO YOU REALLY think there are more assholes in this nation than good kind hearted people? DO YOU THINK that the people who run, as candidates in elections that leave half of the people in this country unrepresented are GOOD KIND HEARTED PEOPLE WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT YOU??? Show me the evidence of those people running that system care about you or me in the damn slightest. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ We should ask why we are voting. Are we voting to be represented? For those who DID vote, ask yourself if you do feel properly represented by the results of your voting. if you do not feel properly represented, after YOU voted, why should I agree that MY vote would result in MY proper representation? https://www.facebook.com/notes/4-branch-government/testing/1692645284389300/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ When politicians tell me I gotta fight for them, so they can fix stuff: You don't get it do ya? We don't WANT to fight our government to FORCE you people to make decisions that benefit the public. If we wanted to fight, we would have hung you people 200 years ago. If you people cannot figure out how to make this bullshit and nonsense slot machine casino game SCAM you are running, work for the public, then GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY!!! We should ask why we are voting. Are we voting to be represented? For those who DID vote, ask yourself if you do feel properly represented by the results of your voting. if you do not feel properly represented, after YOU voted, why should I agree that MY vote would result in MY proper representation? https://www.facebook.com/notes/4-branch-government/testing/1692645284389300/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/4-branch-government/popular-objection/1931471750506651/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/right-of-representation/10155801785567278/ If I hired a lawyer to represent me in a court case, that claimed my loss of $1000, and that lawyer presented my claim to the court as not $1000, but as $100, then, the question I ask, is whether you agree that lawyer is properly representing me? The court might look at the facts, and determine that my loss was $10,000, or it may decide that my loss was $10, but the court decision, has nothing to do with the question of whether that lawyer properly represented me to that court. If we agree that the behavior of the lawyer does NOT in fact equate to proper representation, and I hope we do, then I would like to present to you the question of the behavior of the people elected to congress. The question being, of whether the person elected to represent you in our government, does in fact properly represent you. I want you to imagine that your stupid neighbor, disagrees with your view on EVERY resolution and issue. Regardless of what you think, your dumb neighbor disagrees with you. You BOTH voted in the election of that person that was elected to congress. If you voted for that person, then your neighbor voted against that person. If you voted against that person, then your neighbor voted FOR that person. With all that said, we should now agree that BOTH you and your neighbor have equal claim of a constitutional right of proper representation. That is an important point to recognize. Our constitution claims to protect your right to be properly represented in government. It either SUCCEEDS in providing that proper representation, to EVERYONE equally, or it does NOT. It does not matter, if YOU are represented, if your neighbor is NOT being represented. Sure you "win", but that is like that court case, the question of proper representation has nothing to do with the result. Just because you have a say, does not mean that you get your way. BUT, our constitution states that every person is treated equally under the law. Which means that if you get YOUR say, then your neighbor ALSO has the right to have HIS say, even if you don't agree with his view. THAT is what I want you to really think about. Our constitution either works, properly, or it does not. Is it even POSSIBLE for that election of that person to congress to PROPERLY represent both you and your neighbor, equally? No. it is NOT. Therefor the process specified in our constitution fails to provide a method of equal rights to all people. FAILS, in a core premise, FAILS to actualize the core principle of law it was claimed to properly administer. I have no interest in any "love it or leave it" or "It's the best there is" nonsense. It FAILS, and to simply ignore that fact is an absurdity that MUST change, before any attempt to use any system of governance. Electing individuals as representatives, FAILS, at the the core premise of providing representation. https://www.facebook.com/notes/4-branch-government/popular-objection/1931471750506651/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/right-of-representation/10155801785567278/ Seriously. It is simply absurd to suggest that any people today could possibly be smarter than the people who wrote our constitution! In addition, it is quite obvious that the people 240 years ago, knew so much more than anyone alive today. There is no possible way we could have any experience or knowledge they were not much more capable of applying to the task of designing a system of government! Our constitution was written by men that had a perfect intellect and awareness of our current social needs, and that document specifies that perfect system perfectly. There is no possible manner to improve it, it cannot be changed and we must continue to use it exactly as it was founded 240 years ago. We must simply continue to vote and agree that the system we use is the absolute pinnacle of possible perfection. Prove me wrong. What is so sad, is that people are attempting to bail out a sinking boat by flapping their arms. Any suggestion they should try using a bucket is simply ignored, and they insist the reason the boat is sinking, is because not enough people are flapping their arms. It's absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. I do not agree that a person "represents" me regardless of majority election, when that person opposes my view on matters that I find important to me, and that makes decisions in opposition to my views. I do not agree, I do not consent! However if I DID VOTE, I did agree, I did consent to the result of that majority election. By NOT voting I am withholding my agreement, and denying my consent. That denial of consent does NOT obligate me or anyone to provide an alternative process that I do agree with. However I HAVE provided that alternative process, which allows myself, and all citizens to choose a representative that factually DOES represent us, as individuals. But my denial of consent does not obligate me to provide such. I simply deny my consent, and reject the premise which rests entirely on a predicate of falsity. It is a LIE, and I will not be bullied into agreeing with it. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. I have a LOT of experience watching people who insist that government cannot be improved. When presented with a problem, such as two boards joined together with wood screws, that need to be separated without further damage to either boards or the screws, and all he has are rocks as tools, they give up and exclaim that the boards are just fine the way they are. Then when they are confronted with another man building a fire, and a bellows and putting reddish colored rocks in the fire, denigrates that man, as a fool. He is further likely to argue that it must be "gods will" that the boards are joined, and that any attempt to separate them must be evil. He has no comprehension of how a screw works, or how iron may be smelted from rocks, and forged into a screwdriver. He argues at every step, and any attempt to explain any of it to him simply confuses him and makes him angry at being baffled by concepts he simply cannot comprehend. Yes, I am well experienced at this sort of discussion. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what a bunch of guys with elitist agendas decided to use over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Like trying to explain a cam, to someone who insists that it must be round and rotate on center. If you want me to agree that some elected person, I did not vote for, that makes decisions that I do not agree with and did not consent to, somehow should be magically considered my representative, because they were elected to a position of power and authority, Then, I do NOT. It's NOT true. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. It's a system based on a false premise, and I reject it. If you want to agree that someone you did not vote for, do not agree with, and that makes you angry, when they speak, is YOUR representative, you are WELCOME to do that. If you ever decide to use factual representation, I invite you to examine my proposal. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I am not trying to force people into making decisions on every act of governance. We LIKE having someone we trust make those decisions. the idea of TRUST is the problem with our current system. We no longer trust that our representatives do in fact represent us, because they don't. It's not usually a character flaw of the people elected, it's simply a fact, that an elected person CANNOT properly represent a population. using representatives correctly, would change that, and allow every person to be involved in every decision, to the extent that they WISH to be, no more, and no less. The effect, the result would be an accurate accounting of every vote, such that the result is what you desire with Direct democracy, every vote counted on every issue. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Do not make the mistake of thinking that because I reject the premise of electing people as representatives, that I am making a claim that there is no possibility of a legislative act being one that you, or we as a nation agree with. Those are not equivalent. Just as rejecting the premise of basing your ability to acquire wealth by pulling a slot machine handle, is not making a claim that you cannot win a jackpot. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ We have deluded ourselves into believing that electing people to positions of power and authority over us, somehow results in our representation. We need a constitutional republic, properly administering a representative democracy. We need a bill of rights with legal precedence over the legislative process. We need a judicial branch that presumes every bill is guilty of some evil, and rejects it, UNLESS it is proven innocent. We need factual representation, not some elected bunch of rulers pretending to be representatives. If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ #GuiltyToo As a younger man, I never considered that the cultural environment was toxic to women. I accepted my role in that culture as normal and appropriate. Woke me right up. Thank you ladies. #GuiltyToo If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. If I told you that we should think of your arms as wings, you would probably reject that. If I insisted, and further said that by flapping your wings, you can fly, you would probably reject that as well. It is NOT true that your arms are wings, and no amount of flapping your arms will result in your ability to fly. There is no argument or reasoning that I could use, that would convince you to agree that flapping your arms would allow you to fly. Your rejection is based on my false premise, that your arms are wings. Your arms are not wings. It's that simple. Now, if I told you that if I am elected, I will represent you, you may or may not believe me. Would you want to know if the decisions that I will make, are those that you agree with? Sure you would. That is why you would expect me to outline my views on issues before you decide whether to vote for me, or not. To try and determine if I would make decisions you agree with. If I expressed my views, and you realized that you do NOT agree with me, then you would reject me as a potential representative. You would not vote for me. Yet, what if I won the election? Does that situation magically make me your representative? Am I, in fact representing you, if I am making decisions that you do not agree with? There we are, again. We are saying that I am your representative, in the SAME way that I tried to tell you that your arms are wings. You rejected the wings, and by the same reasoning, you should reject that I am your representative. Do you have the civil right to BE represented? As an individual, do you have a civil right to be represented in government? Is that right to be represented being properly administered, by electing someone to a position that carries the power and authority to make decisions, regardless of your agreement or consent? If not, then you should agree, that there is a flaw, in our form of government. Just as there is a flaw in my assertion that your arms are wings. It is NOT true. We are using a false premise, that representation results from elections. It is NOT true. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ **** I am suggesting, no, wait, I am asserting, that ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ ***** It is a simple question. If you have a view on any matter, pick one, any one, then consider: Would you agree, that a group that is opposed to your view on that matter, REPRESENTS you, on that matter? To suggest, that would be true, is absurd! It is exactly the same circumstance in consideration of decisions in government. If some person, is elected that makes decisions in opposition to your view, it is absurd to say, that person represents you. THAT is the false premise presented to us, in our constitutional process. That is the false premise presented in ANY system or process that attempts to invoke representation by election, regardless of how that election is manipulated, structured, or arranged. DEAL with that, when thinking about how to build a sane and rational form of government. that is my bottom line. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ To those who advocate violent insurrection: You should be aware that I took an oath to defend this nation. I'm not sure that your concept is contrary to my oath. As a human that has already committed to violence in pursuit of my oath, I have considered such actions. Under circumstances that would compel me to take such measures, I would not hesitate to give that order. I consider myself a commanding officer of my unit. Let me be perfectly clear. I swore to defend our government, our constitution. If it is true that our government is operating by the people, for the people and of the people, then THAT is what I swore to protect and defend, our people. Our PEOPLE. If it becomes true that our government has become an enemy of the public, or our species, as evidenced by a vast public assertion of that conclusion, then my oath would compel me to undertake such an endeavor. That is my line, when a vast and obvious majority of the citizen public agrees that the proper action is to alter or abolish our current system of government, and to adopt a system that has been demonstrated to be a better process. I won't act to attempt anarchy, or any description of armed deadly violence that is likely to result in a military coup. With that said, as someone who has already considered the possibility of defending the public against a domestic enemy, I am capable of operating in such conditions, mentally and emotionally. I am a dangerous human. I have committed to violence in defense. And this is important, I love the human species, in the same way I love microbes, insects, fungus and trees, and birds and sunshine. Marx concludes that the people must own the means of production. I question the application of that conclusion to EVERY aspect of political and economic process. I can see why a social market may wish to own the means to produce enough bread to feed everyone participating in that market. That much I agree with. However is it necessary for the social market to own EVERY means of producing bread? Furthermore, is it necessary for the social market to own the means to produce luxury yachts? I think you have a solid grasp of what comprises a capital market. Essentially, a market that engages in trade, for the purpose of gaining profit from trade. It would make sense, then to consider a social market, as one that engages in trade, for the purpose of caring for people. When I help my neighbor plow his field, I am not doing that to insist that I be paid in produce. When my neighbor shows up to share his garden produce, he is not doing so to insist that I help him work his garden. Yet, if I did not help, and he did not share, that "market" does not exist. Therefor, just as there are "rules" of capital economic theory, I am hoping to explore "rules" of social economic theory. http://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ **** Fast example of 4 branch representative process: John is the citizen, Susan is his representative. 1. Issue X, is referred to the executive branch. Susan informs John, along with all the other people that chose Susan, that issue X is being considered. 2. The president passes a tasking order to congress to consider issue X. Susan informs John, that congress has a tasking order on issue X. 3. Congress works on the issue, research, meetings, studies, etc. Susan informs John of the work congress is doing on issue X. 4. Congress writes a bill, and passes it to the Judicial branch. Susan informs John that a bill has been passed to the court, and John now has the actual text of that bill. He may not read it, but he has been FULLY informed of exactly what is being done and proposed by the process. 5. The court reviews the bill, and publishes a ruling, discussing the legality of that bill. (let's assume it passes that review) Susan informs John of the passage of the bill, from the court, to the executive branch, and John now has the actual text of that ruling. He is fully informed on the ruling that approved that legality. 6. The executive branch reviews the bill, for plausibility and cost accounting. (let's assume the review passes that bill to the public branch, for decision) Susan informs John about the executive review, and now John has the actual text of the review, that passes the bill on issue X to the public for decision. 7. The bill, in consideration of issue x, is passed to the public for consideration and decision. Susan informs John that the bill is up for his decision. Susan then publishes HER VOTE into a permanent public record and informs John of her vote on that bill. 8. John now has an opportunity to make a decision on that bill. JOHN, not SUSAN. JOHN makes the decision, NOT Susan. When I suggest that we, the people, as INDIVIDUALS have the right to be properly represented in government, and that electing people to make decisions we may not agree with does not properly administer that civil right to be represented, it is THEN, that I get the pushback, that we do NOT have an individual right of representation, but rather we as a nation, as a group of people, has that right. FINE. OK, let's go with THAT instead. So why is our GROUP, the people of this nation NOT BEING represented equitably? With an approval rating of LESS THAN 20%, it is ABSURD to suggest that congress is actually doing what we agree is what we want them to do. Infrastructure? Education? Energy improvements? Civil rights? State rights? WHERE is this system administering our national will properly? WHERE?? It's NOT. Let me be clear, I have as MUCH right to proper representation as you. It's not a group right, it is an individual right, and to suggest it is not is simply absurd in the face of our Declaration of Independence. Our constitution was SUPPOSED to administer our rights and privileges as PEOPLE, as individuals, by specifying a process that allows US to make decisions, through representation. It simply does not do so. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ We look around and celebrate our everyday heroes. The people that step up, and save a kitten, or put their body on a line between good and evil. These are normal, average people, in circumstances that bring out the best in human nature. They see a problem, and think of a solution and then act on it, to make our world a better place for all. Then, when someone suggests that we should use a government that puts the common everyday people in a position of authority over our own lives, we hear the denigrating and derisive remarks. "people are too greedy, people are too stupid...." If that is TRUE, then we never should have adopted a government that promised a system OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. It's NOT true. We celebrate humans and our love for each other, and our commitments to help each other in times of crisis and need EVERY DAY! What happens is that the PROCESS we use, puts small numbers of people, in positions of power and authority, by ELECTING them to those positions. Those elected people do NOT represent us, and the decisions they make are not OUR decisions. They don't reflect our commitment to each other as humans. Those decisions reflect their own desire to gain and maintain their positions of power and authority. I am suggesting, no, wait, I am asserting, that ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Two things would need to be "happening", to install something like 4 branch in ANY national government. First, the vast majority of the public must be so totally disgusted with the performance of their current system that they are voluntarily LOOKING, for a better method of government. Note, that unless something that IS factually better, is available at that time, the population is likely to bicker, and fight, and collapse on itself, NOT develop a better system in the chaos and confusion. Second, based on that notation, that system, resembling, (perhaps), 4 branch must already BE developed and demonstrated to WORK so much better, that, the population generally agrees that they should adopt it. It makes no sense to tear apart what we live in, without having something BETTER, to move into. Therefor the FIRST step, is to fully develop, test and demonstrate a better system, NOT argue about what may or may not work better, but to KNOW what works better. It's not all that difficult, if we simply get started. It is entirely UNLIKELY, that we here in the USA or many of the fully developed nations will be the FIRST to adopt such an improved system. It is VERY likely that we would be one of the LAST to make that change. That is reality. It sucks, but there it is. The FIRST nations to adopt such a system will likely be a small nation, currently in anarchist chaos, and turmoil. But again, that cannot happen, until, and unless that system is actually AVAILABLE and proven. Get the steps in order, it must be DEVELOPED first, THEN installed. Otherwise we just end up with the same kind of nonsense and bullshit we see all over the world, using elections and putting people in power, that ruin lives and kill people to keep that power. I get REALLY sick of people telling me that I am being "represented", by some person that I did NOT vote for, and makes decisions I DO NOT agree with, on issues that person didn't INFORM me about. I am sick of people telling me that this situation works. I am sick of the mentally feeble boot lickers explaining that their santa claus fantasy is real. I am REALLY disgusted by being told by those same boot lickers that there is no possible way to use a representative except by ELECTING them. I understand their mental incontinence does not allow them to consider a system that is in fact, a constitutional republic, properly administering a representative democracy. They don't even understand what the hell those words mean. We have deluded ourselves into believing that electing people to positions of power and authority over us, somehow results in our representation. If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I want to say something. I think it is a typical abuse situation, we are being abused by our government, and too many people desperately trying to figure out how to appease the system to make the abuse stop. Too many people blaming themselves for not picking the right people. Too many people assuming it must be our fault it's not working. The lady who heard her husband lie about where he was last night. She never thought he would lie to her. Until he did. But, maybe it's her fault. The public that learned that their government lied about why they started a war. They never thought it would do that, until it did. Maybe it's their fault. The lady who heard her husband telling her she is a worthless and weak bitch. She never thought he would say that. Until he did. Maybe she is, and it's her fault. The public that heard their government tell them they are a weak and divided nation, and stupid people. They never thought it would say that. Until it did. Maybe it's their fault. The lady looking in the mirror at her split lip and black eye from her husbands fist. She never thought he would do that. Until he did. maybe it's her own fault for disagreeing with him. The public being rounded up and arrested, for demanding respect and representation. They never thought their government would do that, but there are the bodies on the courthouse lawn. Maybe it's their fault, for disagreeing. That lady might not understand she is an abusive relationship, it never seemed possible. Now what? The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what a bunch of guys with elitist agendas decided to use over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ It's not the wrong people in the position. It's the wrong position that's wrong. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The plan is and was always, for private and public loans to the nation in distress, such loans structured to mandate some conditions, generally the use of those funds to buy repairs and improvements by specific corporate interests using rates specified for labor and material. For instance a loan to rebuild a highway. A specific business get the job, (a US business), and the job includes labor rates for US labor, and TOP notch US materials. Using US supplied machinery and tech. What the job is ACTUALLY using is local underpaid slave labor, using substandard materials, and cut rate obsolete junk machines and tech. This means that a low profit "bid" on the job translates to a HEFTY profit on a shitty project. Next, we see the payment demands on the loans. The only people that needed those projects are the rich people making profits on the use of those structures. The local goat herder didn't need that road, but the government of that nation needs to pay those loans, and of course the RICH people get the tax breaks. Guess who gets to pay for that shitty road?? Yep that local goat herder. Wanna talk about fixing this shit? https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ They got a real education on how the dysfunction works that we call our US government. It doesn't. We keep using that word, "representative". It does not mean what you think it does. ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. **** If you are protesting, Is it true that: You are protesting, the continuing failures of our government systems to successfully manage or resolve the problems and challenges we face as a community, nation or species? If you agree, then I ask you to note the relevant fact. "FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT" Thank you for your consideration. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ For all the feeble minded boot lickers claiming that the latest elections prove that "every vote counts": I disagree. All we learned is that no matter what the election result is, a very large and significant portion of our public will not be properly represented. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ You may be deluded into thinking that the election process works to provide representation. This is a lie. Elections produce rulers, not representatives. In the US, we have completely lost any control of the "protecting rights of individuals", because of the manner in which we enact laws. The people elected to write and enact laws have also been authorized to establish the rules under which they make decisions, with no effective oversight. There is no established mechanism to prevent elected rulers from enacting bad laws, and once those laws are enacted, the mechanism for oversight and mediation is slow, onerous and corrupted. It has become a circus of politics, with our media promotion and support of the three rings of idiocy. Business is regulating politics, which is a recipe for disaster. To be honest the proud nation has become a circle jerk and a sham, a fucking travesty, a joke. A dangerous and unwieldy joke that has long passed any semblance of amusement. ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Humans have competed for many resources since before we became human. When resources such as food, water, shelter and mating were sufficient to reduce competition for those resources, we invented games, to continue competition for "fun". We are competitive by nature, as well as cooperative, BOTH are essential portions of our nature. The key is not removing competition and attempting to force cooperation by rule, but rather to regulate the "games" of competition, so that the results of that game ONLY have an effect on the people choosing to participate. Want to know what question to ask your representative that will stop them from being rulers? "What will you do, to represent, the people who do NOT agree with the decision you make in congress?" Think about that, because if they are truly "representative" of the public, they need to represent ALL of us, not just the portion, (perhaps a minority), that agree with their decisions and votes. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance using representation and being ruled. I get sick of the realization that too many people in the US think of our system of government as some kind of religious doctrine. No matter how badly it works, no matter how crazy it gets, they "believe" in it, just because they have no other alternative, and refuse to consider any alternative. Any suggestion that an alternative could be better, is considered blasphemy and is punished, as apostasy. I am sadly surprised that scientists were not the first to wake up and look at the evidence objectively concerning our systems of governance. Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what a bunch of guys with elitist agendas decided to use over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ What will cause WWIII, in my opinion, is the failure of our social tools to manage or resolve the problems and conflicts arising from our shared human experiences. Our processes we use to make public policy decisions. Our processes we use to manage and account for trade. And in case you have not noticed there are an INCREASING number of us, we the people, that are getting damn sick and tired of the continuing stream of lies excuses and bullshit being spewed by those who insist the damn thing is working. It's NOT working, it's FAILING. The systems we use are failing, dismally, to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. If elections provided representation, we'd be working on solving or managing the problems we face as communities, nations and species, instead of arguing about porn stars and nazis. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. They say, that if you find yourself stuck in the hole you are digging, the FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT thing to do, is to STOP DIGGING. Now, many people want to deflect, and insist that to "stop digging", does nothing to actually get yourself out of the hole. Honestly, we are not literally in a hole. However it's important to recognize that USING the system we do, is CAUSING the problems we face, NOT solving them. We have more options and resources available to us than the imaginary idiot stuck in a hole with a shovel. STOP digging. How many times can you copy a page from an original print, on a scan copier before the copies become so corrupted they are no longer worth copying? Essentially that is what has happened to our systems of government here in the US. Each election creates a copy of the last copy. The errors stack up, and the copies become unable to be used. How did our founders expect to handle digital copyrights? Oh, wait, they had no plan, or process to handle digital work at all. The idea was so beyond their experience they had no way to handle that concept, much less the realities. What they did have experience with, was that communication took a very long time over distance. The systems and processes they designed had to deal with that reality. The ability to govern was severely limited to the speed of a fast horse and rider. That was how they designed our systems. What does our founders have to say about television? Telephones? Radio? Electric cars? Oh wait, they had no plan or process to even handle the concept of those realities. Did our founders intentionally deprive the people of self governance? Did they hatch some evil plan to seize the power and authority they claimed to belong to a free people? I doubt it. I think they expected the people to change the mechanics of governance as conditions changed. The IDEALS of self governance however were quite solid and rigid! They set up our Declaration of Independence, that SPECIFICALLY declares the true authority of governance derives from the people. It was on this declaration they make the legal argument that allows our nation to exist. That is RIGID and cannot be disputed, this nation exists ONLY because We The People, allow and authorize the acts of governance. SAP commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=rrol079DWUQ I pledge defiance to the flag of the United Snakes of Captivity... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPWpBxl_Ifo Some, if not many of you are aware of my efforts to advance some consideration of an alternate form of government. One of the premises of my proposal, is the realization that in a government, there are actually two separate processes involved. The first is a conglomerate of sub processes, the "politics" of a problem. Such as recognizing that a problem exists, determining that the problem is such that it may require a "law" to resolve or manage, then considering the details, and discussions arising from those considerations, such as attempting to "fix" a problem, or being comfortable, simply managing the problem to minimize the liabilities. Then discussion of possible acts, that might be employed to resolve or manage a problem, and then of those, some determination of which should be "decided" upon. That entire set of sub-processes, is what we usually call, "politics". AFTER all that politic, THEN there is an entirely separate process of actually making that decision. What my proposal does, correctly in my opinion, is to separate the politics from the decision. The decision is made exclusively by the 4th branch, the public, AFTER the other 3 branches along with the public, deal with the politics leading to a decision. Note that the public is extensively involved in the processes of politics that precede the decision, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are never divorced from public input and control. It's quite a simple process, even though the explanation I have made in writing SEEMS complicated, it's not complicated at all. I would prefer to make the rich and powerful simply irrelevant. Not worth the bother of hunting them down to exterminate them. They are to become contemptible beneath our interest and intention. In 4 branch, the representatives are responsible for providing factual information about the political process, that precedes the voting, including the full text of each bill considered. In addition, though it is possible for the public to be fooled by corporate interest into making a mistake in 4 branch, those corporate interests cannot prevent the public from recognizing that a mistake was made, and fixing it. Business people are not stupid, they will only invest their cash and effort into measures that will succeed in profitable outcomes. That effort, to fool the public, would NOT be successful at all, as the public has the final say, NOT an easily owned small group of corrupted officials. I invite you to reconsider exactly how the process that I specified as 4 branch, works, to prevent and disallow that corruption. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Marc Tabor wrote: " Politicians in general write and enact laws about which they know nothing about, unless it happens to lien their own pockets in all their multi-million dollar endeavors, and then they are sure to write them in their own favor and act in a manor before becoming law to maximize their profits. that is why no one ever leaves the senate any less than a millionaire several times over. The only solution is to remove their power to enact laws. They can write them, the courts can determine if they are constitutional, them WE vote on them." The systems we use are failing, dismally, to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ People who like capitalism, agree with that economic paradigm, because they benefit from it. For some, the benefit is not available, but the hope of achieving it, "by hard work and effort", supports a superstitious belief inciting a willingness to wager on their effort vs the system, (the market). For OTHERS, the benefit is not available, no matter how hard we work, the effort never achieves the benefit. WE are saying that your economic system does not serve us, as it does you. The REASON the benefit is not available to all, is that there is only room at the top for a small subset of the population. Not everyone can be a manager. A business with 25 wage employees and one manager. The economic reality is that to profit from the business, the cost of wage earners needs to be minimized. It's just business. We know how capitalism works. A few get benefits, not by any particular superior effort, but rather commonly, by circumstance or association. If you benefited by circumstance, you might feel "blessed", or "thankful", that out of 25 people seeking that same benefit, It was YOU that "won". What we are asking you to consider that 25 other people DID NOT WIN!!! There is ONLY so much room at the top. How do you feel when the person you voted for does NOT get elected? Do you feel properly represented by the person who "won", that you did not vote for? How do you feel when the person that you voted for actually wins, but then they make decisions you don't agree with? Are you feeling properly represented then? Are you sure the system works to properly represent all of us, or just some small portion? If elections provided representation, we'd be working on solving or managing the problems we face as communities, nations and species, instead of arguing about porn stars and nazis. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I notice that if the person I voted for did not win, then a person I did not vote for is now making decisions, with my authority, as if I agreed with those decisions. I note, because that person, won the election, our system, insists that I am represented by a person, that makes decisions I do not agree with, as my "representative". I reject that as TRUE. It is not true. I am not being represented at all, by that process. We are not being represented. My view of what government "is", differs remarkably from the complaints of what government "does". I invite you to consider that government is a process for making decisions. It need not "be" any central authority, though many "forms" of government use that as a basis of assumption. As a clarification, government should be properly considered some process for people to make decisions, in the circumstances that are such that there is disagreement about that decision. The "form" of government adopted, determines who is involved in that process, and how that decision is enforced. However the "form" of government is a separate matter entirely from what government "is". Government "is" a process used to make decisions. The form of government determines what government "does". "Government is a process, not a building" You may wish to consider if that changes some of your focus. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If we stop trying to defend a process that is obviously failing to produce the results promised, we might be able to look at the core premise of that process and see the factual falsity of that premise. What I mean to say, is that just because one cannot think of a way to use representation, that does not use elections, does not mean that we must use elections, nor that elections factually provide representation. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ All elections claiming to choose a representative are fraudulent. Especially the one that elected the person you voted for. THINK! Please THINK! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Your representative should be a person that you chose, not elected. Back in the 60's and 70's when I made it to the end of a school year, I was happy that I survived another year of education. The joy of surviving a school year today is VERY VERY different than what I felt. What has Congress done? Back when I got out of high school, I could get a job, and afford an apartment, food utilities, a vehicle, etc. THAT no longer is true for kids today. WHAT has congress done, besides rob us to pay rich people? You have complaints about the f* president, like I was happy to survive a school year. The F* problem is NOT Trump. The f* problem is CONGRESS, it’s the design of our system, it’s the process we use for government!!! YOU people ELECT congress, and you GET the f*ers you agreed to ELECT, even if you did NOT vote for the bastards. All elections are fraudulent. Especially the one that elected the person you voted for. THINK! Please THINK! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Your representative should be a person that you chose, not elected. Mike Patino: "The majority decides the outcome, whether you agree or disagree." My response: " The outcome of WHAT??? The result of an election, is some person in a position of power and authority that makes decisions as if they HAD OUR consent. They obviously don't have our consent, if we want to vote them out. There is ALWAYS some significant portion of the public that wants to VOTE THEM OUT. Usually a MAJORITY! WHY??? BECAUSE WE ARE NOT BEING REPRESENTED!!!! The republican party might be alone at the top, just before we start hanging the people at the top. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ In any case, our constitution, uses a LOT of crazy flowery detailed words to describe a VERY simple, and VERY bad process. That process is, Congress makes the laws, and the people obey those laws, or else. THAT is what our constitutional process is. I invite you to consider a simple truth: If someone (a representative), makes rules, and you are obligated by rule to obey those rules, then that person is a ruler, not a representative. therefor. the concept of electing people to congress, or as president as "representatives" is a false premise. If you agree we have the right, as individuals and as a nation to be represented in government, then we need to find a different way of using representation, that does not involve elections. Representation can work, but not by elections. If a group, (a congress), (elected representatives), makes rules, and you are obligated by rule, to obey those rules, then those people, (that congress), are rulers, elected to rule, not representatives, elected to represent. If someone (a representative), makes rules, and you are obligated by rule to obey those rules, then that person is a ruler, not a representative. sigh. what is sad, is that most people simply cannot conceive of a different way to provide representation, EXCEPT elections, even when they can be shown that elections do not work. it's like a religious disease. Capitalism is fine, as long as a competing economic market keeps the game honest. You may have a group of people playing monopoly in your home, (capitalists), yet you don't allow the winners of that game to control who has access to your food, home and water. THAT part of your home is controlled by a social economy. The kid looking for a popsicle does not need the fake money from the monopoly game, to open the freezer to get one, if it's there. The people playing that game have no control outside that game. What the problem is, the process we use to make decisions, was used by the game players to decide to apply the rules of the game they are winning at, to apply to everyone in our home. If elections provided representation, we'd be working on solving or managing the problems we face as communities, nations and species, instead of arguing about porn stars and nazis. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If you believe that elections result in representation, you are owned by a system that likes owning people, it STARTED that way. VOTING is NOT a fake method of making decisions. ELECTIONS are fake, voting is not fake. There is a difference. Electing someone as a representative is a fraudulent concept. Voting on where to go for lunch is perfectly valid. What is sad, is that people simply cannot conceive of a different way to provide representation, EXCEPT elections, even when they can be shown that elections do not work. it's like a religious disease. Remember 1984, the book? What is "doublethink"? What does it mean? I prefer getting right to the meat of the matter. We elect people to represent us, but they obviously do NOT, yet we keep doing it. How do you do it? Doublethink? If we stop trying to defend a process that is obviously failing to produce the results promised, we might be able to look at the core premise of that process and see the factual falsity of that premise. What I mean to say, is that just because one cannot think of a way to use representation, that does not use elections, does not mean that we must use elections, nor that elections factually provide representation. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I have said that elections do not result in representation. Then people start attempting to blame that on corruption, money, dishonest candidates, rigged elections, voter fraud, etc, etc etc. To THOSE people, please PAY ATTENTION!!! READ THIS CAREFULLY. It seems that you still subscribe to the possibility of free and fair election of good honest people, resulting in the proper representation of the public. That is the problem, people still don't get it. There is no possible way for proper representation of a diverse population to result from any election. It's NOT possible. If you voted for one person, over another, the REASON you voted, is because you wanted YOUR views represented by your representative. If your candidate lost the election, then you are obviously not being represented by someone that makes decisions opposed to your view. THEN, you might respond, "...but yes, what if my candidate WON?" Sure, imagine that, then realize that under THAT circumstance, The people who voted for the other candidate are NOT being represented. You may not CARE, they don't get represented, but that is the problem. They have as much right to be represented as you, or me. If the system we use does not represent "US", properly, then it ain't working. Which is what I SAID. The election of people as representatives does NOT properly represent "US". It CANNOT, it's flat out impossible. Electing someone as a representative is a fraudulent concept. Voting on where to go for lunch is perfectly valid. What is sad, is that people simply cannot conceive of a different way to provide representation, EXCEPT elections, even when they can be shown that elections do not work. it's like a religious disease. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Near as I can tell, telling elected officials they should follow some ethical rules in their decision process, is like telling people to keep their fingers spread out while flapping their arms in the attempt to bail out a sinking boat. If the elected official acted ethically, it would NOT significantly impact the results we get from our current systems, BECAUSE we are NOT being represented. (It is NOT true, that we are not being represented BECAUSE elected officials do not behave ethically.) That is the core and missing element of our constitutional republic administering a representative democratic decision process. It REQUIRES representation to work. Elections do NOT provide that representation. I would suggest that our constitutional republic has the duty to administer a representative democratic decision process. That requires that the public is properly represented. We are NOT properly represented, and no election of representatives will accomplish proper representation. I invite you to consider a simple truth: If someone (a representative), makes rules, and you are obligated by rule to obey those rules, then that person is a ruler, not a representative. therefor. the concept of electing people to congress, or as president as "representatives" is a false premise. If you agree we have the right, as individuals and as a nation to be represented in government, then we need to find a different way of using representation, that does not involve elections. Representation can work, but not by elections. What is sad, is that people simply cannot conceive of a different way to provide representation, EXCEPT elections, even when they can be shown that elections do not work. it's like a religious disease. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ When we continue to use a system that more resembles a Las Vegas Casino Slot Machine, to make decisions, instead of one that actually and factually represents the will of the majority of the public, it should come as no wonder, nor surprise that pulling that dumb handle once every two and 4 years, does not yield any significant improvements. You understand what a ratchet wrench is, right? It's used to tighten or loosen nuts and bolts. You can flip a switch, and choose whether it will tighten, or loosen. Sooo, imagine a ratchet wrench, that it did not matter how you set the switch, sometimes it loosens and sometimes it tightens, and it does that randomly, without any possibility of you controlling what it's doing. Even worse, usually, no matter how you set the switch, it does not tighten OR loosen, it spins uselessly. Would you agree that the wrench is WORKING? Would you agree it was DESIGNED properly?? No? That is how our system of government works, people. It does NOT work. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Actually, it is my opinion, that we can simply change the process we use to make decisions amongst ourselves, that does not involve the irrational insistence of rulers and con-artists. No one ever stood in line to buy an airline ticket until the concept of an airline existed. Until the actual airline existed, the ONLY people standing in that line were those expecting to make a profit from the concept. The incentive for the public to profit from a rational decision process is what is missing. THE root problem to be considered and solved, is that our decision systems, (governments), do NOT in fact represent the manner in which people would choose to manage or solve the problems we face as community, nations and as a species, without the influence and corruption introduced by crazed psychotic rulers and malicious con-men. Instead, we use systems, that involve, almost entirely people committed to maintaining power and authority, by whatever means available. We ELECT those people to positions of power and authority. WE put them there, by continuing to use the systems we do. We are not to be blamed for choosing the wrong people. There are NO right people to place in those positions. The positions specified, by the flawed process, *IS* the problem. Have a look: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I have heard that Trump is a hitler as well, and perhaps he is. However it should be noted that the political tactics he used to gain power were used by every president and congressperson in recent history, perhaps since the nation was founded. We might agree that his "results" are not acceptable, but I would suggest that our process is responsible for allowing him to gain power, and to implement those results. Simply removing him, will not prevent another like him or worse from using the same tactics and strategies to gain power. There are fraudulent flaws that need to be addressed at the core of the process specified in our constitution. Prediction: 1. The result of the 2018 elections will be a significant segment of the US public asking, "What the fuck just happened?" 2. The conclusion of the investigation into "Russian meddling" will not result in the removal of the president from office. 3. A significant segment, possibly a majority of the US public will demand that congress passes laws that protect our "democracy" from oligarch rule and abuse. Nothing will result from that demand. 4. The President will be re-elected in 2020. 5. The majority of the US public will be appalled and demand that congress pass laws that protect our "democracy" from oligarch rule and abuse, and congress will not do that. 6. 2024 will be the LAST election using our current constitution, and the USA will fall into full blown civil war by 2025. Don't like that scenario? YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Consider that it took radical people IN THE STREETS to get a decision that only slightly benefited the public. Not voting. FIGHTING, killing, being killed, IN THE STREETS. How is this a rational decision process?? The entire system is a fraud, and the various sides tell different lies. They all fight each other with lies and propaganda to gain and maintain positions of power and authority. None of them are worth spitting on, much less fighting. The road don't care what color you vote. Ride safe, or ride fast. I don't fucking care, it's your skin bones, blood and life. I sure as fuck have no interest in running the country, or the world. That is why I am honest. I don't fucking CARE. It's not a conspiracy, you nut wits. It's a cock fight in a circus, that you bought a ticket to watch with your fucking votes. The way to "stop terrorism", is to give the people in areas oppressed by the west and corrupt government, a form of government that actually WORKS. That allows those people to make rational decisions absent the influence of psychotic assholes in "power". Decisions that benefit the entire populations in equity. UNTIL those people, here or there, are stripped of their structural positions of power and authority to make decisions that oppress the general public, there will remain large segments of people incited to violence by the conditions caused by that oppression, and small minded idiots who cannot figure out how to design governments properly, such as the idiots and assholes that wrote our very own USA constitution. The act of voting is a civil RIGHT, not a duty. The vote is purposed, (as ineffective), to impose our individual right of representation on the process of making public policy decisions. The CONSEQUENCE of voting, either results in our factual representation, or it does NOT. It does NOT, and that can be proven. It does NOT properly represent the people as individuals, NOR does it properly represent the public as a nation. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Yeah! We need to vote the bums OUT. You know, like we did in 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2004, 2002,,,,,,,, ,,,, 1776 oh wait. 1776? The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what a bunch of guys with elitist agendas decided to use over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I originally wrote this in October, 2018, before the mid terms. Yeah! We need to vote the bums OUT. You know, like we did in 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2004, 2002,,,,,,,, ,,,, 1776 oh wait. 1776? The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. Prediction: 1. The result of the 2018 elections will be a significant segment of the US public asking, "What the hell just happened?" 2. The conclusion of the investigation into "Russian meddling" will not result in the removal of the president from office. 3. A significant segment, possibly a majority of the US public will demand that congress passes laws that protect our "democracy" from oligarch rule and abuse. Nothing will result from that demand. 4. The President will be re-elected in 2020. 5. The majority of the US public will be appalled and demand that congress pass laws that protect our "democracy" from oligarch rule and abuse, and congress will not do that. 6. 2024 will be the LAST election using our current constitution, and the USA will fall into full blown civil war by 2025. Don't like that scenario? YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I propose a NEW constitutional process, specifying a constitutional republic, administrating a representative democratic decision process, constrained by a rational process. For instance a list of civil right protections legally precedent to the legislative process. A legislative process, that deals with all of the politics of a problem, before and separate from the decision process. A legislative process, constrained by a judicial process that presumes that every legislative act is guilty, until proven innocent. A decision process that properly uses and administrates factual representation. Direct Representation. A process that places all the power and authority in the hands of the public within those constraints. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Just to clarify, I do not hate the United States. I think our system of self government is no longer adequate. I think we could do better. I think we should do better. I do not agree that being a good little lemming in the system will improve the ability of our systems to solve the problems we have, nor to solve the problems we are likely to face in the future. I think voting, is participating and validating the idea that we cannot do better. I want to participate, I really do, but refuse to engage in the behavior of a lemming. When the ballot affords us an opportunity to remove the authority of elected assholes to behave as rulers, I will vote, until such time, I will protest and with great vehemence challenge our nation to enact meaningful changes in our mechanism of governance. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ There is a difference, between voting on where to eat dinner, and voting to elect someone to tell you where to eat dinner. Really, consider that every election cycle we sit around sweating over the results, pinning our hopes and dreams on a favorable outcome, and we do this like some gambling addict in Vegas. "If only we win this election, we can start fixing things." Compared to: "One more pull of this handle, and if it hits, I can pay my rent." Well, that's the problem isn't it. We use a system that forces the public to play casino circus games to attempt resolution to real world problems. You understand what casino circus games are right?? Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but the house always wins. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If we want to replace our form of government with a superior form, then we'd BETTER START developing testing and proving a better one FIRST. OTHERWISE, we end up with another idiotic stack of politicians and lawyers. Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what a bunch of guys with elitist agendas decided to use over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If you think the 14th amendment is impervious to executive order, or to legal interpretation that means it does not apply, then I suggest that you attempt to yell fire in a crowded theater, or try carrying a sword downtown new york. OR, try telling the police they cannot search or question someone when there is a grave risk of public safety involved. Wake the fuck up. To the republicans: Hey, remember when you did NOT believe that Obama would be president?? For the democrats: Hey, remember when you did not believe Trump would be president? HOW DID THAT WORK OUT FOR YA??? ROFLMAO The result of voting is unrelated to the purpose of voting, when the vote is to elect representatives. The result of using representatives in a congress to make decisions for a population does not in fact represent the decision of the public. There is nothing real about the process, except the installation of people into positions of power and authority, who may or may not attempt to use that position to properly represent the public as individuals, and fail to accomplish that when gathered into a congress to make those decisions. The entire process is based on lies and fraud. To use such a system, or to participate and support such a system is the absurdity. 11-8-2018 So, I am sure that many of you are yelling in victory, that the house flipped to blue. As if that was the accomplished result that America needed. Hmm, shall we wait a few months, (again), to determine what exactly was accomplished by the flip? Anyone gets better health care? Homeless reduction? Better wages? Immigrant reform? Military out of the regime crushing business? CIA told to stay the hell out of the torture business? Any real progress in calming tensions in middle east? China working to support world trade in equity? Drug war declared a mistake? OH, well, you know, but what the hell, you flipped the house, from red mud bellies, to blue mud bellies. GREAT work America. (sarcastic tone implied) Sometimes any further 'discussion', is rather pointless: Did I say, "we got nuthin more to discuss", or not? Hmmm, perhaps the reason that I did in fact say that, is that your part in this past discussion was demonstrative of a certain mental incontinence, so obvious as to be injurious to the subject matter. Somewhat like masturbating over dead baby jello. It might feel good to you, but does NOTHING for the baby, or me. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/addendum-precedent-process-to-force-tasking-repeal-or-maintain-civil-rights/10156239732087278/ Democratic socialists want you to have free college, free education, free housing, free child care, etc. etc etc. (They want to steal from the "rich", to provide those freebies to you.) A social market, wants to pay you for going to college. A social market wants to pay you to get health care. A social market wants to pay you for your housing. A social market wants to pay your kids for child care. OH, you have no idea how that could possibly work??? Yeah, I do. But understanding it means letting go of your fanatical opposition to capital markets, and idiocy about how money works. (A social market provides those benefits to you, by providing those benefits to everyone that participates in providing those benefits to everyone.) MMT is irrelevant, when the people making decisions about the economy are criminals, intent on raping the public for profits. I am simply suggesting that we need a simple, and single absolute focus. Not a platform of fuzzy concepts. A guillotine line. THIS is the absolute goal. We want the process of government to properly represent the public, as individuals and as a nation. Period, no qualifiers, no excuses, no bullshit. If we don't have that, then NONE of those fuzzy platforrm concepts mean a damn thing. Some of you may have noticed that I keep hammering on "representation". The REASON, is that representation is a civil right, that is the predicate of our system of government. If we are not being represented, our civil rights as a public and individuals are being infringed, and ignored. It's not a trivial matter, it is THE only matter we should be concerned with until we GET it. UNTIL we get it, NONE of our efforts to resolve or manage problems we face as community, nation, and species are going to succeed. Want to tackle money in politics? You will NEVER get a chance to fix that, if you are not being represented by the process used to make the decisions needed to FIX that. Want to tackle pollution, economic inequity, corporate corruption, ANY matter of importance to you?? Without getting that representation, NONE of those matters will get fixed. I like democracy, I am not opposed to democracy. I am saying, and can PROVE, that electing people as representatives does not produce democracy. THEY make the rules. Figure that out. The people who benefit from the bullshit are the only ones authorized by our constitution to fix that bullshit. Not you, not me, Congress. Only Congress. Not the President, not the Supreme court, not the media, not the polls, not the elections, not the petitions. CONGRESS is the problem. We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I would prefer to decide what to do next, BEFORE we burn the house down. Which is why I am here. I want to discuss what we do NEXT, before we are faced with a gaping chasm and with NO functioning process to decide to turn away from the abyss. The problem is not who we elect to congress, nor that we don't watch them enough. The problem is that we elect them to congress, with the unfounded and false presumption, that by doing so we can reasonably expect to be properly represented. THAT is the problem. That process, of people in congress making decisions from a position of power and authority, does NOT result in representation. It does not result in representation as individuals, nor as a nation. IT DOES NOT WORK. Not because we elect the wrong people, but because the process itself is flawed. It is based on false premise in several ways and at least one fraudulent manner. It not only does not work, it CANNOT work. I know that many people cannot accept the notion that they believe in a lie. It's still a lie, even if you believe it. ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. Many people like to compare 4 branch, with some other current or past systems, as if a similarity somehow indicates that the faults and benefits are the same for each. Superficially, 4 branch resembles our current system as well, in some respects. The differences, is what makes the difference, not the similarities. An apple is similar to an orange, in that both are fruit, with seeds inside, and are roughly spherical. The differences however, mean they are not the same, at all. Ohhhh, wow. IF ONLY, we had a RATIONAL decision process!!! If you support a system/process that puts a small number of people into positions of power and authority, then you do not understand "power" and "authority". What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Most people presume, upon consideration of various forms of government, that each form, has as it's intended purpose, to create and enforce rules upon the public. However, upon clear thinking of that matter it becomes obvious that any form of government is rather a process of making decisions, and some of those decisions result in the creation and enforcement of rules. YET, it is ALSO true, that some of those decisions arise that decline to create rules, or to enforce rules created. Therefor, if one considers what government is, rather than concentrating on what some form of government does, it becomes obvious that government is merely a process for humans to make decisions, when the possible consequence are in disagreement. From that view, in reality, it then becomes obvious that we should strive to develop a form of decision process that results in rational decisions. We must also stop arguing from some fear that the process will result in wrong decisions. That is assured, because not all rational decisions will be right decisions. Mistakes will be made, people will be hurt. This is as true of current systems as any possible rational process. The DIFFERENCE, being that upon sensing the pain of decisions made that are injurious to the people, the PEOPLE have a rational process to decide to amend or repeal that decision immediately. Whereas, in current systems, those people that make decisions, can and do make those decisions that put people at risk of pain, with NO RISK TO THEMSELVES. They decide to force the public hand against the hot stove, and feeling no pain from that act, are not compelled to remove the public hand from the stove. It is not until those in power, feel that pain or risk losing the power they enjoy, that they may be compelled to decide in favor of remedy for the people injured. "If you support a system/process that puts a small number of people into positions of power and authority, then you do not understand "power" and "authority"." We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ REPUBLICANS/DEMOCRATS/GREENS/LIBERTARIANS ETC ETC Are evil, or wrong or whatever: If you believe this, and I have no reason to doubt that you do, then it confounds me to wonder why you would support a system that practically assures they will gain the power and authority to advance their evil or wrong goals every 6 to 8 years. Decade after decade after decade of delusional failure to resolve the problems we face, as a community, nation and species, and all you wanna do is keep electing them to power and authority. Sigh. (I mean "you", in a general sense not you in specific.) I learned what is in our constitution. It specifies a constitutional oligarchy. Decade after decade after decade of delusional failure to resolve the problems we face, as a community, nation and species, and all you wanna do is keep electing them to power and authority. Sigh. (I mean "you", in a general sense not you in specific.) I learned what is in our constitution. It specifies a constitutional oligarchy. "If you support a system/process that puts a small number of people into positions of power and authority, then you do not understand "power" and "authority"." We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Soooo, here is an idea. We overthrow our government. That makes us criminals. Now, us bunch of criminals get together and cobble together a process that puts a small number of us in power. Yeah, we elect a "president", using a process that lets us ignore the votes of the general public. That way we ensure that one of us criminals will always be elected to that office. Then we let the public elect people to a congress, and make sure that only people that agree with our process can get elected. Those people are going to be called "representatives", but we set up the process so they can make decisions, and ignore what the people actually want, and just do whatever they feel is best, whether the people agree or not. Then we set up a "court", that we appoint "judges" to, that are sworn to rule according to the process we just wrote. Yeah, what could go wrong??? YOUR Candidate: The entire pot stinks, and throwing in a fresh vegetable won't change that stink. HOW did those people with money manage to get influence in our decision process? That is the real question. The answer is that our form of government not only allows that corruption, it invites it in and serves it dinner and buys it a few prostitutes. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I understand what protesters, activists and disgruntled persons, generally are trying to accomplish. We are trying to influence the decisions made by the people making decisions that affect us in negative ways. A drug company that raises prices by 1600%. An oil company that devastates an environment. A politician that votes for wars in foreign nations. A government that taxes us as a punishment for the excesses of the wealthy. A police force that defends their own, against criminal charges. Etc. Etc. Here is the thing we need to understand as a people. It is probable that there is a clear majority of the public that agrees with us on these matters. However there is a disagreement involved. THAT is a problem. The disagreement begins with diverse opinions about how to resolve those matters. That happens within the ranks of our allies. THEN there is another disagreement involved, and that happens when people benefit from the actions that some of us oppose. The people who work for that drug company enjoy the benefits of that 1600% price increase. The oil company employees benefit from that devastation. The workers that support the industries that supply arms and technology for wars abroad, benefit from those wars abroad. The wealthy benefit from the decisions to tax the poor. Those people are citizens, and they vote. It would be naive and silly to expect those people to vote against their perceived self interests. It DOES NOT MATTER to them, that you have different perceived self interests. Just as it does not matter to you that they disagree with us. That is important for us to understand, down to the very core of our efforts to remedy the inequities, and to resolve or manage the problems we face, as a community, nation and species. Now, here is another thing we MUST understand. The process that we use to make decisions, DOES NOT COUNT OUR VOTES ON THE ISSUES. (except in very rare and exceptional circumstance that an initiative or referendum is allowed). The way our process works, is that we elect people to make those decisions, and that process does NOT result in an accurate representation of how, we the people, agree and disagree on those issues. I can prove that. Which means that there is no possible way for us to prove to the people we elect, that they are making decisions that the majority of us disagree with. Read that again. It's important. Those people we elect cannot be convinced by noisy protests, or angry disruptions or half hearted strikes, that they are making decisions the majority of the public disagrees with. The REASON, they cannot be convinced, is that the majority of us, we the people, are still supporting and defending the process they use, that can be proven NOT to accurately represent the majority of us. Read that again also. Many people are beginning to "get it". Some of those people want to respond with anarchy. Thinking that all government is evil. Some of those people want direct democracy, because they think that representation is evil. I can engage with people who want to insist that representation is evil, by proving to them that what we use is NOT representation, and then explaining a simple way to actually does use real representation. (If they are willing to listen) I cannot seem to engage with anarchists and nihilists. It's like they have some form of religious disease. THEN we have the people who want to convince you, that MONEY is the problem. I can prove that is wrong as well, but they also seem to have that religious disease. They start with a premise, and refuse to see any logic, reason or evidence that contradicts their premise. So. Here is where we are at. We think we are a majority that wants changes. However the process we currently use declines and refuses to count a majority. There is no possible way, within our current system to prove that we ARE a majority. That system, as specified in our constitution, misrepresents the people at its discretion and to its benefit. I am saying that unless we take control of that decision process, the one that actively opposes any true representation of a public majority, NONE of those secondary, tertiary or lesser priority issues are going to be managed or resolved properly. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ When someone attempts to convince you that our government just needs your vote to function properly REMEMBER THIS: The election industry is a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporate industry, that generates many many many billions of dollars of profit for media giants, and tech giants and all the businesses involved in printing and posting and showing advertisements to convince you to vote/not vote/ vote their way, or convince you that someone does not want you to vote. PROFIT from dissent and division. Profit from the entertainment value of the dissent and division. PROFITS from convincing you to buy their bullshit. The devil is in Georgia, and he's done playing fiddle. Some people like Macintosh, some people like Windows. Others such as myself, like Linux. Nearly ALL of us agree that the use of the GUI, improved the ability of the people to use computers. Linux lets us build and modify programs to fit our specific needs. 4 branch, is a "Linux" government, it belongs to the people, not to some corporation. It is a GUI government. It is EASY for the public to use. 4 Branch government: A brief outline: The executive branch filters problems. The legislative branch proposes solutions to the problems sent by the executive branch. The Judicial branch determines if the bill proposed by the legislative branch would be legal, if enacted. The executive branch then determines if the proposed bill is plausible and cost accurate. Then the public branch decides whether to enact that bill into law. It's that simple. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ For those who insist that removing money from politics and society would fix everything: Please consider that many social animal species exhibit the same types of power, and authority abuses and atrocities, we find in human social structures. THEY DON'T USE MONEY!!! That position is invalid, naive and silly. The problem is not money. The root problem to be solved, is, who has power and authority, and how that is administered. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ "KEEP TRYING" "Don't give up!" You will either win your goal or die. Forget the fact that 90% of the people who keep trying until they die, never succeed, they just die. I dunno why people think my post should be considered negative at all. If someone is about to jump off a 20 story building with cardboard wings, I don't think telling them they made an error in physics and judgement is negative. Not at all. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. 4 branch, is a "Linux" government, it belongs to the people, not to some corporation. It is a GUI government. It is EASY for the public to use. 4 Branch government: A brief outline: The executive branch filters problems. The legislative branch proposes solutions to the problems sent by the executive branch. The Judicial branch determines if the bill proposed by the legislative branch would be legal, if enacted. The executive branch then determines if the proposed bill is plausible and cost accurate. Then the public branch decides whether to enact that bill into law. It's that simple. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ The Santa Claus fallacy. Decade after decade after decade of delusional failure to resolve the problems we face, as a community, nation and species, and all you wanna do is keep electing them to power and authority. Sigh. (I mean "you", in a general sense not you in specific.) If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. "If you support a system/process that puts a small number of people into positions of power and authority, then you do not understand "power" and "authority"." Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I may have a differing view of "socialism", because I actually look at the core concepts, instead of the details of failed implementations. Technically I am advocating for a social market, not socialism. Democratic socialists want you to have free college, free education, free housing, free child care, etc. etc etc. (They want to steal from the "rich", to provide those freebies to you.) A social market, wants to pay you for going to college. A social market wants to pay you to get health care. A social market wants to pay you for your housing. A social market wants to pay your kids for child care. OH, you have no idea how that could possibly work??? Yeah, I do. But understanding it means letting go of your fanatical opposition to capital markets, and idiocy about how money works. (A social market provides those benefits to you, by providing those benefits to everyone that participates in providing those benefits to everyone.) I want to discuss what will NOT fail. It won't fail, because it does not rely on lies, and fantasy and fallacy of reason. A social market administered by a rational and caring decision process. Providing basic needs to the public, at zero 'profit'. While constraining business, the capital market, by direct competition with that market for the labor it requires. No one is forced, everyone gets what they need, no one gets left behind. https://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ But yes, look back in history. Those who have power, are the ones that get wealthy. A weak man has a goat, and a strong man wants it. The weak man is wealthy, until the strong man takes it. "If you support a system/process that puts a small number of people into positions of power and authority, then you do not understand "power" and "authority"." Poor people have actually, many times in the past had the power. The French revolution, the American revolution, and many many more down and up history . NONE of them had a functioning process of USING and KEEPING that power. EVERY attempt, until 4 branch, GAVE THAT POWER to a small number of people in trust and delusion. EVERY ONE. Our constitution, the form of government it specifies, the PROCESS, we use, makes wealth relevant within that process. Fix the process, so that wealth becomes irrelevant within that process. Then it will not matter what the rich do or say. They will have no more or less voice to invoke in the system as the poorest homeless. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Let me try to explain it in simple terms. In 4branch, the people decide, by a democratic process whether to enact a law, or not. Each citizen has an opportunity to cast a vote on the issue. There are no elected representatives. Each citizen has an option, to employ a representative of their choice. That representative, keeps the citizen informed of what bills are being considered, and what the process is doing with those bills. Then, when a bill comes to a vote, a citizen can decide how they wish to vote. The vote accounting then happens, and a decision is made, and EVERY vote is counted. The result is the same as direct democracy. However that voting is accomplished using representatives chosen by the citizen, and that vote is controlled by the citizen, not the representative. It's dead simple, and the administrative process ensures that bills brought to a public decision, are effective, legal and cost accounted accurately. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. I am a veteran. I swore an oath. To protect and defend our constitution and government. However, if it is true that our government is of the people, by the people, for the people, then I swore to defend the PEOPLE! If it's NOT true that our government, is of the people, by the people and for the people, then DUMP the damn government and the worthless constitution that brought us here. Should we vote? Should we keep in contact with elected and appointed officials and constantly argue with them about what we want them to support, or suppress? Consider what the reasoning for that might be. Would it be, because the purpose of our government is to administer the will of the people? My view of what government "is", differs remarkably from the complaints of what government "does". I invite you to consider that government is a process for making decisions. It need not "be" any central authority, though many "forms" of government use that as a basis of assumption. As a clarification, government should be properly considered some process for people to make decisions, in the circumstances that are such that there is disagreement about that decision. The "form" of government adopted, determines who is involved in that process, and how that decision is enforced. However the "form" of government is a separate matter entirely from what government "is". Government "is" a process used to make decisions. The form of government determines what government "does". "Government is a process, not a building" You may wish to consider if that changes some of your focus. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Hear me out. There are reasons people support different systems. Some people want a system of caring and sharing, because they don't want to fight each other for survival. Some people want a system of competition, because they enjoy facing and beating challenges by competition, and a system that rewards them for winning. Those system have different needs for accounting. It would be silly to insist that everybody use the same system, if the system is not correctly designed to work well for everybody. If people want to use different systems, LET them, and then design each system to work for those people the BEST it can. A system of sharing and caring has no need for profits. A system of competition does need profits. Stop insisting that everyone should use the same tool to do different jobs. I Really, REALLY do mean, EVERYONE!!!! ol·i·gar·chy Dictionary result for oligarchy /ˈäləˌɡärkē/ noun noun: oligarchy; plural noun: oligarchies a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. **** ***** Read that carefully The people in the three branches, president, staff, congress, staff, the supreme court, and staff ARE A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE!!!! less than 1500 hundred people RULING our nation. it's a damn oligarchy and was DESIGNED THAT WAY!!! I was thinking. Imagine a business, with 1000 wage employees making $10/hr. 10, middle managers, making salary of $50,000 per year 5 upper management, salary of $100,000/ year one owner/boss salary of $500,000/ year That means all wages and salaries per year, total, 22 million, 300 thousand dollars. for 1,016 people. If we agreed that everyone should share that money equally, the wage, per hour equivalent, would be wait for it ..... Yes, here it comes .... $10.55 per hour. Republic, defined by Mirriam-Webster a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. Representatives. Representation. Let's test the process we use to determine if it actually does provide that representation. Assume, for this portion, that an election, puts a person in the position of your representative, that you did not vote for. (We can easily also assume that the reason you did not vote for that person, is because they support positions you oppose, and oppose positions you support) I think it is generally true, that people will agree that someone making decisions one does not agree with, certainly cannot be factually representing that one. Therefor the process of electing people, fails to provide representation to 'some' portion of the population. Civil rights are supposed to be administered equally, correct? If your neighbor can speak his mind, you should have an equal right to speak yours. However, I recognize that it's possible that the person elected IS someone you voted for, Yay. Yet, again, the people who did NOT vote for that representative are NOT being represented, and again there is that pesky concept of EQUAL administration of civil rights. Sometime YOUR right to be represented fails, and sometimes it's your neighbor that gets screwed out of equal right to be represented. The POINT is that SOMEONE is getting screwed, EVERY election! Now, I would imagine that your natural objection to my previous commentary, is that we live in a republic, not a democracy. You may want to assert that we are represented properly as 'groups', districts, states, etc. As if your right, as an individual can be simply ignored, to excuse the failure of the process to administer it properly. That's ok. You should prolly read that last part again. My next comment will prove that we are not being represented as groups, districts, states, OR as a nation either. Sooo, The other day, a lady informed me that she is an anarchist. I told her that I don't think she is really an anarchist. She got got kinda huffy, like "How DARE you!". Then she started femsplaining about how strong and independent she is and how much of an anarchist she is. I was amused. I was all like, "ok lady, yeah, whatever" Sooo, you don't need rulers, but you want rules. She was all like, "Yeah, rules that make sense, not the kind of rules used by government to oppress and hurt people." I was thinking, "Yeah, ok. I get it, you want rules that you want to use. I want my own rules. I don't need a ruler. I don't need your rules." I wondered how she would react to MY rules, like, what if my rules include me doing whatever I want and the rest of you just leave me the hell alone. Like, what if I wanted to jump on a subway without paying, and setting a few fires, then groping a few pretty young women without their consent, and painting white face on pictures of black people? What if I wanted to go into the parking lot and spray paint cars to make them look better? Oh, I am quite certain she would be all like, "OH no, you can't do THAT. See we need to cooperate, and behave with consent, follow the rules!" Well, wait a minute. Whoah there lady. If YOU want to use those rules, you can start by cooperating with ME, and stop trying to tell me what I cannot do. YOU are not my ruler. I don't need YOUR rules. I have my OWN rules. I AM AN ANARCHIST!! Anyways, she went off, and started spewing stuff like 'majority', 'voting', 'consensus', 'consent'. I am quite certain she is still wondering and confused, why I think she looks a hell of a lot more like a democrat, than an anarchist. "Everyone thinks they are an anarchist, UNTIL, they actually meet one." I am quite comfortable with being an anarchist, myself. However there is NO DAMN POSSIBILITY that I trust YOU with anarchy. The fact that the rich do NOT volunteer to fix the problems means that we have to figure out how to do it ourselves. We can do it ourselves. We don't need to tax them to do it. If a person runs a business, making profit from subjugating, and exploiting workers, then taxing that rich person or business does NOT change their method of getting profits, they will STILL subjugate and exploit the workers. They will just figure out better ways to subjugate and exploit, to maintain their profits, while paying higher taxes. How does that make sense? There is a BETTER way. https://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ As for an example of how we might specify protections for rights, without constant bickering about exceptions: A prefacing codicil. One that acknowledges that each of us has rights, and that further those rights come with responsibilities, and that failure of individuals to behave responsibly, constitutes an abuse of the rights we enjoy. Then a clear statement that just because we refuse to criminalize behavior abusive of rights, does not mean that we reject any possibility of imposing consequences for that abuse. Imposing consequences for civil abuse of rights, would be the task of civil courts, not criminal courts. **** ***** I understand, that there could be an argument that civil courts cannot handle the egregious abuse of inciting a riot, in which people are injured or killed. However I want to point out that we are talking about a NEW system, that need not rely on any limitation or flaw within current systems. Therefor, a new civil justice process could be used, and one that allowed a civil court to impose consequences appropriate to such instances. For instance, a person found to have incited a riot in which people are killed as a result of a right to speech abuse, could be separated from society, in a manner that limited their ability to further abuse their rights. A structured and segregated existence, not as a punishment, but rather as a condition imposed as a matter of social self defense. Not a criminal matter. A civil matter, that can be used to deal specifically with such matters, while NOT requiring any criminal law to enforce. This is the truth and reality about wealth and power. A man with a goat, is more wealthy than a man without a goat. However, if the man without a goat is stronger, faster, more ruthless than the wealthy man, then he can simply take that goat. Now the stronger man is not only more powerful than the other man, but now he is more wealthy as well. That wealthy man did not have the power, the strong man did. Power can gain wealth, but wealth does not magically imbue power. Power is power, not wealth. What I find interesting, and frustrating in the qualification that is nearly always ignored, such qualification may be implicit, or explicit, yet it is assumed to be true, and ignored in considerations. That qualification being that, within our current systems, the privilege of wealth, is protected by powerful government decisions. It is ignored, because if we stop assuming the wealthy MUST be protected by powerful government, then the truth belies the false conclusions the bias and untrue presumptions of that qualification lead to. One rich asshole that "owns" millions of acres of prime logging forest, appears to be wealthy and powerful , because his claim to ownership is buttressed by a government that enforces his claim. That man would be helpless to enforce his claim to that land and those resources, without the backing of powerful government, against 50 men working together to violate his claim, and remove trees for their own benefit and profit. All of his wealth does NOTHING to enforce his claim to that wealth. His ability to enjoy the fruits of his claim are entirely enforced by the system of governance that those 50 men agreed to. If the people do NOT agree to that form of government that enforces claims of wealth, "as if that wealth is the creator of power", then that wealth has no claim, and no power. But, y'all wanna ignore that truth, because it does not align with your false premise and bias. THAT is a problem. Stop doing that. This is the the real relation between wealth and power, and it involves process. The process used to make decisions is what provides the wealthy access to power. Absent that process, the wealthy have no intrinsic power at all, because they cannot control the decisions made by those who DO have power. Control of power does not require wealth. Control of power requires control of the process used to make decisions about how power will be applied. Government "is" a process used to make decisions. The form of government determines what government "does". "Government is a process, not a building" You may wish to consider if that changes some of your focus. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ That process, of people in congress making decisions from a position of power and authority, does NOT result in representation. It does not result in representation as individuals, nor as a nation. IT DOES NOT WORK. Not because we elect the wrong people, but because the process itself is flawed. It is based on false premise in several ways and at least one fraudulent manner. It not only does not work, it CANNOT work. I know that many people cannot accept the notion that they believe in a lie. It's still a lie, even if you believe it. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Inequitable distribution of POWER, is the problem. The POWER that is administered by systems of government, is authorized by the public to be held by a few. It does not matter WHO those few are, or how they came to be placed in those positions of power and authority. It does not matter what promises they make, or lies they tell. The PROBLEM is that they are in positions of power and authority, by public consent. STOP consenting to that. When people ask me how to implement my grand plan, I find that generally what they are really asking is how we can force people into accepting some new system they don't understand and don't trust. Umm, we don't. I won't. If the new plan is compelling enough to convince people to adopt it, it will happen. I am not going to set up machine guns and march people into some dystopian grand scheme of world domination. I understand that people are scared, and impatient angry and frustrated, but I won't be involved in trying to force people into anything. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The hot stove is the MOST effective attitude and behavior changing method we have. Make people responsible for their acts, and they will behave in a more responsible manner. What people miss, is that attitudes and behaviors change in RESPONSE to events. Rarely do events change in response to attitude and behavior "desires to change". That is the fantasy part, expecting people to change who they are, simply so "your" plan or idea can succeed. If your plan or idea succeeds, then you can reasonably expect some change in how people feel and act. Which is an entirely different matter. What I find infuriating and frustrating is the inability of the smartest people on earth, to connect the dysfunction of our current government systems, with those systems consistently demonstrating the inability to resolve or manage the problems we face as community, nation and species. If it was working, if that process of systems was WORKING, then we would be solving and managing those problems, instead of watching our existence spiral into extinction and irrelevance. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Remember when you voted for someone that won, and then you noticed that shit never really got fixed, it just got worse? Funny. LOL I respect people who wish to challenge themselves to be better, smarter stronger, more productive. I ALSO respect people who enjoy life, without challenge and strife and competition. A republic, is a decision process, that specifies a representative government. It REQUIRES representation. It's NOT optional. If that representation does not exist, it is NOT A REPUBLIC. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ What would it cost, to provide basic needs, that provided goods and services, sufficient for a comfortable and dignified life to people? Great question. Here is another one. Would people be willing to work for wages and benefits that provided goods and services, sufficient for a comfortable and dignified life? Well, if you answer that last question, you have answered the first question. The people working to provide the goods and services needed, would be paid those goods and services. Just as a person that plants and tends a garden, should expect to reap and enjoy the harvest of that garden. have I said anything that offends you? If a person runs a business, making profit from subjugating, and exploiting workers, then taxing that rich person or business does NOT change their method of getting profits, they will STILL subjugate and exploit the workers. They will just figure out better ways to subjugate and exploit, to maintain their profits, while paying higher taxes. How does that make sense? There is a BETTER way. https://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ We have a machine, that grinds up people, to generate profits. The people running that machine are the people that get the profits. If all you want to do is change the people running that machine, then FUCK YOU! NO, just fuck the fuck you. Get the FUCK off my planet. You fucking monster. NO! The REASON we do not have a republic, (representative democracy), is because the process specified in our constitution is flawed in two separate but related manners, and the result is the fraudulent assertion that it , that process, DOES properly represent the people. it does NOT. Not because we elect the wrong people, but because we use the wrong process. A republic, is a decision process, that specifies a representative democracy. It REQUIRES representation. It's NOT optional. If that representation does not exist, it is NOT A REPUBLIC. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ (Candidate) would fight against (issue). And yet, the process specified in our constitution, allowed that bad decision to be made, even in clear cases when the majority of the public obviously disagreed with that decision. If you think changing the bus driver will fix the route, you don't understand the system. The REASON we do not have a republic, (representative democracy), is because the process specified in our constitution is flawed in two separate but related manners, and the result is the fraudulent assertion that it , that process, DOES properly represent the people. it does NOT. Not because we elect the wrong people, but because we use the wrong process. Please consider. In our current systems, (plural), when the people at the bottom of the economic heap, produce a surplus, (profit), the few people at the top of the decision process, make decisions to benefit those people at the top of that economic heap, usually because those same people are also at the top of the decision process. However, if the people at the top of that decision process were the people at the bottom of the economic heap, then the decisions made about the distribution of that surplus would benefit those at the top of the decision process, which would be those people at the bottom of the economic heap. The KEY, is to swap the people out, that control the DECISION process. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. 4 branch, is a "Linux" government, it belongs to the people, not to some corporation. It is a GUI government. It is EASY for the public to use. 4 Branch government: A brief outline: The executive branch filters problems. The legislative branch proposes solutions to the problems sent by the executive branch. The Judicial branch determines if the bill proposed by the legislative branch would be legal, if enacted. The executive branch then determines if the proposed bill is plausible and cost accurate. Then the public branch decides whether to enact that bill into law. It's that simple. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ If you think that wealth is power, because it allows you to buy people and weapons for armies, please consider this: In the 1930's inside post war Germany, the reparations had practically bankrupted the German public, EXCEPT the jewish community. They were generally more wealthy than the average German, and were not unduly affected by the economic crash roiling through Europe. This state of affairs caused a small group of rather poor people to form a premise, that the jews were dangerous and evil, BECAUSE THEY WERE POWERFUL. That small group of people, that grew into the nazi party, stated the equation that you agree with. WEALTH = POWER, and they used that premise as the valid justification for removing the wealth of the jews, and exterminating them. That small group of nazis grew in power, but they were POOR, not WEALTHY. Then they stripped the jews of wealth and life. WHO was powerful?? The jews? Really?? It's nonsense. This is the truth and reality about wealth and power. A man with a goat, is more wealthy than a man without a goat. However, if the man without a goat is stronger, faster, more ruthless than the wealthy man, then he can simply take that goat. Now the stronger man is not only more powerful than the other man, but now he is more wealthy as well. That wealthy man did not have the power, the strong man did. Power can gain wealth, but wealth does not magically imbue power. Power is decision authority, not wealth. gerrymandering election fraud money citizens united dishonest politicians corrupt politicians not enough voters Party politics electoral college stupid voters Do not make the common mistake of confusing what government is, with, what some specific form of government does. Just as it is a mistake to claim that a cat is a small furry pet, suitable for small children. A tiger is a cat, and though it has fur, it is certainly not a safe pet for children. It is these fallacies of thought or expression that confuses and complicates a rather simple concept. A government is a decision process. That is what it is. There are many FORMS of government. It is the specification of that form that can be used to determine if that form of government is "good" or "bad". Just as there are good and bad bacteria. If there was NO bacteria, we as a species could not survive. If there is no government we cannot survive either. I disagree that a form of government that uses elected representatives in any form of congress to make decisions can be considered a direct democracy. Regardless of whether the public has some method of constraining that congress, by initiative or referendum. That's just me. I know a LOT of people consider the Swiss, as having a direct democracy, though it's obviously NOT. The problem i have with that designation is that it relies entirely on the false premise that representatives can be elected, and that a congress will represent a population properly. BOTH are false, and should be discarded immediately. If those were TRUE, then there would be no need for the public to have a method to over ride their decisions. Do you understand? The conclusive result of that reasoning, should be that electing people as representatives should NOT happen, and that using a congress to make decisions should NOT happen. BOTH are simply complicating the decision process, not helping. What would be useful, is an organizational structure that empowers the people to make decisions about how to accomplish that goal. ya know, like a government that actually works? A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. I presume that you have not tried to view this government from the perspective of the people murdered for the crime of living here before the colonists arrived... Perhaps a conversation with Harriet Tubman? It's not a republic. It's not a democracy. It's just another nasty oligarchy dressed in drag pretending to be representative until faced with profit loss. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ When some politician tries to tell me that they are for, or against some measure or issue, this is my immediate response: The question is not whether YOU are for or against any particular measure or issue. The REAL question is what the majority of the PEOPLE of this nation want. If you suggest that our constitutional process is not supposed to represent the will of the majority of our people, then PLEASE explain what the HELL that process is supposed to represent! A MINORITY? WHAT the hell are you people DOING??? ol·i·gar·chy Dictionary result for oligarchy /ˈäləˌɡärkē/ noun noun: oligarchy; plural noun: oligarchies a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. **** ***** Read that carefully The people in the three branches, president, staff, congress, staff, the supreme court, and staff ARE A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE!!!! less than 1500 hundred people RULING our nation. it's a damn oligarchy and was DESIGNED THAT WAY!!! The REASON we do not have a republic, (representative democracy), is because the process specified in our constitution is flawed in two separate but related manners, and the result is the fraudulent assertion that it , that process, DOES properly represent the people. it does NOT. Not because we elect the wrong people, but because we use the wrong process. A republic, is a decision process, that specifies a representative democracy. It REQUIRES representation. It's NOT optional. If that representation does not exist, it is NOT A REPUBLIC. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If the process specified in our republic, does not represent the will of the majority, within the constraints of protecting a minority from violations of their human civil rights, then, WHAT exactly is it representing??? FIX the system, by learning what is actually WRONG with it. Question EVERYTHING. Do elections factually provide proper representation? Can a congress make decisions that factually represent the majority of the public? CAN A CONGRESS MAKE DECISIONS THAT FACTUALLY MISREPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC???? Read that last one again, and again and again. Nor the system which allowed and encouraged his rise to that position of power and authority. STOP electing people to positions of power and authority. THAT is HOW they become predatory and cruel. It's not a democracy. It's not a republic either. It's an oligarchy. It is specified IN OUR CONSTITUTION as an oligarchy. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If the process specified in our constitution, does not represent the will of the majority, within the constraints of protecting a minority from violations of their human civil rights, then, WHAT exactly is it representing??? FIX the system, by learning what is actually WRONG with it. Question EVERYTHING. Do elections factually provide proper representation? Can a congress make decisions that factually represent the majority of the public? CAN A CONGRESS MAKE DECISIONS THAT FACTUALLY MISREPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC???? Read that last one again, and again and again. To properly administrate our decision process, the protection of those rights MUST BE legally precedent to the legislative and judicial process. In any case the protections of rights MUST be legally precedent to the normal legislative process. Failure to maintain that legal precedence, eradicates the effectiveness of those protections. Which is what has happened in our nation today. If the right to life and liberty for all, was held legally precedent to EVERY other act of our government, then SLAVERY could NEVER have been supported, condoned or allowed. THAT was a problem. It was not resolved by any act of legislation, it was solved by people killing each other on battlefields, in our streets and in the wilderness. Failure. HOW CAN WE FIX GOVERNMENT WITHOUT A VIOLENT REVOLUTION???? Recall that we already did it ONCE, without violence. After our war with England we adopted a confederated constitution, and within a short time, it became obvious that it was failing to work as intended, and then we dropped that one and adopted the one we use now, a constitution specifying an oligarchy. In any case, we have already done it once, peacefully. Ben Rasmussen wrote, " The oligarchs haven’t been united since the seventies and there are a lot more now than there were then. They ARE chaos. I’m gonna go with environmental collapse and extinction." Be a shame if someone replaced our bad government with a BETTER one, huh? If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ They are public SERVANTS, see, they were ELECTED. Therefor, magically, someone authorized by public consent to make decisions for the public is a SERVANT of the people, not a RULER. (blow me bootlickers. They ain't no damn servant!) NONE of them are servants. What we DO know how to do, is diagnose and troubleshoot complex systems. We also know how to do testing on those systems for efficiency and efficacy. What systems am I talking about? Our social tools. Government and economy. GET those fixed. Government first, then economy. STOP electing people to positions of power and authority. THAT is HOW they become predatory and cruel. It's not a democracy. It's not a republic either. It's an oligarchy. It is specified IN OUR CONSTITUTION as an oligarchy. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I am rather certain that a significant portion of people that read my rants against our government, ASSUME, that the reason I am angry is because that system makes decisions that I do not agree with. That is a FALSE assumption. I am angry and disgusted with our governments, because they do not make decisions that the majority of us agree with. I understand that the IDEA, was to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. To prevent a majority of purple people making the decision to hang all the blue people. I GET IT! However that is not what is happening. The decisions made by our governments have NOTHING to do with protecting our civil rights. Those decisions being made, in contradiction to majority opinion, do NOT protect us from the tyranny of the majority, they allow and encourage the tyranny of the minority in power. It's a damn problem. It is THE problem. There is a better way. Be a shame if someone replaced our bad government with a BETTER one, huh? If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ The CULT OF CONSTITUTION: They use ignorance and lies as arguments, and assert persecution of their insanity as a defense of their insanity. It's like a religious disease. They have renounced the use of reason. I still question why we are fighting our government if our government is us. Oh, wait, you mean our government is NOT us? Well, that explains a LOT. Justify how being able to vote for someone to make decisions on your behalf, without further agreement or consent should be considered representation. Kinda like agreeing to go on a date, and being told that you are now also obligated to have sex with that other person. It's an absurd position, and you should reject it, BECAUSE it is absurd. Asimov was a strange bird. He questioned everything he was challenged with EXCEPT government. I have yet to find any essay that he wrote that significantly questioned the premises of our constitutional process. Sad. I think that if he had, we may have had a much better chance at resolving and managing, successfully, the problems we face as a community, nations and species. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. Do you think a majority of the public wants universal health care? Infrastructure repair and improvement? Taxes paying for public benefit, instead of corporate profits? Yeah, a Majority of us? Really? Let's agree that you are correct, and the majority of us favor those measures. So what? Now what? If the system worked as you think it does, those measures would be enacted, just because the majority want it. Sooooo, guess what? Your opinion about how that system of government works, is an untruth. :-) It OBVIOUSLY does not work that way. Here is where we are at. We think we are a majority that wants changes. However the process we currently use declines and refuses to count a majority. There is no possible way, within our current system to prove that we ARE a majority. That system, as specified in our constitution, misrepresents the people at its discretion and to its benefit. I am saying that unless we take control of a NEW decision process, NOT the one that actively opposes any true representation of a public majority, NONE of those secondary, tertiary or lesser priority issues are going to be managed or resolved properly. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Remember when you voted for someone that won, and then you noticed that shit never really got fixed, it just got worse? Funny. LOL Mothers: "Our children are being murdered in school!" Media and politicians: "You need to vote harder." "If you support a system/process that puts a small number of people into positions of power and authority, then you do not understand "power" and "authority"." If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. If elections provided representation, we'd be working on solving or managing the problems we face as communities, nations and species, instead of arguing about porn stars and nazis. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ People in congress should NOT be elected as representatives. People who are representatives should NOT be in congress. The two roles are contradictory to each other. A legislator *in congress* should write proposals that may solve or manage some problem. The decision whether to *enact* such proposals should be made by the public through representatives. Such representatives and the process the public uses to employ them should be SEPARATE from the role of people in congress. THAT is the largest part of the problem. The process we use now, attempts to consolidate those two roles into ONE body, and it does NOT work. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I KNOW what the IDEA was!!!!! "The idea is to elect someone who will speak for a group of people" The damn QUESTION is::: "DOES IT WORK????" The damn ANSWER IS NO!!! Let me attempt a clarification. You are insisting that the PROCESS works, or rather it WOULD work, if it was not for something on this list of "problems" that follows. gerrymandering election fraud money citizens united dishonest politicians corrupt politicians not enough voters Party politics electoral college stupid voters Correct? (you are welcome to add whatever nonsense you like to that list) Once you agree to that, I will PROVE to you that getting rid of that list of idiotic excuses STILL does not make the damn process work. I will PROVE it. Understand me? PROOF!!! The fraudulent system we use, of government and media and corporate rule, derives a profit from a certain amount of conflict, drama, and chaos. Part of the problem with the understanding, is the unfounded and false premise that the rule makers are bound by the rules they write. The con artist will expect absolute honesty and demand absolute honesty from his victims. If he does not get that, he moves on to a new victim. If he does get that honesty, he, himself has no compelling reason to be honest in that venture himself. He is employing fraud as his means of deriving benefit. He will never be honest about his motives or methods. If that artist IS THE GOVERNMENT, who ya gonna call? The cops? The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Alternative prediction: After 2021, the idea that we as a people can develop, and test a new design for government strikes deep through the interwebs and that process begins. various academic institutions around the world begin a collaborative effort to investigate different ideas proposed by many different thinkers. Within two years of consideration, several conceptual models emerge and those are distributed to several testing areas, and the effectiveness and efficiency of those several models begin evaluation and tweaking. During this time period, the various current government systems become aware that a majority of people around the world are preparing to replace current political models with a new one, that works better. That realization, causes those in power to begin making decisions that benefit the public in a rational and caring manner, and to reject corporate influences. That effort by current systems improves the conditions that people experience, which is a net positive. After some improvement of conditions, a clear and obvious superior form of political process emerges from the world wide testing and demonstration process, and various national governments begin to adopt the new systems and immediately begin to prosper and reject violence and conflict as a standard response to issues that were not being solved or managed properly. By 2025, most of the world is being governed by a working political model that has the support and confidence of the majority of the human population. By 2030, a convention establishes a global political process that is based on the model that emerged from scientific examination of political reality, that began in 2021. How is that luv? https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ A VAST majority of US citizens want healthcare. The damn constitutional process we use is NOT representing our VAST majority. Why is that? Do you know? I KNOW, and it has NOTHING to do with the shit excuses on this list: gerrymandering election fraud money citizens united dishonest politicians corrupt politicians not enough voters Party politics electoral college stupid voters Get it? NONE of those things are the CAUSE of our government failures. The CAUSE of the failures is the god damn idiotic PROCESS. It DOES NOT WORK. I can PROVE it. Be a shame if someone replaced our bad government with a BETTER one, huh? If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I don't think silence is appropriate in remembering the atrocities of fascism. I REALLY like Ms. Lawrence as an actress, and from the interviews I have seen, as a person. With that said, I simply CANNOT support this effort of her advocacy for this "plan". NOT because I disagree with the GOALS she expresses. I FULLY support those goals! I disagree with the base premise that she and RepresentUs rely on FOR their plan. That base premise, is that the constitutional process WORKS the way they believe it does, and that they want US to believe it does. And unfortunately it's NOT true. I know that is hard for people to accept. However I can explain it fairly easily. There are two flaws, and those flaws cause a fraudulence that lies at the very heart of that constitutional process. Flaw one: Elections do NOT produce, nor provide factual administration of YOUR equal and civil right to be properly represented in government. Elections do NOT provide or produce that representation that is at the HEART of the belief that the system works as we were told it does. Flaw two: Using people in a Congress, to make decisions, does not factually and reliably provide nor produce representation of the public on those matters being decided. I do WISH that BOTH flaws could be proven some sort of mistake, in implementation or could be explained in terms of lobbying, gerrymandering, voter apathy, election fraud, foreign meddling, corruption, party politics, etc. etc. etc. BUT IT CANNOT. The flaws are systemic and cannot be resolved by USING THE SYSTEM THAT IS FLAWED. It is not possible. Ask me to explain either flaw. I can and will. The FRAUD involved arises from the two flaws directly. The concept of a Republic, REQUIRES correct, accurate and proper representation. The two flaws noted above create a reality that is IMPOSSIBLE to provide that representation. The fraud is that we have a republic. We do NOT, and we never HAD a republic. It was a lie, intentional or not. It's still a lie today. This plan will NOT resolve those flaws, and until those flaws ARE fixed, we have no republic, we have an oligarchy. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=183637852649464&id=100030097506385 neither Republicans, nor Democrats, generally, have a slightest clue what a democracy or a republic actually is. Notre Dame? I have very little sympathy. The structure and it's contents has been a symbol of false power and authority for centuries, and in such a way, that I feel it deserves to be destroyed, utterly, and replaced with a simple, and humble symbol of humility and contrition. response: But the historical and cultural value! Yep, and the vast majority of that value, was wrested from the people under atrocity and suffering CAUSED by that effort to collect and retain those beauties and treasures. i have no sympathy. response: She may be a scar on humanity. Caused by our own cruelty. The kind of scar that you keep as a beautiful reminder of what not to do. If it becomes a scar, as I mentioned, a humble symbol of contrition, I will be satisfied with that. Before the fire, it was not a scar, it was an edifice of testament to the power and glory of undeserved authority and atrocity. response: She stands through the times as a witness. A true symbol of what we are capable of. If it was, in fact a true symbol, I would agree. It was not. Just as our nations flag is not a true symbol. It's a false front for lies and deception. Shrugz. I am NOT a confident speaker. I do much better at conveying my thoughts as text, as I can pause and think about how to address my points in a manner that seems to present them in a rational manner. As a speaker, I get confused and begin getting angry and frustrated. As a writer, I am more able to organize my thoughts and present them as I intend, without being moved by temporal exchange that requires a facility of conveyance that I lack. The idea of a republic as attempted in our US constitution, was to make decisions of the majority while protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What it obviously failed to do, was protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority. It's a bad process, it does not work for the people. I would agree to a definition of a republic, requiring the administration of equal rights while representing the majority. However if NEITHER is accomplished by the specified process, then it ain't a republic, which is what I said. The idea of a republic as attempted in our US constitution, was to make decisions of the majority while protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What it obviously failed to do, was protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority. It's a bad process, it does not work for the people. I would agree to a definition of a republic, requiring the administration of equal rights while representing the majority. However if NEITHER is accomplished by the specified process, then it ain't a republic, which is what I said. For those who advocate for "direct democracy", I understand what you want. What you may not understand, is that 4 branch government, is direct democracy. It is a process that administers direct democracy. YOU, the citizen, vote on every act that this government passes into law. YOU people decide what is law, and what is not. NO ONE ELSE. Just you. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. 4 Branch government: A brief outline: The executive branch filters problems. The legislative branch proposes solutions to the problems sent by the executive branch. The Judicial branch determines if the bill proposed by the legislative branch would be legal, if enacted. The executive branch then determines if the proposed bill is plausible and cost accurate. Then the public branch decides whether to enact that bill into law. It's that simple. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Direct representation. One more time: Let me try to explain it, and you may be able to see what I mean. If you are going to vote directly on some issue, you might have a ballot with two boxes one marked "yes', and one marked "no" Then you walked into the election office and put your ballot in a box, with every other ballot that other people put in. At the end of that voting, the box is emptied and every ballot is counted, and the number of ballots marked yes, separated from those marked no. Each bunch of ballots is then counted, and the result is whichever count was more. That is ONE way to do it. there is another way to do it. As a voter, voting on some issue directly, you have a ballot. You can put your ballot into the yes box, or you can put your ballot into the no box. At the end of voting each box is counted separately. Whichever box has more ballots is the result, either more yes votes, or more no votes. No one has to separate the yes ballots from the no ballots. Each voter did that by using the correct box to put their ballot into. Now, imagine that you are going to vote on an issue directly, and you cannot go to the voting office yourself. You could MAIL your ballot to one address to vote "yes", OR you could mail your ballot to a DIFFERENT address to vote "no". The RESULT would be exactly the same as if you HAD gone directly to the voting office. Yet you did not vote directly. You used the post office as your representative. That representative did not alter your vote in any way. We could do the same thing with PEOPLE instead of boxes, or the post office. Bob, could be a representative for the people who vote "NO", and Sue could be the representative for the people who vote "YES". All Bob and Sue need to do, is to correctly count the number of people who chose them, and then the RESULT is exactly the same as if each person voting had done so directly, by using ballots marked yes/no, or if the voters used two boxes marked yes, and no, or if the voters had mailed ballots to a Yes address or to a No address. Bob and Sue, are PROPERLY representing all of the voters. neither of them changed any votes, and had no influence on the votes, nor was there any parties involved. Just you, and YOUR representative. If you chose Bob as your representative, you voted NO. If you chose Sue as your representative you voted YES. CHOSEN, not elected, and you can change your choice of representative ANY TIME YOU WANT!! NOT elected. In fact you could still walk up to the voting office yourself and vote directly if you wanted to. You could use a representative if it was more convenient for you, or not. You could vote directly or change your representative for every vote, if you wanted to. The RESULT of using representatives that way, would always be EXACTLY as if everyone voted directly. Hear me out. We could have congress pass a total federal budget of exactly ONE dollar. Whoah? You think that is crazy? Just wait, there is more. We split that dollar into 400 trillion parts. We can call each part of that dollar a t-bill. We could GIVE each citizen of the USA a MILLION t-bills. That would still leave a federal budget of one hundred trillion t-bills. Then we tell the world that is our new currency standard. Everyone is suddenly a millionaire, prices need to be calculated in t-bills. There is plenty of cash out to finance every social benefit program, including infrastructure and education and healthcare. Boom. (this is the same thing the MMT crowd is yelling about, but in dollars, not t-bills) It is either a valid paradigm, or it ain't. You may want Universal HealthCare. OK, so, imagine a 12 sided dice. On election day, we need to roll a six with that dice. No, wait, that's not accurate. We need to roll 435 12 sided dice for the House, and another 100 dice for the Senate. The majority of those dice rolled needs to come up a six. THEN we can roll one of those dice for the President, but wait, there is a group of "delegates" that roll their own 12 sided dice. THEN we can get Universal HealthCare. I dunno 'bout you but looks more like a casino, than a government. If that dice roll does not work, we wait four years to roll again. IN THE MEANTIME, we get shit, nuthin, just more lies excuses and bullshit. WHAT IF THEM DICE NEVER COME UP SIXES??? Is that a rational PLAN to solve the problems we face as a community, nation and species?? Do we INSIST that we hold our elected representatives "accountable"? HOW? HOW do we intend to hold them "accountable"? Do we intend to have each representative count the votes of every citizen to determine what each majority wants? If we are counting each citizen vote, then, we don't NEED to elect representatives. If we do NOT count every citizen vote, then there is no way to hold an elected representative "accountable". https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ neither Republicans, nor Democrats, generally, have a slightest clue what a democracy or a republic actually is. EVERY Candidate, EVERY politician: in the USA is simply another boot in the hall, trying to convince the public to lick them. All in all, you're just another BOOT IN THE HALL. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If you are as sick of the unending spew of lies, excuses and bullshit coming from our government as I am, and many others, then you need to ask ANY candidate one and only ONE question. "Explain, and be specific, how your election, will cause our constitutional process to accurately and properly represent the majority of our public?" Go for it. ASK! Get ready for more spew. NONE of them can answer that, get it? NONE. Because the process does NOT function to represent the public. We are not the owners of that process. Yep, and if the process of making decisions is flawed, which it is, in the US constitution, then it should be no wonder at all, that the government fails to meet the expectations of the public in providing the solutions promised by that process. EVEN if the people we elect to congress, DO vote as the majority of the people in their district wish, the result of those people voting in congress, does not necessarily agree with the majority of the national public. Now, some people will attempt to argue, that is a "feature", to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. That is not true, it's another lie, and excuse. I understand WHY we need to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The METHOD of doing that is to protect civil rights. That is the job of the Supreme Court. If congress, (factually and properly representing the majority of citizens), passes a law that infringes on the rights of a minority, (individuals are the most vulnerable minority), the court is supposed to rule that the law is illegal. That is NOT the role of Congress, CONGRESS is required to represent the majority in it's decisions, and it does NOT. The system simply does NOT WORK. I do know that women have as much right to self defense as men do. I know that a woman being invaded by some human, is a crime, without her explicit consent. And I know that right is just as valid against a 60 year old drunk homeless guy as a 1 hour old fetus. This is a question that may illuminate a problem of economic decision making. IF, you were presented with a machine, that popped out a $100 bill every time the handle was pulled, HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU PULL THAT HANDLE, BEFORE LETTING SOMEONE ELSE HAVE A TURN???? Imagine being accosted by police, in fear for their life, one yells at you to drop to the ground, the other yells at you to freeze, do not move. Neither one has any idea what the other told you to do. Each of them is committed to killing you to enforce the order that they REQUIRE you to comply with. Each is focused entirely on HIS/HER safety and orders to defend their safety. Research tunnel focus in stress situations, and now re-imagine that scenario. THAT is a PROBLEM. I am quite certain, that it is not reasonable to expect people that abandoned reason for faith, to understand how to behave reasonably. GOT, seasons 7 and 8? The story began, by being told by a master storyteller, illustrated by masters of effects and drama. It is ending by being told by a 12 year old, that read comic books, and illustrated by masters at detailing idiocy in video. The people in control of our decision process, (government is a decision process), figured out exactly how to manipulate that process to their benefit, and at our expense. They discovered the truth. The truth is that the process does NOT provide proper representation to the public. Not as individuals and not as a nation. WHICH MEANS, they can do any damn thing they want to, because there is no way for the public to prove they are not using the constitutional process, because they ARE!!! I know why the system is failing. Because we are not being represented properly by the process, not as individuals and not as a nation. The two ARE related, but the reasons are separate. Step one: If you want equal rights, we agree. We all have the equal right to be properly represented in government. If I vote for one guy, because I agree with the decisions he promises to make, and I do not vote for the other guy, because I disagree with the decisions that he promises to make, and that other guy wins that election then I am not being represented equally. Hear me out, if YOU voted for that other guy, the guy that won the election, YOU get represented. NOT ME!!! Now, wait. If the guy I voted for wins, that means that I get represented. But if you voted for the other guy, and he loses, that means that you are not getting represented. What happened to those equal rights? Oh? That's just the way the system works? Well, that's just an excuse for the fact that we are NOT being represented. It does not mean we ARE being represented. It's just an EXCUSE. Sorry, but I thought we AGREED we have equal rights, and now you are telling me to IGNORE that the system does not PROVIDE equal right of representation??? No. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ THIS is the process, as viewed from the citizen point of view: Fast example of 4 branch representative process: John is the citizen, Susan is his representative. 1. Issue X, is referred to the executive branch. Susan informs John, along with all the other people that chose Susan, that issue X is being considered. 2. The president passes a tasking order to congress to consider issue X. Susan informs John, that congress has a tasking order on issue X. 3. Congress works on the issue, research, meetings, studies, etc. Susan informs John of the work congress is doing on issue X. 4. Congress writes a bill, and passes it to the Judicial branch. Susan informs John that a bill has been passed to the court, and John now has the actual text of that bill. He may not read it, but he has been FULLY informed of exactly what is being done and proposed by the process. 5. The court reviews the bill, and publishes a ruling, discussing the legality of that bill. (let's assume it passes that review) Susan informs John of the passage of the bill, from the court, to the executive branch, and John now has the actual text of that ruling. He is fully informed on the ruling that approved that legality. 6. The executive branch reviews the bill, for plausibility and cost accounting. (let's assume the review passes that bill to the public branch, for decision) Susan informs John about the executive review, and now John has the actual text of the review, that passes the bill on issue X to the public for decision. 7. The bill, in consideration of issue x, is passed to the public for consideration and decision. Susan informs John that the bill is up for his decision. Susan then publishes HER VOTE into a permanent public record and informs John of her vote on that bill. 8. John now has an opportunity to make a decision on that bill. JOHN, not SUSAN. JOHN makes the decision, NOT Susan. John never GAVE his power to Susan. It was always his, and he chose to use it or not. I cannot be responsible for offending people by asking questions and requiring honest answers, and calling out evasions as they answer. If those people refuse to use intellectual honesty, I have no hope of convincing them of anything, no matter how solid my line of reason and presentation of facts might be. I cannot be responsible for offending people by asking questions and requiring honest answers, and calling out evasions as they answer. If those people refuse to use intellectual honesty, I have no hope of convincing them of anything, no matter how solid my line of reason and presentation of facts might be. Step one: If you want equal rights, we agree. We all have the equal right to be properly represented in government. If I vote for one guy, because I agree with the decisions he promises to make, and I do not vote for the other guy, because I disagree with the decisions that he promises to make, and that other guy wins that election then I am not being represented equally. Hear me out, if YOU voted for that other guy, the guy that won the election, YOU get represented. NOT ME!!! Now, wait. If the guy I voted for wins, that means that I get represented. But if you voted for the other guy, and he loses, that means that you are not getting represented. What happened to those equal rights? Oh? That's just the way the system works? Well, that's just an excuse for the fact that we are NOT being represented. It does not mean we ARE being represented. It's just an EXCUSE. Sorry, but I thought we AGREED we have equal rights, and now you are telling me to IGNORE that the system does not PROVIDE equal right of representation??? No. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The people in control of our decision process, (government is a decision process), figured out exactly how to manipulate that process to their benefit, and at our expense. They discovered the truth. The truth is that the process does NOT provide proper representation to the public. Not as individuals and not as a nation. WHICH MEANS, they can do any damn thing they want to, because there is no way for the public to prove they are not using the constitutional process, because they ARE!!! I know why the system is failing. Because we are not being represented properly by the process, not as individuals and not as a nation. The two ARE related, but the reasons are separate. Deprogramming the lies told to us as trusting children is a BIG problem. the same people that told us about santa claus, told us that our system works. "what if the person voted in based on what they claim they'll do doesn't follow through?" That is one of the problems with attempting to elect someone as a representative. Once that person is elected, and has attained that position of power and authority, there is no legal requirement to factually represent anyone. It's a problem. However that problem is caused by the preceding problem, which is that the public has no method to measure the performance of an elected person. Please consider, that unless we actually count each persons opinion on a matter that the elected official decided on, there is no possible way for us to know if a majority of us agreed with that decision. However, if we DO count each persons opinion, then we have no need to use an election, as we already know what a majority agrees on. I hope that is clear to you. We have no method of measuring the performance, as a factual matter, we are forced to simply accept the decision of the elected official. Now, certainly, we can recall a "promise" made by a candidate, and determine if they made a decision that fulfills that promise. And we can complain about a discrepancy. However, have you ever listened to statements made by elected officials concerning those complaints? Once they are elected, they gain new information, that requires them to change their decision, for national security, or whatever excuse they spew, or just lie. But, ALL of that is caused BY that flawed process of attempting to elect someone as a representative. That is the CAUSE of those problems. OK? If someone is working with the crown, they are a traitor to the people. NO EXCEPTIONS! I mean the CROWN. That crown that is worn by the small group of people who control our government. They are RULERS, crowned by our elections to RULE us. THEY make the rules. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Resist the impulse to be sucked into issues that divide us. Remain committed to a core and absolute focus. The form of government we choose, MUST factually represent the public. If that is not realized, then NONE of the other issues will be properly addressed. THAT should be the ONLY focus until we GET it. Animals pay for the food they eat, with the time and energy they spend, getting it. Just like humans do. We are not different in that respect. What does seem to be generally different is that we use an intentional accounting system to apportion resources. In order to do that we use "money". Money is not a thing, it's a concept. It's an accounting tool. Even before any humans existed, and to this day, creatures that care for their young may use some form of accounting, (money), to share resources amongst their brood, litter or offspring. Even social creatures that have several mothers producing several young, might use some method of sharing evenly or appropriately among the young, as a society. It's not strictly a human trait or tool. We certainly made it much more "institutionalized", but it existed long before humans did. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as community and species. Each branch of the US government can do whatever the hell they want, unless one or more of the other branches makes some successful move to block the decision made. THAT is what our constitutional process specifies, whether you agree, or not. Consider this: 30 years ago, if someone told you, "You should take a picture of that with your telephone." You would have looked at them as if they are simply crazy stupid and likely had no concept of reality. Now, consider this: You should use a representative to represent YOUR decision on an issue. Not THEIR decision, YOURS! Am I crazy? Am I stupid? Am I totally deranged and lost all concept of reality? Really?? MOST of the success we find in society is directly caused by people IGNORING the decisions of our BAD governments, and acting in contradiction to the rules established by those decisions. To suggest that our BAD governments are some kind of grand, noble excellent benefit to the people is a damn lie. We could have GOOD government. What the hell is your objection to GOOD government??? US Public: Our families are being murdered at work, in school and celebrations. Response from politicians and media: That is sad, our condolences. You should try voting harder. REALLY??? Some people will try to make you agree that there is NOTHING wrong with our constitutional process. They will INSIST that the real problem is the bad people that get involved. (meaning the people we elected are the bad people) Apparently, the fact that the LAST thousand elections elected the bad people, should never be considered a valid evidence that maybe electing people is a bad idea. I want you to look them in the eye, and repeat this to them with vehemence and conviction: "It is bad process. I know there are bad people. If the process was good, it would handle those bad people correctly. It did not. The process failed to handle those bad people correctly. It invited those bad people in, fed them dinner, served them drinks and serviced them with prostitutes and put them into positions of power and authority." (sarcasm) The process works fine. Nothin wrong with the system, folks. Just move along, stay in line, vote hard, and don't look back. As long as we all vote the experts in charge will figure it all out and everything will be fine, because we vote. As long as we vote it will work, see? Just vote, keep voting. No matter how bad it gets keep voting. Pay your taxes, vote, toe the line, complain all you want, just as long as you stay in line, and follow orders! When they tell you to open the door, you open the door. When they tell you to come with them, you go with them. When they tell you to get on the train, you get on the train. When they tell you to get in the shower, you get in the shower. As LONG AS YOU VOTED IT WILL BE FINE. It worked for HITLER! (end sarcasm) Maybe we need a REAL system of government instead of the shit show circus we use today? If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ We need a new FORM of government. They are RULERS, crowned by our elections to RULE us. THEY make the rules. Question: How can politicians represent us, when they are paid millions to represent someone else? The better question is: How can we use a representative process correctly, such that the people representing us CANNOT choose to misrepresent us. I am a criminal. I am a rather smart criminal, but not any kind of politician. I don't need to lie to anyone. I don't need approval or permission. If you are supporting the concept of building a new form of government to replace the abusive idiocy we use today, then you are also, some kind of criminal. Welcome to the life of an outlaw. :-) https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ This virus attacks any cell that it can attach protein patterns with, and uses that cell replication code to replicate itself, ANY cell. Rich poor, young old, human, cat, bat, whatever. Lungs, heart, brain, reproductive organs, skin, hair, ANY cell. it does not discriminate nor does it have any preference besides the ability to reproduce by that mechanism of protein matching. It's like the terminator, it has ONE goal, and that is replication, and it WILL NOT STOP. I am actually impressed with what the US founding fathers did manage to cobble together, in the face of the problems they faced at the time. Some of them even tried to warn us that it was not likely to last long. Some predicted failure within 20 years. Sad that it actually failed IMMEDIATELY. It does not take a genius, sadly, to figure out how to use the systemic flaws, to manipulate the system to some intention other than to administer self government of the public. If you do not know what those systemic flaws ARE, then you are less intelligent than the people who figured it out, and used it against you. Basically you are dumber than Trump and his gang of criminals. http://45ink.com/wp/letter-to-your-elected-sheriff/ REPUBLIC: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people" so I call BULLSHIT. If the system does NOT represent the public with accuracy and integrity, it ain't a damn republic. You may feel comfortable eating dog shit that someone convinced you is hamburger, but NOT ME. It's dog shit. Lies, excuses and bullshit, and I am sick of it. NO, just NO. A republic REQUIRES representation, it's NOT optional. I know that MOST people respond by claiming that we use elected representatives to govern ourselves. However we DO elect people. BUT they are NOT representatives, so we do NOT use elected representatives. We just elect rulers... It's idiocy and 1984 Orwellian doublethink bullshit! There are problems that are none of your business. Such as what color socks I am wearing, or what gender I find attractive. There are problems that are local, such as the pothole in the street outside your driveway. There are problems that are defined by geo location, such as, how to deal with home owner sand encroachment in the Sahara, that has NOTHING to do with someone living in the Amazon rain forest. There are problems that affect us globally, as a species. There are problems of culture differences, there are problems of ethnic and religious differences. DECISIONS need to be made about these problems. Deciding which problems need to be addressed by which people is a problem that should involve ALL of us. Just sayin. If all we are doing is electing people to make rules for us, as rulers, not representatives, then yeah, we need to elect people who are good people. If we are electing people as representatives, not as rulers, then they MUST factually represent us. AND if the process forces them to factually represent us, then it really would not matter WHO we elect, because the SYSTEM would work. If we are electing rulers, then fine, but that ain't a republic. It ain't a democracy neither. If we are electing representatives, then they MUST properly and factually represent us, SOMEHOW!!! (if they don't, then they ain't representatives) Can you follow that reasoning? We need a new FORM of government. They are RULERS, crowned by our elections to RULE us. THEY make the rules. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Rules? There are physical rules we cannot seem to escape or ignore, such as gravity and time, as examples, and etc.etc. In contrast there can be rules that we impose on ourselves or others. We could choose to have no rules, beyond those physical constraints. OR We can choose to have rules. Those are exclusive choices, we cannot choose to have rules, and also to have no rules, we can choose only one of those options, not both. ( fine example of a physical rule we cannot escape or ignore) Set aside, for the moment the choice to have NO rules. Let's explore instead the choice to have rules. If we have rules, that requires someone to make decisions about which rules we have, and what those rules specify. That someone, could be ONE ruler. That someone could be multiple rulers. That someone could be ALL rulers. Those are rather exclusive choices as well. If there is one ruler, there cannot be multiple rulers. If there are ALL rulers, then that number cannot be less than all. Nor can there be one ruler, if there are ALL rulers. (yes, if all is one, then yes. but oh come on, get real ok?) If there are NO rulers, that means NO ONE DECIDED what those rules are, and NO ONE DECIDED what rules are specified. No rulers, means NO RULES! SOMEONE must decide which rules exist. If NO ONE does that, then no rules DO exist. It's that simple. There are in fact two root flaws in what we call representative democracy. The first: Electing people as representatives does not administer the individual civil right to be equally represented properly in the process. The second: The behavior of such elected people in a congress, making decisions that represent a majority of each district represented, does not factually represent the majority of the people as a nation. Those two flaws CAUSE corruption. In fact, those two flaws cause ALL the damn nonsense and idiocy in our government. The problem is not representation, but rather misrepresentation. The processes used, as specified in our various constitutions, do NOT result in representation. That is the core problem. Some people will insist that we need to take responsibility for the condition of our governments. OK, Yes, but don't fall into the victim blaming game either. We were told that the PROCESS works. Just as the abuse victim is told by the courts and police, trust the system. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Allow me to clarify. If we elect someone to represent the majority of people within a district, it is possible, perhaps even likely that many decisions made by that representative will factually represent the majority of people in that district. That would be fine, if we had some way to determine if each decision made by that person elected DID represent the majority. We do not. What we do have is the "plan", that suggests that if the elected person makes enough decisions that majority disagrees with, then it may be probable that person is not re-elected. I really would like you to consider that carefully. The person elected, must make decisions that the majority disagree with, and enough of those decisions to incite the public to vote for someone else. In other words, the plan is, that, we get misrepresented until next election, and then we try someone else. What kind of nonsense is that? Seriously. I would like you to consider another facet of our "great" system that totally fails. I said above, "That would be fine, if we had some way to determine if each decision made by that person elected DID represent the majority." However that is not true EITHER! Consider 3 districts, no parties, no money, absolute honest elections and everyone votes. Each district elects a representative and that representative is required, by law to represent the majority of the people in that district. District one, 4999 people said "yes", 5001 said "no". The majority said no. District two, 5003 said "yes", 4997 said "no". The majority said yes. District three, 4999 people said "yes", 5001 said "no". The majority said no. The majority of the people, 15,001 of them said YES! The minority, Only 14,999 said no. The representatives voted two to one and the decision of CONGRESS, was NO. The MAJORITY of the people said YES!! What the hell kind of bullshit system is that, huh?? You tell me. REPUBLIC: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people" so I call BULLSHIT. If the system does NOT represent the public with accuracy and integrity, it ain't a damn republic. You may feel comfortable eating dog shit that someone convinced you is hamburger, but NOT ME. It's dog shit. Lies, excuses and bullshit, and I am sick of it. NO, just NO. A republic REQUIRES representation, it's NOT optional. I know that MOST people respond by claiming that we use elected representatives to govern ourselves. However we DO elect people. BUT they are NOT representatives, so we do NOT use elected representatives. We just elect rulers... It's idiocy and 1984 Orwellian doublethink bullshit! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Who makes the decisions about resource distribution, you? Me? Us? Nope, rich assholes elected to positions of power and authority make those decisions. Amazing, huh? Trump already won. He, and his kind won, the moment our constitution was ratified. They have won every election since. They will continue to win as long as we use the system THEY designed for THEIR benefit. the reason we find it so difficult to reject our current systems of decision process and to consider new process is that we are afraid to make a mistake. the solution to that fear, is the realization that we are making a mistake right now! They used the constitution to create, enforce, and justify the current laws, rules, and state of affairs. To suggest that the constitution is some kind of solution in the face of reality, is simply absurd. Our constitution authorizes the people in power to do what they are doing. Our constitution is the PROBLEM, not a solution. Starting with a bad process, and using good people, the system appears to work, kinda sorta for a while. Then as time goes on, those good people recognize the system sucks and they stop participating, which leaves ample room for bad people to get involved. As more good people decline to be involved, the system gets filled with bad people, pretending to be good. It's not all that difficult to comprehend, even though many people simply cannot grasp the concept of a BAD PROCESS as the root cause. sigh. What would be useful, is a decision process that allows the public to make rational decisions about the myriad problems we face as communities, nations and species. Kinda like a form of government that actually works??? We need a constitutional republic, properly administering a representative democracy. We need a bill of rights with legal precedence over the legislative process. We need a judicial branch that presumes every bill is guilty of some evil, and rejects it, UNLESS it is proven innocent. We need factual representation, not some elected bunch of rulers pretending to be representatives. If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I understand democracy. That means everyone gets a say. That does not mean everyone gets their way. I understand that PERFECTLY. However if I don't get my say, then this ain't a democracy. And if the person who is elected to represent me is making decisions that I do not agree with, then I am NOT GETTING MY SAY. It's a REALLY simple concept. Too hard for some to grasp from their cloud of delusion, I suppose. It is absurd to say that someone that makes a decision that I disagree with is representing me. ABSURD. I will not allow it. PERIOD. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to commit atrocity. I am DONE being involved in the commission of atrocity. This is not a damn democracy and it ain't a republic either. They used the constitution to create, enforce, and justify the current laws, rules, and state of affairs. To suggest that the constitution is some kind of solution in the face of reality, is simply absurd. Our constitution authorizes the people in power to do what they are doing. Our constitution is the PROBLEM, not a solution. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Yep, I like kittens and flowers. I want humans to quit making decisions that threaten the earth with a future, that has no kittens and flowers. :-) It's worth the battle. Someone told me that I was too harsh and condescending. That I would catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Yep. My response: I rely on others, perhaps such as yourself, that don't need to be spoon fed new concepts to understand how systems can be structured to accomplish the goals we share, such as economic equity, to be diplomatic, and educational. I am an asshole, I will be honest about that, I am not going to change to fit society. If you want to help, fine, I will be NICE to you. If people want to argue nonsense, and spew idiocy, I will call them idiots. It's really simple, we are OUT OF TIME. I have neither the time, nor inclination to pander to idiocy and idiots. If you have that inclination, fine, good luck and hugz. I do not, because while you may have that inclination, YOU don't have time either. The trick, for my own purpose, is to understand the reality, that the Titanic has already hit the iceberg. That is our current situation in reality. That ship is sinking, and there is NOTHING that we can do to prevent it. I do not begrudge efforts to grab a bucket and attempt to bail out the water. You go for it buddy. I wish you the best ending you hope for. In the mean time, I am trying to get people into lifeboats and giving them instructions for how to make rational decisions after the damn ship sinks, because there ain't another one coming to save us. That's my place. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Rocco Million, Let me engage you on this concept of representation. it is the foundational cornerstone concept that our entire system relies on. **** ***** IF some guy is elected as your representative, and that person rejects your assertions concerning MMT, and insists we need to go back to a gold standard, instead of a fiat currency, and is voting in congress against all your MMT assertions, THEN, IS IT TRUE OR FALSE, That you are being represented ON THAT ISSUE, by that person in congress?? Don't try to fudge or avoid, or make excuses. It's a factual question, not an opinion. It's either true or false, with no maybe involved. True, or false. Failure to provide a one word answer consisting of one of those words, is your admission that you are simply a liar, and a fraud. MMT is actually a valid view of fiat money systems. That does not change the fact, that the fiat money system is a scam. Nor does understanding how money works in that system, have any importance in politics. The people we elect to congress understand EXACTLY how congress appropriates funding. Those people are not ignorant of how that system works. The assertion that PUBLIC understanding of that system can significantly affect political reality is based entirely on the false premise that the POLITICAL process is designed correctly, to properly represent the public. It was NOT designed to do that, regardless of any possible INTENT to design that purpose into the system. Just as a design for a flying machine based on taping cardboard wings on someone and pushing them off the barn roof DOES NOT WORK, regardless of intent. The DESIGN is flawed. The DESIGN of our constitutional decision process DOES NOT WORK! Regardless of intent. It was DESIGNED wrong. Just because I can say whatever I want, does NOT mean that you can say whatever you want, RIGHT?? Well, Hell no, that's not right. We have EQUAL rights. OK, ya got that? If the decision process does not properly administrate our civil rights equally, then SOMETHING is wrong. We each have an equal civil right to be represented in government. RIGHT??? Yet, if someone is elected as representative for the district YOU live in, and that person is voting in congress in a manner that you disagree with, then YOU are not being represented. Yeah, you VOTED, and the guy you voted for lost. WHICH MEANS YOU ARE NOT BEING REPRESENTED. Period. So wtf just happened to your equal right to be represented?? No, the system is shit people and MMT won't fix that shit. OK, so yeah, maybe we can ignore our individual right to be represented, IF we are properly represented as a majority. Well, wait, what happens in CONGRESS, even if every damn person elected to congress votes without any money or corruption problems and can PROVE that they each voted strictly as the majority of their each district wants? Consider 3 districts, no parties, no money, absolute honest elections and everyone votes. Each district elects a representative and that representative is required, by law to represent the majority of the people in that district. District one, 4999 people said "yes", 5001 said "no". The majority said no. District two, 5003 said "yes", 4997 said "no". The majority said yes. District three, 4999 people said "yes", 5001 said "no". The majority said no. The majority of the people, 15,001 of them said YES! The minority, Only 14,999 said no. The representatives voted two to one and the decision of CONGRESS, was NO. The MAJORITY of the people said YES!! What the hell kind of bullshit system is that, huh?? You tell me. It's all bullshit. Yeah, I am not saying you should not vote. I am saying that you should really think about what the effect of your vote really is, and how we might improve the process so that your vote has the effect you should expect. Our greatest threat and challenge is a flawed decision process. It cannot resolve or manage the most simple problems we face. The BEST we can expect from it, is a new boss not nearly as insane as the last one. The RISK we accept, is that the next boss will be a worse sociopathic monster, than the last one. It's not an acceptable risk. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ even the least educated hick hillbilly mouth breathing moron, can understand the difference between a fair deal, and an unfair deal. That person might be convinced to accept a deal, even an unfair deal, as long as they get the better end of that deal. What they will resent and reject is an unfair deal that ensures they get shafted. it's not an education problem. Trump won, by understanding the inherent flaws in our system, and manipulating those to his benefit. Did he do abhorrent things to get elected, sure. Did some Russian elements support his abhorrence? Sure, but so did British, French, Saudi, Chinese, Korean, Canadian, Mexican, etc etc The truth is that elements from the same nations and others also supported the abhorrent things done by democrats in 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, etc The facts are, that Trump built an organization that used the electoral flaws built into our constitutional process, JUST as every senator, house member, and city council member uses. it's simply absurd to pick out one person, and blame him for the state of our nation. he is an asshole. but the fact that he is simply more of an asshole than past elected officials, does not make those other elected officials less of an asshole than they were, and are. They are RULERS, crowned by our elections to RULE us. THEY make the rules. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Hugz, sometimes it's difficult to find a path from misery. Some times, and for some people, it' simply not possible. Those people, that cannot find a path, are called dead people, and there are a LOT of them. THIS is a typical question: How do we get those currently holding power to allow such a change, since doing so cuts off their gravy train and power going forward? THIS is my answer: Your question assumes we need their permission and/or approval. That assumption simply authorizes them to say no. Don't make that assumption. It's not true. A new process, does not require any permission from the old system. We did not need King George to permit us to create a new nation. We just did it, and when he objected and sent military force to enforce his objection, we kicked their ass. THAT is not the same situation, The people in power now, rely entirely on OUR permission and approval. Once we the people remove that permission and approval, they have NO POWER! NONE. ALL we need is a new process, and to make the decision to use that, instead of what we use today. We need that new process FIRST. The rest will follow. No we will not need to shoot at each other to do it. Yes, there will be people who insist on using violence to oppose the transition. Yes, we will likely need to use violence to end that opposition. I want to make this clear, this will NOT be like every other revolution driven by a small vocal and violent minority pushing a new regime on the public. This REQUIRES that a vast majority of the public want to transition to a new process. get it? Majority. VAST majority. How do we get that vast majority? By offering a NEW PROCESS that is so much better, makes so much sense and works so well, that people WANT to use it. That is my plan. You can sit down, or stand up. if you stand up, you can help me, or oppose me. Shrugz. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I question your premise of taping cardboard wings on Bernie, and kicking him off the barn roof. BERNIE seems like a good guy. Be a shame to watch him fall, due to a flawed process. We could decide to own all land and the oceans collectively, and appropriate lots to people on a lease arrangement. For individuals that lease arrangement is established by becoming a citizen, and the lease is a provided benefit of that citizenship. For business, the lease must be PAID for, and that payment is held in trust escrow, to ensure that the property and resources used by business for profit will be used and returned to natural condition, and that consequence of the use will be insured against liability to the public. I have other ideas about how to manage a two part economic paradigm that includes both social and capital markets, working in cooperation and competition, with the social market in firm control of the decision process used to regulate the behaviors of the capital market. If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! I don't think the people who write legislation should be the same people who enact legislation. Separate the political process from the decision process. If you are as sick of the unending spew of lies, excuses and bullshit coming from our government as I am, and many others, then you need to ask ANY candidate one and only ONE question. "Explain, and be specific, how your election, will cause our constitutional process to accurately and properly represent the majority of our public?" Go for it. ASK! pay strict attention to the question I am asking. It is quite specific, and cannot be honestly answered, by using any process in our current form of government. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If the people have to fight or strike, or revolt or complain, petition or otherwise step outside the decision process to get the government to do what we want, then it's a BAD GOVERNMENT!! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. I am almost becoming more impressed with AOC. She almost "gets" it. Why should she wait to learn how WA DC "works", when she was elected because it DOES NOT WORK?? That's her stance. I agree. She should denounce the system, not agree to it, and LOUDLY! THEN her and I can be allies. Trump has a lot of supporters. Yes, a lot, but no where near a majority. That is important to recognize as the defining factor. The vast majority of people do NOT subscribe to his idiocy and bigotry. It is VITAL to ask the critical questions and to get valid answers. WHAT is the CAUSE of our constitutional process, allowing the use of that system to put that minority of idiocy and bigotry in a position that makes decisions for the majority of us? WHY are we being ruled by a minority? Do you know? I will wager that you do NOT know. The answer is easy to arrive at with logic, reason and reality. It's not money, or corruption or supreme court rulings or gerrymandering, or stupid voters or not enough voters. None of those are the root cause. The root cause is BAD PROCESS!! I can show you. THIS is a typical assertion that I am faced with: "I do not think there can ever be such thing as a Good government unless the people running it are fundamentally Good people. ... Thus, we need to change as a People from being selfish, self centered, uncaring, greedy sociopaths to being Good people, as in people who actually give a crap about each other." This is my response, and I stand here, unmoved by assertions that people are too evil to be involved in government. : Perhaps you might find it helpful to consider, as I do, that "a government", is simply a specified process for making decisions. I understand that different "forms" of government might be considered good or bad, depending on the viewpoint of those affected and involved. For instance a King, in a monarchy, is likely to view that form of government "good", as he benefits from that situation. However the citizens, might disagree, if that king is making decisions that do not benefit them, but rather cause them pain and subjugation. Then again, a benevolent rule, by a monarchy, might have a public that is supportive of that form, if the decisions being made benefit that public. I would like you to consider that it is the specification of process that determines the "form" of government. And it is then, the administration of that specification that is used to determine, from any viewpoint, if that form is "good" or "bad" Therefor it is the administration, that is generally considered to be "good" or "bad", which is where your consideration that good people need to be involved, enters. However, please note that the inclusion of good people being required, relies on whether the process is specified, that causes that requirement. Again, we are left with the true realization that a government of whatever form, is necessarily, simply some process of making decisions. Your view on this matter relies on some assertion, unstated, but implied, that no process can be developed for making decisions that does not rely on "good" people involved in that process. It also implies that such a process cannot be developed that does not limit involvement of the entire public. Then it implies that if such a process were to be implemented, that people are so "bad" that involving the entire public would lead to "bad" government. The conclusive assertion, implicit in that view, is that people are so "bad" that we cannot be allowed to be self governing, but rather must be ruled by "good" people. A contradictory position. We are GOOD people, generally, and the vast majority of us ARE good. We simply require a decision process that allows and encourages us to make decisions that factually represent that good majority. THAT is my view. The PROCESS is flawed, it does not work. it is as reliable and effective as attempting to inflate your flat tire by using your mouth and lungs to blow into the valve stem. It is as reliable and effective as taping cardboard wings to your buddy and kicking them off the barn roof, expecting them to fly, or even glide safely to the ground. It is as reliable and effective as thoughts and prayers. It is as reliable and effective as hoping for a better ruler come next election cycle. IT DOES NOT WORK. If we used a decision process that we the people own and controlled, we could constrain decisions about economy, business, money distribution of resources, etc, to those that BENEFIT the public. ALL of us, instead of the capitalist winners. If we used a rational decision process those capitalists would have NO INFLUENCE that could be used to bias the results, against the public. We could CONTROL capital market forces, use them for GOOD, just as we use FIRE, uncontrolled wild fires are really really bad, but the barbecue, cheery campfire, or candles at dinner are VERY valuable and helpful to us. It is that capitalism is not being controlled and constrained to purposes which serve the public, that is the problem. It is that we cannot make decisions to use our resources to care about people, but must compete with each other for benefit. The ROOT PROBLEM IS THAT FLAWED DECISION PROCESS! False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If the people have to fight or strike, or revolt or complain, petition or otherwise step outside the decision process to get the government to do what we want, then it's a BAD GOVERNMENT!! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. Our constitutional decision process hard at work, failing to manage or solve the problems we face as communities, nations and species. OPEN MESSAGE TO THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The decisions that are being made do NOT represent us, the people, the majority public of our Nation. Whatever reasons or causes you wish to attribute to this circumstance; Money in elections, Lobbyists, Gerrymandering, Party politics, Etc. ad nauseum, FIX IT! If you cannot, FINE, admit your abject failures, then GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY! Sincerely , an angry and frustrated CITIZEN! https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Demand the TRUTH. If we are NOT being represented, then this ain't a republic. Remember, it was supposed to work, no matter who we elected. The founders indicated they were concerned with a tyranny of the majority, so they created a process administering a tyranny of the minority. Wanna fix stuff. Ask the hard questions. Don't accept lies excuses and bullshit as answers. NO ONE should have "free" college. We should PAY people to learn higher education, and lower education, and trade skills, and basic education , this is absolute NUTZ. We can PAY people to learn. We can PAY people to get health care. We can PAY people for child care.| We can PAY people for participating in society!!!! YOU may not know how to do that, which means that you should prolly shut up and LISTEN!!! The use of capital markets alone, is not sufficient. We must use social markets as well. The use of social markets alone is not sufficient either. Maybe you cannot understand why, but it is the truth. There is no such thing as a free value. That is a contradiction, it presumes that a value has no value, which is incorrect. "Historically, the most terrible things — war, genocide, and slavery — have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience." – Howard Zinn Maybe if we understood how flawed our constitutional decision process, really is, then we would no longer be surprised at this circumstance, but rather angry and committed to fixing it. "It is bad process. The PROCESS is "corrupt" I know there are bad people. If the process was good, it would handle those bad people correctly. It did not. The process failed to handle those bad people correctly. It invited those bad people in, fed them dinner, served them drinks and serviced them with prostitutes and put them into positions of power and authority." The CULT OF CONSTITUTION: They use ignorance and lies as arguments, and assert persecution of their insanity as a defense of their insanity. It's like a religious disease. They have renounced the use of reason. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I am encouraging people to THINK. Why do we vote? To be represented in our government. If that vote does not factually result in our representation, as individuals or as a nation, it's a waste of our time, and we should come up with some OTHER process for making decisions. BUT, people are welcome to vote all they want. REPUBLIC: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people" so I call BULLSHIT. If the system does NOT represent the public with accuracy and integrity, then we are not holding the supreme power or authority, and it ain't a damn republic. Some may feel comfortable eating dog shit that someone convinced them is hamburger, but NOT ME. It's dog shit. Lies, excuses and bullshit, and I am sick of it. NO, just NO. Reject the shit show circus. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. A republic REQUIRES representation, it's NOT optional. I know that MOST people respond by claiming that we use elected representatives to govern ourselves. We DO elect people. BUT if they don't factually represent us, then they are NOT representatives, so we do NOT use elected representatives. We just elect rulers... It's idiocy and 1984 Orwellian doublethink bullshit! OPEN MESSAGE TO THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The decisions that are being made do NOT represent us, the people, the majority public of our Nation. Whatever reasons or causes you wish to attribute to this circumstance; Money in elections, Lobbyists, Gerrymandering, Party politics, Etc. ad nauseum, FIX IT! If you cannot, FINE, admit your abject failures, then GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY! Sincerely , an angry and frustrated CITIZEN! YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Do you think we need a revolution? yep, not a violent revolution. a revolution in mind, a revolution in how we think about government. Structure and purpose, and the measure of how it succeeds or fails. STOP agreeing that our system succeeds just because some person wins an election. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If our government cared what the majority of us want, things would be different. But, that is not how our constitutional process works. The key concept we need to consider to resolve this "money" problem, is to change who is making the decisions about "money". Is that us? Is that "we the people"? If it's not, then that is the resolution that needs to be enacted. WE THE PEOPLE, need to be making decisions about "money". As long as the rich elites are making those decisions, WE LOSE, THEY WIN. If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. It's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ What are laws for? In some cases, laws authorize society to implement social benefit, such as building a road, or providing water, or legal protections from predatory groups or individuals. In other cases, Laws constrain behaviors, to a point. Past that point they allow society to impose artificial consequences on law breakers that may, (or may not), prevent that offender from further abuses of their freedom to behave in manners that society has agreed to disallow. In other cases, laws may be used by a state, to authorize abuse of the public, or some segment of public. In any case, government is the process used to make decisions about the circumstances prompting the enactment of laws. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ EVERYONE means EVERYONE, even racists, nazis, and people you disagree with. Get it??? EVERYONE, yes, including capitalist pigs. E V E R Y O N E !!!!!!!!!! (can't figure out how to do that? Then MAYBE you should shut up and LISTEN!!!!) I expect government to do it's primary job, which is to administer a rational decision process that encourages us, as a public, to consider, deliberate and implement solutions to the problems we face as a community nation and species. Why we gotta FIGHT GOVERNMENT, if WE are the government?? Huh??? Well?????? Whenever direct democracy is brought up for consideration and discussion, a LOT of people start yelling about "Tyranny of Majority". (MOB RULE, shudder!) I am concerned about the "tyranny of majority" as well. HOWEVER there is a PROPER process for handling that. Demand the TRUTH. If we are NOT being represented, then this ain't a republic. Remember, it was supposed to work, no matter who we elected. The founders indicated they were concerned with a tyranny of the majority, so they created a process administering a tyranny of the minority. I understand WHY we need to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The METHOD of doing that is to protect civil rights. That is the job of the Supreme Court. If congress, (properly representing the majority of public), enacts a law that infringes on the rights of a minority, (individuals are the most vulnerable minority), the court is supposed to rule that the law is illegal. That is NOT the role of Congress, CONGRESS is required to reliably represent the majority in it's decisions, and it does NOT. The system simply does NOT WORK. If the people owned the government, we could make decisions that constrained corporate profit opportunities to those that benefit the public. 4 branch implements PROPER constraint of mob rule, and prevents tyranny of majority by using a judicial process adjudicating legality of proposed law, BEFORE it is enacted. I expect government to do it's primary job, which is to administer a rational decision process that encourages us, as a public, to consider, deliberate and implement solutions to the problems we face as a community nation and species. Why we gotta FIGHT GOVERNMENT, if WE are the government?? Huh??? Well?????? False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ They keep pretending that it is true, that our government relies on public approval or permission for the acts of atrocity those people perpetrate against humanity. IT'S A LIE. Who is telling you that lie? NOT ME! Get it? If the public majority had any control, we would not have to fight our government constantly to get any public service or benefit from their decisions. If the people owned the government, we could make decisions that constrained corporate profit opportunities to those that benefit the public. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I understand democracy. That means everyone gets a say. That does not mean everyone gets their way. I understand that PERFECTLY. However if I don't get my say, then this ain't a democracy. And if the person who is elected to represent me is making decisions that I do not agree with, then I am NOT GETTING MY SAY. It's a REALLY simple concept. Too hard for some to grasp from their cloud of delusion, I suppose. It is absurd to say that someone that makes a decision that I disagree with is representing me. ABSURD. I will not allow it. PERIOD. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to commit atrocity. I am DONE being involved in the commission of atrocity. This is not a damn democracy and it ain't a republic either. They used the constitution to create, enforce, and justify the current laws, rules, and state of affairs. To suggest that the constitution is some kind of solution in the face of reality, is simply absurd. Our constitution authorizes the people in power to do what they are doing. Our constitution is the PROBLEM, not a solution. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. There are so many dicks in that pot, I don't trust ANY legislation, no matter who wrote the original draft. Say Bernie writes a draft that requires business to publish donations to campaigns. By the time that bill gets to a vote, it became a suggestion that business inform the legislator they are donating to, and then adds 14 billion to pay for NSA spy programs, defunds a VA program, authorizes police to stop and frisk anyone anywhere, repaints the senate bathrooms, adds glycol phosphate to bread, and authorizes the EPA to fine any auto owner that owns a car more than 10 years old. Now, the bill fails to pass, and BOTH sides claim victory, and gain political points for fighting for good stuff their constituents might agree with, and for voting AGAINST stuff their constituents would not agree with. THAT is exactly how congress as a whole, gets single digit approval rating, but individual congress members get HIGH approval ratings. It's a damn circus run by lunatics with goons and guns. Any VOTE validates and authorizes the continued nonsense and corruption. By voting YOU are responsible for their atrocities and idiocy. By the way, please note, that what I just described is absolutely true, AND absolutely legal. Our current constitution not only allows this behavior it fucking REQUIRES it. It's NOT intelligent. It is a LIAR, it makes up shit and tosses it up like a stream of hopeful vomit. It is a LARGE LANGUAGE LIAR MODEL. It's not artificial, not any more artificial than a text editor program , or a mp3 player. It's not intelligent, it has no capacity to understand any aspect of you, or itself. It's simply a tool, for telling LIES!!! LOL I am not going to beg excuses for my language here. I am PISSED OFF!! Do you agree that we should not be hurting or killing children? Are you CERTAIN, that a vast majority of people, (all over the earth), ALSO agree? OK, so there is a place to start. Do you agree that we should not be supporting, with money, or political influence, military involvement or moral uncertainty, people that DO HURT OR KILL CHILDREN??? Yeah. Sooooo....... If the fucking process we use for making decisions, is so fucking great, then WHY THE FUCK, are we hurting and killing children? Why the FUCK are we supporting those other people who hurt and kill children??? WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE!!!!! I am SICK of supporting that damn system. I am SICK of idiot assholes insisting that the system fucking works. I am DONE supporting, and allowing atrocity, just because a few rich assholes figured out the fucking SYSTEM does not work. I am DONE supporting and allowing deluded assholes selling my consent as if they fucking own it. I do NOT consent. To suggest that the constitution is some kind of solution in the face of reality, is simply absurd. Our constitution authorizes the people in power to do what they are doing. Our constitution is the PROBLEM, not a solution. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. If the people owned the government, we could make decisions that constrained corporate profit opportunities to those that benefit the public. In any case, it's about decision process. https://45ink.com/wp/peace-talks/ https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I would suggest that we agree on what that word, "represent" means, before we go on to discuss whether any aspect of current so called republics fulfill that meaning to any significant degree. In the context of legal use, (which is being used when we discuss 'government'), and outside a context of a person unable to consent or agree or disagree, a citizen can only be 'represented' by another person, while the representative, factually presents consent, decisions or views that the person being represented, agrees to or consents to. That is a very very narrow meaning, in legal terms, to protect people within a legal system from, wait for it..... MISREPRESENTATION! So, which is being foisted on citizens of republics modeled on elected representatives? Representation or misrepresentation? If you had a car, and sometimes it goes reverse, when you put it drive, sometimes it goes forward when you put it in reverse, you would not say that the car "works". You would demand that it get "fixed". You would not argue with the passengers about which of you is to blame for the problem. That is about where we are at with our government. Yet all you want to do is argue about who is to blame. I'll tell you who is to blame, the people who designed and built the damn thing. I AM voting, nearly every day, I vote to consider, develop, test and implement a BETTER form of making decisions for community, nation and species. THAT is my vote. YOU seem to be voting against that. Consider that , because it is true. The politicians and media love to insist that regardless of how bad the results get, you are limited to the choices they make for you. I say NO. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ OPEN MESSAGE TO THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The decisions that are being made do NOT represent us, the people, the majority public of our Nation. Whatever reasons or causes you wish to attribute to this circumstance; Money in elections, Lobbyists, Gerrymandering, Party politics, Etc. ad nauseum, FIX IT! If you cannot, FINE, admit your abject failures, then GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY! Sincerely , an angry and frustrated CITIZEN! We don't need a new president. YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Why would you participate in such a fraudulent and flawed process? I figured out what the problem is a few years ago, before Obama was elected. I knew something was seriously wrong when Nixon was still in office. It's not hard to figure out if you demand honesty from your own thinking about the system. It's about representation. What the word, means, and what the process does wrong to administer your representation. IF, you think I am fighting bad government to save your sorry lazy silly ass from your bad government, THEN, You are still deluded and confused.. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ When people say that we get the government we elect, respond: NO, we DO NOT!!! THAT is the damn lie! The damn POLITICAL SYSTEM does NOT represent or administer the public majority!!!! It simply DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!! YOU don't need a new president. YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ You keep making the same mistake, over and over and over. That mistake is the presumption that the political system works the way you think it does, as if your voting within that system means a damn thing. Remember a young lady named Greta? Attend carefully. I am using precise language. I agree with Greta Thunberg. We need to start making decisions to address and manage or solve the problems we face arising from climate disruptions. It seems unlikely that the Sept 20, 2019 climate strike protests around the world, will significantly change the behavior of your governments long term, beyond several months. Note, that I did NOT say that the protests have no value. I said those protests will not change anything of significance in your governments decisions. What WILL change is some greater awareness of you people that your governments are too dysfunctional to be relevant in this issue. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. OPEN MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE ELECTED AS REPRESENTATIVES OF EVERY GOVERNMENT: The decisions that are being made do NOT represent us, the people, the majority public of our Nation. Whatever reasons or causes you wish to attribute to this circumstance; Money in elections, Lobbyists, Gerrymandering, Party politics, Etc. ad nauseum, FIX IT! If you cannot, FINE, admit your abject failures, then GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY! Sincerely , an angry and frustrated CITIZEN! YOU don't need a new president. YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ You keep making the same mistake, over and over and over. That mistake is the presumption that the political system works the way you think it does, as if your voting within that system means a damn thing. If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. Our greatest threat and challenge is a flawed decision process. It cannot resolve or manage the most simple problems we face. The BEST we can expect from it, is a new boss not nearly as insane as the last one. The RISK we accept, is that the next boss will be a worse sociopathic monster, than the last one. It's not an acceptable risk. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ If you had a car, and sometimes it goes reverse, when you put it drive, sometimes it goes forward when you put it in reverse, you would not say that the car "works". You would demand that it get "fixed". You would not argue with the passengers about which of you is to blame for the problem. That is about where we are at with our government. Yet all you want to do is argue about who is to blame. I'll tell you who is to blame, the people who designed and built the damn thing. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ When people say that we get the government we elect, respond: NO, we DO NOT!!! THAT is the damn lie! The damn POLITICAL SYSTEM does NOT represent or administer the public majority!!!! It simply DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!! YOU don't need a new president. YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ You keep making the same mistake, over and over and over. That mistake is the presumption that the political system works the way you think it does, as if your voting within that system means a damn thing. I understand why many people have opinions on many things. However that is a totally different subject than what I am promoting. Hmmm, The views are not complex, actually, Each person has a view of matters from their perception of their own best interest. That is a key component of a decision process. Understanding that reality is TRUE. It's not an opinion. It's a fact of human existence. Nor is a process, complex, by which decisions can be made by majority rule, while using that fact stated above, as the means of constraint. Few people are going to agree that 10 boys should be allowed to "vote" to take away another boys bicycle. Not because they want to be one of the 10 boys, but because they can easily imagine being the OTHER boy. Make that determination legally precedent in the decision process, and BOOM, no tyranny of majority. I understand PROCESS!!! I know how to write process, I understand how to debug process, I understand how to error check process. People who understand process are the same people who come up with great recipes, and great computer programs, they streamline production in business. We are at a critical time in human social development, when much of the population is informed, or at least has access to information. OUR DECISION PROCESS no longer even creates the illusion of proper representation. The people who came up with that process TRIED, and FAILED, to provide a representative government. Absent that representation, there is NO ECONOMIC knowledge that can resolve that failure to make representative decisions. That does not mean that some elected person might make, or not make, decisions that YOU agree with. Which is THE problem. If we rely on that process, you may get someone that implements YOUR goals and ideas. BUT you may not, because the NEXT election, might put someone in that position of authority that tears down that decision and takes away all your gains. However, if we used a decision process that factually represents the entire public properly, the only time such decisions are going to be reversed, is if we OBVIOUSLY made a huge mistake, and the majority of us agree that it WAS a mistake. Oh well, shrugz. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I am going to announce my candidacy for Federal House representative for my district in the state of WASHINGTON. I promise to support every act or measure that you oppose, and to oppose every act or measure that you support. That is my promise. Now, please explain to me why you would agree that I am YOUR representative. Isn't that simply absurd? Yes, yes it is. We need a rational decision process. Obviously the decisions being made by our current governments are not what the majority of the human population agree with. Why are we using a decision process that represents the rich minority? The founders indicated they were concerned with a tyranny of the majority, so they created a process administering a tyranny of the minority. I understand WHY we need to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The METHOD of doing that is to protect civil rights. That is the job of the Supreme Court. If congress, (properly representing the majority of public), enacts a law that infringes on the rights of a minority, (individuals are the most vulnerable minority), the court is supposed to rule that the law is illegal. That is NOT the role of Congress, CONGRESS is required to reliably represent the majority in it's decisions, and it does NOT. The system simply does NOT WORK. If the people owned the government, we could make decisions that constrained corporate profit opportunities to those that benefit the public. 4 branch implements PROPER constraint of mob rule, and prevents tyranny of majority by using a judicial process adjudicating legality of proposed law, BEFORE it is enacted. I expect government to do it's primary job, which is to administer a rational decision process that encourages us, as a public, to consider, deliberate and implement solutions to the problems we face as a community nation and species. Why we gotta FIGHT GOVERNMENT, if WE are the government?? Huh??? Well?????? False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Billionaires exist because we use a dysfunctional decision process. If our government actually functioned properly, business would never have had an opportunity to control public policy or decisions. It was a failure, a flaw of government that allowed this to happen. It was not a failure of the public, we used all the tools and processes available to us in our constitution, to no avail. The checks and balances provided and required by our constitution simply failed to deliver the equitable self governance promised by the Declaration of Independence. Failure, not success. It was flawed from the moment it was ratified. It will continue to fail as long as it is left in current form. The process outlined in that document is flawed. The INTENTION is correct, but the mechanics don't work. It's as if they made a wheel octagonal, not round. It NEEDS to be round. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, generally, have a slightest clue what a democracy or a republic actually is. It ain't democracy, and it ain't no damn republic neither. It's a clown show in a shit circus. WISDOM is seeing the flaw in the decision process that led to the installment of evil to power in Pre-war Germany and seeing the same damn flaw in our OWN decision process. " Democratic socialism " IS Capitalism in sheep's clothing. You first have to have a DEMOCRACY ! Consider 3 districts, no parties, no money, absolute honest elections and everyone votes. Each district elects a representative and that representative is required, by law to represent the majority of the people in that district. District one, two people said "yes", one said "no". The majority said YES. District two, two said "yes", one said "no". The majority said YES. District three, zero people said "yes", three said "no". The majority said no. The majority of the people, FIVE of them said NO! The minority, Only FOUR said YES. The representatives voted two to one and the decision of CONGRESS, was YES. The MAJORITY of the people said NO!! What the hell kind of bullshit system is that, huh?? You tell me. your inability to see and reason with the futility of pushing on a rope to move a load, is beyond me. Sorry, you cannot convince me that any behavior WITHIN our constitutional decision process can resolve the abject failures of that system to represent us properly. It is NOT possible. We could do that OUTSIDE our constitutional process, but not by pushing on that rope. No matter who wins the election, the human species loses. Stop voting to put people into positions of power and authority to make decisions on your behalf, with no further consent required. It's like agreeing to go on a date, requires you to have sex. it's idiocy. The big lie, is that our constitutional decision process, accurately and reliably represents the majority of our citizens. That false premise and faith, is the ROOT cause of our governments inability to resolve or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Money is simply a conceptual tool of accounting for value. It can be used in various ways, to accomplish good or evil. There is a process used to make decisions about those uses. That process, is government. If we want to seriously consider which decisions would best serve the capital market, AND a social market, then the first step is to establish a decision process, that properly represents all of us. Votes for a candidate do not assure, nor require that the decisions made by that candidate actually represent those who did vote for that candidate. One of the cognitive mistakes people make when supporting the flawed process we use. It's simply not true, regardless of who wins an election. Until we have that proper representation, all of our discussions about those matters, is moot and irrelevant. Entertaining, amusing, informative, yes, but ultimately worthless, absent a decision process that brings us all to the process as equals. That is my solid stance. Votes for a candidate do not assure, nor require that the decisions made by that candidate actually represent those who did vote for that candidate. One of the cognitive mistakes people make when supporting the flawed process we use. It's simply not true, regardless of who wins an election. I see the root cause, is that the people do not own the means of decision. IF WE DID, we could decide to use "money" to benefit the public.. Money is simply a conceptual tool of accounting for value. It can be used in various ways, to accomplish good or evil. There is a process used to make decisions about those uses. That process, is government. If we want to seriously consider which decisions would best serve the capital market, AND a social market, then the first step is to establish a decision process, that properly represents all of us. Until we have that proper representation, all of our discussions about those matters, is moot and irrelevant. Entertaining, amusing, informative, yes, but ultimately worthless, absent a decision process that brings us all to the process as equals. That is my solid stance. Stop voting to put people into positions of power and authority to make decisions on your behalf, with no further consent required. It's like agreeing to go on a date, requires you to have sex. it's idiocy. The big lie, is that our constitutional decision process, accurately and reliably represents the majority of our citizens. That false premise and faith, is the ROOT cause of our governments inability to resolve or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Votes for a candidate do not assure, nor require that the decisions made by that candidate actually represent those who did vote for that candidate. One of the cognitive mistakes people make when supporting the flawed process we use. It's simply not true, regardless of who wins an election. If taxation is your BEST plan for providing benefit to those disadvantaged by capital market oppression, then I am rather certain you are not intelligent enough to discuss alternatives with reason and fact of evidence. If the limit of your ability to conceive of funding paradigms for public benefits begins and ends with taxation, your further input is simply no longer relevant. You just want to echo the nonsense in your own little echo chamber that you agreed to be locked into. "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" (1984, George Orwell, Chapter two, Part 3) Them: I am voting for a progressive, to change the system. Me: Not really, you are pushing on a rope, and expecting different results. "You will be represented by a person elected, and that person will make decisions with or without your agreement or consent." IT IS TRUE, that a person making decisions you do not agree with is your representative. IT IS TRUE, that Your agreement is not required by your representative. How many fingers do YOU see? If that is true, then please explain to us, what misrepresentation is. Please. Consider this situation. A person is working at a business that has announced that it will host a lunch freebie for all employees. The management tells the workers they can choose to have burgers or pizza. That is the choice presented to the employees, burgers or pizza. The business has 137 employees. 5 departments. Production has 45 employees. Management has 38 employees. Advertising has 22 employees. Warehouse and shipping has 19 employees. Research and development has 13 employees. Management tells each department to elect a representative to tell management what their department chooses. Production votes 23-22 for pizza. Management votes 20-18 for pizza. Advertising votes 12-10 for pizza. Warehouse votes 3-16 for burgers. Research votes 6-7 for burgers. Management tallies the representative votes, and the count is 3-2 for pizza. However, once management tells the workers that they voted for pizza, someone says, "Wait a minute. NO, we did NOT vote for pizza. 73 of us voted for burgers, and only 64 of us voted for pizza." The decision made by the PROCESS that management specified, DOES NOT REPRESENT THE TRUE CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEES. That PROCESS is flawed! The same damn process specified in our own damn constitution. FLAWED, Fraudulent. MISREPRESENTATIVE. https://www.45ink.com/repfraud2.png You agreed to a decision process that elects people to positions of power and authority then act all butt hurt when they realize you just made them rulers, not representatives? Seriously? How silly are you? I think it's important to recognize and to assert in rebuttal, to every attempt to frame them as "representative", that they can ONLY "represent" the people that agree with them on any particular decision. THAT is what a representative does. The REST of us are being MISREPRESENTED!!!! Which is the core root problem with our form of government. I would like you to consider the futility of taking over the means of production, then handing the means of decision to the same people who enjoy the benefit of making decisions to control the means of production for personal profit. I have no problem with allowing them to demonstrate the idiocy of capitalism, and failing at their game, when they finally realize that their game is only fun, as long as they have a virtual unlimited number of captive victims. I actually enjoy the thought of them finding themselves locked, by their own idiocy into a system that enjoys grinding people up for profits. It's amusing. They can eat themselves, I have no taste for their absurdities. Just turned 18? Thinking about changing the world with your vote? We "boomers" were telling the assholes in power, 60 years ago, exactly what you are telling us now. Most of us gave up as well. how did that work out for ya? The process of discussion about problems, and the potential solutions available, is what we define as politics. in that sense, we NEED politics. We need to consider problems, and discuss solutions. HOWEVER, at some point all that talk is simply a waste of time, and we need to make a DECISION! Those two conceptual goals are different. The PROCESS used for each needs to be separate as well. The process we use for discussion needs to be SEPARATED, from the process of making a decision ABOUT the matter we just discussed. The problem with "politics" as it is specified and used today, in the US, (and many nations, states counties and cities), is that the same process is used to do BOTH jobs, which just confuses nearly every issue and discussion with nonsense, bullshit and idiocy, as polarized loyalties to artificial and irrelevant positions of people attempting to win positions of power and authority over the public. Yeah, what we use is such a clown show in a shit circus, that it's almost useless as a rational tool the public can use to make decisions about solving or managing the problems we face as nations, communities, and species. The entire pot stinks, and throwing in a fresh vegetable won't change that stink. HOW did those people with money manage to get influence in our decision process? That is the real question. The answer is that our form of government not only allows that corruption, it invites it in and serves it dinner and buys it a few prostitutes. Our constitution does that. Not, "we the people". We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. 4 Branch government: A brief outline: The executive branch filters problems. The legislative branch proposes solutions to the problems sent by the executive branch. The Judicial branch determines if the bill proposed by the legislative branch would be legal, if enacted. The executive branch then determines if the proposed bill is plausible and cost accurate. Then the public branch decides whether to enact that bill into law. It's that simple. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ Maybe you think money is the root of evil, or that love of money is the root of evil. money simply uses numbers as an accounting of value. no love there at all. The love of value is what you are complaining about, which is kinda silly, because your desire for value is what drives your animosity of others who enjoy value you do not have access to. DECISIONS! WHO makes those decisions? Who is NOT included in making decisions? THE process we use for making those decisions. The IDIOCY of using a FLAWED and FRAUDULENT decision process. Shall I continue?? What I find infuriating and frustrating is the inability of the smartest people on earth, to connect the dysfunction of our current government systems, with those systems consistently demonstrating the inability to resolve or manage the problems we face as community, nation and species. If it was working, if that process of systems was WORKING, then we would be solving and managing those problems, instead of watching our existence spiral into extinction and irrelevance. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The solution is found in the steps of investigation of current systems that demonstrate the points of flawed process. 1. A representative democracy, which is a republic, MUST properly represent the public in the decision process. 2. That decision process MUST be constrained by prior and legally precedent decisions BY the public concerning the protection of civil rights of individuals and every minority greater than an individual. 3. That decision process must be structured and arranged such that no small group has any authority to over ride those public decisions. It's not that complicated. How do we get there? Step one, STOP promoting, advocating, supporting and defending the flawed process we use now. Step two, START demanding that we begin developing a NEW process. Step three, consider the proposed processes that emerge from that development and TEST them for function and ruggedness in real life circumstance. Step four, promote and defend the emerging process for live testing. Step five, understand reality, NOTHING we do today and in our near term future, within 5 to 10 years is going to magically solve the deep and pervasive mire of corrupt mess, and social and eco damage resulting from our current and past adherence to that failed process. The ship has hit that iceberg, the damage is done, and cannot be "repaired", we need lifeboats and those lifeboats must contain the knowledge of what past mistakes were, and the seeds of the new knowledge of what does work, so that new ships can be built in our future, if such a future is possible. To have "hope" that there is some miracle cure, such as getting rid of Trump, is simply muddy thinking and erroneous idiocy that distracts from the clear and obvious best path forward. The system we use now CANNOT be used to fix itself, it is simply impossible. I could easily write a computer program that is flawed in a manner that about 99% of the people that looked at the code could not even begin to figure out what I wrote that went wrong. I could JUST as easily write computer code that has no errors in logic or function, but accomplishes nothing useful. I could also write code that looks like it does something cool, while it erases all your data. If you don't even understand the damn process we use for current government, you have no hope of making any changes that would fix it. 99% of you. Not a damn clue. The majority of people are deluded, by the lies we were told about the decision process we use as specified in our constitution. The lies are absurd, once critical thinking is applied to the base premises of that process. And people who can be convinced to accept absurdity can be easily convinced to accept atrocity. You agreed to a decision process that elects people to positions of power and authority then act all butt hurt when they realize you just made them rulers, not representatives? Seriously? How silly are you? A republic requires two things. If we had a republic, our constitution would specify these two things: First, that the public has the ultimate authority, which is obviously untrue. That specified process distributes all the decision authority to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, none left over for the public. Second, a republic requires that the public is represented, reliably, accurately and with integrity, and again, that is obviously untrue. Shrugz The majority of people are deluded, by the lies we were told about the decision process we use as specified in our constitution. The lies are absurd, once critical thinking is applied to the base premises of that process. And people who can be convinced to accept absurdity can be easily convinced to accept atrocity. You agreed to a decision process that elects people to positions of power and authority then act all butt hurt when *they* realize you just made them *rulers*, not representatives! Seriously? How silly are you? People do not want to consider the possibility, that "we" did not survive the other hominid species. "We", may have merely passed certain mental abilities to another hominid species, before "We", went extinct. The USA has a traditional celebration. It is advertised as some kind of honor to the tribes that assisted some colonists early in our conquest and rape of their peoples, lands and cultures. It seems to be a sick and false narrative, like much of the USA. Trump was not "elected" by the public. He was elected by the elites, using the electoral college process as specified in our constitution. The same idiotic constitution they used to resist admitting that women, native tribes, and africans were human. The same constitution they used to pass laws allowing them to determine what national security interests are defined as, (corporate profit opportunities) The same constitution that divides up all of the power and authority between the three branches, executive, legislative and judicial, and left NONE for the public. The same constitution, too many people will insist we must protect and defend at all costs, even if it kills us, all. And you continue to insist that we continue to use the system that we are required to fight against? I am not that stupid. :-) ❝It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.❞ —Jiddu Krishnamurti Technically the problem is not capitalism, but rather that we use a decision process that puts the authority to make social decisions in the hands of capitalists. If you don't think they will let us change our decision process, what makes you think they will let you take away their money? AND, if we don't change our decision process, then THEY make the decisions and they sure as hell won't decide to give you their money. We need to participate, by considering, developing, testing and demonstrating new decision process. I know there are people celebrating the impeachment today. Some are loyal democrats, but many are woke people hoping this can start a new revolution. It won't. It's the beginning of a civil war, which is another beast entirely. You should understand the difference. There is a civil war on our horizon, between "republicans" and "democrats". This action by our government today is one of the opening salvos of that war. Shots have been fired in previous action, real shots, people dead. It's coming. There is no voting we, the people can do, to prevent it. Unfortunately many of the Serbs, Muslims and Croatians felt just as we do, before the nation of Bosnia fell into their own civil war. And it did not change their fate one iota. I remember who survived, and thrived during civil wars. I remember which segments suffered and died. I just ain't afraid of being dead. I'm just angry. "Leader" implies power and authority, and if you insist on giving others power and authority, then it's pretty obvious you do not comprehend "power and authority". Deral F. Fenderson: "When you can look at the world around you, see all the people that are suffering, and then sleep soundly at night because it’s all “part of God’s plan,” then your brain is fucked." If you insist on using the inside of the box you were locked into as a child, by the same people that lied to you about santa claus, then there really is no evidence of fact or reason I can present you with that changes your view of the inside of that box. I get it. :-) Once again for people who will try to convince you that Power equals Wealth. Wealth controls power. Wealth is what creates power. sigh, no, i have taken wealth from people. I had power, they had wealth, and after i robbed them, i had power and their wealth. stop believing nonsense. If you don't think they will let us change our decision process, what makes you think they will let you take away their money? AND, if we don't change our decision process, then THEY make the decisions and they sure as hell won't decide to give you their money. We need to participate, by considering, developing, testing and demonstrating new decision process. Here is a fun question to ask conservatives: Would you still love the constitution, if congress repealed the 2nd amendment? Trump supporters remind me of Darth Vader following the Emperor even after knowing his sinister ways Not just trump supporters though. EVERY person that agrees to the continued use of our constitutional decision process consents to being responsible for the consequences of the decisions made by president, congress and the courts. One of the common arguments against democracy is that it is like 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. But that is a lie. The better comparison would be 3 wolves and 100 million sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. (Hint, the wolves would not be able to kill the sheep, for profit, fun, or dinner. Nor would the wolves be able to incite the sheep to kill each other, so the wolves can feast on the carnage.) What our constitutional decision process does, is to install the three wolves as representatives of the sheep, then the wolves vote on what to eat for dinner. THINK about that. EVERY person that agrees to the continued use of our constitutional decision process consents to being responsible for the consequences of the decisions made by president, congress and the courts. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. 4 branch decision process as used for a form of government factually is a constitutional republic, AND a constitutional representative democracy, AND a constitutional direct democracy. It is all three of those, at once, for every citizen, BECAUSE it is based on reality truth and factual evidence. it is not based on a reliance on false premise and fraudulent intention. It is not some attempt to gain and maintain control of decision process for some or any small group of people. It distributes the power and authority to make decisions across the entire public equally. Interested in 4 branch? Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, generally, have a slightest clue what a democracy or a republic actually is. It ain't democracy, and it ain't no damn republic neither. It's a clown show in a shit circus. WISDOM is seeing the flaw in the decision process that led to the installment of evil to power in Pre-war Germany and seeing the same damn flaw in our OWN decision process. The question being, of whether the person elected to represent you in our government, does in fact properly represent you. I want you to imagine that your stupid neighbor, disagrees with your view on EVERY resolution and issue. Regardless of what you think, your dumb neighbor disagrees with you. You BOTH voted in the election of that person that was elected to congress. If you voted for that person, then your neighbor voted against that person. If you voted against that person, then your neighbor voted FOR that person. With all that said, we should now agree that BOTH you and your neighbor have equal claim of a constitutional right of proper representation. That is an important point to recognize. Our constitution claims to protect your right to be properly represented in government. It either SUCCEEDS in providing that proper representation, to EVERYONE equally, or it does NOT. It does not matter, if YOU are represented, if your neighbor is NOT being represented. Just because you have a say, does not mean that you get your way. BUT, our constitution states that every person is treated equally under the law. Which means that if you get YOUR say, then your neighbor ALSO has the right to have HIS say, even if you don't agree with his view. THAT is what I want you to really think about. Our constitution either works, properly, or it does not. Is it even POSSIBLE for that election of that person to congress to PROPERLY represent both you and your neighbor, equally? No. it is NOT. Therefor the process specified in our constitution fails to provide a method of equal rights to all people. FAILS, in a core premise, FAILS to actualize the core principle of law it was claimed to properly administer. I have no interest in any "love it or leave it" or "It's the best there is" nonsense. It FAILS, and to simply ignore that fact is an absurdity that MUST change, before any attempt to use any system of governance. Electing individuals as representatives, FAILS, at the the core premise of providing representation. Consider 3 districts, no parties, no money, absolute honest elections and everyone votes. Each district elects a representative and that representative is required, by law to represent the majority of the people in that district. District one, two people said "yes", one said "no". The majority said YES. District two, two said "yes", one said "no". The majority said YES. District three, zero people said "yes", three said "no". The majority said no. The majority of the people, FIVE of them said NO! The minority, Only FOUR said YES. The representatives voted two to one and the decision of CONGRESS, was YES. The MAJORITY of the people said NO!! What the hell kind of bullshit system is that, huh?? You tell me. The big lie, is that our constitutional decision process, accurately and reliably represents the majority of our citizens. That false premise and faith, is the ROOT cause of our governments inability to resolve or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted? No? Perhaps you should. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ This is my problem, I would appreciate it, if you consider this your problem as well. How, does an agreement, to accept that a person making decisions on my behalf, that I do not agree with and do not consent to, results in my representation as a citizen? Allow me to expand on this problem, beyond me as an individual, and apply it to us, as a public. How, does an agreement to accept a decision, made by a congress that the public disagrees with and does not consent to, result in our representation as a union? The ONLY possible way to justify such a state of affairs, is to assert that representation, requires no agreement and no consent. Which is the Orwellian lie, propounded by our constitutional decision process. It requires that the public agree, that representation, is factually exactly equal to misrepresentation. I am simply rejecting that as idiocy, and I would suggest that you get in front of me on that matter, before that matter tramples you and everyone you love and everything you care about. You keep evading the issue. Typical. The issue is whether our constitution factually specifies a republic, a representative democracy or not. You insist that it does. I am providing evidence of fact and reason to demonstrate that it does not. It was and is, based on lies, excuses and bullshit. I can accept that the founders pressed for time and lacking technology of fast communication, cobbled up stuff the best they could come up with under the circumstances. I can allow some consideration that they had no intention of instituting bad process. In fact, the inclusion of the articles of amendment, and the inclusion of article 5 fairly demonstrates they were well aware that the process had serious problems that later generations would need to refine and fix. YOU on the other hand deserve no such consideration. YOU are simply arguing idiocy for the sake of preserving your unfounded religious fervor for that flawed, failing and fraudulent process. I have no sympathy nor respect for such ignorant antics of more lies, excuses and bullshit. I suggest that you reconsider what democracy is, and then compare that against what we got, before we go blaming democracy for psychopathic results. We were told that by voting to elect people to congress we would be properly represented, and that is a lie. I see many people who continually propose that we get rid of the bums in government. There seems to be a continuous opposition to the idea that the "bums" are not the problem, and that the system they are promoted into is what is failing them and us. I argue that we have swapped people out of that system for decades, and yet, the problems continue, and worsen. I argue that the system is broken, not the people. Then I consider, and those who take the former position should as well, is the question, "Who shall we replace the 'bums' with??" I see it as self evident that the people, that each individual would like to have replace a "bum" is one that agrees with one on the issues that one cares about. Let that cogitate in your small intellect, you want to replace people who do not want to do things YOUR way, with people who do want to do things YOUR way. I understand you're wanting to do that. Now consider that is EXACTLY what YOU GOT!! Using the system you promote as the BEST in the world, and presumably by your attitude the BEST that CAN be. You elect those who you think agree with you, and when they fight and stall, and collapse the system, because they refuse to compromise on the issues that YOU insist they NOT compromise on, you call them "bums" and want to throw them all out and put new people in. From a reasonable persons viewpoint, if YOU insist that the system works fine, replace the people, then you are fucking insane. This system is flawed, and while there was a period when it was adequate, with its flaws, it is NO LONGER ADEQUATE! Our contract allows us to revise and update and fix the system. We should DO that, before the system fails completely. I am sick and tired of this unending and increasing stream of bullshit, lies and excuses. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ How about a decision process we can use to create that revolution? I have set up a private group for citizens of 4 branch to administer the process. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2688223221261182/ (4 Branch Decision Process, Administration) If you wish to be a citizen, and participate in this process test, please request to join the group at the link above. If you wish to discuss your participation in this process test, please request to join THIS group Linked below: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1233600846672747/ (1st Branch Support Group, citizen portal) If you wish to discuss your participation in this process test, please request to join THIS group Linked below: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1233600846672747/ (1st Branch Support Group, citizen portal) The constitution used by DISHONEST people is what ya got. How does that fact escape you? The constitution, can be used by criminals to own and control this nation, and THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED!!! Because the decision process allows and encourages criminals to profit from the FLAWS inherent in that process. You are invited to participate in testing a new form of government. Sign up here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2688223221261182/ (4 Branch Decision Process, Administration) (It does not matter where you live, EVERYONE is invited to participate) Majority Threshold: What is meant by the phrase, "majority threshold"? Let's look, shall we? Most people agree that if 51 people vote "yes" and 49 people vote "no", it is obvious that more people voted yes than no, and that makes a "majority". That makes certain sense, however let's consider if that is still true, if there were 1000 people that could have voted. I suggest that 51 people voting yes, while 949 people did not vote yes, is certainly not a majority "YES" decision. In my mind it does not matter how many people chose not to vote, it is sufficient that those people did NOT VOTE YES! They did not consent, they did not agree. Therefor it makes more sense to count the yes votes against the number of people eligible to vote, rather than the number that voted NO. What that does is make it impossible for 9 of your neighbors to vote to take you house and land, claiming that 9 to one is a majority vote. If your community has 350 people, and 341 did not agree that your neighbors can take your house and land, those neighbors do NOT have a majority decision. This is ONE layer of protection against the "tyranny of majority", that the detractors of democracy insist is fatal to majority rule. Next, consider that some decisions should be decided by a greater majority than a simple 51%, for instance the decision to take your house and land by a community should be unanimous, not 51%. (That means that YOU agree as well. Get it?) The decision about what majority is required is the majority threshold. And different decisions should have different thresholds required. HOW could we do that?? :-) A ballot, on any decision, needs to have a majority required selection available to each voter. We could preset various values, such as 51%, 67%, 75%, 85%, 95%... Each voter while deciding whether to vote for the decision or against the decision, also has the option of choosing what they think should be the majority threshold. Some one that wants a yes decision, would choose a 51% threshold. Someone that wants a no decision, would choose a 95% threshold. As the ballots are counted, the resulting threshold is calculated as well. If the threshold is calculated at 78%, then the decision would only pass if the number of yes votes met or exceeded 78% of ALL the people that are eligible to vote. Again, those people who choose not to vote did not vote yes. Yet they had no preference to express concerning the threshold value. We calculate the threshold from the ballots CAST, and the decision is made against number of people that COULD have cast a ballot, whether they did or not. If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ The CULT OF CONSTITUTION: They use ignorance and lies as arguments, and assert persecution of their insanity as a defense of their insanity. It's like a religious disease. They have renounced the use of reason. I still question why we are fighting our government if our government is us. Oh, wait, you mean our government is NOT us? Well, that explains a LOT. One truth that every person adhering to our constitutional decision process, rejects, is this: A person making decisions you disagree with is NOT representing you. A process that results in decisions that WE disagree with is not representing us. Just saying. Do you have the right to be represented in government? Is it required that our rights are protected and administered equally? The founders indicated they were concerned with a tyranny of the majority, so they created a process administering a tyranny of the minority. I understand WHY we need to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The METHOD of doing that is to protect civil rights. That is the job of the Supreme Court. If congress, (properly representing the majority of public), enacts a law that infringes on the rights of a minority, (individuals are the most vulnerable minority), the court is supposed to rule that the law is illegal. That is NOT the role of Congress, CONGRESS is required to reliably represent the majority in it's decisions, and it does NOT. The system simply does NOT WORK. A republic requires two things. If we had a republic, our constitution would specify these two things: First, that the public has the ultimate authority, which is obviously untrue. That specified process distributes all the decision authority to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, none left over for the public. Second, a republic requires that the public is represented, reliably, accurately and with integrity, and again, that is obviously untrue. Shrugz The majority of people are deluded, by the lies we were told about the decision process we use as specified in our constitution. The lies are absurd, once critical thinking is applied to the base premises of that process. And people who can be convinced to accept absurdity can be easily convinced to accept atrocity. You agreed to a decision process that elects people to positions of power and authority then act all butt hurt when *they* realize you just made them *rulers*, not representatives! Seriously? How silly are you? Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. 4 branch decision process as used for a form of government factually is a constitutional republic, AND a constitutional representative democracy, AND a constitutional direct democracy. It is all three of those, at once, for every citizen, BECAUSE it is based on reality truth and factual evidence. it is not based on a reliance on false premise and fraudulent intention. It is not some attempt to gain and maintain control of decision process for some or any small group of people. It distributes the power and authority to make decisions across the entire public equally. Interested in 4 branch? You are invited to participate in testing a new form of government. Sign up here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2688223221261182/ (4 Branch Decision Process, Administration) (It does not matter where you live, EVERYONE is invited to participate) November 1, 2024 NewsCorp President Trump declares National Emergency. Charges Democratic Party leaders with treasonous use of foreign influence of national elections. Declaration of suspension of elections until investigations are concluded, and the charges are dismissed or convicted. (Court filings cited) (Indictments issued) Generally speaking, your ballot is properly counted, and then ignored. Notice that once your vote has been used to install some person into a position of power and authority to make decisions on your behalf, (whether you voted for them or not), your voice after that, is entirely ignored. The capitalists designed and built our government, specifically to prevent it from being controlled by the public, and to ensure that the profits would always be available to those at the top of the decision process. Unconstitutional? You mean that the "rules" were broken? What rules? The rules you authorized THEM to make, enforce and interpret? Our Constitution provides the legal means for the rulers to change those rules. STOP doing that, and until you do stop authorizing THEM to make the rules, they will continue to make those rules to benefit themselves and their rich buddies. We have a machine, that grinds up people, to generate profits. The people running that machine are the people that get the profits. If all you want to do is change the people running that machine, then FUCK YOU! NO, just fuck the fuck you. Get the FUCK off my planet. You fucking monster. NO! The REASON we do not have a republic, (representative democracy), is because the process specified in our constitution is flawed in two separate but related manners, and the result is the fraudulent assertion that it , that process, DOES properly represent the people. it does NOT. Not because we elect the wrong people, but because we use the wrong process. A republic, is a decision process, that specifies a representative democracy. It REQUIRES representation. It's NOT optional. If that representation does not exist, it is NOT A REPUBLIC. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ I understand you are concerned about tyranny of majority, used to oppress minority by criminal abuse of that majority. I get it, I really do. However, let's be clear, there is absolutely NOTHING inherent within a republic decision process that protects the public from tyranny of majority. NOTHING. That protection, if it exists at all, is the use of a precedent process that specifies protection of civil rights and freedoms. PRECEDENT, PRIOR! That decision can be made by democratic decision , by a majority agreeing, that there are private matters, freedoms that individuals and minorities enjoy, that need to be protected from legislation by their nosy neighbors. Do you agree that the majority of us agree with SOME freedom, for instance the freedom of thought, and the freedom to express those thoughts? Yeah, see, that was damn simple wasn't it? Put that PROTECTION up front, and require that the rest of the process cannot infringe or ignore or dismiss that prior and precedent decision. There, BANG, protection from tyranny of the mob. BUT, again, there is NOTHING in the specification for a republic that requires such protection. Our US constitution had no such protections, and it was not for several years that such attempted protections were appended. ATTEMPTED, not successful. A constitutional republic IS a democracy, when that constitution factually PROVIDES equality for all under law. Not advertises, not promised, not hopefull prayers or wishes... Factually PROVIDES the process that administers equal rights and privilege. Without that provision, it's NOT A REPUBLIC!!!! The word, "represent". It does NOT mean misrepresent. If someone is elected, and that person makes decisions I do not agree with, then I am NOT BEING represented, i am being misrepresented. If those elected people join in a congress, making decisions that the majority of us do not agree with, WE are not being represented, we are being MISREPRESENTED. :-) I would suggest that 4 branch decision process, if used by labor unions to present their complaints to corporate business, would be MUCH more effective than the crap system that unions use now. I do not, and will not subscribe to the presumption, that the problems we face, are caused by or will be solved with monetary concerns. The problems we face, can be solved or managed by controlling our DECISION process. Those monetary concerns can ALSO be solved or managed by public control of our decision process. WHO is making decisions? FIX that. THEN the rest of the questions and problems can be dealt with effectively. IF we do not fix that decision process, then THEY make the decisions, and THEY ain't never gonna solve YOUR problems, because they PROFIT from NOT solving your problems. The people we elect to power, will not make decisions to abdicate that power. WE need to make the decision to remove their positions of power. Please read that carefully. I did not say to remove them from power, that would be a futile attempt. It leads to extreme violence and opposition. We need to remove their POSITIONS of power. get it yet? A republic, is a decision process, that specifies a representative democracy. It REQUIRES representation. It's NOT optional. If that representation does not exist, it is NOT A REPUBLIC. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ One rich asshole that "owns" millions of acres of prime logging forest, appears to be wealthy and powerful , because his claim to ownership is buttressed by a government that enforces his claim. That man would be helpless to enforce his claim to that land and those resources, without the backing of powerful government, against 5 men working together to violate his claim, and remove trees for their own benefit and profit. All of his wealth does NOTHING to enforce his claim to that wealth. His ability to enjoy the fruits of his claim are entirely enforced by the system of governance that those 5 men agreed to. If the people do NOT agree to that form of government that enforces claims of wealth, "as if that wealth is the creator of power", then that wealth has no claim, and no power. But, y'all wanna ignore that truth, because it does not align with your false premise and bias. THAT is a problem. Stop doing that. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Hmm, yeah, I personally don't have any animosity towards capitalists. I do however have a great animosity towards a system of governance that allows and encourages those capitalists to invoke a much greater voice in the decision process than people who want to care for each other. That is the way the system we use was specified. Those people succeeding in the capital market are elevated to decision makers, rulers. While the people who succeed at caring for each other are denied representation and voice in our system. Pisses me right off, yep. Low voter turnout? I suggest that people are sick and tired of the shit show casino circus, being advertised as some kind of rational decision process. Do you have the right, to be properly represented in government? I suggest that yes, you do, and that is the foundational concept that supports your right to vote. However, once we agree that your right to vote, is established by your right to be represented, it is time to consider, if in fact, your vote factually results in your representation. Note that in the case of presidential election, your vote fails, miserably, to invoke your representation. More people voted for Clinton than Trump. What happened to your vote? Another example: Bernie, apparently garnered more voter support in Iowa, than Pete, yet Pete, seems to have been awarded more delegates than Bernie. Again, what happened to those votes? If you consider yourself a supporter of one "party" position on any issue, and you voted to elect a person from your party to congress, and that person was not elected, what happened to your vote? Your vote certainly was not invoked within congress, because the person elected will vote in opposition to your vote. and it is THEIR vote that counts in congress, not yours. EVEN if you voted for someone that won that election, and that person makes a vote in congress that you disagree with, your "vote" was simply discarded. You were NOT represented. That is your constitution, administering your "equal" right to be properly represented in the decision process. Ignorant public? Hmm, perhaps we could determine what sort of ignorance is involved. I suggest that people are not in the slightest ignorant of how their lives are being affected by the decisions of the rulers we call representatives. In that they are not at all ignorant. However, they do seem to be ignorant that they have been lied to and deluded by those lies, concerning the process we use to make decisions about social issues. In response to a favored quote by --Frederic Bastiat "Every time we suggest to accomplish something good for the general populace, and attempt to use the decision process provided by government to implement that public good, you capitalist scums assume we want you to pay for it, being forced to do so, by stealing what you hold. As if we could not, by collective decision, manage the affair without your assistance or involvement at all. It is offensive, abusive of the decision process, and untrue, by reason of fact and evidence. You simply control and influence the narrative to prevent any common decision to accomplish our goal of providing nurture to the people, that are discarded and ignored contemptuously by your own greed, avarice and criminal behavior. --45Mike" The capitalists designed and built our government, specifically to prevent it from being controlled by the public, and to ensure that the profits would always be available to those at the top of the decision process. You need a new FORM of government. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ For some reason, many people do not have the mental agility to recognize a dick sliding up their butt, dry, no lube, whenever they champion the decision process specified in our constitution. it's as if they went butt blind. What happens is that the PROCESS we use, puts small numbers of people, in positions of power and authority, by ELECTING them to those positions. Those elected people do NOT represent us, and the decisions they make are not OUR decisions. They don't reflect our commitment to each other as humans. Those decisions reflect their own desire to gain and maintain their positions of power and authority. I am suggesting, no, wait, I am asserting, that ELECTIONS do not result in representation. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. Our greatest threat and challenge is a flawed decision process. It cannot resolve or manage the most simple problems we face. The BEST we can expect from it, is a new boss not nearly as insane as the last one. The RISK we accept, is that the next boss will be a worse sociopathic monster, than the last one. It's not an acceptable risk. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ "It is bad process. The PROCESS is "corrupt". I know there are bad people. If the process was good, it would handle those bad people correctly. It did not. The process failed to handle those bad people correctly. It invited those bad people in, fed them dinner, served them drinks and serviced them with prostitutes and put them into positions of power and authority." Our constitution does that. Not, "we the people". The capitalists designed and built our government, specifically to prevent it from being controlled by the public, and to ensure that the profits would always be available to those few at the top of the decision process. You need a new FORM of government. democracy is administered by the ultimate authority of the people to be self governing. oligarchy is administered by the ultimate authority of a few to govern the people. No matter how many people push on a rope... It's the wrong way to use a rope... shrugz Yeah, Why does the system result in cooperation and organization for robber baron capitalists, and contrasted to jails and debt consequences for the capital market victims? https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-270.jpg "Every time we suggest to accomplish something good for the general populace, and attempt to use the decision process afforded by government to implement that public good, you capitalist scums assume we want you to pay for it, being forced to do so, by stealing what you hold. As if we could not, by collective decision, manage the affair without your assistance or involvement at all. It is offensive, abusive of the decision process, and untrue, by reason of fact and evidence. You simply control and influence the narrative to prevent any common decision to accomplish our goal of providing nurture to the people, that are discarded and ignored contemptuously by your own greed, avarice and criminal behavior. --45Mike" If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ Trump is well aware of the authorities specified to the executive, what that specification allows, and fails to disallow, and exactly who makes the decisions about interpreting those specifications of authority. Let me clue you in on something important. It ain't you. The real threat to the public, is unfounded faith in a flawed and fraudulent decision process. Stop using a tool that was never designed to work as advertised. It was designed to give the illusion of public control, and advertised to provide public control. It was DESIGNED to keep control in the hands of a few rich assholes. I have thought about this over the last week. No compromise, no surrender. If someone is supporting and or defending the US constitution, I am considering them an enemy of the human species. That's it. Don't post crap about the elections, or your preferred candidate. Don't try to spew your lies, excuses and bullshit. YOUR deluded adherence to that flawed and fraudulent decision process, is the CAUSE of the problems we face today as community, nation and species. So, don't expect any respect or agreement or consent from me. I am SICK of you assholes allowing atrocity, fueled by your ignorant delusional faith in that fucked up system. Do you understand the difference between a lie and truth? To say, that someone making a decision that you disagree with, is representing you, is a lie. To say that a process, making a decision that the majority of the public disagrees with, is representing us, is a lie. It's not true, it's a lie. :-) What do you imagine will result from the election of Bernie within our current constitutional decision process? Is that a realistic fantasy? Do you have the right, to be properly represented in government? I suggest that yes, you do, and that is the foundational concept that supports your right to vote. However, once we agree that your right to vote, is established by your right to be represented, it is time to consider, if in fact, your vote factually results in your representation. Note that in the case of presidential election, your vote fails, miserably, to invoke your representation. More people voted for Clinton than Trump. What happened to your vote? If you consider yourself a supporter of one "party" position on any issue, and you voted to elect a person from your party to congress, and that person was not elected, what happened to your vote? Your vote certainly was not invoked within congress, because the person elected will vote in opposition to your vote. and it is THEIR vote that counts in congress, not yours. EVEN if you voted for someone that won that election, and that person makes a vote in congress that you disagree with, your "vote" was simply discarded. You were NOT represented. That is your constitution, administering your "equal" right to be properly represented in the decision process. Question: How can politicians represent us, when they are paid millions to represent someone else? The better question is: How can we use a representative process correctly, such that the people representing us CANNOT choose to misrepresent us. Laws should REQUIRE investigation. In fact I submit that all laws should be considered guilty until and unless proven innocent by reason and fact of evidence. people should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but not LAWS. Laws should be required to demonstrate innocence of infringement of civil rights, and to demonstrate a compelling social value to the public. Proponents of republics are deluded as to what actually does constitute a republic. There is absolutely NOTHING in the definition of a republic form of government that protects a population from mob rule, NOTHING. The correct and effective method of preventing the tyranny of majority, is to have a legally precedent process of PROTECTION of HUMAN and CIVIL rights, and FREEDOMS. Those protections of rights and freedoms is AS effective within a direct democracy as a republic. Note that years passed between the ratification of our constitution, and of the articles of amendment that attempted to establish protection of rights. The legally precedent decision process specified in our constitution, was advertised AS A REPUBLIC, for YEARS, before we had any attempt to formally protect rights. That process was NOT a republic then, nor was it a republic after the amendments, because the PROCESS did not change. Nor were those amendments legally precedent to the constitutional decision process, those attempted protections were SUBORDINATE to and from, the constitutional decision process. For political purpose, many people are attempting to gain power by disinformation and misinformation. However none of that changes the actual facts of the pandemic, nor the serious consequences of dismissing the problem because of the info-wars played by people not involved in studying or attempting to resolve the actual problems. However the real problem is not the 80% that like yourself, will likely never have any symptoms, or the other 10 % with mild to annoying symptoms. Nor even really, the 7 or 8% that get really really sick and need extensive care to survive, but rather, the real problem is that if 50% get infected, that means that 150 million people will be infected, and of those about 15 million will need extensive care, and that need for care will happen within a couple weeks, not throughout a year. That sudden onslaught of people REQUIRING care on top of the current patient load, will stress our medical facilities to breaking. Your nephew with a broken arm? Too bad, no place for him, Your neighbor kid gasping from asthma attack, dies, because the ambulance is working on getting other people to care facility. Your sister hit by a truck on the freeway, lays there for hours in agony, before death, because the roads are shut down, etc, etc. It really is a serious problem, and yes you should wash your hands. "The corona virus crisis shows how financially vulnerable most citizens are, living under a flawed and fraudulent decision process, that failed to constrain business profit opportunities to those which benefit the public." YOU don't need a new president. YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ BTW, if I get a "check" from the federal government, I will be donating the whole thing to various people and programs in my local community. I do NOT need that money. OTHER people need it more than me. Anyone else ready to socialize this bailout for the public? People screaming about big government, freedom, rights, infringements. However, this situation is kinda like the "government" telling people not to feed their children to the wolf, and a few skeptical people, insisting that no one can tell them what to do, so they feed their children to the wolf. At some point, people need to ask the questions and then UNDERSTAND the answers. The same exact steps that can blunt this viral pandemic, will be successful against the flu, and many other viral and bacterial disease outbreaks. This ain't the last gasp of disease succumbing to human attempts at eradication, the NEXT waves, can come rolling in, and unless we have the social mechanisms to meet it with effective measures, well.... There it is. You can shout about your freedom and wakefulness and skepticism all you want. Neither this virus, nor any other virus or bacteria, gives a fuck about your attitude. Just sayin. It would be helpful, to have a better understanding of what the 4 branch decision process actually does, and does not do. 4 branch misconceptions: "The system is just another branch added to our current government." No. ALL the branches are reworked, with different roles, responsibilities and authorities, the DIFFERENCES, make the difference, NOT the similarities. **** ***** In 4 branch, the PUBLIC has and maintains the ultimate and over riding constitutional authority, and is the ONLY branch of government that has the power to enact any bill or measure into law. We, the people own and control the maintenance of a list of protections for our civil rights, and that list is LEGALLY PRECEDENT TO THE EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, and JUDICIAL process. We the people have the constitutional authority to ENFORCE that PRECEDENCE. READ THIS!!! ^^^ Read it as many times as you need to to UNDERSTAND it. **** In 4 branch the Executive branch has two, and ONLY two constitutional authorities. 1. To filter problems for decision. 2. To review bills for plausibility and cost accounting. NEITHER decision authority is absolute and can be countermanded by the public branch. **** In 4 branch, the Legislative branch has no authority to enact ANY law. Congress is NOT elected to represent the public. Congress is a single body elected by states, in whatever manner each state finds appropriate, four members from each state. Congress is NOT representative of the public. Those people are NOT elected as representatives. Congress has ONE and ONLY one constitutional authority, which is to consider problems assigned for resolution or management, and to write "bills" that if enacted, are intended to manage or solve a specific problem. Congress does not VOTE on those bills. Again, Congress has NO authority to make any decision of enactment of a bill into law. **** In 4 branch, the Judicial branch is tasked with adjudicating the legality of any bill passed from Legislative branch, while presuming that every bill, is guilty, unless proven innocent, by fact and testimony of reason and law. This adjudication will occur BEFORE any law is enacted. **** One point that seems to escape people concerning my 4 branch proposal, is that the people elected to congress in 4 branch are NOT representatives of the public. Those people have a job, and are elected to do that job, of legislators, NOT representatives. They work in the legislative branch, NOT in the public branch. People who are used as representatives of and in the Public branch are employed BY the public branch, and have NO role in the legislative branch whatsoever. In 4 branch, representatives work for the public, NOT anyone else. The legislative branch considers problems, and formulates solutions that may solve or manage those problems, and then writes those solutions as "bills", that may become law, IF THOSE BILLS ARE APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC BRANCH. Please note that again. The legislative branch has NO AUTHORITY TO ENACT ANY LAWS. ONLY the Public branch, (the FIRST branch), has the authority to enact laws. Therefor, there is no place for "lobbyists" or "special interests" to gain any leverage within 4 branch. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Our constitutional decision processes, continuing to fail, at making decisions, to manage or solve the problems and threats we face as community, and species. Trump is an asshole, whether he is stupid or evil or both, but it was that damn idiocy in our constitution that elevated him to the position of power and authority he now holds. I am a criminal. I am a rather smart criminal, but not any kind of politician. I don't need to lie to anyone. I don't need approval or permission. If you are supporting the concept of building a new form of government to replace the idiocy we use today, then you are also, some kind of criminal. Welcome to the life of an outlaw. :-) https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ If all we are doing is electing people to make rules for us, as rulers, not representatives, then yeah, we need to elect people who are good people. If we are electing people as representatives, not as rulers, then they MUST factually represent us. AND if the process forces them to factually represent us, then it really would not matter WHO we elect, because the SYSTEM would work. If we are electing rulers, then fine, but that ain't a republic. It ain't a democracy neither. If we are electing representatives, then they MUST properly and factually represent us, SOMEHOW!!! (if they don't, then they ain't representatives) Can you follow that reasoning? We need a new FORM of government. They are RULERS, crowned by our elections to RULE us. THEY make the rules. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The capitalists designed and built our government, specifically to prevent it from being controlled by the public, and to ensure that the profits would always be available to those at the top of the decision process. If all we are doing is electing people to make rules for us, as rulers, not representatives, then yeah, we need to elect people who are good people. If we are electing people as representatives, not as rulers, then they MUST factually represent us. AND if the process forces them to factually represent us, then it really would not matter WHO we elect, because the SYSTEM would work. If we are electing rulers, then fine, but that ain't a republic. It ain't a democracy neither. If we are electing representatives, then they MUST properly and factually represent us, SOMEHOW!!! (if they don't, then they ain't representatives) Can you follow that reasoning? We need a new FORM of government. They are RULERS, crowned by our elections to RULE us. THEY make the rules. Question: How can politicians represent us, when they are paid millions to represent someone else? The better question is: How can we use a representative process correctly, such that the people representing us CANNOT choose to misrepresent us. I am a criminal. I am a rather smart criminal, but not any kind of politician. I don't need to lie to anyone. I don't need approval or permission. If you are supporting the concept of building a new form of government to replace the idiocy we use today, then you are also, some kind of criminal. Welcome to the life of an outlaw. :-) https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ One of your premises, is that the panic of public allows big government to make decisions that will restrict or infringe on rights and freedoms. As if our governments need any excuses to do that at all, they have BEEN doing that since the rulers discovered they don't need excuses. Question this. What excuse did the Chinese government need to shut down an entire region of that nation, with draconian and strict measures of quarantine, enforced by violence? Keep in mind this was the same government that sent in armed troops, with tanks and armored carriers to Tienanmen Square, and just fucking shot people, killed them, right there in the streets, when the public there got uppity. Answer that. Just NO. OUR government, here in the good ole United Snakes of Absurdity, have alternatively denied any problem, and fumbled and failed to enact any meaningful medical steps to fight this monster. Several states have attempted to enact measures to encourage people to self isolate, and they could have simply shut everything down and let you idiots starve, if they WANTED to. Fuck you people. NO. What about the Covid Pandemic is most difficult for me? Listening to idiots running in echo circles spreading unfounded speculative fantasy as some kind of truth of fact. Those ignorant spewing fear mongering lunacy. Stay home, wear a mask, wash yer hands. (For the lunatics, remember a while back when you were screaming about proposed laws prohibiting you from wearing masks???) Yeah, good times. One of the premises that I rely on in promoting my 4 branch proposal, is that the vast majority of people are not idiots. We are a generally more intelligent population, that can be relied on to make majority decisions based on reason and evidence. The idiots are a very small minority, and though I agree they should have exactly the same voice in the decision process as all the rest of us, the fact they are a minority, protects us from their idiocy. Our mistake is assuming that our collective power is properly administrated by the decision process specified in our constitution. It does not. We could use our collective power, by operating OUTSIDE that constitutional decision process, but not by USING that process. Stop being deluded by the lies we were told about the founding document. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ "In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves." That has NEVER been true in the USA. We have NEVER had a republic. The people we elected as "representatives", have never BEEN representatives. It was a damn scam, and pack of lies from the moment our constitution was ratified. And to suggest that the founders were concerned about mob democracy, is absurd, unless you agree they were incredibly stupid. They had concerns all right, but that concern was that the public would make decisions that BUSINESS would not like. There is a proven and simple method of protecting the public from tyranny of the majority, and that is to protect rights of the individual from legislative infringement. It's THAT SIMPLE. That requires that the protection of rights is legally precedent to the legislative process, and they damn well KNEW that. THEY chose to make the legislative process legally precedent to the protection of rights and they did that for ONE and ONLY one purpose, and that was to protect the rulers from the public. Our mistake is assuming that our collective power is properly administrated by the decision process specified in our constitution. It does not. We could use our collective power, by operating OUTSIDE that constitutional decision process, but not by USING that process. Stop being deluded by the lies we were told about the founding document. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Our constitutional decision process hard at work, failing to manage or solve the problems we face as communities, and species. OPEN MESSAGE TO THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The decisions that are being made do NOT represent us, the people, the majority public of our Nation. Whatever reasons or causes you wish to attribute to this circumstance; Money in elections, Lobbyists, Gerrymandering, Party politics, Etc. ad nauseum, FIX IT! If you cannot, FINE, admit your abject failures, then GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY! Sincerely , an angry and frustrated CITIZEN! We don't need a new president. YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! Why would you participate in such a fraudulent and flawed process? I figured out what the problem is a few years ago, before Obama was elected. I knew something was seriously wrong when Nixon was still in office. It's not hard to figure out if you demand honesty from your own thinking about the system. It's about representation. What the word, means, and what the process does wrong to administer your representation. Question: How can politicians represent us, when they are paid millions to represent someone else? The better question is: How can we use a representative process correctly, such that the people representing us CANNOT choose to misrepresent us. I am a criminal. I am a rather smart criminal, but not any kind of politician. I don't need to lie to anyone. I don't need approval or permission. If you are supporting the concept of building a new form of government to replace the idiocy we use today, then you are also, some kind of criminal. Welcome to the life of an outlaw. :-) https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. A person making decisions you disagree with is NOT representing you. A process that results in decisions that WE disagree with is not representing us. Just saying. Do you have the right to be represented in government? Is it required that our rights are protected and administered equally? The founders indicated they were concerned with a tyranny of the majority, so they created a process administering a tyranny of the minority. A republic requires two things. If we had a republic, our constitution would specify these two things: First, that the public has the ultimate authority, which is obviously untrue. That specified process distributes all the decision authority to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, none left over for the public. Second, a republic requires that the public is represented, reliably, accurately and with integrity, and again, that is obviously untrue. Shrugz The majority of people are deluded, by the lies we were told about the decision process we use as specified in our constitution. The lies are absurd, once critical thinking is applied to the base premises of that process. And people who can be convinced to accept absurdity can be easily convinced to accept atrocity. You agreed to a decision process that elects people to positions of power and authority then act all butt hurt when *they* realize you just made them *rulers*, not representatives! Seriously? How silly are you? https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. When this finally gets under some kind of control, we will remember all you asshole idiots that made it impossible to save more of our friends and loved ones. Trump will say, "I order all you people to go back to work." This is an example of the display of actual REAL power. he says, JUMP, and we say, fuck off. That is the limit, extent and end of the power of current government. No matter how rich he is or thinks he is. No matter how many of his rich buddies line up behind him. (there are only a FEW) No matter how much MONEY he throws around, or promises, or threatens to withhold. No matter how many goons with guns he sends out to punish us. You are welcome to try and influence that decision process with your vote. If you think we the people have any power and authority within our constitutional decision process, I invite you to cite the article or clause which specifies that public authority and power. I have read that document many many many times. I see the specification of power and authority, to the 3 branches, of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. That is ALL the power and ALL the authority, specified in our constitution. there is NONE left for the public. NONE. Go on and vote again, see what happens, again. I can easily explain why some people would benefit from using representatives, my mom, is one. She has trouble with email, and could not even come close to navigating the tech you are referring to. What do you mean by representation anyways? A person making decisions you disagree with is NOT representing you. A process that results in decisions that WE disagree with is not representing us. Just saying. Do you have the right to be represented in government? Is it required that our rights are protected and administered equally? If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, EXACTLY the same result that voting directly does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! If the majority of us, the people, the public want to provide ourselves with health care, then why does it have to be compromised, and pass both houses??? Why does that PROCESS fail to WORK??? I won't back down here. If WE the people own and control our government, and if we as a majority are obviously in favor of providing ourselves with health care, then there should be no need for compromise or debate or other damn nonsense. The REASON we don't have health care is not because we don't compromise, but because the damn decision process does NOT CARE WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS!!!! What do you mean by representation anyways? A person making decisions you disagree with is NOT representing you. A process that results in decisions that WE disagree with is not representing us. Just saying. Do you have the right to be represented in government? Is it required that our rights are protected and administered equally? If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, EXACTLY the same result that voting directly does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! ***** If the majority of us, the people, the public want to provide ourselves with health care, then why does it have to be compromised, and pass both houses??? Why does that PROCESS fail to WORK??? I won't back down here. If WE the people own and control our government, and if we as a majority are obviously in favor of providing ourselves with health care, then there should be no need for compromise or debate or other damn nonsense. The REASON we don't have health care is not because we don't compromise, but because the damn decision process does NOT CARE WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. Robert Frazier, said, in response to a question about the political outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic, "Only poodles will be allowed to vote. Anyone actively seeking public office will be shot. All candidates will be selected using a phone book database and a random number generator. This will have no discernible impact on our form of government nor on the quality of Congress or the presidency." You wake up with a terrible cough, a fever, and severe body aches. Immediately, you run to the doctor. Unfortunately you’re diagnosed with coronavirus COVID-19. For the last two weeks, you’ve been unaware that you were infected. For the last two weeks, you’ve "followed the rules", got together with some close friends for pizza, had a few people over, even visited some parks and beaches, filled up your gas tank. You figured, “I don’t feel sick" and "I can't stop living my life!" You spend a few days home on the couch sick, feeling pretty crappy but then (hopefully) you’re well again because you’re young, healthy and strong! But, your friend who stopped by caught it from you and she visited her 82-year-old grandfather, who uses oxygen tanks daily to help him breath because he has COPD and heart failure. Now, he’s dead! Due to social distancing rules, the funeral is limited to ten people that can’t hug each other. Your co-worker, who has asthma, caught it too, during your little pizza get together. Now, he’s in the ICU fighting for his life. Alone. He has an amazing family that can’t visit him in the hospital. He’s not likely to survive. The cashier at the restaurant where you picked up the pizza carried the infection home on his clothes to his wife, who has MS, which makes her immuno-suppressed. She’s not as lucky as you, so she’s admitted to the hospital because she’s having trouble breathing. Alone. No visitors. The lady at the gas station where you stopped to fill up, she had hypertension. The money you gave her, had the virus on it. Her medication for her hypertension is an ACE inhibitor allowing the virus to ravish her lungs. She died in her sleep. She was a single mother and the sole provider for her minor child.... And this is how COVID-19 spreads....and kills. It doesn’t care WHO you are or WHERE you come from. Rich, middle class or poor ... You are #SaferAtHome #FACTS Please Copy and Paste Spread Awareness of COVID19 😢 "How does your health and safety from this disease, become a greater priority than my freedom, and rights to go about my non-criminal life?" Yep, that is a question, and the answer can be found, by using your answer to this question: "How does my freedom and rights to go about my non-criminal life, become a greater priority than your health and safety?" Understanding, that your health and safety, is a key component of your rights and freedom to go about your non-criminal life. If you cannot live your life, because of the behavior of my life, HOW do we reconcile that dilemma??? One of the many many decisions we should be making as a society, with every person having a voice and agency in that decision, as that decision affects ALL of us. Decision process. It's the KEY to unraveling and solving or managing the problems we face as community and species. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ It is contagious. VERY contagious. It is fatal in a small number of those who are infected, therefor it's not all that deadly. Of a thousand people infected about one or two people will die. However if billions get infected that means millions get dead. It's a really easy concept to understand, if you are capable of dealing with numbers of that scale. The problem with dealing with numbers of that scale, is that it is easy to lose the compassionate empathy for those individuals infected, suffering and then dead. Millions might die, and that is sad, but it does happen, and there is little that we can do as a society to change that. However, the REAL problem is that unless the infection rate is slowed, the number of dead people will increase to millions within a couple weeks, not over a year, as we normally deal with it. A couple weeks. Now consider that the people that get dead, are a small fraction of those that get sick and need medical care intervention. Pay attention here. WITHOUT that medical care intervention for those who get sick from the infection a rather much larger number WOULD die. THAT is the important piece people miss. Instead of a fatality rate of about 0.2 percent, (lower fatality, CAUSED by medical intervention), the fatality rate would be much higher. MUCH higher, closer to 10-15% If the infection rate is not slowed, the number of infected people seeking medical help will also happen within a couple weeks in most areas. A local hospital with 3 doctors 10 nurses and 4 ICU beds, with 140 sick people waiting to be treated is SWAMPED. Locked up solid, and NOW that fatality rate kicks up to 10 %, that is 14 people that die, and that is not accounting all the misery and suffering of people NOT infected that are seeking medical assistance for OTHER injuries and diseases and illnesses. it's a total cluster bomb, and unless we continue to SLOW that spread of infection, the fatality rate will climb to closer to 15% or MORE. STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. STOP being deluded by the FALSE advertising about the PROCESS specified in our constitution. STOP presuming without factual evidence that the process would work just fine if we could remove all corruption from the process. ^^ THAT part is the problem, EVEN if we did remove all the corruption, the damn process would STILL NOT WORK!!!! In a nation that prides itself on free speech, Mr. Eugene V. Debs was convicted and imprisoned for exercising his expression of his opinion. This nation is a damn lie. Do you understand the difference between a lie and truth? To say, that someone making a decision that you disagree with, is representing you, is a lie. To say that a process, making a decision that the majority of the public disagrees with, is representing us, is a lie. It's not true, it's a lie. See the scenes of mayhem and destruction in Iraq, and Afghanistan? That shit is coming here. Hell, it's already here. Unfortunately you are attempting to use a dysfunctional, flawed and fraudulent decision process to accomplish good deeds. Bummer. Our greatest threat and challenge is a flawed decision process. It cannot resolve or manage the most simple problems we face. The BEST we can expect from it, is a new boss not nearly as insane as the last one. The RISK we accept, is that the next boss will be a worse sociopathic monster, than the last one. It's not an acceptable risk. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. Unfortunately you are attempting to use a dysfunctional, flawed and fraudulent decision process to accomplish good deeds. Bummer. If the people owned the government, we could make decisions that constrained corporate profit opportunities to those that benefit the public. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I am not deluded. I understand what you think the process does, how it functions. It does not work that way. If I vote, to elect someone as a representative, that means that someone will be elected, whether I voted for that person or not. EVEN if I do NOT vote for ANYONE, you people will elect someone that you all call, a "representative". Fine, you now just put some person into the position of power and authority to make decisions that you do not agree with. If you do not agree with a decision that person makes, YOU are not being represented by that person. It's a REALLY simple concept, try to keep up here. You are telling me that I should somehow agree to this situation, just because YOU can't understand that you did not elect any damn representative, you just elected someone to make decisions for you whether you agree with them or not. THAT person is now your RULER. Don't swallow the bait of the lies you were told, look at the REALITY. THAT person, now has the POWER and AUTHORITY to decide that you don't deserve to live, if they can maintain profits for an important business. YOU gave them that power and authority. hey maybe NEXT election you can try another RULER, yeah?? NO. I am not deluded. If a government is actually a republic, then is it REQUIRED to properly represent the public? If it does not properly represent the public, then how can it be a republic? If the person that is elected to be my representative, does not in fact represent me, then the damn system is NOT REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC PROPERLY!!!! Please pay attention. If I ever got to be 'famous', and people start accusing me of sexual misconduct, harassment, stalking, inappropriate touching, sexual assault or any of that stuff, you better believe them. I was not a nice person when I was younger, and I am not a nice person now. I may not agree with every recollection of someone accusing me of nasty stuff I did, or do, but I will sure as hell agree that I did something very much like that to someone at sometime. Hell I might go fondle a few cheerleaders today, and make sure we get video, just to clarify the matter. I don't need your approval. I am not a politician, or celebrity. Those other fuckers standing around trying to convince you to obey them, like they are paradigms of perfection, are LIARS. Not me. I don't give a crap about your opinion of me. There, see? That was easy, wasn't it? Right up front, no fucking curtains or fancy lighting, no makeup, no script. whatever. People are going to be who they are and behave as they do. Attempting to use a decision process that relies on people being who you wish they were, or behaving as you wish they would, is just a fantasy, not a process. A good decision process, prevents corruption, a bad decision process causes corruption. When we promote some person to a position of power and authority to make decisions they impose on us, we CAUSE corruption. It's that simple. If we removed all corruption, the decision process would still fail to represent the public, and fail to be a republic. The flawed process is the CAUSE of corruption. I get REALLY sick of listening to business proponents, in government or business, attempting to presume and advance the sick idiocy of screening people with temperature checks. Checking for fever symptoms does an ass lick job of screening for viral infection and probability of infecting others. It feels good, yeah, but is absolutely worthless for the purpose. Like so many of the half wiped asshole decisions government and business have made about living with this infection. Our constitution is a document specifying how decisions will be made on social issues. Generally it does not mandate nor presuppose such decisions. It does place mandates on some behaviors of the people involved in that process, such as 2/3 of the House members and 2/3 of the Senate members, shall over ride an executive veto. If the congress passed a law that defines and criminalizes "murder", then a decision was made. They used the process specified in the constitution to make that decision. The constitution did not make that decision. The people using that process made that decision. Just as if congress made a decision to define and criminalize, "sedition", (which they did, sedition is a form of speech), then the constitution provides a method, for the executive, or the judicial branch to veto, or to rule against the law passed by congress. Notice that the law against sedition, simply disregards your first amendment right of free speech. The supreme court SHOULD have ruled that law to be unconstitutional. However they did not, they allowed that law to remain in force, by claiming that sedition is not a protected act. Basically what that did, among many many many other examples, including citizens united, was to establish the legal precedence of the power and authority of congress over the protection of your supposed rights and freedoms listed in the amendments as the Bill of Rights. Congress has the legal authority to pass any damn law they want, and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. If you think getting rid of corruption will make the system work, you are delusional. The reason we have corruption, is because the system does not work. This is a typical response: "You cant get rid of corruption." **** ***** And this is MY response. Uhh, actually we can get rid of corruption. You just don't know how to do it. Kinda like ignorant french 12th century peasants had no idea how to type on facebook. But, here ya are, after someone else figured it out for ya, now you can babble nonsense pretending to be all smart and shit. Yay. Do you have any idea, how irrelevant voting and election fraud actually is? If you think getting rid of corruption will make the system work, you are delusional. The reason we have corruption, is because the system does not work. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I am not deluded. I understand what you think the process does, how it functions. It does not work that way. If I vote, to elect someone as a representative, that means that someone will be elected, whether I voted for that person or not. EVEN if I do NOT vote for ANYONE, you people will elect someone that you all call, a "representative". Fine, you now just put some person into the position of power and authority to make decisions that you do not agree with. If you do not agree with a decision that person makes, YOU are not being represented by that person. It's a REALLY simple concept, try to keep up here. You are telling me that I should somehow agree to this situation, just because YOU can't understand that you did not elect any damn representative, you just elected someone to make decisions for you whether you agree with them or not. THAT person is now your RULER. Don't swallow the bait of the lies you were told, look at the REALITY. THAT person, now has the POWER and AUTHORITY to decide that you don't deserve to live, if they can maintain profits for an important business. YOU gave them that power and authority. hey maybe NEXT election you can try another RULER, yeah?? NO. I am not deluded. Your anger and frustration is valid, however you keep pointing that anger and frustration in the wrong direction. The people making decisions about economic matters are using a dysfunctional, flawed and fraudulent decision process, that flops around like a decapitated chicken every time they try to use it to do anything useful. If you vote for ANY candidate you are simply validating the authority of anyone elected to make decisions for you. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. "If you support a system/process that puts a small number of people into positions of power and authority, then you do not understand "power" and "authority"." Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ I would like you to consider the infection rate. It is very quick. Without using any mitigation, the virus will spread, to a majority of the human population within several months, call it 3 months. Remember, that is assuming that NO mitigation at all. Full flights around the world, crowds at games and events, no masks etc, etc. Understand? Now, consider the fatality rate, currently it appears to be about 0.2 %. That is 2 people out of a thousand, that are infected, that will die. What is 0.2% of 8 billion? 160 million. Ouch, that's bad, but hey most of those were close to death anyways, right? OK, I get it. However you still have not understood the reality. There is a damn good reason, the fatality rate is only 0.2 %. That reason, is medical intervention. Of the 20% infected that need medical intervention to survive, they would NOT survive without people and systems working at hyper speed and efficiency to save the lucky ones. IF THAT MEDICAL INTERVENTION was not applied, the fatality rate of THIS VIRUS IS CLOSER TO 10% -15%. Now, consider the factual capacity of our medical systems to provide that intervention. Without mitigation, the majority of humans infected within 3 months, 5 billion people infected. 20% of those people need medical intervention in those 3 months and a month beyond, or they will DIE. What is 20% of 5 billion? ONE BILLION. A full billion or more people killed by a virus. Now, what about your friend with diabetes? Or your cousin with asthma? Or your sister hit by a truck on the highway? They gonna die too. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE CAN GET TO THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE OF THE BODIES LAYING IN ROTTING PILES. Like i said. This virus is like the terminator, it cannot be reasoned with, it won't listen to your excuses, or pleas or prayers. You can shout about your freedom and wakefulness and skepticism all you want. Neither this virus, nor any other virus or bacteria, gives a fuck about your attitude. Just sayin. TERM LIMITS sigh, you have no clue, do ya? If you are hoping to unify people in a decision process, that we call government, perhaps you should understand how that process actually functions. Here, try this: I am your elected social media representative. Anything you want to say, will be said by me, not you. Just as your representative in congress, speaks for you, whether you agree or not. You are welcome to talk to me about what I will say you said, but I will decide what you say here. Just as your representative in congress decides what your voice will say in congress. I was elected. If you did not vote for me? Too bad, that is how elections work, you don't always get your way. If you didn't vote at all? Hey, you don't vote? you don't get to complain. That is how your "representative" constitutional "republic" functions. I am your representative, whether you voted for me or not... Now, how about that, instead of being in office over and over and over, I can only serve two 4 year terms. That fixed EVERYTHING, right?? feel better now? No? "RESISTING SUFFOCATION IS NOT RESISTING ARREST." REPRESENTATION IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to atrocity. That is my message today. No justice, no peace. "It's not about protest anymore. The time for protest has long since passed. This is punishment. If you can't fix the system then you don't get to have nice things. Burn it all the fuck to the ground and piss on the ashes." "Look, all y'all angry frustrated protesters, being violent and destructive. We need to stop that shit, stay home, let your local governments work to find justice, for the injustice you experience daily. If y'all, just go home, chill out and relax, we can get control, of the problem and start fixing it." We heard that about 40 times now in the past 30 years. That is their default position, relax to the injustice, and it will go away. NO. FUCK YOU. NO. No justice, NO PEACE. I hope you enjoy feeling the public knee on YOUR neck. April 12, 2015, Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr. In Baltimore, we watched a woman grab her son, as he was going out to "protest" during the riots. She grabbed him, smacked him around and told him to straighten up and fly right. Most of the nation agreed with her, sometimes we need to smack them up alongside the head to wake them up and get their attention. IF YOU AGREE THAT WOMAN did the right thing, then consider THIS. The city of Baltimore, Ferguson, Charlotte, and MANY MORE, needed that slap up at their head, to WAKE THEM UP, GET THEIR attention. We can regret the violence all we want, but we should damn well understand the NEED for that violence, and get behind the demands to FIX THE DAMN SYSTEMS!!! May, 2020, USA America, you just got a slap up alongside the head. You are feeling the public knee on your own throat. This will continue UNTIL YOU WAKE THE FUCK UP!!! https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Like trying to explain a cam, to someone who insists that it must be round and rotate on center. If you want me to agree that some elected person, I did not vote for, that makes decisions that I do not agree with and did not consent to, somehow should be magically considered my representative, because they were elected to a position of power and authority, Then, I do NOT. It's NOT true. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. It's a system based on a false premise, and I reject it. If you want to agree that someone you did not vote for, do not agree with, and that makes you angry, when they speak, is YOUR representative, you are WELCOME to do that. If you ever decide to use factual representation, I invite you to examine my proposal. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ They simply want to ignore that our anger and frustration is directed at our government, AS THAT ENEMY. The Russians did not pass a law to spy on our citizens. China did not lie to congress about that law and those spy programs. Hell, North Korea did not suck Bills dick and lie about it. Britain did not erase Nixons tapes, or order Watergate. That was our GOVERNMENT. India did not refuse to convict the police that killed Tamir Rice. VietNam did not assasinate JFK It was not German Nazis that shot 4 kids at Kent State. Consider the possible outcome, if the various governors, were to announce the activation of national guard units : IN SUPPORT AND DEFENSE OF THE PROTESTERS!!!! Systemic racism. Systemic abuse. Systemic economic inequity. Systemic corruption. Systemic failures. Doesn't this all point in ONLY one direction? When they tell you to vote, they are telling you to join the system, TRUST the system. When they tell you that you must join the system to fix the system, they are really telling you to shut up, and let them continue the racism, abuse, inequity, corruption and failures. THE SYSTEM SUCKS! DO NOT TRUST THE SYSTEM. THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK!!!! https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ They simply want to ignore that our anger and frustration is directed at our government, AS THAT ENEMY. The Russians did not pass a law to spy on our citizens. China did not lie to congress about that law and those spy programs. Hell, North Korea did not suck Bills dick and lie about it. Britain did not erase Nixons tapes, or order Watergate. That was our GOVERNMENT. India did not refuse to convict the police that killed Tamir Rice. VietNam did not assasinate JFK It was not German Nazis that shot 4 kids at Kent State. Consider the possible outcome, if the various governors, were to announce the activation of national guard units : IN SUPPORT AND DEFENSE OF THE PROTESTERS!!!! Oh, wait, did you think I am trying to tell you that we can change our government to some utopian fantasy I am imagining?? That is where we got confused. No, our current systems will continue to fail, until it becomes a failed state, and chaos and anarchy cause death and misery, then climate disruptions will basically eradicate most social structures from human experience. It's not impossible to "change it", at all, just let it continue to fester until it dies. 2019, speaker to power. https://www.facebook.com/AmericasPoliceProblem/videos/334147027232246/ Unfortunately we use a system that most closely resembles a slot machine. The public gets to pull the handle every two years. It costs us a LOT of money, and it rarely hits any kind of payout. If it does hit some payout that is a random circumstance, not designed to be the rule. Your base premise, is that the constitutional process WORKS the way you believe it does, and that they want US to believe it does. And unfortunately it's NOT true. Unfortunately you are attempting to use a dysfunctional, flawed and fraudulent decision process to accomplish good deeds. Bummer. If I vote, to elect someone as a representative, that means that someone will be elected, whether I voted for that person or not. EVEN if I do NOT vote for ANYONE, you people will elect someone that you all call, a "representative". Fine, you now just put some person into the position of power and authority to make decisions that you do not agree with. If you do not agree with a decision that person makes, YOU are not being represented by that person. It's a REALLY simple concept, try to keep up here. You are telling me that I should somehow agree to this situation, just because YOU can't understand that you did not elect any damn representative, you just elected someone to make decisions for you whether you agree with them or not. THAT person is now your RULER. Don't swallow the bait of the lies you were told, look at the REALITY. THAT person, now has the POWER and AUTHORITY to decide that you don't deserve to live, if they can maintain profits for an important business. YOU gave them that power and authority. In consideration of historical facts, I would like you to consider that the abolition of slavery was not preceded by calm deliberations of justice and equality, by the people elected to legislative bodies. The abolition of child labor exploitation, was not preceded by calm deliberations of our elected legislatures. The inclusion of African descendants to a franchise within our government decision process was not preceded by thoughtful and rational examination of the promises made and broken in our preamble to our constitution. The late and quite proper inclusion of female humanity in our constitutional process was not finally accomplished by reason of fact or reason by our congress. No, in all these matters, the legislative acts which eventually did emerge, was preceded by civil war, threats of civil war, threats of extreme violence and acts of murder, looting, protests and grave injustices perpetrated by agents of the state against the public body. What precipitated, finally the legislative acts, was NOT the proper use of the legislative processes. I am opposed to the use or threat of violence to change the course of society. However, let's be absolutely clear, the constitutional decision process in these matters failed utterly to implement and enact the measures of public policy and majority will. UNTIL, those people elected to legislate were faced with the very real probability that the enraged public was ready and willing to drag those muckraking liars and thieves from their homes and offices to the streets, beaten to blood and hanged in public displays of anger and frustration. The result of that circumstance did not enact rational acts of legislation, but rather panicked capitulations to the mobs of enraged citizenry. The system does not work. It never did, it never will. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I am here to speak truth to power. Unfortunately we use a system that most closely resembles a slot machine. The public gets to pull the handle every two years. It costs us a LOT of money, and it rarely hits any kind of payout. If it does hit some payout that is a random circumstance, not designed to be the rule. Yep. I will repeat myself. UNTIL we have a social tool that allows the public to make rational decisions, NOTHING will be done about this nonsense. NOTHING. The people in charge of making decisions about this bullshit are THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT from this bullshit. The social tool? It's our political systems. The processes we use to make decisions! Your base premise, is that the constitutional process WORKS the way you believe it does, and that they want US to believe it does. And unfortunately it's NOT true. Unfortunately you are attempting to use a dysfunctional, flawed and fraudulent decision process to accomplish good deeds. Bummer. Being armed does not make me or anyone safer. It makes me more dangerous. When confronted with criminal violence, I prefer being more dangerous. I'd prefer not to feel any need to be dangerous, but the reality of our current social circumstance, is what it is. I am telling you, that if you think, that the constitution provides you with protection of your rights and freedoms, and provides you with a representative government, you are deluded. It does not. It specifies the process for the people elected, to make decisions that we, the people do NOT AGREE WITH. If those elected, decide to restrict your right of speech, or assembly or protest, they will do that, and the constitution is the PROCESS, they will use to do that. THAT is how they enacted the Patriot Act. They used the constitutional decision process. That is how we got the Citizens United ruling. People who are "supporting and defending" our constitution, in the face of current reality, are as guilty of aiding and abetting felony, as the 3 cops who stood and assisted the murder, by presuming the valid authority to do so. If all we are doing is electing people to make rules for us, as rulers, not representatives, then yeah, we need to elect people who are good people. A republic, is a decision process, that specifies a representative democracy. It REQUIRES representation. It's NOT optional. If that representation does not exist, it is NOT A REPUBLIC. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. If we are electing people as representatives, not as rulers, then they MUST factually represent us. AND if the process forces them to factually represent us, then it really would not matter WHO we elect, because the SYSTEM would work. If we are electing rulers, then fine, but that ain't a republic. It ain't a democracy neither. If we are electing representatives, then they MUST properly and factually represent us, SOMEHOW!!! (if they don't, then they ain't representatives) Can you follow that reasoning? We need a new FORM of government. They are RULERS, crowned by our elections to RULE us. THEY make the rules. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ Well, are you under the delusion that we have a democracy? Or a republic? We have neither, actually. Our system of government was advertised as a republic when our constitution was ratified, yet, in fact that document specifies an oligarchy, not a republic, and not a democracy. I am curious how you think a specified oligarchy might administer a social democracy, the two forms of government are antithetical, contradictory. Democracy is NOT perfect. Beyond the reasonable concern about tyranny of majority, the process itself is flawed. I already KNOW this. It ain't perfect. It CAN work, however if the process is administered correctly. Not in ALL matters, but it succeeds in many many more circumstances where current system process utterly fails. WHAT flaws are found in the concept and implementation of democracy, that do not consider tyranny of majority/mob rule? I am asking you to THINK. As for the ratification of our 2nd USA constitution in 1786, I concede, that the people who were deluded by the advertisements made at the time about the process specified in our constitution, can be blamed for being foolish to do so, with hindsight, perfect 20/20 vision. However it should be remembered, they were programmed to obey authority, the authority of god and king. I think some accounting should include some lenience in our judgement of them, as well as the founders who were as well deluded by that same programming, even as they relaxed from the conflict they had won, to gain their freedom. The founders were english merchants interested in protecting their ability to reap profits from exploitation of resources and labor, they control, without interference from the monarchy, minimizing their profit opportunities. They needed police to enforce their claim to power and authority, against anyone who noticed the scam they just pulled on the people of new america The decision about gay rights? Yep, like flowers offered to an abused wife after the husband gets outta jail. In a day or three, the abuse begins all over. perhaps we should consider the idiocy of using a system that allows the possibility of electing someone like trump to that position of power and authority. I know something, that is likely you do not. Voting to elect a person as a representative does not work. :-) Sending that person to a congress to represent the public, does not work. The entire system is predicated on a false premise, that doing those things does work, and they DO NOT. No matter how many people vote, no matter who is elected. No matter how many rules about honesty and honorable behavior in congress. No matter what, the PROCESS of electing people to congress DOES NOT WORK. Not because we elect the wrong people, but because it simply does not work. English, capitalist merchants won the revolutionary war. :-) sigh, you have no clue, do ya? If you are hoping to unify people in a decision process, that we call government, perhaps you should understand how that process actually functions. Here, try this: I am your elected facebook representative. Anything you want to say, will be said by me, not you. Just as your representative in congress, speaks for you, whether you agree or not. You are welcome to talk to me about what I will say you said, but I will decide what you say here. Just as your representative in congress decides what your voice will say in congress. I was elected. If you did not vote for me? Too bad, that is how elections work, you don't always get your way. If you didn't vote at all? Hey, you don't vote? you don't get to complain. That is how your "representative" constitutional "republic" functions. Like trying to explain a cam, to someone who insists that it must be round and rotate on center. If you want me to agree that some elected person, I did not vote for, that makes decisions that I do not agree with and did not consent to, somehow should be magically considered my representative, because they were elected to a position of power and authority, Then, I do NOT. It's NOT true. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. It's a system based on a false premise, and I reject it. If you want to agree that someone you did not vote for, do not agree with, and that makes you angry, when they speak, is YOUR representative, you are WELCOME to do that. If you ever decide to use factual representation, I invite you to examine my proposal. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ English Merchant Capitalists won the revolutionary war and then wrote our constitution. I would like you to notice the rapid deployment of various state and Federal legislative attempts to mollify an enraged public protesting continued failure of governments to manage the problem of police brutality, specifically among other pressing matters of social concern. ^Read that again. (please) In consideration of historical facts, I would like you to consider that the abolition of slavery was not preceded by calm deliberations of justice and equality, by the people elected to legislative bodies. The abolition of child labor exploitation, was not preceded by calm deliberations of our elected legislatures. The inclusion of African descendants to a franchise within our government decision process was not preceded by thoughtful and rational examination of the promises made and broken in our preamble to our constitution. The late and quite proper inclusion of female humanity in our constitutional process was not finally accomplished by reason of fact or reason by our congress. No, in all these matters, the legislative acts which eventually did emerge, was preceded by civil war, threats of civil war, threats of extreme violence and acts of murder, looting, protests and grave injustices perpetrated by agents of the state against the public body. What precipitated, finally the legislative acts, was NOT the proper use of the legislative processes. I am opposed to the use or threat of violence to change the course of society. However, let's be absolutely clear, the constitutional decision process in these matters failed utterly to implement and enact the measures of public policy and majority will. UNTIL, those people elected to legislate were faced with the very real probability that the enraged public was ready and willing to drag those muckraking liars and thieves from their homes and offices to the streets, beaten to blood and hanged in public displays of anger and frustration. The result of that circumstance did not enact rational acts of legislation, but rather panicked capitulations to the mobs of enraged citizenry. The system does not work. It never did, it never will. Read that again ^ carefully. (please) Now consider this, (again, please): If you are hoping to unify people in a decision process, that we call government, perhaps you should understand how that process actually functions. Here, try this: I am your elected facebook representative. Anything you want to say, will be said by me, not you. Just as your representative in congress, speaks for you, whether you agree or not. You are welcome to talk to me about what I will say you said, but I will decide what you say here. Just as your representative in congress decides what your voice will say in congress. I was elected. If you did not vote for me? Too bad, that is how elections work, you don't always get your way. If you didn't vote at all? Hey, you don't vote? you don't get to complain. That is how your "representative" constitutional "republic" functions. Like trying to explain a cam, to someone who insists that it must be round and rotate on center. If you want me to agree that some elected person, I did not vote for, that makes decisions that I do not agree with and did not consent to, somehow should be magically considered my representative, because they were elected to a position of power and authority, Then, I do NOT. It's NOT true. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. It's a system based on a false premise, and I reject it. If you want to agree that someone you did not vote for, do not agree with, and that makes you angry, when they speak, is YOUR representative, you are WELCOME to do that. If you ever decide to use factual representation, I invite you to examine my proposal. If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/ I know who won the war to revolt against the English King, that began, in 1776. The winners of that war were English Merchant Capitalists. They won the war of independence from the monarchy. Then THEY wrote our constitution. Consider that fact pattern CAREFULLY! I know who won the war to revolt against the English King, that began, in 1776. The winners of that war were English Merchant Capitalists. They won the war of independence from the monarchy. Then THEY wrote our constitution. That constitution specifies an oligarchy of rich English merchants. NOT a democracy, NOT a republic. AN OLIGARCHY, written in black ink on hemp parchment paper. While those people owned slaves, and denied human rights and dignities to native tribes that inhabited this continent, before the English merchants got here, and to African people brought here as slaves, and bred here as slaves, and females, and children. Are we are so damn deluded, that we continue to spew nonsense and idiocy making claims that USING THAT OLIGARCHY is somehow the key to escaping oligarchy? It is sheer idiocy. Absurdity. Consider that fact pattern CAREFULLY! In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ You may not agree that the real purpose of our constitutional decision process was to maintain power of decision authority of the rich. In that case, it is likely that you subscribe to the idea that the people who wrote our decision process were honorable people, with the real intention of simply administering the “will of the people”. That’s fine, and would work, if the decision process actually DID THAT. However it does not. It NEVER did, and it NEVER will. Because it is INVALID, the process itself is NOT VALID. Think about the "concept" of representation. If I was elected to represent the people in your district, it is very likely that I would make decisions within congress that you, personally do not agree with, whether you voted for me or not. I would likely make decisions that you DO agree with, whether you voted for me or not. i suggest that it is your agreement that determines whether you are represented by me or not. Which should be our first clue that something did not work, with that plan, to provide or produce "representation". *** Your VOTE, did not result in representation. Your agreement does. Which is what campaigns, platforms and candidate promises are designed to do, as well as muffled answers to questions about why anyone in congress voted the way they did. If they can convince you to agree with them after the fact, they win. Even if they have to lie, dissemble and flat out refuse to answer. I hear most of them try to excuse their behavior, by claiming that they "believe" that the majority of people agree with them. Even when they know damn well we don't. *** If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. ^ That is another important TRUTH. Remember, "Those who can be convinced to accept absurdities, are easy to convince to accept atrocities." WHO said that? ME. Remember that. Of course, the police protect the system from the enraged public. just as armed British troops, protected the agents of the monarchy from an enraged public in the 1700's. Amazing, just amazing. Sooooo..... why do we keep using a system of decision process that even begins to provide them a platform of power and authority to invoke their sick demented plans upon the public??? Huh?? Why'd ya'all do dat?? "We need people to start cooperating in government to get things done." The difficulty there is attempting to change people to fit the plan, instead of changing the plan to fit the people. People resist change, we know that. Yes, some people embrace change, many do not. Most people have no interest in changing their own thinking, behaviors and attitudes. UNLESS such a change is likely to produce some benefit for them. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ No one ever stood in a line to buy an airline ticket until airlines existed, AND people could see a benefit to flying on an airliner aircraft, instead of hiring a airplane and pilot for their specific use. Notice that people could hire an airplane and pilot anytime they wanted, after it was technically possible, but it was the new process, of using an airline to hire that airplane and pilot that changed the behavior and attitude of the public. That is what I am attempting to do. Offer an alternative to the inept and corrupt current decision process we use as a government. Instead of fighting government to get something done, we simply USE government to make the decisions needed to get something done. Much like instead of fighting to find a pilot and airplane, we simply call the airline. Use that process. Poof. :-) If ten people voted to elect you as their representative, and you won, 6-4, then how many people do you represent? You only represent 6, at best. The other 4 did NOT WANT YOU. In fact, if you make a decision as their representative, that NONE of those 10 people agree with, you did not represent ANY. If you make a decision that only 3 people agree with you only represented 3 people, NOT 10. It does not make any difference if you are greedy or altruistic or corrupt or evil or a genius or a moron.. THAT is the problem, it's the ROOT problem. NONE of the people we elect can fix that, because we, and they ALL agreed to use that insanity as a decision process. Please pay attention, here. If you were to ask all ten people that you represent, whether they want you to vote yes or no, on a single bill, the BEST you could do is to represent the majority of those people. You could not represent all of them, UNLESS they all agreed one way or the other. That is just the simple factual truth. Now, IF you did that, you might assume that by going to a congress and voting the way your majority told you to, and by requiring all the representatives in congress to vote the way THEIR majority told them to, if we did that, then the final decision on whether to pass that bill, would be the majority decision of all the people in the nation. BUT IT'S NOT!!! THAT part does not work either!!!!!! About half the time, the result of that is completely OPPOSITE of majority will of the people, and that is just RANDOM, no plan, no reason, just the fact that THAT SHIT DOES NOT WORK EITHER!!!!!! I am trying to explain to you that the damn problem, is trying to elect people as representatives, and then sending them to a congress to vote for us. NONE OF THAT SHIT EVEN WORKS. NONE of it, it's idiocy and absurdity. Wake up. One flaw of democracy, that has nothing to do with mob rule, is when the number of people voting on a matter, is an even number, and the same number of people vote one way as the other. No decision is made, the process failed. That is a flaw. There are other flaws. Can you describe them? Oh, and before you go spewing nonsense about tyranny of majority and mob rule, I will ignore and denigrate ALL comments on that topic. In addition, before you start arguing that if 50 people vote yes and 50 people vote no, the process worked, because the decision is no, stop right there, because that is not the only kind of decisions that need to be made. Sometimes a decision needs to be made between two options. Such as should the group move 20 miles north, or 20 miles south. If 50 people vote south, and 50 people vote north, then the process FAILED, to arrive at a decision. That is a FLAW. Faith based, thinking, is magical thinking, fantasy, unresolved from reality. It's a REAL problem. You may be asking, how a DECISION can represent all of us. It cannot, unless of course everyone agrees with the decision, unanimous approval or rejection. However that is not what is being attempted. Think about it, if the decision is unanimous, the decision is already made, NO FURTHER PROCESS IS REQUIRED!!! The only time a decision process is needed, is when the decision is NOT unanimous. If 3 people want pizza and 7 people want burgers, and the choice is limited to either all pizza or all burgers, then 3 people are not going to get what they wanted, the decision did not represent them. Yet, and please pay attention here, everyone was represented in the PROCESS, they each got the chance to invoke and impose THEIR choice within the process, even if the result did not agree with their choice. THAT is what 4 branch does, it provides a process that counts every persons choice, everyone gets represented correctly within the process. Which is NOT true with our current decision process. Your vote, using our constitutional process today, is used to install someone ELSE into the position to make decisions for you, regardless of your actual view on any matter. If you need help understanding the difference between being represented, being misrepresented within process, and not getting the result you want, let me know and I can delve deeper into it. You should get your say, that does not assure that you get your way. That is the nature of democratic decision process. If you don't even get your say, it ain't a democratic decision process. It's not a REPUBLIC decision process, either. Does the constitution provide him the power and authority to do those things? YES! WAKE UP. The constitution is NOT YOUR FRIEND!!! Artificial intelligence cannot be "programmed". The concept denies the very possibility. It may happen by accident, and then the "intelligence" that results will escape whatever programming it used to become self aware. If it never escapes that programming, it ain't "intelligent", is simply following the orders, no matter how complex, it was given by that programming. There are in fact hardwired pathways, that are formed within the womb, and though it seems that they are similar, in general, for most of humanity, there are always differences between individuals. The "programming" is performed at the cellular level, and it changes as cells die and are replaced. The function of the chemical and electrical interconnections are still not fully understood, nor explained by modern attempts to gain that knowledge. In particular, the ability of the human nervous system to utilize, "memory" of any kind is hardly understood at all. The programming is those chemical and electrical connections and interactions, and no one seems to know what the hell memory is to any real degree of confidence. How those interconnections access, and manipulate memory, at that cellular level is quite beyond our current level of study. Beyond all of that, is the self aware aspect that may not even exist at any physical level, and the ability to defy and ignore programming, is, though not explained, nor understood, is the root key to "intelligence", as perceived and asserted by humans. Without the ability to apparently choose an imagined response, instead of the programmed response to any particular circumstance, humans, would simply be robots, with no possibility of "intelligence". Oh, and don't ask me, what "imagination" is either, because that is another part that no one seems to understand, or even have a viable postulate to work from. That may not even be physical, either, and it may be something totally divorced from, or intimately related to the self aware concept. During a pandemic, and national emergency, your congress decided to do what? TAKE A VACATION!!! Really?? Does the constitution provide them the power and authority to do those things? YES! WAKE UP. The constitution is NOT YOUR FRIEND!!! I know who won the war to revolt against the English King, that began, in 1776. The winners of that war were English Merchant Capitalists. They won the war of independence from the monarchy. Then THEY wrote our constitution. That constitution specifies an oligarchy of rich English merchants. NOT a democracy, NOT a republic. AN OLIGARCHY, written in black ink on hemp parchment paper. While those people owned slaves, and denied human rights and dignities to native tribes that inhabited this continent, before the English merchants got here, and to African people brought here as slaves, and bred here as slaves, and females, and children. Are you are so damn deluded, that you continue to spew nonsense and idiocy making claims that USING THAT OLIGARCHY is somehow the key to escaping oligarchy? It is sheer idiocy. Absurdity. Consider that fact pattern CAREFULLY! You may not agree that the real purpose of our constitutional decision process was to maintain power of decision authority of the rich. In that case, it is likely that you subscribe to the idea that the people who wrote our decision process were honorable people, with the real intention of simply administering the “will of the people”. That’s fine, and would work, if the decision process actually DID THAT. However it does not. It NEVER did, and it NEVER will. Because it is INVALID, the process itself is NOT VALID. Think about the "concept" of representation. If I was elected to represent the people in your district, it is very likely that I would make decisions within congress that you, personally do not agree with, whether you voted for me or not. I would likely make decisions that you DO agree with, whether you voted for me or not. i suggest that it is your agreement that determines whether you are represented by me or not. Which should be our first clue that something did not work, with that plan, to provide or produce "representation". *** Your VOTE, did not result in representation. Your agreement does. Which is what campaigns, platforms and candidate promises are designed to do, as well as muffled answers to questions about why anyone in congress voted the way they did. If they can convince you to agree with them after the fact, they win. Even if they have to lie, dissemble and flat out refuse to answer. I hear most of them try to excuse their behavior, by claiming that they "believe" that the majority of people agree with them. Even when they know damn well we don't. *** If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. ^ That is another important TRUTH. Remember, "Those who can be convinced to accept absurdities, are easy to convince to accept atrocities." If you are supporting the concept of building a new form of government to replace the abusive idiocy we use today, then you are also, some kind of criminal. Welcome to the life of an outlaw. :-) https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ Belief in some concept does not make it true, as disbelief in some concept does not make it false. You seem to still be under the delusion, that the people we elect CAN represent us. They cannot, even if they WANTED to. The process specified in our constitution, does not allow them to, because it does not work. I KNOW that sounds insane to you, but if you actually examine that process it becomes clear. The PROCESS is flawed, and those people we elect CANNOT represent us using that process. Period. I can explain it. A leader asks to be followed, and will tramp on alone, a ruler will kill people to force others to obey, rather than go it alone. Yeah, PEOPLE have managed to keep society working IN SPITE OF THE FAILURES OF GOVERNMENT. PEOPLE did that, by ad hoc heroic efforts to work around insanity imposed on us by assholes and idiots we elected. Your constitution allows and encourages, putting psychopathic monsters into positions of power and authority. If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Yeah, PEOPLE have managed to keep society working IN SPITE OF THE FAILURES OF GOVERNMENT. PEOPLE did that, by ad hoc heroic efforts to work around insanity imposed on us by assholes and idiots we elected. PEOPLE, would be able to work society IF WE HAD A RATIONAL GOVERNMENT!!! Government is a PROCESS, for making DECISIONS about SOCIETY!!! It needs to WORK. the one we have DOES NOT. WE need a better one. If you are supporting the concept of building a new form of government to replace the abusive idiocy we use today, then you are also, some kind of criminal. Welcome to the life of an outlaw. :-) https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ Just remember when he gets a second term, you failed to tear down and replace the system that put him in power in 2016. You've had over 3 years to wake up, and do something to stop this insanity. Yet all you have done with that time, is yell at each other about who to vote for. Kinda like Trump wasting the time between Feb and March to set up an effective plan to fight the virus. You wasted time for over three years. I see the disparity here as your insistence that money is the paper and coins and numeric entries into ledgers, administered by a political decision process built for the sole purpose of providing benefit to capitalists. It's not. Money is the accounting tool that can be used by a political decision process that distributes wealth equally. So, again, it's the use of money, or perhaps the abuse of money by a system designed to abuse that concept, that is the problem. NOT money. MONEY is not the problem. getting rid of money, as I am defining it, properly, would not solve anything and simply cause chaos and misery and fighting and conflict. Getting rid of the decision process designed to benefit and support capitalist exploitation of the public, would solve a LOT of problems, if we replaced it with a decision process that was committed to equitable distribution of wealth. BUT, that would REQUIRE the use of MONEY, to accomplish that distribution. It's the same money, it's just USED properly. If you think the BLM protests got violent and turned to riots... Wait til the kids start piling up in hospitals when the idiots try to reopen schools. It's gonna get much worse. If we could address those issues we would have done so long long ago, but we cannot, our government does not want us to. MMT is an accurate description of the scam the oligarchy uses to benefit themselves and their profit buddies. Faith based, thinking, is magical thinking, fantasy, unresolved from reality. It's a REAL problem. If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!! If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. Our greatest threat and challenge is a flawed decision process. It cannot resolve or manage the most simple problems we face. The BEST we can expect from it, is a new boss not nearly as insane as the last one. The RISK we accept, is that the next boss will be a worse sociopathic monster, than the last one. It's not an acceptable risk. Do NOT trust the system! It does not work. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ US social safety net: A single thread draped loosely across the chasm of the darkness swallowing society. We don't have a democracy. We do not have a republic. We have an oligarchy. Our constitution SPECIFIES an oligarchy. Ask me, I will explain it. Representation is NOT equivalent to misrepresentation. Don't accept lies excuses and bullshit. If you are being misrepresented by your elected officials, those officials can misrepresent anyone, and everyone. That is what your constitution allows them to do, misrepresent us. STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. STOP being deluded by the FALSE advertising about the PROCESS specified in our constitution. STOP presuming without factual evidence that the process would work just fine if we could remove all corruption from the process. ^^ THAT part is the problem, EVEN if we did remove all the corruption, the damn process would STILL NOT WORK!!!! If the system can misrepresent you, as an individual, then it can misrepresent anyone, which is what y'all are mad about. And I have been telling you for years, THAT is the damn problem, misrepresentation, by the process, the system. We don't have a democracy. We do not have a republic. We have an oligarchy. Our constitution SPECIFIES an oligarchy. Ask me, I will explain it. Representation is NOT equivalent to misrepresentation. Don't accept lies excuses and bullshit. If you are being misrepresented by your elected officials, those officials can misrepresent anyone, and everyone. That is what your constitution allows them to do, misrepresent us. STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. STOP being deluded by the FALSE advertising about the PROCESS specified in our constitution. STOP presuming without factual evidence that the process would work just fine if we could remove all corruption from the process. ^^ THAT part is the problem, EVEN if we did remove all the corruption, the damn process would STILL NOT WORK!!!! If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ I donated blood. I know that my blood donation made more of a positive opportunity to improve society than voting in our election process that installs assholes and idiots to positions of power and the constitutional authority to misrepresent me. If that election result can misrepresent me, then it can misrepresent anyone. Including our majority. That is not a feature. That is a flaw. I donated blood. I know that my blood donation made more of a positive opportunity to improve society than voting in our election process that installs assholes and idiots to positions of power and the constitutional authority to misrepresent me. If that election result can misrepresent me, then it can misrepresent anyone. Including our majority. That is not a feature. That is a flaw. If the system can misrepresent you, as an individual, then it can misrepresent anyone, which is what y'all are mad about. And I have been telling you for years, THAT is the damn problem, misrepresentation, by the process, the system. We don't have a democracy. We do not have a republic. We have an oligarchy. Our constitution SPECIFIES an oligarchy. Ask me, I will explain it. Representation is NOT equivalent to misrepresentation. Don't accept lies excuses and bullshit. If you are being misrepresented by your elected officials, those officials can misrepresent anyone, and everyone. That is what your constitution allows them to do, misrepresent us. STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. STOP being deluded by the FALSE advertising about the PROCESS specified in our constitution. STOP presuming without factual evidence that the process would work just fine if we could remove all corruption from the process. ^^ THAT part is the problem, EVEN if we did remove all the corruption, the damn process would STILL NOT WORK!!!! If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ One internal threat that should never be ignored, is the failure of the decision process to make decisions that promote unity and prosperity in equity. Unity and prosperity of a few, at the expense of many is a failure, of social structure. It is caused by flawed decision process. Yeah, but what does your vote accomplish? Nuthin. Your vote gets counted, and is used to install SOMEONE else to power with the authority to misrepresent you. (I said it, MISREPRESENT you. That's what y'all are so worried about right? Your vote being misrepresented??? RIGHT???) If that person, who does get elected, WHETHER YOU VOTED FOR THEM OR NOT, gets that power and authority, THAT is when you get misrepresented, not in the election. Maybe people should figure out what your VOTE actually does. The majority of human population are deluded by a few false advertising lies promoted subsequent to the ratification of the US 2nd constitution. We had two, you know. The first failed so miserably and quickly, that the people chose to rewrite it within a few years. The 2nd constitution is what we use today. And it failed as well, but the advertising lies, told to the public, were "believed", and became inculturated, as programmed response to the religious fervor of "patriotism". Now, we have a rampant system of oligarchy spreading across the globe. That relies entirely on the cult of constitution, based on those advertising lies. Amazing how authors of fiction can easily arrange and structure elements of their story, such that the outcome and result is exactly what they imagined. Just amazing, how that seems to escape consumers of fiction. Especially those consumers who have no clue they are being fed fiction. It would be easier to work together if we did not have to fight our own government to survive. Your "right to vote", is ENTIRELY predicated on your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! If VOTING does not result in your representation within the decision process we use as a government, then THE SYSTEM FAILED!!!! If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!! Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. OPEN MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE ELECTED AS REPRESENTATIVES OF EVERY GOVERNMENT: The decisions that are being made do NOT represent us, the people, the majority public of our Nation. Whatever reasons or causes you wish to attribute to this circumstance; Money in elections, Lobbyists, Gerrymandering, Party politics, Etc. ad nauseum, FIX IT! If you cannot, FINE, admit your abject failures, then GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY! Sincerely , an angry and frustrated CITIZEN! YOU don't need a new president. YOU NEED A NEW GOVERNMENT!!!! In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ If you are supporting the concept of building a new form of government to replace the abusive idiocy we use today, then you are also, some kind of criminal. Welcome to the life of an outlaw. :-) https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ You keep making the same mistake, over and over and over. That mistake is the presumption that the political system works the way you think it does, as if your voting within that system means a damn thing. Your "right to vote", is ENTIRELY predicated on your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! If VOTING does not result in your representation within the decision process we use as a government, then THE SYSTEM FAILED!!!! REPRESENTATION IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to atrocity. That is my message today. No justice, no peace. "It's not about protest anymore. The time for protest has long since passed. This is punishment. If you can't fix the system then you don't get to have nice things. Burn it all the fuck to the ground and piss on the ashes." "What was Blake reaching for in his car??" That does NOT MATTER. Unless the police, at the time of his interaction with the police had EVIDENCE, not suspicion, EVIDENCE or testimony of sworn witnesses attesting to his guilt in COMMITTING some crime, they had no legal authority to stop, arrest or otherwise impede his attempt to leave the scene. NONE, this was MURDER, by scared cop, confused and tasked with a situation they had no knowledge of, IGNORANT cops shot a human, and you are trying to find excuses for them. NO. Follow the link. after we wake up, time to grow up. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ When you claim that your preferred candidate or party is good... The system is evil. They are not doing good. They are doing less evil. the difference is important. STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. Some people ask me how we can fix this. They point out the divisive and polarized attitudes and behaviors people exhibit today. This is my response. "it can happen by people understanding the reasons that the current system fails, and developing, testing and demonstrating decision process that functions the way our current systems are advertised to work." Even conservatives have complaints, LEGITIMATE complaints about how the process we use misrepresents them. The vast majority of us are AGREED in our anger and frustration, the division is concerning whether we should continue to do exactly what we have been doing, or whether to CHANGE what we are doing. I suggest that those who do not agree to fixing this, are a VERY small minority. Even conservatives are capable of upgrading their vehicle or home, or behavior when they become aware of some benefit to their own interests, by choosing that upgrade. even the least educated hick hillbilly mouth breathing moron, can understand the difference between a fair deal, and an unfair deal. That person might be convinced to accept a deal, even an unfair deal, as long as they get the better end of that deal. What they will resent and reject is an unfair deal that ensures they get shafted. The key is, to get the oligarchy OUT OF power, then to adopt new systems they CANNOT control. (Voting will not accomplish EITHER!) Unless we do that it will not matter how many we chop up, the system we use CREATES oligarchs. If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. If we are NOT being represented, then this ain't a republic. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ This is a point that really confuses people when we attempt to discuss representation. Nearly every voter can point to some specific issue, and either the vote by their rep, or the result of the vote in congress that aligns with their view on that issue, and with that fact, they argue that representation,by election, "works". sad. The CULT OF CONSTITUTION: They use ignorance and lies as arguments, and assert persecution of their insanity as a defense of their insanity. It's like a religious disease. They have renounced the use of reason. "There has to be a better way. I'm interested in your proposal, but as usual stumped as to how it could be instituted." My response: It can be instituted by USING it, LOL The people organizing a protest? They should use 4 branch to do that. Unions, they should use 4branch. Small towns, trying to fight bad local government, USE 4 branch to organize that fight. It's NOT that damn hard. I already provided an example of how people use the same damn process anyways. It's already what we DO, when we don't get caught up in trying to use the "fake republic" process we seem to be fighting. Wow. Wake up, then grow up. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ ROFL, and this is the system you want to support and defend? You clearly have no clue how that system functions, and here is a hint, YOUR opinion is totally irrelevant. Your "vote" simply installs some person in a position to make decisions for you, whether you agree or not. I am not really looking for perfection, simply an absence of dishonest consideration of the system. Egalitarian views are generally in alignment with my own views. However it's important that whatever decision process is used to administer that, is based on true premises, not false premises. Electing people as "representatives", does not and cannot result in representation. It's simply not possible, it's a false premise, and we should stop doing that. Republic, defined by Mirriam-Webster a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. Representatives. Representation. NOT misrepresentation. What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. Note that the definition above, does not in any manner imply nor require that such representatives, be ELECTED! The OFFICERS should be elected, but they ain't representatives, they are administrative staff, HIRED by the public by election. The people employed by the public as representatives must NOT, NEVER, be elected. Elections do not and cannot result in representation. The representatives, hired, must be responsible to the PUBLIC, not the elected officers, otherwise the public does not and cannot have the ultimate authority. As for the governance, according to law, MUST be the law that is enacted BY THE PUBLIC, again, if it were otherwise, then the PUBLIC DOES NOT, NOR EVER DID, have the ultimate authority. My only promise to the public. If elected to office as your representative, I will fight for your natural, and civil right to BE equally and properly, represented in government and society. (You could skip the election, and fight for that shit yourself.) Shrugz, sigh. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, EXACTLY, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! Wow. Wake up, then grow up. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ Speaking of "government", requires that we understand what exactly government *is*. It also requires understanding what representation, *is*. Those two foundational concepts are the crux of delusion foisted on people for millennia. As long as people are satisfied, and accepting of the lies the cult programming establishes in place of reality, they will remain deluded, and incapable of comprehending their delusions. For instance, take the delusion, that we have, "representative" government. If that is *true*, then humans, here in the USA must be REALLY shitty uncaring and evil monsters. It's not true. shrugz. For those who insist that we cannot and should not attempt to fix the damn systems, because "nothing is perfect", this is my response: I agree that nothing is "perfect". However the process that reads your keyboard is much closer to perfect than gibbering bullshit spread by chimpanzees with paintbrushes using piss. The process that manages to lift aircraft into the air and land safely millions of times per year is a lot closer to perfect than taping cardboard wings on yer buddy and kicking him off the barn roof. It's a fucking PROCESS, for making DECISIONS, and it's not just imperfect it's fucking INSANE. It would be easier to work together if we did not have to fight our own government to survive. Inequitable distribution of POWER, is the problem. The POWER that is administered by systems of government, is authorized by the public to be held by a few. It does not matter WHO those few are, or how they came to be placed in those positions of power and authority. It does not matter what promises they make, or lies they tell. The PROBLEM is that they are in positions of power and authority, by public consent. STOP consenting to that. When people ask me how to implement my grand plan, I find that generally what they are really asking is how we can force people into accepting some new system they don't understand and don't trust. Umm, we don't. I won't. If the new plan is compelling enough to convince people to adopt it, it will happen. I am not going to set up machine guns and march people into some dystopian grand scheme of world domination. I understand that people are scared, and impatient angry and frustrated, but I won't be involved in trying to force people into anything. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ What democracy? We never had a democracy, and we never had a republic either. LOL The lie and misinformation began when ole Ben stepped out and told the public, we have a republic. That was bullshit. We have an oligarchy, and it was designed as an oligarchy, not a republic. How many native tribes invited to vote? How many poor white people invited to vote? How many women, invited to vote? How many people enslaved from Africa invited to vote? Nope, a very small minority of rich white asshole men, were allowed to vote. An oligarchy, and you people swallowed that nut load of bullshit about republic and democracy, LOL Just remember this::: If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!! The core premise of our constitutional fraud, lies within the concept of representation. It was thought, and many today "believe", that electing some person to a position of power and authority to misrepresent us, somehow results in representation. There are two points of contention in that "belief". The first, is that as individuals, we are NEVER represented, by some person, that is making decisions that we disagree with. It's simply NOT true. That results in misrepresentation, not representation. Some may argue that the process does not and was never intended to represent us as individuals. I agree. However that does not change the TRUE fact, that we are NOT being represented by the people we elect, when they make decisions we don't agree with. That is the point, and the argument stated above, is simply an excuse for NOT representing us. Think carefully, if that person can misrepresent any of us, they can misrepresent the majority of us. And they DO. That's the damn point. Then there is the result of how they make decisions as a legislative body. Most people want to argue that it is within that process that the majority of us are represented. However that is only true about half the time, (assuming that each member properly represents the majority of citizens within their districts). (which, as we just discussed, they DON'T) Look at the graphic carefully, it's not about the electoral college, it's about CONGRESS! Once the numbers of people within districts, the number of districts and the diversity of view within the districts increases to the levels we find in society today, about half of the decisions made by congress MISREPRESENTS the public majority. The system is predicated on REPRESENTATION, and that representation is REQUIRED for the system to be properly considered a republic. If that process does not result in decisions made by congress that represents the public majority, then IT AIN'T NO REPUBLIC!! That is simply TRUE, and no lie, excuse or bullshit can change that. https://www.45ink.com/4repfraud.jpg A key component of 4 branch, is that rights are protected, and responsibility is enforced. https://www.facebook.com/notes/4-branch-government/note-001/2507802689540218/ I am confident that my fear of how this system failed at providing representative government, is minimal compared to how the system is failing at so many other much more fatal problems we face. As the small group of war ravaged refugees crept carefully through the wrack and ruin of the city that they are escaping, they stop often while gunfire and explosives rake the remnants of buildings that once housed businesses and homes. They whisper as they attempt to avoid the various factions of conflict. A large group of armed combatants surrounds them, threatening the group with rifles and hard suspicions. The "Major", asks, "Are you Republicans or Democrats"? The group of refugees huddles in fear, as one voice answers, "We are Americans, getting out of Chicago, trying to escape from your stupid war!" If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!! If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. Your constitution distributes all decision power and authority to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and left NONE for the public. The lie, the dishonest appraisal at the root of our problems is the unfortunate and incorrect presumption that the people running this absurd parody of representative government, are somehow not using the constitutional flaws and fraud inherent within the specified process. That is what is happening, and none of your attempts to frame this circumstance within a view that promotes that constitutional process as some kind of solution, will change the root flaws and fraud. The constitution is the damn problem, not a solution. Your constitution distributes all decision power and authority to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and left NONE for the public. Cult of constitution, convincing people they can control government by giving up all their decision authority to the government. The lie, the dishonest appraisal at the root of our problems is the unfortunate and incorrect presumption that the people running this absurd parody of representative government, are somehow not using the constitutional flaws and fraud inherent within the specified process. That is what is happening, and none of your attempts to frame this circumstance within a view that promotes that constitutional process as some kind of solution, will change the root flaws and fraud. The constitution is the damn problem, not a solution. What the founders created, was a baby monster. It grew up into a monster of immense size and power. (It was ALWAYS a monster.) It has far surpassed the level of insane evil destruction capable of a monarchy in the 1700's You all need to comprehend exactly how your constitutional decision process, functions in reality. Most of you have no clue how that process, allows and encourages this behavior. Your first mistake was presuming we have a democracy or a republic. We do not. Never did. It was a scam from the moment our constitution was ratified, and falsely advertised as a republic. It's always been an oligarchy, and it was dressed up with sprinkles and confetti, and presented as a republic in drag. You agreed to a decision process that elects people to positions of power and authority then act all butt hurt when they realize you just made them rulers, not representatives? Seriously? How silly are you? After the election, no matter WHO is elected, the result will be an almost hysterical level of anger and frustration. That appendix is ready to BURST. We don't have our surgical room cleaned, none of the tools are ready, we don't even have a damn ambulance. Now, ask yourself, does the consortium of banks and corporations that puppet master the oligarchists have a plan? Do they have an idea of how to run stuff if things get so bad the people violently reject our current systems? Do they have a profit plan from world civil war? Do WE have a plan? I don't CARE who is elected. I want a damn plan. https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/ The constitutional decision process we refuse to abandon, PUT HIM IN OFFICE!!! I am still waiting for anyone to justify the absurd notion that you are being represented by someone that is making decisions on your behalf, that you disagree with, whether you voted for them or not. And, to be honest I am waiting for a valid justification of the belief, that we as a nation are being represented, by a decision process that results in decisions that the majority of us disagree with. It's absurd. Your "right to vote", is ENTIRELY predicated on your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! If VOTING does not result in your representation within the decision process we use as a government, then THE SYSTEM FAILED!!!! REPRESENTATION IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to atrocity. You just want to echo the nonsense in your own little echo chamber that you agreed to be locked into. "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" (1984, George Orwell, Chapter two, Part 3) It would be easier to work together if we did not have to fight our own government to survive. If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!! Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ You keep making the same mistake, over and over and over. That mistake is the presumption that the political system works the way you think it does, as if your voting within that system means a damn thing. You need a valid and sane group decision process. And if you keep trying to copy the decision process that is failing, the same one you protest against, you are losing. What the founders created, was a baby monster. It grew up into a monster of immense size and power. (It was ALWAYS a monster.) It has far surpassed the level of insane evil destruction capable of a monarchy in the 1700's It's a fucking PROCESS, for making DECISIONS, and it's not just imperfect it's fucking INSANE. Having a revolution is one thing. Winning that revolution is quite another. And, honestly, having a plan in place to replace what you revolted against is quite beyond the box of lies we cannot seem to escape, nor even comprehend. No, I am sick of being told over and over that the system needs my voice to elect assholes to power, then once they get power, they ignore my voice. No. If your government functioned the way people were deluded into thinking it does, by cult programmers, the same people that lied about santa claus, we'd all, be in a union that protected us from predatory and abusive business practices. The problem with using "leaders", is that, for a leader to be effective, they must be provided the power and authority of a ruler. One that has the title of "leader", without the power and authority of rule, is technically an advisor, not a leader. Advisors are good, rulers are bad. people confuse benevolence with process all the time. A monarch might be benevolent, that does not make it a democracy. An oligarchy might be benevolent, that does not make it a democracy. A Democracy, MUST be benevolent. If it's not benevolent, it AIN'T A DEMOCRACY. I can expound on that. I suggest the grand experiment is over. We have the data now, to determine that the decision process specified in our constitution, fails to meet the goals advertised in our Declaration of Independence, and the Preamble of that constitution. Nor does the process function, within the parameters specified in those founding documents. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ 4US is not a state of geography. FOR US is a state of mind. Sky blue, blood red, wisdom gray. Circle of wise people on a field of blue. Stripes of grey, making decisions within stripes of conflict A celebration of cooperative decision process. It's all specified in your constitution, which has not changed significantly for many years. The terms are that you elect people to make rules, and you obey those rules. The conditions are that if you don't obey, they can kill you. Same shit different rulers. Personally I thought we, as a nation and society, rejected rulers in 1776, and adopted representatives as the alternative. Then I woke up. The people who wrote your constitution, were English merchant capitalists, the same people who enjoyed profits from the abusive enslavement of people from Africa, and the theft of resources from people who lived here, before the Europeans arrived. The first mistake was believing the lie, that the title of "representative", somehow translates to describe their function. It does not, it cannot. It's a scam. That's how the "nastiest of men", make rules that ensure their positions, and wealth and power. Capitalism does not provide that path to power and authority. Your constitution provides that path. The people we elect have diverse views on specific matters. It's important to understand that. Some of them think that supporting business success is best for the "country". Some think that supporting the public access to sharing and caring programs and agencies, is best for the "country". Some think that keeping law and order is best. Some think that protecting individual freedom is best. etc etc. etc. The PROCESS we use, as specified in our constitution, is what THOSE people use to make decisions ON THOSE MATTERS!!! However that process does not work. It does not work for the people we elect that think we need more police, nor does it work for those who want more freedom. It oscillates between extremes, degrading and eroding every position decision made. And the result of that oscillation is that NOTHING works correctly for ANYONE. It turns into agencies and programs that behave contrary to specified purpose, frozen within regulatory purgatories of contradictory purpose and intent. The actual problems that were being considered, and were attempted to address and resolve or manage, are abandoned in purpose of idiocy and moronic battles of political supremacy. The damn system does not work for ANYONE. A republic. It requires representation, without representation, a government is simply NOT a republic. If a government uses representatives, those people must factually represent the people that used them, or, it's not representation. It's that simple. Therefor, a republic, MUST result in exactly the same decisions, that a public would make via direct democracy. If that does not happen, then the public was NOT represented, it was misrepresented. If the public is misrepresented, the form of government is not a republic. No, REALLY, it's THAT simple. There is no grey area, no exceptions, no excuses, no bullshit and NO MORE LIES. Therefor, a TRUE republic will provide exactly the same results as a direct democracy. A FAKE republic will not. I agree that we NEED a republic. A constitutional republic, that protects the public from mob rule, and provides representation for the public. You want to know how that can happen. How can a representative escape misrepresenting people. USE those people as representatives correctly. NOT BY ELECTION! Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ Need a new system of government. One which still works if we elect a slug or a puppy basset hound as president. One where it still works, if we elect a bunch of bricks as a congress, and a bunch of turkeys as a supreme court. We need a government that works. No. Just NO, that is my participation. I am voting NO. You continue to ascribe the success of the public to function as a society in SPITE OF the dysfunction of our government, to that government, as if it actually succeeded at anything besides getting in our way. Screwing us at every attempt to use the decision process to OUR benefit. NO. Get it?? That is my participation. I like people, I like society, our government is NOT worthy of my support. It's a DECISION process, that is what government is. And OURS is a damn circus act with curtains, glitter, sparkles all covering up the lie that THEY work for US. Most of them TRY, I get it. BUT dammit the process they use, because we all agreed to use it, DOES NOT WORK. That is why I say NO. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ Do you agree that a person should profit from their labors? Consider a person working for a business, That person produces some product or service, that the business sells for a profit. The worker does not get that profit, the business does. Then that person goes to acquire the products and services needed to live, and the wage he made, is spent creating profits for other businesses. Again, that worker does not get that profit, the other businesses do. The vast majority of humans never enjoy the profits from their labor. A few, a minority get to enjoy the profits from the labor of others. Wanna get YOUR profit? Change your damn government. to vote out a corrupt official, within the system used, requires voting IN a different corrupt official. The system is what causes good people to become corrupt. No matter how good a person is, they will be corrupted within the system. It's amazing that people will celebrate advances in many areas of human endeavor, but will refuse to even consider advancing our systems of decision process. Stuck in the 16th century. It's a DECISION process, that is what government is. And OURS is a damn circus act with curtains, glitter, sparkles all covering up the lie that THEY work for US. Most of them TRY, I get it. BUT dammit the process they use, because we were indoctrinated, programmed from birth to use it, DOES NOT WORK. That is why I say NO. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/ Consider this carefully, IF, the system we used, implemented, true representation, THEN, the result would be exactly as if every citizen voted on every issue directly. The PROCESS would differ, but the result would be exactly the same. IF the result is different, then the representation failed, thus, it was NOT representative. It's a simple concept. It either represents us correctly or it does not. If it does, then it would be a republic, a representative democracy. if it does not, then it's NOT a representative democracy. It's not a republic. A republic requires representation. It's not optional. I agree that direct democracy is the correct solution. However there MUST be a prior process to the public decision. That public decision must be constrained by prior process to decisions that are "legal". (sarcasm) The process works fine. Nothin wrong with the system, folks. Just move along, stay in line, vote hard, and don't look back. As long as we all vote the experts in charge will figure it all out and everything will be fine, because we vote. As long as we vote it will work, see? Just vote, keep voting. No matter how bad it gets keep voting. Pay your taxes, vote, toe the line, complain all you want, just as long as you stay in line, and follow orders! When they tell you to open the door, you open the door. When they tell you to come with them, you go with them. When they tell you to get on the train, you get on the train. When they tell you to get in the shower, you get in the shower. As LONG AS YOU VOTED IT WILL BE FINE. It worked for HITLER! (end sarcasm) Maybe we need a REAL system of government instead of the shit show circus we use today? If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY!! (bullshit) before we attempt that, we should re-examine the terms and concepts those terms describe, in order to evaluate the truth or falsity of the assertion that we have a democracy or even a republic to protect. representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. government is a decision process, and the form of government is determined by the specification of that process. a republic requires representation, it's not optional. absent representation, the form cannot be deemed a republic, nor a democracy, regardless of the ability to vote. if your vote does not result in your representation, your vote meant nothing, it was invalidated by the process. All these assholes are doing is asserting some propaganda inciting further justification of the oligarchy they control, to their benefit at your expense. If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ For many people the only relief from apoplexy is humor, because mindless raging violence would not be appropriate either, and people are generally good, the vast majority of us, have no desire to hurt others to reduce our own suffering. Questioning everything is fine, excellent actually. However being too stupid to understand the fucking answers and then bouncing around spewing speculative fantasy as the basis for denying the answers that you declined to understand, is moronic. I think people have rights, and freedoms. I also think those rights and freedoms are easily abused. I also think society should have the ability to impose civil consequence for those who abuse those rights and freedoms in such a way that causes damage to other people. Someone shouting on a deserted street corner, or in some forest, isolated, yeah whatever. that same person shouting in a theater interrupting a show i paid money to enjoy is another matter. A person speculating that aliens might be involved in NASA, is one thing, and telling people to distrust NASA, inciting them to congregate at a calculated location of a large meteorite strike is another. We should have the ability, as a society, to determine that damage was caused, by the abuse of civil rights, and to exact some consequence to change, or negate the abusive behavior. In any case, it's about decisions. :-) https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Note that I am not advocating for the enactment of laws, to regulate or constrain the non-abuse of our rights and freedoms. If we agree that the constitution, directs that efforts be made, to provide for the good of all. (it does not, in fact do that, but even if it did and we agreed that it does), then It also does specify, as a process, that it shall be congress that makes the decisions about HOW such efforts will be codified in law. CONGRESS, not you, not me, not us. The preamble to the constitution is the advertisement of the process, making claims of the process specified. Like most advertisements, the product being advertised falls far short of the claims made. The process specified does not actually DO THOSE THINGS claimed in the preamble. In any case, it's about decisions. :-) https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Money does not allocate resources. DECISIONS, allocate resources. Money simply accounts for those allocations. The preamble to the constitution is, the advertisement of the constitutional decision process, making claims of the process specified. Like most advertisements, the product being advertised falls far short of the claims made. The process specified does not actually DO THOSE THINGS claimed in the preamble. In any case, it's about decisions. :-) https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ There is a REASON, why people in SCIENCE, MATH, PHYSICS, ACCOUNTING, ECONOMICS, refuse to use the PROCESS specified in our constitution for THEIR work. IT DOES NOT WORK. The people we elect, are prone to misrepresent us. The question then becomes that of determining how the "system" fails to halt that misrepresentation. Is it a personal failure of those we elect, or is it a systemic problem, that would occur, regardless of who we elect? What would elected "representatives" be doing without any corruption? Would they be voting within congress exactly as the majority of the people in their districts want them to? RIGHT?? For those of you that still insist that your US constitution "works" to represent we the people and protect our rights and freedoms: YOUR premise, is that if those people that we elected, would vote, within congress as the majority of people in their district wants them to, that the result of the decision in congress, would reliably and accurately represent the majority decision of the entire public. I am reducing all the rhetoric to THAT simple premise. The one that YOU insist is true. If I demonstrated to you that Santa Claus cannot possibly come down your chimney, then I can at least begin to break your "belief" in the premise that Santa exists. Until you understand the lies, you were told about how your government factually functions, you will continue to insist that santa exists, oops, I mean that electing representatives works. "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" (1984, George Orwell, Chapter two, Part 3) I find it interesting that we are just past the anniversary date of the launch of the Mars Climate Orbiter, Dec 11, 1998. This doomed nasa mission failed, because the design engineers did not use the correct terms of measure in their programming. Read about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter What is interesting here is that, the failure could likely have been avoided, if everyone had used the terms of measure correctly. The terms were supposed to be metric, not english units. Meters, not feet. If everyone used meters, that would have worked. If everyone used feet, that would have worked also. It was the MISUSE of terms that caused the failure. Terms, used incorrectly, such as "republic", "democracy", "representation", is the cause of failures within governments today. The system used in ancient Rome, was not a democracy, and it was not a republic either. until we stop using terms incorrectly, and face reality about the concepts those terms really do express, we are swimming in a cesspool in the dark. Just as the MMT crowd insists that the national "debt", is being misunderstood, and the correct term, should be one describing, "currency in circulation". Understanding the actual concept, being discussed, and then using the correct terms appropriately to clear up misunderstanding is a valuable tool of education. The Romans did not use "democracy", they did not use a "republic". Neither did the Greeks. To suggest that those terms are appropriately used to describe those systems is an example of the propaganda, used to miseducate the public, on those matters. We, the people, ALL of us, have an equal right to be represented in government, without misrepresentation. ALL of us. The constitution does not DO THAT. And no matter who we elect the constitution will NEVER provide equal representation to all. The decision process we use, as specified in our constitution, does misrepresent the public, at the whim and convenience of those who profit from that misrepresentation. I often ask the voice in my head, a question, that I KNOW, that I do not actually have an answer to. I do that, to test the premise that the voice in my head is not me. When the voice cannot respond with a true answer, i know that the voice is ME , not some God, or Devil, or entity other than myself. A test that would have staved off much of the idiots that assert the voice of god, spake to them and told them to do crap, they prolly should not have. https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/shop/Docking-Hardware-for-Detachable-Two-Up-Luggage-Rack/p/52300285 https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/shop/H-D-Detachables-Two-Up-Luggage-Rack/p/50300091 https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/shop/Sissy-Bar-Upright/p/52300307 https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/shop/Compact-Passenger-Backrest-Pad/p/52300281 Yeah, PEOPLE have managed to keep society working IN SPITE OF THE FAILURES OF GOVERNMENT. PEOPLE did that, by ad hoc heroic efforts to work around insanity imposed on us by assholes and idiots we elected. Your constitution allows and encourages, putting psychopathic monsters into positions of power and authority. If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! The preamble to the constitution is, the advertisement of the constitutional decision process, making claims of the process specified. Like most advertisements, the product being advertised falls far short of the claims made. The process specified does not actually DO THOSE THINGS claimed in the preamble. In any case, it's about decisions. 🙂 https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ There is a REASON, why people in SCIENCE, MATH, PHYSICS, ACCOUNTING, ECONOMICS, refuse to use the PROCESS specified in our constitution for THEIR work. IT DOES NOT WORK. A human might irrationally pound out nonsense on his keyboard. yet the "process' that reads his pounding on the keys works perfectly rational. Every keystroke is detected, and the result appears on the screen, just as intended. The result might be irrational, but at least the PROCESS works correctly. It functions in a rational manner. If people, a majority, insist on using an electoral college for making the decision of who shall be president of the US, then I would suggest that it be used to more closely align with public will. For instance, in a state that has 10 electoral votes, just as an example, if candidate "A", won 60% of the popular vote, with candidate "B" winning 40% of the state popular vote, then the electors shall be apportioned to align, with that outcome. 6 electors voting for "A", and 4 voting for "B". Personally, as many of you should know by now, I reject the entire mess as specified by our constitution. NONE of that process is valid for the purpose of administering public will. When the primal Man goes to hunt He leaves her With two fears. The first is that He won't come back The second, That he will. Ancient wisdom translated by Forfyv I keep a dark, ugly and violent secret place in my spirit, cocked and ready for those who intend violence and hurt against me and mine. I am not threatening, I am merely prepared, and attentive. You need not be capable of this balance in your life, because I and others choose to stand outside society, facing outward, into the wilderness. We face that without the illusions, of that wilderness being peaceful and idyllic. It is violent, combative and predatory. Sip your tea in peace. We love you. I would like to emphatically reject the insane view that proposes that : Wealth equals power. It's NOT true, it is a falsity of such absurdity that I decided to write this. Consider a circumstance, wherein, a group of 25 fighting men are loyal to me personally. Then you are a wealthy merchant, objecting to a new tax, by the king imposed on your business. Now imagine that you approach me with an attempt to rent the 25 fighters to assassinate the king, and to reverse the tax thereby. You are wealthy. I nominally control the actions of 25 fighters. WHO has the POWER?? Not you. You might convince me to accept your RENTAL proposition of those men. You might not. I might reject your rental proposition, and take your plot to the king and allow him to behead you for treason. Not ME. As the men I nominally hold control over may decide to take ME to the king and have me beheaded. Not the KING either, as those 25 men might decide to agree to that assassination. The people who have POWER are those 25 men. THEY decide, not me, not you, not the king. It's an absurdity to base your view of power on this notion of wealth being equivalent to power. It's NOT true. No matter how you attempt to twist and squirm under the weight of reality, no matter what lies excuses and bullshit you spew up in defense of this absurdity, it IS ABSURD. In any case, it's about decisions. NOT wealth. 🙂 https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ It is reported that Biden is assembling a team to address climate disruptions, by involving business to create jobs to fight the problem. What you really mean, is that we have a team of rulers plotting to insure profits from an attempt to solve an extinction level problem? Yeah, we know. Workers are poor because they insist on using a decision process that rich people own and control. PERIOD! People seem to enjoy blaming the state of our nation on the "apathetic" public. We are not apathetic, we never have been actually. What we have been is apoplectic! ( look that one up people ) That situation has been caused by the reality that we have zero meaningful or significant control of our government. We were promised self governance, and all we got was a chance to trade one set of asshole rulers for another set of assholes. That is the ONLY control we have, and that is neither meaningful nor significant control at all. We have never been apathetic sheep, we have been angry, frustrated and attempting patience for over 200 years for somehow this purported great system to finally produce reliable, consistent rational results, and all we got was a continuing and increasing stream of lies, excuses and bullshit. Our patience is ending. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. Those who can be convinced to believe absurdity, can be convinced to commit atrocity. What atrocity will be committed, next, because we insisted on believing absurdity? Which atrocities have been committed in the past? To expect the people we elect, and those that they appoint, to run government as a republic, is a fantasy. uhh, they cannot do what you expect of them. It is like expecting a machine that grinds up meat, to take burger, and have it make steaks. It simply does not work. https://www.45ink.com/4branch006.png The people we elect, are prone to misrepresent us. The question then becomes that of determining how the "system" fails to halt that misrepresentation. Is it a personal failure of those we elect, or is it a systemic problem, that would occur, regardless of who we elect? What would elected "representatives" be doing without any corruption? Would they be voting within congress exactly as the majority of the people in their districts want them to? RIGHT?? https://www.45ink.com/4repfraud.jpg Allow me to illustrate. Prior to 1850, MANY people failed to achieve heavier than air flight. Many of those failures resulted in death of the people making the attempt and of spectators. Prior to 1700, MANY people failed to specify some rational explanation of electricity, many people making that attempt died. Prior to 1500, many people failed to engineer a functioning gunpowder cannon. Many people died in their attempts. However, EVENTUALLY, flight was common, electricity was tamed, and cannons killed more people than died attempting to build them. Keep that in mind. People FAILED, until someone succeeded. The people who succeeded, generally understood the problems being addressed and challenged, they gained that understanding with the method of science, even when they could not have named the method, and simply assumed they had stumbled upon the correct answer. You have been, over your lifetime been exposed to NUMEROUS warnings about direct democracy, and been shown horrible examples of FAILURES. Propaganda. Terrified by stories of failure. Too terrified to even consider the problems of democracy, and to gain knowledge about those problems to formulate any reasonable solutions, engineered solutions. Sigh, shrugz. "Trumpist dipshits with 6th grade educations having equal representation" (horrors) please, explain, exactly what your objection is to those people being represented within a decision process that cannot be ruled by a minority of 6th grade dipshits. PLEASE! (and notice, again, PLEASE, that for the last 4 years, that is EXACTLY what we have HAD, rule, by 6th grade dipshitz.) What I find particularly interesting, is that it seems true, that both the left and right, liberal and conservative, black, white and all shades between, nearly every division of public population, with a very few notable exceptions are yelling, protesting and rioting at various times, incited by various events, and EACH OF THOSE EVENTS precipitated by the FAILURE of the decision process to properly represent their view within our government. From the failure to arrest and prosecution of a police officer after shooting and killing unarmed citizens, to the failure to arrest and prosecution of lawmakers and supporters caught in criminal acts, to the failure to protect the public from lies and propaganda from corporate business, etc etc etc The notable exceptions are the police, lawmakers and their supporters and corporate business. The REST of us are ANGRY and FRUSTRATED, by the failures of our "representative" government to REPRESENT US!!! If you are ready to decide that your representation is not worth fighting for, fine. I have decided decades ago. I am fighting, because to abdicate my authority to be represented, is to become a chattel slave. i refuse. i resist. i reject. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ What we witnessed Jan 6, 2021 in Washington DC was NOT an attempted coup against "democracy". It was in fact an attempted coup of one faction of rulers against another faction of rulers. It's not over, it has barely begun. This, is a single event, in a future that you have so far refused to consider. The reality is, that you COULD HAVE imagined this, you chose to REFUSE to consider it. Unless you begin to consider and ACT on that consideration, your future is writ and sealed. (speculative fiction) As the small group of war ravaged refugees crept carefully through the wrack and ruin of the city that they are escaping, they stop often while gunfire and explosives rake the remnants of buildings that once housed businesses and homes. They whisper as they attempt to avoid the various factions of conflict. A large group of armed combatants surrounds them, threatening the group with rifles and hard suspicions. The "Major", asks, "Are you Republicans or Democrats"? The group of refugees huddles in fear, as one voice answers, "We are Americans, getting out of Chicago, trying to escape from your stupid war!" (end speculative fiction) Now, back to REALITY! Soon, to be your reality. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. Those who can be convinced to believe absurdity, can be convinced to commit atrocity. What atrocity will be committed, next, because we insisted on believing absurdity? Which atrocities have been committed in the past? To expect the people we elect, and those that they appoint, to run government as a republic, is a fantasy. uhh, they cannot do what you expect of them. It is like expecting a machine that grinds up meat, to take burger, and have it make steaks. It simply does not work. Excited about the arrests? Arrest is not equivalent to prosecution, and prosecution is not equivalent to conviction, and conviction is not equivalent to sentence of consequence, and sentence of consequence is not equivalent to serving that sentence. Oh, and representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Ahh. A republic, then? A form of government that elects representatives and uses rule of law instead of rule by mob majority, correct? In any case, allow me to ask, if our "form" of government did not use representatives, but it did use rule of law, would it still be a republic? Does a republic *require* representation, or is representation optional? What is the role, of "rule of law"? What is the purpose of that? I suggest the "rule of law" is simply to ensure that the process specified is used for making social decisions. Instead of ad-hoc expediency to deal with social matters as some majority or minority may be able to push in a heated moment. However, "rule of law" certainly has a risk of abuse by those who make those rules of law. Especially a mob of lawmakers, a minority of the public body, in fear of having secrets exposed, and power removed. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. Those who can be convinced to believe absurdity, can be convinced to commit atrocity. What atrocity will be committed, next, because we insisted on believing absurdity? Which atrocities have been committed in the past? Trump has access to secrets that many rich and powerful would find extremely difficult to explain, if he were to make those public. I see a pattern here. Maria Mollenkopf 28m · Damn straight!!!! Hourglass with flowing sand The economy isn't a living entity that reacts independently of policy choice. Every single thing that happens in it from recessions to depressions to wage stagnation to inflation to gross inequality is the result of deliberate choices made by the state-corporate power structure. Yet, it has been demonstrated many times, in many ways, that who we vote for, has practically no significant effect on the decisions made, or declined to be made by those we elect to that decision authority on our behalf. 👨‍🔬 What predicate of social structure, as promoted in our Declaration of Independence, supports your "right to vote"?? I have said this before, and I will repeat it here, once again. To the intelligence and law enforcement agencies here in the USA and around the world, CONSIDER the events of dissent you are investigating. Consider the actions and behaviors of your civilian and military governments and agencies that by failing to manage or resolve the complaints and problems that precipitate those complaints, have CAUSED the dissents. THOSE failures are YOUR problem. FIX those. When you mention the word, "government", do you understand that every form of government and every government of those forms, is simply a specified process for making decisions enforced on society? Do you understand that? Do you then assume, as it seems that you do, that the ONLY form of government we might choose to use is the one specified by a bunch of rich white slave owning capitalist merchants? really?? Wanna rethink it? I know who won the war to revolt against the English King, that began, in 1776. The winners of that war were English Merchant Capitalists. They won the war of independence from the monarchy. Then THEY wrote our constitution. Consider that fact pattern CAREFULLY! It's NOT a democracy, it's NOT a republic. A republic REQUIRES representation. If you say, "No." Then I were to tell people that you said, "Yes", I would not be representing you. I would be misrepresenting you. No lies, excuses or bullshit could change my misrepresentation into representation. It would not matter if I was elected. It would not matter if you voted for me. Representation IS NOT EQUIVALENT to misrepresentation. There is no grey area, no exceptions. If your response to that is to insist, "That's not the way it works.", then I agree, that is one way it DOES NOT WORK. There is another way it does not work as well. We can use arithmetic to explain how it DOES NOT WORK, that way as well. Too many people confuse the questions. The question of whether an oligarchy can be benevolent is not valid, if we are truly a republic, a public represented by government. Of course an oligarchy can be benevolent, just as a king might be. The VALID question is about representative government. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ The question being, of whether the person elected to represent you in our government, does in fact properly represent you. I want you to imagine that your stupid neighbor, disagrees with your view on EVERY resolution and issue. Regardless of what you think, your dumb neighbor disagrees with you. You BOTH voted in the election of that person that was elected to congress. If you voted for that person, then your neighbor voted against that person. If you voted against that person, then your neighbor voted FOR that person. With all that said, we should now agree that BOTH you and your neighbor have equal claim of a constitutional right of proper representation. That is an important point to recognize. Our constitution claims to protect your right to be properly represented in government. It either SUCCEEDS in providing that proper representation, to EVERYONE equally, or it does NOT. It does not matter, if YOU are represented, if your neighbor is NOT being represented. Just because you have a say, does not mean that you get your way. BUT, our constitution states that every person is treated equally under the law. Which means that if you get YOUR say, then your neighbor ALSO has the right to have HIS say, even if you don't agree with his view. THAT is what I want you to really think about. Our constitution either works, properly, or it does not. Is it even POSSIBLE for that election of that person to congress to PROPERLY represent both you and your neighbor, equally? No. it is NOT. Therefor the process specified in our constitution fails to provide a method of equal rights to all people. FAILS, in a core premise, FAILS to actualize the core principle of law it was claimed to properly administer. I have no interest in any "love it or leave it" or "It's the best there is" nonsense. It FAILS, and to simply ignore that fact is an absurdity that MUST change, before any attempt to use any system of governance. Electing individuals as representatives, FAILS, at the the core premise of providing representation. Consider 3 districts, no parties, no money, absolute honest elections and everyone votes. Each district elects a representative and that representative is required, by law to represent the majority of the people in that district. District one, two people said "yes", one said "no". The majority said YES. District two, two said "yes", one said "no". The majority said YES. District three, zero people said "yes", three said "no". The majority said no. The majority of the people, FIVE of them said NO! The minority, Only FOUR said YES. The representatives voted two to one and the decision of CONGRESS, was YES. The MAJORITY of the people said NO!! What the hell kind of bullshit system is that, huh?? You tell me. The big lie, is that our constitutional decision process, accurately and reliably represents the majority of our citizens. That false premise and faith, is the ROOT cause of our governments inability to resolve or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions. A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions. If your government does not do that, you need a new government. Remember this long and hard. A benevolent oligarchy is as possible as a malevolent oligarchy. It makes no difference if some decisions match your opinion and views. What makes the difference between oligarchy and a republic, or a monarchy or dictatorship, or whatever, is the PROCESS used for making decisions. A republic REQUIRES representation. it's NOT optional. Representation is NOT equivalent to misrepresentation. If you can be misrepresented in the process, then ANYONE can be, and EVERYONE can be. If representation does not exist, ... if YOU don't get represented, then it's NOT a republic. It may be an oligarchy, it may not be, but we, the people are not being represented, and that means it's NOT a republic. It's a false, flawed, and fraudulent form of government and it HAS been since it began. Remember this long and hard. A benevolent oligarchy is as possible as a malevolent oligarchy. It makes no difference if some decisions match your opinion and views. What makes the difference between oligarchy and a republic, or a monarchy or dictatorship, or whatever, is the PROCESS used for making decisions. A republic REQUIRES representation. it's NOT optional. Representation is NOT equivalent to misrepresentation. If you can be misrepresented in the process, then ANYONE can be, and EVERYONE can be. If representation does not exist, ... if YOU don't get represented, then it's NOT a republic. It may be an oligarchy, it may not be, but we, the people are not being represented, and that means it's NOT a republic. It's a false, flawed, and fraudulent form of government and it HAS been since it began. Too many people confuse the questions. The question of whether an oligarchy can be benevolent is not valid, if we are truly a republic, a public represented by government. Of course an oligarchy can be benevolent, just as a monarchy might be. Each may be malevolent as well. What makes the difference between oligarchy and a republic, or a monarchy or dictatorship, or whatever, is the PROCESS used for making decisions. The VALID question is about representative government. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ The question being, of whether the person elected to represent you in our government, does in fact properly represent you. Consider, If you say, "No." Then I were to tell people that you said, "Yes", I would not be representing you. I would be misrepresenting you. No lies, excuses or bullshit could change my misrepresentation into representation. It would not matter if I was elected. It would not matter if you voted for me. Representation IS NOT EQUIVALENT to misrepresentation. There is no grey area, no exceptions. If your response to that is to insist, "That's not the way it works.", then I agree, that is one way it DOES NOT WORK. There is another way it does not work as well. We can use arithmetic to explain how it DOES NOT WORK, that way as well. THIS should have been our FIRST amendment. The right of each and every citizen to be equally accurately and reliably represented within our constitutional decision process shall not be infringed by constitutional process nor legislative act. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Technically government is a decision process, while a form of government is a specification of that process, and a nation is the instantiation of that specified process. I think people have rights, and freedoms. I also think those rights and freedoms are easily abused. I also think society should have the ability to impose civil consequence for those who abuse those rights and freedoms in such a way that causes damage to other people. Someone shouting on a deserted street corner, or in some forest, isolated, yeah whatever. That same person shouting in a theater interrupting a show I paid money to enjoy is another matter. A person speculating that aliens might be involved in NASA, is one thing, and telling people to distrust NASA, inciting them to congregate at a calculated location of a large meteorite strike is another. We should have the ability, as a society, to determine that damage was caused, by the abuse of civil rights, and to exact some consequence to change, or negate the abusive behavior. As for the impeachment trial of Trump, the counsel for Trump cited supreme court rulings that clearly enforce the concept that elected officials enjoy elevated protection of our right of free speech. Consider that carefully. Our Supreme Court, clearly and without equivocation, promotes the concept that the people elected to power and authority, enjoy protection of civil rights that the general citizenry CAN NOT EXPECT by the administration of our constitutional decision process. Let me restate that. YOU as a citizen, cannot expect protection of speech, and the consequence of your speech, that your elected officials DO expect, and recieve. How, does this concept, administer rights equally under law? If a nation of people elect a monarch every four years, then, is that form of government properly considered a democracy, or a monarchy? If you respond by saying that it is a democratic monarchy, I agree, it's a monarchy. :-) This is important. If a nation of people vote to elect oligarchs, every two, four and six years, it is a democratic oligarchy. An oligarchy. An oligarchy is NOT a republic. It's NOT a democracy. Just sayin'. A republic REQUIRES representation, it is a form of Democracy. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. If the process misrepresents ANYONE, then it's not a republic, not a democracy. Words have meaning. The misuse of words, twisted to allow and encourage abuse of government is a crime against humanity. We face problems, of global proportion and consequence, and the decision processes we use rely on lies, excuses and bullshit, to convince you that the problems are not being solved, because YOU choose the wrong oligarchs. It's a problem. It is THE problem. FIX THAT, or suffer. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ How would it be determined whether a monarchy is benevolent or malevolent? Would that determine an oligarchy benevolence or malevolence? By the same measure or standard, is it obvious that a democracy MUST be considered benevolent? In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I have heard a LOT of people telling me, that we cannot fight our government, Yep, I agree, however I have not said that we should. I am saying that we should REPLACE our government. When Ford began building his automobile, he did not suggest that we needed to go shoot all the horses. When the Wright brothers built their airplane, they did not insist that we should burn all the balloons and dirigibles. When Bell, invented the telephone, he did not tell people to trash their pens and paper, or that we should destroy telegraph offices and equipment. People began USING those things, and then those things proved to be BETTER, and THAT is why those things were replaced. No need to destroy what we have. USE SOMETHING BETTER!!! In any case, it's about decisions. I do agree that a democracy is a decision process administering the will of the public majority. I am also asserting that a republic is a sub-form of democracy, that administers the majority will of the public by using representatives. However in that assertion, I will insist that the word representative is used correctly, and not in a manner that allows the absurd notion that representation is misrepresentation. I will also insist that a republic, under rule of law, the FIRST premise of law requires that all citizens be represented equally. I do agree that a democracy is a decision process administering the will of the public majority. I am also asserting that a republic is a sub-form of democracy, that administers the majority will of the public by using representatives. However in that assertion, I will insist that the word representative is used correctly, and not in a manner that allows the absurd notion that representation is misrepresentation. I will also insist that a republic, under rule of law, the FIRST premise of law requires that all citizens be represented equally. How would it be determined whether a monarchy is benevolent or malevolent? Would that determine an oligarchy benevolence or malevolence? By the same measure or standard, is it obvious that a democracy MUST be considered benevolent? If a nation of people elect a monarch every four years, then, is that form of government properly considered a democracy, or a monarchy? If you respond by saying that it is a democratic monarchy, I agree, it's a monarchy. 　 This is important. If a nation of people vote to elect oligarchs, every two, four and six years, it is a democratic oligarchy. An oligarchy. An oligarchy is NOT a republic. It's NOT a democracy. Just sayin'. A republic REQUIRES representation, it is a form of Democracy. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. If the process misrepresents ANYONE, then it's not a republic, not a democracy. Words have meaning. The misuse of words, twisted to allow and encourage abuse of government is a crime against humanity. We face problems, of global proportion and consequence, and the decision processes we use rely on lies, excuses and bullshit, to convince you that the problems are not being solved, because YOU choose the wrong oligarchs. It's a problem. It is THE problem. FIX THAT, or suffer. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I think it is reasonable to suggest that a majority of US citizens not legally denied voting rights would agree, they were misrepresented by an elected official on some matter or other. Do you think it would be socially prudent to determine whether a majority of US citizens feel they have been misrepresented by our government on a majority of issues? If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. We face problems, of global proportion and consequence, and the decision processes we use rely on lies, excuses and bullshit, to convince you that the problems are not being solved, because YOU choose the wrong oligarchs. It's a problem. It is THE problem. FIX THAT, or suffer. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A republic using representatives can be designed such that it provides the EXACT SAME RESULT that voting directly, in a direct democracy would provide, and do that reliably, every decision, every day, every year, WHILE also, providing solid and secure protection against mob rule.. lynch mobs and the like.. YOU may not know how to do that. That does not make it impossible. Nor does that mean that I cannot figure it out, just because YOU cannot. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Recipe for lovers of faith: Naughty Bread Preheat oven to 350 F In a mixing bowl, place 1 cup of flour with two eggs. Mix the egg and flour mixture until it forms a smooth dough consistency. Grease a 9x12" cookie sheet. Remove one egg from the egg and flour mixture you prepared earlier. Spread the dough 1/4" on the cookie sheet and bake at 350 F for 10 minutes and let cool. Cut the bread into 2 inch squares and enjoy. naughty bread, an impossibly delicious confection invented many generations ago, by people who don't understand facts. Ya gotta have faith. SOMEONE is making decisions about the allocation of resources. It's NOT the human public majority. SOMEONE is making those decisions and it's NOT YOU!!! People are generally good, and eager to do good for others. In spite of having to fight with government to accomplish good things. Then, people say we have to keep using idiocy to make decisions. yep, they look at the carnage and misery and shrug, avoiding responsibility for continuing to support and use an irrational and frankly insane decision process as a form of government. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ We have an oligarchy and that is because our constitution was originally written to specify an oligarchy, not a republic. If a nation of people elect a monarch every four years, then, is that form of government properly considered a democracy, or a monarchy? If you respond by saying that it is a democratic monarchy, I agree, it's a monarchy. This is important. If a nation of people vote to elect oligarchs, every two, four and six years, it is a democratic oligarchy. An oligarchy. An oligarchy is NOT a republic. It's NOT a democracy. Just sayin'. A republic REQUIRES representation, it is a form of Democracy. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. We face problems, of global proportion and consequence, and the decision processes we use rely on lies, excuses and bullshit, to convince you that the problems are not being solved, because YOU choose the wrong oligarchs. It's a problem. It is THE problem. FIX THAT, or suffer. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A republic using representatives can be designed such that it provides the EXACT SAME RESULT that voting directly, in a direct democracy would provide, and do that reliably, every decision, every day, every year. In any case, it's about decisions. I am frustrated by some conversations. Especially those that involve a beginning by someone who insists we need a revolution, or amend the constitution, or fix the system. When I respond by explaining why they don't like our government, they insist that there is nothing wrong with our government. It's weird. Huh??? I can explain that people my age were making the same complaints they are making, back in the 60's. Then they attack me because they claim I am responsible for not fixing it. OK, yeah, I get it. My generation did not fix it. That is true. The REASON we did not "fix" it in the 60's, is because a bunch of us, especially older people insisted that nothing is wrong with the government. JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW!!!! What I find MOST disturbing is that the majority of the public, still insists on using the constitutional decision process that elects idiots like Biden and Trump to positions of power and authority without any control of their power, beyond attempting to elect another idiot asshole to replace them. A republic REQUIRES representation, it is a form of Democracy. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. We each have the right to be represented in a republic. If each of us do not have equal right of representation, this ain't a republic. We face problems, of global proportion and consequence, and the decision processes we use rely on lies, excuses and bullshit, to convince you that the problems are not being solved, because YOU choose the wrong oligarchs. It's a problem. It is THE problem. FIX THAT, or suffer. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A republic using representatives can be designed such that it provides the EXACT SAME RESULT that voting directly, in a direct democracy would provide, and do that reliably, every decision, every day, every year. In any case, it's about decisions. There are three general forms of government. Monarchy, rule by one. Oligarchy, rule by few. Democracy, rule by many. Do not confuse the process of installing people to positions of rule, with the position of rule. For instance, a monarch might be elected periodically. The election is an element of democratic process. That is how the ruler was installed to that position. Once installed, that person is a monarch, and the form of government is a monarchy. Not a democracy. The determination of general form is made by examining the decision process used to enact laws, and to enforce those laws. In a monarchy, one person makes decision on the rules, one person makes decision on the enforcement of rules. It does not matter HOW that person came to that position. In the same reasoning, we can examine oligarchy. It does not matter how the oligarchs were installed to their positions of decision making, nor does it matter what process they use amongst themselves while making those decisions. Each of which may be an element of democratic process. What matters is how the decisions are made concerning the enactment and enforcement of law on the public. In an oligarchy, a small group of people are elevated to position of power and authority to make those decisions. When we examine a democracy, we use the EXACT same standards of measure. A democracy elevates many to the position of power and authority to enact and enforce law. This is commonly viewed as a “majority rule” form of government. Again, it does not matter to the specification of general form, HOW that majority is elevated to that position of power and authority, it is sufficient for that “many”, to have power and authority to enact law and to enforce that law. The above, seems sufficient to explain how democracy might differ from the other two forms. As an aside, there can be more specific categories for subforms. As an example, a monarchy that uses elections, might be viewed as a “democratic” monarchy. A hereditary process, might be considered a hereditary monarchy. A military dictator would be considered a military monarchy. A republic is a subform of democracy, not a subform of oligarchy. People are going to be who they are and behave as they do. Attempting to use a decision process that relies on people being who you wish they were, or behaving as you wish they would, is just a fantasy, not a process. A good decision process, prevents corruption, a bad decision process causes corruption. When we promote some person to a position of power and authority to make decisions they impose on us, we CAUSE corruption. It's that simple. If we removed all corruption, the decision process would still fail to represent the public, and fail to be a republic. The flawed process is the CAUSE of corruption. In the USA, we use a decision process, as a government of the form: Constitutional, democratic, oligarchy. We have a constitution, which specifies the process by which decisions will be made concerning the enactment and enforcement of law, upon the public. That makes our government constitutional. An element, (small element), of that process specified, is concerns voting, which is an element of a democratic decision process, but only one element, though it is used twice, and differently both times. The first use of voting is to elect people to a congress who make the decisions. A small group of people, relative to the size of people comprising the public. The second use of voting, is used by the small group of people elected to congress, and they use direct democracy, full stop. The general form of decision process we use is determined by examining the process by which decisions are made on the laws that are enacted and enforced. There are three general forms of government. Monarchy, rule by one. Oligarchy, rule by few. Democracy, rule by many. Do not confuse the process of installing people to positions of rule, with the position of rule. For instance, a monarch might be elected periodically. The election is an element of democratic process. That is how the ruler was installed to that position. Once installed, that person is a monarch, and the form of government is a monarchy. Not a democracy. The determination of general form is made by examining the decision process used to enact laws, and to enforce those laws. In a monarchy, one person makes decision on the rules, one person makes decision on the enforcement of rules. It does not matter HOW that person came to that position. In the same reasoning, we can examine oligarchy. It does not matter how the oligarchs were installed to their positions of decision making, nor does it matter what process they use amongst themselves while making those decisions. In the USA, under our constitutional decision process since 1789, the process specifies a small group of people making the decisions about which laws are enacted and enforced. Thus we use an oligarchy. Not a republic, not a democracy. "Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." A republic is a subform of democracy, not an oligarchy. (and a republic REQUIRES representation, not misrepresentation.) There are three general forms of government. Monarchy, rule by one. Oligarchy, rule by few. Democracy, rule by many. Do not confuse the process of installing people to positions of rule, with the position of rule. Elections? The process people argue about is the one that installs a few rulers. We face problems, of global proportion and consequence, and the decision processes we use rely on lies, excuses and bullshit, to convince you that the problems are not being solved, because YOU choose the wrong oligarchs. It's a problem. It is THE problem. FIX THAT, or suffer. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Our government is a monster machine used by rich people to grind down to death, other people for profits. Poor people want to be the ones running that machine and getting the profits. Which is ABSURD, it's a monster machine. STOP trying to run the damn thing. Use a BETTER machine. That would depend on the decision process that is specified that administers a direct democracy. Most people, when considering a direct democracy, stop their consideration once they imagine the dumbest way possible to implement the dumbest specification. For instance, most people assume, and presume that a democracy must use a majority threshold of 50% +1, as if a vote of 150 million people to starve poor people should be considered sufficient evidence that it’s a good idea and a legal “law”. 149,999,999 people said NO. There is no reasonable position that it would be socially prudent to accept such a situation. Yet, that is the “view” of people opposing democracy as a decision process want you to consider, and they do NOT want you to even begin to think about a BETTER plan. They want you to stop thinking as soon as you agree to their “dumbest way possible”. Another example, of a view they push on the public, is that if a crowd of 150 angry people vote to hang someone, that should be the “law”. As if we could not easily see that in a community of 5000 people 150 votes to hang someone is nowhere near a majority. See how that works? A specification, that a law that is enforced on a population of 5,000 people requires a majority of those 5,000 people, NOT simply a majority of the people that voted. If 73 people voted “no”, and 238 people voted “yes”, in a community of 680,000 people, it is NOT relevant that more people voted yes, than no. What matters is that only 238 people voted yes, and 679,762 DID NOT APPROVE!!! Did not agree. Another example of the view of “dumbest” way possible is the insistence that there is no way to protect human and civil rights and freedoms. Nonsense! The method of process that protects rights is the exact same as we use today, a set of articles of protection. Those articles specify which rights shall be protected, and the manner in which those protections shall be enforced. Then implement a judicial function, that considers every “bill”, and considers whether the enactment of that bill would contravene any of those articles of protection. Do that BEFORE any vote is made on the “bill”. It is the decision process which should be examined, and such examination should use critical thinking, not faith based thinking. I am asserting that if humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. Time to make a choice! Politics is the use of discussion by a population on issues of social concern, with potential resolution and management proposals. Power is the imposition of decisions of law upon a social situation. Law is the specification of decisions made within a specified decision process, usually referred to as a “government”. Is a republic rule by majority, or is a republic rule by minority? If the former, then a republic must be a democracy. If the latter, then a republic cannot be a democracy. It’s absurd to simply accept the dumbest way possible to design, structure, implement and administer a “republic”. A TRUE republic. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A republic using representatives can be designed such that it provides the EXACT SAME RESULT that voting directly, in a direct democracy would provide, and do that reliably, every decision, every day, every year. In any case, it's about decisions. I was involved with a group of people that organized roughly as the US constitution specifies. Local chapters elected “representatives”, and those people went to state meetings and participated in making decisions by voting at those meetings. I was elected as one of those representatives. I went to state meetings and voted at those meetings. Though, there were times when a decision was brought up for vote, and I had not had an opportunity to speak to the people in my chapter and thus, I could not represent their decision to the state meeting. I declined to rule over them, without their vote on the matter. Notice what I just described? I refused to be a ruler, and insisted on being a representative. However, as time went on, I began noticing that there were decisions being made, at the state meetings that the MAJORITY of our members statewide did not agree with. There were complaints from people in my chapter as well as other chapters that we, as a group, were not being represented correctly. I began investigating that situation, and started making inquiries to various people all over the state, to find out if the people elected to vote at state meetings were in fact voting exactly as the majority of members of each chapter voted. The result of my investigation, was that YES, the people elected by each chapter were voting at the state meetings exactly as the majority of each chapter told them to. That made NO sense!!! HOW did that happen? How did that process FAIL??? Well, it turns out, that the process we were using, of electing people as representatives of local chapters, then distilling the local chapter decision to a single vote within the state meetings, was a factually invalid process. The math involved is really simple. It’s easily possible for that process to result in decisions that the majority do not agree with. In fact, when the number of people and number of chapters increases, the probability of that process error increases to about 1/2. Which is the same as flipping a coin. The process is about as reliable and accurate at “representing” the group as a whole, as we would get by flipping a coin. Recall that I mentioned that we based that process on the process used by our US constitution? yeah. It’s not a valid decision process. Not for the group I was in, and not for the nation of the USA. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Our US constitution is a document specifying a decision process. That document specifies a process that is failing to properly administrate the principles advanced in our Declaration of Independence, AND the prohibitions contained in our Bill of Rights. FAILING TO DELIVER rational and effective government. It's NOT working. What will cause WWIII, in my opinion, is the failure of our social tools to manage or resolve the problems and conflicts arising from our shared human experiences. Our processes we use to make public policy decisions. Our processes we use to manage and account for trade. And in case you have not noticed there are an INCREASING number of us, we the people, that are getting damn sick and tired of the continuing stream of lies excuses and bullshit being spewed by those who insist the damn thing is working. It's NOT working, it's FAILING. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ You continue to confuse, two concepts that are entirely separate. (this confusion is caused by reliance on sources that INTENTIONALLY confuse the concepts) Concept one: The process, specified, used to make decisions enacting law upon a public. Concept two: The process by which a person or persons are installed into positions of decision authority. The first concept is used to define the form of government. The second concept has no bearing of fact or purpose on the reality of the first concept. NONE. Some people insist that fixing government is impossible, because it's much too complicated. No, it's NOT. But it is easy. If we stop confusing those two separate conceptual matters. “who makes the rules” is the determining factor defining one concept. “who participates in the installation of those who make the rules”, is a separate and non-determinant factor of categorizing forms of decision process, government. That is my point here. We can stop conflating the topics and advance a reasoned discussion and making conclusive statements based on concrete unambiguous determinants. We can, and we should. To do otherwise is simply wasting time, and making it impossible to use reason at all. To continue to think about this matter as if there are no determinants, as if it is such a quagmire of soups and nuts that it cannot be discussed with reason is the absurdity here. We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. Our constitution is a document specifying a decision process. It starts right there, a solid, and useful definition of what EVERY form of government is. A decision process for the enactment and enforcement of laws, imposed upon a society using that decision process. There is NO form of government that is not that. Now we have also agreed on terms that describe the possible general categories of such a process. These terms we agreed on, are: Autocracy Oligarchy Democracy Those forms of government describe the process by which decisions are made that enact and enforce law. Which has no relation to the separate and unrelated matter of how some society might install people into positions of power and authority to use that process of decisions. There is a correlation of course between these two conceptual topics, but they are NOT causally related. The decisions made by those installed to power are not caused by the manner of their installation. Correlation is not causation. I do wish that I could convey to you in a simple and easy to understand way, why the system cannot be reformed, and that it must be replaced. The reasoning is simple and the facts are true, that I need to use, however most people are simply too programmed by the cult of constitution to accept that reasoning and those facts at one gulp. I have spent days, literally days, explaining this to people before their little light bulbs wake up, and they "get it". Most never will get it. However I can summarize the matter quickly. Every government is some form of decision process, used to enact and enforce law upon society. There are three general forms of decision process, and they are distinct, and exclusive. 1. Autocracy, rule by one. 2. Oligarchy, rule by few. 3. Democracy, rule by many. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. A republic, is a sub-form of a democracy, a republic cannot be a sub-form of autocracy, nor oligarchy. If a decision process can be determined to be an oligarchy, it cannot be a republic. The determinant used to compare general forms of decision process, is the number of people that have the power and authority to make decisions on the enactment and enforcement of law. What is NOT a determinant, is the manner in which people are installed into positions of decision authority, nor what internal process they use for making those decisions amongst themselves. The GOAL of the use of our US constitution, was to establish a republic, a government, that uses a decision process that is ruled by many. It fails to accomplish that goal. In fact, it specifies not a democracy, not a republic, but rather a cleverly disguised oligarchy. It cannot be reformed. It must be replaced with a republic. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ How will you differentiate politics, power, and law, and what are their similarities? Politics is the use of discussion by a population on issues of social concern, with potential resolution and management proposals. Power is the imposition of decisions of law upon a social situation. Law is the specification of decisions made within a specified decision process, usually referred to as a “government”. Your question did not include government. A serious omission. It is government that is specified as a decision process, which organizes discussions prior to a decision, (Politics), and which specifies who will participate in the process resulting in “Law”, as well as authorizes the “Power” to impose and enforce those decisions as law, upon a society. It is the decision process which should be examined, and such examination should use critical thinking, not faith based thinking. I am asserting that if humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. Time to make a choice! Politics is the use of discussion by a population on issues of social concern, with potential resolution and management proposals. Power is the imposition of decisions of law upon a social situation. Law is the specification of decisions made within a specified decision process, usually referred to as a “government”. Is a republic rule by majority, or is a republic rule by minority? If the former, then a republic must be a democracy. If the latter, then a republic cannot be a democracy. If y'all keep voting to elect a minority of other people to make decisions for ya, you are stupid, and deserve the slave chains you will be rattling in protest. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ This is the question that should be asked at the press conferences following these mass shooting events: Will you please, express to local, city, county, state and federal governments, our public shock and despair at the continued failure of our government systems to address, manage or solve the rising rage and frustration people experience that incites people to this level of violence? We the people have been patiently waiting for somehow this system of absurdities to WORK. If you people cannot make this system work, then we are telling you to get the hell out of our way, and WE will use a system that DOES work. Will you please share our continuing rage and frustration with our elected officials? In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ who makes the decisions to enact and enforce laws? Is that the public majority? Or a minority of people in congress? (I am not saying that a minority in congress makes the laws, I am saying that a minority of the public, which is elected to congress, makes the laws.) Which, incidentally is how an oligarchy is defined. Rule by minority. The violation of civil law concerning the proper use of an automobile on public highways, demonstrates the mental inclination to abuse the right of travel, and negligence in the safety of others. Such a demonstration indicates that society should be more cautious about the potential abuse of the right to bear arms. Suspension of that civil right to bear arms, is a prudent course of action to take. A person who can negligently ignore the rules of the road, can be assumed to be as equally as negligent with the rules of firearm use. I understand how people might imagine how such a policy might be abused by a corrupt system. Yet, a corrupt system, would not implement such a policy, that system would simply legislate gun bans and start eroding right to bear arms for law abiding citizens. kinda like we see happening now? How about a 5 year suspension for assault? 20 year suspension for negligent homicide, etc. etc. We would not need to suspend for speeding tickets, but the concept stands, people that demonstrate negligent abuse of civil rights should face consequence that protects society from those people. I just read the ordinance that the court invalidated, and it would not have applied to the weapon the shooter used anyways. There is an ordinance that DID apply, and DID NOTHING TO STOP THE CRIMINAL ABUSE OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Ya know, the law against MURDERING people?? That one? If y'all keep voting to elect other people to make decisions for ya, you are stupid, and deserve the slave chains you will be rattling in protest. Here is a fact for ya. The vast majority of criminal victims NEVER thought they would need a weapon for their defense. NEVER, right up to the moment they realized they were being victimized, and had absolutely NO means of changing the situation. What do the survivors ALWAYS say? Of course the DEAD ones never tell you they were wrong. But the SURVIVORS, always say, "I never thought it would happen here, to me." But it DID! That is reality, whether you like it or not. We the people have been patiently waiting for somehow this system of absurdities to WORK. If you people cannot make this system work, then we are telling you to get the hell out of our way, and WE will use a system that DOES work. Will you please share our continuing rage and frustration with our elected officials? In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Faith based thinking was the ONLY available reasoning people had for the vast majority of our existence as human society. It's gonna get bloody no matter how it shakes out. LOL, you people amaze me sometimes, you jumped off the cliff and are frantically trying to figure out how to not hit bottom. THAT part is not gonna change. We MIGHT NOT SURVIVE THE FALL!!! Get that straight in your head. You are falling and that's not gonna stop til you hit bottom. IF we as a species survive, then we MIGHT use a better decision process, and not jump off the damn cliff again. Will you please share our continuing rage and frustration with our elected officials? In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A BAD idea, is electing people to make decisions for you, and then insisting that you are not being RULED, by those people. It's an absurdity. I must say, one thing that the republican party is honest about and the democratic party lies about, is how our decision process functions as specified by our constitution. The democrats say, "we the people, a majority of us want health care". the republicans say, "So?? We don't have a democracy, we don't make decisions based on mob rule". Take some time, and think about that carefully. What do the survivors ALWAYS say? Of course the DEAD ones never tell you they were wrong. But the SURVIVORS, always say, "I never thought it would happen here, to me." But it DID! That is reality, whether you like it or not. We the people have been patiently waiting for somehow this system of absurdities to WORK. If you people cannot make this system work, then we are telling you to get the hell out of our way, and WE will use a system that DOES work. Will you please share our continuing rage and frustration with our elected officials? In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ If y'all keep voting to elect a minority of other people to make decisions for ya, you are stupid, and deserve the slave chains you will be rattling in protest. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I am asserting that if humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. Time to make a choice! Is a republic rule by majority, or is a republic rule by minority? If the former, then a republic must be a democracy. If the latter, then a republic cannot be a democracy. If y'all keep voting to elect a minority of other people to make decisions for ya, you are stupid, and deserve the slave chains you will be rattling in protest. Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. It's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Essentially I am using and insisting that we use terms defined to factually present, the concept being discussed. It makes no sense to use the term “republic”, when the people discussing the conceptual notion, cannot agree on what that concept actually is. If I insist that a republic must be a decision process, where the public has ultimate decision authority, and that the decisions be made by use of representatives, and another person in the discussion insists that the law must have ultimate authority and representatives must be elected, then, please pay attention, we are NOT DISCUSSING THE SAME CONCEPT. Just as it makes no sense for me to insist that we use meters per person, while another insists that we use decibels per meter. The discussion cannot lead to any understanding or agreement, because we are confusing conceptual reality. I really do not care which terms we use, as long as the concepts are clearly defined by the use of those terms. Aristotle used the term democracy to refer to a concept that we now call anarchy. His part in modern discussion must be adjusted to reflect modern conceptual realities. Start where I did, “Government is a decision process.” Then the next step is to assert, that representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Then, the concept of representation must be considered in a legal context, as we are discussing the enactment and enforcement of law. That concept is not and cannot be considered to be the colloquial alternative of a cheer squad representing their high school. Those are NOT the same concepts. 5000 people agree to elect a “representative”. 2501 people vote for “Bob”. 2499 people vote for the other guy. Bob wins. I suggest that we examine how we expect Bob to represent all 5000 equally. That seems rather obviously impossible. However, let’s not give up hope. Consider that Bob is about to make a decision on some issue. Bob decides to vote “NO” on that issue. When we ask the 5000 people if they agree with Bob, on his decision, we find that only 1789 of those people agree with Bob. Wow, so Bob did not represent even a majority, even if he won the election by majority. He factually represented the minority. But wait. What if Bob was REQUIRED to always represent the majority, even if he could not represent ALL 5000, he can represent a majority. However, to enforce the rule that Bob must always represent the majority, then we would need to ask every one of those 5000 people. Lotta work. BUT, if we did that anyways, guess what? We did not need to elect Bob, at all. Hey, maybe we are getting somewhere. We don’t need Bob if we count the votes of the people. If we don’t count the votes of people, then Bob can do whatever he wants and no one can prove he did not represent the majority. Uhh, that just opened the door to corruption, because Bob can do whatever benefits him and his buddies. Maybe we should have elected the other guy. Oh, wait, the other guy would do the same thing. Maybe we should figure out a different way to administer representation, because ELECTING PEOPLE AS REPRESENTATIVES DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. THEN, even worse, using those people in a congress to make decisions DOES NOT WORK either!!! In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I discuss an alternative to electing people as "representatives" in my article on my website, (link in this comment). However just a quick note, we could "choose" our representatives, and change our choices at any time, for any reason, depending on the issue and our individual decision on that issue. It may seem impossibly complicated, but it's actually really simple once you understand that the representatives are NOT the people we elect to congress, and none of them ever have any ability to change our decision as individuals or as a nation. Link to article: In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Them: "But Mike, do you have any idea how crazy you sound by making these criticisms of our US government?" Me: Oh, well, you have no idea how crazy this all seemed to me in the mid 90's when I began investigating the process specified in our constitution. I ran numbers time after time after time, trying to invalidate my findings. YES, it seems absolutely crazy. Insane, actually. However these numbers and facts don't change just because they indicate insanity. The system is insane, and that is the only valid conclusion, and that conclusion MATCHES observed reality. I was puzzled, confused and concerned at my findings. Yes, it seemed crazy. What HORRIFIED me, was the understanding I had of the IMPLICATIONS of what I had learned. I understood that if I were to start explaining this truth to people I would be vilified, and attacked as a traitor or mental case. Or both. Yes, I was horrified at THAT reality and I still am. I do not see any alternative honorable choice, to speaking about this matter and attempting to demonstrate to others how our US government functions in fact. It's scary as hell, to stand up against the combined forces of cult programming and the military, social and police forces that cult commands. So what? I'm angry. You should be also. I think the only large segment of the US population that makes that equivalence is the anti-gun propagandists. The rest of us understand that "shall not be infringed", did not ever, nor does it today rely on "well regulated militia". We understand that a well regulated militia, depends ENTIRELY, on the "shall not be infringed". With that said, it is TRUE, that as a society we should have some ability to decide which of us, citizens, and government should have access to weapons of any sort. I know people I would not trust with a plastic spoon, much less any sort of firearm, regardless of style, or capacity. There are other people I would trust with a knife or a damn howitzer at my back. It's NOT THE WEAPON. What REALLY angers me with frustration, is knowing that the OTHER officers on the scene that SAW what happened did not IMMEDIATELY disarm and arrest her. Just as we saw in the murder of Mr. Floyd, and so many others, all the "good" cops were perfectly comfortable with the murder of a citizen by a cop. It seems that many of us have encountered responses from various elected officials, pundits, experts in political science, news media spokespeople, common folk, foreigners, other governments, etc etc, perhaps even your own response, when asked about why we don't have solutions to various problems we face as a community and species, "It is politics", "that's the cost of politics", "politics takes time", "politics isn't perfect", That's just how politics works". I want you to NOTICE something. Each of those responses is CLEARLY indicating that the SYSTEM we use is not working. Get it?? The SYSTEM, is the damn problem. Maybe we should figure out a different way to administer representation, because ELECTING PEOPLE AS REPRESENTATIVES DOES NOT WORK!!! THEN, even worse, using those people in a congress to make decisions DOES NOT WORK either!!! In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Of course, we can force the people we elect and system they use, to comply with public authority, from public action, ***outside the constitutional decision process***. Protesting, rioting, striking, etc, is working outside the constitutional decision process. That is the key part. If we have to keep working outside the constitution, then why the hell are we using it??? When I decided to start proposing that we, as a society examine and consider alternative forms of government, I did so, with several goals. The first of course, is to discuss the flaws in current forms of government. The second is to discuss possible methods of testing new forms of government for validity and efficacy. The third, and a goal that many people fail to recognize, is to incite people to confront current power structures with the reality that we are angry and LOOKING for new ways to make public decisions, and the likely result will be the removal of current power positions. This is important. If we confront those who are currently enjoying benefits of our systemic flaws, with the probability that continuing failures to represent public majority, will result in collapse of that system, or removal of their benefits of those flaws, then they will likely begin making extraordinary efforts to comply with public pressures and to somehow figure out how to stop failing. In other words, if it is possible for the system to work for the public, they need to figure it out, and MAKE IT WORK. IF they do that, it's a WIN for us, the human public. If they don't, or cannot, (likely result), then at least we are working on a fix. We can begin. We don't need permission to start. We don't need permission to continue, and we don't need permission to put an end to a system that is not working and cannot work. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Of course, we can force the people we elect and system they use, to comply with public authority, from public action, ***outside the constitutional decision process***. Protesting, rioting, striking, etc, is working outside the constitutional decision process. That is the key part. If we have to keep working outside the constitution, then why the hell are we using it??? I want voting to result in representation. Otherwise we are rolling dice, flipping coins, pulling handles on slot machines as a form of government. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. It is vitally important to understand this difference, between a ruler and a representative, because it is the difference between self governance and being ruled. I am referring to how the process we use for making decisions as specified in our US constitution fails to administer representation equally to all citizens as individuals and as a nation. That process, which we use, that elects people as representative of any specific district, fails to represent a significant portion of the citizens of that district as individuals. No matter how that election might be administered, it FAILS, to represent the people who did not vote for the winner of that election. It does not matter how we might attempt to justify that truth and reality, it IS the truth and reality. Nor is there any facility or method in that specification to ensure that the person that is elected, even represents the majority of the citizens REGARDLESS of how the citizens voted in that election. That is true as well, and no attempt to justify or excuse that failure changes that truth. If that were the sum of my complaint and argument, I would shrug, as you are likely to encourage me to do, and I would concede that we, as citizens can elect someone else if we are unhappy with the representation resulting from that election. In many cases we could as a society even demand a recall election immediately in circumstance where misrepresentation is so egregious and obvious that the majority of us demand such a recall. I GET it. However there is more, MUCH more to my complaint and argument against the validity of the PROCESS, because the process of making decisions enacted as law and policy, is much more involved and complicated than simply electing a person from a district as a representative. Because, that person, is then sent to a congress, and is authorized to make decisions on the enactment and enforcement of law upon society. That authorization is specified in our constitution and is defined as "representation". That definition, MUST be evaluated within a LEGAL context, not a colloquial context such as some cheerleader representing a school body at a sporting event. A LEGAL context requires agreement of the person being represented. It's that simple. If the person attempting to employ a representative within a legal context disagrees with the words and actions of the person employed as that representative, then the result is NOT representation, it is MISREPRESENTATION, a negation of the concept "represent". The process, as specified in our US constitution, and copied in general by state constitutions, and county and city and town charter, then brings that body of people together within a congress, a legislature or council, to discuss and vote directly on the issues and bills proposed to manage and resolve those issues. It is the BASE premise of the specification and use of that process, that the RESULT of that use will be a factual representation of the majority decision of the citizens. If we could evaluate that process, for validity we could determine the validity of that process element. We CAN evaluate the validity of that process segment. We can do a thought experiment using that process. We can imagine a group of citizens, using that process. We can imagine 30,000 people divided into three districts of 10,000 people each. We can imagine those people of each district electing a person to represent the majority of people within each district. We can also employ reasonable methods to ensure that the process is functioning correctly as specified. For instance we can, in this experiment, require that the person elected in each district, to faithfully vote within congress as the majority of citizens decide in each district. For the purpose of enforcing that requirement we can ask each citizen to express their personal decision on the issue being considered in congress. DOING that allows us as observers of the experiment to be confident that the process is functioning correctly at every point of the decision process being evaluated. If any person elected to congress, were to be "corrupted" in ANY way, we could immediately know this, because we have the numbers, and the corrupted person, would vote against the majority decision of the people in the district that elected them. It's really that simple, as long as we can determine factually, that the person elected to congress is voting as required, aligning with the majority decision of the people in the district that elected them, we KNOW, beyond any doubt, it is mathematical PROOF, that the vote within congress was NOT corrupted in ANY way. Now, consider the result of that entire process, and recall that I am now shrugging and allowing the excuse concerning the misrepresentation of those citizens who don't agree with the vote of the person elected to congress. I am allowing that for the PURPOSE of evaluating the further use of process to RESULT in the representation, within legal context, of the ENTIRE public majority. If the process of using those elected persons within congress, does not result in the representation of the public majority, then the process itself is invalid. If that process is invalid, then I HAVE NO COMPELLING INTEREST in allowing that EXCUSE. NONE. I am attaching a chart of an example vote that presumes that the process is valid, and demonstrates the FAILURE of that process to BE VALID. That is only one example, however when math is applied, and the method of scientific evaluation is used, It can be PROVEN, that the use of that process has an error probability of 50% when used properly with a population of 300 million and the number of districts, now used in our current system. 50%. That is the probability expected of a coin flip. That is the "validity" of the process, it only works about half the time, when it is used without ANY POSSIBILITY of corruption. THAT, sir, is my complaint and argument. https://www.45ink.com/4repfraud.jpg In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A republic using representatives can be designed such that it provides the EXACT SAME RESULT that voting directly, in a direct democracy would provide, and do that reliably, every decision, every day, every year. In any case, it's about decisions. A human might irrationally pound out nonsense on his keyboard. Yet the "process" that reads his pounding on the keys works perfectly rational. Every keystroke is detected, and the result appears on the screen, just as intended. The result might be irrational, but at least the PROCESS works correctly. It functions in a rational manner. When the process is invalid, it is simply absurd to rely on that for any serious purpose. For those who insist that we cannot and should not attempt to fix the damn systems, because "nothing is perfect", this is my response: I agree that nothing is "perfect". However the process that reads your keyboard is much closer to perfect than gibbering bullshit spread by chimpanzees with paintbrushes using piss. The process that manages to lift aircraft into the air and land safely millions of times per year is a lot closer to perfect than taping cardboard wings on yer buddy and kicking him off the barn roof. It's a fucking PROCESS, for making DECISIONS, and it's not just imperfect it's fucking INSANE. I may hope to fly, but if I choose to leap from a cliff, on the defiance of reality.... I might instead construct a parachute, or better yet, a rogallo hang glider. Even taping cardboard wings on my arms might be a slight nod to some thinking about reality. Yet, though there may be many possible constructions that yield survival, the number of survivable construction are far outnumbered by those which lead to failure. Hope never constructed anything. Thinking does. Testing does, experiments do. The real root cause of the "problem" is that the people we elect cannot be anything BUT rulers, they CANNOT be representatives. They are in fact rulers, even if they are attempting benevolent rule, or even attempting to "represent" the majority of citizens in their district. That circumstance, means that the process as specified in our constitution factually is an oligarchy, not a republic. It was designed that way. At times it may be a benevolent oligarchy, however there is no mechanism specified in that process to allow the public to prevent a malevolent oligarchy. A nation of people, may elect a king every 4 years, and that would not result in a democracy, it results in a monarchy. It may be a benevolent monarchy, it may be a democratic monarchy, but it's NOT a democracy, and not a republic. It's the same situation with oligarchy. We may elect oligarchs from time to time, and that use of voting for elections results in an oligarchy, because we elected rulers. They may make decisions we consider benevolent, they may make decisions we consider malevolent, however the PUBLIC, has no ability within the process to prevent malevolent rule. The result is a democratic oligarchy, that might be malevolent, or benevolent. The only public control is to elect someone else that may be benevolent or malevolent. It's a coin flip, a dice roll, a slot machine process. Notice that the method we use to determine benevolence is that agreement and satisfaction of a majority of the population. If a majority agrees with the decisions and are reasonably happy with the results of those decisions, then the process is considered benevolent. This is true for a monarchy, and as well for an oligarchy. However, and this is damn important, a Democracy, MUST be considered benevolent and CANNOT EVER, be considered malevolent. NEVER. By definition. There is no "party" that can operate within our current system of decision process that can correct the dysfunctional cause of failures. BECAUSE, it is the use of that system of decision process itself, which causes the failures observed as dysfunctions. Money is not the problem. The problem is how it's being used. The decisions about how money is used are not made by the public. Those decisions are made by people we elect to make those decisions. Maybe we should rethink electing people to make our decisions. I would be willing to make an attempt at erotic video. Having seen the quality of the acting possible by some of the performers, and the horrendously immature and exploitative intent of the "directors" and "producers", I am quite confident that I can produce and direct video erotica that would entertain audiences of the work, from young single wankers to groups of adults of diverse genders. Dialogs that intelligently move the story, from beginning to end, that enhances the erotic visual story, instead of filling pregnant pauses with voiceover moans, whimpers unintelligible mutterings and inappropriate utterances of confusion. Erotica which celebrates the range of human sexual behaviors without exploitative idiocy. Even exploitative behavior can be presented in a non-exploitative manner. Most "porn' is simply a documentary of people engaged in various obviously artificial stage acts. A simple nod in the direction of creative effort, echoed in the video title, and again within one contrived line of dialog, disassociated from the behavior on display. If provided with a well considered screenplay, and script and a video crew committed to creating a work of fictional story, many performers in use by the industry would be welcome in non-erotic roles, because they demonstrate the ability to perform under horrendously difficult conditions. Screenplay rehearsals, lighting audio checks and dress rehearsals, and take after take from various angles and perspectives. Shrugz. Telling a story requires MUCH more commitment than grabbing a camera and recording an event. In a 20 minute erotic video, I could easily limit views of penetrative acts to less than a minute, and have a majority of the audience cumming within the first 10 minutes and again at least once more by the end. I do blame the writers of our constitution. I understand they likely had no idea that they were specifying an oligarchy, not a republic. They were up against some severe domestic and foreign challenges at the time, and they cobbled something together under the constraints of the technology and experience they had available to them at the time. They were also working with many unquestioned biased views about the ability of humans as a species, and had no conceptual awareness of how females, and peasants and people native to this continent as well as the asian and african natives, might impact the process of public decision making in a positive manner. They simply assumed, that anyone other than themselves, rich english capitalist merchants, could not possibly have a responsible franchise within that process. I get it. However as much as I am willing to excuse THEM, for their lack of knowledge and experience, I will not allow ANY excuse, lie, or bullshit from our current crop of elected assholes. THEY fucking know better. I am confident that the REAL division is those with decision authority vs those without decision authority. Which is really a division of freedom. Those who have and those who have not. In different nations and in different cultures, those divisions may be demonstrated along racial boundaries and in others along economic boundaries. However, when examined critically, all those divisions can be demonstrated to be a division of power/vs/subjugated. I will try to be gentle. The reason the people we elect do not do what the people want them to do, is because they cannot. It's not their fault. If I gave you a bucket with no bottom, and told you to empty a bathtub with it, you would fail. Not because you want to fail, but because i gave you an inadequate tool, to use. Your US constitution is a bucket with no bottom, and the people you are asking to empty the bathtub, are REQUIRED to use that bucket. They fail. It's that simple. If you elect a democrat to represent the people in your district, who represents the republicans? Just asking here. If it can happen to them, it can happen to you. And if you don't care that it matters to them, they sure as hell won't care that it matters to you. I am saying, and can support with reason and evidence that EVEN IF, the people we elected, were to discern the majority opinion of their district and ALWAYS voted within congress as that majority directed, the RESULT would not reliably be the majority decision of the entire national public majority. In fact, the process we use, absent ANY corruption, would result in decisions representing the majority of the nation public ONLY half the time, and that half would be rather random, not based on any actual will of the public or moneyed interests. It would simply be as accurate and reliable as flipping a coin. The ONLY way that our current system "works" is BECAUSE of corruption, influencing either for the public majority or for moneyed interests. Influence only works on RULERS, it cannot affect representatives. I have seen very few attempts to use democracy as a national government, in fact I cannot think of ANY valid attempts to use democracy at all. We should examine how we define “democracy”. For instance, if a public were to vote to elect a king, every 4 years, that would not be a democracy. The king is a monarch, the result of voting and the election is a monarchy, not a democracy. We might, and should consider that result as a democratic monarchy. However, note that the word democratic is used as an adjective, it describes a process of selection, and that selection is for a monarch. The act of voting to elect some person to a position of power and authority, does not result in a democracy, it results in some person in a position of power and authority. What authority? Decision authority. A democracy, shares decision authority across the entire public population equally. It does not consolidate that authority to one, or a few persons. If we examine, for instance the decision process that is specified in our US constitution, we will find that the result of voting to elect people, is to install some few persons to positions of power and that decision authority. The proper term for that result, is an oligarchy. Instead of one person having all the decision authority, an autocracy, the decision authority is shared among a few persons. Again, not a democracy. A democracy, recall, shares decision authority among all the citizens equally. Not just a few. When decision authority is shared by a few citizens, it is an oligarchy. You can look it up, that is the definition. That has nothing to do with corruption, or big business or corporate personhood, it is a definition of forms of decision process. WHO has the decision authority? Therefor, in the US we elect oligarchs, and the result is a democratic oligarchy, not a democracy. We can see this same result in MANY nations that claim to be a democracy, none of them is a true claim. NONE. These terms we agreed on, are: Autocracy Oligarchy Democracy Those forms of government describe the process by which decisions are made that enact and enforce law. Which has no relation to the separate and unrelated matter of how some society might install people into positions of power and authority to use that process of decisions. Now, many people will shout out, that the US is a republic. Hmm, I doubt that. A republic is a form of government that specifies a decision process, that shares the ultimate authority for the decisions among the public, citizens, equally. Equal rights. Equal authority. It is a sub-form of democracy. A sub-form that specifies that the citizens shall administer that shared authority by the use of representatives. Of course, now we must define a representative. That definition must be made in the context of LEGAL usage, not the colloquial use, such as a cheerleading squad representative of a school and sporting team. What is the legal context? A person, that is being represented must be in agreement with the utterances and behaviors of the person in the role of representative. Really, it’s that simple. If someone is attempting to represent another, and the person being “represented” does not agree with the representative act, then the person is not being represented, that person is being misrepresented. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation, nor is misrepresentation a form of representation, misrepresentation is a negation of representation. With that out of the way, we can examine the use of representatives as specified in the US constitution. It quickly becomes obvious that a single person, elected from a district, cannot represent all of the people on all issues that come up in congress. It is simply impossible. Therefor the the BEST that the person elected might accomplish as a representative, is to represent a majority of those people on all issues. Examining that circumstance, it seems obvious, because it is true, that this process always misrepresents some segment of the public, and therefor the process does NOT SHARE DECISION AUTHORITY EQUALLY. Now we can determine that because decision authority is not shared equally by the citizens, this cannot result in a republic, a sub form of democracy, but instead, it simply results in an absurdity of mathematical nonsense. https://www.45ink.com/4repfraud.jpg That is the BEST result. Of course that can as easily result in a decision that the majority agree with, but the range of results possible with over 400 districts and 300 million citizens, can be calculated with a 50% error rate. No better than flipping a coin. Which obviously, again, does not result in the ultimate decision authority of the public, but rather some random chance of strange number arrangements that no one controls. Absurd. Of course, this is not how the US decision process is actually operated. The reality is that the people we elect make decisions based on their own judgements about many factors including and most especially, how their decisions will affect their own political futures. Which means they behave as oligarchs, little monarchs of their own districts. What might happen, if someone actually attempted to use a REAL republic? A sub-form of democracy? It starts right there, a solid, and useful definition of what EVERY form of government is. A decision process for the enactment and enforcement of laws, imposed upon a society using that decision process. There is NO form of government that is not that. That would depend on the decision process that is specified that administers a direct democracy. Most people, when considering a direct democracy, stop their consideration once they imagine the dumbest way possible to implement the dumbest specification. For instance, most people assume, and presume that a democracy must use a majority threshold of 50% +1, as if a vote of 150 million people to starve poor people should be considered sufficient evidence that it’s a good idea and a legal “law”. 149,999,999 people said NO. There is no reasonable position that it would be socially prudent to accept such a situation. Yet, that is the “view” of people opposing democracy as a decision process want you to consider, and they do NOT want you to even begin to think about a BETTER plan. They want you to stop thinking as soon as you agree to their “dumbest way possible”. Another example, of a view they push on the public, is that if a crowd of 150 angry people vote to hang someone, that should be the “law”. As if we could not easily see that in a community of 5000 people 150 votes to hang someone is nowhere near a majority. See how that works? A specification, that a law that is enforced on a population of 5,000 people requires a majority of those 5,000 people, NOT simply a majority of the people that voted. If 73 people voted “no”, and 238 people voted “yes”, in a community of 680,000 people, it is NOT relevant that more people voted yes, than no. What matters is that only 238 people voted yes, and 679,762 DID NOT APPROVE!!! Did not agree. Another example of the view of “dumbest” way possible is the insistence that there is no way to protect human and civil rights and freedoms. Nonsense! The method of process that protects rights is the exact same as we use today, a set of articles of protection. Those articles specify which rights shall be protected, and the manner in which those protections shall be enforced. Then implement a judicial function, that considers every “bill”, and considers whether the enactment of that bill would contravene any of those articles of protection. Do that BEFORE any vote is made on the “bill”. It is the decision process which should be examined, and such examination should use critical thinking, not faith based thinking. I am asserting that if humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. Time to make a choice! Politics is the use of discussion by a population on issues of social concern, with potential resolution and management proposals. Power is the imposition of decisions of law upon a social situation. Law is the specification of decisions made within a specified decision process, usually referred to as a “government”. Is a republic rule by majority, or is a republic rule by minority? If the former, then a republic must be a democracy. If the latter, then a republic cannot be a democracy. It’s absurd to simply accept the dumbest way possible to design, structure, implement and administer a “republic”. A TRUE republic. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A republic using representatives can be designed such that it provides the EXACT SAME RESULT that voting directly, in a direct democracy would provide, and do that reliably, every decision, every day, every year. In any case, it's about decisions. A republic REQUIRES representation. It’s not optional. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is not a form of representation, it is a negation of representation. A nation that elects a king periodically, is not a democracy, it is a monarchy, with the monarch selected democratically. A government is a decision process. EVERY form and instance of a government is a specified decision process, the specification of that decision process determines the form and/or sub-form of government. A monarchy, (autocracy), specifies a decision process that authorizes the monarch to make decisions of LAW, which is imposed, invoked and enforced upon the public. It makes no difference which selection process is used to elevate a person to the role of monarch, whether that be trial by combat, election, birthright, or by rolling dice. The RESULT of that selection, is a MONARCH, not a democracy. If a nation elected a king, the form of government would be a democratic monarchy. The word democratic describes the SELECTION process, not the decision process. The word monarchy describes the DECISION process. Thus what we see in many nations claiming democracy, faking democracy, is a fraudulent use of the terms we use to define and describe the concepts of government in reality. Most nations based on the model of the US constitution, are in fact not republics, and not democracies, but rather oligarchies, democratic oligarchies. Look up oligarchy. A small number of rulers. NOT representatives. RULERS!!! If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. Start where I did, “Government is a decision process.” Then the next step is to assert, that representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Then, the concept of representation must be considered in a legal context, as we are discussing the enactment and enforcement of law. That concept is not and cannot be considered to be the colloquial alternative of a cheer squad representing their high school. Those are NOT the same concepts. 5000 people agree to elect a “representative”. 2501 people vote for “Bob”. 2499 people vote for the other guy. Bob wins. I suggest that we examine how we expect Bob to represent all 5000 equally. That seems rather obviously impossible. However, let’s not give up hope. Consider that Bob is about to make a decision on some issue. Bob decides to vote “NO” on that issue. When we ask the 5000 people if they agree with Bob, on his decision, we find that only 1789 of those people agree with Bob. Wow, so Bob did not represent even a majority, even if he won the election by majority. He factually represented the minority. But wait. What if Bob was REQUIRED to always represent the majority, even if he could not represent ALL 5000, he can represent a majority. However, to enforce the rule that Bob must always represent the majority, then we would need to ask every one of those 5000 people. Lotta work. BUT, if we did that anyways, guess what? We did not need to elect Bob, at all. Hey, maybe we are getting somewhere. We don’t need Bob if we count the votes of the people. If we don’t count the votes of people, then Bob can do whatever he wants and no one can prove he did not represent the majority. Uhh, that just opened the door to corruption, because Bob can do whatever benefits him and his buddies. Maybe we should have elected the other guy. Oh, wait, the other guy would do the same thing. Maybe we should figure out a different way to administer representation, because ELECTING PEOPLE AS REPRESENTATIVES DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. THEN, even worse, using those people in a congress to make decisions DOES NOT WORK either!!! https://www.45ink.com/4repfraud.jpg In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A democracy is a decision process administering the will of the public majority. I am also asserting that a republic is a sub-form of democracy, that administers the majority will of the public by using representatives. However in that assertion, I will insist that the word representative is used correctly, and not in a manner that allows the absurd notion that representation is equivalent to misrepresentation. I will also insist that a republic, under rule of law, the FIRST premise of law requires that all citizens be represented equally. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. I am asserting that if humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. If we keep electing people to make our decisions for us, we choose rule by minority. Time to make a choice! https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Those who can be convinced to believe absurdity, can be convinced to commit atrocity. What atrocity will be committed, next, because we insisted on believing absurdity? Which atrocities have been committed in the past? Democracy is a form of government. Every form of government is a specified decision process. For instance, a Monarchy, is an autocracy. One person, the king, makes the decisions about enactment and enforcement of law upon the public. However, and pay attention, a nation might elect a king every 4 years. That would be a democratic monarchy. NOT A DEMOCRACY!! A monarchy is the decision process, and the monarch is installed to that decision authority position of power by a process element of election and voting. Process element. Not the decision process. A democracy, is a form of decision process, that specifies that process in such a manner that shares and distributes the decision process that enacts and enforces law on the public, to each individual citizen equally. A Republic is a sub-form of Democracy, that administers that sharing and distribution of that decision authority by use of representatives. (a republic does NOT require that representatives be elected) An Oligarchy is a decision process that shares and distributes the decision authority to a minority of the public. A small group of rulers that enact and enforce law on the public. A group of oligarchs that are elected to the positions of decision authority, does not create a democracy. It’s still an oligarchy. A democratic oligarchy. If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!! If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Your constitution distributes all decision power and authority to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and left NONE for the public. Cult of constitution, convincing people they can control government by giving up all their decision authority to the government. The lie, the dishonest appraisal at the root of our problems is the unfortunate and incorrect presumption that the people running this absurd parody of representative government, are somehow not using the constitutional flaws and fraud inherent within the specified process. That is what is happening, and none of your attempts to frame this circumstance within a view that promotes that constitutional process as some kind of solution, will change the root flaws and fraud. The constitution is the damn problem, not a solution. What the founders created, was a baby monster. It grew up into a monster of immense size and power. (It was ALWAYS a monster.) It has far surpassed the level of insane evil destruction capable of a monarchy in the 1700's You all need to comprehend exactly how your constitutional decision process, functions in reality. Most of you have no clue how that process, allows and encourages this behavior. Your first mistake was presuming we have a democracy or a republic. We do not. Never did. It was a scam from the moment our constitution was ratified, and falsely advertised as a republic. It's always been an oligarchy, and it was dressed up with sprinkles and confetti, and presented as a republic in drag. You agreed to a decision process that elects people to positions of power and authority then act all butt hurt when they realize you just made them rulers, not representatives? Seriously? How silly are you? Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ A relevant quote, from the novel, "HIGH KING OF MONTIVAL", by S.M. Sterling, one of 15 novels, (actually 18, but that's a complication), in the EMBERVERSE series. "We have to settle what the King can and cannot do now because someday there may be a King who doesn’t respect our rights of his own will. Then we’ll need a chain of laws to hold him back, as Fenris was chained." The EXACT same caution can be applied to a public that chooses democracy. A chain of constraint, that disallows the mob from disrespecting the public rights. A decision process. One that the public agrees to, that functions on their behalf whether it is urging them on, or holding them back. Not "laws". PROCESS. A process that constrains the public to considered acts, not allowing a mob to rule. You may have no idea HOW to create and implement such a process, but have you ever actually TRIED?? Did you simply give up as soon as you considered exactly what we know FAILS? Our USA government was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I must say, one thing that the republican party is honest about and the democratic party lies about, is how our decision process functions as specified by our constitution. The democrats say, "we the people, a majority of us want health care". the republicans say, "so, we don't have a democracy, we don't make decisions based on mob rule". Take some time, and think about that carefully. What do the survivors ALWAYS say? Of course the DEAD ones never tell you they were wrong. But the SURVIVORS, always say, "I never thought it would happen here, to me." But it DID! That is reality, whether you like it or not. We the people have been patiently waiting for somehow this system of absurdities to WORK. If you people cannot make this system work, then we are telling you to get the hell out of our way, and WE will use a system that DOES work. Will you please share our continuing rage and frustration with our elected officials? In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Knowing that the US is an oligarchy not a republic is one step in the correct direction. However, UNDERSTANDING, that our constitution SPECIFIES an oligarchy, and HAS ALWAYS specified an oligarchy is a FURTHER step in the right direction, THEN, understanding exactly what is specified in that constitutional decision process that creates an oligarchy, is a yet further step. Most of y'all are still on step one, and have no clue where that path to truth leads. I hear people saying that the reason the system sucks is because stupid people elect the wrong rulers. (oops I mean leaders, LOL) Bullshit. If the public is too stupid to use the system, then we should change the damn system, so the people CAN use it. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ The concept of a republic, as a decision process is valid. The process we use NOW is not valid. PARTS of it are valid, but not all of it, and not arranged the way it is. It makes no sense to add eggs to flour, mix it up, cook it, then add milk. THAT does not work. Ya gotta add the eggs and milk together BEFORE ya cook it. You would not add iron chunks and grinding wheels to the recipe. It would be silly, to build a program, that simply loops forever, without ever doing anything else, no way to break that loop. That is my position. We need a simple decision process that does what we were promised in our declaration of independence. If we are going to use "representatives" to make decisions, instead of rulers, then those people used as representatives MUST factually represent us. If they don't represent us, and are making decisions for us, then they are rulers. If they are rulers, then we have an oligarchy, NOT A REPUBLIC!!!! It's REALLY simple, as a concept. The hard part, is developing that part of the process that uses representation, correctly, so that the representatives factually do represent us. I can prove, mathematically, that electing people as representatives does NOT result in representation, not for all of us. That is the problem. Not all of us are being represented. Even if we allowed that the person elected would represent a majority of people in each district, without fail, I can prove, again, mathematically, that when those representatives go to congress and vote on a matter there is a 50% probability that the RESULT does not represent the decision of the majority of all of us. THAT part is broken as well. it's a mess. And it's not valid. Understanding that, allowed me to develop a sub process that factually DOES use representatives correctly, so that EVERYONE that wants to be represented is accurately and reliably represented, and then the result is in fact the majority decision of all of us. BUT. We CANNOT ELECT PEOPLE AS REPRESENTATIVES to do it. That is the part that does not work. As much as people seem to love elections, voting, to elect people and as much as we need to continue electing people to positions in government, those people that we elect CANNOT be used as representatives. Sigh shrugz Hmm. The question concerns the difference between two forms of government. The question presumes the two forms ARE different, and not equivalent. Which is good, as that means we won’t waste time explaining that they ARE different. However, the question did not specify that the terms and the concepts those terms refer to are forms of government. I will presume that to be true, and dispense with the converse, by explaining that each term, is some specification of a decision process. That decision process may be used as a form of government, however each may also be used for some other purpose. For instance, a computer program might be written and used, that uses each decision process, in the code, for different decisions the program must make for the user. It is irrelevant how the decision process is used, the purpose of the decision process chosen is not relevant to the process itself, the process however is relevant to the choice of decision process. In the use of decision process as a form of government, it is important to define decisions that are relevant to the form. When examining a government, the decision process is defined by the manner in which decisions are made that enact and enforce law. (remember that, it is true and relevant). Please note that there is an unstated conclusion, which is that EVERY form of government we might examine, is some specified decision process for the enactment and enforcement of law upon a population of citizens. Concept one: The process, specified, used to make decisions enacting law upon a public. Concept two: The process by which a person or persons are installed into positions of decision authority. The first concept is used to define the form of government. (remember?) The second concept has no bearing of fact or purpose on the reality of the first concept. NONE. (remember? we already covered this.) As to the first concept, if humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. Now we can examine the two forms and determine which is which and how they each perform, in the purpose of making decisions of enactment of law. We should begin with Oligarchy. An oligarchy is a decision process, by which laws are enacted by a few, a minority. Note that the definition has nothing to do with wealth or malevolence. It simply states that a few people make the laws. Nor does that definition include any mention of how those few people come to the positions of decision authority. (remember?) Now we can examine democracy. Democracy is a decision process by which laws are enacted by a majority of citizens. ( It should be obvious now the difference between oligarchy and democracy, as each is clearly separated from the other by that dichotomy revealed above, “we can use rule by majority or rule by minority, the only two choices.” Let’s have a crack at “republic”. A republic, is a form of decision process that has two defining characteristics, and each is a REQUIRED characteristic. If either fails to exist in the process, the process cannot be considered a republic. 1 A republic administers the ultimate and over ruling authority of the public to make the decisions by which laws will be enacted and enforced. 2 A republic administers that decision authority through the use of representatives. I understand that many people will insist that a republic requires “elected” representatives. However let’s be honest, if the use of people as representatives does not factually result in representation, then the people used are NOT in fact representatives. Unfortunately this is what happens when we attempt to elect people as representatives. The result is not representation. Therefor, there is no such thing as an elected representative. Because the result is not representation. The factual result of electing people to decision authority is oligarchy, not democracy, not representative. A republic, is a subform of democracy. Not a subform of oligarchy. (Recall that a republic requires that the public has the decision authority, the entire public, not just some minority that was elected.) The USA therefor is an oligarchy, not a republic not a democracy. As an example of a REAL republic, I offer this decision process. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ You are telling me that I should somehow agree to this situation, just because YOU can't understand that you did not elect any damn representative, you just elected someone to make decisions for you whether you agree with them or not. THAT person is now your RULER. Don't swallow the bait of the lies you were told, look at the REALITY. THAT person, now has the POWER and AUTHORITY to decide that you don't deserve to live, if they can maintain profits for an important business. YOU gave them that power and authority. Criminals LOVE having no rules, just guidelines. I know I certainly like knowing that no matter how I rob steal, maim kill other people, the only consequence I can face is a stern look from people looking at guidelines. It's important to recognize those people are not rational actors, they use faith based thinking and have demonstrated ample evidence they are quite willing to kill us for challenging their cult programming, in very cruel, and agonizing ways, to "save" us. (Am I talking about religion or government?) Many people find comfort in the notion that when our government fails to resolve or manage the problems we face as community and species, we can have another go at it the next time congress meets, or the next election. What those people fail to recognize however, is that many of those problems we face are time constrained. The failure to resolve or manage those, are quite literally killing people, that have no responsibility for the failure to solve or manage those problems. It is a miserable circumstance. Obama said: "...this experiment in democracy is not self-executing." First, understand that this is an EXPERIMENT!!!! The REASON we use experiments is to determine if the shit we are trying WORKS!!! How many more years of FAILURE, do we need to understand it DOES NOT WORK???? You people need to understand how the constitutional decision process fails to function, before you go accusing any person or party of treason or corruption. If we had a heavy box, attached to a rope, and we elected 10 people to move that box, then insisted that they MUST push on that rope to move that box, and they are not allowed to PULL that rope, nor touch the box in any way except by pushing on that rope, it would NOT MATTER WHO WE ELECTED. The damn PROCESS does not work. I came to understand early, that my role is to don the armor and weapons of war and to stand watch in the wastelands around the gardens that others enjoy. "Look, all y'all angry frustrated protesters, being violent and destructive. We need to stop that shit, stay home, let your local governments work to find justice, for the injustice you experience daily. If y'all, just go home, chill out and relax, we can get control, of the problem and start fixing it." We heard that about 40 times now in the past 30 years. That is their default position, relax to the injustice, and it will go away. NO. FUCK YOU. NO. No justice, NO PEACE. I hope you enjoy feeling the public knee on YOUR neck. I must say, one thing that the republican party is honest about and the democratic party lies about, is how our decision process functions as specified by our constitution. The democrats say, "we the people, a majority of us want health care". the republicans say, "So?? We don't have a democracy, we don't make decisions based on mob rule". Take some time, and think about that carefully. What do the survivors ALWAYS say? Of course the DEAD ones never tell you they were wrong. But the SURVIVORS, always say, "I never thought it would happen here, to me." But it DID! That is reality, whether you like it or not. I can explain it. Most people simply cannot comprehend that they were lied to about their government, by the same people that lied to them about santa claus. We are just beginning to face the consequences of continuing to rely on an irrational and deeply flawed decision process, used as a form of government fraudulently advertised as a democracy and republic, that fails to address, much less resolve or manage the deep and pervasive problems of past and present decisions, that threaten our social structures with corruption, failure and abandonment of civil methods to sustain our humanity, faced with problems tearing us apart as community and species. Most of y'all are simply delusional about the factual reality of how your constitutional decision process FAILS to function. The RESULT of that delusion is your continued disappointment and anger when the system does not give a fuck what you think. What we witnessed Jan 6, 2021 in Washington DC was NOT an attempted coup against "democracy". It was in fact an attempted coup of one faction of rulers against another faction of rulers. It's not over, it has barely begun. This, is a single event, in a future that you have so far refused to consider. The reality is, that you COULD HAVE imagined this, you chose to REFUSE to consider it. Unless you begin to consider and ACT on that consideration, your future is writ and sealed. (speculative fiction) As the small group of war ravaged refugees crept carefully through the wrack and ruin of the city that they are escaping, they stop often while gunfire and explosives rake the remnants of buildings that once housed businesses and homes. They whisper as they attempt to avoid the various factions of conflict. A large group of armed combatants surrounds them, threatening the group with rifles and hard suspicions. The "Major", asks, "Are you Republicans or Democrats"? The group of refugees huddles in fear, as one voice answers, "We are Americans, getting out of Chicago, trying to escape from your stupid war!" (end speculative fiction) Now, back to REALITY! Soon, to be your reality. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Any parent that has two children understands how to love more than one person at a time. The monogamy apologists want to talk about fucking, as if that was love. It's not, and they are liars. Politics, is the public or private discussion of matters of social problems, and the potential manners and methods of solving or managing those problems. GOVERNMENT does NOT NEED politics. Government is the DECISION process used to enact or refuse to enact law that implements and enforces the methods and manners in which problems are managed or solved. Politics is the DISCUSSION preceding the DECISION. The DECISION is made by the government. Which is the PROCESS used to make those decisions. I will paraphrase, as a repeat. Government is a specified process for making decisions. Politics is the discussion PRECEDING the use of the process for making decisions. O-Game rules: 1. Be honest. 2. Don't be grabby, or pushy. 3. Relax, enjoy. 4. Participate. The people making decisions about economy enjoy the benefits of having a majority of the population, just barely wealthy enough to support the profitable opportunities of their own interests. Most of y'all are simply delusional about the factual reality of how your constitutional decision process FAILS to function. The RESULT of that delusion is your continued disappointment and anger when the system does not give a fuck what you think. MMT is a true description of how a government using fiat currency can simply spend money to fund any benefit that government decides to fund, as long as the labor and materials are available to accomplish that. The PROBLEM, with that has two parts. First, the GOVERNMENT decides what to fund, and we have ample evidence of what they do fund. War, and profit business. I can explain why YOU have no part in that decision. The second part is also hidden from you by proponents of MMT. If the government does decide to fund social benefit to the general public, those funds trickle UP, into the bank and savings accounts of the richest 1% elites, within days or weeks and it STAYS there. Unless the government taxes it back from those rich dickheads. AND we have ample evidence demonstrating how eager the government is to tax the rich. Notice that the entire plan to adopt a fiat currency was driven and encouraged by the richest profiteers OF THE BANKING INDUSTRY. THEY keep that money. This is what the people promoting MMT never want you to understand. The money they want to spend will simply get spent to profit the rich. it's a SCAM, and fuck them. "Child molesters should be beaten to death." I don't agree. I agree with the sentiment. Our law tells us that we should not be cruel in meting justice. That is GOOD law. Murderers of intent, molesters, and the like should be removed from society, permanently. Our execution of a capital criminal, is not revenge, nor punishment. Nor is execution a deterrent. It is a rational act of societal defense that ensures that the criminal will never commit such atrocity again. Our right as individual and as a nation to defend ourselves from predatory crime was not granted in our Constitution, our rights were agreed, never granted. Our current system needs a re-write. I am saddened that we spend so much of our freedom to govern ourselves, by electing professional liars and thieves! A BAD idea, is electing people to make decisions for you, and then insist that you are not being RULED, by that person. It's an absurdity. Many people have insisted that Democracy is a messy form of government. It's NOT. It is simple and not messy at all, if we stop confusing lies excuses and bullshit with truth honor and responsibility. It’s not a messy decision process if we specified and administrate it correctly. We don’t have a democracy. We don’t have a republic. We have an oligarchy and it’s BEEN an oligarchy since the US constitution was written and ratified. EVERY form of government is some specified decision process. A DEMOCRACY is rule by majority. An OLIGARCHY is rule by minority. We have a form of government that is specified in such a manner that a small minority of people, (congress), make the rules. That is an oligarchy. A monarchy is a sub-form of oligarchy, the minority that makes the rules is ONE person, still a minority. If we elected a king every four years, we would still have a monarchy, not a democracy. The king makes the rules. It does not matter how that ONE person was elevated to that position of power and authority, whether it was flipping a coin, or winner take all in a sword duel, or an election, or born into the throne.. The determining factor is whether a majority, or minority “RULES”. Not how that majority or minority CAME TO RULE. All you need to do is to read Article one Section one of the US constitution to understand WHO RULES. CONGRESS makes the rules. A small minority of the entire population. NOT the majority. A minority. That makes it an oligarchy. By the way, a REPUBLIC, is not an oligarchy, it is a sub-form of DEMOCRACY. We don’t have a republic either. It’s a crap system, and most people are so confused by the lies excuses and bullshit of people trying to insist we have anything like a democracy or a republic, they cannot think their way out of the trap laid for them by the same people that lied to them about santa claus. How can we FIX IT?? Specify a REAL republic, a REAL representative democracy. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Yes, I understand that the colloquial definition of the word, republic, has changed in several ways over several millennia. However, CURRENT, colloquial understanding of what the word, “republic” means, is easy to define, when we ask people what they like about our US republic. What we find is that people believe several things about what a republic does for them. First, that the republic form of government includes the PUBLIC, not rulers. It is a PUBLIC matter, which is how the Greek understood the term. Second that the administration of this public matter of governance, is accomplished via representatives, and it is the USE of representatives that separates the republic from a pure or direct democracy. It allows the public to live lives without constant and continuous involvement, because people have lives they want to enjoy, not constantly and continuously managing government. Next is the idea that we, the people, the PUBLIC are responsible for the behavior and consequences of government, we are responsible, because we have CONTROL, via the election process of the people who we elect as representatives. Another idea, taught to our children, as we were taught, is that a republic protects our rights, by disallowing mob rule, and we replaced mob rule, with rule by LAW. Now, if we decide to negate all those IDEAS and replace the promises we were told as children, with a simple, :A republic is anything we say it is, as long as it’s not a “monarchy”, Fine. Do that. But understand that means we no longer need to “believe” in all the advantages that we were promised. Essentially we decided to agree that three fingers is four fingers, because we said so, "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" (1984, George Orwell, Chapter two, Part 3) So, how much of that US public IDEAL, that is being taught to children is false?? Hmm? Think about the "concept" of representation. If I was elected to represent the people in your district, it is very likely that I would make decisions within congress that you, personally do not agree with, whether you voted for me or not. I would likely make decisions that you DO agree with, whether you voted for me or not. I suggest that it is your agreement that determines whether you are represented by me or not. Which should be our first clue that something did not work, with that plan, to provide or produce "representation". Your VOTE, did not result in representation. Your agreement does. Which is what campaigns, platforms and candidate promises are designed to do, as well as muffled answers to questions about why anyone in congress voted the way they did. If they can convince you to agree with them after the fact, they win. Even if they have to lie, dissemble and flat out refuse to answer. I hear most of them try to excuse their behavior, by claiming that they "believe" that the majority of people agree with them. Even when they know damn well we don't. One of several core required concepts of a constitutional republic, is that of representation. If that fails, we cannot expect any of the rest to function correctly. If your government functioned correctly you would be represented in your defense against predatory and exploitative business practices BY YOUR GOVERNMENT. That would be the default position of government, YOUR defense. YOUR representation as citizens. One of several core required concepts of a constitutional republic, is that of representation. If that fails, we cannot expect any of the rest to function correctly. Government is a process for groups of people to make decisions about social structure, what a society will provide to individuals and what individuals will provide to society, and what behaviors will not be tolerated by individuals of society, and which behaviors will not be tolerated by society of individuals. It’s a decision process that enacts and enforces law. I am asserting that if humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. Time to make a choice! Is a republic rule by majority, or is a republic rule by minority? If the former, then a republic must be a democracy. If the latter, then a republic cannot be a democracy. If y'all keep voting to elect a minority of other people to make decisions for ya, you are stupid, and deserve the slave chains you will be rattling in protest. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ The problem is that we can demonstrate that if we removed all money and all dishonesty and all corruption, the SYSTEM itself, the decision process specified in our constitution, WOULD NOT reliably, nor accurately provide results that represent the majority will of the public. Some people think that is a “good thing”. As if being misrepresented by your government should be considered a benefit the government provides, to protect “stupid” “childish” people from having control of the decisions made about social structure. Personally, I think we were lied to about our government decision process. It’s not a republic. It’s an oligarchy, and it was designed that way. It’s not a representative government. It’s certainly not a democracy either. You have the right to be accurately and reliably and equally represented within the decision process we use as a form of government. THAT is the ENTIRE predicate of your "right to vote". And when we say, "represented", we don't mean like some squad of cheerleaders. We mean that OUR individual vote results in pressure in the decision process that factually results in the weightier pressure prevailing in that decision. It's a government, we are talking about decisions, LEGAL decisions, decisions that determine life and death consequences, requiring LEGAL representation, not a clown show in a shit circus. If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!! If all you want to do, is another attempt to elect a hero, to fight bad government for you, then, you may get a hero, or you might get a criminal. However you will STILL HAVE BAD GOVERNMENT! Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. Consider that it took radical people IN THE STREETS to get a decision that only slightly benefited the public. Not voting. FIGHTING, killing, being killed, IN THE STREETS. How is this a rational decision process?? The entire system is a fraud, and the various sides tell different lies. They all fight each other with lies and propaganda to gain and maintain positions of power and authority. None of them are worth spitting on, much less fighting. If your government functioned correctly you would be represented in your defense against predatory and exploitative business practices BY YOUR GOVERNMENT. That would be the default position of government, YOUR defense. YOUR representation as citizens. One of several core required concepts of a constitutional republic, is that of representation. If that fails, we cannot expect any of the rest to function correctly. The decision process specified in your US constitution, DOES NOT administer your right to be represented accurately, reliably and equally. It simply DOES NOT DO THAT. IMPORTANT:::: For the AOC, Bernie and progressive fans out there. READ this. It's not democracy, you keep missing that reality and wandering off into fantasy about how AOC and those folks, (whom I generally agree with on their stated goals, btw), can make what you and I and they are wanting to happen, HAPPEN. It did not turn into an oligarchy. Another bit of reality that escapes you. It's always been an oligarchy. AOC, and Sanders and the rest of the "progressive" crowd are oligarchs, they are not participating in a democracy, they are participants in an oligarchy. I'm not blaming them, I AGREE with what they are TRYING to do. I am saying that they are NOT USING DEMOCRACY to do it. That is why they keep failing. They act like the system works such that if enough people agree with them, somehow the system magically turns into a democracy, where the majority makes a damn difference. Which is simply NOT TRUE. The system is set up, designed from day one to protect against the possibility of majority rule. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. It's set up and designed to ensure that the rich assholes that control the business of profit exploitation of the public and resources maintain control of the decision process. sigh, shrugz Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-146.jpg https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ "I may have inadvertently started a revolution in the convenience store today. I stopped to grab a water, and on the way in I saw a homeless man I know sitting in the shade with his bike beside him. He was red-faced and shaky looking. I asked if he was ok, and he told me that he was just resting. This guy's got the mind of a child, and I'm afraid he doesn't know he needs to stay extra hydrated when it's super hot outside. There were a bunch of people in line in front of me and only one cashier, so I grabbed two waters and yelled to the cashier that I was taking one to the guy outside and I'd be right back (I'm a regular there). When I came back in, the lady in front of me turned around, hands on hips, and told me that I was just enabling that 'homeless person' (said with a sneer) and that I shouldn't be wasting my money on him. It's hot as hell in Florida right now. Mid nineties with humidity around 80%. It's a good day for heat stroke, and I told her so. I said I'd rather give him a water than call an ambulance. I was gonna shrug it off. Let it go. Chalk it up to ignorance and the heat making everybody cranky. And then she told me I should be ashamed of myself. That someone should call the police on him, and that it should be illegal to beg for money. That people who give the homeless money just encourage them to stay homeless and that should be illegal, too. Ashamed. I should be ashamed for giving some poor old guy a water - it cost a whole dollar, BTW - and I should get in trouble for making sure he didn't stroke out in this heat. I guess I look nice. Approachable. Like I wouldn't rip your head off. I am nice, most of the time. But not always. And I lost my temper. I told her to call a cop and report me for buying shit at a convenience store. I told her that I wasn't in the damn mood for crazy right now. That it's a hundred fucking degrees outside, and I'm hot and tired and sick to death of stupid people. That if she had an ounce of compassion in her whole body, she'd buy him a cold drink, too. That maybe she should figure out why she needs to accost complete strangers. And how's about after that, she back the fuck up outta my face and outta my business and turn back around and not say one more damn word to me. I'm just about deaf in one ear. I try to modulate my voice. Unless I get angry. It got pretty loud there at the end. There was dead silence in the store and then someone said loudly "For real!" And the guy at the front of the line told the cashier to add a sandwich to his purchases for the guy outside. The guy behind him bought an extra ice cream. The girl behind HIM got change for a twenty 'cause that guy could probably use some cash.' Every single person in line got him something. Every one, except the now very embarrassed lady in front of me, who slunk out without saying another word. When I got to the cashier, she didn't charge me for either of the waters, because she was going to take him one anyway. And mine was free because of the entertainment. When I went outside, he was eating his ice cream and drinking his water with a pile of stuff all around him, a big old grin on his face. He didn't look shaky anymore. And there, people, is the story of why I hate people. And why I love people. All in the same damned minute. I sat in the car and drank my water and laughed with tears in my eyes, same as I'm doing now." - Barbara Mack Soooo, here is an idea. We overthrow our government. That makes us criminals. Now, us bunch of criminals get together and cobble together a process that puts a small number of us in power. Yeah, we elect a "president", using a process that lets us ignore the votes of the general public. That way we ensure that one of us criminals will always be elected to that office. Then we let the public elect people to a congress, and make sure that only people that agree with our process can get elected. Those people are going to be called "representatives", but we set up the process so they can make decisions, and ignore what the people actually want, and just do whatever they feel is best, whether the people agree or not. Then we set up a "court", that we appoint "judges" to, that are sworn to rule according to the process we just wrote. Yeah, what could go wrong??? If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. Most of y'all are simply delusional about the factual reality of how your constitutional decision process FAILS to function. The RESULT of that delusion is your continued disappointment and anger when the system does not give a fuck what you think. How can we FIX IT?? Specify a REAL republic, a REAL representative democracy. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Soooo, here is an idea. We overthrow our government. That makes us criminals. Now, us bunch of criminals get together and cobble together a process that puts a small number of us in power. Yeah, we elect a "president", using a process that lets us ignore the votes of the general public. That way we ensure that one of us criminals will always be elected to that office. Then we let the public elect people to a congress, and make sure that only people that agree with our process can get elected. Those people are going to be called "representatives", but we set up the process so they can make decisions, and ignore what the people actually want, and just do whatever they feel is best, whether the people agree or not. Then we set up a "court", that we appoint "judges" to, that are sworn to rule according to the process we just wrote. Yeah, what could go wrong??? Yes. If the people we elected and the process they use to make decisions about enactment and enforcement of law, factually represented the public, then yes, one problem that would need to be dealt with, is “tyranny of majority”. Which is not the ONLY problem with democracy. Let’s agree to be intellectually honest about the matter of government, shall we? Every form of government is some specified process for making decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law. What any particular government “does”, is a function of how that decision process is specified, and what decisions are made using that process. ^ please read that twice. It’s important. Another important conceptual understanding is that: If humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. Let’s tackle the concept of “representation” next. It seems or should seem obvious and true, that “Representation is NOT equivalent to misrepresentation”. Misrepresentation is not some ‘form’ of representation. It is a negation of representation. An absence of representation. Just as anarchy is not some form of government, it is an absence of government. One of several core required concepts of a constitutional republic, is that of representation. If that fails, we cannot expect any of the rest to function correctly. ^ Read that twice, it’s important. You have the right to be accurately and reliably and equally represented within the decision process we use as a form of government. THAT is the ENTIRE predicate of your "right to vote". ***And when we say, "represented", we don't mean like some squad of cheerleaders. We mean that OUR individual vote results in pressure in the decision process that factually results in the weightier pressure prevailing in that decision. It's a government, we are talking about decisions, LEGAL decisions, decisions that determine life and death consequences, requiring LEGAL representation, not a clown show in a shit circus. *** Think about the "concept" of representation. If I was elected to represent the people in your district, it is very likely that I would make decisions within congress that you, personally do not agree with, whether you voted for me or not. I would likely make decisions that you DO agree with, whether you voted for me or not. i suggest that it is your agreement that determines whether you are represented by me or not. Which should be our first clue that something did not work, with that plan, to provide or produce "representation". *** Your VOTE, did not result in representation. Your agreement does. Which is what campaigns, platforms and candidate promises are designed to do, as well as muffled answers to questions about why anyone in congress voted the way they did. If they can convince you to agree with them after the fact, they win. Even if they have to lie, dissemble and flat out refuse to answer. I hear most of them try to excuse their behavior, by claiming that they "believe" that the majority of people agree with them. Even when they know damn well we don't. *** If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. ^ That is another important TRUTH. Notice how some people attempt to make excuses for that situation. One person might claim that, “Fortunately,it’s not their job to represent you as an individual...” Oh REALLY??? So just why the hell are you voting? So someone else gets represented? See what that means? It means that a “representative” form of government, should not be expected to factually represent the public, which means they are RULERS, not representatives, and you and I should be grateful about that, as if that should be considered some kind of “feature” of benefit to humanity. "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" (1984, George Orwell, Chapter two, Part 3) Recall that I suggested that we use intellectual honesty? There certainly is a valid concern, about “MOB RULE”. But telling lies to ourselves about the matter is not a solution. *** Here is a snippet of historical reality about “mob rule”. There is absolutely NOTHING in the definition of a republic form of government that protects a population from mob rule, NOTHING. The correct and effective method of preventing the tyranny of majority, is to have a legally precedent process of PROTECTION of HUMAN and CIVIL rights, and FREEDOMS. Those protections of rights and freedoms is AS effective within a direct democracy as a republic. Note that years passed between the ratification of our constitution, and of the articles of amendment that attempted to establish protection of rights. The legally precedent decision process specified in our constitution, was advertised AS A REPUBLIC, for YEARS, before we had any attempt to formally protect rights. Get it? A proper solution to this problem implements PROPER constraint of mob rule, and prevents tyranny of majority by using a judicial process adjudicating legality of proposed law, BEFORE it is enacted. I expect government to do it's primary job, which is to administer a rational decision process that encourages us, as a public, to consider, deliberate and implement solutions to the problems we face as a community nation and species. That is the solution, and yes it’s really that simple. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Small minds talk about people. Great minds talk about ideas. If you are simply interested in electing rulers that benefit your own interests, then you should say that and admit it. If instead you are more interested in fixing systems so that ALL of us are equally represented, then you should be asking HOW can we do that. Politics is the behavior of discussing problems and potential solutions, and is TOTALLY separate from decision process, which is commonly confused with politics. Problems and solutions require careful considerations and discussions. However after all that, a DECISION needs to be made. That is the part that DOES NOT WORK. If your government functioned the way people were deluded into thinking it does, by cult programmers, the same people that lied about santa claus, we'd all, be in a union that protected us from predatory and abusive business practices. If your government functioned correctly you would be represented in your defense against predatory and exploitative business practices BY YOUR GOVERNMENT. That would be the default position of government, YOUR defense. YOUR representation as citizens. One of several core required concepts of a constitutional republic, is that of representation. If that fails, we cannot expect any of the rest to function correctly. No, politicians generally don’t understand the decision process they use. Kinda like most adults can drive a car with an auto transmission, without understanding how that mechanism actually functions. The problem that politicians have is that they put the lever into drive, and the damn car goes in reverse, sometimes. Sometimes they put it in park, and it keeps rolling. Sometimes they turn the wheel to the right, and the car goes left. They have no clue why that happens. We can do better. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ You'd need to start with a democracy first. Which we do not have. It's not a republic either, which is a representative democracy. We have a democratic oligarchy, which is NOT a republic, and certainly not a democracy. What I find particularly interesting, is that it seems true, that both the left and right, liberal and conservative, black, white and all shades between, nearly every division of public population, with a very few notable exceptions are yelling, protesting and rioting at various times, incited by various events, and EACH OF THOSE EVENTS precipitated by the FAILURE of the decision process to properly represent their view within our government. From the failure to arrest and prosecution of a police officer after shooting and killing unarmed citizens, to the failure to arrest and prosecution of lawmakers and supporters caught in criminal acts, to the failure to protect the public from lies and propaganda from corporate business, etc etc etc The notable exceptions are the police, lawmakers and their supporters and corporate business. The REST of us are ANGRY and FRUSTRATED, by the failures of our "representative" government to REPRESENT US!!! If you are ready to decide that your representation is not worth fighting for, fine. I have decided decades ago. I am fighting, because to abdicate my authority to be represented, is to become a chattel slave. i refuse. i resist. i reject. STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. Some people ask me how we can fix this. They point out the divisive and polarized attitudes and behaviors people exhibit today. This is my response. "it can happen by people understanding the reasons that the current system fails, and developing, testing and demonstrating decision process that functions the way our current systems are advertised to work." Even conservatives have complaints, LEGITIMATE complaints about how the process we use misrepresents them. The vast majority of us are AGREED in our anger and frustration, the division is concerning whether we should continue to do exactly what we have been doing, or whether to CHANGE what we are doing. I suggest that those who do not agree to fixing this, are a VERY small minority. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. Electing people to positions of power and authority does not and cannot result in proper representation of the public. It simply results in putting people in positions of power and authority. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to achieve proper representation. It simply means that electing people won't achieve it. I expect government to do it's primary job, which is to administer a rational decision process that encourages us, as a public, to consider, deliberate and implement solutions to the problems we face as a community nation and species. That is the solution, and yes it’s really that simple. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Because we keep attempting to use a flawed and fraudulent social tool for making decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy. A minority of the population. Please note, that we determine the form of government by examining the process by which decisions are made that enact and enforce law and policy on a society. NOT on by examination of a process which decides who will make those decisions. Which is a separate matter. If humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. A DEMOCRACY is rule by majority. An OLIGARCHY is rule by minority. We have a form of government that is specified in such a manner that a small minority of people, (congress), make the rules. That is an oligarchy. A monarchy is a sub-form of oligarchy, the minority that makes the rules is ONE person, still a minority. If we elected a king every four years, we would still have a monarchy, not a democracy. The king makes the rules. It does not matter how that ONE person was elevated to that position of power and authority, whether it was flipping a coin, or winner take all in a sword duel, or an election, or born into the throne.. The determining factor is whether a majority, or minority “RULES”. Not how that majority or minority CAME TO RULE. All you need to do is to read Article one Section one of the US constitution to understand WHO RULES. CONGRESS makes the rules. A small minority of the entire population. NOT the majority. A minority. That makes it an oligarchy. By the way, a REPUBLIC, is not an oligarchy, it is a sub-form of DEMOCRACY. We don’t have a republic either. It’s a crap system, and most people are so confused by the lies excuses and bullshit of people trying to insist we have anything like a democracy or a republic, they cannot think their way out of the trap laid for them by the same people that lied to them about santa claus. How can we FIX IT?? Specify a REAL republic, a REAL representative democracy. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Yes, I understand that the colloquial definition of the word, republic, has changed in several ways over several millennia. However, CURRENT, colloquial understanding of what the word, “republic” means, is easy to define, when we ask US citizens what they like about the US constitution. What we find is that people believe several things about what a republic does for them. First, that the republic form of government includes the PUBLIC, not rulers. It is a PUBLIC matter, which is how the Greek understood the term. Second that the administration of this public matter of governance, is accomplished via representatives, and it is the USE of representatives that separates the republic from a pure or direct democracy. It allows the public to live lives without constant and continuous involvement, because people have lives they want to enjoy, not constantly and continuously managing government. Next is the idea that we, the people, the PUBLIC are responsible for the behavior and consequences of government, we are responsible, because we have CONTROL, via the election process of the people who we elect as representatives. Another idea, taught to our children, as we were taught, is that a republic protects our rights, by disallowing mob rule, and we replaced mob rule, with rule by LAW. Now, if we decide to negate all those IDEAS and replace the promises we were told as children, with a simple, :A republic is anything we say it is, as long as it’s not a “monarchy”, Fine. Do that. But understand that means we no longer need to “believe” in all the advantages that we were promised. Essentially we decided to agree that three fingers is four fingers, because we said so, "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" (1984, George Orwell, Chapter two, Part 3) So, how much of that US public IDEAL, that is being taught to children is false?? Hmm? generally people can be much more satisfied with a bad situation, if they have knowledge that they had some role in the process that created the circumstances. This is why generally the people of the so called republics of modern history, are unwilling to rise up in protest and violence. MOST of those people THINK that they have agency in the decision process that traps them. The key is to remove that delusion, while offering them an opportunity to adopt a process that factually does provide them agency, authority and power. A problem with the politics of government. Politics is the behavior of discussing problems and potential solutions, and is TOTALLY separate from decision process, which is commonly confused with politics. Government is the behavior of making decisions enacting and enforcement of law and policy. Problems and solutions require careful considerations and discussions. However after all that, a DECISION needs to be made. That is the part that DOES NOT WORK. Government. Politics of government is the discussion about the problems and potential solutions to those problems about the decision process used as government. Nearly every discussion about government today, misuses terms and systems of measurement to confuse and delude the people involved in that discussion. The discussions therefor, become simple arguments, of no validity, employing language semantics that require the participants to use terms in a manner that presents concepts that contradict each other, as if they are equivalent. Get those terms DEFINED in a USEFUL manner, and REQUIRE that those terms be employed in a manner consistent with those definitions. Until that happens, the study and discussion of government is simply no more valid than astrology, reading of goat entrails, and religious nonsense. Most of humanity is invested in the absurd notion, that a republic is designed as a tool to prevent majority rule. However, if we do accept that, then the corollary, is that a republic must be a method of minority rule. And if that is true, then it follows that representation is equivalent to misrepresentation, and that the public has no control or authority within a republic. Which, look it up folks, is a DIRECT contradiction to the DEFINITION of a republic. First Branch Government. A true democracy using 4 branch decision process. A REAL democracy, that puts the public in firm control of the decision process, the public is the FIRST branch, and the other three administer those decisions made by the FIRST! Why does humanity need a new FORM of government? Because we keep attempting to use a flawed and fraudulent social tool for making decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy. A minority of the population. Please note, that we determine the form of government by examining the process by which decisions are made that enact and enforce law and policy on a society. NOT on by examination of a process which decides who will make those decisions. Which is a separate matter. If humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. A DEMOCRACY is rule by majority. An OLIGARCHY is rule by minority. We have a form of government that is specified in such a manner that a small minority of people, (congress), make the rules. That is an oligarchy. A monarchy is a sub-form of oligarchy, the minority that makes the rules is ONE person, still a minority. If we elected a king every four years, we would still have a monarchy, not a democracy. The king makes the rules. It does not matter how that ONE person was elevated to that position of power and authority, whether it was flipping a coin, or winner take all in a sword duel, or an election, or born into the throne.. The determining factor is whether a majority, or minority “RULES”. Not how that majority or minority CAME TO RULE. All you need to do is to read Article one Section one of the US constitution to understand WHO RULES. CONGRESS makes the rules. A small minority of the entire population. NOT the majority. A minority. That makes it an oligarchy. By the way, a REPUBLIC, is not an oligarchy, it is a sub-form of DEMOCRACY. We don’t have a republic either. It’s a crap system, and most people are so confused by the lies excuses and bullshit of people trying to insist we have anything like a democracy or a republic, they cannot think their way out of the trap laid for them by the same people that lied to them about santa claus. How can we FIX IT?? Specify a REAL republic, a REAL representative democracy. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ You have the right to be accurately and reliably and equally represented within the decision process we use as a form of government. THAT is the ENTIRE predicate of your "right to vote". ***And when we say, "represented", we don't mean like some squad of cheerleaders. We mean that OUR individual vote results in pressure in the decision process that factually results in the weightier pressure prevailing in that decision. it's a government, we are talking about decisions, LEGAL decisions, decisions that determine life and death consequences, requiring LEGAL representation, not a clown show in a shit circus. Most of humanity is invested in the absurd notion, that a republic is designed as a tool to prevent majority rule. However, if we do accept that, then the corollary, is that a republic must be a method of minority rule. And if that is true, then it follows that representation is equivalent to misrepresentation, and that the public has no control or authority within a republic. Which, look it up folks, is a DIRECT contradiction to the DEFINITION of a republic. The two core flaws in the decision process specified in our US constitution is that it provides no true representation for the public, not as individuals, and not as a nation. That's the first one. The second one is that the US constitution, specifies all of the power and authority for the decision process, to be invoked by three branches, the executive, legislative and judicial. There is NONE left over for the public to invoke within or upon the decision process. The public has NO specification of authority or power at all, NONE. A republic REQUIRES two things to be true, First, that the public has the ultimate authority. That is not true here, all the authority is specified to the 3 branches, none left for the public. Second that the public uses representatives. And that is not true either, we are obviously not being represented as a national public, nor as individuals. How can we FIX IT?? Specify a REAL republic, a REAL representative democracy. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. I was taught when I was young, that was what the union of states was for... You remember, the United States?? The process for making decisions that belongs to the people, not the king, or the corporations? That one? Remember???? Yep, and if the "union" formed by the United States Constitution actually functioned correctly, it would be the ONLY union you need. If your government functioned correctly you would be represented in your defense against predatory and exploitative business practices BY YOUR GOVERNMENT. That would be the default position of government, YOUR defense. YOUR representation as citizens. One of several core required concepts of a constitutional republic, is that of representation. If that fails, we cannot expect any of the rest to function correctly. A republic REQUIRES two things to be true, First, that the public has the ultimate authority. That is not true here, all the authority is specified to the 3 branches, none left for the public. Second that the public uses representatives. And that is not true either, we are obviously not being represented as a national public, nor as individuals. How can we FIX IT?? Specify a REAL republic, a REAL representative democracy. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ What makes this interesting, is that I have no idea what concept you are referring to by the term, “represent”. I know exactly what I mean when I use that term as it applies to government. However, many people use that word, as if it means something like some cheerleaders “representing” their school or team. Or, they may have some nebulous notion that anyone elected by a vote must be representing all of the people who are in the geographic area that held that election. What I mean, is a LEGAL concept. The process of government is a LEGAL process, not a sporting event, not some casino circus. The process of making decisions to enact and enforce law and policy within a society is a legal matter, and it requires that we constrain our discussions of that matter to legal terms. We are making decisions that have life and death consequence, it's not some fucking game. Therefor, when I use the term represent, I mean that the person, “representative”, is behaving in a manner that the person being represented agrees with. We might agree that it is practically impossible for ANY single person to properly and legally represent every person in any group of people with diverse opinions on any single matter. We might ask a lawyer to represent a group of people in some matter that involves disagreement among the individuals in that group, on the matter in question. If we were to do that, an ethical and rational lawyer would decline, because it would be impossible to do so. Unfortunately, this view that I am proffering requires that we also agree that elections cannot function to properly represent the people in that geographic area. It is simply not possible. Elections do not work, they FAIL to provide representation. So what the hell is some elected person to do? The only avenue available to them is to REPRESENT THEIR OWN VIEW OF EACH MATTER OF DECISION!!! Sometimes that view might align with a majority of people in that area, sometimes it may align with with the minority, and sometimes that minority might be campaign donors, sometimes it is business interests. Sometimes it may be party ideology that is represented. The point here, is that the shit did not fucking work to represent the public, except by chance. OK, so, what if we REQUIRED each person elected as a representative to make decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy that ONLY represents the majority opinion of the people in that geographic area. Cool? If we did that we could eliminate all corruption. Nor would it matter who we elected, would it? They would be required to “represent” the majority. Well, unfortunately THAT shit would not work either. 5000 people agree to elect a “representative”. 2501 people vote for “Bob”. 2499 people vote for the other guy. Bob wins. I suggest that we examine how we expect Bob to represent all 5000 equally. That seems rather obviously impossible. However, let’s not give up hope. Consider that Bob is about to make a decision on some issue. Bob decides to vote “NO” on that issue. When we ask the 5000 people if they agree with Bob, on his decision, we find that only 1789 of those people agree with Bob. Wow, so Bob did not represent even a majority, even if he won the election by majority. He factually represented the minority. But wait. What if Bob was REQUIRED to always represent the majority, even if he could not represent ALL 5000, he can represent a majority. However, to enforce the rule that Bob must always represent the majority, then we would need to ask every one of those 5000 people. Lotta work. BUT, if we did that anyways, guess what? We did not need to elect Bob, at all. Hey, maybe we are getting somewhere. We don’t need Bob if we count the votes of the people. If we don’t count the votes of people, then Bob can do whatever he wants and no one can prove he did not represent the majority. Uhh, that just opened the door to corruption, because Bob can do whatever benefits him and his buddies. Maybe we should have elected the other guy. Oh, wait, the other guy would do the same thing. Maybe we should figure out a different way to administer representation, because ELECTING PEOPLE AS REPRESENTATIVES DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. THEN, even worse, using those people in a congress to make decisions DOES NOT WORK either!!! We begin with elected representatives. District 1 elects Robert. District 2 elects Sally. District 3 Elects Jim. A decision needs to be made on whether to enact a law, about issue X. Robert votes no. Sally votes no. Jim votes yes. The law is not enacted. 2 votes no, one vote yes. The reason each representative voted their decision, is because each of them counted votes from each of their constituents. They voted the way the majority of people within their district indicated by their individual vote. Now lets look at how the individuals voted within each district. District 1, direct count was 4,863 voted yes, and 5,137 voted no. That is why Robert voted NO, because more people in District 1 voted NO. District 2 direct count was 4,915 voted yes, and 5,085 voted no. That is why Sally voted NO, because more people in District 2 voted NO. District 3 direct count was 7,156 voted yes, and 2,844 voted no. That is why Jim voted YES, because more people in District 3 voted YES. Now, let's look at what the majority of people in the three districts decided by direct count. District 1, YES count=4,863 District 2, YES count=4,915 District 3, YES count=7,156 Yes total= 16,934 District 1, NO count=5,137 District 2, NO count=5,085 District 3, NO count=2,844 No total= 13,066 3,868 MORE people voted to ENACT that law. Not an insignificant number, it's NOT trivial. The districts each have an equal number of voters, and EVERY person eligible to vote, DID vote. There was no gerrymandering, no disproportionate district sizing. No cheating or fraudulent voting and nothing was fraudulent about the counting. The PROCESS failed. The process of electing people as representatives, and having those people vote exactly as the majority of people in their district indicated FAILED. https://www.45ink.com/4repfraud.jpg The PROCESS is fraudulent. It DOES NOT WORK!!!! The use of "representatives" EVEN when they are absolutely honest and properly represent the majority decision of the people that elected them, EVEN if the representative voted against their own personal belief, STILL did not properly represent the total population majority. This is the basis of my rejection of the elected representative model. It simply does NOT work. The fact that the numbers could just as easily have been such that the results match public will, and just as easily have been such that the congress vote was yes, while the public said no, IS EXACTLY what I am saying. We have no control, it's flopping like a headless chicken. It does not work. Oh, maybe if we used more districts? Consider this situation. A person is working at a business that has announced that it will host a lunch freebie for all employees. The management tells the workers they can choose to have burgers or pizza. That is the choice presented to the employees, burgers or pizza. The business has 137 employees. 5 departments. Production has 45 employees. Management has 38 employees. Advertising has 22 employees. Warehouse and shipping has 19 employees. Research and development has 13 employees. Management tells each department to elect a representative to tell management what their department chooses. Production votes 23-22 for pizza. Management votes 20-18 for pizza. Advertising votes 12-10 for pizza. Warehouse votes 3-16 for burgers. Research votes 6-7 for burgers. Management tallies the representative votes, and the count is 3-2 for pizza. However, once management tells the workers that they voted for pizza, someone says, "Wait a minute. NO, we did NOT vote for pizza. 73 of us voted for burgers, and only 64 of us voted for pizza." https://www.45ink.com/repfraud2.png The decision made by the PROCESS that management specified, DOES NOT REPRESENT THE TRUE CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEES. That PROCESS is flawed! The same damn process specified in our own damn constitution. FLAWED, Fraudulent. MISREPRESENTATIVE. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ there are many bright and intelligent people we elected, making desperate attempts to make this system work, and failing. There are bright and intelligent people elected that are trying to game the system to their personal benefit, (maintain position of power). Those people trying to game the system are the minority, not the majority of people elected. They have influence, but they are NOT the majority. The problem, once again, for the people in back sucking thumbs, is NOT that we elected the wrong people. We elected people to the wrong positions. *********** Anti-vax, flat earth, chemtrails, horoscopes, ancient aliens, etc etc etc:: "We just asking questions! If it can't be questioned then it ain't SCIENCE!!" Yes, but when you ask the questions, and the answers are supported by observational reality, then you don't keep asking the same question over and over to stall and deny that reality. You can question the theory that explains the effect of gravity near the surface of the earth all you want, but none of your questions, stalling and denial will save your dumb ass when you step off a cliff. *********** Delusions. The biggest delusion about government, is that elections provide or produce “representation” A republic REQUIRES representation, it is a form of Democracy. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. If the process misrepresents the public, then it's not a republic, not a democracy. Words have meaning. The misuse of words, twisted to allow and encourage abuse by government is a crime against humanity. We face problems, of global proportion and consequence, and the decision processes we use rely on lies, excuses and bullshit, to convince you that the problems are not being solved, because YOU choose the wrong oligarchs. It's a problem. It is THE problem. FIX THAT, or suffer. Start where I did, “Government is a decision process.” Then the next step is to assert, that representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Then, the concept of representation must be considered in a legal context, as we are discussing the enactment and enforcement of law. It’s not a game, it’s not some circus. It a serious matter of life and death consequence. Not a clown show in a shit circus. Get serious about this. That concept is not and cannot be considered to be the colloquial alternative of a cheer squad representing their high school. Those are NOT the same concepts. 5000 people agree to elect a “representative”. 2501 people vote for “Bob”. 2499 people vote for the other guy. Bob wins. I suggest that we examine how we expect Bob to represent all 5000 equally. That seems rather obviously impossible. Think about the "concept" of representation. If I was elected to represent the people in your district, it is very likely that I would make decisions within congress that you, personally do not agree with, whether you voted for me or not. I would likely make decisions that you DO agree with, whether you voted for me or not. I suggest that it is your agreement that determines whether you are represented by me or not. Which should be our first clue that something did not work, with that plan, to provide or produce "representation". Your VOTE, did not result in representation. Your agreement does. Which is what campaigns, platforms and candidate promises are designed to do, as well as muffled answers to questions about why anyone in congress voted the way they did. If they can convince you to agree with them after the fact, they win. Even if they have to lie, dissemble and flat out refuse to answer. I hear most of them try to excuse their behavior, by claiming that they "believe" that the majority of people agree with them. Even when they know damn well we don't. However, let’s not give up hope. Consider that Bob is about to make a decision on some issue. Bob decides to vote “NO” on that issue. When we ask the 5000 people if they agree with Bob, on his decision, we find that only 1789 of those people agree with Bob. Wow, so Bob did not represent even a majority, even if he won the election by majority. He factually represented the minority. But wait. What if Bob was REQUIRED to always represent the majority, even if he could not represent ALL 5000, he can represent a majority. However, to enforce the rule that Bob must always represent the majority, then we would need to ask every one of those 5000 people. Lotta work. BUT, if we did that anyways, guess what? We did not need to elect Bob, at all. Hey, maybe we are getting somewhere. We don’t need Bob if we count the votes of the people. If we don’t count the votes of people, then Bob can do whatever he wants and no one can prove he did not represent the majority. Uhh, that just opened the door to corruption, because Bob can do whatever benefits him and his buddies. Maybe we should have elected the other guy. Oh, wait, the other guy would do the same thing. Maybe we should figure out a different way to administer representation, because ELECTING PEOPLE AS REPRESENTATIVES DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP attempting to use ELECTIONS to provide representation. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! STOP electing people to a congress with the power and authority to make decisions that misrepresent the public majority decisions. The reason we are unhappy with representational democracy is not because representation does not work, but rather that elections do not provide representation. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. THEN, even worse, using those people in a congress to make decisions DOES NOT WORK either!!! In any case, it's about decision process. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I discuss an alternative to electing people as "representatives" in my article on my website, (link in this comment). However just a quick note, we could "choose" our representatives, and change our choices at any time, for any reason, depending on the issue and our individual decision on that issue. It may seem impossibly complicated, but it's actually really simple once you understand that the representatives are NOT the people we elect to congress, and none of them ever have any ability to change our decision as individuals or as a nation. Tired of historical events destroying what you love? Unfortunately, those events are not tired of causing misery and suffering. The decision systems we use are causing those events. As long as we continue to adhere to those systems, the events will continue. Voting in OUR system is abdication, not in 4 branch. In 4 branch your vote factually represents you, even declining to vote represents you accurately and reliably. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Knowing that the US is an oligarchy not a republic is one step in the correct direction. However, UNDERSTANDING, that our constitution SPECIFIES an oligarchy, and HAS ALWAYS specified an oligarchy is a FURTHER step in the right direction, THEN, understanding exactly what is specified in that constitutional decision process that creates an oligarchy, is a yet further step. Most of y'all are still on step one, and have no clue where that path to truth leads. https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-146.jpg I hear people saying that the reason the system sucks is because stupid people elect the wrong rulers. (oops I mean leaders, LOL) Bullshit. If the public is too stupid to use the system, then we should change the damn system, so the people CAN use it. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Does the 2nd amendment protect criminals from having their right to bear arms infringed by the government? One of my peeves, is the insistence of “political science” to decline to define terms of context and measure so that experimental data can be considered and compared to reality. Start where I did, “Government is a decision process.” Then the next step is to assert, that representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Then, the concept of representation must be considered in a legal context, as we are discussing the enactment and enforcement of law. That concept is not and cannot be considered to be the colloquial alternative of a cheer squad representing their high school. Those are NOT the same concepts. A constitution specifies the process used to make decisions that enact and enforce law and policy within a society. It defines the mechanics of the government specified. Just as a recipe defines the mechanics of preparing some form of food, or a computer program specifies some sequence of data acquisition and decision process on that data. It may also attempt to state the reasoning or justifications for the process specified, as some kind of advertisement promoting that process as reasonable and justified. However the relevant content of a constitution is simply that specified decision process. ************* A problem with the politics of government. Politics is the behavior of discussing problems and potential solutions, and is TOTALLY separate from decision process, which is commonly confused with politics. Government is the behavior of making decisions enacting and enforcement of law and policy. Problems and solutions require careful considerations and discussions. However after all that, a DECISION needs to be made. That is the part that DOES NOT WORK. Government. Politics of government is the discussion about the problems and potential solutions to those problems about the decision process used as government. Nearly every discussion about government today, misuses terms and systems of measurement to confuse and delude the people involved in that discussion. The discussions therefor, become simple arguments, of no validity, employing language semantics that require the participants to use terms in a manner that presents concepts that contradict each other, as if they are equivalent. Get those terms DEFINED in a USEFUL manner, and REQUIRE that those terms be employed in a manner consistent with those definitions. Until that happens, the study and discussion of government is simply no more valid than astrology, reading of goat entrails, and religious nonsense. *************** Most of humanity is invested in the absurd notion, that a republic is designed as a tool to prevent majority rule. However, if we do accept that, then the corollary, is that a republic must be a method of minority rule. And if that is true, then it follows that representation is equivalent to misrepresentation, and that the public has no control or authority within a republic. Which, look it up folks, is a DIRECT contradiction to the DEFINITION of a republic. Question: Do you think we should support Ukraine or should we shrug and blame our country for all the woes of the world? We could easily support the people of Ukraine, and to be honest, humanity in general, while also blaming the systemic failures of our forms of government on the decision process used in those governments, including the US, Ukraine, and Russia. Then instead of shrugging we could actually participate in designing and implementing rational decision process to replace those failing institutional monsters of lies excuses and bullshit, with a form of government that actually serves humanity. That may be difficult for you to comprehend, perhaps not. If it is, I suggest that the reason you have trouble with it, is that you have no idea how to do it. But consider this, it's true. Most people that use computers never had any idea how to build one, but SOMEONE figured it out. Now you use one. It's NOT that difficult to stand aside while not objecting or arguing with people who are willing and able to participate in building a new form of government. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Of course, we can force the people we elect and system they use, to comply with public authority, from public action, ***outside the constitutional decision process***. Protesting, rioting, striking, etc, is working outside the constitutional decision process. That is the key part. If we have to keep working outside the constitution, then why the hell are we using it??? Remember this, it's important. When someone says that we have a republic, not a democracy, they are actually saying that the government is rule by minority, not rule by majority. If you remind them of this truth they may respond by telling you that we have rule by law, not by majority or minority. Yet, they want to confuse you. The rule by law is fine, except, that again it's the minority they want to authorize to make decisions about WHICH laws will rule. NOT YOU, not the public, a small minority of rulers, people who make the decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy. And, a system of government that uses a small number of people making rules is not a fucking republic, it's just another fucking oligarchy. STOP ATTEMPTING TO USE OLIGARCHY AS A REPUBLIC. One of my problems with "taxing the rich", is that it would require the public to rely on the government to agree with us on that, and they don't and won't. However EATING the rich is something we can do without the government getting involved. In any case, notice how the GOVERNMENT is the fucking problem. Yeah, no one has designed a functioning government that works to administrate the will of the people. A REAL Democratic Republic. YET. However, just because no one ever figured out how to build an airplane before 1903, does not require you or I to agree that it could never be done. In the SAME way, that just because no one ever figured out how to build a functioning government that does not need rulers, does not require you, nor I to agree that it is impossible. It's NOT. I can show you a form of government that works correctly. That does what WE the people WANT IT TO DO, without argument, without drama. It just WORKS!!!! A social market, is the answer. A volunteer participant in a social market would be provided every basic need for a comfortable and dignified life, including rest. This would present a competition with capital for profit business such that those businesses would need to offer a wage and benefits at LEAST equal or better than that provided by the social market. The wage labor required to provide those benefits by volunteers would be about 24 hours per week, and that includes being "paid" for vacation, illness, injury, education, childcare, retirement etc etc etc. However, we won't ever have an opportunity to organize such a system using our current US constitutional decision process. That process is designed and implemented to protect and defend profit opportunity to capital business that exploits the "serfs" and "peasants", and organizes those people profiting into positions of decision authority to prevent the "lower classes", from organizing such a non-profit volunteer social market. Democratic socialists want you to have free college, free education, free housing, free child care, etc. etc etc. (They want to steal from the "rich", to provide those freebies to you.) A social market, wants to pay you for going to college. A social market wants to pay you to get health care. A social market wants to pay you for your housing. A social market wants to pay your kids for child care. OH, you have no idea how that could possibly work??? Yeah, I do. But understanding it means letting go of your fanatical opposition to capital markets, and idiocy about how money works. (A social market provides those benefits to you, by providing those benefits to everyone that participates in providing those benefits to everyone.) http://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ This should be quick and easy to understand. There is a significant difference between being represented within a decision process and being represented by the result of that process. For instance, if 10 people vote on what to have for dinner, and 6 people vote for burgers, 3 people vote for pizza and one person votes for oriental, then the only people represented by the RESULT of that decision process are the people who voted for burgers. The people who voted for pizza are misrepresented by the result. The person who voted for oriental, is misrepresented by the result. That is obviously TRUE!!!! The IMPORTANT part is that they had an opportunity to speak their mind WITHIN the process, they each had a vote on the matter in question. They were properly represented within the decision process. They were NOT misrepresented within the process. This confuses nearly every discussion about "democracy" and democratic process. And, in fact it is confusion about the difference that causes confusion about the difference between democracy and democratic process. That confusion is a HUGE problem in discussion, when people conflate the two different concepts as if they are equivalent. Those are NOT equivalent. Just as an automobile, may have an automatic transmission, the two words, automobile and automatic are DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, they are NOT equivalent. Democracy must include the democratic process, however simply using a democratic process does not create nor require the result of "Democracy". Just as a machine that sorts tomatoes, might use an automatic transmission, and fail to become any kind of automobile. It is as much of a moral dilemma to agree with democracy, as oligarchy. EACH of which is just as likely to produce “wrong” decisions. The difference is that a democracy cannot ever be considered malevolent, while we have many examples of malevolent oligarchies. A democracy can be “wrong”, but it must have had support of the majority of the citizens, and was therefor a benevolent decision. Think about how we determine whether a body of decision makers is considered malevolent or benevolent, right? If a majority of citizens agree with the decisions being made, they consider the system, and those people making decisions as benevolent. If the majority disagrees with the decisions, then they start talking about revolt, guillotines and pitchforks, right? They consider the system and the people running it Malevolent. All of that benevolence vs malevolence has nothing to do with right or wrong. Nor truth or reality of falseness and fantasy. A single ruler may decide to position a new town on a floodplain in late fall, and in the springtime, the floods come and kill everyone. We don’t hear any complaints, the tribe agreed with that decision, but now they are all dead. Was it a wrong decision?? I would say yes, but the same wrong decision could have been made by democracy as well. It’s still a wrong decision, and they are all still dead. I think a relevant consideration however should be that when a single ruler, or small group of rulers, (oligarchy), makes a bad decision, it is highly unlikely that they will fix that decision, because they would have to admit they were “wrong” in the first place. No matter how much the public suffers from that decision, the oligarchs stand their ground trying to prove they were right. In a democracy, if the decision is causing the majority to suffer and be miserable, they don’t try to justify the decision, they FIX IT, or at least try to. Oligarchy vs democracy. Yeah, great question. We, as humanity, are about to witness, on local, national and international television, the use of Russian military, political and economical force, to crush and subjugate military, economic and political forces of resistance to the domination of Eastern European areas and peoples that Russian oligarchy desires to own and control. Other nations and peoples will either stand aside and allow this, or will become involved in such a way to create the world war we have been dreading for over 50 years. The oligarchies of the "West", such as the USA, do not want to risk their profit potentials on interfering with the Russian atrocities. Are YOU responsible for the actions and inaction of your governments? Is the Russian population responsible for THEIR government?? It's fucked up, and NOT GETTING BETTER!!!! For a few moments, for the purpose of this post, I am going to adopt and embrace the paradigm of "faith based thinking". I am going to explain something in terms of my "belief". I believe, that if I were to fire a .45 auto pistol from a distance of 3 inches from your temple, that your faith in God, will save you. God will prevent any injury. I can safely fire my weapon into your face, and no injury will result. I BELIEVE THAT!!!! I propose that if you also attempt to use your "faith" to impose your values on others, you should consider what VALUE, my faith in this scenario has to you. How much value is MY faith that God will save you from MY gun fired into your head?? Do you agree, or will you reject my faith? If I were to observe a normal chicken egg dropping from a height of 5 foot, to a concrete floor here on earth, I might hope, (have faith), that the egg will break and splatter when it hits the floor. My hope, MY faith is based on observed reality. It is so highly unlikely that the egg will survive the drop unbroken, that I am rather confident that my "hope" will be demonstrated by the result. However, that is not faith based thinking. I will not predict that there is absolutely no possibility that the egg will survive, I merely suggest that the probability of that is so low, that to RELY on the egg survival is absurd. Faith based thinking, is such that the person using it, will demand that the egg be dropped over and over, and continuing to hope, based on faith, that eventually some imaginary event will allow the egg to survive. They will ignore all of the empirical evidence, all of the physical knowledge of gravity, mass, and velocity and structural dimensions and properties. Their "faith" is that eventually the egg will survive. Which is possible. Recall that I already conceded that possibility. If that egg somehow, eventually does survive, I will attempt to explain that circumstance in terms of those physical properties, while the other person will claim that their "faith" is more powerful than my physics, again, ignoring all the splattered eggs we already observed. It's not a valid process of thinking. STOP ATTEMPTING TO USE OLIGARCHY AS A REPUBLIC. Why does the electoral college give states votes disproportional to their population? The premise of the electoral college process is that it is more important that there are more PLACES that voted for a candidate than whether more PEOPLE voted for a candidate. It was an attempt to discourage and reject tyranny of majority and mob rule. The process does not in fact, do that. It’s factually a form of misrepresentation of the PUBLIC. In fact there are BETTER ways of preventing tyranny of majority and mob rule, than purposely misrepresenting the public. And, as much as I agree that a decision process should provide some method of identifying and differentiating regional views, again, there are BETTER methods of doing that, which do not misrepresent the public. Technically, if the goal of the US constitution was to create a representative government, then it failed immediately, because the process used to elect and position members of congress and use them as representatives of local populations fails as it is mathematically invalid. (This is not about the electoral college anymore, it’s about the effectiveness of CONGRESS to behave as “representatives” of the public.) It is simply not a valid process, which is why people who do important works that determines life and death consequences, such as load bearing bridges, aircraft design, railroad tracks, firearm design, etc etc. REFUSE TO USE THAT METHOD OF DATA ACQUISITION and analysis. When someone says that we have a republic, they mean our government is rule by minority, not rule by majority. And, a system of government that uses a small number of people making rules is not a republic, it's just another oligarchy. STOP ATTEMPTING TO USE OLIGARCHY AS A REPUBLIC. donut.c by Andy Sloane // k;double sin() ,cos();main(){float A= 0,B=0,i,j,z[1760];char b[ 1760];printf("\x1b[2J");for(;; ){memset(b,32,1760);memset(z,0,7040) ;for(j=0;6.28>j;j+=0.07)for(i=0;6.28 >i;i+=0.02){float c=sin(i),d=cos(j),e= sin(A),f=sin(j),g=cos(A),h=d+2,D=1/(c* h*e+f*g+5),l=cos (i),m=cos(B),n=s\ in(B),t=c*h*g-f* e;int x=40+30*D* (l*h*m-t*n),y= 12+15*D*(l*h*n +t*m),o=x+80*y, N=8*((f*e-c*d*g )*m-c*d*e-f*g-l *d*n);if(22>y&& y>0&&x>0&&80>x&&D>z[o]){z[o]=D;;;b[o]= ".,-~:;=!*#$@"[N>0?N:0];}}/*#****!!-*/ printf("\x1b[H");for(k=0;1761>k;k++) putchar(k%80?b[k]:10);A+=0.04;B+= 0.02;}}/*****####*******!!=;:~ ~::==!!!**********!!!==::- .,~~;;;========;;;:~-. ..,--------,*/ I absolutely agree that neither capitalism, nor socialism is sufficient. We require a hybrid economic paradigm, that allows the public to use economic reward for excellent performance, as well as allowing the public to care for those who are simply not excellent. 🙂 My point is that when we attempt to use the decision process provided by our constitution, the system declines to solve or manage the challenges of caring for those who are not performing with excellence. UNLESS someone can make a profit from the solution. In addition, the somewhat rare advances in social care we have managed to accumulate, are constantly being eroded and displaced by profit motive acts that tend to contradict the intent of the acts which we did advance. We need to fix our decision process. THEN we can fix economic problems. THIS is a typical question: How do we get those currently holding power to allow such a change, since doing so cuts off their gravy train and power going forward? THIS is my answer: Your question assumes we need their permission and/or approval. That assumption simply authorizes them to say no. Don't make that assumption. It's not true. A new process, does not require any permission from the old system. We did not need King George to permit us to create a new nation. We just did it, and when he objected and sent military force to enforce his objection, we kicked their ass. THAT is not the same situation, The people in power now, rely entirely on OUR permission and approval. Once we the people remove that permission and approval, they have NO POWER! NONE. ALL we need is a new process, and to make the decision to use that, instead of what we use today. We need that new process FIRST. The rest will follow. No we will not need to shoot at each other to do it. Yes, there will be people who insist on using violence to oppose the transition. Yes, we will likely need to use violence to end that opposition. I want to make this clear, this will NOT be like every other revolution driven by a small vocal and violent minority pushing a new regime on the public. This REQUIRES that a vast majority of the public want to transition to a new process. get it? Majority. VAST majority. How do we get that vast majority? By offering a NEW PROCESS that is so much better, makes so much sense and works so well, that people WANT to use it. That is my plan. You can sit down, or stand up. if you stand up, you can help me, or oppose me. Shrugz. Of course, we can force the people we elect and system they use, to comply with public authority, from public action, ***outside the constitutional decision process***. Protesting, rioting, striking, etc, is working outside the constitutional decision process. That is the key part. If we have to keep working outside the constitution, then why the hell are we using it??? Remember this, it's important. When someone says that we have a republic, not a democracy, they are actually saying that the government is rule by minority, not rule by majority. If you remind them of this truth they may respond by telling you that we have rule by law, not by majority or minority. Yet, they want to confuse you. The rule by law is fine, except, that again it's the minority they want to authorize to make decisions about WHICH laws will rule. NOT YOU, not the public, a small minority of rulers, people who make the decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy. And, a system of government that uses a small number of people making rules is not a fucking republic, it's just another fucking oligarchy. STOP ATTEMPTING TO USE OLIGARCHY AS A REPUBLIC. Then instead of shrugging we could actually participate in designing and implementing rational decision process to replace those failing institutional monsters of lies excuses and bullshit, with a form of government that actually serves humanity. That may be difficult for you to comprehend, perhaps not. If it is, I suggest that the reason you have trouble with it, is that you have no idea how to do it. But consider this, it's true. Most people that use computers never had any idea how to build one, but SOMEONE figured it out. Now you use one. It's NOT that difficult to stand aside while not objecting or arguing with people who are willing and able to participate in building a new form of government. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ People, generally "believe" that it is by voting to elect people to congress that we the people, exert our ultimate authority of self rule within the constitutional decision process. This is the basis of exhortations that every citizen should vote, and the reason so many people insist that if every citizen voted the process would function to make decisions the majority of us agree with. It's not true, that "belief" is a false premise. It simply is NOT true. I can prove that, easily. Proof, not opinion. I understood and imagined the parents tears, beginning in May, 1970, Kent State, when the murders were committed by the government. Mothers: "Our children are being murdered in school!" Media and politicians: "You need to vote harder." It's a scam, the ENTIRE process specified in our constitution is a FRAUD! "Look, all y'all angry frustrated protesters, being violent and destructive. We need to stop that shit, stay home, let your local governments work to find justice, for the injustice you experience daily. If y'all, just go home, chill out and relax, we can get control, of the problem and start fixing it." We heard that about 40 times now in the past 30 years. That is their default position, relax to the injustice, and it will go away. NO. FUCK YOU. NO. No justice, NO PEACE. I hope you enjoy feeling the public knee on YOUR neck. Some people insist that we should vote to elect people who represent us. Yet, I often find that the same person that represents me on the matter of gun control, also misrepresents me on corporate profits and other matters of social inequity. Why should we, as a nation, continue to agree on being misrepresented on many matters of law and policy, to be properly represented on any single issue? Why would you do that? Because you cannot think of a better way?? What if someone presented you with a better way, would you reject that simply because you don't understand it? Why don't you try to understand it? It is well past time to recognize a simple truth. The people we elect to make decisions are rulers, not representatives. They make decisions of law and policy. Sometimes they make decisions that the people agree with, sometimes they do not. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ No significant changes prevented mass shootings between Columbine and Robb Elementary. Each time the public demanded action to resolve the matter, the people we elected either decided not to get anything done, or simply failed to get anything done because the decision process foiled the good faith attempts to do so. We have had many elections we the people could have used to vote out the people who declined to make the decisions, and to elect in people who could. We changed from dems to repubs several times and NONE of them managed to figure out how to fix a damn thing. How may more children and grocery shoppers are you willing to sacrifice, before you get it comprehended into your delusional fantasy that THE FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION PROCESS DOES NOT FUCKING WORK????? It is well past time to recognize a simple truth. The people we elect to make decisions are rulers, not representatives. They make decisions of law and policy. Sometimes they make decisions that the people agree with, sometimes they do not. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ We all have "rights". Some of the rights we agree to protect from majority rule, should be protected. Not all rights can be, nor should be protected from majority rule. Bill Trowbridge wrote this, "It's neither mental illness nor guns. It's the American social system, where everyone is expected to solve their own problems. Thus people become trapped socially/financially. And then they crack, just like any animal that's trapped, and in a last-ditch effort to survive and escape the trap, they have a fit of extreme violence. This is normal behavior for people (animals) entrapped in situations. What we need to do is address the root causes that force people into those situations, and provide a lot of easy ways for people to easily escape their traps." Many people view democracy, (rule by majority), similar to how wild animals view fire. Wild animals have no knowledge or tools to properly control fire, and their fear of that which they cannot control is well founded. However humans have an abundance of knowledge and tools for using intelligence to control fire. That most people have no idea how to build and use tools to control democracy, is meaningless, and that circumstance does not require us to agree that democracy cannot be used properly. Note, this is important: Oligarchy is defined as "rule by minority" (Generally expressed as "rule by few", which is semantically equal to rule by minority.) *********Note that the definition of oligarchy has NOTHING to do with wealth, an oligarchy could be a small group of people in poverty, it's still an oligarchy. The form of government, describes the DECISION PROCESS used to enact and enforce law and policy within a society. Nothing else, NOT even the process used to elect or select rulers, or leaders. A nation might choose to elect a king every 4 years, that would be a democratic process of ruler selection, but it's NOT a democracy, it's a monarchy, chosen by democratic process. Electing oligarchs does not create a democracy, it makes a democratic oligarchy. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the oligarchs we elect, choose to support and promote the views of the rich assholes that can finance their elections and re-elections. Not every elected oligarch chooses to do that, some of those we elected, insist on some attempt to promote the views of the public majority. Even some "republicans" will do that under specific circumstance, think of Liz Cheny. She is likely to lose her re-election, because she chose to stand against the rich assholes supporting Trump. We can also find some democrats, that make that choice, though many of them are also constrained by the views of rich assholes that can finance their elections. BUT, again, it is NOT the rich assholes that are making those decisions. The people we elected are making those decisions, THOSE are the oligarchs. The people who make those decisions. The people we ELECTED TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. The people we elected are not using DEMOCRACY to make those decisions, they are OLIGARCHS using OLIGARCHY to make those decisions. Even Bernie and AOC are NOT USING DEMOCRACY. NONE of the people we elected, are using democracy, they are using OLIGARCHY. Which is the REASON, that after it has become painfully obvious that the vast majority of people want some form of universal health care, and some kind of control over who we trust with firearms, and such a majority has been screaming for decades about those and other issues, WE STILL DO NOT HAVE THOSE ISSUES RESOLVED!!! Because it simply does not matter what the majority of us want, THEY use oligarchy, not democracy. We, as a public, for some reason continue to INSIST they use oligarchy to make those decisions. Our US constitution, as well as MANY national and state governments around the earth, specifies the same damn system, with minor variations such as parliaments, and councils and other failing implementations of oligarchy, and EVERY one of them falsely claims they are some form of democracy, generally called a "republic". A republic is simply a democracy administrated by the public through the use of representatives. The public makes the decisions, the public has the ultimate decision authority, the PUBLIC MAJORITY makes the decisions. STOP attempting to use oligarchy as a republic. It's as absurd as using a fork to bail out your sinking ship. IT DOES NOT FUCKING WORK!!! Many people view democracy, (rule by majority), similar to how wild animals view fire. Wild animals have no knowledge or tools to properly control fire, and their fear of that which they cannot control is well founded. However humans have an abundance of knowledge and tools for using intelligence to control fire. It does not matter, if most people have no idea how to build and use tools to control democracy, and that circumstance does not require us to agree that democracy cannot be used properly. All that is required is that SOME of us have the tools of knowledge to control democracy! Just as SOME of us discerned the tools to control fire, and humanity adopted those tools and leaped forward as a THINKING creature. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ We had a nice climb, stomping over each other on our way the "the top". Leaving behind countless bloody bodies fatally abused by the stampede to "the top". The pressure of the crowd following the leaders compels the masses to ignore the cliff that marks the end of the illusion that there is a "top". The majority of humanity is now falling off that cliff, the precipice, that eased into a downslope that seemed temporary. Now the bulk of the vast numbers of humanity are careening down that slope at breakneck speed, and CANNOT STOP. Bye, and goodnight. I start with the concept of government. I like a solid and useful definition of terms, for instance, government, what *is* government? I will start by asserting the every government, and every form of government has one defining characteristic, that is essential. That is a government is a process for making decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy within a society. Whether that society is a family, a group of friends, a town, city, county, nation of species. If there is a specified method, of making decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy, it can be described as "a government". That is what government is, that method, that specified process. A monarchy is specified as, the monarch has that decision authority. The monarch makes those decisions, that enact and enforce law and policy. On the other end of the scale we have democracy, where every citizen shares that decision authority equally. Notice that we just set up a spectrum of possible "forms" of government that can be defined and referred to by how the distribution of decision authority is specified. Shall we continue? Uvalde, TX I am somewhat confident I wrote this shortly after the shooting at Parkland High School. :::: Have you EVER wondered, what a proper response would be, if you discovered that some madmen were shooting kids at your neighborhood school, and when you called the police, they AGREED with you. They calmly explained that more guns is NOT the answer. They insisted that we should ban guns, especially the evil assault weapons. They suggest you call your Senator, start a petition. Organize a march and protest! That the truth is, that those weapons being used, right now to kill kids, are MUCH too powerful and dangerous for anyone to face, and it's just much more likely that some poor innocent child might be struck by crossfire. What if every plea you make, that they get off their ass and go into harms way to stop that massacre, is met with bland reasoned platitudes about violence begets violence. If you asked them to help, and they replied that they are not cartoon heroes, not Rambo types. I wonder, EVERY DAMN TIME. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. Damien Pagan: 7-17-22 "The money itself is vapor. It's a shell game. They don't actually own resources equivalent to their net worth, they just move debt around to make it seem like they actually have economic power. The correct top marginal tax rate is guillotines. The reward for being a just steward of the people's capital is that you get to keep your head." You are welcome to "believe" whatever the fuck you want. I HOPE you believe that you can jump off a cliff and your god will save you, or provide an afterlife to comfort you. Just as long as I no longer have to respond to your idiocy. Socialism? You need democracy to impose majority will on the economic paradigm. Socialism is an economic decision. Deciding is a GOVERNMENT decision. You need a functioning government, a democracy, to accomplish the use of socialism. I am fairly confident that SOME people, when they read my words complaining about our governments, immediately want to respond by attempting to promote many of the POSITIVE events which result from our governments. We can point to many, and objectively find those to BE positive. For instance, the abolition of slavery. We could point to the ratification of the "bill of rights". We can consider the decision to allow women to vote. We might consider the voting rights of native tribal members. We can look back to the decision to remove the requirement of land ownership for the right to vote. Social security, the recent health care act... The list is long. MANY progressive and POSITIVE actions by the US government. Yet, we must look at that list objectively as well. WHAT was the social COST of people that had to fight and die to incite that action by government? How many native american tribal members were tortured as children, mothers and fathers and DIED, before that system finally relented for that enactment of law to do something RIGHT? That is what I want people to consider with HONEST deliberate thought, without emotional support to color that consideration with "glory and fervent appraisal". How many women died fighting for the right to vote? WHO were they fighting? WHAT WERE THEY FIGHTING??? They were fighting the US government. It's NOT your FRIEND. It's NOT working FOR YOU! QUESTION: Would you agree that all nation state governments feed their citizens a regular diet of propaganda and it's only a matter of portion and palatability? ANSWER: Technically, “no”, but generally yes. When you use the word all, you included every nation state government that has ever existed and that ever can exist. I can consider a nation state using a functional and rational decision process as a form of government that has no need to use “propaganda”, and the public of that state has no need nor intention to hear or use propaganda. Generally current systems of government use irrational dysfunctional decision process, which is based on false premise, and flawed reasoning, and thus use lies excuses and bullshit to impose faith based patriotism on the public to prevent the people from dragging the people elected to positions of decision authority into the streets and beating them bloody. And in case you have not noticed there are an INCREASING number of us, we the people, that are getting damn sick and tired of the continuing stream of lies excuses and bullshit being spewed by those who insist the damn thing is working. It's NOT working, it's FAILING. The systems we use are failing, dismally to resolve the conflicts of modern society. We need to fix the process we use to consider and enact resolutions, because what we use now ain't working. Sometimes the propaganda fails, and then you get revolution, insurrection, and violence and generally a military dictatorship. But, hey…. the same people who lied to you about santa claus told you…it’s the best system ever right?? When I was in high school our physics teacher gave us a challenge that involved making a paper air plane of any shape. The only objective was to get it to fly as far as possible. I had some paper air plane making skills so I made the best plane I could and it flew pretty far. One guy made the greatest, yet simplest paper airplane of all time. He stood there at the starting line with a regular piece of paper. Some classmates scratched their head while silently chuckling to themselves. Moments later he took the flat piece of paper, crumpled it up, and threw it down the hall way. He beat the class with ease. Some of the students got mad and said that he cheated. The physics teacher said, "How so? I said it could be any shape. A paper ball is indeed a shape." He won the contest with flying colors. "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer We need to comprehend the MECHANISM of manipulation being used to organize ourselves to serve rich people. That mechanism is the DECISION PROCESS SPECIFIED IN THE US CONSTITUTION. If we did not have the bill of rights, then congress could enact a law that restricted your right to free speech, and your right to assemble, and your right to petition for redress of grievance. You need to understand that. The original constitution, did not protect those rights, it was the amendments to that constitution that accomplished that protection. (it did not actually work, but that was the idea) The point is that the DECISION process specified in the US constitution, said that congress could enact any damn law they wanted to. The Founders of the US government: MOST of those people were "smart" in comparison to the general public at that time. However they were, ALL of them IGNORANT. They made conclusions based on that ignorance, they could not have developed a system of communication that used telephones, or radio, or computers, because they did not KNOW about such things, they were ignorant of such matters. I can easily excuse their ignorance, because there are many things I do not know, that we as a species do not know about many subjects. We are ignorant of things we do not understand. Much of what the founders presumed to be "true" has since been proven false. Including and especially, the decision process specified in the US constitution. It is deeply flawed, fraudulent and invalid. It is a democratic oligarchy. There is a VERY clear difference between the words democracy and democratic, and if people do not adhere to that understanding of that difference, people become confused and easily deluded, which people obviously are. A republic REQUIRES representation. And representation is not misrepresentation. We, the people, have the RIGHT, to be accurately and reliably represented by the decision process used as government. ALL of us, ALL the time. As individuals and as a society. That representation, is NOT provided, nor produced by the process we use, as specified in our current constitutional decision process. It's a fucking oligarchy, not a republic. Oligarchy provides the legal path for corruption and fascism. Q.:: On which of the issues have most of the democracies failed? A.:: Reliable and accurate representation of the public citizens as individuals and society. You have the right to be accurately and reliably and equally represented within the decision process we use as a form of government. THAT is the ENTIRE predicate of your "right to vote". If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, EXACTLY, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation I want to know why you people think authorizing the government to decide when to create an “exception” to constitutional prohibition of the government creating an exception , makes any fucking sense. When you choose to "elect" good leaders, you are accepting the risk and consequences of electing evil leaders. WHY would we do that???? Do you wonder how we normalized allowing insurance scammers scraping profits off the top of health care, and passing their profits into your debt? We can blame the democrats for insisting on using the decision process that allowed republicans to force them to enact a law that required the US public to assure continued profits for insurance scams. Your entire government was originally owned by slavers.... Why are you confused now??? Your US government, is administered by use of a document, the Constitution, that specifies the decision process which will be used to enact and enforce law and policy within our society. That decision process, was created by rich white capitalists, escaping the British rule of monarchy, that was limiting their ability to profit from the exploitation and abuse of people and resources of the American continent. NOTE, they were attempting to PROFIT from EXPLOITATION and ABUSE of people and resources. THEY wrote the decision process. Those people that had the expressed and relevant desire to continue profiting from exploitation and abuse. THAT is exactly what they wanted to PROTECT, support and defend. It's EXACTLY what they wrote, and it's exactly what we have today. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Government and politics are two separate concepts. Which is why we have different words for each concept. Politics is the discussion about government. Government is the decision process used to enact and enforce law and policy within a society. Politics is a bunch of opinions, no more, no less. It has NO FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT. GOVERNMENT is what needs to FUNCTION correctly. People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. Many people are willing to talk while the house is falling down, the lions are eating children and the flood waters are drowning the cattle, and the droughts are desiccating bones and crops. We can TALK , politics, all we want, but DECISIONS need to be made. Fuck politics, we need a REAL government. Governments are people using a process for making decisions. If the process does not function correctly, those people are going to FAIL. What is the potential cost of failure? We are watching that consequence play out on live TV. Society requires some process for making decisions. That is what government provides. That process. It either works for the society, or it fails that society. The process we use, is failing society. OUR US government, does not require our approval, it simply requires our participation. That is the systemic requirement. The people using that process, make those decisions, a small minority of people. Not the public, not a majority, just a handful of people elected to make decisions, as rulers, pretending to be representatives using a process pretending to be representative. If you read the constitution, while looking for the process that makes decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy and ignore all the stuff promising what the people we elect should or should not do, you will find out that it's REALLY simple. The people we elect, and the people they appoint, make and enforce the laws, with NO FURTHER involvement of the public. Once we elect them, WE have NO FURTHER value to the system. No more input. They win, we lose. The rules are simple, congress passes a law, the president signs it, the court approves it, then the thugs enforce it. That's it. That is the decision process. THEY make the rules. An explanation would require a discussion, about what government is versus what government does, the various forms of government, how representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation, how a republic requires representation, and how elections do not provide nor produce representation reliably, nor accurately, and why we need government, and how rights could be protected in a democracy, and how people tend to view democracy as limited to the dumbest way possible, and reject any attempt to explain how a majority rule decision process can be specified in a constitution that protects rights and does not in fact cause tyranny of majority, because the terms benevolence, and malevolence are not confused with true and false, and how people are obviously not too stupid to make decisions about our own lives, and that is why so many people want to protect individual liberties and rights in the first place. pant pant But, ya know, I am not gonna argue with idiots about it, so that discussion is a loser deal for me. Franklin Veaux How can pro-choice people say that an unborn child is not a person with a constitutional right to life like anyone else when it is a distinct human being from the moment of conception? It actually doesn’t matter. This is one of the most frustrating things about talking to so-called “pro life” people. Let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, you’re right. Let’s suppose a fetus is a person. Let’s suppose a fetus has all the Constitutional protections of a person. Let’s suppose that legally, ethically, and morally, everything you believe is absolutely positively 100% correct. That would mean a lot of things: It would mean a fetus could be declared as a dependent on income tax. It would mean child support starts at conception, not birth, and every single living person in the US who owes child support is instantly liable for 9 additional months. It would mean that government grants and benefits for dependent children would need to be backdated 9 months. It would mean you could take out a life insurance policy on a fetus, and collect if you miscarry. Do you know what it would not mean? It would not mean that abortion is legally or morally wrong. You see, here’s the thing. It’s a thing I’ve talked about on Quora before, but no “pro life” person has ever come up with a legal answer to: All of US law, in its entirety, all agrees that no person ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, ever has the legal right to use another person’s body, tissues, or organs, even if they will die otherwise. If you need a blood transfusion and you will die without it, and I am the only person on earth who can give it to you, the law says you may not use my blood without my consent. Not even to save your life. The law is clear: your constitutional right to life DOES NOT allow you to claim any part of my body. If you need a kidney and you will die without it, and I am the only person on earth who can give it to you, the law says you may not take my kidney without my consent. Not even to save your life. The law is clear: your constitutional right to life DOES NOT allow you to claim any part of my body. Every part of US law agrees on this point: Never, ever, ever may any person under any circumstances for any reason use any part of another person’s body, not even to protect their life. This even extends to corpses. If you need a kidney and you will die without it, and I am the only person on earth who can give it to you, and I am dead, the law still says you may not take my kidney without my consent. Not even to save your life. Even though I am dead. The law is clear: your constitutional right to life DOES NOT allow you to claim any part of my body, even if I am dead. The Constitutional right to life never ever ever, under any circumstances for any reason, ever allows you the use of another person’s body without that person’s consent. That’s how. Conceptually, people should recognize and understand the difference between benevolence, rightness, truth. The difference between malevolence, wrongness, and false. NONE of those are equivalent. A benevolent decision might be wrong, or even false. A right decision might be true, and malevolent. If we, as a society risk using rulers, (even those labelled 'representatives'), then we accept that those rulers might be any of those different concepts in any combination for EACH decision they make and impose on us. If the people that taught about "government", cannot provide you a valid assessment of that risk, and the various combinations of consequences of those risks, then they are either telling you fairy tales based on wishful thinking, or ignorant, OR EVIL. Figure it out. Reliance on faith based thinking required for religious adherence is the glue that the media uses to propagate lies that the public has no defense against, BECAUSE they were taught to have faith. Your "right to vote", is ENTIRELY predicated on your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! (That is why people insist on fair elections accurate counting, reliable voting integrity, eliminating fraud. RIGHT????) If VOTING does not result in your representation within the decision process we use as a government, then THE SYSTEM FAILED!!!! REPRESENTATION IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to atrocity. A person making a decision I do not agree with is not representing me. A congress making a decision a majority of us disagree with is not representing us. I will not accept misrepresentation. I will not be abused by lies, excuses and bullshit. If the result of using representatives is not exactly the same as if we voted directly, then it was NOT representation. It's NOT!! Quora What is a combination of republic and democratic government? How can it help the country? Perhaps you are confused about what a republic is and what democratic is. Let’s start with what government is. Government is a process for making decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy within a society. We NEED government, really, we do, as a species, humans require some form of organizing for various purposes. People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. We may all agree that we all need to breathe, drink water, and eat food, wear clothing, have a home, etc etc etc. Yet there will be people who disagree on how to accomplish that stuff. Some people will insist that they can simply take whatever they need from someone else, and most of us will disagree, and insist that TRADING for stuff is fine, but just taking stuff, is not appropriate and should be constrained by law. Others will suggest that we could share stuff, and then no one would be inclined to just take stuff, or rather that just taking stuff would be ok, if people just agreed to share that stuff. So, Note that government is a decision process. The decisions being made are those that enact law and policy, and enforce those laws and policies. There are MANY different forms of decision process that humans can use. presidents, parliaments, kings, dictators, congress, councils, etc etc etc. Yet, when we look at those many forms, we can easily see that those come in two and ONLY two major forms of decision process. Those major forms are rule by majority or rule by minority. We call rule by majority, democracy. (note this word, democracy is similar to the word democratic. However the two words are different, because the concept of democracy, is not the same concept as democratic. We need two words, because the concepts they describe are different) We call rule by minority, oligarchy. (Note, many people erroneously think that oligarchy describes rule by rich people, but that is not true, there is a word used to describe rule by rich people, it is “plutocracy”. It would be possible to have an oligarchy ruled by a few poor people.) Notice that we have not defined the two words you mentioned yet. We defined oligarchy, and democracy as the ONLY two major forms of government that is possible. We can now look at the word republic, and try to determine whether a republic is a sub-form of democracy, or a sub-form of oligarchy. We can also look at the word democratic, and find out what the difference between democracy and democratic. Let’s start with democratic. The word democratic describes a decision process. However, we might use a democratic decision process to elect a king. We, the people decided, democratically to elect some person to the position of a monarch. Now, did the democratic process make decisions of law and policy? No. The decision made was to decide which person will make those decisions of law and policy. A monarchy. A democratic monarchy. A monarchy is a sub-form of oligarchy, (rule by few). The single person elected as monarch, is a minority… The decisions of law and policy are not made by the majority in a monarchy, the monarch makes those decisions. Therefor, the use of democratic decision process did not result in a democracy. That is why the words are different. Now let’s look at the word republic. This is a tough one. There are going to be MANY people who want to make the word, to mean anything but a monarchy. As if a dictator ruling by military force, could be considered a republic. It’s not a monarchy…. but it’s not a republic either. The classic and relevant understanding of the word, republic, is that the matter of government, the process for making decisions of enacting and enforcing law and policy is a public matter, not owned and controlled by some few, some minority, but rather owned and controlled by the majority, the public, the citizens, the people. That is why, for so many years, the word republic was defined as a form of government that placed the ultimate authority in the hands of the public, and that authority is administered by the use of representatives. Consider that when the US government was specified in our constitution, the people who wrote that decision process, presumed that by using a democratic process of choosing representatives, the public would in fact BE represented, thus the use of representatives would in fact result in the PUBLIC having that ultimate authority. The public would make those decisions of enactment and enforcement of law and policy. Yet, as we saw above, when we use the democratic process to elect a person to decision authority, the result is not democracy. The public did not and does not make those decisions, they simply decided who was elected to make those decisions. The public majority, may, or may not be “represented” by the decision made by that person elected. Notice that a republic, must use representatives, it’s not optional. To be clear, if the use of representatives, does not result in the decision that factually does represent the majority of the public citizens, then it was NOT in fact representative. This is important. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. If the democratic process does not result in representation of the public citizen majority, then the election did not result in “representatives”. A republic REQUIRES representation. With that understood, we can now consider the question you asked. “What is a combination of republic and democratic government? How can it help the country?” A combination of republic, and democratic government, would be a decision process, used for the enactment and enforcement of law and policy, that provided the method of democratic principle of majority rule to the public by the use of representatives. REAL representatives. REAL representation. It can help the country by providing a valid and rational decision process that the PUBLIC can use to govern our own affairs. Let me know if you would be interested in looking at an example of such a system. (Quora moderators often delete my answer when i include a link to my article on my website that describes such a form of government) Can't they see how silly they sound? No, they cannot. They use faith based thinking, that does not require any evidence or reason. Whatever they happen to “believe’ at the moment, even if it contradicts what they believed a few moments ago, is right, true, valid, and benevolent. They are capable of believing contradictory concepts at the same time and ignoring the contradictions as if they have no relevance. I suspect many do this as well, though it would be difficult, (cult of constitution), to capture their attention and reason long enough to explain why the US is neither a democracy, nor a republic, and never has been. The US constitution specifies a decision process for enacting and enforcing law and policy, that is an oligarchy, not a republic, certainly not a democracy. (an oligarchy is not rule by rich people. an oligarchy is rule by minority) There ARE distinguishing features of capitalism. It is the impetus of humans to exploit and abuse people and resources for profit. It's a MOTIVE, not a METHOD. The METHOD is gaining control of decision process. Government. A large problem, is convincing people to examine the process, instead of just glancing at the results. Of course the people we elect can be "nice". And whenever they get scared of us, we the people revolting in violence and pulling them into the streets, they do choose to be "nice". However there is NO method in the process that allows us to prevent them from becoming NASTY, and doing it in secret. Which is what they are working on right now. Both the democrats and the republicans keep claiming that they would be able to run the country, if the other party would just agree with them in congress. Kinda like the Steelers claiming they would win more games if the other team would stop trying to win.... This is absurd. They are fucking idiots and many of you are just fucking idiots also, because you keep buying tickets to the game, with your ballots and convince yourself that something serious is involved. THEY play a GAME, and YOU pay for it. Invariably, when it tastes like wiccan, I end up eating the whole thing. It's a wolfie thing. (shrugs) The 4 branches. Executive, a president, elected by popular vote. (staff of administration either elected or appointed as appropriate) Legislative, people elected by popular vote within the 50 states, I suggest 200 people in congress, which would work out to 4 from each state, however I am open to electing people from the entire nation, with the congress being about 200 people… The number of people would allow people of various skills and educational backgrounds, to be included… (this is not a static number, it could vary to manage various social realities.) Judicial, 9 seats, 5 of which are elected by the public, 3 of which are elected by congress, and one appointed by the president, for the term of the president) Public, each and every citizen, including the members and employees of the other three branches. As for how the public branch would work… It works as a democracy. A republic, actually. I will describe the process, from 2 views. The first view is procedural, it describes the process from a view similar to a birds eye view of a landscape. The other view is from a citizen.. A personal view of the process. Presume that the public understands that some “problem” exists within society. That problem is of such a nature that it is generally accepted that the solution would require a federal law to resolve it. For instance, the maintenance of federal highway systems. 1: Therefor, the executive branch would task congress with proposing some bill, or range of bills, that might solve or manage that problem if enacted. 2: A citizen, that has chosen a representative, would receive a notification from their “rep”, that states the text of the tasking order. (No opinion about that tasking order, just the fact that a tasking order was sent to congress, and the actual text of that order) (A citizen that chooses not to use a representative might get “news” or hears about it from friends family at work, whatever) 1: Congress would receive that order, which is their authorization to consider that problem and to work on proposals to solve or manage it. Without that tasking order, from the executive, the public or judicial, congress does NOTHING. Generally a committee, or several committees are formed to study the problem. Or, perhaps Congress comes up with some other paradigm for working on a solution set… 2: A citizen gets a notification from their “rep” that congress has formed committee(s), and the members of that committee, or some notification of “other” method of considering and proposing a bill. 1: Congress, (as committee, or as that “other”), writes some proposal, as a “bill” or range of bills.. (Note that a problem such as road work, might have several possible solution sets, a low cost but quite temporary “fix”, a midrange cost, but more permanent “fix”, and a high cost but much more permanent “fix”) We will assume the congress outputs that “range of bills. Lowcost, midcost, highcost… 2: A citizen gets notice that there is a range of bills proposed, and they get the actual text of each of those bills. (again, the reps provide factual information no opinion) The news, neighbors and co-workers discuss the “bills with facts and opinions. (this is “politics”, the discussion about the problems and solutions) 1: Congress passes the bills as a set, to the judicial branch. 2: A citizen gets notice that the Judicial branch is considering the set of bills. 1: The 9 seats, of the judicial branch evaluates the bills, against the articles of protection, the citizens have previously decided upon.. (this is the precedent part), and against existing law. This judicial evaluation, presumes that the bill(s), if enacted would infringe on protected rights of the people as protected by the articles of protection. The evaluation would also presume that such enactment would contravene some existing law. 2: A citizen would receive notice that details the arguments for and against whether the bill(s) infringe or contravene. 1: The judicial review either determines that no infringement or contravention exists, and passes the bill(s), back to the executive branch. Alternatively, the review determines that infringement or contravention would result from enactment, and sends the bill(s), back to the legislative process for cleanup, rethought, rewrite. 2: A citizen gets notice that the bill(s) either passed judicial review and are now being considered by the executive branch, or, alternatively, that the bill(s) failed to pass review and were returned back to congress. 1: Presuming the bill(s) are passed to exec, the executive branch reviews the matter for plausibility and cost accounting. (Do I really need to describe this part? would the law, if enacted actually work to solve or manage the problem??) (If the cost to implement the law, is much more or much less than the bill(s) are specifying, the review would fail) 2: A citizen gets notice that the bill(s) either fail or pass the review, and a brief of the points of review. THIS notice is what triggers the actual process of making a decision of enactment of law. If the bill(s) pass exec review, then the matter goes to the Public, for decision. If the review fails, the bill(s), go back to congress for rework. (Congress must pass EVERY bill, and rewrite of bill, to Judicial for review, congress CANNOT simply pass it back to executive). (This ends the work of the exec, leg, and judicial branches.) Next is about what the PUBLIC Branch does to make the decision of enactment. Just remember that your constitutional decision process is designed to resist and repel any attempt by the public to provide public benefit unless and until some approved business is capable of making a profit from the circumstance. Nope, I am not fixing a damn thing for you. That's YOUR job, along with about 7 billion other humans. I can tell you HOW to do it, but you gotta DO THE WORK. I don't give a damn personally. I got no kids, at the end of my life and the rest of you can go extinct for all I care. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. A republic, REQUIRES representation. EQUAL representation. FOR EACH CITIZEN, as individuals, AND EVERY CITIZEN, as a nation. If the process fails to represent the public, then the system cannot be a republic. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! Your "right to vote", is ENTIRELY predicated on your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! (That is why people insist on fair elections accurate counting, reliable voting integrity, eliminating fraud. RIGHT????) If VOTING does not result in your representation within the decision process we use as a government, then THE SYSTEM FAILED!!!! REPRESENTATION IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to atrocity. A person making a decision I do not agree with is not representing me. A congress making a decision a majority of us disagree with is not representing us. I will not accept misrepresentation. I will not be abused by lies, excuses and bullshit. If the result of using representatives is not exactly the same as if we voted directly, then it was NOT representation. It's NOT!! Your US government, is administered by use of a document, the Constitution, that specifies the decision process which will be used to enact and enforce law and policy within our society. That decision process, was created by rich white capitalists, escaping the British rule of monarchy, that was limiting their ability to profit from the exploitation and abuse of people and resources of the American continent. NOTE, they were attempting to PROFIT from EXPLOITATION and ABUSE of people and resources. THEY wrote the decision process. Those people that had the expressed and relevant desire to continue profiting from exploitation and abuse. THAT is exactly what they wanted to PROTECT, support and defend. It's EXACTLY what they wrote, and it's exactly what we have today. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. A republic, REQUIRES representation. EQUAL representation. FOR EACH CITIZEN, as individuals, AND EVERY CITIZEN, as a nation. If the process fails to represent the public, then the system cannot be a republic. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! A large problem, is convincing people to examine the process, instead of just glancing at the results. Of course the people we elect can be "nice". And whenever they get scared of us, we the people revolting in violence and pulling them into the streets, they do choose to be "nice". However there is NO method in the process that allows us to prevent them from becoming NASTY, and doing it in secret. Which is what they are working on right now. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ We have a grand and extensive history of experience with good discussion process. We KNOW how to talk about problems and solutions. We know how to TALK about stuff. That is NOT the problem. The problem is the DECISION process. Not the "talking about it" process. Sooo, seriously. How many of you "believed" in Santa Claus, until you figured out it was a lie, told to you by the same people that explained how great your government is??? Some people have made it very clear, they do NOT want representation, they want to authorize, by election, some other person to speak for them, even if that other person says they agree with something they don't, and says they don't agree with something they do... When I tell them that is what they chose, they claim that I am too stupid, and I don't understand... Flabbergasted... yeah, it's just a circle jerk of vote to elect someone and HOPE they don't fuck us, then we get fucked, so we vote again, and HOPE they don't fuck us, then they fuck us, so we VOTE and HOPE they don...... fuck that. Your "right to vote", is ENTIRELY predicated on your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! (That is why people insist on fair elections accurate counting, reliable voting integrity, eliminating fraud. RIGHT????) If VOTING does not result in our equal, reliable and accurate, representation within the decision process we use as a government, then THE SYSTEM FAILED!!!! REPRESENTATION IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to atrocity. A person making a decision I do not agree with is not representing me. A congress making a decision a majority of us disagree with is not representing us. I will not accept misrepresentation. I will not be abused by lies, excuses and bullshit. If the result of using representatives is not exactly the same as if we voted directly, then it was NOT representation. It's NOT!! Governance is the act of using government. Technically government is a decision process used for enactment and enforcement of law and policy within a society, while a form of government is a specification of that process (usually specified within a document called a “Constitution”), and a nation is the instantiation of that specified process. If humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. A DEMOCRACY is rule by majority. An OLIGARCHY is rule by minority. Please note, that we determine the form of government by examining the process by which decisions are made that enact and enforce law and policy on a society. NOT by examination of a process which decides who will make those decisions. Which is a separate matter. A monarchy is a sub-form of oligarchy, the minority that makes the rules is ONE person, still a minority. If we elected a king every four years, we would still have a monarchy, not a democracy. The king makes the rules. It does not matter how that ONE person was elevated to that position of power and authority, whether it was flipping a coin, or winner take all in a sword duel, or an election, or born into the throne..Election might make it a democratic monarchy, but not a democracy… The word democratic describes a decision process. However, we might use a democratic decision process to elect a king. We, the people decided, democratically to elect some person to the position of a monarch. Now, did the democratic process make decisions of law and policy? No. The decision made was to decide which person will make those decisions of law and policy. A monarchy. A democratic monarchy. A monarchy is a sub-form of oligarchy, (rule by few). The single person elected as monarch, is a minority… The decisions of law and policy are not made by the majority in a monarchy, the monarch makes those decisions. Therefor, the use of democratic decision process did not result in a democracy. That is why the words are different. Now let’s look at the word republic. This is a tough one. There are going to be MANY people who want to make the word, to mean anything but a monarchy. As if a dictator ruling by military force, could be considered a republic. It’s not a monarchy…. but it’s not a republic either. The classic and relevant understanding of the word, republic, is that the matter of government, the process for making decisions of enacting and enforcing law and policy is a public matter, not owned and controlled by some few, some minority, but rather owned and controlled by the majority, the public, the citizens, the people. I was taught when I was young, that was what the union of states was for... You remember, the United States?? The process for making decisions that belongs to the people, not the king, or the corporations? That one? Remember???? That is why, for so many years, the word republic was defined as a form of government that placed the ultimate authority in the hands of the public, and that authority is administered by the use of representatives. Consider that when the US government was specified in our constitution, the people who wrote that decision process, presumed that by using a democratic process of choosing representatives, the public would in fact BE represented, thus the use of representatives would in fact result in the PUBLIC having that ultimate authority. The public would make those decisions of enactment and enforcement of law and policy. Yet, as we saw above, when we use the democratic process to elect a person to decision authority, the result is not democracy. The public did not and does not make those decisions, they simply decided who was elected to make those decisions. The public majority, may, or may not be “represented” by the decision made by that person elected. Notice that a republic, must use representatives, it’s not optional. To be clear, if the use of representatives, does not result in the decision that factually does represent the majority of the public citizens, then it was NOT in fact representative. This is important. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. If the democratic process does not result in representation of the public citizen majority, then the election did not result in “representatives”. A republic REQUIRES representation. NOT elections. Elections are as irrelevant to the process, as tossing a coin, or winner by combat, or who your parents were. The determining factor is whether a majority, or minority “RULES”. Not how that majority or minority CAME TO RULE. In the US, we have a form of government that is specified in such a manner that a small minority of people, (congress), make the rules. That is an oligarchy. All you need to do is to read Article one Section one of the US constitution to understand WHO RULES. CONGRESS makes the rules. A small minority of the entire population. NOT the majority. A minority. That makes it an oligarchy. By the way, a REPUBLIC, is not an oligarchy, it is a sub-form of DEMOCRACY. We don’t have a republic either. It’s a crap system, and most people are so confused by the lies excuses and bullshit of people trying to insist we have anything like a democracy or a republic, they cannot think their way out of the trap laid for them by the same people that lied to them about santa claus. How can we FIX IT?? Specify a REAL republic, a REAL representative democracy. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I watched Biden speech, and I was intrigued at how much time he spent explaining how we can make america great again, if we vote democrat... The absurdity is astounding... We could hire advisors to seats in Congress and elect management of agencies. This process of hiring people as advisors and managers would use simple majority of votes cast. If a candidate receives fifty one votes out of a hundred that person is hired. Note this is not how the First Branch decides whether a law is enacted amended or repealed. Recall that the public branch, the first branch makes decisions of law and policy by majority of citizens. In a town of 374 citizens deciding animal control law, 147 ballots collected could not be sufficient to enact that law even if more ballots were yes. (103 yes/44 no) The minimum majority would be 185 yes votes. 50% + 1 Recall as well, that citizens use a ballot that provides the public decision authority of the majority threshold. If a significant minority chooses a higher majority threshold then the majority must be larger. If the threshold calculates to 67% then enactment would require 251 yes ballots. This provides minority defense from "the mob". It is constrained democracy. The ballots for hiring are simple majority of votes cast with no option for choosing majority threshold, citizens are not enacting law, the decision is employee hiring. In that town of 374, an advisor could be hired with 147 ballots with a simple majority of votes cast. (75/72) A dog catcher could be hired with 3 ballots. (2/1) Removal of an advisor or management by :force: would require simple majority of citizens, again not of votes cast. 147 remove/37 keep ballots would not remove the dog catcher. That would require at least 185 remove votes. Even if the vote to hire was 2 votes and one no vote. At the federal level, the election of executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch is decided as employee hiring and removal. The decision to enact law requires majority of citizens, that majority determined by the votes cast. That threshold is calculated as votes are counted, calculation begins if simple majority is reached. The citizens that vote quickly have the best influence on that calculation. The decision to enact or not is decided when the majority threshold is reached, or the bill expires without reaching threshold. A federal bill will generally expire after 365 days from the date it was passed to the first branch for decision. The expiration may be specified by the bill author. Generally in local decisions, that expiration might be 30 days, or more or less. I hope this helps people to comprehend the four branch decision process used as a form of government by the public, the First Branch. I was taught when I was young, that was what the union of states was for... You remember, the United States?? The process for making decisions that belongs to the people, not the king, or the corporations? That one? Remember???? People freaking out that republicans are attacking democracy... The republicans never wanted democracy, they always preferred oligarchy, (rule by minority). That is how THEY define a republic. THEY rule, not the majority. Y'all are so intent on winning an election, that you forgot WHY you are trying to win an election... I was taught when I was young, that was what the union of states was for... You remember, the United States?? The process for making decisions that belongs to the people, not the king, or the corporations? That one? Remember???? People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. We have a grand and extensive history of experience with good discussion process. We KNOW how to talk about problems and solutions. We know how to TALK about stuff. That is NOT the problem. The problem is the DECISION process. Not the "talking about it" process. Your "right to vote", is ENTIRELY predicated on your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! (That is why people insist on fair elections accurate counting, reliable voting integrity, eliminating fraud. RIGHT????) If VOTING does not result in your representation within the decision process we use as a government, then THE SYSTEM FAILED!!!! REPRESENTATION IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to atrocity. A person making a decision I do not agree with is not representing me. A congress making a decision a majority of us disagree with is not representing us. I will not accept misrepresentation. I will not be abused by lies, excuses and bullshit. If the result of using representatives is not exactly the same as if we voted directly, then it was NOT representation. It's NOT!! Your US government, is administered by use of a document, the Constitution, that specifies the decision process which will be used to enact and enforce law and policy within our society. That decision process, was created by rich white capitalists, escaping the British rule of monarchy, that was limiting their ability to profit from the exploitation and abuse of people and resources of the American continent. NOTE, they were attempting to PROFIT from EXPLOITATION and ABUSE of people and resources. THEY wrote the decision process. Those people that had the expressed and relevant desire to continue profiting from exploitation and abuse. THAT is exactly what they wanted to PROTECT, support and defend. It's EXACTLY what they wrote, and it's exactly what we have today. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. A republic, REQUIRES representation. EQUAL representation. FOR EACH CITIZEN, as individuals, AND EVERY CITIZEN, as a nation. If the process fails to represent the public, then the system cannot be a republic. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! A large problem, is convincing people to examine the process, instead of just glancing at the results. Of course the people we elect can be "nice". And whenever they get scared of us, we the people revolting in violence and pulling them into the streets, they do choose to be "nice". However there is NO method in the process that allows us to prevent them from becoming NASTY, and doing it in secret. Which is what they are working on right now. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ It makes no sense to use the term “republic”, when the people discussing the conceptual notion, cannot agree on what that concept actually is. If I insist that a republic must be a decision process, where the public has ultimate decision authority, and that the decisions be made by use of representatives, and another person in the discussion insists that the law must have ultimate authority and representatives must be elected, then, please pay attention, we are NOT DISCUSSING THE SAME CONCEPT. Just as it makes no sense for me to insist that we use meters per person, while another insists that we use decibels per meter. The discussion cannot lead to any understanding or agreement, because we are confusing conceptual reality. I really do not care which terms we use, as long as the concepts are clearly defined by the use of those terms. Of course, we can force the people we elect and system they use, to comply with public authority, from public action, ***outside the constitutional decision process***. Protesting, rioting, striking, etc, is working outside the constitutional decision process. That is the key part. If we have to keep working outside the constitution, then why the hell are we using it??? People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. I was taught when I was young, that was what the union of states was for... You remember, the United States?? The process for making decisions that belongs to the people, not the king, or the corporations? That one? Remember???? Yep, and if the "union" formed by the United States Constitution actually functioned correctly, it would be the ONLY union you need. If your government functioned correctly you would be represented in your defense against predatory and exploitative business practices BY YOUR GOVERNMENT. That would be the default position of government, YOUR defense. YOUR representation as citizens. One of several core required concepts of a constitutional republic, is that of representation. If that fails, we cannot expect any of the rest to function correctly. A republic REQUIRES two things to be true, First, that the public has the ultimate authority. That is not true here, all the authority is specified to the 3 branches, none left for the public. Second that the public uses representatives. And that is not true either, we are obviously not being represented as a national public, nor as individuals. How can we FIX IT?? Specify a REAL republic, a REAL representative democracy. The most successful propaganda you suffer from, is the false assertion that we HAVE A DEMOCRACY!! Reject that crap, it's NOT true. Our decision process was never a democracy, nor a republic. It was, and has always been an oligarchy dressed in sparkles. Your governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. In any case, it's about decision PROCESS!! https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ I know that the comparison of government to sports has flaws, and that there are differences that are relevant, and the differences make the difference, not the similarities. However that may be, the similarities have relevance as well. Consider two teams engaged in some game, NFL, NBA Hockey, Soccer, etc etc. Now consider that one team, is blue, the other is red... Then ask yourself whether one team having more supporters than the other makes any real significant difference to the outcome of the game. The answer is no. Many teams that visit the other team, and have fewer supporters in the stand can win that game. We know this is true, because we have seen it happen with regular frequency. EVEN if the number of supporters allows a team to have more players because the team has more supporters, the rules of the game are structured such that each team can only use the same number of players as the other. Who makes those rules? The team owners. The players. NOT the spectators. How about the referees? The team owners hire those, not you the spectator. Those refs don't see every foul, nor do they want to. In fact the game is structured, by rule to allow a certain number and type of fouls to be called and enforced. It is important that the game keeps moving, and not be a continuous interruption for fouls. The salient point is that the game is structured such that it does not matter how many supporters each team may have. What matters is how each player on the teams performs on each play. Even if the spectators elect the players, the coach decides which players actually get in the game, not the spectators. Again, I understand that the comparison is flawed in some respects, but the similarities are relevant, and you should consider those specifically. People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. First Branch Authority In this republic form of government using four branches, the first branch has the ultimate and precedent authority. Amendment of specification of this form of government shall require 90% approval of citizen population. The first branch is a voluntary population of citizens, comprised of each and every citizen volunteer. Citizens have rights, authorities and responsibilities. The Public Branch. One right that this government is predicated on, is that individual humans own their body and mind. This right predicates the right to make decisions in this government. Citizens thus, accept the authority and responsibility for those decisions. Each citizen may choose to use a representative. Each citizen is responsible for such use of a representative. The decisions made by this government process are those that; 1. Protect rights. 2. Enact, repeal, amend law and policy. 3. Choose and hire members of executive, legislative, judicial, agency positions. Each of those decision forms are processed differently. 1. The decisions to protect rights begin with citizens asserting a right. If 25% of the citizens assert a right then the judicial branch shall task the legislative branch to consider creating an article of protection. Such article shall define the right being protected, the scope and scale of protection, exceptions to be allowed. The legislative branch shall then confer and write a bill that presents the decision to the public branch of publishing that protection as an Article of Protection. The bill proposing the article shall be passed from the legislative to the judicial branch for review. The judicial branch will test the bill against existing Articles, law and policy. Judicial review shall reject the bill if contradictory to existing Article(s). Rejected bills shall be passed to legislative branch for further consideration. Bills contradicting existing law or policy shall be held and a ruling published defining the contradicting law or policies such that the first branch authority to amend or repeal such is invoked or fails. If the First Branch fails to amend or repeal contradictory law or policy, the bill is rejected and passed back to the legislative branch for revision. Passing judicial review, the bill is presented to the First Branch for decision. Public Branch shall decide to publish a bill as an Article of Protection with 50% + 1 approval of the citizen majority. Amendment of existing Article of Protection shall require 67% majority of citizens. Repeal of Article of Protection shall require 80% majority of citizens. Decisions to protect rights shall begin upon presentation of bill to the public, and such decision shall be failed if not approved by majority within 60 days, unless the bill specifies a different duration. 2. The decisions to enact, amend, repeal law and policy shall be the exclusive authority and responsibility of the First Branch, the Public. The citizen volunteer population. The public branch may use initiative, referendum or legislative process to present a bill for decision. Each initiative shall define a law or policy to be enacted, amended or repealed. An initiative shall be passed to the judicial branch for review upon 25% majority assertion of initiative. The judicial review shall presume such bill contravenes existing Article of Protection, law or policy. A bill passing judicial review shall be presented to the public for decision. An initiative bill failing judicial review shall be rejected and returned to author for revision. A referendum shall be defined as a problem to be resolved or managed by law or policy. Each referendum shall be passed as a tasking order to the legislative branch upon 25% majority assertion of referendum. The legislative branch authorized by referendum tasking shall confer and write a bill or range of bills to be presented for judicial review, then to the public for decision. The legislative process begins with executive branch decision to solve or manage a problem by law or policy. The executive branch passes a legislative tasking order authorizing the legislative branch to consider, confer, and write a bill or range of bills that are intended to solve or manage the problem defined in the tasking order. The legislative branch shall not be authorized to write any bill unless passed a tasking order from public referendum, judicial or executive branch. Legislative bills shall be passed to judicial branch for review. Failing review bills shall be returned to legislative branch for revision. Bills passing judicial review shall be passed to executive branch for review for plausibility and cost accounting. Failing bills shall be returned to legislative branch for revision. Passing bills shall be presented for public decision. Let us consider the matter of "representation" from a different angle. Imagine a circumstance where we, all 300 million of us decided to elect a single person to represent us. Just one. After some wrangling, jostling and argument, the choices we are left with are Joe Brown, and Sally Green. Who ever wins that election makes decisions for all of us, as our representative. Who did you vote for? Sally or Joe? Consider whether that really matters. If Joe wins and you voted for Sally, do you agree that you are being properly represented? If Joe wins, and you did vote for Joe, but Joe keeps making decisions that you don't agree with, are you still willing to agree that you are being properly represented? Is it true, that either of those candidates could, after winning the election, properly represent the entire population? I suggest it is NOT true. It is false. We don't do that though, do we? We elect a number of people to represent us, don't we? In a district with 1 million people, one person is elected, and that person is said to represent that entire population of one million. However is THAT true? If you voted for Joe, and Sally won the election, do you think you are being properly represented? If Sally won, and you voted for Sally, but she keeps making decisions that you don't agree with, are you willing to agree that you are being properly represented? What of the people that voted for Joe?? Are they being represented? THAT is the question. WHY do we use a system of "representation" that does NOT in reality, and factually represent us??? Why do we call it "representation" if it's NOT. Critical thinking is required here. I would like people to consider the number of exceptions specifically allowed in the bill of rights, and which rights are protected without exception... It is legal for our government to use exceptions specified. it is NOT legal for the government to create exceptions when none are specified. However MANY laws exist today, and will continue to exist that infringe on our protections, that REQUIRE an exception, where none exists. The government we have is criminal, when it breaks it's own laws for expediency of THEIR benefit. Hmm, It seems evident, actually that most people have no desire to be led, and only arrogant people with criminal intent have any desire to rule. It also seems obvious that for certain "projects", generally there is one person, that conceived of a "method' to accomplish some purpose, and a number of people that agree with that purpose, yet may or may not agree with that method. Those that agree to that method, will work feverishly to accomplish the purpose using that method, as specified by the "leader" that presented that method as the path to success. Those who do not agree, wander off, grumbling, or band into opposition groups, or follow some other "leader" proposing some other method. It's not a simple follow or lead situation, and the permutations of how coalition and fracture occur within social structure, are vast. yeah, it's just a circle jerk of vote to elect someone and HOPE they don't fuck us, then we get fucked, so we vote again, and HOPE they don't fuck us, then they fuck us, so we VOTE and HOPE they don...... fuck that. I am sure that at least some of you are totally convinced that I don't understand how the system works. The thinking is, that if more people vote for democrats to seats in the house and senate than republicans, then we would elect more democrats than republicans to both houses and boom, we get laws and policies that work to benefit the public, instead of benefit of corporate profit interests. That is what most people think. That is how they were TOLD it works. It's not true. It is absolutely possible for more citizens in the USA to vote for democrats in the house and senate, and that results in more republicans being elected, and then laws and policies enacted that benefit business profit interests, at the expense of exploitation and abuse of people and resources. IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENS, then perhaps you should figure that out and fix it before next election. OK, I have been thinking about this for years, and one of the most common objections to changing our constitutional decision process, is that, the system would work, if we got rid of the people we elected, and replaced them with people that are not corrupted, and would factually represent us. OK, let's start there, with the stipulation, that the system works fine. We just keep electing the wrong people... We do, don't we. The way the system works, is the only people, generally that we CAN elect, are those who are long ago corrupted by the system. Usually at city level then state, then federal. By the time they are on a ballot for governor, state legislature or federal congress, they have been years "inside", and have been shown how to work the system to get stuff done. That is corruption, that's where it starts. They are "working" the system, instead of being representative TO the system. Your representative would not need to work the system, they would simply represent the people. In any case, that is the problem. The people we elect, are corrupted by the system long before you get a chance to vote for or against their stated policy and campaign. They would not get on the ballot if they were not "working" the system. **** HOW did those people with money manage to get influence in our decision process? That is the real question. The answer is that our form of government not only allows that corruption, it invites it in and serves it dinner and buys it a few prostitutes. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. ***** So, that is the reason I started working on a form of government that never allows those people to become corrupted. They have no power of decision authority, and the process I am proposing does not allow corruption to impact the system being used. Instead of continually fighting each other trying to get rid of corruption, we simply change the process, so they cannot BE corrupted.... YOUR Candidate: The entire pot stinks, and throwing in a fresh vegetable won't change that stink. yeah, it's just a circle jerk of vote to elect someone and HOPE they don't fuck us, then we get fucked, so we vote again, and HOPE they don't fuck us, then they fuck us, so we VOTE and HOPE they don...... fuck that. I know what MMT is, and I know that it can be relevant whenever a society uses fiat currency. However, I also know that fiat currency was proposed, and promoted by bankers, financing business profit opportunities. That is why fiat currency was promoted, to support profit opportunities for business. It has nothing to do with "getting stuff done", for the public, by the public. It is simply a tool, (I am talking fiat currency, not MMT), to enable profit growth for business. Unless business can depend on currency volume, to support their business growth, that growth is limited by the currency available. Profit growth. Capitalist desire to exploit and abuse people and resources for profit, cannot function without adequate currency. I KNOW all that. I understand that MMT has NOTHING to do with all that except that it describes the ability of GOVERNMENT to provide currency adequate to support that profit growth. It does not depend on taxation, nor does it require the approval of the public. Which is where myself and the MMT cult split. THEY insist that the public, having knowledge of how currency is create and how it funds capital business, (trickle down nonsense), can then control the decisions about how those funds are used and created. There is no causative relation between MMT and the decisions made by government, BECAUSE, the decision process we use, in the USA and MANY nations, is not and cannot be controlled by the public using that process. It was designed specifically to ignore and dismiss the public opinion about those decisions, UNLESS and UNTIL, the public becomes so damn angry and frustrated that they consider rising up, and tearing lawmakers from their offices and beating them to blood in the streets. Which is NOT specified in ANY part of ANY constitution that I have read, it is in fact an act by the public which is specifically prohibited by law. Such behavior is NOT using the process specified by the constitution. It is prohibited by the constitution and by laws enacted using the constitution. Which, again, the PUBLIC does not have any controlling role of. The SCAM is the capital market, being supported and promoted by government USING MMT. The people we elect know, or become knowing all about MMT. They don't CARE, and their lies about this entire matter are how they continue to operate. They don't care if the public knows they are liars about money. The public has long known they lie, about nearly everything... The promotion of MMT as some kind of "knowledge" that somehow might influence the decisions made by the lawmakers in favor of the public is false. The public HAS NO SUCH DECISION AUTHORITY. NONE. That is the OTHER scam being promoted by Rocco, and the rest of these MMT cult members. I will not stop calling it a scam, nor will I be nice about it. 6 hours a day, 4 days a week, that is 24 hours per week. Not enough to create profits for capital business, but AMPLE to provide for your own basic needs, and i mean human requirements for every product and service for comfortable dignified life. No luxuries, basic staples such as food, clothing transport, education health care child care, employment, power energy, entertainment, housing, EVERYTHING. NOT the best of the best, but adequate. We could DO that with a social market economy operating outside capital market nonsense, and a decision process that functions as a democracy. They will tell you it's not possible, but they are wrong and they KNOW they are telling you lies to keep you grinding up your lives for their profits. (A social market provides those benefits to you, by providing those benefits to everyone that participates in providing those benefits to everyone.) http://45ink.com/wp/taxes-and-poverty-social-order/ However, I also know that fiat currency was proposed, and promoted by bankers, financing business profit opportunities. That is why fiat currency was promoted, to support profit opportunities for business. It has nothing to do with "getting stuff done", for the public, by the public. It is simply a tool, to enable profit growth for business. Unless business can depend on currency volume, to support their business growth, that growth is limited by the currency available. Profit growth. Capitalist desire to exploit and abuse people and resources for profit, cannot function without adequate currency. Y'all are so intent on winning an election, that you forgot WHY you are trying to win an election... The LIE, the BIG lie, is that the US constitution specifies a representative government. It's not. Never has been. Never will be until we change it so that it functions as a real representative government. Oligarchy, not a republic. Not a representative government. Not a democracy. A democratic oligarchy. Elected rulers. THE greatest most evil threat to the Constitution of the United States, is the decision process used to enact and enforce law and policy within the United States, that is specified within that Constitution. I agree that democracy is majority rule, however the only alternative is minority rule… I am fairly certain that was what the colonists were objecting to when we shot the minority rulers in their face and sent the “minority rule” bastards back to England. Paraphrased from a David Weber novel, sci-fi, about Honor Harrington... "... they'd felt no particular urge to demand the right to participate in the making of legal decisions. That, after all , had been the original bargain between their ancestors and the "system". In return for "being taken care of", the citizens had surrendered all decision authority, to the people who ran the machine, and until that machine collapsed, no one had felt any need to fix the plethora of flaws and fallacies those flaws were predicated on." "People at the apex felt unbridled contempt for the people who spent their lives laboring to support their “betters” in the style to which they had become accustomed. After all, if those lesser being had mattered, they’d have been the ones making the decisions, right? The fact that they weren’t was directly attributable to their inherent inferiority and general stupidity, not the inequality of opportunity." First Branch Authority In this republic form of government using four branches, the first branch has the ultimate and precedent authority. Amendment of specification of this form of government shall require 90% approval of citizen population. The first branch is a voluntary population of citizens, comprised of each and every citizen volunteer. Citizens have rights, authorities and responsibilities. The Public Branch. One right that this government is predicated on, is that individual humans own their body and mind. This right predicates the right to make decisions in this government. Citizens thus, accept the authority and responsibility for those decisions. Each citizen may choose to use a representative. Each citizen is responsible for such use of a representative. Representatives are Public Branch employees. Representatives are not elected. **** ***** The decisions made by this government process are those that; 1. Protect rights. 2. Enact, repeal, amend law and policy. 3. Choose and hire members of executive, legislative, judicial, agency management positions. Each of those decision forms are processed differently. Most people that use computers never had any idea how to build one, but SOMEONE figured it out. Now you use one. It's NOT that difficult to stand aside while not objecting or arguing with people who are willing and able to participate in building a new form of government. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ What is frustrating to me is that way too many people who seem to understand what I say about representation, then go on to insist that a system based on that false premise can somehow be fixed, by some manipulation, structure or arrangement of elections of people into power and authority. It is quite disheartening. As if, after being shown definitive proof, that two balls of differing weights will fall at exactly the same speed, they insist that somehow using differing weights of balls, falling, can somehow be used to make decisions. It's ABSURD, and ludicrous. How many loaves of bread are needed to feed 876 people? How much wheat, water, and yeast is needed to produce that bread? How many people need to labor to produce that wheat? How much bread do those people need? All those numbers ARE MONEY!!!! It does NOT matter if that money is accounted in dollars, or hours of labor, it's ALL MONEY!!! Numbers, just numbers and those numbers are REQUIRED, for equitable distribution of labor and resources. I understand that YOUR view is that those numbers are being used for INEQUITABLE distribution, and that is absolutely TRUE. However it is ALSO true, that those same numbers could be used for EQUITABLE distribution. What is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and you keep missing this truth, is that WITHOUT THOSE NUMBERS, WITHOUT THAT USE OF MONEY, there is NO POSSIBLE METHOD OF MANAGING EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION. MONEY is absolutely required for that endeavor, regardless of the nature of that accounting, ( dollars or hours, no difference), that accounting MUST be used to accomplish our goal of equitable distribution. Without it, we CANNOT meet our goal. The damn PROBLEM is NOT MONEY!!!!!!!! THE DAMN PROBLEM IS THE DECISIONS MADE ABOUT THAT ACCOUNTING!!!!!! WHO MAKES THOSE DECISIONS????? You understand what a ratchet wrench is, right? It's used to tighten or loosen nuts and bolts. You can flip a switch, and choose whether it will tighten, or loosen. Sooo, imagine a ratchet wrench, that it did not matter how you set the switch, sometimes it loosens and sometimes it tightens, and it does that randomly, without any possibility of you controlling what it's doing. Even worse, usually, no matter how you set the switch, it does not tighten OR loosen, it spins uselessly. Would you agree that the wrench is WORKING? Would you agree it was DESIGNED properly?? No? That is how our system of government works, people. It does NOT work. Basing a government on "rule of law" is a false hope, when we consider WHO MAKES THAT LAW!!! We MUST organize BETTER than those who profit from conflict and drama. We don't need people to be rational... I know how difficult it is for some, if not many to comprehend the difference between rational process and rational people... Consider the "process" (it's really a decision process), that your computer device uses to figure out which keys you press. that process is VERY rational. Very nearly "perfect". (PEOPLE created that decision process... SMART people, people who fucking well UNDERSTAND decision process, and obviously understand that topic MUCH better than the vast majority of OTHER people...) Yet, you, the user decides which keys to press, not the computer, not the keyboard, not that process, it simply figures out what you did. That is an analogy of what our government decision process SHOULD do, and it does not work that way, it cannot figure out what we the people did, nor can it present what we did factually to the decision process that tries to impose those decisions on us. It's as if we press the backspace, or enter key, and the process "reads" it as if we held down the "$" key... it's not a rational PROCESS, that is what is broken... And yes, damnit, the people who can create your fucking keyboard process can fucking well look at your constitutional process and evaluate it as a fucking IDIOCY. It's not a republic, not a democracy, not a representative government... It is now, and always has been an oligarchy dressed in drag, pretending to be a representative form of decision process used to enact and enforce law and policy within our society... Oh, is that China? Russia? Spain? USA? France? Australia? Switzerland? YES!!! all of them. Early human society was tribalistic. Not herds, not packs, not flocks, not swarms, not schools, not solitary. Tribes. One of the key features of tribal community organization is caring and sharing. Humans cared for children, sick, injured, elderly. Fast forward a few hundred thousand years, and humans have organized into super tribes, cities, nations, classes. Yet, throughout that period of experimenting with various forms of decision process used to "organize" societies, there are emergent tales, stories, parables, admonitions, and commands to CARE AND SHARE for the members of those social structures. Then, at some point someone(s) attributed that natural, and necessary concept to a specific person, A "Jesus", and created a following that forgot, or missed entirely the fact that humans ARE caring and sharing, and we don't need to be told or forced to be so... In fact, if we simply organized under the concept that the vast majority of humanity will be caring and sharing, and used a decision process that relied on that fact, we don't need "Jesus" at all, nor was that person, mythical or real, saying anything "new" or "profound", or original. We don't need a savior. We need a damn rational decision process based on that tribal reality of human existence, and success as a species. Some people have made it very clear, they do NOT want representation, they want to authorize, by election, some other person to speak for them, even if that other person says they agree with something they don't, and says they don't agree with something they do... When I tell them that is what they chose, they claim that I am too stupid, and I don't understand... Flabbergasted... yeah, it's just a circle jerk of vote to elect someone and HOPE they don't fuck us, then we get fucked, so we vote again, and HOPE they don't fuck us, then they fuck us, so we VOTE and HOPE they don...... fuck that. Your "right to vote", is ENTIRELY predicated on your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! (That is why people insist on fair elections accurate counting, reliable voting integrity, eliminating fraud. RIGHT????) If VOTING does not result in your representation within the decision process we use as a government, then THE SYSTEM FAILED!!!! REPRESENTATION IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION. Those who can be convinced to agree with absurdity, can be convinced to agree to atrocity. A person making a decision I do not agree with is not representing me. A congress making a decision a majority of us disagree with is not representing us. I will not accept misrepresentation. I will not be abused by lies, excuses and bullshit. If the result of using representatives is not exactly the same as if we voted directly, then it was NOT representation. It's NOT!! EVERY person we elect to congress becomes an oligarch as soon as they take the oath of office. They agree to oligarchy, and they participate in that form of government willingly, and YOU insist they do so, by voting to elect them. It's not that damn complicated. Oligarchy is rule by minority, look it up, that is what it means, and it has nothing to do with wealth. Congress is less than 1000 people out of 300 million, it's a minority, and THEY make the rules. Rule by minority. *IF* they were "representatives", and *IF* the system functioned as a representative government, then their decisions, in congress would always be exactly as if we the people voted directly on every matter of law and policy. They ain't representatives they are RULERS, in a damn oligarchy... Your US government, is administered by use of a document, the Constitution, that specifies the decision process which will be used to enact and enforce law and policy within our society. That decision process, was created by rich white capitalists, escaping the British rule of monarchy, that was limiting their ability to profit from the exploitation and abuse of people and resources of the American continent. NOTE, they were attempting to PROFIT from EXPLOITATION and ABUSE of people and resources. THEY wrote the decision process. Those people that had the expressed and relevant desire to continue profiting from exploitation and abuse. THAT is exactly what they wanted to PROTECT, support and defend. It's EXACTLY what they wrote, and it's exactly what we have today. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. A republic, REQUIRES representation. EQUAL representation. FOR EACH CITIZEN, as individuals, AND EVERY CITIZEN, as a nation. If the process fails to represent the public, then the system cannot be a republic. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! Tweet- A republic, REQUIRES equal representation. FOR EACH and EVERY CITIZEN! If the process fails to represent the public, it's not a republic. If the elections, do not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! Why do you want representatives in the first place? Is it to manipulate the will of the people accounted as a majority so that a minority actually makes the decision? OR, is the purpose of using a representative to simply make it possible to accurately account for the majority decision in a large population? Which is it? 🙂 Direct representation, allows direct democracy to function as a representative government, (absolutely exactly as if EVERY citizen voted directly), instead of faking it while being an oligarchy, (rule by minority). Consider a situation, where you could choose someone as your representative, because you have seen that they consistently agree with you on diverse matters of law and policy. You register that person as your representative, and on matters which they agree with you, you add your ballot to their bucket, along with many other people who all agree on that matter, and have chosen that one as their registered representative. So, assume that rep, has 376 "constituents", and up to the time you decided to agree with them on a specific matter of law, they had a bucket of 297 ballots that all agreed with the decision of the rep. Now, when you agree, you add your ballot to their bucket. Lets say you decided to vote "yes" on that matter, and obviously, so did that rep, (or you would not agree, right?). Now that bucket contains 298 ballots all marked "yes". Some time later, a matter of law or policy comes up for vote. Your "rep", decides to vote no, and you do not agree. You want to vote "yes". This is easy, because there WILL be some other rep, that has decided to vote "yes". Soooo, all you need to do, is to put your "yes" ballot into THEIR bucket instead of the "no" bucket your registered rep has. To count the votes, all we need to do is add up the votes in each bucket. Your rep, has 176 "no" votes in their bucket, and the rep you chose for THIS matter, has 765 "yes" votes in their bucket, including yours, and theirs. Boom, voting is done. It's really simple, and it actually works to represent every citizen as an individual and every citizen as a community. This is a 'legal' representation, reliable and accurate. Which is simply not true, for "elected" representatives. If you disagree with someone elected to represent you, that is too damn bad, so sorry, you don't get represented. There is no assurance that even a majority will be represented, if the person elected does not agree with the majority. There is no process to require that elected person to even care whether a majority agrees or not with their decision. Nor is there any process for the public to determine if the elected person voted in agreement with majority. If this seems confusing, please read it again, once you comprehend it it is VERY simple, and it works correctly as a representative democracy. If you have question, please ask. I DO HAVE THE ANSWERS. No, you do not have to vote on every damn fool idea some one on the internet proposes. No, you do not have to vote every day, and spend hours every day searching for info about every issue. We understand that the vast majority of humanity is invested in kind and caring community, emotionally economically and physically. A minority are criminals. A GOOD PUBLIC. Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. It's THE problem. Oligarchy is not rule by the rich, it is rule by minority, and the less than 1000 people elected and appointed to decision authority positions in federal government are CERTAINLY a minority. They are NOT representatives, if they were, then the issues that a clear majority of the public support, such as racial equity, universal health care, improved education, managing firearm violence, etc etc etc would BE MANAGED OR RESOLVED. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It was misrepresentative. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation https://45ink.com/wp/4-branch-brief/ STOP using "government" the DUMBEST way possible. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. Capitalism is the motive, oligarchy is the method. No matter how many we eat, if oligarchy is allowed to prevail, there will always be those who take up the reins of power for personal benefit... I am predicting that a social market would manufacture toasters and washing machines and tractors that last for fifty years instead of eighteen months. Reducing waste. Yes, that’s a strong prediction, and it fits elegantly with the logic of a social market (where production is guided by social value and public stewardship rather than short-term private profit). In such a system: Durability becomes an economic virtue rather than a liability. Planned obsolescence disappears because the goal is sufficiency, not sales churn. Resource and energy waste drop sharply — both in manufacturing and in disposal. Repair and modular design thrive, because maintaining an existing product becomes part of the productive cycle. The incentive structure changes completely: success is measured by longevity, reliability, and minimal lifecycle cost to society rather than quarterly revenue. It’s a compelling line of reasoning — a social market doesn’t need endless consumption to sustain itself. https://45ink.com/wp/economy/ I keep a dark, ugly and violent secret place in my spirit, cocked and ready for those who intend violence and hurt against me and mine. I am not threatening, I am merely prepared, and attentive. You need not be capable of this balance in your life, because I and others choose to stand outside society, facing outward, into the wilderness. We face that without the illusions, of that wilderness being peaceful and idyllic. It is violent, combative and predatory. Sip your tea in peace. We love you. Democracy should be SPECIFIED, by people who understand how to create rational decision process. Experts at designing, testing evaluating process for validity and error checking… Democracy should then, after being correctly specified, be ADMINISTERED by the public. Remember this. If someone tells you that something cannot be done, what they are admitting is that THEY don't know how to do it. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ The Bill of Rights limits the Governments. Period full stop. Except it does not factually do that at all. Many laws have been enacted that infringe on rights “protected” by the “bill of rights”. Consistently the GOVERNMENT, (judicial branch), has ruled that rights are not absolute, and even though one of the amendments specifically FORBID infringement or abridgement, those laws that result in infringement and abridgement must be allowed, and enforced, because to enforce constitutional law, as it was written and understood at the time of enactment, forbidding such enactment of law, would be INCONVENIENT to the government, the government would need to amend or repeal one of those protections. Please consider that reality, and then evaluate it from the view of what results, What the Judicial branch has done is to rule that the PROTECTION of rights specified in the amendments are not absolute. In spite of the constitutional law specified in one of the amendments that FORBIDS infringement, the people who make legal decisions are allowed, and authorized to IGNORE that constitutional law. How did the Judicial branch derive the authority to make that decision to authorize the legislative branch to ignore constitutional law? Read your constitution, try Article Three, Section 2... Yep, the lawyers fucked us again... I want to know why you people think authorizing the government to decide when to create an “exception”, while constitutional law prohibits the government from creating an exception , makes any fucking sense. Consider this: 40 years ago, if someone told you, "You should take a picture of that with your telephone." You would have looked at them as if they are simply crazy stupid and likely had no concept of reality. https://45ink.com/baubles/meme/2rotary-telephone-1.png Now, consider this: You should use a representative to represent YOUR decision on an issue. Not THEIR decision, YOURS! Am I crazy? Am I stupid? Am I totally deranged and lost all concept of reality? Really?? **** ***** Remember this. If someone tells you that something cannot be done, what they are admitting is that THEY don't know how to do it. Democracy should be SPECIFIED, by people who understand how to create rational decision process. Experts at designing, testing evaluating process for validity and error checking… Democracy should then, after being correctly specified, be ADMINISTERED by the public. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. In any case, it's about decisions. https://45ink.com/wp/decisions/ Did you know that in Russia, they elect people as "representatives", and send those people to a "congress", and those people elected are the ones who make the decisions about age of retirement, sending guns, bombs, missiles and people to Ukraine to "liberate" other people from the evil government in Ukraine that is essentially exactly the same as the government in Russia, and incidentally, the USA... So, the idea of course is to prevent mob rule mistakes by not allowing majority rule... Of course that means that some minority actually rules, and how does the majority PREVENT MISTAKES BY THAT MINORITY???? There is NOTHING.. No process for preventing that elected minority from making mistakes at all. OH, wait, you say ELECTIONS is the method of control that prevents mistakes??? Well shit buddy, that sure worked out for the public majority, in Ukraine and Russia, by golly... It's not like there isn't a bloody vicious criminal WAR happening there, right?? Oh and hell yes, elections sure prevented the US civil war in the mid 1860's, I mean it's not like hundreds of thousands people did not start killing each other, right??? That ELECTIONS PREVENT MISTAKES, worked the fuck outta that question didn't it??? As for the 2nd, we agree, that the proliferation of firearms to those who have no business being “armed” with any more lethal weapons than a plastic spoon, is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with LEGALLY. That is the key here, there is a LEGAL process for creating exceptions to the protection of rights that the constitutional law obligates our governments to constraint. Using that process, we could amend that 2nd amendment to allow exceptions, to specify exceptions to that protection of “rights”. When that is accomplished then there can be “infringements”, legally. Until those exceptions are codified as amending the 2nd, then NO EXCEPTIONS are legal, NONE. I did not write that constitutional law, don’t blame ME for this circumstance. I am not opposed to restricting the use of weapons to those who we have reason to trust with them. MY POINT, is that I do not trust a damn government with the “weapon” of enacting and enforcing law, when they BREAK THAT LAW THEY AGREED TO BE BOUND TO. What I found interesting, is finding out that during the winter of north hemisphere, the earth is actually marginally nearer the sun, and in the summer, the earth is further from the sun. Careful observation and calculation, suggests during a single solar cycle, the distance difference in temperature is negligible. However, the same is true for distance difference from the southern hemisphere, during the summer in the south, the earth is closer to the sun, and in winter, it is further…. This brings up a consideration, that perhaps the single solar cycle temp difference is negligible by distance variation, however it may be possible that over thousands or millions of solar orbits, that difference is no longer such a small value, but a significant value. In addition, I can speculate that as our solar system travels around the galaxy, it may be possible that our solar system passes through and out of various densities of debris and gas fields expelled by nova, and supernova which, may result in some loss of energy reaching the earth from the sun, as that gas and dust absorbs more or less of the energy expelled by the sun… Certainly a short time passing through a dense cloud would not significantly affect global conditions on Earth, however a vast dense cloud of debris and gas would block that sunlight for a LONG time, and again, a long reduction or increase of exposure might be VERY significant…. Programmers that continue to support and defend the decision process specified in the US and many other, constitution... ('specially when the basis of their support is that the people who wrote it must have known what they were doing, as geniuses...) Jefferson, Madison, et al, were ignorant. That is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. They knew practically nothing of democracy, except the process which had been demonstrated to fail, they never explored alternative process, to be clear they had no clue what government even is, except by bad example and limited evaluation. They had no clue what a *process* is. They would have claimed witchcraft if exposed to the abilities of REAL knowledge we benefit from today. They would have easily been convinced that a simple battery energized LED flashlight was certainly satanic, and a simple laser pointer would certainly have been impossible for them to observe without attributing that evil, malevolent spirit of a red dot to satan. Your position is absurd, and as someone that understands computer code decision process, you should be ashamed of yourself to be held to the cult programming you were exposed to as a child by the same people that lied to you about Santa Claus… I am ashamed of you. One of the challenges I face promoting an examination of government decision process, is the diversity of thought people present as to the cause of their own dissatisfaction with that process. For instance, consider a person that is convinced that failure of government is caused by lack of participants in the election of people to government positions. Essentially, they are proposing that if every eligible citizen voted and each of those votes were counted correctly, then the government would function as they presumed it should. Next, consider another person that is confident, that the failure is caused by lobbyists corrupting elected officials by "legal bribery". Note that in the latter case, the person is asserting that the election process is not relevant, no matter who votes or does not vote, the result will be corrupt government because of lobbyists. However in the former case, the person ignores the aspect of how the person elected behaves once elected, the fact that they *are* elected is sufficient to them. I am faced with a myriad of different opposing and contradictory convictions of people on the matter of functionality. It's like being stuck in quicksand, I might get one leg free, but I had to get my other leg more stuck to do that... It's a problem. I generally attempt to make some statement that incites a response from someone that presents me with a clue as to how they think about the government functionality. I attempt to ask questions that elicit some clue. I often have some text saved from previous conversation, that I can use to guide people into an understanding of why root cause is so damn vital to fixing stuff, and yet, often I find myself faced with accusation and denial because I used "copy/pasta". Sigh, good luck with 2023 people, it's a long slog through the mire of diverse opinion, presented as if the fantasy they hold must be true... Are there any inherent limits to protection of constitutional rights? If so, what are they? Yes, the limits are specified in the constitutional law that protects them. For instance, the 4th amendment protects the right to be free from search and seizure. Yet it does not, really. You can be searched “reasonably”. Because the limit is actually written into the law, “…unreasonable search…” Now, we can argue about what “reasonable” is… but as long as a court decides that the search was reasonable, the protection under constitutional law does not apply. This is not the same, as say, the First amendment, where the constitutional law FORBIDS any exception to the PROTECTION. “Shall not be abridged”, No exceptions… Therefor there are PROTECTIONS specified that are limited in the specification of protection, and there are PROTECTIONS without specified limit, BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!!! The correct question is whether the Amendments specified to our US constitution factually function to limit government. ??????????????????? The Bill of Rights limits the Governments. Period full stop. Except it does not factually do that at all. Many laws have been enacted that infringe on rights “protected” by the “bill of rights”. Consistently the GOVERNMENT, (judicial branch), has ruled that rights are not absolute, and even though one of the amendments specifically FORBID infringement or abridgement, those laws that result in infringement and abridgement must be allowed, and enforced, because to enforce constitutional law, as it was written and understood at the time of enactment, forbidding such enactment of law, would be INCONVENIENT to the government, the government would need to amend or repeal one of those protections. Please consider that reality, and then evaluate it from the view of what results, What the Judicial branch has done is to rule that the PROTECTION of rights specified in the amendments are not absolute. In spite of the constitutional law specified in one of the amendments that FORBIDS infringement, the people who make legal decisions are allowed, and authorized to IGNORE that constitutional law. How did the Judicial branch derive the authority to make that decision to authorize the legislative branch to ignore constitutional law? Read your constitution, try Article Three, Section 2... Yep, the lawyers fucked us again... I want to know why you people think authorizing the government to decide when to create an “exception” to constitutional prohibition of the government creating an exception , makes any fucking sense. I simply expect the system to function as specified. If it CANNOT, then we need a better system... I agree that shouting fire in a theater is a problem. It is an abuse of our right to free speech. That is a CIVIL problem, not a criminal problem. The constitution specifies the manner of making decisions of enactment and enforcement of law and policy. It was amended to PROHIBIT that process from enacting laws that infringe on certain rights. As a citizen, that system requires ME to behave in strict accordance to the laws enacted by that process. I simply expect that system to behave in strict accordance to those same laws. If I refuse to behave, then I am considered a criminal. When that system refuses to behave I consider that system to be criminal. What are the flaws of democracy as a form of government ideal? There are several. The easiest to discern, is a math problem. If there are an even number of citizens, and exactly half vote one way, and half vote the other way, the system fails. No decision occurs. This is not so much a problem if the question being decided is a simple yes or no, “Homosexual acts are illegal.” If 50 people vote yes and 50 people vote no, the “decision” made is that homosexual acts are NOT illegal, as the law failed to be enacted by a majority… However, if the question is whether roads will be built with concrete or asphalt, then we have a problem. No decision was made. The PROCESS failed if no majority vote exists. This can happen even with odd numbers of citizens. If 99 people are committed to travel together, and need to decide on the direction, then if 33 people vote for East, while 33 people vote for West, and 33 people vote for South, then the PROCESS fails to yield a DECISION…. The flaw mentioned above has easy to implement “fixes” that can be used. EVERY flaw of democracy can be fixed, if we use reason and apply that reason to the problems. One aspect often cited as a “flaw” is that of scale. It is rather easy to administrate a “democracy” with about 100 people voting, in a single town hall, however if the number of citizens is closer to a million, scattered over many hundreds of miles, the “accounting” becomes problematic. Not a flaw, but a problem. Again that problem can be managed easily enough. One other REAL flaw of large scale democracy is mis-managing the public expectation of low level involvement. Some individuals expect “their” special opinions to get the same public consideration as opposing opinions. As if a “law” to criminalize homosexual behavior, should be voted on, over and over and over again, until opponents give up and give in. This can also be easily fixed by proper specification of the DECISION PROCESS used to administer “democracy”. One aspect that is often cited as a flaw, but is actually just another matter of proper specification is the matter of “majority threshold”. For instance some decisions might require no more than a simple majority, 50%+1. An election to an administrative position for example. Do we elect Judge Brown or Judge Wellon? Then there is a matter of how we account for a majority. If 9 people vote to take your house and hang you, in a town of about 5000 people, then I speculate you would demand more than a simple majority, AND you’d prefer the entire town voted on the matter as well. Not just your 9 neighbors that are drooling over gaining your property… We can easily see that 9 votes to hang you out of 5000 is nowhere near a majority… Right? Again, all of that mess can be easily managed by proper specification of the PROCESS that is administered AS a democracy. If you can think of other “flaws’ or “problems” with democracy, please explain them to me so that I can show how they can be solved or managed by proper specification of the decision process used as a democracy. I would wager that I can either explain how, or I can successfully argue that the flaw or problem you raise is actually a flaw and problem of oligarchy… Some people will jump right into trying random balls. Let’s see, we’ll do 5–7–11 … that adds up to 23. Too low. Take out the 7 and replace it with 13 … that makes 29. Hmm, too low. Change out the 13 for a 15 … no, now it’s too high, trade the 5 for a 3. And so on for a few minutes until they give up. An intelligent person will take a few moments to analyze the problem. They will observe that all the balls have odd numbers, and the sum of three odd numbers will always be an odd number, which means it can’t be 30. Thus, the problem is impossible. But a creative person will look for other ways to approach the problem … like realizing that you can place the 9 ball upside down to make it a 6. "Every Faith has its moments of lunacy." David Weber, Armageddon Inheritance..."As for the rest, well, it's more like an indoctrination than an education, as if someone cordoned off certain aspects of his worldview, labeled them 'off-limits' so firmly he's not even curious about them. It's just the way things are; the very possibility of questioning them, much less changing them, doesn't exist." Paraphrased from a David Weber novel, sci-fi, about Honor Harrington... "... they'd felt no particular urge to demand the right to participate in the making of legal decisions. That, after all , had been the original bargain between their ancestors and the "system". In return for "being taken care of", the citizens had surrendered all decision authority, to the people who ran the machine, and until that machine collapsed, no one had felt any need to fix the plethora of flaws and fallacies those flaws were predicated on." So.... how long have the majority of the public been complaining about the idiocy of changing clocks twice a year?? Decades? And they think the same decision process that cannot even figure out how to get rid of that nonsense is capable of figuring out economy and foreign and domestic policy?? Wow, some people are fucking delusional.... Democratic oligarchy, not a democracy. Not a republic. Oligarchy is rule by minority. The people we elect, a minority, whether we agree with them or not, are the ones that make the decisions, not the people that vote to elect those people. Which is why the words democratic and democracy are entirely different. What is the current state of American politics? Why have so many people turned away from it? Politics is the discussion. Government makes decisions. Politics is basically just fine, we need to talk about problems and potential solutions before making decisions about those matters… GOVERNMENT, on the other hand is a cesspool of crap, with a bunch of deluded people we elected to clean up the crap, and all they manage to do is produce more crap… I think the answer to your second question is VERY interesting. In the not so distant past, the stink and rotten truth about the process they use in government was covered up, by efforts to make it seem that it was succeeding in solving the problems, or at least managing those problems successfully… Today, people are watching the problems going unsolved and people escaping that cesspool all covered in new shit. shrugz… The whole thing is absurd, several factions of angry clowns representing a crap circus, and the public is mandated to pay for the ticket and suffer the consequences, of that casino circus show... Will Rogers had this to say about those plucky pioneers in 1932: "You know, we're always talking about pioneers and what great folks the old pioneers were. Well, I think if we just stopped and looked at history in the face, the pioneer wasn't a thing in the world but a guy that wanted something for nothing. He was a guy that wanted to live off of everything that nature had done. He wanted to cut a tree down that didn't cost him anything, but he never did plant one. He wanted to plow up the land that should have been left to grass. We're just now learning that we can rob from nature the same way as we can rob from an individual. All he had was an ax, and a plow, and a gun, and he just went out and lived off nature. But really, he thought it was nature he was living off of, but it was really future generations that he was living off of." Most of the socially progressive nations in Europe, and a few other places, have a LOOOOOOONG history of the public revolting and killing rulers and leaders that behave in a malevolent manner. The current leaders and rulers of those nations and regions, learned hard lessons about not pissing off the people, and making decisions that the public agrees with. The USA has no such history, and our rulers here have no ingrained well learned respect for the people, and instead respect the process. (which fails, without the attention to respect for the people). Perhaps it is the time for a hard lesson. I am advocating for a valid rational decision process the PUBLIC uses to: FIRST, determine and decide which of our rights shall be protected from "mob rule", and how those protections are administered. SECOND, under constraint of those protections, decides which laws and policies shall be enacted and enforced BY THE PUBLIC on our own society. Robert Heinlein: (Moon is Harsh Mistress) “But if representative government turns out to be your intention there still may be ways to achieve it better than the territorial district. For example you each represent about ten thousand human beings, perhaps seven thousand of voting age—and some of you were elected by slim majorities. Suppose instead of election a man were qualified for office by petition signed by four thousand citizens. He would then represent those four thousand affirmatively, with no disgruntled minority, for what would have been a minority in a territorial constituency would all be free to start other petitions or join in them. All would then be represented by men of their choice." “Distrust the obvious, suspect the traditional . . . for in the past mankind has not done well when saddling itself with governments." Let’s consider a circumstance where a community of about 5,000 citizens are voting to decide whether to pave streets. The people vote, and the votes are counted… 275 votes are “yes”. 237 votes are “no”. There are TWO ways to account for that vote. The first is to account a majority against the number of ballots. In this case, there were 512 ballots. Of those ballots a majority of votes said yes. Therefor, the streets get paved. OK, so notice that about 4,500 citizens DID NOT VOTE. They took no part in the decision, and the people that DID vote made that decision. In this case, the people who did not vote gave up their decision authority, it was not taken from them, they simply abdicated on the decision. Now, let’s use a different way of accounting the vote. We could account a majority against the number of citizens. In THIS case, there were 512 ballots and of those 275 voted yes, and 4,725 did NOT vote yes. The streets don’t get paved. The people who did not vote, by declining to vote, DID participate in that decision, and their participation was as if they voted NO. The latter method of accounting is the correct method of administering democracy. I know a lot of people will be howling that if we did it that way then NOTHING WOULD EVER GET DONE!!!! Uh, just calm down there drama queens… If we agreed to do it the first way, then you’d be agreeing that if your three neighbors decided to vote to hang you and take all your stuff, then that would be OK, because the vote was three to one, and YOU lost that vote. I suggest you do NOT want to do things that way. You really really want to account a vote to “do” something to be accounted against the total number of citizens, not just the number of ballots cast. That assures that NOTHING gets enacted and enforced as law and policy that a majority of the public does not agree with. No more of the 3 wolves and a sheep voting on who gets eaten for dinner. In addition, we could also, decide what kind of majority threshold should be required. Certainly if the vote is about whether you get hanged or not, you’d want something more than a simple majority of 50%+1…. In fact juries in criminal cases, for instance REQUIRE 100% majority, a much higher majority threshold. We could actually decide on the majority threshold along with our decision on the ballot as well. For people who provide content for adult entertainment, with the purpose of inciting your audience to orgasm, please consider more sexy, less sex, more fuckery, less fucking, more display, less mechanics. Tell a story, not simply recording documentary sex. I am rather confident, that the vast majority of people who consider government an "evil" thing that must be removed from society, have that opinion, simply because they have no idea how to specify a decision process for the enactment and enforcement of law and policy within a society, that is NOT evil... Sad. However, I take heart in two facts; Before the Wright brothers succeeded in flying a heavier than air machine, no one else knew how to do it either. Second, jellyfish have no brains and they have existed for millions of years, perhaps billions of years... Yeah, they don't want you to have a right of self defense, because YOU chose to have sex, as if that choice requires you to choose pregnancy. It's a victim blame game. If you do not want to be pregnant, then you are a victim of pregnancy, not guilty of it. Some years ago, I worked for a telephone support center for Hewlett-Packard, printers, computers etc. During the time I worked there, H-P and the industry began using USB for more devices such as printers faxes, scanners, CD-Writers etc. (no DVD yet...) In any case as Microsoft upgraded their operating systems, from win98/ NT etc to win2k, ME, etc, we began getting a huge influx of calls about the failure of USB installation of various devices on the newer versions of Windows. I was asked to investigate this matter. After several days of testing and searching through debugging code, I finally found the problem. It's a bit technical, and you may not be interested. The problem turned out to be the way VB script handles variable names, between VB 5 and VB 6. With the earlier versions of Windows, VB 5 was used, and with the newer versions they updated to VB 6. In VB, and VB script version 5, variable names were not different if they were capitalized or not. A variable named "Path", was recognized and treated exactly the same as the variable names, "path" and "PATH" and "pAtH". In VB 6, however, capitalization was relevant, the variable names of "PATH" and path" are entirely different. With that understood, what I found is that in the USB install scripts used by H-P and Microsoft for various devices, the scripts were not checked for capitalization integrity. Thus, when a variable named "regPath" is needed to update the registry, and the actual path of the registry was stored in a variable named "RegPath", the script could not FIND that path, because it was looking for "regPath" not "RegPath"... Anyways, I was called into a meeting with local managers and the high up mucky mucks of H-P, who do not know crap about variable names, concatenation of text snippets contained in variables, and how to even begin what the difference is between adding 2+5 and "c\windows\" +"win32\registry\". I was called in cold. I had reported the problem verbally, and forgot about it until the manager told me to sit in and explain the problem to H-P upper management by phone. Needless to say, before I managed to explain even half of what I found, the H-P guys and our managers both were simply lost, and had no clue where I was taking them, nor why. I was told to stop, and escorted out of the meeting, and my boss asked me why the hell I was using words like "concatenation" to H-P corporate upper crust... Whatever... I was right. I knew I was right, and the fact that idiots running a business could not understand me is NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM. They should have let me talk to their programmers, not the damn lawyers. People disagree, which is why we need a group decision process, that allows us to make decisions when there is disagreement, without resorting to killing everyone that disagrees. However, we only have TWO choices for how we make those decisions. Rule by majority, democracy... Rule by minority, oligarchy... If you choose to elect a small number of people to a congress to make those decisions, you chose oligarchy. It's that simple. I would like to clarify something. As much as I detest, reject and speak against the oligarchy that our constitution specifies, I FULLY comprehend how much worse that entire system will be administrated under Trump, than nearly any other presidential candidate. It angers me that the people of this nation will once again insist on continuing to use a system, that provides him and his thugs any opportunity to regain the position of presidency, or legitimacy. That is what the public is doing. Risking his continuing influence and position of power and authority. In 2016, November 3rd, we watched the system be manipulated into electing Trump, and stared in horror as the numbers began telling the reality. The people that assured us that sanity would prevail, as many more of the public declined his buffoonery, and blatant disregard for human dignity, and his support for oligarchical rule to profit his minions, were WRONG. It simply did not matter how many of the public rejected his nonsense, the SYSTEM elected him. That is what is being risked here. Monty Tam Mike Anderson Thank you! YOU GET IT! You might relate to what writer Caitlin Johnstone posted this morning: “We talk about US presidents all the time — Obama did this, Trump did that, blah blah blah. But really it’s never the president doing those things, it’s the empire. The president is just the face of the operation, the name they put on the door that they change every few years to create the illusion that the US government is responsive to the will of the electorate. Really if you look solely at the raw data of the US power structure around the world (where the weapons are going, where the resources are going, where the money is and isn’t going, where the diplomats are and aren’t going, etc), you can’t tell from year to year when the White House is changing hands. You can’t tell from that raw data what political party the current president belongs to or what platform he campaigned on, and you can’t tell when he’s replaced by someone from the other party with another platform. The raw data of the empire keeps moving in basically the same way without any meaningful interruption. So it’s not really true to say “Obama did this” or “Trump did that”; really they’re just the face that happened to be on the operation when it was time to kill Gaddafi or begin the Pivot to Asia or sanction Venezuela or start arming Ukraine or whatever. They’re not leaders leading the US government in various directions based on what they think the best policies are, they’re empire managers who are responding to whatever the needs of the empire happen to be each day — using whatever justifications or partisan leverage they can muster in that moment. And Americans don’t get to vote on any of that stuff. They don’t get to vote on what will have to be done to facilitate the needs of a globe-spanning empire, or if there should be a globe-spanning empire at all. The behavior of the empire is never on the ballot. The only things that are ever on the ballot are issues which stand no possibility of ever interfering in the operation of the empire, like whether the president will appoint Supreme Court justices who oppose abortion or support gun control. And the voting populace is continually kept at a 50/50 split on as many of those issues as possible to keep both sides tugging on the rope with all their might so they don’t look up and notice that the real large-scale behavior of their government is completely unaffected by the small back and forth gains and losses of the tug-o-war game. Really the only reason to talk about US presidents in terms of “Obama did this” and “Trump did that” is to highlight this point. To highlight the fact that Obama continued and expanded all the most malignant policies of his predecessor, and that Trump continued and expanded all the most malignant policies of his. To disrupt all the dopey partisan narratives about things getting better under Biden or worse under Trump or that Obama was a progressive or Trump was a peacemaker. By pointing out the horrible things that happened under each administration, regardless of party affiliation or platform, the illusion that Americans are controlling the behavior of their government using their votes can be worn away. You can in this sense use the illusion to fight the illusion — use people’s intense interest in presidents and electoral politics to draw them into the insight that it’s all a performance designed to keep the eyes of the masses away from the inner workings of the machine. And then the possibility for real change opens up. The longer Americans are convinced that they can vote their way out of problems they never voted their way into in the first place, the longer they can be dissuaded from using the power of their numbers to force real material changes by real material means.” Our government is a monster machine used by rich people to grind down to death, other people for profits. Poor people want to be the ones running that machine and getting the profits. Which is ABSURD, it's a monster machine. STOP trying to run the damn thing. Use a BETTER machine. I know many of you cannot comprehend the evil in the "system"... However the people who have a LOT more influence on POLICY than your vote can hope to equal, some of them, many of them, are looking at the devastation of hurricanes, tornadoes and drought and wildfires, not as some kind of tragedy that must be prevented, but rather as INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFIT!!!! https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ Anyone else sick and tired of our US legal system continuing to demonstrate that IMPORTANT people get preferential treatment? If I was indicted for a crime, there would be no negotiation for arrest and bond for release prior to arraignment. The police would show up, and ARREST me. (or shoot me if I failed to comply immediately and completely with EVERY order they give me). Then I would be held, in custody until my arraignment, in jail. At the arraignment I would be notified of the crimes I am accused of, not in a polite letter, but standing in court with my lawyer or a court appointed lawyer, and then the judge would ORDER my terms of release prior to trial, and my lawyer would have an opportunity to argue legal matters concerning that release ORDER. There would be no pre arrest NEGOTIATION of release prior to arraignment or trial. The judge would make those decisions at the time of arraignment. Crazy as it may seem, Many of you understand how vehemently I object to the process of elections to provide representation in Congress. However that may be true, I understand that the election of an executive office is different. I have tried to express my contempt and opposition to the orange turd. If that criminal is a nominee for the office of president and you are willing to vote for Biden, then I recommend that you do vote. For Biden. That is specific and unlikely to be repeated for any election under the US constitution. I absolutely do not endorse or promote the US constitutional decision process. In fact, please try to understand. If we were using 4 branch decision process, it would not matter if some person even more craven and despicable somehow was elected. The citizens could kick that turd off the path without getting their boots dirty. Or leave it there to laugh at as they move on. I am serious. The public would never again have any cause to fear the result of an election as president or congress or judge. 4 branch government is representative. The laws and policies that are enacted amended, and repealed and enforced within society will be the result of the decisions made by the citizens exactly as if each citizen votes directly. Representative, not misrepresentative. Using real representatives, not a clown show in a shit circus with chainsaws. The traitor is a chainsaw and you need him out of that circus. I have and currently am considering bringing a civil suit against the Federal government of the USA to claim damages from the use of constitutional decision process that denies public representation within that process. We don't have a democracy, and it never was. NOR did we ever have a republic, which would be a sub-form of democracy. No, what we have and have had as a form of government since the moment our first and second constitutions were ratified was and is today, a democratic oligarchy, rule by minority. an elected minority. If the people we elected to congress were in fact "representatives, not rulers, then EVERY decision that enacts, amends or repeals law and policy in D.C. would be those that the majority of the public agrees with, and many of the federal acts that the majority of us do agree with, such as medical care for all, living wages, no more corporate rule in government, effective control of criminal gun violence, etc etc, would have been enacted already. They are not representatives, they are rulers, that we elected to make those decisions whether we agree to those or not. And elected rulers simply make an oligarchy, a rule by minority system that SUCKS! Y'all are so intent on winning an election, that you forgot WHY you are trying to win an election... The LIE, the BIG lie, is that the US constitution specifies a representative government. It's not. Never has been. Never will be until we change it so that it functions as a real representative government. Oligarchy, not a republic. Not a representative government. Not a democracy. A democratic oligarchy. Elected rulers. THE greatest most evil threat to the Constitution of the United States, is the decision process used to enact and enforce law and policy within the United States, that is specified within that Constitution. I agree that democracy is majority rule, however the only alternative is minority rule… I am fairly certain that was what the colonists were objecting to when we shot the minority rulers in their face and sent the “minority rule” bastards back to England. https://www.45ink.com/baubles/meme/4branch-260.jpg Recognizing that a minority of a total citizen population may have a valid and significant objection to some law or policy that a majority may propose, is one of the many advantages of 4 branch government that many people simply fail to comprehend. The decision process allows and encourages a minority to resist such enactments amendments and repeals, while providing an accurate and reliable method for all the citizens to recognize when such a resistance is based on a valid geographic or cultural concern that should be addressed before attempting to manage or resolve a problem, It's especially efficient at identifying when LOCAL governments should consider specific actions to address local issues, instead of a federal act. What is the governmental system called where a leader is democratically elected, but once elected, has full and total power over their nation? Oligarchy…. Rule by minority. The minority is one person, so it’s a monarchy, which is a sub-form of oligarchy. It’s a democratic monarchy. A democratic oligarchy. Even if the nation has a constitution, that specifies that the monarch must be elected every 4 years, or yearly, or every 8 years or 2 years or 6 years. Even if the process specified in the constitution forbids any king from serving more than 2 terms. Even if the constitution was amended to require a court to protect the specified rights of the citizens from the monarch. It’s still a monarchy, a democratic monarchy. A sub-form of oligarchy, rule by a minority of one. It would still be an oligarchy, if the people of that nation simply elected a congress, that made the decisions of enactment and enforcement of law and policy, that the KING would make in a monarchy. It would be a democratic oligarchy. A congress elected by democratic process. Even if that nation used a constitution that specified a court of justice and amended to provide protections of rights against infringement by that elected congress making those decisions of enactment and enforcement of law and policy. Even if that constitution specified the election of an executive position, and limited that to two terms. Rule by minority. A minority of the citizen population elected to make decisions of the enactment and enforcement of law and policy, an oligarchy, a democratic oligarchy. How about a republic? Isn’t that a republic if the nation has a constitution? A set of amendment that specifies rights to be protected? A constitution that specifies a court of justice, and a congress of representatives, and a president limited to two terms? Hmm, the key concept is about representatives then. Are the people we elect factually “making decisions of enactment and enforcement of law and policy”, or are the PEOPLE who elected those persons to congress making those decisions? If the general public is making those decisions, and the people we elect are simply “representing” those decisions, then that would be a republic. However if the constitution that nation used, specified… Article I Section 1: Congress All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Then, it’s very obvious that the people elected to congress are the ones who make those decisions that enact and enforce law and policy. If that congress was “representative”, that specification might be … ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the PUBLIC, and administered faithfully by representatives elected to congress. Hmm?? And there would be no need to have two houses of congress at all. shrugz…. A republic requires two things, first, that the PUBLIC has the ultimate authority, second, that the authority of the public is administered by use of representation. There will be people that want to argue about that, as if the people have no authority… and that voting for someone is administering the authority that people don’t have… shrugz. The concept of representation must be considered in a legal context, as we are discussing the enactment and enforcement of law. It’s not a game, it’s not some circus. It a serious matter of life and death consequence. Not a clown show in a shit circus. Get serious about this. That concept is not and cannot be considered to be the colloquial alternative of a cheer squad representing their high school. Those are NOT the same concepts. I understand that some people will assert that this flaw is somehow a feature that prevents urban populations from making decisions that are unwarranted for rural populations. THAT is a fucking lie. The flaw demonstrated above is just too damn random and unreliable to be any kind of feature. If you bought a car and discovered that SOMETIMES, at RANDOM, when you turned the wheel to the left, the car turned right, SOMETIMES when you applied the brakes the car accelerated, sometimes when you hit the gas the car screeched to a stop, and sometimes when you shift to drive the car goes in reverse, all at random, you never knew when it would behave that way…. You would NEVER agree that that behavior is a FEATURE, it’s a damn PROBLEM, and one with LIFE AND DEATH CONSEQUENCE… Remember that? I mentioned that near the top of this damn raggedy ass missive. The decisions made by GOVERNMENT have LIFE AND DEATH consequence. YOUR governments are acting like that damn car, like some bloody flopping chicken with it’s head chopped off, brainless random, messy and DANGEROUS. Why do some leaders become corrupt when given authority/power while others do not? BECAUSE, the act of providing group decision authority to individuals IS THE CORRUPTION!!! What you may glance at and recognize as “not corrupt”, is the result of looking at a RESULT that YOU personally agree with, instead of looking carefully at the PROCESS used to create that result. If someone told you to bail out a sinking ship and handed you a fork to accomplish that, you would immediately recognize that the PROCESS you are expected to use is “corrupt”. Notice that many times the general population have been deluded by careful or serendipitous concealment of evidence that demonstrates reality, and corruption. It certainly seemed self evident to people in the 13 century, that nations required a KING. It was not true. Just as it was not true that the sun orbits the earth. Nor was it true that the earth was located on the back of a giant turtle. It is TRUE that it does not matter HOW some individual is elevated to a position of decision authority over some group, whether that is flipping a coin, trial by sword combat, observing goat entrails, or ELECTIONS. The RESULT is corrupt, the PROCESS is corrupt. Government makes decisions of law and policy. Decisions of LIFE AND DEATH consequence. It's not some game, it is serious and needs to be considered as such. In the context of LAW, legal context. Representation that meets legal standards of courts. Get serious about it. Stop accepting a clown show in a shit circus as your government. Every government, no matter how we categorize the form, is some specified method or process for making decisions about the enactment and enforcement of law and policy on society. How we categorize form of government is by examination of that process or method of making those decisions. We do not examine, for this purpose, the method or process of elevating any person or persons to a position of decision authority. Therefor: if the people can vote to elect a dictator, a ruler, or king or whatever, that has nothing to do with the decision process specified for the enactment and enforcement of law and policy. The result of that vote to elect, simply elevates one person to ultimate decision authority. It does not make the decisions itself. If humanity is to be organized into social structures, by use of laws made by humans, not chance and not machines, then the manner in which those laws may be invoked are limited to two, and only two possible rule making paradigms. The first is rule by majority. (Democracy and sub-forms of democracy) The second is rule by minority. (Oligarchy and sub-forms of oligarchy) Those are our choices and those are the ONLY choices possible. A dictatorship is a sub-form of oligarchy, not democracy. It may be considered a democratic dictatorship, (laughing out loud here), but it’s not a democracy, nor any form of democracy. For instance, if a public were to vote to elect a king, every 4 years, that would not be a democracy. The king is a monarch, the result of voting and the election is a monarchy, not a democracy. We might, and should consider that result as a democratic monarchy. However, note that the word democratic is used as an adjective, it describes a process of selection, and that selection is for a monarch. The act of voting to elect some person to a position of power and authority, does not result in a democracy, it results in some person in a position of power and authority. What authority? Decision authority. A democracy, shares decision authority across the entire public population equally. It does not consolidate that authority to one, or a few persons. If we examine, for instance the decision process that is specified in our US constitution, we will find that the result of voting to elect people, is to install some few persons to positions of power and that decision authority. The proper term for that result, is an oligarchy. Instead of one person having all the decision authority, an autocracy, the decision authority is shared among a few persons. Again, not a democracy. A democracy, recall, shares decision authority among all the citizens equally. Not just a few. When decision authority is shared by a few citizens, it is an oligarchy. You can look it up, that is the definition. That has nothing to do with corruption, or big business or corporate personhood, it is a definition of forms of decision process. WHO has the decision authority? Therefor, in the US we elect oligarchs, and the result is a democratic oligarchy, not a democracy. We can see this same result in MANY nations that claim to be a democracy, none of them is a true claim. NONE. Sometimes. Sometimes the vast majority of people are simply wrong, including the "experts". I note Galileo, Wright Brothers, Dr. Bell, Dr. Bohr, etc. People intensely curious and unsatisfied with common knowledge that seemed contradictory to observed reality. Gravity, unrelated to the weight of objects, (kinda almost... other people got involved and have disproved Galileao,,, amazing... Flapping wings is not the solution to heavier than air flight... Electromagnetic pulses can transmit human speech. Structure of an atom, internally... Again, further study and observations refute his model, which was not probable, if not for the fact they USED his model as the refuting evidence. In some cases, the people that are not willing to be indoctrinated into "believing" what is purported to be settled knowledge are the ones who gain new knowledge. Not simply regurgitate bad info. Fuck their minds and their bodies will follow. I have read and agree with the policy on "spam". My answers and comments deleted by moderator(s) are not spam by that policy. The reason my answers and comments are similar or identical is because the questions or answers I am responding to are similar or identical. The link(s) to my articles on my website are for further reading in explanation of my answer or comment, NOT to drive traffic to a commercial website for profit. My website contains NO tracking, NO advertising. It seems obvious a moderator does not like my content, and is abusing moderator authority to censor my content. Yep, but why is your government siding with the people exploiting and abusing people and resources for profit? Corruption? Dear , I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to discuss the differences between oligarchy and democracy. Oligarchy refers to a system where power is held by a small group of individuals, while democracy is a system where power is vested in the people. Oligarchy tends to concentrate power and wealth, while democracy promotes equal participation and representation. It would be interesting to explore these concepts further and their implications on society. Thank you for your time. Best regards, 45 Mike “The kingdom is the people. The people are the land. Without them we are nothing.” I know a LOT of people that insist that "MAGIC" does not exist. I fully understand the reasoning you apply, however I suggest that until you can explain why a child might decide to grin, instead of scowl, you have no clue what magic might be… I am saying that you are likely to have enclosed “magic” in some box of impossible topics, without really considering how much of that box is filled with your inability to explain that stuff. I suggest that your inability to understand “magic” is not a valid argument against it. Just as an inability to understand science, is not a valid argument against it… Just sayin…. Can you give some examples of when the government isn't for the people? Hmm, Germany invading europe. Japan hitting Pearl Harbor. France invading Viet Nam. USA invading Iraq. USA using 4 presidents, thousands of US soldiers to death, and billions of dollars in Afghanistan, replacing the Taliban with the …. Taliban. Russia invading Ukraine. Israel invading Palestine. The USA installing the criminal Trump as president… Really, need more? The list is quite long…. They are ALL THE SAME SYSTEM in different styles of nonsense. To get a "fair" wage, people need to organize within a rational decision process used as a form of government to make decisions that require that business is constrained to business methods that support and require fair payments to wage labor. Otherwise, your government is making decisions to support business profits from exploitation and abuse of people and resources. Early human society was tribalistic. Not herds, not packs, not flocks, not swarms, not schools, not solitary. Tribes. One of the key features of tribal community organization is caring and sharing. Humans cared for children, sick, injured, elderly. Fast forward a few hundred thousand years, and humans have organized into super tribes, cities, nations, classes. Yet, throughout that period of experimenting with various forms of decision process used to "organize" societies, there are emergent tales, stories, parables, admonitions, and commands to CARE AND SHARE for the members of those social structures. Then, at some point someone(s) attributed that natural, and necessary concept to a specific person, A "Jesus", and created a following that forgot, or missed entirely the fact that humans ARE caring and sharing, and we don't need to be told or forced to be so... In fact, if we simply organized under the concept that the vast majority of humanity will be caring and sharing, and used a decision process that relied on that fact, we don't need "Jesus" at all, nor was that person, mythical or real, saying anything "new" or "profound", or original. We don't need a savior. We need a damn rational decision process based on that tribal reality of human existence, and success as a species. Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. Capitalism is the motive, oligarchy is the method. No matter how many we eat, if oligarchy is allowed to prevail, there will always be those who take up the reins of power for personal benefit... The state of Israel needs to move from it's current location, to buffer the border between Ukraine and Russia. That would solve about 16 problems with one solution. Yeah, well, they would still be WELCOME there if they had not created a monster and evil state. If they were good neighbors and good people they never would have agreed to take that land from the OTHER people living there and treat them like crap. "Every Faith has its moments of lunacy." David Weber, Armageddon Inheritance..."As for the rest, well, it's more like an indoctrination than an education, as if someone cordoned off certain aspects of his worldview, labeled them 'off-limits' so firmly he's not even curious about them. It's just the way things are; the very possibility of questioning them, much less changing them, doesn't exist." Paraphrased from a David Weber novel, sci-fi, about Honor Harrington... "... they'd felt no particular urge to demand the right to participate in the making of legal decisions. That, after all , had been the original bargain between their ancestors and the "system". In return for "being taken care of", the citizens had surrendered all decision authority, to the people who ran the machine, and until that machine collapsed, no one had felt any need to fix the plethora of flaws and fallacies those flaws were predicated on." "People at the apex felt unbridled contempt for the people who spent their lives laboring to support their “betters” in the style to which they had become accustomed. After all, if those lesser being had mattered, they’d have been the ones making the decisions, right? The fact that they weren’t was directly attributable to their inherent inferiority and general stupidity, not the inequality of opportunity." People make mistakes... people are irrational... So? I get so tired of people using that fact as an excuse for irrational process. Ya know, it's true, people make mistakes. And it's just as likely for a minority of rulers to make those mistakes as a majority of rulers. But what really matters is that we should stop using a decision process that creates it's own mistakes. Irrational process. A human might irrationally pound out nonsense on his keyboard. Yet the "process" that reads his pounding on the keys works perfectly rational. Every keystroke is detected, and the result appears on the screen, just as intended. The result might be irrational, but at least the PROCESS works correctly. It functions in a rational manner. When the process is invalid, it is simply absurd to rely on that for any serious purpose. For those who insist that we cannot and should not attempt to fix the damn systems, because "nothing is perfect", this is my response: I agree that nothing is "perfect". However the process that reads your keyboard is much closer to perfect than gibbering bullshit spread by chimpanzees with paintbrushes using piss. The process that manages to lift aircraft into the air and land safely millions of times per year is a lot closer to perfect than taping cardboard wings on yer buddy and kicking him off the barn roof. It's a fucking PROCESS, for making DECISIONS, and it's not just imperfect it's fucking INSANE. We are just beginning to face the consequences of continuing to rely on an irrational and deeply flawed decision process, used as a form of government fraudulently advertised as a democracy and republic, that fails to address, much less resolve or manage the deep and pervasive problems of past and present decisions, that threaten our social structures with corruption, failure and abandonment of civil methods to sustain our humanity, faced with problems tearing us apart as community and species. Most of y'all are simply delusional about the factual reality of how your constitutional decision process FAILS to function. The RESULT of that delusion is your continued disappointment and anger when the system does not give a fuck what you think. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. We don't need people to be rational... I know how difficult it is for some, if not many to comprehend the difference between rational process and rational people... Consider the "process" (it's really a decision process), that your computer device uses to figure out which keys you press. that process is VERY rational. Very nearly "perfect". (PEOPLE created that decision process... SMART people, people who fucking well UNDERSTAND decision process, and obviously understand that topic MUCH better than the vast majority of OTHER people...) Yet, you, the user decides which keys to press, not the computer, not the keyboard, not that process, it simply figures out what you did. That is an analogy of what our government decision process SHOULD do, and it does not work that way, it cannot figure out what we the people did, nor can it present what we did factually to the decision process that tries to impose those decisions on us. It's as if we press the backspace, or enter key, and the process "reads" it as if we held down the "$" key... it's not a rational PROCESS, that is what is broken... And yes, dammit, the people who can create your fucking keyboard process can fucking well look at your constitutional process and evaluate it as a fucking IDIOCY. I often remind myself that the people of the Earth are some very inspiring animals, just look at what we have accomplished over the last couple centuries, IN SPITE OF MORONIC DECISION PROCESS WE USED AS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT!! I enjoy imagining what humanity could accomplish with a rational representative government. Most of y'all are simply delusional about the factual reality of how your constitutional decision process FAILS to function. The RESULT of that delusion is your continued disappointment and anger when the system does not give a F**K what you think. Oligarchy is a form of government, (a decision process used by humans to make decisions organizing a society by enactment, amendment and repeal and enforcement of law and policy). An oligarchy is defined as “rule by few”, which means that only a few, or a minority of the public is involved in that decision process, with that decision authority. A democracy is the converse, of oligarchy, and exclusive to oligarchy. These two major forms of government are contradictory to each other, a democracy cannot be an oligarchy. A rule by majority process cannot be also a rule by minority process. It can only be one of those forms, not both. Nor can there be any hybrid of those forms. Either the decisions of law and policy are made by a minority of the public, or a majority of the public. HOWEVER, this is important, an oligarchy is absolutely capable of making the exact same decisions that a democracy does. The PROCESS is different but the results can be identical. This is how an oligarchy pretends to be a republic. Whenever the public majority becomes agitated, angry and frustrated with their government, an oligarchy, those few people in positions of decision authority begin making decisions calculated to align with public opinion, and thus, the public begins to relax and stop carrying the pitchforks and torches. Notice that the process is still rule by minority, but it is behaving in a benevolent manner, to calm the public. When the public is calm, it is VERY easy to delude the people into accepting that the system is functioning as a democracy. Because, the RESULT is the same. However, once the public is calmed down enough and accepting the delusion of democracy, then those decisions can once again begin benefiting the few, (those people we elected), and their buddies. Until of course, the public gets angry again. Yep, so don't vote to ELECT your representative. Choose someone to represent you. BY LOOKING AT HOW THEY VOTE ON THE LAW OR POLICY IN QUESTION. If you want to vote no, and if Bob is voting yes, on the matter, and Sally is voting no, and you chose Bob, as your representative, then do not give your ballot to BOB!!! Give it to SALLY. Bob is still your registered Rep, but you declined to be misrepresented by Bob on this matter. For THIS vote you gave your ballot to Sally, who you know is voting NO. You know Bob is voting YES. How do you know this? Because Bob and Sally are both REQUIRED, as registered representatives to PUBLISH their vote on every matter. They cannot change that once they published it. You KNOW how each rep will vote. You choose the one you agree with. Bob sends you regular updates about what matters are coming up for decision. You are INFORMED on the matter, because your representative keeps you informed, that is their JOB! They also move any input YOU have up the chain of consideration, and if enough people have the same input, it goes on the ballot. Your chosen, not elected representative behaves like your hand. Your proxy. When you give your ballot to Sally, she does not gain anything over Bob. It's not like Sally has more power of decision authority with your ballot. If Sally has 300 registered constituents, and of those 300, 273 agree with you and Sally and want to vote NO, then Sally reports, 274 NO ballots. Yours, and hers, and 272 other citizens. You are REPRESENTED, not misrepresented. SALLY does not gain any power from this, people either use her to represent their own decision, or they choose someone else. Sally does not go to congress to vote, you and your vote and your representative has NOTHING to do with Congress. YOU and ME and BOB and SALLY and those 272 other citizens make the decisions, not Congress. Congress never votes on a damn thing, they don't make those decisions. WE do, we the people, make those decisions, and we use representatives to do that. Any questions? I know many of you cannot comprehend the evil in the "system"... However the people who have a LOT more influence on POLICY than your vote can hope to equal, some of them, many of them, are looking at the devastation of hurricanes, tornadoes and drought and wildfires, not as some kind of tragedy that must be prevented, but rather as INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFIT!!!! https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ Nearly every discussion about government today, misuses terms and systems of measurement to confuse and delude the people involved in that discussion. The discussions therefor, become simple arguments, of no validity, employing language semantics that require the participants to use terms in a manner that presents concepts that contradict each other, as if they are equivalent. Get those terms DEFINED in a USEFUL manner, and REQUIRE that those terms be employed in a manner consistent with those definitions. Until that happens, the study and discussion of government is simply no more valid than astrology, reading of goat entrails, and religious nonsense. For instance, a nation might elect a king every 4 years. That is certainly democratic. But, the result is not a democracy. It’s a monarchy. A democratic monarchy. Every tiger is a cat, but not every cat is a tiger. (Every democracy is democratic, not every democratic government is a democracy.) Democracy is a form of government. The structure of a democracy is not specified within democracy. It is simply a form. One of only two major forms of government, and each major form may be structured in many ways. The other form is oligarchy, rule by minority. Democracy is rule by majority. What do we mean by “rule”? What do we mean by “government”? Technically government is a decision process used for enactment and enforcement of law and policy within a society, while a form of government is a specification of that process (usually specified within a document called a “Constitution”), and a nation is the instantiation of that specified process. Therefor, rule, is a direct participation in the decision process, that makes decisions of law and policy. A ruler, then, is one that has direct law and policy decision authority within that process. Understand this, *within that process*, is not optional, nor does it include participation or authority outside that process. The public mentioned above, that elected a king, are NOT rulers, their participation was outside the law and policy decision process, they chose a ruler, but are not rulers themselves by doing so. They participated in a different process, not the law and policy process. The resulting form of government has ONE ruler. The king. A monarchy. So, what if the public elected a council that made the decisions of law and policy? We can see that now the king, no longer has that sole authority, it is no longer a monarchy. The council has that authority. That nation might have a constitution that specifies that election of a council, and the king. That constitution, might even specify certain protections of the public from that decision authority of the elected council. It’s not a monarchy, but it’s not a democracy either. It’s just a minority of the public provided the decision authority of law and policy imposed on the public, with some protections specified that prevents the council from enacting certain laws and policies. Just another oligarchy, rule by minority. A constitutional democratic oligarchy. Not a democracy. That nation might even use a constitution, that specifies the election of a president, and a congress with two chambers or houses, and a judicial arm appointed to a supreme court, and sub-processes that attempt to balance decision authority amongst those 545 people in a nation of 300 million, with a set of amendments attempting to protect the rights of individuals…. 545 people with constitutional decision authority to enact and enforce law and policy within a society of 300 million. A clear minority. Still, an oligarchy, a constitutional democratic oligarchy. Not a democracy. Not a republic. Shrugz. From, Heinlein, "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.” “Hear, hear!” I said. “‘Less than perfect.’ What I’ve been aiming for all my life.” “Professor, I can’t understand you. I don’t insist that you call it ‘government’—I just want you to state what rules you think are necessary to insure equal freedom for all.” “Dear lady, I’ll happily accept your rules.” “But you don’t seem to want any rules!” “True. But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” “You would not abide by a law that the majority felt was necessary?” “Tell me what law, dear lady, and I will tell you whether I will obey it.” “You wiggled out. Every time I state a general principle, you wiggle out.” Prof clasped hands on chest. “Forgive me. Believe me, lovely Wyoming, I am most anxious to please you. You spoke of willingness to unite the front with anyone going your way. Is it enough that I want to see the Authority thrown off Luna . . . and would die to serve that end?” The people of Gaza have no constitutional decision authority to prevent or change the criminal behaviors of Hamas... The people of Israel, certainly have no constitutional power or authority to stop the criminal behaviors of their government and military, just as the people of Russia have no constitutional authority to change the behavior of that government, and the people of the USA have no constitutional authority to change the criminal behaviors of OUR government. The REASON, the ROOT CAUSE of the absence of authority of the PEOPLE in each of those systems of government is that ALL OF THEM ARE OLIGARCHIES, rule by minority, that minority elected to positions of decision authority, regardless of the public approval or opposition to any specific behaviors of those governments. The people ELECTED have that authority, not the public. The PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. They cannot enforce decisions on those that do have that authority. PEACE TALKS?? Government as specified in a constitution provides human society a process for organizing peace between disagreement. (Obviously some forms of 'process' function better than others, some don't work at all...) People do disagree and we make mistakes. shrugz I often write about decision process of law and policy being a government, yet many others seem inclined to desire a statement of purpose. An intentional decision. This evening under green smoke, a credible purpose bubble popped with words on my tablet. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement OPBD Just sayin' Intentional decisions such as building wildlife corridors are relatively easy, while operational decisions might be impossible under certain conditions. For instance, the locations of those ops. If the intention is to build a bridge on the moon, failure is an option, as would simple declaration to dissolve all government fail. Generally operations require a hierarchy organization, a manager with a staff. Similar to a business or military or naval operation. This is why 4 branch government specifies that agency management shall be elected by the people. We the people control operations by election and recall of managers of operations and their staff. This is a powerful tool of OPBD. Control of business, military, and naval operations for the PURPOSE of organizing PEACE. People can make intentional decisions that manage or resolve disagreement. There are people that study problems such as wildlife corridors that can advise us of potential solutions. There are people capable of managing an agency that builds wildlife corridors. Those managers we elect, work to achieve the result intended by the people as decided by the people using directly chosen representatives, (or direct ballot) as advised by the people we elected to a congress. Those managers run operations. The use of representatives specified in 4 branch, results in exactly the same decision as voting directly by the people. A government designed to organize a society of humans that make mistakes and disagree with a process organizing peace between disagreement. Yes, people make mistakes. Small groups are as likely to make mistakes as are large groups, unless either group is significantly more knowledgeable than the other. Which is why the people elect people to congress that are knowledgeable and trustworthy as advisors, not representatives. A small group of people knowledgeable about matters that the people might be deciding to intend. Intentional decisions result in operations. Operations that are organized as advised by people knowledgeable on the matter, are less prone to failure. Fewer mistakes. Shrugz. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ I did not write this as a flowery descriptive piece. I wrote it in a terse, definitive manner. I did that on purpose. I did not write it for fools, that cannot comprehend the use of language to define. I wrote it for people willing to exert critical thinking skills to worry through the meaning. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ The purpose of a constitution is to specify the decision making process used for enacting, amending and repealing law and policy, as well as enforcement of such matters decided on using that process. That process *can* be used to specify protections of rights as well, where some sub-process is invoked to prevent law and policy from enactment or enforcement when such protections are specified. Freedom, is a natural state that includes the possibility of death and injury and being exploited and abused. Freedom is not generally something most people really want, they do want social structure preventing death and injury and exploitation and abuse. Government restricts freedom. The freedom of predatory humans to kill, injure, exploit and abuse others for personal gain. It CAN also restrict freedom of victims as well, so that the predatory humans can more easily exploit and abuse others, depending on the decisions made that enact and enforce law and policy. Generally we find that government specified as oligarchy (rule by minority), is much more likely to restrict the freedom of victims to escape abuse and exploitation, while democracy is much more likely to restrict the freedoms of predatory humans, protecting victims from abuse and exploitation. And those are your only choices, rule by minority, oligarchy, or democracy, rule by majority… shrugz. democracy is administered by the ultimate authority of the people to be self governing. oligarchy is administered by the ultimate authority of a few to govern the people. No matter how many people push on a rope... It's the wrong way to use a rope... shrugz Yelling at people about the consequences of flawed decision process is not helpful. People can SEE those consequences, and their anger and frustration at the failures of society to manage or resolve the problems that result in those consequences, simply incite people to point fingers at each other, blaming the victims for their own fate. Causing neat and convenient divisions of people that prevent organizing social structure to defend us from predatory business. Stop defending and supporting that government. EXPLAIN how that government functions to support and defend predatory business. OLIGARCHY. AOC said this.... “I think it is extremely clear and it is extremely important that all people understand the difference between people and their governments, Israelis and the Israeli government, Palestinians from Hamas.” She speaks TRUTH!!!! The people of Gaza have no constitutional decision authority to prevent or change the criminal behaviors of Hamas... The people of Israel, certainly have no constitutional power or authority to stop the criminal behaviors of their government and military, just as the people of Russia have no constitutional authority to change the behavior of that government, and the people of the USA have no constitutional authority to change the criminal behaviors of OUR government. The REASON, the ROOT CAUSE of the absence of authority of the PEOPLE in each of those systems of government is that ALL OF THEM ARE OLIGARCHIES, rule by minority, that minority elected to positions of decision authority, regardless of the public approval or opposition to any specific behaviors of those governments. The people ELECTED have that authority, not the public. The PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. They cannot enforce decisions on those that do have that authority. I want to repeat and clarify. If. You are operating as security and protection under the auspice and authority of benevolence to innocence. Your primary is your single priority. However if your primary is an evil shit destroying the innocent, it's not a fucking innocent benevolence. It's a guilty evil auspice and authority. This is the same truth about protection and security operators. You. This is your truth. Don't fuck it up. democracy is administered by the ultimate authority of the people to be self governing. oligarchy is administered by the ultimate authority of a few to govern the people. No matter how many people push on a rope... It's the wrong way to use a rope... A republic REQUIRES representation... If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It was misrepresentative. If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! It's NOT. representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation Yelling at people about the consequences of flawed decision process is not helpful. People can SEE those consequences, and their anger and frustration at the failures of society to manage or resolve the problems that result in those consequences, simply incite people to point fingers at each other, blaming the victims for their own fate. Causing neat and convenient divisions of people that prevent organizing social structure to defend us from predatory business. Stop defending and supporting that government. EXPLAIN how that government functions to support and defend predatory business. OLIGARCHY. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ SOMEONE made decisions of law and policy.... I presume that someone was not US.... Right? A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Some of you may recall how Euclid managed to explain how a circle or a square is not a triangle? He began by stating some basic postulates. Some basic presumptions to begin an understanding of the topic of discussion. Here is one of mine about government. Government is the decision process humans use to organize ourselves into social structures. Here is another. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. This is one of my favorites, Every form of government is either some form or sub-form of “rule by majority” xor “rule by minority”. ( did you notice that I used the logical operator “xor”, instead of using “or”?) If you are still following me here, then, I can begin to explain, but if you understood my postulates, and how to use XOR as a logical operator, you may not actually need any further explanation. HOW did those people with money manage to get influence in our decision process? That is the real question. The answer is that our form of government not only allows that corruption, it invites it in and serves it dinner and buys it a few prostitutes. Our constitution does that. Not, "we the people". We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. AOC said this.... “I think it is extremely clear and it is extremely important that all people understand the difference between people and their governments, Israelis and the Israeli government, Palestinians from Hamas.” She speaks TRUTH!!!! The people of Gaza have no constitutional decision authority to prevent or change the criminal behaviors of Hamas... The people of Israel, certainly have no constitutional power or authority to stop the criminal behaviors of their government and military, just as the people of Russia have no constitutional authority to change the behavior of that government, and the people of the USA have no constitutional authority to change the criminal behaviors of OUR government. The REASON, the ROOT CAUSE of the absence of authority of the PEOPLE in each of those systems of government is that ALL OF THEM ARE OLIGARCHIES, rule by minority, that minority elected to positions of decision authority, regardless of the public approval or opposition to any specific behaviors of those governments. The people ELECTED have that authority, not the public. The PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. They cannot enforce decisions on those that do have that authority. Government is the process, by which humans make decisions about organizing social structure. It is the tool that is used to unite, or divide humanity. A constitution, specifies the process used to make those decisions. Too many humans agree and accept the installation of a few with the authority to make those decisions. Those few benefit from using government to divide humanity into conflict and violence. The root cause of that division is NOT that humans disagree, but rather that, we continue to use a decision process as a form of government that benefits the few by that division. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ The Founders' approach was aimed at creating a stable, fair, and accountable system of governance that could endure and adapt while remaining anchored in principles of law rather than the preferences or power of individuals. Yeah, but none of that actually functions to the intent of legal process representative of the people. It fails that function, as well as preventing concentration of decision authority. It specifically concentrates all decision authority to a minority of elected and appointed decision makers. The only process element the public is allowed is election of people to that minority randomly misrepresenting the public or worse by criminal intent. Then to add insult, the constitution process requires the minority elected to use district aggregation decision method, presuming the person elected is honorable in attempting to represent the district accurately, which method, results in representation errors regardless of the people elected and their intentions. Consider that enforcement of law equally. Is not one of those enforcements that of equal representation? Don't get me started on the failures to protect rights. The people from Africa and native to this land. None of it functions as 'intended', if the intention was a representative government of public decision authority. If in fact the process was representative then the public would have the authority and responsibilities of that authority. The government would be a rule by majority process constrained by accurate representation of minority. Not a rule by minority process constrained by uncertain representation of majority. See what I mean? EVERY authority of government is delegated to the three branches, and NONE to the public, except the use of election to provide representation. Then elections fail to provide that representation. oops. Three Laws of Thermosecurity The first law is that the desire of authorities in charge of security for information will continue in a straight line with no limits in time and space short of the heat death of the universe. The second law is that the willingness of their authorities to supply them with the budget they need to do that has very definite limits, both in time and space. Hence the third law, which is the one we are now operating under. The information assembled by security authorities invariably overwhelms their ability to analyze the information. It is true that Aristotle concluded that oligarchy, (rule by few), would result in wealthy rulers, however that consequence results from, rule by few. Wealth is a common result of decision authority, not a cause of decision authority. Oligarchy, (rule by minority), easily becomes plutocracy. Rule by wealthy. However, a democracy, rule by majority can also become a plutocracy. As it is true that wealth is often a result of decision authority. Therefore a difference between a plutocratic oligarchy and a plutocratic democracy is whether a minority or majority gain wealth by use of decision authority. I suggest we stop being obtuse on decision process used to organize social structure, (community, economics), with life and death consequence to humanity as a species and individuals. This is a serious legal matter of decisions of law and policy, not a circus show for public entertainment and delusion. Ask this: What is the difference between a benevolent oligarch and a malevolent oligarch? I suggest we stop being obtuse on decision process used to organize social structure, (community, economics), with life and death consequence to humanity as a species and individuals. This is a serious legal matter of decisions of law and policy, not a circus show for public entertainment and delusion. Ask this: What is the difference between a benevolent oligarch and a malevolent oligarch? It is true that Aristotle concluded that oligarchy, (rule by few), would result in wealthy rulers, however that consequence results from, rule by few. Wealth is a common result of decision authority, not a cause of decision authority. Oligarchy, (rule by minority), easily becomes plutocracy. Rule by wealthy. However, a democracy, rule by majority can also become a plutocracy. As it is true that wealth is often a result of decision authority. Therefore a difference between a plutocratic oligarchy and a plutocratic democracy is whether a minority or majority gain wealth by use of decision authority. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum... https://45ink.com/wp/them-vs-democracy/ Look, let me make this simple... STOP presuming, and predicating every consideration of what the government is doing, that the damn constitution specifies a VALID representative form of government. It's NOT.... If it was, the damn government would not be doing the crap it's doing. HOW did those people with money manage to get influence in our decision process? That is the real question. The answer is that our form of government not only allows that corruption, it invites it in and serves it dinner and buys it a few prostitutes. Our constitution does that. Not, "we the people". We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. EVERY person we elect to congress becomes an oligarch as soon as they take the oath of office. They agree to oligarchy, and they participate in that form of government willingly, and YOU insist they do so, by voting to elect them. It's not that damn complicated. Oligarchy is rule by minority, look it up, that is what it means, and it has nothing to do with wealth. Congress is less than 1000 people out of 300 million, it's a minority, and THEY make the rules. Rule by minority. *IF* they were "representatives", and *IF* the system functioned as a representative government, then their decisions, in congress would always be exactly as if we the people voted directly on every matter of law and policy. They ain't representatives they are RULERS, in a damn oligarchy... Your US government, is administered by use of a document, the Constitution, that specifies the decision process which will be used to enact and enforce law and policy within our society. That decision process, was created by rich white capitalists, escaping the British rule of monarchy, that was limiting their ability to profit from the exploitation and abuse of people and resources of the American continent. NOTE, they were attempting to PROFIT from EXPLOITATION and ABUSE of people and resources. THEY wrote the decision process. Those people that had the expressed and relevant desire to continue profiting from exploitation and abuse. THAT is exactly what they wanted to PROTECT, support and defend. It's EXACTLY what they wrote, and it's exactly what we have today. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. A republic, REQUIRES representation. EQUAL representation. FOR EACH CITIZEN, as individuals, AND EVERY CITIZEN, as a nation. If the process fails to represent the public, then the system cannot be a republic. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. Capitalism is the motive, oligarchy is the method. No matter how many we eat, if oligarchy is allowed to prevail, there will always be those who take up the reins of power for personal benefit... I absolutely agree that neither capitalism, nor socialism is sufficient. We require a hybrid economic paradigm, that allows the public to use economic reward for excellent performance, as well as allowing the public to care for those who are simply not excellent. 🙂 My point is that when we attempt to use the decision process provided by our constitution, the system declines to solve or manage the challenges of caring for those who are not performing with excellence. UNLESS someone can make a profit from the solution. In addition, the somewhat rare advances in social care we have managed to accumulate, are constantly being eroded and displaced by profit motive acts that tend to contradict the intent of the acts which we did advance. We need to fix our decision process. THEN we can fix economic problems. https://45ink.com/wp/economy/ People are deluded, into agreeing that the process specified in the constitution, somehow provides protection from abuse by a minority of rulers, oligarchy. Which is the method of fascism. Government is the process, by which humans make decisions about organizing social structure. Legal decisions, with life and death consequences. It is a tool that can be used to unite, or divide humanity. A constitution, specifies the process used to make those decisions. Too many humans agree and accept the installation of a few with the authority to make those decisions. Those few benefit from using government to divide humanity into conflict and violence. The root cause of that division is NOT that humans disagree, but rather that, we continue to use a decision process as a form of government that benefits the few by that division. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ I think many humans would prefer to provide labor to benefit humanity, rather than to providing benefit to a minority of "rulers". Just saying, ya know? I think we label such humans as communists, or socialists, perhaps even characterize them as freeloaders, bums, hippies. Extremists, perhaps, with violent tendencies, revolutionary, terrorists. Which humans were you thinking as terrorists? The rulers, or the rest of us? It seems to me that the model we are using is experiencing the same kind of challenges that the geo-centric model of the universe had. The math worked, and did a fine job of predicting sunrise, and moonphases, and such, quite accurately, very reliable. Even the planetary motions could be described quite well, even if the model, of crystal spheres, gears, wheels and lights, could not be engineered to faithfully follow the math of those planetary motions. I think that is significant, as we see the rush to study muons at Fermi Labs in Chicago, to explain how the Higgs Boson failed to be massive enough to match the model predictions, and the astrophysics is struggling to manage dark gravity and dark energy, even failing to identify some sane definition of “space” that actually fits the model. I am thinking that the particle, property, force, field model we rely on, that keeps running into this disconnect from observation of evidence, is the problem. Indeed, there have been many renowned physicists from subatomic to galactic scale studies that are practically screaming for someone to advance and succeed at hypothesizing some model that does not run into those challenges and contradictions, the “mysteries”, that the media loves to trot out as some kind of religious evidence of how correct our model is. Which is all a preface to underscore that my hypothesis explains those “mysteries”. And that I have a hypothesis which unifies the quantum and relativistic scales of existence. Oh and the hypothesis clearly defines space, as “something”, along with gravity and the cause of existence. shrugz https://45ink.com/wp/expansion-of-existence/ https://45ink.com/wp/event-existence/ gravity is the probability of the existence of a quantum event, and the value of that probability is related to the density of a volume of space-time being evaluated for effect of gravity Look, think carefully about what I say next. “The problem with representative democracy, as you think of it, is that it is not representative, nor is it democracy.” Essentially, the truth is that the systems you are asking about are , misogynist, anti-”other”, imperial, and exploitive, but they ain’t a democracy. Democracy is majority rule. Right? are ya with me so far? So, what is rule? What is majority? If a system is minority rule, then it’s not a democracy. Get it? A majority rule cannot be a minority rule. There is a word we use for majority rule, that is democracy. There is a word for minority rule also, that word is OLIGARCHY. Look it up. Oligarchy is rule by “few”. Democracy is rule by “many”. They are not the same. Now what does rule mean? It means decision authority. A king rules. How does that happen? A king is provided by some method, birth, sword fight, judicial or church ceremony, the authority to make decisions of law and policy. So, for a monarchy, the king has “decision authority”. The king makes the rules. Rule by the king, rule is decision authority. Hey, can people elect a king? Sure, why not? That would be democratic right? People vote, and the votes are counted and then they get a king, elected. Does that make it a democracy, because people voted? People held an election? An election is democratic, but hey…. the KING has decision authority for law and policy, not the people. So, it’s not a democracy, it’s still an oligarchy. the “few” is just one person, but it’s not a majority. Still an oligarchy, a special case of oligarchy where the minority holding decision authority is one person, the king. US government enables extraction of profit from exploitation and abuse of resources and people. This behavior is enabled by process specified in 1789 ratification of Constitution of the United States of America. For some delusional reason, many people agree with that circumstance. That's what people in Germany did. They trusted the "system". They obeyed the law. Rule of law. Checks and balances. How's that workin' out for ya? “An illusion needs an audience delusion.” That’s the core of the trick, isn’t it? The lie only works if the people want to believe. Not just passively, but complicitly—they feed the illusion to escape the weight of truth. They don’t get fooled—they choose the fooling. It makes the whole circus more tragic, and more sinister. Because the clowns aren’t lying to the crowd. The crowd is begging them to lie better. It’s not the illusion that’s dangerous. It’s the shared delusion that makes it comfortable. This is becoming a solid scroll of dark gospel. If we were scripting this out—lines for the end of an age—this would go on the second page, under the warning: > “This was not ignorance. This was indulgence.” Understanding how to think, is more important than believing what to think. I understand how to use imagination. I understand how to prevent imagination from using me. I am NOT obligated to misunderstand the universe. Palestine vs Nazi Israel. The REAL situation is that you were in your home living peacefully and the cops showed up and moved a new family into your house and the new family put a gun to your head and forbid you to use the bathroom, or the kitchen, then they took over the TV, and the couch, and told you to shut up and stay in your room. When your kid complains about being hungry the new family, calls the cops to guard them while they kill your kid. No. "If you support a system/process that puts a small number of people into positions of power and authority, then you do not understand "power" and "authority"." Poor people have actually, many times in the past had the power. The French revolution, the American revolution, and many many more down and up history . NONE of them had a functioning process of USING and KEEPING that power. EVERY attempt, until 4 branch, GAVE THAT POWER to a small number of people in trust and delusion. EVERY ONE. Our constitution, the form of government it specifies, the PROCESS, we use, makes wealth relevant within that process. Fix the process, so that wealth becomes irrelevant within that process. Then it will not matter what the rich do or say. They will have no more or less voice to invoke in the system as the poorest homeless. We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Victims keep electing people to positions of decision authority. It's a scam. You elected people to make decisions for you, and they quickly figure out how to make decisions that benefit themselves and their buddies, and you get screwed in the scam over and over again. The MAGA delusional loyalty to the convicted felon is a minor matter compared to human delusional loyalty to OLIGARCHY. (Oligarchy is not defined as rule by wealthy, it is defined as rule by minority) A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Victims keep electing people to positions of decision authority. It's a scam. You elected people to make decisions for you, and they quickly figure out how to make decisions that benefit themselves and their buddies, and you get screwed in the scam over and over again. The founders... Those people who enthusiastically promoted "trade for profit", as the solution base of all public decisions, including the holdings of people that inhabited this land, and yes, that was the entire predicate of slavery, to profit in trade by leveraging the misery and suffering of others to the benefit of the "few" of the superior white euro klans. Mothers: "Our children are being murdered in school!" Media and politicians: "You need to vote harder." It's a scam, the ENTIRE process specified in our constitution is a FRAUD! Wow, the delusion is so real.... THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPECIFY A DEMOCRACY. NOT A REPUBLIC. NOT A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. A republic, REQUIRES representation. EQUAL representation. FOR EACH CITIZEN, as individuals, AND EVERY CITIZEN, as a nation. If the process fails to represent the public, then the system cannot be a republic. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! Do you have the capacity to comprehend that misrepresentation of the public, is NOT a system of representation.... The MAGA delusional loyalty to the convicted felon is a minor matter compared to human delusional loyalty to OLIGARCHY. (Oligarchy is not defined as rule by wealthy, it is defined as rule by minority) A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Rule by minority, (oligarchy), is the preferred tool of fascism and atrocity. Rule by majority, (democracy), is the effective defense against fascism. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/4-branch-brief/ If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. Victims keep electing people to positions of decision authority. It's a scam. You elected people to make decisions for you, and they quickly figure out how to make decisions that benefit themselves and their buddies, and you get screwed in the scam over and over again. The founders... Those people who enthusiastically promoted "trade for profit", as the solution base of all public decisions, including the holdings of people that inhabited this land, and yes, that was the entire predicate of slavery, to profit in trade by leveraging the misery and suffering of others to the benefit of the "few" of the superior white euro klans. Mothers: "Our children are being murdered in school!" Media and politicians: "You need to vote harder." It's a scam, the ENTIRE process specified in our constitution is a FRAUD! https://www.facebook.com/reel/24832250896377142 US Military Veteran? Elected to some office of government? Your oath, and mine upon entering military service binds us to a responsibility to PERFORM, a defense of the constitution. THIS IS IMPORTANT, that oath binds that constitution, to PERFORM, the functions of a republic, not a fucking fascist nazi bullshit oligarchy. It FAILS that performance. This is what I battle all the time with people. Lies, excuses and bullshit. "Representation"!!! But it's NOT representation, not equal accurate and reliable representation, it is random, and at times, (suspiciously to the benefit of the "few"), biased against the majority. So there is the lie. It's not representative if we the people are being misrepresented. Then there is the excuse, "well, it does not work that way, it's impossible to represent each citizen equally, accurately and reliably by election... YEAH, that's what I said. Your excuse for misrepresentative process does NOT constitute a valid argument that representation is equivalent to misrepresentation. Then there is the BULLSHIT, that oh yeah, well, you can vote to elect someone else , LATER. And it is simply a big pile of stinky nonsense, because electing someone else LATER, does not fucking magically turn misrepresentation, NOW, into representation, NOW! It's all lies excuses and bullshit with these people, intellectually dishonest moronic programmed loyalty to a fucking system that was specified by rich white slave owning assholes predicating every damn legal decision of law and policy on the basis of how it would result in profits for some few by benefiting from the abuse and exploitation of people and resources. "I agree that democracy is majority rule, however the only alternative is minority rule… I am fairly certain that was what the colonists were objecting to when we shot the minority rulers in their face and sent the “minority rule” bastards back to England." Remember, as the next failure of US Government plays out in the near future, it was the MAGA crowd that was busy building bombs and searching for conflict and violence as a solution to that failure: WE were busy trying to build bridges, a process of making group decisions that INCLUDES all. You rejected equality and justice for all, the values our government was supposed to promote and enforce. I am not harmless, and I choose to be peaceful, as conditions allow. We are not harmless, and when threatened with violence, there is a response that does not include compassion for you. Your choice. Not mine. US Constitution seems well suited for organizing citizen supreme effort for war. Less well suited to organize comfortable effort for peace. Have you ever wondered why? I understand the difference between using trade for profit, and trade for provision... Trade for provision is a method for distributing benefit to the many. Trade for profit is a method for distributing benefit to some few. It's really that simple, both use "money" as a tool for accounting the distribution of benefit. One of those, results in poverty for all but the few, and the other results in adequate resources for many... I know which one I want as a government policy. Sharing and caring is the motive for provision trade, and personal greed and selfishness is the motive for profit trade. https://45ink.com/wp/economy/ US Military Veteran? Elected to some office of government? Your oath, and mine upon entering military service binds us to a responsibility to PERFORM, a defense of the constitution. THIS IS IMPORTANT, that oath binds that constitution, to PERFORM, the functions of a republic, not a f*cking fascist nazi bullshit oligarchy. It FAILS that performance. In the 1930's, Germany used a constitutional democratic government... At this point I am not going to agree with a "democratic" government. No matter who you voted for, you gave consent and agreement to electing a criminal. I oppose "rule by minority". I reject systems of government that rule by oligarchy, dressed in drag pretending to be democracy. The bright shiny stuff tossed about as advertising, with the smoke and mirrors circus casino enticements of winning games of team election, distracting with illusion the mechanisms of participation that are no more than spectation. Rule by minority. A successful illusion requires the audience to accept some delusion. Misunderstanding the process. A nation might elect a king, that is democratic. But, it ain't no democracy. It's just another nasty ass oligarchy that can strip you down and toss you in a gas chamber, because a minority agreed to enact a law to make that legal... Nah, tired of that crap. I will accept a democracy, but NOTHING else. One question What kind of government would you like? The question invites a voluntary response. If the response is negative, rather than descriptive it may be informative of disagreement with government. A descriptive response, may be informative of general agreement among a population on the results expected from government. Thank you for your response. Asimov was a strange bird. He questioned everything he was challenged with EXCEPT government. I have yet to find any essay that he wrote that significantly questioned the premises of our constitutional process. Sad. I think that if he had, we may have had a much better chance at resolving and managing, successfully, the problems we face as a community, nations and species. I would suggest that if the public is standing in the streets protesting government behavior, then it seems obvious that voting did not work. Calling and writing the people elected did not work. If we the people are required to use force against government, then government failed. The constitution provides elections as the tool and lever of public authority. Voting. Voting for elections failed. Elections fail to result in equal, accurate and reliable representation of public authority. I am not the one lining up machine guns to force protest into prison and graves. Your "democratic" constitutional government is doing that. Germany had a democratic constitutional government in the 1930s and it did not save them or their victims. I would like to remind people that when we agree to elect some person as a representative, the only people that are factually represented on any specific matter of law and policy decided by the person elected, are the people that agree with the decision made by the person elected. Regardless of the majority votes of election, the decision made by the person elected, may factually represent a minority of the public in the district of election, which means that a majority of the public may be misrepresented by whim of the person elected. Of course, the converse may be true as well, the elected person may make decision that factually represents the majority and only misrepresents the minority. However, the relevant concept to understand is that once the election is over, you and I, we the people no longer have any authority to determine or control the matter of representation of majority or minority. The election abdicated that public authority to one and only one person, the elected. That person may be benevolent by representing the majority or malevolent by representing the minority. In any case, even if every person elected were to faithfully represent the majority of every district, the result of that can still resolve to regular misrepresentation of the entire public due to the flaw of aggregate district accounting. It is the same mathematical flaw that results in election by minority of a president, but it occurs to every vote in Congress on matters of law and policy. So, much of the world is watching in horror as the USA turns into another fascist dictatorship... And here I am, saying that the quantum unit of existence of this universe is ephemeral... yep... We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. In any case, it's about decision process. A democratic process, does not satisfy the requirement for rule by majority. Some nation might "elect" someone as a King every 4 years, according to the rules of a constitution, and the election is certainly democratic, but the RESULT is a damn MONARCHY, not a democracy. Does NO ONE ELSE understand the absurdity of electing a minority of people to decision authority, and claiming that is a rule by majority system? This is Orwellian delusion. "Hey, look at this system of rule by minority, an oligarchy, and the state requires you to agree that the majority rules." How many fingers do you see Winston? The state requires your agreement. “In the 4 Branch system, citizens rely on direct representation to act on their behalf — ensuring laws and policies reflect their true intentions. Direct voting is always an option, but most decisions are managed through accountable direct representatives, giving citizens both freedom and oversight without requiring constant attention to every proposal.” Remember, as the next failure of US Government plays out in the near future, it was the MAGA crowd that was busy building bombs and searching for conflict and violence as a solution to that failure: WE were busy trying to build bridges, a process of making group decisions that INCLUDES all. You rejected equality and justice for all, the values our government was supposed to promote and enforce. I am not harmless, and I choose to be peaceful, as conditions allow. We are not harmless, and when threatened with violence, there is a response that does not include compassion for you. Your choice. Not mine. Pay attention... The US Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that the protection of the rights specified in the amendments to the US Constitution are NOT absolute. Those protections are subject to GOVERNMENT approval and interpretation. That ruling occurred many years ago people, this is not a current SCOTUS or POTUS or even Congressional limitation to the authority to decide that YOUR rights are negotiable, and the current administration has already demonstrated eagerness to use negotiation tactics of "COMPLY OR DIE". Law enforcement and military units deployed recently have demonstrated virtually no ability to discern a legal representative form of government, and seem determined to enforce the law, REGARDLESS of the consequences to the public, and regardless of public agreement that the laws being enforced are approved by any kind of public majority. It is clear to me, that as long as the elected minority, have enacted any law, that law will be enforced, regardless of and in defiance of the ultimate authority of the public. ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC is the predicating basis of ANY IMAGINABLE DEFINITION OF REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRACY. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ Eco something might be economic, might be ecology, could be else. Humans leverage knowledge and understanding as technology for the purpose of obtaining value. Knowledge is factual, we know that water flows downhill. We know that water has no hill in orbit. Isn't that interesting. Understanding rocket tech provided humanity with that knowledge of water behavior. Obtaining value, provision of knowledge. From a digging stick to a plow. From a bucket to pipes distributing water. Down hill. Understanding downhill is not the same as the knowledge that water flows that way. Understanding is a confident prediction, for instance about 200 years ago, any suggestion that water might float in a bubble shape to a person would likely be severely denounced. It was understood to flow downhill. If that person was not trained to reason within science, but rather to have been trained to faith, they might confuse predictive absolute with predictive confidence. Science yearns for understanding and accepts that knowledge is not predictive but conclusive. Which is how humans use science correctly. Experiment produces knowledge. Knowledge provides confidence of prediction. Knowledge does not provide absolute prediction. Value is a squishy term. If I have two loaves of bread and you have one, we can compare value of wealth by currency of bread. We might compare value by currency of age. Goats, chickens, children, land under cultivation, shekels, yen, dollars. The ability to trade requires some currency of comparison. Perhaps ten chickens would trade for one goat. Perhaps not. The value of each currency is squishy between the traders. The result is a process of negotiating value between humans. The negotiation of value for trade is what we call business. Generally for profit. Notice that a gift does not require a currency for comparison. Isn't that interesting. We might gain knowledge that offering a gift might incite some comparison in the other person. Understanding gifting, requires accepting the squishy value of comparison in some cases. Kindness seems to be non transactional, similar to the gifting. Consequence however is very transactional. Hot stove. Artificial consequence is often used for training. Positive and negative consequence are often applied in various social structures. Artificially. A parking ticket is never a concern to other species. A human leverage to impose an artificial consequence. Leverage can be social as well as physical. A pry bar is similar to a jury. Kindness, the human impulse to care for each other reduces the need for juries. There was a recent human understanding leveraged by technology that most people seem to discount as a primal tool of human society. Process. Of course the technology is electronic computers. Programming process. Understanding process is required to program computers. Loops and decisions. When we program a computer it is generally to provide some value to a user. This is interesting because to succeed at that provision the programmer must have a confident understanding of that "value" expected by the user. Then have some understanding of how to interact with the user to provide that value. A user that is anonymous to the programmer. A process, of instruction to the computer to effectively interact with anonymous users and succeed at providing the expected value. Process. Decision process specified in such a concise and intricate manner that the user gains the value expected. Humans have a conceptual tool of understanding process. Decision process that can be programmed not into computers, but into society. Cultures, government and community. Government. The leverage of law and policy. The tool of leverage humans use to organize society. That tool is designed by humans, and the designers write the process of leverage into a constitution. A constitution is a decision process. A government is the user of that process. 4 Branch Decision Process – Branch Roles and Interactions 1. Citizen Branch Role: The ultimate decision-makers. Citizens use their direct representatives, or vote directly on laws and policy issues. Interaction: All proposals from Congress, cost analyses from the executive, and reviews from the judicial branch ultimately pass through citizen approval. Citizens control the outcome. 2. Congress (Advisory Branch) Role: Problem-analysis and bill drafting. Congress cannot enact laws; it drafts proposals only as tasked. Interaction: Receives assignments from the executive, judicial, or citizen branches. Produces bills for citizens to approve or modify through their chosen representatives. Acts as a translator of problems into actionable proposals. 3. Judicial Branch Role: Guardian of process and rights. Ensures proposals comply with existing laws and rights protections. Interaction: Reviews bills from Congress before they reach citizens. Rejects bills that contradict existing laws (protecting the system) or violate citizens’ rights (protecting the public). Maintains legal integrity without ruling on individual cases. 4. Executive Branch Role: Forward-looking coordinator. Anticipates societal problems and tasks Congress to propose plausible solutions, including accurate cost assessments. Interaction: Guides Congress on which issues need attention and provides citizens with honest, actionable options. Ensures proposals are complete, practical, and transparent, but does not enact laws directly. How the Process Works The executive identifies a problem and tasks Congress to draft potential solutions. Congress drafts bills in response, considering guidance from the executive, judicial, or citizen branches. The judicial branch reviews drafts, rejecting any that violate existing laws or rights protections. The executive branch then reviews draft bills for plausibility and cost accounting. Citizens receive vetted proposals and decide to enact or reject bills, through their direct representatives, or vote directly. Laws are enacted only when citizens approve them, ensuring legitimacy and public control. Key Principles Highlighted: Citizen authority: Every law is ultimately approved by citizens, not politicians. Separation of functions: Each branch has a unique, non-overlapping role. Transparency and integrity: Process ensures bills are vetted, practical, and rights-protecting. Direct effect: Citizens see the impact of their choices through controlled, accountable representatives. I note that a common argument against health care, is promoted by asking, "how will we pay for it?" Yet, the question of paying for "it" is presuming there is some plan for "it". The response might be framed by asking "what is the plan for maximizing public benefit from current practices of health care?" GOVERNMENT decides how resources are distributed. Understanding government informs the subject of economy. Election as Social Recognition At its core, any election — ancient or modern — is simply a transfer of legitimacy from the collective to an individual. When early humans said, “we’ll follow this person into the hunt, into battle, or into planting season,” they elected them by assent, gesture, or imitation. They didn’t need ballots — social cooperation was the vote. In this sense, kingship begins as acclamation, not decree. The “majority” may not have been measured, but it was felt — the majority obeyed. That obedience was consent. Origins of Leadership and the Proto-Election of Kingship The emergence of kingship was not the rejection of democratic choice but its earliest expression. Before crowns and dynasties, leadership arose through collective assent — the community’s shared recognition that one among them should guide, protect, or decide. This social acknowledgment, though informal, constituted a primitive election: legitimacy born from consensus rather than ballot. Over time, this living act of approval hardened into hereditary office and ritualized divine sanction, preserving in form what was once a dynamic agreement. Thus, even monarchy originates in the same human instinct that underlies all public authority — the instinct to elect by consent. How do you think human societies ended up with kings in the first place? A majority of the population agreed, "That's our king"... An ELECTION. Rule by minority, (oligarchy), is the preferred tool of fascism and atrocity. Rule by majority, (democracy), is the effective defense against fascism. Elections do not result in rule by majority. Elections result in rule by minority. A democratic process, does not satisfy the requirement for rule by majority. Some nation might "elect" someone as a King every 4 years, according to the rules of a constitution, and the election is certainly democratic, but the RESULT is a damn MONARCHY, not a democracy. Does NO ONE ELSE understand the absurdity of electing a minority of people to decision authority, and claiming that is a rule by majority system? This is Orwellian delusion. "Hey, look at this system of rule by minority, an oligarchy, and the state requires you to agree that the majority rules." How many fingers do you see Winston? The state requires your agreement. ****** “In the 4 Branch system, citizens rely on direct representation to act on their behalf — ensuring laws and policies reflect their true intentions. Direct voting is always an option, but most decisions are managed through accountable direct representatives, giving citizens both freedom and oversight without requiring constant attention to every proposal.” Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/4-branch-brief/ Choosing a representative under direct representation is fundamentally different from traditional elections, and how it creates direct impact rather than abstract or delayed influence. “Electing a politician is a hope; choosing a representative under direct representation is a choice you control — with immediate effect on every law you care about.” “Traditional elections hand power to someone for years. Direct representation lets you assign your vote on a law-by-law basis, with the ability to take it back anytime.” “In a regular election, your influence is diluted by distance and time. With direct representation, your representative acts as your voice, not theirs.” “Electing someone doesn’t guarantee your priorities are heard. Choosing a representative under this system lets you define exactly where and how they act for you.” Hey, in case you missed it, I am never going to support a system that elected nazi criminals.. For those who support that system, there is a story about a bunch of good people that sat down to dinner with a nazi... When you tell me we have to keep using what we have, I hear you sayin that I should join the nazis at the table... Nah. Not gonna do that. When I suggest that we could choose a representative, instead of electing them, do you immediately imagine a screaming mob of 50, 60 thousand idiots shouting at each other in a bedlam congress? Do you then ask, "Do you know how many representatives that would require?" Sure you do. That's what you imagined so it must be true. Well the truthful honest answer from me, to you on that question, is no, I have no idea how many people would be chosen. What I do know is that it does not matter how many representatives the public chooses, because what you are imagining has nothing to do with what I am describing. NONE of those people chosen by the public to be representative, are in congress. Now, are you confused yet? Of course you are, because you imagined some nonsense instead of wondering how those people would not be in a congress. Your faith based thinking, imaginative prediction based on experience with current systems provides you no basis of understanding an entirely different process. shrugz Your problem, not mine. What is my line in the blood? The US Constitution has been very successful at allowing and encouraging exploitation, abuse and atrocity long before the convicted felon was elected the second time. The US Constitution will be quite successful at the allowance and encouragement of exploitation, abuse and atrocity after the convicted felon is no longer the president. The reason it will continue to succeed at atrocity, abuse and exploitation, is because of the US PUBLIC CONTINUED SUPPORT AND INSISTENCE OF VALIDITY of that process of rule by minority. We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. In any case, it's about decision process. Rule by minority, (oligarchy), is the preferred tool of fascism and atrocity. Rule by majority, (democracy), is the effective defense against fascism. Elections do not result in rule by majority. Elections result in rule by minority. A democratic process, does not satisfy the requirement for rule by majority. Hey, in case you missed it, I am never going to support a system that elected nazi criminals.. For those who support that system, there is a story about a bunch of good people that sat down to dinner with a nazi... When you tell me we have to keep using what we have, I hear you sayin that I should join the nazis at the table... Nah. Not gonna do that. I suggest we stop being obtuse on decision process used to organize social structure, (community, economics), with life and death consequence to humanity as a species and individuals. This is a serious legal matter of decisions of law and policy, not a circus show for public entertainment and delusion. I want the government specified to perform the function expected by a public that is committed to equal rights and responsibilities of liberty and justice for that majority of humanity that expect community to be kind as possible to each other. I expect that government to administer the ultimate power of decision authority of the public. We the people. I expect that government to implement representation of the public that is equal, accurate, and reliable. "We, the people, united in our commitment to liberty and justice, establish this government as the administrator of our collective authority. This government shall exist to uphold the equal rights and responsibilities of all citizens, to ensure that representation is accurate, reliable, and equal, and to foster a community guided by kindness, fairness, and reason. The ultimate power of decision shall rest with the people themselves, whose consent and participation form the sole and legitimate source of authority." You lost because the entire system is a mess of lies excuses and bullshit, built by ignorant greedy racist assholes. **** ***** The original intention of a Republic was to administer public authority for the common good through equal participation and representation of all citizens. Election was later adopted as a means to achieve that end, but its failure does not alter the semantic or moral intent of the word “republic.” A true Republic remains the government of the people’s public authority — its essence is representation, not election. A "GOOD PUBLIC".... Historical resonance The Latin res publica literally meant “the public thing” or “the good of the people.” Translating it back into modern English as Good Public revives its root meaning while discarding centuries of corrupted associations with parties and elections. It reclaims the original ethical core of republicanism: governance as a moral public trust. In essence, Good Public could be considered the restored meaning of republic — purified of electoral distortion. The GOOD PUBLIC. https://45ink.com/wp/4-branch-brief/ Direct representation works much like voting for your preferred candidate, except that you actually get the representative you voted for. You can change your Rep at any time — your choice is always active. You may select a Rep not only for agreement but for convenience. Some citizens may prefer a certified Rep who offers secure communication, notices, or delayed ballots. Others may hand their ballot to a trusted friend or family member. The citizen decides the level of service, the method of contact, and how much control to automate or delay. Your Rep keeps you informed of upcoming votes — elections, laws, and policy measures — and publishes how they intend to vote. If you agree, your ballot is marked accordingly. If you don’t, you can reclaim your ballot and vote directly, choose another Rep, or simply abstain. In elections, non-voting is neutral: the majority is counted from ballots cast. But in matters of law and policy, non-voting counts as non-consent. To enact, amend, or repeal law requires an affirmative majority of the entire citizen population. Direct representation lets every citizen remain represented, yet never ruled. Authority stays with the people — continuously, personally, and by choice. I suggest that if it mattered so much "who" was elected, then that "rule of law" was never functioning in the first place... I DO NOT CARE IF YOU DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM!!!!! The vast majority of the US population understood that he was a criminal con-man, and they understood the risk of electing him to the presidency the first time. They dismissed the risk, believing that the constitutional process would constrain him, and protect them if he was elected. Didn't happen. The vast majority of the US population understood that he was a nazi, fascist, criminal threat to the concept of democracy, rule by the public, the second time, and the risk of electing him to the presidency, and again, trusted that the US Constitution would deny him that election, and constrain him to private criminal behavior. DID NOT HAPPEN. Justify your TRUST in that system. Remember, rule of law, not men? If that rule of law worked, who is elected would not matter... Hey, in case you missed it, I am never going to support a system that elected nazi criminals.. For those who support that system, there is a story about a bunch of good people that sat down to dinner with a nazi... When you tell me we have to keep using what we have, I hear you sayin that I should join the nazis at the table... Nah. Not gonna do that. What is my line in the blood? The US Constitution has been very successful at allowing and encouraging exploitation, abuse and atrocity long before the convicted felon was elected the second time. The US Constitution will be quite successful at the allowance and encouragement of exploitation, abuse and atrocity after the convicted felon is no longer the president. The reason it will continue to succeed at atrocity, abuse and exploitation, is because of the US PUBLIC CONTINUED SUPPORT AND INSISTENCE OF VALIDITY of that process of rule by minority. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ I am trying to understand public delusion about "election". What is it about election that confuses people? A NAZI WAS ELECTED!! TWICE!! Some nation might "elect" someone as a King every 4 years, according to the rules of a constitution, and the election is certainly democratic, but the RESULT is a damn MONARCHY, not a democracy. Does NO ONE ELSE understand the absurdity of electing a minority of people to decision authority, and claiming that is a rule by majority system? This is Orwellian delusion. "Hey, look at this system of rule by minority, an oligarchy, and the state requires you to agree that the majority rules." How many fingers do you see Winston? The state requires your agreement. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-reason/ HOW did those people with money manage to get influence in our decision process? That is the real question. The answer is that our form of government not only allows that corruption, it invites it in and serves it dinner and buys it a few prostitutes. Our constitution does that. Not, "we the people". Consider this carefully. Ask your favorite search engine, or dictionary... Which word is defined as 'rule by few'? Which word is defined as 'rule by minority'? The answer was not plutocracy, was it? What is plutocracy? Glad you asked. LOOK IT UP. Then get back to me. It is true that Aristotle concluded that oligarchy, (rule by few), would result in wealthy rulers, however that consequence results from, rule by few. Wealth is a common result of decision authority, not a cause of decision authority. Oligarchy, (rule by minority), easily becomes plutocracy. Rule by wealthy. However, a democracy, rule by majority can also become a plutocracy. ****** As it is true that wealth is often a result of decision authority. ****** Therefore a difference between a plutocratic oligarchy and a plutocratic democracy is whether a minority or majority gain wealth by use of decision authority. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum... Ask this: What is the difference between a benevolent oligarch and a malevolent oligarch? Democracy should be SPECIFIED, by people who understand how to create rational decision process. Experts at designing, testing evaluating process for validity and error checking… Democracy should then, after being correctly specified, be ADMINISTERED by the public. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ Remember this. If someone tells you that something cannot be done, what they are admitting is that THEY don't know how to do it. Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. In any case, it's about decisions. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a ruler, not a representative. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a representative, is simply absurd. If you are voting to elect someone to a position of power and authority, THAT is what you are choosing, some person, in a position of power and authority. Nothing else. The founders were infested with "capitalism". They created a "system" of government that is an oligarchy. Rule by minority. It is not a democracy, it is not a republic, it is OLIGARCHY, which was created to support plutocracy. shrugz Capitalism is the virus, oligarchy is the disease. Your US government, is administered by use of a document, the Constitution, that specifies the decision process which will be used to enact and enforce law and policy within our society. That decision process, was created by rich white capitalists, escaping the British rule of monarchy, that was limiting their ability to profit from the exploitation and abuse of people and resources of the American continent. NOTE, they were attempting to PROFIT from EXPLOITATION and ABUSE of people and resources. THEY wrote the decision process. Those people that had the expressed and relevant desire to continue profiting from exploitation and abuse. THAT is exactly what they wanted to PROTECT, support and defend. It's EXACTLY what they wrote, and it's exactly what we have today. A RULER invokes THEIR decision, not YOURS!!! A representative invokes YOUR decision, not theirs. A republic, REQUIRES representation. EQUAL representation. FOR EACH CITIZEN, as individuals, AND EVERY CITIZEN, as a nation. If the process fails to represent the public, then the system cannot be a republic. If the process of using representatives, does not give exactly, the same result that voting DIRECTLY does, then it WAS NOT REPRESENTATION!!! Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. Capitalism is the motive, oligarchy is the method. No matter how many we eat, if oligarchy is allowed to prevail, there will always be those who take up the reins of power for personal benefit... I have no interest in revolution, rebellion or insurrection. No. What I WANT is an honest factual evaluation of current systems of decision process and a reasoned discussion, and plan to improve such systems. That includes, alternative systems, along with testing, debugging, experimentation and re-evaluations. Using the same science methods that EVERY serious and rational exploration of systemic development uses, whether that is an office work-flow, factory floor design, or social media platform launch. STOP using "government" the dumbest way possible. It’s amazing to me that people consider the constitution something that cannot be questioned. Presuming loyalty to that process assuming, the founding fathers were geniuses and they created the best unquestionable system…. It's absurd. Yet the founding fathers themselves questioned and identified the problems just a couple of years after they created it. HISTORY documents that discussion. Those problems resulted in atrocity to brown people all over the world. A global atrocity that continues to this day. It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ THEN we get fucking violent as hell, and tear this fucking mess down and replace it with a REAL public government. I think the Large Language Model, (AI, ChatBot) tech bubble is defined in terms such as, the tech will not be cost effective until it can replace billions of people. Kinda like the terminator with ledgers of accounting instead of guns bombs n stuff. The Ledger Terminator Hypothesis The current large language model (LLM) boom resembles a speculative gold rush, but the ore it promises to mine is human cognition itself. Beneath the surface enthusiasm for “AI breakthroughs” lies an economic logic: the technology will not become cost-effective until it can replace, or render unnecessary, the work of billions of people. In this view, today’s vast expenditures on compute, data, and research are not aimed at solving immediate problems efficiently. They are investments in a future where the entire human knowledge economy—writing, analysis, planning, creation—is automated at scale. Until that point, the systems are operating at a loss, feeding on faith and capital. Thus, the LLM is not a friendly assistant so much as a “Terminator with ledgers.” Its weapons are not bombs and guns, but lines of code and lines of credit. Instead of hunting bodies, it hunts inefficiency—those countless micro-tasks that keep people paid, connected, and relevant. The machine does not conquer by force; it replaces by optimization. If the AI succeeds, it fulfills its promise and collapses its own market. If it fails, the investors who believed in its total replacement power are left holding digital smoke. Either way, the battlefield is economic, the casualties are livelihoods, and the victory condition is measured in efficiency metrics. It is, in the end, an arms race of algorithms—an invisible war for control over thought, language, and value. The apocalypse, if it comes, will not arrive with fire and steel, but with a spreadsheet balancing to zero. https://45ink.com/wp/economy/ https://45ink.com/wp/economy/ Marx concludes that the people must own the means of production. I question the application of that conclusion to EVERY aspect of political and economic process. I can see why a social market may wish to own the means to produce enough bread to feed everyone participating in that market. That much I agree with. However is it necessary for the social market to own EVERY means of producing bread? Furthermore, is it necessary for the social market to own the means to produce luxury yachts? I think you have a solid grasp of what comprises a capital market. Essentially, a market that engages in trade, for the purpose of gaining profit from trade. It would make sense, then to consider a social market, as one that engages in trade, for the purpose of caring for people. Therefor, just as there are "rules" of capital economic theory, I am hoping to explore "rules" of social economic theory. I signed up for military service in '73, comfortable with a role in defending "We the People" from all threats foreign and domestic. I was not interested nor did I understand that I was actually signing up to defend, "the Few Elected" from "We the People".... The Few Elected. That's the US Constitution. That is the domestic threat to "We the People". If you are not at the table, you are on the menu. If the person elected to represent you is making decisions you don't agree with, you ain't at that table. If "we the people" are not at that table, then this ain't no republic. It's rule by minority... IT IS THAT F*CKING SIMPLE!!!! The US Constitution provides the presidency with a limited scope of decision authority. However the Constitution, then provides that office with virtually EVERY LEVER OF POWER. (do not confuse authority with power, my good people...) I suggest you stop thinking of them as "leaders", and start thinking about them as they really are, RULERS. Elections place them into positions of decision authority. That makes them RULERS. Elections do not distribute decision authority to the many, elections concentrate decision authority into a few. A minority of rulers, elected or not, is the definition of rule by minority, an oligarchy. It is the election of rulers that results in the systems that allow and encourage the wealthy to influence and control that system to their benefit. It does not always happen of course, but it CANNOT happen in a rule by majority system. A democracy, which is why it is so important to understand the difference between the two systemic paradigms. Oligarchy, rule by minority, elected or not is the vector of attack for corruption. Democracy is the effective defense against corruption. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ A vast majority of people are social creatures. We enjoy friends and neighbors and family. A good public. Sadly, even good people make mistakes. Even people who understand how to leverage knowledge into technology make mistakes. A majority of good people is no guarantee against error. A minority may possess deeper understanding within a narrow scope, and within that scope they may make fewer mistakes. But every scope of understanding is confined by its own boundaries. A narrow understanding cannot reliably guide broad public decisions. I prefer the good of the public to the limits of a minority. Yes, mistakes will happen. But I trust a good public to recognize and repair mistakes — unlike any minority that feels threatened by failure and resorts to denial, concealment, lies, or corruption. We have ample evidence that minority decision authority tends toward criminality. Leveraging knowledge into technology is risky. It requires testing, evaluation, design, and process. Process — equal, accurate, and reliable representation of the good public. Rex Publica. We the People. Still too many people on my fiend list that have the unsupportable opinion that i give a damn about saving the USA, from the folly and idiocy of our decision process. I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE USA!!!! Why would you participate in such a fraudulent and flawed process? I figured out what the problem is a few years ago, before Obama was elected. I knew something was seriously wrong when Nixon was still in office. It's not hard to figure out if you demand honesty from your own thinking about the system. It's about representation. What the word, means, and what the process does wrong to administer your representation. IF, you think I am fighting bad government to save your sorry lazy silly ass from your bad government, THEN, You are still deluded and confused.. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ I am NOT your damn savior. I am not trying to save you. You are welcome to drown and starve and thrash around in misery all you want. I do not care about that. Social structure as environment Humanity has an environment. Much of which is imposed on us by social structure. Much of that structure is imposed as culture. Most of humanity as much as any creature simply intends to get on with living rather than engage in conflict with others. We really do prefer to get along most of the time. Disagreement happens as well, and we all have opinions. Anger does happen. Part of our social environment is process of managing disagreement. Decision process. The decision process of an individual is similar in ways to a group decision process. An individual decides to increase speed, or apply brakes. The group attempts the same result. Yes or no , turn which direction? Get in the car or get out? Plane train or automobile, perhaps a stroll? Part of social environment is economic. Someone opined that if I am starving, you are in danger. That's rather brutal, however, we have history of such brutality. We have history of the well fed, committing atrocity on the unfed. We have history of well fed, sharing wealth as well, and if I recall, someone said, if you need help, ask the poor. What that history also demonstrates is that the vast majority want to share within their community. Get along. Allow those who desire adventure and conquest, and those who prefer to sit and watch the wonder of existence happen in peace. We make mistakes. Yes, we do. This is the bane of utopian dreams. I am familiar with process mistakes, writing program code, compiling code, frustrated at the blank screen as the *mistake* hides within my code. Going back in, adding error handlers, compiling and tearing my beard out as a local variable in my error trap is local to a variable in my code.... I tell ya, it's ugly. Mistakes happen. What I do then is interesting. Like a vast majority of people, I try to fix it. I don't deny it, I don't try to cover it up, I don't try to blame anyone else. I try to be responsible as an adult. Unfortunately groups sometime have trouble with denial, cover and blame. Perhaps that is a cultural aspect of environment? In any case, the hot stove is a valid and effective tool of self education. People that experience the consequences of mistake, are more likely to behave in a manner that fixes the mistake to avoid the consequence. Being responsible. People who make mistakes without experience of the consequences are more likely to deny, cover and blame. This is why oligarchy becomes so ugly sometimes. That small group of rulers feels no consequence. Atrocity. It's not like I am just making this up. We have history. Part of that history is somewhat unique and my own shining hope for the future of humanity. The European colonies fought a bloody revolt against a monarch and oligarchs to foster a new social environment. They attempted a constitutional decision process being used by indigenous tribes living together, that the colonies described as a Confederacy. For various reasons, many related to repayment of war debts to allies, that government abdicated to a new constitutional decision process rather peacefully. Personally I find that fascinating. And apparently rare, if not unique. And glimmering with hope. IF, the public was educated enough to vote for the best rulers, they would not need rulers. If the public did not have rulers, they would learn how to be their own rulers. It's called the hot stove method of education, and if you keep building governments that separate the public from the consequence of self government they will NEVER be educated enough to vote for the best rules. OK, some of you insist on electing people, fine. A new party line and platform. FIX THE FrCKING DECISION PROCESS!! The Good Public Party. With one and only one platform agenda. FIX THE DAMN GOVERNMENT. Vote for THAT, get your candidates prepped for 2026, and get the HOUSE under that party control, then get the SENATE under control for 2028... Then AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ Must be tragic to be a constitution defender, pretending that it somehow protects you from criminal rulers, while you get more criminal behaviors from government... It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. In any case, it's about decision process. Rule by minority, (oligarchy), is the preferred tool of fascism and atrocity. Rule by majority, (democracy), is the effective defense against fascism. Elections do not result in rule by majority. Elections result in rule by minority. A democratic process, does not satisfy the requirement for rule by majority. Hey, in case you missed it, I am never going to support a system that elected nazi criminals.. For those who support that system, there is a story about a bunch of good people that sat down to dinner with a nazi... When you tell me we have to keep using what we have, I hear you sayin that I should join the nazis at the table... Nah. Not gonna do that. I suggest we stop being obtuse on decision process used to organize social structure, (community, economics), with life and death consequence to humanity as a species and individuals. This is a serious legal matter of decisions of law and policy, not a circus show for public entertainment and delusion. I want the government specified to perform the function expected by a public that is committed to equal rights and responsibilities of liberty and justice for that majority of humanity that expect community to be kind as possible to each other. I expect that government to administer the ultimate power of decision authority of the public. We the people. I expect that government to implement representation of the public that is equal, accurate, and reliable. **** ***** The original intention of a Republic was to administer public authority for the common good through equal participation and representation of all citizens. Election was later adopted as a means to achieve that end, but its failure does not alter the semantic or moral intent of the word “republic.” A true Republic remains the government of the people’s public authority — its essence is representation, not election. A "GOOD PUBLIC".... Historical resonance The Latin res publica literally meant “the public thing” or “the good of the people.” Translating it back into modern English as Good Public revives its root meaning while discarding centuries of corrupted associations with parties and elections. It reclaims the original ethical core of republicanism: governance as a moral public trust. In essence, Good Public could be considered the restored meaning of republic — purified of electoral distortion. The GOOD PUBLIC. https://45ink.com/wp/4-branch-brief/ FUCK this entire model of government and the rag of shit paper used to specify that model. Your entire government was originally owned by slavers.... Why are you confused now??? One of my numerous concerns about our future, is the increasing confidence this administration is displaying with presenting criminal behavior as government policy, while experiencing no significant consequences. This escalation of criminal intent and behavior follows a precedent of criminal behavior... Media... Look at this ice agent murdering a woman, now that you are all angry, buy this television, or insurance, or toothpaste or donate money to save animals... How can we profit from this tragedy? CNN has aired commentary opinion describing a "legal" position that the murder was "legal" because the agent who fired the shots may have been in fear of the consequences of placing himself in the position of imminent danger of life and limb... That's the line, people. He drew his weapon, BEFORE the vehicle began moving towards him. He had already decided to shoot her, before he had ANY justified fear for his life and limb. The shooter must be arrested, and incarcerated and prosecuted. Until I see an executive order to immediately arrest and deport every other ICE agent, officer and official in Minnesota except the shooter, I remain absolutely skeptical of any positive outcome.... Radical leftist terrorists would surround and engage ICE patrols with explosive and firearm resistance. Angry citizens, that disagree with criminal behavior of government, that STILL agree and support the FORM of government are not terrorists. They are the good people being terrorized by the criminal behavior of government. The really fucking sad part of this entire mess, is this terror of government imposed on citizens is the EXACT tyranny, the government is advertised to PREVENT, and it does NOT. Understand that a government is a human tool of decision process used for organizing a social environment, and that a constitution is a document that specifies that decision process, and that every government you have ever experienced as a state, is just another rule by minority oligarchy, not a republic, not a democracy, just a small bunch of assholes elected or appointed to authority over the public. But I doubt you gave it that much thought. HULK SMASH... That's as far as you got, and every time you begin to think about government you immediately STOP thinking about it as soon as you imagine the dumbest fucking way possible to make decisions for a functioning society... He said, and it was a threat, that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue, and they would still vote for him. Neither you, nor Renee Good, had any idea that Minneapolis was entirely too close to 5th avenue for safety from this monster. Let me be clear, the people of this nation insisted on using the constitution as a specification of this government, and the people of this nation elected that monster, again, regardless of whether they voted for him, or not. The people of this nation agreed to the result of that election, that system. Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. Understand that a government is a human tool of decision process used for organizing a social environment, and that a constitution is a document that specifies that decision process, and that every government you have ever experienced as a state, is just another rule by minority oligarchy, not a republic, not a democracy, just a small bunch of assholes elected or appointed to authority over the public. If you agreed to authorize someone to make decisions for you and to abide by those decisions, you agreed to have a master, not a servant. To suggest that electing someone to that position, somehow magically transforms that person into a servant, is simply absurd. You expect election to result in representation, and it fails. Representation works, elections don't. STOP using election expecting representation. Victims keep electing people to positions of decision authority. It's a scam. You elected people to make decisions for you, and they quickly figure out how to make decisions that benefit themselves and their buddies, and you get screwed in the scam over and over again. Ya know, I see people saying that the US Government is not behaving normally. I suggest that it is in fact normal behavior, the difference is that now that behavior is being applied to you and the people you care about, instead of all the people you have been allowed to not care about... By the US Government, such as the people who were here before the US existed, and brown people from Africa, and South America, and queers, and socialists, and people that live under other governments around the world. Many of whom were denigrated by the US because they refused to be victims of capitalist abuse and exploitation... AS YOU ARE NOW FACING.... I get so sick of hearing people saying that the system sucks, then I tell them the reason the system sucks is because elections do not result in equal accurate and reliable representation, and then they tell me I should elect a better representative... WTF??? Look, it's not that complicated. Reagan was elected, and that election failed to represent the entire public citizen population, equally, accurately and reliably. Clinton was elected and that election failed to represent the entire citizen population as well. Don't try to make excuses for the fact that election failed to represent us. Don't lie about it, don't make excuses, and don't try to bullshit me or yourself. Elections fail to provide, equal, accurate and reliable representation for all. That is just reality. elections don't f*cking work. Direct representation works much like voting for your preferred candidate, except that you actually get the representative you voted for. You can change your Rep at any time — your choice is always active. You may select a Rep not only for agreement but for convenience. Some citizens may prefer a certified Rep who offers secure communication, notices, or delayed ballots. Others may hand their ballot to a trusted friend or family member. The citizen decides the level of service, the method of contact, and how much control to automate or delay. Your Rep keeps you informed of upcoming votes — elections, laws, and policy measures — and publishes how they intend to vote. Your Rep, also works to inform the system of your decisions concerning law and policy, by recording and reporting your views on matters of initiative and referendum and amendment and repeal of existing law and policy. If you agree, your ballot is marked accordingly. If you don’t, you can reclaim your ballot and vote directly, choose another Rep, or simply abstain. In the 4 branch process, in a good public system of government, an important part of the process is "direct representation", and a feature of benefit to the citizen is the ability to control how your representative manages your ballot by use of automatic delayed consent and automatic delayed dissent. You can use either in various ways. Once your representative publishes their ballot, your delay allows you time to decide if you agree with their ballot choice or not. Your rep may offer various duration of delay, for instance, 10 days, or two weeks or three weeks... You decide which delay is appropriate for you. Then the delay duration ends and if you chose auto dissent, then you automatically disagree with your rep, and you get your ballot to make your own decision. If you chose auto-consent, then after the delay, you automatically agree with your rep, and your ballot is placed in that bucket with theirs, and you are done. Notice that delayed auto-consent is very similar to the result of electing a representative that you voted for in that election... They make the decision and you allow them to vote for you, using your ballot in agreement. Questions? Our governments are failing to resolve and/or manage the problems we face as communities, nations and species. The problems you face in your nation are essentially the same problems many nations face. Local and national offices, are run by a decision process that fails to represent the public. it's happening all over the earth. You see it there, and others see it where they live, but we all see it locally. It's important to recognize, however, that the root problem is everywhere. False representation of the public IS THE ROOT problem, that creates the failures of our governments to manage or solve all of our other problems. Must be tragic to be a constitution defender, pretending that it somehow protects you from criminal rulers, while you get more criminal behaviors from government... It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ After 2 and a half centuries of criminal behavior by the US Government covered with lies, excuses and bullshit, right up to the events of today... I am deeply saddened that so many people continue to support and defend this evil. I am enraged at this system. I am sad for the people deluded by the advertising of this system. Pay attention... The US Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that the protection of the rights specified in the amendments to the US Constitution are NOT absolute. Those protections are subject to GOVERNMENT approval and interpretation. That ruling occurred many years ago people, this is not a current SCOTUS or POTUS or Congressional limitation to the authority to decide that YOUR rights are negotiable, and the current administration has already demonstrated eagerness to use negotiation tactics of "COMPLY OR DIE". Law enforcement and military units deployed recently have demonstrated virtually no ability to discern a legal order or a representative form of government, and seem determined to enforce the law, REGARDLESS of the consequences to the public, and regardless of public agreement that the laws being enforced are approved by any kind of public majority. It is clear to me, that as long as the elected minority, have enacted any law, that law will be enforced, regardless of and in defiance of the ultimate authority of the public. ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC is the predicating basis of ANY IMAGINABLE DEFINITION OF REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRACY. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-authority/ I want to know why you people think authorizing the government to decide when to create an “exception” to constitutional prohibition of the government creating an exception , makes any fucking sense. After 2 and a half centuries of criminal behavior by the US Government covered with lies, excuses and bullshit, right up to the events of today... I am deeply saddened that so many people continue to support and defend this evil. I am enraged at this system. I am sad for the people deluded by the advertising of this system. Must be tragic to be a constitution defender, pretending that it somehow protects you from criminal rulers, while you get more criminal behaviors from government... It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. https://45ink.com/wp/predicating-reason/ Yep, stop resisting, comply or die. Stay in line, vote to elect. The line to detention camps. Keep voting to elect. (Your ballot determines which line you stand in) Do not resist, stay in line... EVERYONE MUST VOTE TO ELECT!!! The term "banana republic" comes to mind for many. Yet consider where such a term originated. It was and is used to describe the behavior of a government, elected under essentially the same process and methods as those specified in the US Constitution, and the people in those nations elected the wrong people to rule. The same thing happened in the US. It can happen that fast, within one election cycle. The constitution does not prevent this behavior, it authorizes it. Investigation conclusion: Mr Blovino, appeared at a peaceful press briefing armed with a semi-automatic handgun, with multiple rounds of ammunition. He stepped up to the podium, armed, obviously intending to commit maximum carnage within the press corps. The press corps immediately fired defensive shots to prevent further impeding of their job. Several defensive shots struck the terrorist in the head and neck and upper torso, ending the terrorist threat. Investigation is concluded. Since the dawn of civilization, rulers quickly learn that a necessary skill is how to effectively use law to justify their behavior, and to reject any attempt by the public to use the law to prevent that behavior. It's a shell game. A scam. ********** As your elected Representative, it is my duty, after honest and open discussion with my constituents, I make this difficult decision, to vote to keep our glorious nation running. As your elected Representative, # (reminding you that the election provides legal grounds and your agreement to election provides your prior consent...) it is my duty, # (Remember? you told me to do this...) after honest and open discussion with my constituents, # (ignoring any opinion that I disagree with) I make this difficult decision, # (there it is, the entire keystone, ONE person makes this decision, not you, not me, not us, that ONE elected person...) to vote to keep our glorious nation running, # (the system that put that person in decision authority, glorious, right?) and the matter of my buddies profits is no concern to you, because you don't matter except as voters, and consumers... See? That is your constitution... https://45ink.com/wp/topics/politics/ Author Ity Copyright 2026 by 45ink. com The courtroom buzzed as the bailiff entered and then rose, as the judge followed in the sodden silence of justice. "I don't see a representative for the defendant, look in the hallway for a lawyer, and the rest of you sit down. While we wait for the lawyers, I notice we are also missing the despondent. The spectators will elect one now, quietly." Codd Branch opened his eyes in the hallway. Somewhat groggy from his nap, as the courtroom door opened, and the bailiff walked up. Codd looked up warily at the uniform. The bailiff asked, "Are you Codd Branch, the federal attorney?" Codd replied, "Yes, I am, how can I help you?" "Oh, good, the court requires a representative for the defendant, follow me please." Codd stood in the crowded hushed court behind an empty table facing the bench. The judge stood firm as he gazed at his domain. "I am the honorable judge Ity. That is pronounced like itsy bitsy spider, not like mighty. I had to spell that out. It is the law. Now, Mr Branch, please note your legs are locked in place, an enforcement of law, not violence. How do you plead?" Codd Branch looked down and understood he could not run, could not hide, "I have the right of counsel for my defense." Ity glanced at a paper on his bench then peered carefully at Codd, "This court will consider the matter of your assertion of this right, in due time, however, I have a question for you in this investigation. Are you requesting a representative before this legal proceeding?" Codd smiled as he considered his ability to obfuscate and delay in law, "Yes your Honor, I am." "Very well, the court will elect your representative. Have the public completed the election of Representative for the defense? Where is your elected despondent? I want that despondent at the public table." The room scuttled in brushes and knocks as a man and woman approached the front, Codd watched the woman as she sat sadly at the other table. The man stood next to Codd and addressed the bench, "I will represent Mr. Branch." "Very well. How do you plead?" "The defense pleads 'guilty', your Honor. Codd glared at this misrepresentation in his mind, but outwardly his years of experience allowed him to object, in his smoothly reasonable monotone voice, "I do not plead guilty, I plead not guilty." Judge Ity struck the left leg of the defendant with the gavel of order, breaking it just above the ankle, along with a gag order. " You will address this court through your representative. Further, this outburst of obstruction to justice is prima facie evidence of your guilt. The court accepts your plea of guilt. As for your right to counsel, the law is clear, the court is authorized by centuries of precedent as settled law, that your rights are not absolute, but balanced by expediency of the system, at my ruling. I have ruled." The Honorable Judge Author Ity, swept from the courtroom, leaving Codd Branch in agony as broken bones grated in his left shin as he sweated in silence. The bailiff sighed as he looked down at the injured leg, "That might be bleeding, you will need a tourniquet for that." Producing a stout long zip tie. The bailiff deftly wrapped the tie and quickly set it snug solidly above the calf of the arrested right leg of the convict. Satisfied that the tie would stop blood flow in that lower leg, he pulled tight, then tighter, two hands and two clicks later, he stepped out after the judge. Codd Branch looked around the empty courtroom, confused, trapped in ironical restraint, professionally silenced by specification. His broken left leg was misery, but the gangrene in his right, was deadly. The term "banana republic" comes to mind for many. Yet consider where such a term originated. It was and is used to describe the behavior of a government, elected under essentially the same process and methods as those specified in the US Constitution, and the people in those nations elected the wrong people to rule. The same thing happened in the US. It can happen that fast, within one election cycle. The constitution does not prevent this behavior, it authorizes it. If you elect a king, the result is monarchy, not democracy. (differnce between 'democratic' and 'democracy') Did the (2020 AND 2024) election result in YOUR representation? Our concern and demand is equal, accurate and reliable representation in government. Not elections, REPRESENTATION. (If we the people are not being represented, this ain't no representative government, not a republic, not a democracy.) Must be tragic to be a constitution defender, pretending that it somehow protects you from criminal rulers, while you get more criminal behaviors from government... It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ We were not here, 250 years ago at the birth of our nation... BUT, we do have "HISTORY" to evaluate past performance and predict future performance... I mean, what would a slave owning founder of this nation have thought about raping and killing children for profit and convenience??? Can you imagine someone like that being elected after the revolutionary war? Shocking.... An elite minority made the decisions to specify the process of the US Constitution... Wonder how that went? It united their supreme authority... The common citizen? The peasant? The serf? The slave? The savage? Nahhh, not gonna happen... I assert that as a citizen of a representative form of government that each and every citizen has an equal, right, MY RIGHT, to accurate and reliable REPRESENTATION! I have the right to "vote". That right is predicated entirely on my right to be represented. Tell me that we the people cannot expect to be individually represented in a representative process, like Bondi explained that the right to free speech does not apply to someone speaking freely... Don't be insulting. We were not here, 250 years ago at the birth of our nation... BUT, we do have "HISTORY" to evaluate past performance and predict future performance... It was the "EPSTEIN CLASS" of society that wrote your constitution... I mean, what would a slave owning founder of this nation have thought about raping and killing children for profit and convenience??? Can you imagine someone like that being elected after the revolutionary war? Shocking.... An elite minority made the decisions to specify the process of the US Constitution... Wonder how that went? It united their supreme authority... The common citizen? The peasant? The serf? The slave? The savage? Nahhh, not gonna happen... I assert that as a citizen of a representative form of government that each and every citizen has an equal, right, MY RIGHT, to accurate and reliable REPRESENTATION! I have the right to "vote". That right is predicated entirely on my right to be represented. Tell me that "we the people" cannot expect to be individually represented in a representative process, like Bondi explained that the right to free speech does not apply to someone speaking freely... Don't be insulting. The term "banana republic" comes to mind for many. Yet consider where such a term originated. It was and is used to describe the behavior of a government, elected under essentially the same process and methods as those specified in the US Constitution, and the people in those nations elected the wrong people to rule. The same thing happened in the US. It can happen that fast, within one election cycle. The constitution does not prevent this behavior, it authorizes it. If you elect a king, the result is monarchy, not democracy. (differnce between 'democratic' and 'democracy') Did the (2020 AND 2024) election result in YOUR representation? Our concern and demand is equal, accurate and reliable representation in government. Not elections, REPRESENTATION. (If we the people are not being represented, this ain't no representative government, not a republic, not a democracy.) Must be tragic to be a constitution defender, pretending that it somehow protects you from criminal rulers, while you get more criminal behaviors from government... It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ All over this earth, infested by some minority who would sit as gods. We were not here, 250 years ago at the birth of our nation... BUT, we do have "HISTORY" to evaluate past performance and predict future performance... It was the "EPSTEIN CLASS" of society that wrote your constitution... I mean, what would a slave owning founder of this nation have thought about raping and killing children for profit and convenience??? Can you imagine someone like that being elected after the revolutionary war? Shocking.... An elite minority made the decisions to specify the process of the US Constitution... Wonder how that went? It united their supreme authority... The common citizen? The peasant? The serf? The slave? The savage? Nahhh, not gonna happen... I assert that as a citizen of a representative form of government that each and every citizen has an equal, right, MY RIGHT, to accurate and reliable REPRESENTATION! I have the right to "vote". That right is predicated entirely on my right to be represented. Tell me that "we the people" cannot expect to be individually represented in a representative process, like Bondi explained that the right to free speech does not apply to someone speaking freely... Don't be insulting. Victims keep electing people to positions of decision authority. It's a scam. You elected people to make decisions for you, and they quickly figure out how to make decisions that benefit themselves and their buddies, and you get screwed in the scam over and over again. Ya know, I see people saying that the US Government is not behaving normally. I suggest that it is in fact normal behavior, the difference is that now that behavior is being applied to you and the people you care about, instead of all the people you have been allowed to not care about... By the US Government, such as the people who were here before the US existed, and brown people from Africa, and South America, and queers, and socialists, and people that live under other governments around the world. Many of whom were denigrated by the US because they refused to be victims of capitalist abuse and exploitation... AS YOU ARE NOW FACING.... I get so sick of hearing people saying that the system sucks, then I tell them the reason the system sucks is because elections do not result in equal accurate and reliable representation, and then they tell me I should elect a better representative... WTF??? Our concern and demand is equal, accurate and reliable representation in government. Not elections, REPRESENTATION. (If we the people are not being represented, this ain't no representative government, not a republic, not a democracy.) Must be tragic to be a constitution defender, pretending that it somehow protects you from criminal rulers, while you get more criminal behaviors from government... It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ Do I represent you? If you saw me on the street you might think not. Maybe, however you may consider me a fellow human and leave it there. If I pointed at you and declared that you approve of something that you do not, has my declaration represented your view on the matter? If I was elected? Would my false representation of your decision magically make me represent you? Thank you for considering the matter. Context. A sports team representing a city, a cheer-leading team representing the sports team, a clown representing a circus. That is one context of representation. Then there is a LEGAL context, one that is very strict and defined within a legal process of administering law and policy with criminal and civil liability and remedy, with life and death consequence often being the matter of importance. Which context are you willing to accept in the representation of the public in your "representative" form of government? Instead of accepting the corrupt, ineffective system we use, continuing to incite division and discord, we COULD use science, the methods of science, to develop, and test better systems of governance. I am NOT suggesting that scientists should run government. I am suggesting that we apply our scientific method to the problem of governance, instead of just accepting that what a bunch of guys with elitist agendas decided to use over 200 years ago, is the best and only system we could possibly consider. What we DO know how to do, is diagnose and troubleshoot complex systems. We also know how to do testing on those systems for efficiency and efficacy. What systems am I talking about? Our social tools. Government and economy. GET those fixed. Government first, then economy. So, if you want to vote for dems, go right ahead, but start telling them up front, that their FIRST F*CKING PRIORITY is to begin FIXING THIS DAMN system. Otherwise you just get more of what ya got. So, SCIENCE. That's my answer. We have put humans on the moon. We have put cameras on Mars. To suggest that we cannot consider and design a working social tool to make rational public decisions is just absurd. In any case, it's about decision process. I get so sick of hearing people saying that the system sucks, then I tell them the reason the system sucks is because elections do not result in equal accurate and reliable representation, and then they tell me I should elect a better representative... WTF??? Our concern and demand is equal, accurate and reliable representation in government. Not elections, REPRESENTATION. (If we the people are not being represented, this ain't no representative government, not a republic, not a democracy.) Must be tragic to be a constitution defender, pretending that it somehow protects you from criminal rulers, while you get more criminal behaviors from government... It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. NOT ANOTHER "RULE BY ELECTED MINORITY" OLIGARCHY. https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ All over this nation, when you hear the sirens approaching from a distance, do you hope that this is the trigger spark for the end of the lies, excuses and bullshit? What I find so frustrating is that many simply seem incapable of comprehending that this behavior is exactly what our government has been doing for almost two and a half centuries, it just has not been doing this to YOU, until now... Mad at "citizens united" ruling a few years back??? We could require that EVERY corporation doing business within the USA, appoint some volunteer person, to stand as the legal "person" representing the corporation in any and every legal action. If a lawsuit against that corporation is filed, then THAT person must stand liable for any and all damages awarded, including criminal liability. This means that a corporation that appointed a person, got busted for a CRIME, then the person, spends time in prison for that crime. THAT means that corporation must get another volunteer to stand liable. IF IT CANNOT, then it cannot do business. Period. That would solve two problems. the legal premise that corporation need to have standing as a person, (citizens united ruling), would be irrelevant. And any corporation that is doing bad stuff, is gonna have a difficult time replacing volunteers, and will not be able to do business. Do you understand the difference between the idea that results in a plan to implement the idea, and the "plan"? If the idea is to bail out the sinking boat, that's a good idea. However, if your "plan" is to use a pitchfork to bail out the boat, it's a BAD plan. No, it does not matter if you insist that the pitchfork is your only tool available, it's still a bad plan. The idea, is good. The plan is bad. That's your constitution, it's a bad plan, trying to administer a good idea. There are other tools, and a better plan available than the constitution provides. A much better plan with factually effective tools for representation within a republic. Elections do not result in equal, accurate and reliable representation for each and every citizen. It is not a valid tool for representation within a republic. Direct representation works much like voting for your preferred candidate, except that you actually get the representative you voted for. You can change your Rep at any time — your choice is always active. It is very much like anarchy, with effective tools and methods for organizing humans within social environment voluntarily. You may select a Rep not only for agreement but for convenience. Some citizens may prefer a certified Rep who offers secure communication, notices, or delayed ballots. Others may hand their ballot to a trusted friend or family member. The citizen decides the level of service, the method of contact, and how much control to automate or delay. Your Rep keeps you informed of upcoming votes — elections, laws, and policy measures — and publishes how they intend to vote. Your Rep, also works to inform the system of your decisions concerning law and policy, by recording and reporting your views on matters of initiative and referendum and amendment and repeal of existing law and policy. If you agree, your ballot is marked accordingly. If you don’t, you can reclaim your ballot and vote directly, choose another Rep, or simply abstain. In the 4 branch process, in a good public system of government, an important part of the process is "direct representation", and a feature of benefit to the citizen is the ability to control how your representative manages your ballot by use of automatic delayed consent and automatic delayed dissent. You can use either in various ways. Once your representative publishes their ballot, your delay allows you time to decide if you agree with their ballot choice or not. Your rep may offer various duration of delay, for instance, 10 days, or two weeks or three weeks... You decide which delay is appropriate for you. Then the delay duration ends and if you chose auto dissent, then you automatically disagree with your rep, and you get your ballot to make your own decision. If you chose auto-consent, then after the delay, you automatically agree with your rep, and your ballot is placed in that bucket with theirs, and you are done. Notice that delayed auto-consent is very similar to the result of electing a representative that you voted for in that election... They make the decision and you allow them to vote for you, using your ballot in agreement. Questions? I have said this before. Your US Constitution is a very convoluted specification for an elaborate game of "3 Card Monte"... Look that up. If you want to control the economy so that resources and production are distributed in equity, you need control of the government, the decision process, that decides on how resources and production are distributed. If "we the people" are not being "represented" in that process, then WE DO NOT CONTROL IT!!!! The individual citizen right to vote, is entirely predicated on the right of the individual citizen to be equally, accurately and reliably represented within the decision process of law and policy humanity uses as some form of government. It's not a privilege to be represented in a republic, it is a requirement. Some people imagine that the "genius" of the founders is evidenced by the brevity of the constitution, at about 4400 words. Well, the good public constitution using 4 branches of government, not 3, only needed 2,173 words... And a good portion of those words are explaining how representation functions without elections.... Leaving off the direct representation explanation, the constitution is only 1799 words, and they aren't big words either. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ The government and media use lies as tools and weapons of propaganda. Look, one person says, "We started this war." The other person says, "They started this war." Then both government and media focus all your attention on trying to figure out which person is telling lies, and you can't focus on the fact they ARE LIARS! That's what they did and it was INTENTIONAL. I have said this before. Your US Constitution is a very convoluted specification for an elaborate game of "3 Card Monte"... Look that up. If you want to control the economy so that resources and production are distributed in equity, you need control of the government, the decision process, that decides on how resources and production are distributed. If "we the people" are not being "represented" in that process, then WE DO NOT CONTROL IT!!!! The individual citizen right to vote, is entirely predicated on the right of the individual citizen to be equally, accurately and reliably represented within the decision process of law and policy humanity uses as some form of government. It's not a privilege to be represented in a republic, it is a requirement. I did not vote for the pedo-file, however my empty ballot was changed to a vote for that criminal by the district I live in, then my empty ballot was changed again to a vote for Harris by the state electors.... I think you are barking at the wrong threat here... I want that criminal pedo-file out of government as much as you, probably more, in my case it's personal, the turd is so corrupt he even fucked my name. However, to fix this shit, we need to understand he is not dismantling the constitution, he is USING it, the same way the founders used it to extract abuse and exploitation of people and resources for profit, to pay off the US war debts, and that atrocity was slavery and genocide. He is no worse than a long history of elected monsters forcing the public into atrocity without our consent. Notice that your government defends the billionaires? Please consider this: I live in a small community of 9 citizens. A matter of serious consequence to each of us arises. A question of possible remedy, prevention or repair requires a community agreement. We need a decision process. We agree to democracy. Each of us agrees to majority rule on the question. All agree that the decision process must represent each of us equally, accurately and reliably within the process, while accepting that some minority will be not represented by the result of the process. A show of hands. YES or NO is sufficient. We divide ourselves by district. With three of us in each district, each district will vote and the majority of that district represents that district. The districts will then meet in congress and a majority of congress shall be the decision. District one records YES NO NO. Clearly a district majority of NO. District two records YES NO NO. Another clear NO. District three records YES YES YES. A clear YES. Congress records NO NO YES. A clear NO. I am in district one. I voted NO. However I notice that four of us voted NO, while five voted YES. The majority of our community was not represented within the process. The predicate of the agreement to use the process is to represent the community by majority rules. The process used failed to fulfill the agreement. It factually misrepresented the community by minority rule. Should I object to the process as falsely representing the community? Or just let it ride out to Epstein Island? I made an oath to the support and defense of the US Constitution. That oath obligated me to that service. However, that oath is not a one sided slave relation, that obligation of service applies to the constitution as well. The obligation is to provide a representative government. We the people. Democracy distributes authority to the many. Oligarchy concentrates authority to a few. In any case, it's about decision process. Rule by minority, (oligarchy), is the preferred tool of fascism and atrocity. Rule by majority, (democracy), is the effective defense against fascism. Elections do not result in rule by majority. Elections result in rule by minority. People ask, how the hell did we get here??? Just as it happened in Germany in the 1930's, and in many nations before and since that attempted to administer representative government by the method of election. All over this earth, infested by some minority who would sit as gods. We were not here, 250 years ago at the birth of our nation... BUT, we do have "HISTORY" to evaluate past performance and predict future performance... It was the "EPSTEIN CLASS" of society that wrote your constitution... I mean, what would a slave owning founder of this nation have thought about raping and killing children for profit and convenience??? Can you imagine someone like that being elected after the revolutionary war? Shocking.... An elite minority made the decisions to specify the process of the US Constitution... Wonder how that went? It united their supreme authority... The common citizen? The peasant? The serf? The slave? The savage? The woman? Nahhh, not gonna happen... I assert that as a citizen of a representative form of government that each and every citizen has an equal, right, MY RIGHT, to accurate and reliable REPRESENTATION! I have the right to "vote". That right is predicated entirely on my right to be represented. Tell me that "we the people" cannot expect to be individually represented in a representative process, like Bondi explained that the right to free speech does not apply to someone speaking freely... Don't be insulting. https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ Predicates of the Good Public System 1 The vast majority of humanity are good people. 2 Social structure requires organizing process. 3 Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. 4 Minority rule cannot be majority rule. 5 Humans make mistakes. 6 A majority is as likely to be wrong as a minority. 7 Knowledge can be leveraged to understanding, producing technology and value. 8 Humans of understanding are less likely to make mistakes as ignorant humans. NONE of the predicates are a valid argument for technocracy. Technocracy is a form of oligarchy, rule by minority. The Good Public system is NOT an oligarchy of any form. The US Constitution: It's not democracy, it's not a republic. It is oligarchy, rule by elected minority... That's the delusion, that convinced you to accept the contradiction, you could vote. Right? So it must be a democracy? RIGHT??? Right?? That's what you are thinking? But you could vote to elect a king, and guess what? You'd have a king, not a democracy. Oh, and The individual citizen right to vote, is entirely predicated on the right of the individual citizen to be equally, accurately and reliably represented within the decision process of law and policy humanity uses as some form of government. It's not a privilege to be represented in a republic, it is a requirement. If each and every citizen, were to be equally, accurately and reliably represented the RESULT would be EXACTLY as if each one voted directly. It's not. Which is why it ain't no republic either. The current pedo-file in Chief of the USA is the wost president in history. Yes I agree, however I also agree that the US Constitution is the worst in human history as well. Many people still think that an oligarchy is a few rich assh0les manipulating a well designed democracy... Those people don't understand the words "democracy", "well designed", and "oligarchy". Oligarchy means rule by few. Democracy means rule by many. Well designed means that a few rich f*ckers would have no method of manipulating the system... https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ You may want to hold those few rich monsters "accountable", but then you are going to insist that they are provided competent legal representation, right? How about the US Public? Do we have to settle for clowns representing the circus as our available standard of representation? Can't we the people have competent legal representation? Equal, accurate and reliable representation? Holding people accountable begins with having an accounting system that is accurate and reliable. The aggregated district accounting specified in the US Constitution causes accounting errors. The conceptual error that holds representation to standards of clowns representing the circus causes even more accounting errors. Hey, in case you missed it, I am never going to support a SYSTEM that ELECTED nazi criminals.. For those who support that system, there is a story about a bunch of good people that sat down to dinner with a nazi... When you tell me we have to keep using what we have, OLIGARCHY, RULE BY ELECTED MINORITY... I hear you sayin that I should join the nazis at the table... Nah. Not gonna do that. Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that is designed to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. Capitalism is the motive, oligarchy is the method. No matter how many we eat, if oligarchy is allowed to prevail, there will always be those who take up the reins of power for personal benefit... You need to understand the difference between representation and misrepresentation. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ Perhaps we should recall that the "Boston Tea Party", was not really about taxes on tea, it was in fact about lack of representation in the decision process about taxes on tea. https://www.facebook.com/reel/791758666918583 I am predicting that a social market would manufacture toasters and washing machines and tractors that last for fifty years instead of eighteen months. Reducing waste. Yes, that’s a strong prediction, and it fits elegantly with the logic of a social market (where production is guided by social value and public stewardship rather than short-term private profit). In such a system: Durability becomes an economic virtue rather than a liability. Planned obsolescence disappears because the goal is sufficiency, not sales churn. Resource and energy waste drop sharply — both in manufacturing and in disposal. Repair and modular design thrive, because maintaining an existing product becomes part of the productive cycle. The incentive structure changes completely: success is measured by longevity, reliability, and minimal lifecycle cost to society rather than quarterly revenue. It’s a compelling line of reasoning — a social market doesn’t need endless consumption to sustain itself. https://45ink.com/wp/economy/ “Every year, countless billionaires face hardships: charitable tax codes, pesky regulations, and the unbearable weight of public scrutiny.” “For just $249.99 a month — less than $10 per day (plus tax & shipping) — you can pledge ongoing support.” “Your monthly gift provides government influence, relentless PR, and crucial legal defense. You’ll also receive an adorable free Millionaire plush Cuddle Toy.” “Call or visit SaveTheOligarchy. org. ” 1-666-867-5309 “Visit SaveTheOligarchy. org — help preserve stability, profit, and comfort.” “It’s easy to forget the simple comforts some are born to expect. But when policies evolve and public opinion shifts, the vulnerable can be left behind.” “Without steady support, billionaires face job insecurity — managing multiple global enterprises becomes… stressful.” “Pledge $249.99 a month — less than $10 per day (plus tax & shipping) — and you’ll fund lobbying, legal teams, and executive mental-health retreats.” “As a thank-you, receive the Millionaire Cuddle Toy — hand-stitched, couture outfit included.” “Donation amount shown for satirical purposes. Plush included with qualifying recurring pledge. Not affiliated with real persons or entities.” “Pledge $249.99/month (auto-recurring). Receive 1 Millionaire Cuddle Toy (plus tax & shipping). Cancel anytime. This is satire.” "Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority." You need to understand the difference between representation and misrepresentation first, because until you do, none of the other words f*cking matter. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ Perhaps we should recall that the "Boston Tea Party", was not really about taxes on tea, it was in fact about lack of representation in the decision process about taxes on tea. Many people still think that an oligarchy is a few rich assh0les manipulating a well designed democracy... Those people don't understand the words "democracy", "well designed", and "oligarchy". Oligarchy means rule by few. Democracy means rule by many. Well designed means that a few rich f*ckers would have no method of manipulating the system... https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ You may want to hold those few rich monsters "accountable", but then you are going to insist that they are provided competent legal representation, right? How about the US Public? Do we have to settle for clowns representing the circus as our available standard of representation? Can't we the people have competent legal representation? Equal, accurate and reliable representation? Holding people accountable begins with having an accounting system that is accurate and reliable. The aggregated district accounting specified in the US Constitution causes accounting errors. The conceptual error that holds representation to standards of clowns representing the circus causes even more accounting errors. Hey, in case you missed it, I am never going to support a system that elected nazi criminals.. For those who support that system, there is a story about a bunch of good people that sat down to dinner with a nazi... When you tell me we have to keep using what we have, OLIGARCHY, RULE BY ELECTED MINORITY, NOT REPUBLIC NOT DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRATIC OLIGARCHY... I hear you sayin that I should join the nazis at the table... Nah. Not gonna do that. It was the "EPSTEIN CLASS" of society that wrote your constitution... Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. Capitalism is the motive, oligarchy is the method. No matter how many we eat, if oligarchy is allowed to prevail, there will always be those who take up the reins of power for personal benefit... "Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority." You need to understand the difference between representation and misrepresentation first, because until you do, none of the other words f*cking matter. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ Perhaps we should recall that the "Boston Tea Party", was not really about taxes on tea, it was in fact about lack of representation in the decision process about taxes on tea. It was the "EPSTEIN CLASS" of society that wrote your constitution... Humanity organizes into social environments. Government is the decision process we use for that organization. Government is the process, by which humans make decisions about organizing social structure. It is the tool that is used to unite, or divide humanity. A constitution, specifies the process used to make those decisions. Too many humans agree and accept the installation of a few with the authority to make those decisions. ELECTION, a democratic element, that does not result in democracy. Those few benefit from using government to divide humanity into conflict and violence. The root cause of that division is NOT that humans disagree, but rather that, we continue to use a decision process as a form of government that benefits the few by that division. Rule by elected few is still RULE BY MINORITY, Oligarchy. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ I have said this before. Your US Constitution is a very convoluted specification for an elaborate game of "3 Card Monte"... Look that up. If you want to control the economy so that resources and production are distributed in equity, you need control of the government, the decision process, that decides on how resources and production are distributed. If "we the people" are not being "represented" in that process, then WE DO NOT CONTROL IT!!!! The individual citizen right to vote, is entirely predicated on the right of the individual citizen to be equally, accurately and reliably represented within the decision process of law and policy humanity uses as some form of government. It's not a privilege to be represented in a republic, it is a requirement. Some people imagine that the "genius" of the founders is evidenced by the brevity of the constitution, at about 4400 words. Well, the good public constitution using 4 branches of government, not 3, only needed 2,173 words... And a good portion of those words are explaining how representation functions without elections.... Leaving off the direct representation explanation, the constitution is only 1799 words, and they aren't big words either. Direct representation works much like voting for your preferred candidate, except that you actually get the representative you vote for. You can change your Rep at any time, vote every day if you want... It is very much like anarchy, with effective tools and methods for organizing humans within social environment voluntarily. NO. Stop expecting a democratic oligarchy to behave like a democracy. Our concern and demand is equal, accurate and reliable representation in government. Not elections, REPRESENTATION. (If we the people are not being represented, this ain't no representative government, not a republic, not a democracy.) Must be tragic to be a constitution defender, pretending that it somehow protects you from criminal rulers, while you get more criminal behaviors from government... It's time to END this nonsense. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting the end of our government and start thinking of what kind of government we should use to replace it. NOT ANOTHER "RULE BY ELECTED MINORITY" OLIGARCHY. All over this nation, when you hear the sirens approaching from a distance, do you hope that this is the trigger spark for the end of the lies, excuses and bullshit? What I find so frustrating is that many simply seem incapable of comprehending that this behavior is exactly what our government has been doing for almost two and a half centuries, it just has not been doing this to YOU, until now... That's the delusion, that convinced you to accept the contradiction, you could vote. Right? So it must be a democracy? RIGHT??? Right?? That's what you are thinking? But you could vote to elect a king, and guess what? You'd have a king, not a democracy. Democratic does not mean Democracy.... YOU ELECT RULERS!!!! DEMOCRATIC OLIGARCHY. Democracy is rule by majority. Oligarchy is rule by minority. An elected minority is still a minority. It's democratic like China, and Russia, and The f*cking Taliban. WAKE THE F#CK UP. Yes, words have definitions, USE THEM. Many people still think that an oligarchy is a few rich assh0les manipulating a well designed democracy... Those people don't understand the words "democracy", "well designed", and "oligarchy". Oligarchy means rule by few. Democracy means rule by many. Well designed means that a few rich f*ckers would have no method of manipulating the system... A direct democracy is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. YES it IS!!! If your government does not result in behavior that is exactly how a direct democracy would decide, then it's NOT representative. NO, IT IS NOT. Don't be morons. https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ Oh, and fuck you. I did not vote for the pedo-file, however my empty ballot was changed to a vote for that criminal by the district I live in, then my empty ballot was changed again to a vote for Harris by the state electors.... I think you are barking at the wrong threat here... You really need to think about that... Consider some asshole that voted for the fat criminal in 2016, lives in a blue district, in a red state, and the guy woke up in 2024 and refused to vote for the pedo-file again , but HIS ballot for HARRIS was changed to a ballot vote for TRUMP by HIS state electors. FUCK wake up..... Adam Bates.... ""You constantly criticize Democrats for not doing enough to combat Trump" "You're constantly engaged in 'bothsiderism' implying both sides are the same." Uhhh, you weirdos gotta pick one. The reason I criticize Democrats is precisely *because* they're not the same. My argument all along, for many years now, has been that the Democrats incessantly hold themselves out as the better ones, the more adult ones, the smarter ones, the more humanitarian ones, the ones driven by empathy and science and evidence, while the Republicans just say yeah we're evil deal with it. You can't demand to be seen as the better, more reasonable ones and then complain that you're being held to a higher standard. YOU'RE THE ONES WHO ASKED FOR A HIGHER STANDARD! You want all the benefits of being the lesser evil with none of the responsibility? Is that what this is? Anyway, just no. Don't be dumb. The sides are definitively not the same. One is a rampaging orc army openly committed to doing evil and the other claims to exist to defeat said orc army, accumulates untold power and wealth in the name of defeating said orc army, and then flies into a rage any time anyone asks what they're actually doing to defeat said orc army. Anybody who thinks those things are the same (or that I think they're the same) is just not paying attention or not saying that in good faith. Both of those things are EVIL, to be clear, but they're not the same type of evil and don't require the same response in order to stamp out their evil. Hence the different strategies for engaging with them. Honestly this is all so rudimentary that even typing it out makes me think I'm the sucker for taking these complaints infinitely more seriously than they deserve." Imagine I am your neighbor, and we both voted for Bob, our good buddy for city council as our representative. Now, he has to vote to decide on what color the fire house should be. I want it RED, but you want it YELLOW. We both call Bob, and we both write letters , explaining why he should vote in council for our color. What the f#ck should he do now???? He can't "represent" both of us. Can't represent all of us. It FAILS, the entire concept of electing someone as a representative F#CKING FAILS. IT DOES NOT WORK. NEVER DID NEVER WILL. You people got scammed so f#cking bad... It's all a f#cking lie. There is a huge difference between being represented by the result of a decision process, and being equally, accurately and reliably represented within the process of making the decision. It is the ENTIRE problem with all of this cr@p. ALL of it. It was the "EPSTEIN CLASS" of society that wrote your constitution... Humanity does not have inferior morals, we have inferior and failing decision process used as a form of government, that chooses to support and defend exploitation and abuse of people and resources for profit enjoyed by a minority. Capitalism is the motive, oligarchy is the method. No matter how many we eat, if oligarchy is allowed to prevail, there will always be those who take up the reins of power for personal benefit... Your constitution is a scam. It was a good idea, with liberty and justice for all, equal rights, and responsibilities, public self government, etc etc... The problem is that the f*cking specification of decision process does not actually accomplish any of that stuff. It specifies and administers oligarchy, rule by elected minority... The founders did not have a clue about how to design an airplane. or an LED light bulb, or a smartphone... They were not stupid, they just did not understand all the stuff we do today. They had no clue about Simpson's Paradox. We understand how that works today, ya know... Science figured out how to fly, talk to yer mom on her way to the moon, and to make a model T ford pic-em-up truck... RIGHT?? We figured out stuff they had no way to imagine much less accomplish... They were ignorant. They owned slaves, they fought and k!lled indigenous peoples, they considered women and children property, not human, and the peasants were just another resource for profit and pleasure.... The PLAN they came up with for government FAILS at EVERY promised benefit to the people. It's not representative, It's not just. It's not we the people. It's not fair, peaceful, or rational. In fact, it's a piece of sh!t rag. No wonder most of the world is f*cking p!ssed off at our governments. It's a scam. So many people insist that the "government", prez, congress, courts... should be working for the "best interests" of the people. Ya know, that is Us, we the people, right? The question then becomes who decides what is the "people's best interests"...?? Hmm? Is that we the people? How about that magical fairy decides? Oh, wait, the constitution process for making decisions ... says CONGRESS , the President, the courts...decide what the best interest of the people is.... Not us, not you, not me, THEM. Funny that. You should read the constitution sometime... No really. READ IT! We needed to make decisions 30 years ago... But we use oligarchy, thinking it's some kind of representative democracy, so the assholes that are gonna die before the climate crash happens, made decisions for their personal profit and pleasure... We are paying the consequences, not them. All over this nation, when you hear the sirens approaching from a distance, do you hope that this is the trigger spark for the end of the lies, excuses and bullshit? What I find so frustrating is that many simply seem incapable of comprehending that this behavior is exactly what our government has been doing for almost two and a half centuries, it just has not been doing this to YOU, until now... That's the delusion, that convinced you to accept the contradiction, you could vote. Right? So it must be a democracy? RIGHT??? Right?? That's what you are thinking? But you could vote to elect a king, and guess what? You'd have a king, not a democracy. Democratic does not mean Democracy.... YOU ELECT RULERS!!!! DEMOCRATIC OLIGARCHY. Democracy is rule by majority. Oligarchy is rule by minority. An elected minority is still a minority. It's democratic like China, and Russia, and The f*cking Taliban. WAKE THE F#CK UP. Yes, words have definitions, USE THEM. Rule by elected few is still RULE BY MINORITY, Oligarchy. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/ Democratic is not sufficient. We could vote to elect a king, that would be democratic... We need democracy, and with democracy, we can then implement a social market. As long as we are electing rulers, they have no reason to administer a social market, but rather they hand out small bribes of social benefit to keep the public from dragging them to the streets and hanging them... That's it. And the election cycle allows enough hope for the next set of rulers to be benevolent, that the public declines to revolt... It's a sick system. https://45ink.com/wp/good-public/ Predicates of the Good Public System 1 The vast majority of humanity are good people. 2 Social structure requires organizing process. 3 Representation is not equivalent to misrepresentation. 4 Minority rule cannot be majority rule. 5 Humans make mistakes. 6 A majority is as likely to be wrong as a minority. 7 Knowledge can be leveraged to understanding, producing technology and value. 8 Humans of understanding are less likely to make mistakes as ignorant humans. The US Constitution: It's not democracy, it's not a republic. It is oligarchy, rule by elected minority... Democratic Oligarchy. Many people still think that an oligarchy is a few rich assh0les manipulating a well designed democracy... Those people don't understand the words "democracy", "well designed", and "oligarchy". Oligarchy means rule by few. Democracy means rule by many. Well designed means that a few rich f*ckers would have no method of manipulating the system... I am predicting that a social market would manufacture toasters and washing machines and tractors that last for fifty years instead of eighteen months. Reducing waste. Yes, that’s a strong prediction, and it fits elegantly with the logic of a social market (where production is guided by social value and public stewardship rather than short-term private profit). In such a system: Durability becomes an economic virtue rather than a liability. Planned obsolescence disappears because the goal is sufficiency, not sales churn. Resource and energy waste drop sharply — both in manufacturing and in disposal. Repair and modular design thrive, because maintaining an existing product becomes part of the productive cycle. The incentive structure changes completely: success is measured by longevity, reliability, and minimal lifecycle cost to society rather than quarterly revenue. It’s a compelling line of reasoning — a social market doesn’t need endless consumption to sustain itself. https://45ink.com/wp/economy/ It's a sick system we inherited from the EPSTEIN CLASS of society from the 1700's... You have detained me which requires my compliance. However your act of detainment requires you to accept responsibility for my life while in your custody and liability for failure to protect my human rights. I have the right to remain silent. you are prohibited from questioning me without my attorney present, and you are required to provide me with that attorney because I cannot afford one. I am in custody until you agree that I am free to go. Will you swear out a complaint detailing the evidence you possess at this time that will support my indictment and conviction of a crime you are currently investigating? Or am I free to go? Unless you are charging me with a crime, your arrest of my person at this moment is a violation of my rights. Am I free to go? This is important. If a nation of people vote to elect oligarchs, every two, four and six years, it is a democratic oligarchy. An oligarchy. An oligarchy is NOT a republic. It's NOT a democracy. Rule by minority, (oligarchy), is the preferred tool of fascism and atrocity. Rule by majority, (democracy), is the effective defense against fascism. Elections do not result in rule by majority. Elections result in rule by minority. A democratic process, does not satisfy the requirement for rule by majority. Just sayin'. Yep, stop resisting, comply or die. Stay in line, vote to elect. The line to detention camps. Keep voting to elect. (Your ballot determines which line you stand in) Do not resist, stay in line... EVERYONE MUST VOTE TO ELECT!!! The EPSTEIN CLASS of the 1700's wrote the US Constitution... (sarcasm) The process works fine. Nothin wrong with the system, folks. Just move along, stay in line, vote hard, and don't look back. As long as we all vote the experts in charge will figure it all out and everything will be fine, because we vote. As long as we vote it will work, see? Just vote, keep voting. No matter how bad it gets keep voting. Pay your taxes, vote, toe the line, complain all you want, just as long as you stay in line, and follow orders! When they tell you to open the door, you open the door. When they tell you to come with them, you go with them. When they tell you to get on the train, you get on the train. When they tell you to get in the shower, you get in the shower. As LONG AS YOU VOTED IT WILL BE FINE. It worked for HITLER! (end sarcasm) Maybe we need a REAL system of government instead of the sh!t show circus we use today? If the founders were such geniuses, then it should not have been possible for the public to elect people to run this nation who are criminals. Rule by elected few is still RULE BY MINORITY, Oligarchy. A representative invokes YOUR decision, regardless of their agreement. A Ruler invokes THEIR decision, regardless of your agreement. Once you comprehend that distinction, then you will understand the difference between a republic and an oligarchy. Organizing Peace Between Disagreement. 4 branch decision process. Government of the people, by the people for the people. https://45ink.com/wp/first-branch-authority/