Proposed Amendments

[chuck kottke]

This is what the system currently teaches.

 

The meme is: "Sure, we've made mistakes in the past. But they are eventually corrected via the miracle of Democracy!", the implication being that liberalization of society and increased wealth is due to government, rather than hindered by it.

 

The free market is always portrayed as regressive, cruel, and unfair, while the evils of the State are glossed over as "ends justifying the means" (see: Civil War).

 

There are numerous examples of the US government ignoring the Bill of Rights, so more amendments wouldn't change anything. The purpose of Constitutions is to distract the public - it gives them the impression of some peaceful, voluntary logic backing State violence.

My recollection was that in school we were taught history based on wars and events, little discussion of the undercurrents driving those events, and nothing too recent - since the historians haven't decided just yet what to leave in, and what to leave out. So for history, that subject area is highly subjective, and often can be skewed to favor one line of reasoning or a given mindset, yes. In the condensed versions, the context is largely left out, and events that are important can be shunted aside if they don't suit a certain political viewpoint.

However, I do feel that increased wealth can be encouraged by good government, as many of the things we rely on for a high standard of living are in the commons, such as good roads, electric lines, common traffic laws, law enforcement, public education to advance society as a whole, environmental protection of air, water, and the biotic environment. Limiting access diminishes the overall wealth of our society, and I am against the attempts to privatize things that are broadly essential in society, and exist independent of us. We do not own the earth we inhabit, we are but a part of the life that exists upon it, and a part of the universe as a whole. The rain that falls from the sky does not fall for us, it merely falls as a part of a natural phenomenon, and in that we need to learn to share with one-another our common use of that which we take from nature.

:laugh3: The free market has been portrayed by many with sound bites and ads as some panacea, as though "free" can be equated with fair, that somehow we exist as independent islands in the sea of humanity, each doing what is right for his or her own accord independent of the other. To me, it is Fair Markets that make sense - including our common understanding of social justice and equity, so that markets work for more than just the wealthiest among us. Who is going to see the toxic waste dumped to produce a given product, and care about the harm that does, when that method of production yields the cheapest thing available on the market vs.a competitor that does the right thing, and that's what sells? It is our duty to make right the institutions of government which act as arbiters of fair behavior on our behalf.

The U.S. government has ignored the Bill of Rights from time to time, because the Bill of Rights is the ideal to which we as a nation have yet to achieve. Society has lagged behind this penning of rights, out of a desire by some to perpetuate gross inequities for profit and control, and to mess with the minds of others to maintain systems of inequity. Slaveholders never seemed to want to free their slaves any more than corporate controllers want to share equitably in the economic gains made with their employees, even if some among them see these disparities as unjust.

It is not the Constitution which is a distraction, but the end-game run by those in power and their principle moneyed backers which destroys the essence of the government the framers intended to create, a living document amendable to suit the times and the level of human advancement.

To quote Thomas Jefferson on this matter, "I am not an advocate for the frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

 

[chuck kottke]

Benjamin from Arizona suggested an amendment on Tom Hartman's program today, and Tom's suggestion was to start at the local level with non-binding resolutions, then move up to the state level.

I am not familiar with non-binding resolutions, though they sound like something which is in the public record as a matter to which the governmental body supports but it isn't a law or decision which has any real power. If this gets noticed and makes the matter more and more something which is commonly accepted as being true and good in the public's eyes, I think then the matter of amendment can go forward with less challenges by the high court and the major corporate controllers, since momentum gathers for support until an amendment can be proposed and passed.

Short of an amendment, every time we try legislative measures to reign in the problem of big money buying elections, someone almost invariably runs an end-game around it, or the high court (under a 5-4 conservative majority) strikes down the measure.

One might argue that even an amendment can be ignored, but it's hard to completely ignore something written plainly and is there for all to see, without an eventual turn-around through popular uprising.

However, without an amendment, the high court's majority was able to dismiss the right to fair elections as non-existent or of lesser value, since it isn't written down. One more check and clarity of intent by we, the citizens, is essential to keep a natural right on equal footing, and make clear the need to protect this right of honest governance, after all - without that, all the other rights we hold dear cease to be protected.

[Saffire]

Chuck, I would never ask you to sacrifice for me, because sacrifice is never necessary!

 

Think about what the word "sacrifice" means from the perspective of an egoist (which is what I am) - you are voluntarily giving something you own to another person/cause. Why would you do this? Because it makes you happy!

 

So it is an economic calculation - the trade isn't in money or physical wealth, but VALUE. And the value is happiness.

 

So from an egoist perspective (Austrian economics) there is no such thing as "sacrifice". There are only trades and thefts.

 

And this is why we are against taxation/regulation. True, each individual doesn't live entirely independently of others - but this gives him no right to steal!

[chuck kottke]

Chuck, I would never ask you to sacrifice for me, because sacrifice is never necessary!

 

Think about what the word "sacrifice" means from the perspective of an egoist (which is what I am) - you are voluntarily giving something you own to another person/cause. Why would you do this? Because it makes you happy!

> Or because you gain a sense of pride in having done something which benefits others, which given one a sense of accomplishing an improved well-being of society. Sometimes from a sense of the collective positive effect it yields in the human sphere of activity. We plant the seeds of knowledge in others because we realize we are more than just individuals - we are part of a fabric of humanity, that we do this because the tree is greater than the the individual fibers, and by cohesion we grow taller and greater together.

So it is an economic calculation - the trade isn't in money or physical wealth, but VALUE. And the value is happiness.

In the classical Greek sense, yes. But there is also the inherent need for collective governance in all societies that achieve prominence in the world; and so we owe a level of sacrifice, whether compulsory or voluntary, to the maintenance of that governance. It is our duty and to our mutual benefit to keep that governance working effectively for the benefit of ourselves and for the broader humanity, and responsive to our collective will, for advancement. Hence, from the many, one.

So from an egoist perspective (Austrian economics) there is no such thing as "sacrifice". There are only trades and thefts.

> I can't see it that way Jay - there is always a sense of being part of something which inter-connects us, and a sense of obligation to contribute to that greater commons. We are members of families, and super-families, it is natural and inherent in our nature. How we choose that structure, how much we think we as individuals need to contribute to it, provided it is maintained in a healthy condition, is a matter of debate and flexibility depending on the moment and circumstances.

And this is why we are against taxation/regulation. True, each individual doesn't live entirely independently of others - but this gives him no right to steal!

No taxation without fair representation I agree with, but being against taxation I cannot agree with - taxation is the price of civilized society. I just think with all things, checks and balances need to be renewed from time to time to keep those taxes working effectively for our benefit, and being properly allocated to best effect our well being, and to improved overall harmony in the human sphere of influence.

To steal is to take unjustly from another what is not yours, but to pay taxes is to contribute to the maintenance of civilization, which like it or not either requires our input, or we simply cease to improve our commons, fall into chaos, and will fall to another group having a structured government.

Can we have less taxation? Sure! And be healthier too! But that requires investment in preventive maintenance and reduction in the corruption which is breaking our country.

 

 

[chuck kottke]

So electing better representation at the local levels betters our odds, then passing non-binding resolutions is one way to promote amendments for fair election. Non-binding resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Representation is for all of us, on an equal and just basis. Make it so.:wink:

[chuck kottke]

All other rights, from freedom of speech to protections against abuses of power, derive their protection through equitably selected representation, forming the basis of our government. It is therefore essential for the protection of natural rights to have a government composed of individuals selected by the will of we citizens through honest means, where the base of support of any given candidate is broad, where the donation level is affordable to the broad majority of citizens, and where competing candidates have equal access to the press of the day, that being principally television, internet, print medias, radio, and the like. Equality in candidate funding, in essence the ability of candidates to choose equitable access to the press, is a right.

Fair Elections yield honest governance - true representation requires it, and it is a prerequisite for the protection of all other rights we hold dear.

This, I believe, is a universal right, essential for all democracies to achieve their full potential, and for humanity to achieve a higher level of harmony, success and enlightenment.

If we are to live up to the creed that All Men are Created Equal, then we must honor this basic right, to protect and enhance our essential liberties.

[chuck kottke]

I believe Christopher J. Peters has it right when he writes in the Baltimore Sun that we must reclaim the authority over our Democracy, or risk loosing it forever. Campaign finance reform: It's time to overrule the Supreme Court on campaign finance reform - baltimoresun.com

A few quotations, for your consideration:

"To deny democratic government the authority to impose reasonable regulations on political campaigns is to deny the people the capacity to shape the government under which they live - hardly a democratic outcome....

...The Supreme Court ought to be developing thoughtful constitutional principles to guide campaign regulation - principles that balance the various interests at stake, promote fair and meaningful participation, and filter out cynical attempts at incumbent self-dealing"

"..it's time for a Constitutional Amendment"

[nancyk58]

^ Chuck: :clap: :clap: for your tireless efforts to enlighten us about the urgency of Amendments to save the Democracy via bringing back FAIR representation.

 

A good and worthy cause - I do hope that you succeed. :thumbsup:

[chuck kottke]

^ Chuck: :clap: :clap: for your tireless efforts to enlighten us about the urgency of Amendments to save the Democracy via bringing back FAIR representation.

 

A good and worthy cause - I do hope that you succeed. :thumbsup:

:laugh3: Thanks Nancy, but it's a long, long shot to success in doing so. My only hope is that with enough efforts, something will make it - like an electron quantum-mechanically tunneling through a solid plate of steel. One might get through, the more attempts there are.

I often wonder, if writing amendments is a lost art almost - given all the years since any have passed, and how fewer and fewer are proposed each year.

But it seems simple enough, as long as one can condense the essence into a few short sentences..

But there are other challenges too - leveling the playing field for candidates is one thing, but the revolving door is still a big issue (politicians becoming lobbyists, like caterpillars emerging as moths). Then there is the power of incumbency, which is another part of the problem.

And the funding of wards and redistricting issues are rights concerns as well - to be fair, election places should have equitable funding and clear information as to where to vote.

(1). Fair Elections

(2). Protection of the Public Trust, preventing the quid pro quo between special interests and elected officials, whether in office or out of office. Quid pro quo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(3). Term Limits

[chuck kottke]

I think basically what we want are representatives who work for us, do not become ensnared by special interests, and may serve consecutive terms, but for reasons of potential abuses of power, can only serve a set number of terms at most.

The problem we face today is when the pay-off happens after their terms are over, when they get lucrative consulting and lobbying jobs for special interest groups, and maximize returns on investments indirectly the result of actions undertaken by them while in office.

So, I thought about this, and wonder if, for our sake, they be divested in things for which their office and committee assignments puts them in a position of oversight over. The prevention of conflicts of interest must extend beyond the terms of office for which they serve.

[chuck kottke]

I have thought this for a while - as what now is the case in California with citizen boards that are determining political district boundaries, it makes good sense to have citizen boards, composed of ordinary citizens, as go-betweens. I thought this about the case where on the one hand, there is a need for the exchange of information between lobbyists and elected officials, and on the other hand the need for transparency and oversight concerning communications between the various interests and our representatives in government. As an added check, having citizens' panels overseeing these exchanges would prevent some of the corrupt practices from occurring.

[chuck kottke]

If you want to get more involved: About Us | Move to Amend

[chuck kottke]

We have the right to an honest government, beholden to We the citizens and our interests, not preferential to the interests of corporate masters or wealthy plutocrats, nor preferential to any special interest other than those of the citizens as a whole.

In that right, it is essential to safeguard our system of democratic representation by checking against conflicts of interest between powerful interests and our elected representatives in government, be they Senators, Representatives to the House, or the President.

Maintain a citizen's panel to oversee the communications between petitioners (termed lobbyists) and elected or appointed officials. This is one aspect of checking the current abuses of power.

Another is to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise when elected officials are no longer in office - to prevent the revolving door effect, as it corrodes our democracy severely at present, eating away at the very foundation of our republic.

In correlation to efforts underway to protect forests, it helps to have a government which operates on higher principles, which can formulate better policies to assist in protecting the rainforests of the world. Otherwise, if big money is allowed to block measures designed to support fair trade and ecologically sound forest management, we all suffer in the end, first when climate change accelerates as the tropical forests become savanna, and secondly as the timber resources are lost down the line. Policy affects market practices, to really encourage good practices requires honest government.

[chuck kottke]

One amendment proposed would end the issues surrounding legislative favoritism and the revolving door by allowing elected officials to get exceptional pay and benefits, but not income from investments outside of government securities, and barring elected officials from future lobbying and consulting positions.

Sort of a society of legislators, where all who become legislators are then no longer dependent on special interest influences to maintain financial independence and financial vitality. They get great pay and benefits for life, but then must steer clear of all positions that may compromise their impartiality while in office or when they are out of office, as is the case today.

I think it would be difficult to pass unless those already in office don't feel threatened by it, so to make it active for all incoming freshman senators and representatives and new presidents would make it palatable to current members of congress and the president, and to allow for a deferment of their existing investments or a transfer of those investments into government securities.

In addition, they would then be principal stakeholders in the nation as a whole, and thus more interested in keeping the country's economy strong, and by extension the world's economies, as we are all inter-dependent.

So then the influence of high-risk and unethical investment practices endangering the economy would be thwarted rather than ignored by elected officials, since the pressure of influence from those unethical investment types would be negated. Congress and the president would work for us, not for those few with the money to slush around and control our representative government.

[chuck kottke]

So to recap:

Keep em' honest at the start.

Keep em' honest while in office.

Keep em' honest when they leave.

 

What we want are statesmen who represent us equitably, and who keep the field of play level.

[chuck kottke]

If we want things like real health care reform, so our nation gets healthier, it's affordable, and nobody gets left behind, it's high time we reform the system - campaign finance reform is an essential prerequisite to getting health care reform.

Just ask Wendel Potter what he thinks about the poorly regulated health care industry, and for-profit HMO's: Whistle Where You Work: Wendell Potter | Free Speech TV

And for the Center for Public Integrity: Center for Public Integrity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you think our media needs to get to doing it's job, investing in investigative journalism: Muck Rack

[chuck kottke]

So, since the US's foreign policy is twisted by those few wealthy elites who seem to prefer aggression over diplomacy, heavy on the armaments, light on helping real people build their livelihoods and neighborhoods, isn't it high time we change the process, and get a government responsive to our will, and to build bridges of peace with our fellow citizens all over the world?

I'm only asking - it's our future, what we decide is where we are headed; we are the people in We The People.

[chuck kottke]

Imagine what is possible - a government that promotes the general welfare of all, opening up opportunity and meaningful careers that work to benefit all of humanity. Instead of pouring our resources, lives, productivity, and time into so much wasted effort, having elected a government accountable to each and every one of us, the economic force could be moved to produce more solar and wind energy infrastructure, incentivise energy efficiency efforts for our homes, offices, and factories. We would have the ability to shift from bombers to wind turbines, from nuclear refineries to solar-powered desalination plants for the deserts, from excesses in unproductive hardware to things that actually provide real benefits, and stimulate economies in the poorer nations so that jobs and prosperity flourish, so the tendency towards piracy and acts of extremism become unattractive, as lives improve and prosperity build a wide global middle class, empowering democracies the world over, and creating lasting harmony.

3 Trillion dollars poured out in "defense" spending, when all the tallies are in, as I hear it told. 3 Trillion. That's enough to change the whole equation of energy production, water availability, the world could become so prosperous if that were properly invested, wars would be a thing of the past - making it unnecessary for any people to be so reliant on rare commodities such as oil, boosting research and development into renewable forms of energy and materials, so common elements and materials could provide almost all the material needs for us. We're not so far off from this possibility, but we have to pull the right levers, get honest government in place everywhere we can.

You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[nancyk58]

^Again I like what you write, Chuck.

 

And I like the way you ended your post: "You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one".

 

IMAGINE by John Lennon. :heart:

[chuck kottke]

^Again I like what you write, Chuck.

 

And I like the way you ended your post: "You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one".

 

IMAGINE by John Lennon. :heart:

;) Glad you caught that - he had the right ideas, dreams are the stuff of future realities, if we choose to make it so.

Wow, am I getting a bit bombastic there or what?!:laugh3: But I think in part it is true, what ails us is creating things that improve the world in the human sense.

Turning swords into plowshares is more than just a saying. We were promised a peace dividend, but one can only get a peace dividend if one invests heavily into peace, and all the things that make peace possible.

Several questions remain as to how to close the revolving door. We could simply say no lobbying or consulting jobs with firms or affiliates that have lobbyists in the halls of power; or we could fully compensate all elected congressmen & presidents for life, and disallow all other sources of income for them, so they are strictly beholden to our interests as citizens. They would be well paid of course, and given pay for life, in return for not taking money from special interests.

Mike prefers the former, as checking the conflicts of interest from lobbying jobs may be sufficient, and it would be hard to make a case for restricting a person's freedom to invest or earn income as they wish.

I prefer the latter, as holding office is a special case, where to ensure loyalty to the citizens and to the higher principles upon which we stand, it would be wise to ensure that there is a wall of separation between the influences that can corrupt and the citizenry to which they should be beholden.

It's hard to plug the holes on a sieve, better to start with a tight water barrel I think.

But what do you think?

[chuck kottke]

I found this site pretty interesting in relation to amendments: ESRA: Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | Tikkun Magazine

[chuck kottke]

If we are to be true to ourselves, we must support men and women who choose to follow their conscience, and appeal to a higher power of ethics and justice.

The final check on our government's actions are those rare individuals willing to tell the truth, despite a climate of complicity; they do so at great risk, and they deserve our full support.

Bradley Manning Support Network » On 40-year anniversary of Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg calls for immediate termination of court-martial

[nancyk58]

Chuck, you wrote: "Several questions remain as to how to close the revolving door. We could simply say no lobbying or consulting jobs with firms or affiliates that have lobbyists in the halls of power; or we could fully compensate all elected congressmen & presidents for life, and disallow all other sources of income for them, so they are strictly beholden to our interests as citizens. They would be well paid of course, and given pay for life, in return for not taking money from special interests.

Mike prefers the former, as checking the conflicts of interest from lobbying jobs may be sufficient, and it would be hard to make a case for restricting a person's freedom to invest or earn income as they wish.

I prefer the latter, as holding office is a special case, where to ensure loyalty to the citizens and to the higher principles upon which we stand, it would be wise to ensure that there is a wall of separation between the influences that can corrupt and the citizenry to which they should be beholden."

 

Instinctively, I would go with Mike because "checking the conflicts of interest from lobbying jobs may be sufficient, and it would be hard to make a case for restricting a person's freedom to invest or earn income as they wish."

 

In particular the restriction of a person's freedom to earn income as they wish - AFTER they have left office - could be problematic.

 

But I see your point - and it is important to rule out that the politicians are SECRET / HIDDEN lobbyists for an interest group - and then being employed OPENLY by that interest group after having left office. So I am not blind for the alternative.

 

I will read the Amendment you have a link to tomorrow.

[chuck kottke]

What compels me towards complete government pay and pensions for life and no private income or investments is the end games that are otherwise easily run by politicians around the spirit of the laws we create. I know it would be a hard thing to get passed, although if it we to take effect only for the next election cycle's freshmen congressmen and president, leaving all existing congressmen off the hook, it might just pass, though then the old incumbents would be like big old muskies hiding in the deep waters of congress, and until they left office and lobbying positions, there would be a persistent problem of government working for the big money tycoons. It is hard to pass real reform when the people most in need of reforming are the ones who have to vote for the reform measures...

A chicken and egg problem!

:laugh3:

[chuck kottke]

It is a matter of protecting the commons, things to which we all rely up to be managed fairly and to provide fair and equitable access to. Access to the press for elections purposes should be a matter of equality, as selecting the next congressman or parliamentarian isn't the same as choosing which brand of cereal one desires. Those things we hold in common require our collective protection, whether that is water, clean air, ocean fish, or access to the airwaves.