"(in responce to people who keep messaging me "conspiracies arn't real, there only on TV shows, I will now get on my soap box and rant, I apolgize for the terseness but im pissed.)
So there no conspiracies are there??
There are only 10 media companies in the world that own WOLRD WIDE over 95% of all television, cable, movies industery, video games,books and news papers. AOL/time warner,G.E.,ViaCom,Walt Disney company,Liberty Media corp,AT&T,News Corp,Bertelsmann,VIVENDI Universal, and sony. Take a look at what they own!! (http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html)
They are all deeply involved also in the military industerial complexe, pharmaceutical and oil conglomerates. There is NO LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE BIAS in the media ultimately, there is only a GLOBALIST AGENDA. In America for instance the Democrats and the Republicans can point the finger at each other all day long, the truth is, there both selling you up the river! Mean while as we argue over abortion rights and if gay people should marry or not, there burning the constitution,spending your social security money and making plans for more wars. Think those 2 hot spots will mean anything when the USA goes broke and turns into a dictatorship?!?! WAKE UP! Pro choice/life, Pro Gay or not, we are all going to be shipped to prison camps if this doesnt stop now. If you think that your being told the truth about 911, terrorism, electorial process, trade agreements, how people really feel about something, law or anything else, you are living in a dream world. Our leaders in the world are not elected, they are selected. It is the media who stands to gain the most from our fear, as we scamble like cowards to give up our rights just to be safe (they have all those weapons of war to sell us, all those chips to inplant in us, so we can all be safe). And who does the Media serve? Corperate intrests, that is to say there fat piggy wigglely selves. Turn off the TV and fight for Media reform and demonoplization. The media is ment to educate the masses to make informed decisions to live in a democracy. Yet now they are there instead to manufacture our concent. That spells the end of freedom and the beginning of the darkest facist nightmare this world has ever seen if its not stopped soon.
So remember No matter how many people repeat a Lie, its still a dirty stinking filthy Lie. The truth isnt going to come to you through a corperate owned Media. Search for the truth yourself and it will set you free." -TSHansen
Full Version: The Conspiracy
Dude, you're cool and all but this is insanity. Surely not everything is a conspiracy to make the U.S. go broke and turn it into a Dictatorship...I mean come on. You are entitled to your opinion but I am as well and my opinion is this is completely insane...or maybe I just say that because I'm president Bush desguised as someone who dislikes him. 
Mwahahahahaha...wait is that laugh copyrighted?
Mwahahahahaha...wait is that laugh copyrighted?
I understand how you could think that, but choosing a political party is customising just what ways you wish to be limited, they both ultimately in the end do what the either party wishes to do, own you.
This may not happen now but it will, 100 years?, 200 years?
The current media is a big fat pie of agenda and control. If you don't agree with my others views you at least have to agree the 95% media monopoly has you a little chilled.
This may not happen now but it will, 100 years?, 200 years?
The current media is a big fat pie of agenda and control. If you don't agree with my others views you at least have to agree the 95% media monopoly has you a little chilled.
Just in case it happens in a couple hundred years, when I have kids I'll warn them to warn their kids to warn their kids that this will happen and they will train their kids to fight and they will start a revolution. 
Well I belive MOST of what that says, afterall those aren't my words (I'm editing those words to put quotes up right now) but the media and political parties are just bad news.
You're jumping to conclusions.
The corporations have usurped more power from this planet than we can ever begin to understand. They have most politicians in their pockets. For instance, it's the corporations selling the government all of their equipment, and likewise these corporations are usually granted the biggest say over matters, possibly because they gave the best "deal." It's under the table stuff, and it's today's form of bribery.
I agree though, the media is biased, but not in favor of liberals or radcons, but of corporations and the corporate agenda. In a way, it is a conspiracy because it's their decision what we read and see. That's why publicly owned media is so important, media that isn't paid for, but that survives on small, numerous donations. It's the only way we can be assured they don't have a corporate agenda, but of course most of these stations have an agenda for either the liberals or radical conservatives.
The corporations have usurped more power from this planet than we can ever begin to understand. They have most politicians in their pockets. For instance, it's the corporations selling the government all of their equipment, and likewise these corporations are usually granted the biggest say over matters, possibly because they gave the best "deal." It's under the table stuff, and it's today's form of bribery.
I agree though, the media is biased, but not in favor of liberals or radcons, but of corporations and the corporate agenda. In a way, it is a conspiracy because it's their decision what we read and see. That's why publicly owned media is so important, media that isn't paid for, but that survives on small, numerous donations. It's the only way we can be assured they don't have a corporate agenda, but of course most of these stations have an agenda for either the liberals or radical conservatives.
Alright if you want to talk about this seriously then I do admit that the media filters what we hear in order to get us to believe what they want but I hardly believe this will lead to a dictatorship in the U.S.A.
QUOTE(DoomedOne @ Jul 28 2005, 02:16 PM)
You're jumping to conclusions.
The corporations have usurped more power from this planet than we can ever begin to understand. They have most politicians in their pockets. For instance, it's the corporations selling the government all of their equipment, and likewise these corporations are usually granted the biggest say over matters, possibly because they gave the best "deal." It's under the table stuff, and it's today's form of bribery.
I agree though, the media is biased, but not in favor of liberals or radcons, but of corporations and the corporate agenda. In a way, it is a conspiracy because it's their decision what we read and see. That's why publicly owned media is so important, media that isn't paid for, but that survives on small, numerous donations. It's the only way we can be assured they don't have a corporate agenda, but of course most of these stations have an agenda for either the liberals or radical conservatives.
The corporations have usurped more power from this planet than we can ever begin to understand. They have most politicians in their pockets. For instance, it's the corporations selling the government all of their equipment, and likewise these corporations are usually granted the biggest say over matters, possibly because they gave the best "deal." It's under the table stuff, and it's today's form of bribery.
I agree though, the media is biased, but not in favor of liberals or radcons, but of corporations and the corporate agenda. In a way, it is a conspiracy because it's their decision what we read and see. That's why publicly owned media is so important, media that isn't paid for, but that survives on small, numerous donations. It's the only way we can be assured they don't have a corporate agenda, but of course most of these stations have an agenda for either the liberals or radical conservatives.
I agree exactly what you say, the first post I made on this thread was just a quote of someone elses words. It's bribery and control, the biggest threat is the corporations who are controlling just what political parties and the american people think.
They may or may not realise this but it isn't a political party agenda it's a corporate one.
Here's a good example of how political disputes basically play into Corporate hands too.
Are you a Coke guy or Pepsi guy?
Guess what? Most of the money goes to the same people, they're owned by the same parent company.
Are you a Coke guy or Pepsi guy?
Guess what? Most of the money goes to the same people, they're owned by the same parent company.
Yes yes exactly 
They inspire false competition in people and consquently sales go up!
Or the Y2K thing. It was very under control but it was let out a little early to promote compulsive armageddon buying.
They inspire false competition in people and consquently sales go up!Or the Y2K thing. It was very under control but it was let out a little early to promote compulsive armageddon buying.
I'm sceptical of the whole conspiracy thing. Then again, I'm not at all used to the idea of having purely commercialised media, as I live in Britain. The majority of my news information comes from the BBC, which has always been a completely impartial information source.
Well BBC gets its funds by Off-shored American Corporations so don't think it doesn't have its ties as well.
QUOTE(DoomedOne @ Jul 28 2005, 02:40 PM)
Well BBC gets its funds by Off-shored American Corporations so don't think it doesn't have its ties as well.
I always knew there was something fishy about BBC
i didn't read that huge post, but we didn't go to the moon!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: ok i read it and i don't know what to think but...ah hell i don't know and i don't really care
QUOTE(DoomedOne @ Jul 28 2005, 10:40 PM)
Well BBC gets its funds by Off-shored American Corporations so don't think it doesn't have its ties as well.
Where does this information come from?
Ultimately, the information for conspiracy theories is just as shaky as the information that these theories relate to. Unless you somehow find out all of the information about the conspiracy yourself, you have to rely on some form of media, which, by the logic of conspiracy theorists, is likely to be just as shaky as they say the information given by the mainstream media is.
I have only one comment, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has been said before. (I haven't read the whole thread...) It depends what you mean by 'truth'
that's all interesting and all, but 4 me
ignorence is bliss
ignorence is bliss
The whole prison camps and dictatorship thing is a joke, you don't need a dictatorship or prison camps to hold tyrinnical power, you can do so more subtly than that and if you're the right person (ie a rich one) with minimal difficulty or effort.
The problem with democracy and there is a problem is that it's caught between two forces the market and goverment nepotism, both of whom do not answer to the electorate. The market consists of wealthy owners, landowners, media owners, owners of the means of production etc, often reffered to as the private sector. Goverment nepotism reffers to the tendancy of goverments to set up large self-serving buerocracies, that ultimately conspire to keep their own jobs.
Now democracy is an idealism, not a reality no country has ever been democratic in the history of humanity, only come within varying lengths of it. Democracy means "rule by the people". Who are "the people" and who has power over them. There is a marked tendacy of every group of people to look after it's own interests and the interests of the people are not unified. There is an essential conflict between rich and poor and several lesser conflicts, between religions, groups, ideologies etc.
In every society their is repression, repression of those that oppose the accepted veiw of the ruling class, whatever that ruling class may believe in. In dictatorships this takes the form of censorship of the media and often violant elimination of rival veiws. This results in goverment nepotism, where power is centralised into the hands of the goverment and the goverment elite thus decides on it's own what veiws and policies it will adopt and short of mass uprising or altruistic power-sharing with lesser classes, nothing can change this.
Parlimentary democracies however are based on control of either demographic magorities or control over key constituancies by factions. Now this logically results in stalemate, the factions are not allowed to repress opposing veiws, so this means that there hold on power is weak. This in turn makes them dependant on the media and upon the buisness elite and sometimes unions as power brokers, increasing their dependance upon such groups, who have the neccesery resouses to sway things there way, in exchange however they become dominated by them. In the end this means they are forced to answer to those elites that back their tenuous grasp on power, rather than to the electorate or even the ideologies they are supposed to espound.
Now democracies, now dominated by such groups subtly repress all groups that oppose their own ideologies and interests. They campaign vigourously to protect their own interests, while stamping on anyone who opposes "democracy" or has veiws that threaten their position in society. Hence the medias coverage, does it's best to create political division in society, whilst subtly making sure that the side they favor wins, on all issues that directly effect their position in society.
The problem with democracy and there is a problem is that it's caught between two forces the market and goverment nepotism, both of whom do not answer to the electorate. The market consists of wealthy owners, landowners, media owners, owners of the means of production etc, often reffered to as the private sector. Goverment nepotism reffers to the tendancy of goverments to set up large self-serving buerocracies, that ultimately conspire to keep their own jobs.
Now democracy is an idealism, not a reality no country has ever been democratic in the history of humanity, only come within varying lengths of it. Democracy means "rule by the people". Who are "the people" and who has power over them. There is a marked tendacy of every group of people to look after it's own interests and the interests of the people are not unified. There is an essential conflict between rich and poor and several lesser conflicts, between religions, groups, ideologies etc.
In every society their is repression, repression of those that oppose the accepted veiw of the ruling class, whatever that ruling class may believe in. In dictatorships this takes the form of censorship of the media and often violant elimination of rival veiws. This results in goverment nepotism, where power is centralised into the hands of the goverment and the goverment elite thus decides on it's own what veiws and policies it will adopt and short of mass uprising or altruistic power-sharing with lesser classes, nothing can change this.
Parlimentary democracies however are based on control of either demographic magorities or control over key constituancies by factions. Now this logically results in stalemate, the factions are not allowed to repress opposing veiws, so this means that there hold on power is weak. This in turn makes them dependant on the media and upon the buisness elite and sometimes unions as power brokers, increasing their dependance upon such groups, who have the neccesery resouses to sway things there way, in exchange however they become dominated by them. In the end this means they are forced to answer to those elites that back their tenuous grasp on power, rather than to the electorate or even the ideologies they are supposed to espound.
Now democracies, now dominated by such groups subtly repress all groups that oppose their own ideologies and interests. They campaign vigourously to protect their own interests, while stamping on anyone who opposes "democracy" or has veiws that threaten their position in society. Hence the medias coverage, does it's best to create political division in society, whilst subtly making sure that the side they favor wins, on all issues that directly effect their position in society.
QUOTE(i_am_the_billy @ Jul 31 2005, 11:41 PM)
that's all interesting and all, but 4 me
ignorence is bliss
ignorence is bliss
what makes that funny is the fact that you spelled ignorance wrong.
QUOTE(i_am_the_billy @ Jul 31 2005, 07:41 PM)
that's all interesting and all, but 4 me
ignorence is bliss
ignorence is bliss
Seems like he's following that motto.
QUOTE
Now democracy is an idealism, not a reality
Ok, good point. but any government system is an ideal. IDEALLY they work, but in reality every government trying to fit into the mold will fail. This applies to Communist societies, oligarchies, monarchies, authoritarian regimes, and democracies. And also all governments are corrupt in one way or another. So There may be a "conspiracy", but personally I think thats just the waygovernments run, letting the chips fall where they may.
QUOTE(Megil Tel-Zeke @ Aug 2 2005, 06:53 PM)
Ok, good point. but any government system is an ideal. IDEALLY they work, but in reality every government trying to fit into the mold will fail. This applies to Communist societies, oligarchies, monarchies, authoritarian regimes, and democracies. And also all governments are corrupt in one way or another. So There may be a "conspiracy", but personally I think thats just the waygovernments run, letting the chips fall where they may.
Yes, mostly I just chose the title "Conspiracy" because it is more attention getting.
Although it did grab the attention of "we didn't land on the moon" guy.
One time, in some random post in one of the many parliaments, I talked about how we don't have to accept it that way. I argue with people at this website called RevolutionaryLeft.com all the time because it seems like 85% of the people in there want a violent revolution, and I try to tell them again and again that if you want a government that does not get corrupted like they have so many times, then you can't rally behind violence. Violence requires a fiece leader who isn't afraid to cross a few lines, and that travels over to the following government. After the fierce, line-crossing leader retires (Fidel Castro is a good example of this, a guy who murdered 2 people in college who didn't agree with him) then the snake-leader of greed either directly follows, or eventually follows, and basically taints every single litte aspect of the government he can.
In this country, it took longer to taint every little piece, but now we have no more checks and balances. Checks and Balances have been overturned. Marketing and big Business has already hog-tied the population, and now politicians are reaping the rewards for being such good little tools.
One time, in some random post in one of the many parliaments, I talked about how we don't have to accept it that way. I argue with people at this website called RevolutionaryLeft.com all the time because it seems like 85% of the people in there want a violent revolution, and I try to tell them again and again that if you want a government that does not get corrupted like they have so many times, then you can't rally behind violence. Violence requires a fiece leader who isn't afraid to cross a few lines, and that travels over to the following government. After the fierce, line-crossing leader retires (Fidel Castro is a good example of this, a guy who murdered 2 people in college who didn't agree with him) then the snake-leader of greed either directly follows, or eventually follows, and basically taints every single litte aspect of the government he can.
In this country, it took longer to taint every little piece, but now we have no more checks and balances. Checks and Balances have been overturned. Marketing and big Business has already hog-tied the population, and now politicians are reaping the rewards for being such good little tools.
QUOTE(DoomedOne @ Aug 3 2005, 06:09 AM)
Although it did grab the attention of "we didn't land on the moon" guy.
One time, in some random post in one of the many parliaments, I talked about how we don't have to accept it that way. I argue with people at this website called RevolutionaryLeft.com all the time because it seems like 85% of the people in there want a violent revolution, and I try to tell them again and again that if you want a government that does not get corrupted like they have so many times, then you can't rally behind violence. Violence requires a fiece leader who isn't afraid to cross a few lines, and that travels over to the following government. After the fierce, line-crossing leader retires (Fidel Castro is a good example of this, a guy who murdered 2 people in college who didn't agree with him) then the snake-leader of greed either directly follows, or eventually follows, and basically taints every single litte aspect of the government he can.
In this country, it took longer to taint every little piece, but now we have no more checks and balances. Checks and Balances have been overturned. Marketing and big Business has already hog-tied the population, and now politicians are reaping the rewards for being such good little tools.
One time, in some random post in one of the many parliaments, I talked about how we don't have to accept it that way. I argue with people at this website called RevolutionaryLeft.com all the time because it seems like 85% of the people in there want a violent revolution, and I try to tell them again and again that if you want a government that does not get corrupted like they have so many times, then you can't rally behind violence. Violence requires a fiece leader who isn't afraid to cross a few lines, and that travels over to the following government. After the fierce, line-crossing leader retires (Fidel Castro is a good example of this, a guy who murdered 2 people in college who didn't agree with him) then the snake-leader of greed either directly follows, or eventually follows, and basically taints every single litte aspect of the government he can.
In this country, it took longer to taint every little piece, but now we have no more checks and balances. Checks and Balances have been overturned. Marketing and big Business has already hog-tied the population, and now politicians are reaping the rewards for being such good little tools.
Sadly your entirely right.
QUOTE(DoomedOne @ Aug 2 2005, 10:09 PM)
Although it did grab the attention of "we didn't land on the moon" guy.
One time, in some random post in one of the many parliaments, I talked about how we don't have to accept it that way. I argue with people at this website called RevolutionaryLeft.com all the time because it seems like 85% of the people in there want a violent revolution, and I try to tell them again and again that if you want a government that does not get corrupted like they have so many times, then you can't rally behind violence. Violence requires a fiece leader who isn't afraid to cross a few lines, and that travels over to the following government. After the fierce, line-crossing leader retires (Fidel Castro is a good example of this, a guy who murdered 2 people in college who didn't agree with him) then the snake-leader of greed either directly follows, or eventually follows, and basically taints every single litte aspect of the government he can.
In this country, it took longer to taint every little piece, but now we have no more checks and balances. Checks and Balances have been overturned. Marketing and big Business has already hog-tied the population, and now politicians are reaping the rewards for being such good little tools.
One time, in some random post in one of the many parliaments, I talked about how we don't have to accept it that way. I argue with people at this website called RevolutionaryLeft.com all the time because it seems like 85% of the people in there want a violent revolution, and I try to tell them again and again that if you want a government that does not get corrupted like they have so many times, then you can't rally behind violence. Violence requires a fiece leader who isn't afraid to cross a few lines, and that travels over to the following government. After the fierce, line-crossing leader retires (Fidel Castro is a good example of this, a guy who murdered 2 people in college who didn't agree with him) then the snake-leader of greed either directly follows, or eventually follows, and basically taints every single litte aspect of the government he can.
In this country, it took longer to taint every little piece, but now we have no more checks and balances. Checks and Balances have been overturned. Marketing and big Business has already hog-tied the population, and now politicians are reaping the rewards for being such good little tools.
Indeed, it is a sad reality we live in, an unfixable. All we are able to do is sit here and complain as the piggies in officed squeal about unimportant social issues and minor budget debates while avoiding the real issues.
QUOTE(Intestinal Chaos @ Aug 3 2005, 05:30 PM)
Indeed, it is a sad reality we live in, an unfixable. All we are able to do is sit here and complain as the piggies in officed squeal about unimportant social issues and minor budget debates while avoiding the real issues.
Well, what exactly is a "real issue" ? I mean, the social issues do have to be dealt with, and the budgets need to be done as well.
Just so you know, that first post had some truth to it, but was mostly a bunch of poop. The idea that America is on a secret mission to dominate the world and become a dictatorship is a bit sketchy to say the least.
And saying that the politicians are "selected" shows a little paranoia too. Selected by who? The media? There's too much competition in the media for them to become one entity and have enough power to select the person they want in office. The media merely pushes the one they want so that we will vote for that one. So indirectly, I guess that's right...
Well that's not entirely true, there are plenty that try to do something. It's hard though, trust me. I was on a mock-Security Council once for a school-thing, trying to push for a reform of the way the Security Council is run. Ity was hard as Hell, we were trying to go for no veto at all, and ended up negotiating it down to a 2-man veto, and every country agreed. I worked my boat off, and I'm no softy in debating, especially negotiation, but that's all we could get because they'd veto anything else. Then, four the five p5 guys split off and wrote their own resolution which sounded good but in reality basically meant nothing was happening with the veto and they'd review it in 6 years, so of course the bulk of us that understood what their resolution really meant turned it down, they vetoed our resolution before-phand thinking they were pulling a fast one and we got nothing done. There's just no reaching somebody with that kind of power. My point is, you can't blame every politician, but in their environment they hit these huge walls and every small victory means a lot to them.
It's not hopeless either. You'll have to trust me on that, it took a really, really long essay to explain why it's not hopeless, and it makes a lot of references to a lot of political philosophers you probably haven't read.
It's not hopeless either. You'll have to trust me on that, it took a really, really long essay to explain why it's not hopeless, and it makes a lot of references to a lot of political philosophers you probably haven't read.
QUOTE(DoomedOne @ Aug 4 2005, 02:12 AM)
It's not hopeless either. You'll have to trust me on that, it took a really, really long essay to explain why it's not hopeless, and it makes a lot of references to a lot of political philosophers you probably haven't read.
So...did you write this essay, or did the political philosophers that I have never read write it?
Seriously, I'm interested.
No see everyone thought they had the right idea but of course lacked the perception to see the problems. The idea is understanding human nature and how it works, and what will happen, what people will WANT to do no matter what, and what people will do no matter what. Drug lords are always a step ahead of the FBI, and you have to accept that. Like, for instance, Marx simply believed that every worker on the planet was being abused as badly as everyone else. Actually, most socialists weren't even the abused workers, because if you're an abused worker, you're too busy with other needs to raise your head politically, even if the political structure is your problem. Marx assumed as long as workers were doing the revolution to install a government with workers at the top of the pyramid, there could be no wrong. That's just one example, of where I picked apart the flaws of a government that never was (True socialism has never been accomplished). I also examine what went wrong in the Great Strike of 1805, and in the following revolution. It's all about looking at history very carefully and finding the Grooves.
QUOTE(Dantrag @ Aug 3 2005, 11:19 PM)
So...did you write this essay, or did the political philosophers that I have never read write it?
Seriously, I'm interested.
Seriously, I'm interested.
My first post was a quote, I don't belive in the domination thing being said in the post, but some of it was true. As for what doomed one said it is true that not ALL are bad, but the ones that really matter mostly are. As for shadow elections (being placed) I don't think that either... it's mostly just all lies and support from former office holders that puts you in power (most the time).
Wow 'Chaos! Its like you're my old Community College PloySci teacher come back to haunt me because I refused to see how brainwashed he said I am. :Shudder:
I think it is more important to realize that most of our population (US) won't bat an eyelash if they knew this conspiracy to be true. Ignorance is part of our social pride today. Technology that should be a main part of our population is being held back by the powers that be. We could in effect have very little pollution, a complex and efficient public transport system that spans all the states, and so much more without the internal Bureaucracy.
If it's truth you seek, then I would study the basics of human activity without a system to govern their logic. Just what is the tendency to corruption of a leader, when power is given without responsibility or reprise?
If it's truth you seek, then I would study the basics of human activity without a system to govern their logic. Just what is the tendency to corruption of a leader, when power is given without responsibility or reprise?
I can only think of a single type of government that could be "foolproof" against conspiracies like that. It would be far from perfect, but it would be harder to corrupt. I'd have made a new thread for this, but it seems to fit into this one, since it is kind of a "partial solution" to the problem.
A large portion of this idea came from Robert Heinlein's book, For Us, THe Living. A lot of the rest is modified U.S. government.
Here is the fundamentals of the government idea.
A. Elections are held to choose leaders. These leaders do not have "power" exactly, they are charged with carrying out the wishes of the public.
B. All issues such as laws are voted upon by all citizens in the area that will be effected by the law. For example, if the city of Jamestown is trying to outlaw certain drugs inside the city boundaries, all citizens vote on the issus. It is a simple majority wins situation, and inthe case of a tie, a revore is cast.
C. A citizen is defined as anyone who has lived in the country for a certain period of time (5 years or so) who is capable of comprehending issues that will be voted upon. A test is administered every so often (once a year or whatever) to determine if a person can qualify for citizenship. To take the test, one must be able to read and speak the language the test will be administered in (varies from nation to nation) and have lived in the counrty for 5 years.
D. Leaders are voted upon by all people in the area the leader will be leading. For example, all citizens of a nation vote on national leaders, only those who live in a particular state or province or whatever will vote on those leaders, then down to county, city-area, town, ect...
E. Judicial officials are also voted for by all the citizens in the area that they will have authority in.
F. Elections occur once a year.
G. War- In the case of deciding upon intervention in another war (this is not applied in the case of someone else attacking) a vote is called for. Only people eligible for the draft but not currently serving in the military are allowed to vote.
H. Life is divided into "private sphere" and "public sphere." Private sphere is the kind of thing that can be classified as None Of Your Business. This is pretty much anything you do in your life that has no bearing on other people's lives. (Ex, love life, hobbies, ect..) This may not be included in news stories without your permission. Private sphere doesn't apply in the case of law breaking. Public sphere is the kind of thing that news reports on. This includes any laws you break, anything your company is doing, ect....
I. Once every so often (can vary as needed) voting on all issues brought before a community. (This will be most efficient if done over the internet) Anyone in the community can bring an issue before the community. If one does not vote in a certain period of time, their vote is not counted.
This will make people be more active in their communities, and will, I believe, be a much harder government to corrupt.
A large portion of this idea came from Robert Heinlein's book, For Us, THe Living. A lot of the rest is modified U.S. government.
Here is the fundamentals of the government idea.
A. Elections are held to choose leaders. These leaders do not have "power" exactly, they are charged with carrying out the wishes of the public.
B. All issues such as laws are voted upon by all citizens in the area that will be effected by the law. For example, if the city of Jamestown is trying to outlaw certain drugs inside the city boundaries, all citizens vote on the issus. It is a simple majority wins situation, and inthe case of a tie, a revore is cast.
C. A citizen is defined as anyone who has lived in the country for a certain period of time (5 years or so) who is capable of comprehending issues that will be voted upon. A test is administered every so often (once a year or whatever) to determine if a person can qualify for citizenship. To take the test, one must be able to read and speak the language the test will be administered in (varies from nation to nation) and have lived in the counrty for 5 years.
D. Leaders are voted upon by all people in the area the leader will be leading. For example, all citizens of a nation vote on national leaders, only those who live in a particular state or province or whatever will vote on those leaders, then down to county, city-area, town, ect...
E. Judicial officials are also voted for by all the citizens in the area that they will have authority in.
F. Elections occur once a year.
G. War- In the case of deciding upon intervention in another war (this is not applied in the case of someone else attacking) a vote is called for. Only people eligible for the draft but not currently serving in the military are allowed to vote.
H. Life is divided into "private sphere" and "public sphere." Private sphere is the kind of thing that can be classified as None Of Your Business. This is pretty much anything you do in your life that has no bearing on other people's lives. (Ex, love life, hobbies, ect..) This may not be included in news stories without your permission. Private sphere doesn't apply in the case of law breaking. Public sphere is the kind of thing that news reports on. This includes any laws you break, anything your company is doing, ect....
I. Once every so often (can vary as needed) voting on all issues brought before a community. (This will be most efficient if done over the internet) Anyone in the community can bring an issue before the community. If one does not vote in a certain period of time, their vote is not counted.
This will make people be more active in their communities, and will, I believe, be a much harder government to corrupt.
See I already see a few problems with that.
For one, that's describing a true democracy, one that was more described in the Articles of Confederation which was later changed to the Constitution. Really, it seems to me like the author saw flaws in this current government and found ways to fix them.
The truth is, we have to study who it was that actually created the consititution, and who was it? Like the 40 richest guys in the Nation. Who was it that enforced a Constitution over Articles of Confederation? The guys that believed only the rich were capable of making decisions. Who was it that pushed for a bill of rights? The guys that died in duels against the people that thought only the rich should make decisions.
In my opinion, we need to think of the United States as a whole because we can accomplish a lot more that way. Another thing is I think that electing representatives is not necessarily a bad idea. Voting a majority ruling are not absolute good, democracy simply isn't a pure system. Look at Venezuela, 70% of the government votes for Hugo Chavez, but if you ask Megil, he disagrees with Hugo Chavez.
Many things in fact need to happen to achieve a government harder to corrupt.
Completely take money out of the issue. Money should not affect your ability to win a court case, your ability to get a law passed, nothing.
Multiple representatives need to be elected. it sort of wrekcs the foundation of a Republic, but I'm passed the idea of democracy as an absolute.
For one, that's describing a true democracy, one that was more described in the Articles of Confederation which was later changed to the Constitution. Really, it seems to me like the author saw flaws in this current government and found ways to fix them.
The truth is, we have to study who it was that actually created the consititution, and who was it? Like the 40 richest guys in the Nation. Who was it that enforced a Constitution over Articles of Confederation? The guys that believed only the rich were capable of making decisions. Who was it that pushed for a bill of rights? The guys that died in duels against the people that thought only the rich should make decisions.
In my opinion, we need to think of the United States as a whole because we can accomplish a lot more that way. Another thing is I think that electing representatives is not necessarily a bad idea. Voting a majority ruling are not absolute good, democracy simply isn't a pure system. Look at Venezuela, 70% of the government votes for Hugo Chavez, but if you ask Megil, he disagrees with Hugo Chavez.
Many things in fact need to happen to achieve a government harder to corrupt.
Completely take money out of the issue. Money should not affect your ability to win a court case, your ability to get a law passed, nothing.
Multiple representatives need to be elected. it sort of wrekcs the foundation of a Republic, but I'm passed the idea of democracy as an absolute.
Yeah, I guess it wouldn't work all that well.
Well, why don't we just take the government system from Heinlen's For Us, The Living completely? Have you read that? If not, I suggest you get it out from your local library. It is a novel in the sense that it has characters, but it is really more of a debate on government.
Well, why don't we just take the government system from Heinlen's For Us, The Living completely? Have you read that? If not, I suggest you get it out from your local library. It is a novel in the sense that it has characters, but it is really more of a debate on government.
For me I guess the term conspiracy is difficult to define. I make no illusions about governments, ours(America) included. They are there to control the populations ultimately. They make the laws and rules by which the people are to abide, but that is not enough. They also must influence thinking. For true control of a population requires that the people themselves feel strongly and uniformily toward the same goals. Example: The Red Scare- While the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia was possible. It was to a very small degree, but the government needed everyone to believe it to be very possible. They used fear-inducing videos and incited a hatred for the Russian people and government in order to sustain the cold war efforts. Make no mistake, you have seen and will see similar tactics in order to sustain the war on terrorism. In truth this is only way the governments like democracies and republics can wage war for any duration of time. People tire of them unless their way of thinking can be manipulated.
I also make no illusions that America is a democracy. In truth it is barely a republic. When you get down to the actual electoral process, you see that a few select individuals are chose by very specific groups of people. These are offered up to be voted upon in the primaries. What percent of the population actually votes in primaries? maybe 10%? Until ultimately you have this very "dramatic" race by two candidates in which maybe 50-60% of the population choose between. Very similar in the case of Senators and Representatives.
Now heres the kicker... While I sound like I am against government, I really am not. I think the goverment is the only thing that stands between civilization and anarchy. Its not perfect.. but sort of a necessary evil. Corporations are very similar entities to governments, but instead of people they are trying to control marketshare by eliminating competition and making people believe that they NEED their product. Now if you want to label this as conspiracy because all of these things are trying to influence and control you I can see your point. My point is that they do these things because that is their way of achieving their ultimate purpose.
I also make no illusions that America is a democracy. In truth it is barely a republic. When you get down to the actual electoral process, you see that a few select individuals are chose by very specific groups of people. These are offered up to be voted upon in the primaries. What percent of the population actually votes in primaries? maybe 10%? Until ultimately you have this very "dramatic" race by two candidates in which maybe 50-60% of the population choose between. Very similar in the case of Senators and Representatives.
Now heres the kicker... While I sound like I am against government, I really am not. I think the goverment is the only thing that stands between civilization and anarchy. Its not perfect.. but sort of a necessary evil. Corporations are very similar entities to governments, but instead of people they are trying to control marketshare by eliminating competition and making people believe that they NEED their product. Now if you want to label this as conspiracy because all of these things are trying to influence and control you I can see your point. My point is that they do these things because that is their way of achieving their ultimate purpose.
"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of."
Edward L. Bernays the father of spin.
For some interesting reading:
http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm
Edward L. Bernays the father of spin.
For some interesting reading:
http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.